Transcript of Trial of Nate Gray, Emmanuel Onunwor and Joe Jones For Bribery

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

1
Plaintiff, 1
1
vs . ) Criminal Action No.
NATHANIEL GRAY, and

GILBERT JACKSON,
VOLUME I
:
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS -<-;:.? TJ
3:
-
- - I ' .
i
HAD BEFORE THE HONORABLE - '
JAMES S. GWIN, JUDGE OF SAID COURT, ON<:-; ,,--
-.. S
MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2005 AT 8:00 ."./ -.1
APPEARANCES:
For the Government: BENITA Y. PEARSON, ESQ.

STEVEN M. DETTELBACH, ESQ.
MARY K. BUTLER, ESQ.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Courthouse - Suite 400
801 W Superior Avenue, East
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
For the Defendant WILLIAM T. WHITAKER, JR., ESQ.

Nathaniel Gray: ANDREA WHITAKER, ESQ.
Whitaker & Rowlands
190 N. Union St. - Suite 301
Akron, Ohio 44304
For the Defendant ROBERT JENKINS, ESQ.

Gilbert Jackson: 631 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70130
Court Reporter: Richard G. DelMonico

568 U.S. Courthouse
Two South Main Street
Akron, Ohio 44308
2
THE COURT: W e c o n v e n e on c a s e
2:04-CR-580, United S t a t e s v e r s u s Joseph Jones and
others.
The case i s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t t o d a y f o r
purposes of t r i a l .
We a r e g o i n g t o b e g i n w i t h t h e j u r y , so is
t h e r e anything else w e need t o d e a l with?
MR. EMOFF: Yes, y o u r H o n o r .
THE COURT: What?
MR. EMOFF: May I u s e t h e podium?
THE COURT: No, I c a n h e a r you f r o m h e r e .
MR. EMOFF: T h e r e a r e a number o f m o t i o n s
t h a t a r e p e n d i n g , y o u r Honor, t h a t h a v e n o t b e e n
resolved t h a t I think require it.
THE COURT: Okay. I ' m n o t s u r e o f any.
There h a s been a f l u r r y of motions and we've d e a l t
with, I t h i n k , v i r t u a l l y a l l o f them.
MR. EMOFF: Well, a s o f t h i s m o r n i n g , your
Honor, i n c h e c k i n g t h e --
THE COURT: Which o n e s s p e c i f i c a l l y d o you
b e l i e v e have n o t been d e a l t w i t h ?
MR. EMOFF: Request f o r p r e t r i a l o r d e r , i n
w h i c h I ' v e a s k e d y o u r Honor t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e o f
i n t e r i m a r g u m e n t --
THE COURT: I have i n d i c a t e d t h a t I

3
directed, it may not have gotten on the docket, but
I'm going to grant that motion.
MR. EMOFF: In it's entirety?
THE COURT: So they won't be any interim
arguments during this trial.
MR. EMOFF: There was a second part of
that, your Honor, which was that there be absolutely
no comment or argument whatsoever by counsel for
either side in front of the jury.
THE COURT: Well, that is a matter I'll
take under advisement. In terms of objections,
sometimes it's helpful to have someone simply say
the general grounds, hearsay grounds, lack of
knowledge. So I'll deny it as to that. But again,
I don't want people ever making speaking objections

or argumentative objections.
MR. EMOFF: That's my concern is that
often, tour Honor --
THE COURT: Well, we'll deal with that in
terms of the context of an individual objection.
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, there is a notice
of possible violation of protective order that was
filed on behalf of Mr. Jones.
THE COURT: And I, again, I'm in the
process of issuing a decision on that, but that's

4
got nothing to do with the trial.
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, there is a motion
that the court has ruled on but that I would ask for
some clarification on.
We asked that the government be compelled

to provide a copy of the videotape of Jeff Johnson.
And for purposes of confrontation and cross
examination, if the government calls him as a
witness. The court has denied that motion, but what
I would respectfully ask the court to do is to

nevertheless order the government to produce that
videotape and make it an appellate exhibit in the
event he is called as a witness and the Sixth
Circuit would want to look at the videotape.
THE COURT: I think that's, it won't be
offered in this case, but I want you to produce it
so that we have a complete record for any reviewing
court.
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, your Honor. There
are five hundred videotapes which were taken as part
of that case, and we will preserve them all and mark
them as exhibits. I'm not sure he hasn't identified
any specific one.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.

MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, the main issue,
well, there is -- before we get to the main issue, I
don't believe the court has ruled on a motion in
limine to prohibit the government from cross
examining character witnesses based on --
THE COURT: Well, are you, we are not even
close to that. Why are you taking time with this
now? Are they, you are not, we've got at least 5, 6
days of government witnesses.
MR. EMOFF: Because I think --
THE COURT: We've got a jury waiting. You
haven't decided whether you are going to call any
character witnesses. And beyond that, you are also
asking for a motion in limine that has no context to
it.
I don't know what evidence they are going
to offer in their case, I don't know what character
witnesses you are going to seek to offer. So it's

-- we've got a long process ahead, and I'm just
suggesting, don't waste time on matters that have no
way to be ruled on in any case. So.
MR. EMOFF: I --
THE COURT: What -- let's go through it
then, since you seem to not get the point.
MR. EMOFF: I do get the point.

THE COURT: Well, I don't think you do.
6
The point is you haven't called any character
witnesses. We have no idea what kind of cross
examination they are going to offer. You have no
context in terms of knowing whether they are going
to follow the same trial strategy they did earlier.
So you are asking me to give you some kind of
advisory opinion that is just in a cloud of we've
got no idea what you're going to offer, we have no
idea what they are going to try to respond with.
MR. EMOFF: I understand. I'll move on to
the next issue.
THE COURT: Let me just caution again,
we've been through this trial, and I thought the
earlier trial took far more time because of
repetitive arguments that really had no, you know,
no value. It preserved the record in terms of your
objection, but eventually the case has to be tried.
So I don't understand it, specifically
what other issue do you believe needs dealt with

now?
MR. EMOFF: There is a motion to resolve
conflicts of interest, your Honor, that was filed I
don't believe has been ruled on.
THE COURT: Now, what does that have to do

with the trial?
7
MR. EMOFF: What it has to do with is
whether or not Joseph Jones can receive a fair
trial. Whether he could receive the effective
assistance of counsel.
THE COURT: With regard to that, I dealt
with that issue with regard to an earlier motion
filed by Mr. Gray. And I'm in the process of
drafting a decision. But the gist of it is that

I'll deny it. I think that that was one of the
reasons, and it's also related to the issue, the
government has asked that Mr. Czarnecki not
participate in the independent investigation.
I'm in the process of putting an order on
denying that request. And in that order I'm going
to specifically direct that the AUSA from the
Southern District of Ohio who has been assigned this
not have any contact with the United States
Attorneys Office or its employees outside the
presence of Mr. Czarnecki. The intent -- and also
to limit the conversation with those potential
witnesses strictly to the matters that dealt with
someone's violation of the earlier order of the
court. The belief being that, that investigation is
to be independent of this trial.
And so I do not find any conflict, in

8
terms of Mr. Jones and you.
MR. EMOFF: There is some new information
your Honor, though.
THE COURT: Well, put it in a motion and
I'll take a look at it.
MR. EMOFF: May I say it right now because
I think it is important for you to consider this.
I'm not trying to waste your time. I want you to
know I have been personally contacted by an FBI
agent from Detroit who wants to interview me during
this trial. So that I am expected by this agent, at
least, and presumably by the AUSA from the Southern
District to take time out from the trial to prepare
for an interview and to attend an interview during
the trial. And that I think is an enormous
imposition for me to have to try to focus on my own
situation and also defend Mr. Jones at the same
time .
THE COURT: I don't think it is. But if I
would simply just get more details in terms of when
they want to do it and how much time it is
anticipated to take.
But my thinking being, if the interview is
going to occur on some weekend, and it is going to
be limited to a certain limited number of hours, I

9
don't think it imposes any impairment in your
ability to represent Jones.
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, I'll respectfully,
all I can say to you is I think that from my
perspective it does create a big imposition for me
to prepare with my attorney and attend an interview,
and so forth, and provide information, and at the
same time try to concentrate on defending Joe Jones.
THE COURT: Okay. I don't think it does.

So if it's a request that that interview not take
place, I'll deny it. And if it's a, you know, a
belief that that presents some conflict, I still

don't see any.
So, we are going to proceed.
Can you tell her to get the jury.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, may I address
two issues -- actually only one issue. I think you

addressed the conflict.
I think the conflict the government wanted
to address was whether any of the defendants here
are compromised by the fact of the investigation and
the need to curry favor, possibility with the
government.
But my issue is, we filed for
reconsideration on the motion to file under seal.

10
We have a motion to reopen the issue of suppression
based on new evidence. And it's a narrowly focused
motion, but we didn't want to file it for the public
record because it contains stuff that was -- that
comes from the sealed documents. And so we are not
asking to file it ex parte, we are just asking to
file it under seal.
THE COURT: Your motion was completely
vague in terms of what -- what's the general
argument?
MR. WHITAKER: The general argument is, we
discovered new evidence there is false information
contained in the affidavits. False information on a
material point on both the January and July
affidavits, and we wanted to reopen that with the
opportunity to establish that it was false. And
that therefore, if it is false, we establish two
things; potentially the lack of probable cause and
also the bad faith of the government in obtaining
the intercepted wires.
THE COURT: You want to respond?
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, I believe
that the suppression motion has already been heard
and ruled on by the court. I don't know if there is
a right to a rolling set of new arguments that the

11
defendants have. I actually think that the court
has already ruled several times in several different
contexts in reconsiderations of that motion.
Thank you.
MR. WHITAKER: Mostly I want to get it
filed and I don't want to file it in public fashion.
THE COURT: I'll give you leave to file it
under seal.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: But make sure you serve a copy
of it on opposing counsel.
MR. WHITAKER: I will do that.
One other housekeeping matter, if we could
get it, this one monitor is not going to be enough
for this table because we can't all look at it at
the same time, if there is any possibility of
getting a second monitor it would be of great help.
THE COURT: Are you ready. Let me just
ask, do you --
Let me ask the people in the back row,
you'll have to step out until we get the jurors and
then you can fill in if there are any vacant seats
in the rear of the courtroom.
(The prospective jurors entered the
courtroom.)
12
THE COURT: I f y o u ' l l t a k e your seats.
I would l i k e t o welcome you t h i s m o r n i n g
t o t h e United S t a t e s District Court f o r t h e Northern
D i s t r i c t o f Ohio where y o u ' v e a l l b e e n c a l l e d a s
prospective jurors i n a case t h a t i s pending before
the court.
I would b e g i n t h i s m o r n i n g b y i n t r o d u c i n g
myself t o you. My name i s J u d g e James Gwin, a n d
I ' l l b e t h e judge p r e s i d i n g o v e r t h i s t r i a l .
I a l s o would i n t r o d u c e you t o t h e d e p u t y
Ms. Gwen Mackey. During your s e r v i c e a s j u r o r s i n
t h i s c a s e you w i l l be u n d e r h e r care, c u s t o d y a n d
control.
T h r o u g h o u t t h e t r i a l you w i l l n o t b e
p e r m i t t e d t o have any c o n t a c t w i t h myself, w i t h any
of t h e p a r t i e s , witnesses o r attorneys. So i f you
e v e r h a v e a n e e d t o communicate w i t h u s you n e e d t o
do it through t h e d e p u t y c l e r k . She'll t r y t o take
c a r e o f a n y c o n c e r n s you h a v e o r n e e d s .
This w i l l be a jury t r i a l . And b e c a u s e
t h i s may b e a new e x p e r i e n c e f o r some o r more o f
you, I would b e g i n t h i s m o r n i n g b y g i v i n g a g e n e r a l
e x p l a n a t i o n s o t h a t you would h a v e a b e t t e r
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s you w i l l h a v e
and t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the v a r i o u s p a r t i c i p a n t s
13
in this case.
I'll give you some generalized explanation
as to the nature of the proceeding we are involved
with today. Then you will be sworn in, then you
will have some questions put to you touching upon
your ability to sit as a juror in this particular
case.
Jury service is a primary responsibility
of citizenship. It's, apart from voting, it may be
our most direct contact with our government for many

of you. It's a very important responsibility. And
we salute you for your sacrifice of time that you
are making to participate in this most fundamental
of our democratic processes.
In this case, the participants have a
somewhat different responsibility. Each of them.
The lawyers in the case have the
responsibility of presenting evidence. And in the
presentation of that evidence they are required to
abide by certain procedural rules and by certain
evidentiary rules. The judge in the case has the

responsibility of ruling on those questions. So the
lawyers will present evidence. Oftentimes the
parties may disagree as to whether certain evidence
is properly admitted. The judge will, if there is

14
an objection or other challenge, have the
responsibility of ruling on what evidence can come
in.
The judge will also have the
responsibility of instructing you on what the
specific law is in this case.
The legislature generally enacts the law,
Congress of the United States. I then will instruct

you on what that law is, and you will then be
required to follow my instructions even if you might
disagree with your belief as to what the law should
be.
So I have the responsibility of ruling on
evidentiary questions. I have the responsibility of
ruling on procedural questions. I instruct you on
what the law is.
The lawyers present the evidence, they
also make argument.
Now you the jury have essentially three
responsibilities. First of all, the jury, and the
jury alone, decides what the facts are in this case.
There will be a dispute as to some of the facts, and

you will be required to decide what the facts are.
The second responsibility you have is to
judge the weight of the evidence. This is a

15
criminal case. The government will be required to
prove its case by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
You will be charged with deciding whether the
government has met that burden.
So your second responsibility is to judge
the weight of the evidence.
The third responsibility you have is to
judge the credibility or the believability of
evidence.
Now evidence comes in three ways and only
thee ways. First of all, you get evidence from
sworn testimony by witnesses who testifies here in
court and under oath and are subject to cross
examination. So the first way you get evidence is
through testimony.
The second way you get evidence is through
exhibits. Those are matters that are offered, that
are received, and that will then go back with you to
the jury room. That's the second way you get
evidence.
The third way you get evidence is through
occasionally there will be admissions or
stipulations. If there are such admissions or

stipulations that is also evidence that you can
consider.
16
So again to summarize, your
responsibilities are to decide what the facts are,
decide what the weight of the evidence is, decide
what evidence to believe, what evidence is credible,
what evidence to credit. And you make those
decisions based upon testimony, exhibits and
stipulations.
Now I've outlined three things that you
have the responsibility of considering as evidence,
right? I described for you the testimony as
evidence, exhibits are evidence, stipulations are
evidence. That also suggests that certain things
are not evidence.
You are going to hear the opening
statements of the attorneys. Is that evidence? No.
The attorneys are not under oath, they are not
subject to cross examination, they are not an
exhibit.
I'll begin this morning by giving you a
generalized explanation as to my understanding of
what this case is about.
Now is my generalized description for you,
is that evidence? No. I'm not under oath, I'm not
going to be cross examined, I'm not an exhibit.
There will be a reference to the

17
indictment in this case. The Grand Jury has issued
an indictment raising a large number of charges. Is
the indictment evidence? No. The indictment is not
testimony, it is not an exhibit, it won't be an
exhibit to you, it's not a stipulation.
So, that's the general background that we
are going to deal with in this case.
Again, the stages go through, the stages
that I outlined for you. We will begin this morning
with the process called voir dire. You are each
generally qualified to be a juror in this case,
however you may have had some life experience, you
may have some friendship or acquaintanceship, or you
may have some belief that suggests to me or to the
attorneys that you should perhaps not sit on this
particular case.
Now the only way we can get some
information from you to help us make those judgments
is to ask questions of you. So you are all going to
be sworn in. You are required to give your answers
to the questions that I put to you under oath, or
affirmation.
So to begin the voir dire process, at this
time I would ask all the jurors, both those in the
box and those of you in the rear of the courtroom,

to stand at this time so as to be sworn.
(At this point in the proceedings the
jurors were sworn.)
THE COURT: If you'll take a seat.
Now the way I'm going to conduct this is,
I'm going to address questions to all the jurors.
So I'll be addressing questions to these 12 jurors.
I'll also be addressing the same questions to those
of you in the rear of the courtroom.
Our court reporter, Richard, needs to keep
a record as to the responses as to this, and that is
made much easier if before you give your response
you tell us your number. Okay? So make sure that
before you respond, both those of you here in the
box and those of you in the rear of the courtroom
that you give us your juror number so that a record
can be made as to who is responding to each of the
questions.
I begin this morning by giving you an
introduction to this case. This is a criminal case,
this is not a civil case.
The indictment has been issued by the
Grand Jury and it charges these defendants with a
fairly significant number of individual offenses.
The parties in this case, this case again

19
i s a c r i m i n a l c a s e , i t ' s brought by t h e United
S t a t e s of America. In t h i s case, t h e United S t a t e s
o f America i s r e p r e s e n t e d b y a t t o r n e y s M r . Steven
D e t t e l b a c h , M s . B e n i t a P e a r s o n , a n d M s . Mary B u t l e r ,
a n d I would a s k them t o i n t r o d u c e t h e i r FBI
representative.
MR. DETTELBACH: T h i s i s S p e c i a l Agent
M i c h a e l M a s s i e from t h e F e d e r a l B u r e a u o f
Investigation. And s i t t i n g a t t h e e n d o f t h e t a b l e
i s A n g e l a R a s o l e t t i from t h e U.S. A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e .
THE COURT: Thank you.
I n t h i s c a s e , one o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s i s
Mr. Joseph Jones, and h e ' s r e p r e s e n t e d by A t t o r n e y s
Jerome Emoff a n d Kevin C a f f e r k e y . And I would a s k
them t o s t a n d a n d p r o d u c e t h e i r c l i e n t t o t h e j u r y .
MR. EMOFF: Ladies and gentlemen, t h i s i s
J o s e p h J o n e s , h e ' s a Councilman i n t h e C i t y o f
Cleveland, Ohio.
THE COURT: Another defendant i n t h i s case
i s M r . G i l b e r t Jackson, and h e ' s r e p r e s e n t e d by
Attorney Robert Jenkins. And I would a s k
Mr. Jenkins t o introduce M r . Jackson.
MR. CAFFERKEY: Good m o r n i n g .
MR. JENKINS: Good m o r n i n g . This is
Mr. Gilbert Jackson.

20
THE COURT: A third defendant is Mr. Nate
Gray, and he is represented by Attorneys William
Whitaker and Andrea Whitaker. I ask them to
introduce their client to the jury.
MR. WHITAKER: This is Mr. Nathaniel Gray.
And at the end of the table we have Anthony May, our
law clerk, who will be assisting us in the course of
this trial.
THE COURT: First of all, do any of you
know any of the attorneys?

Have any of you had any cases ever with
any of these attorneys?
Do any of you have any cases currently
pending wherein the United States of America is on
the opposing side?
Have any of you ever been involved in
litigation, either civil or criminal, with the
United States of America?
Do any of you know Mr. Jones?
THE COURT: Okay. Ma'am, tell us your
number?
JUROR: 17.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me just try to
insure I've gotten my records right.
Ma'am, are you are Number 1.

JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Ma'am are you number 7.
JUROR: No, I'm number 8.
THE COURT: I apologize. Again ma'am, you
are juror number 1, and sir in the back left you are
number 14?
JUROR: That's right.
THE COURT: And ma'am, your number again
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: How do you know Mr. Jones.
JUROR: I worked on the campaign to make
Cleveland smoke free and I've had occasion to come
into contact with Mr. Jones and other.
THE COURT: When was the last time you had
any contact with him?
JUROR: Probably a month ago.
THE COURT: And what date was that?

JUROR: I'm not really sure, but some time
in July.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: Early July.
THE COURT: Okay. Can you be more
specific in terms of what date?
JUROR: I want to say right after Fourth

of July, I requested a letter of support from
Mr. Jones's office for a grant that my office has
applied for.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: It was a telephone conversation.
THE COURT: Have you ever talked with him
personally?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: When?
JUROR: Last August.
THE COURT: A year ago?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you had any contact, have
you ever talked to him personally since last August?
JUROR: By phone.
THE COURT: How many conversations have
you had with him in total?
JUROR: Maybe six.
THE COURT: Okay. And when are the dates
of each of those conversations?
JUROR: You know, I cannot say off the top
of my head. I would have to say that I would

consult my day record for something like that, but I
actually don't know.
THE COURT: How many conversations have

23
you had with him in the last four months?
JUROR: Four. Maybe four.
THE COURT: And how long in total were
each, the total number of these conversations?
JUROR: 15 to 20 minutes.
THE COURT: Did you follow any of the news
media reports that he had been indicted.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Did you ever have any
conversation with him about that indictment?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Did you ever talk to anybody
about that indictment?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. When was the last
conversation you had with anybody about his -- the
indictment of him?
JUROR: I had a conversation in my office
some time in July that, after receiving notice for
this, that I was concerned that I might -- that this
might be the case that I would be sitting on.
THE COURT: In that you spoke with someone
in your office?
JUROR: Yeah, I spoke to the director,
director in my office and told her that I had been

24
c a l l e d f o r j u r y d u t y and s a i d I hoped t h i s w a s n ' t
the case.
THE COURT: Did a n y b o d y e l s e i n y o u r
o f f i c e h a v e a n y c o n t a c t w i t h him?
JUROR: Not t h a t I ' m a w a r e o f .
THE COURT: Did y o u r d i r e c t o r e v e r h a v e
a n y c o n t a c t w i t h him?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: How would you c h a r a c t e r i z e
y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h him?
JUROR: I t ' s o n l y b e e n p r o f e s s i o n a l , my
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h him. And i t h a s b e e n o n l y a s i t
r e l a t e d t o t h e Smoke F r e e C l e v e l a n d c a m p a i g n .
THE COURT: Has a n y b o d y , h a v e you e v e r
e x p r e s s e d any o p i n i o n a b o u t t h e g e n e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n
o f what t h i s c a s e was? I n o t h e r w o r d s , h a v e you
e v e r expressed an opinion about whether t h i s case
s h o u l d have been brought, should n o t have been
brought?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: To a n y o n e ?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Does a n y b o d y e l s e know a n y o f
t h e defendants t h a t have been introduced? Have a n y
o f you h a d a n y c o n t a c t w i t h them a t a l l , e i t h e r
directly or indirectly?
The indictment in this case generally
alleges that as to each of the defendant's somewhat
different allegations. The overall -- and let me
explain to you again. In this case the instructions

of law will come to you in the final instructions.
Okay? My overall description of the case to you is
not evidence, right? We talked about that.
I'm going to ask you a general background
and give you some description of what I understand
the case generally to be about, to try to elicit

from you whether you have any sentiments about the
case that might impair your ability to fairly offer
a verdict. Okay?
So with that general background, the
government generally alleges that defendant.Gray and
defendant Jackson engaged in a RICO enterprise, an
enterprise to -- that was a separate enterprise from
themselves to in essence commit criminal acts.
The acts that are generally alleged to
have been committed by them are involvement with
political corruption.
The general allegation is that defendant
Gray was closely aligned for years and years with

former Mayor White in the City of Cleveland. And
26
that he -- and with certain other political leaders
in the Northern District of Ohio, and in other
locales. And that he was involved and retained by
corporations to basically solicit contracts for
those companies and/or organizations, and in certain
circumstances, in regard to organizations or
companies that he himself was associated with.
Now the allegations generally involve the
government's allegations that break down kind of on
the geographical basis.
The government generally alleges that the
defendant Gray engaged in a conspiracy to bribe
officials in the City of East Cleveland.
The City of East Cleveland is a political
subdivision east of Cleveland. It's a separate
governmental body, separate and apart from the City
of Cleveland.
The government alleges generally that the
defendant started paying off the mayor of East
Cleveland. Basically payments somewhere in the
range of $700 a month.
At or near this time, the government
generally alleges that a company that did -- or a
law firm, actually, that did tax collection work for
the City of East Cleveland, and who was seemingly

27
t h r e a t e n e d with t h e l o s s of t h e i r c o n t r a c t , began
paying defendant Gray.
And t h e government a l l e g e s g e n e r a l l y t h a t
defendant Gray would t h e n kick some of t h i s money
over t o t h e Mayor of E a s t Cleveland.
And t h a t a s a r e s u l t of t h a t , t h e law
f i r m , which was p u r p o r t e d l y on i t s way o u t a s a
government c o n t r a c t o r , was a b l e t o r e t a i n them.
The government a l s o a l l e g e s with r e g a r d t o
E a s t Cleveland t h a t a company had made a p r o p o s a l t o
o p e r a t e t h e E a s t Cleveland Water Department. And
t h e government a l l e g e s g e n e r a l l y t h a t t h i s company
began f u n n e l i n g money through defendant Gray. And
t h a t defendant Gray, a f t e r t a k i n g h i s c u t , would
f u n n e l c e r t a i n of t h o s e monies t o t h e Mayor, who
was -- had i n p u t on t h e d e c i s i o n a s t o whether t h i s
water company --
I t ' s g e n e r a l l y a l l e g e d by t h e government
t h a t t h e water company was paying defendant Gray
$10,000 a month, and t h a t he was p a s s i n g over some
of t h o s e monies t o t h e Mayor.
There i s o t h e r a l l e g a t i o n s with r e g a r d t o
t h e E a s t Cleveland, b u t t h o s e a r e a t l e a s t some of
them.
W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e C i t y of Cleveland,
28
there is generally an allegation that the defendant
Gray was soliciting work for certain governmental
contractors through the payment of certain monies to
city officials, specifically the Water Department
superintendent, or the Public Works Superintendent,
giving him gifts and gratuities in return for which
receiving work on behalf of defendant Gray's
clients.
There are also allegations with regard to
the City of Houston. It's alleged generally that
the defendant Gray and the City of Houston, together
with defendant Jackson, engaged in a solicitation of
work from the head of the Houston Public Building
Authority. The person who supervised all the, as I
understand it, the Houston buildings, city owned
buildings.
The government generally alleges that what
they did was that they facilitated buying off this
public official by giving her gifts to the Super
Bowl, trips to the Super Bowl, trips to Cleveland, a
certain amount of monies. And that in addition the
government alleges that they hired her boyfriend
under some kind of contract wherein the boyfriend
would get a certain percentage of the contracts that
were given.
And the Government alleges that the
boyfriend had conversations with this building
authority official to kick back some of that money
to the City of Houston.
There is also allegations with regard to
the City of New Orleans. As I said, the third
defendant in this.
So the allegations against the defendant
Gray are generally they engaged in this conspiracy,
that there were two criminal acts within the last 10
years that facilitated this enterprise, this
conspiracy, to basically --
And there is also allegations in addition
that with regard to Houston there was a separate
contract that the defendant Gray was trying to get
for himself to operate some kind of shuttle or
parking contract. And that he bribed a high public
official in the Mayor's office to try to have his
group chosen to operate this, this parking contract
or this shuttle service to a parking.
With regard to defendant Jackson, he's
alleged, again, to have engaged in this RICO
conspiracy. He's also alleged to have engaged
in certain bribes, as well.
There has been news coverage of this.

30
F i r s t o f a l l , do a n y o f you h a v e a n y p e r s o n a l
knowledge o f a n y o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s ?
(No r e s p o n s e . )
THE COURT: Let me j u s t ask i n t h e f i r s t
1 2 , how many o f you h a v e r e a d a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h i s ?
Can a n y o f you r e c a l l r e a d i n g a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h i s ?
THE COURT: Okay. I n t h e f i r s t row i n t h e
r e a r , h a v e a n y o f you r e a d a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h i s o r
heard anything about t h i s , e i t h e r r a d i o o r
television o r anything e l s e ?
How a b o u t i n t h e s e c o n d row?
THE COURT: Okay. L e t ' s begin with juror
17. What d i d you h e a r ?
JUROR: My m o t h e r i s a r e s i d e n t o f t h e
C i t y of Cleveland, C i t y of E a s t Cleveland.
THE COURT: Was s h e a s u p p o r t e r o f Mayor
Onunwor?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What's h e r g e n e r a l c e n s u s ?
The Mayor h a s a l r e a d y p l e d g u i l t y ; d i d s h e e x p r e s s
any opinions about t h a t ?
JUROR: She was v e r y s y m p a t h e t i c .

THE COURT: To him?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In what sense.
JUROR: She was just saying, because she
liked him personally, that the whole circumstances
occurred.
THE COURT: I mean, is it a sense that it
wasn't fair that -- he's pled guilty, he has
admitted his guilt.
JUROR: Yeah, she thought it wasn't fair.
THE COURT: It wasn't fair in what sense?
That he decide to plead guilty?

JUROR: It wasn't fair just that the whole
city had to experience that. She's been involved in
politics for a number of years and was just saddened
that this whole thing occurred in the City of East
Cleveland.
THE COURT: Does -- did you share her
belief? Did you ever meet Mayor Onunwor.
JUROR: I've met him personally, but I
really, I really didn't have any opinion one way or
the other about it.
THE COURT: And let's go to the third row
again. Who had their hands up?
Sir, what number.

JUROR: 33.
THE COURT: Okay. What do you recall
reading or hearing about it, generally?
JUROR: I thing think I heard brief news,
newscasting on the radio, on TV. I may have read
some articles in the paper in regards.
THE COURT: Do you remember much about
that specifically?
JUROR: I do know that the Mayor of East

Cleveland did admit guilt.
THE COURT: I'm sorry? Had admitted
guilt?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I was going to comment, if we
hadn't had any hands that had been raised to this
question, the news media here would have broken into
sobs. They believe that you hang on every word
that is written or spoken.
Who else had their hands up?

Sir, what's your number?
JUROR: 36.
THE COURT: What do you recall reading or

hearing?
JUROR: I recall hearing on the evening
news about the alleged allegations with the Water

33
Department, as well as Mayor of East Cleveland
admitting his guilt.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you remember, do you
remember much about that though?
JUROR: Your Honor, I do not.
THE COURT: Did you follow it closely?
JUROR: No, I did not.
THE COURT: How would you, juror number
33, I mean would you consider that you followed it
closely?
JUROR: No, no.
THE COURT: There was another hand.
Sir, your number?
JUROR: Juror 37.
THE COURT: And what did you, what contact
did you have with reports of that?
JUROR: Similar to these gentlemen, just
hearing the evening news. Hearing it on the radio.
Not following it closely, just hearing about
charges.
THE COURT: Did you follow it closely?
JUROR: No, sir.
THE COURT: Were there some other hands?
And are you juror 38?
JUROR: Yes. I'm an employee with the

34
Regional Sewer District in the City of Cleveland.
THE COURT: Could you speak up.
You are an employee with the Regional
Sewer District in the City of Cleveland?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you said you followed it
with interest?
JUROR: Yes. We have contracts with the
firm in question, which I believe is CH2M HILL.

THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: So I followed this with great
scrutiny.
THE COURT: And what's your position with
the sewer district?
JUROR: I'm a manager in the Engineering
Department.
THE COURT: Do you have contact with a
Cleveland official by the name Ciacci?
JUROR: Chatch.
THE COURT: Chatch.
JUROR: Not me personally, but our
department, quite closely, yes.
THE COURT: What's your sense, given the
proximity to this company. They are the company
that's alleged to have paid $10,000 a month to

35
Mr. Gray and that he kicked money back to the Mayor
of East Cleveland.
And it's, I think it's an additional
allegation that out of that $10,000 he also paid off
this Ciacci.
Are you going to have trouble judging
that, given your proximity to CH2M HILL?
JUROR: I think I might, yes. We have
them under contract managing some projects. We
hired the multi-national consulting firm of CH2M
Hill.
THE COURT: Could you help me again, sir,
your number is 38?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Is your number 38?
JUROR: Yes, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else in that
row.
Ma' am, what 's your number?
JUROR: 39.
THE COURT: What do you recall hearing or
reading?
JUROR: I remember hearing about it in the
news and reading about it in Beacon Journal. But
it's not a community I live in, I just read it in

the paper.
THE COURT: Did you p a y much a t t e n t i o n t o
it.
JUROR: No, d i d n ' t f o l l o w i t c l o s e l y .
THE COURT: Okay. L e t me go o n .
Was t h e r e anybody e l s e ?
THE COURT: L e t me a s k a l l o f you t h a t
have i n d i c a t e d h a v i n g h e a r d s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h i s o r
r e a d something about t h i s . L e t me go b a c k t o where
I began.
Your r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a r e t o j u d g e t h e
e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e and d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e
government c o n v i n c e s you beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t
of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t .
You have t o make t h a t d e c i s i o n b a s e d upon
evidence, r i g h t ? And e v i d e n c e comes i n what forms?
Testimony, e x h i b i t s , s t i p u l a t i o n s . The news r e p o r t s
t h a t any o f you h e a r d a r e n o t e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e .
They a r e , you know, t h e y a r e n o t e v i d e n c e . And i f
you a r e c h o s e n t o s i t a s a j u r o r on t h i s c a s e you
have t o d i s r e g a r d t h o s e a n d make y o u r d e c i s i o n b a s e d
o n l y on e v i d e n c e .
Would a n y o f you have p r o b l e m s p u t t i n g
a s i d e t h a t e v i d e n c e t h a t you -- o r n o t t h a t
37
evidence, but that news reports that you've heard on
about this case?
(No response.)
THE COURT: Okay. To the charges that the
government has leveled against the defendants, they
have pled not guilty. They deny the allegations,
which makes it necessary for the United States,
acting through the Assistant U.S. Attorneys to offer
evidence that convinces you beyond a reasonable
doubt of their guilt.
Unless and until this is done, you would
have to find the defendants not guilty. So your
responsibilities, again, are to judge the evidence
at the close of the case and decide at that time
whether the evidence offered convinces you beyond a
reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.
The defendants have no obligation to offer
any evidence. They have no obligation to even
question the witnesses offered by the government.
But at the end of the case, you would have
to decide whether you are convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt of one or
more of the charges made in this case.
If at that point you believe the

government had failed to convince you beyond a
38
r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t , you would
have t h e f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t s n o t g u i l t y .
Do a n y o f you h a v e a p r o b l e m w i t h t h a t ?
THE COURT: Do a n y o f you b e l i e v e i n a n y
way t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t , t h a t . t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a v e
a n y o b l i g a t i o n t o o f f e r e v i d e n c e o r t o c o n v i n c e you
of anything i n t h i s case?
THE COURT: Do e a c h o f you r e c o g n i z e t h a t
t h a t burden s t a r t s and remains w i t h t h e government?
THE COURT: Does anybody h a v e a p r o b l e m
with t h a t a t a l l ?
(No r e s p o n s e ) .
THE COURT: Now t h e c o n v e r s e i s a l s o t r u e .
I f a t i n end o f t h e c a s e t h e government h a s
c o n v i n c e d you beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e
d e f e n d a n t s a r e g u i l t y o f o n e o r more o f t h e
o f f e n s e s , you would h a v e t o f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t s
g u i l t y of t h a t offense o r offenses.
So a t t h e e n d o f t h e d a y , a t t h e e n d o f
t h e c a s e , i f you a r e c o n v i n c e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e
doubt t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s a r e g u i l t y , your o a t h and
your r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a s a j u r o r , and a s a c i t i z e n ,
would b e t o f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t s g u i l t y , o r t h e
d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y , a s t h e e v i d e n c e may w a r r a n t .
Do a n y of you h a v e a p r o b l e m w i t h t h a t ?
THE COURT: Do a n y o f you s u b s c r i b e t o a n y
m o r a l o r r e l i g i o u s t e a c h i n g s t h a t s a y you c a n n o t s i t
i n judgment o f o t h e r s ?
THE COURT: How many o f you -- h a v e a n y o f

you e v e r b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e , o t h e r
than a t r a f f i c offense? Anything of a s i g n i f i c a n c e ?
THE COURT: W h a t ' s y o u r number, sir?
JUROR: 20.
THE COURT: What o f f e n s e were you c h a r g e d
w i t h a n d how l o n g a g o ?
JUROR: Can I come u p ?
THE COURT: Yes. I would a s k t h e
a t t o r n e y s t o come a s w e l l .
(Discussion a t t h e s i d e b a r between
j u r o r number 2 0 , t h e C o u r t a n d t h e
attorneys, as follows:)
BY THE COURT:
Q What w e r e you c h a r g e d w i t h ?
25 A Theft of drugs.
Q How long ago?
A 2001, officially.
Q Okay. You were charged where?

A State of Ohio.
Q What happened to them?

A Intervention in lieu of conviction.
Q Okay. And is that on pleading?

A Yes.
Q What bond enforcement agency was that geographical

agency?
A Summit County.
Q Did the United States have any relation?

A No.
Q The Pharmaceutical Board or anything?

A The Ohio State Pharmaceutical.
Q Is that going to interfere with your ability to

fairly try this case?
A No.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions?
MS. PEARSON: Yes, your Honor.
Q Could you please tell us how the charges were

resolved?
A I received intervention in lieu of conviction. I

was put on probation.
Q That was the result of you admitting?

Yes, I pled guilty.
A t t h a t t i m e w e r e you u s i n g t h e d r u g s ?
Well, I t u r n e d m y s e l f i n , b u t n o t s i n c e .
THE COURT: Do a n y o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a v e
any q u e s t i o n s ?
MR. EMOFF: I do.
7 Q S i r , d o you f e e l t h a t you were t r e a t e d u n f a i r l y b y
8 t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i n your c a s e ?
No.
THE COURT: Why d o n ' t you t a k e y o u r s e a t .
MR. JENKINS: Could I a s k a q u e s t i o n of
t h e j u r y on b e h a l f o f t h e d e f e n d a n t .
THE COURT: Y o u ' l l g e t a chance t o a s k any
additional questions.
MR. WHITAKER: W e d o n ' t have any l i s t of
a n y --
THE COURT: You d o n ' t h a v e a n y l i s t ?
MR. EMOFF: We d o n ' t h a v e a n y l i s t , y o u r
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
(The f o l l o w i n g p r o c e e d i n g s were
conducted i n open c o u r t . )
THE COURT: Is t h e r e a n y b o d y e l s e t h a t h a s
been charged?
Ma'am, w h a t ' s y o u r number?
42
JUROR: 21.
THE COURT: What w e r e you charged w i t h and
h o w l o n g ago?
JUROR: 1968.
THE COURT: 1968 a n d what?
JUROR: A s s a u l t and b a t t e r y .
THE COURT: How w a s t h a t r e s o l v e d ?
JUROR: It was guilty.
THE COURT: Was t h a t s o m e m i s d e m e a n o r
charge? Were you p r o s e c u t e d i n Common P l e a s C o u r t
o r w e r e y o u prosecuted i n s o m e m u n i c i p a l c o u r t ?
JUROR: Municipal c o u r t .
THE COURT: Is t h a t e x p e r i e n c e g o i n g t o
have a n y e f f e c t upon y o u r a b i l i t y t o f a i r l y t r y t h i s
case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: A n y b o d y else i n t h e f i r s t row?
Ma'am, w h a t ' s your number?
JUROR: 26.
THE COURT: 26?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What w e r e you charged w i t h ?
JUROR: DUI.
THE COURT: DUI. I f you c o u l d keep y o u r
voice up. How l o n g ago w a s t h a t ?

JUROR: 2002.
THE COURT: Is that going to have any
impact on your ability to fairly try this case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Anybody else in the front row?
(No response.)
THE COURT: How about in the second row?
(No response.)
THE COURT: Do any of you have any
relatively close family members or friends who have
been charged with any felony offense in the last 10
years? Any relatively close family members or
relatively close friends?
JUROR: 5.
THE COURT: Juror number 5 . Who was it?
JUROR: Son.
THE COURT: What was he charged with?
JUROR: Assault.
THE COURT: Is that a misdemeanor offense
or felony?
JUROR: It was a domestic, I think it was

misdemeanor.
THE COURT: How long ago was that?
JUROR: Three months.
THE COURT: Did you follow that closely?

44
JUROR: I w a s there e v e r y day.
THE COURT: D o you have a n y f e e l i n g s a s t o
t h e w a y t h a t w a s handled t h a t w o u l d i m p a c t your
a b i l i t y t o f a i r l y t r y t h i s case?
JUROR: I d i d n ' t agree w i t h i t .
THE COURT: Okay. B u t is that g o i n g t o
have a n y --
JUROR: I d o n ' t t h i n k it w o u l d , based on
what I hear, I d o n ' t believe i t w o u l d .
THE COURT: A n y b o d y e l s e t h a t has e i t h e r a
r e l a t i v e l y close f a m i l y m e m b e r o r f r i e n d here.
L e t ' s go t o t h e b a c k r o w . Ma'am, who w a s
i t ? What's y o u r n u m b e r f i r s t of a l l .
JUROR: 17.
THE COURT: A n d w h a t w a s y o u r s o n charged
with?
JUROR: C a r r y i n g a concealed weapon.
THE COURT: How l o n g ago w a s t h a t ?
JUROR: A y e a r ago.
THE COURT: Who p r o s e c u t e d t h a t ?
JUROR: I t w a s i n m u n i c i p a l court.
THE COURT: Was i t i n t h e S u m m i t C o u n t y
Common P l e a s C o u r t ?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Was i t i n t h e o l d c o u r t h o u s e ?

JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What w a s t h e r e s u l t ?
JUROR: H e served t h r e e m o n t h s t i m e .
THE COURT: Okay.
Do you have a n y s e n t i m e n t -- h o w do y o u ,
do y o u t h i n k t h a t w a s f a i r ?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have a n y
c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t t h e f a c t t h a t h e w a s charged i n
t h a t case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: I s t h e r e anybody e l s e o n t h e
f i r s t r o w t h a t has a n y f a m i l y m e m b e r , relatively
c l o s e f r i e n d , w h o w a s charged o r c o n v i c t e d of a
felony offense?
Ma'am, your n u m b e r .
JUROR: 28.
THE COURT: And who w a s it?
JUROR: I have a n e p h e w w h o i s s e r v i n g
t i m e i n prison i n C a l i f o r n i a . I have no i d e a of
w h a t t h e charge w a s o n .
THE COURT: Is t h a t g o i n g t o have a n y
i m p a c t o n y o u r a b i l i t y t o t r y t h i s case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Second row. Help u s w i t h y o u r

number.
JUROR: 33.
THE COURT: Who was it?
JUROR: Daughter.
THE COURT: What was she charged with and
how long ago?
JUROR: Flee.
THE COURT: Flee?
JUROR : Running.
THE COURT: How long ago was that?
JUROR: About five months ago.
THE COURT: Where was that prosecuted?
JUROR: Massillon Municipal Court.
THE COURT: Do you have any feelings that
would impair your ability to try this case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Anyone else on the panel that
has had prior family member or friend who has had

experience with the criminal justice system?
Ma'am, what's your number?
JUROR: 40.
THE COURT: And who was it?
JUROR: My sister-in-law.
THE COURT: And what was she charged with?
JUROR: Burglary, I think. I'm not really

47
that, I didn't follow it that close when everybody
talked about it.
THE COURT: How long was that?
JUROR: It was a last year and a half, I
believe.
THE COURT: Are you close to her?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Is that going to affect your
ability to fairly try this case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Ma'am, what's your number, 11?
JUROR: 12.
THE COURT: 12.

JUROR: My sister, I believe it was a DUI
in Marietta. She lost her license for six months.
THE COURT: Is that going to impair your
ability to fairly try this case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: I'm going to ask each of you
to stand up, give us your number, give us your name
and tell us the following information.
First, were you generally live?
Second, what type of work you do? If you
are retired, indicate what type of work you formerly
did.
48
Third, indicate to us what your spouse,
what type of work they do.
Okay. We'll begin with juror number l?
JUROR: I'm juror number 1. My name is
Leia Cowan. I reside in Cuyahoga Falls. I am a
medical office manager, as well as a dance
instructor. And my fiancee is a restaurant manager.
THE COURT: Juror number 2.
JUROR: My name is Mark Shields. I live
in North Royalton. I work in a grocery store. And
I'm not married.
THE COURT: Okay. Juror number 3.
JUROR: My name is Nancy German. I reside

in Stow, Ohio. I'm a district manager for a chain
of Hallmark stores in the Ohio area. I'm married,
and my husband is semi-retired. He used to be a
Service Director at a dealership, and now he just
runs titles and stuff for the dealership.
THE COURT: Thanks, ma'am.
Juror number 5.
JUROR: My name is Lon Frazier. I live in
Fredericksburg, Ohio.
THE COURT: Tell us, where is
Fredericksburg.
JUROR: It's probably about 15 minutes

south of Wooster. 45 miles from here.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: I own and operate a small business
with my wife. Married, six children. My wife is in
the family business with me.
Juror number 6.
JUROR: My name is Marianne Factor. I

live in Uniontown, Ohio. I'm in interior design
sales. My husband works for the U.S. Postal Service
in Akron.
THE COURT: Okay. Juror number 7.
JUROR: I'm number 7. I'm Mary Ellen
Rutledge from Carrollton, Ohio.
THE COURT: And you came farther than
juror number 5.
JUROR: I did. I got up early. And my
husband is refired from Fresh Mark Sugardale in
Canton, and I am a bus driver.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
Juror number 8.
JUROR: I'm Leanne Davis. I reside in
Hinkley, Ohio. I'm a pharmaceutical representative
and my husband is a chemical engineer.

50
JUROR: J u r o r number 9 . My name i s Bob
Krantz. And I l i v e i n J a c k s o n Township, w h i c h i s
n e a r M a s s i l l o n , Ohio. And I was a n i n s u r a n c e c l a i m s
manager, managing a d j u s t o r s , a n d my w i f e was a h i g h
school secretary.
THE COURT: Thank you. J u r o r number 11.
JUROR: My name i s M i c h a e l N o w i c k i . I
l i v e i n S t r e e t s b o r o , Ohio. I ' m an e n g i n e e r f o r
G o o d r i c h C o r p o r a t i o n , a n d my w i f e i s i n p u b l i c
r e l a t i o n s f o r t h e Shaker School District.
Juror 12.
JUROR: J u r o r 12. My name i s Deborah
Shimko. I l i v e i n Akron. My h u s b a n d i s r e t i r e d ,
used t o be a bus d r i v e r f o r Metro.
THE COURT: Okay.
J u r o r number 1 3 .
JUROR: I ' m B r u c e Hahn. I ' m a chemist a t
Goodyear. And my w i f e i s a r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t . I
l i v e i n Hudson.
THE COURT: Thank y o u .
Juror 1 4 .
JUROR: My name i s J o h n P r i t c h a r d . I l i v e
i n Barberton, Ohio. I was a b a g g e r a t a g r o c e r y
s t o r e and ceramic t e c h n i c i a n . Been m a r r i e d f o r 59

years. T h a t ' s about i t .
THE COURT: We s h o u l d o f f e r
congratulations.
JUROR: T h a n k you.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, could we
g e t --
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, c o u l d I get
that l i s t ?
THE COURT: I ' m g i v i n g you t h e n a m e s ,
w r i t e the names down.
J u r o r 15.
JUROR: My n a m e i s K a t h l e e n L e h r .
THE COURT: I ' m s o r r y , c a n you s p e a k a
l i t t l e louder? S p e a k a s i f you a r e t a l k i n g t o t h e
c o u r t reporter.
JUROR: My n a m e i s K a t h y L e h r . I'm a
teacher. I ' m a l s o a rep c o n s u l t a n t . My h u s b a n d i s
a l a w c l e r k a n d also a consultant t r a i n e r i n Akron.
THE COURT: You l i v e i n A k r o n .
Juror number 16.
JUROR: My n a m e i s L i s a E l t o n . I live i n
t h e C i t y of A k r o n . I w o r k f o r a h o m e care a g e n c y ,
and I'm not married.
THE COURT: T h a n k you.
Juror number 1 7 .
52
JUROR: My name is Yvonne Oliver. I live
in the City of Akron. I'm a self-employed
communications consultant. My husband is a retired
adult parole authority officer who is now a
consultant with the School Board.
THE COURT: Which agency did he work with?
Was it Summit County?
THE WITNESS: The Ohio adult parole
authority in Cleveland.
Ma'am, your number?
JUROR: I'm number 18. I'm Carolyn Reese.

I live in Jackson Township near Canton. I'm a
school psychologist, and my husband is a Methodist
minister.
THE COURT: Juror 19.
JUROR: I'm number 19. Marianne Leake. I

live in Hartville. I just started a job as a temp
at Timken Precision Support. And I'm a widower.
JUROR: I'm 20. I'm Tom Oswald. I live
in Dublin, Ohio, which is down in Wayne County. I'm
a nursery manager at a garden center, and my wife is
an office manager.
THE COURT: 21.

53
JUROR: J u r o r 21. Charles Dottavio. I

l i v e i n J a c k s o n Township i n t h e B e l d e n V i l l a g e a r e a .
I ' m a f o r m e r b a r owner a n d b a r t e n d e r , r e t i r e d now.
My w i f e works a t Akron G e n e r a l a s a n R N .
THE COURT: J u r o r 22.
JUROR: I ' m M a r t h a Moore. I live in
Wooster. I ' m a r e g i s t e r e d n u r s e a n d my h u s b a n d i s
i n customer s e r v i c e .
J u r o r 23.
JUROR: J u r o r 23. My name is R o b e r t Cale.
I l i v e i n Windham, Ohio a n d r e t i r e d , 20 y e a r s f r o m
t h e m a c h i n e work i n S o l o n , now a s a r e c e i v i n g c l e r k .
And my w i f e d o e s n ' t work.
JUROR: My name i s S h a r o n F e e m s t e r . I
l i v e i n N e w P h i l a d e l p h i a , Ohio. My h u s b a n d a n d I
work a t Timken Company, we a r e u n i o n o f f i c i a l s w i t h
o u r company.
THE COURT: J u r o r number 2 5 .
JUROR: My name i s R i c h a r d West. I'm a
retired dentist. I l i v e i n B a t h Township.
THE COURT: J u r o r 26.
JUROR: My name i s H o l l y Zimmerly. I live
i n O r v i l l e , Ohio. I work i n a n a c c o u n t i n g o f f i c e ,
54
and I am not married.
THE COURT: She works in an accounting
office and she is not married.
And you live in Orville, Ohio?
JUROR: Right.
JUROR: Malissa Snyder. I live in
Alliance, Ohio, and I work as high school math
teacher.
THE COURT: Okay. Are you married?
JUROR: Divorced.
JUROR: Karen Ford. I live in Green,
Ohio. I'm a teacher. My husband was a sheet metal
worker. He is currently on disability.
JUROR: Bonnie Shackelford. I live in
Tallmadge, Ohio and I'm retired from Ohio Edison.
Not married.
JUROR: I'm Stacie Purvis. I live in
Akron, and I sell insurance.
JUROR: Annette Kerr. I live in Cuyahoga
Falls. I am a secretary at the school. My husband

works for AT&T.

JUROR: I'm Nick Navarra. I'm from North
Canton, Ohio. I'm an adjunct professor at Kent
State University and my wife is an RN.
JUROR: I'm Tina Kapper. I live in
Ravenna, Ohio. I'm a sales rep for Nabisco, Kraft
Foods now, and my husband works in construction.

JUROR: My name is Karen Hooser. I live
in Richfield, Ohio. Program service officer for a

family foundation. My husband is in industrial
sales.
JUROR: My name is Dan Gear. I live in

Diamond, Ohio. I work for Summit County Children
Services. I do relative home studies. And my wife
is a social worker in a nursing home.
JUROR: My name is Jeff Jackson. I live

in Sagamore Hills. I'm a process quality person.
My wife works -- used to be an insurance adjuster.
Now she stays at home with my children.

56
JUROR: My name is Jim Tubero. I'm a
manager in the Engineering Department at Northeast
Ohio Sewer District in Cleveland. My wife is a
school teacher in Hudson.
JUROR: Juror 39. My name is Marilyn
Wester. I'm a speech pathologist in Ravenna City
Schools. My husband is clergy, and he teaches
professionals.
JUROR: My name is Gail Klemp. I live in
Clinton, Ohio. I work at a banking facility. I'm
married, and my husband works at an elevator place
in Cleveland.
JUROR: My name is Steve Miller. I'm from
Sugarcreek, Ohio. And my wife is a counselor in
private practice.
THE COURT: You may come the furthest
then.
JUROR: What's that?
THE COURT: How far?
JUROR: 65 miles.
JUROR: Connie Youtz. East Canton, Ohio.
I'm a housewife. My husband is retired.

57
JUROR: Sarah White. Preschool teacher.
My fiancee is a warehouse manager.
THE COURT: Okay. Juror 46.
JUROR: My name is Marla Manijak. I live
in Streetsboro and I'm a school bus driver. And my
husband works in Streetsboro.
JUROR: Pauline Pirri. I live in Cuyahoga
Falls. I just retired from the school system. My
husband is semi-retired. I think that's all.
THE COURT: Is there anybody I haven't
asked? I'm going to run through a list of witnesses
that may be called in this case. Some may not be
called, but. Some of these people have been listed
but they -- also there may be some mention of these
names. So please give attention to this. And at
the end, tell us if you know or are familiar with
anybody that has names that are similar to this.
Raymond Massie, Carmen Loparo, David Freel, Nina
Upshaw, Brian Thompson, Mildred Brewer, Charles
Bibb, Gloria Lovelace, Jeff Donovan, John Ruhlin, Ru
Fang Chaing, Buddy Reneau, Jack Johnson, Dwight
Roach, Frank Johnson, Gwen Dillingham, Michael Vu,
Glynis Nelson, Benjamin Bell, Eades Hogue, James

58
Washington, Leslie Bonin, Shahid Sadwar, Kelly
Carpenter-Rotuno, Felix Johnson, Ray Ehmer, Garland
Hardeman, April Steinmetz, Randy Walters, Julius
Ciacci, Michael Day, John Aske, Emmanuel Onunwor,
Julie Korte, Joe Diemert, Ricardo Teamor, Terry
Hamilton, Peter Smith, Richard Sawicki, Doug Evans,
James Lackman, Ronnie Joel, Robert Anton, Diane
Pinson, Brent Jividen, Monique McGilbra, John
Tipton, Oliver Spellman, Terry Krysiak, Charles
Chudakoff, Richard Cloutier, Sean Tenney, John
Tipton, Earl Brown, Lee Brown, Stan Broussard, Mark
Morial, Ben Jeffers, Zack Reed, Greg Penler, Howlie
Davis, Brian Casey, Subodh Chandra, Lou Stokes,
Mildred Brewer, Gladys Walcot, Thomas Ott, Robert
Pena, Rosay Contrel, Vince Sylvain, Ray Valdez, Eric
Friedman, Michael White, Jane Campbell, Michael
Dubose, Eric Brewer, Robert Anton, Clyde Wallace,
Sprague Realty, ETNA Parking, ETNA Associates, ETNA
Paper and Supply, Honeywell Corporation, CH2M Hill,
OMI, Camp, Dresser, McKee, Javitch, Block, Eisen and
Rathbone, Johnson Controls, Ralph Tyler Companies,
Armistad Development Company, Internal Revenue
Service, FBI, Ohio Ethics Commission, First Transit,
Malcolm Pirnie, DLZ, Housing Authority of New
Orleans, CMHA, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing

59
Authority, Cuyahoga County Board of Realtors, City
of Houston, City of Cleveland, City of Cleveland
Department of Water, City of New Orleans, Malachi
Johnson or Malachi Jackson, Irvin Taylor, David
Malik, Willie Horton, Bruce Block, Charles Natkins,
Brian Casey, Lou Tortora, Buddy Reneau, Howlie
Davis, Vermel Whalen, Sue Dunn, Tverner Collier,
Michael McGrath, Jay Westbrook.
Do any of you know any of those people.
personally?
Ma'am your number again is?
JUROR: 17.
THE COURT: Who do you know?
JUROR: Charles Bibbs, Mildred Brewer,
Gladys Walcott, Zachary, Jay Westbrook.
THE COURT: Let's go through each of
those. How do you know Jay Westbrook?
JUROR: Another counsel member that I work
with who also wrote a letter of support. Zachary
also wrote a letter of support.
THE COURT: Have you ever had any
conversation with Zachary.
JUROR: No, nothing beyond the campaign
that I'm working on.
THE COURT: Okay. And then who else?

60
JUROR: Charles Bibb is a family friend.
Mildred Brewer is a councilwoman that my mother has
worked with. Gladys Walcott is also a family
friend.
Okay, sir, your number again?
JUROR: 38. You named a number of
consulting firms we work with. DLCZ; CH2M HILL;
Camp, dresser; Ralph Tyler are all on contract with
our department. Brian Casey, Inc. is, I believe is
the Brian Casey at CH2M HILL. I know him
personally. Water Department in Cleveland. I met
people there. Julius Ciacci, as I mentioned.
THE COURT: Some of them may be called as
witnesses. Given your past exposure and contact
with them, would you have difficult in fairly
judging the credibility of their testimony and
judging the evidence generally, given your contact
with these people?
JUROR: I know them as engineering
consultants and project managers. In that regard,
no.
THE COURT: They won't be talking about
technical matters, they are going to be talking
about efforts to secure business for corporations by

61
paying money to public officials through Mr. Gray
and Mr. Jackson.
JUROR: It might be tough because we
procure the same consultants through our process,
and hearing somebody like Brian Casey and maybe
telling a story in the City of Cleveland, I may just

have a personal problem with that.
THE COURT: So you think that might impair
your ability to fairly judge their testimony?
JUROR: It would be tough.
THE COURT: Okay. Help me again, sir,
your number is?

JUROR: 38.
THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else, ma'am?
JUROR : I'm number 46. I know a Diane
Pinson.
THE COURT: And where does she physically
live, the Diane Pinson you are familiar with?
JUROR: Where does she live? She lives in
Stow. Is that the same one?
MS. PEARSON: No.
THE COURT: It doesn't appear to be the
same person.
Anybody else?
MR. EMOFF: Judge, could we come up for a

moment?
THE COURT: Yes.
conducted at the sidebar, out of the
hearing of the jury, as follows: )
THE COURT: You have somebody?
MR. EMOFF: Yes. There was a list that
Andrea had, that's it, with my handwritten note.
All of the names on there, including the added ones,
may be defense witnesses.
THE COURT: And so I've asked that all of
them --
MR. EMOFF: You may have, your Honor. I'm
trying to be careful.
THE COURT: These are the additional names
that you want asked?
MR. EMOFF: Yes. But I think also some of
the names under Jones here may not have been.
Tverner Collier was; of course, McGrath, Dunn. Amos
Mahsua should be on here somewhere. There it is on
this line right here. I don't recall that you said
that name.
THE COURT: I'll go through all the names
on the list.
MS. WHITAKER: Could I add one to the

list, Barbara Dove.
MR. CAFFERKEY: Terrace Construction
employees, including these people here.
THE COURT: Okay.
(The following proceedings were
conducted in open court.)
THE COURT: I'll give you some additional

names. Some of these may be repeat, so I apologize
for them.
Vermel Whalen, Sue Dunn, Michael McGrath,
Cassandra Robinson, Charles Brown, Senior, Anthony
Dixon, Denise McCray, William Johnson, Amos Mahsua,
Semia Hale, Alex Margevicious, Tonya Johnson-Jones,
Pearl Thompson, Bob Saforsky, Robert Arnato, Fannie

Lewis, Reverend George Stewart, Terrace
Construction, which may include Carlo Colombo, Ed
Feldkamp, Frank Sereka, Don LaPlocca, Dennis
Lahotan, and Albert Gallotti.

Do any of you know any of them?
(No response.)
THE COURT: How many of you have been
victims of crime?
(No response.)
THE COURT: How many of you had family
members or friends been victim of crime in the last

10 years?
S i r , w h a t ' s your n u m b e r .
JUROR: 36.
THE COURT: What happened?
JUROR: My n i e c e w a s m u g g e d i n P i t t s b u r g h
a b o u t s i x w e e k s ago.
THE COURT: Was anybody a r r e s t e d o n t h a t
offense?
JUROR: I don' t know.
THE COURT: How c l o s e t o h e r a r e you?
JUROR: I see h e r a c o u p l e t i m e s a y e a r .
THE COURT: Is t h a t g o i n g t o have a n y
i m p a c t on y o u r a b i l i t y t o f a i r l y t r y t h i s c a s e .
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: R i g h t beside y o u , s i r , your
number.
JUROR: 37.
THE COURT: A n d w a s s o m e m e m b e r of your
f a m i l y a v i c t i m of a c r i m e ?
JUROR: I w a s a v i c t i m of c r e d i t c a r d
fraud.
THE COURT: How l o n g ago w a s t h a t ?
JUROR: A b o u t 7 o r 8 y e a r s ago.
THE COURT: Is t h a t g o i n g t o have any
i m p a c t on y o u r a b i l i t y t o f a i r l y t r y t h e c a s e ?
JUROR: No, sir.
THE COURT: Anybody else?
L e t me begin up here. Sir, your n u m b e r .
JUROR: 13. We've had o u r c a r b r o k e n i n t o
a couple t i m e s .
THE COURT: Okay. How l o n g ago w a s t h e
most recent?
JUROR: A b o u t t h r e e y e a r s ago.
THE COURT: Is t h a t going t o i m p a c t y o u r
a b i l i t y t o f a i r l y t r y t h i s case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Ma'am, your n u m b e r .
JUROR: 24.
THE COURT: Twenty?
JUROR: 24.
THE COURT: What h a p p e n e d t o you o r y o u r
f a m i l y member?
JUROR: A b o u t s i x y e a r s ago m y n i e c e a n d
nephew w e r e shot. T h e y d i d n ' t d i e , b u t t h e guy
served t h e t i m e .
THE COURT: I s t h a t g o i n g t o have a n y
impact upon your ability t o fairly t r y this case?
JUROR: No.
Ma'am, your n u m b e r .
66
JUROR: 28.
THE COURT: And what happened in your
family.
JUROR: My son's car was stolen and broken
into and the stereo was taken. And that was about
18 months ago.
THE COURT: Was anybody arrested?
JUROR: No, sir.
THE COURT: Do you have any hard feelings
about criminal defendants, generally, or about -- or
about law enforcement for failing to arrest someone?
JUROR: No, sir.
THE COURT: How many of you have been

witnesses in a criminal trial?
(No response.)
THE COURT: Have any of you been witnesses
in civil trials? You've actually testified in
court?
Or -- sir your number, again, juror 14.
JUROR: 14.
THE COURT: How long ago was that
testimony.
JUROR: It must have been about 30 years
ago.
THE COURT: Was it a criminal case or
civil case?
JUROR: It was a civil case.
THE COURT: Was there anything about the
way that was handled that would impact your ability
to fairly try this case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Anybody else that's given
testimony?
Ma'am, your number.
JUROR: 24.
THE COURT: What testimony did you give?
JUROR: It was in a criminal case.
THE COURT: She was a witness in a
criminal case in 1983.
Okay. Was there anything about the way
your examination was handled that would impair your
ability to fairly try this case.
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Anybody else that's given
testimony.
Juror 9 ?
JUROR: Yeah. I was a witness in an
insurance arson case.
THE COURT: Okay. How long ago was that?

68
JUROR: That was about six years ago.
THE COURT: Was that a criminal case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Was there anything about the
way your examination was handled that would impair

your ability to fairly try this case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: Juror 36. I was a witness in a
criminal case as a result of my job. It was a case
of somebody being charged with sexually abusing a
child about six years ago.
THE COURT: Again, the same question.
Was there anything about the way your

examination was handled that --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: -- that would affect your

ability to fairly judge this case?
JUROR: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: There will be testimony from
witnesses in this case who have entered into plea
agreements. Who pled guilty to charges against
them. Do any of you have any strong feelings about
plea agreements, generally?
(No response.)
69
THE COURT: Do any of you have any overall
feelings about plea agreements?
Juror number 15.
JUROR: I think they are wrong.
THE COURT: In what sense?
JUROR: Just I feel it's a sense of
bribery.
THE COURT: It's a sense of bribery?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: There will be a number of
witnesses who testify in this case. Would that
impair your ability to fairly judge their evidence?
JUROR: I can't -- I don't know, I can't
say. I mean, it's my subconscious, you know, I, I'm
not sure.
THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else?
Do any of you have any physical or hearing
conditions that would impair your ability to listen
to testimony in this chamber?
(No response. )
THE COURT: Okay. We generally start
about 8 in the morning. We generally finish about 5
at night. Any problem with that? And the belief is
that there are fewer days involved if the days are
each a bit longer. That's -- basically, it's a --

70
the thinking is, it's a trade off. You can have
shorter days but you have more days, you can have
longer d a y s but fewer d a y s .
Anybody have a problem with a physical
condition that would Impair their ability to sit as
a juror?
Is there some hand about hearing? Okay.
Ma'am, what's your number?
JUROR: 24.
THE COURT: And what physical condition do
you have.
JUROR: I've been going to a chiropractor
three teams a week for a month now and I'm scheduled
for two more months. And it's -- I got a spur on my
L-6 and arthritis in my back.
THE COURT: Okay. What's your number
again, ma ' am?
JUROR: 24.
THE COURT: And again, the sessions
generally go, we generally begin at 8, we take a
break about 10:15, we break for lunch, we resume
about 12:40, we mid-afternoon break and then break
at five .
Would your -- this back condition, would
that impair your ability to follow the case?

JUROR: No, I brought Tylenol.
THE COURT: I'm sorry? You brought
Tylenol?
Anybody else that has any physical
condition?
(No response. )
THE COURT: There also will be testimony
and actually quite a bit of evidence in this case
that are wiretaps. Where the government sought and
received court approval to wiretap certain phone
calls. There also will be evidence where the
government sought and a judge approved the placing
of a camera in certain locations.
Do any of you have feelings about that?
Okay, juror number 15.
JUROR: Yes. I think that's an invasion
of privacy.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. You think it's an
invasion of privacy?
JUROR: It's an invasion of privacy and
I'm totally against that.
JUROR: Juror number 24. Does this have
to do with the Patriot Act?
THE COURT: No. The Patriot Act deals
with basically the CIA sharing information with the

72
FBI. There is no allegation here of a national
terrorism link.
But, with that understanding, do you have
any sense, ma'am, or any feeling on the court
authorized wiretaps or court authorized surveillance
cameras?
JUROR: No.

(No response. )
THE COURT: Do any of you work
specifically with public employers, either -- you've
given us kinds of kind of a description of what your
work is. But do any of you basically have any
contracting responsibilities in your employment with
public authorities?
Okay. And we've heard from -- and your
number again, sir.
JUROR: 38.
THE COURT: You work for a public
authority but you contract with private enterprises.
JUROR: Yes.
Juror 5. Not now, but I had a small

construction business in the past where I have
worked for prior government subcontract, government
funding.
73
THE COURT: Is there a n y t h i n g about t h a t
p r i o r c o n t r a c t i n g p r o c e s s t h a t you t h i n k i s g o i n g t o
have a n i m p a c t here?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: A r e a n y of you a t t o r n e y s ?
THE COURT: Do a n y o f you have a n y
r e l a t i v e l y close f a m i l y m e m b e r s o r f r i e n d s w h o are
attorneys?
Juror number 12.
JUROR: I ' m n u m b e r 1 2 , a n d my b r o t h e r i s a
p r a c t i c i n g attorney i n Akron.
THE COURT: Is h i s n a m e T i m ?
JUROR: No, J e f f Manning.
THE COURT: A n d w h a t t y p e o f l a w does he
practice?
JUROR: A l i t t l e b i t of e v e r y t h i n g .
THE COURT: D o e s h e do c r i m i n a l d e f e n s e
work.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: D o e s ever t a l k m u c h a b o u t t h e
w o r k h e does?
JUROR: Sometimes.
THE COURT: I s h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e w o r k
he d o e s o r t h e cases h e ' s had, i s t h a t g o i n g t o have

74
a n y e f f e c t upon y o u r a b i l i t y t o f a i r l y t r y t h i s
case.
JUROR: I don't think so.
THE COURT: Okay. Who e l s e ?
J u r o r number 9 .
JUROR: Yes. I have a good f r i e n d o f
m i n e , my b e s t f r i e n d i s a n a t t o r n e y .
THE COURT: What t y p e o f work d o e s h e d o ?
JUROR: H e does r e a l e s t a t e .
THE COURT: Has h e e v e r t a l k e d a b o u t t h e
j u d i c i a l o r t r i a l e x p e r i e n c e h e ' s h a d t h a t would
i m p a i r your a b i l i t y t o f a i r l y t r y t h i s c a s e ?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Juror 8.
JUROR: Eight. My two u n c l e s a n d b r o t h e r
are attorneys.
THE COURT: What t y p e o f work d o t h e y d o ?
JUROR: My o n e u n c l e w o r k s i n C l e v e l a n d
a n d h e h a d d o n e c r i m i n a l work b e f o r e . And my o t h e r
u n c l e works i n C o n n e c t i c u t , a n d I ' m n o t s u r e , i t ' s
not criminal.
And t h e n my b r o t h e r - i n - l a w works i n Canton
currently. And i t ' s n o t g o i n g t o .
THE COURT: Did you s a y y o u r f a t h e r ?
JUROR: I t would be my f a t h e r ' s two

75
brothers and then my brother-in-law.
THE COURT: The one uncle who did criminal
work, did you ever engage in any conversation with
him about the work that would have any effect on
fairly trying this case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Anybody else here?
Okay. Juror number 16.
JUROR: My boyfriend's aunt is a judge.
THE COURT: Which court?
JUROR: I'm not sure. It's just Mary
Kessler.
THE COURT: Have you engaged in any
conversation with her about her work?

JUROR: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Juror number 17.
THE WITNESS: I've worked on several
campaigns of lawyers who were running for office.
THE COURT: Okay. Did you ever engage in
any conversation with them about the criminal
justice system that --
JUROR: Not beyond why I thought they
might make a good candidate for the office.
THE COURT: Okay.

76
Anybody else in the front row?
Okay. How about the second row?
JUROR: 35. My sister's Prosecutor of
Lucas County. My brother-in-law is a Common Pleas
Judge, Lucas County. My other brother-in-law is
U.S. Attorney in Toledo.
THE COURT: An Assistant U.S. Attorney?
JR: Yeah, sorry.
THE COURT: When is the last time you
talked to -- you said a brother-in-law is an AUSA.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: When is the last time you
talked to him?
JUROR: Saturday.
THE COURT: Did you say anything about
being summoned for a jury on this case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Did he say anything about the
case?
JUROR: He did not know. No, actually I
did ask him if it was a big case. He said he knew
nothing about it.
THE COURT: And with regard to the others
who are the judges and the prosecutor, did you
engage any conversation about their work that is

77
g o i n g t o have a n i m p a c t on y o u r a b i l i t y t o f o l l o w
t h i s case.
JUROR: I do n o t f e e l i t w o u l d i m p a c t m y
ability.
THE COURT: A n y b o d y else i n t h a t r o w ?
S i r , y o u r n u m b e r again?
JUROR: Juror 37. My w i f e and I have s o m e
f r i e n d s w h o do i n s u r a n c e o r i e n t e d l e g a l w o r k .
THE COURT: H a v e t h e y e v e r engaged i n a n y
c o n v e r s a t i o n s a b o u t cases o f t h i s t y p e t h a t w o u l d
i m p a c t you?
JUROR: No, I d o n ' t t h i n k so.
THE COURT: A n y b o d y else?
What i s y o u r n u m b e r ?
JUROR: 42.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: My n e p h e w i s a p r o s e c u t i n g
a t t o r n e y i n South D a k o t a .
THE COURT: How c l o s e t o h i m , h o w m u c h
c o n t a c t do you have w i t h h i m ?
C o u p l e t i m e s a year.
THE COURT: Is t h a t g o i n g t o i m p a c t y o u r
a b i l i t y t o f a i r l y t r y t h e case?
No, sir.

(No response.)
THE COURT: Now, one of your
responsibilities in this case will be to judge the
credibility of witnesses. There is going to be a
fair number of law enforcement witnesses who
testify. You are neither to believe their testimony
or not believe their testimony because of the
position they hold. Instead, you judge their

testimony, applying the same, same considerations
you apply to other witnesses.
Would any of you have any difficulty in
judging the testimony of law enforcement witnesses,
using the same standards that you use with other
witnesses?
(No response.)
THE COURT: What I'm really referring to
here is you judge credibility, and I'll instruct you
on this generally. But some of the things you'll
consider are whether the witness was in a position
to accurately see what they testified about.
You'll also consider whether they
accurately remember what happened.
You'll also consider whether they are
accurately describing it.
Whether they have some bias, whether they

79
have some motivation, that may or may not cause you
to, to look at their testimony more critically.
You have to do the same thing with regard
to law enforcement witnesses. So you can choose to
belief law enforcement witnesses or you can choose
to disbelieve them, but you don't do that simply
because of the position they hold.
Okay. Would anybody have any difficulty
judging the credibility of law enforcement
witnesses?
(No response.)
THE COURT: Now, have any of you been
involved in political campaigns?
Okay. Juror number?
JUROR: 17.
THE COURT: Anything other than what
you've told us?
JUROR: School Board campaigns.
THE COURT: You've been involved with any
campaigns in Cleveland?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Did you ever any have any
conversation with Mike White?
JUROR: No.

80
And ma'am, what's your number again?
JUROR: 24. I was actively involved in
Take Back Ohio in the John Kerry campaign.
THE COURT: Any involvement with local
political campaigns?
JUROR: Yeah. Campaigns in Stark County.
THE COURT: Anybody in the second row?
Ma'am, your number?
JUROR: 35. Campaigns in Lucas County,
Toledo area, for my sister and brother-in-law.
THE COURT: That was kind of a family
thing where they were running?
JUROR: Yeah.
Let me go -- ma'am, your number again --
JUROR: 12.
THE COURT: -- is 12.
JUROR: Campaigning for counsel person
Tina Maretti.
THE COURT: Anything other than that?
JUROR: No.
JUROR: 33. Mostly federal campaigns,
like the John Kerry campaign.
THE COURT: Mostly federal, John Kerry,

81
juror number 33 said.
Let me give you one more. I gave you kind
of an overall description of the case. I'm going to
give you a little bit more specific description of
the charges that may come to you.
With regard to defendant Gray, the
allegation in Count One is generally a RICO
conspiracy. I'll explain that to you. But as I
indicated before, it involved a certain enterprise
carrying on illegal activity through at least two or
more criminal activities and preceding in the early
years.
Count 2 is a Hobbs Act conspiracy. The
Hobbs Act is basically a conspiracy involving the
bribing of public officials or a conspiracy to do
SO.
Count 2 involves East Cleveland.
Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 all involve
Hobbs Act violations. And the government alleges
generally that on each of these occasions on each of
these, on various dates, that the defendant Gray
gave cash to the Mayor of East Cleveland in return
for which the Mayor of East Cleveland, the
government alleges, steered, or facilitated the
steering, of work to the defendant Gray.

82
Counts10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22 all involved honest service mail and
mail fraud allegations against defendant Gray.
These all, again, are related to the East Cleveland
matter.
Count 23, involves an allegation of a
Hobbs Act conspiracy -- I'm sorry, I believe it's
25, involves an allegation that the defendant Gray
participated in a mail and wire fraud involving
Councilman Jones.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, excuse me --
THE COURT: You don't believe that one is
still with us?
MR. WHITAKER: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm working from an old list.
MR. DETTELBACH: Counts 23 and 25 are
still before this particular jury and there were
four counts earlier that won't be presented to this
particular jury.
THE COURT: Okay. I should say that with
regard to -- I should have given also a more
complete description with regard to Councilman
Jones.
The allegation is that he worked as a city
Councilman in the City of Cleveland. The allegation

83
is that he generally solicited a five thousand
dollar interest free loan to from Mr. Gray.
Mr. Gray gave him the loan. In return for which he
would extend favorable consideration to matters that
were of interest to Mr. Gray.
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, may we come to
the --
THE COURT: No, again let me go on this is
not evidences this is.
MR. EMOFF: May I object?
THE COURT: The other allegations with
regard to him are, there were certain campaign
contributions solicited, in return for which he
stopped, obstructive tactics he had applied to
certain contractors who were appointed to do work in
the City of Cleveland.
That's the general allegation, I should
have given an explanation before.
And again, that's not evidence.
But is the nature of that charge, is that
going to have any impact upon you?
(No response.)
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anybody that
feels that given the general allegation made that
they would have difficulty fairly trying the case?

84
(No response.)
THE COURT: Again, with regard to Count 26
through 31, those alleged as against defendant Gray,
Hobbs Act violation providing various monies and/or
benefits to certain officials, either in the City of
Houston or associated with the City of Houston
officials.
Counts 32 through 40, I believe, all
involve honest service mail and wire fraud
associated with the City of Houston.
Count 41 involves an allegation of a
conspiracy in New Orleans to provide things of value
to New Orleans officials.
Count 42, 43 and 44 involve honest service
mail and wire fraud allegations with regard to the
City of New Orleans.
As to defendant Jackson, the first count
again alleges the same RICO conspiracy. Defendant
Jackson's alleged in the Hobbs Act conspiracy in
Count 26, and Hobbs Act violation with regard to
Count 2 8.
Those involve certain, that involves the
Super Bowl tickets to the public official from the
City of Houston.
He's also charged in counts 32, 33, 34,

85
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 with honest services mail and
wire fraud.
And those all involved the City of
Houston.
He's charged with a Hobbs Act conspiracy
in count 41 dealing with the City of New Orleans.
And he's charged in counts 42, 43 and 44
with honest services mail and wire fraud. And these
again all involved the City of Houston.
So that's again kind of an overview as to
what I understand the counts involved.
The case, you may have some sense of this,
I gave you a long list of potential witnesses who
may testify in this case, a fair number of them may
not testify, but there is likely to be a large
number of witnesses. It would be my expectation
that the case will take somewhere in the range of
two, maybe somewhat over two weeks to hear.
You are going to hear an awful lot of
wiretapped evidence.
Do any of you have any commitments or
obligations over that time period that is going to
impair your ability to give close attention to the
evidence. Juror number?

JUROR: Five.
86
THE COURT: Five.
JUROR: Like I stated earlier, I own and
operate a small business and it requires me there.
It's a relatively young company and I still need to
be there every day. I don't have anybody in
positions to take care of things.
THE COURT: Does your wife work there?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Could she cover when you
are --
JUROR: No. Actually what we are, we,
it's a mason contractor. I still do all the
managing, the estimating, the invoicing personally
myself. And two weeks really jeopardize, I have 16
employees accountable to me.
THE COURT: Okay. I would give caution to
you that for most of you if you are excused from
this trial you are going to be kept around today
because there is another trial that is going to
start. And I'm not sure how long that's going to
be. But I mean, it could be a significantly long
trial as well.
Anybody else on this panel?
Juror 8?
JUROR: I just wanted to mention if it

87
were to go over the two and a half weeks, I have a
family wedding to go to at the beginning of
September, so.
THE COURT: Where is that at?
JUROR: Orlando.
THE COURT: My expectation is that it will
be done long before the end of the month.
JUROR: Okay.
Juror number 15.
JUROR: Yes. I only read the yellow
sheet. I do have --
THE COURT: Just tell me, what.
JUROR: I teach, and I have two meetings
on the 15th and 16th, and then we begin school on
the Friday of that week. So I misinterpreted the
information. I thought it was only a five day.
THE COURT: What day does school actually
start?
JUROR: The 24thf I believe.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: And then I have two meetings,
school meetings that week, Monday and Tuesday.
THE COURT: Okay. So what happens when
you are sick or otherwise not able to attend class?

88
JUROR: Well, it doesn't really matter,
but this is the first day of school.
THE COURT: What grade do you teach?
JUROR: Fifth.
THE COURT: Fifth. And do they have
substitutes that can substitute for you?
JUROR: Yeah. But would you want your
child -- I'm looking at it from a teacher or parent
I would never miss the first day of school.

THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else in the
first row?
Juror number 17.
JUROR: My son is an incoming freshman at
Moorehouse College in Atlanta. He has to be there
next Tuesday and Wednesday, and Thursday is parent
orientation. I need to attend.
THE COURT: Okay. Can your husband take
him? Was your husband planning on going?
JUROR: The two of us are planning on
going.
THE COURT: Okay. If you are not
permitted to attend that because you are listening
to evidence, I mean is that, other than the
inconvenience associated with it, is that going to
have any other impact on your ability to follow the

evidence?
JUROR: Aside from the fact that I'm
self-employed and, as I mentioned earlier, the
letters of support that I received are in
conjunction with a major proposal that has to be

completed by August 29th.
THE COURT: Can you do that at night?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Anybody else in the first row?
Ma'am, your number?
JUROR: 24. As I said, I have scheduled
appointments three times a week for the next two

weeks and they close at 6:00 o'clock.
THE COURT: They close at 6:00 o'clock?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Do they have any Saturday
appointments.
JUROR: I think they do.
THE COURT: Ma'am, what's your number
again?
JUROR: 24.
THE COURT: If you are required to sit,

though, and if we give you enough Tylenol, can you
work through that condition at least through these
probably two, maybe a little bit more weeks?

90
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Anybody else in the first row?
Ma'am, your number.
JUROR: 27. I'm also a school teacher.
First day of school is August 24th, my first day at
work is A1 gust 22nd.
THE COURT: Okay. Is yours kind of the
same situation, you would like to be there the first
day?
JUROR: Right. I teach high school. It
makes a real good impression when you are there the
first day, the tone for the whole year is set, I
think that's what she was talking about.
THE COURT: I'll give you somewhat of a
counter to that as well. I'll direct all the jurors
in a bit that you are to never say anything about
this case while you are here. But when your jury
service is completed, after you've reached a
verdict, you can talk about it as much as you want.
What course do you teach for high school students?
JUROR: Math.
THE COURT: Well, the verdict will have to
be unanimous, so that won't involve a lot of math.
But again, it would be something you could talk
about with the students.

Anybody else in the first row?
(No response.)
THE COURT: How about the second row.
Ma'am, what's your number.
JUROR: 28.
THE COURT: Um-hum.
JUROR: I'm also a stool school teacher.
So it would not present a problem.
THE COURT: How about the second row,
going from right to left.
Ma'am, what's your number.
JUROR: 31.
THE COURT: Um-hum.
JUROR: I'm with --
THE COURT: She also works in school, the
school year begins the 22nd.
JUROR: I'm an office administrator, only
one in the office, so I'm responsible, actually
starting today, for anything today. School starts
August 22nd.
THE COURT: If you are required, if I

require you to sit, is that going to impair your
ability to follow the testimony?
JUROR: No, sir.
THE COURT: Okay.

Ma'am, help us with your number.
JUROR: I'm 39. I have a commitment on
the 24th that goes all day to do preschool
screening. And my school district starts the 29th.
THE COURT: You work with the school
system also?
JUROR: Yes. And they don't hire subs for
me.
THE COURT: Okay. And your appointment is
on the 29th?
JUROR: That's when the school district
starts. I have commitment to do preschool screening
ahead of that on the 24th.
THE COURT: Okay. If you are required to
sit in this case, is that going to, you know, other
than to inconvenience of rescheduling it, is it
going to affect your ability to fairly try the case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Was there any other
hands?
JUROR: I'm number 46. My daughter is
getting married Labor Day weekend and I still have a
lot of stuff to do.

93
THE COURT: Okay. Again, if you are
required to sit, would you fairly listen to the
evidence?
JUROR: Well, yeah, probably, but I would
have these things going through my head, I haven't
done this yet, I haven't done this yet. She only
gave me seven weeks to do this wedding, so.
THE COURT: And you are number 46?
JUROR: 46. I'm also a school bus driver
for East Cleveland Schools.
THE COURT: Do they have somebody else
that could substitute for you?
JUROR: They wouldn't be very happy.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anybody else?
Help us with your number.
JUROR: Juror 40. I have three kids at
home, 10, 14 and 15. And they don't go back to
school until the 30th even. And I have people that
help, not on a daily basis everybody is too busy,
and just being out of contact with them.
THE COURT: What ages are they?
JUROR: Ten, 14 and 15.
THE COURT: Again, if you are required to
sit, is that going to somehow, you know, impair your
ability to fairly try the case?

94
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anybody else?
Yes, ma'am.
JUROR: Juror number 3. As I said, I'm a
district manager for a chain of Hallmark stores.
y I'm without two managers and we are
advertising and recruiting right now and I have no
one else in the area to help me.
My home office is in Quincy, Illinois and
there is no one else to do my job.
THE COURT: Can you do some of that the
night after the day is completed?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Somewhat the same question, is
that going to impair your ability to fairly try the
case.
JUROR: No, I'll do my best.
THE COURT: All right. The real concern
is when you begin deliberations it's important, you
know, not rush to a conclusion. I mean I try to
keep the parties on track moving as quick as we can,
you know, reasonably do, and we'll try to have a
fairly longer days. So you'll hear a lot of
testimony each day and we are not going to dally
with your time.

95
So we a r e g o i n g t o t r y t o k e e p y o u i n t h e
courtroom n e a r l y a l l t h e t i m e w e can. So, w e a r e
m i n d f u l , t h o u g h , o f t h e s a c r i f i c e s you a r e m a k i n g .
L e t m e a s k t h e a t t o r n e y s t o come f o r w a r d .
conducted a t t h e s i d e b a r , o u t of t h e
h e a r i n g of t h e jury, a s follows: )
THE COURT: Do you h a v e I a n y t h i n g e l s e
you w a n t t o a s k on b e h a l f o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s .
MS. PEARSON: Yes, y o u r H o n o r . I t i s my
u n d e r s t a n d i n g , M r . Whitaker c a n s a y i f h e agrees,
t h a t y o u r w i t n e s s e s were n o t r e a d ?
MS. WHITAKER: This is t h e list.
MS. PEARSON: Here i s h i s l i s t a n d
supplemental.
MS. WHITAKER: The l i s t t h a t you h a d
wasn't f u l l .
MS. PEARSON: I d i d i n d i c a t e t h e names I
heard.
Your Honor, I h e a r d B a r b a r a D o v e ' s name
a n d a l s o h e a r d I r v i n T a y l o r ' s name.
MS. WHITAKER: They were o n t h e c o u r t ' s
previous order.
I d i d n ' t h e a r a l l t h e names g i v e n t o you
on t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r .
96
THE COURT: You have some names?
MS. PEARSON: Yes, your Honor. I think
Juror 39, I believe Miss Wester raised her hand as
to whether or not she had been involved in
campaigns. And you didn't question her individually
and she didn't remind you to do that.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MS. PEARSON: Nothing else.
MR. EMOFF: I have some requests and I
also have a motion, if I could make it very quickly.
Your Honor, in describing the loan
allegations to the jury, what you in essence did was
recite the claim of Count 24, which has been
dismissed. And so I'm asking for a mistrial on that
basis. That the factual allegations were put in
front of the jury that actually they won't hear.
THE COURT: I'll deny that.
MR. EMOFF: And with regard to questions,
your Honor, I would like to ask the questions I've
just handed to you that are typewritten.
MS. PEARSON: Do you have a copy of those
for us?
MR. EMOFF: I don't. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: I'll go -- I did cover some of
these.
97
MR. EMOFF: You did cover some of them,
your Honor.
THE COURT: They have all been -- I mean,
some are so general I don't think they are required,
so I'll not give any of them. I'll give the
friendship.
MR. CAFFERKEY: Two additional ones, prior
jury service, civil and criminal.
THE COURT: It never adds anything. I've
never had a juror excused because of some prior jury
service.
MR. CAFFERKEY: There is a difference
between civil and criminal burden.
The other thing is relatives of law
enforcement agents, including Sheriffs, please.
THE COURT: Okay.
Do you have anything?
MR. WHITAKER: Yes, I do, your Honor. I
have -- first of all, I would like to join in that
motion for a mistrial. You instructed the jury that
Mr. Gray gave a loan that he wanted something in

return for, and he's been acquitted of that count.
And to tell a jury that's what the case is, I think
is highly prejudicial, and I move for a mistrial on
that basis.
98
THE COURT: That w i l l be denied.
MR. WHITAKER: I a c t u a l l y have k i n d of a
long list, a l l off t h e list I submitted t o the
c o u r t , s t a r t i n g w i t h -- I w a n t e d , I think i t ' s
i m p o r t a n t t o s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k w h e t h e r a n y o f them
have b e e n i n v o l v e d a s a c o n s u l t a n t o r worked f o r a
consulting firm.
Then, i f t h e a n s w e r i s y e s , w h a t t y p e o f
c o n s u l t i n g work, w h e t h e r i t was p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e .
And d o t h e y know a n y b o d y t h a t h a s worked
i n t h e same k i n d o f p o s i t i o n ? And what was t h e
product being sold?
Also, I h a v e a l i s t o f q u e s t i o n s on my
l i s t f r o m 35 t o 4 2 t h a t g o t o b o t h t h e e d u c a t i o n a l
background and whether t h e r e w a s any s e r v i c e i n t h e
military.
Also, with r e g a r d t o t h e q u e s t i o n s of with
regard t o reasonable doubt, these a r e t h e following
q u e s t i o n s t h a t I t h i n k need t o be asked:
Do you u n d e r s t a n d t h a t p r o o f b e y o n d a
reasonable doubt i s t h e h i g h e s t s t a n d a r d ?
Do you u n d e r s t a n d t h a t you c a n n o t c o n v i c t
i f t h e government o n l y p r e s e n t s enough e v i d e n c e t o
make you s u s p i c i o u s , o r t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t o n l y
p r e s e n t s enough e v i d e n c e t o make you t h i n k t h a t t h e

99
individual's probably guilty?
And will they follow your instructions on
reasonable doubt?
Also, I have a series of questions about
politics.
Are you associated with a political party?
If so, which one?
Also I want the question asked:
The charge in this case involves
accusations that Mr. Gray gave public officials
things of value in exchange for certain gifts. Do
you understand in certain situations the gifts or
money payments are not a crime?
Do you understand that the court will
instruct you on what the government needs to prove
before you can convict someone of giving something
of value to a public official?
Do you have any opinions about the world
campaign contributions playing politics in
Washington, D.C.? What are the opinions? Can you
put them aside?
Do you think certain acts in dealing with
political contributions ought to be a crime, even
though the court may instruct you that is not a
crime? Will you follow those instructions?

100
Also, are you familiar with news stories
about any politicians receiving things of value to
produce a specific result? If so, describe them.
Can you set aside any opinions you might have?
Are you familiar with the fact that former
public officials and other people act as consultants
and lobbyist for corporations?
Do you realize these are legal and
legitimate professions?
Do any of you hold opinions that you think
they ought to be illegal? And if so, can you put it
aside?
Then I have a series of questions that
will tell us a little more about their background:
Whether you consider yourself a liberal,
conservative, or moderate?
What magazines, books, and other
publications do you read?
This goes by the issue and supported by
case law on the issue of publicity.
What television shows do you watch?
What source do you get your news;
television, radio or print?
What television source do you listen to?
What newspaper, magazines do you read?

101
Have you ever been involved in political
fund raising campaign?
Have you ever contributed to a political
campaign?
Have you ever contributed to a political
campaign for business reasons?
And then moving on, particularly in light
of your reading of the indictment, I think that
there has been no questions about whether they also
understand the indictment is just an accusation.
And just because somebody has been indicted doesn't
mean they have done anything wrong.
THE COURT: I asked that specific
question.
MS. PEARSON: You also advised that
preliminary indictments are not evidence.
MR. WHITAKER: I didn't think so.
THE COURT: The record will reflect what
was said.
MR. WHITAKER: Having read the indictment
after that, I think it's important to ask them if

they understand the indictment does not imply guilt
in any way.
The last thing is whether there is
anything that you think the court or attorneys might

102
want t o know a b o u t you t h a t m i g h t i m p a c t on y o u r
a b i l i t y t o s i t on a j u r y ?
Is t h e r e a n y t h i n g t h a t g i v e s you c o n c e r n
a b o u t w h e t h e r you c o u l d s i t f a i r l y ?
And t h e n two o t h e r s :
The c o u r t w i l l t e l l you n o t t o r e a d
accounts of t h i s case, o r l i s t e n t o any. W i l l you
have any d i f f i c u l t y f o l l o w i n g t h a t ?
And a l s o t h e c o u r t w i l l t e l l you n o t t o
d i s c u s s t h i s c a s e w i t h anybody, i n c l u d i n g y o u r
spouses. Can you a g r e e w i t h t h a t o r c a n you f o l l o w
t h a t a s well?
THE COURT: Is t h e r e a n y t h i n g ?
MR. JENKINS: J u s t t h e same q u e s t i o n ,
r e a l l y , y o u r Honor. Does t h e j u r y e x p e c t t h e
d e f e n d a n t s t o p u t on a n y e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e t h e i r
innocence? That's it.
And t h e o n l y o t h e r t h i n g I h a v e , y o u r
Honor, i s I j u s t n o t e a n o b j e c t i o n , t o protect the
r e c o r d on b e h a l f o f M r . J a c k s o n , b a s e d upon t h e f a c t
the court instructing the jury or voir diring the
j u r y a n d t e l l i n g them a b o u t t h e w i r e t a p s , a n d i t was
c o u r t a u t h o r i z e d a n d j u d g e a p p r o v e d , w h i c h may l e a d
them t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s c o u r t a p p r o v e d them, o r
g i v e them a n i n t e r e s t t o t h i n k t h a t i t was c o r r e c t .
103
And based on that, I'll lodge an
objection.
THE COURT: I'll overrule it, as to the
motion.
I think I have some things you requested

that I won't ask for those reasons.
MR. WHITAKER: Is there any time in the
near future we'll take a morning break to use the
bathroom?
THE COURT: Not until we finish this.
THE COURT: I'm going to ask some
additional questions.
I'm going to go through just a list of
some additional names. Give attention to these
people. Some may be called, some may not be called.
Will you tell me if you know any of these:
Tina Dudley, Denise McCray, Cassandra
Robinson, Malachi Jackson, Charles Brown, Tony
Dixon, George Edwards.
Do any of you know any of those names?
Do any of you work as a lobbyist on behalf
of corporations seeking business from public
entities?
104
Are a n y o f you c h a r g e d w i t h e i t h e r
e n t e r t a i n i n g o r a c t i n g a s t h e g o b e t w e e n some
b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s and c o n t r a c t i n g a g e n c i e s ? You
know, w h e r e i n you h a v e c o n t a c t w i t h l e g i s l a t o r s a n d
you a r e b a s i c a l l y s o l i c i t i n g t h e i r s u p p o r t f o r y o u r
contracts? Any o f you?
Okay, t h a t ' s t h e same t h i n g .
And j u r o r 1 7 . W h a t ' s t h a t , you a r e t r y i n g
t o g e t c o n t r a c t s from p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s ?
JUROR: I ' m not trying t o get contracts,
I ' m j u s t simply t r y i n g t o e l i c i t t h e i r s u p p o r t f o r
legislation.
THE COURT: Okay. Does t h a t i n v o l v e
entertaining?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: I mean, h a v e you e v e r t a k e n
p e o p l e t o I n d i a n s games?
JUROR: Never.
THE COURT: Browns games? Things of t h a t
nature?
JUROR: No, t h a t would n o t b e a p p r o p r i a t e .
THE COURT: Dinners?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Anybody e l s e ?
I ' m going t o restrict your a b i l i t y t o t a l k

105
about this case during the, you know, during the
trial. Would any of you have any trouble following
that instruction?
In this case -- I think I covered this but
I'll repeat it -- the defendants have no obligation
to prove anything. They have no -- the burden of
proof always remains with the government. The
burden of production is also with the government.
So the government has to both come forward with
evidence and also at the end of the day convince you
through that evidence of the defendant's guilt.
Do any of you have a problem with that?
(No response.)
THE COURT: And as I, again as I related
earlier, do any you have a problem finding somebody
guilty if the evidence is sufficient to support the
conviction by the proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
(No response. )
THE COURT: Okay. Let me go back to just
a couple other matters and then we may take a
recess. There has been some request from some of
you.
The division of responsibility runs the
way I earlier said. In criminal cases the
legislature basically comes up with what the

106
criminal offenses are. So Congress makes their
decisions as to what criminal statutes should be,
and what the offenses are.
The judges are then charged with
interpreting that and instructing the jury.
Now, you are free to disagree with the
laws that Congress has enacted. And you are free to

go to Congress and ask they be changed. But if you
are seated as a juror on this case, you have to
follow my instructions on what the law is, and
fairly apply that law to the facts as you find the
facts to be.
Do any of you believe that you will not
follow the law that I instruct you on?
(No response.)
THE COURT: All right. Let me ask an
open-ended concluding question.

I've asked a fair number of questions,
actually quite a few questions, but I haven't
potentially covered everything that could be of

influence to you.
I am trying to sit as fair and impartial
jury as we can. I need to know from each of you if
any of you can think of something that I've not
asked about, or which your responses have not

107
completely covered, which may affect your ability to
sit fairly in this case, and fairly call the case,
to be fair to the defendant and to be fair to the
government?
Is there anything in your life
experiences, in your friendships, your associations
or in your beliefs that is going to affect your
ability to fairly decide this case?
Is there anything that I've not touched
upon?
And ma'am, what's your number?
JUROR: 39.
THE COURT: What is it?
JUROR: I just have a question, and I
don't know if this is appropriate. The witnesses
that have come under the jurisdiction of plea
bargain, will we know that up front?
THE COURT: You'll get that in the
questioning, I suspect. And it's, you are going to
be asked to judge every witness's credibility.
That's something that's left to your discretion.
You can choose to believe some of those witness's
testimony, all of those witness's testimony, none of
those witnesses's testimony. And that's a factor
you could consider in determining that.

108
Let me put it in this sense. Is there an1
of you that believe the fact that a witness is
testifying after having pled guilty, that just
simply the fact they pled guilty would impair your
ability or would cause you to believe everything
they testified to?
So if somebody pleads guilty, is there an>
of you that would necessarily believe everything
they testify to?
Okay, juror 15.
JUROR: So you are saying if they plea
bargain and they pleaded guilty and they are a
witness, am I going to believe them? Probably not.
THE COURT: Okay The question really
wasn't that.
JUROR: Oh.
THE COURT: The question was, see, you are
to judge witness's credibility based upon all their
testimony. You would be permitted to consider the
fact that some of them had plea bargained, you can
consider that. But, are you in a position where, if
a witness has entered a plea agreement, and the
witness comes in and gives testimony, that
everything makes sense, everything collaborates with
all the circumstantial evidence in the background,

109
everything seems believable, are you in a position
where, simply because there was a plea agreement,
you are going to say, I won't believe that
testimony?
JUROR: I would have trouble believing it.

THE COURT: Even if everything else would
have otherwise been believable?
JUROR: I would have to hear the
situation.
THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else have a
response other than these two?
(No response. )
THE COURT: Okay. Let me just ask the
jury, in terms of a break, do you need a break in
less than five minutes? Anybody?
(No response.)
THE COURT: So raise your hand if you
can't go five minutes?
Okay, I would ask the attorneys to quickly
approach.
THE COURT: Does the government have any
challenges for cause?

110
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, can't we take a
few minutes to consult between the three of us?
THE COURT: Each of them, certainly, on
peremptories. When we go to striking you can
consult on each one, huddle on each one.
But do you have any challenges for cause?
MS. PEARSON: Yes, your Honor, I do.
Initially, your Honor, juror number 17. She's the
one who has admitted having direct contact with
Councilman Jones.
THE COURT: Do you object?
MR. JENKINS: Yes, your Honor.
MR. EMOFF: She's repeated over and over
again that she can be fair, and the contact is
relatively limited.
THE COURT: I'll deny that request for
cause.
MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, if I may be
heard.
THE COURT: I'm familiar with what she
said. I think she is problematic, and if you want
to use a peremptory. I don't think she's given much
testimony such that she could not apply the court's
instructions fairly and follow the law.
Do you have any others?

MS. PEARSON: Yes, also juror 38. He's
employed by East Cleveland.
MR. JENKINS: I would join in that.
MR. EMOFF: I would object, for the record
on the --
THE COURT: Do you have any objection?
MR. WHITAKER: I have no objection to
that.
THE COURT: I'll excuse 38. I think he's
given testimony that would evidence an association.
Do you have any others?
MS. PEARSON: Juror 15, who spoke last.
Not only the wiretaps but also plea agreements.
THE COURT: Do you have any objection to
her?
MR. EMOFF: I do. For her being excused
for cause, I do.
MR. JENKINS: I do, too.
MR. WHITAKER: And the last question she
said, I would have to listen to the testimony and
judge it after listening to it.
THE COURT: She's very close as well.
MR. EMOFF: In essence -- I beg your
pardon, your Honor. In essence, what she said,
she'd keep an open mind. She doesn't know how she

112
would react.
MS. PEARSON: And, your Honor, that was
specifically regarding plea agreements. She had
strong prejudice against them.
Regarding wiretaps, she thought they were
an evasion of privacy. There was no equivocation
there.
MR. WHITAKER: She didn't say that on her
deliberations --
THE COURT: I think she did. I'll excuse
her for cause. Observing her demeanor, she was
jumping out of her seat. It seemed to me she was
also overreaching, in terms of trying to get
excused, in terms of scheduling for the position
she's in, and also for the wiretaps. Just observing
her, I think she's going to have trouble fairly
judging them, so I'll excuse 15 for cause.
Do you have any other ones?
MS. PEARSON: Last juror is number 5, the
person who has a construction business. He's
indicated two weeks would put his business in dire
straights.
THE COURT: Any objection to that?
MR. EMOFF: No.
MR. JENKINS: No, judge.

113
MR. WHITAKER: No.
THE COURT: I'll excuse juror 5 as well,
without objection.
Do you have any challenges?
MR. EMOFF: I do, your Honor. Number 35.
She is the lady who's whole family are prosecutors
and judges. And I think once she gets into this
case, it's just simply going to be --
MS. PEARSON: She said she didn't speak
with her AUSA relative, he didn't speak to her about
this case.
THE COURT: I'll deny that. She said he
knew nothing about it.
MR. EMOFF: May I say, your Honor, it
creates too much of a burden for her. She hasn't
had this experience before, and I just don't know
how she can be completely fair.
THE COURT: I don't think that's a
standard in a challenge for cause. She didn't have
testimony that she couldn't be.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, could I say
something?
Based on the other investigations going on
in this case, to have a juror -- did she say she had

114
a relative, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Cleveland
office?
MS. PEARSON: No, Toledo.
MR. JENKINS: All right.
MR. EMOFF: But that's no --
THE COURT: I'll note your objection, but
overrule it.
MR. WHITAKER: I would like to join in
that challenge for cause. I think somebody having a
relative --
THE COURT: I'll note your objection.
Any others?
MR. EMOFF: Not for cause, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have any additional
ones?
MR. WHITAKER: No.
THE COURT: Do you have any?
MR. JENKINS: No.
MR. CAFFERKEY: Judge, a question on
relatives, relatives or friends, family members who
are law enforcement agents. You don't want to ask
that question?
THE COURT: No.

115
THE COURT: We are going to excuse juror
number 5, juror number 15, and juror number 38. So
each of you, there is another trial that's going on,
so you'll need to report to the jury commissioner
who are assembling jurors for that.

So you'll each be excused from this case.
And I'll ask juror number 16 to come
forward and take the place that's going to be
vacated by juror number 5. So if you'll come
forward and take that place, the others will be
excused.
Does the government have a peremptory
challenge?
Ma'am, if you'll take that seat.
MS. PEARSON: Thank you, your Honor.
We would like to thank and excuse juror
number 17.
THE COURT: Well, juror number 17 isn't in
the box. Where is -- who is juror 17?
Do you have any challenges to the 12?
MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, you are asking
us to restrict our peremptories to the box?
THE COURT: Right.
MS. PEARSON: One moment, please.
Your Honor, we would like to thank and ask

116
you t o excuse j u r o r number 3 .
THE COURT: J u r o r number 3, you w i l l be
excused, ma'am, from s e r v i c e on t h i s c a s e . Check i n
on t h e o t h e r c a s e and t h e y w i l l l e t you know i f you
w i l l be s e a t e d on t h a t c a s e .
And I ' l l a s k j u r o r number 1 7 t o come
forward and t a k e t h e s e a t t h a t ' s been v a c a t e d .
And I ' l l ask t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o concur
among themselves with r e g a r d t o t h e e x e r c i s e of
t h e i r peremptories.
MR. WHITAKER: We a r e n o t going t o t a k e a
break now, your Honor?
THE COURT: No.
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we would l i k e
t o thank and excuse j u r o r number 9 .
THE COURT: J u r o r number 9 , you a r e
excused from t h i s c a s e . And a g a i n check on t h e
other case.
And I ' l l ask j u r o r number 1 8 t o come
forward.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, can we approach
f o r a second?
THE COURT: For what?
MR. WHITAKER: I'm going t o make a
request.
hearing of the jury, as follows:)
MR. CAFFERKEY: Judge, before we begin,
did you say 19?
THE COURT: 18.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I'm asking for
permission for us to have some time to consult out
of the presence of the jury. I think it's unseemly,
I think it creates a bad impression.
MR. EMOFF: Us also, your Honor.
THE COURT: The government's consulting;
they see the government consulting in the same
fashion.
MR. EMOFF: Also, your Honor, a couple of
us need to use the restroom.
THE COURT: So do some of the jurors. We
are going to try to get through this.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, if they elect to cut
juror number 17, would we be permitted to do a
Batson challenge or wait until the jury is gone?
THE COURT: We'll wait.
MR. JENKINS: Yes, sir.

118
THE COURT: Does the defense have a second
peremptory?
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we would like
to thank and excuse juror number 11.
THE COURT: Juror 11, you will be excused.
Thank you for the time with us.
And I'll ask juror 19 to come forward.
Does the government have a second
peremptory?
MS. PEARSON: Yes, your Honor, we would
like to thank and excuse juror number 17.
MR. EMOFF: May we come to the well, your

Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor. On behalf of
Mr. Jones, we would like to raise a Batson issue.
And let the record reflect that out of the entire
jury venire, this is the only African American
juror. The Government has elected to excuse her
from the panel. All of the defendants are African
American. We believe that all of the -- or at least
I believe that all of the answers that she gave to

119
all of the questions were perfectly legitimate and
she would be a fair and impartial juror, and there
can be no race neutral reason for this peremptory
challenge.
THE COURT: Her response was, what's the
government's reason --
MS. PEARSON: This juror 17 is the only
person on the venire who admitted not only knowing
the defendant, but having a number of interactions
or telephone calls where she solicited contracts in
her solely owned business, but she also knows
several of the government's witnesses. And her
mother lives in the city where the mayor, who is a
government witness, was mayor. And she had some
concerns herself and feelings about the guilt of
Mayor Onunwor.
MR. JENKINS: One of the statements shows
she was neutral. When the court asked her about
tickets to the Indians game, she said that would not
be appropriate. She's not showing any bias to the
defendants because she said that was not
appropriate.
MS. PEARSON: I was just going to add,
she's also one of the persons with conflict
problems, in that she wants to take her son to

120
Moorehouse College for orientation during the second
week of trial. And that would probably be a
hardship for her, and she would not be permitted to
do that.
MR. JENKINS: The court asked her
specifically about that and she said, I could do it.
MR. WHITAKER: At this time also, your
Honor, I would like to challenge the venire. I

think it's an unconstitutional divergence. There is
absolutely no diversity whatsoever.
THE COURT: Do you have any other
evidence? Is there any evidence that you have to
show its appropriateness.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I don't have
any evidence of that now. I can only talk about the
effect, and I certainly would like the opportunity
to investigate whether it was inappropriate, the
effect. We can see the effect, and it leaves me --
not only raises the challenge, but to investigate
and supports it further.
THE COURT: And I'll deny that. I'll deny
the Batson challenge.
This witness has exhibited a number of
statements that would support dismissal. And the
government moves to strike her. And given the

121
origin of her responses, also the discussions that
her mother lives in East Cleveland, and general
expression of the sentiment, she didn't feel the
conviction of Onunwor had been appropriate.
While I thought it was a close question as
to whether she should be stricken for cause, I think
it's more than sufficient grounds for the government
to challenge her on the peremptory.
So I'll deny the defendant's motion.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, may I say something
along those lines? When she said about the Onunwor
thing, she thought it was a bad thing for the city
that this happened to him, not so much as a bad
thing for him.
THE COURT: She did say that, but she also
said she felt bad.
MR. JENKINS: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Juror number 17, you are going
to be excused.
I'm going to ask juror 20 come forward and
replace juror number 17.
Does the defense have a third peremptory?

MR. EMOFF: One moment, your Honor,
122
please.
MR. J E N K I N S : Your Honor, we t h a n k a n d
e x c u s e j u r o r number 2, p l e a s e .
THE COURT: J u r o r number 2 , w e a r e g o i n g
t o e x c u s e you f r o m s e r v i c e on t h i s c a s e . Please
report downstairs.
And I ' l l a s k j u r o r 2 1 t o come f o r w a r d .
A c t u a l l y r e p o r t on t h i s f l o o r , I guess.
Does t h e d e f e n s e h a v e a f o u r t h p e r e m p t o r y ?
MR. EMOFF: Excuse u s , y o u r Honor.
MR. CAFFERKEY: Was t h e l a s t j u r o r u p
j u r o r number 30?
THE COURT: L a s t , j u r o r I t h o u g h t was 2 1 .
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, w e t h a n k a n d
excuse j u r o r 1 4 , please.
THE COURT: Juror number 1 4 . You w i l l be
e x c u s e d f r o m s e r v i c e on t h i s c a s e . With o u r thanks
f o r t h e t i m e a n d o u r r e q u e s t t h a t you r e p o r t
downstairs. O r I t h i n k i t ' s a c t u a l l y on t h i s f l o o r .
And I ' l l a s k t h a t j u r o r number 2 2 come
forward.
Does t h e Government h a v e a t h i r d
peremptory?
MS. PEARSON: Yes, y o u r Honor, w e w o u l d
l i k e t o t h a n k a n d e x c u s e j u r o r number 8 .
123
THE COURT: Juror number 8, you'll be
excused, ma'am, from service on this case.
Check in next door, but thank you for the
time with us.
And would juror 23 come forward.
Does the defense have a fifth peremptory?
MR. EMOFF: One moment, your Honor.
JUROR: May we have a break to use the
restroom?
THE COURT: Can you wait a couple minutes?
This is all going to conclude within four or five
minutes, I think.
Let me just ask, do any of the parties
object if that juror goes to the restroom?
MR. JENKINS: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: We are not going to ask any
questions while she's gone.
Go ahead, ma'am, but quickly.
While they are talking, I'll tell a story
where we have a complaint that power is causing cows
not to give as much milk, power lines. And one of
the witnesses was the wife of the dairy farm and she
was asked how did you know they were getting stray
voltages of electricity? She remarked, the cows
shifted like little boys that had to go to the

124
bathroom.
MR. WHITAKER: W e thank and excuse juror
number 1 9 , y o u r Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Juror 19. Thank y o u .
Would j u r o r 24 come f o r w a r d .
Does t h e d e f e n s e h a v e a s i x t h p e r e m p t o r y .
MR. EMOFF: I f w e c o u l d h a v e o n e moment,
y o u r Honor.
THE COURT: L e t m e j u s t make s u r e . Did
you t a l k t o a n y b o d y a b o u t t h i s c a s e ?
JUROR: No, s i r . I j u s t t o o k c a r e o f what
I had t o do.
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, w e w o u l d l i k e t o
thank and excuse j u r o r 23. Thank y o u .
THE COURT: J u r o r 23, you a r e e x c u s e d .
Check i n on t h e o t h e r c a s e .
And would j u r o r 25 come f o r w a r d .
Does t h e g o v e r n m e n t h a v e a f o u r t h
peremptory?
MS. PEARSON: Yes, y o u r Honor, w e would
l i k e t o t h a n k a n d e x c u s e j u r o r number 2 4 .
THE COURT: J u r o r 2 4 , t h a n k y o u , ma'am,
f o r t h e t i m e with us.
J u r o r 25, i f y o u ' l l t a k e a s e a t .
T h a n k s , ma ' am.
125
And would j u r o r 2 6 come f o r w a r d . I'm
s o r r y , ma'am, you've been excused, y o u ' l l need t o
r e p o r t t o t h e j u r y commission f o r t h e o t h e r t r i a l .
Does t h e d e f e n s e h a v e a s e v e n t h
peremptory?
MR. EMOFF: One moment, y o u r Honor.
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, w e t h a n k a n d
e x c u s e number 25, p l e a s e .
THE COURT: J u r o r number 2 5 , you w i l l b e
e x c u s e d from s e r v i c e and w i t h o u r t h a n k s . Check i n
a g a i n on t h e o t h e r t r i a l .
And I ' l l a s k j u r o r 2 7 t o come f o r w a r d .
Does t h e d e f e n s e h a v e a n e i g h t h
peremptory?
MR. CAFFERKEY: Your Honor, we w o u l d l i k e
t o t h a n k a n d e x c u s e j u r o r number 2 1 .
THE COURT: I ' m s o r r y , j u r o r 20 --
MR. CAFFERKEY: 21.
THE COURT: J u r o r 21, t h a n k s f o r t h e t i m e ,
and check i n .
And I ' l l a s k j u r o r number 2 8 t o come
forward.
Does t h e Government h a v e a f i f t h
peremptory?
MS. PEARSON: Yes, y o u r Honor, w e would

126
like to thank and excuse juror or number 12.
THE COURT: Juror number 12, thanks,
ma'am, for the time with us.
Does the defense have a ninth peremptory
challenge?
THE COURT: Juror 28, thanks for the time,
and check in.
And juror 30, if you'll come forward.
Does the Government have a final
peremptory?
MS. PEARSON: Yes, your Honor, one moment,
please.
Your Honor, no more peremptories. At this
time, we are well satisfied with the panel.
THE COURT: The government waives its
final peremptory.
Does the defense have a final peremptory?
MR. CAFFERKEY: Do we have just one?
THE COURT: Just one, I believe.
THE COURT: Juror number 30, you will be

excused from service on this case.
And I'll ask that juror number 31 come
forward.
And we've now seated a jury. I'll ask
juror number 33 and 34 to come forward and take the
seats at the end where juror number 33, you'll be in
a position of first alternate. Juror number 34 will
be in the position of second alternate.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, can we approach
for one second?
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, we would like to
request additional peremptory challenges, there are
additional peremptories that we would like to
exercise.
We believe that we had this discussion in
the other trial, but we believe that we are entitled
to 30 peremptory challenges rather than 10, and so
we would like to request at least five or six
additional for purposes of this trial.
MS. WHITAKER: If I may just add, your
Honor, it's in the sound discretion of the rules for

128
you to grant, if not 30, an additional 5 we would
find appropriate in that there was disagreement
amongst attorneys between defence attorneys as to
which peremptories to use.
THE COURT: I'll deny it. I think it's in
my discretion. There is no reason to depart. You
may have an opinion as who is better, who is worse,
but I think it is because of a divergence of
interest, I think it's just different perceptions,
so I'll deny.
I'm going to seat three alternates. So
you'll each get two peremptories challenges to the
alternates.
MR. CAFFERKEY: Two peremptories per side?
THE COURT: Per side.
THE COURT: I'm going to ask juror number
35 to come forward as well. You are going to be in
position of third alternate.
We'll get her a chair. Do we have an
extra chair. Come over here.
Actually, ma'am, could you come over to
this location. Put it right here by the first
chair.
129
Does t h e g o v e r n m e n t h a v e a p e r e m p t o r y
c h a l l e n g e a s t o any of t h e t h r e e peremptory -- o r
t h r e e j u r o r s t h a t have been s e a t e d a s a l t e r n a t e s .
MS. PEARSON: Yes, y o u r Honor, we would
l i k e t o t h a n k a n d e x c u s e a l t e r n a t e number 3 3 .
THE COURT: Okay. J u r o r 33 w i l l be
e x c u s e d f r o m s e r v i c e on t h i s case.
And I ' l l a s k j u r o r number 36 t o come
forward.
Does t h e d e f e n s e h a v e a p e r e m p t o r y
c h a l l e n g e t o any o f t h e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r s ?
MR. EMOFF: G i v e u s o n e moment, y o u r
Honor.
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we w o u l d l i k e
t o t h a n k a n d e x c u s e j u r o r number 3 5 .
THE COURT: J u r o r 35, you w i l l b e e x c u s e d
from s e r v i c e a s an a l t e r n a t e .
And I ' l l a s k j u r o r 37 t o come f o r w a r d .
Does t h e Government h a v e a f i n a l
peremptory a s t o t h e a l t e r n a t e ?
MS. PEARSON: Thank you, y o u r Honor. The
Government would l i k e t o t h a n k a n d e x c u s e j u r o r
a l t e r n a t e number 3 6 .
THE COURT: And I ' l l a s k j u r o r 39 t o come
forward.
130
Does the defense have a final peremptory
as to the alternate?
THE COURT: Juror 37 will be excused.
We have seated a jury. I want to thank
those of you who have been with us but not called
forward for the time you've been with us, but it
won't be necessary for you to serve on this
particular case.
Please, again, report to the jury
commissioner and they will deal with you with regard
to other cases.
So at this point in time I would ask the
jury that's been selected to stand so as to be
sworn.
(At this point in the proceedings the jury
was sworn. )
THE COURT: If you'll take a seat. Let me
give you some preliminary instructions in a minute,
but we'll take a recess now.
Let me caution you throughout this trial
you are never to talk with anyone about the case.
So that means you can't talk with family members,

131
friends, relatives, you absolutely can't talk among
yourself about the case.
After the case has been submitted to you
we expect and ask that you deliberate by discussing
the case with others, but we require that you not
engage in any conversation at all about the case
until that time.
No one is to talk about the case with you,
no one is to talk about the case in your presence.
If anyone should ever attempt to talk about the case
with you, you are required to report it immediately
to the deputy.
If anybody talks about the case in your
presence, you are to report it immediately to the
deputy.
You are not to read anything about this,
you are not to listen to any news reports about
this. Stay away from the case outside.
You are not to do any private
investigation. You are not to do any research on
your own about the case. All the evidence will come
to you in this trial, and that is what you are
required to rely upon.
Now I'll repeat these instructions, or the
majority of them, at each recess. If any are

132
overlooked they all remain binding throughout the
trial.
One more, in concluding caution to you
before we recess.
There is also an absolute requirement that
you not engage in any conversation about anything
with any of the participants. So you are not
allowed to talk about anything with an attorney,
with a party, with a defendant, with a government
prosecutor, with an FBI agent. You are to stay away
from conversation with any of the participants.
And I'm likely you can appreciate the
reasons for this. If you are seen in the hallway
outside and you are talking about the weather with
one of the participants, if you are in a position
it's immediately the inference is drawn that you are
talking about the case. So to avoid that, I want
you to stay completely away from any of these
participants. No conversations with them about
anything. Okay?
We'll recess. It's 20 after 11:00, we'll
recess until about 25 'ti1 noon.
Actually, let me ask the attorneys to
approach once.

133
h e a r i n g of t h e jury, as follows:)
THE COURT: W e l l --
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, I ' l l b e a b o u t 20,
25 m i n u t e s . B u t i s t h e r e a n o t h e r podium o r c a n t h a t
podium b e t u r n e d ? I l i k e t o u s e t h e podium.
THE COURT: You c a n u s e t h a t o n e , j u s t
t u r n it. Be c a r e f u l with t h e monitor.
MR. EMOFF: I t s e e m s t o be p l u g g e d i n t o
something t h e r e .
c o n d u c t e d i n open c o u r t . )
THE COURT: W e ' l l t a k e again, 25 minutes
t i . So w e ' l l s t a n d i n r e c e s s . The j u r y room i s
directly across the hall.
(The j u r y w i t h d r e w f r o m t h e c o u r t r o o m
a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e e d i n g s were
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, a t t h i s t i m e I
want t o o b j e c t t o t h e s e q u e s t e r i n g o f t h e j u r y f o r
lunches.
THE COURT: What i s y o u r r e a s o n ?
MR. WHITAKER: Well, I t h i n k t h e r e n e e d s
t o be a s h o w i n g o f some c a u s e t o p u t t h e j u r y u n d e r
any r e s t r i c t i o n of any kind. For example,

134
especially sequestration, I haven't had a chance to
research the law. I don't think they should be
sequestered for lunch. Jury service is difficult
enough. I don't think it should be made more
difficult.
THE COURT: Just so we are clear. I think
you had the same communication with my deputy. The
reason for the lunch is the eating facility has been
closed in the courthouse.
MR. WHITAKER: Is it closed now?
THE COURT: It's closed. So the
sequestration was to allow the food to be brought
into the jurors. And we have no other way of doing
it.
MR. WHITAKER: It's going to be a problem
for us.
THE COURT: And so, the sequestration. So
that the motivation was to largely have time so that
they are not out traipsing around downtown Akron
trying to find a place to eat.
MR. EMOFF: May I? Do you intend to do
all the opening statements when we come back, or are
we going to take a luncheon break?
THE COURT: I'm not sure.
MR. EMOFF: If the Government is going to

take an hour, thought he said an hour. It's going
to take us pretty far along.
THE COURT: We'll probably break after the
Government's, but --
(Luncheon recess.)
MONDAY AFTERNOON SESSION, AUGUST 8, 2005
THE COURT: Would the jury take their
seats.
Members of the jury, you've been sworn in.
I will now give you some preliminary instructions to
guide you in your participation in the trial of this
case. I would remind you that some of the
instructions will be given now, some will be given
at the end of the case. You are to take the
instructions as a whole, you are not to single out
any particular instruction and place undue
importance to any one instruction. Consider them as
a whole and consider them in relation to each other.

It will be your duty to find the evidence
from what the facts are. You and you alone will be
the judges of the facts. You will then have to
apply the facts to the law as the court will give it
to you. You must follow that law whether you agree
with it or not.
Nothing the court may say or do during the
course of the trial is intended to indicate or
should be taken by you as indicating what your
verdict should be.
The evidence from which you will find the
facts will consist of the testimony of the

137
witnesses, documents and other things received into
the record as exhibits, and any facts that the
lawyers agree to or stipulate to, or that the court
may find -- instruct you to find.
Certain things are not evidence and must
not be considered by you. I will list them now for
you.
Statements, arguments, and questions by
the lawyers are not evidence. Questions give
context to the answer, but questions themselves are
not evidence.
Objections to questions are not evidence.
Lawyers have an obligation to their clients to make
objections when they believe the evidence being
offered is improper under the rules of evidence.
You should not be influenced by the objection or by
the court's ruling on it. If the objection is
sustained, ignore the question. If it is overruled,
treat the answer like any other.
If you are instructed that some item of
evidence is received for a limited purposes only,
you must follow that instruction.
If a question is asked and an answer is

given and then I grant a motion to strike out the
question and answer, you are to completely disregard

138
b o t h t h e q u e s t i o n and answer. You a r e n o t t o
c o n s i d e r it f o r any purpose.
Testimony t h a t t h e c o u r t h a s e x c l u d e d o r
t o l d you t o d i s r e g a r d i s n o t e v i d e n c e a n d m u s t n o t
be considered.
Anything t h a t you've s e e n o r h e a r d o u t s i d e
t h e c o u r t r o o m i s n o t e v i d e n c e a n d m u s t be
disregarded. You a r e t o d e c i d e t h e c a s e s o l e l y on
t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n t h e courtroom.
T h e r e a r e two k i n d s o f e v i d e n c e , d i r e c t
and circumstantial. Direct evidence i s d i r e c t proof
of f a c t , such a s t h e testimony of an eyewitness.
C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s p r o o f o f f a c t s from which
you may i n f e r o r c o n c l u d e t h a t o t h e r f a c t s e x i s t .
I w i l l g i v e you f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s on
these a s w e l l a s other matters a t t h e end of t h e
case. B u t I would e m p h a s i z e f o r you h e r e , t h e r e i s
no -- b o t h a r e t o b e c o n s i d e r e d , b o t h c i r c u m s t a n t i a l
evidence and d i r e c t evidence. And t h e l a w d o e s n o t
b e l i e v e t h a t a n y o n e i s n e c e s s a r i l y more p e r s u a s i v e
than others.
Examples t h a t a r e t y p i c a l l y g i v e n of t h a t
i s t h a t you h a d somebody came i n a n d s a i d t h a t I saw
J o h n n y e a t t h e c a k e t h a t was i n t h e r e f r i g e r a t o r .
T h a t would be d i r e c t e v i d e n c e t h a t J o h n n y h a d e a t
139
the cake. If on the other hand you had somebody
came in and testified that I looked in the
refrigerator, the cake was you know, complete. I
left the room. Johnny was in the room. I came
back. Johnny had chocolate all over his face and
crumbs dripping down the side of his mouth. Now
that would be circumstantial evidence from which you
could infer that Johnny had eaten the case.
But again, both circumstantial evidence
and direct evidence are to be considered by you.
And the law does not say that one is any better
evidence than the other.
And as you know, this is a criminal trial,
there are three basic rules about a criminal case
that you must keep in mind.
First, each of the defendants are presumed
innocent until proven guilty. The indictment
against the defendant brought by the government is
only an accusation, nothing more. It is not proof
of guilt or anything else. The defendants therefore
start out with a clean slate.
Second, the burden of proof is on the
government until the very end of the case. The
defendants have no burden to prove his innocence or
to present any evidence or to testify. Since the

140
defendant has the right to remain silent, the law
prohibits you from arriving at your verdict by
c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t a d e f e n d a n t may o r may n o t t e s t i f y .
Third, the government must prove the
defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I will
give you further instructions on this point later,
but bear in mind that in this respect a criminal
case is different than a civil case. I'll instruct
you and you will follow my instructions on what it
means to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now a few words about your conduct as
jurors.
I repeat that during the trial you are not
to discuss the case with anyone, or permit anyone to
discuss it with you. Until you retire to the jury
room at the end of the case to deliberate on your
verdict you simply are not to talk about this case.
Second, do not read or listen to anything
touching on this case in any way. If anyone should
try to talk to you about it, bring it to the court's
attention promptly, immediately.
Third, do not try to do any research or
make any investigation about the case on your own.
Finally, do not inform any opinion until
all the evidence is in. Keep your mind open until

141
you start your deliberations at the end of the case.
Now, in this case I'm going to let you
take notes; and to facilitate this we'll distribute
some pads and pens. I give you a couple cautions on
that. The fact that some of you take notes or the
fact that some of you take more extensive notes,
does not mean that those people better recall the
testimony. The fact that the notes taken by some or
more of you support a particular view of the
evidence does not mean that that particular view of
the evidence is more accurate than the views of the
other jurors who may not have taken notes.
I also, again, would remind you, don't let
the taking of notes interfere with your attention to
the testimony. It will not be slowed and will not
be repeated. So never let the jotting of some
comments interfere with that attention.
Now, the case is now going to begin with
the opening statements of the parties. The opening
statements are an opportunity for each side to give
you an overview of what evidence they anticipate is
going to be offered in this case. It's sometimes
likened to a road map, something to give you some
general understanding of what each side believes
will come forward in the trial.

142
But the opening statements are not
evidence, you are not to consider them as evidence.
Now, in this case, as I've indicated
before, the United States has the burden of proof.
For that reason, the order of presentation will
always be that the United States will go first. The

defendants then have an opportunity to respond.
So at this point in time I'll call upon
the United States to make opening statement.
MR. DETTELBACH: Thank you, your Honor.
May we also ask the law of witnesses be invoked for
the trial.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, are you asking for
a separation of witnesses?
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: I'll grant that motion.
I'll ask each side to keep an eye on the
courtroom, and if a witness appears I ask that they
be moved out.
- - -
OPENING STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT
MR. DETTELBACH: May it please the court,
counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
Let me introduce you to the defendants in
this case using their own words that you will hear
on t a p e .
Nate Gray: "I'm g e t t i n g government
contracts. 9 9 p e r c e n t o f my b u s i n e s s i s p u b l i c
sector. See, i n t h i s b u s i n e s s , t h e r e i s o n l y one
r e a s o n b a s i c a l l y 90 p e r c e n t o f t h e t i m e a p e r s o n
w i l l l e t you i n , g r e a s i n g t h e palm, okay."
N a t e Gray on how t o t r e a t p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s
l i k e Joe Jones.
"The more t h a t you t r e a t them l i k e a
t r i c k , o r e x a c t l y what t h e y a r e , t h e more b e t t e r
results you'll get. T r e a t them l i k e a s t r a i g h t
prostitute."
N a t e Gray on how t o make u s e o f p a r t n e r s
l i k e defendant G i l b e r t Jackson:
" L e t ' s s a y you g o i n t o a n o t h e r a r e a , there
i s a n o t h e r c o n g r e s s m a n , t h e r e i s a n o t h e r mayor,
t h e r e i s a n o t h e r councilmen, and you've g o t a l l
those expenses."
D e f e n d a n t G i l b e r t J a c k s o n , h i s w o r d s on
how t o u s e a $ 2 , 5 0 0 c h e c k t h a t N a t e G r a y h a s j u s t
s e n t you t o g e t t h e a t t e n t i o n o f a N e w O r l e a n s ,
Louisiana public o f f i c i a l .
" I know t h i s boy V i n c e o u t a t t h e M a y o r ' s
o f f i c e , h e ' s t h e one p u s h i n g t h i s f o r m e . I ' m just
g o i n g t o t u r n and f l i p i t t o him."
144
Councilman Joe Jones applying for a
position from defendant Nate Gray.
"I want to join that million dollar club,

man. ''
Councilman Joe Jones' own words on what to

say to get Nate Gray to hand you a check for $5,000.
MR. WHITAKER: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DETTELBACH: "We need to sit down and
talk. There is some things I can do, you know.
There is a lot of missed opportunities and I don't

want to miss those opportunities."
The defendants' own words. Now you've
heard them. Now let me tell you something about
these defendants.
First, let me introduce you to Councilman
Joe Jones at the end of the table. You'll hear that
he's an elected city councilman from Cleveland, Ohio
in Ward 1. And the evidence in this case is going
to show that he misused that office to obtain
campaign contributions and things of value.
Next, near the end of the table, is
defendant Gilbert Jackson. And he's a Senior Vice
President at a major national engineering firm, a

corporation that does business all over the country
based o u t o f New Orleans, M r . Jackson is.
And t h e e v i d e n c e i s g o i n g t o show t h a t h e
worked w i t h d e f e n d a n t N a t e G r a y b o t h a s a c o r p o r a t e
e x e c u t i v e f o r t h i s company c a l l e d Camp, D r e s s e r &
McKee, a n d a s a p a i d member o f M r . G r a y ' s own
c o r r u p t e n t e r p r i s e , t o p r o v i d e improper t h i n g s of
value t o public o f f i c i a l s .
And t h e n l a s t t h e r e i s t h e d e f e n d a n t N a t e
Gray a t t h e e n d . The man who t h e e v i d e n c e w i l l show
i s a t t h e c e n t e r o f t h i s c a s e , a n d who g r e a s e d palm
a f t e r p a l m a f t e r palm, t o u s e h i s own w o r d s .
The man who n o t o n l y s p o k e a b o u t , b u t
treated public officials like prostitutes. He p a i d
them t o g e t what h e w a n t e d .
The e v i d e n c e w i l l show t h a t d e f e n d a n t G r a y
s e t up a n d r a n a c o r r u p t e n t e r p r i s e o u t o f h i s
o f f i c e s i n C l e v e l a n d , Ohio. And t h a t t h e r e were
various businesses i n these offices. H i s own
businesses, a parking business, a consulting
b u s i n e s s , even a g a s s t a t i o n b u s i n e s s .
But most p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s c a s e , t h e
e v i d e n c e w i l l show t h a t t h e s e b u s i n e s s e s t h a t went
u n d e r t h e name ETNA, E-T-N-A, which i s j u s t t h e
l e t t e r s f r o m t h e word N a t e s c r a m b l e d a r o u n d -- t h a t
t h e s e b u s i n e s s e s were u s e d , a n d M r . G r a y ' s
146
enterprise was used, to offer a service. It was the

service of a modern day bag man. A service that
created a buffer between corrupt public officials on
the one hand, and businesses and corporations on the
other side of the equation that wanted to corrupt
the governmental process. It let them both do it
and made it a whole lot harder to catch them at it.
And you will hear for this service Nate
Gray and his associates were paid literally
thousands of dollars every month.
Now that I have introduced the defendants,
let me reintroduce myself. My name is Steve
Dettelbach, and I represent the United States of
America in this case. And with me as fellow
co-council are Benita Pearson and Mary Butler.
Sitting here is Special Agent Michael
Massie from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
He's the case agent on the case. And sitting next
to him is Angela Rossiletti from the U.S. Attorneys
office. She's also going to help in the
government's presentation.
In the United States of America, and I'm
not talking about the private sector, in the public
sector there are some fairly fundamental principles
about how our governments are supposed to run.

147
One, and a key one, i s t h a t t h e y o p e r a t e
f o r t h e people, and t h a t ' s who t h e government owes
i t s loyalty to. I t ' s c a l l e d a d u t y of f a i t h f u l and
honest s e r v i c e s , f r e e from b i a s , f r e e from hidden
c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t . And t h i s c a s e i s about a
p a t t e r n of conduct designed t o undermine t h a t very
b a s i c fundamental p r i n c i p l e , t h a t t h e government
owes i t s 1 0 0 p e r c e n t l o y a l t y t o t h e p e o p l e .
The evidence i n t h i s c a s e w i l l show t h a t
t h e c o r r u p t i o n of t h i s p r i n c i p l e came from b o t h
s i d e s of t h e e q u a t i o n . From people on t h e p u b l i c
s e c t o r s i d e , p u b l i c and e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s l i k e
defendant Jones; and from t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r s i d e ,
from people l i k e defendant Nate Gray, and defendant
G i l b e r t Jackson.
I n f a c t , t h e evidence i s going t o show
t h a t defendant Gray and defendant Jackson worked
t o g e t h e r with each o t h e r , and w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e , t o
o p e r a t e an e n t e r p r i s e whose purpose was t o h e l p
people on both s i d e s of t h a t e q u a t i o n t o commit
c o r r u p t a c t s t o c o r r u p t t h e p e o p l e ' s government and
t o g e t away w i t h i t .
And t h e evidence i s going t o show t h a t
c o r r u p t i o n was accomplished i n a v a r i e t y of
d i f f e r e n t ways. Let me g i v e you an overview.

148
F i r s t , conspiring o r agreeing together t o
engage i n c e r t a i n c o r r u p t a c t s . And t h a t , i n a n d o f
i t s e l f , i s a crime.
S e c o n d , a c t u a l l y f o l l o w i n g t h r o u g h on
those corrupt a c t s with actions. And t h e r e a r e a
couple d i f f e r e n t times.
F i r s t , providing public o f f i c i a l s with
t h i n g s o f v a l u e a s p a r t o f a scheme t o i n f l u e n c e
them b y c r e a t i n g t h e s e c o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t t h a t
were h i d d e n .
Second, p r o v i d i n g p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s w i t h
t h i n g s o f v a l u e i n an a t t e m p t t o b r i b e them. To g e t
them t o h e l p w i t h s p e c i f i c p e o p l e a n d s p e c i f i c
c o m p a n i e s on c o n t r a c t s t h a t were b e i n g s o l d .
Those a c t i o n s , t h a t e v i d e n c e , r e s u l t e d i n
the indictment. And l e t me t e l l you, i t ' s an
overview o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t are i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t
t h a t you a r e g o i n g t o b e c o n s i d e r i n g .
Count 1, a s t h e j u d g e t o l d you, i s a R I C O
conspiracy count. I t ' s an o v e r a l l conspiracy t h a t
c h a r g e s t h e d e f e n d a n t Nate Gray a n d d e f e n d a n t
G i l b e r t Jackson with c o n s p i r i n g o r a g r e e i n g t o
p a r t i c i p a t e i n a c o r r u p t e n t e r p r i s e , which w e ' l l
c a l l t h e Gray e n t e r p r i s e . And b a s i c a l l y t o r u n t h a t
e n t e r p r i s e t h r o u g h a p a t t e r n o f a t l e a s t two c o r r u p t
149
a c t s t h a t were d e s i g n e d t o d o o n e o f two t h i n g s , o r
both.
One, d e p r i v e t h e p e o p l e , t h e p u b l i c , o f
t h e r i g h t t o t h o s e h o n e s t s e r v i c e s from i t s
government.
And two, t o b r i b e w i l l i n g p u b l i c
officials.
And t h i s C o u n t 1 i s s o r t o f t h e
overarching count of t h e indictment. It involves a
c o n s p i r a c y t h a t i n c l u d e s most e v e r y t h i n g t h a t
f o l l o w s i n t h e c a s e , a n d a c t u a l l y some t h i n g s t h a t
a r e n ' t e v e n i n c l u d e d i n t h e o t h e r c o u n t s t h a t I'll
t e l l you a b o u t .
And i n t h i s c a s e , o n l y d e f e n d a n t s N a t e
Gray a n d d e f e n d a n t G i l b e r t J a c k s o n a r e c h a r g e d i n
t h a t c o u n t i n t h i s c a s e t h a t ' s b e f o r e you.
So t h a t means two t h i n g s .
F i r s t of a l l , defendant Joseph Jones, he
i s n o t charged i n t h a t count.
S e c o n d o f a l l , you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r , a n d
t h e e v i d e n c e i s c e r t a i n l y g o i n g t o show, t h a t t h e r e
were o t h e r p e o p l e b e s i d e s d e f e n d a n t N a t e G r a y a n d
d e f e n d a n t G i l b e r t J a c k s o n who were i n v o l v e d i n t h e s e
corrupt activities. And you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r a b o u t
a guy named B r e n t J i v i d e n , f o r instance. And you

are going to hear about others as well.
And some of those other people will be
testifying here in this case as part of plea
agreements. Others will not. But you'll hear about
their conduct, their misconduct, in the evidence
that's presented. And all of that evidence, the
defendant's own conduct, the conduct of the people
who are going to be testifying here today that they
worked with, and the conduct of the people that the
evidence is going to show you about that won't be
testifying, that's all part of that Count 1 that the
defendants are charged with, defendants Nate Gray
and Gilbert Jackson. That's Count 1.
Now let me go over the rest of the
indictment. And it's divided basically into four
different sections. Each section relates to a
different city where the evidence will show that
corrupt activity took place.
And there are four geographical sections.
One, East Cleveland, Ohio.
Two, Cleveland, Ohio.
Three, Houston, Texas.
And four, New Orleans, Louisiana.
And each section of the indictment, each
of those four sections contains the same or begins

with the same basic two charges.
First, that the defendants who are charged
in that section engaged in a scheme to deprive the
public of the honest services of its public
officials. It's called honest services mail and
wire fraud. As you can guess by the fact it's
called mail and wire fraud, each of those counts is
actually linked to a particular piece of mail or
wire communication. It won't be every letter sent
in the case, don't worry, but each of those relate
to a count that somehow or another furthered the
scheme. An invoice, a check, an interstate fax, a
long distance phone call over the wire, those
things.
The second thing that's contained in each
section is a charge that the defendants, charged in
that section, conspired or agreed together to
violate the Hobbs Act. That is, to bribe a public
official, or if a person is a public official, like
Joseph Jones, to be bribed. Those are the things
that are in every section, those two things. Honest
services wire fraud and conspiracy to violate the

Hobbs Act.
In two of the four geographical sections,
East Cleveland, Ohio and Houston, Texas, then there

a r e a s e r i e s of a d d i t i o n a l counts with a c t u a l
s u b s t a n t i v e Hobbs Act o r b r i b e r y c h a r g e s i n v o l v i n g
s p e c i f i c t h i n g s o f v a l u e t h a t we p i c k e d a n d i n c l u d e d
i n d i f f e r e n t c o u n t s t h a t were p r o v i d e d t o p u b l i c
officials. I t ' s n o t e v e r y t h i n g o f v a l u e t h a t was
g i v e n t o a p u b l i c o f f i c i a l t h a t you a r e g o i n g t o
hear about i n t h i s case. And y o u ' l l h e a r t h a t t h e s e
s p e c i f i c a c c o u n t s were g i v e n i n d i f f e r e n t forms of
t h i n g s of v a l u e . Cash i n e n v e l o p e s , l u x u r y i t e m s ,
t r i p s t h a t were p a i d f o r .
I n t h e s u b s t a n t i v e Hobbs Act c o u n t
they a r e a l l , each count i s over f i v e hundred
d o l l a r s , a n d some, many a r e i n t h e t h o u s a n d s of
dollars. And you w i l l s e e a b o u t t h o s e t h i n g s o f
value.
So now t h a t y o u ' v e h e a r d a b o u t t h e t y p e s
o f c h a r g e s , l e t m e g i v e you a n o v e r v i e w o f t h e t y p e s
o f e v i d e n c e t h a t you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r t h a t w i l l
prove those charges.
First, i n t h i s c a s e , you w o n ' t h a v e t o
t a k e my word, a n d you w o n ' t even have t o t a k e
w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y word f o r a n y t h i n g b e c a u s e you a r e
g o i n g t o have a l u x u r y i n t h i s c a s e o f h a v i n g t h e
d e f e n d a n t s ' own words.
You w i l l h e a r t h a t on A p r i l l s t , 2003
153
d e f e n d a n t Nate Gray had a v e r y b a d d a y . And t h e
r e a s o n t h a t h e h a d a b a d d a y i s b e c a u s e on t h a t d a y
h e h a d h i r e d a p r o f e s s i o n a l t o sweep h i s o f f i c e f o r
bugs. Y o u ' l l h e a r t h a t he had been t i p p e d o f f by
o n e o f h i s c o r r u p t a s s o c i a t e s , a mayor t h a t h e was
p a y i n g o f f , t h a t t h e r e was e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e
in his office. And h e f o u n d o u t t h a t t h a t was
right.
And i t m u s t h a v e b e e n a b a d d a y b e c a u s e ,
o f c o u r s e , h e knew t h e n w h a t you a r e a b o u t t o f i n d
o u t d u r i n g t h i s t r i a l ; t h a t a n y number o f a c o r r u p t
a c t i v i t i e s h a d b e e n o c c u r r i n g o v e r t h e p r i o r months
i n h i s o f f i c e and over h i s phones.
And y o u ' l l h e a r i n t h i s t r i a l , on t a p e ,
t h e words o f N a t e Gray, o f G i l b e r t J a c k s o n , o f J o e
J o n e s , t a l k i n g on t h o s e p h o n e s a b o u t t h e i r c o r r u p t
activities.
And you w i l l see w i t h y o u r own e y e s Nate
Gray i n a c t i o n . B e c a u s e t h e r e was a l s o a p e e p h o l e
camera above h i s c o n f e r e n c e t a b l e . You w i l l see him
c o u n t o u t t h e money, o n e h u n d r e d , two h u n d r e d , t h r e e
hundred, f o u r hundred, f i v e hundred, hundred d o l l a r
bills. You w i l l see him h a n d i t t o a p u b l i c
o f f i c i a l , n o t o n c e b u t numerous times.
And t h i s i s n o t a c a s e , I h a v e t o warn
154
you, where you are going to hear one tape or ten
tapes, or 20 tapes, or I'm sorry, fifty tapes. If
you take notes you may get writer's cramps because
there are over a hundred tapes.
You will be hearing on those tapes, tape
after tape, the defendants in this case plotting and
scheming, either to provide things of value to
public officials or to influence those very same
public officials with respect to their official
duties.
So tapes, that's the first category of
evidence.
The second is records, documents. And you
are going to see numerous records in this case, and
they basically fall into three categories.
One, are records and business records that
were obtained from third parties, contracts.
Documents that allow you to put these actions into
context, or understand the transactions.
Two, documents that were obtained pursuant
to the execution of search warrants, including on
defendant Gray's home and his business.
And you are going to hear that there is
direct evidence of a criminal misconduct in this
case that was found there, some of which you are

going to hear that the defendant was attempting to
conceal from the investigators in this case.
And then third, in the third party records
and search warrant records, you are going to see a
lot of financial records from banks and businesses.
And that is going to allow you to do something that
none of these three defendants ever wanted anybody
to be able to do, follow the money. Because that is
what it's about.

So you are going to hear tapes, you are
going to see records, and then the third category of
evidence is of course witness testimony. And there
is going to be all kinds of different witness
testimony in this case.

There is going to be testimony from law
enforcement officers and regulators whose job it is

to enforce the law.
There is going to be testimony from
witnesses from the public sector who worked for
these governments who can place these transactions
in context.
There is going to be testimony from people
who worked in the private sector. People who worked
in some of the businesses involved who have various

degrees of knowledge.
And then there is also going to be
testimony from people in the defendant's sector.
You are going to be hearing from several
people that, in effect, these defendants themselves
sort of put on our witness list. They didn't put
them on by handing us a list, but they put them on
our witness list by picking them out as the people
that they wanted to conspire and work with to do the
misconduct in this case.
And they are going to come in and
fundamentally admit two things: I did it, and I did
it with him.
Many of them are going to be testifying
pursuant to guilty plea agreements. And they are
going to be hoping for a reduced sentence from the
judge. And that is not unusual in a criminal case.
And I'm sure that the defense attorneys in this case
will have something to say about these particular
people and their conduct. And that is appropriate.
But we ask you to listen to their
testimony. Listen to what they have to gain.
Listen to what they've already lost because of their
misconduct. And most importantly, listen to what
they say, because it may be helpful to you in
placing in context what will already been clear from

157
the tapes and records that you are going to see in
this case.
So now that you've heard about the types
of charges and the types of evidence, now let me go
through and show you -- tell you what the evidence
is going to show with respect to each section of the
case that I outlined.
Let's start with East Cleveland, Ohio.
You will hear that East Cleveland, Ohio is
a city that boarders on Cleveland, Ohio. It is a
separate city and it's fallen on some very tough
times. The people who are residents there have some
serious problems. But the evidence is going to show
that in those problems the defendant Nate Gray saw
an opportunity for himself to make money.
You are going to see that effectively
defendant Nate Gray decided to invest in and
eventually buy himself a mayor. And that mayor's
name was Emmanuel Onunwor, in the City of East
Cleveland.
You are actually going to see him with
your own eyes paying his mayor not once, not twice,
not three times, not four times, but five separate
times on tape.
You are going to hear Nate Gray and

158
Emmanuel Onunwor talk on the phone to set up this
sort of monthly payoff meeting. And they never

discussed money over the phone, even though you'll
see that what happened is that Emmanuel Onunwor will
drive to meet Nate Gray most of the time at his
office, never at City Hall. And that he'll go up
into the office and that the first thing that
happened is they will sit down at that little round
conference table and Nate Gray will just slide an
envelope with cash in it across the table. And

Emmanuel Onunwor, the City Mayor of that city, will
pick it up and put it in his pocket. And then those
two men will sit there and talk about and decide how
to run the City of East Cleveland, Ohio.
Now don't get me wrong, you'll hear from

the tapes, Mr. Gray doesn't seem to know a whole lot
of the nitty gritty of running the City of East
Cleveland, Ohio. You will hear he doesn't even know
how the council people are selected in the City of
East Cleveland. But one thing he does seem to know
about is contracts and vendors.
And when Mayor Onunwor and Nate Gray are
discussing contracts and vendors, it's sometimes
difficult to tell who the mayor is.

You will actually hear Mr. Gray's own
159
words when he talks about Ernmanuel Onunwor to other
people, how he refers to him as my East Cleveland
Mayor, and he doesn't live in East Cleveland.
These monthly payoffs that you are going
to hear about and see, they didn't just begin,
however, when the camera was turned on pursuant to
court authorization.
The evidence will show that Nate Gray had
been making regular payments to Mayor Onunwor right
from the very outset of the time that he was elected
mayor. In fact, you are going to hear that he even
sort of invested in Emmanuel Onunwor by making
occasional payments even before that.

And the evidence is going to show, you are
going to hear Nate Gray a lot on tape. He's very,
very good at mixing business with pleasure, at
cultivating people. So that if there comes a time
when Mr. Gray needs to use them or they can do
something for him, he's ready, he's ready to cash
in.
And you are going to hear, and the
evidence is going to show, that when Emmanuel
Onunwor was elected Mayor in 1998, defendant Gray's
investment was about to pay off, big time.
Nate Gray wasn't giving this money out of

160
charity. You w i l l h e a r a b o u t i t on t a p e s , f r o m
witnesses, and through records. M r . Gray wanted and
g o t o n e t h i n g i n e x c h a n g e f o r t h e money h e was
g i v i n g t o t h e c i t y , Mayor o f t h e C i t y o f E a s t
Cleveland. Contracts f o r t h e people and f o r t h e
b u s i n e s s e s who were p a y i n g d e f e n d a n t G r a y a n d p a y i n g
t h e Gray e n t e r p r i s e t h o u s a n d s o f d o l l a r s a month.
There a r e t h r e e s p e c i f i c c o n t r a c t s i n E a s t
Cleveland t h a t w e are g o i n g t o h e a r a b o u t . One i s
dubbed t a x c o l l e c t i o n s .
You a r e g o i n g t o h e a r t h a t E a s t C l e v e l a n d
had a c o n t r a c t w i t h a law f i r m , o f a l l t h i n g s , t o
c o l l e c t t a x e s on t h e m u n i c i p a l l e v e l . And when
Emmanuel Onunwor was r u n n i n g f o r Mayor, b e f o r e h e
g o t i n , you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r h e w a s n ' t h a p p y , h e
was t h r e a t e n i n g t o f i r e t h a t f i r m .
B u t when h e g o t i n , d i d h e f i r e t h e m ? No.
The e v i d e n c e i s g o i n g t o show h e k e p t t h a t l a w f i r m
on f o r f o u r y e a r s , from 1998 t o 2002. They
l i t e r a l l y made h u n d r e d s o f t h o u s a n d s o f d o l l a r s i n
fees during t h a t period.
And o n l y when a n i n d e p e n d e n t s t a t e a u d i t o r
came i n a n d g a v e a s c a t h i n g r e p o r t a b o u t w h a t a b a d
d e a l t h i s was a n d how e v e r y b o d y c o u l d see, o n l y t h e n
d i d h e l e t them g o .
The r e a s o n t h a t you w i l l f i n d o u t t h a t
Emmanuel Onunwor k e p t t h i s f i r m o n , d e s p i t e h i s
campaign p r o m i s e , i s b e c a u s e N a t e Gray w a s p a y i n g
him t o d o t h a t . H e was p a y i n g h i m . And t h e r e a s o n
h e was p a y i n g him i s t h a t s h o r t l y a f t e r Emrnanuel
Onunwor was e l e c t e d Mayor, h e a n d M r . Gray a r r a n g e d
i t s o t h a t l a w f i r m s t a r t e d making m o n t h l y p a y m e n t s
t o none o t h e r t h a n N a t e G r a y . You a r e g o i n g t o b e
a b l e t o f o l l o w t h a t money t r a i l .
You a r e c e r t a i n l y n o t g o i n g t o b e a b l e t o
f o l l o w t h e work t r a i l o f M r . G r a y , b e c a u s e M r . Gray
w a s n ' t d o i n g a n y work i n e x c h a n g e f o r t h a t money
payment. I t was a sham c o n t r a c t .
And you a r e a l s o g o i n g t o b e a b l e t o h e a r
on t a p e what h a p p e n s when t h e p u b l i c r e p o r t comes
o u t and E a s t Cleveland h a s t o r e l e a s e t h a t law f i r m .
Number 1, t h e y s t o p p a y i n g N a t e G r a y ,
because t h a t c o n t r a c t w a s d i r e c t l y l i n k e d t o t h a t
work.
And number 2 , t h e d e f e n d a n t , N a t e Gray,
a n d h i s mayor, Emmanuel Onunwor, s i t t h e r e o n t a p e
a n d you w i l l h e a r them d i s c u s s i n g how t h e y h a v e t o
work t o g e t a n o t h e r f i r m i n t h e r e t h a t t h e y c a n
s h a k e down j u s t l i k e t h e y s h o o k down t h i s l a w f i r m .
The law f i r m ' s name i s J a v i t c h , B l o c k , E i s e n a n d

Rathbone .
The second type of contract that you are
going to hear about in East Cleveland that this
money related to is engineering contracts. And you
are going to hear about an engineering firm called
Ralph Tyler Companies.
You are going to hear that they were also
paying defendant Nate Gray one thousand dollars a
month. During the same time he's in turn sitting

down with Mayor Onunwor every month and passing him
that cash in that envelope.
And you will hear tapes and see records,
and hear testimony, that in turn for that money that

Emmanuel Onunwor helped Ralph Tyler Companies get
engineering contracts in the City of East Cleveland.
And by the way, this firm had no contract at all
with Nate Gray, they are just giving him a thousand
dollars a month without any written agreement.
But the biggest money that was available
in the City of East Cleveland wasn't the
collections, or the engineering, it related to the
Water Department of the City of East Cleveland,
Ohio.
And you are going to hear tapes and see
documents and hear testimony that Nate Gray and

Emmanuel Onunwor arranged it so that a large
national firm called CH2M Hill, that's also referred
to as OMI, that that firm could come into East
Cleveland without any competition at all and
literally take over, privatize the East Cleveland
Water Department for millions of dollars.
Of course, you are also going to learn
what the people didn't know, that that firm had to
make secret payments to Nate Gray every month for

thousands of dollars.
And unlike the law firm, who at least had
a sham contract with Mr. Gray, again, no contract at
all between this consulting -- between this
engineering firm and Nate Gray. Just thousands of

dollars.
And they came up with this idea that they
would pass this money through this company, the
Ralph Tyler Company, the engineering company.
And that's what you will see happened when
you follow the money. The money gets paid every
month to the engineering firm of Ralph Tyler, and he
just turns, flips it. He doesn't give any of that
money to the middle person, all one hundred percent
passed through the contract, the money goes to Nate
Gray.
And you will hear that this Water
Department of City of East Cleveland, it was a real

problem. It was a real problem for that city.
And the evidence will show that all that
defendant Gray cared about was the flow, not of
water, but of money.
You will hear that there was no
competition for this company that Mr. Gray was
representing. No competition so there could be
better ideas or lower prices, none of that.
You will hear Emmanuel Onunwor, the Mayor,
and Nate Gray talk together on tape, strategize how

to shut up City Council people who were raising a
fuss about the bad job that the Water Department --
Water Company was doing.
You will actually hear one time where Nate

Gray and Emmanuel Onunwor on are tape and they are
laughing about how high the bills are for the people
of the City of East Cleveland.
The only thing you will hear Mr. Gray
cared about was that flow of money. He was
concerned if it slowed down. As long as the money
was flowing, everything was fine.
Let's move past East Cleveland now.
Because East Cleveland wasn't the only city where

165
you will hear some confusion on the tape about who
was really the elected official. You will hear it

on tape, yourself.
Pick up the phone. Councilman Joe Jones,
this is Councilman Nate Gray.
Now, of the three defendants who are on
trial in this case, Joe Jones is the only elected

official. And he is only involved in one particular
section of the case; two counts involving his action

as a city councilman in Ward 1, Cleveland, Ohio.
For that reason, I want to warn you that
there are going to be times or periods in the case

where his name will come up.
For one, I'm going to ask you to have
patience, because when we get to him there will be

significant evidence, tapes, records, and witnesses,
that show a pattern of improper conduct by him.

The evidence will show that he did two
things that violated the law.
One, that he agreed or conspired to obtain

improper campaign contributions in exchange for the
misuse of his office.
And two, that he engaged in this scheme to
deprive the public of his honest services free from

undisclosed conflicts of interest, and used the
mails to further that scheme in some way.
The evidence to support those two charges
will show that from the Spring of 2001 until 2003,
Joe Jones misused his office as councilman to obtain
a series of things of value from Nate Gray, and then
also from a close associate of Nate Gray's named
Ricardo Teamor, and others also.
Now, you'll hear that defendant Joe Jones
is a councilman, he's not a mayor, and he didn't
rate as much things of value as did, say, Emmanuel
Onunwor .
You are even going to hear on tape Nate
Gray and this other person, Ricardo Teamor, debating
over whether Joe Jones was powerful enough to be
worth the financial investment that they were making

in him.
And that's exactly the way --
In fact, I would like a continuing
objection to any comments regarding Nate Gray and
Joe Jones.
MR. DETTELBACH: You are going to hear
them discussing him just like an investment, the
pros and cons, like a stock. Is it worth putting

167
our money in this man? Because it was all about
business.
But the one person who didn't seem to have
any doubt that his stock was on the rise was indeed
Councilman Joe Jones.
You'll hear that he was ambitious and that
he needed money. And he made the decision to go to
Nate Gray and Ricardo Teamor for that money. And
you will hear him on tape enticing Nate Gray about
missed opportunities. About taking his career to,
as he put it, the next level. About joining that
million dollar club. About telling Nate Gray, there
are things that I can do.

But most of all you are going to hear him
talk about and ask for money. You will hear about
him asking for it and getting it from both Ricardo
Teamor and Nate Gray time after time.
The first incident that you are going to

hear about happened in 2001. And this involved
Ricardo Teamor. The evidence is going to show that
he was at the time a very prominent lawyer in
Cleveland. I say was because you are going to hear
pursuant to his plea agreement in this case, he will
never practice law ever again.
In addition to the documents he's going to

168
s i t r i g h t t h e r e on t h a t w i t n e s s s t a n d a n d h e ' s g o i n g
t o t e l l you, h e b r i b e d Councilman J o e J o n e s . And i n
a d d i t i o n t o b e i n g a l a w y e r , you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r
t h a t h e was a l s o a p r i n c i p a l i n a c o n s t r u c t i o n f i r m
named RMC a t t h a t t i m e .
And RMC i s a m i n o r i t y s u b t r a c t c o n t r a c t o r
t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e s i n an annual r i t u a l w e have up
h e r e i n n o r t h e a s t Ohio. When t h e snow m e l t s w e d i g
up t h e s t r e e t s and p u t up t h o s e o r a n g e c o n e s . And
RMC was p a r t o f o n e o f t h e s e p i p e t e a r i n g u p
p r o j e c t s t h a t t h e C l e v e l a n d W a t e r D e p a r t m e n t was
doing.
And you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r a b o u t , a s
a l w a y s , t h e r e were c o m p l a i n t s t h a t t h e r e s i d e n t s had
about t h e i r streets b e i n g t o r n up. B u t t h a t on t h i s
o c c a s i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t J o e J o n e s , as a c o u n c i l m a n ,
i n s e r t e d himself i n t o t h a t process. And h e a c t u a l l y
t h r e a t e n e d t o u s e h i s power a s a c o u n c i l m a n t o t i e
u p , s h u t down t h e whole p r o j e c t s o t h a t n o work
c o u l d be f i n i s h e d a n d nobody c o u l d g e t p a i d .
And i n t h e m i d s t o f t h e p r o j e c t you w i l l
h e a r h e l i t e r a l l y t o o k R i c a r d o Teamor f o r a r i d e .
A l l o f t h i s i s g o i n g on a n d h e s h a k e s him down f o r
t h o u s a n d s of d o l l a r s i n campaign c o n t r i b u t i o n s . And
you w i l l h e a r h e g o t them.
169
But you'll learn that defendant Joe Jones

didn't get these contributions in a normal way. The
evidence is going to show that in May of 2001 he got
a $2,000 campaign contribution from a person named
Dwight Roach.
In fact, congratulations, Mr. Roach, the
evidence is going to show that he was the single
largest individual contributor of the Joe Jones
re-election campaign in that election year.
The problem is, the evidence is also going
to show that Joe Jones had never spoken to Dwight
Roach in his life, because the money was really
coming from Ricardo Teamor. It was funneled through
Dwight Roach to Joe Jones because it was dirty
money, and it made i.t so that Ricardo Teamor would
not show up as a big money contributcr on that
financial report.
And you will also hear that Joe Jones
backed off his threats to shut down that job.
But Councilman Jones wasn't done. You
will hear how he worked through Nate Gray to get
even more money out of Ricardo Teamor in early 2002.
And this time, because the court authorized
electronic surveillance was up, you are going to
hear recorded conversations about how Mr. Teamor is

170
mistrustful of Councilman Jones. Who wouldn't be
after that last experience? And wants to insure
again that he pledges allegiance if the money is
going to continue.
But the things of value that were given to
Councilman Jones, they were they were not limited to
campaign contributions. At the end of 2002, you are
going to hear that Councilman Jones was getting
married and he needed money. Money to pay to a
diamond ring for his fiancee. Money for a honeymoon
in the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean. And
Councilman Jones was having trouble getting a loan.
And you'll hear how he didn't like paying interest.
Who does?
Will the evidence show that he got a
smaller diamond? Will the evidence show that he
scaled back to a Niagra Falls honeymoon? No. He
went to Nate Gray and Ricardo Teamor for that money.
And you will hear that yourself.
You will hear him ask for an $8,000
interest free loan from them. He doesn't just ask
for the money once, but you will hear him follow up
again and again as his wedding was getting closer.
And you will hear what he pledged as collateral on
that interest free loan. Not the ring, not his car,
he pledged his office as collateral.
You'll hear that he traded his faithful
and loyal services, free from any conflicts of
interest, to Nate Gray and Ricardo Teamor, because
he wanted that interest free loan. It was interest
free but there were strings attached.
And you will hear Joe Jones on tape. You
will hear the times he actually asked Nate Gray for
that $8,000 interest free loan. On that same phone

call you'll hear him pledge support for Ricardo
Teamor's law firm, which was doing a public contract
and was in trouble with City Council.
And then the day that he picks up the
$5,000 check at Nate Gray's office, you are going to
see with your own eyes, you are going to see
Councilman Jones in Nate Gray's office getting that
check and then taking an assignment on a matter that
was before City Council like an errand boy.
And the evidence is also going to show how
the parties to this transaction, especially
Councilman Jones, were careful to conceal this
$5,000.
First of all, the check wasn't written to

Councilman Jones who was standing there, it was
written to his wife. Okay. And you are going to

172
hear Nate Gray actually has to ask for the name as

he's writing the check.
You'll also hear that the entire time that
Councilman Jones is indebted to Nate Gray, he
concealed that fact on his signed, sworn financial
disclosure statements that he sends to the Ohio
Ethics Commission. It's a public document that
public officials file so that we know who they are

indebted to. Even though those very things are
called for, he leaves them off.
And think about it. You will hear that
even though he's repaying that loan month by month,
you will hear the call, he keeps going, literally
going to Nate Gray's office every month for the

check for $500 to be paid that month. That's not
something that's easy to forget.
During that period he's doing it ever
month. Twice. Not once, but twice for two years.

He leaves that off his financial disclosure
statements.
Moving away from Councilman Joe Jones but
still staying in the City of Cleveland, before we go
out of state. I want to tell you about another area
of the Gray Enterprises corrupt activities in

Northeast Ohio, and that deals with the Cleveland
Water Department.
Now the evidence in this section of the
case is going to relate to the overall conspiracy
that's charged in Count 1. And the evidence will
show that as part of this conduct, the same corrupt
pattern of the Gray Enterprise provides something of
value. Get contract.
Now as I told you, Gilbert Jackson was a
Senior Vice President for a national engineering
firm called Camp, Dresser & MeKee. And you will
learn that between 1996 and 2003 that firm, Camp,
Dresser & McKee, received about 15 million dollars
worth of contracting work from the City of Cleveland
Water Division.
And you will also hear that right when
they started seeking that work, the public official
who heads that department, a person named
Commissioner Julius Johnson, told CDM, if you want
to get contracts you ought to look into hiring
defendant Nate Gray. And they did. They started
paying this firm, Nate Gray, thousands of dollars a
month. And who was his prime contact at CDM?
Gilbert Jackson.
So you have millions of dollars of
contracts going to having retaining Nate Gray, and

174
you have Gilbert Jackson as his main contact. The
evidence will show this was no coincidence.
Although it is not separate charges, a
separate section aside from Count 1, the evidence is
really going to give you insight into the way
Gilbert Jackson and Nate Gray operated this
enterprise.
And you'll hear that they got three
separate Water Division contracts over that period.
I'll going go through them quickly one by one.
First in 1996. You will hear shortly
after CDM hires Nate Gray, within months Gilbert
Jackson goes to his colleagues with a strange
request.
MR. JENKINS: Objection to the word
strange, your Honor.
MR. DETTELBACH: He said, Nate Gray needs
and extra $425 every month above and beyond the
amount that we just signed this contract for.
Now first, you will hear that he's
hesitant to say why he needs an extra $425 to go to
Mr. Gray. But they say, you know, he got enough,

Mr. Jackson. And eventually he tells them. He
tells them that Commissioner Julius Ciacci's

175
daughter has just been admitted to college and the

Commissioner needs money, and the plan is to funnel
it through Nate Gray.
Well, Gilbert Jackson got that approval
from his corporation, and Nate Gray got that extra
$425 a month, and Camp, Dresser & McKee got a
$7.1 million contract with the City of Cleveland
Water Division.
You will hear that's not the last thing of
value that CDM and its Senior Vice President,
Gilbert Jackson, and its Consultant Nate Gray, gave
to a public official, and it's not the last big

contract they got in the City of Cleveland.
You will hear that the extra money being
sent to Nate Gray every month continued. In fact,
it grew over time, as did Mr. Gray's monthly
retainer.
And you will also hear that in addition to
Mr. Gray's close relationship with Julius Ciacci,
there was another important relationship going on
here. And you'll hear it on tape.
You'll hear defendant Gray describe
himself as, quote, the "right hand man" of the
person who was the Mayor of Cleveland at that time,
a person named Michael White. And you will hear

176
about how Gilbert Jackson and Nate Gray arranged to
hold a fundraiser for Mayor White in New Orleans.
And then 2001 came around, and the next
big Cleveland Water Division contract was up. This
one, $5 million, more or less. Who got it? Camp,
Dresser & McKee.
And you'll hear about the decisional
process for awarding that contract. You will hear
there is a ranking and scoring system among the
bidders. And when it didn't come out so that CDM
won, they rigged it. They redid the scoring so that
Camp, Dresser & McKee would win the contract.
And speaking of scoring, you are going to
hear that during this same two year period, you are
going to see a document that will show you that Nate
Gray took this Water Commissioner, Julius Ciacci, to
see the Indians 22 times.
In fact, you are going to hear with your
own ears conversations between the defendant Nate
Gray and Gilbert Jackson. They are literally a two
man entertainment center for Julius Ciacci.
And finally in 2003, while this court
ordered electronic surveillance is going on, Camp,
Dresser & McKee is bidding for its next
multi-million dollar contract with the City of

177
Cleveland Water Division.
And you are going to be able to hear for
yourself, because there are now tapes, just how
captivating Nate Gray and Gilbert Jackson are when
it comes to public contracts. They even boil
charity down to a quid pro quo; this for that.
You will hear that the City of Cleveland,
including Commissioner Ciacci, is pressing Camp,
Dresser & McKee for a $25,000 contribution for a
scholarship fund, right at the same time as Nate

Gray and Gilbert Jackson are helping compete for
these contracts. This is a scholarship so that poor
kids could go to school in the City of Cleveland.
Now remember, you will hear that when that
this happens Camp, Dresser & McKee has already
gotten almost $32 million in contracts from the City
of Cleveland Water Division.
Nate Gray, you'll see, has already made
thousands and thousands of dollars for himself from
that relationship. But how do these two men, Nate
Gray and Gilbert Jackson, view this request for
charity? You will hear with your own ears and see
the e-mails with your own eyes, there was no way
that Nate Gray and Gilbert Jackson were going to let
Camp, Dresser & McKee make that charitable donation

178
for thousands unless they could link it to millions
of dollars in public funds.
And you are going to hear Gilbert Jackson
actions in his own words. No one is giving up that
kind of money unless something is in return.
Let me be clear. This evidence isn't
being offered to you as a separately charged crime.
It's there to show you how these two defendants,
Nate Gray and Gilbert Jackson, view the world of
public contracting. You give something, you get
something back.
Now let's leave the state, and let's talk
about what the evidence will show about how this
conspiracy operated in Gilbert Jackson's home city
of New Orleans, Louisiana. And you are going to see
that when the Gray Enterprise took its act to New
Orleans, it was the same pattern, but people had
slightly different roles.

In Cleveland, it was Nate Gray's home
turf, and Gilbert Jackson worked for the big out of
town corporation, so Nate Gray was the one who knew
who to pay off and how to do it. But in New Orleans
where Gilbert Jackson lived, you will see and hear
that it was he who called that shot.
You will hear that in New Orleans that

Nate Gray had another corporate client that was
interested in doing business. This was a company, a
big one called Honeywell Corporation. And they are
a massive international company that had Nate Gray
on a monthly retainer for thousands of dollars. And
you'll hear that Mr. Gray's chief contact there was
a person named Brent Jividen.
And in 2002, you'll hear that this
Honeywell company is trying for a public contract in
New Orleans. They are trying from the Housing
Authority, it's called HANO, Housing Authority of
New Orleans. And they are having some trouble, so
they call Nate Gray. And you will then see how Nate
Gray and Gilbert Jackson spring into action in New
Orleans.
And the evidence is going to show that
Gilbert Jackson is not doing this out of charity.
Because in addition to being a Senior Vice President
at Camp, Dresser & McKee, you are going to follow
the money. You are going to see he's on Nate Gray's

own payroll also.
Unfortunately, for Gilbert Jackson and
Nate Gray, there was court authorized electronic
surveillance on Nate Gray's phones in January and

February of 2002. And I say unfortunately because
180
you w i l l h e a r l i t e r a l l y w i t h i n a o n e month p e r i o d
you a r e g o i n g t o a c t u a l l y h e a r N a t e Gray and G i l b e r t
J a c k s o n on t a p e c o n s p i r e , a g r e e w i t h e a c h o t h e r , t o
bribe a public official. The c r i m e , t h e c o n s p i r a c y
w i l l h a p p e n on t a p e . You w i l l h e a r i t .
You w i l l h e a r G i l b e r t J a c k s o n s h o w i n g o f f
t o t h e Honeywell p e o p l e a b o u t h i s b i g c o n n e c t i o n s i n
New Orleans.
Then you w i l l h e a r N a t e Gray a n d G i l b e r t
J a c k s o n t a l k a l o n e a n d a g r e e t h a t N a t e G r a y would
send a check f o r $2,500 t o G i l b e r t Jackson, and
G i l b e r t J a c k s o n would, a s h e p u t i t , f l i p i t t o a
guy named V i n c e S y l v a i n , a p e r s o n who worked f o r t h e
Mayor o f New O r l e a n s on h o u s i n g i s s u e s .
Then you a r e g o i n g t o see t h e a c t u a l c h e c k
a n d t h e FedEx l a b e l w i t h G i l b e r t J a c k s o n ' s home
a d d r e s s on i t f o r t h a t c h e c k .
And t h e n you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r a n o t h e r
d i s c u s s i o n between Defendant Gray and Defendant
J a c k s o n where t h e y d i s c u s s t h a t S y l v a i n h a s g o t t e n
b a c k t o G i l b e r t J a c k s o n t h a t h e w a n t s t o , q u o t e , do
b u s i n e s s a n d t o be p a r t of a , q u o t e , l o n g t e r m
thing. And you w i l l h e a r N a t e G r a y ' s r e s p o n s e , " a n d
t h a t ' s no p r o b l e m . "
You a r e g o i n g t o h e a r t h e a g r e e m e n t . And
181
to an extent it worked. You'll hear that about a

week or 10 days after Nate Gray FedEx'd that money
down to New Orleans that Honeywell did get a meeting
with the senior people at this organization, HANO.
And that that's significant getting into the senior
levels for this kind of project.
You will also hear that HANO ran into
serious financial difficulties, actually went into
bankruptcy or receivership in that very year. You
are going to hear that didn't deter Nate Gray and
Gilbert Jackson.
You will hear that working with Brent
Jividen they had big plans to take this corrupt show
on a nationwide road trip. You are going to hear
them discussing 50 cities in five years, each one.
You will hear that the Mayors, Congressmen and
Councilman, which are referred to as, quote,
expenses.
These aren't just hypothetical plans. You
are going to hear about real cities and real people.
But the city you are going to hear the most about is
the City of Houston, Texas, which is the next big
section.
The evidence is going to show that the
Gray Enterprise was pursuing several different

contracts in the City of Houston, Texas. Some of
them were on behalf of Honeywell, who Mr. Gray was
working with, and some of them were for other
businesses that were giving Mr. Gray's own business
ETNA, literally a piece of the contract. And eithe
way you are going to see the same pattern of people
a variety of creative and concealed payoffs for the
benefit of not one, not two, but three different
public officials in the City of Houston.
And just as in New Orleans, you are going
to see that Nate Gray and his confederates, Gilbert
Jackson and Brent Jividen, all worked together on
these contracts.
First the Houston Energy contract.
That's sort of the biggest money contract you are
going to hear about. And what you will hear is that
in those years, 2001, 2000 the law changed in Texas
and it allowed for basically a deregulation of the
energy market, so that the private companies could
come in and compete.
And that this presented a major
opportunity for Honeywell Corporation and for Nate
Gray. The city was looking for a company to
implement what is called demand side management.
And basically what that is, is a company comes in

183
and you will hear, they get to look at all the
city's buildings and suggest construction projects

and improvements to make the city more energy
efficient. And of course, any get paid for that.
And the City of Houston is a great plank for that
because they have 10 million square feet of office
space.
You will hear that this particular
contract, the energy contract, was being awarded out
of the City Building Services Department. And the
Director there was a women named Monique McGilbra.
And that was a great break for Nate Gray and Brent
Jividen and Gilbert Jackson.
Because Monique McGilbra, you will learn,
is exactly the kind of public official that they
picked out and that they loved to work with, she was
corrupt. And you will hear it on tape and you will
see it from records and on this witness stand.
Over and over again in 2001 and 2002, Nate
Gray and Gilbert Jackson and Brent Jividen worked

together to provided Monique McGilbra with multiple
different things of value. And in exchange, she
helped Honeywell get into this contract. And then
later, when things weren't going well, she helped
keep them in the contract.

You w i l l h e a r a b o u t t h e many ways t h a t
they bribed her. They s e t up h e r b o y f r i e n d , a guy
named G a r l a n d Hardeman, w i t h a sham c o n s u l t i n g
contract. He w o u l d n ' t g e t a n y money u n l e s s
Honeywell g o t money. So f o r a p i e c e o f t h e a c t i o n ,
what was h e s u p p o s e d t o d o ? Lobby h i s g i r l f r i e n d .
Lobby Monique M c G i l b r a .
And you w i l l h e a r t h a t G a r l a n d Hardeman i s
c o r r u p t i n h i s own r i g h t , a n d h e was more t h a n
w i l l i n g , more t h a n w i l l i n g t o work w i t h N a t e Gray on
this project.
You t h a t w i l l h e a r t h a t t h e y g a v e Monique
McGilbra a f o o t b a l l weekend i n C l e v e l a n d . They
s t a y e d a t t h e R i t z , w i t h h e r and h e r b o y f r i e n d
G a r l a n d Hardeman.
You w i l l h e a r t h a t t h e y p r o v i d e d them a
S u p e r Bowl weekend i n N e w O r l e a n s w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t
G i l b e r t Jackson p l a y i n g t h e g r a c i o u s h o s t , i n t h e
City of New Orleans. An $800 p u r s e , $1,000 d i n n e r ,
limo r i d e s . You a r e g o i n g t o h e a r a b o u t a l o t o f
different things.
You are a l s o g o i n g t o h e a r o n t a p e G i l b e r t
J a c k s o n ' s r e a c t i o n when t h e p o l i c e s t a r t e d a s k i n g
a b o u t Monique McGilbra a n d G a r l a n d Hardeman. You
a r e g o i n g t o h e a r him s a y , I d o n ' t know h e r .

185
Unfortunately for Mr. Jackson, about three
weeks before, the court authorized electronic
surveillance had picked up a phone call from Nate
Gray and Monique McGilbra to Gilbert Jackson wishing
him a happy birthday.
But the Gray Enterprises corrupt
activities in Houston weren't limited to Monique
McGilbra, to Garland Hardeman, and not to the energy
contract. You are also going to hear about the two
specific additional contracts in Houston that
Mr. Gray was pursuing.
One of them was at Bush Intercontinental
Airport, the airport down there, running a shuttle
bus.
And the other one was for the city's
parking meters. And that second one ended up not
coming through.
The evidence will show that for those
contracts, that Mr. Gray was going directly to
Office of the Mayor of the City of Houston, and he
had two that he paid for.
First, you are going to hear tapes and see
checks that will show you that Nate Gray and Gray
Enterprise put the Mayor's brother on their payroll,
a guy named Earl Brown, and the Mayor was Lee Brown,
186
on t h e i r p a y r o l l . And h e s e n t them m o n t h l y p a y m e n t s
f o r thousands of d o l l a r s . And you w i l l h e a r what h e
g o t i n r e t u r n , he g o t a resource, inside influence
o v e r t h e Mayor.
I n f a c t , you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r t h a t w i t h
t h i s airport contract, a t a c r i t i c a l point i n the
c o m p e t i t i o n i n t h e b i d d i n g , t h a t M r . G r a y s e n d s down
a s p e c i f i c i n c e n t i v e payment t o E a r l Brown j u s t s o
t h a t h e c o u l d t a l k t o h i s b r o t h e r t h e moment M r .
Gray w a n t s him t o .
And, o f c o u r s e , t h e e v i d e n c e i s g o i n g t o
show t h a t none o f t h e s e p e o p l e , Nate Gray, E a r l
Brown, G i l b e r t J a c k s o n , G a r l a n d Hardeman, n o n e o f
t h e s e p e o p l e were p u b l i c l y r e g i s t e r e d a s c o n s u l t a n t
l o b b y i s t s , a s t h e Houston l a w s r e q u i r e them t o d o .
Of c o u r s e , you d o n ' t r e g i s t e r a l o b b y i s t , y o u r
brother o r boyfriend o r g i r l f r i e n d i s involved i n
a l l this.
B u t E a r l Brown w a s n ' t t h e o n l y r e s o u r c e
t h a t N a t e Gray h a d i n t h e M a y o r ' s O f f i c e e i t h e r .
You a r e g o i n g t o h e a r t h a t h e was a l s o b r i b i n g t h e
Mayor's Chief of S t a f f . And a g a i n , i t was i n o r d e r
t o g e t h e l p i n t h e C i t y o f Houston w i t h t h e s e
contracts. And t h a t p e r s o n ' s name i s O l i v e r
Spellman.
187
And j u s t l i k e o t h e r s , M r . S p e l l m a n i s
g o i n g t o come h e r e a n d t e s t i f y p u r s u a n t t o a p l e a
agreement. H e ' s g o i n g t o come i n h e r e a n d t e l l you
N a t e Gray b o u g h t him. He g a v e him t h o u s a n d s o f
d o l l a r s i n c a s h , a t r i p t o Vegas, a n d i n r e t u r n f o r
t h a t I m i s u s e d my o f f i c e . And you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r
t h a t N a t e Gray g o t t h a t c o n t r a c t .
T h a t ' s what t h i s c a s e i s a b o u t .
What i s t h e e v i d e n c e n o t a b o u t ? This i s
n o t a c a s e a b o u t t h e f i e l d o f c o n s u l t i n g a s a whole.
Many c o n s u l t a n t s d o t h e i r j o b w i t h h o n e s t y a n d
integrity.
It i s not a case about public o f f i c i a l s a s
a whole. Many p u b l i c s e r v a n t s a l s o s e r v e h o n o r a b l y .
And i t i s n o t a c a s e a b o u t t h e p r i v a t e
sector.
E v i d e n c e you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r i n t h i s
case relates t o public contracts, public officials,
p u b l i c money.
And t h e e v i d e n c e i s g o i n g t o show t h a t
t h e r e a r e two g r e a t common t h e m e s i n t h e c o r r u p t
a c t i v i t y i n t h i s case.
One. Things of value of a l l t y p e s going
t o p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s t o i n f l u e n c e them. A l l types.
Things of v a l u e . T h a t ' s one. I n t e r e s t f r e e loans,

188
paid contributions, luxury items, trips, setting

their relatives up in business, and good old
fashioned cash in an envelope.
The second thing, throughout all these
things, you are going to hear is concealment. The
evidence is going to show these defendants employed
a wide array of tactics to cover up their actions.
And some of them weren't fancy, just meeting in
private places, and private offices, and parking
lots. Cash put in envelopes. Checks put in other
people's names.
And some of them were sham contracts with
complex money trails. The use of cash, which can't
always be traced. And then, of course, false
financial disclosure statements, so that the people,
of course, don't know anything about that.
All in an attempt to hide the activity.
To hide it from law enforcement. To hide it from
regulators, and to hide it from the public.
But you, of course, are going to be able

to see through all of that, based on the evidence.
To see and focus on what these defendants did, these
defendants, in this case.
And please, we urge you as the government,
don't let anybody or anything distract you from the

189
issues that are before you, from these defendants,
from their conduct in this town.
Focus your attention in this case on the
key questions, whether the evidence shows beyond a
reasonable doubt that these defendants gave money to

public officials. Whether the evidence shows that
these defendants were attempting to influence
official city business. Whether the evidence shows
these defendants agreed with each other to commit
corrupt acts. Whether the evidence shows these
defendants took steps to conceal their actions.
Those are the issues for you. Do not let
anybody distract you from them. The time for
concealment and smoke screen and distraction is
finally over.
THE COURT: On behalf of defendant Jones.

- - -
OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES
MR. EMOFF: Good afternoon.
This case, ladies and gentlemen, has the
potential to arouse one's passion. You can hear
much of the passion in Mr. Dettelbach's opening
remarks. No one likes a public official who is
corrupt. And certainly no one supports the notion

that public officials should be allowed to play by
different rules than the rest of us.
In this case, ladies and gentlemen, the
prosecutors claim that Joe Jones, who is a Cleveland
City Councilman, is corrupt. In the strongest terms
that I can muster, I say to you that that claim is
absolutely false. Please resist the temptation to

look at this case in an emotional way. Look at it
in an objective way, be skeptical, and decide for
yourself what the evidence means, what the
videotapes mean, what the audio tapes mean, and so
forth. Because they are open to a wide variety of
interpretations.
I say to you, Joe Jones is not dishonest.
He does not provide favors in return for money. He
does not keep information from his constituents and
from the public for fraudulent purposes. Rather, he
is an honest, hard-working, if naive, young man who
is revered by his constituents. He may have a lot
to learn, but he is not a criminal.
The evidence in this case, as it relates
to Joe Jones and each one of these people, should be
considered separately. The judge will so instruct
you.
The evidence in this case as it relates to
Joe Jones is replete with reasonable doubt, and in

191
such a circumstance t h e law r e q u i r e s a v e r d i c t o f
not guilty.
L e t m e t e l l you a l i t t l e b i t a b o u t J o e
Jones. H i s s t o r y h a s some H o r a t i o A l g e r e l e m e n t s t o
i t , i f you w i l l .
H e was p l a c e d i n f o s t e r c a r e a t a n e a r l y
age.
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection.
THE COURT: L e t me j u s t -- you n e e d t o
s p e a k t o some o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e . So I ' l l
sustain the objection.
MR. EMOFF: Well, I b e l i e v e t h e e v i d e n c e
w i l l show t h a t -- w e l l , may I come u p ?
THE COURT: Yes.
hearing of t h e jury, a s follows: )
THE COURT: What's t h e grounds f o r t h e
objection. I assume r e l e v a n c e ?
MR. DETTELBACH: Relevance and p r e j u d i c e .
THE COURT: How i s it r e l e v a n t ?
MR. EMOFF: Because w e always t r y t o
e s t a b l i s h some b a c k g r o u n d f o r t h e p e r s o n . I t ' s not
j u s t h e ' s a p e r s o n , h e i s a human b e i n g . There is
g o i n g t o b e some e v i d e n c e , t o t h e e x t e n t t h e c o u r t
192
w i l l allow, about h i s background. And I'm g o i n g t o
s a y t h a t -- I ' m n o t g o i n g t o g o o v e r b o a r d w i t h t h i s ,
b u t I ' d l i k e t o s a y a few w o r d s a b o u t h i s
background.
THE COURT: I s n ' t t h a t --
MR. EMOFF: H e i s n a i v e , y o u r Honor. And
h i s b a c k g r o u n d shows you h e g o t t o t h a t p o i n t --
THE COURT: Is t h e r e something -- I'll
sustain the objection, as t o the issue of h i s
background.
MR. EMOFF: I j u s t s i m p l y want -- we a r e
c e r t a i n l y going t o b r i n g i n c h a r a c t e r witnesses. We
did that i n the last trial. And s o I w a n t t o show
how h e g o t a n i n t e r e s t i n p o l i t i c s , a n d h e
p a r t i c i p a t e d i n p o l i t i c s a n d --
THE COURT: I ' l l sustain the objection. I
don't think i t ' s relevant.
MR. EMOFF: I c a n ' t go i n t o any background
a t all?
THE COURT: You c a n s a y w h a t h e i s , what
he d o e s . I d o n ' t think t h e h i s t o r y has any
relevance.
MR. EMOFF: So when c a n I s t a r t t a l k i n g
a b o u t him? A t what p o i n t ?
THE COURT: When h e ' s -- you c a n s a y h e ' s

a city councilman, he works for the City of
Cleveland.
MR. EMOFF: The background, in terms of
his circumstances and how to bring that in --
THE COURT: I don't think it's relevant
how you --
MR. EMOFF: I understand. I'm just trying
to be clear on what your ruling is. You are saying
that I have to start with the present day, in terms
of talking about him?
THE COURT: Start with the trial -- I mean
the time of the conspiracy which is alleged, and
what he had been doing at that time.
MR. EMOFF: May the record reflect my
objection.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. EMOFF: Ladies and gentlemen, in 1997,
after a lot of hard work, Joe Jones was elected to
the Cleveland City Council from Cleveland's Ward 1,
which is one of the larger wards in the City of
Cleveland. I think there are approximately 23,000
residents in that ward.
In 2002, he was reelected as Councilman

194
for Ward 1, and that is the position he presently
occupies today as an active counsel person.
During his tenure, Joe Jones has brought
jobs, economic development, affordable housing into
his ward. He has built playgrounds. He's supported
senior citizens and schools. He's been a tireless
fighter or crime in his ward.
He is married, ladies and gentlemen, to
Tonya, who you will hear from in this trial. They
have one son whose name is Josiah, and one daughter
due in September of this year.
He's a graduate of Cleveland's Aviation
High School, and an honors graduate at that.
In this case, ladies and gentlemen, as
Mr. Dettelbach has pointed out, the government has
brought two charges against Joe Jones.
One charge alleges that he accepted money
from a person named Ricardo Teamor, who is an
attorney, in return for silencing his complaints
about a construction project in his ward. And by
his ward m mean Joe Jones' ward. And I also
understand all of this is extremely confusing at
this point and hopefully it will make more sense as

the case proceeds.
Ladies and gentlemen, the charge is not

true.
The second charge alleges that Joe Jones
omitted listing a loan from a state ethics form
that is required of all politicians as part of a
scheme to defraud and with a purpose to defraud his
constituants.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is true that he
omitted the listing for one of them forms. And it
is even true he omitted twice listing the loan on
the form. And it's further true that he should have
listed the loan on the form, there is no argument
about that.
But you will see from the evidence that
there was no scheme to defraud anyone, and he had no
purpose to defraud anyone in leaving this particular
piece of information off this Ohio ethics form,
which, by the way, are forms that all politicians
have to file with Ohio Ethics Commission.
Now, Joe Jones did in fact receive a
$5,000 loan from Mr. Nate Gray, who as you know, is
seated at the trial table. The money was for his
wedding. He attempted, prior to asking Mr. Gray for
the money, to get a conventional loan from
conventional sources, but he was unable to do so
because his debt was too great at that time, so he

couldn't get a regular loan from a bank.
Mr. Gray is a successful African American
businessman. He was a friend. He was a mentor to
Joe Jones. He was someone who Joe Jones admired,
again, as a successful businessman in the African
American community. When he could not obtain the
conventional loan in a conventional way, he asked
Mr. Gray, who eventually did loan him the money.
You will learn, and in fact you already
have learned, that the check was written to
Mr. Jones' wife to be, Tonya, who will testify,
because she was the one who would be repaying it.
Because at least at that point in time, she had more
cash flow. She is an attorney. She was employed
with a solid cash flow, if you will, at that point.
And she had the ability to repay the loan, and it
was her intention, and that is the understanding,
that she would repay the loan. And that's why the
check, and it was a check, by the way, from
Mr. Gray, and that's why the check was written to
Tonya Johnson Jones instead of Joe Jones.
And ladies and gentlemen, you will hear
from the evidence, and see from the evidence, that
t h e loan was in fact repaid in full. T h e r e are ten
$ 5 0 0 checks, that in one way or another you are

going to receive at some point in this trial,
written by Tonya Johnson Jones to Nate Gray in full
repayment of this loan.
There was simply nothing sinister about
the loan, as the government wishes to portray. It
was a loan and nothing more than that. It was given
in check form and it was repaid in check form.
With regard to the issue of reporting.
There is no dispute that Ohio law requires
politicians to report loans that they have received,
and this loan would certainly fall into that
category. Joe Jones failed to do this, and the
question is why? Was he trying to defraud his
constituents about having received this loan from
Mr. Gray?
No. The answer is that he is inept when
it comes to filling out such forms, and I think you
will see that from the evidence. His forms were
typically late. They were done in handwriting by
him, rather than by a staff person. There were many
omissions, not just this the particular loan.
The omission, ladies and gentlemen, was
negligent rather than intentional. Joe Jones is
simply not very good with these kind of details, and
I think the evidence will support that statement.

198
He has a history of making these kinds of
errors. And his staff, which you will learn, was
comprised mostly of volunteers rather than paid
professionals who knew how do that these sort of
things. People who worked for Joe Jones kind of
learned as they were going along.
Now, with regard to first charge. That
was the second charge. With regard to the first
charge, in 2001 the City of Cleveland contracted to
have its water mains cleaned, which again, you
understand all of this is a lot of information and

hopefully it will make sense in its own way.
The City of Cleveland contracted to have
the water mains cleaned. The prime contractor was a
company called Terrace Construction. And there was
a company called RMC, it's owned by a Ricardo
Teamor, and he is also an attorney, was the
subcontractor on that contract that fulfilled the
minority hiring requirement. Cleveland has a
minority hiring requirement, and that's what RMC
did, it fulfilled that particular issue on that
contract.
Teamor has testified that in February or
March of 2001, he was contacted by Terrace
Construction and advised that Joe Jones was

199
complaining so loudly about this project in his ward
that there was a concern that the work might not be
able to proceed. And of course, Teamor was
concerned that if Terrace's work couldn't proceed,
then his company as the subcontractor couldn't do
its work, and this was then about $625,000 for
Ricardo Teamor.
Teamor claims that he paid Joe Jones
through an intermediary in May of 2001 to stop his
complaining.
The evidence, however, will show that no
work even began in Joe Jones's ward until July of
2001. There was simply nothing for Joe Jones to
complain about in February or March of 2001. And so
Ricardo Teamor is a liar. And his own self-interest
is the motivating factor for his lies.
And there has been some discussion about
plea agreements. You will hear a bit more
discussion about plea agreements. And his testimony
is subject to a plea agreement in this case. And I
submit to you that you will conclude that rather
than insuring -- I mean plea agreements -- rather
than insuring the truth, it does just the opposite.
It insures that you don't hear the truth, the plea

agreement.
200
J o e J o n e s n e v e r a c c e p t e d money f r o m Teamor
o r h i s intermediary i n return f o r being influenced
i n h i s official position.
You w i l l f i n d t h a t Teamor i s t h e k i n d o f
p e r s o n who l i k e d t o make c o n t r i b u t i o n s a r o u n d town
i n o r d e r t o preempt problems. To l e t p e o p l e know
t h a t h e was o u t t h e r e , b u t n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n r e t u r n
f o r some s p e c i f i c a g r e e m e n t . And t h a t ' s t h e key t o
t h e c h a r g e i n r e g a r d s t o Teamor.
Joe Jones never agreed t o do anything,
e v e n t h o u g h t h e r e was a c o n t r i b u t i o n t h a t was made.
Now l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , I ' m almost done.
T h e r e a r e a c t u a l l y i n t h i s c a s e -- S p e c i a l Agent
M a s s i e c a n c o r r e c t me i f I ' m wrong -- a p p r o x i m a t e l y
60,000 s e p a r a t e c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t h a v e b e e n
recorded. You w i l l o b v i o u s l y n o t h e a r a l l 6 0 , 0 0 0 o f
them, a n d i n f a c t you w o n ' t e v e n h e a r a l l o f t h e 100
o r s o t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t p r o p o s e s f o r you t o h e a r .
I n o t h e r words, t h e y s e l e c t e d t h i n g s , a n d t h a t ' s
p a r t of t h e problem.
But J o e J o n e s h a s b e e n r e c o r d e d s a y i n g
t h i n g s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r s want t o a t t a c h s i n i s t e r
m o t i v e s t o , when i n t r u t h t h e i r r e a l l y i s n o n e .
A s a n e x a m p l e , you w i l l h e a r r e f e r e n c e s t o
becoming a member o f t h e M i l l i o n a i r e s C l u b . I think

201
Mr. Dettlebach made a comment about that. Well, on
Mr. Gray's desk there was a photograph, and depicted
in the photograph was Mayor Mike White of Cleveland,
former Mayor, Mr. Gray, and a man by the name of Sam
Miller, who is a very wealthy businessman in
Cleveland. And Mr. Gray used to always kid about

this being the Millionaires Club. And it was a
joke, and it was nothing more than a joke about
getting into the Millionaires Club.
The government, however, would like you to
think what it means is that Joe Jones was so hungry
for money, so hungry to get into the Millionaires
Club that he would do anything. And it simply
doesn't mean that.
There was a reference about going to the
next level. Well, any politician will tell you that
what going to the next level means is, it's sort of
a term of art for politicians. It simply means
running for higher office. It doesn't mean making
money improperly.
There was -- and finally, there was a
comment about missing opportunities. And you'll
hear the actual conversation yourself. Does this
mean that Joe Jones is nothing more than an
opportunist who will do anything for money?

202
No. What it actually means is he was on a
vacation in Alabama, he was impressed with a
restaurant known as the Waffle House and he hoped to
bring a Waffle House franchise to Cleveland. And he
actually got an application and he filled it out and
he sent it in to Waffle House. And when he found
out that he needed a million and a half dollars of
seed money, that kind of ended that project.
But when he talks about missed
opportunities, this is what he's talking about, not,
well, there is, there are other ways that we can
conspire to rip off people. That's not what he's
talking about.
You will hear a lot of other recordings in
which it will become abundantly clear to you, I
think, that if anyone had any improper purpose in
this situation, Joe Jones never became a part of it.
He was never in the loop.
The evidence in this case simply will not
support a conviction because he's innocent.
At the appropriate time, ladies and
gentlemen, I will ask you to tell the world that he
is innocent, with your verdict.
We thank you very much.

- - -
OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT GRAY
MR. WHITAKER: If it please the court.
Good afternoon folks. As you know I represent Nate
Gray.
And what you've heard from the Government
just moments ago was one side. Just one side. And
that's why the court says, keep an open mind until
you've heard both sides. Because these facts show a
lot more than what you were told by the government.
And what I want to do is pull the camera
back a little bit and look at more of the facts.
Look at what kind of person Nate Gray is and what
kind of person he was when he interacted with
Emmanuel Onunwor the Mayor of East Cleveland and
many of these other people. Oliver Spellman from
Houston.
And what you are going to find out and
what the evidence is going to show you is that Nate
Gray is a generous man. He is a man who has worked
hard and he has been successful. And his overriding
trait in the community and his reputation is his
generosity.
And this generosity didn't begin with any
of the people involved here, it began as soon as he
began working.
204
And his background, when I say he worked
hard and worked hard to overcome difficulties, he

only has a high school education, and he worked and
overcame that to be a successful businessman.
And when we are talking about overviews,
in the indictment it says, oh this man doesn't have
any special training. He doesn't have any
specialized training. He hasn't been trained as an
accountant; he hasn't been trained as an architect;
he hasn't been trained, in the indictment, as
anything beyond his high school education.
So he's just not qualified to be doing
these jobs. He's not qualified to be a consultant

to a big corporation like Honeywell or a big
corporation like CDM.
But in fact it was his hard work and his
desire to get ahead and to work hard and to do it
the right way that got him where he is.
And the relationships that he developed
were based on his personality, his perseverance and

his hard work.
And when we look at the overview -- and
one of the things he did become was a consultant.
We are going to go back and talk about that some
more in a little while.

205
When you look at the overview you only
look at -- when you look at one side and you think
about, oh my goodness, this horrible picture of
Emmanuel Onunwor, the Mayor of East Cleveland,
getting envelopes with cash in them from Nate Gray,
you think oh my goodness, well obviously he was
trying to get something.
But when you look at the whole picture you
will find out that back in 1995 when Emmanuel
Onunwor was penniless and powerless, and needed
money, who did he go to? Nate Gray. He said can
you help me? I need child support. I've got to pay
child support. I have to do these things.
And Nate Gray was his friend. And Nate
Gray's friend went to high school with Mayor
Onunwor's wife. And he said of course I'll help you

out, because that's the kind of guy he is. Of
course I'll help you out.
So back in 1995 when he was, when Onunwor
was penniless and powerless he would go into the
office of Nate Gray and he would get an envelope,
and in that envelope would be cash.
And just as you are going to see on the
videotapes, and just as you are going to see on the

pictures - - and I think there will be a lot
206
pictures, and you'll see them -- and I believe this
is one of them here.
You see this? This is the picture. There
is the envelope, there is Onunwor, and there is
Mr. Gray. And this looks so sinister and so bad.
And you'll see this time and time again. And you'll
see videotapes of that as well.
But you know what Emmanuel Onunwor will
tell you? In 1995 when he was penniless and
powerless if they would have had this camera, that
they've got installed right up here in the ceiling,
they would have seen the same thing, the exact same
thing. And there was absolutely nothing wrong with
it.
The government now wants to say, oh well,
maybe he was grooming him, he was investing in
Onunwor .
You know what Mayor Onunwor is going to
tell you, former Mayor Onunwor? Who is sitting in
jail, going to try to get ten years off his sentence
for his testimony here. You know what he's going to
tell you? He's going to say, when I started talking
about running for Mayor, you know what Nate Gray
told me? Don't do it. He didn't want me to run for
Mayor. He discouraged me from ring running for

207
Mayor. He said it's too hard. Don't do it. That's

no investment. He was doing it because he's a
generous man, because the man needed help.
And you know what he was giving him? Four
to 5 to $700 a month to help him out with his child

support, his rent payments, whatever. And this was
money that as soon as Mayor Onunwor, who it turns
out had much bigger things in mind himself, took
advantage of.
And when he found out that Nate had a
heart and said of course I'll help you out; of
course I'll give you money. And it's because Mayor
Onunwor isn't the only one. There are a lot of
people in the community penniless and powerless that
when they need help they go to see Nate Gray.
He is the man, the kind of man a community
needs. He's the kind of man what a that says I've
been successful and I'm going to help other people.
So Onunwor starts saying, I go to him more
regularly, 5 to $700 a month, long before he became
Mayor, even when he was a Councilman. And he'll
tell you Nate Gray never said, when he was a
Councilman, oh, will you vote this way? Or you will
you do that? Or do any favors whatsoever. But he

continued to help him out.
208
One of the important things to understand
is just the giving of a gift is not a crime.
Whether it's an elected official or whether it's not
an elected official.
THE COURT: Let me just interrupt for one
second. The attorneys don't tell you what the law
is, I'm the one that tells you what the law is. I'm
the only one that says that. So disregard the last
comment on what the law is. Stay away from that.
MR. WHITAKER: One of the things the
government says that they are going to prove, and
then you listen to what the judge says in terms of
about what they have to prove, is that there must be
a quid pro quo. You heard the words right from Mr.
Dettelbach.
THE COURT: Let me just. Stay away from
the legal issues. If you want to argue to the jury
that there was no quid pro quo you could do that.
But stay away from what the law is.
MR. WHITAKER: There was no quid pro quo
and the facts will show that one.
As a matter of fact, one of the reasons
that Nate discouraged Emmanuel was because when he
used to come in those days and get his help, and get
it in that same white envelope, and put it in his

p o c k e t when h e was p e n n i l e s s a n d p o w e r l e s s , t h e y
would t a l k . They would t a l k p o l i t i c s , t h e y would
t a l k about f r i e n d s . They would t a l k a b o u t a l l k i n d s
of things. And h e knew it would be d i f f i c u l t . And
h e knew t h e Emmanuel a s k e d him f o r a l l k i n d s o f
a d v i c e on a l l k i n d s o f t h i n g s . H i s family, h i s
wife, h i s relationships. And h e knew i f Emrnanuel
a c t u a l l y became Mayor, Emmanuel would be i n t h e r e
a l l t h e time asking about t h i s and t h a t and t h i s
a d v i c e , b e c a u s e h e knew t h a t N a t e G r a y was a n
i n t e l l i g e n t t h i n k i n g , k i n d p e r s o n who was i n t e r . e s t e d
i n t h e w e l f a r e o f t h e p e o p l e i n t h e community. And
he demonstrated t h a t t i m e and t i m e a g a i n .
And t h a t i s w h a t h a p p e n e d . Emmanuel would
a s k him a l l k i n d s o f q u e s t i o n s .
Now, t h e r e were t h r e e s p e c i f i c c o n t r a c t s
t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t t a l k e d t o you a b o u t t h a t t h e y
c l a i m was t h e r e a s o n t h a t Emmanuel g o t t h e money.
Even t h o u g h y o u ' l l h e a r Emrnanuel, who c a n ' t k e e p i t
s t r a i g h t , b y t h e way, how much i t was, b u t y o u ' l l
f i n d o u t t h a t h e was g e t t i n g 5 t o $ 7 0 0 when h e was
p e n n i l e s s and powerless.
And y o u ' l l a l s o f i n d o u t t h a t on t h e l a s t
d a y h e w a l k e d o u t o f Nate G r a y ' s o f f i c e w i t h an
e n v e l o p e i n h i s p o c k e t i t was $ 7 0 0 .
210
But at any rate, and Emmanuel is all over
the board on how much. Well this contract was
supposed to give me this much more money, and this
contract was supposed to give me this much more
money. But in 50,000 over 50,000 intercepted phone
conversations not one, not one where Nate says if
you do this I'll give you that.
And remember, he had no idea he was being
taped. He had no idea whatsoever. He had no idea
that they had a camera watching everything he did.
He had 50,000 phone calls intercepted. The man
couldn't even go to the bathroom without it being
recorded, and he had no idea.
And not one time does he say, well,
Emmanuel or Monique, or Oliver, you know, I need you
to do something if I give you this money. At no
point.
And you'll see that nothing changed with
regard to the way he treated Emmanuel when he was
penniless and powerless, throughout the entire time
that he was Mayor.
Let's look at the first contract. The
first contract was this thing about the law firm.
Oops, the reason the law firm was kept was because
apparently Nate promised Ernrnanuel that he would give

him money if he kept the law firm.
Absolutely not true. As a matter of fact,
what Emmanuel or Onunwor said -- and there will be
evidence of this when he was running his campaign --
what he said was, I am concerned about this haw
firm. I am concerned that complaints from people in
my citizens, people in my city, and I'm concerned
that concerned that they aren't sensitive to
minority hiring. And I'm going to look into that.
Well, he did. The first thing he did is
he talked to his tax commissioner. A woman by the

name of Mrs. Lovelace.
And you know what she said? This firm
does a great job. I recommend that you keep them
on. I think they are good people. I think they do

good work, and they've been doing this work for our
city for years and years and years.
So Emmanuel calls representatives in. The
firm heard this too. Well they could read the
paper. They knew that these were things that
Emmanuel was concerned about. And they knew that a
very successful businessman, they knew Mr. Onunwor,
Nate Gray was somebody that was also a consultant.
And they thought, you know, it might be a good idea
if we hired Nate to help us with minority

212
counselling, because he's the kind of man that could
do that, and help us in the event any disputes

arise.
So when they went to their meeting with
Mayor Onunwor they would be in a position to say,
look it, we are taking steps to meet your concerns.
And they may not have known even then that
Gloria Lovelace had said, look it, these people are
good. We should keep them on. And that's why they

were kept on.
Yes they entered into a contract with
Mr. Gray. And they entered into a contract with

Mr. Gray for a variety of reasons.
One is they thought, well, we probably
ought to be sensitive. And a city with a
population, the majority of the population is black,
this is a good thing for us to do. And not only
that, maybe Mr. Gray, because he is a successful
businessman, because he is a consultant, he could
get us business in other cities. This would be a
good thing too. And that's why they hired him.
And the amount of money that Mr. Gray was
paid as a consultant, a legitimate absolutely legal
and fair consultant, had nothing whatsoever to do

with the money that Onunwor had been getting since
he was penniless and powerless.
As a matter of fact, at one point -- at
some point during the course of the investigation.
Or during the course of all of this, when the tapes
were on, and the cameras was on, there was an audit.
And they said, look it, we think you could use this
Regional Tax Authority, RITA it's called. They do

collection for a lots of municipalities and they
might be better.
And without talking anything about it to
Nate Gray, without going and further, and against
the advice of his tax commissioner, Emmanuel Onunwor
said fine, let's go with RITA. It had so little
relationship with Nate Gray he didn't even tell him.
And what happened is, as a result, the law
firm said, well, we don't need Nate Gray anymore.
You know, we really haven't developed any business
in other cities. We are not going to be needing any
minority consulting. And as it turned out there
were very little disputes. No disputes that really
needed to be arbitrated or the law firm needed help
on with the citizens of Cleveland.
Part of the reason is Javitch and Block
changed their habits at a little bit and changed
their approach a little bit to avoid disputes with

citizens.
But they said, your contract is over.
Well if indeed this money was being paid because of
this contract, well then there should be some
adjustment in Emmanuel Onunwor's payments. There
was nothing. Not even discussed.
When they talked about the law firm going
south, Nate didn't realize that Onunwor had -- he
thought they just weren't doing the job. He didn't
realize that Onunwor had hired RITA. It had so
little relationship that anything that was happening
between Nate Gray and Onunwor, they didn't even know
about it.
So 90 days later he's talking about, well,
okay, the law firm isn't doing the job. We've got
to, you know, find another one.
But he will tell you nothing at all
changed when that contract was terminated in his
relationship with Nate Gray. It was the same
relationship he had when he was penniless and
powerless.
Now there is the Ralph Tyler thing. Ralph
Tyler, an engineering firm, and somehow Onunwor got
more money out of Nate because of contracts with
Ralph Tyler.
215
The only thing Ralph Tyler did was help
them find a city engineer. And you know why?
Because the city wanted a city engineer and nobody
wanted the job. It didn't have anything to do with
somebody out looking for all kinds of business.
Nobody wanted the job. And that's because for an
engineer being sitting in an office in the city
isn't the most exciting work. It doesn't pay as
much as you can make in private practice. No one
wanted the job.
He said you've got to have somebody in
that position, Emmanuel, or you not going to get the
state funds necessary to build roads and do the
things you need for your city.
And so he has Ralph to help him. And they
had to go through a few people before they finally
found somebody, but they did.
And if you listen carefully to Onunwor's
testimony you will find out that the money that Nate
had paid Emmanuel from the time he was penniless
had -- didn't change. Had nothing to do whatsoever
with the fact there was business with Ralph Tyler.
The business with Ralph Tyler was solely to help the
city.
You talk about services. Emmanuel
216
Onunwor -- and we'll see what he said -- was able to
provide honest services much better because he took
the time to ask his friend Nate Gray to help him,
and he did.
The last contract is the CH2M Hill, OMI,

same firm.
The City of East Cleveland has a very
serious problem with their ability, with their Water
Department in collecting the money for the Water
Department and these kinds of things. They needed
to do something.
Emmanuel Onunwor first heard about this
company when he was at a Mayor's conference. So at
a Mayor's conference all of these people and all
these big corporations that want to do business with
public sectors, want to do business around the

country, go there. They invite the Mayors, they
invite the city officials to come in and learn about
their products.
And Emmanuel Onunwor was in Washington, I
believe it was Washington, D.C., at one of these
conferences and he heard a proposal. He heard a
presentation by CH2M Hill about what they could
provide the city.
And who was the first person he came back

217
and talked to about that? Nate Gray. He said, hey,
I want to do something about the Water Department.
Not I want you to go out and see if we can make some
money, I want to do something for the city. And I
heard a proposal by this CH2M Hill. And do you know
anything about that company?
And Nate said, yes, I do business with
them. I work for them. They are a great company.
I'll set it up. I'll arrange it for you to come
in -- for them to come in and give you a more
detailed presentation, find out what your needs,
find out what the city's needs are, and then you can
see if it will work.
Let me tell you something else. Emrnanuel
Onunwor didn't make a decision as to whether CH2M
Hill got the contract. Now you remember, he didn't
make that decision. The Councilmen have to vote.
The Councilmen have to make that decision, they have
to vote on it. It has to be approved by the Council
or it doesn't happen. And the City of Cleveland had
so many financial problems that they were in sort of
something similar to of a receivership, where the
state, the commission had to approve it after that.
And CH2M Hill came in and they put
together a proposal where they thought they would be

218
able to save the city a million dollars a year.
That's what they thought they would be able to do.
And they thought it for a number very good reasons,
and that's why they got the contract. They put this
together.
At some point an audit was done and there
were criticism of CH2M Hill. And what the
government talks about as concealment were actually
attempts to try to meet the concerns of what this
audit said.
And as you can imagine, and as the people
from CH2M Hill will tell you, they didn't agree with
what that audit said. They said, yea, we haven't
met our projections. But there are good reasons, we
want to tell you what the reasons are, and make the
decision from there.
And the reasons included vacant lots that
were apparently mistakenly factored into the
original calculations. And they include old and
leaky water meters, and things that they were not
aware of at the time that contract began. And they
had hoped that they would be able to meet these
concerns. That's what the conversations were
afterwards.
And again, nothing changed in regard.

219
Now t h e C i t y o f C l e v e l a n d d i d n ' t p a y CH2M
H i l l very r e g u l a r l y , and t h e y d i d have a c o n s u l t i n g
a g r e e m e n t t h r o u g h R a l p h T y l e r w i t h CM2H H i l l . And
t h a t ' s b e c a u s e CM2H H i l l h a d a r e g u l a r a g r e e m e n t
w i t h Ralph T y l e r . They t a l k e d t o R a l p h T y l e r , do
you know N a t e Gray? And i t was n o t uncommon t o d o
i t t h a t way.
B e l i e v e me, n o t h i n g was c o n c e a l e d . Ralph
Tyler sent h i s invoices, t h i s is f o r t h e consulting
payment f o r N a t e Gray.
More i m p o r t a n t l y , when you g e t down t o t h e
q u i d p r o quo, n o t h i n g c h a n g e d . Whether CH2M H i l l
p a i d o r whether t h e y d i d n ' t pay, it d i d n ' t have
a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e g e n e r o u s h e l p t h a t N a t e Gray
h a d g i v e n t o Ernmanuel Onunwor a n d h a d b e e n g i v i n g
him b a c k when h e was d i s c o u r a g i n g him, t e l l i n g him
n o t t o r u n f o r Mayor.
Now w e move i n t o t h e C i t y o f C l e v e l a n d .
T h e r e i s a l l k i n d s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s a b o u t N a t e Gray
and J o e Jones. B u t I ' m g o i n g t o t e l l you s o m e t h i n g .
When you go b a c k i n t h a t j u r y room you w i l l n o t b e
a s k e d t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r N a t e Gray i s g u i l t y o f
anything i n r e l a t i o n t o Joe Jones, because he is
n o t , and t h e r e a r e no c h a r g e s . And t h e r e was n o
q u i d p r o quo, a n d t h e r e n e v e r was i n t e n d e d t o be.

B u t a p p a r e n t l y you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r t h o s e
c o n v e r s a t i o n s anyway.
And t h e r e i s o n e v e r y g o o d c o n v e r s a t i o n .
And i n t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n R i c a r d o Teamor i s s a y i n g
I -- you know, I would l i k e t o g i v e him t h i s l o a n ,
maybe I c o u l d g e t him t o h e l p m e o u t .
And N a t e Gray s a y s , R i c a r d o , nobody
l i s t e n s t o Joe Jones. Don't do it. Don't waste
y o u r money.
And R i c a r d o s a y s , w e l l , you a r e g o i n g t o
l e n d him some money.
H e g o e s y e a , t h a t ' s t h e k i n d f o o l I am. I
know t h e r e i s n o t h i n g h e c a n d o b u t h e h e l p s p e o p l e
f r o m t h e community o u t . And h e i n t e n d e d t o g e t
n o t h i n g o u t of it, he never expected t o g e t anything
o u t o f i t , a n d t h a t i s why t h e r e i s n o crime w i t h
r e g a r d t o N a t e Gray on t h a t i s s u e .
I t ' s a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f somebody t h a t
needs h e l p , whether t h e y can do a n y t h i n g f o r Nate
Gray o r w h e t h e r t h e y c a n ' t , they get t h e i r help
b a s e d on t h e i r n e e d s . They g e t t h e i r h e l p b a s e d t h e
same a s anybody e l s e i n t h e community.
Now t h e y t a l k a b o u t t h e W a t e r D e p a r t m e n t
a n d C i a c c i , t h i s guy Ciacci, t h e Water C o m m i s s i o n e r .
And CDM d i d a l l o f t h e s e i l l e g a l t h i n g s . And o n e o f

221
the illegal things that CDM did -- and by the way,
apparently these major, you know, Fortune 500
Corporations, Honeywell, CDM, are all part of Nate
Gray's enterprise. It's not true. They would laugh
at the notion. They know that that's not the case.
And they are not charged with being that.
THE COURT: You are only to consider the
charges that are here. In terms of whether somebody
else will or has been charged, is not relevant for
you.
MR. WHITAKER: At any rate, they will tell
you that CDM and Honeywell were all part of the Nate
Gray enterprise.
And one of the big things, horrible things
that happened is that Mayor Jane Campbell has this
scholarship fund for children. And she has the
strange notion that people that are doing business
with the City of Cleveland, and making money that
don't live in the community ought to contribute
other ways.
So people that are doing business
everybody, every department has said, when we are
having our scholarship, raising money for our
scholarship, you talk to these people, you raise

money from these people. If they want to do
business in our city then they need to contribute to
the city, they need to be part of the city's
charitable life. And that's somewhat happens.
Now, whether it was Ciacci or whether it
was Mayor himself, or whether it was anybody else,
talks to the consultant from CDM, Nate Gray, and
says, look it, the Mayor thinks that if your
company, the company you work for wants to do
business with the City of Cleveland they ought to
contribute to the people of the City of Cleveland on
a scholarship fund to send poor kids to school.
What would a consultant do in that
situation? A consultant would have at least an
obligation to tell the company that he is being
employed by, hey, this is what the city is
suggesting.
You know, it may be the company may say,
oh, boy, I suppose if we want to continue to do
business, we better pay this. But as far as Nate
Gray is concerned, what he does is he turns around
and tells them, look, this is what they are saying.
And you know what, it gets debated all the
way up to the board room. All the way up to the
CEO, and then the Board of Directors. The decision

isn't made by Nate Gray, isn't made my Gilbert
Jackson, but is made by the Board of Directors of
one of the largest corporations in the United States
of America. After much discussion and much debating
inside the board room and up in those chambers.
And nonetheless, Nate Gray is sitting
here, there he is sitting there, charged as part of
an enterprise that he turned around and did exactly
what he should, let this corporation know that the
city felt it was the right thing to do.
When you hear this testimony about, well,
Ciacci, somehow Ciacci's child's tuition had got
paid, and somebody at CDM says, oh yea, I heard
somebody say that. There is not a shred of evidence
that that happened, because it didn't happen.
And as a matter of fact, what we find out,
and there is all this testimony about, oh, Ciacci
making this decision and Ciacci getting that
benefit, the contract that the prosecution was
telling you about, the contract where they had to
change the configuration or the calculations to see
who got it, that decision wasn't made by Ciacci,
that decision was made by the Mayor. And there will
be no evidence that the Mayor got any inappropriate
payment whatsoever.
224
And why did the Mayor make that decision?
Why? Because he looked at it and he said this other
company under this calculation has a higher score.
But I'm concerned with the cost of the product. I
think more weight ought to be given to the cost of
the product to save the people of the City of
Cleveland money. And I want it reconsidered with a
different weight on the cost.
And when that happened CDM, which had a
much less expensive but a good track record of
working with the city and providing services that
benefitted the city, came out higher. And they got
the job. And they got it as the result of the
Mayor's decision to try to save the taxpayers money.
That's why it happened.
Nate Gray started off with a gas station;
and it was two gas stations. He showed the same
kind of generosity when he ran the gas stations that
he showed -- that he continued to show when he
became a successful consultant.
What do consultants do? Consultants jobs
are to develop relationships. And you will hear
testimony about this. Every major corporation wants

a consultant. They want somebody that knows the
people in the city, that has relationships with the

225
people in the city, that build relationships with
people they don't know. That's the job of a
consultant.
And that involves taking people out to
dinner. That involves taking people to sporting
events. That involves a lot of things. Those among
them. You will hear testimony about that.
And the corporations know that. And
that's what they expect. And that's what they do.
And frankly, with Nate Gray's personality
and reputation that he has, he was able to develop
good relationships because people like him and they
know him for what he is, a generous, hard working,
successful man.
So Honeywell has a relationship with Nate.

He's been a consultant with them for a long while
and they are interested in doing business. And Nate
says, I know this guy Oliver Spellman in Texas, and
he used to work in the City of Cleveland here. And
as it turns out, when he worked in the City of
Cleveland, when he couldn't do anything at all for
Nate Gray, Nate Gray helped him. Let his use his
restaurant for a shower for his wife when she was
pregnant. They were so grateful for a while they
were referring to the unborn baby as little Nate.

226
Not expecting anything in return. Not that Oliver
Spellman could have done anything in return.
So he says to Jividen, who is his contact
with Honeywell -- Honeywell is also supposed to be a
part of this huge enterprise Nate Gray controls --
I'll introduce you to Oliver and, you know, we'll
see maybe Honeywell can bid on a project.
And that's exactly what a consultant is
supposed to do, make the introduction so that the
company can try to present the benefit of their
product.
So they go out, they see Spellman, they
talk to him. Spellman in fact introduces Jividen to
Monique McGilbra, who works in the Building
Department for the City of Houston. Fine. Great.
That's what he was supposed to do. Try to arrange
those introductions.
Monique then, it turns out, and
Mr. Dettlebach probably didn't do justice to
Monique, it turns out Monique is shaking everybody
down, trying to shake everybody down. She wasn't
successful with Nate, but she was getting people to
pay her cash. She was getting people to do stuff at
her house. She was getting people to do all kinds
of things. And then she was making Hardeman pay her

money from contract with this corporation from
Keystone, unbeknownst to obviously Nate or Jividen
or any of those people.
So, she was kind of expert at trying to
get the most out of her position.
THE COURT: Let me ask the attorneys to
come up, please.
THE COURT: I'm having trouble with one of
the jurors sitting over here keeps closing her eyes.
I assume she's listening to it, but you are losing
her. And I'm looking at the jury. You are losing
the others.
Save that for your final argument. It's
supposed to be an overview of what the evidence is
going to be, and you are using it more in the line
of argument.
How much more do you have?
MR. WHITAKER: We're in Houston and there
is New Orleans.
THE COURT: Don't make it an argument. I
want to get to this. I want to get them out on a

break.
228
MR. JENKINS: If he finish up in probably

ten minutes --
THE COURT: I'm going to recess between
his and yours.
MR. JENKINS: And I'll be about ten

minutes.
MR. WHITAKER: Let's see where was I,
Houston. Oliver Spellman.
Oliver Spellman knows about Nate's
reputation. He hasn't asked him to do anything
else.
Keep in mind, too, one of the ways that
Nate was successful, he had a company, ETNA parking,

that worked at airports and got airport contracts to
provide services like a shuttle from the airport to
the parking lot. And Houston was opening up some, a
new rental place, car rental, and off the site. And
they needed that service and he wanted to see if
ETNA could get it.
So he was working that process as well.
Spellman comes to him at some point and
says, oh Nate. Now, he hasn't asked him to do

anything. He was Chief of Staff. And you will hear
h e g o t promoted t o C h i e f o f S t a f f . And you w i l l
h e a r a s t o r y where b o t h B r e n t a n d -- o r a t a p e where
b o t h B r e n t a n d Nate were r e a l l y p l e a s e d b y t h a t ,
t h e y l o v e d i t b e c a u s e t h e y t h o u g h t i t was g r e a t one
o f h i s c o n t a c t s was i n t h a t g r e a t o f a p o s i t i o n .
A t no p o i n t d i d Nate e v e r a s k him t o do
a n y t h i n g t h a t h e s h o u l d n ' t do i n t h a t p o s i t i o n o r
any o t h e r p o s i t i o n . And t h a t was l o n g b e f o r e O l i v e r
came t o a s k Nate f o r some h e l p .
But O l i v e r d i d . He s a i d , I g o t t h i s t a x
problem -- t u r n s o u t h e had a d r u g p r o b l e m -- b u t h e
s a i d I have a t a x problem, c a n you l e n d me some
money? Okay. O l i v e r was a l i t t l e a l l o v e r t h e
p l a c e , b u t i t was s e v e r a l t h o u s a n d d o l l a r s a n d he
l e n t him t h a t money.
A t t h e same t i m e t h e two o f them were
g o i n g t o go t o Las Vegas f o r t h e weekend. Oliver
wanted t o j u s t g e t away, and Nate was g o i n g t o go
w i t h him and was g o i n g t o g e t a h o t e l room. Nate
w a s n ' t a b l e t o do i t . He s t i l l p a i d f o r t h e h o t e l
room.
Absolutely nothing d i d he a s k O l i v e r t o do
i n return for those favors.
Remember I t o l d you a b o u t t h e p e o p l e t h a t
you want a r e t h e p e o p l e t h a t know t h e p e o p l e .

That's why Earl Brown was hired.
Earl Brown was a consultant. There won't
be a single bit of testimony that Earl Brown did
anything he shouldn't have done with the Mayor, his
brother, Lee Brown of Houston.
But at any rate, getting back to Oliver.
The only thing he asked Oliver to do. They heard
that somebody came in and said that the Mayor wanted
a local firm. If everything was equal on the
parking contract, the Mayor wanted a local firm.
And he said to Oliver, you talk to the
Mayor all the time, can you find that out? I don't
want you to do anything about it, you know, can you
find that out?
And it was so above board that Oliver just
walks in and says hey, Nate Gray wants this parking
contract, wanted to know, did you make this
statement? Because he thought maybe one of the
competitors had said it and made it up.
And he said, no. But as a matter of fact,
that's a pretty good idea. If anything it had just
the opposite effect.
And that's the only thing he was ever
asked to do. And he was very careful. He said

don't do anything. I'm not asking you to do
231
anything else. Just find out if he really said
that.
The situation in New Orleans is entirely
different. There is one conversation in which
Gilbert talks about this flip it conversation.
There are all kinds of expenses that go into that.
There are expenses in terms of going out to dinners;

expenses in doing things that are perfectly legal.
And there are many things.
That project never went anywhere, nothing
ever happened to it. Do you know what happened
after that. They got an introduction, they
presented it, and you will hear lots of
conversations about discussing what they needed to
do.
See, a consultant has a two way job. One
is to develop the relationship and create the

introduction; and the other is to get back to them
with the concerns that the city, or the Councilmen,
or anybody involved on the contract may have.
So for example, when Monique found out
there was a problem between Reliant, a contractor,

and Honeywell, a subcontractor, it would have been
very disruptive had all of a sudden they had to go
looking for a new subcontractor. And so of course

what s h e w a n t e d t o d o was smooth t h a t o v e r .
T h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g e l s e a b o u t Monique,
too. She d i d n ' t make t h e d e c i s i o n . A s a matter o f
f a c t , R e l i a n t made t h e d e c i s i o n a l o n g w i t h CDM,
w h i c h h a d b e e n h i r e d l o n g b e f o r e t h e r e were a n y
d i s c u s s i o n s , b e f o r e N a t e o r O l i v e r o r I mean B r e n t
o r anybody e v e n knew Monique. CDM h a d b e e n h i r e d t o
a d v i s e them a n d t e l l them who t h e b e s t p e o p l e t o
h i r e w e r e , a n d t o make t h o s e k i n d o f d e c i s i o n s . And
t h e y a r e t h e o n e s t h a t made t h e d e c i s i o n s .
F o l k s , 5 0 , 0 0 0 p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s , y e t you
c a n b e t t h a t h e was a l i t t l e u p s e t on t h e d a y h e
found o u t t h i s happened. Because o v e r a y e a r w i t h
5 0 , 0 0 0 phone c o n v e r s a t i o n s , nobody w a n t s t o h a v e
every conversation heard. There a r e c o n v e r s a t i o n s
taken o u t of context. There a r e c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t
c a n -- t h e r e a r e j u s t g u y s t a l k i n g . A l l of those
a r e r e c o r d e d ; you w o n ' t h e a r a l l o f them, t h a n k
goodness, w e ' l l b e h e r e u n t i l Christmas. There a r e
a l l k i n d s o f t h i n g s t h a t a r e j u s t two f r i e n d s
talking. And a l o t o f t h i s i s o u t o f c o n t e x t .
F o r e x a m p l e , a l o t o f i t u s e s terms t h a t
t h e y u s e among t h e m s e l v e s t h a t t h e y a l l know what i t
means. So you h a v e t o p u t e v e r y t h i n g i n c o n t e x t .
And when you p u t e v e r y t h i n g i n c o n t e x t you will come

233
t o t h e same c o n c l u s i o n , Nate i s a h a r d w o r k i n g
g e n e r o u s guy t h a t g o t t o where h e . w a s b y d o i n g t h e
r i g h t t h i n g and by b e i n g a c o n f i d e n t p e r s o n .
H e i s n o t g u i l t y o f a n y o f t h e s e crimes
charged i n t h i s indictment. Thank y o u .
THE COURT: We a r e g o i n g t o t a k e a b o u t t e n
minutes.
Same r u l e s a p p l y . Don't t a l k about t h e
c a s e among y o u r s e l v e s . Don't t a l k about it with
anyone else. D o n ' t form any o p i n i o n s o r e x p r e s s
any.
W e ' l l a d j o u r n f o r a few m i n u t e s , i f you
w i l l head back.
( B r i e f recess. )
THE COURT: I f the jury w i l l take their
seats. I'll ask Mr. J e n k i n s t o make o p e n i n g
statements.
MR. JENKINS: Thank y o u , y o u r H o n o r .

- - -
OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JACKSON
MR. JENKINS: Good a f t e r n o o n . My name i s
Robert J e n k i n s and I r e p r e s e n t G i l b e r t Jackson.
A s r e l a t e s t o t h i s c a s e , G i l b e r t was a
S e n i o r Vice P r e s i d e n t f o r CDM, Camp, Dresser, McKee,
and h e ' s charged with c e r t a i n counts of t h e

i n d i c t m e n t , t h e R I C O a n d Hobbs A c t .
The o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t i s m e r e l y s u p p o s e d
t o b e a b l u e p r i n t o f how t h e g o v e r n m e n t s a y s t h e y
c a n p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t how i n d e e d my
c l i e n t v i o l a t e d t h e law. And t h e way t h e y d o t h a t
i s through evidence. And you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r
e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d , a n d you a r e g o i n g
t o hear evidence through t h e tape recording of t h e
wire i n t e r c e p t s t h e y have of t h e t a p e s .
They h a v e b r o k e n t h i s down i n t o s e v e r a l
parts: C l e v e l a n d , E a s t C l e v e l a n d , H o u s t o n , a n d New
Orleans.
A s it r e l a t e s t o Cleveland, t h e r e i s no
e v i d e n c e w h a t s o e v e r t h a t you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r t h a t
t i e s M r . Jackson t o a conspiracy. You a r e n ' t g o i n g
t o h e a r i t when you g e t t o C l e v e l a n d . You w i l l h e a r
a c o n v e r s a t i o n between G i l b e r t Jackson and Nate
G r a y , t h e y were f r i e n d s , t h e y w e r e b u s i n e s s
partners. They t a l k e d a b o u t t h i n g s t o g e t h e r . But
t h e evidence w i l l support t h e r e h a s never been --

you w o n ' t h e a r a n y w i r e i n t e r c e p t s w h e r e t h e r e i s a n
agreement t o b r i b e any p u b l i c o f f i c i a l o r g i v i n g
a n y o n e a n y money. T h a t ' s t h e g o o d t h i n g a b o u t wire
i n t e r c e p t s , you a r e g o i n g to h e a r this.
We p i c k e d you a l l b e c a u s e w e t h o u g h t you
235
would be f a i r and i m p a r t i a l n o t o n l y t o t h e defense
b u t t o t h e government. They have a r i g h t t o have a
f a i r and i m p a r t i a l j u r y a s w e l l .
What you a r e going t o h e a r , t h e r e a r e many
d e f e n d a n t s , t h r e e , o r f o u r , o r f i v e of them t h a t
have a l r e a d y p l e a d g u i l t y . You a r e going t o h e a r
from Monique McGilbra, Garland Hardeman, and Brent
J i v i d e n , and t h e y a r e going t o t e s t i f y t o what t h e y
did. Not one of them i s going t o t e l l you t h e y
engaged i n any improper a c t i v i t i e s , and t h e law i s
going t o t e l l you, and t h e evidence i s going t o
support i t . Not one of them i s going t o t e l l you,
a s r e l a t e s t o G i l b e r t Jackson, a s r e l a t e s t o any
time, was involved i n any i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y such a s
any p a y o f f s , any b r i b e s , anything of v a l u e given t o
them i n s u p p o r t of t h e c o n t r a c t .
The government t o l d you t h e y a r e going t o
t e l l you about, and t h e evidence i s going t o
s u p p o r t , about t h e s e s o - c a l l e d Super Bowl t i c k e t s .
You a r e going t o hear t h e t a p e r e c o r d i n g , you a r e
going t o hear w h a t ' s going on a s t o t h e t i c k e t s .
You a r e going t o h e a r my c l i e n t speak t o Nate Gray
about t h e t i c k e t s . But once a g a i n , j u s t t h e
c o n v e r s a t i o n i s n o t enough. There was n o t h i n g e v e r ,
i n terms of t h o s e t i c k e t s , t h a t i n v o l v e d M r . Jackson
in anything illegal.
In fact, after that conversation, you are
going to find out Gilbert Jackson didn't deliver the
Super Bowl tickets, they were delivered to the home,
to Miss McGilbra and her boyfriend, because they
were friends. They talked a lot.
The government can't prove a conspiracy
involving the RICO and Hobbs Act. And the evidence
is going to support, when you talk about it
together, talk about it. He told you what they have
to prove to you is what? Follow the money. He said
if you follow the money it's going to lead you to
Gilbert Jackson.
Not true.
In New Orleans you are going to hear a
conversation, and Gilbert Jackson is talking to an

individual Vincent Sylvain. Vincent Sylvain works
in the Public Housing Authority in New Orleans, in
the Mayor's office. When you hear that
conversation, when he testifies the date that
conversation takes place, when they are talking to
you, keep in mind the date the conversation took
place, and keep in mind the date the money went to
Gilbert for his expenses, things of that nature.
You are going to see the alleged meeting

b e t w e e n HANO, t h e e v i d e n c e w i l l s u p p o r t t h a t
c o n v e r s a t i o n , i t h a d t a k e n p l a c e b e f o r e t h e money
was e v e r s e n t t o G i l b e r t . And you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r
about t h a t .
W h a t ' s more i m p o r t a n t o f t h a t p a r t i c u l a r
c o n v e r s a t i o n , t h e g o v e r n m e n t t o l d you t o f o l l o w t h e
money. The wire i n t e r c e p t s . You a r e g o i n g t o h e a r
when t h e money a r r i v e s , you a r e g o i n g t o h e a r t h a t ,
a n d t h e e v i d e n c e w i l l s u p p o r t t h e y knew when t h e
money was g o i n g t o a r r i v e t o G i l b e r t .
I want t o jump b a c k a l i t t l e b i t .
You a r e g o i n g t o h e a r some t a p e s a b o u t
Emmanuel Onunwor, a b o u t money, when t h e y knew a b o u t
w h a t e v e r money h e h a d . The e v i d e n c e i s g o i n g t o
s u p p o r t t h a t t h e y w e r e a b l e t o , a t some p o i n t , p u t
t h e wire i n t e r c e p t i n , t h e video, and t h e cameras.
They knew a c t u a l l y when t h e money was b e i n g
d e l i v e r e d t o G i l b e r t b e c a u s e t h e money n e v e r went
anywhere e l s e .
The e v i d e n c e w i l l s u p p o r t t h a t V i n c e n t
S y l v a i n n e v e r g o t a n y money. H e was t h e p u b l i c
o f f i c i a l t h e y were t a l k i n g a b o u t . They t o l d you
t h a t they a r e prosecuting public o f f i c i a l s i n t h i s
case b e c a u s e i t i s a n i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y .
And w h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i s g o i n g t o s u p p o r t
238
is that there was no money as relates to Gilbert
that went anywhere whatsoever. The only thing you
will hear, they talk about a lot of foolish things
in terms of this macho type attitude, but there was
never a conspiracy. And that's basically the case
involving Gilbert Jackson.
When you talk about Houston, that's where
Monique McGilbra comes in. Basically we all talk
about her here. And when you get to what she did,
you will understand that she was the corrupt
official. But she's going to tell you she had no
contact with Mr. Jackson in terms of anything

illegal.
Thank you.
- - -
MICHAEL MASSIE
called as a witness by and on behalf of
of the Government, after being first duly
sworn, was examined and testified as
follows :
THE COURT: Would the United States call

your first witness.
MR. DETTELBACH: The United States calls
Special Agent Massie.
THE COURT: Put your books on the seat.

I'm also going to direct to you some of the head
seats and we'll give some to the parties as well.
While we are doing that, why don't you go
ahead, and begin, Mr. Dettelbach.
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, your Honor.

- - -
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q In a loud clear voice could you state your name and

spell your name for the court.
A Michael Massie, M-A-S-S-I-E.
Q And where are you currently employed?

A I'm currently employed as a special agent for the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Q Agent Massie, how long have you been with the FBI?
A A little over three and a half years.
Q And where are you currently stationed?
A Currently stationed in Cleveland, Ohio.
Q What is your current assignment?
A Currently assigned to the Public Corruption Squad.
Q Special Agent Massie, what are the duties of your
job?
A To investigation allegations of corruption
involving elected and appointed public officials.
Q Prior to working for the FBI, did you have another

job?
A I did.
Q What did you do before you were an FBI agent?

A Prior to the FBI I worked as a license certified
public account and I was an auditor for KPMG.
Q Were there any licenses you obtained in order to

get that title?
A Yes, CPA license.
Q How do you get that?

A Passed a series of tests, and also completed an
ethics exam.
Q Could you please describe your audit work at KPMG?

A It was largely based on audits of large and medium
size companies, reviewing financial statements, make sure
they comply with applicable accounting standards and
regulations.
Q What types of records did you review during that

period?
A All different types of financial records, and the
business records.
Q What is your educational background?

A I have a Bachelors in Business Administration from
Ohio University.
Q Are you the case agent in this particular case?

A I am.
241
Q I want to begin by asking you some of the types of

things that you did in the course of investigating this
case.
In the course of your investigation in this
case, did you execute any search warrants?
A I did.
Q And can you please tell us on who or where you

executed search warrants?
A There are various different search warrants
involved in this case. Search warrants for residences,
businesses, as well as a search warrant executed on the
person of Emmanuel Onunwor.
Q So on the person of Emmanuel Onunwor?

A That's correct.
Q And you said residences and businesses. What

places?
A A search warrant was executed on the residence of
Nate Gray and Valerie Wilson in Orange Village, Ohio.
A search warrant executed on the business of
ETNA, which is located in Shaker Square, Cleveland, Ohio.
A search warrant was executed on the
residence of Emmanuel and Pamela Onunwor, which is in
East Cleveland, Ohio.
And we also executed a search warrant for the
City of East Cleveland, City Hall.

242
Q Now, you said that the search warrant executed on

Nathaniel Gray was in Orange, Ohio?
A Orange Village, Ohio.
Q Is that in East Cleveland?

A No, it's not.
Q And Mr. Gray's business, is that in East Cleveland?

A No. It's in Cleveland, Ohio.
Q You mentioned a name, ETNA?

A Yes.
Q Can you tell us what that is?

A ETNA is the entity -- there is a series of entities
Nate Gray's businesses go under the ETNA name. It's
associated with various different businesses. There is
an ETNA Parking, ETNA Associates, which is a consulting
business, and also an ETNA Paper and Supply, which is a
paper and supply company.
Q In addition to the search warrants, were there

interviews conducted in this case?
A Yes, numerous interviews.
Q Did you do any physical surveillance in this case?

A Yes.
Q Was is physical surveillance?
A Physical surveillance is essentially watching a
person or location. Do surveillance on a person whereby

you would follow that person, try to determine where
they are going, who they are meeting with.
You can also do surveillance on a particular
building. You see who is coming in and out of a
particular facility.
Q For like a stakeout?

A Yes, like a stakeout.
Q During that time, did you ever see the person who
was identified as Nate Gray?
A Yes, I have.
Q And do you see that person in the courtroom here

today?
A I do.
Q Could you please identify him?

A He's the gentleman at the end of the table, just
stood up.
THE COURT: The witness has identified
Defendant Gray.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And during that period, did you ever do

surveillance on person known as Gilbert Jackson?
A Yes, I have.
Q Do you see that person?

A I do.
Q Could you please identify him?

A He's directly behind you, just --
244
Defendant Jackson.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Now, in addition to physical surveillance, did the

FBI conduct any court authorized electronic surveillance
in this case?
A Yes, we did.
Q A wiretap in fact?
A Yes.
(1 Now, in addition to the wiretap, were there any

other telephone records that you obtained and reviewed in
the course of your investigation?
A Yes, various and numerous different telephone
records.
Q What kinds of records?

A Toll records, which is essentially like a telephone
bill. We reviewed those for the defendants, as well as a
numbering of other individuals.
We also reviewed reports that were generated
by the phone company, which are pen reports.
And trap and trace reports. And these
reports allow you to identify what particular numbers are
calling into a certain telephone facility, and which
particular numbers are being called by a particular
facility.
Q Does it give you what's said on the calls?
A No, it's just, just the numbers dialed.
Q So that's different than a wiretap, right?

A Yes.
Q Now, in addition to those phone records and the

searches I asked you about, in the course of the
investigation did you serve any Grand Jury subpoenas for
records, and receive any records in response?
A Yes, I have.
Q What were the types of Grand Jury subpoenas, the

categories that you served subpoenas upon?
A I served various different documentary subpoenas
seeking documents from various corporations and
municipalities.
We also served subpoenas to various different
individuals, compelling them to come and testify before
the Grand Jury.
Q All right. And were any of those served upon any

financial institutions?
A Yes. A number being served also on financial
institutions, banks, credit card companies, as well as
various phone companies for the phone records I talked
about.
Q In response to the subpoenas, have you obtained

records?
A Yes, I h a v e .
Q With r e g a r d t o t h o s e t y p e o f b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s ,
s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e o n e s t h a t were p r e p a r e d i n p r e p a r a t i o n
f o r t r i a l , was t h e r e a n y c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s t h a t
occurred regarding those records?
A Yes, t h e r e was.
Q Was t h a t o r a l l y o r i n w r i t i n g ?
A In writing.
Q And was t h e r e a f o r m t h a t was, i n e f f e c t , p r o v i d e d
t o return t h e business records?
A Yes.
Q D o you h a v e a c o p y o f t h a t f o r m w i t h y o u ?
A Yes, I d o .
Q F o r t h e r e c o r d , t h e n , c o u l d you p l e a s e r e a d i n t o
t h e r e c o r d t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n t h a t was r e t u r n e d w i t h
b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s t h a t you p r e p a r e d f o r e x h i b i t s i n t h i s
case?
A The h e a d i n g r e a d s , " C e r t i f i c a t e o f A u t h e n t i c i t y o f
Business Records.'' I t says, "I d e c l a r e , pursuant t o
T i t l e 28, USC 1746, t h a t I a m e m p l o y e d b y b l a n k , and t h a t
my o f f i c i a l t i t l e o r p o s i t i o n i s b l a n k . I further
d e c l a r e t h a t I am c u s t o d i a n o f r e c o r d s o f s a i d b u s i n e s s .
That each of t h e r e c o r d s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o i s t h e o r i g i n a l
o r d u p l i c a t e , e x a c t photocopy of an o r i g i n a l r e c o r d i n
t h e custody of blank.
"I f u r t h e r s t a t e t h a t :
"A. Such r e c o r d s were made a t o r n e a r t h e
time o f o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e m a t t e r s e t f o r t h , b y o r f r o m
i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s m i t t e d b y a p e r s o n w i t h knowledge o f
those matters.
"B. Such r e c o r d s were k e p t i n t h e c o u r s e o f
a r e g u l a r l y conducted business a c t i v i t y .
"C. The b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y made s u c h r e c o r d s
a s a r e g u l a r p r a c t i c e ; and
"D. I f such record i s n o t t h e o r i g i n a l , such
record is a duplicate of t h e o r i g i n a l . "
And t h e n i t ' s s i g n e d . "I d e c l a r e under
penalty of perjury t h a t t h e foregoing i s t r u e and
correct.
"Signature, d a t e and p l a c e of execution."
(Z Except f o r t h e blanks, a r e t h o s e i d e n t i c a l
c e r t i f i c a t i o n s t h a t were c o m p l e t e d f o r t h e r e c o r d s i n
question?
A Yes, t h e y a r e .
Q I know t h i s i s g o i n g t o b e t e d i o u s , b u t f o r t h e
r e c o r d I h a v e t o a s k you, would you p l e a s e r e a d f o r u s b y
e x h i b i t number t h e e x h i b i t s f o r w h i c h you r e c e i v e d
c e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e t y p e you j u s t r e a d ?
A Yes.
THE COURT: Let me ask, a s t o t h e

248
exhibits, do the defendants have a challenge on
authenticity grounds or hearsay grounds?
MR. JENKINS: Not on behalf of
Mr. Jackson, your Honor.
THE COURT: Does anyone have an objection
on authenticity or on hearsay grounds, as to the
business records exception?
MR. EMOFF: Not as to authenticity, your
Honor.
THE COURT: What about hearsay? I think

the certification deals with seeking the hearsay
exception under Rule 801 -- or I'm sorry.
Do you have any contention or do you have
any objection that these were business records not
kept in the regular course of business by persons
within the responsibility for accurately reporting
that business?
MR. JENKINS: Judge, once again,
Mr. Jackson I don't in either case.
THE COURT: What about on behalf of
Defendant Jones?
MR. EMOFF: We agree, your Honor.
THE COURT: Pardon?
MR. EMOFF: We agree with that comment,
your Honor.
249
THE COURT: So you have no objection?
MR. EMOFF: Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: To the authenticity, your
Honor?
THE COURT: Authenticity or hearsay
exception under 803?
MR. WHITAKER: No. As a general sense,
no. If a specific document comes up, I'll make that
objection.
MR. DETTELBACH: Very well. Thank you,
your Honor.
Q That saved us a little time, so let's move on to

another topic.
I want to ask you about the scope of
electronic surveillance or wiretaps that were conducted
in this case.
Are there any wiretaps conducted on the phone
associated with Nate Gray?
A Yes.
Q Could you please tell us over what period those

wiretaps exist for purchased of purpose of this case?
A There were two periods of interceptions. The
initial period was January 16th through February 15th,

250
2000.
There was a second period of interception,
which started on August lst, 2002 and carried on into
March 16th of 2003.
Q And which phones associated with Mr. Gray were
subject to court authorized electronic surveillance?
A The office phones assigned to the ETNA Companies,
which consisted of a series of four different numbers
which worked in a roll-over capacity.
That being the main number, which was
(216)921-3700. That would be the first number called.
If that number was busy, the business phones would
roll-over to the next number, and then the next number.
Also had wiretaps on cell phone subscribed to
Dawann Gray, which is Nate Gray's son, which was utilized
by Nate Gray.
And then wiretaps on the home telephone of
Nate Gray and Valerie Wilson.
Q What were those numbers?

A The cell phone is 216-317-7676.
And the home number escapes me right now.
Q All right. May I show you something?

With respect to the cell phone number you
said it was in the name of Dawann Gray?
A Yes, it was.
251
Q And have you listened to countless number of hours

on that?
A I have.
Q And who was using that phone, based on your

listening?
A Nate Gray.
(1 Was Dawann Gray using that phone for his personal

use, from what you heard?
A No.
Q Now, were there phones associated with other people

that were wiretapped pursuant to court authorization,
besides those of Mr. Gray?
A Yes. We also had wiretaps on both the personal and
business cell phone for Monique McGilbra. And we had a
wiretap on a cell phone subscribed to a Brent Jividen.
Q In addition to phones, were there any other

electronic convince conducted on business equipment in
Mr. Gray's office?
A Yes. We had a wiretap on the fax machine for the
ETNA Companies.
Q How does that work?

A Essentially, it's a -- we would receive an exact
duplicate of anything that was sent into or transmitted
from that particular fax machine using that phone number.
Q Apart from those wiretaps was there any other court

authorized surveillance at Nate Gray's office?
A Yes. We had court authorized surveillance for a
microphone and a bug which was implanted in Nate Gray's
office, concealed in a ceiling tile which was above a
round conference table in Nate Gray's personal office, in
his office.
Q When you say personal office, could you describe

what you mean?
A It's the office he personally worked out of at the
ETNA companies.
Q Now I want to ask you some questions about things

that were not done.
To your knowledge, were there any wiretaps on
the phones of Gilbert Jackson?
A No.
Q To your knowledge where there any wiretaps

associated on the phones of Joe Jones?
A No.
Q Were there any video or microphones at either of

their offices?
A No, there was not.
Q And I want to ask you some background questions

regarding the conduct of the wiretap in this case.
First of all, physically where was it at
agents were monitoring the phones of Nate Gray?

253
A Physically was in our offices, the Cleveland

offices of the FBI. We had a room which we referred to
as a wire room, whereby agents will sit at terminals,
listening terminals, and as the calls come in they
monitor one by one.
Q All right. And is that a room that's open to the

public?
A NO, it's not.
Q Now, is every single thing that goes on over those

telephones either listened to or recorded?
A No.
Q Could you please explain that for us?

A Certain calls that come in are minimized. Certain
privileged communications that Nate Gray may have with
his attorney or clergyman or patient/doctor. There are
certain privileges whereby we would not listen to those
certain conversations.
Q And what else does minimization, or the word

minimize, refer to in regards to your duty?
A Any conversations not related to the activities or
the allegations. Some personal conversations are
minimized once they are deemed not to have any relevance
to the allegations in the case.
Q How do you do that? In the real world, how is that

accomplished?
254
A You have to listen to it. You have to physically
listen to the call, what's being said, what's being
discussed. And also you have to, if you elect to
minimize that particular conversation, if you deem it
personal or not relevant, the agent listening to that
particular call would do something, what is referred to
as a spot check.
Which means periodically, if the call was

minimized, they would turn it back on, listen to it to
see if the topic has changed. Or if Mr. Gray may have
picked up another call via call waiting, something of
that nature.
Q And can you explain how call waiting plays into

that spot check?
A Well, it's typical call waiting. You could be on a

conversation with somebody, another call would come in,
switch conversations.
Q Was minimization something easy to effectuate in

this case?
A No, it was not.
Q Why?
A A number of the con.versations involved in this case
involved both personal and business conversations all
wrapped up in one. One minute there would be a personal

discussion and the next minute it would switch to
business.
Q And now I want to ask you some questions about your

role with respect to the wiretap.
First of all, did you actually do a lot of
listening yourself?
A Yes, I did.
Q And as the case agent, what other role did you have
in the wiretap?
A Essentially to supervise the overall running of the
wire. Make sure all the listening stations were being
monitored. Be available to answer any questions that may
arise about the background of the case or subjects
involved in the case. As the calls came in, various
questions were asked.
Q In addition to those two functions, listening and

being available to answer questions, do you have any
review function regarding things that are intercepted?
A Yes. I essentially reviewed every call that came

in.
Q Every one?
A Yes.
Q And what was your purpose in doing that?

A To ascertain the relevance of that particular
conversation.
Q And were there times, based upon hearing things,

you would take investigative actions?
A Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Objection to leading, your
Honor.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Now, I want to ask you some questions about the

actual wiretap, some of the mechanics of it.
At the outset of the electronic surveillance
is the equipment tested to make sure it is operating on
the proper lines?
A It is.
Q And in this case was it?

A It was.
Q What's done, what's the process to make sure that

the recordings, once they are intercepted, are maintained
properly?
A When the calls come in, they are stored digitally
on disks, essentially. Actually a large, very large
capacity disk. So as the call would come in, it would
get stored on to that disk until it was full, and then
another disk would replace it, so on and so forth.
Actually there were, as they would come in ,

there were two identical copies of that disk that were
made as the calls came in. One which we ended up sealing

257
with the court; and another copy we used as our working
COPY.
Q And are those exact copies?
A Yes, exact copies made the exact same time.
Q And in addition to the check that you did at the

outset in your investigation, did you perform any
checking function with respect to comparing the pen
registers to the wire?
A Yes.
(1 And what did you discover?

A That the information on the wiretaps was accurate.
Q Now, you talked about the tape that was sealed as

part of the court process. Can you tell us about how the
other copy is maintained or preserved?
A Once the working copy is generated, it is
maintained by our FBI technical agents. They maintain
it. Then as the case agent, if I needed to listen to it,
it would be loaded back into our monitoring machines so I
could review it.
Q Physically where is the copy stored?

A It's stored in evidence with the technical agents.
Q And when you say in evidence, could you just

explain to us what that means, in real terms?
A It's maintained so that no other people could gain
access to it unless you make specific requests.

Essentially, kept locked away.
Q And does everybody have access to them?

A No.
Q Now, in preparation for this trial, have you

prepared a composite disk with certain of the court
authorized interceptions on it for your presentation?
A I have.
Q And do you have that disk with you?

Referring you to Government's Exhibit -- and
I think there is a series, it's a disk marked 1001A dash
1227A?
A Yes, I have it.
Q Now, can you please explain to us how it was that

this composite disk was prepared?
A From our working copy of the intercepted
conversations, I selected various different conversations
to include in our presentation. Once those were
selected, those particular calls were given to our FBI
support employees to transcribe.
Q Forgetting the transcription process for a moment,

sticking with the actual calls.
Is each recording on the disk you are holding
in your hand now a recording that matches a court
authorized audio or visual inspection of the type you
described?
259
A Yes. It is a call that matches the conversation or
matching the conversation on the working copy.
Q And did you make it from the exact working copy?

A Yes, I personally made this from the working copy.
(1 And have you personally checked to make sure every

call on the disk in your hand matches the exact copy that
was maintained in evidence?
A I did.
Q You mentioned earlier that some of these were

excerpts of calls. Can you explain that to us?
A A lot of the calls are long in nature. For
example, a call could be 30 to 40 minutes. In order to,
I guess, speed things up, we made certain excerpts of
these calls.
Q When you have like a 30 or 45 minute call, is all

of the call pertinent to the investigation?
A No. As I said before, a lot of calls switch over
from personal to business.
MR. JENKINS: Objection.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And can you describe the process of creating the

excerpt?
A From the working copy, an exact copy of the
conversation was transferred to a disk. And then from
that disk, I was able to make the excerpts.

260
Q Now for the calls that are on that disk, including

the excerpts that were on that disk, in the course of
preparing for this trial did you provide a copy of the
entire call to the defense?
A Yes.
Q Now, with respect to the disk that's actually here

for the case, how many segments -- first of all, if this
was one particular call and there were two different
parts, can you describe for the jury how, with respect to
the numbering system, you handled that?
A Each part of the call was assigned its own Exhibit
Number. So if there are two calls from one -- two
excerpts from one call may be assigned Exhibit 1001 and
Exhibit 1002.
Q And how many segments or exhibits are on this

composite disk that you have?
A Approximately 208.
Q And I notice that the actual number is 1001 to 1228

so there are some blank numbers in the sequence?
A Yes, there are some exhibit numbers which were
skipped.
Q Is there also an index of the recordations on the
disk that you just talked about that makes it easier for
somebody to use the disk?
A There is, Exhibit 1000.

Q Have you c h e c k e d E x h i b i t 1000 t o i n s u r e i t s
accuracy?
A I have.
Q A l l right. L e t m e t u r n on t h e n t h e m o n i t o r .
MR. DETTELBACH: And i f w e c o u l d p l e a s e
b r i n g up E x h i b i t 1000.
A l l right. And i f you c o u l d j u s t b l o w up
t h e p a r t where t h e w r i t i n g i s on t o p . We are just
g o i n g t o g o t h r o u g h a l l t h e way down.
That's fine. Perfect.
Q C o u l d you j u s t g o t h r o u g h l e f t t o r i g h t a n d t e l l u s
w h a t t h e columns a r e ? What t h e y r e f e r t o ?
A Yes. The f i r s t column on t h e f a r l e f t l i s t s t h e
e x h i b i t numbers.
THE COURT: Are y o u r s c r e e n s o n ?
You w a n t t o t u r n o n t h e l o w e r r i g h t t h e r e
i s a b u t t o n on t h e r e .
How many h a v e t h e i r s c r e e n s o n ?
( J u r o r s i n d i c a t e by r a i s i n g t h e i r h a n d s . )
THE COURT: Okay. Why d o n ' t you g o on a n d
w e ' l l t r y t o take a look.
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, y o u r Honor.
Q Now, c a n you g o t h r o u g h t h e c o l u m n s , and maybe a l s o
i f you c o u l d h o l d u p t h e s h e e t a s you d o i t s o t h e
26 2
person -- so that the people nearest could see what you
are talking about?
THE COURT: Let me just, isn't this
somewhat self-explanatory?
MR. DETTELBACH: Certainly. I'll just ask
you a summary question then.
Q Is this particular exhibit just an index by exhibit

number, and then session number, and the date, time, and
participants in the call?
A It is.
MR. DETTELBACH: That's fine.
Q Now, in the last column of this, though, you

identified speakers, is that correct?
A Yes. Participants.
Q All right. We don't need the exhibit up for this.
I'm just going to ask you how it was you were able to
identify the speakers on the calls on your exhibit list?
A There is a number of different methods we used to
identify the speakers.
First and foremost, a lot of times these
speakers on the conversation would identify themselves
either answering a call or leaving a message.
Secondhand, through the course of the
investigation we got to know certain voices. We were
able to identify them.

And lastly, we were able to utilize the
actual telephone information, the numbers, the phone
numbers which would call in or the numbers dialed out.
We were able to match those up with subscribers to

determine who the speaker was.
Q And have you checked on this exhibit to make sure

each and every one coordinates with the speaker as you
know them to be?

A I have.
Q Now, are there also transcripts that were prepared

in this case for the recordings on the disk that you have
with you?
A Yes.
Q And how do those exhibit numbers compare to the

tape exhibit number?
A The actual -- the physical tape, it will be A, and
the transcript would be B.
For example, for Exhibit 1001, the actual

recorded conversation would be lOOlA and the transcript
would be 1001B.
Q Now, did you personally prepare --

First of all, do you have those transcripts
with you?
A I do.
Q And are they in the two large binders sitting next

to you?
A They are.
Q Is it those 1002A and 1002B?

A Yes.
Q With those same numbers on them?

A Yes.
Q Have you personally prepared the transcripts?

A Yes, I personally prepared the transcripts in their
final form.
Q If you could you walk us through the process of the

transcripts sitting next to you?
A Once the calls were identified which were to be
transcribed, a support employee from the FBI would take a
verbatim transcript of the call, do her best to identify
word for word what was being said on the conversation.
After that initial typing was done, an agent
from my squad who was part of the investigative team
would review that transcript, make any corrections. If
there were corrections that needed to be made, he would
forward them back to the support employee who would
correct them and forwarded it on to me for a final
review. And I would do a word-by-word review of the
particular transcript to make sure they are accurate and
complete. And from there we generated the excerpts.

Q Now, did you personally, actually listen to each
and every call that's in that transcript?
A Yes, a number of times.
Q Did you make numerous corrections also?

A I did.
Q And so is it fair to say you are the one

responsible for preparing the transcripts that we have
here in court?
A Yes.
Q Now, with respect to the transcripts, for each

transcript is there a heading that gives some basic
information about the call?
A There is.
Q And what information is in the heading?

A The information in the heading is the date, the
session number or tape number. Which is, as each call
comes in, it's assigned its own particular session
number, allows to us keep track of each individual call.
Also on the heading is the line number, which
is the facility which we have the wiretap on.
And then the parties of the conversations.
Q And did you identify the parties the same way you
told us before?
A Yes.
Q Were you able to hear each and every word in those

transcripts and identify --
266
A No. I n some, t h e r e were some w o r d s w e c o u l d n o t .
Q How d i d you h a n d l e t h a t o n e s you p r e p a r e d t h e
t r a n s c r i p t s you h a v e i n c o u r t ?
A The t h i n g s w e c o u l d n o t u n d e r s t a n d a r e d e n o t e d w i t h
a U I i n p a r e n t h e s e s , which r e f e r e n c e t o u n i n t e l l i g i b l e .
Q And w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e d i f f e r e n t l i s t e n i n g
d e v i c e s , were t h e r e a n y t h a t were h a r d e r t o make o u t t h e n
others?
A Yes. I t i s much more d i f f i c u l t t o h e a r t h e
c o n v e r s a t i o n s which t o o k p l a c e i n t h e a c t u a l o f f i c e due
t o t h e p r o x i m i t y o f t h e b u g , a s i t was c o n c e a l e d i n t h e
c e i l i n g t i l e , w h i c h made i t a l i t t l e more d i f f i c u l t t o
hear.
Q I t ' s h a r d e r t h a n t h e phone?
A Yes.
Q B a s e d on y o u r r e v i e w , y o u r p e r s o n a l r e v i e w , a n d
s u b j e c t t o a u d i b i l i t y , d o t h o s e t r a n s c r i p t s i n t h e book
you h a v e n e x t t o y o u , 1000B t o 1 2 2 7 , d o t h o s e r e f l e c t t h e
a c t u a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n t h e c o m p o s i t e d i s k s you h a v e ?
A They d o .
MR. DETTELBACH: Now w e c a n t a k e t h a t
down.
THE COURT: Why d o n ' t you g o a h e a d .
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , s h i f t i n g g e a r s .
267
Are you f a m i l i a r , a s you t e s t i f i e d a b o u t , t h e
name ETNA?
A Yes, I am.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could w e p l e a s e d i s p l a y
E x h i b i t 215 on t h e s c r e e n . And i f you c o u l d , i f you
blow u p t h e p a r t w i t h t h e w r i t i n g .
Q S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e t e l l u s what i t i s w e a r e
l o o k i n g a t a n d where i t comes f r o m .
A T h i s i s a p h o t o c o p y o f a b u s i n e s s card w h i c h w e
o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e s e a r c h executed i n Nate G r a y ' s o f f i c e
o f ETNA.
Q Okay. And t h i s o n e i s f o r what company?
A ETNA P a r k i n g , Inc.
Q And who i s l i s t e d a s t h e P r e s i d e n t ?
A Nate Gray.
(1 Have you b e e n i n t h e ETNA o f f i c e s y o u r s e l f ?
A I have.
Q And you s a i d t h a t you were t h e r e when you e x e c u t e d
the search?
A That's correct.
Q What was t h e d a t e o f t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e s e a r c h
w a r r a n t on t h e ETNA o f f i c e s i n M r . G r a y ' s home?
A I t was i n J u n e o f 2003.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now i f w e c o u l d p l e a s e
d i s p l a y E x h i b i t 113.
268
Q And l e t m e a s k you, j u s t a s a g e n e r a l m a t t e r , i n
p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h i s t r i a l h a v e you r e v i e w e d t h e p i c t u r e s
w h i c h a r e marked a s E x h i b i t 100 t h r o u g h 1 1 0 , a n d 112
through 126?
A Yes, I have.
Q Do t h o s e p i c t u r e f a i r l y a n d a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t
the i t e m s t h a t a r e depicted there?
A Yes, t h e y d o .
Q What a r e w e l o o k i n g a t h e r e on 1 1 3 t h e n ?
A E x h i b i t 113 i s an e x t e r n a l view o f one o f t h e
b u i l d i n g s on S h a k e r S q u a r e w h i c h h o u s e s N a t e G r a y ' s
office.
Q So t h i s i s t h e o u t s i d e o f t h e b u i l d i n g ?
A Yes. T h i s i s a n e x t e r n a l view o f t h e b u i l d i n g from
across the street.
Q Now l e t ' s l o o k a t 1 1 3 . And i f w e c o u l d j u s t
d i s p l a y 1 1 3 , 1 1 4 , a n d 1 1 5 , a n d a s w e g o t h r o u g h them j u s t
t e l l u s what w e are l o o k i n g a t ?
A E x h i b i t 1 1 4 i s a p h o t o g r a p h o f t h e doorway e n t e r i n g
i n t o 13212 S h a k e r S q u a r e , w h i c h h o u s e s t h e o f f i c e s o f
ETNA. Also has, included i n t h i s p i c t u r e i s t h e second
floor directory.
MR. DETTELBACH: I f you c o u l d p l e a s e
d i s p l a y s 115 t h e n .
A 115 i s a c l o s e up of t h e second f l o o r d i r e c t o r y .
269
Under suite 100 you see E-T-N-A, ETNA.
Q Can you please circle that on your screen for us?

(The witness did as instructed.)
Q You could clear it. Thank you very much.

Now, can you please describe for us in your
own words the interior of the ETNA offices?
A It's a pretty typical office building. There is,
as you walk in there is a reception area, and I believe
two different hallways, which lead to divide office
space.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Let's display
the next in the series of pictures there.
Q And what is that?

A This is a photo of the reception area for ETNA.
It's the receptionist's desk and the waiting room outside

the office.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could we display Exhibit
117 then.
Q And where are we looking here?

A 117 is a view down the hallway which leads to
Mr. Gray's personal office.
(1 So in relation to where the camera was, where are

we looking at?
A We are at the far end of the hall looking down
towards Mr. Gray's office.

270
MR. DETTELBACH: A l l right. 118, p l e a s e .
Q And what a r e we l o o k i n g a t i n 118?
A T h i s i s a p h o t o g r a p h from t h e doorway o f t h a t ,
e s s e n t i a l l y w a l k i n g f u r t h e r down t h e h a l l . It's a
p h o t o g r a p h from t h a t doorway i n t o M r . Gray's o f f i c e .
Q A l l right. And what a r e we l o o k i n g a t i n t h e
c e n t e r of t h a t p i c t u r e ? What's t h a t ?
A I n t h e c e n t e r o f t h i s p i c t u r e i s a -- i t ' s a
conference t a b l e , a r o u n d c o n f e r e n c e t a b l e , which i s i n
Mr. Gray's o f f i c e .
MR. DETTELBACH: Please display t h e next
item.
Q W h a t ' s i n 119?
A T h i s i s a p h o t o from -- a p h o t o o f t h e v i e w from
inside M r . Gray's o f f i c e . You c o u l d s e e h i s d e s k , h i s
c r e d e n z a s a n d t h e same c o n f e r e n c e t a b l e .
Q Okay.
MR. DETTELBACH: And 1 2 0 , p l e a s e .
Q And what i s 120 showing u s ?
A I t ' s j u s t a n o t h e r view from i n s i d e M r . Gray's
office. T h i s i s from a d i f f e r e n t a n g l e .
Q U s i n g 120, c a n you p l e a s e show u s where t h e v i d e o
camera was i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e c o n f e r e n c e t a b l e ?
A Yes. The v i d e o camera was c o n c e a l e d i n t h e c e i l i n g
t i l e s d i r e c t l y above t h e c i r c u l a r c o n f e r e n c e t a b l e .
271
Q So what v i e w d o e s i t p r o v i d e d o f t h e c o n f e r e n c e
table?
A I t ' s b i r d ' s e y e view. You a r e l o o k i n g down,
s t r a i g h t down on t h e r o u n d c o n f e r e n c e t a b l e .
Q Were t h e r e a n y o t h e r v i d e o e q u i p m e n t , m o n i t o r i n g
e q u i p m e n t , i n s t a l l e d i n t h a t room?
A No, t h a t was t h e o n l y c a m e r a i n s t a l l e d .
Q So what i s t h e f i e l d , s c o p e o f v i s i o n t h a t you c a n
g e t f r o m t h e T i t l e I11 a u t h o r i z e d s u r v e i l l a n c e ?
A You c o u l d v i e w t h e c o n f e r e n c e t a b l e , a n d t h e n a
l i t t l e b i t outside t h e conference t a b l e . Maybe o n e o r
two c h a i r l e n g t h s o u t s i d e t h e t a b l e .
MR. DETTELBACH: You c a n t a k e t h a t down.
Thank you v e r y much Miss R o s s i l e t t i .
Q The FBI s a i d t h e y a l s o c o n d u c t e d a s e a r c h o f
Mr. G r a y ' s home?
A Yes, t h a t ' s c o r r e c t .
Q I ' m g o i n g t o g o t h r o u g h some p i c t u r e s t h e r e , a n d
j u s t t e l l u s what you a r e l o o k i n g a t .
122, p l e a s e ?
A 122 i s a p h o t o g r a p h f r o m o u t s i d e M r . G r a y ' s
personal residence.
MR. DETTELBACH: Can we j u s t c o n t i n u e t o
s c r o l l forward 123.
A 123 i s a photograph taken i n s i d e M r . Gray's

272
bedroom. You can s e e a d r e s s e r w i t h some documents on
t o p of i t .
Q 1 2 4 , please?
A 124 i s a photo of t h e c l o s e t , walk-in c l o s e t ,
a d j a c e n t t o t h e m a s t e r bed room.
MR. DETTELBACH: I would l i k e , i f you can,
M i s s R o s s i l e t t i , blow up t h e middle of t h a t p i c t u r e
a l l t h e way down t o t h e f l o o r .
Thank you. That's fine.
Q Do you s e e t h a t l e t t e r K t h a t ' s w r i t t e n t h e r e ?
A Yes, I d o .
Q Could you p l e a s e t e l l t h e j u r y what t h a t i s and
what s i g n i f i c a n c e i t h a s i n a s e a r c h ?
A A s we e x e c u t e a s e a r c h w a r r a n t we l a b e l e a c h room
with a d i f f e r e n t a l p h a b e t i c a l l e t t e r . That way when we
s e i z e e v i d e n c e from t h a t p a r t i c u l a r room i t i s e a s i e r t o
log.
For example, a l l t h e i t e m s r e t r i e v e d from
t h i s room w i l l be logged under K .
Q A t t h e bottom lower l e f t of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r c a b i n e t
w i t h t h e K on i t , t h e r e i s a b l a c k o b j e c t . Do you s e e
that?
I do.
What i s t h a t ?
T h a t ' s a b l a c k backpack from which we o b t a i n e d a

number of different documents.
Q Can you circle that black backpack for us.

(The witness did as instructed.)
Q What room was letter K off of?

A It's off of the master bedroom. Nate Gray's master
bedroom. It's the walk-in closet.
Q On the date these pictures were taken were various

documents and items seized from Nate Gray's home and his
business?
A Yes.
Q And after those items are seized, what's done with

them? Where are they taken?
A They're taken to the FBI office where they are
logged into evidence and stored in the evidence vault.
Q As the case agent, who was the person who looked

through all the sealed boxes that were returned to the
FBI?
A I was.
(2 Now, you said that the search warrants were

executed in what timeframe? What date?
A I believe it's June 12th of 2003.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. We can take
down this exhibit. Thank you Miss Rossiletti.
Q Prior to executing the search warrant on Nate

274
Gray's office and home, had you taken any steps to obtain
documents from Nate Gray's corporations pursuant to your
investigation?
A Yes. We issued federal Grand Jury subpoenas on the
corporations in the beginning of April of 2003.
Q So that would be April, 2003?

A That's correct.
Q And can you tell us the businesses that were served

with subpoenas that were associated with Mr. Gray?
A All the different ETNA businesses, including ETNA
Parking, ETNA Associates, ETNA Paper, Gray Drum and

Barrel, which was the name of a license bureau, and Gray
Realty, I believe.
Q And does Mr. Gray have any gas stations associated

with him?
A Yes, Nate's Shell.
Q And was that also one that was subpoenaed?

A Yes, it was.
Q You said this was served in April. Did you receive

responses to the subpoenas you served?
A We did.
Q Voluminous?
A Yes. A number of boxes.
MR. DETTELBACH: I now want to display
Exhibit 19.
275
Q All right. What is it that we are looking at in

exhibit 19?
A This is the front page of a federal Grand Jury
subpoena issued on the custodian of records for ETNA
Parking, Inc.
Q And is there a date that the subpoena is served and

the return date?
A Yes. The date the subpoena was issued is April
2nd, 2003.
Q All right.
A The return date, or the date they were required to
turn over documents is April 22nd, 2003.
Q And were all the documents returned by April 22nd?

A Not all of them, no.
Q Was there some period where delays were given or

granted?
A Yes.
Q By the time you executed your search of Nate Gray's

business, and by the time the FBI searched his home, was
the production complete?
A Yes.
Q Now, I now want to -- you mentioned that this is

the first page. I want to now ask you to describe for us
if there are any attachments to this page which describe
the items that are called for?

1 A Yes. Because there is a number of different things
2 that we were seeking in the subpoena --
3 MR. WHITAKER: Objection, your Honor.
4 MR. DETTELBACH: Hold on a second.
5 THE COURT: What grounds?
6 MR. WHITAKER: It is a legal proceeding
7 and not factual evidence.
8 THE COURT: I think it will speak for
9 itself as well, so I'll sustain the objection.

10 MR. DETTELBACH: All right.
11 Q Let's go to the second page. Are there attachments

12 that describe the things?
13 A There is.
14 Q Let's just go to that page then.

15 All right. And this is labeled Attachment A?
16 All right. Is this a list of entities?
17 MR. WHITAKER: Objection, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Overruled. Although it does
19 speak for itself, so I'll revisit it. And whatever
20 it says, it will say.
21 MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, your Honor.
22 Q Let me just ask you -- I don't want you to read

23 through this whole thing.
24 Do you see any corporations associated with
25 things that you found in your search that were not turned
over as part of the Grand Jury process?
A Yes.
Q What corporate entities do you see that fall into

that category on this?
THE COURT: I'm not sure I understand the
question.
What are you asking?
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Did you find things in the search that hadn't been

turned over pursuant to this subpoena?
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection.

THE WITNESS: Primarily documents
pertaining to the Honeywell and City of Houston.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And are those items that are on this list?

A Yes.
Q Do you also see CH2M Hill on this list?

A I do.
Q And Camp, Dresser, McKee?

A I do.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now if we could go to the

next page of the subpoena.
Q And we are not going to ask you to read this, just

tell us, is the list of the types of documents?
278
A Yes, t h i s i s a l i s t o f d o c u m e n t s t h a t w e r e c e i v e d
from t h e e n t i t i e s i n Attachment A.
Q Now, w e ' v e o n l y marked o n e o f t h e s e . Besides t h e
d i f f e r e n c e i n what e n t i t y was on t h e f r o n t o f s u b p o e n a ,
w h i c h o n e o f t h e b u s i n e s s e s , were t h e r e a n y d i f f e r e n c e s
i n t h e subpoenas?
A No, t h e y a r e a l l i d e n t i c a l .
MR. DETTELBACH: W e c o u l d t a k e t h a t down,
please.
Q Now, I showed you a moment a g o a p i c t u r e o f a room
w i t h -- o r a c l o s e t w i t h number K w r i t t e n o n i t ?
A Yes.
Q P a r t i c u l a r l y f r o m i t e m s r e c o v e r e d f r o m t h a t room,
c a n you t e l l u s , was t h e r e a n y l o c a t i o n i n t h a t room
w h e r e numerous i t e m s were r e c o v e r e d t h a t were n o t
r e t u r n e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e subpoena?
A Yes. A number o f d i f f e r e n t items were s e i z e d f r o m
t h a t b l a c k b a c k p a c k w h i c h was s i t t i n g on t h e f l o o r i n t h e
closet.
Q And s p e c i f i c , a l s o t u r n i n g y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o
Mr. G r a y ' s o f f i c e s , t h e ETNA o f f i c e s , w h e r e were i t e m s
l o c a t e d i n t h e o f f i c e s t h a t were n o t r e t u r n e d p u r s u a n t t o
t h e subpoena?
A E i t h e r i n M r . Gray's desk, i n h i s p e r s o n a l o f f i c e ,
o r i n h i s c r e d e n z a , which i s a d j a c e n t t o h i s d e s k ?
Q When you say his desk, you mean where?
A The place where he sits when he goes to work.
Q Now that I've asked you some questions about the

offices, I would like to like to shift to some of the
things that were recorded in the office, all right?
MR. DETTELBACH: And at this point, I
would ask the court's permission to ask the people
to put on the headphones, if they are going to use
them.
You have to turn it to --
THE COURT: There is an on off and volume
switch, and try to turn where the label is facing
these two transmitters.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Massie, on the wiretap in this case,

have you ever heard the term "greasing the palm"?
A I have.
Q Who is it that you heard say those words?

A Nate Gray.
Q I would now ask you to refer -- let me ask you

this.
Referring your attention to Exhibit 1172.
Who are the participants in the first call that you heard
that term used?
A This is a conversation between Nate Gray and

1 Kenneth Gray, who is Nate Gray's brother.
2 Q And you can use the index.

3 What date was that?
4 A That was on October 14th, 2002.
5 (1 And what line was it on?

6 A It was on the cell phone.
7 Q All right.
8 MR. DETTELBACH: If you could then play
9 1172.
10 (Tape played. )
11 MR. DETTELBACH: If you could please

12 display Exhibit 1172-B.
13 MR. WHITAKER: Objection. Move to strike
14 that conversation, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: On what grounds?
16 MR. WHITAKER: It doesn't have anything to
17 do with the charges in this case.
18 THE COURT: I think it has some relevance.

19 It's not directly associated to my understanding but
20 I think it gives some background.
21 MR. DETTELBACH: As to Count 1, your

22 Honor.
23 1172-B please. And if you could display
24 transcripts lines 18 through 26 so we could read
25 them.
281
1 Q Do you see a r e f e r e n c e t o a p a r t i c u l a r c i t y t h e r e ?
2 A Yes.
3 Q What c i t y ?
4 A Jacksonville.
5 Q And what c o n t r a c t was b e i n g c o m p e t e d f o r a t t h a t
6 point?
7 A I t was a n a i r p o r t p a r k i n g c o n t r a c t .
8 THE COURT: Let m e ask t h e a t t o r n e y s t o
9 approach f o r a second.
10 (The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n was
11 conducted a t s i d e b a r , between c o u r t and
12 counsel, out of t h e hearing of t h e jurors a s
13 f o l l o w s :)
14 THE COURT: In the last t r i a l , I think we
15 wasted a l o t of t i m e . There i s a t r a n s c r i p t
16 associated with the tape. I d o n ' t want t o s p en d
17 t i m e on t h i s where a f t e r e v e r y v i d e o t a p e w e go t o a
18 transcript. I t h i n k you c a n a s k him a q u e s t i o n
19 w i t h o u t g o i n g b a c k t o t h e t r a n s c r i p t a n d s a v e some
20 time.
21 MR. EMOFF: May I ?
22 MR. DETTELBACH: There might b e a couple
23 i n there. I w i l l cut the vast majority.
24 THE COURT: There might b e b u t I d o n ' t
25 want t o do it as a g e n e r a l r u l e .
282
MR. EMOFF: May I enter an objection, your
Honor, in addition to the other objections on
confrontation grounds. This, in a large sense, is
going to be used as part of the government's case
against my client and I have no ability to confront
either of these two persons and question them about
this.
THE COURT: First of all, there is an
issue as to whether your client is a co-conspirator
with them. And certainly the activities in this
conversation, your client's not even mentioned, or
any knowledge of your client. So it's kind of
non-applicable. It's not relevant to your client.

MR. EMOFF: I understand, except there are
going to be a lot of conversations between persons
who may not testify in court that will be used as,
at least part of their argument, against my client,
and we can't confront that evidence.
This was an issue that was raised in the
first trial and I want to make sure that it's
preserved in this case.
THE COURT: Do you have any quick
response?
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, your Honor. We
believe the court was correct in its ruling. The

283
confrontation clause argument Mr. Emoff is making is
inapplicable to this type of evidence wiretap.
THE COURT: It's a factual issue but it is
your contention that they are co-conspirators.
MR. DETTELBACH: They are with respect to
certain aspects of the case, with others the court's
right.
THE COURT: Well, in any case, raise the

objection, if we ever get to one you think is
important.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I want, on this
Jacksonville thing. Now we are talking about
contracts in Jacksonville. Now I move to strike. I
object to any conversations about Jacksonville. I
move for a mistrial.
And also I have a little medical problem
today. I want to sneak out for a moment and Andrea

will take over.
THE COURT: All right. And I'll overrule
the objection.
MR. DETTELBACH: May I proceed?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Was 1172 the only recorded interception where
Mr. Gray used the term "grease the palm"?
A No, it was not.
Q The other time who was he speaking with?

A The other time was in a office meeting with Stan
Broussard.
Q Who is Stan Broussard?

A He's an attorney out of Houston, Texas who was
looking to get into the minority subcontracting business
in the City of Houston.
Q And specifically, from the documents that you have

reviewed and calls that you reviewed, specifically what
business, if any, did he have working with Nate Gray?
A There is a parking meter collections contract they
were seeking in the City of Houston.
Q And during that conversation, did they mention the

name of any public official?
A Yes, they did.
Q Who?
A Oliver Spellman.
Q And who is that?

A He was then the Chief of Staff for the City of
Houston.
Q NOW, how many excerpts did you take from this

particular meeting?
A Four.
Q And how long w a s t h e m e e t i n g i n t o t a l , i f y o u
p l a y e d the whole t h i n g ?
A I t i s a l i t t l e over a n h o u r .
MR. DETTELBACH: S o please p l a y the f i r s t
excerpt, w h i c h i s 1066-C.
(Tape played. )
MR. DETTELBACH: A l l right. Could you
p l e a s e p l a y t h e second e x c e r p t of t h a t s a m e m e e t i n g ,
w h i c h i s 1067-B.
(Tape played. )
Q I n t h e o t h e r t w o e x c e r p t s does M r . G r a y a n s w e r ?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please p l a y t h e n e x t
excerpt, which is 1068.
(Tape played. )
MR. DETTELBACH: P l e a s e p l a y E x h i b i t 1069
a continuation.
(Tape played. )
MR. DETTELBACH: Thank you.
Q A n d f o r t h e record, t h a t w a s E x h i b i t 1 0 6 9 , i s t h a t
correct?
A T h a t ' s correct.
Q D i d M r . G r a y have a n y o t h e r d i s c u s s i o n s a b o u t
e x p e n s e s and p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s ?
A He did.
Q In a general sense?
A Yes.
Q And who was he speaking about in that general

conversation? Who was he speaking to?
A It was a conversation with Brent Jividen. And they
were referring to Gilbert Jackson.
(Z Who is Brent Jividen?

A He was a sales rep, Vice President for Honeywell.
Q All right. And you could please refer to your

index, tell us when that conversation occurred?
A This particular conversation occurred on
August 5th, 2002.
Q And is it 1134?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH : Please play 1134.
(Tape played. )
MR. DETTELBACH : Thank you. You can stop
that.
Q Now Special Agent Massie, shifting gears from

general conversation to matters involving the City of
East Cleveland, Ohio. Let me ask you some questions.
First of all, have you been to the City of
East Cleveland, Ohio?
A I have.
Q Where physically is it located to the City of
Cleveland?
A It's a separate city located just to the east of
Cleveland.
Q And in 2003, who was the Mayor of East Cleveland,

Ohio.
A Mayor Onunwor.
Q How long had he been mayor?

A He was elected in 1997, began serving in 1998.
Q And prior to that what was he doing?

A Prior to that he was the President of the East
Cleveland City Council.
Q Now, Special Agent Massie, I want to direct your

attention to March llth, 2003. Were you working on the
case that day?
A I was.
Q What were you doing?

A I was conducting surveillance outside of Nate
Gray's office in Shaker Square, Cleveland, Ohio.
Q What was your purpose in being there?

A To observe and execute a search warrant on the
person of Emmanuel Onunwor.
Q And can you tell us what kind of search warrant it

was?
A We obtained an anticipatory search warrant, which

was we obtained permission to search the person of
Emmanuel Onunwor, if in fact he did receive a white
envelope from Nate Gray during the meeting which was
conducted in Nate Gray's office on that day.
Q All right. Now, how was it being monitored? Can

you describe for us what you were done doing and what the
other investigators were doing?
A Myself and other agents were outside the office

doing surveillance and preparing to execute the warrants.
There were other agents inside the wire room who were
actually viewing the meeting that was taking place
between Nate Gray and Emmanuel Onunwor.
Q Go ahead?
A The agents inside the room -- first of all, we had
radio contact, CB contact between ourselves and the
agents in the room. Once they observed Nate Gray sliding
a white envelope across the table to Emmanuel Onunwor,
and Emmanuel Onunwor picking it up, putting it in his
pocket, we received the go ahead to execute the search

warrant.
Q All right.
Special Agent Massie, I would like to show
you what's been marked as Exhibits 111 and 112.
MR. DETTELBACH: If we could show 112 on

the screen.
2 89
Q Can you t e l l u s what i t i s t h a t w e a r e l o o k i n g a t ?
A T h i s i s t h e a c t u a l c a s h i n t h e e n v e l o p e which w e
s e i z e d f r o m p e r s o n o f Emmanuel Onunwor o u t s i d e t h e
o f f i c e s o f Nate Gray.
Q What number i s t h a t ?
A T h i s i s E x h i b i t 111.
Q And 112 i s j u s t a p i c t u r e o f t h a t ?
A Yes.
Q T e l l u s what h a p p e n e d a s h e l e f t t h e o f f i c e ?
A A f t e r h e l e f t t h e o f f i c e , h e was w a l k i n g t o h i s
car. P r i o r t o him a r r i v i n g i n h i s c a r w e , you know, w e
a p p r o a c h e d him, t o l d him w e h a d s e a r c h w a r r a n t s . W e were
t h e r e t o s e i z e t h e envelope he j u s t r e c e i v e d from Nate
Gray.
He t h e n p r o c e e d e d t o g o i n s i d e h i s c o a t
pocket, p u l l o u t t h e envelope, turned it over t o u s .
We o p e n e d i t , c o u n t e d i t , saw t h a t t h e r e were
seven, $100 b i l l s i n s i d e t h e envelope. And t h e n w e
p r o c e e d e d t o i n t e r v i e w M r . Onunwor.
Q Now, you w e r e n ' t i n t h e wire room t h a t d a y ,
correct?
A No, I was n o t .
Q A t some p o i n t d i d you r e v i e w t h e v i d e o f r o m
M r . G r a y ' s o f f i c e f r o m t h e t i m e j u s t b e f o r e you g o t t h a t
e n v e l o p e from Mayor Onunwor?

A I did.
Q What d i d you o b s e r v e ?
A I o b s e r v e d N a t e Gray s l i d i n g a w h i t e e n v e l o p e
a c r o s s t h e t a b l e , which Onunwor p i c k e d u p a n d p u t i t i n
h i s pocket.
(Z And d i d you r e c e i v e a n y s t i l l p h o t o s ?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, may I
approach?
I t h i n k t h i s w i l l work b e s t f o r b o t h s i d e s
a n d t h e j u r y c a n see i t i f I d o i t h e r e . I'll just
a s k you t o k e e p y o u r v o i c e u p a s I a s k q u e s t i o n s
about these p i c t u r e s .
A c t u a l l y , i f you c o u l d s t e p down f r o m t h e
s t a n d a n d t a k e t h i s , t h a t would b e g r e a t .
A l l right. Do you h a v e i n f r o n t o f you
E x h i b i t 105?
A I do.
Q K e e p i n g y o u r v o i c e l o u d , you m i g h t e v e n want t o
h o l d i t s o p e o p l e f u r t h e r away c o u l d see i t .
Could you t e l l u s what i s d e p i c t e d i n E x h i b i t
1 0 5 t h a t you a r e h o l d i n g ?
A T h i s i s a view f r o m t h e c a m e r a c o n c e a l e d i n t h e
c e i l i n g t i l e s i n Nate G r a y ' s o f f i c e .
Like I s t a t e d b e f o r e , i t ' s a b i r d ' s - e y e view,

291
so you are up above looking at the table top and tops of
their heads.
In this particular photo you see Nate Gray in
the white dress shirt. You can see his outstretched arm
and his hand on the white envelope.
Emmanuel Onunwor is in the black or dark
suit. You could barely see his white cuff and his hand.
He's reaching for the envelope.
Q Now, what is the date and time in the upper corner

of that particular photograph?
A It shows March llth, and it's approximately 1:30.
Q All right. That's military time?

A Yes, military time.
Q So that would be 1:30 in the afternoon?

A Yes.
Q Now, in addition to that March 11th photograph, are

there any other video recordings that you have reviewed
that also contain Nate Gray and Emmanuel Onunwor in the
Shaker Square office?

A Yes.
(2 Similar to that one?

A Yes.
Q All right. What I would like to do is to ask you

now to look at Exhibit 100 and hold that up.
And at the same time, if you could put up on

the screen 106.
All right. And just orally, can you explain

for us and identify, what is 100 and what is 106?
Starting with the date.
A These are both dated November 4th, 2002. It's the

same view as you looked at before, a bird's-eye view of
the table.
Actually 106 precedes 100. On 106 you could

see Nate Gray with his hand on the envelope, sliding it
across the table.
And Exhibit 100 -- it's a little hard to make
out -- but this is Emmanuel Onunwor, he has his hand on
the envelope getting ready to put it in his pocket.
Q So those are a sequence?

A Yes.
Q Let's go to the next sequence then.

Could you please hold up Exhibit 101 and
please display Exhibit 107 and tell us what that sequence
shows?
A 101 and 107 is a -- these are still photos from the
video taken on November 29th, 2002.
107 precedes 100. 107, once again you have
Nate Gray sliding the envelope across the table.
And in this one he actually, Emmanuel
Onunwor's kind of leaned back and is folding the envelope

a n d p u t t i n g it i n s i d e h i s p o c k e t .
Q Thank y o u .
MR. DETTELBACH: C o u l d w e now move t o
e x h i b i t s 102 a n d 1 0 8 on t h e s c r e e n , p l e a s e .
Q And c o u l d you p l e a s e e x p l a i n t h a t s e q u e n c e t o u s ?
A 102 a n d 1 0 8 a r e s t i l l f r a m e s t a k e n f r o m t h e v i d e o
on J a n u a r y 3 r d , 2003.
108 i s a p i c t u r e o f N a t e Gray w i t h h i s hand
on t h e e n v e l o p e s l i d i n g i t a c r o s s t h e t a b l e .
1 0 3 h a s Ernmanuel Onunwor w i t h h i s h a n d s on
t h e envelope, and he proceeds t o p u t it i n h i s pocket.
Q Now, t h e n e x t o n e I would l i k e t o a s k you t o
d i s p l a y i s E x h i b i t 103. There i s o n l y one s t i l l photo
here.
Did you r e v i e w t h e v i d e o o f t h i s ?
A I did.
Q W h a t ' s t h e d a t e -- a n d p l e a s e c o n t i n u e t o h o l d i t
up h i g h -- a n d t e l l u s w h a t i t i s w e a r e l o o k i n g a t i n
103?
A 1 0 3 i s a s t i l l p h o t o t a k e n on J a n u a r y 2 9 t h , 2003.
T h i s i s t h e same c o n f e r e n c e t a b l e , b u t i n t h i s p h o t o a l l
you c a n s e e i s Nate G r a y , h e h a s l i k e a h a t on t h e t a b l e
and t h e r e i s an envelope. And h e ' s c o u n t i n g o u t money,
which h e t h e n p r o c e e d s t o p u t i n t h a t e n v e l o p e .
Q A n d what's the date of that?

A This is January 29th, 2003.
9 All right. And now let's move to the next day?

MR. DETTELBACH: And could you please
display exhibits 104 and 109 on the screen from
January 30th?
A 104 and 109 are still photos taken from a video on
January 30th, 2003.
109 shows Nate Gray sliding the envelope
across the table.
104 is Emmanuel Onunwor with his hands on the
envelope, which he proceeds to put it in his pocket.
Q What is the date of this last pair that you just

described for us?
A It's January 30.
Q Okay. You could resume your seat on the stand,

please.
Now, after the January 30th, 2003 photo that
we just saw, what was the next time that Nate Gray and
Emmanuel Onunwor were caught on video meeting in Nate
Gray's office?
A The next video from the office was March llth,
2003.
Q The time that you started with. The time you
caught him coming out of the office?
A Right. The same day we executed the search

warrant.
(Z And how long after that is -- what period of time

passed between that and the prior in-office meeting?
A The period of time between the two office meetings
captured on video was approximately month and a half.
Q Now, was there any other meeting between the two
men that did not occur in Mr. Gray's office during that
period?
A Yes. There was a meeting on February 27th in which
Ernmanuel Onunwor and Nate Gray proceeded to meet at a
separate location, which was a parking lot of U.S. Bank,
which is located on Euclid Avenue, which is a Main Street
in Cleveland, Ohio.
Q So that 2/27 meeting would have been -- that's the,

the bank is on the 27th of February?
A That's correct.
Q It would have been how long after the January 30th

meeting?
A Approximately a month.
Q And then how long after that 2/27 meeting was the
one that you actually stopped Emmanuel Onunwor coming out
of the office?
A About two weeks.
Q Now, I now want to shift gears and ask you about
some of the documents that relate to the East Cleveland

296
part of the case.
Now with respect to the different sections of
this case, have you prepared any summary exhibits to help
place the evidence in chronological order, or some of the
evidence in chronological order?
A Yes, I have.
Q What kinds of exhibits did you prepare in

preparation for the trial?
A I prepared time lines to display evidence from the
various different cities and groups.
Q All right. And was one of the time lines that you
prepared related to the City of East Cleveland, Ohio?
A Yes.
All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, with the

court's permission, may I distribute the first time
line?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q And while we are distributing those, I'm just going

to ask you some foundational questions about how they are
prepared, so that we don't waste any time on that?
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I have an
objection to the time lines and the
characterizations in them.
297
THE COURT: They are not being offered as
exhibits, they are just being offered as

demonstrative. So I'll overrule the objection.
MR. DETTELBACH: Okay. And your Honor, we
are only handing out the first one at this point,
but I gave the court the entire copy.
Q All right. Now, tell us what you used in order to

prepare these time line exhibits that are being
distributed? How did you do it?
A These time lines were prepared from specific
documents which we marked as exhibits in preparation for
the trial, as well as specific wiretapped conversations
which were also clipped and excerpted for the trial.
Q For instance, how did you get the dates to use for
the time line in this exhibit?
A The dates are generated either directly from the
documents, which are referred to by Exhibit Number, or
the date of interception of the particular wiretap
conversation.
Q And explain how the time line is organized, in

terms of documents versus interceptions?
A Yes. All the documents are listed above the time
line, and then the interceptions are listed below the
time line. Have a little telephone icon or videotape
icons.
Q And there is exhibit numbers. Do those refer to
the exhibit numbers in this trial?
A They do.
Q All right. So, let's start with this East

Cleveland time line then. And for instance, let's start
with the very first entry, Exhibit 369.
Do you see that entry?
A I do.
Q What's the date of that?

A It's dated October 31st, 1997.
Q All right. And explain for us, then, so that we

know from now on, how it would be that you came to make
that entry?
A That entry is generated specifically from this
exhibit, which is -- this particular exhibit is an
article from the East Cleveland Challenger. And that was
the Exhibit 369 in our presentation.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Could we
please display Exhibit 369? And if you could blow
up the right hand side of that particular page.
Q Is that the article that you used to prepare this?

A It is.
Q All right. And what, if any, references is there

in that newspaper article to the mayoral campaign.
A It refers to an election which is to take place in

early November of 1997.
Q All right. And the title of the article is Onunwor

Promises to Review Tax Collectors?
A That's correct.
Q And is this -- and in this article is Mayor Onunwor

complimentary or critical to the firm performing the tax
collection?
A In this particular article he's critical of the
Javitch, Block, Eisen & Rathbone law firm which handles
the collections contract for City of East Cleveland.
Q Who won that mayoral election?
A Mayor Onunwor.
Q Is that sort of the next entry on your time line

there?
A It is.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: We can take down the
exhibit. Thank you.
Q Have you reviewed any documents and heard

intercepted conversations involving the so-called tax
collections contract?
A I have.
Q And what is the contract to do? What is it for?

A It's a contract City of East Cleveland entered into
a contract with Javitch, Block, Eisen & Rathbone, which

300
is a law firm, to help them collect past due and
delinquent income tax which is owed to the City of East
Cleveland.
MR. DETTELBACH: And I would like to now
ask you to now move to the next entry and display
Exhibit 367.
Q What is exhibit 367?

A It's a letter on the City of East Cleveland
letterhead by Crystal D. Howard, who is the mayor's
executive assistant, to Charles E. Natkins, who is a
partner at the Javitch, Block, Eisen & Rathbone law firm.
This particular letter is to set up a meeting between

members of the firm with Emmanuel Onunwor and Gloria
Lovelace on February 17th, 1998 in the East Cleveland
City Hall.
Q And specifically, what is the date that the letter

is written?
A February 12th, 1998.
Q Okay. Now, have you been to the East Cleveland

City Hall?
A I have.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you please display
Exhibit 121, please.
What is it that we are looking at here?
This is a view of the outside of East Cleveland

301
City Hall. This is a view from across Euclid Avenue.
Q All right. And is Emmanuel Onunwor's office, was

it in this building?
A It is.
Q Was Mr. Gray's office in this building?

A No, it's not.
Q Now back to the time line.

In 1998, after Emmanuel Onunwor was elected,
was Javitch, Block removed from the East Cleveland tax
collection work?
A No, they were not.
Q Was there -- have you located and reviewed a new

contract of some sort that was executed by Javitch
pursuant -- near this time?
A Yes. They executed a consulting agreement with
themselves and Nate Gray.
Q All right. And was there in fact a written
agreement that memorialized that?
A There was.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could we please display
Exhibit 307?
All right.
Q 307 is a multi-page document. What is the first
page?
A This is actually a correspondence, which precedes a
302
draft of the consulting agreement.
MR. DETTELBACH: And could you blow up the
writing so we could read it? All right.
Q And what's the date of this particular letter?

A May 8th, 1998. It's addressed to Nathan Gray, it's
signed Bruce A. Block, granting the consulting agreement.
Q And what follows, if you could just go to the next

page so we can see, what is it that follows this
particular -- well, let's just leave it here.
This was a draft contract that was associated
with that?
A Yes. This is a letter that preceded the draft
contract.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, could you please
show exhibit 308, which is what I think you just put
up. I'm sorry.
(1 And what is Exhibit 308, starting with the date?

A 308 is additional correspondence dated May 12th,
1998 to Nathan Gray from Bruce Block, regarding

consulting agreements.
This one reads, "enclosed, please find a copy
of the letter I propose to send to Mayor Onunwor to
announce our consulting agreement."
Q Okay. What's the signature there?

A Bruce A. Block.
303
Q Who is he?
A He's one of the managing partners of the law firm.
Q Okay.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now could we please show
Exhibit 300.
Q All right. This is the next document in sequence.

What's the date of this document, and could you please
tell us what we are looking at now?
A This document is dated May 21st, 1998. This is a
cover letter for the consulting agreement addressed to
Nathan Gray, signed Bruce A. Block.
Q And were there any attachments to this exhibit?

A Yes. The actual consulting agreement was attached
to this exhibit.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could we please go to
page 2 of that particular consulting agreement.
Q That's page 1, is that correct?

A Yes.
Q Before we move on, what's the date of the

agreement, since this is the first time we are seeing it?
A This agreement is dated May 26th, 1998.
Q And can you orient us on the time line as to where

we are, just to keep us updated?
A Yes. If you just look at the fourth entry on the

304
time line, above the line, it refers to Exhibit 300.
Q All right. Now let's go then to the next page of

this exhibit.
Well, let me ask you this. Do you see the
paragraph marked compensation?
MR. DETTELBACH: If you could just blow it
up, please.
Q What are the compensation terms of this agreement?

A JBER shall pay consultants the sum of $2,500. Then
a thousand dollar per month fee thereafter.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Now if we
could scroll down, just scroll down is fine, to
duties and to paragraph 4.
Q Are there several duties listed?

MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, objection. I
think the document speaks for itself.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q I'm just going to ask you to read one of the four

duties. If you could just read paragraph B under duties,
in a loud voice.
A Yes.
4-B. Disputes between JBER, acting as

305
counsel, and the debtor may arise. Furthermore, JBER may
be involved in disputes with its employees. Since
disputes is the sole discretion of JBER, may be resolved
through mediation, consultant, if requested, will
endeavor to act as a mediator to resolve these disputes.
Q Now, have you reviewed this entire document?

A I have.
Q Do the words East Cleveland appear anywhere in this

document?
A No, they do not.
Q Do the words Emmanuel Onunwor appear anywhere in

this document?
A No, they do not.
Q Are there documents informing anybody about this

new contract?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: If we could please
display Exhibit 301.
Q Who was informed?

A Mayor Emmanuel Onunwor.
Q Tell us what we are looking at in 301, starting

with the date?
A That's a letter dated May 27th, 1998 addressed to
Mayor Onunwor from Javitch, Block regarding the
consulting agreement, Nathan Gray.

306
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. And if you
could go to page 2 of that exhibit.
Q Are there any meetings referenced in page 2 ?

A Yes. If you look at the first sentence of the
first paragraph, it says:
I wish to reiterate what Charles Natkins and
I expressed during our meeting at City Hall. That JBER
is committed to supporting the minority community both
through actively seeking minority employees and clients,
and continuing the process of developing a better
understanding and responsiveness to their needs.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. You can take
that down. Thank you.
Q Now, have you subpoenaed documents pertinent to the

Nate Gray contract from Javitch, Block?
A I have.
(Z Have you recovered or seen, in the course of your

investigation, ever, any document informing any other
public official, except Emmanuel Onunwor, that this
contract was entered into?
A No.
Q Have you also reviewed any financial records

regarding payments from Javitch, Block to Nate Gray?
A Yes, I have.
Q All right. And I would like to refer you now to

307
Exhibit 310 through 366.
MR. DETTELBACH: Start with 310. If you
could please display that.
Thank you.
Q All right. What are we looking at in Exhibit 310?

A 310 is a vendor invoice list which was produced by
Javitch, Block pursuant to a Federal Grand Jury subpoena
we issued.
This lists all the vouchers from ETNA
Associates, which is Nate Gray's company, lists them by
date, date paid, and the amount which was paid.
Q And can you tell us the timeframe that this exhibit
shows that payments were made?
A They started in May 26th, 1998, and proceeded to
2002.
Q Okay. And reading across, what column -- just show

with you finger -- that we can actually see the amount of
each payment?
A Underneath the heading "voucher amount."
Q Okay. And what's the pattern of payments?

A There is an initial payment of $2,500, and then
there is a payment every month for one thousand dollars.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could we go to the final
page of that exhibit? And if you could blow up the

bottom.
Q Is there a total for how much money is paid to

Mr. Gray by the law firm?
A Yes, $55,500.
Q Okay. Now, during that same period, or

approximately the same period, did you obtain any records
relating to Javitch, Block's fees that they were making
on the City of East Cleveland's business?
A Yes, I have.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could we please display
Exhibit 305.
Q What is it that -- this is a multi-page exhibit.

Just describe what this exhibit is?
A This is another document which was turned over by
Javitch, Block pursuant to Federal Grand Jury subpoena.
This lists all the fees which they -- essentially this
lists all the fees they collected from the City of East
Cleveland from 1996, I believe, through 2002, 2003.
Q Where is actually -- which column is their fees

listed in?
A The fees is the very last column. They're paid a
contingency fee, which is 33 percent of all the money
they collect.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, if you could please
go to the last page of this particular exhibit.

309
Q Is there a total line for the fees during the

period covered in this exhibit?
A Yes.
Q Circle for us what the total fees from the East

Cleveland account for Javitch, Block was?
A It's 1.77 million.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, you can take that
exhibit down. Thank you.
Q And could you orient us back now on the time line

as to what the next entry is? Or where we are on the
time line?
A The next entry on the time line is on August 31st,
1999, refers to Exhibit 401.
Q Does this relate to Javitch now or are we switching

subjects a little bit?
A We are switching subjects to the Ralph Tyler
companies.
THE COURT: I may recess at this point,

given the change in topics.
THE COURT: We'll recess. We'll reconvene
tomorrow morning at 8:00 o'clock.
Over the night season you may be asked by
family members or friends about what your experience
has been. You can tell them that you are on a jury
310
but you can't say any other thing about the case.
I'll remind you, you are not to read
anything about this. You are not allowed to listen
to any news reports. If anyone should ever attempt
to talk to you about this case, you need to report
it to the deputy immediately.
You are not allowed to do any private
investigation. Don't do any outside reading. Don't
do any kind of research on the case.
Leave the pads face down.
I would remind you that attendance is not
voluntary, attendance is mandatory. If you fail to
appear, I'm going to send a marshal out to arrest
you. So I don't want to go through that, and you
don't want to go through that, but it's important
that you do get here on time.
So with those explanations, and with the
reminder that all the instructions remain in effect,
we'll adjourn tonight until tomorrow morning.
JUROR: We just check in the same place?
THE COURT: Just come into the jury room.
JUROR: Where we are at.
THE COURT: Right.
Thank you. We'll adjourn.
(The proceedings were adjourned at

311
5:00 p.m., Monday, A u g u s t 8 , 2 0 0 5 u n t i l
7:50 a.m., T u e s d a y , A u g u s t 9 , 2005, a t
which t i m e t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e e d i n g s were
- - -
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Richard G. DelMonico, O f f i c i a l C o u r t R e p o r t e r
i n and f o r t h e United S t a t e s District Court, f o r t h e
N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f Ohio, E a s t e r n D i v i s i o n , d o h e r e b y
c e r t i f y t h a t t h e foregoing i s a t r u e and c o r r e c t
t r a n s c r i p t of t h e proceedings herein.
- A/---
~ i ! c h a r d G . DelMonico
O f f i c i a l Court Reporter
568 U . S . C o u r t h o u s e
Two S o u t h Main S t r e e t
Akron, O h i o 4 4 3 0 8
( 3 3 0 ) 375-5666
I N D E X
OPENING STATEMENTS:
On b e l i a l f o f t h e G o v e r n m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
On b e h a l f o f D e f e n d a n t J o n e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
On b e l l a l f o f Defendant Gray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Or1 b e l l a l f o f D e f e n d a n t J a c k s o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
WITNE,:jS
: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
ON BE3ALF O F THE GOVERNMENT:

M i c h z e l Massie 239 404
Nina 'Jpsshaw 412 448
E r i c 3rewer 459 --
Glori.3 Lovelace 467 479
M i c h a z 1 Dubose 492 496
Ernmanuel Onunwor 498 57 6
Carmello L o P a r o 671 67 5
M i c h a e l Day 67 6 700
Jeff D o n o v a n 7 11 728
M i c h a e l Massie 754 765
11 II
774 826
Rick Sawicki 838 859
Petes Smith 921 930
Glynnis Nelson 951 959
Diane P i n s o n 1028 1037
Shahid Sarwar 1041 1062
Michael Massie 1069 1175
Monic3ue McGilbra 1217 1280
Felix Johnson 1319 1340
G a r l z n d Hardeman 1352 1379
O l i v e r Spellman 1397 1418
EASTERN DIVISION

)
Plaintiff, 1
)
) 1 : O4crOO58O
NATHANIEL GRAY, and )
GILBERT JACKSON, )
1 - - > Pa
- ,',
9:":,:-:
t
Defendants. ) .' : ' 3
-- 7.
- - - 13 -*iv\
-
--,no
Eii.
VOLUME I1 t - 7
- - - 0 "
, -q
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS. . I ' --
- - I ,
-1- -p-n
HAD BEFORE THE HONORABLE -, -.. * :I
JAMES S. GWIN, JUDGE OF SAID COURT, ON 1

TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2005 AT 7:50 A.M..- . *
13 APPEARANCES :
14 For the Government: BENITA Y. PEARSON, ESQ.

15 MARY K. BUTLER, ESQ.
16 U.S. Courthouse - Suite 400
17 Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Nathaniel Gray: ANDREA WHITAKER, ESQ .
Whitaker & Rowlands
Akron, Ohio 44304
For the Defendant ROBERT JENKINS, ESQ .
Court Reporter: Richard G . DelMonico
568 U.S. Courthouse
Akron, Ohio 44308
313
THE COURT: I f the jury w i l l take their
s e a t s , and everyone else a s w e l l .
You r e m a i n u n d e r o a t h f r o m y e s t e r d a y .
And I ' l l a s k M r . Dettelbach t o continue
t h e d i r e c t examination.
- - -
DIRECT EXAMINATION ( C o n t i n u e d )
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Good m o r n i n g , S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e .
A Good m o r n i n g .
Q Now i f you c o u l d , t a k i n g t h e E a s t C l e v e l a n d t i m e
l i n e , j u s t t o g e t u s b a c k t o w h e r e w e were. On p a g e o n e
o f t h e t i m e l i n e --
F i r s t o f a l l , t h e t i m e l i n e i s more t h a n o n e
page, c o r r e c t ?
A That's correct.
Q C o u l d you j u s t e x p l a i n how i t ' s t o b e r e a d , i n
o t h e r words?
A The t i m e l i n e i s d i v i d e d i n t o p a g e s A, B a n d C .
It's l e f t t o right. And t h e n t i m e l i n e B j u s t p i c k s u p
f r o m t h e r i g h t e d g e o f t i m e l i n e A, s o on a n d s o f o r t h .
Q So i f you h a d a b i g enough p i e c e o f paper, you
c o u l d make i t o n e b i g whole s h e e t ?
A Yes.
Q C o u l d you o r i e n t u s a n d t e l l u s w h e r e w e l e f t o f f
314
y e s t e r d a y on t h e t i m e l i n e ?
A We j u s t c o n c l u d e d t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e J a v i t c h , B l o c k
c o n t r a c t , which was t h e f i f t h e n t r y on t h e t i m e l i n e on
page 8 .
Q A l l right. And w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e J a v i t c h , B l o c k
f i r m , how much money was i t t h a t t h e y p a i d t o M r . Gray
o v e r t h e f o u r y e a r s t h a t t h e y h a d t h e a g r e e m e n t w i t h him?
A $55,500.
Q And a c c o r d i n g t o t h e J a v i t c h , B l o c k r e c o r d s how
much where t h e i r f e e s f o r t h e C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d ?
A A l i t t l e over 1.7 million.
Q Now I would l i k e now t o s h i f t g e a r s f o r a s e c o n d ,
o r s h i f t g e a r s f o r a l i t t l e w h i l e , a n d move t o a n o t h e r
company.
Have you h e a r d on w i r e t a p e v i d e n c e a n d r e v i e w
d o c u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g a company c a l l e d R a l p h T y l e r Company?
A Yes, I h a v e .
Q What k i n d o f company i s t h a t ?
A I t ' s an a r c h i t e c t u r a l and engineering f i r m based
o u t o f C l e v e l a n d , Ohio w h i c h d o e s b u s i n e s s t h r o u g h o u t t h e
United S t a t e s .
Q And f r o m 1 9 9 9 t o 2003, who was t h e p e r s o n i n c h a r g e
of t h a t firm?
A I t was h e a d e d up b y R a l p h T y l e r .
Q Now, f r o m y o u r r e v i e w o f t h e t a p e s a n d t h e r e c o r d s ,
315
d i d R a l p h T y l e r Company s e e k t o d o a n y b u s i n e s s w i t h t h e
C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d , Ohio?
A Yes.
Q Now, i n f a c t , h a v e you o b t a i n e d a n y c o n t r a c t s
i n v o l v i n g t h e R a l p h T y l e r Company a n d t h e C i t y o f E a s t
C l e v e l a n d , Ohio?
A Yes, I h a v e .
Q A l l right. I want t o now d r a w y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o
G o v e r n m e n t ' s E x h i b i t s 523 t h r o u g h 5 2 6 . And j u s t b e f o r e
we l o o k a t them o n e b y o n e , w h a t a r e t h o s e d o c u m e n t s ?
A I b e l i e v e 5 2 4 t h r o u g h 526 a r e a s e r i e s o f
e n g i n e e r i n g c o n t r a c t s between t h e C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d
and Ralph T y l e r . R a l p h T y l e r was h i r e d a s a n e n g i n e e r
f o r a s an a s needed b a s i s .
And 523 i s a l e t t e r w h i c h p r e c e d e d a c o n t r a c t
between E a s t C l e v e l a n d a n d Ralph T y l e r , where Ralph T y l e r
was h i r e d on a s t h e e n g i n e e r o f r e c o r d f o r t h e C i t y o f
East Cleveland.
Q L e t ' s a c t u a l l y s t a r t w i t h 526, p l e a s e .
MR. DETTELBACH: I f you c o u l d p l e a s e
display that exhibit.
Q A l l right. And t h e n w h i c h o n e i s 526? What a r e w e
looking a t here?
A T h i s i s one of t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s agreements
f o r t h e y e a r 2000.
316
Q All right. And you say professional services

agreement for the year 2000. How many of these are
there?
A There is three of these.
Q All right. And where does this one fall in the

order, time wise?
A This was the first one.
Q All right.
A For the year 2000.
MR. DETTELBACH: And could you blow up the
top paragraph of that?
Q You say it's for the year 2000.
When was it in the year 2000 that this
contract on the top is dated?
A It's in January of 2000.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: We can take that down
now.
And now, if you could please display
Exhibit 525. All right.
Q And what is 525?

A A similar agreement but this one covers 2002. It
was dated February, 2002.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: And then if we could also

display 524.
Q And what is 524?

A It is a professional services agreement for August
of 2003.
Q And does this one also include -- if you could go

up to the whole page -- besides the professional
services, does it also include some specific work
project?
A Yes. This one specifically pertains to the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Civic Center.
Q And the last one you mentioned was Exhibit 523.

And what is 523 that we are looking at here?
A 523 is a letter to Ralph Tyler from Emmanuel
Onunwor, Mayor of East Cleveland, informing Ralph Tyler

that he has been elected as the engineer of record
for the City of East Cleveland.
Q And what's the date on the top of that letter in

the upper left?
A October 16th, 2002.
Q All right. And there is a signature at the bottom,

is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And who is that?

A It's Emmanuel Onunwor.
MR. DETTELBACH: You can take that down.

Thank you.
Q Now, did you locate, in your business records,

evidencing any contract between CH2M Hill and the Ralph
Tyler Companies?
A Yes.
Q All right. And where is that on the time line for

us?
A If you move over to the next entry, Exhibit 401 is
an agreement for professional services between Ralph
Companies and CH2M Hill, Inc. dated August 31st, 1999.
MR. DETTELBACH: Would you please display
Exhibit 401. And if you could go to the -- past the
cover page to the first page of the actual contract.
All right.
Q And could you, just on the scope of services, blow

that up and read the very -- the scope of services
paragraph on the top for us.
A Scope of Services. RTC will provide professional
consulting services consisting of general strategy
planning for business development and project
development, and tactical support for specific
procurements.
MR. DETTELBACH: And could you scroll down
that exhibit.
Q And could you tell us what was the compensation to

319
be paid to Ralph Tyler Companies under this contract and
on what frequency?
A It's $2,083.33 per month.
Q And could you then go down to the bottom and tell

us who the signatories are on this particular contract.
A This was signed by Brian S. Casey from CH2M Hill,
who is the Cleveland Office Manager. And signing for
Ralph Tyler Companies was Ralph Tyler, President.
Q Is there any mention in this contract, if you could
go out to the whole page, is there any mention in this
contract of the name Nate Gray?
A No, there is not.
Q Is there any mention in this contract of any
business with the name ETNA?
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. DETTELBACH: Thank you. You can take
this down.
Q Did you obtain any bank records or invoices and
accounting records regarding the flow of money coming
from CH2M Hill?
A Yes.
Q And what records did you obtain?
A Invoices as well as check copies.

Q And did you examine those records?
A I did.
Q All right. Could you please tell us how much money

was coming monthly from CH2M Hill and where it was going?
A The money was coming -- CH2M Hill was paying Ralph
Tyler Companies $2,000 per month, every month. Then in
turn Ralph Tyler Companies paid Nate Gray or ETNA 3,000
per month, every month.
Q Where did the extra thousand come from?

A From Ralph Tyler Companies.
Q From their own account?

A Yes.
Q Now, did you serve subpoenas on the Ralph Tyler

Company for any written contract with Nate Gray or any of
the ETNA businesses?
A Yes.
Q And what was their response?

A There was no written contract between Ralph Tyler
Companies or ETNA and Nate Gray.
Q Did you serve subpoenas on CH2M Hill and OM1 for

any written contract with Nate Gray or the ETNA
companies?
A Yes.
Q And what was their response?
A No contracts.
321
Q A l l right. Now, h a v e you p r e p a r e d a n y w r i t t e n
s u m m a r i e s t o show t h e f l o w o f money f r o m CH2M H i l l t o t h e
R a l p h T y l e r Companies?
A Yes, I h a v e .
MR. DETTELBACH: Please display Exhibit
409.
Q And c o u l d you p l e a s e t e l l u s what t h i s e x h i b i t
shows a n d what t h e p a t t e r n o f p a y m e n t s i s t h a t ' s shown on
t h i s particular exhibit?
A Yes. T h i s i s j u s t a summary o f t h e p a y m e n t s f r o m
CH2M H i l l t o R a l p h T y l e r Companies b a s e d on a c t u a l c h e c k s
t h a t were c u t b y CH2M H i l l a n d p a i d t o R a l p h T y l e r .
Q And what a r e t h e d a t e s o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e x h i b i t
t h a t you p r e p a r e d ?
A S t a r t s J a n u a r y 2 5 t h , 2000; a n d t h e c u t o f f d a t e was
March l l t h , 2003.
Q And why d i d you s e l e c t March l l t h , 2003?
A T h a t was t h e d a t e w e e x e c u t e d t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t on
Emrnanuel Onunwor, a n d t h e d a t e t h a t o u r case became
overt.
Q Okay. When you s a y o v e r t , what d o e s t h a t mean?
A Known t o t h e p u b l i c .
Q O r a t l e a s t t o some p e o p l e ?
A Yeah, a t least t o some people.

Q Now, did you p r e p a r e a n y s u m m a r i e s o f b a n k a n d
accounting records that then demonstrate the next step,
where that money was going?
A Yes.
Q And what does 410 show?

A It's the summary of payments from Ralph Tyler
Companies to ETNA Associates, also with that March llth,
2003 cutoff date.
Q And when did this start?

A This one started January 13th, 2000.
Q And was that the beginning of the payments?

A It was.
Q All right. And then is this reflected anywhere on

your time line? Just so we can keep up with the time
line exhibit.
A Yes. If you look over to the very next entry, it
refers to Exhibits 409 and 410, the last two entries on

the time line A.
Q All right. So, how long does this $2,000 and

$3,000 to ETNA pattern, how long does that pattern go on
for?
A It's about, about two years.
Q And at some point, does the amount change?

A Yes, it does.
Q All right. And tell us what the records show
regarding the amount changing and when it happened?
A In May of 2002 the amount increases from CH2M Hill
to Ralph Tyler to $10,000 per month.
Q From how much?

A From 2,000 to 10,000.
Q All right. And what's the -- then the change, if
any, in the payments to Nate Gray and ETNA?
A Nate Gray then receives the entire ten thousand.
Q All right. Now, were you provided, in response to

any subpoena, any new contract agreement, letter, or
anything when this monthly payment jumped 500 percent in
early 2002?
A No.
Q All right. If you could now flip to the next flap

of the time line, the second page.
And tell us, in this time frame, the
beginning of 2002, what if anything, does the time line
show was happening in the City of East Cleveland?
A The very first entry on the time line depicts the
November 20th, 2001 contract between CH2M Hill and the
City of East Cleveland.
Q All right. And then what does the next entry on
the time line, the upper part of the time line, show?
The one with the person there.

324
A Yes. It's another reference to Exhibit 16. This
is the date, March 4th, 2002 when revenue generation
actually started for the CH2M Hill Company.
Exhibit 16?
Q This is a multi-page exhibit. We are just going to

look at a couple pages.
But what is this from the cover?
A This is the cover page of the professional services

agreement between CH2M Hill and the City of East
Cleveland, dated November 20th, 2001.
Q This is -- is this the contract?

A It is.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, if we could just
look at a couple provisions. First, page 1612.,
which is -- and let's focus in on paragraph A-13.
Q Can you tell us, from this paragraph, what if any

management fee was to be owed to the company under this
contract?
A Management fee payable of 1.3 million per year.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: And if we could go to
page 1621. And then look at paragraph E-1.4, where
it says base fee.

Q Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q And could you tell us what the base fee was to be

for the first year?
A It's a little over 3.6 million dollars for the
first year.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, if you could then go
to page 1628.
Q And what is page 1628, before we zoom in?

A This is the amendment to the agreement.
Q It's in terms of the actual exhibit as a whole,

which page is this?
A This is the last page.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: If you could, to focus in
on the date, could you please pull up the top
paragraph.
Q What was the date of this agreement, under that top

paragraph?
A The amendment was dated March 4th, 2002.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Now if we
could go down to the -- if you can go up a little
bit, I'm sorry. All right, that paragraph there.
Q And when was the revenue generation date under this
contract?
326
A March 4, 2002.
that down now.
Q Going back to your time line, is that March 4th

date reflected anywhere on your time line?
A It is. It's the second entry on time line B.
Q All right.
A Of the line.
Q So it's that same one with the person there?

A Yes, it is.
Q What is the entry that's depicted on your time line

four days after that?
A It's another reference to Exhibit 410. This is the
date that the monthly invoices increased, invoices that
ETNA was sending to Ralph Tyler Companies. They
increased from the 3,000 per month to the 10,000 per
month.
Q All right.
Now, did you obtain any records, financial
records regarding whether or not East Cleveland began
paying CH2M Hill in that time period?
A Yes.
Q What types of records?

A Once again, copies of checks, financial records,
invoices.
Q Did they begin paying?
A Yes, they did.
Q And did you prepare a summary based on those

records of the payments from the City of East Cleveland
to the water company, CH2M Hill?
A I did.
Exhibit 408.
Okay. I don't think we need to blow that
one up.
Q Could you please tell us what 408 depicts?

A It is a summary of payments from the City of East
Cleveland to CH2M Hill, or OMI, prior to the March 11th
date.
Q Same date as you used for the other exhibit?

A Yes.
Q And could you please tell us what the first date of

payment is and the amount?
A It's May 31st, 2002. The amount is $301,155.42.
Q And what's the total amount paid during the

timeframe shown here?
A It's a little over 1.5 million.
Q And finally, did you compare a composite exhibit to

show all three of these three flows of money on one piece
of paper?
A I did.
Q And what are we looking at on 411?

A 411 just essentially summarizes 408, 409 and 410.
The column farthest to the right is payments
from East Cleveland to OMI.
The column in the center is payments from OM1
to Ralph Tyler.
And the column on the far right is payments
from Ralph Tyler to ETNA Associates.
Q Now, with respect to the financial records that you

examined, in 2002 what happened with respect to the City
of East Cleveland's payments to CH2M Hill?
A They slowed and eventually stopped.
Q All right. When was it that the City started

missing its payments?
A Some time between August 2002 and December 2002.
Q All right. And is that depicted anywhere on the

time line?
A Yes. If you look over, there is a reference to
Exhibit 408, in the middle of time line B.
Q And what does it say there?

A It says East Cleveland misses first monthly
$300,000 payment for CH2M Hill. And we have a date on

32 9
there of September, 2002.
Q All right. Now, what happened to the payments from

CH2M Hill to Ralph Tyler Companies and Nate Gray after
the city started missing payments?
A The payments eventually stopped.
Q And this is the summary, Exhibit 411, that shows

all the payment dates?
A Yes.
Q Or invoice dates. I'm sorry.

MR. DETTELBACH: Now if you could take 411
down.
Q And working with the time line.

In the same period, 2002, from your review of
the documents, what was happening with respect to the
collections contract? The law firm contract in the City

of East Cleveland?
A The collections contract was being phased out by
the City of East Cleveland as a result of a
recommendation made to the City by the State Auditor's
Office who was employed to do a performance audit, an
overall assessment of the City of East Cleveland.
Q Okay. So what was Javitch, Block's situation

during this time period?
A They were in the process of being phased out by the
City.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, c o u l d you p l e a s e
d i s p l a y E x h i b i t 302?
Q A l l right. What i s 302?
A 302 i s a copy o f an e - m a i l we r e c e i v e d p u r s u a n t t o
a F e d e r a l Grand J u r y subpoena we i s s u e d t o J a v i t c h ,
Block.
Q With r e s p e c t t o t h e s e e - m a i l s , how a r e t h e y t o b e
read? I n what o r d e r d o . t h e y g e t r e a d i n ?
A E-mails a r e r e c o r d e d b o t t o m u p . Therefore, the
f i r s t e - m a i l i n t h e s e q u e n c e would b e l i s t e d on t h e
b o t t o m , and a n y f o l l o w - u p e - m a i l s would b e l i s t e d on t h e
t o p of t h e page.
Q L e t ' s s t a r t from t h e b o t t o m o n e . Who was i t from
and who i t was t o ?
A The b o t t o m one i s from C h a r l e s N a t k i n s t o Bruce
Block a n d J o e l Rathbone.
Q And w h a t ' s t h e d a t e on t h i s o n e ?
A T h i s one was s e n t F e b r u a r y 2nd, 2002.
Q A l l right. And a g a i n , who was M r . N a t k i n s ?
A C h a r l e s N a t k i n s i s a p a r t n e r f o r t h e J a v i t c h , Block
firm.
Q And who i s M r . Block?
A Block i s one o f t h e managing p a r t n e r s .
Q Could you p l e a s e r e a d t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e of t h a t
e-mail?
331
A Reads: Was with Gloria Thursday. She indicated
that the State Auditors are griping about the fees being
paid to collect the money. As you know, the City just
laid off 30 school guards. Expected in near future to
have to justify the fees.
Q That's fine.
And then if you could go up to the next
e-mail. Who is that sent from/to?
A This one is sent from Bruce Block to Charles
Natkins .
Q And I would ask you to read the sentence starting,

I also leave it to you?
A Okay. In the middle of the paragraph reads: I
also leave it to you to decide how you want to involve
our good friend Nate Gray, who could perhaps talk to the
powers that be in the city. Use your imagination and
take an aggressive approach in dealing with the
situation. I do not want to be caught off guard with all
of a sudden having to bid with every minority contract in
Northeast Ohio for this work.
Q All right. Now, who was Gloria that was mentioned

in the first e-mail?
A Gloria is Gloria Lovelace, who is the Deputy Tax
Administrator for the City of East Cleveland.
(1 Now, does Nate Gray's contract with Javitch, Block

refer in any way on paper to Emmanuel Onunwor?
A No, it does not.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, if you could please
then show Exhibit 303.
Q What is 303, before we zoom in? Just what is it?

A It's another photocopy of an e-mail turned over by
Javitch, Block.
Q And again from the bottom up, is that correct?

A Yes.
Q Now, in the contract that Mr. Gray had with

Javitch, Block, that Javitch Block document, was there
any reference to the word East Cleveland?
A No.
Q All right. Looking at the bottom e-mail --

MR. DETTELBACH: Would you please blow up
the heading and the first two paragraphs of the
bottom e-mail.
Q All right. Who's it from and who's it to?

A This one is from Joe Rathbone, who is another
managing partner at the Javitch, Block firm. And it's to
Charles Natkins, and cc'd to Bruce Block.
Q Please read the second paragraph.

A It reads: As a result of the higher placements in
the prior years, we agreed to two additional expenses
that we do not have for any other files.

333
First is Mike Dubose. His cost to us is
about 30,000 per year.
The second is Nate Gray. He costs us 12,000
per year.
(Z And what is the subject heading on this particular

e-mail?
A Regarding East Cleveland.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, if you could take
this down. That's fine.
Q All right. Now going back to the time line.

MR. DETTELBACH: And if we could show
Exhibit 14.
Q Where is that reflected on your time line?

A If you go from where we left off, it's the very
next entry to the right. It refers to Exhibit 14,
Release of City of East Cleveland performance audit,
dated September 26th, 2002.
Q And you said, in looking at Exhibit 14, do you see

the date of the release of the report, the public release
of the report?
A Yes.
(r And where is that on the screen?

A It's in the middle of the page.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, if we could go to
page 411 of that report. And if you could go to
recommendation 4.1.
Q I'm just going to ask you to read the first

sentence of recommendation 4.1 in the auditor's report?
A Reads: In order to lower its operating cost, and
increase income tax revenue, the City should transfer all
collection activity to RITA.
Q All right. So, is that what you were testifying

about earlier regarding the Javitch firm?
A Yes.
Q Now, I now want to show you Exhibit 306. The next

entry on your time line.
How did you obtain 306?
A It was obtained in the search warrant we executed.
Q All right. And so this was a search document?

A Yes, search of the ETNA offices.
Q All right. And compared to the date of the public

release of the report, what is the date of this letter?
A It's four days after the public release of the
performance audit.
Q All right. And it's a short letter, please read

from -- please read the letter, if you could?
A It's addressed to Nathan Gray from Bruce A. Block,
regarding consulting agreement termination.
Reads: Dear Mr. Gray, please accept this

letter as the notice of our firm's election to terminate
the consulting agreement of May 26th, 1998 between

Javitch, Block, Eisen, and Rathbone and yourself. Your
retainer payment for the month of October, 2002 will be

the final payment made pursuant to this agreement.
Q That's fine.
And going back to your time line. Is there
an entry on your time line for the final payment that
went from Javitch, Block to Nate Gray under that
consulting agreement?
A Yes. If you look at the entry under October lst,
2002.
Q Okay.
A It refers again to Exhibit 309, which is the
summary.
Q And that's the last payment?

A Yes.
Q Was the shift in work away from Javitch, Block

confirmed by any other document that you have?
A Yes, it was.
MR. DETTELBACH: And could you please show
Exhibit 368.
Q And tell us where that is located on your time

line, and what this letter is?
A It's the very next entry on the top of the line.

It's reference to Exhibit 368. And this is a letter from
RITA, the Regional Income Tax Agency, to Gloria Lovelace,
the City of East Cleveland.
Q And just could you just read the very first

sentence of that letter after Dear Miss Lovelace?
A It says: As a followup to our meeting earlier this
year, it is my understanding that RITA will begin legal
work for your community with the tax liabilities filed
during the 2002.
Q Okay. Thank you.

Q What's the date of that letter? You said it was

October 8th, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q All right. The next entry on the top of the time

line refers back to Ralph Tyler Companies, it's the final
payment. So let's actually turn pages to the next page
of the time line.
All right. Now, on the top, the next entry
doesn't go until all the way down to the end. Could you
tell us what the next entry is?
A The next entry refers to Exhibit 111, which is the
cash in the envelope we took from the pocket of Emmanuel
Onunwor .
Q All right. And the date of that is March llth,

2003?
A Yes.
Q Now, what is the next entry on your time line?

What is the date and what is that exhibit?
MR. DETTELBACH: And if you could display
Exhibit 405, please.
A Exhibit 405 is a letter that Emmanuel Onunwor wrote
to CH2M Hill.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you go to the
second page of that letter, please.
Q And tell us what that letter says on the second
page?
A It says: The City of East Cleveland considers the
foregoing failures to be material breaches of our
agreement, and by this letter gives you notice of the
City's intent to terminate our agreement thirty days from
the date of this letter. It is dated March 25th, 2003.
Q What is the date of that letter in comparison to

the date that you stopped Emmanuel Onunwor?
A Two weeks later.
Q And can you tell us what you were doing during that
two week period in-between?
A During this two week period we conducted a series
of interviews with Emmanuel Onunwor. This was a period
of time in which he was cooperating with the government.

338
Q For how long?
A After we stopped him on March llth, he cooperated
until the end of March.
Q And then what happened?

A And then we received notice that he no longer
wished to cooperate. And the next thing we know, the
microphone and bug was discovered in Nate Gray's office,
and this letter goes out.
Q Now, I asked you a series of questions before --

MR. DETTELBACH: You can take this down.
Q - - about electronic surveillance interceptions that
are on the disk that you talked about.
Now, first of all, so that we can understand
the numbering system, did you try to organize those
numbers of those exhibits in any way so that it would be
easier to go through?
A Yes.
Q All right. How did you do it?
A I tried to do it chronologically.
Q All right. And specifically, were there any

subject matter divisions you made in numbering the phone
calls, to the extent you could?
A Yeah. We tried to identify phone calls by
particular crime group. So we tried to group all the
East Cleveland calls together.

339
Q A l l right. And a s you a d d e d c a l l s , was i t p o s s i b l e
t o keep t h e sequence p e r f e c t ?
A No. T h e r e were a number o f c a l l s i n w h i c h t h e y
switched s u b j e c t s .
Q So e v e r y c a l l may o r may n o t r e l a t e t o j u s t o n e
topic?
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, o b j e c t i o n t o
t h e continued leading nature of t h e questions.
THE COURT: I t h i n k -- i t ' s n o t a m a t t e r
o f a n y g r e a t , you know, d i s p u t e . So I ' l l o v e r r u l e
the objection.
Watch i t on a n y t h i n g o f s u b s t a n c e .
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, y o u r Honor.
Q You c a n a n s w e r .
A Yeah, t h e r e i s a number o f d i f f e r e n t c o n v e r s a t i o n s
w h i c h r e f e r t o more t h a n o n e s u b j e c t .
Q A r e any of t h o s e c a l l s r e l a t i n g t o E a s t Cleveland
r e f l e c t e d on t h i s t i m e l i n e ?
A Yes.
Q Is i t e v e r y c a l l t h a t ' s i n t h e e x h i b i t s t h a t
r e l a t e s t o E a s t Cleveland?
A No, i t ' s n o t .
Q A l l right. I want t o l i m i t t h i s p a r t o f y o u r
t e s t i m o n y t o i h o s e East C l e v e l a n d c a l l s t h e n .
NOW, l e t ' s go back t o t h e v e r y f i r s t page of

your time line. Are there any calls on that page?
A No, there are not.
Q Why not?
A We did not have court authorization to have
interception during this time period.
Q Okay. So that was quick.

Let's flip to the next page. And where is it
then that the first series of calls when you did have
court authorization are reflected?
A The first calls depicted on the time line is
January 17th, 2002, which is a call between Nate Gray,
Brian Casey, and Greg Parker.
Q And who are Brian Casey and Greg Parker?

A Brian Casey and Greg Parker each work for CH2M Hill
or OMI.
Brian Casey is the Office Manager in the City
of Cleveland, and Greg Parker was the Project Manager for
the East Cleveland water project.
Q All right. And --

THE COURT: Can you just explain, CH2M
Hill is who?
THE WITNESS: CH2M Hill is a large
engineering firm that contracted with the City of
East Cleveland to run the Water Department.
OM1 is their subsidiary which actually did

the work.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And in your testimony, you are referring to those

two entities interchangeably?
A Yes.
Q Now, could you please then -- and is this over the

phone or in person?
A This is a telephone conversation.
Q Okay. So, we may or may not need these but if you

are using them, it's time to put them on.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you please play
Exhibit 1001.
(Tape played. )
Q Now, there was a name Charlie mentioned, and a

committee meeting. Orienting us using the top of the
time line, can you tell us what that referred to?
THE WITNESS: Yes, the Charlie they are
referring to is Charles Bibb, who is the City of
East Cleveland Councilman. He's also the head of
the East Cleveland Contracts Committee during this
time period prior to -- or after the contract was
initiated in November of 2001 and before March 4,
2002 there were some negotiations trying to get the

p r o j e c t up a n d r u n n i n g .
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q A l l right. The n e x t d a y d e p i c t e d on y o u r t i m e
l i n e , i s t h e r e a f o l l o w - u p c a l l r e p o r t i n g on t h i s ?
A Yes. E x h i b i t 1002 r e f e r s t o a f o l l o w - u p c a l l
b e t w e e n N a t e Gray a n d Greg P a r k e r .
MR. DETTELBACH: C o u l d you p l e a s e p l a y
1002, p l e a s e .
(Tape p l a y e d . )
Q You h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o 0 . Mays. Who i s t h a t ?
A H e ' s a n o t h e r member o f t h e C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d
Council.
Q You a l s o h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e word e x t e n s i o n .
What was g o i n g on w i t h t h a t ?
A Not o n l y was CH2M H i l l l o o k i n g t o g e t t h e i r u n i o n
contracts r a t i f i e d s o they could s t a r t t h e contract, but
a l s o t h e y were l o o k i n g f o r a n e x t e n s i o n , I b e l i e v e a f i v e
year extension, t o t h e o r i g i n a l contract they entered
j u s t on November o f ' 0 1 .
Q And who d i d M r . Gray s a y h e s p o k e t o a b o u t t h a t
extension?
A The mayor.
Q Now, a t t h e e n d t h e r e was a r e f e r e n c e t o , I'll b e

m e e t i n g w i t h M r . B i b b i n 25 m i n u t e s ? O r I ' l l b e meeting
w i t h him i n 25 m i n u t e s ?
A Yes.
Q Did you have a camera o r mike u p i n M r . Gray's
o f f i c e a t t h a t p o i n t t o c a p t u r e t h a t meeting?
A No, t h e r e was no camera a t t h a t t i m e .
Q Now l a t e r , however, was t h e r e a c a l l back t o r e p o r t
on a meeting between Gray and P a r k e r ?
A Yes, t h e same day.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you p l e a s e p l a y
Exhibit 1003.
(Tape played. )
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q A l l right. And comparing t h a t r e p o r t t o your time
l i n e , when was i t again t h a t t h e a c t u a l amended agreement
was s i g n e d compared t o t h a t ?
A About a month and a h a l f l a t e r .
Q A l l right. Now, over t h e summer of t h a t y e a r , what
i f any p u b l i c i t y o r newspaper coverage was t h e r e about
t h e water c o n t r a c t ?
A There was an a r t i c l e p u b l i s h e d i n t h e Cleveland
P l a i n Dealer t h a t was h i g h l y c r i t i c a l of t h e w a t e r
c o n t r a c t i n t h e C i t y of E a s t Cleveland.
Q And i s t h e r e a r e p o r t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n between
Mr. Gray and M r . Onunwor where t h e y d i s c u s s t h a t ?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could we p l e a s e --

344
referring to August 12th, 2002, please play Exhibit
1006, which is not on the time line.
(Tape played. )
Q Now what's the next call that's actually listed on

your time line?
A It's a reference to Exhibit 1014.
Q What's the date of the call?

A Dated August 27th, 2002.
Q And who is it between?

A It's a conversation with Emmanuel Onunwor, Nate
Gray. And there is also call waiting with Ray Chen.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Would you
please play Exhibit 1014.
(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Massie, there was a comment September
is here. Is it possible to see you today also? Did you
hear that?
A Yes, I did.
Q Was there, at this point yet, a camera, a court

authorized camera up in Mr. Gray's office?
A No, the camera was not operating until
September 30th.
Q Okay.
All right. Now referring you then to the

345
next intercepted call that's on your time line, this is
one of the ones out of order a little bit, 1063.
Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q What's the date of that call?

A It's September 24th, 2002. This is a conversation
between Nate Gray and Ralph Tyler.
Q And where are the two people at the time of this

conversation?
A In this particular conversation Nate Gray is in
Cleveland, Ohio. And Ralph Tyler is calling from a
Florida number.
Q Okay.
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you please play
Exhibit 1063.
(Tape played. )
Q All right. And who was it that informed Mr. Tyler

that he was officially the engineer of record for East
Cleveland?
A Nate Gray.
Q And when is that in relation to a letter that you

earlier tell us that actually gave that official
notification from the mayor?
A It's approximately a month and a half prior to the
actual letter being written.

346
Q I now want to direct your attention to Exhibit 826.
All right. This is the first page of a multi-page
exhibit.
What is 826 and where did it come from?
A 826 is a daily organizer which we seized along with
other documents when we executed the search warrant on
Nate Gray's personal residence.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, if we could, please
go back and display for a second Exhibit 124.
Q What does this exhibit show about where this was

found?
A Once again this is a picture of the walk-in closet
adjacent to the master bedroom. And this particular list
was found in the black backpack laying on the floor in
the closet.
Q Now, I'm not going to go back to Exhibit 19 but
it's the subpoena you talked about. On that subpoena,
was the company CH2M Hill listed?
A Yes.
Q Was the company Ralph Tyler Company listed?

A Yes.
Q All right. Now let's go back -- and was this

exhibit that we are going to look at, 826, was it turned
over pursuant to the subpoena?
A No, it was not.

347
Q L e t ' s go back t o t h e e x h i b i t .
F i r s t o f , a l l j u s t on t h e h e a d i n g . What's
t h e h e a d i n g on t h e u p p e r r i g h t t h e r e ?
A The h e a d i n g on t h e u p p e r r i g h t s a y s N a t e ' s S h e l l .
Q And w h a t ' s t h e w r i t t e n t h i n g on t h e t o p o f t h e p a g e
say?
A On t h e t o p o f t h e p a g e t h e word "money" i s w r i t t e n .
Q Circle t h a t f o r us, please.
(The w i t n e s s d i d a s i n s t r u c t e d . )
Q Do you s e e a n y r e f e r e n c e s on t h i s p a g e t o a n y o f
t h e c o m p a n i e s t h a t I j u s t a s k e d you a b o u t , o r p e o p l e t h a t
I j u s t a s k e d you a b o u t ?
A Yes. T h e r e a r e two r e f e r e n c e s t o R a l p h T y l e r . One
right there.
(1 And r e a d t h a t f o r u s .
A And o n e a t t h e b o t t o m o f t h e p a g e .
Q What d o e s t h e f i r s t o n e s a y ?
A F i r s t one i s h i g h l i g h t e d . I t says, Ralph Tyler
s l a s h CH2M H i l l s l a s h $ 9 , 8 0 0 .
Q And what d o e s t h e o n e a t t h e b o t t o m s a y ?
A I t s a y s Ralph T y l e r , a n d t h e n i t s a y s Emmanuel.
Q Now, t h e r e a r e o t h e r p a g e s w e ' l l come b a c k t o
l e t t e r , b u t w e c a n t a k e t h a t down now.
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you p l e a s e p l a y
E x h i b i t 1020, w h i c h i s the n e x t e n t r y .
348
(Tape played. )
Q Just for the record, who is speaking on this call?

A This is Nate Gray and Ernmanuel Onunwor.
Q You hear them refer to a name Ott?

A Yes.
Q What was the name of the Plain Dealer reporter who

was writing the articles?
A It was Tom Ott.
Q And what is the date of this call in comparison to

the public release of the audit report?
A This is the day before the actual public release
date.
Q All right. Now, the next entry on the bottom of
your time line is 9/30. That's the date.
Do you see those entries?
A Yes.
Q We are going to skip over those. We'll play those

at a later point in the case.
And then let's move to the next date. What's
the next date that you are listing on the time line?
A October 2nd, 2002.
Q All right. And who is this a call between, the

first one?
A The first one is a call between Nate Gray and Greg
Parker.
Q A l l right.
MR. DETTELBACH: And i f you c o u l d p l e a s e
p l a y E x h i b i t Number 1 0 2 6 .
MR. DETTELBACH: I f you c o u l d p l e a s e g o t o
t h e t r a n s c r i p t page 2 , a t t h e t o p l i n e , 1 through
12.
Q Now, w e d i d n ' t p l a y t h e e a r l i e r c a l l o r t h e e a r l i e r
e n t r y o f S e p t e m b e r 3 0 t h , b u t d o you see a r e f e r e n c e i n
t h e r e t o a c o n v e r s a t i o n between M r . Gray and M r . Onunwor?
A Yes. I t ' s r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t 1022.
Q And we a r e n o t g o i n g t o p l a y i t a t t h i s p o i n t ,
w e ' l l w a i t u n t i l l a t e r , b u t what i s 1 0 2 2 ? What i s
happening? Is i t i n p h o n e ? Is i t i n p e r s o n ? Who a r e
the participants?
A I t ' s an i n - o f f i c e meeting.
MR. WHITAKER: O b j e c t i o n , y o u r Honor.
THE COURT: Why d o n ' t you g o a h e a d a n d
p l a y it then.
MR. DETTELBACH: Well, w e a r e going t o
seek t o play it.
THE COURT: Well, you c a n p l a y i t t w i c e .
I f t h e r e i s an o b j e c t i o n , j u s t play t h e underlying
t a p e and l e t it speak f o r i t s e l f .
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, y o u r Honor, t h a t ' s

350
no problem.
All right. Let's work then back to -- and
play the three different entries that happened on
9/30/02, starting with Exhibit 1021.
(Tape played. )
Q For the record, who is talking?

A This is Nate Gray and Emmanuel Onunwor.
Q All right. And was there a meeting that day in

Mr. Gray's office?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please play Exhibit 1022.
And this one you'll need the head phones on.
(Tape played. )
MR. DETTELBACH: Please play the next
Exhibit, 1025, from the same meeting.
(Tape played. )
MR. DETTELBACH: We'll get the transcripts

squared away with that later.
Q Now let's move back then, after we played those

back, to the three days later, 10/2/02. And the second
excerpt of that call between Mr. Gray and Mr. Parker is
Exhibit 1027.
MR. DETTELBACH: Would you please play
that.
(Tape played. )
351
Q All right. Now, Special Agent Massie, from the

documents and your review of the calls, what was going on
with respect to the water bills in the City of East
Cleveland during this week?
THE WITNESS: There was a problem in the
billing system that OM1 implemented. And the
residents were receiving extremely high water bills.
Q And is there a phone call between Mayor Onunwor and
Mr. Gray about that?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please play Exhibit 1028,
the next entry.
(Tape played. )
Q All right. And your heard an earlier reference,

not on that call but on one of the others, to a meeting
that was going to be between Mr. Gray and Councilman
Bibb?
A Yes.
Q And is there a tape that corresponds to that

conversation?
A Yes. On October 7th, 2002, which is Exhibit 1030.

E x h i b i t 1030.
Q You h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e name H o w l i e ?
A Yes.
Q Who i s t h a t ?
A H o w l i e i s H o w l i e D a v i s , who i s a n E x e c u t i v e V i c e
P r e s i d e n t f o r CH2M H i l l .
Q You a l s o h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o F r i e n d s o f C h a r l e s E .
Bibb, Senior?
A Yes.
Q Who i s t h a t ?
A T h a t ' s C h a r l e s B i b b ' s campaign c o m m i t t e e .
Q You a l s o h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o -- d i d you h e a r t h e
word " s m o k i n g m i r r o r s ? "
A Yes.
Q And w h a t was t h a t a r e f e r e n c e t o ?
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q L e t m e a s k you t h i s .
From y o u r r e v i e w o f t h e c a l l s , w h a t i f a n y
p u b l i c a c t i o n o r m e e t i n g s were t a k i n g p l a c e a b o u t t h e
water c o n t r a c t a t t h i s time?
A T h e r e was a l a r g e community m e e t i n g h e l d i n t h e
C i t y of E a s t Cleveland t o d i s c u s s t h e E a s t Cleveland
353
water billing problems.
Q All right. Now moving to exhibit -- or moving to

the date and time 11/4/02.
Do you see that entry?
A Yes.
Q And what are the things below that on that entry?

A There is a reference to a telephone call, which is
Exhibit 1032. And also a reference to a video.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, let's play Exhibit
1032 from 11/4/02.
(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Massie, what's the next entry below

on the time line for the same date, 11/4/02?
A It's a reference to a video, which 1066-A.
Q All right. Now this call and the video, is that

part of a pattern that you picked up on the wire?
A Yes. Prior to the meetings between Nate Gray and
Emmanuel Onunwor, which took place in Nate Gray's office,
there would be a series of set-up calls or calls to pick
a particular time and place for the meeting.
Q Now, this next one that we are going to see,

1066-A, was there a video that captured the Nate
Gray/Emmanuel Onunwor meeting?
A Yes.
Q And did you use it to make one of those still

photographs that you showed us before?
A Yes.
Q Now, with respect to this particular meeting, is

there audio?
A There is no audio for this particular meeting.
Q Can you please explain that?

A The microphone and bug that was installed is kind
of a complex piece of equipment, so there is sometimes,
there is some timing issues. You have to dial in
specifically to activate the microphone. And for this
particular meeting, or this clip of this meeting we are
about to see, the microphone was not dialed in yet. The
sound was later restored in the clip but just not in this
particular one.
Q And let me be specific about that.

So is the microphone that's in Mr. Gray's
office, is it on and recording 24 hours a day?
A No, it's not.
Q There is a process you actually have to go through

to turn it on?
A Yes. You have to physically dial in to activate
the microphone.
Q All right. Since we can only view it, there is no

need for the headphones.

(Video played. )
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Thank you.
Q And who are the people we are looking at here?

A Nate Gray and Emmanuel Onunwor.
Q All right. Now, that was on 11/4. Approximately a

month later on 11/29, was there another meeting?
A Yes.
Q All right. And were there any set-up calls for
that meeting?
A There were.
Q And what exhibit is that?

A One of the set-up calls is referred to in Exhibit
1035.
Q All right. And if we could, let's skip to the

meeting and if we could play exhibit -- in this one, is
there sound on this one?
A Yes, there is.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could we please play
Exhibit 1036.
Your Honor, I think we have an audio
problem on this particular call. So let's just take
it down.
Q All right. Now, what is exhibit -- moving forward

to the next page on the time line.
1 What is the first entry on the next page
2 below?
3 A It's a reference to Exhibit 1039, which is another
4 conversation between Nate Gray and Emmanuel Onunwor.
5 Q All right. And this is a phone conversation?
6 A It is.
7 MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Let's try and
8 just see whether our audio problem is fixed.
9 Please play Exhibit 1039.
10 Your Honor, I'm not getting the --
11 THE COURT: I'm not either.
12 MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, I apologize.
13 Can I maybe take a five minute break and see if we
14 can fix this.
15 THE COURT: Okay. We'll take an earlier
16 break today.
17 Same rules apply. Don't talk about the
18 case amongst yourselves or anyone else. Don't form
19 any opinions or express any.
20 We'll take about five minutes. We'll
21 return about quarter 'til.
22 MR. DETTELBACH: Thank you, your Honor.
23 (Brief recess. )
24 (The following proceedings were
25 conducted outside the presence of the

jury. )
MS. WHITAKER: I just, in the government's
trial brief they had requested the right to break up
Mr. Massie's testimony in sections, I believe. And
we would like to, on behalf of Mr. Gray, be heard on
the record to object to that and our reasons for
doing so.
THE COURT: I'm not sure what you are
talking about. I thought you meant just with the
order you deal with one topic and go to a different
topic.
MR. DETTELBACH: That's correct. After
the last Cleveland call is played, for instance, I
will stop asking Mr. Massie questions and tender him
for cross examination.
And when we finish with the East Cleveland
witnesses, call him again and start again on my
witness outline as if there had been no break. My
next question would be: Did you prepare a time line
for the City of Cleveland?
MS. WHITAKER: So he will be called on the
stand four times.
MR. DETTELBACH: But we won't repeat any
testimony. His testimony for the City of East
Cleveland will be over after this. So it won't

358
lengthen or change his direct, except it will allow
the jury to hear the evidence and the tapes, first
of all, to break it up so they could pay more
attention to it.
THE COURT: What's the objection?
MS. WHITAKER: First of all, it allows the
government to basically have an opening statement

before each section. It allows them to do that with
each particular crime set, which obviously the
defendants aren't given the opportunity to do.
Second, as the government stated many
times, there is a lot of overlap with all of these
charges, with the phone calls, with the exhibits.
It will necessarily allow them to go back and
rehabilitate any witnesses that didn't go well the

first time.
THE COURT: Not if they are restricted in
the second examination, they are not permitted to go

back.
MS. WHITAKER: I understand they may not
be specifically permitted to ask him a question they

asked him before, but because of the overlap, as
they continually pointed out, between a lot of these
charges, it will necessarily that overlap, allow
them to do that by implication, by other exhibits.

359
THE COURT: I'm not sure how much overlap
there is when you say that, but I think you are
wrong. I don't -- I think they are fairly distinct.
East Cleveland, CH2M Hill is not involved with
Houston, it's not involved with New Orleans.
MS. WHITAKER: I mean, the companies that
are involved all these cities are the same
companies.
THE COURT: Is CH2M Hill involved in
Houston?
MS. WHITAKER: CH2M Hill actually does
have a contract with Houston. But you are correct
in these particular charges --
THE COURT: Is it involved in New Orleans?
MS. WHITAKER: CDM is involved --
Honeywell is involved in New Orleans, Houston, and
Cleveland.
CDM is involved in Houston, New Orleans,
Cleveland.
THE COURT: At least as to the East
Cleveland, it's somewhat unusual, I don't know
frankly what authority you have for it.
MR. DETTELBACH: I think the court -- I
think it's under 90 -- I had the rule, but the court
has the authority to broad discretion to allow the

p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e i n a way t h a t ' s h e l p f u l
f o r t h e jury t o follow. And I b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s
will, i n e f f e c t , allow t h e jury t o :
A, m a i n t a i n -- i t ' s a t r e m e n d o u s amount o f
information. One o f t h e t h i n g s w e l e a r n e d coming
t h r e e d a y s o f w i r e t a p s a l l i n a row l i k e t h a t .
And s e c o n d , I t h i n k i t w i l l a l l o w t h e j u r y
t o e a s i e r segment t h e d i f f e r e n t e v i d e n c e . In fact,
I t h i n k , you know, I t h i n k i t ' s h e l p f u l t o Defendant
J o n e s i n some ways, i n s o f a r a s h e ' s s a y i n g t h e c a s e
a g a i n s t him s h o u l d b e s e g m e n t e d .
THE COURT: How much more d o you h a v e on
t h e East Cleveland?
MR. DETTELBACH: I can count t h e c a l l s b u t
i t ' s s e v e r a l more c a l l s , l i k e 1 0 more c a l l s , I
t h i n k , y o u r Honor, a n d t h a t ' s i t . Thirteen c a l l s
and one e x h i b i t .
THE COURT: I ' l l a s k them t o t a k e a l o o k
a t t h e i s s u e a n d I ' l l d e f e r a d e c i s i o n on i t .
MS. WHITAKER: May I j u s t make o n e more
point f o r the record.
I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e r e i s a n y way r e c a l l i n g
t h e witness four times i s t i m e e f f i c i e n t . The t i m e
o f j u s t g e t t i n g him b a c k up t h e r e a n d down.
THE COURT: You may b e r i g h t on t h a t . The

361
question is, does it make it more understandable?
And I think you are wrong. I think
they are each fairly distinct, and so I think
Houston's fairly distinct from -- well, it's
obviously distinct from East Cleveland.
MS. WHITAKER: But I also think it does
allow them to present this opening statement for
each section, that is prejudicial to all the
defendants.
MR. DETTELBACH: There will be cross also
in each section. I
THE COURT: I think that's not real
persuasive. I don't know what authority you have to
ask for it but I'll take a look at that.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, may I just ask one
thing on behalf of Mr. Jackson?
If the defense had a witness that they
equally felt --
THE COURT: I'm sorry.
MR. JENKINS: If the defense had a witness
they wanted to submit four different times in sort
of a narration form like the FBI agent does, would
we be permitted to do so?
THE COURT: I would think if each time
you -- if you've got one witness that speaks to East

362
Cleveland, and the same witness wants to speak to
Houston, I would think you would have the -- you
know, if the case is being broken upon geographical
locations I think you would have the right to recall
your witnesses.
MR. JENKINS: Okay.
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, for the record,
may we join in the objection?
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. JENKINS: And I join as well.
MR. DETTELBACH: 611 is the rule.
MR. EMOFF: I have one other brief issue.

THE COURT: Okay. What's that?
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, this is more of a
personal issue for Mr. Cafferkey and myself.
I filed a request for order permitting
interim payment. I have a copy of it for the court.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. EMOFF: I don't believe the court has

ever ruled on it.
THE COURT: I saw the request, so it's not
something that I have, I have not seen.
MR. EMOFF: I was just wondering if the
court would consider ruling on it because --
THE COURT: I'll consider ruling on it

when I get to it.
MR. EMOFF: Okay. I'm sorry.
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, looking at Rule
THE COURT: Why don't you hold for a
second.
MS. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: What do you want to add?
MS. WHITAKER: I would just like to add
two things.
First, Rule 611, I think, allows the court
reasonable control over the mode and order of
interrogation, it doesn't cite any authority for
breaking up a witness. And although I can't cite
it. In hundreds of trials, Mr. Emoff has told me
that in his 400 trials that he's tried, he hasn't
seen a witness broken up.
MR. DETTELBACH: It also refers to
presenting evidence.
And fundamentally Special Agent Massie --
THE COURT: I understand the issue. We'll
come back in a minute.
Do you have some alternative sound system?
MR. DETTELBACH: I don't think we do. I'm
going to start working on that right now, judge.

364
MS. BUTLER: We c o u l d t e s t t h e m i c r o p h o n e s
by o u r computer.
THE COURT: Why d o n ' t you d o t h a t .
(The j u r o r s were r e t u r n e d t o t h e
courtroom and t h e f o l l o w i n g proceedings
were c o n d u c t e d i n o p e n c o u r t . )
THE COURT: I f the jury w i l l take t h e i r
seats, I ' l l ask M r . Dettelbach t o continue.
MR. DETTELBACH: Thank you, y o u r Honor.
I b e l i e v e w e have something r i g g e d up f o r
t h e audio problem.
Q S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , g o i n g b a c k t o y o u r t i m e l i n e .
The s e c o n d f l a p o f t h e E a s t C l e v e l a n d t i m e l i n e , f l a p B,
t o t h e f a r r i g h t of t h a t , t h e f i r s t t a p e t h a t w e had
a u d i o p r o b l e m s f o r was 1 0 3 6 , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ?
A That's correct.
Q So now, 1036, what i s t h a t ? What k i n d o f t a p e i s
that?
A I t ' s a c t u a l l y a videotape. I t ' s a c l i p of a
v i d e o t a p e t a k e n from a m e e t i n g t h a t t o o k p l a c e between
N a t e Gray a n d Ernmanuel Onunwor, i n N a t e G r a y ' s o f f i c e i n
Shaker Square.
Q A l l right. And i s t h a t t h e m e e t i n g t h a t s t a r t e d
w i t h t h e p i c t u r e t h a t you i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r i n
Government's E x h i b i t 103?
I'm sorry --
A That's the wrong picture.
Q That's the wrong picture, I'm sorry.

101, I'm sorry?
A Yes, that's it.
Q All right. And who is this putting the envelope in

his pocket?
A That's Emmanuel Onunwor.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Please play
Exhibit 1036.
And I believe the head phones will be
necessary again.
(Tape played. )
Q Special Massie, you hear heard a reference to 90

days since they went south?
A Yes.
Q How does this compare to the time when the payments

stopped coming from the Javitch firm?
A The payments from the Javitch firm to Nate Gray
ceased in October of '02.
Q You also heard a reference to some letters, RFP and

RFQ?
A Yes.
Q What is that?
A RFP is a Request for Proposal; and RFQ is Request
for Qualifications.
Q And what do those things relate to? What is a

Request for Qualification?
A It's the City issuing -- requesting documentation
from contractors to insure that they are qualified to do
the actual work which pertains to the contract.
Q It's part of the contracting process?

A Yes.
Q Now, turning to page -- the next exhibit on that

first part of flap C is 1039. What date is that and who
are the participants there?
A This is December llth, 2002. This is another
conversation between Nate Gray and Emmanuel Onunwor.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please play 1039.
(Tape played. )
Q You heard a reference to Landbank land, is that

correct?
A Yes.
Q What is Landbank land?

A It's a land or buildings in the City of East
Cleveland which were either foreclosed on or abandoned,
which is now available to the City.
Q And based on your review of the recordings, was

there somebody who had asked Mr. Gray for that list?
A Yes.
Q Who was that?
A Robert Pena, who is a developer out of Boston,
Massachusetts.
Q Is that list of Landbank land, is that list

supposed to be a public list?
A Yes, it is.
Q Have you actually personally tried to see if you

could get it off the internet?
A I have.
Q And tell us what happened?

A I was unsuccessful. I couldn't navigate the
Internet to find the list. It wasn't available.
Q But it is supposed to be a public list?

A It is.
Q Now, shortly after the holiday season -- you said

this was December 11th -- was there a call between
Mr. Gray and this individual Mr. Pena?
A Yes, there was.
Q And referring to your time line 1703, we are

skipping a couple. Do you see that entry?
A Yes, it's a reference to Exhibit 1012.
Q And who called who?

A This is -- I believe Robert Pena called Nate Gray
in this particular conversation.
Q From what state to what state?

368
A Robert Pena is in Massachusetts; Nate Gray is in
Ohio.
(Tape played. )
Q All right. And just prior to this, was there a

recorded meeting between Nate Gray and Emrnanuel Onunwor?
A Yes, there was.
Q When was it in relation to the call we just heard?

A There is a January 3rd, 2003 meeting.
Q And what happens at the outset of that particular

meeting?
A During that meeting Nate Gray once again hands --
or slides an envelope across the table to Emmanuel
Onunwor .
Q And is that depicted in still photograph in Exhibit

102?
A It is.
Q This one?
A Yes.
Q All right. Now, then referring on your exhibit
list, is that 1042?
A Yes, 1042.
Exhibit 1042, the video from that clip.
(Video played. )
369
Q All right. Special Agent Massie, and you heard a

reference to the City Council of the City of East
Cleveland?
A Yes.
Q And who asked whether they had wards or not?

A Nate Gray.
Q Do they in fact have wards for several of the

councilman?
A Then do.
Q Did you intercept any phone calls on your time line

in which Nate Gray discusses his relationship with
Emmanuel Onunwor with any other defendant in this case?
A Yes. There is a conversation between Nate Gray and
Gilbert Jackson, which occurred on January 22nd, 2003.
If you look at the time line, it refers to Exhibit 1044.
(Tape played. )
Q Now, from where and to where was this phone call

placed? What states?
A Gilbert Jackson was in New Orleans, Louisiana; and
Nate Gray was in Cleveland, Ohio.
Q Now, going back to the time line. What is the next

date that a taped meeting between Emmanuel Onunwor and
Nate Gray happened at Mr. Gray's office?
A The next taped meeting was on January 30th, 2003.

370
Q And was t h e r e a n y c a l l s t o t h e s e t u p t h a t m e e t i n g ?
A Yes.
Q Where i s t h a t r e f l e c t e d on t h e t i m e l i n e ?
A If you l o o k u n d e r t h e J a n u a r y 2 8 t h , 2 0 0 3 d a t e , i t ' s
r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t 1045.
MR. DETTELBACH: P l e a s e p l a y E x h i b i t 1045.
Q That's t h e 28th. On t h e d a y i n - b e t w e e n t h e 28th
and t h e 3 0 t h , t h e 2 9 t h , was t h e r e a n y a c t i v i t y t a p e d i n
Nate G r a y ' s o f f i c e ?
A Yes, t h e r e i s . Nate G r a y was o b s e r v e d o n t h e
c a m e r a c o u n t i n g o u t c a s h a n d p l a c i n g it i n a n e n v e l o p e .
Q What e x h i b i t i s t h a t ?
A T h a t ' s E x h i b i t 1048.
Q What's t h e d a t e ?
A January 29th.
MR. DETTELBACH: P l e a s e p l a y E x h i b i t 1048,
which h a s no sound.
(Video p l a y e d . )
Q F i r s t o f a l l , E x h i b i t 103, i s t h i s t h e s t i l l of
that?
A Yes.
Q And t h e n , E x h i b i t 1 0 4 , on t h e n e x t d a y , what i s
this?
A T h i s i s a s t i l l frame from a v i d e o t a p e o f a meeting

371
that took place between Nate Gray and Emmanuel Onunwor,
in which Nate handed him an envelope.
Q That's the next day?

A Yes.
Q All right.
Now, what was the next time, in or out of
Mr. Gray's office, that Nate Gray and Emmanuel Onunwor
met?
A February 27th, 2003.
Q I should say that was observed by law enforcement?

A Yes.
Q Did you try to conduct surveillance on that?

A Yes, we did.
Q What happened?
A As we were conducting surveillance outside of
Mr. Gray's office, we received word from our wire room
they agreed to meet at a different location, so we had to
proceed to, you know, try and drive our cars to the
location where they were set to meet.
Q And where was that location in the end?

A They ended up meeting on Euclid Avenue in a U.S.
Bank parking lot.
Q And are there calls about them getting together?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please play Exhibit 1052

from t h e 2 7 t h .
Q And t h e n d i d you p h y s i c a l l y , you y o u r s e l f , t h e n
d r i v e your c a r a f t e r t h a t ?
A Yes, I did.
Q Now, you t e s t i f i e d e a r l i e r a b o u t t h e f i n a n c i a l
r e c o r d s a n d t h e money t r a i l f r o m CH2M H i l l t h r o u g h R a l p h
T y l e r t o Nate Gray. D i d you i n t e r c e p t a n y c a l l s a b o u t
that?
A Yes, I d i d .
On March 4 t h , 2003, w h i c h i s r e f e r e n c e t o
E x h i b i t 1 0 5 4 , t h a t ' s a c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n N a t e Gray a n d
Ralph T y l e r .
Q And i s t h i s t h e p e r i o d w h e r e t h e money i s s t i l l
f l o w i n g o r have t h i n g s s t a r t e d s l o w i n g up h e r e ?
A T h i n g s h a d s l o w e d down a t t h i s p o i n t .
from 3 / 4 .
Q And you h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o M r . G r a y c a l l i n g them?
A Yes.
Q A l l right. And d i d h e i n f a c t make a c a l l t o
somebody on t h e s u b j e c t ?
A He d i d .
Q And what company d i d h e c a l l ?

A He c a l l e d B r i a n C a s e y o f CH2M H i l l .
Q And i s t h e r e a n e n t r y on y o u r t i m e l i n e f o r s u c h a
call?
A Yes. If you g o t o t h e n e x t e n t r y , w h i c h i s
March 5 t h , 2003, r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t 1 0 5 5 .
Q A l l right. Is t h a t t h e l a s t c a l l between M r . Gray
a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from CH2M H i l l on t h e money f l o w ?
A No, i t ' s n o t .
Q Who e l s e d o e s h e t a l k t o ?
A H e a l s o t a l k s t o Howlie D a v i s a n d G r e g P a r k e r .
Q And w i t h r e s p e c t t o Howlie D a v i s , how many t i m e s
d i d h e s p e a k w i t h him a b o u t i t t h a t w e r e i n t e r c e p t e d ?
A On two s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s .
Q T h a t ' s a c t u a l l y -- i t ' s t h e s e c o n d o f t h o s e on y o u r
t i m e line?
A I t is.
Q Where i s t h a t ?
D i r e c t i n g your a t t e n t i o n t o 3/6/03.
A Yeah. T h a t ' s E x h i b i t 1058.
Q And t h e r e i s a c t u a l l y a n e n t r y a b o v e , d o you s e e
t h a t one?
A Yes.
Q Who's t h a t o n e b e t w e e n ? The o n e t h a t h a p p e n s t h e
same day?
A Exhibit 1057 is a reference to a conversation
between Nate Gray and Emmanuel Onunwor.
Q Is that sort of one of those set-up calls for the

meeting?
A It is.
Q Let's skip that one and go to 1058, between

Mr. Gray and Howlie Davis.
(Tape played.)
Q Moving to the right on the time line, to the date

3/10/2003.
First of all, there is an entry there at the
top, Exhibit 1059.
Do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q Who are the participants in that call and what is

it?
A That is another one of the set-up calls between
Nate Gray and Emrnanuel Onunwor.
Q Let's move past that one to below. What is the

next entry down below, 1060?
A That's the follow-up conversation between Nate Gray
and Brian Casey.
Q On the subject of the money flow?

A Yes.
375
from 3/10/03.
(Tape played. )
Q Did you hear Mr. Gray inform Mr. Casey he was

meeting with somebody at 1:30 the next day?
A Yes.
Q And was indeed a meeting taped in Mr. Gray's office

at 1:30 the next day?
A Yes, there was.
Q And who was it between?

A Nate Gray and Emmanuel Onunwor.
Q This particular meeting, that would be then on what

day?
A March llth, 2003.
Q Was that a full month since the last time the two
men had met together?
A No, it was only about two weeks.
Q All right.
And was there a reason from the intercepts
that there was an additional meeting?
THE COURT: On what grounds? What's the
grounds for the objection?
MR. WHITAKER: He's asking him about to
interpret conversations that aren't even in front of

376
the jury. He's asking him to interpret things, we
don't know whether they are verbatim, or based on

things that aren't in evidence, or will never be in
evidence.
MR. DETTELBACH: 1'11 rephrase the
question. That's fine.
Q Referring to the specific conversation that we

played, did we hear a conversation where Emmanuel Onunwor
said something to Nate Gray about travel plans?
MR. WHITAKER: Objection. Now he's
leading.
THE COURT: Rephrase it.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q All right. Please, in your own words, tell us from

the tapes what caused this meeting to happen quicker than
the usual month?
MR. WHITAKER: Objection again, your
Honor. Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Based on the conversations,
it came to our attention that Emmanuel Onunwor was

traveling to Nigeria and he wanted to meet with Nate
Gray before travelling.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Now, was there indeed a video of the meeting
between Mr. Gray and Mr. Onunwor?
A Yes, there was.
Q What happened at the outset?

A On the outset of the video, Nate Gray slides the
envelope to Emmanuel Onunwor, which he picks up and puts
in his pocket.
Q Is there a video only clip of that?

A Yes.
Q Well, let he let me just ask you --

MR. DETTELBACH: It's okay. You can play
it later through another witness. I think we are
having some sort of a problem. Just shut it down.
That's fine. I actually have a picture of this.
Q Is this a still photo of what happened on the video

at the outset of 1065?
A It is.
Q And describe -- you've looked at the video yourself
too, correct?
A Yes.
Q Tell us what happens?

A Nate Gray slides an envelope to Emmanuel Onunwor,
who then picks that up and puts it inside his suit
pocket.
Q And a f t e r t h a t o n e , i s t h a t t h e o n e t h a t you
s t o p p e d Emmanuel Onunwor?
A Yes, it i s .
Q And t h e n p l e a s e d e s c r i b e f o r u s , w i t h r e s p e c t t o
M r . Onunwor, w h a t h a p p e n e d o v e r t h e n e x t week o r two?
A A f t e r s t o p p i n g Emmanuel Onunwor, a f t e r h e r e c e i v e d
t h e e n v e l o p e f r o m N a t e Gray, w e p r o c e e d e d t o i n t e r v i e w
him. And t h e n w e i n t e r v i e w e d him a g a i n on two s e p a r a t e
o c c a s i o n s o v e r t h e c o u r s e o f t h e n e x t two w e e k s . H e was
cooperative a t t h a t point.
Q And d i d you g o away f o r a week a t some p o i n t ?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q And what d i d you f i n d o u t when you g o t b a c k ?
A The d a y I came b a c k , I found o u t t h a t t h e y
d i s c o v e r e d t h e --
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q W e l l , l e t m e a s k you t h i s .
Did Emrnanuel Onunwor, d i d h i s c o o p e r a t i o n
cease a t t h a t p o i n t ?
A It did.
Q Do you remember what d a t e i t was t h a t you f o u n d
t h a t out?
A A p r i l lst, 2003.
And how d o you r e m e m b e r t h a t ?
B e c a u s e I t h o u g h t i t was a n A p r i l f o o l ' s j o k e .
MR. DETTELBACH: W e beg t h e c o u r t ' s
indulgence.
Your Honor, w e h a v e n o f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s
f o r t h i s w i t n e s s i n t h i s segment o f h i s t e s t i m o n y .
THE COURT: We a r e g o i n g t o t a k e j u s t a
b r i e f break f o r a minute. You c a n g o b a c k t o t h e
j u r y room, w e ' l l come g e t you i n a few m i n u t e s .
(The j u r y w i t h d r e w f r o m t h e c o u r t r o o m a n d
t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e e d i n g s were c o n d u c t e d i n o p e n
court. )
THE COURT: I was j u s t g o i n g t o move t o a
l e g a l i s s u e why d o n ' t you j u s t h a v e a s e a t .
W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e o r d e r -- w h a t t h e
order of presentation w i l l be. A s I understand it,
t h e g o v e r n m e n t i s a s k i n g u n d e r E v i d e n c e R u l e 611 t o
b r e a k t h e t e s t i m o n y up b y l a r g e l y g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a s
o r differing areas.
Am I c o r r e c t t h a t t h e o n l y w i t n e s s you a r e
t a l k i n g about with regard t o t h a t i s t h i s witness?
O r how many o t h e r s ?
MR. DETTELBACH: One. This is it. This
witness.
THE COURT: So h e would be t h e o n l y o n e

that would testify as to more than one topic.
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. And your argument is
what, in terms of why -- let me just ask you or
press you just a bit.
It's discretionary, right?
MS. WHITAKER: I understand that the rule
gives the court discretion to control the order and
mode of presentation of evidence. But I don't think
there is any authority in that rule to allow a
witness to be recalled four different times for ease
of the prosecution's case.
THE COURT: Well, it's -- I don't think
you are right on that. I mean the --
MS. WHITAKER: Even if it is within the
court's discretion, which I understand that's the
court's opinion, I still think it's highly
prejudicial to the defense to allow this kind of
overview witness in each section of the government's
case.
THE COURT: In essence it's just an
opportunity for the government -- basically what
they are using this witness for is to offer the
Title I11 intercept materials and the documents that
have been subpoenaed.

381
He has some testimony with regard to his
pat down of Onunwor, and some testimony about
observing, you know, meetings at a bank parking lot.
But apart from that, he's just simply being offered
largely to offer the evidence that's garnered
through subpoenas or otherwise.
MS. WHITAKER: But I also think he's being
offered to walk the jury through each of these time

line statements, which creates this opening
statement overview they are allowed to give at each
segment, which I think is prejudicial to the
defense.
THE COURT: I don't think you're right, in
the sense I don't think it's an opening statement.
I don't think he's testified to anything other than
saying, identifying this is a conversation that took
place on a particular day.
MS. WHITAKER: I think going through these

time lines that he's going to do with each one, does
create this overview introduction to each segment of
their case, which is what I'm referring to as some
sort of opening statement for each segment.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm going to
overrule the objection.
What you are really arguing is that it's

382
unfair for the government to make things more
understandable. That by giving -- putting things in
time sequences or putting things in topic or issue
sequences, it is somehow unfair because it's more
understandable.
And I don't think that's true and I don't
think that's -- I think Rule 611, you know, really
directs the court. Doesn't really allow the court,
but directs the court, to try to order the
presentation in a fashion that makes the evidence
more understandable for the jury.
And I don't understand, apart from the
fact that it may be more understandable, I don't
understand what prejudice flows to the defendants by
having it broken up by topic.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, may I say something,
please, on behalf of Mr. Jackson?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. JENKINS: If he was just going to
testify to the wire interception, that would be
fine. But on many occasions the government asks him
questions like: Well, is this when the money flow
continued? Yes.
What was happening here? He was going to

meet and get the money.
383
Well, that's testimony as an eyewitness.
If he was just going to identify the wire
intercepts, I have no problems with that on behalf
of Mr. Jackson. But they are asking him to comment
on evidence where he was not even present.
THE COURT: I think that's very little.
He's testified as to the time line of payments.
MR. JENKINS: I 'm sorry, your Honor, but

when the government ask him something like, is that
the money flow. It's still in front of the jury
that money is flowing to and from. And that's
evidence that he has no direct evidence of.
THE COURT: Well, that's true, excepting
for the documents that he's put before the court. I
think what he said is they are summaries of when
payments were received. There wasn't an objection
that payments weren't received on particular dates.
And then he's trying to put that in perspective to,
for instance, the cancellation of the CH2M Hill
contract.
But again, I think we are talking about
under 611, and I think there is a responsibility of
the court, and authority for the court, to order the
presentation in a fashion that's understandable.
In the brief time we've talked about, I

384
think you'll -- that's a specific topic that's, you
know, that this right here talks about under the
Manual for Complex Litigation. It's also
Weinstein's Evidence Rule talks about the same
thing. And he specifically talks about the idea of
organizing things by issues.
And in this case, I find little by way of
prejudice, especially given the fact that we are
only -- I also think it may save some time but
again, I don't think it's going to add to time
because he's the only one as to which, you know, he
would be recalled.
MR. DETTELBACH: I would proffer to the
court for the record, I'm going to ask him the exact
same questions I would have asked him. I'm just
going to stop littery on page --
THE COURT: The only caution that I would
give to you is that, you know, in the second portion
where you recall him, you would be limited strictly
to the new geographical area. So you can't go back
and try to rehabilitate him from some cross until
you potentially get to, you know, the rebuttal
portion of your case.

385
THE COURT: So you are not allowed to use
the second portion to deal with, for instance, the
East Cleveland issues.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. WHITAKER: On behalf of behalf
Mr. Gray, your Honor, may I note a continuing
objection to recalling of Agent Massie.
MR. JENKINS: And I join in that.
THE COURT: Okay.

We'll begin with the cross examination.
Just for reference, are you going to have
any cross examination in this area?
MR. EMOFF: No, your Honor.
May I say that in front of the jury, that
based on this testimony alone we have no cross
examination.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll take a few
minutes and then we'll reconvene in about five
minutes.
(Brief recess.)
THE COURT: If the jury will take your
seat.
Just by way of explanation. The
government's finished their examination of this
witness. He may be recalled by the government on
other geographical or topical issues, but they
finished their examination.
I would now ask Mr. Emoff on behalf of
Mr. Jones to conduct cross examination.
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, based on the
testimony that we've heard so far, we have no
questions.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Whitaker, on
behalf of Mr. Gray?
MR. WHITAKER: I do have a few questions,
your Honor.
Thank you.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q There was a conversation about Jacksonville.

You remember that?
A I do.
Q All right. And that, if I understand that

correctly, that took place in October of 2002?
A I'm not sure of the exact date. Some time between
August and October, I would say.
Q So a t l e a s t f o u r o r f i v e months b e f o r e you s t o p p e d
the intercepting the phone calls?
387
A Yes.
Q And you participated in putting the phone calls

together that are going to be played for the jury here
for this trial?
A I did.
Q So you know, there is not a single phone call, not

one whatsoever, that deals with any officials in
Jacksonville, any officials in Jacksonville calling and
asking for money or asking to get this palms greased, or
anything like that, don't you?
A In this presentation or overall?
Q I'm talking of all the audio tapes that you put

together for presentation to this jury, is there a single
one involving any official in Jacksonville?
A Not that I put together for this presentation, but
there are a number of calls about Jacksonville.
Q Okay. Let me ask you this.
Did you do any applications to intercept any
phone calls in Jacksonville?
A No.
Q Or intercept any communications by any officials in

Jacksonville?
A No. There is no wiretaps on any phones in
Jacksonville.
Q And did you do any search warrants of any officials

in Jacksonville?
A No, we did not.
Q Now, there was a lot of conversation about a CH2M

Hill. And one of the questions that Mr. Dettelbach asked
you is about wiretaps that you didn't use, or phones that
weren't wiretapped.
You remember that?
A Yes, I do.
Q Did you wiretap, did you ask for an application to

intercept any of the phone calls of any of the executives
from CH2M Hill?
A No.
Q Or OMI?
A No.
Q Not a single one?

A No.
Q All right.
You talked about this guy from the Water
Department, Ciaccia. Did you have an application to
intercept his phone calls?
A No.
Q You mentioned Mayor White.

Do you have any application whatsoever to
intercept any phone calls on behalf of Mayor White?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. I don't think

389
there was any.
THE COURT: Go ahead. Have you asked to
t a p his phones?
THE WITNESS: No, we haven't.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And all you really need to do in order to be

successful in getting an application or order granted, is
just show probable cause, right?
A No.
Q Of criminal activity?
A No. We have to exhaust all other investigative
measures before we get T-I11 authorization.
We have to show that we used all --
Q I'm sorry.
A Before we can establish probable cause to get a
wiretap, we have to show that we exhausted all other
investigative measures or none of the other investigative
measures made sense at that particular time.
(1 And the particular time that we are talking about,

in terms of exhausting whatever investigative measures,
we are talking about 2001, 2002, or early 2003, right?
A Continuing today.
Q But in terms of the applications, the intercepts

that we are talking about here, and your testimony here
today, has been dealing with 2001, 2002, am I correct?

A 2002, 2003.
Q Early 2003. Okay.

And during that period, obviously no
intercepts -- well, no intercepts period of the people
I've mentioned?
A Off of their particular phone facilities?
Q Right.
A No.
Q But once you've exhausted your investigative

techniques, or shown that they are not able to be used,
all you need is probable cause?
A Yes.
Q And probable cause is certainly a lot less of a

standard than beyond a reasonable doubt?
MR. WHITAKER: You would agree with that?
I'm not sure how this is relevant. I'm
not sure exactly either, in terms of what the
standards are for a Title I11 intercept. But I
don't think he's the appropriate witness to testify
as to what showing has to be made for a Title 111.
MR. WHITAKER: In terms of?
THE COURT: He's not -- first of all, he's

giving almost expert opinion on what is required for
391
a Title 111. And I'm not sure he's right on what he
said.
But b e y o n d that, I t h i n k it's i r r e l e v a n t .
MR. WHITAKER: I'll move on. And I'll
deal with that issue later.
Q What about, you talk about a search warrant that

you conducted in New Orleans, is that correct?
A No.
Q A search warrant that dealt with issues from New

Orleans?
A Can you be more specific?
Q Well, let me ask you this.

Did you conduct any application -- did you
make any application to intercept any of the phone
conversations or oral communications of Vince Sylvain?
A No.
Q Did you conduct or make an application to intercept

any of the phone calls of any of the executives, other
than Brent Jividen, from Honeywell?

A No.
(Z Other than Gilbert Jackson, who is seated here at

the table, did you make an application to intercept any
wire communications of any kind from executives at CDM?

A No. And we also did not for Gilbert Jackson.
Q Okay. And what about the executives? Did you make

an application to intercept any of the phone
conversations from Brian Casey?
A No, we did not.
Q Or Greg Parker?
A No.
Q All the people that we've heard on the tapes here,

is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q What about, did you make any application to

intercept the phone conversations of Earl Brown?
A No.
Q Or Lee Brown?
A No.
Q Now, you said that -- if I remember correctly --

that Emmanuel Onunwor did not live up to his promise to
terminate the contract of the Javitch, Block law firm, is
that correct?
A His campaign promise you are referring to?
Q Yes.
A No. Javitch, Block still maintained that contract
after he was elected.
Q But you know, you read that newspaper article you
talked about?
A Yes.
Q You know all he promised to do was review the

complaints t h a t people might have had about t h a t
contract.
I s n ' t that correct?
A Yes. The t o n e o f t h e newspaper a r t i c l e was t h a t he
would t a k e a s e r i o u s l o o k a t t h e c o l l e c t i o n p r a c t i c e s o f
J a v i t c h , Block.
Q A t no p o i n t d i d h e make i t a campaign p r o m i s e t o
t e r m i n a t e J a v i t c h , Block?
A Not t o my knowledge.
Q And i n h i s campaign p r o m i s e s , h e was c o n c e r n e d
a b o u t two t h i n g s , am I c o r r e c t ?
THE COURT: He c a n ' t t e s t i f y a s t o what
somebody e l s e was t h i n k i n g .
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q With r e g a r d t o t h a t newspaper a r t i c l e t h a t you were
t a l k i n g a b o u t , t h e r e were two i s s u e s t h a t t h a t newspaper
a r t i c l e s t a t e d Onunwor was c o n c e r n e d a b o u t , am I c o r r e c t ?
A I r e c a l l t h e y were c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e c o l l e c t i o n
practices. I d o n ' t know how many i s s u e s i t ' s b r o k e n down
into.
9 You d i d r e a d t h e a r t i c l e ?
A I did.
Q And h e was c o n c e r n e d a b o u t d i s p u t e s w i t h c i t i z e n s .
How d i s p u t e s w i t h c i t i z e n s o v e r t h e c o l l e c t i o n p r a c t i c e s
were handled, correct?
A Yes, the collection practices.
Q And he was also concerned with whether they were

sensitive, Javitch, Block that is, to minority hiring.
Am I correct?
A I'm not sure about that.
Q When you were testifying earlier you weren't sure

about the contents of this article?
A Not the verbatim context, no.
Q Well, let me put it to you. Let's speak generally.

Generally, he was concerned about disputes
with the citizens and minority hiring practices of
Javitch, Block?
A I don't recall minority hiring being an issue.
Q You do recall that one of the issues was how

disputes between the citizens and Javitch, Block were
resolved?
A Yes.
Q NOW, you talked about, in one of the overviews you

showed, was a list of payments that Javitch, Block was
made -- a list of the payments made by the City of East
Cleveland to Javitch, Block, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And that went back -- your list of payments went

back t o 1996, right?
A I believe so, yes.
Q And you came up with a total of 1.77 million
dollars?
A Yes.
Q And that included all the money they received going

back to 1996?
A Yes. And continuing on even until 2003.
Q And you know, as you sit here, that the payments

that they were receiving from 1996 to 1998, at least, had
nothing whatsoever to do with Nate Gray?
A Yes. Those payments were outside the contract that
Nate Gray had entered into with Javitch, Block.
Q And did you even calculate what the amount of the

payments were after Nate Gray became?
A I have at one point but I can't recall what it is
right now.
Q And that's not something that you chose to disclose

here. You just disclosed the total amount, 1.77 million
dollars, even though a portion of that had nothing do
with Nate Gray.
Am I correct?
THE COURT: I don't understand the
question. I thought Mr. Gray didn't get

1.7 million.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Mr. Gray did not get 1.7 million. Javitch, Block

got 1.7 million from starting back in 1996, right?
A Yes.
Q And that's the only number you chose to testify

about here, in terms of the total payments they got?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. He testified
from a record given over by Javitch, Block.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.

BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q You didn't bring with you today the calculations

that just involved payments after Mr. Gray was hired, did
you?
A I did not.
Q Okay. One of the things a law firm has to do when

they hire somebody, is file 1099s about whether they are
making payments to that person, isn't that correct?
A I assume so. I don't know exactly.
Q Well, you know that they have to report to the IRS

that they are making payments to a third party?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection .
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Go ahead.
A Yes.
397
Q And a l l you h a v e t o d o i s i s s u e a s u b p o e n a f o r t h e
forms t h a t where t h a t ' s r e p o r t e d t o f i n d o u t w h e t h e r
these a r e being reported, correct?
A I s s u e a s u b p o e n a t o who?
Q The IRS.
A IRS i s p a r t o f o u r c a s e . I wouldn't have t o i s s u e
a subpoena.
Q You c o u l d j u s t a s k them?
A They c o u l d r e s e a r c h i t o n t h e i r own, y e s .
Q Right. You c o u l d g e t t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n s i m p l y b y
a s k i n g t h e IRS, w e r e t h e r e a n y 1 0 9 9 s f i l e d b y J a v i t c h ,
Block w i t h r e g a r d t o Nate Gray?
A More o r l e s s , y e s .
Q Did you d o t h a t ?
A No, I didn't.
Q So you d o n ' t know w h e t h e r J a v i t c h , B l o c k was
r e p o r t i n g a s i n a p u b l i c r e c o r d a l l you h a d t o d o was
l o o k a t t h a t N a t e G r a y was b e i n g p a i d a s a c o n s u l t a n t ?
A No.
Q Now t h i s Landbank f o r m t h a t you t a l k e d a b o u t . You
s a i d you t r i e d t o g e t i t o v e r t h e i n t e r n e t a n d you w e r e
unsuccessful i n doing t h a t ?
A Yes.
Q I t was d i f f i c u l t ?
A Very, yes.
Q You are not saying you can't get it over the

internet, you just are saying you were unsuccessful in
your attempt to do it?
A Yes. I was unsuccessful. I did not see any web
site that allowed you access to those documents.
Q Tell me this, did you go down to the City Hall and

knock on the door and say, can I have a Landbank form?
A No, I did not.
Q You know you would be able to do that, though,

don ' t you?
A I'm aware it's a public document, yes.
Q And that anybody in the public whatsoe ver can walk

up to City Hall and get a copy of that list?
A As far as I know, yes.
Q Now, you also talked about demolition. Was there
any application to intercept any phone calls of people
involved in demolition in the City of East Cleveland?
A No.
Q Were there any search warrants executed for any

demolition companies doing business with East Cleveland?
A No search warrants, no.
Q Now, at one point you said in that period after
March llth, when you stopped Emmanuel Onunwor after he
came out of Nate Gray's office, that he was cooperating

for you for a while, right?
A That's correct.
Q And when he was cooperating for you, one of the

things he did for you was wear a wire where he could have
a conversation with Mr. Gray, and then you could use that
conversation if he was able to get any admissions out of
him, right?
A One of the things was he did wear a wire, yes.
Q And when he wears that wire it's hidden so nobody

can see it?
A That's correct.
Q And when he was cooperating with you, you are aware

that he hadn't said anything whatsoever to Mr. Gray about
the fact that he was cooperating?
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q You were here for Mr. Onunwor's testimony last

time, weren't you?
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q But at any rate, in those kinds of conversations,

when you have somebody working for you like that, you
tell them, ask the kinds of questions that are going to
get the information that we need, don't you?
A Not exactly. We tried to keep him in a normal
pattern as other conversations he had already had with
Nate Gray.
Q But your goal is, within a certain pattern, to try

to have whoever it is who is doing the talking, get
information that is going to be helpful to you?
A Yes. But this is a little bit of a special
circumstance, because Emrnanuel Onunwor against our
instruction terminated a lot of the contracts that he was
affiliated with.
So we had to kind of go back and try to redo
or regenerate a lot of those conversations.
Q I'm talking about just this period between

March 11th and the end of March. During that period,
he's wearing this wire, and your goal in terms of him
having these conversations, in terms of talking to him

about his cooperation, is to talk in a manner that will
result in a conversation that you can use against
Mr. Nate Gray, isn't that correct?
A Yes. But first we had to fix things, because he
terminated the OM1 contract as well as some other
contracts.
Q Well, he can still talk about it whether he
terminated it, or the reasons he terminated it, or all

401
kinds of things. Or whether he was getting money from
the contract. Or whether that money stopped. Or whether
he was having problems because he wasn't getting money in
that timeframe?
THE COURT: You need to ask a question.

MR. WHITAKER: I'm sorry, your Honor.
That's correct.
Q But you could certainly ask questions about whether

he had stopped getting money if he was being paid from
that contract? He you could certainly ask a question
like that, couldn't he?
A That was one of the goals towards the end, yes.
Q Okay. And in the tapes that you put together for

this jury, are there any tapes whatsoever from those
recorded conversations that when Emrnanuel Onunwor was

wearing a wire and having conversations with Nate Gray?
A None while he was cooperat~ng,no.
MR. WHITAKER: No further questions, your
Honor.
Oh wait a minute, your Honor. If I might
have one second.
Q I'm going to show you on this monitor -- if I can

turn it on.
Showing you an invoice from the Ralph Tyler

402
Company marked February 7th, 2001, marked as Defendant's

Exhibit H. Is that a document you recovered pursuant to
subpoena from Ralph Tyler Company?
A I got a little bit of a glare.
Q I'll move it then.

A It's not you, it's the window.
It looks like one of the documents, yes.
Q Do you want me to show it to you so you could

actually see the whole thing?
A If you wouldn't mind, yes.
Q And the answer is?

A Yes, these are documents received from Ralph Tyler.
Q Pursuant to subpoena?
A Yes.
Q Now I'm going to put on the board a document that

has the heading, the City of East Cleveland. We've
marked it as Exhibit I. There are actually a number of
pages to this.
I'm going to hand it to you and ask you to
look at it and if you would tell me whether you recovered
this pursuant to a subpoena or a search warrant?
A Yes. I believe the first couple letters are from a
search warrant. And the others may have been from a
subpoena.
THE COURT: Why don't you try it on the

thing so we don't have to go back and forth.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. I will.
THE COURT: See if -- why don't you twist
the monitor so you can see it.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Now, showing you what we've marked as Defendant's

Exhibit 0. And it's titled the Fiscal Commission Update
from the East Cleveland Water Department, Operations
Management International.
Is that a document you gathered in the course
of your investigation in this case?
A It is.
Q How did you gather this document?

A I can't recall if this was subpoenaed or searched.
Q But one or the other?

A Yes.
Q Now, there is a document which we've marked as

Defendant's Exhibit P, called the OM1 Review of the
Performance audit.
Is that a document you recovered in the
course of your investigation of this case?
A It is, yes.
Q And did you get this by subpoena from OMI?

A Either OM1 or the City of East Cleveland.
Q Okay.
And finally, I'm showing you what we've
marked as Defendant's Exhibit Q. And this is an
ordinance from the City of East Cleveland to enter into
a -- or an ordinance authorizing the entering of a
contract.
Is this something that you gathered during
the course of your investigation?
A Yes. We received this from subpoena issued to the
City of East Cleveland.
Q Okay.
MR. WHITAKER: No further questions, your
Honor.
MR. JENKINS: May I proceed, your Honor?
THE COURT: Mr. Jenkins.
MR. JENKINS: Thank you.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Good morning agent?

A Good morning.
Q Now agent, this part of the trial involves East

Cleveland, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And as the jury has heard, there have been many

wire intercepts?
A That's correct.
Q And as relates to Gilbert Jackson, there were no

applications for any wire intercepts on any of his
phones, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And no application for any search warrant in his

homes or offices, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, the wiretaps that we have heard, at some point

as you have stated, you could almost pinpoint when
allegedly money would be passed to the Mayor Onunwor, is
that correct?
A Yes.
Q Based on the conversations you had overheard,

correct?
A Based on a series of almost a routine that they

had, yes.
Q And in this part of the investigation there is no

wiring itself, nor any conversation involving my client
and Mayor Onunwor, is that correct?
A We did not have wiretaps on either Gilbert's phone
or Mayor Onunwor's.
Q You had surveillance also on the mayor, correct?

A On occasion, yes.
Q And on occasion where you had surveillance, no

agent reported to you that Mr. Jackson had ever been
involved or ever been seen with the mayor, correct?
A Not to my knowledge, no.
Q And on January 22nd, 2003, you recall that Exhibit

1044 was played to the jury, correct?
A Yes.
MR. JENKINS: Is it possible to play that
1044, please.
With the court's permission.
(Tape played. )
MR. JENKINS: That's enough.
Q Now, in that conversation, it's clearly heard that

my client asking, who is the mayor, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And in fact, he was told the mayor's name was

Emmanuel Onunwor, correct?
A Yes.
8 And in that particular conversation, my client

simply stated that he would try to get him into a dinner,
correct?
A Yes.
Q And you have no information whether or not there

was any, what you call, illegal activity in inviting
someone to dinner, correct?

A Could you rephrase that?
Q Yes, sir.
In terms of the conversation, it wasn't my
client even asked to have to go to dinner, it was
Mr. Gray, correct?
A Gilbert volunteered that he would try to get him
into dinner.
Q Exactly. Because he was there on something totally

business, my client, correct?
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Based on the conversation?

A It was the League of Mayors Conference, yes.
Q Thank you.
Now, in terms of the video, as I spoke to you
earlier, there is no video in this East Cleveland
investigation that alleges my client passed any document
or gave anything of value to the mayor, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And in fact, there is no conversation involving my
client and Mr. Gray discussing such matters, correct?
A Only the one that we just heard.
Q Only the one you just heard.
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have any redirect?

MR. DETTELBACH: Very brief.
- - -
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Mr. Whitaker asked you a couple questions about the

newspaper article.
Do you remember those questions?
A Yes.
Q It's Exhibit 369.

And in that article he asked you about the
different concerns.

A I do.
(1 All right. In the one, two, start reading the

third paragraph down. Just read what the article says
the concerns are instead of characterizing them?
A Starting with Onunwor said?
Q Yes.
A Onunwor said, it appears that Davis is attempting
to recover the money his administration has wasted by
charging residents excessively high penalties for their
tax delinquencies.
According to its agreement with the city,
Onunwor said the law firm received approximately
30 percent commission for every dollar it collects from

4 09
the residence. This whole process is suspicious, Onunwor
said. I've had residents complained that the law firm
refused to talk to them for months while the interest
continued to pile up. It seems the more the residents
owe, the more the law firm earns in commissions.
MR. DETTELBACH: Okay. You can take that
down.
Q Now, you were also asked some questions about the

Landbank list and going down -- I think you were asked if
you go down to City Hall?
A Yes.
Q Can anybody just have the mayor of the city hand

deliver the list to them?
A No.
Q Now, you were also shown some exhibits by

Mr. Whitaker.
MR. DETTELBACH: And if I could please
have what you marked as H.
Q Well let me just ask you. That was something that

came from, I think the Ralph Tyler one? You remember
that particular one?
A Yes.
Q I just want to be clear about this.
Were all three of those pieces of paper that
you were given, were those part of the invoice that was
sent out to CH2M Hill?
A No.
Q All right. Were those -- is that a packet of

documents? Sort of a payment? An internal record?
A Yes.
Q Now, you were also shown some documents relating to

the water contract, a letter from OMI, which I think was
Exhibit I and then Exhibit P, which is an OM1 letter?
A Yes.
Q What was OMI's position? Were they just accepting

what the Auditor said?
A Absolutely not.
Q What were they doing?

A They were fighting for their contract.
Q All right. Now, moving on to questions asked by

Mr. Jenkins.
He asked you some questions about attempts to
obtain wiretaps. And wasn't there indeed an attempt to
obtain a wiretap --
MR. JENKINS: Objection, your Honor.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Well, let me ask you without leading.

What efforts, if any, were made to obtain a
wiretap on Gilbert Jackson --

MR. DETTELBACH: Nothing f u r t h e r .
THE COURT: A g a i n , y o u c a n s t e p down,
w e ' l l t a k e t h e l u n c h t i m e recess. We'll s t a n d i n
a d j o u r n m e n t -- w e a r e g o i n g t o t r y t o k e e p t h i s o n
track. I t h i n k t h e f o o d may b e h e r e . We'll a d j o u r n
u n t i l a b o u t 20 a f t e r . So w e ' l l s t a n d a d j o u r n e d .
Same r u l e s a p p l y . Don't t a l k about t h e
case among y o u r s e l v e s , d o n ' t t a l k a b o u t t h e c a s e
w i t h anyone else.
Leave t h e p a d s on y o u r seats a n d w e ' l l
adjourn.
(Luncheon recess.)
- - -
412
TUESDAY AFTERNOON S E S S I O N - AUGUST 9, 2 0 0 5
THE COURT: I f t h e j u r y w i l l have t h e i r
seats.
W e ' l l a s k t h e U n i t e d States t o c a l l your
next w i t n e s s .
MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, the United
States calls t o the stand N i n a Upshaw.
THE COURT: Ma'am, w o u l d you r a i s e y o u r
r i g h t hand.
THE W I T N E S S : R i g h t here?
THE COURT: R a i s e your r i g h t hand.
- - -
N I N A UPSHAW
c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s by a n d on b e h a l f o f
of t h e G o v e r n m e n t , a f t e r b e i n g f i r s t d u l y
s w o r n , w a s e x a m i n e d and t e s t i f i e d a s
follows:
THE COURT: Come f o r w a r d , t a k e your seat.
S t a t e y o u r n a m e and s p e l l y o u r l a s t n a m e .
THE W I T N E S S : N i n a Upshaw, U-P-S-H-A-W.
THE COURT: Ms. P e a r s o n .
D I R E C T EXAMINATION
MS. PEARSON:
Good afternoon, M s . Upshaw.
Hello.
413
Q Would you p l e a s e t e l l t h e j u r y f o r whom you work?
A I ' m sorry?
Q Where d o you work, ma'am?
A ETNA P a r k i n g .
Q And who owns ETNA P a r k i n g ?
A N a t e Gray.
Q And how l o n g h a v e you b e e n w o r k i n g f o r ETNA
Parking?
A S i n c e 1995.
Q So a b o u t 1 0 y e a r s now?
A Correct.
Q Now, you work f o r ETNA P a r k i n g t o d a y b u t w a s t h e r e
a t i m e when you worked f o r M r . G r a y u n d e r a n o t h e r
b u s i n e s s name, b a c k i n t h e 8 0 s ?
A Yes. I worked f o r N a t e ' s S h e l l a n d M i n i M a r t .
(Z And what k i n d b u s i n e s s i s N a t e ' s S h e l l a n d M i n i
Mart?
A A g a s s t a t i o n and s t o r e .
Q And you worked t h e r e f r o m ' 8 9 u n t i l when?
A I worked t h e r e f r o m ' 8 7 u n t i l ' 8 9 . And t h e n a f t e r
t h a t I worked on a n d o f f .
Q Now f o c u s i n g b a c k o n y o u r c u r r e n t employment a t
ETNA P a r k i n g . U n t i l r e c e n t l y , w h e r e w e r e you o f f i c e s
located?
A Shaker Square.
Q And today, you work from where, ma'am?
A Home.
Q Now, you mentioned ETNA Parking as one of the

businesses owned by Mr. Gray. Are there other businesses
for whom you also work?
A Yes.
Q And those are also owned by Mr. Gray?

A Yes.
Q Would you please list them for the jury?

A ETNA Parking, ETNA Associates, Gray Realty, ETNA
Paper and Business Supply.
Q Are there any others?

A No.
Q Are there other businesses for which you've done

work under the orders of Mr. Gray that may not have been
owned directly by him?
A Yes.
Q What are those? List them for the jury, please.

A Nate's Shell and Richmond Emery License Bureau.
Q Now focusing on ETNA Parking for just a moment.

Would you please tell the jury what kind of business
that is?
A Parking management.
Q And where exactly did the parking aspect of the

business take place?
415
A I don't understand.
Q Do the people park at Shaker Square? Is that the

business you run?
A No.
Q Where are the parking lots that you manage?

A The parking lots are over in different states or
different areas.
Q Please tell the jury where those different states

or areas are?
A Well, Cleveland, Dallas, Houston.
Q Any in the State of New Jersey, ma'am?

A No. I don't know any, no. Not that I'm aware of.
Q How about any in the State of Louisiana?

A Not the parking, no.
Q Now, because these businesses, some of them are

located outside of Cleveland, indeed outside the State of
Ohio, does Mr. Gray occasionally travel because of ETNA
Parking?
A Yes.
Q And when he would travel, how would his travel

arrangements get made?
A Sometimes he make them himself, or someone in the
office would make the arrangements.
Q Now, let's talk about the office staff.
Again, until recently, were you the General

Manager of the ETNA Parking Offices?
A Yes.
Q And at times, how many people did you have working

for you?
A Five or six.
Q And who did you report directly to?

A Mr. Gray.
Q Now, over time, over this ten year period of time

that you've been working for ETNA Parking, have your
responsibilities changed?
A Yes.
Q And did you indeed take on more responsibility over

time?
A Yes.
Q Now, one of your responsibilities was the accounts

payable function, isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q And is it fair to say that's simply paying bills on

behalf of one of the businesses?
A Yes.
Q And was another function accounts receivable?

A Yes.
Q What is that, generally?

A That's when you receive -- when you bill a customer
for services that you have provided for them.

417
Q And then after billing customers, did the customer

pay you?
A Yes.
Q Now did ETNA, in the various businesses now, I'm

not limiting it just to Parking or Associates, but for
all the ETNA businesses that you worked for, did those
businesses have checking accounts?
A Yes.
Q And whose signature was required to sign the checks
for those accounts?
A Mr. Gray.
Q Was Mr. Gray's signature also available by stamp?

A Yes.
Q Who had access to the stamp?

A Me.
(1 And did you need authority in order to use the
stamp?
A Yes, if I used it I made him aware of it.
Q Did the bank send you statements monthly regarding

those accounts?
A Yes.
Q How would they arrive at the ETNA office?

A Through the mail.
Q Were there some steps taken to determine whether or
not the balances on these bank statements were correct?

A Yes.
Q And who did that?

A Depends on who was in that position at that time.
Q Do you ever do it?

A Yes.
Q Is it fair to say that's called reconciling the

bank account?
A Yes.
Q Ultimately, who opened the bank -- well, initially

who opened the bank statements when they arrived at the
ETNA offices?
A Mr. Gray.
Q In fact, who opened all of the mail when it first

arrived at ETNA?
A Mr. Gray.
Q And how would you receive things that initially

would come in the mail?
A Mr. Gray would put them in a box.
Q Now, were there ever occasions when you would move

money from one ETNA business account into another ETNA
business account?
A Yes.
Q About how often would that happen?

A Based on when the -- well, we have payroll, so
that's usually when I would do it. So it's either weekly

419
o r b i w e e k l y , d e p e n d i n g upon what l o c a t i o n .
Q And who w o u l d d e t e r m i n e when t h a t t r a n s f e r b e t w e e n
a c c o u n t s was n e c e s s a r y ?
A E i t h e r m y s e l f o r t h e o t h e r young l a d y t h a t would b e
doing p a y r o l l .
(Z Now, I w a n t t o t a l k a l i t t l e more a b o u t t h i s
accounts payable function, o r t h e a c t u a l paying of b i l l s
b y ETNA b u s i n e s s e s , o k a y ?
A Okay.
Q I n i t i a l l y , I would l i k e t o t a l k a b o u t a c e l l p h o n e
bill.
Do you r e c a l l ETNA r e c e i v i n g a c e l l p h o n e
b i l l f r o m A l l t e l i n t h e name o f Dawann G r a y ?
A The b i l l would b e i n my b o x .
Q How would i t g e t t h e r e ?
A Mr. Gray would p u t i t i n t h e r e .
Q And would you p a y t h a t b i l l ?
A No. I would r e i m b u r s e M r . Gray f o r h i s phone
usage.
Q So h e would h a v e a l r e a d y p a i d i t ?
A Yes.
Q And who i s Dewan G r a y , p l e a s e ?
A Mr. Gray's son.
Q And you w o u l d r e i m b u r s e M r . G r a y f r o m w h a t a c c o u n t ?
A From ETNA P a r k i n g .
420
Q Now, was Dewan Gray one of your employees?

You mentioned there was a staff of people, I
would just like the jury to know if he was among those?
A Okay. For ETNA or just period?
Q For your Shaker Square Office?

A Not for the Shaker Square Office, no. But for the
gas station, yes.
Q Earlier?
A Right. Correct.
Q For work you done between '87 and '89?

A Well, in '95, too. Because I mean, when I started
working in '95 I did work for the gas station as well.
Q And what was the gas station called at that time in

1995?
A It was still called Nate's Shell, but from what I
believe, Mrs. Gray owned the gas station.
But Dewan managed the gas station a couple
times. I don't remember the years, though. I was just

saying that.
Q And by Mrs. Gray, you were referring to Annette

Gray?
A Correct.
Q And is that Mr. Gray's ex-wife?

A Yes.
Q Now we just spoke about a bill, the Alltel bill,

421
but did there come times when you paid other individuals,
not a company like Alltel but you actually made payments
out to individuals?
A I mean, yeah. I mean, individuals.
Q Let me ask you specifically, do you recall making

payments to an individual named Gilbert Jackson?
A Yes.
Q And you made those payments from one of the ETNA

business accounts?
A Yes.
Q And it wasn't necessarily just one ETNA business
account, right?
A Correct.
MR. JENKINS: Objection. Leading, your
Honor.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Which business accounts would you pay Mr. Jackson

from, Ms. Upshaw?
A ETNA Associates.
(1 Were there ever times when you paid Mr. Jackson

from accounts other than the ETNA Associates account?
A You know, somebody could have made an error. I
mean, one of the people that worked there, if they
grabbed the wrong check or something, he might have got

422
paid from a different account.
Q In addition to Mr. Jackson, are you familiar with

an individual by the name of Earl Brown?
A No. I mean, I don't know him, if that is what you

are asking me.
Q We are talking about individuals to whom ETNA made
payments?
A Okay. Yes, he was made payments.
Q And from what ETNA business?

A ETNA Associates.
Q Let's talk a little bit about ETNA Associates.

Tell the jury, just briefly, what kind of
business that is?
A Consulting.
Q And who, to your knowledge, was the consultant
under the title ETNA Associates?
A Mr. Gray.
Q Now, focusing again on the payments out to Mr.

Jackson, how would it come about that he would be paid?
Why would ETNA Associates pay Mr. Jackson?
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q You were aware that Mr. Jackson received payments

from ETNA Associates, isn't that true?
423
1 A Yes.
2 THE COURT: She can't testify as to the
3 motivation.
4 MS. PEARSON: Well, I'll ask some
5 additional foundational questions, your Honor.
6 Q Were you personally involved in issuing payments to

7 Mr. Jackson?
8 A You mean, did I ever have to process a check for
9 him?
10 Q Were you involved in any step of the way in getting

11 a payment to Mr. Jackson from ETNA Associates?
12 MR. JENKINS: Judge, I'm going to have to
13 object once again to that testimony.
14 THE COURT: On what grounds?
15 MR. JENKINS: Judge, if I approach. I
16 don't want to say it on the record.
17 THE COURT: She would have personal
18 knowledge of some things.
19 MR. JENKINS: Well, I'm just saying as to
20 the form of the question, because -- well, maybe
21 I'll say it --
22 THE COURT: Why don't you try to rephrase
23 it, and then if you continue to have an objection,
24 simply raise it.
25 MR. JENKINS: Thank you.

BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Just so we are clear, we have agreed that

Mr. Jackson's been paid by ETNA Associates, correct?
A Yes.
(1 And you are aware that that happened?

A Yes.
Q You have personal knowledge of that?

A Yes.
Q And why would a payment be issued to Mr. Jackson,

to your knowledge?
MR. JENKINS: Objection, your Honor. And
my objection, when she asks personal --
approach once.
(The following discussion was
conducted at side bar, between court and
counsel, out of the hearing of the jurors as
follows : )
THE COURT: You have to lay some kind of
foundation as she's the decision maker. If she's
not the decision maker, she wouldn't know why he was
paid and she, you know, she can repeat somebody's
else's statement if it's a defendant.
But she wouldn't have personal knowledge
as to what somebody else's motivation was for making

425
1 the payment.
2 MS. PEARSON: I understand that. And I
3 thought I did ask the question as to why the payment
4 was issued.
5 You objected to why the payment was
6 issued. You objected.
7 MR. JENKINS: You asked her in terms of
8 her job. But you started asking why -- I object for
9 the person who authorized the payment. She didn't
10 authorize it.
11 MS. PEARSON: I'll ask her that, your
12 Honor. I think I can fix it.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
15 conducted in open court.)
16 BY MS. PEARSON:
17 Q Ms. Upshaw, who authorized the payments to

18 Mr. Jackson?
19 A Mr. Gray.
20 Q Please speak into the mike?

21 A This chair doesn't move, huh?
22 Q It doesn't. You'll have to leave lean forward and

23 angle the mike?
24 A Mr. Gray.
25 (Z How often would Mr. Gray ask that Mr. Jackson be

paid?
A Whenever he gave me the information to pay him,
then we just set it up. So he would let me know in
advance.
Q So he would get the information to you?

A Or I shouldn't say me, per se, but whoever was
working in that position.
Q How much were the payments to Mr. Jackson

authorized by Mr. Gray?
A There were -- let's see, at one time I think it was
750. One time it was 2500. I don't remember what the

other one was.
Q So the amount varied?

A Yes.
Q In what form were these payments? Check? Money

order? Cash? How were these payments made to
Mr. Jackson?
A Some times it was a money order, some times it was
a check.
Q How would you know which form to use on which

occasion?
A Mr. Gray would let me know.
Q And how did Mr. Gray communicate to you when to pay

Mr. Jackson?
A Like I said, originally he would, you know --

427
usually he give me a time frame, or whatever, if it's two
months or three months, and then we just put it in the
computer. So when you process the invoice, it would -- I
mean the payment, it would just automatically, you know,
generate.
(2 Are you saying that you would be instructed to make

a payment and you would be told for how long that payment
would stay in effect?
A Correct.
Q How often during that period? Are we talking every

week? Every month? Every other month? Would the
payment be issued?
A Every month.
Q Now, where was Mr. Jackson located?

A Where was he located?
Q Yes.
A New Orleans.
Q How would you get the payments from your Shaker

Square Office to Mr. Jackson in New Orleans?
A By mail.
(2 Now, I would like to show you what's been marked as

Government's Exhibit 720.
Do you recognize this document, ma'am?
A Yes.
Q Will you please tell the jury just what it is?

428
It's fairly obvious.
A It's a check from ETNA Parking to Gilbert Jackson.
Q Now, is this one of the occasions when Mr. Jackson

got a check from Parking as opposed to ETNA Associates?
A It probably --
MR. JENKINS: Judge, objection. I mean
the document speaks for itself.
MS. PEARSON: Your Honor --
THE COURT: I'll overrule it.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q You may answer.

A Okay.
THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the
question. I'm not sure exactly what your question
is.
MS. PEARSON: I will.
Q On what bank account is Exhibit 720 drawn on?

A ETNA Parking.
Q And do you see the date on that check?

A Yes.
Q What is it, please? Tell the jury.

A 2/5/02.
Q Now, I would like to show you what's been marked as

Do you recognize 721, ma'am?

Yes.
What i s i t , p l e a s e ?
A Fed-Ex.
From whom?
From Nate G r a y , ETNA P a r k i n g .
To whom, p l e a s e ?
G i l b e r t Jackson.
And w h a t s t a t e i s t h i s b e i n g s e n t t o ?
Louisiana.
Do y o u know w h a t 7 2 1 w a s u s e d t o d o ?
A What y o u mean?
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I have t o o b j e c t i n
terms o f t h e f o r m o f t h e q u e s t i o n . I ' m not
u n d e r s t a n d i n g what s h e ' s a s k i n g .
THE COURT: Why d o n ' t y o u r e p h r a s e i t .
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q 7 2 1 i s a Fed-Ex receipt, is that true?
A Yes.
Q And a g a i n , i t ' s s e n t t o M r . Jackson, isn't that
true?
A Yes.
Q Why was i t s e n t t o M r . J a c k s o n , t h i s Fed-Ex
package?
THE COURT: What was i n t h e p a c k a g e ?

THE WITNESS: The check.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q The check we've just seen in Exhibit 720?

A I mean, I can assume so.
THE COURT: Do you know?
THE WITNESS: Do I know? I have to look
at the date. I mean, I guess --
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Well, please look at the date on the top of this

exhibit and then we'll show you the other.
Do you see in the upper left?
A Yeah, 2/6.
Q 2/6 of 2002?
A Yes.
Q I would like you be to shown 721.

MS. PEARSON: Is it possible to show both,
at least the left half of the receipt of 720?
Q And Miss Upshaw, I would like you to be aware of
angle of the microphone so you could be heard.
You see the date on 2/5?
A Yes.
Q Again, I'll repeat the question to you.
What was in the envelope of 7/21?
A More than likely, the check.

431
Q Now, we spoke earlier about Earl Brown, someone

else who received payments from the ETNA businesses, is
that true, Ms. Upshaw?
A Yes.
Q Who would authorize the payments to Mr. Brown?

A Mr. Gray.
Q And how would that happen?

A He would -- he would either verbally tell me or put
a note in my box.
Q Do you know who Earl Brown is, ma'am?

A No.
Q As you sit here today, do you know where Mr. Brown

lives?
A No.
Q Now, in addition to sending out checks, ETNA

businesses also received checks, isn't that true?
A Yes.
Q Did Mr. Gray have consulting clients?

A Yes.
Q Will you please list some of those clients for the

jury?
A CDM, Honeywell, Willow Security, Ralph Tyler.
Okay. I'm sorry, I'm having a brain lapse.
Okay. That's all I can think of right this second.
Q That's quite all right.

432
Do you recognize the name Javitch, Block,
Eisen and Rathbone?
A Yes.
(I Was Javitch, Block one of Mr. Gray's clients?

A Yes.
Q Do you recognize the name Richmond Emery License

Bureau?
A Yes.
Q Was that one of Mr. Gray's clients?

A Yes.
Q Do you recognize the name 1800 Scranton Road?

A Yes.
Q Was that a client of Mr. Gray's as well?

A Yes.
Q Now, for the various clients who paid Mr. Gray, how
did Mr. Gray - - how did the ETNA business receive those
payments?
A Through the mail.
Q Now, before the payment came in through the mail,

was there an invoicing process?
A Yes.
Q And you have overseen that process, haven't you?

A Yes.
Q And at times had been personally involved in it?

A Yes.
433
Q And how would you know when to send an invoice out

to one of Mr. Gray's clients?
A Either Mr. Gray would tell me, or we would already
have it set up in the system.
(Z Now using, as an example, the Honeywell

Corporation, do you recall sending out invoices to
Honeywell?
A Yes.
Q How would you get the information that would tell

you how much to bill Honeywell?
A Depends on what it was being billed for. If it was

just a regular consultant fee, or if it involved
expenses.
Q Well, let's ask as to both of those separately.

If it was a regular consulting fee, how would
you get that information?
A Then Mr. Gray gave it to me and it probably was
already in the system.
Q When you say system, would that be a computerized

system?
A Yes.
Q Would you be able to generate an invoice then?

A Right. That's what we use, our accounting package.
Q Now if the invoice involved expenses, how would you
get that information to make an invoice?

A From Mr. Gray.
Q Would that ultimately become backup for the

invoice?
A Yes.
Q I would like to show you what's been marked as

Are you able to see that Ms. Upshaw?
A Yes.
Q What is it, please?

A An invoice to Honeywell.
Q And what's the date, please?

A 1/17/02.
Q And to whom at Honeywell is this sent to the

attention?
A Brent Jividen.
(Z And when you look at the description section of

that invoice, what's written there?
A Lodging N. Gray, Super Bowl.
(Z And what's the dollar amount that Honeywell is

being billed for?
A 2200.
Q And we can show you the entire document but you can
see that's the only item there, isn't that true?
A Yes.
Q Now, I would like to flip -- before flipping to the

435
back, tell us how you would have gotten the information
necessary for the description, lodging Nate Gray Super
Bowl?
A Mr. Gray would have given it to whoever created the
invoice.
Q Now I would like to flip to some of the backup. We

won't look at every page, but you have seen these before
haven't you, ma'am?
A Yes.
Q In fact, they are prepared in your office?

A The invoices, yes.
Q But if you could go to the second to last page.

Thank you.
Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q Do you recognize this as backup for the invoice at

Government's Exhibit 813?
A Yes.
Q And will you please tell the jury what's written in

the memo line?
A Super Bowl.
Q And where did this back up for Government's Exhibit

813 come from?
A Mr. Gray.
Q Now, I'd like to show you what's been marked as

If we could enlarge the top.
Do you recognize this, 815?
A Yes.
Q Again, what is it?

A An invoice to Honeywell.
(Z And to whose attention is it sent?

A Brent Jividen.
Q And please tell us the description?

A Lodging N. Gray hotel, Le Cirque.
Q And how would you have gotten the information for

that description?
A Mr. Gray.
Q Please just go to the last page --

Again, ma'am, this is something you've seen
in its entirety before, right?
A Yes.
Q Just flipping now to the last page. Is this the

backup for Government's Exhibit 815?
A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: Now, if we could please like
look at what's been marked as Government's Exhibit
833.
Q Do you recognize that, Ms. Upshaw?

A Yes.
A Invoice.
Q Please speak into the mike?

A Invoice to Honeywell.
Q Thank you. And the same person's attention?

A Yes, Brent Jividen.
Q This time there are two lines in the description.

Would you tell jury what they are?
A Travel N. Gray, Florida. Meals and Entertainment,
N. Gray, Florida.
Q And would you have gotten the backup for this

invoice in the usual way?
A Yes.
Q And how is that?

A Well, whoever created the invoice would have
received the invoices from Mr. Gray.
Q Now, I would like to take you to the last four
pages. That's the first page of backup. Do you see
what's -- and the next page.
Are you able to make those out, Miss Upshaw?
A On here? Right here? No, I can't see that very
well. Okay.
Q And again, like 813 and 815, you've seen this

before as well?
A Yes.
438
MS. PEARSON: Okay. And now g o t o t h e
n e x t page of backup. And e n l a r g e t h a t j u s t f o r a
moment, p l e a s e . And f i n a l l y t h e l a s t p a g e . Thank
you f o r e n l a r g i n g t h a t .
Q Can you t e l l t h a t ' s -- what i s t h a t ?
A It's a receipt f o r Tantra. I ' m g o i n g t o assume
i t ' s a r e s t a u r a n t b e c a u s e t h e r e i s a g r a t u i t y c h a r g e on
there.
Q I n d e e d , t h e a d d r e s s , web a d d r e s s i s T a n t r a
R e s t a u r a n t d o t com, i s n ' t i t ?
A Yes.
Q J u s t t e l l t h e jury, a g a i n u s i n g t h a t t o p , where
Tantra i s located?
A I ' m s o r r y , what was y o u r q u e s t i o n ?
Q Where T a n t r a i s l o c a t e d , t h e c i t y a n d s t a t e ?
A Florida. Miami Beach, F l o r i d a .
(1 And i f w e c o u l d j u s t l o o k a t t h e r e c e i p t o n t h a t
same p a g e .
What's w r i t t e n a t t h e t o p t h e r e ?
A Miami.
Q Do you know whose w r i t i n g t h a t i s ?
A Mr. Gray's.
Q How a b o u t t h e i n i t i a l s a t t h e b o t t o m ?
A You know, I -- you know w h a t , I d o n ' t know b e c a u s e
t h e T a n t r a r e c e i p t c o u l d h a v e w r o t e i t on t h e r e . You
439
know what I'm saying? He could have put the receipt in
the box and whoever was doing it might have initialed it
as well. That one I'm not sure about.
Q But you've seen Mr. Gray's handwriting before,

haven't you, ma'am?
A Yes.
Q In fact, over the -- just sticking with the ETNA

employment.
A Okay.
Q Over the ten years or so that you've worked for

Mr. Gray at ETNA Parking, about how many times would you
estimate in a week that you have seen Mr. Gray's writing?
A In a week? I don't know, two or three times a

week.
Q And that would go on throughout the year, wouldn't

it?
A Yes.
Q So, hundreds of times over the last ten years or

so, is that a fair --
MR. JENKINS: I have to object. It's
leading?
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q You've seen Mr. Gray's signature any number of
times, haven't you, ma'am?

440
A Yes.
Q In fact, do you recognize it, not just signature

but handwriting? You've seen his handwriting any number
of times?
A Yes.
9 And so much so that you are able to recognize it?

Are you able to recognize it when you see it?
A Most of the time.
Q And I would like to show you some exhibits, and
again these are exhibits that you have seen before. We
can show them to you at any pace you would like, but I
would like to start with what's been marked as
Do you recognize 713, ma'am?
A Yes.
Q Please tell the jury whose handwriting is there?

A Mr. Gray's.
MS. PEARSON: Will you please -- this
exhibit has two pages, you can just flip through.
Q Whose handwriting is on the second page of 713?
A Mr. Gray.
MS. PEARSON: Would you please now go to
824.
Q Ma'am, this is a multi-page exhibit. Have you had
an opportunity to look at each page?

A Yes.
Q Whose handwriting is displayed on Exhibit 824?

A Mr. Gray.
MS. PEARSON: If we could go to now what
has been marked as Government's Exhibit 826.
Q And again, you can slow me down at any time you

like, but you've seen this before too, haven't you?
A Yes.
Q And whose handwriting is on Exhibit 826?

A Mr. Gray's. I'm sorry, Mr. Gray.
Q Thank you.
Let's now look at the second page of that
exhibit. Third page, fourth page.
Now we are at 845. Do you recognize that?
The handwriting on that exhibit?
A Yes.
Q In fact, do you recognize the stationary?

A Yes.
Q And how is it that you are able to recognize the

stationary?
A Because we ordered it.
Q Thank you.
A Okay.
MS. PEARSON: Now will you please go to
what has been marked as Government's Exhibit 908.

442
Q Oh, just in case I didn't ask you. On 845, I did

ask you about the stationary but if I could go back and
ask you whose handwriting is on 845?
A Mr. Gray's.
MS. PEARSON: Thank you. Now please go to
908.
Q Who is handwriting is there, ma'am?

A Mr. Gray's.
Q Now I would like to show you what's been marked as

MS. PEARSON: And if we could go to page 2
of that. Not that page, maybe the next. This page,
please.
Q Ma'am, do you recognize the handwriting on what is

actually page 3 of Government's Exhibit 830?
A You said whose handwriting?
Q Yes, please?
A Mr. Gray's.
MS. PEARSON: Now if we could go to
Q And if you look at page one of that exhibit, ma'am,

do you recognize the handwriting there?
A Mr. Gray's.
MS. PEARSON: And page 2 of that exhibit,
please.
Q Whose handwriting is there, if you know?
A Mr. Gray's.
Q Now switching topics on you.

Did there come a time when you learned a
subpoena had been issued on the ETNA businesses by the
FBI?
A Yes.
(1 How did you learn that that subpoena had been

issued?
A From Mr. Gray.
Q Were you actually given a copy of the subpoena or

its attachments?
A Yes.
(Z And who gave you that?

A Mr. Gray.
Q Did you receive any instructions from Mr. Gray as
to what to do once he had given you these documents?
A To pull what was on the subpoena and turn it in.
Q Now when you say pull, just so the jury

understands, what do you mean by pulled?
A Well, for the years that were requested, they
weren't in the office they were in storage, so we had to
go pull them from the storage unit.
Q So you mean physically gather documents?

A Correct.
444
Q And would you tell us briefly, what did you do?

You mentioned going to storage. In addition to going to
storage to gather documents, where else did you look for
documents?
A In our office -- besides our office?
Q You looked in your office, you looked in storage,

that's two places. Where else, please?
A I don't think I looked any place else besides our
office and the storage.
Q Who assisted you in looking for these documents?

A I had -- well, Dwight was with me when I went to
the storage unit, because I didn't want to lift the
boxes.
Q And please tell the jury who Dwight is?

A He's the Operations Manager for ETNA Parking.
Q In addition to Dwight, did you receive help from

anyone else in gathering documents for the subpoena?
A I mean, I might have asked one of the young ladies
in the office to pull something, if it was something
current that might have been in their office.
(1 In addition to Dwight and one of the persons

working in the ETNA offices, did any one else assist you?
A No.
Q Did Mr. Gray give you any documents?

BY MS. PEARSON:
Q You may answer.

A Okay.
To me, no. Not to me personally, no.
Q To your knowledge, did Mr. Gray give documents to

anyone?
A I mean, you know, I don't remember exactly how they
got to you guys. So however they got to you, if there
was something on there that he had to give. I'm not
following you. I mean that -- I'm trying to make sure I
understand what you are asking.
Q I would just like you to answer my question. Just

take it one step at a time.
Did Mr. Gray give you any documents relative
to the subpoena?
A No. No, he didn't give them to me.
Q In terms of the places you looked, you mentioned

your office, correct?
A Um-hum .
Q Did that include Mr. Gray's office?

A NO, I wouldn't go in his office and take anything
out.
Q Did you go to Mr. Gray's home?
A No.
Q But you did look in your own office?
A Yes.
Q Did you look in the offices of other people who
worked at ETNA?
A Yes.
Q Now once all of those documents were gathered, they

were ultimately given to the FBI, right?
A Yes.
Q Now, I would like to show you -- well, I would like

to show you what's been marked as Government's Exhibit
118 and ask you to tell us what you see there.
Ma'am, do you recognize what's depicted in
118?
A Let me see. Mr. Gray's office.
Q Please say it into the microphone?

A Mr. Gray's office.
Q And this is at Shaker Square?

A Yes.
Q And when I mentioned, did you go into Mr. Gay's

office, is this the place you are indicating you didn't
enter for the subpoena?

question.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Did you search Mr. Gray's office for documents

r e l a t i v e t o t h e subpoena?
A No.
MS. PEARSON: Now, p l e a s e show t h e w i t n e s s
w h a t ' s b e e n marked a s G o v e r n m e n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 1 9 .
Q T h i s i s a -- p l e a s e t e l l u s w h a t t h i s i s ?
A Mr. Gray's o f f i c e .
MS. PEARSON: Now I would h i k e t o f o c u s
i n , I t h i n k w e c a n d o t h i s u s i n g E x h i b i t 1 2 0 , on t h e
same room b u t a d i f f e r e n t a n g l e .
No, I a p o l o g i z e . P l e a s e go back t o 119
and e n l a r g e t h a t c o r n e r .
Thank y o u .
Q Miss Upshaw, p l e a s e t e l l t h e j u r y w h a t t h e p i e c e o f
f u r n i t u r e i s i n t h e c o r n e r of E x h i b i t 119?
A Lateral f i l e cabinet.
(1 Do you know w h e t h e r o r n o t t h a t c a b i n e t i s k e p t
locked?
A Yes.
Q Who h a s a c c e s s t o i t ?
A Mr. Gray a n d m y s e l f .
Q And h a v e you o c c a s i o n a l l y e n t e r e d t h a t c a b i n e t ?
A Yes.
Q What k i n d o f items a r e k e p t i n t h e r e , t o y o u r
knowledge?
A The s t a m p f o r m e t o s t a m p c h e c k s .
1 Q Anything else, to your knowledge?
2 A I don't look in the drawer, I just go in and get
3 the stamp, what I need to get out. So whatever is in
4 there, I don't pay attention to it.
5 Q And does anyone share this office with Mr. Gray?

6 A No.
7 MS. PEARSON: Just one moment, your Honor.
8 Your Honor, no further questions at this
9 time .
10 THE COURT: Thank you.
11 Mr. Cafferkey or Mr. Emoff.
12 MR. CAFFERKEY: Thank you, your Honor.
13 - - -
14 CROSS EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. CAFFERKEY:
16 Q Good afternoon, Miss Upshaw?
17 A Hello.
18 MR. CAFFERKEY: Could the government be so
19 kind as to put Government's Exhibit 119 back up on
20 the screen? And can we kind of enlarge the credenza
21 area?
22 Q Do you recognize Government's Exhibit 119? Is that

23 Mr. Gray's office?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And can you see the photos that are in the back of
the office on the credenza?
A They are a little blurry but yes.
MR. CAFFERKEY: Sir, I wonder if you could
make those photos more clear? That's as good as it
gets? Okay.
Q And I showed you Government's Exhibit 119, the full

photo earlier in the hall, correct?
A Yes.
Q All right. Now, I'm going to show you --

And we'll call that not only Government's
Exhibit 119 but Defendant's Exhibit B.
This is the photo that I showed you, correct?
A Yes.
Q And I'm going to show you Defendant's Exhibit A.

Can you see Defendant's Exhibit A?
A Yes.
Q All right. And does that photo look like the photo
depicted in Defendant's Exhibit B, or Government's
Exhibit 119?
A Yes.
Q And do you recognize the three people in the photo?

A Yes.
Q All right. And is the first person Sam Miller,

multi-millionaire who owns and operates Forest City
Enterprises?
450
MS. PEARSON: Objection. Unless she knows
his financial.
THE WITNESS: Yeah. I mean, I don't know.
I don't know Sam Miller.
BY MR. CAFFERKEY:
Q Do you know if this is Sam Miller?

THE COURT: Do you know who it is?
THE WITNESS: No. I mean, I heard the
name. Directly, no.
BY MR. CAFFERKEY:
Q So you've never had any personal dealings with Sam

Miller?
A No.
Q All right. Do you recognize the person in the

middle of the photo?
A Yes.
Q And who is that?

A Mayor White.
Q All right. And the person to the right is Nate

Gray, is that correct?
A Correct.
MR. CAFFERKEY: Very good. Nothing
further.
Thank you very much, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Whitaker.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Good a f t e r n o o n , M i s s Upshaw?
A Hello.
Q How a r e you?
A Lovely.
Q A s you know, I r e p r e s e n t your b o s s ?
A Yes.
Q You l i k e w o r k i n g f o r N a t e Gray?
A Yes.
Q Done i t f o r a l o n g t i m e , h a v e n ' t you?
A Yes.
(1 On t h i s c e l l phone b i l l t h a t you were a s k e d a b o u t ,
i n h i s s o n ' s name?
A Yes.
Q You would r e i m b u r s e him a n d k e e p -- b u t i t was
r e i m b u r s e d r e l a t e d t o t h a t c e l l phone b i l l , r i g h t ?
A Yes.
(1 The r e c o r d s would r e f l e c t i t was t h e c e l l p h o n e
bill?
A Yes.
Q Do you know what k i n d o f p l a n h i s s o n h a d , w h e t h e r
i t was some k i n d o f f a m i l y p l a n o r a n y t h i n g ?
A No, I d o n ' t know t h a t .

452
Q All right.
One of the things that you were asked was
about payments that were made to consultants. And I
think Earl Brown was somebody that was mentioned?
A Yes.
(Z And you would issue those checks right out of the

company books?
A Yes.
(Z And you would keep a record of what it was for and

where it went?
A Yes.
Q And these are the records that you turned over when
a subpoena was served?
A Right.
Q And they were all right there, either in the office

or in storage?
A Yes.
Q Now, sometimes those expenses were billed to other

companies as well, isn't that correct?
A The expenses for?
Q For example, for Earl Brown. Did you invoice

another company from time to time for the money that was
paid to Earl Brown as a consultant?
A You have to tell me the company name.
Q First Transit?
A Oh. Okay, yes.
Q And you would send an invoice to First Transit

for the bills that were paid to Earl Brown, is that
correct?
A Yes.
Q And those bills were kept in the normal course of

business?
A Yes.
Q And even when occasionally a money order was done,

the receipts for the money order were kept with the
records, with the payments, so that you would have it for
your books?
A Yes.
Q There was a question of -- you were asked some

questions about the Super Bowl invoice to Honeywell and
the backup documentation for that, right?
A Yes.
Q Okay. That backup documentation was also kept with

the records in the files at the ETNA office, isn't that
correct?
A Yes.
Q That wasn't the first time that someone came asking

you for, look up the backup receipts for that Super Bowl
receipt, was it?
A No.
454
Q Who was t h e o t h e r p e r s o n t h a t came l o o k i n g ?
A When -- what, t h e i n v o i c e s ?
Q Yeah. D i d B r e n t J i v i d e n come?
A Yes, B r e n t .
Q And d i d B r e n t want t h e b a c k u p i n v o i c e s t o t h a t
s i m p l e b i l l t h a t s a i d S u p e r Bowl?
A Yes.
Q And h e t o o k them w i t h him b a c k t o H o n e y w e l l , d i d n ' t
h e , c o p i e s of t h o s e r e c e i p t s ?
A Oh, y e s . Yes.
Q And i s n ' t i t a f a c t t h a t t h e r e a s o n h e was t h e r e
a n d t h e r e a s o n h e w a n t e d them i s t h a t Honeywell n e e d e d
more d o c u m e n t a t i o n a b o u t t h a t t r i p ?
MS. PEARSON: O b j e c t i o n , y o u r Honor.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Do you know why --
THE COURT: She w o u l d n ' t know w h a t
somebody e l s e ' s r e a s o n i n g was.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Did B r e n t t e l l you why h e n e e d e d t h o s e b i l l s ?
A I d o n ' t remember.
Q Okay. You h a d a c c e s s t o M r . G r a y ' s , t h e o f f i c e
t h a t you saw t h e p i c t u r e s o f ? That i n s i d e o f f i c e ?
A Yes.
Q You even had a key to that file cabinet, right?
A Yes.
Q When that subpoena came, Mr. Gray just gave you

that subpoena and told you to gather all the documents,
right?
A Yes.
Q He didn't tell you, don't go in my office or

anything, did he?
A No.
Q You just gathered the documents from the sources

that you thought they were?
A Correct.
Q But he told you, get them from wherever they are,

get whatever is on the subpoena?
A Yes.
Q Did he interfere in that process in any way?

A No.
Q Did he tell you anything at all about, don't get

this or don't get that, or show me this before you turn
it over, or anything?
A No.
Q Didn't say show me the Honeywell stuff? Didn't ask

about the Earl Brown stuff? Just said, give everything
that's on the subpoena, pack it up for whoever it goes
to?
456
A Yes.
Q All right. And he did not -- he didn't say

anything at all about not going in my office, or anything
like that?
A No.
Q And he knew you had a key to that cabinet?

A Yes.
Q Are you aware of Mr. Gray's reputation for

generosity in the community?
MS. PEARSON: Objection, your Honor.
That's outside the scope.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, as long as
she's here I thought -- I could call her back but.
THE COURT: It's up to them. They made
the objection.
MR. WHITAKER: You want me to call her
back to ask her these questions.
MS. PEARSON: What questions? I've heard
only one. Do you want to talk about it?
MR. WHITAKER: Sure.
MS. PEARSON: May we, your Honor?
THE COURT: You can talk for a second but
just the ruling, it's outside the scope. So unless
there is some agreement, you would have to call her

457
in your own case.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. There will be no
agreement, your Honor.
Thank you, Miss Upshaw. I appreciate it.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Jenkins.
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, I have no

questions. Thank you.
THE COURT: Do you have any redirect.

MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, just briefly.
- - -
MS. PEARSON: I would like the witness to
be shown what's been marked as Government's Exhibit
124.
Q Do you see what's been marked as Government's

Exhibit 124?
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, this is beyond

the scope of my cross.
THE COURT: Well, I don't know were she's
going. Raise the objection when she gets to

wherever the point is, if you think it's beyond the
scope.
Do you know what that is?

BY MS. PEARSON:
25 Q Do you recognize this?

458
A No, I d o n ' t know w h a t i t i s .
Q Is t h i s o n e o f t h e p l a c e s w h e r e you s e a r c h e d ?
MR. WHITAKER: Objection.
Did you s e a r c h t h i s a r e a ?
THE WITNESS: I d o n ' t know w h a t t h i s a r e a
is.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Then t h e n e x t q u e s t i o n i s , i s t h i s o n e o f t h e
p l a c e s you s e a r c h e d f o r d o c u m e n t s r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e
subpoena?
A No.
MS. PEARSON: Thank you, y o u r H o n o r . No
further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. You c a n
s t e p down.
Would t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s c a l l y o u r n e x t
witness.
MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, t h e g o v e r n m e n t
c a l l s t o the stand Eric Brewer.

- - -
E R I C BREWER
c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s b y a n d on b e h a l f o f
o f t h e Government, a f t e r b e i n g f i r s t d u l y
s w o r n , was e x a m i n e d a n d t e s t i f i e d as
459
follows :
THE COURT: Please take a s e a t . Once you
g e t s e a t e d , t e l l u s y o u r name a n d s p e l l y o u r l a s t
name f o r t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r .
THE W I T N E S S : E r i c Brewer. L a s t name i s
B-R-E-W-E-R.
DIRECT E X A M I N A T I O N
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Good a f t e r n o o n , s i r .
P l e a s e t e l l t h e j u r y i n w h i c h c i t y you l i v e ?
A E a s t Cleveland, Ohio.
Q And where d i d you a t t e n d h i g h s c h o o l ?
A Shaw.
Q Did you e n t e r t h e m i l i t a r y a f t e r t h e h i g h s c h o o l ?
A I did. The U n i t e d S t a t e s A i r F o r c e .
Q And h a v e you h a d a n y c o l l e g e e x p e r i e n c e , s i r ?
A Two y e a r s o f c o l l e g e , San A n t o n i o C o l l e g e .
Q Now, s i r , would you p l e a s e t e l l t h e j u r y how you
make y o u r l i v i n g t o d a y ?
A I p u b l i s h a newspaper c a l l e d t h e C l e v e l a n d
Challenger. And I h a v e a company where w e p r o v i d e p u b l i c
relation services t o select clients.
Q Focusing back t o 1 9 7 9 . Were you p u b l i s h i n g a
newspaper a t t h a t time?
A I t was a n e w s l e t t e r c a l l e d t h e --
Did you say 1997 or '79.
Q '79. I should have said '97?

A Okay. '97 I was publishing the East Cleveland
Challenger.
Q And how widely circulated was the East Cleveland

Challenger?
A We circulated pretty much in the City of East

Cleveland.
Q Now, what kind of issues did you print in the East

Cleveland Challenger? What kind of articles?
A The news letter, newspaper/newsletter focused on
issues pertaining to what was happening in the city, the
administration at the time. Simple local issues that
people were talking about in the community.
(1 Now in addition to being a publisher, were you also

an author or a writer of various articles?
A I have written for other publications. I have
anywhere from the Cleveland Press to editing Cleveland
Life newspaper, the Call and Post. And I've published
about 12 newspaper on my own.
Q Now, focusing on East Cleveland for a moment.

Did you write about issues regarding the City
of East Cleveland in places other than the East Cleveland

Challenger?
A Yes, I did.
461
Q Now still we are at 1997. Were you at all involved

in the mayoral campaign that year?
A I was. I was helping Emmanuel with his campaign.
I pretty much ran the campaign. Helped him define issues
and focus on the kind of things that he ought to be
looking at with his administration.
Q Now, you used the first name Emmanuel. What's the

last name, please?
A I'm sorry. Emmanuel Onunwor.
Q Now, was he successful for his bid for mayor that

year?
A Yes, he was.
Q Now, what was your job during the campaign?

A Again, to help shape the issues, and to give the
campaign some direction. I helped him with his platform;
some opposition research.
Q Did you use the East Cleveland Challenger in any

way?
A We covered some of those issues there, yes.

Do you recognize that first page, sir?
A Yes, I do.
Q And this is a multi-page document, isn't it?

A Yes, it is.
462
Q Will you please focus again on page 1, the article

to the right?
A Yes.
Q Sir, did you write that?

A I did.
Q And will you please tell the j y the basic content
of this article?
A The content was basically a reflection of some of
the concerns that residents in the community were having
about the income tax collection process.
There was a law firm, Javitch, Block, Eisen
and Rathbone that had been paid a third to collect
delinquent income taxes from residents who were
delinquent, in terms of what they were filing on an
annual basis. And the tactics they were using were
coming under a lot of scrutiny by the residents. There
were a lot of complaints. They felt they were being
harassed. And the article literally was the statement
from us looking at the issue of -- or the paper looking
at the issue. And then a statement from Emmanuel Onunwor
that once he was elected he would review the process.
That's the substance of the article.
Q And in this article did you quote Emmanuel Onunwor?

A I did.
Q Did he authorize your quotes?

463
A Yes, he did.
Q In fact, I would like to focus you --

MS. PEARSON: If we could just go down to
the fourth full paragraph.
Q Will you please read what's written there in

quotation marks?
A This whole?
Q Thank you. That's exactly the place?

A This whole process is suspicious, Onunwor said.
I've had residents complain about the law firm, refused
to talk to them -- excuse me. I've had residents
complain that the law firm refused to talk to them. For
months, while the interest continued to pile up, it seems
the more the residents owe, the more the law firm earns
in commissions.
Q After Emmanuel Onunwor was elected mayor, did your

employment change?
A Yes. I went into his administration as his Chief

of Staff.
Q And how long did you hold that position?

A One year.
Q And during that period of time, what happened in

Onunwor's administration regarding the collections
contract?
A Well, it continued -- he continued to do business

464
with this particular law firm. I remember questioning
him about it at one point because it was a campaign
promise that was made to the residents that there would
be a review.
And he indicated to me that I should not
worry about it.
Q Sir, in addition to Mr. Onunwor's promises

regarding the collections contract, did you have occasion
to write about other matters in the City of East
Cleveland, specifically regarding CH2M Hill or a business
called OMI?
A Absolutely.
(1 And did that come much later in time, after 1997?

A It came in 2000.
Q And did you -- what forms did you write in? Were
you just writing for the news magazine or did you write
in other formats as well?
A I wrote in a number of formats. I attended City
Council meetings. I wrote a letter to the Council
President asking him not to bring these contractors into
the community. I wrote a letter to the auditor of the
state asking them to investigate the contract. I wrote

articles in, I believe Cleveland Life, raising issues
about the contract. And I continued to raise issues in
the East Cleveland Challenger and distribute that

465
information to residents.
Q Did you have an opportunity to speak with Mr. Gray

about CH2M Hill slash OMI?
A I did.
Q And when did that conversation take place?

A I believe it was some time in October or November
of '02. I want to say late October, early November, '02.
I went to his office to talk with him about purchasing
some advertising in the Cleveland Challenger. The East
Cleveland Challenger had become the Cleveland Challenger,
and I was expanding the paper. We were circulating
25,000 copies twice a week at that time. And I grew as a
businessman in the community and we talked about
advertising at the that point.
Q Well, how did CH2M Hill come up?

A The conversation, I believe, he had indicated to me
that he knew that I was opposing CH2M Hill and he had
mentioned that they were clients of his, or something to
that effect.
Q Ultimately did Mr. Gray buy advertisement in the

Cleveland Challenger?
A No, he did not.
MS. PEARSON: At this time, no further
questions for Mr. Brewer.
THE COURT: Cross examination.

MR. EMOFF: No questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Whitaker?
MR. WHITAKER: If I might have just one
second, your Honor.
No questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Jenkins?
MR. JENKINS: No questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
THE COURT: I'll ask the United States to
call your next witness.
States calls Gloria Lovelace to the stand.
THE COURT: Ma'am, would you raise your
right hand.
GLORIA LOVELACE
follows:
THE COURT: Please take a seat and state
your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Gloria A. Lovelace,

L-0-V-E-L-A-C-E.
THE COURT: Ms. Pearson.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Good afternoon, ma'am.
Will you please tell the jury where you spent
the majority of your professional career working?
A In the City of East Cleveland.
Q About how many years did you work for East

Cleveland?
A Twenty years.
Q And when did you leave?

A In 2004.
Q Now, what job did you hold when you were last
employed in East Cleveland?
A Deputy Tax Administrator.
Q And how long were you the Deputy Tax Administrator?

A About 17 years.
Q And will you just please tell the jury briefly what
your duties were as a Deputy Tax Administrator for East
Cleveland?
A To collect delinquent taxes for the City of East
Cleveland.
Q And from whom did you collect those taxes, ma'am?
A From the residents.

Q Did you have help in doing that?
A Yes.
Q And describe who helped you?

A I had staff.
Q Were they persons employed by the City?

A Yes.
Q Did you also have help from outsiders, contractors

or consultants who helped the City?
A Yes.
Q Let's start with your staff. At its biggest point,

how large was your staff?
A There were four.
Q Including yourself?
A There were five, including myself, at the biggest
point.
Q Now, at some point in your career as Deputy Tax

Director, did you work under a mayor named Emrnanuel
Onunwor?
A Yes.
Q Could you tell the jury when he took office?

A 1998.
Q Was he the mayor with you left East Cleveland's

employment?
A Yes.
Q Now, was there any person in a supervisory position

b e t w e e n you a n d t h e mayor?
A Yes.
Q Who was t h a t ?
A Finance Director.
Q And d i d you r e p o r t d i r e c t l y t o t h e F i n a n c e
Director?
A Yes.
Q And t o whom d i d t h e F i n a n c e D i r e c t o r r e p o r t ?
A The Mayor.
Q And when you l e f t t h e C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d , who
was t h e F i n a n c e D i r e c t o r ?
A B r i a n Thompson.
Q Now, r e g a r d i n g t h e d a y - t o - d a y o p e r a t i o n s o f your
c o l l e c t i o n e f f o r t s , who managed t h a t ?
A I d o n ' t understand.
Q On a d a i l y b a s e , how o f t e n d i d you i n t e r a c t w i t h
B r i a n Thompson?
A Very seldom.
Q On d a i l y b a s i s , how o f t e n d i d you i n t e r a c t w i t h
Mayor Onunwor?
A Very seldom.
Q So u l t i m a t e l y made m o s t o f t h e d a i l y d e c i s i o n s
regarding t h e t a x c o l l e c t i o n e f f o r t s i n East Cleveland?
A I did.
Q NOW, a t some p o i n t i n t i m e , d i d you h a v e a n o u t s i d e

470
law firm assisting you with your tax collection efforts?
A Yes.
Q Was that true even before Ernmanuel Onunwor became

Mayor?
A Yes.
Q Now, focusing from 1998 forward, when Mr. Onunwor

was elected Mayor, did you have a law firm assisting you?
A Yes.
Q What was that law firm's name, ma'am?

A Javitch, Block, Eisen and Rathbone.
Q And did you have a primary contact person at

Javitch, Block?
A Yes.
Q Who was that?

A Charles Natkins.
Q And how is it that you met Mr. Natkins?

A Originally he was collecting for the City under the
firm Friedman, Natkins, and Friedman.
Q And did he eventually disassociate with that firm?

A Yes.
Q And ultimately joined Javitch, Block?

A Yes.
Q How wide were the responsibilities of Javitch,

Block relative to you and your staff?
A What do you mean how wide?

Q Let me ask it to you in a different way.
Who focused on collecting the delinquent
taxes?
A Javitch, Block, Eisen and Rathbone.
Q Did that require sometimes actually filing

lawsuits?
A Yes.
Q Actually going to court?

A Yes.
Q Would you indeed be present in court yourself?

A Yes.
Q And what attorney would be representing the City of

East Cleveland in those matters?
A In some cases, Mr. Natkins.
Q In general, were the attorneys always from the

Javitch, Block law firm?
A Yes.
Q And did you interact with whatever attorney would

be representing you in court at that particular time?
A Yes.
Q Now, in addition to attorneys and courtroom

appearance, were there any Javitch employees who
physically worked in your East Cleveland offices?
A Yes.
Q Did that person change over time?

A Yes.
Q Who was the person working in the City of East

Cleveland office when you left?
A Michael Dubose.
Q And what was Mr. Dubose's responsibilities?

A He pulled delinquent accounts to be placed with the
law firm.
Q Did you play any role in training the Javitch

employees who physically worked within your office space?
A Yes.
Q What role was that?

A I had to train them on how to retrieve accounts.
How to assess penalty and interest. How to enter the
information into our system as we was pulling it from one
system to another.
Q And did this training occur with each employee --

A Yes.
Q -- sent from outside?

Now did there come a point in time when the
Ohio audit staff reviewed your department?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell the jury approximately when that

happened?
A It may have been 2002, I'm not quite sure.
Q And just before we go there, because I can show you

473
a document that will help you with that date, but I would
just like to take you back to 1998 when Emmanuel Onunwor
was first elected and ask you if you attended a meeting
with him and any representatives from the Javitch law
firm?
A Yes.
Q Where did this meeting take place?

A In the mayor's office.
Q And who besides yourself attended that meeting?

A Mr. Natkins and Mr. Block.
Q And to your understanding, what was the reason for

the meeting?
A The Mayor wanted them to be kinder and gentler in
their approach to the citizens that they were collecting
from.
Q Now, as a result of that meeting, did you continue

working -- as a result of that meeting did your
relationship with Javitch, Block change?

A No.
Q They continued assisting you in your delinquent tax

collection efforts?
A Yes.
Q Now focusing again on the audit which happened --
MS. PEARSON: Would you please show us

what has been marked Government's Exhibit 16, I
474
believe. Next page, please. Have I given you the

wrong -- maybe it's 14, pardon me.
Thank you. That's it.
Q Do you recognize the first page of Government's

Exhibit 14?
A Yes.
Q Is this a document you've seen before?

A Yes.
Q It's quite a few pages thick, isn't it?

A Yes.
Q And not all of it involves the Tax Department, does

it?
A No.
MS. PEARSON: You may take it down. Thank
you.
Q Do you see the date there?

A September, 2002.
Q Did you have any interaction with the auditors who

compiled this report?
A Yes.
Q And just describe for the jury the types of

interactions you had with the auditors?
A The information that they put in was not correct,
in my opinion. And as a result of my input, they rewrote
the audit five times.

Q And ultimately, came up with a product that you
were better satisfied with, is that true?
A Well, I accepted it. I still was not satisfied
with the audit.
Q Not really satisfied but it was a better product?

A Yes.
Q Now, as you were working through the process with

the auditors, did you develop a sense of what an audit
recommendation was going to be regarding the Javitch
firm?
A Yes.
Q Did you share your belief of what the auditors

would recommend with anyone at the Javitch firm?
A Yes.
Q Who did you talk to?

A Charles Natkins.
Q And what did you tell Mr. Natkins?

A I told him that they were planning in the audit to
eliminate most of the staff and refer all collections to
RITA.
8 And did that eventually happen?

A I believe so.

Government's Exhibit 368. This is the first page of a
two page item.
Do you recognize it, ma'am?
A Yes.
Q It's addressed to you, isn't it?

A Yes.
Q And who is it from?

A It's from RITA.
Q Is it fair to say that this document summarizes

your new relationship with RITA after the audit?
A Yes.
Q Now, regarding the actual work being done by

Javitch, Block, apart from that being done by you, your
staff, an individual you've identified as Michael Dubose,
were you aware of any other assistance provided to you by
Javitch, Block, other than the courtroom work that was
happening by the attorneys?
A No.
Q I would like to ask you, ma'am, do you know an

individual by the name of Nate Gray?
A No.
Q And just to be clear, during the time that you were

at the City of East Cleveland from '98 until you left,
did you ever have an occasion to work with an individual
named Nate Gray?
A No.
Q Did Mr. Onunwor, ever speak with you about an

i n d i v i d u a l named Nate Gray?
A No.
Q Did y o u r d i r e c t s u p e r v i s o r , B r i a n C a s e y , e v e r s p e a k
w i t h you a b o u t a n i n d i v i d u a l named N a t e G r a y ?
A B r i a n Thompson?
Q Thank y o u . B r i a n Thompson?
A No.
Q Did C h a r l e s N a t k i n s , ma'am, e v e r s p e a k w i t h you
a b o u t a n i n d i v i d u a l named N a t e Gray?
A No.
Q I would l i k e t o show you o n e l a s t e x h i b i t , i t ' s
w h a t ' s b e e n marked as G o v e r n m e n t ' s E x h i b i t 3 0 0 .
W i l l you p l e a s e -- t h i s i s t h e f i r s t p a g e .
You've s e e n t h i s b e f o r e , h a v e n ' t y o u , ma'am?
A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: Would you p l e a s e g o t o t h e
second page.
Q You've s e e n t h i s c o n s u l t i n g a g r e e m e n t b e f o r e ,
h a v e n ' t you, ma'am?
A Yes.
Q And you see t h e d a t e --
MS. PEARSON: I f you g o b a c k t o t h e f i r s t
page s o t h e w i t n e s s c o u l d s e e t h e d a t e on t h e
l e t t e r , a n d t h e n w e ' l l l o o k a t t h e d a t e on t h i s p a g e
a s well.
Q Are you able to tell the jury the date there?
A May 21, 1998.
MS. PEARSON: And then go back to the
first page of the consulting agreement.
Q I'll ask you the date there as well?

A May 26th, 1998.
Q Now did you see either the first page or the

agreement that's attached, in 1998?
A No.
MS. PEARSON: Now please go to the second
page. And focusing on paragraph 4, primarily
Section B, if you can get that.
Q And ma'am, you recognize that this was a consulting

agreement between the Javitch law firm and Nate Gray?
A Yes.
Q Focusing on paragraph B there. Disputes between

JBER acting as counsel and a debtor may arise.
Furthermore, JBER may be involved in disputes with its
employees. Since disputes in the sole discretion of JBER
may be resolved through mediation. Consultant, if
requested, will endeavor to act as mediator to resolve
these disputes.
Did I read that correctly?
A Yes.
Q Now, throughout your employment with JBER, did you

ever have any occasion wherein Mr. Gray assisted in
debtor disputes on behalf of JBER or the City of East
Cleveland?
A No.
Q And is it fair to say, ma'am -- tell the jury how

you saw this document that's marked as Government's
Exhibit 300?
A From you.
Q In anticipation of your testimony here today?

A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: At this time, your Honor, I
have no further questions for this witness.

THE COURT: Mr. Cafferkey or Mr. Jones.
MR. CAFFERKEY: Your Honor, we have no
questions. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Mr. Whitaker?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Good afternoon, Mrs. Lovelace.

A Good afternoon.
Q How are you?

Wish you were any place else, huh?
A Yes.
Q I'm Bill Whitaker, as you know, and I represent

480
Nate G r a y . So I ' m g o i n g t o a s k you j u s t a few q u e s t i o n s .
I f you d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d a n y t h i n g I a s k , l e t m e know, I'll
be glad t o repeat it.
You w e r e a w a r e t h a t Emmanuel Onunwor, when h e
was c a m p a i g n i n g , s a i d t h a t h e w a n t e d t o r e v i e w t h e
J a v i t c h l a w f i r m i f h e was e l e c t e d ?
A Yes.
Q The t e x t c o l l e c t i o n -- I ' m s o r r y , y e s ?
A Yes.
Q And a s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , a f t e r h e was e l e c t e d , o n e
o f t h e t h i n g s h e d i d was come t a l k t o you?
A The Mayor t a l k e d t o m e many t i m e s .
Q One o f t h e t h i n g s h e t a l k e d t o you a b o u t i s what
y o u r o p i n i o n o f J a v i t c h was, i s n ' t i t ?
A Yes.
Q And h e w a n t e d t o know f r o m you how w e l l you g o t
a l o n g w i t h J a v i t c h a n d what k i n d o f j o b you t h o u g h t t h e y
did?
A Yes.
Q What d i d you t e l l him?
A I t h o u g h t t h e y d i d a good j o b .
Q You t h o u g h t t h a t t h e y o u g h t t o b e r e t a i n e d , d i d n ' t
you?
A Yes.
Q And you t o l d y o u r mayor t h a t , d i d n ' t you?

A Yes.
Q They actually had an employee that worked right

with you in East Cleveland, isn't that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And over the years, that position sometimes was

sort of a high turnover position, wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q Then in what year did Mr. Dubose, who you talked

about, come to work for you? Or with you?
A I don't recall what year he came.
Q Was that around the time that Mr. Onunwor became

Mayor?
A I'm not sure.
During -- originally they had a lot of
temporaries, so that's why the turnover.
Q And that created a problem, didn't it?

A Well --
Q The turnover?
A Well, the turnover created a problem as we were not
able to place accounts.
Q Then when Mr. Dubose crime things moved a little

smoother?
A Yes.
Q And in fact, you didn't have any problems with him

the entire time you and he worked together, did you?
A That is correct.
Q NOW, after you recommended that Javitch be

retained, did I understand from your testimony there came
a time when there was a meeting between the Mayor,
yourself, and Mr. Natkins, and Mr. Block?
A Yes.
Q Had you told the Mayor that Mr. Natkins had been
involved in the collections since even before he was with
Javitch and Block?
A I may have.
Q You had a good working relationship with

Mr. Natkins for the entire time he worked there, isn't
that correct?
A That is correct.
Q In fact, when he went with Javitch, Block, one of

the things you insisted on is that he be maintained to
work the East Cleveland account, if Javitch, Block was to
get the contract?
question.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q When he moved from Friedman, Natkins, and Friedman,

then the contract to collect taxes in East Cleveland went
to Javitch, Block, Eisen, and Rathbone, right?
A Mr. Natkins carried the contract with him.

Q And it was important to you that the contract --
that Mr. Natkins be the go-to person on the contract?
A That was not an issue.
Q Nobody raised it as an issue?

A No.
Q He continued to be the person you most dealt with?

A Yes.
Q Okay. At this meeting with Mr. Natkins and

Mr. Block, did the Mayor discuss that he was concerned
about some of the complaints that the citizens had about
how they were treated?
A Yes.
Q And as you mentioned earlier, the approach was

let's do a kinder, gentler approach, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Did Mr. Block and Mr. Natkins agree that that's the
approach that they would take, a kinder, gentler
approach?
A Yes.
Q And did they talk about they would figure out ways
to resolve disputes?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Was it generally -- was the, sort of the result of

the meeting, your understanding that they would try to
avoid disputes with the citizens?

484
A They were going to take a kinder, gentler approach.

I don't understand what you mean by disputes with the
citizens.
Q Well, do you know what the reason was that -- let

me rephrase that.
As a result of Mr. Onunwor's complaints, it

was decided that they would take a kinder, gentler
approach, is that right?
A As a result -- see, Mr. Onunwor, Mayor Onunwor's
complaints came from the citizens, so he was trying to
work from there. And as a result of his discussion, the

law firm was going to have their collectors take a
kinder, gentler approach.
Q Did they?
A Yes.
Q And did you oversee that?

A What do you mean?
Q In other words, you saw that they took a kinder,

gentler approach to complaints from the taxpayer's?
A Well, I didn't get as many complaints, so I would
think they were a little gentler with this.
Q Now, you talk talked about this Ohio audit. Do you

know who conducted that?
A The State.
Q And do you know under whose direction this audit

was commissioned?
A What do you mean?
Q Was there a fiscal commission that was assigned to

oversee East Cleveland's finances?
A Yes.
Q And are they the ones that asked for this audit?
A I don't think so.
Q You talked to the people on the audit staff

yourself, isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q Ultimately they recommended that they go with RITA.

That the city use RITA to collect their taxes, is that
right?
A Yes.
Q And exactly what is RITA?

A First I want to say that East Cleveland is a RITA
city. And RITA is Regional Income Tax Agency. They
collect taxes for over a hundred and some municipalities.
So they were already collecting tax for East Cleveland.
The idea behind the audit was to also give
them the delinquent accounts.
Q And what was the reason, if you recall, why this

was recommended by the audit?
A Because of the percentage being paid for the law

firm.
486
Q And what was t h e p e r c e n t a g e t h a t R I T A w o u l d c h a r g e ?
I f you know?
A Well, there are different tiers. Originally RITA'S
f e e was t h r e e p e r c e n t t o c o l l e c t r e g u l a r t a x e s . I f it i s
farmed o u t t o a law f i r m , i t i s 2 5 p e r c e n t .
Q So t h e cases t h a t a r e f a r m e d o u t t o l a w f i r m s a r e
t h e delinquent taxes, right?
A Are lawsuits.
Q The d e l i n q u e n t t a x e s t h a t r e s u l t i n l a w s u i t s ?
A Yes.
Q And t h e t h r e e p e r c e n t you a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t , t h a t
was b a s e d on a l l t a x e s ?
A Yes.
Q Not j u s t t h e d e l i n q u e n t o n e s b u t a l l o f t h e m ?
A Yes.
Q J a v i t c h , B l o c k was j u s t h i r e d t o c o l l e c t t h e
delinquent accounts, i s n ' t t h a t c o r r e c t ?
A Yes.
Q A s i d e n t i f i e d b y you a n d whoever was w o r k i n g i n t h e
office?
A Correct.
Q When you g o t t h i s r e p o r t , you d i d n ' t a g r e e w i t h
t h a t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , d i d you?
A No.
Q Why n o t ?
487
A The Tax Department was originally set up because
those taxes were not being collected, and that's why I

did not agree. Even though we were with RITA, accounts
continued to be delinquent.
Q And you thought Javitch was much better equipped to

collect on those accounts, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q And you thought the City of East Cleveland would be

better paying the 33 percent, or would make more money
paying the 33 percent, than turning it over to RITA,
didn't you?
A RITA already had the account. We pulled the
account from RITA to turn it over to the law firm.

So the account had already gone delinquent
with RITA and we were trying to recover the City's money.
We pulled the account in-house, and we would try to
collect it in-house without any result. We turned it
over to the law firm.
Q And that's Javitch, Block?

A Yes.
Q And it was your opinion that you made more money by

pulling those accounts from RITA and turning them over to
Javitch, Block than you would have leaving them with

RITA, isn't that correct?
A That is correct.
488
Q And more money for the citizens of East Cleveland?

A Yes.
Q You went and talked to Mayor Onunwor about what the

results of this report was going to be, didn't you?
Did you have a conversation -- let me
rephrase that.
Did you have a conversation with Mayor
Onunwor about this report?
THE COURT: You mean the auditors?
MR. WHITAKER: Yes, the audit report.
THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don't exactly
recall. We did, whether it was in staff meeting or
what, but we did discuss the audit report.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And Mr. Onunwor told you that he was going to go

along with that report and terminate Javitch immediately,
didn't he?
A No.
Q He did terminate Javitch before the report even

came out, didn't he?
A No, there was no termination.
Q What was it?

A The law firm was phased out in the sense that we
were no longer placing accounts with them. They were
still collecting taxes for the City.

Q For t h e a c c o u n t s t h e y a l r e a d y had?
A Yes.
Q And Mayor Onunwor made t h e d e c i s i o n n o t t o t u r n
o v e r a n y new a c c o u n t s e v e n b e f o r e t h e a u d i t r e p o r t came
o u t , d i d n ' t he?
A I t was my d e c i s i o n , b a s e d on t h e a u d i t r e p o r t , that
w e w e r e i n s t r u c t e d t o t r y t o come i n t o c o m p l i a n c e w i t h
the audit report.
(2 Okay. And you s h a r e d t h a t w i t h Mayor Onunwor?
A I g a v e him a n u p d a t e on t h e s t a t u s . They s e n t
u p d a t e s h e e t s o u t t o u s a n d I g a v e him a n u p d a t e on t h e
s t a t u s of t h e f i n d i n g s from t h e a u d i t , a s i t a p p l i e d t o
t h e t a x department.
Q And a f t e r o n e o f t h e s e u p d a t e s i s when h e s a i d w e
should stop? He a g r e e d , he t o l d you w e s h o u l d s t o p
t u r n i n g new a c c o u n t s o v e r t o J a v i t c h , i s n ' t t h a t c o r r e c t ?
A I don't recall that.
Q Okay. A t some p o i n t n o new a c c o u n t s were t u r n e d
over t o Javitch, is t h a t c o r r e c t ?
A A t some p o i n t , yes.
Q You d o n ' t r e c a l l when t h a t p o i n t was?
A I t was some t i m e a f t e r t h e a u d i t r e p o r t . I would
t h i n k , b a s e d on t h e l e t t e r f r o m R I T A w h e r e we were
p u t t i n g t o g e t h e r i d e a s t h a t t h e y would t a k e o v e r t h e
delinquent collection portion. So t h a t m u s t h a v e b e e n

some t i m e i n 2 0 0 2 . I d o n ' t remember way b a c k t h e r e .
Q Okay. And t h a t r e p o r t , t h a t l e t t e r t h a t you were
shown b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t , t h a t s a i d t h a t i t was r e f l e c t i n g
c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t you h a d e a r l i e r t h a t same y e a r , is
t h a t correct?
A That i s c o r r e c t .
Q So you b e g a n h a v i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i t h RITA a b o u t
doing t h i s job, i n terms o f c o l l e c t i n g d e l i n q u e n t t a x ,
l o n g b e f o r e t h a t l e t t e r where t h e y w r o t e you a n d t a l k e d
a b o u t a l l t h e t h i n g s t h a t R I T A was g o i n g t o d o ?
A Correct.
MR. WHITAKER: Nothing f u r t h e r . Thank
you.
MR. JENKINS: I have no q u e s t i o n s , your
Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. P e a r s o n , d o you h a v e a n y
redirect.
MS. PEARSON: J u s t one q u e s t i o n , your
Honor.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Miss L o v e l a c e , i s J a v i t c h , B l o c k , E i s e n , R a t h b o n e
t h e o n l y law f i r m i n t h e a r e a t h a t c o u l d have s e r v e d E a s t
491
Cleveland in its delinquent tax collection tax efforts?
A No.
MS. PEARSON: Thank you, ma'am.
Nothing further, your Honor.
its next witness.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I have just one
more question based on her question, if I might.
THE COURT: I thought her question was

kind of argumentative.
Does anybody believe there is only one law
firm in the country to collect taxes?
MR. WHITAKER: I understand that. I just
have one question about all those other law firms.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Do you know whether all those other law firms also

charge 33 and a third percent to collect taxes?
A Most of them.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am.
Who is your next witness?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, the United States

1 calls Michael Dubose.
2 THE COURT: You want to come forward.
3 You want to raise your right hand.
4 MICHAEL DUBOSE
5 called as a witness by and on behalf of
6 of the Government, after being first duly
7 sworn, was examined and testified as
8 follows :
9 THE COURT: Please take a seat, and then
10 state your name and spell it for the court reporter.
11 THE WITNESS: My name is Michael Dubose.
12 Last name D-U-B-0-S-E.
13 THE COURT: Ms. Butler.

14 MS. BUTLER: Thank you, your Honor.
15 - - -
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BYMS BUTLER:
18 Q Mr. Dubose, please tell the members of the jury
19 where you live?
20 A I live in Maple Heights, Ohio.
21 Q And are you married?
22 A Yes, I am.
23 Q Is your wife employed outside the home?
24 A Yes, she is.
25 Q Tell the members of the jury what she does?

493
A She's the Accounting Supervisor for the law firm
Javitch, Block, and Rathbone.
Q Now, did there come a time when you went to work

for that same law firm?
A I did.
Q Could you tell the members of the jury when that

was?
A January, ' 98.
Q And how did you come to learn about that job

opportunity?
A My wife referred me to the job.
Q Now, in the process of obtaining that position, did

you speak at all with Mr. Nate Gray?
A No, I did not.
Q What exactly were your job duties?

A I processed delinquent taxpayers in the Tax
Department at East Cleveland; prepared them for
collection with the law firm.
Q And were physically did you report to work every

today day to do that?
A To the Tax Department at East Cleveland.
Q Did you have interaction there with Ms. Lovelace?

A I did.
Q And where actually was your supervisor?

A Where was he? Where was he -- my supervisor was
Charles Natkins, with the law firm.
Q Okay. And did you actually have a supervisor on

site at East Cleveland?
A No, I did not.
(1 Who taught you exactly how to do the job that you

were doing in the Tax Department at East Cleveland?
A Miss Lovelace.
Q Now, on a daily basis, did you have interaction

with the other employees in the Collection Department?
A Not on a professional level. We spoke and
interacted, you know, socially, of course.
Q Were you in a position to observe people as they

came in and out of the tax collection office?
A I was.
Q At any time did you see Mr. Nate Gray meeting with
anyone in the offices there at the Tax Collection
Department?
A I did not.
(1 Did there come a time when you actually left the

assignment at the City of East Cleveland Tax Department?
A Yes, there was.
Q Can you tell the members of the jury when that

happened, approximately?
A Well to the best of my recollection, it was like
January, '01, 2001.

4 95
Q Now, do you know approximately how many years you

worked at the City of East Cleveland's offices?
A Three, three and a half, something like that.
Q Now, was there some explanation -- do you have an

understanding of why you stopped working there?
A Well, it was my understanding that a lot of the
functions and duties that I was doing had been
re-delegated to RITA, which is the Regional Income Tax
Administration or Authority.
Q And did you continue to be employed by the law firm

after you stopped working in the Collections Department?
A Yes, I did.
Q During the time that you were assigned to the

Collections Department in the City of East Cleveland,
were you the only law firm employee who was actually
working there out of those offices?
A I was.
Q At any time, Mr. Dubose, did you learn that
Mr. Nate Gray had a consulting contract to assist the law
firm in tax collecting?
A NO, I was not.
MS. BUTLER: No further questions.
THE COURT: Cross examination?

MR. EMOFF: Nothing, your Honor.
496
THE COURT: Do you have anything?

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Good afternoon.
A How are you?
Q My name is Andrea Whitaker and I represent

Mr. Gray. I just have a few questions for you?
A Okay.
Q During your time at East Cleveland, how did you

work with Miss Lovelace? Was that a good working
relationship?
A Yes, it was.
Q And did you all feel like you had a good working
relationship with the citizens of East Cleveland?
A I didn't interact with the citizens of East
Cleveland at all.
Q Did you know about concerns that Javitch, Block did

not previously have a good reputation with the citizens
of East Cleveland?
A I did not know that to be a fact.
Q And you stated you came to work at the City of East

Cleveland in 1998, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you stated that your wife worked for Javitch,

Block, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q Was there ever a time that you learned that

Mr. Gray went down to Javitch, Block to see the
operations so that he could make recommendations for
them?
A No, I was not aware of that.
Q You were never told that by your wife?
A No.
MS. WHITAKER: Just a moment.
Q One more question.
When you came to work at East Cleveland in
1998, that's when Emmanuel Onunwor came into office as
Mayor, is that correct?
A Actually, he was there the first day I worked
walked in there. I don't know when he came into office.
Q You came in January of 1998?

A Yes, ma'am.
Q Thank you. No further questions?

THE COURT: Do you have anything,
Mr. Jenkins?
MR. JENKINS: No questions.
Thank you, sir.
We'll take a brief recess. We'll adjourn

f o r about t e n minutes. L e a v e t h e p a d s f a c e down.
A g a i n , d o n ' t t a l k a b o u t t h e case, f o r m a n y o p i n i o n s ,
o r e x p r e s s any.
( B r i e f recess)
THE COURT: I would a s k you t o r a i s e y o u r
r i g h t hand.
- - -
EMMANUEL ONUNWOR
c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s by and on b e h a l f o f t h e
Government was f i r s t d u l y s w o r n a n d t e s t i f i e d
a s follows:
THE COURT: Please take a s e a t , and then
s t a t e y o u r name a n d s p e l l y o u r l a s t name.
THE WITNESS: My name i s Emmanuel Onunwor
0-N-U-N-W-0-R.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Good a f t e r n o o n , s i r ?
A Good a f t e r n o o n .
Q S i r , i f I may, t h e r e i s a p i t c h e r o f w a t e r w i t h a
c u p j u s t b e h i n d t h e m o n i t o r i f you f i n d i t n e c e s s a r y .
A Thank you.
Q You may h a v e t o t u r n t h a t l i d s l i g h t l y i n o r d e r t o
g e t it t o pour o u t .
A Thank y o u .
499
Q Thank you, sir. And thank you for paying attention

to the mike. Please speak into it.
Would you please tell the jurors where you
were born.
A I was born in Nigeria.
Q When did you come to the United States?

A In 1980.
Q Are you a United States citizen, sir?

A Yes, I am.
Q Did you pursue your education here?

A Yes, I did.
Q How far in college did you go?

A I obtain my Master's Degree in Urban Studies from
Cleveland State University.
Q Where did you earn your Bachelors Degree?

A Also from Cleveland State University.
Q And what year did you complete your Bachelors?

A 1985.
Q And what field of study was that?

A Urban studies.
Q And in what year did you complete the Masters?

A In 1995.
Q Now, have you held various non-elected positions in

either the City of Cleveland's government and the City of
East Cleveland?
A Yes.
Q Focusing first on the City of Cleveland, would you

tell the jury the non-elected positions you held in the
can City of Cleveland government?
A I was initially hired as urban planning technician
in the Planning department. And I rose to a position of
Assistant City Planner in Cleveland, Department of
Planning.
Then I left Planning Department, and was

hired as a policy analyst for the Department of Community
Development, still in the City of Cleveland. And then I
rose to the position of Deputy Project Director, for the
Department of Community Development, City of Cleveland.
Q And sir, focusing, now, did you hold any

non-elected positions in East Cleveland?
A Yes. I was the Executive Director of East

Cleveland Neighborhood Center.
Q Now, I would like to draw your attention to the

year, 1996.
Did you run for your first elected position
in 1996?
A Yes, I did.
Q And tell us what that was?
A I run for the position of East Cleveland City

Council.
Q Were you successful?
A Yes, I was.
Q And what role did you take on within East Cleveland

City Council?
A As the council member, I was also elected by
members of council, by vote, to become the Council
President.
Q Now, and you assumed that position in 1996,

correct?
A The election was 19 -- yes, that was in 1996. The
election was '95.
Q So the election was a year before?

A That's correct.
Q And so how long did you serve on East Cleveland

City Council?
A Two years.
Q Now, while serving as East Cleveland City

Councilman, did you have an opportunity to interact with
the Mayor of the City of East Cleveland?
A A few times, yes.
Q Did you develop an understanding as to who held the

reigns of power relative to the Mayor's office and City
Council within the City of East Cleveland?
A The Mayor is the sole responsibility for the total
administration of day-to-day activities of the city. And

502
the City Council responsibility is mainly to legislate.
Q Were there ever times when the two sides would

sometimes come together with opposite opinions of how
things should be run in the city?
A Of course, yes.
Q And who typically would win when that would happen?

A Well, the Mayor wins. The Mayor have always find a
way to get things done.
Q Now, sir, did you eventually run for the position

of Mayor of the City of East Cleveland?
A Yes, I did.
Q And when did you run for Mayor?
A I run in 1997.
Q Were you successful?

A I was.
Q When did you assume the position of Mayor?

A In 1998.
Q And that was a paid job, wasn't it?

A Yes.
Q How much did you earn?

A Well, it was by law of $40,000 a year. But at the
same time the Council passed a legislation with me
requesting for the position of Mayor to also include the
responsibility of the Safety Director, which pays
$25,000.
So in totality, a total of $65,000.
Q Now, would like to help the jurors understand a

little bit about the City of East Cleveland. Would you
tell us its population when you became Mayor?

A Approximately 33,000 people.
Q And what was the general financial state of the

city in 1998?
A The city was in a state of fiscal emergency. The
city have a State Financial Supervisory Commission that
reviewed the city's financial obligations.
Q NOW, I would like to ask if you were part of the

commission that reviewed the city's finances?
A Yes, I was.
Q I want to take you a little bit back in time and

ask you if you know an individual by the name of Nate
Gray?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you tell the jury when you first met

Mr. Gray?
A In the 1980.
Q Please continue?
A In 1980s.
MR. WHITAKER: I believe the question has
been answered, your Honor.

BY MS. PEARSON:
Q How did you meet him, sir?
A We met in a social gathering.
Q Did you learn that you and Mr. Gray had something
in common?
A Yes.
Q And what's that?

A My wife went to the same high school with him.
Q Did you develop a relationship with Mr. Gray after

meeting him?
A Yes, we did.
Q Please describe the nature of that relationship for

the jury?
A Well, we had a good relationship from knowing him
at the time. We spoke frequently from time to time.
(1 Would you describe it as a friendship?

A Yes.
Q Now, during the time when you first met Mr. Gray,
what was your job status?
A Well, I would say I was almost leaving the City of
East Cleveland. At the time I was the Director of
Committee Development Department for the City of East
Cleveland, in the 1990 through 1994.
I resigned from that position in 1994, and of
course my relationship with Mr. Gray increased, because I
had no job at the time and I thought about opening up a

505
p l a n n i n g c o n s u l t i n g firm, and I spoke t o M r . Gray about
it. And h e welcomed m e t o u s e h i s o f f i c e a t S h a k e r
S q u a r e t o move on w i t h what I w a n t e d t o d o .
So I b e g a n t o u s e h i s o f f i c e .
Q And how d i d t r y i n g y o u r h a n d a t c o n s u l t i n g work f o r
you?
A Well, i t was d i f f i c u l t . Not i t was d i f f i c u l t t o
f i n d a j o b i n t h e a r e a , f i n a n c i a l l y I was a l s o h a v i n g
some d i f f i c u l t y . To s a y t h e l e a s t i t was d i f f i c u l t .
Q And d u r i n g t h i s t i m e when you w o u l d r u n i n t o
d i f f i c u l t i e s , would you d i s c u s s t h e s e f i n a n c i a l
d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h M r . Gray?
A Yes, I d i d m e n t i o n t o him t h a t I d o h a v e , you know,
f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s and I ' m not g e t t i n g any jobs.
Of c o u r s e h e t o l d m e t h a t , i f I need any
money o r I n e e d a n y h e l p I s h o u l d l e t h i m know, h e would
help.
Q Did you t a k e him u p on h i s o f f e r f o r h e l p ?
A Yes. Yes, I d i d .
Q P l e a s e t e l l t h e j u r y w h a t you d i d ?
A I t o l d him when I d o n ' t h a v e money, I a s k e d him I
n e e d some money a n d , you know, c a s h t o d o a few t h i n g s .
And h e would h e l p m e .
Q And t h i s i s w h i l e you were u n e m p l o y e d ?
A That's correct.
Q Now, at some point were you able to find
employment?
A Yes. I became the Executive Director of East
Cleveland Neighborhood Center. I began to work at the
center. But our relationship still continued.
Q And did that still include you occasionally asking
Mr. Gray for financial assistance?
A A few times, yes.
Q Up until 1997, when you ran for Mayor -- SO we are

looking at the period of time from '95 'ti1 '97 when you
were unemployed until you became an elected official, the
Mayor of the City of East Cleveland -- during that period
of time did you ask Mr. Gray for financial assistance?
A Yes, I did.
Q And how would he respond?
A Well, he was -- would casually help me, you know,
whenever I asked him.
Q What did he give you in response?

A Not more than $500.
Q And in what form was this $500?

A Most of the time hundred dollars in an envelope.
Q And how often during this period of time, focusing
on '95 through '97, did you ask Mr. Gray for financial
assistance?
A I would say not more than four times.

Q Did you ever pay him back?
A No.
Q Now, what was your understanding of the reason

Mr. Gray was giving you this financial assistance during
this period of your life?
A Well, I consider him as a friend. In fact, we
refer to each other as a brother, so my understanding was
just a help.
Q Now, at some point did your financial relationship

with Mr. Gray change?
A Yes.
Q Now, I want to take you a little bit forward in

time to your first year as Mayor of the City of East
Cleveland.
After being elected and taking office in
January, did you again approach Mr. Gray for money?
A Yes. In fact, I called him, because after I had
been elected I think I was to travel, and I called him, I
needed some money. And he said, oh yeah, that I should
come by.
He gave me a date and time, but he also
wanted to talk with me.
Q Now you mentioned you were travelling sir, where

were you going?
A I think I was going to Nigeria. I don't remember

508
particularly, but I was traveling at the time.
Q Was it typical for you to ask Mr. Gray for travel

money?
A Yes.
Q Now, did you go to Mr. Gray's office to talk with

him in January of '98?
A Yes, I did.
Q Would you summarize for the Grand Jury the nature
of that discussion. Pardon me, the jury the nature of
that discussion?
A Basically when I met we exchanged our greetings and
he gave me the money, you know. And we began to talk
about City Hall and how to run the city. He shared with
me, said look, I would like to help you, to continue to
help you financially, he said, but, I will need contract.
And I need some contract to come my way so that I will
continue to help you.
Q What was your understanding of the conversation you
just had with Mr. Gray?
A Well, at that very moment our relationship kind
of -- I feel our relationship changed.
Q How so?
A Well, initially the relationship was such that he
helped me and I wasn't paying him back, that was help.
But now he's telling me, or he told me that in order to

509
continue to help me financially, he need contract. And
the more contract that would come his way, he will then
give me money.
So our relationship now, in my view, have
moved to a business relationship where I would receive a
pay off, a bribe, that will allow, influence me to make
decisions for what he and I would benefit from.
Q Let's explore that further. What do you do after

this discussion with Mr. Gray?
A Well, in this discussion also, he brought up about,
after a brief discussion, he spoke to me about the tax
collection. There is the law firm that does the tax
collection for the city. And Mr. Gray told me, said
look, who does that work? I told him. He said well, the
individual, one of the individuals that work for a law
firm goes to the same athletic club where he goes. And
that he would like to be a part of that company.
Q Now, who was the law firm that had the collections
contract at that time?
A It's Javitch; Javitch law firm.
Q Now did you take a position as to the Javitch firm

during your election campaign for Mayor?
A Yes, I did.
Q What was that position, sir?

A Many of my citizens were concerned about the
510
tactics in which the law firm uses to collect taxes? And
I promised during my campaign that I would do everything
possible to address that. In fact, my thought was to get
rid of them.
Q What did you do?

A Well.
Q After speaking with Mr. Gray about the Javitch

firm?
A Well, I told Mr. Gray, I said don't worry, I will
take care of it.
So as soon as I got back to my office I told
my executive assistant to set up a meeting between me and
the law firm.
Q And did that meeting take place?

A Yes, it did.
Q Who attended that meeting, sir?

A Well, Natkins and Bruce attended the meeting.
Q And before we go into more details about that

meeting, I'm going to ask you to focus once again on a
different time period, if you are willing to do that?

A Yes.
Q I'm going to take you forward in time now and ask

you to focus on March 11th of 2003.
Sir, did you have an occasion to be in the
parking lot behind Nate Gray's office on March 11th of

2003?
A Yes, I was.
Q And why were you at Nate Gray's office that day?

A Well, since our relationship have changed into
business relationship, where if I need money I'll call
him. So I was travelling, I was traveling to Nigeria. I
already received some money from him for that month. But
I was travelling to Nigeria and I spoke to him about it
that I needed some more money to go with.
So I met with him in his office and he gave
me $700. So, in an envelope. And as soon as I came
into, came out to the parking lot I was stopped by the
FBI.
Q In fact, did you see Special Agent Massie there for

the first time?
A Yes.
Q What did Special Agent Massie ask of you when he

stopped you in the parking lot?
A He asked me, the envelope that I received from
Mr. Gray.
Q Did you give it to him?

A Yes, I did.

What is that, sir?

A This is hundred dollar bills.
Q And do you see anything behind the hundred dollar

bills that are lying on their side?
A Yes.
Q What is it?
A Is that the, the FBI --
Q In fact, we have the original here, don't we?

Why don't I show you the original maybe it
will be easier to see.
Thank you.
MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q Well, the bills have moved around a bit. But I'm

handing you what's been marked as Government's Exhibit
111. Are you better able to see that, sir?
A Yes.
Q And do you recognize what's there?
A Yes. The hundred, one hundred dollar bills, seven
of those, and the envelope in which it was given to me.
Q By whom?
A By Mr. Gray.
Q I would like to show you what has been marked as

Sir, do you recognize the still photograph
that's before you on the monitor?

A Yes.
Q Would you please tell the jury what's happening in

Exhibit 105?
A This is myself and Mr. Gray. Mr. Gray is on the
white shirt, and is handing over envelope to me.
Q That you are accepting in the dark jacket?

A Yes.
Q Sir, was this the first time that you had been in
Mr. Gray's office and received a white envelope with
cash?
A NO, no.
Q Now after being stopped in the parking lot by

Special Agent Massie, did you see him in a couple of
weeks or so after that day?
A Yes.
Q And where did that next meeting take place?

A Well, I had one of my staff call him because I
needed to talk with him. So he drove his car.
Q Wait, I think you misunderstood me. I want to talk

about when you next saw Special Agent Massie.
Let me ask you differently.
Did you go to the FBI offices?
A Yes, I did.
(1 Did that occur a couple weeks after you were

stopped in the parking lot?
514
A Yes.
Q And while you were t h e r e , d i d S p e c i a l Agent Massie
show you something?
A Yes.
Q What d i d he show you?
A He showed me a video.
(1 And what d i d you s e e happening i n t h e v i d e o ?
A I t ' s a video of myself and M r . Gray.
Q Was t h e r e a l s o sound with t h e v i d e o ?
A Yes.
Q And what was, what d i d you h e a r ?
A Well, i t was a d i s c u s s i o n between myself and
Mr. Gray.
Q And what were you t a l k i n g about, s i r , j u s t t e l l us
f l a t out?
A Well, b a s i c a l l y we d i s c u s s e d v a r i o u s b u s i n e s s e s i n
t h e c i t y and t h e v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e c i t y , about
what we have t o do t o g e t them.
Q And what d i d you s e e happen a t t h e v e r y t o p of each
video, t h e f i r s t t h i n g ?
A Well, he handed over t h e envelope t o me of money.
And I w i l l t a k e them and p u t t h e envelope i n my s u i t
jacket.
Q And d i d S p e c i a l Agent Massie show you more than one
video l i k e t h a t ?
A I think it's one that day.
Q And what was in the envelope that he showed you?

In the video that he showed you, receiving an
envelope?
A That was a thousand dollars.
Q Now, at some point did you stop talking with the

FBI?
A Yes.
Q Why?
A Well, I was in denial. I was in denial of
everything and I just couldn't believe that I had got
myself in this trouble.
Q Well, what reason did you initially give the F B I

for receiving these envelopes of cash from Nate Gray?
A Basically, initially I told them it was a gift.
Q Was that the truth, sir?

A No, it was not.
Q Did you eventually tell the F B I the truth?

A Yes, I did.
Q And what is the truth?

A The truth is that our relationship initially
started with friendly relationship with few financial
help here and there. And then when I became the Mayor,
that relationship changed to a business relationship
where Mr. Gray told me that he will need more money and
516
more contract to come his way and that he will give me
more money each time that I request.
So because our relationship, the way it is
now, I'm receiving the bribe from him to make sure I get
this contract to him.
Q Now, sir, I'm going to ask you to go back to '98,

and I'm going to take you back to this meeting you had
begun to testify where representatives of the Javitch
firm were in attendance. Is that okay?
A Thank you. Yes.
Q Who else from the City of East Cleveland attended

the meeting?
A Well, the only person who attended the meeting was
Miss Gloria Lovelace.

Do you recognize what's there?
MS. PEARSON: Maybe if you can enlarge the
text of it including the date and the XC.
Thank you.
A Yes, I do.
Q And what is the date on this letter?

A February 12, 1998.
Q And who is Christal Howard?
A Miss Howard was my executive assistant.

517
Q And do you see the name Gloria Lovelace beneath

Miss Howard's?
A Yes, it was copied to her, she's the Tax
Administrator.
Q In addition to yourself, Miss Lovelace, Mr. Natkins

and Mr. Block, was there anyone else there?
A No.
Q Did you discuss the collections contract with the

Javitch representatives during the meeting that took
place on February 17th?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what was the general nature of the discussion

you had that day?
A Basically I allowed them to give me an overview of

their company, and how they interact with my citizens.
And I pointed out to them my concerns and what I have
heard from my citizens.
Q Now, did you have an opportunity to talk with the

Javitch representatives when Ms. Lovelace wasn't around?
A Oh, yes.
Q And tell the jury what you said to them when she
wasn't in the room?
A Well, basically what I told him, which was the main
reason why I requested for the meeting, was that I asked

Natkins, and I said, do you know Mr. Gray? And he said
518
yes. I said, good, that's my friend and I want him to

work with your company. If you want to keep this
contract, then I want you to work with him. Which he
agreed.
Q Did you have a follow up conversation with Charles

Natkins?
A Yes, I did. I saw him in City Hall, because he
comes once in a while into the city for tax collection
business.
So I also reminded him to make sure they
contact Mr. Gray if they want to keep the contract.
Q Thank you, sir.

Now, at some time did you get something in
writing from the Javitch firm about whether or not it
would hire Mr. Gray?
Yes, I did.
MS. PEARSON: Will you please show the
witness what has been marked as Government's Exhibit
301.
And if we could enlarge the text from the
date down.
Sir, do you recognize this?
Yes, I do.
To whom is it addressed?
Addressed to me.
Q And how are you described in this letter?
A Mayor Onunwor.
Q Doesn't it say Honorable Emmanuel W. Onunwor at the
top?
A Yes.
Q And what's the date of the letter?
A May 27, 1998.
Q Now, focusing on the line that begins

"specifically", what is -- you can actually read it to
yourself if you like. My question is: What's your
understanding of what's been communicated to you there?
A Basically this was to inform me that a law firm
have established a consulting agreement arrangement with

Mr. Gray.
Q And what was your understanding of what Mr. Gray

was going to do for the City of East Cleveland?
A Well, from what is written, where it says
specifically, Mr. Gray, either by himself or through his
representatives, will be available to assist in resolving
disputes between a debtor against whom our office is
handling an account and our client.
MS. PEARSON: I would like to focus on the
second page of this letter now. And the first --
actually all the way down to the signature line, you
can enlarge it.

Q Sir, there it says, "I wish to reiterate what
Charles Natkins and I expressed during our meeting at
City Hall", and I'll stop there.
And it's signed by Bruce Block, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q Was he the second person in attendance at that

meeting?
A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: We can take that exhibit
down, thank you.
Q I would like to --
MR. WHITAKER: Excuse me. What Exhibit
Number was that?

MS. PEARSON: That was 301.
Show the witness next what has been marked
as 3 0 0 , 3-0-0. And again, if we could enlarge the
text of that first page, including the date.
Q Sir, have you seen this letter before today?

A Yes.
Q It's not addressed to you, is it?

A No, it's not.
MS. PEARSON: And will you please go to
the second page, please.
Q Just so you are familiar, this is what's attached

to that first letter, isn't it?
A Yes, it is.
MS. PEARSON: And just focusing on the
title of that document and the first paragraph. If
you could enlarge that.
Q Sir, do you recognize what this is?

A Yes, the consulting agreement.
Q Between?
A Between Nate Gray and the Javitch, Block and
Rathbone .
Q And how did you first see this agreement along with
the letter attached to it as the first page?
A I don't remember specifically, but during all this
proceeding I have seen it.
Q So in preparation for your testimony here at trial?

A Yeah, I've seen it.
Q But let me ask a different question. Did you see

this in 1998?
A I am -- I think I did, yeah.
Q Now, we've looked at two documents that seem to --

we looked at two documents, Exhibit 301 and 300. And you
read what they describe as Mr. Gray's duties relative to
Javitch, Block. Tell the jury what you expected Mr. Gray
to do relative to the City of East Cleveland and Javitch,
Block?
A Well, really nothing, because I did not expect him
to do any work.
Q Why not?
A Well, he was -- business conversation just to be
part of the organization, just to get paid, and if he's
paid then he also paid me, which is getting money and
bribe me in that regards. He's not a professional to
collect taxes.
Q Now, after Mr. Gray was hired by the Javitch law

firm, how did your financial relationship with him
change?
A Well, it did not change much. It just, it just
involved, it's more of a business like where each time
that I need money, it's on request. If I need money this

week, I will talk to him. If I need it next week, or
next month or each month. So it's a request, and each
time I request it that he did not turn me down.
Q How did the frequency of your request, now that

Nate Gray was hired by Javitch and you were Mayor,
compare with your request back in '95 through '97, during
the period when you weren't Mayor?
A After they included him in their contract, the
frequency of my requests did increase.
Q Give the jury an idea of how much more frequently

you would call and ask for money after you were Mayor?
A Well, I did not record that down, so it all depends

523
on when I would call. But it is more often than it was
done before.
Q And why was it more often now?

A Well, on our business arrangement where he told me
he needed more business, the more business that would
come to him, the more money he would pass to me. So when
I need money I call him.
Q And when you called him for money, in what form did
you receive that money?
A Most of the time hundred dollar bills in a white
envelope.
Q And where did you go to get it?

A His office.
Q Now, at some point did the City of East Cleveland's

relationship change significantly with the Javitch law
firm?
A Yes.
Q And what caused that change?

A Well, I requested for the performance audit to be
done in the city to allow me to look at the strength and
the weaknesses of the city in order to professionally

administer the city well.
And then that's in discussion which was also
held with the members of Fiscal Commission. I have
already had a consulting individual to do the performance

524
audit. But when we met at the Fiscal Commission meeting,
the Fiscal Commission members suggested we bring in the
State Auditors Office to perform those duties, which I
agree.
(1 Did the Tax Department become one of the

departments focused on by the auditors?
A Yes, it was.
Q What recommendation did the auditors make regarding

how the Tax Department should work?
A The auditors felt in their recommendation that the
responsibilities and the duties that a law firm was
performing, that it will be to the city's advantage to
have RITA, the RITA, the Regional Income Tax
Administration, to perform those duties.
Q And did you adopt that recommendation?

A Yes.
Q And at some point did you learn that the Javitch

law firm terminated its contract with Nate Gray?
A Yes.
Q How did you learn that?

A Well, I met with him. I met with Mr. Gray, and
then he told me that, that the law firm have terminated
his contract with them.
Q Did you and he discuss what you would do about that
situation?
A Yes. We discussed the need to look for another
collection company. And which he said he will look into
that and look for other companies.
Q Did some of those discussions take place in

Mr. Gray's office?
A Basically all of the discussions in his office.
Q And we'll come back to that subject in a while. I
would like to move on to ask you about another company.
Are you familiar with a company by the name

of Ralph Tyler?
A Yes, I am.
Q Did you ever have an opportunity while the Mayor of

the City of East Cleveland to hire the Ralph Tyler
Company?
A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: I would like to show the
526.
And if we could enlarge as much of the top
part.
Q Sir, do you recognize Exhibit 5 2 6 ?

A Yes, I do.
Q You see it's a professional services agreement,

isn't it?
A Yes.
Q And it's blank day of 2000, correct?
A Yes.
Q And what agreement does this represent?

A Well, this is a professional service agreement in
which case I do not need to go to Council for approval
for professional service agreement.
What I was trying to do, in my meeting with
Mr. Gray he spoke to me many times about finding work for

Ralph Tyler Engineering Company.
So based on that request and discussions, I
began to look for ways to have Ralph Tyler Engineering
Company to work for the city, bearing in mind at the same
time that we do have already a consulting engineering
company on board.
So I could not just have Ralph Tyler come to
become the total consulting engineer for the city.
So I had this professional status agreement
in place just to bring them in to work with few of the
departments on projects, less than $15,000.
Q Sir, after hiring Ralph Tyler Company in January of

2000, did you have an occasion to ask Mr. Gray for
additional money?
A After we entered into contract with them, yes, I
did.
Q And what were you going to do with that money?

527
A Well, I ask him for -- I needed about 9 or $8,000.
I was travelling to Nigeria on a project that I needed
done at the time.
Q And what did Mr. Gray say in response to your

request for 8 to 9,000 dollars?
A He said he will talk to Ralph about it.
Q And when he said Ralph, who did you understand him

to be referring to?
A Ralph Tyler.
Q What happened regarding your request? Did Mr. Gray
give you any money?
A Yes.
Q Tell the jury how that happened?

A Well, on one weekend he called me and I met with
him in a house off Chagrin. When I came in he was in the
house with his girlfriend, where he and I went into
another room where he gave me the money in an envelope.
Q Did you have an opportunity, other opportunities,

to hire the Ralph Tyler Company after January of 2000?
A Oh yes, we did.
Q Sir, I would like to show you first what has been

marked as Government's Exhibit 523.
MS. PEARSON: We can enlarge the text just
for readability.
Q Do you recognize that, sir?

A Yes, I do.
Q Tell the jury what it is?

A Well, let me give you a quick synopsis. We --
because of my relationship with Mr. Gray and his request
for me to make sure we hire Ralph Tyler, I decided to get
rid of the consulting engineer that we have already. So
I convinced members of Council that we need another
consulting engineer. We then had other engineering
companies, Ralph Tyler and a few other companies, to come
before Council to make a presentation in terms of their
qualifications. But I was in that meeting, suggesting an
assistant to Council at the end the presentation to make
sure we select Ralph Tyler. So at the end of that
proceedings, the Council approved for me to set up Ralph
Tyler as the City Engineer.
In that regards I sent a letter to Ralph
Tyler and that is the letter you see.
Q Why did you bother to bring in more engineering

companies if you had already made up your mind regarding
the Ralph Tyler Company?
A Again, going back to my business arrangement with
Mr. Gray, the more contracts that will come through him,
the more money, which is bribe, to come to me.
So because of that I made sure I got rid of
the existing engineering company and convinced Council to

529
bring in this new company. Of course then he will get
more money and of course more money will come to me.
Q NOW, let's go to what's been marked as Government's

Exhibit 524.
Do you recognize this, sir?
A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: If we can enlarge just the
top paragraph.
Q This is also a professional services agreement?

A Yes, it is. If I I'm not -- there are different
departments in the city, in which case from time to time
without different professional services agreement. In
this case I think have to do with Martin Luther King
project .
MS. PEARSON: And also lastly 525, please.
Enlarge just the top.
Q Do you recognize this, sir?

A Yes, I do.
Q And what is it?

A It's another professional service agreement.
Q Now each of these agreements we've seen, 523, well
the letter is 523, 524, 525, are those all between the
City of East Cleveland and Ralph Tyler Company?
A Yes.
Q Sir, after entering these agreements, along with

530
E x h i b i t 5 2 6 , how d i d y o u r f i n a n c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h
Mr. Gray c h a n g e ?
A Well, whenever I a s k him money, w h i c h i s t h e p a y o f f
o r t h e b r i b e t h a t he w i l l give me, a f t e r Ralph T y l e r
a g r e e m e n t came i n p l a c e , t h a t amount i n c r e a s e d t o $ 7 0 0 .
Q And how f r e q u e n t l y would you g e t t h e $700 f r o m
Mr. Gray?
A T h a t ' s on my r e q u e s t . I may r e q u e s t o n e t h i s week
o r n e x t week, o r e a c h month.
Q And i f you c a n j u s t h e l p t h e j u r y u n d e r s t a n d , did
you s t a r t t o make more r e q u e s t s now t h a t you h a d more
c o n t r a c t s t h a n you h a d e a r l i e r ?
A That's correct.
Q S i r , I would l i k e t o a s k you a b o u t a d i f f e r e n t
company, t h i s o n e i s c a l l e d CH2M H i l l , and it i s a l s o
sometimes r e f e r r e d t o a s OMI. A r e you f a m i l i a r w i t h
t h o s e companies?
A Yes, I am.
Q And how d i d you f i r s t become o f CM2H H i l l ?
A W e l l , a s a member o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s M a y o r ' s
C o n f e r e n c e I was i n a c o n f e r e n c e i n W a s h i n g t o n when t h e
CM2H H i l l made a p r e s e n t a t i o n a b o u t t h e i r a b i l i t y t o
a d m i n i s t e r water and sewer o p e r a t i o n s . I did n o t think
t o o much a b o u t i t , b u t i t g o t my a t t e n t i o n b e c a u s e w e
n e e d some h e l p i n r e g a r d s t o o u r W a t e r D e p a r t m e n t .
531
So when I came back and I, in one of my
meetings I mentioned to Mr. Gray. And then of course he
told me that he's working those things out and he know
this company.
Q Did you eventually meet with representatives of

CH2M Hill?
A Yes, I did.
Q Where did that initial meeting take place?

A It took place in Mr. Gray's office.
Q Who set it up?

A He set it up.
Q Were you in attendance?

A Yes, I was.
Q Who else was there, sir?

A There are other people, I don't remember all their
names. It was a person by name of Howlie Davis, somebody
by the name of Reneau, a few of us.
Q Now, did you have more than one meeting eventually

with this company?
A Well, after the meeting with them, we was talking
in Mr. Grays office and I then invited him them to City
Hall?
Q When you and Mr. Gray were alone and talking about
CH2M Hill, what did he specifically say to you about that
company?
532
A Well, he said he know of them, and he will set them
up to help us. And it will be a great project, not only
for them, it would be a great one for himself and for me.
Q Did you competitively bid the contract the City of

East Cleveland to the CH2M Hill?
A No, I did not.
Q Why not?
A It would be crazy for me to bid for it. I mean, it
was coming from Mr. Gray and I know that if the contract
go through him then that would be more money, more bribe
would come to me. So it would be stupid for me to
advertise for another company, so I did not.
Q Do you remember how much money, how much the City

of East Cleveland was obligated to pay CH2M Hill each
month?
A About 300,000.
Q And how long did the contract last as originally

signed?
A I don't remember correctly right now.
Q Okay. I would like to show you what has been

Do you recognize the first page of this
document, sir?
A The professional service agreement.
Q And I would also like to take you to the signature

page.
Sir, do you recognize your signature?
A Yes, I do.
Q In the upper right hand?

A Yes.
Q And what date did you sign?

A On 1 1 / 2 0 / 0 1 .
Q And was there an eventual amendment to this

contract?
A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: May we see that language,
please.
Maybe we ask can just focus on the top.
Q On what date was this amendment effective?

A It was March 4, 2002.
Q Now, when did OM1 or CM2H Hill actually start

working in the City of East Cleveland?
A I don't remember when they did right now, it's been
a long time.
Q Let me ask you differently. Was it before or after

the amendment?
A Well, I think after the amendment.
Q Now, what change, if any, was there to your

financial relationship with Nate Gray after you entered
into this agreement with CH2M Hill?
534
A Well, I met with him and I expressed an interest
that financially things were getting very hard for me.
And I told him that in fact I want to find another job,
you know, to do in the evenings, to help me bring in more
money, to help me financially.
Q Sir, were you really considering moonlighting while

you were the Mayor of East Cleveland?
A Well, I was considering a job, but at the same
time, since our arrangement was such that more contract
comes to him more money come to me, we entered into the
contract. I have not seen any money. So I have to tell
him that I need another job. In which case he said, oh
no, you don't have to look for another job. How much do
you need?
I told him, I said well, I need money, you
know, $700. He said okay, he said don't worry. I will
give you a thousand dollars every month.
Q And how were you to determine when you would get

this one thousand dollars from Mr. Gray?
A Well, he told me to come at the beginning and end
of every month.
Q Was this the first time you had a date assigned on

which you should show up to get money?
MR. WHITAKER: Objection to the leading
question.
THE COURT: Sustained. Why don't you
rephrase the question.

BY MS. PEARSON:
Q How was it determined when you would contact

Mr. Gray for money?
A Well, in that meeting he told me that, you know,
every month, he would be able to give me a thousand
dollars. In which case, most of the time I would call
him or he would call me and we would meet up in his
office.
Q Sir, even then, were there ever occasions where you

would ask for extra money?
A Oh, yes, times when I'm traveling, I do ask him for
money and he will give me.

I remember also when I, my wife and I have to
travel to Las Vegas he also give me some money.
Q Sir, I'm going to ask you now to focus on some

videos and some conversations that were intercepted that
involved persons I'll ask you if you recognize.
MS. PEARSON: Will you first play what's
been marked as Government's Exhibit 1021.
(Tape played. )
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Sir, who is speaking?

A That was me and Mr. Gray. I was calling or we
536
call, we talk to each other in regards to setting up a
time when I will go to receive the money from him.
Q Did you hear yourself say I will see you at five

o'clock?
A That's correct.
Q And what did you expect to happen at five o'clock?

A That is the time we had set when I will meet with
him to receive the money from him.
MS. PEARSON: I would like to play next
what's been marked as Government's Exhibit 1022.
This is September 30th, 2002.
(Tape played. )
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Sir --
MR. EMOFF: Pardon me, your Honor.
Objection. May we come to the bench for a moment?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE COURT: What's the grounds?
MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, forgive me for
interrupting. I wanted to bring to your attention
at the earliest time what's wrong with the
government's procedure here. They are playing the

537
tapes twice, so each set of tapes is going to be
placed twice.
THE COURT: I think that's with regard to
this. This is the one that there was an objection
that he was, the earlier witness was characterizing
the testimony. And the government, at that point in
time, just simply says, well, we'll just play it
then.
The objection was that it was a
characterization, what had occurred in this
conversation. So that it was played earlier on
because Mr. Whitaker basically invited it to be
played.
MR. EMOFF: Except I think, with Joe Jones
as an example, they will have Special Agent Massie
go through the tapes and play the tapes, and then
pus Teamor on.
THE COURT: This is where it occurred to
this point.
MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, it was right --
it was at Mr. Whitakerls request we played it. And
there was at least one other tape that we played, at
his request, rather than have Special Agent Massie
simply answer questions.
MR. EMOFF: I'm saying it isn't fair, at

538
least in the cases in chief, that the tapes be
played twice, and that's really what's wrong with
this process.
THE COURT: I don't know, it's kind of
invited. I don't think there is anything inherently
in the rules you can't play something twice if you
have different witnesses and you want to ask them
somewhat different questions about the same topic.
But Mr. Whitaker asked for it and that's what
happened.
MR. EMOFF: It just became clear to me, at
least, your Honor, that this seemed to be a problem
and --
THE COURT: Let's see what happened in the
other case, just in terms of the time issue. It's
possible I don't want the tapes played twice.
MS. PEARSON: Neither do we, your Honor.
THE COURT: This is a good reason for it.
MR. DETTELBACH: We'll be very selective
in doing that. Also, because it was closer in time.
MR. JENKINS: May I say something, Steve?
Everybody's back was turned to towards us at the
moment, but the witness tried to make some kind of
contact with the jury, and he just made a gesture.
Could he be told not to make any gestures?

539
THE COURT: I didn't see it.
MR. JENKINS: That's what I said, your
back was towards it. I was looking that way.
THE COURT: I'll try to keep an eye on it.

(Ohe following proceedings were
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Sir, did you recognize the voices, and indeed you

could see a video there as well, couldn't you?
A Yes.
Q And who was meeting during that video of 10/22?

A The video of the meeting is between myself and
Mr. Gray in his office.
Q And what was the first thing that happened during

that meeting?
A He gave me an envelope.
Q And what was in the envelope, sir?

A A thousand dollars.
Q One thousand dollars?

A Yeah, one thousand dollars. I'm sorry.
Q Now you and Mr. Gray went on to have a discussion,

didn ' t you?
A Yes.
Q And I'll try not to use the transcript any more

540
t h a n n e c e s s a r y , b u t you r e c a l l y o u r s e l f s a y i n g t a k e them
t o dinner?
A Yes.
Q Who were you r e f e r r i n g t o ?
A I ' m r e f e r r i n g t o members of C i t y C o u n c i l .
Q And why w e r e you a s k i n g M r . G r a y t o t a k e members o f
E a s t Cleveland C i t y Council t o d i n n e r ?
A Well, a t t h a t t i m e , members o f C o u n c i l w e r e h a v i n g
some d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h OM1 CH2M H i l l , w h i c h a company,
a g a i n as I s p o k e e a r l i e r , t h a t came t h r o u g h M r . Gray t o
me. And some o f t h e s e C o u n c i l l o r s , I t h i n k two o f them,
w e r e new a t t h e t i m e .
And t h e w a t e r , w h a t w e w e r e d o i n g , t h e W a t e r
D e p a r t m e n t s e n t o u t b i l l s t o t h e community w h i c h was
estimated. And o f c o u r s e e v e r y o n e was v e r y u p s e t b e c a u s e
t h e b i l l s were s o much a n d t h e C o u n c i l l o r s r e c e i v e d s o
many c a l l s .
And o f c o u r s e I t a l k e d t o M r . G r a y t o a t
l e a s t make t h e C o u n c i l l o r s u n d e r s t a n d t h e m a g n i t u d e o f
t h e c o n t r a c t s o w e ' l l keep them a n d t h a t t h i n g s w i l l b e
a l l right.
Q D i d you h e a r r e f e r e n c e t o G r e g P a r k e r ?
A Yes.
Q Who i s M r . Parker?
A G r e g P a r k e r was t h e m a n a g e r who w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
541
the Water Department working for CH2M Hill and OMI.
MS. PEARSON: Now, sir, I would like to
play what has been marked as Government's Exhibit
1025. That's also on September 30th, 2002. It's
the very very end of this meeting we just saw.
(Video played. )
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Sir, what were you and Mr. Gray discussing?

A Well, I mentioned to him that my wife and I, we
would like to take off for our anniversary, a vacation,
whatever. And of course she wants to go to Las Vegas.
And I was telling him that I needed money. And which he
said, you know, he will handle that. And we are supposed
to leave'on the eighth and I was to meet with him on the
seventh to receive some money from him.
Q And just as a point of reference, you were leaving

on October 8th?
A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: I would like to play what's
been marked next as Government's Exhibit 1029. This
is 10/7/02.
(Tape played. )
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Sir, did you eventually meet with Mr. Gray on that
day, October 7th, at about 1:00 o'clock?

A Yes.
Q And what happened during that meeting?

A Again, we met and we discussed about my travelling
and he gave me money.
Q And I would like to show you now what's been marked

as Government's Exhibit 10 -- pardon me, 130.
Sir, do you recognize -- this is a multi-page
exhibit. Do you recognize page I?
A Yes.
Q What is it?
A This is my reservation papers and flight
information and my accommodation.
Q Do you see your name at the top?

A Yes.
Q And whose name do you see to the left of yours?

A That's my wife's.
Q Pamela?
A Yes.
Q And down on the flight information, taking your

attention to the left side of the page?
A Yes.
Q When does it show that you depart Cleveland?

A October 8th.
Q And did you leave Cleveland on October 8th?

A Yes, we did.
543
Q And this is a multi-page exhibit. You've seen it
in its entirety before today, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q Where did you get did money for your trip to Vegas
on October 8th?
A From Mr. Gray.
Q Was October 8th the last payment you received from

Mr. Gray?
A Oh, no.
MS. PEARSON: I would like to move forward

then and ask that the witness be shown what's been
marked as Government's Exhibit 1032. This is
11/04/02.
(Tape played. )
Q Sir, did you go to Mr. Gray's office around 2:00 on

that day, November 4th?
A Yes. Again we called to set up a time when to
meet.
MS. PEARSON: I would like to play a video
clip. There will be no sound with this. It's
marked 1066, Government's Exhibit 1066.
(Video played. )
Q Sir, what did the jury see happening in 1066?

A Well, I met with him as usual, and then he gave me
the envelope which contains a thousand dollars inside.

544
And I put that inside my suit jacket.
Q Did you and Mr. Gray talk after you pocketed the
cash?
A We spoke a few minutes.
MS. PEARSON: Will you please play what's
(Tape played. )
MS. PEARSON: You can stop now. I'm
sorry.
Q Mr. Onunwor, did you hear the word demolition?

A Yes.
Q What was the discussion regarding demolition?

A Well, Mr. Gray and I, we talk about demolition
contract. Which is another phase of contract that may
come to the city, where abandoned properties are
demolished, in which case companies do the work.
So he had the opinion in our discussion to
try to set up demolition companies that will come in and
get the responsibility, or get the contract to do the
job. Of which if they get the contract then we will get
more money to me, you know, I will receive more bribe
from him.
Q So you were hoping to personally benefit?
A Yes.
Q Did you hear a reference to our boy Ross?

A Yes.
Q Who is Ross?
A Ross Brankatelli is the city Chief Engineer and
also Director of the Service Department.
Q And how did you first get introduced to Ross

Brankatelli?
A Well, I was looking for an engineer to be
responsible for that position. I said this in many of my

conversation. I do discuss everything with Mr. Gray, my
needs in City Hall, what I'm trying to do including
personnel. So as we began to look for a person he told
me he would see what he can do. And he was able to
arrange a meeting between me and Mr. Ross through another
individual that he knows.
Q Where did that first meeting between you and Ross

Brankatelli take place?
A It took place in his office.
Q Whose office, please?

A Mr. Gray's office.
Q Did there come a point in time when you and

Mr. Gray spoke about Ross telling people that he met you
in Mr. Gray's office?
A Yes, I was surprised because we were in a public
meeting. And after Ross was there I introduce him, and
then he went on to tell people that we met at Mr. Gray's

546
office.
(Tape played. )
MS. PEARSON: You can stop it there.
Q Mr. Onunwor, why was it a problem that Ross kind of

talked too much?
A Well, the relationship between myself and Mr. Gray
is between the two of us, and I did not want anyone else
to know about it.
Q Why not?
A Well, I mean, I'm receiving bribe from him. I'll
be foolish to let anyone else to know about it.
Q The payment we saw you receive on November 4, was

that the last you received from Mr. Gray, sir?
A No.
Q Let's focus now on Exhibit 1035.

MS. PEARSON: Would you please play that.
It's November 29, '02.
(Tape played. )
Q Sir, did you go to Mr. Gray's office around 3:00
o'clock on November 29?
A Yes, I did.
MS. PEARSON: Would you please play what

(Video played. )
MS. PEARSON: Thank you.
Q Sir, did you hear the discussion initially about

collections?
A Yes.
Q Did you also hear the words 90 days since they went
south?
A Yes.
Q Would you please tell the jury what you and

Mr. Gray were discussing then?
A In this regards, the law firm, it's been 90 days
since they terminated the agreement between themselves
and Mr. Gray.
Q And which law firm are you referring to?

A Javitch law firm.
Q And what were you planning to do about that?

A Well, what we decided to do was then to advertise
for request for qualification, or do, he suggest a
request for proposal for all the companies.
And in my and my suggestion to him is that
since he will be looking for companies, maybe he should
look for at least two or three companies, so that if they
submit their proposal, at least one of the companies will
be selected, which would still come through him.
Q Sir, just to help the jury understand, why as the

548
sitting Mayor of East Cleveland are you discussing who
will do collections for your city with Nate Gray?
A Well, because Mr. Gray and I developed a business
relationship from the beginning where he told me the more
contract that will come to him, the more money that will
come to me, which will be a bribe.
Again, I needed the money.
Q And sir, in fact, what was the very first thing

that happened in the video we just saw?
A Well, he passed an envelope to me. And if, you
know, we call each other first to set up the meeting and
time. So when we met, he gave me the envelope which
contains a thousand dollars.
Q Sir, in that same discussion, did you hear the

words demolition?
A Yes.
Q And then you said to make sure we do it quietly?

A Yes.
Q Tell us first what you were referring to regarding

demolition?
A Well, basically he is to organize or get in touch
with two or three companies whose responsibility will be
to bid or submit proposal for demolition work. In which
case we will select them, and we want it to be done
quietly.
Q Why? Why quietly, sir?
A Well, so that no one will know that we have
connection with setting those companies up in that way.
So it will seem as if they bid for the job like any other
company.
Q Did your discussion with Mr. Gray continue that

afternoon?
A Yes.
Q Will you please?

(Video played. )
Q Sir, I first ask you, who is Bob Townsend?

A Bob Townsend was the Chairperson for CMHA Board of
Commissioners at the time. And he was the President of
the Armistad, a member of the housing agency.
Q What plans did you have with either housing or

Armis tad?
A Well, we had a new housing construction project
with CMHA, of course of which Townsend was also working
as the President of the Board. So that new housing
construction was a consign for me, because we wanted that
work to proceed immediately.
In addition to that, we also have a housing
rehabilitation project where we rehabilitate property

550
that is owned by many of our citizens who qualify for
federal monies.
So we need a number of housing agency to be
responsible as the administrator for those funds for
housing rehabilitation.
So Armistad, which Mr. Townsend is also the
President of the Board, Armistad was to help us with a
new housing -- with the housing rehabilitation and maybe
further down the line also new housing construction.
Q And you mentioned twice the term CMHA. What do you

mean by that?
A Well, I was making reference to the fact that the
current arrangement that we had with CMHA regards to new
housing construction to make sure we move on that
quickly.
Q And CMHA stands for Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing

Authority?
A Yes.
Q Sir, towards the end of this clip did you hear

yourself saying that you had to protect our business?
A Yes.
Q And you also said I'm going to run again?

A Yes.
Q Tell the jury what you meant by those comments?

A Well, again, Mr. Gray and I, that I have
551
accomplished what we consider is a solid business
relationship. And of course with me staying in office I

will protect that business relationship, which in fact
gives me bribe through him. That's what I mean. And I
also plan to run again to keep my position, which will
protect our business relationship.
Q Sir, Mr. Gray said, "and you know you don't have to
worry about any contributions or anything," what did you
understand him to mean by that statement?
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q You may answer.

A That means to run an effective campaign as a Mayor
you need money, you need money to run the campaign. And
what he's telling me is that I will not have to worry to
go around looking for someone, or people, to contribute.
It means we will have enough money in our business

arrangement that will allow me to run smoothly without
much headache.
Q Sir, the envelope you received with cash on 11/29,

was it the last you received from Mr. Gray?
A No.
MS. PEARSON: I would like to have played

what's been marked as Government's Exhibit 1039.
552
(Tape played. )
Q Sir, what were you asking Mr. Gray when you said
did Santa Claus bring anything?
A I was asking him for money.
Q Did you eventually meet with him later in the week?

A Yes, we did.
Q Did you hear the term landbank land?

A Yes.
Q Please tell the jury what that is?

A The city, the city is allowed to establish landbank
properties. Those are properties that the city receives
from the Sheriff or from individuals that want to donate
their property to the city. In which case, the city will
compile those lists, and then maybe sell it off or give
it up for that development.
Q Did you and Mr. Gray have discussions about

development on East Cleveland landbank land?
A Yes.
Q Would you please tell us about those discussions?

A We had many discussions about redevelopment in the
city which involved the use of land and properties. The
good thing about landbank property is that it doesn't
cost the buyer much money, it's cheaper to develop. So
we have discussion on how get developers who will use
those landbank properties to redevelop the city.

Q Did you eventually have a discussion with the
developer and Mr. Gray?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall the name of that person?
A Not right now.
Q Was the nature of the discussion during this

meeting this developer building on lands within the City
of East Cleveland, landbank lands?
MR. WHITAKER: Objection. I think it
involves hearsay, your Honor.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Sir, what was the nature of the discussions that

you and Mr. Gray had with the developer, just its general
nature?
THE COURT: Well, if Mr. Gray was there I
don't think it's hearsay.
MR. WHITAKER: I have no prob lem with
Mr. Gray's discussion, it's the others.
THE COURT: If he's there, it's just the
course of the discussion that's being offered. I
don't know what the statement is going to be.
MR. WHITAKER: I don't either. Okay.
That's good.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q You may proceed?

A Mr. Gray and I again met and we discussed the
development of houses and redevelopment in the city. And
if I'm not mistaken I think that we met with an
individual from Boston and I think his name is Pena,
something like that.
Then I give them a week overview. You have
to remember these things happened years ago. I'm getting
old I can't remember all these things. But I give him a
quick overview about the redevelopment evidence efforts
and where I see redevelopment in various areas in the
city and the landbank properties in those areas.
MS. PEARSON: Thank you, sir. I would
like to play what's been marked as Exhibit 4002.
(Tape played. )
MS. PEARSON: You can stop it there, thank
you.
Q Mr. Onunwor, what was happening during that

conversation between you and Mr. Gray?
A This is a phone call, again to prepare for our
meeting, as usual, to set up a time when to receive the

money from him.
Q And did that meeting take place?

555
A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: Will you please play the
video that's marked 1042. It's January 3rd, 2003.
(Video played. )
Q Mr. Onunwor, what was the first thing that happened

at the beginning of that video?
A When we met he gave me an envelope which contains a
thousand dollars and I took it.
Q Did you see your hat go on top of the envelope?

A Yeah.
Q Was that intentional?

A Unconsciously, I think -- not I think, there is
something in me that kind of felt, you know, this is not
done good, what we were doing wasn't good. But I didn't
think much about it, I just took it and tried to cover it
up with my cap.
Q Then you and Mr. Gray spoke about interviewing

people, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q Would you put that into context for us?

A Well, we talked about demolition again, and of
course his answer was that he have a company, or
companies, or individuals who will be ready to bid in
demolition activities. And then we -- he moved on to
talk about housing rehabilitation in which he visited one

556
of the individuals that he have in mind to be involved in
the rehabilitation. And in his estimate he was not
pleased with the time type of work and magnitude of work
the individual has done.
And then, of course, I agree with him, that
we need to make sure we interview and screen people who
will be able to produce.
Q Sir, did your discussion with Mr. Gray continue

that afternoon?
A Yes.
marked as 1043, please.
(Video played. )
MS. PEARSON: I think we can stop it
there.
Q Mr. Onunwor, focusing on the beginning part of that

conversation. Did you hear the reference they done
skated too long?
A Yes.
Q Put that into context for us.

A Again we are --
A In this case we are discussing the law firm, the
Javitch law firm that collects our taxes. And since they
557
have terminated the contract arrangement between them and
Mr. Gray, and he tells me that they have skated too long
or they've been in the city. And I said yes, they have
been in the city too long, I want to get rid of them
anyway.
Q What was your understanding of what he meant by

they skated too long?
MS. PEARSON: I'll move on.
Q You also talked about RITA during that

conversation, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q And what was the nature of that conversation

regarding RITA?
A Well, RITA is the Regional Income Tax Agency that
helps every other municipality around the county to
collect taxes, mainly income tax. And according to the
performance audit report, the suggestion was that we
should take the activities from the law firm and have
RITA, which is the agency, to carry on the activities.
And which we did.
But at the same time, we began to discuss
between myself and Mr. Gray the possibility of having,
for him to search and see if he can set up a different

558
company, maybe I can have those company to come back and
do the same thing.
Q In addition to RITA?
A Yes.
Q Sir, there is also discussion about how many people

worked in a certain East Cleveland department. Do you
remember that?
A Yes, the Tax Department.
Q And what's the responsibility of the Tax

Department?
A Well, to collect income tax for the city.
Q And at the time of this conversation, who was the

head of that department?
A Gloria Lovelace.
Q Lastly, sir, did you hear the name Terry Hamilton?

A Yes.
Q Who is she?
A She was the Director of Cuyahoga Metropolitan
Housing Authority.
Q Sir, the payment you received on January 3rd, 2003

that we just saw, was that the last you received from
Mr. Gray?
A No.
MS. PEARSON: Would you plea play what's

(Tape played. )
Q Sir, did you and Mr. Gray meet later that week?
A Yes, again it's our arrangement to call to schedule
when to meet, and we did meet.
MS. PEARSON: Would you please play what's
1/30/03.
(Video played. )
Q Sir, focusing on the first part of that

conversation regarding collections, what was the
conversation about?
A Well, refresh my memory.
Q Sure, may I show --

THE COURT: There is no question.
MS. PEARSON: Please show 1049-B, please.
Focus on lines 10 through 13 or 10 through the
bottom of the page, even.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Sir, there is a reference that begins at 10 but

goes on to line 11, "are we going to move forward on the
collections or are we going to wait on that?"
You said, "we'll wait on that."
What did you mean when you said we'll wait on
that?
560
A A g a i n , we d i s c u s s e d t h i s c o l l e c t i o n i s s u e m o s t o f
the t i m e . And a t t h i s t i m e I h a v e a l r e a d y b e g u n t o
p r o c e e d f o r RITA t o h a n d l e t h e c o l l e c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s , a n d
I want t o see how t h a t would t u r n o u t b e f o r e I d e c i d e
w h e t h e r M r . Gray a n d I w i l l b e a b l e t o g e t a n o t h e r
company a n d move t h e o t h e r r o u t e .
Q And l a s t l y , on t h e s e c o n d p a g e , you d o n ' t n e e d t o
s e e i t , b u t d i d you h e a r a r e f e r e n c e t o G r e g a n d t h e r e
was a m e e t i n g coming u p on Monday?
A Yes.
Q And who i s t h e Greg?
A G r e g P a r k e r i s t h e Manager o f t h e W a t e r D e p a r t m e n t
w o r k i n g f o r CH2M H i l l a n d O M I .
Q And you s a i d you were you w e r e n ' t g o i n g t o a l l o w
t h a t m e e t i n g t o become a g r i p e s e s s i o n . Did you h e a r
that?
A Yes.
Q What d i d you mean?
A W e l l , a t t i m e s i n m e e t i n g s p e o p l e come, a n d
c i t i z e n s o r maybe e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s , a n d t h e y would b e
s h o u t i n g forward and back and n o t h i n g i s a c h i e v e d . I
would p r e f e r t o h a v e a m e e t i n g where w e d i s c u s s t h e
i s s u e s and have a p l a n o f a c t i o n , a s opposed t o j u s t
complaints.
Q S i r , I would l i k e t o h a v e you l i s t e n t o w h a t ' s

(Video played. )
Q Sir, I'm not going to ask you to repeat things that

you've already testified to, but in brief, what were you
and Mr. Gray talking about during this last clip?
A We are discussing again about am Armistad in
regards to the role that they will play in the housing
redevelopment in the city and area of the housing
rehabilitation, and also new housing construction.
Q Now, were there ever, was there ever a time when

you received money from Nate Gray other than what you've
already told us when you we went to his house and
received the 8 to 9,000 dollars. Was there a time in
early 2003 where you received an envelope from Mr. Gray
outside of his office?
A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: I would like to focus on
what's been marked as Government's Exhibit 1051
first.
(Tape played. )
Q Sir, did that take place on the 25th of February,

2003?
A Yes.
Q Why were you Planning to meet Mr. Gray on Thursday?
A Again, to receive the money as we planned.

562
Q Why didn't you mention the money in the

conversation?
A Well, I -- it would be foolish on my part to
mention the money because, you know, I'm accepting a
bribe from him and I don't want to mention it.
MS. PEARSON: Let's play what's been
February 27th, 2003.
(Tape played. )
Q. Sir, why did you really really need to see Mr. Gray
that day?
A Well, I needed the money.
MS. PEARSON: Please play what's marked as
Government's Exhibit 1053, that same day.
(Tape played. )
Q Mr. Onunwor, what were you physically doing while
talking with Mr. Gray in that conversation?
A I was driving.
(1 Did you hear him reference an individual named Bob?

A Yes.
Q What's his last name?

A Bob Townsend.
Q Did you and Mr. Gray meet up at the US Bank parking
lot?
A Yes, we did.
Q I want to show you what's been marked as
Do you recognize this parking lot area?
A Yes, I do.
Q Sir, by touching your screen, will you show where

your car was relative to Mr. Gray's in this parking lot?
A My car was there and Mr. Gray was right here.
Q And did you actually get out of your car?

A Yes.
Q And what did you do after getting out of your car?

A I got out of my car and then enter his car.
Q What happened inside Mr. Gray's car, sir?

A He gave me an envelope.
Q What was in the envelope?

A A thousand dollars. One thousand dollars.
Q Thank you.
Was that the last payoff you got from
Mr. Gray?
A No.
Q I would like to focus you now --

And sir, to clear the red dots would you hit
the lower right, just touch the lower right screen.
I would like to focus you now on an area we

covered in part but not in total, take you back to
March llth, 2003?
MS. PEARSON: And ask that exhibit 1057 be
played.
(Tape played. )
Q Sir, what were the travel plans that you just

discussed with Mr. Gray?
A Well, I previously spoke to him about travelling to

Nigeria. And this was to set up a meeting in that
regards.
Q And how long ago had it been that you met with
Mr. Gray in the US Bank parking lot?
A Not long.
Q What was the purpose of your trip to Nigeria?

A Well, a friend of mine is running for re-election
as a Governor of a state, of my state, and I was
travelling back to assist him in the campaign.
Q Now, you didn't pick a time for the actual meeting

in this conversation, did you?
A No.

been marked as Government's Exhibit 1059?
(Tape played. )
Q Sir, did that call take place on March 10, 2003?

A Yes, it did.
Q Who is Howlie?
565
A Howlie Davis was one of the people that work for

CH2M Hill/OMI .
Q And what were you referring to when you said you

want someone who is passionate?
A Well, most of the time you have people who work
for the city that don't seem to be passionate and
understanding when citizens complain. In this case I
felt, at the time, that Greg Parker was not understanding
and passionate enough to listen with understanding to my
citizens, so I needed someone who would be able to do
that.
MS. PEARSON: Sir, I would like to play
what's marked as Government's Exhibit 1062. This is

March 11, 2003.
(Video played. )
Q Sir, did you hear reference to Greg Wilson?

A Yes.
Q Who was he?

A Greg Wilson was the individual who was hired after
Greg Parker left to become the Manager of the Water
Department, working on the CH2M Hill and OMI.
Q Now, did you also hear reference to him being

interviewed as we speak?
A Yes.
Q Who was interviewing Mr. Wilson?
A The management o f OM1 a n d CH2M H i l l .
Q S i r , d i d you a l s o make a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e
L i e u t e n a n t Governor?
A Yes.
Q What was t h a t i n r e f e r e n c e t o ?
A T h a t w a s I was w a i t i n g f o r c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h t h e
L i e u t e n a n t G o v e r n o r from my s t a t e i n r e g a r d s t o my t r i p .
Q From y o u r s t a t e , d i d you mean N i g e r i a ?
A Yes.
Q Did you u l t i m a t e l y make t h a t t r i p t o N i g e r i a ?
A I d i d n o t make t h a t o n e , n o .
Q I n f a c t , what h a p p e n e d when you l e f t M r . G r a y ' s
o f f i c e t h a t day?
A Yes.
Q What h a p p e n e d t h e n when you l e f t ?
A When I l e f t h i s o f f i c e I was s t o p p e d b y FBI a g e n t .
Q And y o u ' v e t a l k e d a b o u t t h a t h e r e t o d a y o n t h e
s t a n d , h a v e n 1t you?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q And a f t e r b e i n g s t o p p e d , a n d a f t e r t a l k i n g w i t h t h e
FBI a g e n t s i n t h e i r o f f i c e s a n d a g r e e i n g t o c o o p e r a t e ,
d i d you c h a n g e y o u r mind a b o u t t h a t a t some p o i n t ?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q D u r i n g that period of time when you changed your
mind a n d s t o p p e d c o o p e r a t i n g w i t h t h e FBI, d i d you

continue to have interactions with Mr. Gray?
A Yes, I did.
(Z Would you tell the jury how you were able to make
that happen?
A I had one of my staff to call him and I made
arrangements for us to meet. And so he drove his car and
met us at McDonald at Eddy Road and Euclid Avenue.
Q Why did you have a staff member call Mr. Gray?

A I felt at the time maybe the FBI still tapping my
phone.
Q And did you meet with Mr. Gray?

A Yes. We met at McDonald and I have him to drive
behind our car. We drove to East 125 Street, and we
drove behind the an apartment building, and I came out
from the car and I went into his car.
And I, you know, I told him, I said, what was
going on? And I asked him if he set me up. I told him
as soon as I came out of his office that I was stopped by
the FBI.
And he looked at me, was stumped. He say,
no, he did not set me up. And he said he thought that
they left him alone.
I told him, well, I've been to FBI office,
they showed me a camera which shows, shows myself and

yourself during our regular envelope exchange.
Q Sir, did Mr. Gray make a suggestion to you,
something you should do regarding your office?
A Yeah, he told me, well, you know, I need to also
sweep my office, check my office out.
Q Did you do that?

A Yes, I did.
Q What were you looking for when you had your office
checked out?
A I was looking to see if there were any cameras in
my office.
Q Who did you have make that check for you?

A My Police Chief.
Q Now, after that meeting behind the construction

site in East Cleveland, did you continue to meet with
Mr. Gray?
A Yes, we the met a number of times.
Q Where did those meetings take place?

A We met at a deli opposite Cleveland Clinic, Euclid
Avenue.
Q Is that the Chicago Deli?

A Yes.
Q Who selected these meeting places?

A He selected those.
Q In addition to Chicago Deli, did you meet anywhere

else?
A Yeah, some t i m e w e d i d m e e t a r o u n d t h e C l i n i c .
What I mean a r o u n d t h e C l i n i c , w e m e t i n t h e C l i n i c a r e a
a n d t h e n w e j u s t walked a r o u n d a n d t a l k .
Q And w h a t d i d you t a l k a b o u t , s i r ?
A F i r s t , a t t h e same t i m e I was s t i l l l o o k i n g f o r a
j o b f o r my w i f e . So I s p o k e t o him a b o u t a n e e d t o see
i f h e h a v e a n y c o n n e c t i o n t o a l l o w my j o b -- my w i f e t o
s e c u r e a job.
And t h e n , o f c o u r s e , we t a l k e d a b o u t t h e
i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d t h e FBI. And o f c o u r s e we a l s o s p o k e
t h a t , you know, I s a i d l o o k , t h e money you were g i v i n g m e
was a g i f t . You know, i t i s n o t a n y t h i n g more t h a n t h a t ,
it's a gift.
And h e s a i d y e s , a n d w e ' l l k e e p i t t h a t way.
So w e d i s c u s s e d i n t h o s e t e r m s .
Q And what were you d o i n g w i t h M r . G r a y when you a n d
h e d i s c u s s e d t h e money a s a g i f t ?
A W e a r e walking around.
Q No, n o t p h y s i c a l l y d o i n g , b u t w h a t were you d o i n g
i n y o u r mind? What were you d o i n g when you s a i d t h i s was
a g i f t a l o n g w i t h M r . Gray?
A B a s i c a l l y , we're s e t t i n g u p t o make s u r e o u r
s t a t e m e n t w i l l b e t h e same i n c a s e h e ' s c a l l e d i n , l i k e I
was c a l l e d i n t o t h e FBI, s o we work o u t t h e same s t o r y .
Q And s o you d i d s t i c k t o t h a t s t o r y f o r a w h i l e ,
570
didn't you?
A Oh yes, I did.
Q I would like to focus your attention on a few other

documents.
MS. PEARSON: I would first like you to be
shown what's been marked as Government's Exhibit
405.
Q Sir, do you recognize this letter?

A Yes.
Q Do you see its date there, March 25, 2003?

A Yes.
Q Is this after the stop by the FBI.

A Yes.
(2 What do you communicate -- let me ask you first,

who is this letter written to?
A It was written to Mr. Evans, who is the President
and Chief Executive Officer for the OM1 Company.
Q And what do you communicate to Mr. Evans in this

letter?
A Well, in this letter I was communicating with him
in regards to my problems with the OM1 and the
performance?
MS. PEARSON: And let's go to the next
page, please.
We are not able to? Maybe I can get a

hard copy.
One moment please, your Honor.
Your Honor, because I'll continue to use
the video, may I show the witness this exhibit?
You've got it? Thank you.
Q Looking at the last page of Exhibit 405, sir, do

you recognize your signature?
A Yes.
Q Would you read to the jury the last paragraph

there?
A "The City of East Cleveland considers the foregoing
failures to be material breaches of our agreement and, by
this letter, gives you notice of the city's intent to
terminate our agreement 30 days from the date of this
letter. Please contact the city's Director of Law, A. R.

Abdoulkarim you have any questions regarding this matter,
the matters addressed in this letter or related matters."
And it is signed by me.
Q Why did you write this letter terminating OM1 or

CH2M Hill?
A One, they have not performed to the level of our
agreement with them.
And secondly, after I had been stopped by the
FBI and I felt something was wrong.

Q Sir, in fact, OM1 hadn't been responding for a
while, isn't that true?
A That's correct.
Q And you hadn't fired them then?

A No.
Q I would like to draw your attention quickly, you've

seen these exhibits before, they are marked as
Government's Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
If we could look at the first page of those,
and we are just going to roll them on the screen.
You see the first page of that one?

A Yes.
Q Do you recognize it?

A Yes.
Q We'll continue to the next one?

A Yes.
Q Do you recognize it?

A Yes.
Q And that one?

A Yes.
Q And that one?

A Yes.
THE COURT: On what grounds?
MR. WHITAKER: Can I approach to say what

was wrong?
THE COURT: A r e n ' t they h i s f i n a n c i a l
disclosure?
MS. PEARSON: Yes, t h e y are, your H o n o r .
MR. WHITAKER: I t h a s n o t h i n g t o do w i t h
w h y we are here. T h e r e have been a c q u i t t a l s .
THE COURT: I don't understand. T h e y are
h i s f i n a n c i a l disclosure f o r m s .
MR. WHITAKER: I know.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WHITAKER: T h e y ' r e getting u p s e t when
I ' m trying t o e x p l a i n --
MS. PEARSON: I am g o i n g t o ask h i m i f
h e r e w h a t you have i d e n t i f i e d t h e m a s h i s d i s c l o s u r e
f o r m s a n d w h e t h e r o r n o t he r e p o r t e d t h e money t h a t
h e received f r o m M r . G r a y on t h e m .
THE COURT: I ' l l overrule the objection.
MR. WHITAKER: My p o i n t i s t h a t t h i s --
THE COURT: Well, i t ' s j u s t a b i t , o n e b i t
of e v i d e n c e t h a t c a n be received.
MR. WHITAKER: I w o u l d l i k e t o be heard a t
some o t h e r point. I w o u l d l i k e t o be h e a r d .
THE COURT: A l l right. What a r e t h e y ?
J u s t s a y what t h e y a r e .
THE W I T N E S S : T h e y are my ethics
disclosure forms.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q And you were required to fill these out each year

you held an elected office, weren't you?
A Yes.
Q And sir, did you report on these formulas the money

you received from Mr. Gray?
A No, I did not.
Q Now, I'd like you to please tell the jury if at

some point a Grand Jury charged you with criminal acts
for your activities as Mayor of City of East Cleveland
relative to Mr. Gray?
A Yes. I was charged with bribery, corruption, wire
fraud, and the likes, many of them.
Q Many additional charges as well?

A That's correct.
Q Sir, did you eventually enter into a guilty plea

agreement with the United States?
THE COURT: Let me -- just tell the
history.
MR. WHITAKER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: I think it is misleading.
MS. PEARSON: Would you like me to ask the
question differently?
Q Were you eventually convicted of those charges?

THE COURT: Let's ask, did you go to
trial?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
THE COURT: Were you found guilty?
THE WITNESS: I was found guilty.
THE COURT: By a jury?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I was.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q And after being found guilty by a jury, did you

enter into an agreement with the United States?
A Yes, I did.
Q What's your understanding of your obligation under

that agreement?
A It is to tell the truth of my participation and my
involvement.
Q And what do you hope to get in exchange for telling

the truth, sir?
A According to the agreement, I will be recommended,
recommendation is made to the judge for my sentence in
the range of ten years.
Q Have you been sentenced yet?

A No, I have not.
Q And ultimately, who is going to impose your

sentence?
A Judge Gwin will be sentencing me sometime in

September.
Q And until then where do you live?

A At Lake County Jail.
MS. PEARSON: Just one moment, please.
At this time no further questions for
Mr. Onunwor.
THE COURT: Cross examination on behalf of
Mr. Jones.
MR. EMOFF: No questions.
THE COURT: On behalf of Mr. Gray?
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I have a large
number of questions. It's been over two and a half
hours I since we have had a break. I would like get
a quick bathroom break and like to -- I have
something before the court.
THE COURT: Let me ask, do you need one?

We are probably going to go another 20 minutes, 25
minutes. Why don't we start. You are probably not
going to finish, and you can make you motion after
we finish today.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Good afternoon, Mr. Onunwor.

A Thank you. Good afternoon.
Q As you know, my name is Bill Whitaker. I represent

Nate Gray. You know that?
A Yes.
Q I'm going to ask you some questions. If you don't

understand any questions I asked you, just let me know,
I'll be glad to repeat it.
A Yes.
Q Okay. You were convicted at a trial, as I

understand it?
A Yes.
(Z And you were convicted in an indictment that

involved 22 counts, right?
A Yes.
Q All right. And 13 of those counts had nothing to

do with anything you were talking about today, isn't that
correct?
A Which 13?
Q The question is this: Wasn't there 13 counts that

had nothing to do with what you talked about today?
A Could you make me -- I don't have those information
before me so I don't know which 13 counts you are making
reference to.
Q Okay. Let me ask you this. Do you know how many

counts had nothing to do with Nate Gray or anything you
talked about here today?
A I have not assessed that or look into that.
Q But it was certainly a substantial number of those

counts?
A I don't know.
Q You don't know, okay.

You don't know, even though you actually went
to trial on all of them, is that correct?
A I went to trial on the count pertaining to me.
Q And you don't know, even though you've entered into

a plea agreement to resolve all of those counts with the
United States Government, is that what you are saying?
A My plea agreement is to tell the truth on my
involvement with Mr. Gray.
Q You mentioned the ten years in your plea agreement.

You expect to get ten years as a result of the plea
agreement, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q You expect to be saving yourself a lot of amount of

time in jail, don't you?
A Yes.
Q Had you not entered into a plea agreement what did

you expect to get?
A It was in the range of at most 20 years.
Q Based on what you know to be the guidelines, you

579
thought that you were in the range of 20 years, is that
correct?
A Yes.
Q And by agreeing to cooperate with the government

now you expect to only get 10 years?
A Yes.
Q So you expect to save yourself about 10 years in

jail?
A That's correct.
Q And you recognize that as part of that, in order to

get that ten years, the government has to make a motion
based on your cooperation, don't they?
A Yes.
Q And if they don't make that motion, then you are

not going to get ten years, are you?
A Yes.
THE COURT: Well, he doesn't know what
he's going to get.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Well, if they don't make that motion you don't

expect to be in that guideline where you are going to get
10 years, do you?
A Well, I cooperate with them and I sign what paper.
I don't know if in fact the judge will go with that or

not. It's a recommendation from the government to the
judge .
Q But it is your expectation that in order for you to

get the ten years, the government has to make a motion or
you won't get that ten years?
A My understanding, when that motion was made before
the judge, the judge made it clear that it is the
recommendation from the government, that he is the one to
decide up or down.
Q Right. And ultimately the judge will decide.

You understand the judge makes that decision
within what's called sentencing guidelines?
THE COURT: Let me just -- that's not
true.
MR. WHITAKER: What's not true?
THE COURT: Well, the guidelines are not
mandatory.
MR. WHITAKER: I understand they are not
mandatory.
THE COURT: Okay. So in terms of the 5-K,
I don't believe it has the same mandatory
prerequisite requirement. Since the Booker
decision, I think that's -- you are just misstating
I think where we are at.
MR. WHITAKER: Then I'll try to ask it
another way.
581
Q It's your expectation that if the government is

satisfied with your cooperation, they will make a motion
to the judge that ought to help enable you to get that
ten year sentence, isn't that right?
A My expectation is that during my sentencing, as the
judge said when it was presented to him, it will be his
decision to either accept the recommendation from the
government or decide what he wants to do on his own.
Q Are you aware of the fact that the government still

has reserved the right to make a decision on whether to
recommend a downward departure in the guidelines to the
judge?
come up.
THE COURT: You are misstating Booker, in
the past it may have been a legitimate cross
examination as a 5K is something that's solely
within the discretion of the prosecutor as to
whether to make the motion.
But the situation I believe we are in now
is it still remains within their discretion, but I'm
not controlled by the guidelines any ways. So I, I

582
have to consider them, but if the government fails
to makes the motion for a 5K, I can still make the
decision a reasonable sentence is below the

guideline range. If they make the motion I can
still make the decision it should be higher. So you
are kind of implying.
Your cross examination may have made some
sense when the guidelines were mandatory. But
they are not mandatory now, so this whole issue of
the government, the trigger on the 5K, I don't think
is -- I think it's literally wrong, it's misleading.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, the government,
first of all, the government still puts that in

their agreements. And the reason they put that in
their agreements is while it may not --
THE COURT: That was before Booker.
MS. PEARSON: Yes, it was, it absolutely
was. And even your Honor, if you are correct and if
you are not, all due respect Mr. Whitaker, you've
asked it five times.
THE COURT: Well, it's just, they don't
have to send a --
MR. WHITAKER: Because the court still,
because the guidelines are still suggestions for the
court to follow. It's a starting point for the

court to follow.
They, the fact that the government has
agreed to make this recommendation is you get a
different thing that you have to consider. You get
a different sentence that you have to consider. You
may change your mind, but it --
THE COURT: I think you've been over it.
Just don't misrepresent the terms of the government
has sole discretion on whether to make the 5K.
MR. WHITAKER: They do.
THE COURT: Has some mandatory effect upon
the court's sentence.
MR. EMOFF: Can I add something that will
affect me too?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. EMOFF: It seems to me that it is
more, and this is what I said in the first trial,
it's more what is in the person's mind and --
THE COURT: Of?
MS. PEARSON: He said that four times.
MR. EMOFF: Well, but I think that he
would probably rather have the government advocating
on his behalf at his sentencing, no matter who's
discretion it is.
THE COURT: You can ask him.

584
MR. EMOFF: And I think that's what the
real question is.
MS. PEARSON: He's admitted that.
THE COURT: I think you are correct in
that. I think that's true. And I think it's fair
examination at beginning point that somehow if the
government itself was the one left with the
discretion on this, and I don't think that's true
anymore after Booker.
We are going to go on. We are going to go
on.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Let me just ask you this question. You understand

that the government has reserved the right to make
certain recommendations after your testimony?
A After my testimony?
Q Right.
A I wasn't aware of that.
THE COURT: Well, does the government have
the ability to either recommend you get a lower
sentence or a higher sentence.
THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And as a matter of fact, your sentencing date has
been set several times, hasn't it?
A Yes.
Q And it's been continued every time until after this

trial is over, isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q You decided to take -- you didn't take any

responsibility for this until after you were convicted,
isn't that correct?

A That's correct.
Q Let's talk about that money that you were getting

as a gift prior to being elected Mayor; in fact, prior to
being elected City Council when you were penniless no
job, no power, no position, Mr. Gray?
THE COURT: Overruled. Compound.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Mr. Gray was helping you out financially, wasn't

he?
A He was helping me out a number of times in the
1990's. When we met in 1994 when I lost my job and
decided to open a consulting business which he allowed me
to open up in his office. And yes, I did talk to him
about my financial needs and asked him for financial
assistance a few times, yes.

586
Q And he gave you financial assistance didn't he?

A Yes.
Q And he gave you regular financial assistance,

didn't he?
A He gave me financial assistance when I requested
them a number of times.
Q That's right. And you requested them fairly

regularly during those years in 1994, 1995, 1996, didn't
you?
A Between the period of 1994 up to 1997 there was
financial assistance, but it was not regular, as you
said.
Q Well, how frequently did you get assistance?

A I would say within that period maybe not more than
four times.
Q Not more than four times?

A Yes.
Q And how much money did you get from him as a gift
during these periods?
A Those periods I was receiving not more than $500
from him.
Q You remember testifying at a previous hearing,

don ' t you?
A Yes.
Q And you testified in fact that you were getting 5

1 to $700 during that period?
2 A Because your question to me was confusion.
3 Q Which question?
4 A Your questions, read your question.
5 MS. PEARSON: May I have the page, sir?
6 MR. WHITAKER: It's page 4 of the cross.
7 I don't have the full transcript.
8 Do I need to do something for this, your
9 Honor?
10 THE COURT: Can you zoom it in. It's
11 lower right.
12 There is a switch on the lower right that
13 zooms it in.
14 MR. WHITAKER: I'm hitting the zoom but
15 it's not.
16 THE COURT: I think it says tel.
17 Can you zoom it out?
18 MR. WHITAKER: All right.
19 Q Starting with line 2. And I've got this, I'll lift

20 it up a little bit.
21 You see where it says line 2 there?
22 'A Yes.
23 Q "Mr. Gray was helping you out with money before you
24 were even on the Council?"
25 Your answer was yes?
A Yes.
Q And h e was g i v i n g you money i n c a s h ?
A Yes.
Q And h e was g i v i n g you t h a t money i n a w h i t e
envelope i n cash?
A Yes.
Q And t h a t money t h a t h e g a v e you was a n y w h e r e
between 5 and $700. And what was y o u r a n s w e r ?
A My a n s w e r was y e s .
Q Okay. And you s a y you d i d n ' t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t
question?
A Well, my a n s w e r t h e n was y e s .
Q And h e c o n t i n u e d t o d o t h a t e v e n a f t e r you h a d b e e n
e l e c t e d t o Council, yes?
A My a n s w e r t h e n was y e s .
Q And t h a t was d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d when h e was t r y i n g
t o d i s c o u r a g e you f r o m r u n n i n g a s Mayor, f o r Mayor, i s n ' t
that true?
A Yes.
Q So now, t h e t r u t h o f t h e matter i s , i n d e e d h e was
g i v i n g you 5 t o $ 7 0 0 a s a g i f t d u r i n g t h a t t i m e when you
were p e n n i l e s s a n d p o w e r l e s s ?
A Well a g a i n you c o n f u s e m e . H e gave m e f i v e hundred
d o l l a r s , t h a t was b e f o r e I became t h e Mayor. And t h e
number o f t i m e s h e g a v e me was n o t more t h a n f o u r t i m e s .

589
When I became t h e Mayor, t h a t c h a n g e d . $700
a f t e r t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h Ralph T y l e r , a n d t h e n a t h o u s a n d
d o l l a r s a f t e r t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e w a t e r company.
Q Okay. So you a r e s a y i n g t h a t t h i s i s n o t t r u e ,
t h a t you were g e t t i n g b e t w e e n 5 a n d 700 b e f o r e you became
Mayor, e v e n b e f o r e you were e l e c t e d t o C o u n c i l ?
A I s a i d t h a t again a t t h a t t i m e .
Q Right.
A B a s e d on t h e way t h e q u e s t i o n was a s k e d t o me? But
i n b r e a k i n g i t down, what I d i d i s t o b r e a k i t down when
$500, $700, a n d $ 1 , 0 0 0 .
Q Well, d o you h a v e some p r o b l e m w i t h t h e n e x t
q u e s t i o n , a t l i n e 13.
"And h e c o n t i n u e d t o d o t h a t e v e n a f t e r you
had been e l e c t e d t o Council? "

What was t h e a n s w e r t o t h a t ?
A My a n s w e r i s y e s .
Q And t h a t r e f e r s t o t h e 5 t o 700 you h a d j u s t s a i d
y e s two l i n e s a b o v e ?
A That's correct.
Q And you s w o r e u n d e r o a t h t o t e l l t h e t r u t h , t h e
whole t r u t h a n d n o t h i n g b u t t h e t r u t h when you were a s k e d
and answered t h o s e q u e s t i o n s ?
A Yes, I d i d ? I t was c o n f u s i n g t o m e .
Q So what you a r e s a y i n g h e r e t o t h i s j u r y t o d a y , is
before you were elected Mayor you never got more than
$500 from Mr. Gray as a gift, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Okay. Let's go down to page 8 in the same cross

examination.
THE COURT: Let me just ask. I mean, you
shouldn't put that on the display right now. I mean
the appropriate way to do it is to ask him a
question directly. If he gives an answer you think

is inconsistent, then you can go to that.
MR. WHITAKER: I did that, your Honor. I

asked him, are you saying you never gave more than
$500 prior to being elected?
THE COURT: If this deals specifically
with that.
MR. WHITAKER: It does, as a matter of
fact.
(Z All right. Beginning with line 5.

Thank you, do you see that?
A Yes.
Q Thank you. It's fair to say that at any time in

January of '96, '95, '97, if there had been a camera in
Mr. Gray's office this scene might have been recorded.
Yes?
A Yes.
Q I n o t h e r w o r d s , you went t o h i s o f f i c e b u t you --
a n d you would g e t a n e n v e l o p e w i t h c a s h ?
A Yes.
Q Right. And t h i s i s w e a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t ' 9 5 , '96
and '97, right?
A Yes.
Q Not r e g u l a r l y , n o t e v e r y month, right?
A Right.
Q Okay. Yes, a t f i r s t i t w a s n ' t e v e r y month, b u t
t h e n i t s t a r t e d t o i n c r e a s e more r e g u l a r l y a s you a s k e d
him f o r i t .
T h a t ' s c o r r e c t , yes, your answer?
A Yes.
Q And s o t h e q u e s t i o n , t h e a n s w e r t o y o u r q u e s t i o n i s
yes. Okay. And a t a n y g i v e n t i m e a n d t h e amount o f
money a t a n y g i v e n t i m e m i g h t h a v e b e e n $700?
And you s a i d i t was $500 i n t h o s e d a y s ,
right?
Q And t h e n I s a i d I t h o u g h t you s a i d i t was 5 t o 7 .
You s a i d , y o u r a n s w e r was, i t was 5 0 0 . It
s t a r t e d 500 g o e s t o 700 a n d t h e n 500 o r 700 d e p e n d i n g on
what I n e e d . And f u r t h e r m o r e , i f I ' m traveling he give
m e more t h a n t h a t , h e g i v e s m e maybe a t h o u s a n d o r two.
You g o t that?
592
A Yes.
Q And t h e n on t h e v e r y n e x t p a g e , l i n e one, I asked
you j u s t t o make s u r e . And t h a t ' s e v e n b e f o r e , t h a t ' s --
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And t h a t ' s e v e n b e f o r e , t h a t ' s when you were
unemployed a n d c o u l d n ' t d o a n y t h i n g f o r a n y b o d y .
And y o u r a n s w e r was t h a t ' s c o r r e c t .
Am I r i g h t ?
A Yes.
Q And t h e n a l s o , t h a t was a l s o a r o u n d t h e t i m e h e was
d i s c o u r a g i n g you f r o m r u n n i n g f o r Mayor?
A Yes.
Q So what you were t e l l i n g u s u n d e r o a t h b a c k t h e n i s
that in ' 95, ' 96, ' 97, a t a n y g i v e n t i m e h e c o u l d b e

g i v i n g you a n e n v e l o p e t h a t m i g h t h a v e a s much a s $ 7 0 0 ,
right?
A T h a t i s what you a s k e d m e . And I a g a i n , t h e
q u e s t i o n s were c o n f u s i n g f o r m e a t t h e t i m e , yes. But
today, I b r o k e i t down i n t o t h e p e r i o d a n d how much.
Q Okay. And you t h o u g h t t h i s q u e s t i o n -- a n d t h a t ' s
e v e n b e f o r e you, when you were unemployed a n d c o u l d n ' t d o
a n y t h i n g f o r anybody? And you a n s w e r e d t h a t ' s c o r r e c t ,
you t h o u g h t t h a t q u e s t i o n was c o n f u s i n g ?
593
A Of course it was.
Q Okay. Now, what you said was that back in 1995 and
1996 when you couldn't do anything for anybody, you
didn't even have a job on any given day, for example, on
November 4th, 1995, if you -- if that happened to be one
of the days when you went to see Mr. Gray, this exact
same picture would have taken place, isn't that right?
A If it happens to be, yes.
Q Right. On any given day in 1994 or 1995, this

scene would have been seen in Mr. Gray's office?
A Yes.
Q Exactly the same thing. You would come in. He'd

give you an envelope with cash in it, and you would sit
there and talk about politics or your family or whatever
was going on, right?
A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: Objection. That's a
compound question.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And you would then take that envelope and put it in

your pocket?
A Yes.
Q And he wasn't asking you to do anything whatsoever,

was he?
A Our relationship changed in 1998 when I took

office. When I took office.
Q Okay. My question though is about 1996?

Please let the witness finish.
MR. WHITAKER: No, your Honor, he's not
answering my question. I'm not asking about 1998.
THE COURT: Go ahead and ask another
question.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q In 1994, 1995, when one of these scenes may have

been seen in your office?
A In his office.
Q In his office. You weren't asking -- he wasn't

asking you for any favors whatsoever?
A No.
Q In fact, there was nothing you could do for him?

A That's correct.
Q He did it, he gave you a gift from the goodness of

his heart?
A Yes.
Q And that's because he's a generous man?

A Yes.
Q You knew that about him, too? You knew he had a

reputation for generosity?
A Yes.
Q And you were f r i e n d s . You w e n t t o s c h o o l , y o u r
w i f e w e n t t o s c h o o l w i t h him?
A That's correct.
Q H e h e l p e d you o u t w i t h h i s w i f e , d i d n ' t he?
A Yes.
Q Not o n l y d i d you d i s c u s s p o l i t i c s a n d e v e r y t h i n g
e l s e f r o m 1994 a l l t h e way t o 2 0 0 3 , you would d i s c u s s
f a m i l y members?
A Yes.
Q And h e would h e l p you o u t w i t h t h a t ?
A Yes.
Q So when you were h a v i n g p r o b l e m s w i t h y o u r w i f e
h e ' s t h e p e r s o n you would g o t o ?
A Oh, y e s .
Q And a t o n e upon p o i n t you were w o r r i e d a b o u t you
m i g h t n o t b e a b l e t o c o n t r o l y o u r s e l f a n d you m i g h t h i t
her. And h e a d v i s e d you, Emmanuel, you c a n ' t d o t h a t .
L e t ' s j u s t g e t o u t o f h e r e a n d c a l m down, r i g h t ?
A S i r , t h a t ' s another question. I d i d t a l k t o him
a b o u t my p r o b l e m a t home b u t I n e v e r t a l k e d a b o u t h i t t i n g
my w i f e .
Q T h a t was n o t --
A You b r o u g h t t h a t q u e s t i o n t o m e l a s t t i m e a n d I
a n s w e r e d y e s , b e c a u s e two q u e s t i o n s i n o n e . I never
t a l k e d my w i f e o r t a l k e d t o him a b o u t h i t t i n g my w i f e .
Q So t h a t was o n e o f t h e q u e s t i o n s you g o t c o n f u s e d
on t o o ?
A One o f them.
Q One t i m e you were h a v i n g a p r o b l e m w i t h y o u r w i f e
a n d h e -- a n d you s a i d , p l e a s e j u s t t a k e m e away a n d h e l p
me, you know, c a l m down. And l e t ' s g o t o t h e c l u b s o r
something, r i g h t ?
A Yes, we d i d .
Q And h e d i d t h a t f o r you, d i d n ' t h e ?
A Yes.
Q So a r e you s a y i n g now t h a t t h i s $ 2 , 0 0 0 t h a t you
s a i d you g o t f o r t r a v e l , a r e you s a y i n g now t h a t d i d n ' t
t a k e p l a c e i n 1994, 1995?
MS. PEARSON: O b j e c t i o n , your Honor.
THE COURT: I d i d n ' t understand t h e
question. Did you r e c e i v e $ 2 , 0 0 0 i n ' 9 4 a n d ' 9 5 .
MR. WHITAKER: I f you h a d t o t r a v e l some
place?
THE WITNESS: Not t h a t I remember, y o u r
Honor.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q So when you s a i d , i f I ' m t r a v e l i n g h e g i v e s m e more
than t h a t . H e g i v e s m e maybe a t h o u s a n d o r t w o . That
was a n o t h e r t i m e you w e r e c o n f u s e d ?
A T h a t was a f t e r 1 9 9 8 .
Q Even t h o u g h t h a t was r i g h t b e f o r e t h e q u e s t i o n , a n d
t h a t ' s when you were unemployed a n d c o u l d n ' t d o a n y t h i n g
f o r anybody, a n d you s t i l l a n s w e r e d t h a t ' s c o r r e c t ?
A Yes.
Q Now, you are s a y i n g when you w e r e unemployed a n d
c o u l d n ' t d o a n y t h i n g h e d i d n ' t g i v e you a n y money f o r
travel? Is t h a t r i g h t ?
A Yes. I never t r a v e l e d t o Nigeria a t t h a t t i m e .
Q I d o n ' t t h i n k anybody s a i d a n y t h i n g a b o u t N i g e r i a .
You w e n t t o Las Vegas, d i d n ' t you?
A T h a t was a f t e r I became t h e Mayor.
Q My q u e s t i o n a t t h i s p o i n t i s , t h o u g h , d i d you --
a r e you s a y i n g now you d i d n ' t g e t a n y money f o r t r a v e l
b e f o r e you were e l e c t e d Mayor?
A I d i d n o t g e t money f o r t r a v e l f r o m him b e f o r e I
became Mayor.
(Z A f t e r you were e l e c t e d Mayor, you were s t i l l g o i n g
t o him a n d a s k i n g him f o r h e l p f i n a n c i a l l y , i s n ' t t h a t
correct?
A Yes.
Q And t h a t ' s b e f o r e you e n t e r e d i n t o a n y c o n t r a c t s o f
a n y k i n d , you would s t i l l c a l l him f o r h e l p f i n a n c i a l l y ?
A No, when I t o o k o f f i c e i n 1 9 9 8 .
Q Right?
A A week a f t e r I t o o k o f f i c e I c a l l e d him a n d
598
requested for financial assistance. We met. And he gave
me $500. And it was then he talked to me, that in order
to continue to help me financially, that he need
contracts to come his way. And the more contract that he
will receive, the more money he will be able to help me.
Q You are saying that he came and got -- he talked --

you called him and talked to him about getting some help
on your finances, the same as you had, you know, in the
years before that, right?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And you came to his office and at that time

he said, oh. Now I need contracts, right?
A Yes.
Q But there weren't any contracts at that time?

There were no contracts at that time?
A At that very moment there was none.
Q All right. And he still helped you out the same as

he had for the years preceding that?
A Yes.
Q All right.
Then it's your testimony that the next thing
that happened was the discussion about the Javitch
contract, isn't that right?
A That's correct.
Q Now, when you were running for Mayor, your

campaign, you campaigned on the fact that you would
review the Javitch contract?
A Yes.
THE COURT: We are going to -- sounds like
you are moving to something different. So we are
going to recess for the night.
See about 8:10 tomorrow, okay? And same
rules apply. Don't read anything about this. Don't
listen to any news reports. Don't form any opinions
or express any.
Has anybody read anything about this? Has
anybody talked to anybody else about this? Has
anybody heard anything about this, news reports?
How many of you have gone to Las Vegas
last night to do investigation?
Stay away from those kind of things. And
we'll see you tomorrow morning. Leave the pads
again face down.
(The jury withdrew from the courtroom
and the following proceedings were
THE COURT: There was something, you say
you may want to put something on the record.
THE COURT: What?

600
MS. PEARSON: A different matter f o r us.
We b e l i e v e w e c o u l d h a v e M r . Onunwor b a c k b y 8 : 1 5 .
Would t h a t b e a c c e p t a b l e ?
THE COURT: Yeah, it u s u a l l y t a k e s a
couple minutes t o g e t everybody s i t u a t e d . I still
would l i k e c o u n s e l t o g e t h e r e a s c l o s e t o 8 : 0 0 a s
t h e y can, b u t w e ' l l s t a r t a t 8:15.
MS. PEARSON: W e ' l l do t h a t .
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I wanted t o
make a m o t i o n . Can I d o t h a t now, o r w o u l d you
r a t h e r --
THE COURT: Yeah, why d o n ' t you do it
quickly, i f i t ' s quick.
MR. WHITAKER: It w i l l be quick. I want
t o make a m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l .
They a s k e d , t h e y e l i c i t e d a comment f r o m
Mayor Onunwor w h i c h i s d i f f e r e n t t h a n h i s l a s t
t r a n s c r i p t a b o u t t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t Nate s a i d t o
him, I t h o u g h t t h e FBI was h a d l e f t m e a l o n e o r was
leaving me alone.
MARSHAL: Excuse m e judge, I ' m going t o
g e t him o u t o f h e r e .
MR. WHITAKER: A direct reference t o the
f a c t t h a t he had p r e v i o u s problems, to wit, the only
p r e v i o u s problem he had, t h e t a x c o l l e c t i o n w i t h t h e
601
FBI.
I think that this court has ruled that

out. That there should have been no mention of it.
And to mention that he had previous problems with
law enforcement is a violation of that. And on that
basis I ask for a mistrial.
THE COURT: I will deny it.
I frankly, I think it -- I'm sure -- I'm
surprised any one caught it. So, and I'm not sure
the reference is not so obvious that it refers to
the income tax criminal conviction your client
suffered before. As well as the fact that, you
know, it could have just as much referred to just
some knowledge on your client's part that this was
some kind of investigation going on.
So, I'll deny the motion. And your Honor,
we just have a motion. I didn't think this would
need to be made, but I am specifically moving that
the defense not inform the jury of any result in the
last trial in this case as we hear testimony.
Stay away from that, be careful. You can
ask about prior testimony, but be careful how you
phrase the question.
MR. WHITAKER: That's what I asked him, at
a previous hearing. I know how to ask that

602
question, you Honor. I was asking you if we could
approach on that. I didn't know any other way to
say it. I'll renew my objection. He's been
acquitted of those --
THE COURT: The question that was raised.
All they did was ask him to identify the financial
disclosure form which, I mean.
MR. WHITAKER: There is no relevance here,
because there are no charges against Mr. Gray.
THE COURT: It does have some relevance.
It has relevance as to whether or not he was trying
to hide the loan, and whether if it was a legitimate
money or legitimate gift he would have put it on the
financial forms.
So it had relevance here and, you know,
the jury in the first case may have found it was
insufficient to support the wire and mail fraud
counts.
But, so stay away from those types of
statements.
MR. WHITAKER: I think we are kind of
bound by that, but I take it you are overruling my
objection?
THE COURT: I am.
We'll see you tomorrow.

( T h e t r i a l w a s a d j o u r n e d a t 5 : 0 0 p.m. on
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 u n t i l 8 : 0 0 a . m . Wednesday, August
10, 2005.)
I, Richard G. DelMonico, O f f i c i a l C o u r t R e p o r t e r
Northern District o f Ohio, E a s t e r n D i v i s i o n , d o h e r e b y
c e r t i f y t h a t t h e foregoing is a t r u e and c o r r e c t
t r a n s c r i p t of t h e proceedings herein.
&a&-
~ i c h a c dG . D e l M o n i c o
5 6 8 U.S. C o u r t h o u s e
A k r o n , O h i o 44308
( 3 3 0 ) 375-5666
I N C E X
OPENIEJG STATEMENTS:
On b e h a l f of t h e Government ................... 142
On b e h a l f of Defendant Jones .................. 189
O n b e h a l f of Defendant Gray ................... 203
On b e l l a l f of Defendant Jackson ................ :3il
- - -
WITNE.:;S : DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
ON BEXALF O F THE GOVERNMENT:

Michz.131Massie 408
Nina 'Jpsshaw 457
E r i c 3rewer --
Glori. 3 Lovelace 490
Michanl Dubose --
E m m a n u e l Onunwor 658
Carmello LoParo --
Michaol Day 709
J e f f Donovan 734
Michael Massie 772
11 I1
837
Rick Sawicki 871
Michael Massie 919
Peter Smith --
G l y n n i s Nelson --
Diane Pinson --
Shahid Sarwar 1067
Michael Massie 1208
Monicue McGilbra --
F e l i x Johnson 1347
Garlznd Hardeman 1394
Olivc r Spellman 1441
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
Plaintiff, )
)
) 1 : O4crOO58O
NATHANIEL GRAY, and
GILBERT JACKSON,
Defendants. -.- ,... Pa
u *
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS %; $ Y3j
HAD BEFORE THE HONORABLE , 'Ti7 3.
; , 172
,.L
JAMES S. GWIN, JUDGE OF SAID COURT, ON:: ' .- - ""g

- 5
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2005 AT 8 ~ 0 0A.M.,-r'- r

- ' L C )
L
APPEARANCES:


Nathaniel Gray: ANDREA WHITAKER, ESQ .
Whitaker & Rowlands
Akron, Ohio 44304


568 U.S. Courthouse
Akron, Ohio 44308
605
THE COURT: We reconvene on case 2004 cr
580.
There had been some discussion and
indication that defendant Jones -- why don't the
people in the rear take a seat, everybody else --
may wish to change his plea.
MR. CAFFERKEY: Your Honor, respectfully
we are going to need a little more time. We are
going to do it while we are doing Mr. Onunwor and
after Mr. Onunwor can we?
THE COURT: We'll continue with the trial.
You know it's up to the defendant, he's on bond, if
he wants to leave the courtroom. He can leave the
courtroom but we are going to continue with the
trial.
MR. EMOFF: Would you permit us to be
excused during Onunwor's testimony?
THE COURT: Yeah, it's basically up to
you, you are on bond. If he fails to appear and I
feel he's absconded I'll send the marshal out to --
MR. EMOFF: He's going to be in the room
next door. Would you be willing to give the jury an
instruction our absence shouldn't being considered
for any purpose?
THE COURT: No, because if we get to the

606
end of t h e c a s e and h e ' s d e c i d e d n o t t o p l e a d g u i l t y
I ' l l consider t h a t instruction. But a t t h i s p o i n t
i t ' s kind of pointless, I t h i n k i t draws more
a t t e n t i o n , and I t h i n k t h e j u r y i s i n t h e s i t u a t i o n
where none o f t h i s t e s t i m o n y d e a l s w i t h h i m i n a n y
regard. So I t h i n k t h e y would h a v e , t h e y w o u l d n ' t
draw a n y i n f e r e n c e f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t h e ' s n o t
c u r r e n t l y p r e s e n t i n t h e courtroom.
MR. EMOFF: O r h i s attorneys?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. EMOFF: A l l right. So t h e n i t ' s o k a y
w i t h you f o r u s n o t t o b e h e r e ?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. EMOFF: F o r t h e n e x t few moments?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. EMOFF: Good e n o u g h . Thank y o u .
THE COURT: You c a n g e t t h e j u r y l i n e d u p .
(The j u r o r s w e r e r e t u r n e d t o t h e
were c o n d u c t e d i n o p e n c o u r t . )
THE COURT: I ' l l the ask the jury t o take
t h e i r s e a t s and w e ' l l c o n t i n u e t h e c r o s s
examination.
I f y o u ' l l t a k e y o u r s e a t M r . Onunwor a n d
you r e m a i n u n d e r o a t h f r o m y e s t e r d a y .
Go ahead, you can proceed.
CROSS EXAMINATION (CONT. )
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Mr. Onunwor, just to be clear about this for the

folks on the jury. Yesterday you said that --
THE COURT: Don't -- we don't -- the jury
recalls what the testimony is, so don't ask him to
characterize what he said yesterday.
You can ask him the same topic, but it's
not an appropriate question to say didn't, you know,
on a certain testimony yesterday, you said a certain
thing.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Is it a fact, Mr. Onunwor, that and did I

understand you correctly to say that you never got
anything on a monthly basis until sometime after the CH2M
Hill contract?
A Yeah. I met with Mr. Gray after the OMI/CH2M Hill
contract. We talked and he told me he will give me a
thousand dollars every month. Yes.
Q Was that the first time, and I just want to make

sure I understand you, that was the first time, according
to you, that there was any agreement to get something on

a monthly basis?
A That's correct.
60 8
Q All right. You remember giving a statement to the

FBI on March 18th, 2003?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And that isn't what you told them.

Your Honor, we have some writing on --
THE COURT: I'm not sure exactly how to
get rid of it. Is there a return button?

MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, if I may object
to putting that document on the screen in any case.
It's an FBI statement according --
THE COURT: See if you can hit the return
button. Or an escape button.
I'm also saying if you want to show, show
him the statement.

BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Mr. Onunwor, you recall giving the statement on

March 13th, 2003. And do you recall at that time saying
that during the time frame when you were a Councilman and
you also began working for the East Cleveland

Neighborhood Center, Onunwor stated Gray began paying him
$500 per month when he was in this position?
A I did not say that.
Q You did not say what's written in this FBI report

of your conversation?

609
THE WITNESS: I d i d n o t s a y t h a t M r . Gray
b e g a n t o g i v e me $ 5 0 0 e v e r y month.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And when you were a C o u n c i l m a n , y o u r t e s t i m o n y i s
Mr. Gray n e v e r a s k e d you f o r a n y v o t e s o r a n y f a v o r s o r
anything of any kind?
A No.
Q And s o t h e r e i s n o q u e s t i o n a b o u t i t , w h a t e v e r
money you g o t d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d o f t i m e was a g i f t
b e c a u s e h e ' s g e n e r o u s a n d h e was j u s t h e l p i n g you o u t ?
A The money, t h e money --
Q I ' m j u s t t a l k i n g about t h a t t i m e .
THE COURT: L e t him a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n .
A The money t h a t h e g i v e m e b e t w e e n 1994 t o 1997 was
l o o k e d upon a s a g i f t .
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And t h e r e was no r e q u e s t f o r you t o d o a n y t h i n g i n
exchange f o r t h a t g i f t ?
A No.
Q And d i d you e v e r g e t $ 7 0 0 a t a n y time i n a w h i t e
e n v e l o p e f r o m M r . Gray a s a g i f t b e f o r e you became Mayor?
A The a n s w e r i s n o .
Q Do you r e c a l l t e s t i f y i n g --
MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, objection.
MS. PEARSON: He's putting something on
the glass without making any introduction, setting a
foundation for doing that.
THE COURT: Give them the page.
MR. WHITAKER: Page 9 of cross.
MS. PEARSON: Thank you.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q You remember testifying at a previous hearing on

this matter?
THE COURT: Why don't you just ask him on
an earlier occasion he was asked a particular
question and gave a particular answer, and give them
the page.
MR. WHITAKER: I already have given them
the page, your Honor.
Q Do you recall testifying under oath at a previous

time?
A Yes.
Q About these matters?

And do you recall me saying to you, starting
at line 7 here, can you see it on your screen?
A Would you move it so I can see the line? Yes.
Q So at any given time, that's my point, that at any

given time, sometimes it might be 5, but on any month,
even back in 1996 and 1995 you might, and if there were a
camera in his office it would have recorded a scene
showing you getting an envelope from him, there might be
$700 in it and you saying that's correct.
A I said so. But as I mentioned that your question
was confusing to me. What I did yesterday was to set the
exact time and period when the monies was given to me.
Q What's confusing about that question when I say

directly 1996 and 1995? What's confusing about that?
A Well, you had a number of questions in those one
question. You talked about any given time. The video
would have recorded him giving me money.
Well, that is true. But not in the order in
the sequence which you placed it, 500, 700, you got me
confused.
What I did was to make it clear, between 1994
through '97 was about $500 maybe about four times. And
then when I took office, it was $500 until the contract
with the Javitch company stayed. It increased to $700.
Q With the contract?

A With the contract with the Ralph Tyler, it
increased to 700. Then with the contract with OM1 it
increased to a thousand dollars. The contract with
Javitch company, was the first one, which then stayed the
612
$500.
Q So you found, when I said even back in 1996 and
1995, you found that confusing? That's what you are
saying here?
A Well, I think I have answered the question.
Q Okay. Now, you are saying the only thing that

changed with the Javitch contract was that you were able
to keep getting the $500?
A Yes, correct.
Q And that wasn't on any regular basis, just $500.

It wasn't on any monthly basis or anything like that?
THE COURT: I don't understand.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q You said you were able to continue to get $500.

How frequently?
A On demand.
Q But there wasn't any agreement for a monthly

payment at that time?
A No.
Q Okay. Do you remember testifying, do you remember

giving a statement on March 18th, 2003?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And do you recall -- and was that with

Mr. Massie sitting right here?
A Yes.
613
Q And do you recall telling him Onunwor stated after

Gray met with a law firm representative Gray started
giving Onunwor $700 per month instead of his routine $500
monthly payment?
A I see that, but I did not say exactly 700 for

Javitch.
Q And on the second page of that same document, do

you see where it says Onunwor stated Gray began paying
Onunwor 700 per month as a result of the collections
contract fulfilled by Javitch?
A I see that, yes.
Q And you are saying that Onunwor didn't say that?

A I see what is written, but I have already cleared
what I am saying today.
Q My question is, did you say this on March 26th,

2003?
A Well, that was what was written. I did not sign
that to say that that's all I said.
Q Well, I'm just asking you, did you say it or didn't

you say it on March 26th?
A If I said it I should have signed it. I did not
sign it. I made a lot of statement in those days, some
of them I was in denial. And some of them were correct.
Some of them I misstatements. I did not sign that

document.
Q No. But you remember being interviewed by
Mr. Massie?
A Of course, yes.
Q You remember being asked that question?

A I was asked so many questions.
Q Do you remember giving a statement on December 8th,

2004 to the FBI?
A Yes.
Q And that was after you had been convicted, wasn't

it?
Q December, 2004?
A May I see the document?
Q Do you remember when you were convicted?

A Yes.
Q When?
A I don't remember the date.
Q Okay. I'm showing you a statement that's got a

date of December 8th, 2004. Was that after your
conviction? That was just last December?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And on that time, did you say Onunwor

indicated that -- well, we got to go back a sentence so
you are getting the whole thing.
Gray also informed Onunwor that he and

Natkins were going to make a deal and that they were
615
working out the details. Gray then informed Onunwor he

would take care of Onunwor financially. And Onunwor
indicated that this is when he started to receive
regularly monthly payments of $500 from Gray.

A The word monthly should not be there.
Q My question though is, did you say that to

Mr. Massie in December of 2004?
A I don't recall monthly, but I recall saying

regularly.
Q You also recall about the same subject -- and I'm

looking at page 26 of the direct -- recall being asked
about this same issue with retaining Javitch, and if
you'll see, can you see line 11?

A Yes.
Q After you became aware that Mr. Gray had been hired
by the Javitch law firm, how did that change your -- how
did your relationship with Nate Gray change?
Then you say, continued to be good.

And then the question was, who would decide
how often you got money from Mr. Gray?
MS. PEARSON: Pardon me, your Honor, he's
skipping.
MR. WHITAKER: I'll read the whole thing.
I didn't think it was all relevant, but we'll go

back and do the whole thing.
616
THE COURT: The way t o d o i t i s , were you
a s k e d a q u e s t i o n a n d d i d you g i v e a r e s p o n s e a n d
g i v e t h e q u e s t i o n and t h e response.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q When I a s k e d you, w e l l , you were b e i n g q u e s t i o n e d
a t t h i s t i m e by M i s s Pearson?
A Okay.
Q And s o when you w e r e a s k e d t h a t q u e s t i o n t h a t I
j u s t r e a d o u t l o u d , a r e you a w a r e , was y o u r a n s w e r o u r
r e l a t i o n s h i p c o n t i n u e d t o b e g o o d a n d I was a b l e t o a s k
f o r money f r o m him a n d h e p r o v i d e d m e w i t h money?
A Yes.
Q And t h e n I a s k e d you, a n d t h e n M i s s P e a r s o n a s k e d
y o u , a n d who would d e c i d e how o f t e n you g o t money f r o m
Mr. Gray?
And you a n s w e r e d , a n d d i d you a n s w e r ,
b a s i c a l l y I would c a l l him w h e n e v e r I n e e d e d money a n d h e
w o u l d g i v e m e a t i m e t o meet w i t h him?
A Yes.
Q And d o you r e c a l l h e r a s k i n g you how much money
w o u l d you g e t a f t e r making t h a t a p p o i n t m e n t ?
And d o you r e c a l l y o u r a n s w e r b e i n g 5 t o
$700?
A Yes.
617
Q And that's when you swore to tell the whole truth

at a previous time?
A Yes.
Q And that's when you were asked by Ms. Pearson?

A Yes.
Q And now you are saying today you didn't get $700
after you retained the Javitch firm?
A Again, I cleared the statement. I did receive

$500, and I did receive $700. And finally I did receive
a thousand dollars. What I did was to clarify the period
in which it took out.
Q In this case when she's asking you how much money

you got after you retained Javitch, you said 5 to $700 a
month. That's wrong, isn't it?
A Not totally wrong. It was between 5 and 7, in the
sense I was receiving $500 and after Ralph Tylers I began
to receive $700.
Q You understand nobody's talking about Ralph Tyler

here, it's just Mr. Javitch, just the Javitch law firm?
A Well, I was confused on that.
Q Miss Pearson's question confused you too?

A Well, in that case, yes.
Q And then, it's your testimony -- well, what -- so

what happened then, the next contract you are saying was
the Ralph Tyler contract?

A Yes.
Q Okay. And that was the Ralph Tyler contract to

hire an engineer for the city?
A No.
Q What was it for? What was that Ralph Tyler

contract for?
A There was a request from Mr. Gray often for me to
provide a job for Ralph Tyler Engineering Company.
Because we had an engineering company already in place,

what I did was to provide a professional engineering
agreement, contract with Ralph Tyler to perform various
activities in their department.
Q And what is it that you say the agreement became at

that point?
A Became what?
Q What did you, what are you claiming you got in

return for that?
A Well, at that time I did ask him for about 9 to
$8,000.
Q At some point you hired the Ralph Tyler Company as

your engineer of record, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
(Z And that was after City Council unanimously

selected RTC for that position?
A Yes.
619
Q And what do you claim was your benefit for that?

A There was no additional benefit. The benefits
continued at 700.
Q Do you recall giving a statement on December loth,

2004 to the FBI?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And that was again after you had been

convicted, right?
A Yes.
Q And do you recall at that time saying City Council

then unanimously selected RTC as the consulting engineer,
and around this time Onunwor's monthly payment from Gray
increased from $500 to $700 a month?
A I remember saying that, yeah.
Q And that's the one after the City Council

unanimously approved them to be the engineer?
A That's correct.
Q And so that would be the engineer of record, right?

A Yes.
Q And do you remember the date that happened?

A I don't have it right here before me.
Q Let me show you what's been marked as Government's

Exhibit 523.
And do you see this document?
A Yes.
620
Q Okay. And I'm going blow it up so you can see the

signature.
Is this a letter you sent?
A Yes.
Q And is this a letter that was sent informing Ralph

Tyler they have been selected as engineer of record?
A That's correct.
Q Do you see the date on that?

A Yes.
Q And what's the date on that?

Q All right. And you've seen -- you listened to

these tapes and everything, they were taking place around
October of 2002 weren't they, the tape recorded

conversations of the intercepted conversations that you
heard yesterday?
A I don't know the exact time, but I know the tapes,

yeah.
Q And these pictures that you were being shown, they

took place around in October and November of 2002 as
well, didn't they?
A According to the picture you have up, yes.
Q And did you hear a single conversation about some

change, about some benefit, about some discussion of
there being a benefit to Mr. Gray if Ralph Tyler got
621
h i r e d , i n any o f t h e r e c o r d e d c o n v e r s a t i o n s ?
A Mr. Gray a n d I h a v e d i s c u s s i o n s a b o u t , a b o u t more
c o n t r a c t f o r him a n d more money, t h a t i s a b r i b e t o me.
T h a t was i n o u r i n i t i a l d i s c u s s i o n . So t h e r e was no n e e d
f o r u s t o c o n t i n u e t o d i s c u s s any o t h e r f i n a n c i a l
benefits.
W e d i s c u s s e d t h a t i n 1998, a week a f t e r I
t o o k o f f i c e when h e gave me money, which I r e q u e s t e d , a n d
he t o l d me, l o o k , i n o r d e r t o g i v e you more money from
now onwards I n e e d more c o n t r a c t s a n d more p r o j e c t s .
Q You s a i d t o him s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e
CH2M H i l l , I need more money. I ' v e g o t t o h a v e more
money o r I have t o g e t a s e c o n d j o b ; d i d n ' t you?
A Yes.
Q When d i d you e n t e r i n t o t h e CH2M H i l l c o n t r a c t ?
A I d o n ' t know. I d o n ' t have t h a t d a t e w i t h me.
Q A c c o r d i n g t o t h e t i m e l i n e by t h e government, t h a t
would have been March 4 t h , 2002?
A Yes.
Q A l l right. And t h a t s o u n d s r i g h t t o you?
A T h a t ' s when we e n t e r e d i n t o c o n t r a c t . But M r . Gray
and I have been h a v i n g v a r i o u s d i s c u s s i o n s a n d m e e t i n g
even p r i o r t o t h a t t i m e .
Q And was t h a t t h e t i m e you went t o him a n d s a i d , oh,
I g o t t o g e t a j o b i f I d o n ' t g e t 700?
A I d o n ' t r e c a l l t h e e x a c t d a t e a n d time, t o b e
precise.
Q But i t was i n r e l a t i o n t o t h a t c o n t r a c t you a r e
t e l l i n g us?
A Oh, yes.
Q Okay.
And t h a t t o o k p l a c e b e f o r e t h e a g r e e m e n t , i f
t h a t ' s c o r r e c t , on O c t o b e r of 2002, b e f o r e t h e a g r e e m e n t
t o have Ralph T y l e r a s t h e e n g i n e e r o f r e c o r d , c o r r e c t ?
A I d o n ' t r e c a l l e x a c t l y which d a t e .
Q Okay. A l l right. But when you went -- i t was

a f t e r t h e Ralph T y l e r c o n t r a c t t h a t you s a i d t o him, i f
you d o n ' t g e t more money you a r e g o i n g t o n e e d t o g e t a
second job, right?
A T h a t was a f t e r t h e OMI/CH2M H i l l d i s c u s s i o n s a n d
t h e , when I s a i d t h a t we were g o i n g t o d o t h a t , y e s . Not
Ralph T y l e r .
Q But y o u r t e s t i m o n y was, t h o u g h , t h a t t h e R a l p h
T y l e r exchange had happened b e f o r e t h a t ?
A Yes.
(1 Okay.
And a g a i n , do you remember t e s t i f y i n g a t a
p r e v i o u s t i m e u n d e r o a t h , on p a g e 3 2 a n d 3 3 of t h e
d i r e c t , a n d b e i n g a s k e d by Miss P e a r s o n t h e f o l l o w i n g
questions. And i n o r d e r t o show what you were t a l k i n g

623
about we have to go through just a few here.
Starting at line 2 on page 32. "As you sit
here now, sir, do you recall that the next job that you
hired, was that you hired the Ralph Tyler Company for?"
Your answer being, "well, we eventually hired
them with counsel approval as the city's consulting
engineer." Right?
A Yes.
Q "And how is it that you came to select Ralph

Tyler's company and Ralph Tyler Company as the consulting
engineer to the City of East Cleveland?
Your answer was: "Well, Nate and I had been
talking about it off and on. And basically I decided to
get rid of the existing engineering company and then
advertise for request for qualification just for
formality. We invited Ralph Tyler and a few other
companies to come before myself before council, and then
we selected Ralph Tyler."
A Yes.
Q "Now how stiff was the competition in this

selection process?"
You said, "not stiff because I already make
up my mind about Ralph Tyler." Right?
A Yes.
Q And then you said, "why do you bother to call the

other companies in?"
You said, "just for formality."
A Yes.
Q And then you said, "why is it you had already made

up your mind to hire the Ralph Tyler Company?"
And you said, "because of my relationship
with Mr. Gray." Right?
A Yes.
Q "After hiring the Ralph Tyler Company to become the

consulting engineer for the City of East Cleveland, how
did that impact your relationship with Mr. Gray and your
financial relationship? "
And then you said, "the money I used to
receive, 500 to 700, but whenever I ask just for money, I
receive 700 from them always."
And your answer being, "so it was not a range
anymore, 5 to 7, but now it was consistently $700 as a
result of the Ralph Tyler contract." Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And then you said, "and did you have to ask
for that specific amount when you made the request?"
And you said "no"?

A Yes.
Also remember that it will -- we've already a
contract with Ralph Tyler, a professional engineering

625
contract, before this, this additional contract. It was
after that first contract that the 700 that I was
receiving from him kicked in.
Q Well, this question was specifically, if you recall

just seeing it this contract -- this question
specifically asked you how did your relationship change
when you hired Ralph Tyler after the full vote of
Council, didn't it?
A Yes.
Q And you answered that question by saying, "it went

to of $700, am I correct?
A You are not correct.
Q No, I'm just take talking about your answer here?

A Let me repeat myself. You are not correct.
We have a contract with Ralph Tyler already,
before this last contract. It was in that first
contract, as a professional engineering contract, we
began to receive the $700.
Q But in those series of questions that you were just

asked, they were talking, all of those questions related
to the Council hiring -- agreed to hire Ralph Tyler as
the consulting company for the city, right?

A Consulting engineer.
Q Right.
A Yes.
626
Q And all of those questions, and including the last

question, how did that impact your relationship with
Mr. Gray?
And that's when you said the money went to
$700?
A The money was $700 from the first professional
contract engineering that we have with Ralph Tyler. We
had additional contract with Ralph Tyler as the city
engineer later on.
Q I understand you are saying that now. But I'm just

saying on this date, on this time when you swore to tell
the truth, you were saying $700 in relation to the
contract that City Council had to vote on?
A Well, the $700, again, was after the first
contract.
Q Well, you had an opportunity to talk to the -- you

had an opportunity to at that time talk to the FBI about
this on December loth, 2004, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q And again, you were talking to Mr. Massie, right?

A Yes.
Q And again, that was after your conviction?

A Yes.
Q And at that time, is this true, that Onunwor also

stated that it would not be hard for him to persuade City
627
Council to go along with his recommendation for RTC
because City Council is always interested in hiring black
contractors to do work in East Cleveland which is

primarily a black community. City Council then
unanimously selected RTC as the consulting engineer, and
it was around this time that Onunwor's monthly payments
from Gray increased from 500 to 700 a month?
A I don't recall that monthly.
Q Okay.
But you recall the thing that we were just
talking about with the City Council voting, that was
October, 2002?
A Yes.
Q And now again looking at the government's time line

in terms of the first contract with CH2M Hill, that was
almost a year earlier on November 20th, 2001; is that
correct?
A I don't recall that. I need to see the contract.
Q But whenever it was, even though you don't recall

whether this is a correct date on the time line, your
testimony was to this jury that that's when your monthly
payment went up to $1,000?
A I don't have the date right now with me. But in
reality is that after that contract, I did meet with
Mr. Gray and we talked about it. And yes, my -- I began

62 8
to receive a thousand dollars, according to his promise
to me, and then of course he made it monthly.
Q And when you went to him after the OM1 contract, it

was your testimony that you told him that you, if you
don't get some more money you have to get a second job,
isn't that right?
A I did not say if I don't get more money.
What I said to him is that I need more money,
I'm having some difficulties.
Q And you said, if I don't I'm going to have to

consider taking a second job someplace?
A That's correct.
Q And he said no, no, don't do that?

A Yes.
Q How much do you need?

A Yes.
Q And you said, I need about $700?

A Yes.
Q And that was after the Javitch contract, and that

was after what you claim today anyway, the Ralph Tyler
increase?
A Yes.
Q And the Ralph Tyler increase was to $700, wasn't

it?
A Yes.
629
Q And yet here you are at OMBI saying to him, oh, I

need $ 7 0 0 ?
A Yes.
Q Even though you were already getting it?

A That's correct.
Q And you didn't really intend to take a second job.

You did that because you knew he was a generous man and
if he thought you had to work a second job he would help
you out, didn't you?
A I intended to a second job at the same time.
Because of our business arrangement he told me that when
he would get more contract he would give me more money.
At that time the OM1 contract approved that and I
expected him to give me more money, which he did not. So
when I mentioned that, that's when he suggested that how
much do I need? And I told him about $700. He said

well, I give you a thousand dollars every month.
Q So you are saying you really were considering

getting a second job?
A I thought about it, yes.
Q When you were asked that at a previous time, about

this exact same thing -- page 36 -- by Miss Pearson, do
you recall her saying, the first is, were you serious
about getting a second job?
And you saying not really.

630
A Not really, but when I thought about it.
Q And if I understood your testimony, when you, when

he did help you out, he would pay, sometimes it would be
hundred dollar bills, sometimes it would be 50 dollar
bills?
A There may be one instance where it was about 50
dollar bills. But in all other cases it was hundred
dollar bills.
Q Sometimes it was a combination of 50s and hundreds?

A Again as I stated, it may be one time when it was
between some $50, but in most cases it's hundred dollar

bills.
Q Now you are saying that after Ralph Tyler was hired
as the consulting engineer of record, you asked him for
$8,000 for travel, right?
A The consulting engineering came later on. After
the first professional engineering contract, that was
when I requested that.
Q Well, when I just -- let me ask you straight out.

You claim there was some benefit you got for
hiring Ralph Tyler as the engineer of record. What is
it?
A Well, basically, our arrangement from the
beginning, when he told me when he get more contract more
money come to me.

631
Well, the more we make Ralph Tyler Company
more permanent, the more permanent our relationship in

receiving those money will occur.
We needed to do that because the contract
that I had with Ralph Tyler was just a professional
service for a limited amount of money for a limited
amount of time. And we needed him to be the full
engineer for the city so that our relationship will
continue.
(Z Okay. So what you are saying now is that you got

no economic, no different economic benefit from
recommending that Ralph Tyler be hired as the engineer of
the city?
A Well, that has been established, $700 from the time
we entered that contract with Ralph Tyler the first time.
And then what happened was, in order to keep them
permanently, we -- I was able to make sure that we get
them to become the city engineer.
Q But, my question, and I'm going to try to and I'll

move on after this, keep it very narrow, is, you are
saying now that after you hired, recommended to the City
Council that Ralph Tyler be hired as the engineer of
record that you got no increase in money of any kind?
A No. Because the professional service engineering,
which we had before this time was, I was in the point to

632
eliminate that. So in order to keep him permanently,
keep the company permanently, I would work with City
Council to bring them on board as the consulting engineer
so that our relationship will continue.
Q But no increase in cash of any kind? No money for

travel or anything like that?
Q All right.
Now, and then one other time you went and
asked him for money during this time is because you
wanted, one of your employees had some tax problems and
you wanted Mr. Gray to help your employee with the tax
problem, Cheryl Neal, isn't that correct?

A Yes.
Q And he did that because he's a generous guy and

this woman needed help, right?
A Yes.
Q And that wasn't for you?

A No.
Q Now, on March llth, when the FBI stopped you after

you left Mr. Gray's office, how much was in that
envelope?
A $700.
Q And that was just the money that you expected to

get for that March that you were picking up early because
you were g o i n g t o N i g e r i a , r i g h t ?
A No.
Q Okay.
And a g a i n y o u r r e c a l l t e s t i f y i n g e a r l i e r
under oath?
MR. WHITAKER: Page 7 .
MS. PEARSON: Thank y o u .
MR. WHITAKER: Cross.
Q R i g h t , you r e c a l l t h a t ?
A What l i n e , p l e a s e ?
Q L o o k i n g a t -- s t a r t i n g w i t h l i n e 1 9 . You see you
w e r e a s k e d b y t h e F B I t o see w h a t was i n t h a t e n v e l o p e
a n d you s a i d y e s ?
A Yes.
Q And you were a s k e d , a n d you n e e d e d t h a t March 1 1 t h
p a y m e n t e a r l y b e c a u s e you w e r e g o i n g t o N i g e r i a , i s n ' t
that correct?
A And I a n s w e r e d y e s .
Q And y o u r a n s w e r was y e s ?
A Yes.
Q And t h e n you were a s k e d t o s p e a k i n t o t h e m i k e , a n d
you s a i d a g a i n you n e e d e d t h a t March 1 1 t h p a y m e n t e a r l y
b e c a u s e you were g o i n g t o N i g e r i a . And y o u r a n s w e r was
yes?
A Yes.
Q And how much was in that envelope, $700?

A $700.
Q And so the follow up question to that, just so we

were clear, is: "Thank you. So it's fair to say that
any time in January of '96, '95 or '97, if there had been
a camera in Mr. Gray's office, this is the scene that
might have been recorded?"
MS. PEARSON: Objection, your Honor, he's
asked this same question.
THE COURT: Haven't you dealt with this
already?
MR. WHITAKER: I'm quoting from a
different page, your Honor.
MS. PEARSON: No he's not, your Honor.
This is the same page you used yesterday and began
with this morning.
MR. WHITAKER: I'll move on.
Q Now, during the campaign you had some, you made

some issues about the Javitch law firm, isn't that
correct?
A Yes.
Q And you had two concerns about the Javitch law

firm. Number 1, that there were some citizen complaints;
and number 2, you were concerned about whether they were

sensitive to minority hiring?
A That's correct.
Q And all you said in your campaign was that you were
going to review the contract with Javitch Block, isn't
that correct?
A Yes.
Q And one of the first things you did was talk to

your administrator Gloria Lovelace, your tax
administrator?
A Yes.
Q Because she was the one that worked closely with

those people?
A Yes.
Q And she told you they do a great job and she thinks
they should be kept on?
A Yes.
Q And you still wanted to address these issues with

the law firm itself?
A Yes.
Q And that's why you set up a meeting to talk to the

law firm?
A No, the reason why I set up the meeting was because
I met with Nate and we talked about various contract
which he told me he need those contract. And he informed

me he met someone who had worked for that company and
636
that he wanted to work with that company.
Because of that meeting with Mr. Gray I came
back to my office and then set that meeting up, in
addition to my earlier concern about the company.
(1 And coincidentally, you talked to them about the

same thing you talked to Gloria Lovelace, about the same
thing you said in your campaign, you talked to them about
citizen complaints and minority hiring?
A Yes.
Q And those were the issues you raised with them?

A When Gloria Lovelace we talked that was the issue I
raised with them, but when she was away I indicated to
them I wanted them to work with Mr. Gray.
Q But the issues you raised with them were exactly

that, minority hiring and citizen complaints?
A In addition to them hiring Mr. Gray.
Q And they agreed to try to do better on both of

those points, didn't they?
A Yes.
Q They agreed to get some help with their minority

hiring?
A Yes.
Q And they agreed to set up a mechanism where if it

became necessary there would be a resolution to the
citizen complaints?
637
A Yes.
Q And they also agreed, as Mrs. Lovelace said, to do

a kinder gentler approach?
A That's correct.
Q And did you follow that through, did you see

whether they did indeed institute a kinder gentler
approach?
A I did not.
Q You did not follow that through?

A No.
Q But if both of those things had been resolved --

you also learned, by the way when you were talking to
Mrs. Lovelace, that any law firm would charge the same
amount of money that Javitch Block was charging, which is
the 33 and third percent?
A That's correct.
Q So if those issues about minority hiring and

citizen complaints were resolved, and your tax
administrator said Javitch Block was doing a great job,
then you agree it would be in the best interest of the
city to keep them?
A Well, I kept them from the beginning because of my
relationship with Mr. Gray. I spoke to them to make sure

t h e y hire him a s part of their team in order for me to
retain their activity.
Q I'm not asking you about that now?
A Well, that's an issue.
Q I'm asking you, I'm asking you if the law firm --

you found out from your tax at administrator that the law
firm did a great job and she recommended they be kept on,
and they agreed to take care of the two things you were
worried about, then it would be in the best interest of
the city for you to keep them on?
A The main reason why I kept them on --
Q I'm not asking you for the reason?

A Then what you asking me then?
Q I'm asking you as a fact?

A I'm giving you the fact.
Q No, the fact. Don't you agree if these issues were

resolved it would have been in the best interest of the
city to keep law firm?
A The main reason why I kept the law firm is because
of my arrangement with Mr. Gray and the law firm.
Q And at some point then there was an audit that
recommended that a group called RITA be hired?
A The performance audit.
(1 And even before the performance audit came out you

told Mrs. Lovelace, look it, stop, I don't want Javitch
Block to get any new accounts, go with RITA?
A That's not correct. The performance audit came out

639
with a draft, and based on that draft in our discussions
before the final audit was released, we were required to
begin to implement the suggestions in the performance
audit, which was before the audit was released.
Q Okay. Do you recall being asked about this at an

earlier time.
MR. WHITAKER: And on page 18 of the
cross. At line 6.
Q You being asked, "and in fact, as soon as you heard

the audit was going on, even before the results were
released, you called Mrs. Lovelace in to say look at it,
let's make the change to go with RITA." Is that correct?
A Before the audit was released, yes, that's what I
just said.
Q Even at that time, even though at that time your
administrator was saying no, I don't think we should do
it, I think we should stay with Javitch?
A I don't have the statement before me now.
Q You remember being asked about that. And the

question was at line 11, again, Mrs. Lovelace said, "I
don't think we should do that. Javitch Block is a little
more aggressive." Didn't she? And you answered "yes"?
A Yes.
Q And you remember when that was that you went to
Mrs. Lovelace and said stop giving Javitch Block new

accounts?
A No, I don't remember.
Q All right. At some point you are aware that

Javitch Block terminated their contract with Mr. Gray?
A Yes.
Q And do you know that to be about September 30th,

2002?
A It could be.
Q All right. And in September 30th of 2002, which is

even before you hired Ralph Tyler as the engineer of
record, did the help that Mr. Gray was giving you change
in any way whatsoever?
A No.
Q Not a bit?
A No.
Q It wasn't tied to that contract at all, was it?

A The financial help I was receiving with him never
changed.
Q Even after he got that letter terminating that

contract?
A That's correct.
Q So when you were talking to him about that

contract, about that relationship with Javitch Block
going south, that was the fact that Javitch Block had
never -- had just stopped collecting on new accounts?

641
A That's correct.
Q And then you discussed with him, as I understand in

one of the tapes, about whether a new firm should be
hired or whether RITA should remain in place, right?
A Yes.
Q And you said let's wait and see if it works out

with RITA?
A Yes.
Q You wanted to see if it worked out with RITA,

because if it worked out with RITA that's what would have
been best for the city, right?
A Yes.
Q And that's what you would have done, what's best

for the city in regard to that?
A Yes.
(2 Now Mr. Gray, one of the things about Mr. Gray that
you liked is that you thought he was an intelligent man
as well as a good friend?
A Yes.
Q And that he had a good political sense?

A Yes.
Q And you could go get advice to him, and talk to him

and do things and learn things from him?
A Yes.
Q And that you could get advice from him that would
help you do a better job as a mayor?
A Yes.
(Z So when you went and asked him for help so you

could do a better job as a mayor, he gave it to you all
the time?
A Yes.
Q Whatever the subject was?

A Yes.
Q And one of the subjects was this demolition
housing, this demolition and the development contracts
that you talked about?
A Yes.
Q And in fact, the whole idea of the demolishing old

places and rehabilitating old places and doing new
development, that's all of a benefit to the City of East
Cleveland, isn't it?
A That's correct.
Q And you discussed that with Mr. Gray because you

wanted his input on how to best serve the City of
Cleveland?
A That's correct.
Q And in fact, there was one tape where he was

talking about some guy that he checked out for you that
was maybe going to do demo -- or rehabilitation. And he
said, Emmanuel, this guy just doesn't do a good job.

A That's correct.
Q And he nixed him, I think the word was?

A Yes.
Q And you agreed with that because that's what was
good for the City of East Cleveland, didn't you?
A That's correct. But at the same time you have to
understand that we have a business discussion and
relationship in which --
Q I haven't asked you a question?

A In which --
MS. PEARSON: Let him finish the question.
THE COURT: He's allowed to be responsive.
A The main reason why I discussed those activities,
demolition and rehab with his was because we have
discussion where if he gets more contract, then he gets
more money for me and for himself.
So if he can get a contract, contractor who
will do demolition, will do housing, that's more money to
him and more money to me.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And in all of those discussions about demolition
and housing and CMHA and all of that, there was not a
single mention of benefit to you or benefit to him on
those tapes, was there?
A Because it was discussed earlier in 1998.

Q So t h e a n s w e r i s no?
A Not i n t h o s e t a p e s .
Q Right. Now you were a s k e d a b o u t t h a t l a n d b a n k . He
a s k e d you i f h e c o u l d g e t t h e l a n d b a n k l i s t ?
A Yes.
Q A l l right. You u n d e r s t a n d t h a t ' s a p u b l i c r e c o r d ?
A Yes.
Q You u n d e r s t a n d t h a t a n y b o d y c o u l d g e t i t b y j u s t
g o i n g on l i n e ?
A Yes.
Q And i f a n y f r i e n d o f y o u r s a s k e d you f o r t h a t
p u b l i c r e c o r d you would h a v e b e e n g l a d t o g i v e i t t o him,
w o u l d n ' t you?
A That i s c o r r e c t .
Q And i f i t was a f r i e n d you were m e e t i n g l a t e r , you
would h a v e b e e n g l a d t o g i v e i t t o t h e m when you m e t them
later?
A That's correct.
Q T h i s Ray Chen a n d Ross B r a n k a t e l l i , t h e y were
h i r e d -- o r r a t h e r Ray Chen was t a l k e d t o a n d R o s s
B r a n k a t e l l i was h i r e d b e c a u s e t h e c i t y n e e d e d a n e n g i n e e r
on t h e p a y r o l l , right?
A Yes.
Q And nobody w a n t e d t h a t j o b ?
A Yes.
Q Am I c o r r e c t ?
A That's correct.
Q And s o you asked Ralph T y l e r , gee, w i l l you h e l p me
g e t somebody t o do t h i s job?
A I did.
Q And you asked Nate Gray, w i l l you h e l p me t o g e t
somebody t o do t h i s job?
A I did.
Q I t w a s n ' t easy, was i t ?
A No.
Q Now, i n terms of t h e e n g i n e e r of r e c o r d i s s u e ,
t h e r e was a guy named Mike Benza, was i t ?
A Yes.
Q You d i d n ' t t h i n k he was doing a good job, d i d you?
A Well, t h e r e was i s s u e s about t h a t .
Q Yeah, he w a s n ' t he r e t u r n i n g t h e phone c a l l s . He
w a s n ' t g e t t i n g t h e job done f o r t h e c i t y , r i g h t ?
A We had some i s s u e s , yes.
Q Are t h o s e t h e i s s u e s ?
A P a r t of them.
Q And you wanted t o g e t somebody i n t h e r e t h a t would
be responsive s o t h e c i t y could g e t t h e i r roads taken
c a r e of and g e t money from t h e s t a t e , r i g h t ?
A T h a t ' s not t h e main r e a s o n .
Q But t h a t was c e r t a i n l y one o f t h e r e a s o n s why you

wanted to change from Benza to Ralph Tyler?
A The main reason --
Q I'm just saying one of the reasons?

A The main reason why I change from Benza to Ralph
Tyler is because Nate and I have talked about Ralph Tyler
many times, and the professional agreement was running
out. We need to bring him as full time city engineer so
that our relationship financially will continue.
Q One of the reasons was that you didn't like the job
Benza was doing and you wanted somebody who would help
the city?
A I was the one running the city, not you, and I'm
giving you the reason.
Q Are you saying that wasn't one of the reasons?

A I've given you the main reason.
Q Now, I'm asking you, was that one of the reasons;
Benza wasn't doing the job and you wanted somebody who
would?
A I did not state that, but there are other issues,

that is what I said.
Q Now, on this idea of trying to get Brankatelli and,
you know, working with Ray Chen to try to get somebody to
do this job that nobody wanted, it was important to the
city, wasn't it?
A It was.
647
Q And it was important to the city because if you

don't have an engineer on the payroll you can't get state
funds for certain things.
A No. There is a need to have a city engineer that
have a various classifications in terms of inspections,

in terms of making sure someone understanding the
engineering components of what goes on with the city. It
has nothing to do with state funding.
Q It what?
A It has nothing to do with state funding.
Q Now, one of the things that you said about

Brankatelli as well, you didn't like the idea that he
said he was in Shaker Square because you didn't want to

be seen with Mr. Gray, is that right?
A I always go to places with Mr. Gray, so I never
said I didn't want to be seen with Mr. Gray.
What I said was, he shouldn't have made that
statement that we met at Shaker Square in Mr. Gray's
office.
Q Okay. You are saying now that you had no problem

being seen with Mr. Gray?
A No.
Q Whatsoever?
A No.
Q Now, one of the other things Mr. Gray did for you
648
as a friend and as somebody you trusted was try to help
you with your relationship with your wife?
A I think you asked me that question many times.
Q And the answer is?

A The answer is yes.
Q All right. And at one time, you were having a
problem with your wife and she grabbed you by the tie,
isn't that correct?
THE COURT: I'm not sure how it's
relevant.
THE WITNESS: That's --
THE COURT: I don't think it's relevant.
THE WITNESS: Grabbed me by my tie, come
on.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Let me ask you this. Forget that.
At one point didn't Mr. Gray take you and put
you up in a Holiday Inn for three days so that you could
calm down?
THE COURT: I still don't understand how
it's relevant.
MR. WHITAKER: I think it goes to the

relationship to what Mr. Gray did for him.
THE COURT: Go ahead and answer it.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And on the tape that we heard, when you were

talking about going to Las Vegas, that was something you
were doing for your wife, wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q And he said she deserves it, doesn't he?

A Yes. Yes.
Q Now, on the CH2M Hill contract or the OM1 contract,

that was something that you did because you thought it
was going to be of benefit to the City of East Cleveland,
didn't you?
A Benefit for the city and also benefit between me
and Mr. Gray.
Q Well, it first came up when you were in Washington

D.C. at a mayor's conference, right?
A Yes.
Q And at that mayor's conference CH2M Hill gave a
presentation, didn't they?
A Yes.
Q And all of big companies that do business with

cities go to these mayor conferences, don't they?
A Yes.
650
Q And t h e y h a v e h o s p i t a l i t y s u i t e s a n d t h e y t a k e
mayors o u t t o d i n n e r s and a l l t h o s e k i n d s o f t h i n g s ?
A Yes.
Q I n o r d e r t o t r y t o p r e s e n t t h e i r p r o d u c t a n d show
what t h e y have?
A Yes.
Q And i t was a t o n e o f t h o s e f u n c t i o n s t h a t you
l e a r n e d a b o u t CH2M H i l l ?
A Yes.
Q And you t h o u g h t t h i s i s g r e a t , t h i s i s j u s t what
t h e W a t e r D e p a r t m e n t n e e d s , w e c a n make, we c a n d o
s o m e t h i n g good f o r t h e C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d , d i d n ' t
you?
A Yes.
Q And when you w e n t b a c k , you s a i d t o M r . G r a y , man,
I f o u n d t h i s company t h a t I t h i n k i s g o i n g t o b e g r e a t
f o r t h e C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d a n d what d o you t h i n k ?
And h e s a i d I know them?
A Yes.
Q Okay.
And I ' l l h e l p you g e t a c o n t r a c t w i t h them?
A Yes.
Q And h e d i d , h e s e t u p a m e e t i n g w h e r e p e o p l e came
a n d g a v e you a much more d e t a i l e d p r e s e n t a t i o n o f what
t h e y c a n do?
A Yes.
Q And they told you about their product?

A Yes.
Q And you weren't the final decision maker on this,

were you?
A Well, I was the one who pushed it.
Q Okay. It had to be approved by City Council,

didn't it?
A Yes.
Q And then even after that there was a fiscal

commission that had been appointed to look over the
city's finances, isn't that correct?

A That's correct.
Q And they had to approve it as well?

A Yes.
Q Now, we heard an awful lot of conversations about

talking to -- having Greg Parker come and talk to
councilmen and who -- public presentations being made and
all that kind of stuff, right?
A Yes.
Q And the reason for that was so that CH2M Hill could
tell what they were doing for the city?
A Yes.
Q And you wanted them to tell the truth at those
meetings on what their projections were and how they

arrived a t those projections, i s n ' t t h a t right?
A Yes.
Q And you w a n t e d t o d o t h a t s o C i t y C o u n c i l c o u l d
h a v e a l l t h e f a c t s when t h e y made t h e d e c i s i o n a b o u t t h e
c o n c e r n s t h a t were b e i n g r a i s e d b y CH2M H i l l , isn't that
correct?
A Yes.
Q And M r . Gray h e l p e d you on e v e r y a s p e c t o f t h a t
way?
A Yes.
Q And t h a t ' s s o m e t h i n g you would e x p e c t a c o n s u l t a n t
t o do on a n y k i n d o f a c o n t r a c t , w h e t h e r i t was M r . Gray
o r anybody e l s e ?
A Yes.
Q Now, y e s t e r d a y you t a l k e d a b o u t -- i f I c a n f i n d i t
h e r e -- t h e f o l l o w u p l e t t e r . Here i t i s .
MR. WHITAKER: I t w i l l j u s t t a k e me one
s e c o n d , y o u r Honor, a n d I ' m a l m o s t d o n e h e r e .
(2 Now, o n e o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t CH2M H i l l s a i d t h e y
c o u l d d o f o r t h e C i t y o f C l e v e l a n d was t h e y t h o u g h t t h e y
could save t h e c i t y a million d o l l a r s a year, i s n ' t t h a t
correct?
A The C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d .
Q C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d , you a r e r i g h t , e x c u s e me
sir?
A T h a t ' s okay, y e s .
Q And t h e y showed you how t h e y t h o u g h t t h a t t h e y
could do t h a t ?
A Yes.
Q And you a l s o c h e c k e d o u t t o make s u r e t h a t you know
t h a t CH2M H i l l i s a m a j o r c o r p o r a t i o n d o i n g b u s i n e s s e s
with cities around t h e United S t a t e s ?
A Yes.
Q And you -- t h e y e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e y would b e a b l e t o

s a v e t h i s money, s a v e t h e C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d t h i s
money b e c a u s e t h e y would b e a b l e t o g e n e r a t e more income
a n d r e d u c e t h e e x p e n s e s t h a t t h e c i t y h a d w i t h t h e Water
D e p a r t m e n t a t t h e t i m e you t a l k e d a b o u t e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e
contract?
A Yes.
Q And you t h o u g h t a s Mayor, g i v e n my b e s t h o n e s t
e f f o r t t o t h e C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d , t h i s would b e a
good t h i n g t o d o ?
A Yes.
Q And when t h e r e were p r o b l e m s w i t h t h a t , you s t i l l
h a d f a i t h i n CH2M H i l l , i s n ' t that correct?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q And as a m a t t e r o f f a c t , you t o l d t h e r e p o r t e r f r o m
t h e P l a i n D e a l e r j u s t g o t a l k t o them?
A Yes.
654
Q And you were happy to have all those officials come
into City Council because you wanted this contract to go
forward?
A Yes.
Q And you had a discussion with Mr. Gray about this,

in which you agreed the decision to bring in CH2M Hill
was for your legacy because it would be such a good thing
to do for the City of East Cleveland?
A Yes.
Q And you had that conversation while you were
wearing a wire?
A Yes.
Q For the FBI?

A Yes.
Q And he didn't know that, did he?

A No.
Q And that was the kind of conversation you had?

A Yes.
Q We didn't hear that tape, did we?

A No.
Q And by virtue of what they could save you, that one

million also included what OM1 or CH2M Hill would be paid
in their fees?
A Yes.
Q So it really looked to you like a win win situation

for the City of East Cleveland?
A Oh, yes.
Q Now, you yesterday talked about a letter

terminating CH2M Hill in March of, around March 25th of
2003, right?
A Yes.
Q Why did you say you did that?

A Well, in the first place the assumptions that they
gave to us, when they gave their presentation, on how
they will reduce the cost to the city and increase
revenues, their assumptions were wrong. It was stated
that within six months they will be able to bring the
system up in way that would receive more money and the
city would not be spending more.
In reality, after six months that was not
accomplished. We experienced more problems with billing
systems and other issues. They did not live up to the
discussions and the understanding in the agreement, so as
a result I began to make move to terminate that
arrangement.
Of course, it also fell in place within the
period when I was stopped by the FBI.
Q You realize in -- from all the meetings that you

were in and all the work you were doing trying to get the
right information to City Council, that one of the

656
problems about the projections was that there were leaky
water meters?
A One of them.
Q And another one was in the data that they had been
given by the City of East Cleveland, some vacant lots
were apparently included that wouldn't be able to
generate any income as had been projected earlier?
A One of them, yes.
Q And as a matter of fact, I didn't hear you mention

this yesterday, but about two weeks after you sent them
that letter you sent them another letter hiring them
back, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q Now, you had a statement about, oh, you put your

hat over the money because you felt so bad, right?
A Yes.
Q You never put your hat over the money or hid the
money in any way in all of the meetings up until that
time, did you?
A I really did not. It was just something that
occurred that day. I didn't know, just my instinct just
reacted that way.
Q And you didn't do it at any time you got money

after that, did you?
A Not that I remember.

657
Q And the fact is that you decided to repent and feel

bad about it after you had been convicted by a jury,
isn't that correct?
A Well, it is better to repent than to hold it to
keep denying for a long time.
Q And your timing on the repenting was after your

conviction, right?
A Yes.
Q And you repenting you expect to save you ten years

in prison?
A My repenting have to do with my belief. Saving me
ten years in prison doesn't make any difference, because
when I'm wrong I have to be punished by my belief, and
I'm being punished right now. I've been in jail for over
360-something days, if I'm not mistaken, and I will be

there to be punished for what I've done. And I take
responsibility for that.
Q And you decided to take responsibility at the same

time you decided to negotiate 10 years off your prison
sentence?
A That have no bearing.
Q But the timing is correct?

A That's fine.
MR. WHITAKER: If I may have one second,
your Honor.
No f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s , y o u r Honor.
MR. JENKINS: No q u e s t i o n s , y o u r Honor.
THE COURT: Is t h e r e a n y r e d i r e c t ?
MS. PEARSON: Yes, y o u r Honor.

- - -
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Good m o r n i n g , s i r .
A Good m o r n i n g .
Q T h e r e were q u i t e a few q u e s t i o n s p u t t o you a b o u t
t h e R a l p h T y l e r Company a n d c o n t r a c t s t h a t you e n t e r e d
i n t o w i t h t h i s company w h i l e you were t h e Mayor o f C i t y
of E a s t Cleveland, weren't t h e r e ?
A Yes.
Q I would l i k e t o show you w h a t ' s b e e n m a r k e d a s
Government's E x h i b i t 526.
MS. PEARSON: And j u s t e n l a r g e t h e t o p ,
please.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Do you r e c o g n i z e t h i s s i r ?
A Yes. This i s t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e agreement w e
e n t e r e d i n 2000.
Q Where d i d t h i s f a l l ? Was t h i s t h e f i r s t a g r e e m e n t
you e n t e r e d i n t o w i t h R a l p h T y l e r ?
659
A Yes.
Q And I would like to show you what's been marked as

government -- let me ask you, is this a permanent
position, full time position with the Ralph Tyler
Company?
A It is not permanent. It's just with this agreement
we can only spend approximately $15,000.
MS. PEARSON: Would you please next show

what has been marked as Government's Exhibit 523.
You just passed it 523.
Q Sir, do you recognize this letter?

A Yes.

A It was a letter sent from me to Ralph Tyler.
Q And what does it accomplish?

A Basically when City Council accepted the Ralph
Tyler Engineering Company as the city consulting engineer
of record, I decided to send this letter to affirm our
decision of Council.
Q Would you describe for the jury whether this was a

permanent or limited position?
A This was permanent. The company now is totally,
totally in charge of our all engineering activities.
Q And sir, what's the date on this letter to Ralph

Tyler?
660
A It is October 16, 2002.
Q Now, would you please tell the jury what role you
played regarding whether or not Council, City Council
approved awarding this contract to the Ralph Tyler
Company?
A Well, I'm not sure. I stayed with Council during
the presentations and also to discuss with members of
Council the fact that I want Ralph Tyler Engineering
Company to be hired. And even in our meetings after the
presentations were made, I stood by to make sure that
Ralph Tyler Engineering Company was hired.
Q Was that typical behavior for you when a contract

is being reviewed by Council?
A Not always.
(2 Why did you do it this time?

A Well, basically because of the financial benefit
that I was receiving from Ralph Tyler, which I want to
see continue through Mr. Gray.
Q Sir, you were also asked several questions about

the contract you entered into with CH2M Hill who also has
an operating business called OMI, weren't you?
A Yes.
Q Would you please tell the jury why you met with
representatives of CH2M Hill at Nate Gray's office
initially?
661
A Well, the first time when I spoke to Mr. Gray that
I met this company in Washington, he told me he know of
them and that in fact he would set t h e m e e t i n g up so t h a t
I would meet with them to discuss what they can do for
the city.
And of course, with my discussion with
Mr. Gray, I say we discussed it would be a win win for
us; once this company comes in that more money will come
to him and more money that will come to me.
Q But even still, why didn't you hold the meeting at

City Hall?
A Well, most of this type of arrangement with

Mr. Gray always have that meeting first in his office.
Q And why is that, sir?

A To keep our relationship and what we are doing
secret.
Q Now at that time, did you have an understanding as

to whether or not Mr. Gray was a consultant for CH2M
Hill?
A No, I was not aware of that.
Q Now, I would like to talk about the approval

process for entering into that contract. As a practical
matter would you describe for the jury what Council's
role was in approving that OM1 contract?
A Basically the OMI, when I introduced them to

662
members of City Council, they made the presentation. And
of course I was there to speak on their behalf. I was
there to speak on the need that this arrangement will be
better for the city. And of course, based on my request
and insistence the Council approved that contract.
And then we then have to move to the State
Fiscal Commission, which also I was a member, and we have
the OMI/CH2M Hill presentation before that committee.
And of course I spoke favorably for us to
hire the company, and members of that committee approved
it, and I also voted on that approval.
Q Before approving the contract, did the Fiscal

Commission suggest you do anything first?
A Yes. They wanted me to maybe advertise for request
for qualifications and proposal, or seek other companies
that should be allowed to come in so that we could have a
competitive bid.
Q Did you do that, sir?
A No, I did not.
Q Why not?
A Well, I don't see that beneficial to me
financially. Because Mr. Gray and I have an
understanding, you know, with this company, if it goes,
if they become the company to operate our Water
Department, it would be money that would come to him,

663
come to me. So I did not see any reason why I should go
and find another company or seek other bids.
Q Although you didn't seek bids, did you receive any

other bids?
A I did receive a letter from another company also.
Q What did you do with that letter, sir?

A I tore it, tore the letter and throw inside the
trash.
Q And what was the letter communicating to you?

A That company also wanted to come and make a
presentation before me and members of Council.
Q Why didn't you at least have the presentation from

that company?
A Why? For what? I don't see myself and Mr. Gray

receiving any financial benefit from them. So I did not
pursue that.
(2 Sir, you were asked several questions about

statements you made to the FBI. Do you recall those
questions?
A Yes, I do.
Q Specifically, you were asked several questions

about an FBI 302 that's dated December 10, 2004. You
were given excerpts of the 302, and I would like to put
that in context?
A Okay.
664
Q " A f t e r Onunwor t o o k o f f i c e a s Mayor o f E a s t
C l e v e l a n d i n 1 9 9 8 , h e met w i t h G r a y . "
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q S i r , d i d you r e v i e w t h i s FBI r e p o r t ?
A No.
(Z Did you h a v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o see i t b e f o r e
Mr. G r a y ' s a t t o r n e y showed i t t o you t o d a y ?
A No.
Q I n g e n e r a l , s i r , d i d you t e l l t h e FBI t h a t you were
b e i n g p a i d b y M r . Gray?
A Yes.
Q S p e c i f i c a l l y a f t e r b e i n g e l e c t e d t o Mayor t o t h e
p o s i t i o n o f Mayor?
A Yes.
Q Did you t e l l t h e FBI what you were d o i n g i n
e x c h a n g e f o r t h e e n v e l o p e s f u l l o f c a s h t h a t you were
r e c e i v i n g from M r . Gray?
A Yes.
Q Mr. G r a y ' s a t t o r n e y a s k e d you a b o u t a p e r s o n ,
C h e r y l N e a l Reed?
A Yes.
(Z Did you a s k M r . Gray t o p r o v i d e money t o h e r t o p a y
taxes?
665
n I don't remember specifically.
Q Who is Cheryl Neal Reed, would you tell the jury?
A She is one of the staff that works with me at City
Hall.
Q During what time? What were you doing at City Hall

during the time you were working with Miss Reed?
A Well, I was the Mayor at the time.
(2 Had there been a request, what would have been your

position at that time, your job?
A I really don't know what my position would have
been.
Q Let me ask a better question.

Did you know, did you work with Cheryl Neal
Reed before becoming Mayor?
A She worked on my campaign.
Q And then after becoming Mayor you took her on as

one of your staff members?
A Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Object to the leading, your
Honor.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Sir, yesterday Mr. Gray's attorney asked you
questions about you becoming Mayor and Mr. Gray's role in
that. In fact, he asked you whether or not Mr. Gray had

discouraged you. And you said that he had?
A Yeah, well.
Q Would you please explain your answer?

A Well, basically --
A Basically, as was my custom, I always meet with
Mr. Gray. We met and I was telling him that I plan to
run for the position of Mayor.
He said, well, you know, that's a difficult
job. You know, he will not really encourage me. But if
I want to did that, he will support me all the way.
(Z And you also asked questions about Mr. Gray's

motivation for giving you envelopes; that the money was
out of generosity or the goodness of his heart.
Do you recall those questions?
A Yes.
Q Sir, I would like you to tell us in your own words

your understanding why you received envelopes full of
cash time and time again from Mr. Gray while you were the
Mayor of the City of East Cleveland?
MR. WHITAKER: Objection. Asked and
answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: She hasn't asked it since
you've questioned him. I'll overrule the objection.

BY MS. PEARSON:
Q You may a n s w e r .
A Yes, o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p a t t h e b e g i n n i n g b e t w e e n 1994
t o 1997 was f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s h i p , a n d I d i d r e c e i v e
f i n a n c i a l h e l p f r o m h i m n o t more t h a n f o u r t i m e s . But
when I became t h e Mayor, o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p c h a n g e d i n t o a
b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p , where h e t o l d me i n o r d e r f o r him
t o g i v e m e money t o a s s i s t m e , h e n e e d more c o n t r a c t . He
n e e d c o n t r a c t s t o come t o him.
So t h o s e money t h a t I were r e c e i v i n g were
b r i b e s t h a t I w e r e r e c e i v i n g w h i c h i n f l u e n c e d my d e c i s i o n
t o make s u r e t h a t t h o s e c o n t r a c t s g o e s t h r o u g h h i m .
MS. PEARSON: No f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s , y o u r
Honor.
MR. WHITAKER: I have one q u e s t i o n based
on t h o s e , y o u r Honor. A q u e s t i o n a b o u t one s u b j e c t .
- - -
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q You were a s k e d a b o u t y o u r p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s
a g r e e m e n t w i t h R a l p h T y l e r a n d why you e n t e r e d i n t o t h a t ,
d o you r e c a l l ?
A Yes.
Q A l l right. A f t e r March 1 1 t h you h a d n o f i n a n c i a l
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h M r . Gray a t a l l , d i d you?
A No.
Q And after the time you met with the FBI.

And you never got any money of any kind from
him after that, right?
A I don't recall.
(2 None that you remember?

A No.
(Z All right. I'm going to show you what's been

marked as -- it's not on there.
You see down here in the corner Government's
Exhibit 524?
A Yes.
Q And that's a contract, a professional services

agreement with the Ralph Tyler Company, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q And going to the last page of that, that's one that

you entered into with them as Mayor?
A This is one of the professional contract, not the
first one. This particular professional contract is
specific for the Martin Luther King Civic Center.
Q My question was, though, you are the one that

entered into it with him though, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And the date you entered into that contract, as we
see at the top, was in August of 2003, isn't that

correct?
A That's correct. But there was --
MS. PEARSON: Objection.
A But there was another contract that goes back the
professional contract in 2000.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q I understand that. But the reason you entered into

this contract in 2003 was because you thought Ralph Tyler
Company was the best company to be working for the City
of East Cleveland, isn't that correct?
A Again, based on my relationship with Mr. Nate, with
Mr. Gray, we already talked about bringing Ralph in, and
that's all it is.
Q But in August of 2003, you had no relationship with

Mr. Gray, isn't that correct?
A In August?
Q Of 2003?
A My relationship with Mr. Gray continued even after
I was stopped by the FBI.
(1 Let's put it this way, you had no financial

relationship with Mr. Gray after March llth, isn't that
correct?
A That's correct.
Q So when you entered into this contract in August of
2003, some six months later, you did it because Ralph

Tyler was the best company for the City of East
Cleveland, isn't that correct?
A I did it to continue the relationship with Ralph
Tyler and the city.
(Z Because it was best for the City of East Cleveland?

A I did it to continue the relationship of the work
with Ralph Tyler and the city.
THE COURT: Thank you. You can step down.
We'll take about a ten minute break. Same
rules apply. Leave the pads face down and we'll
come get you in about 10 minutes.
(Brief recess)
THE COURT: Would the? United States call
your next witness.
MR. DETTELBACH: United States calls
Carmello LoParo.
CARMELLO LoPARO
called as a witness by and on behalf of the
Government was first duly sworn and testified
as follows:
THE COURT: Please take a seat and then
state your name and spell your last name?
THE WITNESS: My name is Carmello, last

name Loparo, L-0 capital P-A-R-0.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Mr. LoParo, what is your current employment?

A I'm the owner of a private investigation firm,
Discovery Resources, Incorporated.
Q How long have you been doing that?

A For 9 years.
Q Before you were a private investigator what did you

do?
A I was a special agent with the FBI.
Q Now, sir, tell us if you've heard the term sweep?

A Yes, sir.
Q And what does that mean and is it something that
you do?
A It refers to a technical survey of counter
measures, is the formal name for it. But it's a counter
measure sweep. In street terms, it would be sweeping for
bugs, looking for microphones or cameras.
Q Do you do that?
A Yes, I do, sir.
Q Are you familiar with the name Nate Gray?

A Yes, sir.
Q Did you provide that service for that individual?
A Yes, I did, sir.

672
Q What date was it that you provided that service?

A According to my records I looked at recently it was
April first of '03.
Q Sir, when you were asked to provide those services

what, if any, time constraints were placed upon you?
A I was called that morning and asked if I could do
it that day.
Q What was your response?

MS. WHITAKER: Objection, your Honor.
MS. WHITAKER: On prior testimony is
covered by attorney/client privilege.

THE COURT: I'll overrule that objection.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q What was your response initially to that request?

A My initial response was that I would not be able to
do it that day because I didn't have the equipment with
me, and usually it's hard to do it that fast.
Q And what was their response to that?

A Could I do it? Would I please do it? And I did.
Q Where was it that you went to conduct this sweep

for bugs?
A The office of Mr. Gray on Shaker Square, in
Cleveland.
Q And did you have any understanding as to what type

of business it was when you went there?
A If I remember correctly, for some reason I thought

it was a real estate office, but it wasn't really
discussed in detail that morning.
Q What did you do when you got there?

A The normal procedure is to talk to the client
outside the office. Because obviously if there is

something in the office, you wouldn't want to discuss it
or be seen or listened to.
And so we talked to Mr. Gray outside the
office and told him what our procedures would be.
Q Did Mr. Gray make any recommendations as to what

room you should start in?
A Which is the normal -- again, the normal procedure,
yes, we asked which rooms are the ones you would like us
to do, and we started in his office.
Q And when you say his office, you mean is there one
particular room, you say his office?
A Mr. Gray's office, I believe it was Mr. Gray's
office.
Q Now, did you the find something there?

A Yes, we did.
Q How long did it take you to find it?

A Less than 10 or 15 minutes.
Q And was Mr. Gray there when you found it?

A Yes, he was.
Q What was his reaction?

A Obviously upset.
Q Sir, after you found the initial -- after you found

the surveillance equipment, were you requested to do any
other sweeps, other than the office?
A I was asked if we would be able to do cars or
houses or cell phones.
Q And what did you say?

A I said no. At that point I didn't want to do any
more.
Q And who was contacted about the results of your

initial sweep?
A The FBI.
Q And based on your work there, did you believe that

it was an FBI bug?
A Based on my previous experience of having put them
in, it did look like one from the FBI.
MR. DETTELBACH: Nothing further.
Mr. Jones, do you have any cross
examination?
MR. CAFFERKEY: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Whitaker or Ms. Whitaker?
MS. WHITAKER: I just have a few

questions, your Honor.
- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Good morning, Mr. LoParo?

A Good morning.
Q My name is Andrea Whitaker. I represent Mr. Gray.

I have a few questions for you.
Who hired you to sweep Mr. Gray's office?
A William Byer.
Q Do you know who Mr. Byer is?

A Yes, I do. He's an attorney in Cleveland.
Q And when you say, you had been called to do these

sweeps, and it's normal procedure to talk about where to
start, would it be normal procedure to start where that
person spends most of their time?
A That's usually where you start with. I leave it up
to the client because I don't know were sensitive
conversations may have taken place. We always ask the

client.
Q How long have you been performing these sweeps

outside the FBI?
A Outside the FBI, about 12 years, 13 years.
Q And during that time had you ever been found

anybody who was happy about finding a bug in their
1 office?
2 A No.
3 MS. WHITAKER: T h a n k you. No f u r t h e r
4 questions.
5 THE COURT: Do you have a n y r e d i r e c t o r do
6 y o u have a n y q u e s t i o n s M r . J e n k i n s ?
7 MR. J E N K I N S : No, sir.
8 MR. DETTELBACH: No, your H o n o r .
9 THE COURT: T h a n k you.
10 Would you c a l l y o u r n e x t w i t n e s s .
11 MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, the U n i t e d States
12 calls M i c h a e l Day.
13 THE COURT: You w a n t t o c o m e on u p h e r e .
14 R a i s e your r i g h t hand.
15 - - -
16 MICHAEL DAY
17 c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s b y and o n behalf of t h e
18 G o v e r n m e n t w a s f i r s t d u l y s w o r n and t e s t i f i e d
19 as f o l l o w s :
20 THE COURT: P l e a s e t a k e a seat a n d t h e n
21 s t a t e your n a m e a n d s p e l l your l a s t n a m e .
22 THE WITNESS: My n a m e i s M i c h a e l D a y ,
23 D-A-Y.
24 D I R E C T EXAMINATION
25 BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Sir, could you please tell us where you are
employed?
A Yes, I'm a Senior Audit Manager with the Auditor of
State's Office in Ohio.
Q How long have you been with the Auditor of State's

Office.
A Approximately seven years.
Q What are your general duties?

A I oversee performance audits, different clients all
across the state.
Q You say clients, who actually do you work for? Who

is your employer?
A The employer is the Auditor of State.
Q Sir, I want to ask you some questions about your

background. Can you give us some basic educational
background regarding yourself?
A I have a Bachelor of Business Administration from
Shawnee State University, and a Masters of Business
Administration from Morehead State University, and also
currently a certified government professional auditor.
Q I'm sorry?
A Certified Professional Government Auditor.
Q Just try to keep your voice up.

A All right.
Q I know the chair doesn't know.

678
Sir, what was your undergraduate degree in?
A Business administration, accounting major.
Q Did you also work during that time?
A Yes, I did.
Q What did you do?

A During the bachelors degree I was a fire fighter
for the city of Fortune.
Q And did you receive any graduation honors?

A Magna cum laude.
Q And sir, where was it that you got your MBA?
A From Morehead State University. Morehead,
Kentucky.
Q Do you have any business or accounting teaching
experience?
A Yes. I was an Adjunct Faculty for Shawnee State
University and for the University of Findlay.
Q Directing your attention to work experience. Can
you please tell us, give us a background sketch of the
different jobs you've held before you went to Auditor of
State?
A As we talked, I started out as a fire fighter to
the city of Portsmouth. When I got my bachelors degree I
went to work for Shawnee State University as a
accountant. Worked there about seven years. Went back
to the city of Portsmouth as Community Development

67 9
Director and then from there came to the State of Ohio
Auditors Office.
Q What did you do while you worked for Shawnee State?

A I was a staff accountant. My primary
responsibilities was restricted auxiliary and agency
funds for the university.
Q I'm not sure I understand that?

A Restricted or grants funds auxiliaries are the
student like athletics, book store, and the agency funds
are just students accounts.
Q You said you actually had some experience working

in local government?
A Yes, with the city of Portsmouth.
Q You were the Community Development Director?

A Yes, I was.
(1 What did you do there?

A I oversaw both economic development and community
development grants. And when I took the job I took over
most of the grants and other funds that the city received
from other sources.
Q Directing your attention to the Auditor's office.

Can you tell us, have you held the same job for the
entire time you've been there?

A Yes. I moved up the from the Auditor in Charge to
Senior Auditor position.

Q You heard the term performance audit?
A Yes, I have.
Q What is a performance audit?

A A performance audit looks at really the operations
aspect of an entity. We look at different performance
indicators for their processes.
Q You say entity. What kinds of entities do you do

performance audits for as Senior Auditor?
A Any state governmental entity from local cemeteries
to cities, counties, townships, school districts.
Q During your time with Auditor of State, how many

have you been involved with these performance audits for
the cities and the like.
A For performance audits directly, probably about 25
or 30. Indirectly even more.
Q Now, I want to ask you just about the general

processes that you go through when you do a performance
audit .
Would you walk us through what you do when
you do one of these performance audits for a city, let's
say?
A For a city we are normally contacted by the city or
some agency connected with the city to do the performance
audit. We make some initial meetings with the client to
determine the scope of the project, what issues they are

681
looking to find some help with. So those initial
meetings we kind of scope out the project.
We have internal meetings that we map out our
work process, our work plan. And from there we start our
field work with the agency.
Q What do you mean field work?

A Field work is where staff auditors would go in and
do the leg work to find the information we need to do the
comparisons, get documents, do interviews, and do other
assessments within the entity.
Q What do you mean get documents? What type of

documents do you look at?
A We look at all sorts of financial documents. We
look at process documents, internal controls, quality
control documents, policies, procedures, other reports.
Q Now, you mentioned that you have a team?

A Yes.
Q Who is on that team?
A There is usually a Senior Audit Manager who is in
charge of the project on site. There is what we term now
audit manager, who is the day-to-day supervision. And
then we have staff members from our office.
Q You say from your office, what office do they come

from?
A From the Auditor of State's office.

682
Q Do people who work on your actual audit team work

for the city that's involved?
A No.
Q Do they work for any of the contracting entities

that are involved?
A No, they do not.
Q Do they work for the federal government?

A No, they do not.
Q What's the purpose of not having a city employee

run the audit or being on the audit?
A As an independence issue and a second set of eyes
on the processes to help.
Q You say you conduct interviews. What type of

interviews are conducted?
A We do interviews wit the -- for instance in the
city's case we do interviews of mayors, counsel,
department heads, particularly in those areas that our
scope covers.
Q Now with respect to your audit, is there any
dialogue that occurs during the time that you are coming
to your conclusions or making your findings?
A With the city --
Q Yes.
A -- or with the client? Yes. All through the
process we try to keep the client apprized of where were

683
at, what we are finding, make sure we have the correct
and accurate numbers. So all through the process we try
t o make sure there are n o surprises at the e n d o f the
audit.
Q Do they always agree with what you do?

A No.
Q Is there any opportunity for them to contest or

give you more information?
A Yes, there is. They do -- there are periods that
they can comment on our findings and our documents and
drafts, and we have tried to talk with them, incorporate
some. We may disagree with on some. But yes, we do take
that into consideration.
Q At the end of the audit, is there anything or final

written document that's prepared?
A Yes, there is an audit report that is prepared
containing the recommendations and conclusions.
Q What happens to that report?

A When we have a post up with the client, that's the
final chance for them to make any kind of comments about
it, and then it's officially released and becomes a
public document available on our web site.
Q You mentioned the word recommendations. Do you

have the power to force the city to follow what you say
in the audit?
A NO, we don't.
Q You can just issue the report?

A Yes.
Q Did you participate in a performance audit for the

City of East Cleveland, Ohio?
A Yes, I did.
Q What was the time frame and the type of thing we

just discussed, that type of process?
A Yes.
Q What was the time frame for that particular

performance audit?
A That was back in -- started really in 2001, I
believe, and released toward the end of the year.
Q Of 2002?
A Two, yes.
Q I'm sorry?
A Yes, it was started in 2001 and finally released in
2002.
Q And compared to audits that you do, could you tell

us, is that lengthy? Not lengthy? How does that
compare?
A It's kind of lengthy. Normally it's around six
months. But we had some prep work to do ask just getting
the peers for the city, and so that took a little longer.
Q Now I want to show on the screen Exhibit 14. Can

you see that on the screen in front of you?
A Yes, I can.
Q And do you recognize that cover page?

A Yes, I do.
Q What is this?
A This is the performance audit for the City of East
Cleveland.
Q What's the date that it was actually publicly
released?
A September 26th, 2002.
Q In this particular performance audit, was there any

back and forth with the city about the recommendations
that were going to be made ahead of time?
A Yes, there were.
Q And can you just describe generally what that
process was?
A Process began with meeting with the Financial
Supervision and Planning Committee, meeting with the
Mayor, the Mayor's designated liaison for the group, and
some of the council people.
Q Now, can you tell us from your audit, what was the
financial state of the City of East Cleveland during the
time that you performed this performance audit?
A The City of East Cleveland was in a fiscal
emergency status, and had been that way since about '89
or '88, for a long time.
Q And as a result of that status, was there any other

entity that is involved with the city?
A As far as?
Q Well, have you heard of something called the Fiscal

Commission?
A Yes, the Fiscal Commission was.
Q I want to be clear, are you part of the Fiscal

Commission?
A No, I am not.
Q Now, apart from the finances of the city, the

governmental entity itself, from your audit what was the
status, economic status of the people who were residents
of East Cleveland?
A Well, the demographics of the area were, they were
rather poor people. The city had a lot of trouble with,
for instance, collection of all kind of fees and stuff
that the city had from water fees to court fees.
Q Now, with respect to the City of East Cleveland

itself, can you tell us what was the process that you
went through to do the audit?
Let me just shortcut this. Was it the same
process that you discussed before that you generally do
in performance audits?
A That's true, yes.
Q Did you meet with people i n t h e c i t y ?
A Yes, we d i d .
Q Did you review r e c o r d s ?
A Yes, we d i d .
Q And d i d you meet with l e a d e r s h i p i n t h e C i t y of
E a s t Cleveland?
A Yes, we d i d .
Q Have you e v e r heard t h e term s t a k e h o l d e r ?
A Yes.
Q What's a s t a k e h o l d e r i n a c i t y ?
A A stakeholder i s , well, from my o p i n i o n would be
t h o s e groups t h a t have a s t a k e i n some of t h e a c t i o n s of
the c i t y , for instance. The a d u l t c e n t e r , some of t h e
people and groups t h a t p u t on programs i n t h e i r a d u l t
center.
Q Now, d i d you meet with Emrnanuel Onunwor?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q Who was he?
A He was t h e Mayor.
Q Did you e v e r meet with a person named Nate Gray i n
your performance a u d i t ?
A No.
Q Did anybody e v e r t e l l you he had any p o s i t i o n with
t h e C i t y of E a s t Cleveland?
A No.
688
Q Did anybody ever identify him as a stakeholder in

the City of East Cleveland?
A No.
Q As somebody who could provide you helpful

information?
A No.
Q Now, I want to now focus on some specific parts of

your performance audit.
In your performance audit did you review any
aspects of the operation of the East Cleveland Water
Department?
A Yes, we did.
Q And does your report include findings on that
subject?
A Yes, it does.
MR. DETTELBACH: I would now to go to page
3-58. All right.
(Z And specifically this page, 3-58, it's entitled

conclusion statement. Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q And does this contain conclusions that involve the

Water Department?
A Yes, it does.
Q All right and I would like to ask you --

MR. DETTELBACH: Actually, scroll over to
689
the right a little bit. I mean, display the whole

paragraph. You just couldn't read the right side of
it. That's fine.
Q All right. Now, could you please --

Hold on one second I just want to make sure.
All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Actually, go back out to
the whole page. I'm sorry, we can skip that part.
All right. Can you blow up, actually skip to the
bottom paragraph. And we'll continue on the next
part, but start with that.
Q Could you just read that paragraph of your

conclusions?
A Yes. "Of immediate concern is the city's need to
review and analyze the effects of its contract with CH2M
Hill to manage water and waste water operations.
Analysis indicates a potential loss to the City of
approximately 5.5 million over a four year period, 2002
through 2005. Considering that East Cleveland is paying
over two times the cost of operating water and waste
water services internally by contracting out operations
to CH2M Hill, the city did not adequately review the
proposal prior. "
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you go to the next
page, please. It's 3-, it would be 55 on the

exhibit. Okay.
Q Okay, go ahead. Prior to?

A "Prior to contracting with CH2M Hill. The proposal
presented by CH2M Hill does not take into account rate
increases from water and waste water suppliers,
uncollected and uncollectible accounts receivable,
continuing clerical expenses in the Finance Department,
indirect costs, base measurements and performance
standards.
"In addition, CH2M Hill revenue projections
are based on increasing billings above the increase
projected in the proposal, and decreases in purchased
water and sewage, do not reflect the percentage of
efficiency of 90 percent stated in the contract proposal.
"Furthermore, the city has agreed to pay an
incentive to CH2M Hill to do what they were hired to do,

which is to manage the Water and Sewage Departments
efficiently and productively, and to the eliminate the
continuing losses in the enterprise funds.
"Increased billings do not ensure that
collections will also be increased. Especially
considering the large amount of uncollectible and
delinquent accounts at the city. Failure to adequately
review the proposal prior to contracting with CH2M Hill
and not fully enforcing collections make it very

691
difficult for the city to operate with a positive fund
balance in the water and sewer enterprise funds, and may
further worsen the city's financial situation."
Q Sir, with respect to the findings that you made,

you made some findings regarding the review of the
contract.
A Um-hum.
Q Was your understanding that this was a competitive

or noncompetitive situation?
A It is my understanding it was a noncompetitive
situation.
Q And did that present any concerns for you doing

your audit?
A Normally you would have, for a contract of that
amount, you would have competitive bids.
Q Sir, you also made some findings regarding the

projections that CH2M Hill had based its initial proposal
to the city on?
A Yes.
Q And specifically, can you tell us, what was --

maybe not every problem -- what was the main problem with
those projections that it was basing the contract on?
A Actually there is a couple.
One is that they based everything on their
billings. The amount that they billed people.

692
And the second issue was they didn't factor
in an increase in the water costs.
Q Now, with respect to the first one, which is basing

everything on billings, especially in the City of East
Cleveland, why was that a fundamental problem?
A Well, as I said, the problem with East Cleveland
was the delinquent accounts. We noticed in the other
sections that we did in the performance audits, from the
court systems to water, to any kind fee that's charged to

the citizens, they were having problems with their
delinquency rate and they just couldn't recoup the money.
So they could bill a lot of money and never
recoup all of their billable amount.
Q And those factors, how did they affect your view as

to financially the deal that the city had cut with CH2M
Hill?
A Can you repeat that?
Q Sure.
What was your view of whether the city was
going to be financially benefited from this deal that had
been cut with CH2M Hill?
A Our conclusion was they would not be benefited from

the contract.
Q Did you come to a projection as to a number

regarding the difference between the projection that CH2M
693
Hill had made and what you thought was a more realistic
projection?
A Yes, we did.
Q What was the amount of difference over four years?

A It was about 5.5 million.
Q With respect to the status of the City of East

Cleveland financially, is that a significant or
insignificant amount?
A That's a very significant amount.

page 3-53 of the audit report.
Q This chart in the middle of the page, does that

sort of summarize how you came to that number?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: And for the record, it's
table 3-11.
Q Could you please tell us, using this chart, how you
came to the number of approximately 5.5 million over four
years in terms of difference between the projection and
the reality?
A Well, we took the numbers from a spreadsheet
provided to us from CH2M Hill or the city, and that would
be in the column CH2M Hill.
Q So the first column, that's the number that CH2M

Hill provided to get the contract?
A That's correct. That's their prediction.
Q And what's the next column?

A The next column is the Auditor of State's
projections based on the numbers we saw in their actual
financials and collections.
Q That's what your team put together?

A Yes.
Q And what's the third column?

A The third column would be the difference between
the two. And our net impact to the city is that final
figure in the far right hand column.
Q Could you circle that in on your screen?

THE COURT: Just touch the screen.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Okay.
A Well, down a little bit.
Q That's it though, correct?

A The 5748.
Q And is that 5748, $5,748?

A No that's five million 748 thousand.
Q And those numbers are in thousands?

A Yes.
Q And what was the main bulk of the difference that

accounted for that?
A You can see at the top the difference is the

billings and the receipts.
Q Okay. All right. Now, there is one where you have

the exact same number for the CH2 projection and what the
Auditor of State is projecting the city has to pay. Can
you see that one?
A That's the management fee.
Q Where is that?
A That's in the middle of the table, the 3,900,000.
Q And why was it that you projected that the city was
going to have to pay out 3,900,000 just like CH2M Hill
had said?
A Well, that was in the contract, so we had to use
that figure; that was the accurate figure for that.
Q So, did you, were you asked to do this performance

audit before the contract was entered or after it was
already signed?
A We had started the contract, or we had started the
project with the city during the time that the contract
was signed.
Q But these findings, it was after the fact?

A That was after the fact, yes.
Q All right. And did you make any recommendations

regarding trying to change any of the contract terms?
A Well, we made some recommendations about the city
doing a better job of reviewing contracts, yes, we did.

Q All right. Now, did your audit also review any
aspects of the tax collections in the City of East
Cleveland?
A Yes, we did.
Q All right. And first of all, just let me ask you

just a fundamental question. Does the city collect, what
kinds of taxes does a city collect?
A The a city would collect their income tax both from
individuals and businesses.
Q And is that all over?

A Yes.
Q Does the city collect the property tax, for

instance?
A No, that's done through county.
Q Now, did you report any conclusions that you had

based on your findings of the tax collections in the City
of East Cleveland?
A Yes, we did.
MR. CAFFERKEY: And if we could now go to
your audit report of 4-28. Right.
Q And again, is this a conclusion statement?

A Yes, it is.
Q Actually, the beginning of the next paragraph -- we

can scroll down.
Could you please read the beginning of your

697
conclusion statement regarding income taxes for the City
of East Cleveland?
A "East Cleveland should contract with RITA."
Q Hold on. Up to the top of the page, the top

paragraph. Sorry. If I said scroll down. I'm sorry.
Please go ahead?
A "The collection of income taxes for the City of
East Cleveland does not appear to occur in an efficient
manner. This is due primarily to the Income Tax
Department's complicated division of labor between
itself, RITA, and it's collection agent JBER.
"The Income Tax Department appears to be
duplicating work that could be performed by RITA and
that, in many cases, is already factored into RITA'S
charge.
"The collection of tax delinquencies by both
the Income Tax Department and JBER also requires
additional resources to be expended.
"In addition, because JBER charges a higher
rate that RITA, the city could realize cost savings by
contracting this service to RITA."
Q Read the first sentence then of the next paragraph.

A "East Cleveland should contract with RITA to fully
perform its income tax operations, including all
collections, delinquent account management, and the

establishment of subpoena programs."
MR. DETTELBACH: All right, thank you.
You can take that down.
Q Did you also make any recommendations regarding

staffing of the Income Tax Department there?
A Yes, we did.
(2 What was that?

A Essentially, we recommended it go to a one person
operation with RITA performing most of the manual work.
Q And you mentioned that sometimes certain things are

contested in your -- certain things, they don't agree
with, the city doesn't agree with?
A Yes.
Q How did the head of the Income Tax Department feel

about your cutting it down to one person?
A She did not necessarily agree with our
recommendation.
Q Now, can you please explain for us what your

findings were with respect to the income tax collections?
In other words, explain for us what the problem was that
you just read to us about?

A Well, there didn't seem to be a process in place to
assign the delinquent accounts to JBER, or to keep them
in-house, or whether they went to RITA.
Part of the costs of RITA included some

699
collections efforts, and the city was not using those.
Q Now, for a city that was in the financial shape

that East Cleveland was in, what was your reaction to
those two areas we just discussed combined, water and
taxes?
A That they were, essentially, areas that could be
dealt with to help with their financial situation, their
deficit situation.
Q And of a small or large magnitude for the city?

A Relatively large magnitude.
Q Did you communicate your findings to anybody?

A Yes, we did. Throughout the process with the city
and the commission, and at the end of the process of
course it was released and to the public.
Q And were the stakeholders and people who were

involved in East Cleveland, was everybody happy with your
report?
A I don't think so, no.
Q Do you work for them?

A No.
MR. DETTELBACH: Nothing further at this
time, your Honor.
Mr. Whitaker?
Ms. Whitaker.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Good morning, Mr. Day?

A Good morning.
Q Checked to make sure it's morning still.

My name is Andrea Whitaker and I represent
Mr. Gray. And I have some questions for you today.
How many audits do you perform on the City of
East Cleveland?
A That was, the one we are talking about was the
first one we did, and another one just right at the end
of this first one.
Q Okay. So there has been two?

A Yeah, the commission asked us to do different
departments, kind of a phased in approach to the whole
city.
Q When you say the commission asked you to do

different departments. What commission is that?
A That that's the Financial Supervision and Planning
Commission.
Q Is that the Fiscal Commission?

A Yes.
Q So the Fiscal Commission hired you to do these
audits, is that correct?

A They requested us to do them.
Q And during both of those audits did you have

several recommendations to the City of East Cleveland?
A We had several, yes.
Q Outside of the ones we discussed today?

A Yes.
Q Okay. Let's talk specifically about the Javitch

Block contract. You had a couple problems with the
Javitch Block contract, is that correct?
A We made some recommendations concerning it, yes.
Q And you did not -- first, you are aware that

Javitch Block is it's a reputable competent firm that
does this type of work, is that right?
THE COURT: Overruled. Continue.
Q Do you know?
A I didn't until I did the audit that they were a law
firm, that's about all I knew about them.
Q And had you heard they were an aggressive

complexion firm?
A No, I never heard anything like that.
Q Okay. You were unhappy with the 33 percent that

the law firm charged to collect, is that right?
A Yes, that's one of the issues in the
recommendations.
Q And are you aware that that's a standard firm
charge for most municipalities, 33 percent?
A No, I'm not aware of that.
Q You spoke to Miss Lovelace about all this, is that

correct?
A Our staff did, yes.
Q And Miss Lovelace told your staff that she thought

they were worth 33 percent, is that correct?
A I'm not sure.
Q Miss Lovelace told your staff that she thought

Javitch Block should be retained, is that correct?
A I think Miss Lovelace wanted to keep Javitch Block,
yes.
Q And you talked about some other problem there was

of some duplicating of efforts?
A Yes.
Q And you said you thought maybe the East Cleveland

Tax Department was doing some of the same things RITA was
doing, correct?
A No.
Q What did you say?

A Well, the East Cleveland Tax Department was doing
things that RITA would have done under the same amount of
money that they are paying RITA.
Q So that was the duplication factor you are talking

about ?
A Yes, that was the duplication.
Q And you are aware that the East Cleveland Tax
Department didn't pull anything from RITA until it hadn't
been collected for a while, correct?
A Ask that again?
Q I'm sorry. That the East Cleveland Tax Department

wouldn't pull a case to send to Javitch Block until they
were unhappy with the collections that RITA was doing on
it?
A No, I don't know that.
Q Miss Lovelace never informed your staff of that?

Q And wouldn't you agree a more aggressive tax

collection firm would generate more money than a less
aggressive firm, even if that less aggressive firm might
be less expensive?
A I can't speak to that. It depends on the city, it
depends on the circumstance.
Q The other contract you talked about was the water

contract with OM1 CH2M Hill, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And are you aware that CM2H Hill is a reputable
company that does work internationally?
A Until the audit, no, I wasn't.

Q But now you are aware of that fact?
A Yes.
Q And you spoke to representatives, or staff spoke to

representatives from OM1 and CH2M Hill about the audit,
as you were preparing it, is that right?
A I believe the our staff talked to the one person on
site.
Q And that was the a representative from the company,

right?
A Yes.
Q And you are aware that they disagreed with the

audit report, is that right?
A Not really aware of that. We didn't have any kind
of information from the company that would indicate that.
Q But the company supplied your staff with

information why they thought it was a good contract for
the City of East Cleveland, is that right?
A They supplied us with one spreadsheet, one or two

sheets.
Q And those spreadsheets told why they came up with

those projections and why they thought they could
eventually meet those projections, is that right?
A They were not detailed, so they just provided us
with the spreadsheets and no really explanation.
Q But those spreadsheets were there providing you

705
information about their contract to show why they thought
it was a good contract for the City of East Cleveland, is
that right?
A Okay, it was their numbers, yes.
Q Okay. And you were aware that they thought they

would be able to eventually save the City of East
Cleveland, originally, one million dollars a year, is
that right?
A I think that was it, yeah, they were.
Q And you were aware that that one million dollars a

year that he thought they would save was arrived at
considering their fees and incentive that was in their
contract; is that right?
A I don't know that.
Q You don't know if a determination on the one

million dollars was made involving all costs to the city?
A I'd have to go back to my work bay, I'm not sure.
Q But if they could save the city one million dollars

a year, you would agree a city in the financial state of
East Cleveland would be a good thing, correct?
A Of course.
Q And did you learn during your investigation, or

your staff's investigation, that some of the assumptions
made by OM1 were based on information that was not
available and incorrect to them when they first made

their determinations?
A No, I was not.
Q You aware that they were not aware of the leaky

water meters, the volume of leaky water meters in the
City of East Cleveland?
A No, I don't know that.
Q Were you aware that originally they were told that

vacant lots were residential lots, therefore collectible,
when they first made those assumptions?
A I was not told that.
Q And your recommendation on OM1 was that the city in

general should review the contract better; is that
correct?
A Yes.
Q And you are aware that City Council unanimously

approved the hiring of OM1 to do this project, correct?
A Yes.
Q And you are aware that originally CH2M Hill agreed

to do an assessment of the city for free, and then if the
city chose to take those recommendations, only in that
case would CH2M Hill or OM1 be hired. Are you aware of
that?
A I'm not.
Q And this Fiscal Committee that hired you to -- or

requested that you do the audit, are you aware that they
had to approve the OM1 CH2M Hill contract?
A Not according to the revised code they don't have
to approve it.
Q Are you aware that they did approve the contract?

A Not that -- I don't believe they approved the
contract. They review the contract to make sure it's
within the financial plan that the city provides to the
commission. But they do not, they did not, to my
knowledge, review the contract.
Q They did not do that? They did not do what they

were supposed to do and review the contract?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection to the
mischaracterization.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q I'm sorry. Did you say they were supposed to

review the contract to make sure it's within the city's
financial plan?
A No.
Q I'm sorry, please tell me?

A The commission is charged with the task of
reviewing issues with the city to make sure they are
within the financial plan submitted by the city.
Q Okay.
A They do not review specific contracts; that's the

city's job.
Q You are aware of no state Oversight Committee that

approved the OM1 CH2M Hill contract?
A I think the committee did look at the contract --
not at the contract, but the subject came up at a
commission meeting and the review against the financial
plan was okay. They did not review the contract, to my
knowledge.
Q And that's to your knowledge?

A Yes.
Q And when you have done these audits in the past

have there always been situations where city stakeholders
aren't happy with some of the results?
A Yes.
MS. WHITAKER: May I just have a moment.
I just have one more question.
Q Are you aware that the City of East Cleveland can't

enter into a contract without approval or some sort of
review by the Oversight Committee?
A The review is whether it meets the financial plan.
Q Right. And they can't enter into a contract until

that happens, is that right?
A Not to my knowledge. The city can enter into a
contract. The financial commission just reviews it
against the financial plan.

709
Q And to your knowledge that they don't need any --

they can go ahead and enter any contract they want even
in fiscal emergency?
A The only issue is issuance of debt. In that case
the commission would have to approve that. But in other
instances they can enter into a contract without the
commission's okay.
Q So you are saying they could have entered this

contract without any approval or review by the Oversight
Committee?
A No. Again, it would have to be reviewed to make
sure it met the financial plan.
Q That would have to be done before they could enter

into this contract?
A Yes.
MS. WHITAKER: Thank you. No further
questions.

THE COURT: Redirect.
MR. DETTELBACH: Just on the one point we
ended on, the Fiscal Commission review.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
710
Q With respect to this particular contract, is it

your understanding that before the contract was entered
there were any recommendations made by the Fiscal
Commission about what the city might think about doing in
the consideration process?
A Well, I know the commission did suggest that they
have it reviewed. I think the only review the city did
was in-house with their -- there is a person in the city
and I think the Law Director is the only two that
reviewed the contract in the city.
Q So I'm sorry, you say they suggested it be reviewed

by?
By an outside source.
And to your knowledge, did that ever happen?
Not to my knowledge.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Would the
United States call your next witness?
Jeff Donovan.
THE COURT: Would you raise your right
hand.
- - -
JEFF DONOVAN

as follows:
THE COURT: Please take a seat.
And tell us your name and spell your last
name.
THE WITNESS: I'm Jeff, last name is
Donovan, D-0-N-0-V-A-N.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Mr. Donovan, what is your -- what community do you

currently live in?
A Streetsboro, Ohio.
Q And do you live there alone?

A No, I'm married.
Q And kids?
A Yes, three kids.
Q Sir, what's your current employment?

A Accounting Manager at Ralph Tyler Company.
Q And I would ask you just to lean forward a little

bit, or actually move the mike, if you can, just to keep
your voice up. I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, you said you were the Accounting
Manager where?
A Ralph Tyler Company.
Q What is Ralph Tyler Company.

A We are an architectural engineering firm.
712
Q Where are your offices located?

A Throughout the United States, but our main office
is in Cleveland.
Q And is that where you work?

A That is where I work, correct.
(1 What are your general duties as Accounting Manager
for Ralph Tyler Companies?
A I'm responsible for all facets of accounting to
accounts payable, receivable, payroll, all the way
through the financial statements.
Q Accounts payable, what is does that basically refer

to?
A Money that the company owes it's vendors.
Q And then receivables?

A Services that we perform that other clients owe the
company.
Q Now, are you also involved in the billing process?

A Yes, I am.
Q And how are the bills sent out?

A We do monthly billing. Typically, the first ten
days of every month.
Q Okay. And is there some computer system?

A Yes, we have a accounting computerized system, Dell
Tech Advantage.
Q And after the bills gets spilled out, what happens

713
to them?
A After the bills get sent out they are processed and
mailed.
Q Is there also sometimes occasions for you duties to

include collections?
A Accounts receivable, yes. We make phone calls to
try to collect money from clients that are slow paying.
Q Is that your favorite part of the job?

A No.
Q I want to now ask you some questions about the
Ralph Tyler Company's accounting system.
Is there a numbering system that you have

internally for particular accounts to be set up?
A Yes. At the beginning of every year we set up
projects that the company gets and assign a project
number to the specific project.
Q Okay. And how is it that you know, for instance,

when, as the Accounting Manager, you have to set up a new
number on something?
A Typically the year is the first two digits of the
project number. So, for instance, 05 would be for any
job that we received in 2005.
Q And then after that the number is what?

A Just project 001 would be the first project. You
know, up to 99, whatever.

Q Depending on how many come in that year?
A How many we receive in that year, correct.
Q Now, do you have to be told by somebody to start a

new number?
A Yes, I do.
Q And generally, what area of the business do you

hear that from?
A Our Project Managers are assigned to, you know.
Q Once you set up an account number by year and then
sequential number for particular account, then how are
the transactions booked from then on?
A On what happens on a typical, you know, if we have
employees that charge time sheets versus expenses that
come from outside, get posted on time sheets weekly
basis, expenses usually a weekly basis, too, assigned to
a project number. And at the end of the month we run a
monthly project report. Any expenses versus time,
associated with the project we try to incorporate a bill
for the expense.
Q So there is a series of things that are sort of

internal Ralph Tyler documents?
A Correct.
Q And then there is also the things that get sent
out?
A That's correct.
715
Q Now, I want to turn you attention to one particular

account.
Are you familiar with account 0016, 1-6?
A Yes, I am.
Q And can you explain, first of all using the

numbering system you first described, what that means,
0016?
A Zero zero was the year 2000. And 16 was the 16th
project of the year 2000 that was assigned in our
accounting system.
Q Could you please tell us what account corresponded

to that number in Ralph Tyler Company 0016?
A 0016 the project name was called CH2M Hill
Consulting.
Q And who was CH2M Hill?

A CH2M Hill is a large engineering, national
engineering firm throughout the country.
Q And was there also another business that was

associated with that same account?
A Yes, we would receive on a monthly basis a bill
from ETNA & Associates, that is also associated with that
project.
Q And CH2M Hill, you said, is a big international

firm?
A Correct.
Q Who was your contact there?
A Brian Casey.
Q Okay. And other than -- and where was Brian Casey

located physically, to your knowledge?
A In the downtown Cleveland office.
Q So he's in Cleveland?
A Correct.
Q Were there also other officers of CH2M Hill that
you dealt with at some time?
A Yes, the normal monthly invoice we sent to CH2M
Hill was Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Q And what was your understanding of what you were

billing?
A Just the past due consulting service.
Q We'll get to the past due part in a second. But

before that I want to ask you about the other company.
You mentioned ETNA Associates?
A Yes.
Q And what's your understanding of who that company
is associated with?
A ETNA Associates was a company of Nate Gray.
Q Do you know what that company does?

A I do not.
Q Now, was there any written agreement between Ralph

Tyler Associates and ETNA regarding the monthly payments
that were being made?
A No.
Q I'm sorry?
A No.
Q All right. Now, when did you actually start

getting and receiving invoices on that particular --
getting bills, getting bills and receiving invoices on
that particular account?
A In early January of 2000, I think.
Q And can you tell us what the billing cycle was on
that account, daily, monthly, weekly?
A We received an invoice once a month.
Q So it's a monthly cycle?

A That's correct.
Q Can you describe for us the normal monthly sequence

of activity on this CH2M Hill slash ETNA account?
A On a monthly basis we would receive, we'll just
called it an accounts payable bill from ETNA Associates.
Open it up in the mail. It would get stamped in with the
project number of 0016.
Q First thing you get a bill?

A Get a bill.
Q Then what do you do?

A Mail gets distributed, gets distributed in my
office, it gets stamped, approved, entered into the

718
accounting system; and at the end of the month we would

run what we call a project detail report. Which we do
all our invoice voicing off of.
So when we would receive a ETNA bill at the
end of the month, we would have a detailed report show up
for 0016, and that would trigger me to create an invoice
to CH2M Hill.
Q So you run a report and you get this detail report?

A That's correct.
Q And then that causes you to create another document

that actually gets sent out?
A That causes me to create an invoice to CH2M Hill.
Q And then what's the next thing that hopefully

happens?
A We, CH2M Hill processes the invoice and turns
around and pays Ralph Tyler Company.
Q And does that eventually come to you?

A It eventually does, yes.
Q Hopefully?
A Yes.
Q And how do you receive the payments? How do they

get from the outside into your offices?
A By check.
Q All right. And are they sent by mail normally?

A By mail, correct.
719
Q And then the payment comes in. What do you do once

you get the payment in?
A Deposit it into the bank and turn around and we
would pay ETNA & Associates and usually within a week.
Q So I'm sorry, say that last part again. Explain to
me what you did once you got the money in?
A It gets deposited into the bank and, like any other
project, you know, if you have expenses you would try to
pay your subconsultants on the project. So we would turn
around and pay ETNA Associates.
Q So then you would pay ETNA Associates?

A Correct.
Q You mentioned something before about this being

something, as you called it, a pass through consulting
account?
A That's correct.
Q Could you tell us, compared to the amount that

would come in from CH2M Hill, what were you sending out
to ETNA?
A In the beginning we would receive $2,000.
Q Okay. But let me, I asked a bad question.
Percentage wise, compared to the amount you
got in from CH2M Hill, what percentage of that money were
you sending out to ETNA?
A A hundred percent.
720
(Z Did Ralph Tyler Companies keep any of that money

that was coming in from CH2M Hill?
A No.
Q All right. Now, I'm going to ask you about the

specific amounts also. But first I want to ask you --
MR. DETTELBACH: Let's go to this exhibit,
Exhibit 500, please. All right.
And if you just blow up the part with
writing on it so we could see it a little bit
better.
All right. Now, actually go to page 2 of
that.
I'm sorry, skip one more page.
Thank you.
Q All right. Now, looking at this particular page,

can you tell us what kind of document it is we are
looking at?
A This is called our accounts payable voucher report.
Q Is this an internal or external document?

A Internal.
Q Okay. And using this particular document, can you

see, first of all, whether or not there is any account
number that's associated with what we are looking at?

A It has our company's project number on it.
Q Where is that on the sheet? There is a lot of

numbers for people not familiar with it.
(Witness indicates.)
Q Okay. And what's the number there?

A 0000016.
Q Is that the account you were talking about?

A Yes, that's our project number.
Q Okay. And are there any other identifying -- do

you see, first of all, the name of a company listed here
on this internal report?
A Yes. ETNA & Associates.
Q Okay. And then are there other key information for

with respect to each entry relating to dates and amounts?
A It shows the first invoice was January 13th, year
2000 and the amount was $3,000. And down below it shows
what we paid, $3,000.
Q So reading across, that's the way you read these

entries?
A That's correct.
Q NOW, I do want to ask you now about the amounts.

And if you could just touch the lower -- I can do it,
okay.
With respect to the amounts at the beginning
of this contract in 2000, can you tell us, first of all,
how much money every month was Ralph Tyler Companies
getting from CH2M Hill?

722
A In the beginning we were receiving $2,000 a month.
Q All right. How much money was ETNA Associates or

Mr. Gray's company billing you?
A Three thousand.
Q And how much money would you pay every month to

Mr. Gray's company?
A Three thousand.
Q Where was the extra one thousand coming from?

A Ralph Tyler.
(2 That was actually coming from your own funds?

A Correct.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: You could take the
document down. Thank you.
Q Now, what would happen with respect to the payment

to Mr. Gray, let's say, if CH2M Hill was late in paying
Ralph Tyler Companies?
A We wouldn't pay.
Q Did you ever get inquiries about Mr. Gray, Mr. Gray
hadn't been paid?
A Yeah, that's normal accounting.
Q What kind of inquiries would you get on this
account?
A Phone calls, questioning, you know, when they are
going to get paid. And using usually our response was we

haven't been paid by CH2M Hill.
Q And if you hadn't been paid by CH2M Hill did you

get to perform that fun task of calling them?
A Yes, I did.
Q And who did you call?

A Brian Casey.
Q And did that actually happen on this account?

A Oh, yeah. I definitely called Brian Casey and
would ask where payment was. And a lot of times my
function, if we don't get answers in the Accounting
Department we would pass it along to the higher ups in
the corporation, Project Manager slash all the way up to
the President to try to find out why we weren't getting
paid, which I did.
Q Did you talk to the President of the company about

it?
A Oh, yeah, I talked to Ralph.
Q Now, what was your understanding about why you

hadn't been paid by CH2M Hill when you would talk to
Brian Casey?
A That they weren't getting paid.
Q By whom?
A CH2M Hill wasn't getting paid by East Cleveland.
Q Now, so it was your understanding that CH2M Hill's

payments to you were dependent upon something else
happening?
A Correct.
(2 And what was that?

A Payment from the City of East Cleveland.
Q Now, and again, once you did, were successful in
collecting the money, what would you do with it? Where
would you send it?
A To ETNA & Associates' office.
Q NOW, you mentioned that -- you told us the amounts
at the beginning were 2,000 to you and 3,000 out to ETNA,
correct?
A Correct.
Q At some point -- and let me ask you this. And then

that one thousand you said came from Ralph Tyler's own
books?
A Correct.
Q Did Ralph Tyler have any companies that had any

business with the City of East Cleveland during this
period?
A Yes, we did.
Q And what were the business -- what was that
business that Ralph Tyler had with the City of East
Cleveland?
A We had a small, it was general engineering contract
to perform engineering services on an as needed basis.

Q Okay.
A Which was very small, but we did have some work,
correct.
Q And did you also, was there also something that

you -- an account you became familiar with involving a
recreational center?
A We had a Martin Luther King Rec Center project too.
Q At some point did the amount of payment to

Mr. Gray's company change?
A Yes, it did.
Q All right. How was it that you first became aware

that the amount was changing?
A By an invoice from ETNA & Associates, a bill. By
opening the mail I saw the invoice increased to $10,000.
Q Had anybody told you that was going to happen

before?
A No.
Q Had you ever been shown any letter or document then

or after about that increase?
A No.
part, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: No, I never received any

information.
726
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q What did you do when you got the $10,000 bill?

A Asked internally if anybody knew. And no. So I
went straight to Brian Casey at CH2M Hill.
Q So nobody internally knew?

A No.
Q And you went to Brian Casey?

A Asked Brian Casey if he was aware of the change and
how much I was to suppose to bill CH2M Hill.
Q And what did you find out?

A 100 percent. Bill the entire $10,000 to CM2H Hill.
Q And from that point on, after you received that

information, what was then the monthly sequence in terms
of the amounts?
A It was the same. A monthly bill came in, but the
bill now was $10,000 that I would send to CM2H Hill.
Q And then?
A CH2M Hill paid Ralph Tyler the 10,000, and I would
turn around and pay ETNA Associates the 10,000.
Q And at this point the extra $1,000 a month from

Ralph Tyler Companies, what happened to that?
A It was a hundred percent paid by CH2M Hill, so
Tyler didn't have to pay anything.
Q All right. Now, directing your attention to

November-ish of 2002. Was there a time when the payments
from CM2H Hill stopped coming in?
A Yes.
Q When you first stopped getting the money, what

action did you take?
A Just normal accounting procedures again. You know,
you make internal, ask questions, you make phone calls to
find out, and you just start getting no responses. So
after a while, pretty much just stop, it was out of my
hands and had to go higher up if the money is going to
get collected.
Q When you were trying did you call Brian Casey?

A Yes, I did.
Q And what was your understanding of why you weren't

being paid?
A Same responses of previous times. That they were
not getting paid.
Q From?
A City of East Cleveland.
Q And when you stopped getting paid by CH2M Hill,

what if anything did you do with respect to your payments
to ETNA?
A They were stopped also.
Q Now, in the entire time that you had this account

open, 0016 did Ralph Tyler Companies retain for itself
one dollar of the money it was getting from CH2M Hill?

H No.
MR. WHITAKER: Objection. Leading.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q I'm sorry?
A No.
Q Where did it go?

A ETNA & Associates.
Q Now with respect to an account relating to a

service arrangement, as opposed to a material purchase,
were you aware of any other account where Ralph Tyler
would simply act as a pass through. That is, take
100 percent of the money and send it to somebody else?
A No.
Q And how many years have you been with Ralph Tyler
Companies?
A 13 years.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Mr. Donovan, my name is Bill Whitaker and I
represent Mr. Gray. And I'm going to ask ow a few

questions.
A Okay.
Q If I ask you anything you don't understand, let me

know. I'll be glad to repeat it?
A Okay.
Q Ralph Tyler Company had a long term relationship

with CH2M Hill, didn't they?
A They had, yeah, probably within the last, I would
say, at least eight to ten years.
Q And they were involved with CH2M Hill on projects

around the country?
A That is correct.
9 And it wasn't unusual to use consultants in

conjunction with projects the size of CH2M Hill's, was
it?
A No, we used consultants, correct.
Q And sometimes consultants would be used for --

sometimes the cost of consultants will be billed
partially to Tyler and partially to whatever the other
company is; isn't that correct?
A That the consultant -- would you say that again? I

don't understand.
Q If you are on a project with another company, like
CH2M Hill, it wouldn't be unusual for both companies to
share in the cost of the consultant, would it?

A That is correct.
Q Ralph Tyler Company also had a long term
relationship back to 1995 with ETNA Associates and
Mr. Gray, isn't that correct?
A Yes, it is.
Q And Ralph Tyler had used Mr. Gray as a consultant

on a number of projects?
A Yes, we have.
(1 And you issued invoices because of his work on

those other projects?
A Yes, we have.
Q And you issued checks?

A Correct.
(Z Now, are you aware of any discussions that Ralph

Tyler had with CH2M Hill or Mr. Gray about how the
consultant fee would be handled on -- with regard to East
Cleveland project?
question.
MR. WHITAKER: I'll repeat it, your Honor.
Q Are you aware of any discussions --

THE COURT: Well, he wouldn't have
personal knowledge unless he was there.
MR. WHITAKER: Right.

731
THE COURT: If he's not there that would
be hearsay.
MR. WHITAKER: I'm only asking him if he
was aware, I haven't asked what they were.
THE COURT: It's kind of asking for
hearsay. Were you in conversations. Present in any
conversations between somebody from ETNA & Mr. Gray
and Mr. Tyler?
THE WITNESS: No, I was not involved in
any of those conversations.
BY MR. WHITAKER :
Q So you don't know whether it was Mr. Gray's idea or
Mr. Tyler's idea, or CH2M Hill in terms of how this
arrangement was set up?
A That is correct, I do not know.
Q All right. Now, you knew that Mr. Gray, through

ETNA Associates, was being paid on the, on this contract,
on this invoice that you sent to CH2M Hill, didn't you?
A Did I know? I'm sorry.
Q You knew that Mr. Gray was the one that was
invoicing you for this, contract?
A Yes, I did.
(Z And you knew it was his company that was ETNA &
Associates?
A Yes, I did.
Q And that's a well known fact?
A Correct.
Q And you also knew that CH2M Hill knew that Mr. Gray
was getting paid on with regard to these invoices?
A I assumed.
Q Right. In fact, when you talked to Brian Casey you

told him Mr. Gray was, you know, asking about the
payments?
A Correct.
Q So, there was no attempt whatsoever to hide from

CH2M Hill OK Ralph Tyler or anybody that Nate Gray was
the consultant involved with this project?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection as to anybody.
It's at compound question.
THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase it.
I'm not sure he has personal knowledge.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q There was no attempt to conceal from CH2M Hill or

Ralph Tyler Companies that ETNA Associates and Mr. Gray
was a consultant on this project?
A As far as I'm aware, there is no hiding. Or the
relationship between the two.
Q And that's why you had no problem, and I'm going to
show you what has been marked as Government's Exhibit H,
I think.
MR. DETTELBACH: That's not a Government's
Exhibit.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Or Defendant's Exhibit H, I'm sorry.

As you can see, it's got Defendant's
Exhibit's H on it and then it's got the Ralph Tyler
Companies --
A Letterhead.
Q -- letterhead. And that's an invoice to CH2M Hill

from Ralph Tyler with regard to this contract with ETNA
Associates, right?
A Correct.
(r And the underlying record that you kept, which is

the project detail report, details exactly to whom the
payment is going to be made, right?
A Correct.
Q And these are records that any auditor can come in
and get and look at?
A Of course.
Q And anybody that wanted to come in and look at your

books would get this information without any problem,
right?
A Of course.
Q And it's not unusual that you don't pay consultants

on a project when you are billing it to someone else
734
until you get that payment from that other company, isn't
that correct?
A That is normal company policy, correct.
Q NOW, Ralph Tyler Company had business directly with

the City of East Cleveland, didn't they?
A Correct.
Q And in fact, showing you what's been marked as

Government's Exhibit 524, they entered into an
agreement -- and I'll show you the last page, you see the
signatures there, signature lines?
A Yes, I do.
Q And that's an agreement between City of East

Cleveland and Ralph Tyler, correct?
A That is correct.
Q And you can see the date on the front of this, at
least the month and year?
A Of August, 2003.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you. No further
questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Jenkins, do you have any?
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q I just want to be clear about this last exhibit he

showed to you.
All right. This is again H. Do you see --
can you see it on your screen? There is a glare
sometimes.
A Yes, I can see it.
Q This first page we are looking at, all right,

because it's a several page exhibit. Let's take it page
by page though. What kind of document is the first page?
A This is an invoice from Ralph Tyler to CH2M Hill.
Q This is -- this page is what gets sent to them?
A This is what's gets sent to CM2H Hill.
(1 And what gets sent to CH2M Hill. Can you please

read for us what I've highlighted -- that's not your
highlighting I want to be clear about that. What is the
description of work completed. Would you please read
that?
A General consulting services for the month of
January, 2001.
Q So do you see ETNA listed anywhere there?

A No, I do not.
Q Now, this second page that is stapled to the first
page, what kind of document is this?
A This is our month end project detail reports that
are generated from our accounting system that we run to
generate which clients to send invoices to.

736
Q So this is your record you run; you generate that

internal report you talked about every month?
A Correct.
Q And on this one, as Mr. Whitaker pointed out, it

does say -- do you see this right here?
A Yes. It says accounts payable, vendor ETNA &
Associates.
Q Okay. And then finally on the third page, just to

complete the exhibit, this is a -- this is a -- what is
this? This is a check, right?
A This is a check issued from CH2M Hill to Ralph
Tyler Companies.
Q Okay. And the only companies listed on this are

CH2M Hill and Ralph Tyler Companies?
A That's correct.
Q And this, as you know as a bookkeeper, the checks

also somehow or another go through banks, correct?
A That's correct.
Q But you don't have to send your invoice through a

bank, do you?
A No.
Would you call your next witness.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, can we

approach on a scheduling matter very briefly.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: It's my understanding the
next witness would be Special Agent Massie, who
would be testifying regarding the City of Cleveland,
Joe Jones' part of the case.
His testimony would be different. It's my
understanding there is a signed executed document.
At this point I just wanted to inform the court

about that.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, may I ask a question
from the government? Is it expected that Mr. Jones
will testify?
MR. DETTELBACH: It is part of the
agreement that he will testify if asked. I don't
know, is the honest answer.
MR. WHITAKER: No?
MR. DETTELBACH: I don't know whether he
will testify or not. But I mean, that's the honest
answer.
24 MS. WHITAKER: We would like to be heard
25 before that happens. Even if he enters a plea in

mid-trial we want to be heard on a number of things.
For instance, the motion for mistrial based on the
opening statements and things that have been said.
THE COURT: We will recess for -- we are a
little bit early. I have a sentencing over the
lunch. We'll try to reconvene, get him here now and
we'll do this right away.
MS. WHITAKER: What time do we need to get
back?
THE COURT: Why don't you get back about
10 after 12:00 and we'll start as soon as we can
after that.
THE COURT: We are going to take a lunch
time recess a bit early. Hopefully the food will be
here quickly.
Stay away from the case. Don't talk about
it among yourselves. Don't form any opinions or
express any.
Go back to the jury room. We'll stand in
adjournment until about 10 after 12:OO. It may be a
bit after that, I've got some other cases I have to
deal with. We'll try to get back as soon in that
time frame as we can, but we'll adjourn until that

time.
(Luncheon recess. )
- - -
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION, AUGUST 10, 2005.
THE COURT: Why don't we quickly, there
was something you indicated you may want to put on
the record.
MR. WHITAKER: Yes, that's correct, your
Honor.
We want to make a motion in limine. Now
that Mr. Jones has entered a plea, we are told that
the government still intends to call Ricardo Teamor
and have Mr. Massie testify about all the events
involving the Jones material. And obviously, with
regard to Mr. Gray, he's been acquitted of the
underlying offense, he can't be part of the RICO.
And he's been acquitted of Count 23, so he can't be
a part of that Hobbs Act conspiracy. And therefore
there is no value whatsoever, and enormous
prejudicial value.
MR. DETTELBACH: In response, first of

all, we do not intend on putting on all the
evidence. I take issue with Mr. Whitaker's

accounting of what's happened so far.
Count 1 is still before the jury, and
significant parts of the transaction, especially the
$5,000 transaction, are part of the overt acts
before the jury. So it would be admissible in Count
1 in that regard.
Overt acts need not themselves be crimes
in order to be part of the indictment of
co-conspiracy. Just like we have East Cleveland
City of Water Division as part of the case, that

doesn't have any substantive counts associated with
it. It would have the same status.
Second of all, specifically with regard to
Count 1, it would be relevant to prove both
continuity and relatedness.
THE COURT: Who are you talking about
calling?
MR. DETTELBACH: Massie and Teamor.
And the Massie tapes, I've been Xing
through all lunch. I think it's going to be about
half.
THE COURT: I apologize. Remind me who

Massie is.
741
MR. DETTELBACH: I'm sorry, I sometimes
forget too, and I'm sorry, your Honor.
THE COURT: What would, I'm not sure what
your objection, he's testified already as to parts
of it. You are not objecting to Agent Massie?
MR. WHITAKER: I'm objecting to testimony
about anything having to do with Joe Jones. That's
what they are talking about now.
THE COURT: You are going to get into him?
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, yes. I mean,
yes, we are planning on calling Special Agent
Massie. We severely truncated our presentation on
Joe Jones.
THE COURT: Just a question. What's the
relevance of the loan to Joe Jones at this point in
time?
MR. DETTELBACH: Three separate elements.
As I said, number 1, Count 1 is still before the
jury. These are overt acts in the RICO conspiracy.
Overt acts need not be themselves crimes in order to
further a conspiracy.
THE COURT: What's the conspiracy?
MR. DETTELBACH: Well, the conspiracy is a
RICO conspiracy. And one of the things we have to
show is relatedness and continuity, as the court's

instructions to the jury.
When the court dismissed Count 24, I think
the court actually sort of expressed exactly the
rationale which was, what we are left with is the
notion that these things were given to Joe Jones in
consideration for some sort of future debt that
would be called in, is I think the way the court
characterized it at that time.
The court said, I don't see a specific
quid pro quo here. So I'm going to dismiss Count
24.
But that same future misconduct, that is
one of the elements of the pattern and continuity
that we have to show under the RICO counts.
THE COURT: You have all this evidence
regarding Houston, you have this evidence regarding
New Orleans. What does the Jones thing really add?
MR. DETTELBACH: Well, your Honor, it adds
a very specific transaction where Mr. Jones is
caught on tape specifically treating public
officials like prostitutes.
THE COURT: I'm not sure you can't offer
that otherwise.
MR. DETTELBACH: I think that's the part

we are thinking about offering, your Honor.
743
THE COURT: I'll take it under advisement,
but stay away from it at this point in time.
MR. DETTELBACH: I just want to make sure
I understand.
THE COURT: I don't understand, really,
the relevance at this point in time, you know, to
the underlying charge. It was found to be
insufficient evidence to convict him of that.
MR. DETTELBACH: As a separate count. But
that is not the same determination regarding whether
or not they are admissible as overt acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy.
THE COURT: What's the conspiracy?
MR. DETTELBACH: The conspiracy is to
operate an ongoing pattern of racketeering
activities, corrupt activities. And part of the
elements we have to show is that this is an ongoing
pattern, these are related, not isolated incidents
as part of a plan to --
THE COURT: Isn't it also, though, that
you have to show there is underlying criminal acts?
MR. DETTELBACH: Well, you have to show
that there are two underly -- that there is an
agreement, actually, to commit two underlying
criminal acts. That's one of the things we have to

show.
The other thing we have to show --
THE COURT: So these wouldn't be criminal
acts because he's been acquitted of them?
MR. DETTELBACH: Well, what this would be
evidence of is that the enterprise is an ongoing
enterprise whose true purpose is to commit criminal
activity of this type.
THE COURT: I think it's only marginally

relevant in terms of that.
MR. DETTELBACH: And another thing, your
Honor --
THE COURT: First of all, I don't know
that's disputed that he had continued to work as a
consultant and that he continued to have these
relations with different cities.
MR. DETTELBACH: Well --
THE COURT: And with different elected
officials.
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, but what I think
he's saying, your Honor, is that there is nothing
inappropriate about that. And when you have, for
instance, your Honor -- can I just make one, I'm
sorry one thing.
THE COURT: You are in a position, unless

745
I misunderstand where you are going with this, you

are in a position to say it's only being offered to
show it's an ongoing enterprise. I don't understand
it then to legitimately dispute that.
MR. DETTELBACH: An ongoing criminal
enterprise.
THE COURT: And they dispute it's a
criminal enterprise, but I don't think they give any

dispute that it's an ongoing enterprise or ongoing
affiliation.
MR. DETTELBACH: Maybe I misstated it. I

don't think, I don't think that it's just that it's
and ongoing enterprise, it's that this is, as the
court put it, this is a payment to a public official
or thing of value being made to a public official,
in which the government's theory is, and the court
has never disagreed with that whatever, that
something in the future is going to be expected
back.
Now, because of the state of law with

respect to the Hobbs Act, that count failed in the
court's view. And I understand that and accept
that. But that is not the same legal question
before the court with respect to whether or not it's

evidence of an ongoing corrupt enterprise, public
corruption specifically.
And finally, I would just say to the
court, that some of these evidence, which are
Mr. Gray's own words, are evidence of his intent

that could be admitted on numerous different counts.
THE COURT: It may be admissible for other

counts. The point I'm at is, I'm going to direct
you to stay away from the Jones transaction. You
may be able to use the tapes for other purposes, and
there may be statements that he makes in those tapes
that are admissible for other reasons. But I think
you are just going to get into something.
There has been an acquittal on those
counts, both by the jury and/or by me. And I just

think that it's, under 403, it's more prejudicial
than probative on the remaining issues before the

court on the RICO violation.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. So if I
understand the court correctly, I think our

witnesses were going to be Michael Massie, to play
the tapes for the Cleveland part of the case. And

then Ricardo -- the remaining tapes I should say,
which were not many. And then Ricardo Teamor to
testify regarding the $5,000 transaction. His part
in that $5,000 transaction, along with Mr. Gray.

747
His conversation with Mr. Gray, his meetings with
Mr. Gray as a public official.
I just wanted the court to understand what

we were seeking to do, and that would be it.
THE COURT: How though, in terms of
Mr. Teamor, I'm not sure how his testimony -- what's
your.theory on how his testimony is relevant?
MR. DETTELBACH: Because he discusses with
Mr. Gray the purposes of this thing of value that's
being given to Joe Jones. They meet with him at
Giovanni's. They tell him before they are going to
give it to him, look, you have to support us in the
future if we are going to be giving you this thing
of value. We have business before you. You've got
to come through for us. It's the same theory that
the court, that I told the court already.
I mean for instance, your Honor, with
respect to the other counts also, the tape in which
Mr. Gray said treat -- and it's not even just about
Mr. Jones. They refer to him, but they say, Sam
says treat them like straight prostitutes. We give
these guys too much latitude. That happens in
Mr. Grays office on November 30th.
On November 29th, the day before, Mr. Gray
slid cash in an envelope across the table to not

748
just Jones, but Onunwor is the in the office also.
And their entire defense on that is this is not
intended as any sort of a quid pro quo. This is
intended as some sort of gift because Mr. Gray is a
generous person.
And he's caught on tape the next day
saying, we are far too nice to these people. They
start playing games with you. Treat them like a
straight prostitute.
It's highly probative. And while it may
being prejudicial, it is not unfairly prejudicial;
it's Mr. Gray's own words. It's good evidence.
MR. WHITAKER: First of all, your Honor,
Mr. Gray was acquitted of conspiring with Mr. Teamor
based on those very same conversations.
Secondly, the quote that he's talking
about, he's only telling Teamor that's what Sam
says. And the only they are discussing, he didn't
says that was his position, he says that's what Sam
says.
And secondarily, it was only in relation
to Joe Jones, and ultimately telling Teamor, you
know, that don't do it.
So the prejudicial value far out -- I

don't even understand the probative value, but
whatever it may be, even if there is some modicum of
probative value, it's far outweighed by the judicial
value. Especially given the fact that he's been
acquitted of the Hobbs conspiracy and any act of
$5,000.
Now he says, well, it might not be a
violation of the Hobbs Act. Well, it's not a
violation of any act. There is no law. There is no
law he can cite that it's a violation of. So it
really has absolutely no, I don't think it has any
probative value. It certainly has an enormous
amount of prejudicial value.
MS. WHITAKER: As your Honor pointed
out --
THE COURT: One party talks.
MR. DETTELBACH: I would just rely on the

court's recollection, I don't think that's an
accurate accounting of that particular conversation,
your Honor.
THE COURT: Again, just summarize,
quickly. Your theory is what.
MR. DETTELBACH: Three specific things.
Number 1. They are still overt acts in Count 1.

Count 1 is still before the jury.
750
Number 2. It is specific evidence of an

element of Count 1, continuity --
THE COURT: They are overt acts; you mean

a predicate offense?
MR. DETTELBACH: Overt acts in furtherance
of the conspiracy. The conspiracy to agree to
commit a series of -- it's a conspiracy. You
don't -- like the $25,000 that goes to the Mayor's

charity. There are a series of overt acts that
happened. They need not in and of themselves be
crimes.
But I think it goes to -- I guess the
court's question is overact furthering what?

And it furthers the goals of relatedness
and continuity. I think if the court looks at its

instructions I think you'll see that you are going
to tell the jury they have to find, they have to
find beyond a reasonable doubt that these are not
unrelated acts. That there is a agreement to
continue, it's called continuity, to continue this
conduct either in the past or into the future. And
that this transactions and these conversations go
directly to that. That's 2.
And 3, is it goes to the defendant's

intent.
751
THE COURT: Some of the language may be.
But I'm not going to let you spend much time. You
may be able to admit the statements because I think
they do have some relationship to the overall
purported conspiracy in terms of the treatment of
public officials. But we are not going to spend any
time on the $5,000 loan.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Your Honor,
what I would then propose, we will limit it to
Mr. Gray caught on tape. We'll drastically cut to
focus on that.
MR. WHITAKER: If I understand correctly,
you are going to let the jury hear a tape, a
discussion of Joe Jones about this quote from Sam?
MS. PEARSON: It's with Ricardo Teamor.
THE COURT: It was with Teamor.
MR. WHITAKER: But in relation to Jones
specifically.
THE COURT: Okay, the thing about
prostitutes, I think that is relevant.
MR. WHITAKER: So Teamor will be permitted
to come and testify?
THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure exactly
what the scope of his testimony will be, but we'll
get to that when he gets here. So we are going to

start.
MR. WHITAKER: Certainly we want the
record to note our strenuous objection to that.
By the way, your Honor, they are going to
do a section about Cleveland right now that
addresses his element of continuity all the way
through.
MS. WHITAKER: And just dealing with the
Jones enterprise, the Jones transactions.
THE COURT: What's the order? What are
you going to deal with first?
MR. DETTELBACH: We are going to do that.
Given the court's ruling, it is going to be very
short. I think we are just going to go directly
into the next part of the case.
THE COURT: What issues are you going to
deal with regarding Cleveland?
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Your Honor, I
can give the court specific exhibits that I think we
will play for the court. I think if you look at the
time line, they are sort of -- is one way to sort of
look at it.
On the bottom part of the time line, your
Honor, we plan to play Exhibit --
THE COURT: You are talking about 25-A,

right?
MR. DETTELBACH: That is 24-A, I'm sorry,
your Honor. All right.
1072, which is okay.
Then skipping to 1078.
1081, 1082.
Then 1085, 1086, 1087 and 1088. That's
it.
MR. WHITAKER: Is that what you propose to
introduce? Is that what you are saying?
MR. WHITAKER: The entire Jones --
(The jurors were returned to the
courtroom and the following proceedings
were conducted in open court.)
seat.
Would the United States call your next
witness.
Special Agent Michael Massie.
THE COURT: Mr. Massie, you remain under
oath from earlier.
Let me just, for your information,

754
d e f e n d a n t J o n e s i s no l o n g e r p a r t o f t h e c a s e . So
h e ' s no l o n g e r p a r t of t h i s c a s e . Okay.
So w e ' l l c o n t i n u e w i t h t h e e x a m i n a t i o n .

- - -
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , d i d you, d i d you p r e p a r e , a s
p a r t of t h e e x h i b i t s i n t h i s case, any m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g
t o t h e C i t y o f C l e v e l a n d , Ohio?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q And t o a Councilman t h e r e named J o s e p h J o n e s ?

A Yes, I have.
Q And f r o m where w e r e t h e s e i n t e r c e p t i o n s o b t a i n e d ,
what p h o n e ?
A T h e s e a r e t h e phone f a c i l i t i e s s u b s c r i b e d t o b y
Nate Gray.
Q And j u s t f o r b a c k g r o u n d , t h e r e i s a r e f e r e n c e i n
t h e r e t o somebody named R i c a r d o , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ?
A Yes.
Q Who i s h e ?
A R i c a r d o r e f e r e n c e i s t o R i c a r d o Teamor, who i s a
l o c a l attorney i n t h e C i t y of Cleveland, and a l s o a p a r t
owner o f a c o n s t r u c t i o n company.
Q L e t ' s now j u s t s k i p d i r e c t l y t o some o f t h e

755
1 interceptions i n t h i s matter. And t h e r e a r e h e a d p h o n e s
2 available.
3 MR. WHITAKER: Which o n e a r e you p l a y i n g ?
4 MR. DETTELBACH: I ' m sorry, t h i s i s going
5 t o b e 1072 on 1 / 2 3 / 0 2 .
6 MR. WHITAKER: O b j e c t i o n , y o u r Honor.
7 THE COURT: I ' m s o r r y w h i c h number? 1072?
8 MR. DETTELBACH: Yes.
9 THE COURT: On what g r o u n d s ?
10 MR. WHITAKER: On t h e g r o u n d s i t h a s t o d o
11 only with Joe Jones. And a s you j u s t p o i n t e d o u t ,
12 J o e J o n e s i s n o l o n g e r a p a r t of t h e c a s e .
13 THE COURT: Let me ask t h e attorneys t o
14 approach again.
15 (The f o l l o w i n g p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e
16 conducted a t t h e s i d e b a r , o u t of t h e
17 hearing of t h e jury, a s follows:)
18 THE COURT: I ' l l overrule the objection.
19 Again, w e a r e i n a s i t u a t i o n where t h e c o n s p i r a c y i s
20 a l l e g i n g Teamor a n d d e f e n d a n t J a c k s o n . Teamor was
21 one of t h e a l l e g e d c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s . So t h e s e a r e
22 c o n v e r s a t i o n s b e t w e e n them t h a t g o t o a n o n g o i n g --
23 I ' m sorry.
24 MR. WHITAKER: Teamor was o n l y -- Teamor
25 i s n o t a p a r t of RICO. H e ' s o n l y named i n t h e J o n e s

conspiracy.
MR. DETTELBACH: He's not charged but he's
definitely for evidentiary purposes.
THE COURT: I guess.
MR. DETTELBACH: These -- obviously
defendant Gray is a co-conspirator. There is no
tape we are playing that Mr. Gray is not a part of.
THE COURT: But the action they are all
going into is the issue of Jones.
MR. DETTELBACH: Well, it goes to
Mr. Gray's involvement in providing things of value
to public officials, including Joe Jones, but
including others also.
I won't repeat myself, your Honor. I
think the court is correct. This is totally
conspiracy evidence here, not substantive paths
associated. That simply doesn't mean that, that it
somehow excises from the conspiracy, there is a much
different standard for that.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, may I say something
briefly as relates to this particular incident.
You were going over the plea agreement
with Mr. Jones. Specifically, he denied even this
aspect of it. I thought he said no. And you stood

up and said no, in terms of Hobbs, when the judge
757
asked him about the $5,000 quid pro quo. When the
judge specifically asked him if it was based on a
quid pro quo.
MS. PEARSON: That's wasn't the 5,000, it
was reference to the construction company.
THE COURT: No, it was with reference to
the donation on the construction company.
MR. DETTELBACH: That's all. I don't
intend to ask him any questions. That's all.
MR. WHITAKER: He didn't say that the
$5,000 was a part of the quid pro quo.
THE COURT: It has marginal relevance.
You are opening up a can of worms for a limited
purpose. It has some relevance to the issue of
whether there was a conspiracy. And if there is
some reviewing court, tere can also be materials
that are -- that he's been found guilty or not
guilty of.
I don't see, frankly, what it really adds
to your case. Because you are also in a situation
where you are trying to argue that giving to
government officials, you are using this as an
example where he's been completely paid back.
MR. DETTELBACH: Well, of course. And --
THE COURT: It was the weakest part of

758
your case all along. And you take a risk on some
reviewing court to think that's improper.
MR. DETTELBACH: I'm sorry your Honor.
What I would say in response is, in response to the
balancing, I know the court is required to do that.
We'll parse portions, and I think that can be handle
in some way by parsing some of the evidence out,
which we have already attempted to do, which I could
do on an objection by objection basis, which I
understand.
And the second is, I guess the thing of

value is in the eye. There are significant
discussions between Mr. Gray and Mr. Teamor where
they think it's something of value, they don't want
to do it. They're talking about it is not worth us,
why both of us have to be a fool.
THE COURT: Frankly, it's a leak in your
own case. You have the statement from Gray
basically saying I'm making a gift because this guy
can never do anything for me. So you are trumping
that before the jury and you are supporting their
case.
I mean, their case is, he gave those
monies to people as gifts, as they say, he gets hit

up all the time. You are just contributing to that.
759
So, I mean, the only conversation that
arguably might help your case is the issue of
treating them as prostitutes.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I was going to say
that, because Joe Jones is no longer in the case, if
the jury could be removed from this particular time
line.
MR. DETTELBACH: We are not going to put
it in front of jury.
MR. JENKINS: I think they have it over
there.
MR. DETTELBACH: No, they do not.
THE COURT: In any case, I'm going to
sustain the objection as to Exhibit 1072.
THE COURT: 1075, 1078.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, that -- could
I ask actually.
THE COURT: What was the one with the
prostitute?
MS. PEARSON: It's 88.
MR. DETTELBACH: 1088.
THE COURT: You can use that. I don't
want to go into 1086. So you can deal with 1088.

I'll make a ruling you can't deal with the others.
760
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, may I just
ask the court if the court would consider 1078,
which is when the -- it allows us to understand
what's happening in 1088. And this is directly
related to, you know, and with respect to the other
part of the other conversation, the one that the
court believed was sort of damaging to us.
If the defense is going to play it, then I
would just like an opportunity to play it. Given
the court's ruling, I would like an opportunity to
play it with the agent so it doesn't look like we
are hiding something. If they are not going to play
it.
THE COURT: Are you going to play it?
MR. WHITAKER: At this point it's
impossible to tell. We just got this laid on us.
THE COURT: In any case, just stick to
that. I'll let you go into the -- I think it's 1078
or 1088.
MR. WHITAKER: 1088.
THE COURT: That's Jones' request. And
then 1088 is the treat them like prostitutes.
MR. WHITAKER: It's going to be allowed to
present it before the jury?
THE COURT: I think it puts it in context.

761
So you can respond to it if you want, if you want to
put on the tape that responds.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Massie, I want to now direct your

attention to the interceptions you compiled, and
specifically to October 30th of 2002.
Are you familiar with an interception on that
day?
A I am.
Q And who are the people that are intercepted on that

particular call?
A On the particular call on October 30, 2002 there is
a conversation between Nate Gray and Councilman Joseph
Jones.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, for the record,
I want to make an objection to this.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Is that Exhibit 1078?
A It is.
Exhibit 1078.
(Tape played) .
762
Q S p e c i a l Agent Massie, you h e a r d some names r e f e r r e d
t o i n there. D i d you h e a r t h e name F r a n k ?
A I did.
Q Who i s t h a t i n r e f e r e n c e t o ?
A F r a n k i s F r a n k J a c k s o n a n o t h e r member o f t h e C i t y
of Cleveland Council.
Q C i t y Council?
A Yes.
Q You a l s o h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o CMHA?
A Yes.
Q What i s t h a t r e f e r e n c e t o ?
A Cuyahoga M e t r o p o l i t a n H o u s i n g A u t h o r i t y . It's the
p u b l i c h o u s i n g body f o r Cuyahoga C o u n t y .
Q Who a r e t h e two men h e ' s d i s c u s s i n g i n t r o u b l e w i t h
CMHA?
A R i c a r d o Teamor.
Q What was h i s r o l e a t CMHA?
A He was t h e a t t o r n e y t h a t r e p r e s e n t e d t h e B o a r d o f
D i r e c t o r s f o r t h e CMHA.
Q Now, moving f o r w a r d . Was t h e r e a n i n t e r c e p t i o n , a
v i s u a l i n t e r c e p t i o n t h a t you h a d v i e w e d t h a t o c c u r r e d i n
M r . Gray's office?
A Yes.
763
Q And during the course of that visual interception,

was anything given by Nate Gray to Joe Jones?
A Yes, a check.
Q For what amount?

A For $5,000.
Q All right. And what date did that occur on?

MR. WHITAKER: Objection, your Honor, move
to strike.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q What date did that occur on?

A November 29th, 2002.
Q The very next day, on November 30th --

incidentally, on November 29th -- let's skip forward.
On November 30th, 2002 was there an
interception that you included in the exhibits here?
A Yes. Interception between Nate Gray and Ricardo
Teamor.
Q And whose phone was it on?

A It was on Nate Gray's telephone.
Q All right. And is this Exhibit 1088?

A It is.
THE COURT: Let me just.
You just heard some testimony with regard

to a $5,000 loan to Mr. Jones. You are not to
consider that as an illegal act. You can consider
that testimony as the background, but I'll instruct
you it is not an illegal act. It was a loan and it
does not constitute an illegal act. But that's
given as some context for you to hear the comments
with regard to that that I believe are going to
follow in this upcoming tape.
MR. WHITAKER: Could I note my objection.
(Tape played. )
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And Special Agent Massie, just to be clear, the

money that was given, the check that was given to Joe
Jones, in whose name was the check?
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Let me ask you this. Have you reviewed Councilman
Jones' ethics disclosure statements in the last two
years?
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Massie, at the time -- well, with the

court's indulgence, just one moment.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, no further
question of on this segment of Special Agent
Massie's testimony.
THE COURT: Cross examination, do you have
any?
MR. WHITAKER: Yes, I do, your Honor.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Special Agent Massie, on that call and I wonder if

we could put up 1078B and go to lines 15, 16 and 17 on
page 4.
A All right.
Q Now, before I ask you about this specific exhibit,
I'm going to asked you about some terms you used in the
creation of these exhibits.
You had earlier talked about minimized, the
concept of minimize, right?
A Yes.
Q And minimization?
A Yes.
Q And the concept of minimization is if you are
hearing a conversation that is personal or not relevant
to any crime, that you are supposed to not listen to

766
that, turn it down and just check back in later, is that
right?
A Either a call that's not relevant or a call that
has privileged information.
Q Right. But if it is relevant to any kind of
criminal activity and it is not privileged, like talking
to a lawyer or something, then you listen to that?
A You should listen to it, yes.
Q And if something is deleted by mistake, or it's

unintelligible, you'll put that right in too, exactly,
you'll put that into the transcript?
A There would be nothing deleted by mistake. If it
was a word that's unintelligible you would note that in
the transcript.
Q Now look at line 16. And that says right there,

right in the middle of this conversation with Joe Jones,
minimized, right?
A That's correct.
Q And in fact, it goes to minimized right when he's

talking about exactly what he needs the loans for. In
fact, right in the middle of three, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you've looked at this. Are you the one that
put minimized in?
A On the actual transcript? Yes.

767
Q Yes.
Now, you also heard that tape, which is 1088?
MR. WHITAKER: And I wonder if we could
put up lines, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of page 2.
Q And you can see right there he's talking about he

wasn't going to loan him the money until he brought
something with him on Monday, isn't that correct?
A Yes, Nate Gray says that.
Q And you know that to be a promissory note.
A Yes.
Q A promissory note where somebody that could pay him

was promising to pay him back?
A Yes.
Q Now, you are also familiar with a call you

intercepted when Ricardo Teamor was asking Nate Gray
whether Joe Jones could do anything for him or anybody,
am I right?
A I recall such a conversation, but I think the
comments initially came from Mr. Gray.
Q Okay. And I believe that was tape 1081, is that
correct?
A Yes, that ' s correct.
Q And I wonder if we --
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection, this is what

the defense objected to before.
768
THE COURT: I'm not sure which tape is
which.
MR. WHITAKER: This is the Joe Jones can't
do anything.
THE COURT: Okay. Well if he wants to
play it he can play it.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, on redirect
we would ask to play it in its full context.
MR. WHITAKER: I want the court to
understand I'm only playing it because of your
ruling on my objection.
MR. DETTELBACH: We discussed it,
specifically this tape, this Exhibit Number at the
bench.
(Tape played. )
MR. WHITAKER: All right that's fine.
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. We ask that
the entire tape be played.
THE COURT: Let it play, finish it off.
(Tape played. )
BY MR. WHITAKER:
(1 Now, you are aware of the fact that ultimately

Ricardo Teamor did not contribute whatsoever to that
loan, aren't you?

THE WITNESS: Yes. To my knowledge
Ricardo did not participate in the loan.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And that's exactly what Nate Gray was telling him

to do, isn't that right?
A I think there was some discussion back and forth.

I don't know what the ultimate decision was.
Q How about the part where he was going "don't do it

Ricardo", that's what he was referring to, right?
A Yeah, but he comes back later and they seemed to
agree to do it.
Q Did Ricardo ever do it? Did Nate ever accept any

money from Ricardo?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. It calls for
hearsay.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: I think he's already answered
it.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q In that tape Teamor says he can refer legal work,

right?
A Yes.
Q And actually Teamor was a lawyer, wasn't he?

A Yes, he was.
770
Q And when he talks about referring legal work, he

can refer legal work from people he knows, refer
constituents, refer other lawyers to Ricardo Teamor,
right?
A Yes. He also had a municipal bond business which
he was seeking some business in the City of Cleveland.
Q You are familiar with the concept, however,

referring legal work?
A Vaguely. I'm not a lawyer.
Q All right. That's fine.

second, your Honor.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q There were two other points on that, on page 4 of

1078B that you talked about. One of them was that he
talked very clearly about a fact that it was on the
personal loan, on the personal side, and a personal loan
for his wedding, right?
A That was the question Nate Gray asked of Joe Jones,
yes.
Q And Joe Jones said this is on the personal side.

And Nate Gray said this is for wedding?
A Joe Jones confirmed it was personal, on the
personal side.
Q And Gray then confirmed exactly why it was

personal. He said this is for the wedding?

characterization.
THE COURT: It speaks for itself.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And then in regards to the thing you talked about,

apparently Ricardo being under attack. Nate Gray,
specifically at the bottom of page 4, and 1'11 show it to
you if you need to be, said, you know, they can work it
out?
A I recall hearing that, yes.
Q So he certainly wasn't asking Joe Jones to do

anything with respect to that, he said they can work it
out?
A I don1t know.
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, I have just a
couple.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Agent Massie, the government asked you about Joe

Jackson?
A Yes.
772
Q And you state he was a member of the Cleveland City

Council?
A Yes.
Q It would be fair to say he's in no way, shape or

form related to Gilbert Jackson, is he?
A That's correct.

- - -
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Mr. Whitaker asked you some questions about the

word minimized.
A Yes.
Q How often, typically, is the tape turned off for

when minimization takes place?
A Typically, just a minute.
Q One minute?
A Approximately a minute.
Q So if you look at that particular portion, how long

would it have been before, in-between the time when
they are talking about the $8,000 and Mr. Teamor's
trouble at CMHA?
MR. WHITAKER: Objection. He's asking for
speculation and he's leading.

BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q How long?
A Approximately a minute.
(1 You also heard he played, Mr. Whitaker played a

tape for you, Exhibit, I believe it was he played 1081.
Do you remember that?
A Yes, I do.
Q There is a reference to a person named George

Forbes there, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q With respect to Mr. Teamor's firm, what was the

relationship to George Forbes firm at the time?
A It was a competitive firm. Both firms competed for
different municipal bond legal business.
Q You also heard a reference on that tape to getting

somebody, quote, in the room.
Do you remember that?
A Yes.
Q All right. And did you, do you know from your
interceptions whether or not there was actually a joint
meeting of Ricardo Teamor, Nate Gray and Joe Jones?
A Yes, there was.

774
Thank you. Would you call your next
witness.
MR. DETTELBACH: Well, actually, your
Honor, I believe the way things have gone, in the
current state it's going to be Special Agent Massie
with a different segment of the case.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DETTELBACH: With the court's
indulgence.
- - -
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Massie, all right. I'm now actually

going to shift gears again and ask you, did any part of
the materials that you assembled for the trial in this
case relate to the Cleveland Division of Water?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q All right. And did you also put together a time

line based upon those exhibits the same way that we've
seen for the City of East Cleveland?
A I have.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: And I would ask that

Exhibit 25A now be distributed, your Honor.
MR. WHITAKER: Same objection.
Again, this is not evidence, it is an aid
to assist you in understanding the evidence.
MR. DETTELBACH: And your Honor, based on
that, I would just -- to the extent people are
relying on taking notes on that, perhaps we should
tell them that I'm --

THE COURT: You shouldn't be making notes
on that, make notes on your pads.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Now, on that particular time line, again, is there

any difference in the way it was prepared in terms of
what is where on the time line?
A No. It's prepared the same way as the East
Cleveland time line with the documents above the line and
the calls below the line.
Q All right. What is the Cleveland Division of

Water, as you have in the title here?
A It is a division within the City of Cleveland that
handles the water and sewage for the city and surrounding
communities.
Q And during the time covering covered in your time

line here, who was this Commissioner of that department.
A Julius Ciaccia?
Q Just for the record, how is that name spelled and
how do people refer to him?
A It's spelled C-I-A-C-C-I-A and he's referred to
simply as Chatch.
Q And also, during the period 1990 to 2002, who was

the Mayor of City of Cleveland?
A Michael White.
Q Is there any interceptions where defendant Gray

describes his relationship with Mayor White during that
period?
A Yes.
Q And how does Mr. Gray describe his relationship

with Mr. Mayor White?
A As his right hand man.
Q Who words were those?

A Those were defendant Gray's words.
Q Have you ever heard of a company called CDM, or

Camp, Dresser & McKee?
A Yes.
Q What is that?
A It's a nationwide engineering firm that specializes
in water and waste water facilities.
Q Where is the headquarters located?

A It's in Massachusetts.
Q And is anybody who is in here in this courtroom,

work -- did anybody work for that corporation?
A Yes, Gilbert Jackson previously worked for Camp,
Dresser & McKee.
Q And what was his position there?

A Vice President.
Q And specifically, what was he a Vice President of?

What initiative?
A The urban initiative to initiate businesses in
urban communities.
Q Where were his offices where he worked at?

A He was based out of New Orleans, Louisiana, but
worked throughout the country.
Q Now, on the time line that you have assembled here,

what period is shown in total first, from the beginning
to the end?
A The time line starts on April 15th of 1996, and
going to page B of the time line, carries on to July 2nd,

2003.
Q And within that whole span, are there any different

segments that you can point out for us?
A The time line is broken down largely by three
different contracts which Camp, Dresser & McKee received
from the City of Cleveland.

778
Q And what were the general timeframes of those three

contracts? And what are they?
If you could walk us through what those three
contracts were, an overview.
A The initial time period was late '96, early 1997
where CDM or Camp, Dresser & McKee sought and obtained a
contract with the City of Cleveland Water Department to
do an overall masters plan, which was a plan to renovate
some of the waste water treatment facilities located in
Cleveland, Ohio.
Q What's the next big segment then?

A Then moving forward to the 2001 time frame, Camp,
Dresser & McKee sought and obtained another contract from
the City of Cleveland Water Department. This one was to
do the, kind of an overall controls assessment of these
waste water treatment plants to make sure the controls
were functioning properly and to implement better control
systems.
Q You mean literally, like the controls that turn

things on and off?
A For the most part, yes.
Q And then what's the third segment?

A And then the third period of time was on the second
half of the year 2002, where CDM sought and obtained a
contract to do actual design, renovation designs for one

779
of the waste water treatment plants which was referred to
as the Nottingham Plant.
Q And of those three periods that you just described,

did you have court-authorized electronic surveillance for
any of them?
A Just for the last contract which I spoke about.
Q All right. Now, let's now start in 1996, in the

first segment.
MR. DETTELBACH: And if I could ask that
we display Exhibit 701.
Q Have you assembled any documents which are here on

the time line and in the exhibits which evidence a
commercial relationship between Nate Gray and Camp,
Dresser & McKee?
A Yes.
Q And what is this first one that we are looking at?

What is this document?
A Exhibit 701 is a consulting agreement between CDM
and Nate Gray. This one is dated April 15th, 1996.
MR. DETTELBACH: Actually, can we blow up
the top part, the first paragraph, so we can see
that date?
All right. And if we can scroll down. I
don't think you even have to go out. Just scroll

down to paragraph one, 1.2, if you'll keep going.
Q And if you could tell us what the compensation is,
terms are in this particular consulting agreement?
A Mr. Gray was to receive a retainer fee of $2,500
per month for a period of 12 months.
Q All right. Now directing your attention to

Exhibits 702, 703, 704, 705 and 706. What are those?
What is that series of documents? We don't have to show
them all.
A These are additional consulting agreements between
Nate Gray and the CDM, just in chronological order.
Q All right. So for instance now we are looking at

702. What does this particular letter refer to?
A This is an actual letter amending the original
agreement to extend the period of time for the first
consulting agreement.
MR. DETTELBACH: And then if you could
just go to 703. All right.
Q And then what's 703?

A Another letter of amendment. This particular
amendment increases the monthly amount to $4,425.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: And 704.
Q And what's the date and what does this do?
A This is a letter dated December 14th, 1999. Serves
as another amendment to the consulting agreement.

781
Increases the monthly fee to $5,000 per month, and also
provides a $10,000 bonus related to activities performed
during the 1999 calendar year.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. 705.
A This is a letter dated September 18th, 2001 that
provides for a $10,000 bonus for consultation during the
year 2001.
MR. DETTELBACH: 706, please.
A This is a another form of an amendment letter which
reduces the monthly fee back to $2,500 per month.
Q This is now on July 2ndf 2003?

A That's correct.
Q Now, so the amounts went up until mid-2003, then it

went down?
A That's correct.
Q All right. Now, have you prepared a summary of

payments made, actually made to Nate Gray by Camp,
Dresser & McKee?
A Yes, I have.
Q All right.
Exhibit 714A.
Q All right. Do you recognize this?
A Yes, this is actually a summary prepared by Camp,
Dresser & McKee.

Q Did you prepare, actually your own also?
A I did.
Q Do we only have it in hard copy?

A No, it should be scanned in.
Q 714A perhaps?
A That's correct.
MR. DETTELBACH: I'm sorry, let's take
that down and put up 714A.
Q You did your own actually for this trial, correct?

A I did.
Q All right. Special Agent Massie, while were

getting it, can you tell what you did to prepare your
summaries, that is 714A?
A The summary is prepared by all the invoices
submitted from Nate Gray's company, ETNA Associates to

Camp, Dresser & McKee, and then also the contracts which
we just discussed which indicate the monthly retainer
payments was also utilized to complete the spreadsheet.
Q So you personally examined all those invoices and

records?
A Yes, I did.
Q And you used it to prepare a summary?

A Yes.
Q Now, with respect to the summary that you prepared,

Special Agent Massie --
783
MR. DETTELBACH: May I approach to make
sure we have the correct document?
Q Showing you this, is this the document or do we

have to look for another one?
A This is correct.
Q Okay.
Special Agent Massie, the chart itself is
only the first page of this exhibit, correct?
A First four pages or so.
Q All right. And the rest is the actual backup, is

that correct?
A The remainder is the underlying invoices.
Q All right. Using this document, can you tell us

how to read that and what the different columns
represent?
A Yes. It's broken down by -- each entry is broken
down by invoice date, which you can see at the far left.
Then you have the amount of the payment per the invoice.
Then you have the amount of payment per the contract.
And this column actually refers to the contracts from the
column in the far right. You see a column with the
heading Exhibit. Based on these exhibits, that's where I
determined the amount per contract.
Q All right.
A The middle column or the gray shaded area is the
difference.
Q Let's focus on that.

In you review of the documents, did you
discover any payments, regular payments from CDM to
Mr. Gray above the stated contract amounts?
A Yes.
Q All right. And tell us in your own words what it

is that you discovered about such regular extra payments?
A Beginning in November of 1996, Nate Gray began
receiving regular payments of $425 per month while he was
still on a $2,500 per month retainer. And that amount
was then carried forward to the $4,425 contract amount.
Q I'm going to zoom in on that so you can explain to

us what you mean when you say it was then carried
forward.
Can you show us on your chart what you mean
when you say it was then carried forward?
A Well, if you look at the entry for June 7th, 1997,
you will see that the payment, the extra payment $425 per
month. Then beginning July 8th, 1997 Nate Gray's
retainer payments was increased to $4,425.
Q So that's what you meant when this movement from

this column to this column?
A That's correct.
Q But the odd amount was still there every month?

A Yes.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I ' m going t o o b j e c t
t o t h i n g s l i k e odd amount.
THE COURT: Sustained. Disregard the last
question.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q How l o n g d i d t h e number 425 c o n t i n u e t o show u p i n
e i t h e r column on t h e p a y m e n t s t h a t were made t o M r . Gray?
THE WITNESS: C o u l d you t u r n t h e p a g e ?
You h a v e t o s l i d e i t o v e r .
A Through t h e e n d o f 1 9 9 9 .
Q And e v e n a f t e r 1 9 9 9 , d i d you d i s c o v e r a n y p a y m e n t s
a b o v e t h e r e g u l a r c o n t r a c t amount?
A Yes, t h e r e w e r e a number o f d i f f e r e n t p a y m e n t s t h a t
w e r e made t o N a t e Gray t h a t were a d d i t i o n a l t o w h a t was
called for i n t h i s contract.
Q Now, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h o s e p a y m e n t s , b o t h t h e 425
payments and t h e ones you've r e f e r r e d t h a t were above t h e
c o n t r a c t a m o u n t s , h a v e you l o o k e d t h r o u g h t h e
d o c u m e n t a t i o n t o a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e r e were s p e c i f i c
expenses: Lunches, d i n n e r s , h o t e l s .
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor. I ' m going t o
o b j e c t h e ' s commenting on e v i d e n c e n o t d o c u m e n t s h e
received?

BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q All these documents here, have you looked through

it to see if whether there were any expenses associated
with extra payments?
A Based on all the invoices, there was only one or
two expenses noted.
Q Only one or two occasions in the whole time.

A Yes.
Q Now, did you obtain any educational records in your

investigation in this case?
A Yes, I have.
Q From what institution?

A From Kent State University.
Q All right.
715.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q All right. And can you please tell us what Exhibit

715 is and where you obtained it?
A These are the tuition records for Kristin Ciaccia
from Kent State University.
Q Who is she?
A She's the daughter of the Water Commissioner Julius
Ciaccia.
Q And what time frame did she begin her schooling and
when did she end?
A She began in the Fall of 1996.
MR. WHITAKER: Objection to this line of
questioning.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And when did she finish?

A In 2001.
Q Now, can you tell us on your time line, looking at

your time line, sort of where we are on the time line and
where that exhibit is shown, the one we just spoke about?
A That particular exhibit was the second entry on the
time line.
Q That's the -- all right, dated 8/96?

A That's right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you please pull up
Exhibit 717 and tell us about the next entry on your
time line as it relates to this exhibit.
A 717 is a letter from Rony Joel, who is an office
manager for CDM, to Julius Ciaccia.
Q You say office manager.
A Managed the Cleveland office or the Cleveland
branch of Camp, Dresser & McKee at the time.

Q I'm sorry. Please continue.
A It's a letter to Julius Ciaccia, the Water
Commissioner, which submitted their proposal for that
master plan.
Q That was also in August, 1996?

A August 19, 1996.
Q And then what is the next entry on the top of your

time line?
A That's a reference back to Exhibit 714. This is
the date of the first monthly increase by 425 paid to
Nate Gray by CDM.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: And please display
Exhibit 716.
Q What is 716?
A This is the actual agreement between CDM and the
City of Cleveland, Division of Water for the master plan
in which CDM was paid 7.1 million.
MR. DETTELBACH: If you could please go to
page 6 on that exhibit.
And if you blow up the numbers part of the
exhibit, the top part of the page.
That's fine. Thank you.
Q Where is it here that the total compensation for

the work is listed?
A At the bottom of the column.
Q All right. And the same month, were there any

exhibits that related to Mr. Gray's consulting agreement?
A Yes. You look at the very next entry refers back
to Exhibit 702, which was one of the amendments to
Mr. Gray's consulting agreement.
Q And what did that amendment do?

A That particular amendment increased his payments.
Q All right. Now we've already gone through the next

entry on the top which is 704, correct?
A That's correct. It's another amendment.
Q And that's another increase?

A Yes, that's the amendment that increased it to
$5,000 per month.
Q Now, is it fair to say the next entry sort of

begins the second segment of this particular time line?
A Yes, the next entry is the controls project in
2001.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: If we could then display
Exhibit 718.
Q All right. And specifically what are we looking

at, what is 718?
A 718 is the contract between Camp, Dresser & McKee
and the Division of Water related to that program and

services contract.
Q All right?
could go to the first page of that. All right.
Q Under recitals, does it list a date that a proposal
is submitted under this contract, under paragraph 2 ?
A Yes. The CDM responded to the city's request for
proposal on March 15th, 2001.
Q All right. And then at the top of that page, is

there any date -- if you scroll up -- as to the date of
the actual agreement, the date of the contract?
A August 27th, 2001.
Q So the actual contract happens on August 27th?

A That's correct.
MR. DETTELBACH: And then finally if you

could go to the next page; and go to the bottom of
that page under payments and amount.
Q And tell us what was the amount of that contract?

A It's a little over $4.7 million.
Q All right. NOW, there are two other entries -- and

you can take that down, thank you.
There are two other entries on the time line,
both from Exhibit 719. Do you see those two entries?
A I do.
Q Could you please explain to us what those are and

791
what E x h i b i t 7 1 9 i s ?
A E x h i b i t 7 1 9 i s k i n d o f a s e l e c t i o n b o o k l e t from t h e
C i t y of Cleveland p e r t a i n i n g t o t h i s c o n t r a c t . The two
i t e m s on t h e t i m e l i n e r e f l e c t t h e p r o p o s a l r a n k i n g s , CDM
proposal rankings. They a r e i n i t i a l l y r a n k e d w i t h a
p r o p o s a l r a n k i n g o f 6 5 . 8 on May 3 1 s t . And t h e c i t y d i d a
s e c o n d p r o p o s a l r a n k i n g which t h e y a r e g r a d e d b y r a t e o f
8 2 . 1 j u s t 1 5 d a y s l a t e r on J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 1 .
Q A l l right. L e t ' s t a k e t h o s e one b y one. Let's
f i r s t b r i n g u p t h e May 3 1 s t p r o p o s a l r a n k i n g .
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, o b j e c t i o n . I
would l i k e t o a p p r o a c h on t h i s .
THE COURT: Why d o n ' t you come f o r w a r d .
JUROR: Your Honor, c a n I u s e t h e
restroom?
THE COURT: Why d o n ' t w e t a k e a b r e a k
w e ' l l t a k e a b o u t 12 m i n u t e s o r 1 3 m i n u t e s . Same
r u l e s apply. D o n ' t t a l k a b o u t t h e c a s e among
y o u r s e l v e s o r anyone else.
(The j u r y w i t h d r e w f r o m t h e c o u r t r o o m
and t h e following proceedings w e r e
conducted i n a t t h e s i d e b a r . )
THE COURT: What's t h e o b j e c t i o n ?
MR. WHITAKER: My o b j e c t i o n i s t h i s . Wait
Mr. Dettelbach.
7 92
MR. DETTELBACH: I'm sorry.
MR. WHITAKER: Based on the testimony that
we've heard at the last trial, we know that those
calculations were adjusted at the direction of the
Mayor. Not a shred of evidence that the Mayor was
ever -- any money was improperly paid to the Mayor
or any kind of corruption was involved with the
Mayor. And that he's the one that sent the work
back, and he's the one that actually approved the
change, approved the contract.
And so it has no value.
THE COURT: I think it does. We also have
testimony that he's the mayor's right hand man.
MR. WHITAKER: He's what?
THE COURT: He's the mayor's right hand
man.
MR. DETTELBACH: Gilbert Jackson, Mr. Gray
also put on a fundraiser for him.
THE COURT: I think there is nothing --

MR. WHITAKER: That the mayor did it.
THE COURT: Yeah, that.
MR. WHITAKER: But there is no evidence of
any wrongdoing with regard to the Mayor just because

he's his right hand man.
THE COURT: I think there is sufficient

evidence and the jury can hear that.
(Brief recess. )
THE COURT: If the jury will take their
seats. I guess there are a couple monitors that
have a bit of a problem. We'll try as much to get
those fixed, but in the meantime I'll I'd ask you to
observe it through either the bigger one or adjacent
ones. Which ones are they? I think it's yours and
yours. Can each of you kind of look to the ones to
the side or look to this one.
Why don't you go on, Mr. Dettelbach.
Q Special Agent Massie, all right. Focusing back on

your time line, page one at the far right, there are two
entries you said for Exhibit 719.
Q And those are the award documentation for the
second contract, the one that we just had up on the
screen?
A Yes, those are proposal rankings for the controls
contract.
Q All right. And you said that there are two

different entries 15 days apart?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Let's start by displaying

794
719 -- the first entry 719, the 5/31/01 proposal
ranking.
Q Do you see the date here on the screen of this

proposal ranking?
A Yes, May 31st, 2001.
Q With respect to this particular proposal ranking on

the far left, can you read down and tell us the name of
the three firms that are reflected here?
A First firm listed is Camp, Dresser & McKee followed
by Malcolm Pirnie and then the Washington Group.
Q Let's sort of set aside the Washington Group. From

the documentation, did something happen to the Washington
Group during this bid process?
MR. JENKINS: Objection, judge. Again
saying something happened. He's testifying about
evidence he didn't receive, had no idea about.
MR. DETTELBACH: We'll read it when it
comes to the next one.
Q With respect to the first two, though, Camp,

Dresser & McKee and Malcolm Pirnie, those two, do you see
then a series of numbers rating across to the right for
each one of those?
A Yes, I do.
Q And then the fourth column is sort of darker. Do

795
you see that one? It sort of didn't come out that well
on the black and white?
A I do.
Q Can you, first of all, read the headings on the

first three columns?
A First heading is technical score. Perfect score is
equal to 100.
Second heading is fee adjustment. Perfect
score equal to 5.
Third column oral interview, there is a plus
five to minus 5.
Q All right. And then can you read the fourth

column, or is it too dark unless we blow it up?
A It says technical adjusted score.
Q We don't have to blow it up yet.

Let me ask you first of all, for Camp,
Dresser & McKee, what was their technical score on this
particular document?
A 64.8.
Q All right. And what was their fee adjustment score
on this document?
A It was 5.
Q What was their oral interview adjustment?
A Minus 4.
Q I'm sorry, minus 4?

A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now b l o w u p t h e t o t a l
column, t h e f o u r t h column.
Q And i f you c o u l d r e a d t o u s i n t h a t f o u r t h column,
when i t ' s blown u p , c a n you r e a d t o u s now what t h e
t o t a l s a r e i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r column?
A Yes. The t o t a l a d j u s t e d s c o r e i s 6 5 . 8 .
Q And w h a t ' s t h e t o t a l a d j u s t e d s c o r e f o r Malcolm
P i r n i e , t h e o t h e r f i r m r i g h t below i t ?
A 76.5.
Q A l l right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, w e c o u l d t a k e t h a t
down.
Now, l e t ' s move t o t h e s e c o n d e n t r y i n
your t i m e l i n e . The d a t e o f t h e s e c o n d p r o p o s a l
r a t i n g , J u n e 1 5 t h , 2001.
Please display t h a t .
A l l right.
Q And a g a i n , d o you see t h e d a t e h e r e a n d c a n you
show u s where t h e d a t e i s l i s t e d ?
A Yes. R i g h t u n d e r n e a t h t h e h e a d i n g it s a y s June
1 5 t h , 2001.
Q And now I ' l l a s k you t h e q u e s t i o n w i t h t h e
W a s h i n g t o n Group.
Can you r e a d f o o t n o t e o n e a n d e x p l a i n t o u s
what happened to the Washington Group?
A It reads, "Washington Group was not invited to
present because the firm filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection prior to the oral presentation."
Q So again, let's just focus on the top two, Camp,

Dresser & McKee and Malcolm Pirnie, all right?
Again, reading across for Camp, Dresser &
McKee, what was their technical score on the June 15th
document?
A 64.8.
Q Now moving across to the fee adjustment. First of

all, is the top heading any different from the document
you just read?
A Yes. The previous document indicated a perfect
score for fee adjustment is five.
Q And is that writing anywhere here?

A No, it's no longer in the heading.
(Z And what is the Camp, Dresser & McKee fee
adjustment score?
A It's plus 13.34.
Q All right. And now, what is the next column read
again at the top?
A It's oral interview adjustments.
Q And what was Camp, Dresser & McKee's oral interview
score on the first document?

A It was a minus 4.
Q And what is it on this document?

A It's a plus 4.
Q Now, this one actually came out a little bit

lighter. Tell us what the final score was on this one
for Camp, Dresser & McKee as compared to Malcolm Pirnie?
A The new technical adjusted score is 82.1.
Q And how did Malcolm Pirnie do the second time?

A Their technical adjusted score is 78.
(Z Now, Special Agent Massie, did you also obtain

e-mails from the Cleveland Water Division that occurred
during this two week period?
A Yes, I did.
Q All right. Now, I would like to start by

displaying for you Exhibit 742. All right.
And what is, what are we looking at in the
first page of a multi-page exhibit that is 742?
A It's a copy of an e-mail, and this one was
addressed to Julius Ciaccia from a James Buncy and then
cc to Shahid Sadwar.
Q Now as a general matter let me just ask you, is

there just one e-mail or how many e-mails are there that
you key recovered from the Water Division?
A Thousand of e-mails.
Q Well I mean, with respect to this two week period

and these particular issues?
A Probably 10 to 15.
Q Would you tell us, is this the only e-mail that

Julius Ciaccia is son either as a give or receiver?
A No, it is not.
Q On this particular e-mail -- could you please, if
you could, blow up the text.
And read this for us?
A It reads Ciaccia, as requested, please find two
files. The word file is a one page summary of the
programming services evaluation suggestion suggesting
MPI. Note: It is really two pages. The first page is
probably sufficient to show the mayor. The second page
contains some of the drawbacks associated with the CEM
team. And then there is in parens, for the director's
back pocket. That might not be needed for the
discussion.
The excel book contains the evaluation
summary, in parens, the first page of the book, and the
evaluation back up sheets. And then in parens, the rest
of the pages. Let us know if you need anything else.
Q And what is the date of this e-mail?
MR. DETTELBACH: If you could scroll up.
A May 31st, 01.
Q Okay. There is also a Mr. Sadwar who is cc'd on

this?
A Yes.
Q Who is he?
A He's an engineer in the Cleveland Division of
Water.
Q Okay. Now, that, that second page, that two page

memo that's referenced here, was that attached and
included in the materials?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you please go to
the next page.
All right. And if you could just blow up
the heading for us.
Q What is the heading of this particular page?

A It says programming services proposal presentation
evaluation summary.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: And if you could go out
to the whole page again.
Q And then tell us what the first section is called,
is labeled?
A There is a heading that says programming services
project overview.
Q And what's the second heading?
A General.
801
Q And then what's the third heading of this 531
document?
A It says the results of the evaluation.
Q Please read 1 for us?

A Under results?
Q Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: If you could blow it up,
I'm sorry.
A The combined evaluation of proposal presentation
and fee indicates MPI as the best candidate.
(r What is MPI?
A That's Malcolm Pirnie.
Q Okay. Now, and then there is a series of things

that come after, but I'm going to ask you to move to the
next page.
And do you see that the paragraphs on the
next page begin with -- start beginning with the word
CDM?
A Yes, under 9.
Q Start -- really the rest of the paragraphs on that

page, correct?
A Yes, 9 through 13.
Q All right. And read, for instance, 9 for us?

A It says, "CDM's project manager is not local. Most
of the team is located in geographical disbursed

locations and not based in Cleveland."
Q Read 10 for us?

A "CDM's Deputy Manager is not experienced in
instrumentation and control. The Deputy Manager has a
poor schedule and budget track record with CWD. This is

important in that it is the opinion of the evaluation
team that many of the management duties will ultimately
fall on the Deputy Manager as he is local."
Q Now, skipping then to the bottom, is there anything

here regarding the fee?
A 13.
Q All right. And if you could read in a loud clear

voice 13 for us?
A "CDM took significant exceptions to the draft
contract language and, in the opinion of the evaluation
team, took significant exceptions to the scope of work
that would ultimately increase CDM's fees if the scope
were on even par with the other proposers. CDM did not
respond to written request for clarifications to their
proposal in a forthright manner. It is the opinion of
the evaluation team their responses were contrary to
their original proposal."
Q All right. Special Agent Massie, who got this

contract?
A Camp, Dresser & McKee.

803
Q Do you see what I'm showing you, what is part of
741?
A Yes, I do.
Q And what are we looking at?
A It's another photocopy of an e-mail.
Q And what is the date of this e-mail?
A The delivery date?
Q Delivery time, I think it --

A 6/7/2001.
Q All right. And then below that there is a creation
time, just so we're not confused, it has a date four
years later. What -- just so the jury understands, what

is that?
A That's when it was created and put on back up disk
and turned over pursuant to subpoena.
Q So that wasn't part of the original e-mail?

A No.
Q Please read the text of this e-mail?

A It says, "the Mayor says to give it to CDM, CB."
Q And Special Agent Massie, again, with respect to

the e-mails you reviewed, was the one that I showed you
the only one that Commissioner Ciaccia was on?
A Which one?
Q That one that I showed you. We didn't look at

every e-mail here?
A No, t h e r e i s a number o f them.
Q And was Commissioner C i a c c i a on t h o s e ?
A Yes, t h e r e w e r e e - m a i l s t u r n e d o v e r f r o m h i s a c t u a l
computer, h i s desktop.
Q They were f r o m h i s c o m p u t e r ?
A Yes.
Q Now, i n y o u r s e a r c h o f t h e ETNA o f f i c e s o f M r . N a t e
Gray, d i d you r e c o v e r a n y d o c u m e n t s t h a t c o n t a i n e d
references t o J u l i u s Ciaccia?
A Yes.
Q A l l right. And s p e c i f i c a l l y , I would l i k e t o a s k
you t o l o o k a t E x h i b i t 713.
MR. DETTELBACH: And a c t u a l l y , c a n w e
d i s p l a y , i t ' s a two p a g e e x h i b i t . Could w e d i s p l a y
it s i d e by s i d e ?
(Z A l l right. What i s i t t h a t 713 i s a n d w h e r e d i d i t
come from?
A T h i s was s e i z e d d u r i n g t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t e x e c u t e d
i n Nate Gray's p e r s o n a l o f f i c e . This is a calendar o r a
t i c k e t r e g i s t e r f o r t h e 2001, 2002 C l e v e l a n d I n d i a n s
baseball season.
Q A l l right. Now, where was i t r e c o v e r e d i n
Mr. Gray's office?
A In h i s personal o f f i c e i n , I believe, t h e credenza
next t o h i s desk.
805
Q All right. Have you looked at -- do you have,
actually, the original with you up there because we can't
get the whole thing scanned in?
A I do.
Q Could you hold it up for us.

And can you take that out of there since you
can't get the whole thing on the scanned version and
count for us how many times you see references to Ciaccia
on that particular exhibit?
MR. JENKINS: Objection your Honor. The
document speaks for itself. And at this point, the
jury should be able to see the document to determine
whether it refers to him because indeed --
THE COURT: Why don't you blow them up.
MR. DETTELBACH: The problem is the last
couple dates aren't on the bottom. Sure. No
problem. I'll use the originals to do that because
it will be easier to see.
And I'll just scroll it is what I'll do.
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, may I approach
the bench. I want something on the record.
THE COURT: Do you object?
MR. JENKINS: I object because it's only

the government's position that --

speaking.
MR. JENKINS: That's why I wanted to
approach.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. JENKINS: It's the government's
argument that it refers to Ciaccia if you look at
it, if the jury wants to infer that. But for him to
testify to that.
THE COURT: Why don't you show it to him.
I think it goes to weight.

MR. WHITAKER: Before you go, I also want
to put an objection on.
They just introduced a document that said
the figures that came out of the Water Department
were only adjusted by the Mayor, so what he did with
Ciaccia has no relationship to this contract at all,
and they have shown no connection whatsoever.
THE COURT: And I'll overrule it.
MR. DETTELBACH:
All right. Special Agent Massie, you can answer

807
the question now, and can you -- what I'll do is sort of
scroll down, first on this left hand side and then I'll
scroll down again on the right hand side. And by date,
why don't you say the dates as you see references that
respond to the question I asked.
All right. Let's start.
Go ahead. Starting up here, going down.
A 4/4, 4/26, 4/27, 5/26, 6/10, 7/5, 7/25, 8/18, 8/29,
9/24, 9/30.
Q Now let's go to the 2002 record. Again, let's do

it column by column starting on opening day.
A 4/8, 4/22, 5/4, 5/19, 6/7, 6/30, 7/14, 7/27, 8/10,
8/25, 9/1, 9/29.
Q How many total?

A I counted them before, I believe it was 22.
Q And Special Agent Massie, focusing just on the 2001
schedule, what was the date of the award of the contract?
Q All right. And focusing on that same part of the
calendar. Do you see any entries responsive to my
question that are close to that date?
A Yes, August 18th and August 29th.
Q Against Anaheim and Boston?

A Yes.
Q And also I asked you some questions regarding the

808
bidding process, the two sheets that I showed you. What
was the dates again of those two sheets?
A May 31st and June 15th.
Q All right. And looking at this, do you see any

entries in that time frame?
A I see May 26th and June 10th.
Q Was this document that I just showed you that was

in the credenza in the search, was this turned over in
response to any Grand Jury subpoena served?
A No, it was not.
Q And did the Grand Jury subpoena limit its terms

only to the monetary things of value?
A No, it didn't.
Q In addition to this document that I just showed

you, are there any calls intercepted later involving
Commissioner Ciaccia and sporting events?
A Yes, there are.
Q All right. And I'll switch it back. And directing
your attention to Exhibit 1111.
1111 on October 15, 2002 between Nate Gray and
Gilbert Jackson.
(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Massie, using the numbers you heard
there, would you calculate how much a ticket for a single

809
game would cost in the seats that were described?
MR. WHITAKER: Objection, your Honor,
relevance.
THE COURT: Wasn't that the Cavaliers?
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Did you divided the number of games in the season

the total of the --
THE COURT: I thought the exhibit was the
Indians.
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, but I think the
question was, did you hear conversations about other
sporting tickets provided to Commissioner Ciaccia,
your Honor.
MR. WHITAKER: It's still objection to
relevance.
THE COURT: Yes. I'll sustain the
objection as to the dollars.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Okay. Can you just tell us, so we can do the math,
how many games are in a season?
A 82.
MR. WHITAKER: Objection to relevance.

BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q In a home season how many home games?

A 41.
Q Were there other sporting events between Mr. Gray

and Mr. Jackson?
A Yes, there were.
Q Specifically directing your attention to 1117, what

is that call and who is it between?
A It's another call between Nate Gray and Gilbert
Jackson.
Q And what was the time period of that call?

A This occurred on December 6th, 2002.
Q All right. And can you tell us in that particular

time period what was going on with the Ohio State
Buckeyes?
A It was the year they were playing for the national
championship against the University of Miami.
Q Where did that occur?

A In the Fiesta Bowl I believe Arizona.
MR. DETTELBACH: Okay, please play 1117.

(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Massie, were there any follow up

calls to set up a meeting?
A For this particular meeting?
Q I'm sorry, were there any additional calls on this

subject?
A Yes, there were.
Q And just to be clear, did you physically surveil

the Fiesta Bowl?
A No, I did not.
Q Sorry.
Now, with respect to the time line, going
back to the time line. Are we now on the third segment
of time line?
A Yes. In August of 2002.
Q And just draw our attention to where we should be
looking, to which entry then?
A Look at page 2 of the time line, if you look to the
very first entry below the line.
Q Okay. All right. So, the one that's labeled 1096?

Q All right. NOW, which contract now are we talking

about on the time line?
A These sequence of calls pertain to the actual
design contract for the Nottingham Waste Water Treatment
Plant.
(2 And what time frame was that contract being bid for
and competed for?
A It was in the Fall of 2002.
Q Now, did you recover any documents in searches

relating to that contract?
A Yes, I have.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Please
display 733. It's the first page of a multi-page
exhibit.
Q Please tell us where this came from and what it is?

A This was obtained in the search warrant executed in
Nate Gray's personal office.
Q All right.
A This is a photo copy of an e-mail.
Q All right. And who is on the top line of the

e-mail? What name is written there?
A The name written is Nate Gray, and it has his fax
number listed next to it.
Q And what's below that in the typed part?

A Gilbert Jackson. This indicates this is an e-mail
off Gilbert Jackson's computer.
MR. JENKINS: Objection, your Honor, it
speaks for itself.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Let me just ask you to read on the "to" line, do

you see Gilbert Jackson's name on the "to" line of this
e-mail?

A Yes, I do.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Now, with respect to the e-mail itself, do you see

any references to the word Nottingham?
A Yes, I do.
Q Where do you see it? You can touch the screen.
A If you look in the middle of the body of the
e-mail.
Q And could you read what number 1 says below
Nottingham?
A It says, "FLOCC slash SED, S-E-D, project.
10.9 million in construction."
Q And skipping the text down to the last sentence,

with starting "the CWD," could you just read that last
sentence for us?
MR. DETTELBACH: Actually blow it up
because it is hard to read this way. You are not
going to be able to.
Q The last sentence of that paragraph starting with

CWD.
A "So the CWD PN urges us to get involved in
marketing, because even though we are doing an excellent
job on design projects, the design projects will mostly
be awarded politically. As soon as I get the results of

814
the meeting I will forward the information."
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you just scroll
down.
Q And read what's written for us there?

A It says, "Nate, colon, we are interested in number
1."
Q Now, what is the date of the particular e-mail that

we just saw?
Q All right. And with respect to the fax line at the

very top, can you read what the fax date is in the upper
left corner?
A It's August 21st, 2002.
Q Is there and an interception the very next day

8/22/02, involving Nate Gray and Gilbert Jackson speaking
about this contract and Commissioner Ciaccia?
A Yes, there is.
Q Please play Exhibit 1096.

(Tape played. )
Q Following day is there a follow up call between the

same two people?
A Yes, there is.
Q All right.
(Tape played. )
815
Q Now, S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , you h e a r d r e f e r e n c e s t o
Mr. Jackson t r a v e l i n g t o Cleveland?
A Yes.
Q Did h e i n f a c t t r a v e l t o C l e v e l a n d ?
A He did.
Q Was t h e r e a phone c a l l n e x t o n y o u r t i m e l i n e t h a t
happened d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d ?
A Yes, t h e r e i s .
Q What e x h i b i t , what d a t e , a n d who i s on t h e c a l l ?
A I t r e f e r s t o E x h i b i t 1102, c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n
N a t e G r a y a n d G i l b e r t J a c k s o n w h i c h o c c u r r e d on
August 2 9 t h , 2002.
Q So a b o u t s i x d a y s a f t e r t h e l a s t o n e ?
Q And who was i t t h a t s a i d , "I j u s t want o u r s h a r e " ?
A Nate Gray.
Q And i n t h a t same c a l l was t h e r e a n y r e f e r e n c e t o
t h i s $25,OOO?
MR. JENKINS : J u d g e , o bj e c t i o n .
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Well i s t h e r e a n o t h e r e x c e r p t t o t h i s c a l l t h a t h a s
a reference t o that?
816
A Yes.
Q All right. Now, referring to the top of the time

line. Above the line. Can you tell us what the entry
shows with respect to the timing of the request for
proposal on these contracts that are being discussed?
A Above the line is in reference to Exhibit 711.
City issues the request for proposal or RFP for the waste
water treatment projects.
Q All right. And what's the date of that?

MR. DETTELBACH: Could we put up 711,
please.
Q And what are we looking at? What is 711?

A This is the selection documentation turned over by
the city.
Q All right. And can you, what's the first word, can
you read it, what it says?
A It says "Nottingham flocculation slash
sedimentation, slash residuous?
Q And is that sometimes record referred to as FLOCC.

A Yeah, FLOCC/SED.
Q And who got that contract?

A CDM won this particular contract.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you go to page 2.
All right.
817
Q And w i t h r e s p e c t t o p a g e 2, i s t h e r e a n amount
l i s t e d f o r t h e contract here?
A Yeah, i n t h e s e c o n d p a r a g r a p h , you see l i t t l e u n d e r
t h r e e m i l l i o n , i t ' s $2,998,879.
MR. DETTELBACH: And i f w e c o u l d g o t o
page 5 of t h a t e x h i b i t .
And s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e f i r s t two
paragraphs, i f you c o u l d blow u p .
(1 And j u s t f o r t i m i n g p u r p o s e s e x p l a i n t o u s what
t h e s e p a r a g r a p h s s a y a b o u t t h e t i m i n g f o r when p r o p o s a l s
a r e g o i n g on a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s g o i n g o n ?
A The RFP i s A u g u s t 3 0 t h , 2 0 0 2 . And t h e p r o p o s a l s
were r e c e i v e d i n O c t o b e r 2 5 t h , 2 0 0 2 .
Q And on y o u r t i m e l i n e , c a n you show u s w h e r e
that is?
A The o n e f r o m A u g u s t 3 0 t h was t h e e n t r y I j u s t
referred to. And t h e n i f you go two e n t r i e s o v e r t o y o u r
r i g h t , a n o t h e r r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t 11, 1 0 / 2 5 / 0 2 i s when
CDM s u b m i t t e d t h e i r N o t t i n g h a m p r o p o s a l .
Q F o c u s i n g you on t h a t 8 / 3 0 / 0 2 d a t e , were t h e r e a n y
c a l l s i n t e r c e p t e d on t h e same d a y a s t h e RFP d a y ?
A Yes, t h e r e were.
Q C o u l d you p l e a s e t e l l u s w h a t e x h i b i t i s r e f e r r e d
t o on y o u r t i m e l i n e ?
A There i s a r e f e r e n c e t o 1104, a c o n v e r s a t i o n
818
b e t w e e n N a t e G r a y and G i l b e r t J a c k s o n .
MR. DETTELBACH: A n d c a n y o u please play
Exhibit 1104.
(Tape played.)
Q D i d y o u hear t h a t , "I know t h a t g i r l ' s special t o
t h a t man?"
A Yes, I did.
Q A n d w h o i s t h a t i n reference t o ?
MR. J E N K I N S : Your Honor, objection. Once
a g a i n he's t e s t i f y i n g .
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q D i d y o u hear t h e n a m e D i a n e ?
MR. J E N K I N S : Judge, I have t o o b j e c t .
THE COURT: It speaks for itself.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q D i d y o u recover a n y c h e c k s f r o m N a t e G r a y t o
somebody named Diane?
A Yes, I did.
MR. DETTELBACH: C o u l d y o u please d i s p l a y
E x h i b i t 712.
A n d i f y o u c o u l d b l o w i t up s o t h e a c c o u n t
number i s n o t v i s i b l e .
Q W h a t ' s t h e name o f t h e person on t h i s c h e c k ?
A Diane Pinson.
Q Where d o e s s h e work?
A She works f o r t h e C i t y o f C l e v e l a n d W a t e r
Department.
Q Have you e v e r c o n d u c t e d s u r v e i l l a n c e i n t h i s c a s e
where D i a n e P i n s o n was t h e r e ?
A Yes, I have.
Q And who was s h e w i t h ?
A I o b s e r v e d Diane P i n s o n w i t h J u l i u s C i a c c i a ,
G i l b e r t J a c k s o n , N a t e Gray, Benny Bonnano a n d o t h e r s a t
t h e Metropolitan Cafe.
Q What i s t h e d a t e o f t h i s c h e c k ?
A March 2 1 s t , 2002.
Q And w h a t ' s t h e amount f o r ?
A 1,078.
Q And w h i c h a c c o u n t was i t drawn o n ?
A Looks l i k e N a t e G r a y ' s p e r s o n a l Key Bank a c c o u n t .
MR. DETTELBACH: Okay, now you c a n t a k e
t h e c h e c k down.
Q Now, i s t h e r e a n o t h e r c o n v e r s a t i o n on y o u r t i m e
l i n e w h e r e G i l b e r t J a c k s o n d i s c u s s e s w i t h Nate G r a y t h e
$ 2 5 , 0 0 0 from CDM?
A Yes, t h e r e i s . I f you l o o k a t t h e e n t r y u n d e r
S e p t e m b e r 9 t h , 2002, w h i c h i s a r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t
1106.
Q A l l right. Now d u r i n g t h i s t i m e , with respect t o

820
t h e Nottingham p r o j e c t i n s p e c i f i c , was a n y t h i n g g o i n g on
with respect t o the project i t s e l f ?
A The city already issued their RFPs and the
companies were i n t h e p r o c e s s o f r e s p o n d i n g .
Q With r e s p e c t t o t h e Nottingham p r o j e c t s a s opposed
t o t h e o t h e r one, was t h e r e a n y t h i n g g o i n g on i n
splitting the project?
A Yes. The c i t y e l e c t e d t o s p l i t t h e Nottingham
p r o j e c t i n t o two s e p a r a t e p r o j e c t s r a t h e r t h a n h a v i n g one
large project.
(2 Was anybody c o n t e s t i n g i t ?
A Yes, CDM.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please p l a y 1106.
Q S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , what v o i c e s d i d you h e a r on
t h i s particular tape?
A Nate Gray a n d G i l b e r t J a c k s o n , a n d t h e n a l s o l a t e r
on was G l y n i s Nelson, who i s G i l b e r t J a c k s o n ' s p e r s o n a l
assistant.
Q And have you r e c o v e r e d a c h e c k f o r $25,000 t h a t was
issued?
A Yes, I h a v e .
MR. DETTELBACH: P l e a s e show u s E x h i b i t
708.
Q A l l right. And who i s i t from a n d who i s i t t o ?

821
A It's a check from CDM for $25,000 made out to the
Jane Campbell Gap Scholarship Fund.
Q I just want to be sure about this. With respect to

the scholarship fund, this is a real legitimate, this is
a charity, right?
A It is.
Q Was CDM the only company asked to contribute?

A No, it is not.
(Z Next on the time line, is there another call
relating to this $25,000, and specifically a conversation
between Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson?
A Yes, if you look at Exhibit 1110.

A It's September 17th, 2002.
(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Massie, what's the next entry on the
top of the time line moving to the right?
A That's the reference to Exhibit 711, that's when
CDM submitted their Nottingham proposal, October 25th,
2002.
Q All right. Was there a discussion about where CDM

fell in terms of price?
A Yes, there were.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. And

822
specifically, if you could please play Exhibit 1112.
(Tape played. )
Q All right. Now, is there a follow up call

regarding the price between Nate Gray and Gilbert
Jackson?
A Yes, there is.
Q And is that Exhibit 1114?
A It is.
MR. DETTELBACH: And can you please play

Exhibit 1114 on 11/12/02.
(Tape played. )
Q Now, did you hear a reference to a person named
Ray?
A I did.
Q Have you ever personally surveilled a person named
Ray with Julius Ciaccia?
A Yeah, I seen Ray Cody, who also is an employee at
Cleveland Water Department with Julius Ciaccia, Nate Gray
Gilbert Jackson and others.
(1 And did you see them together at the Water

Department?
A It was not at the Water Department.
Q You saw them at another setting?

A It was at the Metropolitan Cafe.
Q What was that?

A It's a restaurant in downtown Cleveland.
Q All right. Now, you also heard reference to a

fundraising event?
A Yes.
(Z And did you personally conduct surveillance outside

of a fundraising event that was being referred to?
A I did.
Q What was that?

A That was a fundraiser for Frank Jackson, who was
the President of City Council. He had, I believe it was,
a council leadership fundraiser.
Q And is there a taped conversation between Julius

Ciacci and Nate Gray relating to that fundraiser?
A Yes, there is.
Q Where is it reflected, and what is the exhibit

number?
A If you look at the next entry below the time line,
November 18th, 2002, Exhibit 1115.
(Tape played. )
Q All right. Now, you heard a reference to somebody
named Ralph?
A Yes.
Q Were there any -- and as a sub?

A Yes.
Q And what subs won work on these jobs?
A Ralph Tyler Companies.
Q Now, and did you a l s o hear reference again t o
Diane?
A I did.
Q And whose voices are we listening to on this call?

A This was Nate Gray and Julius Ciaccia.
Q All right. On the time line, can you show us where

it is depicted who got the Nottingham FLOCC job?
A If you look above the line on April loth, 2003,
Exhibit 709 is the final agreement between CDM and City
of Cleveland Division of Water for the Nottingham project
worth $2,998,879.
Exhibit 709.
Q And is that the contract that we are looking at?

A Yes, that's the agreement between the City of
Cleveland and CDM.
MR. DETTELBACH: And if you could go to
page 3.
Q And do you see the price on this page? Can you

show us where you got that number from?
A The very bottom of the page.
Q All right. Now, on the night of the fundraiser,
did you conduct any surveillance?

A Yes, I did.
Q The one that, I'm sorry, we just heard spoken

about?
A Yes, I did.
Q Tell us what you saw?

A Conducted surveillance both outside of Alexandria's
Restaurant, which is where the fundraiser took place.
Saw various people, including Nate Gray, Gilbert Jackson,
Kelly Carpenter, Julius Ciacci, Diane Pinson, Ray Cody,
enter the building. And then later on that night is when
we conducted the surveillance at the Metropolitan Cafe
and saw the same group of individuals there.
Q And the day after that, after you did that, were
there any interceptions involving any of the defendants?
A Yes. There was a conversation between Nate Gray
and Gilbert Jackson.
Q And what exhibit number is that? And where is it
listed on the time line?
A Exhibit 1116, it's the next to the last entry at
the bottom of the time line, November 21st, 2002.
Q All right. And does the name Ray come up in this

one again?
A Yes, the name Ray Cody.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you please play now
Exhibit 1116.
(Tape played. )
Special Agent Massie, who was being taped?
Nate Gray.
MR. DETTELBACH: Nothing further in this
segment.
THE COURT: You want a five minute break
or go on?
JUROR: Five minute break.
THE COURT: We'll reconvene at about 22
minutes after, about 7 minutes.
Same rules apply, but we'll adjourn for a
few minutes.
(Brief recess.)
THE COURT: If you'll take your seat, I'll
ask Mr. Whitaker if we wants to conduct cross
examination.
MR. WHITAKER: Yes.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Agent Massie, I'm only going to ask you a few

questions, because I can only ask you questions about
that part I was able to stay awake for. Would that be
all right with you?
A That's fine.
Q Those scores that you were talking about on the CDM
contract, the 1996 one I believe it was, the first CDM
contract?
A 2001, I think. You are talking about the fee
assessments or the rankings?
Q Yeah, the rankings?

A 2001.
Q What was the date of the first contract with CDM in

Cleveland?
A That was in 1996.
Q And you saw that e-mail that said the Mayor was the
one that made the decision on that project?
A The e-mail said the Mayor said to give it to CDM,
yes, that was for the 2001.
Q And, looking at the 1996 contract, you said that

the $425 difference -- and the way you had that
calculated, if I understood you, you had an invoice
amount, a contract amount, and then the difference
between the invoice and the contract, right?
Q And there were a number where the difference was,

for actually a period of time, $4,170, isn't that
correct?
A I don't believe so.
Q Okay. Here, let me show it to you on the overhead

828
here. I wonder i f you c o u l d h i t t h a t s w i t c h , y o u r Honor.
And w e a r e l o o k i n g a t t h a t , t h i s column where
I have the pen, that's the difference column, right?
A Yes, I see t h o s e .
Q And t h e d i f f e r e n c e on t h e t o p number i s 4 , 1 7 0 ,
right?
A Yes.
Q And t h e d i f f e r e n c e on t h e n e x t o n e i s 4 , 1 7 0 ?
A That's correct.
Q And t h e n a g a i n 4 , 1 7 0 ?
A Yes.
Q And t h e n a g a i n 4 , 1 7 0 ?
A That's correct.
Q And t h e r e a r e a l s o d i f f e r e n c e s o f 5 , 5 6 0 a t t h r e e
d i f f e r e n t p l a c e s on t h e same column, i s n ' t t h a t r i g h t ?
A I s e e two o f them, b u t I b e l i e v e y o u .
Q Okay. L e t ' s see, w e ' v e g o t t h i s o n e h e r e ?
A I c o u l d see them now.
Q Okay. Good.
And t h i s $ 4 2 5 you were t a l k i n g a b o u t , i n
terms o f i t b e i n g a d i f f e r e n c e f r o m t h e c o n t r a c t p r i c e ,
t h a t was o n l y a d i f f e r e n c e u n t i l J u n e o f '97, isn't that
correct?
A I believe so. B u t i f you c o u l d s c a n o v e r a l i t t l e
b i t I c o u l d t e l l you t h e d a t e .
Q Oh, okay.
A Yes.
Q And then after that there was no difference?

A No difference between the contract amount and the
invoice, no.
Q Now one of the exhibits you said was gathered from

Mr. Gray's personal office, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And which exhibit was that?

A One of the exhibits was the schedules.
Q What schedules?
A The baseball schedules.
Q And that was in the office, in his office at Shaker

Square?
A That's correct.
Q The one that you heard Nina Upshaw testify earlier

in this trial?
A Yes.
Q And that was the office where Mr. Gray had told
her, just gather up all the documents in response to the
subpoena?
THE WITNESS: I believe if I heard her
correctly, she didn't look in Mr. Gray's personal

office.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q No, I asked you what Mr. Gray said, and that was
gather all the documents, and didn't restrict her from
any place?
A According to what she said, yes.
THE COURT: The objection is correct. We
don't ask him to characterize what she testified to.
The jury will recall what she said.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Who's Eric Friedman that was talked about?

A He's a partner at Deloitte & Touche, also a
fundraiser for the Mayor of Cleveland, Jane Campbell.
Q Deloitte & Touche is what kind of business?

A An accounting firm.
Q Accounting firm that does business with the city,

right?
A They do, yes.
Q And he was actively involved in fundraising for the

Mayor, correct?
A Yes.
Q And the same time his company was doing business

with the city?
Q And he was also obviously active in trying to raise

money for this scholarship fund?
A According to these conversations, yes.
Q And you think it's wrong for the city to try to

solicit money from the folks that do business with the
city, is that right?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection .
THE COURT: Sustained. No, I'll overrule
it. Go ahead and answer it. Go ahead and answer
it.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think it creates a
conflict of interest if there is pending business
with the city and the city soliciting contribution
from them, yes.
Q Okay. So after hearing all the this information

about Eric Friedman being involved in soliciting money
for the City of Cleveland while he works for a company
that does business, did you make an application for a
wiretap --
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. Objection.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, he's the one
that asked about the ones they didn't do.
THE COURT: He doesn't formally make the
application.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
832
Q Are you aware of any application made by the
government to intercept Eric Friedman's phone calls?
A No, I am not.
Q And as I understand it, this was all being raised

for Mayor Campbell, Mayor Campbell's scholarship fund?
A Yes, these particular conversations, yes.
(Z And you are aware of the fact that the Mayor was
very active in having people raise money for this fund;
particularly people within her department which companies
that do business with the city?
A I'm not sure how active the Mayor was personally,

but I know it was highly publicized.
Q And did you take any action to, or are you aware of
any action that the government took, to make an
application to intercept her phone calls?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection, move to --
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Now that Nottingham contract that we were talking

about. As I understood it, there was a possibility it
was going to be broken down into two parts, right?
A Yes, it was split in two parts.
Q And Gilbert Jackson did not want that to happen?

A Based on these conversations, that appeared to be
correct.
833
(2 And h e c o n v e y e d t h a t v e r y c l e a r l y t o N a t e G r a y ?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And f e l t t h a t t h e y s h o u l d h a v e d i s c u s s i o n s
w i t h C i a c c i a and everybody else a b o u t n o t b r e a k i n g t h i s
down?
A Yes.
Q They d i d b r e a k i t down, d i d n ' t t h e y ?
A They d i d , y e s .
Q Now, t h e l a s t t h i n g i s t h e r e w a s t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n
a b o u t t h i s man a s k i n g -- t a l k i n g a b o u t g e t t i n g money. I
t h i n k i t was Ray Cody?
A That's correct.
Q And N a t e Gray a s k e d him, t h e n how would you g e t
t h a t money? H e s a i d cash, is t h a t r i g h t ?
A That's right.
Q And h e s a i d wrong, you a r e b u s t e d ?
A I t h i n k h e s a i d a f t e r h e a s k e d Ray Cody how a r e you
g o i n g t o a s k f o r t h e money.
Q Right.
And t h e n h e s a i d wrong, i f you a r e g o i n g t o
d o t h a t you a r e g o i n g t o b e a r r e s t e d .
A Y o u ' l l b e t a p e d , y o u ' l l b e b u s t e d and b r o u g h t i n .
Q I n f a c t , d i d n ' t he u l t i m a t e l y s a y t h e r e i s
a b s o l u t e l y no c o r r e c t a n s w e r ?
A H e s a i d h e was t r y i n g t o g i v e m e a c o r r e c t a n s w e r s ,
but there is no correct answer.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you very much.
MR. JENKINS: Yes, your Honor, thank you.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Agent Massie, are you aware that Mr. Jackson worked

for CDM?
A Yes, I'm aware of that.
Q And that would be Camp, Dresser & McKee, correct?

A Correct.
Q Are you familiar with the name of Rony Joel?

A I am.
Q And what was Rony Joel's position with CDM?
A I believe at one point he was the office manager in
the Cleveland office; and then he traveled to Pittsburgh
and ended up in Florida, I believe.
Q And did you ever, in your investigation, determine

that he was the Senior Vice President?
A I don't know what his, the title he ended up with.
Q Now, you talked about earlier that there was some
consulting agreements with Nate Gray and CDM, correct?
A That's correct.
Q NOW, to your knowledge, this -- what was the

earliest accounting, or I mean consulting agreement with
CDM that you can recall?
A '96, I believe.
Q And do you recall what supervisor worked, what Vice

President signed that agreement on behalf of CDM?
A It may of have been Rony Joel, I'm not sure.
MR. JENKINS: That would be Exhibit 702.
Could we put that on, please?
Thank you.
Your Honor, this is Exhibit 702.
Q Now, 702. And at the bottom of it, which is Camp,

Dresser & McKee, you see the name? What name is there.
A It says A. Rony Joel, Senior Vice President.
Q In fact, if we look at 703, that would be another

consulting agreement involving Mr. Gray and Camp, Dresser
& McKee, correct?
A Yes, another letter amending the agreement.
Q And who signed the amendment?

A Once again, it's Rony Joel.
Q Senior Vice President at Camp, Dresser & McKee?

A That's correct.
Q Now, at some point, if you recall, did you have an

opportunity to speak with Mr. Joel about a document
involving $425 expense to Mr. Nate Gray; do you recall
that?
836
A I don't recall a conversation about a specific
document, no.
Q I'll put it up later on.
Now, at a certain point in the government
examination you admitted you had surveillance on
Mr. Jackson, Mr. Gray on several times, correct?
A There were a few occasions when I personally
conducted the surveillance.
Q One was at the Metropolitan Cafe?

A Yes.
Q And another was the fundraiser?

A Yes, it actually happened to be the same night.
Q You recall testifying that there were at leaves two

or three times you had surveillance, correct?
A The way it was asked is, about the surveillance,
there was more than one time I referred to that
Metropolitan Cafe, which was the one time surveillance.
Q Now, as it relates to Mr. Jackson, at the time you

had Mr. Jackson under surveillance, did at any of those
times, on any of those occasions you personally saw him
give any public official any money?
A Not while I was personally surveilling.
Q Nothing of value, correct?

A I don't know who paid for the dinner.
Q But you can't state through your surveillance that

837
he did a t any t i m e pay f o r a n y t h i n g ?
A I d i d n ' t s e e him p e r s o n a l l y h a n d a n y b o d y a n y t h i n g .
Q Now, you talked a b o u t t h e Miami a n d O h i o S t a t e
f o o t b a l l game, c o r r e c t ?
A That ' s c o r r e c t .
Q Do you h a v e a n y knowledge w h e t h e r o r n o t J u l i u s
C i a c c i a e v e r went t o t h a t game?
A I don't.
Q And d i d you i n v e s t i g a t e a n d make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n ?
A No, I d i d n o t .
Q Now, E x h i b i t 1 0 9 7 , I d o n ' t n e e d t o p u l l i t ; d o you
r e c a l l , i f you r e c a l l , M r . J a c k s o n s a i d t h e s c h o l a r s h i p
was f o r a good c a u s e ?
A I b e l i e v e he s a i d something t o t h a t e f f e c t .
MR. JENKINS: I have n o t h i n g f u r t h e r , your
Honor.
Do you h a v e a n y r e d i r e c t ?
- - -
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q L i t e r a l l y , j u s t one q u e s t i o n , I promise.
On t h e e x h i b i t you p r e p a r e d s u m m a r i z i n g t h e
e x t r a p a y m e n t s a b o v e a n d beyond t h e c o n t r a c t amount f r o m
CDM t o N a t e Gray, a g a i n , were t h e r e a n y r e c e i p t s

associated with those overages?
A No, there were none.
Would the government call your next
witness.
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes. The United States
calls Rick Sawicki, your Honor. And there is a

scheduling problem with Mr. Sawicki, he's going to
be out of order.
The government calls Mr. Sawicki.
THE COURT: You want to come over.
Would you raise your right hand.

- - -
RICK SAWICKI
as follows:
THE COURT: Please take a seat. When you
get situated tell us your name and then spell your
last name.
THE WITNESS: My name is Rick Sawicki,
S-A-W-I-C-K-I.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Mr. Sawicki, in what community do you currently

live?
A I live in Columbus, Ohio.
Q With who?
A With my wife and my son.
Q And where do you work?

A I work for Honeywell.
Q What is Honeywell?
A Honeywell is a multi-national diversified company.
Q And specifically, what part of the company do you

work in?
A I work in sales. I sell energy performance

contracting in -- specifically for public housing.
Q And can you tell us what energy performance

contracting is?
A Energy performance contracting is a mechanism for
public entities, and private entities for that matter, to
enter into an agreement with a company like Honeywell to
save energy, do energy conservation programs that pay for
themselves in a set amount of years.
Q And how does Honeywell make money performing this

service?
A Honeywell acts as a turnkey designer, construction
manager, and general contractor for these types of
programs.
Q Now you said that some of your -- I have to ask

you, there were some terms I'm not sure everybody
understands, and I'm not sure I do.
What's a turnkey?
A Turnkey is single source, sole source provider of a
service. In other words, with any contracts with
Honeywell we take care of the program management, design,
and general construction management of the program.
Q And then make your money off those service also?

A That's right.
Q You mentioned that you served some clients in the

public sector?
A Yes.
Q What type of public sector clients does Honeywell

service in this regard?
A Typically schools, cities, state and local
governments. And more recently what I work with,
specifically public housing authorities.
Q And for public housing authorities, where does this

funding generally come from?
A The funding comes from HUD.
Q What is HUD?
A The Housing and Urban Development.
Q In Washington?
A In Washington, yes.
Q Now, do you just work on clients in the State of

Ohio?
A No, I do not.
Q Where?
A I've I started working in the public housing group
for Honeywell. There was only two of us nationally, so I
had a much broader region. Now our business unit has
grown to five sales representatives, so we now have a
more defined multi-state region.
Q I want to direct your attention to the year 2002,

in that time frame.
Were you pursuing any contracts in the New
Orleans area at that time?

A Yes, I was.
Q What were the contracts that you were trying for?

A They were B.W. Cooper, RMC, which is the resident
management corporation, and HANO, which is the housing
authority in New Orleans.
Q What is B.W. Cooper?

A B.W. Cooper is a, like I said before, an RMC, a
resident management corporation. It was part of the
housing authority in New Orleans. They get their funding
from HANO, and they run autonomously as a public housing

entity.
Q So it has some relation to HANO?

A Yes.
842
Q And then what is HANO, what do they do?
A HANO is a Housing Authority of New Orleans. It's a
public housing authority. HUD funded. Large housing
authority in the City of New Orleans.
Q And between those two contracts that you were

trying for, which one was the bigger one?
A The housing authority in New Orleans.
Q Now, I want to direct your attention to the very

beginning of the year 2002, all right?
A Um-hum .
Q At that period, who was your personal best contact
at HANO?
A At that time it was a person by the name of Trent
Myers, who worked for HANO.
Q And tell us who Trent Myers was?

A Trent Myers was an official at HANO who I met
through a contact I had with an accounting firm called
Castroline & Associates.
THE COURT: You are going to have to slow
down.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
A And they got us a lead to call Trent Myers at HANO.
Trent was doing his studies, or his masters
studies, in Washington D.C. and he was studying
specifically performance contracting which is, which is

843
an energy conservation measure which I explained before.
And Trent wanted to get his studies done and come back to
the housing authority in New Orleans and implement one of
these energy savings performance contracts.
Q This performance contracting you are talking about,

is it also sometimes referred to as demand side
management?
A It can be. It's much broader than that, in my
opinion, but it can be.
Q It's part of it?

A It's part of it, absolutely.
Q And was Mr. Myers enthusiastic about your product?

A Yes.
Q And what level of management was he within the HANO

structure?
A I would classify him as a mid-level manager.
Q Was that presenting any problems for you that your

main contact was at that level?
A Yeah, it typically does. Typically with our
programs we try to get an audience with the executive
level management, because our biggest competitor, in a
way, is apathy, where we'll meet with people like Trent
Myers where the concept really sells itself and, you
know, that person may or may not have an audience with
his superiors, and his superiors many times are busy with
844
a lot of other projects that they are handling, and
taking on a performance contract just adds to the list.
So getting that executive level sponsorship
is paramount.
Q Have you heard the name Nate Gray?
A Yes.
Q And during this time period, who did you understand

Nate Gray to be in relation to your company, Honeywell?
A I understood Nate to be a consultant that worked
for Honeywell.
Q Who was his primary contact at Honeywell?

A His primary contact was Brent Jividen and Bill
Giamio.
Q At this point we are talking the beginning of 2002.

Had you at all worked with Nate Gray?
A I did not.
Q Now, was they an experience you had before you were

working with Mr. Gray where something sort of bad
happened in your efforts to get the B.W. Cooper deal?
A Yes.
Q And when you contacted Mr. Gray, what was sort of
the status of whether or not you looked like you were
getting that one?
A It wasn't looking good for us to get the B.W.

Cooper contract.
Q Now, at the, at the beginning of 2002, had you
actually gone down to make a pitch?
A To B.W. Cooper?
Q Correct?
A Yes.
Q And is this something that is the first time that

you've done?
A No, no, it's something I regularly do.
Q That's a core part of your job?

A That's correct.
Q Now, if we could show you Exhibit 723, please.

That's the first page of a multi-page document.
You've seen this before, correct?
A Yes.
Q What is this?
A That is what we call our oral interview
presentation at B.W. Cooper. This was post RFP process
request for proposal where, in a competitive stage, a
public housing authority would short list to a number of
vendors, typically three, and then conduct oral
interviews with those three vendors of choice to help
them make their final selection.
Q And what was the date of your oral interview from

this document?
A That was January 22nd, of 2002.

846
Q At that point was Nate Gray part of the process at
all?
A No, he was not.
Q Was Gilbert Jackson part of the process at all?
A No, he was not.
Q On the substance, did the interview -- how did it
go?
A We felt it went very well. The only glaring thing
that we felt didn't go quite well was Honeywell did not
show up with a diverse team.
Q Okay. And did you hear something after about your
prospects on the contract?
A Yeah. We heard that although we felt we still had
a good foothold with the Executive Director, some of the
other members of their selection committee were leaning
towards another company.
Q And we are talking about B.W. Cooper here?

A B.W. Cooper.
Q HANO is not in the picture at this point?

A That's right.
Q After you heard that things might not be going well

at the B.W. Cooper job, did you involve any additional
people in this process?
A Yeah. I called -- Bill Giamio at the time was my

boss, and asked how we could get our message further
847
across to B.W. Cooper, and that's when we introduced the
possibility of having Nate Gray help us.
Q And do you see Mr. Gray in this courtroom?

A Yes, I do.
Q And could you please identify him?

THE COURT: He's pointed at the defendant
Gray.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Other than Mr. Gray, did anybody else get involved

at that time?
A Yes, Nate introduce us to Gilbert Jackson from New
Orleans.
(1 Do you see him here?

A Yes.
THE COURT: He's also identifying
Mr. Jackson.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And who did you say brought him in the loop?

A Nate Gray introduced us to Gilbert.
Q Was this only to work on B.W. Cooper or was there

the other project now too?
A It was to either salvage or learn from B.W. Cooper
knowing that the HANO project or the Housing Authority of
New Orleans project was coming down the pike, if you
will.
848
Q A l l right. And d i d you h a v e a c t u a l l y a t some p o i n t
a c o n f e r e n c e c a l l n e a r t h e beginning o f February of 2002
on t h i s s u b j e c t ?
A Yes, we d i d .
Q And who was i t who was on t h i s c o n f e r e n c e c a l l
i n v o l v i n g t h e s e two c o n t r a c t s ?
A I t was m y s e l f , B i l l Giamio who was my b o s s , N a t e
Gray a n d G i l b e r t J a c k s o n .
MR. DETTELBACH: I would l i k e t o now p l a y
E x h i b i t 1126, F e b r u a r y 5, 2 0 0 2 .
Q A l l right. And i s t h a t v o i c e a t t h e e n d t h e r e ,
whose i s t h a t v o i c e ?
A T h a t was my v o i c e a n d G i l b e r t J a c k s o n ' s v o i c e .
Q A l l right. And two a n d a h a l f t o t h r e e a n d a h a l f
m i l l i o n , what p r o j e c t d i d t h a t r e l a t e t o ?
A T h a t was B . W . Cooper.
Q Now, t h e r e i s a n o t h e r e x c e r p t o f t h e same c a l l
1 1 2 7 , I would l i k e t o p l a y now.
Q Mr. S a w i c k i , d i d you h e a r a r e f e r e n c e t o , "I'm not
t a l k i n g a b o u t a l l t h e s e names you a r e t h r o w i n g o u t . " Did
you h e a r M r . J a c k s o n t a l k a b o u t t h a t ?
A I ' m sorry?
THE COURT: I d o n ' t understand t h e

question.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Well, let me ask you this. Who had you been

talking about, what contacts you had at that point in
time?
A There was two references that I made. One was Rick
Sysic, the CPA from Castroline & Associates, who I
mentioned before. And we also had a local Honeywell
representative by the name of Jerry Francis who worked
out of our Metairie, Louisiana office.
Q Who brought up the name Benjamin Bell?

A Gilbert.
Q And who brought up the name Vincent Sylvain?

A Gilbert Jackson.
Q And what was your understanding of what level
Benjamin Bell was?
A We knew that Benjamin Bell was the Executive
Director at HANO.
Q And with respect to the Mayor's office what was

your understanding of the usefulness of having the
Mayor's office behind you on this kind of thing?
A We recognized having the Mayor's Office endorse a
program such as this is very important. Not only in New
Orleans, but in most major cities, there is a strong tie
where the Mayor typically appoints the Board of

Commissioners a t a h o u s i n g a u t h o r i t y .
MR. DETTELBACH: Please play t h e next
excerpt f r o m t h e c a l l , Exhibit 1128.
Q Mr. S a w i c k i , d i d you h e a r y o u r s e l f a t some p o i n t
r e f e r t o a m i d - l e v e l manager?
A Yes.
Q And who was t h e p e r s o n you were t a l k i n g a b o u t ?
A T h a t was T r e n t Myers.
Q And d i d you h e a r M r . J a c k s o n r e f e r t o t h e M a y o r ' s
o f f i c e s e t t i n g i t up?
A Yes.
Q Now, a c t u a l l y , t h e r e was a c o u p l e r e f e r e n c e s , b u t
was t h i s phone c o n v e r s a t i o n t h e o n l y t i m e G i l b e r t J a c k s o n
s p o k e a b o u t t h e Mayor's O f f i c e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h i s
contract?
A No, G i l b e r t J a c k s o n knew and s p o k e o f t h e Mayor's
Office several times.
Q Now, you a l s o t a l k e d a b o u t t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f
g e t t i n g access t o these higher l e v e l people. What a r e
you r e f e r r i n g t o t h e r e ?
A To t h e e x e c u t i v e s p o n s o r s h i p t h a t I m e n t i o n e d a
s h o r t time a g o .
Q Now, a f t e r you hung up on t h i s c o n f e r e n c e c a l l ,
were you i n v i t e d t o j o i n a n y p r i v a t e f o l l o w up c a l l s w i t h
just Nate and Gilbert Jackson?
A I was not.
Q Did anybody at any time, specifically, let me say,

Mr. Jackson and Mr. Gray, let's limit it to them, did
they ever mention to you any notion of flipping anything
to anybody?
A No, they did not.
Q Now, on this call two sort of future things

mentioned. One of them --
MR. JENKINS: Objection judge, he's
actually testifying.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Let me ask you, did you hear a lunch mentioned?

A I don't recall that.
Q All right. Did you also hear, though, some

scheduling talk about a future meeting down the road?
A Future, in the call, or?
Q Yes, in the call?

A Well we were shooting for a future meeting with the
Executive Director at HANO.
Q All right. That's what I'm talking about. Did you

hear that discussed in the call?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And after -- sometime after this call, did

852
you find out that there was going to be some meeting in
New Orleans?
A Yes.
Q Okay. About how long after the call was it that
you found out you had your meeting in New Orleans?
A It was a couple weeks.
Q All right. And who went to New Orleans for the

meeting?
A Just myself, Bill Giamio and Nate.
(Z Nate meaning Nate Gray?
A Nate Gray, yes.
Q And when you got to New Orleans, did you meet

anybody there?
A Yes, we met Gilbert Jackson at dinner the night
before.
Q So I was going to ask you, when you went down in

comparison to the meeting?
A We were at dinner the night before the meeting.
Q And who was at dinner the night before?

A It was myself, Bill Giamio, Gilbert Jackson, Nate
Gray, and I don't recall whether Ray Valdez was there or
not, another gentleman.
Q And where did you have the dinner?

A It was at Emeril's.
Q What is Emeril's?
A E m e r i l ' s i s a r e s t a u r a n t i n New O r l e a n s .
MR. DETTELBACH: And i f you c o u l d p l e a s e
display Exhibit 7 3 6 .
Q And i s it t o o s m a l l f o r you t o r e a d o r can you t e l l
what i t i s w e ' r e l o o k i n g a t ?
A T h a t ' s a copy of my expense r e p o r t .
Q And what a r e t h e d a t e s f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r expense
report?
A February 7 t h of ' 0 2 through February 20th of '02.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, l e t ' s go t o page 8
of t h a t .
Q When you do expenses do you t y p i c a l l y a t t a c h any
back u p ?
A Yes, e v e r y t h i n g o v e r $25 a t t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d a
receipt.
Q And s p e c i f i c a l l y , I t h i n k t h e --
MR. DETTELBACH: L e t ' s blow up t h e p a r t on
t h e r i g h t bottom f i r s t .
Q And ask you i f you r e c o g n i z e what t h a t i s ?
A Yes, t h a t l o o k s l i k e t h e d i n n e r r e c e i p t from
E m e r i l ' s t h a t evening.
Q A l l right.
MR. DETTELBACH: And i f you c o u l d go back
t o t h e whole page and blow up t h e t o p .
Q What's t h a t ?
854
A That looks like the hotel receipt of where we
stayed that night.
Q All right. And please, from this receipt, can you

tell us what the date of your arrival and departure was
so we could put it in context?
A Looks like the arrival date was February 13th of
'02 and February 14th, 02.
Q So you were down there for Valentine's Day?

A I was.
Q At the dinner, at the dinner the night before the

meeting, did Gilbert Jackson make any statements about
why he was helping Honeywell?
A Well, he made a statement that he's helping
Honeywell because of his friendship with Nate Gray.
Q Did he ever say that Nate Gray was paying him

regularly?
MR. JENKINS: Objection, leading, your
Honor.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q What statements, if any, did he make about payments

he was receiving?
A He didn't make any statements to my recollection
about payment.
Q What statements, if any, did he make about somehow

855
working for Honeywell or being a subconsultant?
MR. JENKINS: What he's doing is a back
door approach to get the leading question in.
THE COURT: I don't think it's leading, so
I'll overrule the objection.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q You can answer the question about being a

subconsultant working for Honeywell?
A He did not mention that.
Q The next day was there in fact a meeting?
A Yes, there was.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Please show
Exhibit 722.
Q All right. Do you recognize the kind of document,

it's a multi-page document, that we are looking at, 722?
A Yes.
(Z All right. And what is this document?

A That looks like the cover page to our typical, what
we call, first call presentation, which we would put
together a power point type handout that we would go over
a first meeting with an executive level staff.
Q All right. And did you do that?

A Yes.
Q How did it go?
A It was, you know, a typical first call. It was

856
very w e l l received. HANO h a d a b o u t a h a l f d o z e n p e o p l e
there. I t was a good d i a l o g u e , g o o d q u e s t i o n s , p r o b a b l y
i n t h e r e f o r , you know, a n h o u r o r s o . So i t was, you
know, n o t h i n g e x t r a o r d i n a r y , b u t i t was a g o o d c a l l .
Q And who f r o m t h e p u b l i c s e c t o r s i d e was a t t e n d i n g
t h i s p a r t i c u l a r meeting?
A T h e r e was a h a l f d o z e n f r o m -- h a l f d o z e n
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f r o m HANO, i n c l u d i n g Benjamin B e l l ,
C o n n i e H i l l who was t h e i r CEO o r F i n a n c e D i r e c t o r T r e n t
Myers, a n d t h e r e was t h r e e o r f o u r o t h e r p e o p l e f r o m t h e
housing a u t h o r i t y I had n o t m e t , n o r d o I remember t h e i r
names. B u t t h e y were t y p i c a l l y m i d - l e v e l m a n a g e r s a s
well.
Q B e f o r e t h a t , h a d you b e e n a b l e t o g e t i n t o t h e d o o r
t o s e e Ben B e l l ?
A No.
Q Was V i n c e S y l v a i n a t t h e m e e t i n g ?
A No, h e was n o t .
Q From t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r s i d e who was t h e r e ?
A M y s e l f , B i l l Giamio a n d G i l b e r t J a c k s o n .
Q What a b o u t N a t e Gray?
A N a t e was n o t t h e r e .
Q So h e came down t o New O r l e a n s b u t was n o t a t t h e
meeting?
MR. JENKINS: Objection. Leading.

857
THE COURT: I t h i n k h e ' s a l r e a d y answered
who was t h e r e .
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Was M r . Gray t h e r e ?
A No, h e was n o t .
(Z A f t e r t h e m e e t i n g d i d you r e t u r n home?
A Yes.
Q And a t some p o i n t d i d you h a v e a n y c o n v e r s a t i o n
w i t h M r . G r a y a b o u t how t h e m e e t i n g h a d w e n t ?
A Yeah. I r e c a l l w e t a l k e d a t t h e a i r p o r t b r i e f l y on
how t h e m e e t i n g w e n t , a n d w e s h a r e d w i t h N a t e t h a t i t was
a good f i r s t c a l l .
Q A l l right. Now, a f t e r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t r i p t o New
O r l e a n s , d i d you e v e r g o b a c k ?
A Yes.
(1 I ' m n o t a s k i n g you f o r a n e x a c t number, g i v e u s a n
i d e a o f how many t i m e s ?
A P r o b a b l y a h a l f d o z e n more t i m e s . I was w o r k i n g
some o t h e r p r o j e c t s i n t h e a r e a a s w e l l .
Q Did M r . Gray go a s w e l l ?
A I believe so.
Q And what was s o r t o f -- w e l l , l e t m e a s k you. Was
t h a t t h e l a s t you saw o f M r . Jackson involving t h i s
project?
A No.
858
Q In your future contact with Mr. Jackson, did he

ever speak about any public officials?
A Well, he spoke, you know, of his contacts
throughout the United States. You know, Gilbert had a
lot of contacts.
Q All right. And in addition to this job were there

any -- you mentioned other jobs. Were they any other
jobs in New Orleans that Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson were
assisting Honeywell in getting?
A I believe there was a City of New Orleans job that
I personally wasn't involved with, but this was one that
was either procured or down the road, for street lights

or traffic lights.
Q Did it go anywhere?
Q And did Mr. Jackson ever make statements about

other markets he could provide your company assistance
in?
A Yes.
Q What did he say?

A Again, with influence at the Mayor's Office that
opens up the city, municipalities and schools market
typically.
Q Now what, if anything, happened as 2002 went on

with respect to HANO itself, the organization?
859
A HANO went through a troubled time financially and
were eventually taken over by HUD and were classified as
a troubled agency.
Q And did that have any affect on their ability to

get these kind of contracts?
A Yes, that's right, it basically killed the project.
MR. WHITAKER: If I may, your Honor.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Mr. Sawicki, my name is Bill Whitaker and I

represent Mr. Gray. And I'm going to ask you a few
questions. If you don't understand anything that I ask,
let me know and I'll be glad to repeat it.
When you just -- Mr. Gray stood up and you
recognized him, I noticed you smiled and had a way -- you
obviously know Mr. Gray?
A Yes.
Q And you've done quite a bit of work with him?

A I've had limited interaction with him.
Q You've done enough to travel with him and have
dinner with him?
A Sure, sure.
Q You found him to be a very nice guy, very

personable guy?
A Sure, sure.
Q And really, he had a kind of personality you would

like to have in a consultant, didn't he?
A Well, I don't think or class fine consultants as
having personalities as a competitive advantage or what
have you. I deal with consultants and they all have
their different styles.
(1 But it's certainly helpful if you have somebody who

is able to get along with other people?
A I would think so.
Q One of the main jobs about consultants is to build

the kind of relationships that will help you get the
meetings you were talking about set up, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q So obviously the more friends a consultant has that

might work within a city government or within a
department, that's a good contact?
A That would be helpful, yes.
Q And Honeywell is a big corporation, isn't it?

A That's correct.
Q Multi-million dollar revenues and that kind of

thing?
A That's correct.
Q And does projects all around the United States?

A That's correct.
Q Uses hundreds of consultants?

A I don't know how many consultants Honeywell uses.
Q You know they use quite a few though?

A They use consultants.
Q And there is a budget for consultants and this

whole business of trying to win contracts, isn't there?
A I am unaware of how Honeywell budgets for
consultants.
Q Well, you know that a part of getting to meet

people and getting to know people is what's called the
wining and dining process?
A I don't, I don't know what the daily activity of
our consultants are and what that represents. As far as,
you know, the expectation of wining and dining I would
think would be, in my opinion, I wouldn't expect wining
and dining to be the avenue for success.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Have you been out to dinner yourself with people

that you were going to make a presentation to?
THE WITNESS: I personally -- no, my

862
personal motto of working with our customers is I do

not do that, no.
MR. WHITAKER:
Your role in the process is to make the
presentation and sell the product?
A Yes, it's to create a value statement that's
palatable to the customer.
Q And when you say value statement, what do you mean?

A Creating a presentation that shows how Honeywell
participates in the public housing authority market. And
specifically, as compared to our competitors on why
Honeywell is different, and being different, why we are
better than then company B or company C. And we are not
arrogant, we don't win them all, but we feel we have a
differentiated solution in the marketplace that hopefully
resonates with the market niche. And we take that nation
wide.
Q And when you say differentiated what?

A Solution.
Q And what you are talking about is a product that

works and is good for the city?
A That's correct.
Q And your job is you hope somebody can get the

meeting set up so you can get to that point where you can
show them your product?

A Yeah. Our job, and my job specifically as a sales
person, is to communicate that Honeywell message to as
many people as possible. And that's, that's what I do
for a living.
(Z And in fact, if I understood you, after you made

your presentation to HANO, there were -- they entertained
other bids after that?
A They did a RFQ, yes, HANO did.
Q You are personally aware that they indeed

entertained other bids or had other presentations after
you made yours?
A I don't know if they had other companies come in
and present before the RFP went out. I do know that

multiple vendors did reply to their public RFQ.
(2 And that's what you wanted to be is one of those

vendors that got a chance to talk about your product?
A That's correct, that's correct.
Q And it was your hope by talking about your product

you could get somebody behind you that was important in
the decision making process?
A That's correct. That's correct. To get, you know,
to present our value propositions to the right audience
is critical.
Q And the goal is to get one or two officials behind

you so when the decision makers are having these kind of
864
discussion you've got -- you called it a support
something. What did you call it? Somebody that you got
behind you?
A I'm not sure I understand.
Q I thought you said that you wanted to have some

kind of a supporter within the decision making process?
A Yeah, executive sponsorship, that's correct.
Q Sponsorship. And that could be somebody that's got

decision making authority; somebody involved with the
team that makes a decision?
A That's correct.
(1 So when they are meeting and concerns come up about

your product or your project, that you've got somebody in
there saying, wait a minute no, here is what I think
about that. And this is what Mr. Sawicki said. And that
kind of stuff?
A Sure.
Q One of the concerns that you had after the -- was

that B.W. Cooper?
A Yes, B.W. Cooper.
Q Was that you got word back that you didn't have a
diverse enough team?
A That's correct.
Q And that's something that it's good to work with a
consultant on that knows the people, because then you can

865
get that kind of feedback, isn't it?
A That's correct. It's important to, you know, what
we use internally is learn from the burn, see what you
did wrong. We just lost a job here a few weeks ago, we
called the Executive Director and said, hey, how can we
improve? And that's just a typical process that we
subscribe to.
Q And with a little bit of luck you might get some

feedback in time to make an adjustment in your proposal?
A That's correct.
Q And the way you get that feedback, you have your
consultant, or whoever you have doing it, is call the
officials involved, maybe, and say hey, what did you
think of that presentation? And are there any concerns I
could maybe take back to the company?

A Yes. We are tasked to get the feedback in an
appropriate way, absolutely.
Q So a consultant, if he happened to know the Mayor,

if he happened to know the Housing Director, if he could
get some feedback from that person and then pass it on to
you, that would be a positive thing for you in your
selling of the product?
A Possibly, yes.
Q And then a consultant can also help you, like if
you do have a problem that you don't have a diverse

866
enough team, to tell you what the concerns are so maybe
you can put together a team that a city like New Orleans
would think is diverse enough?
A That's correct.
Q Are you aware of the fact that Honeywell had given

Nate Gray permission to hire Gilbert Jackson for this
project?
A I was not.
Q And when you said in terms of your discussions with

HANO it was a good dialogue, a good meeting, you were
able to get the things that you wanted to get out about
your product, isn't that right?

A Yeah, we, as the exhibit showed, we presented our
typical first call presentation.
Q And about the right -- and to the right people you

felt?
A We believe so, yes.
Q Now, you are aware that your Legal Department at

one point had a discussion about whether to change
Mr. Gray's consulting contract from a contingent
arrangement?

THE COURT: Sustained. Do you have any
knowledge about that?
THE WITNESS: I do not.

867
second, your Honor.
Q Now this very long conversation that you heard,

Mr. Sawicki, that was identified as Exhibit 1128. That
was just the kind of conversations you expect to be
having with your consultants, isn't it?
A Was that the conversation that was played?
Q Yes, just a few moments ago, the last one, and it
went on for quite a while?
A Um-hum .
Q That's just the kind of give and take you would

expect in dealing with your consultants?
A Yes.
Q And it's the kind of subject matter that you would

expect to talk about?
A Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Nothing further.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Mr. Sawicki, you are with the Honeywell
Corporation, correct?
A That's correct.
868
Q And your you stated you are seeking to do this and
get a contract with either HANO or B.W. Cooper, correct?
A That's correct.
Q You also stated you had someone named Trent Myers,

but his position at that time was more the middle level,
I guess, operative with things not working out?
A I'm not sure if things weren't working out for him,
but he was an --
Q What I'm saying, opening doors, where you said you

needed to be on the executive level, correct?
A Okay. That's a typical business motto we have is
we try to get our message to the highest level in any
particular entity.
Q Now, at some point you came in contact with Nate

Gray, someone referred you to him?
A I knew that Nate worked for Honeywell through Bill
Giamio, my boss.
Q And it was either you or Mr. Giamio that contacted
him about seeking some assistance in New Orleans.
A Yes, it was Mrs. Giamio I believe.
Q When your supervisor or your boss contacted

Mr. Gray, it was to try at least to get you to the
executive level meeting involving HANO and B.W. Cooper,
correct?
A It eventually led to that.

869
Q You s a i d t h a t you need t o have t h a t e x e c u t i v e l e v e l
sponsorship, o r something of t h a t n a t u r e , c o r r e c t ?
A That's correct.
Q What you d i d you mean when you s a y you n e e d e d
someone t o l a y t h e p o l i t i c a l groundwork i n s e e k i n g t h o s e
contracts?
A Well, you know, p a r t o f i t c o u l d b e t o g e t a good
team on b o a r d . You know, a t B.W. Cooper, f o r example, we
r e p r e s e n t e d o u r p r o p o s a l w i t h no m i n o r i t y s u b c o n t r a c t o r s ,
c o n t r a c t o r s t h a t a r e l o c a l , which i s a v e r y i m p o r t a n t
r e q u i r e m e n t t o keep t h e , you know, w e s u b c o n t r a c t a l m o s t
a l l of t h e p r o j e c t s o u t t o vendors. And i n h o u s i n g
a u t h o r i t y i n New O r l e a n s c a s e you a r e l o o k i n g a t
p o t e n t i a l o f $20 m i l l i o n w o r t h o f work. And i f we were
t o b r i n g i n c o n t r a c t o r s from Ohio t o p e r f o r m t h a t work
t h a t w o u l d n ' t p o l i t i c a l l y be a v e r y s m a r t move. So t o
i d e n t i f y t h o s e t y p e o f c o n t r a c t o r s s o we c o u l d have o u r
team up f r o n t .
Q I n f a c t , you s t a t e d t h e e x e c u t i v e l e v e l i n d i v i d u a l
you a r e l o o k i n g f o r , you d o t h a t i n o t h e r c i t i e s a l s o t o
t r y t o g e t on t h a t l e v e l ?
A Yes. Not i n e v e r y s i n g l e c i t y , b e c a u s e a l o t of
mid t o small c i t i e s i t ' s no problem t o g e t t o t h e
Executive Director.
Q A t some p o i n t Nate Gray i n t r o d u c e d you t o G i l b e r t

Jackson, c o r r e c t ?
A That's correct.
Q A n d y o u r c o n t a c t and r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G i l b e r t
J a c k s o n was p r o f e s s i o n a l , correct?
A Yes.
Q And t h e m e e t i n g s you h a d were p r o f e s s i o n a l ,
correct?
A Yes.
Q And i n f a c t , you a l l m e t i n a b u s i n e s s m e e t i n g t h e
n i g h t b e f o r e you m e t M r . B e n e f i t B e l l ?
A Yes, w e m e t , h a d d i n n e r . I t was s o c i a l , j u s t
g e t t i n g t o know e a c h o t h e r .
Q Now, you s t a t e d i n o n e o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s
t h a t you h a d h e a r d t h e name o f B e n j a m i n B e l l b e f o r e b u t
you h a d n e v e r h a d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o meet him, c o r r e c t ?
A That's correct.
Q And b a s e d on t h e c o n t a c t w i t h M r . Jackson, you were
a b l e t o have t h a t meeting w i t h M r . B e l l , correct?
A T h a t was t h e e v e n t u a l o u t c o m e .
(1 Now t h e name V i n c e n t S y l v a i n came u p a n d you n e v e r
h a d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o meet him?
A No.
Q A t any meeting, correct?
A No.
Q And t h e r e a s o n t h a t you b r o u g h t -- c o n t a c t e d N a t e
871
Gray was because you knew he was already a consultant,
correct?
A For Honeywell, yes.
Q For Honeywell?
A Yes.
Q And when Mr. Gray brought in Mr. Jackson,

eventually it got that meeting that you wanted on the
executive level, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And at some point Gilbert said he would give you

the introduction but you would have to sell your product
and your services, correct?
A Yes.
Q And that's all you were seeking from Mr. Jackson

was that introduction?
A At the time, yes.
Q And then you would be able to sell you product?

A That's correct.
Q And he did that?

A He got the meeting, yes.
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, I have nothing
further. Thank you.

- - -
872
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Mr. Whitaker asked you some questions about the

bidding process, or the competitive process after your
meeting?
A Yes.
Q And this particular contract was just getting the

RFQ issue through?
A Yes.
Q Explain why that, in and of itself, was a good

outcome from that meeting?
A Well, because that is a level of commitment by the
customer that they are going to do a project. And like I

said before, especially in large housing authorities,
getting to that point is a specific challenge.
Q Now, you were asked other questions by Mr. Whitaker

about wining and dining. Did you hear that?
A Yes.
Q Do you participate in bidding process where things

of value are promised to public officials?
A Absolutely not.
witness.
MR. DETTELBACH: United States recalls
Special Agent Massie.

873
THE COURT: And you continue to be under
oath.
- - -
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Massie, I want to turn your attention

to a company called Honeywell. We have heard a little
bit about them, all right?

A Okay.
Q Was Camp, Dresser & McKee the only company that

Nate Gray discussed, the left off in the Cleveland Water
Department, was the only company that he discussed the
Cleveland Water Department with?
A No, it was not.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, excuse me. I
thought are we going back over the --
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, we are just
talking about Honeywell, your Honor, this is one
call.
THE COURT: Which geographical area are
you talking about?
MR. DETTELBACH: This one call is in the
next set of questions relates to Mr. Gray's
financial relationship with Honeywell, just
establishing his relationship.

874
1 THE COURT: Which geographical area?
2 MR. DETTELBACH: Well, on this one call he
3 discussed the Cleveland Water Division with, with
4 Brent Jividen. They are also discussing the New
5 Orleans, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: The only thing, it's too late
7 for New Orleans. You already had him on the stand.
8 MR. DETTELBACH: We haven't had anything
9 on New Orleans. This is what we are doing now.
10 THE COURT: I thought he had given some
11 testimony about New Orleans.
12 MR. DETTELBACH: None. None. We stopped
13 after Cleveland Water Division and called this
14 witness, I'm sorry, your Honor.
15 MR. WHITAKER: But now he's going right
16 back to something about the Cleveland Water
17 Division.
18 THE COURT: Go ahead and ask the question
19 again.
21 Q Well, let me ask you this.

22 With respect to, with respect to Mr. Brent
23 Jividen, do you know who he is?

24 A I do.
25 Q Who is Brent Jividen?

A He is a Vice President and sales person for the
Honeywell Corporation.
Q All right. And who was Mr. Gray's chief contact at

the Honeywell Corporation?
A Brent Jividen.
Q All right. And did you ever intercept any

conversations where Mr. Gray and Mr. Jividen are
referring to a Gilbert Jackson?

A Yes.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: And the exhibit, your
Honor, we would seek to play is 1160.
Sorry. Please play 1160.
(Tape played. )
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I object.
MR. DETTELBACH: Stop playing the tape.
THE COURT: It sounds like it deals with
Cleveland.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, very well, we
don't have to play this one call, your Honor. It
was a transitional call, we don't have to play it
your Honor. That's fine.
Q All right. Let me focus your attention on asking

questions about Nate Gray and Honeywell. All right.
From your review of the records, did Nate

Gray and Honeywell have any business relationship?
A Yes, they did. Nate Gray was a consultant for
Honeywell.
Q Since when?
A I believe the beginning of 1993 until 2003.
Q All right. We are not going to go through all

those documents at this point, we'll save them for
another time.
But just one example. Could we just please
What is 839 and where was it located?
A 839 is one of the professional services agreements

between Honeywell International and ETNA Associates,
which is Nate Gray's company.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you just blow up
the text part so people can actually read some of
the things. Thank you.
Q And again, is this a multi-page document?

A It is.
Q And are there more than one of them?

A Yes.
Q We'll go through them later, but when is this one

dated, do you know?
A This is one is in June of 2002.
Q And where was it recovered?

A This particular document was turned over by
Honeywell pursuant to subpoena.
(Z All right. Did ETNA Associates ever turn over this

document pursuant to subpoena?
A No, they did not.
Q Did you ever find them?

A Yes, during the search warrant executed in Nate
Gray's residence.
Q Where?
A In the master bedroom closet in that black backpack
which was laying on the ground.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Take this
document down.
Q Did you ever find any written document or contract

like the one we just showed you between Gilbert Jackson
and Honeywell?
A No, I have not.
Q Have you, however, reviewed bank and financial

records regarding monies coming from Honeywell and going
to Gilbert Jackson?
A Yes, I have.
Q Did you discover that that was occurring?

A I discovered that money was going from Nate Gray
ETNA Associates to Gilbert Jackson.
Q In your own words, could you tell us what the route

the money was taking?
MR. JENKINS: Judge, objection to the
characterization he's putting in those statements.
THE COURT: Go ahead and pull up those
statements.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Let's now ask you, from financial records you

reviewed, have you prepared a summary of monies going to
Gilbert Jackson through Nate Gray?
A Yes.
72619.
Q All right. Do you recognize 726A?

A I do.
Q All right. What is 726A?

A It's a summary of the monies received by Gilbert
Jackson from either ETNA Associates or Nate Gray. This
is a summary of the actual checks deposited into
Mr. Jackson's account.
Q So this is actual checks that were deposited into

Mr. Jackson's account?
A Yes.
Q And what is the time frame --

MR. DETTELBACH: Actually if you could
just blow up the top half so we could read the

1 writing a little better.
2 Q Tell us how the exhibit is organized then and what

3 it shows?
4 A This chronological, this particular one is for
6 Q All right. And tell us then how it's organized in

7 terms of the columns?
8 A The first column indicates a source of the

9 payments.
10 MR. JENKINS: Judge, objection. May we
11 approach a moment. It will be about 30 seconds.
12 THE COURT: What's the grounds?
13 MR. JENKINS: I don't want to say that in
14 front of the jury.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
MR. JENKINS: If my notes are correct,
20 that's a document that we objected to, and you
21 didn't admit it in the last trial.
22 MR. DETTELBACH: That's incorrect. This
23 is a document this agent prepared. It was not

24 offered in the last trial and --
25 THE COURT: Why is it offered?

880
MR. DETTELBACH: We offered it through
another witness. We are trying to cut down our
witnesses.
MR. JENKINS: It didn't come in through
that witness the last time.
THE COURT: In any case, what is it? Do

you have that document in support --
MR. DETTELBACH: We do. They have been
produced long ago.
THE COURT: I think it's a summary that
can be offered.
MR. WHITAKER: How were they produced.

MR. DETTELBACH: In your exhibit books
months ago.
If I ask a specific question, no. If I
ask a general question.
THE COURT: Under the summary rule you

have, was the back up documentation accompanying
these?
MS. WHITAKER: May I ask why, if we are
not going into a new geographic area, Mr. Massie is
called back up again?
MR. DETTELBACH: We are going into a new
geographical area.
881
MS. WHITAKER: We are done with the City
of Cleveland water contract?
MS. WHITAKER: Great.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q All right. Now if we could, could you walk you us

through the columns and tell us what this exhibit shows
in each column?
A The first column shows the source of the payment,
indicates either money order or check.
The date of the second column would be the
date of the money order or check.
The third column is amount.
The fourth column is the -- depicts the
actual bank which Mr. Jackson banks with, fourth.
The next column is an exhibit which is a
reference to an IRS Exhibit Number which coincides with
that bank.
Q It's a back up, it's like the bank statement?

A It's the underlying bank documents.
Q All right.
A And the last column is a description of what that
particular bank document is.

882
Q A l l right. So f o r e a c h o n e o f t h e s e c o l u m n s i s
t h e r e a n a c t u a l b a n k document t h a t b a c k s u p t h e e n t r y ?
A Yes. U s u a l l y s e v e r a l , i t ' s u s u a l l y t h e bank
s t a t e m e n t , d e p o s i t t i c k e t and check.
Q And h a v e you r e v i e w e d e a c h a n d e v e r y o n e o f t h o s e
i n preparing t h i s exhibit?
A I d i d n ' t p r e p a r e t h i s e x h i b i t , b u t I reviewed each
a n d e v e r y one o f t h e s e u n d e r l y i n g documents.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I o b j e c t . He didn't
prepare it.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Did you t y p e i t y o u r s e l f ?
MR. JENKINS: H e d i d n ' t r u l e on my
objection.
THE COURT: H e can t e s t i f y i f t h e y
a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t t h e u n d e r l y i n g documents. I
t h i n k he can t e s t i f y t o it.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Does e a c h -- h a v e you p e r s o n a l l y c h e c k e d t o make

s u r e e a c h a n d e v e r y one r e f l e c t s --
A I have.
Q And h a v e a l l t h e d o c u m e n t s b e e n t u r n e d o v e r t o t h e
d e f e n s e l o n g ago?
A Yes.

BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Now, with respect to the frequency of the payments,

what was the frequency of the payments --
MR. DETTELBACH: You can go back out to
the big page.
Q What is the frequency of payments? How often were

they be being made?
A For the most part on a monthly basis.
Q And did you, are there totals by year that you have
calculated?
A There are totals by year, yes.
Q I want to focus on the years, 2001, 2002, 2003, if

we could.
What was the total amount of payments going
from Mr. Gray to Mr. Jackson in 2001?
A I don't know it off the top of my heed.
Q Do we have to scroll to it on this exhibit?

A It would be on a separate page.
MR. DETTELBACH: Let's scroll for it.
Q This is '98 on the top right, correct?

A That's correct.
Q All right. So now, what's the total for '98?

A 18,000.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now let's go to the next

page
Keep going.
What's the total for '99?
H $14,150.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Keep going.
Go back one.
Q What's the total for 2000?

A $22,250.
MR. DETTELBACH: Keep going.
Q What's the total for 2001?

A 23,250.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Proceed
forward,' please.
Q What's the total now for 2002?

A It's $67,500.
MR. DETTELBACH: And then proceed forward.
Q And what's the total for 2003?

A It's $23,250.
Q Now, does this chart that you've prepared, or I'm

sorry, that you testified about, also reflect the form of
the payments that were -- that you were able to come up
with?
A Yes, it does.
Q All right. Can you tell us monthly what the form

of payment was to Mr. Jackson?
885
A It was either money order or check.
Q And what were the amounts? Did you notice regular

amounts?
A Initially it was, the regular amount was $750 money
order. Then it increased to $2,500, which was by check.
And then more regularly, $3,250 by check.
Q All right. And were there ever any months where

there was more than one different type of payment?
A Yes, there was.
Q Can you describe that?

A There are certain occasions where it was both;
Mr. Jackson received both a check and a money order.
Q In the same month?
A Yes.
Q All right. Now, Special Agent Massie, did you

prepare from the marked exhibits a summary time line
relating to New Orleans, Louisiana?
A Yes, I did.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you please
distribute Government's Exhibit 27A.
Q Special Agent Massie, what time frame is covered in
this particular time line?
A This particular time line just covers essentially
one month of 2002. It starts January 16th and concludes

886
on February 14th of 2002.
Q Does it include every exhibit that you prepared?

A No, it does not.
Q Just that month's or so?

A Just this particular month.
Q Now, did Mr. Gray perform work for Honeywell in New

Orleans?
A Yes, he did.
Q All right. Directing your attention to the

January 2002 time frame, just what were the names of the
contracts that Honeywell was seeking?

A Primarily two contracts. Contract with the Housing
Authority of New Orleans, and then also a housing
contract with B.W. Cooper.
Q All right. What is the first exhibit on your time

line by number and who's on the call?
A The first exhibit is a reference to a Exhibit 1120,
which occurred on January 16th, 2002. And this is a
conversation between Nate Gray and Gilbert Jackson.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Would you please play
Exhibit 1120.
(Tape played. )
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Massie, did you hear reference to an

i n d i v i d u a l named V i n c e ?
A Yes, I did.
(Z And i s t h e r e a l s o c o n v e r s a t i o n o n y o u r t i m e l i n e
where Vince i s b r o u g h t up a g a i n ?
Q W h a t ' s t h e n e x t e n t r y a n d who i s s p e a k i n g ?
A 'The n e x t e n t r y o n t h e t i m e l i n e r e f e r s t o 1 1 2 1 .
I t ' s January 17, 2002. I t ' s a n o t h e r c o n v e r s a t i o n between
Nate G r a y a n d G i l b e r t J a c k s o n .
MR. DETTELBACH: A l l right. Please play
E x h i b i t 1121.
MR. DETTELBACH: C o u l d you p l e a s e d i s p l a y
1121B, p a g e 3, a n d p u l l u p t h e t o p p a r t .
Q And who i s s p e a k i n g a b o u t s a y i n g h e w a n t s t o d o
business too?
A T h a t was G i l b e r t J a c k s o n .
Q What was M r . Gray's response?
A H e said, i n i t i a l l y he says e x a c t l y and says t h a t ' s
fine.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now you c a n t a k e t h a t
down.
Now, i s t h e r e a n o t h e r e x c e r p t f r o m t h e same c a l l ?
There i s .
And w h e r e i s t h a t on y o u r t i m e l i n e , a n d w h a t i s
888
t h e e x h i b i t number?
A I t ' s d i r e c t l y below t h e one w e j u s t p l a y e d , and
i t ' s E x h i b i t 1122.
Q S p e c i a l Agent Massie, d i d you h e a r r e f e r e n c e t o t h e
C i t y of Detroit?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q Did you h e a r a p a r t i c u l a r name b r o u g h t u p ?
A Yes, t h e y r e f e r r e d t o a t Kwame.
Q What was t h e name o f t h e name o f Mayor o f D e t r o i t
a t t h e t i m e t h i s was?
A Kwame K i l p a t r i c k .
Q Now, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t o p o f y o u r t i m e l i n e ,
w h a t ' s t h e e n t r y a t t h e t o p o f y o u r t i m e l i n e i f w e move
t o the right?
A The f i r s t e n t r y i s J a n u a r y 22nd, 2002. T h a t was
t h e B.W. Cooper o r a l i n t e r v i e w p r e s e n t a t i o n .
THE COURT: L e t m e j u s t a s k w h e r e a r e you,
because.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, t h e r e a r e
s e v e r a l more c a l l s t o p l a r w i t h N e w O r l e a n s . It's
n o t lengthy, b u t t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l more. I can't
s a y one o r two more.
THE COURT: How much i n terms o f t i m e ?

889
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, I will say
that it would probably take about 20 to 25 minutes.
I 'm sorry.
THE COURT: Why don't we break off. You
want to reset it tomorrow morning? You can repeat a
portion of this.
Same rules, don't talk with anybody about
the case. Don't form any opinions, don't express
any. Don't read anything. Don't listen to anything
about this no investigation.
If you'll leave the pads on your seats
we'll collect them and redirect them to you
tomorrow.
But at this point in time we'll stand in
adjournment .
Thank you.
- - -
(The trial was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 until 8:20
a.m. Thursday, August 11, 2005.)

- - -
890
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2 I, Richard G. DelMonico, Official Court Reporter
3 in and for the United States District Court, for the
4 Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, do hereby
5 certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
6 transcript of the proceedings herein.
9
Richard G. DelMonico
10 Official Court Reporter
568 U.S. Courthouse
11 Two South Main Street
Akron, Ohio 44308
12 (330) 375-5666
13
14
I N D E X
OPENIIIG STATEMENTS :
On b e h a l f o f t h e Government ................... 142
On b e h a l f o f D e f e n d a n t J o n e s .................. 189
On b e h a l f o f Defendant Gray ................... 2 0 3
On b e l l a l f o f D e f e n d a n t J a c k s o n ................ 311
W I TNE,:;S : DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
ON BEXALF OF THE GOVERNMENT:

N i n a 'Jpsshaw 412 448
Glori.3 L o v e l a c e 4 67 479
M i c h a 3 1 Dubose 432 496
Emmanuel Onunwor 4 98 576
C a r m e l l o LoParo 67 1 67 5
M i c h a e l Day 67 6 700
J e f f Donovan 711 728
Michael Massie 7 54 7 65
It If
774 826
Michael M a s s i e 873 894
Petes Smith 92 1 930
G l y n n i s Nelson 951 959
Diane P i n s o n 1028 1037
Monic;ue M c G i l b r a 1217 1280
F e l i x Johnson 1319 1340
Gar15 n d Hardeman 1352 1379
Olive r Spellman 1397 1418
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1

)
Plaintiff, 1
)
) 1 : O4crOO58O
GILBERT JACKSON, )
)
Defendants. )
.. ..
VOLUME IV -... ..
,
- - - ..
. .-
.
,
.- .
. ..
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS ..,'ii?;
. - ,. . ~ .
HAD BEFORE THE HONORABLE ,
1
JAMES S. GWIN, JUDGE OF SAID COURT, OM:"

THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 2005 AT 8:00 A.M:,?~
. ..
...
-..
.. . ,
APPEARANCES:

For the Defendant WILLIAM T. WHITAKER, JR. , ESQ.

Whitaker & Rowlands
Akron, Ohio 44304


568 U.S. Courthouse
Akron, Ohio 44308
conducted o u t s i d e t h e presence o f t h e
jury.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, i f i t p l e a s e
the court.
L a s t n i g h t and t h i s morning t h e s t o r y o f
Mr. J o n e s ' p l e a was a m a j o r s t o r y on e v e r y s i n g l e
n e w s c a s t a n d i t was a l s o f r o n t p a g e o n t h e P l a i n
Dealer today. And w e t h i n k b e f o r e t e s t i m o n y
a c t u a l l y b e g i n s , we would l i k e you t o i n q u i r e o f t h e
j u r y w h e t h e r anybody h e a r d a n y t h i n g .
THE COURT: L e t me ask, a r e you g o i n g t o
c a l l him?
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, w e a r e n o t
sure.
THE COURT: B e c a u s e my t h i n k i n g h a d b e e n
t h a t i f h e ' s c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s i t w i l l a l l come
o u t i n any r e g a r d .
MR. DETTELBACH: I would a l s o , just
f o r t h e record, I d i d n ' t see i t b u t I u n d e r s t a n d
M r . Whitaker -- o r t h i s i s s e c o n d h a n d -- w a s on TV
t a l k i n g about t h e f a c t s of t h e case, o r t a l k i n g
a b o u t t h e case. So I t h i n k t o some e x t e n t h i s
o b j e c t i o n r e g a r d i n g p u b l i c i t y i s n o t w e l l founded.
MR. WHITAKER: I t i s news t o m e . I had no

interviews last night.
MR. DETTELBACH: If that's the case, okay
MR. WHITAKER: What station?
MR. DETTELBACH: I heard it was on

Cleveland TV, but I didn't see it.
MR. WHITAKER: Did you tape it?
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I would join in that
objection. I can assure you I spoke with no media
at any time.
MR. DETTELBACH: If that's not right, I'm
sorry.
MR. WHITAKER: No, I didn't.
seats.
Let me renew an inquiry I made earlier.
Have any of you talked about this case with anybody?
(No response.)
Have any of you talked about the case
among yourselves?
(No response.)
Have any of you read anything about this
case?
(No response.)
Have any of you listened to any news
reports about this case?
(No response.)
Okay. I'll ask Mr. Dettelbach to continue
the examination. And you again remain under oath.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Massie, good morning.

A Good morning.
Q I now want to direct your attention back to 27-A,

which is the New Orleans time line for that one month
period?
A Okay.
Q All right. And we were sort of part way through

it. Where we left off yesterday, we were asking
questions about a conversation that occurred on 1/17/02.

A Yes, I do.
Q And who was that conversation between?

A There was conversation between Nate Gray and
Gilbert Jackson.
Q All right. And in one of those two conversations

does the name Vince come up?
Yes, it d o e s .
Which o n e i s t h a t ?
I t h i n k i t ' s E x h i b i t 1121.
1121.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
(1 You h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o a name B r e n t ?
THE COURT: J u s t a second.
MR. JENKINS: ~ u d ~ eI ,a p o l o g i z e . I was
c o r r e c t e d by co-counsel, and I withdraw t h e
objection.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q You h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o B r e n t ?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q Was t h e r e somebody name B r e n t w o r k i n g f o r Honeywell
Corporation?
A Yes, B r e n t J i v i d e n .
Q N o , moving t o t h e r i g h t on t h e t i m e l i n e . What i s
t h e e n t r y t h a t i s under 1129? I ' m sorry, 1/29/02?
A T h a t ' s a r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t 1124. I t ' s another
c o n v e r s a t i o n between Nate Gray and G i l b e r t J a c k s o n .
Q Okay. And d o e s i t a l s o m e n t i o n t h e word H o n e y w e l l ?
O r d o t h e y t a l k a b o u t Honeywell?
A They d o .
MR. DETTELBACH: P l e a s e p l a y 1124.
(Tape played. )
Q Now, m o v i n g f r o m t h a t J a n u a r y 2 9 t h c a l l . Then is
t h e r e a c o n f e r e n c e c a l l i n v o l v i n g s e v e r a l people t h a t
follows?
A Yes. On F e b r u a r y 5 t h , 2 0 0 2 t h e r e i s a c o n f e r e n c e
call between Nate Gray, G i l b e r t Jackson, R i c k Sawicki,
and B i l l G i a i r n o .
Q A n d t h a t ' s t h e c a l l , t h e excerpts f r o m w h i c h we
heard w i t h M r . Sawicki?
A That's correct.
Q I n one b r i e f e x c e r p t o f t h a t c a l l i s t h e r e a
reference t o a n y b o d y n a m e d V i n c e ?
A Yes, there i s .
Q And w h i c h one i s t h a t ?
A T h a t ' s 1127.
( T a p e played. )
MR. DETTELBACH: A l l right. Please
d i s p l a y 1127-B.
MR. J E N K I N S : Judge. Your Honor, w i t h a l l
d u e r e s p e c t , I t h o u g h t w e heard t h e s e t a p e s
yesterday.
THE COURT: I t h o u g h t w e heard t h e l a s t

one.
MR. DETTELBACH: I ' m only going t o ask
a b o u t t h e t i m e s t a m p on t h i s t a p e .
C o u l d you j u s t blow u p t h e v e r y t o p l i n e .
Q And c o u l d you t e l l u s , w h a t was t h e d a t e a n d t i m e
of the conference c a l l ?
A F e b r u a r y 5 t h , 2002. The c a l l s t a r t e d a t 1 1 : O O a . m .
Q That's t h e s t a r t time of t h e c a l l ?
A That's correct.
Q A l l right. A f t e r t h a t c a l l was o v e r , i s t h e r e
a n o t h e r e n t r y on y o u r t i m e l i n e ?
A Yes. I f you l o o k down b e l o w t h e r e i s a r e f e r e n c e
t o E x h i b i t 1129, which i s a c a l l b e t w e e n Nate G r a y a n d
G i l b e r t J a c k s o n , which o c c u r r e d w i t h i n a m i n u t e a f t e r t h e
conclusion of t h e conference c a l l .
Q Was anybody e l s e on t h a t c a l l ?
A No, j u s t N a t e Gray a n d G i l b e r t J a c k s o n .
MR. DETTELBACH: P l e a s e show 1129-B. And
i f you c o u l d j u s t b l o w u p t h e t e x t a r e a o n t h a t .
Q A l l right. And now l o o k i n g a t t h e t o p f i r s t , d o
you see t h e t i m e s t a m p on t h i s c a l l ?
A Yes, 1 1 : 3 2 .
Q And t h a t time s t a m p , how i s t h a t g e n e r a t e d ?
A J u s t t y p e d on t h e r e .
Q How i s i t g e n e r a t e d when t h e c a l l i s i n t e r c e p t e d ,
though?
A A s t h e c a l l comes i n i t ' s g e n e r a t e d f r o m o u r T i t l e
I11 s y s t e m . A s s o o n a s t h e c a l l comes i n i t g i v e s you
t h e t i m e when t h e c a l l was i n i t i a t e d .
Q By c o m p u t e r ?
A Yes, b y c o m p u t e r .
Q And w h o ' s s p e a k i n g on l i n e s 1 6 , 1 7 , 1 8 , a n d 1 9 ?
A 16, 17, and 18 i s G i l b e r t Jackson. Line 1 9 i s Nate
Gray.
Q Thank you.
Now, c o u l d you p l e a s e t e l l u s , was t h e r e a
c h e c k t h a t i s r e f l e c t e d on y o u r t i m e l i n e ?
A Yes. I f you l o o k u n d e r t h e same F e b r u a r y 5 t h , 2002
d a t e , you l o o k a b o v e t h e l i n e i t r e f e r s t o E x h i b i t 7 2 0 .
d i s p l a y E x h i b i t 720.
And i f you c o u l d blow it u p a n d t a k e t h e
account information o f f t h e screen.
Q A l l right. And c a n you t e l l u s w i t h r e s p e c t t o
t h i s c h e c k , what i s t h e amount, d a t e , a n d who i s it p a i d
from a n d t o ?
A The c h e c k i s made o u t t o G i l b e r t J a c k s o n i n t h e
899
amount o f $ 2 , 5 0 0 . I t ' s d a t e d F e b r u a r y 5 t h f 2002. And
i t ' s drawn on a N a t i o n a l C i t y Bank A c c o u n t f r o m ETNA
Parking.
Q Now S p e c i a l A g e n t M a s s i e , a r e t h e r e a n y a d d i t i o n a l
e x c e r p t s i n y o u r e x h i b i t s f r o m t h a t N a t e Gray a n d G i l b e r t
J a c k s o n c a l l on t h a t d a y ?
A Yes, t h e r e a r e .
MR. DETTELBACH: And c a n you p l e a s e p l a y
E x h i b i t 1 1 3 0 , a n o t h e r e x c e r p t f r o m t h a t same c a l l .
MR. DETTELBACH: And now p l e a s e p l a y
E x h i b i t 1131, t h e n e x t e x c e r p t .
Q Now, d i d you h e a r a r e f e r e n c e t o two m e e t i n g s i n
that call?
A Yes.
Q When was t h e f i r s t m e e t i n g M r . Jackson had, o r
l u n c h w i t h Mr. B e l l ?
A He was h a v i n g a l u n c h m e e t i n g w i t h M r . B e l l t h e
next day.
Q And i s t h e r e a n i n t e r c e p t i o n t h a t i n c l u d e s a r e p o r t
o f t h a t m e e t i n g t o N a t e Gray?
A Yes. I f you l o o k , n e x t e n t r y on t h e t i m e l i n e ,
v e r y n e x t d a y , F e b r u a r y 6 t h r 2002 r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t
900

(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Massie, right after the mention --

did you hear the word Vince mentioned?
A Yes.
Q And right after did Mr. Gray say he had done

something?
A He indicated he sent it out. He saw it sitting on
his desk. It didn't go out yesterday, it went out today.
Q On your time line is there any reference to any

mailings?
A Yes. If you look under the same February 6th date,
above the line there is a reference to Exhibit 721, which
is a Fed-Ex.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please display 721.
Q And focusing on the from and to, what state is it

sent from and what state is it sent to?
A Sent from Ohio to Louisiana.
Q And on the to, what address is listed on the to?

A Gilbert Jackson's home address.
Q Is that the work address for Camp, Dresser, and

McKee in New Orleans?
A No.

that down.
901
Q Now Special Agent Massie, was there anything that

was recovered in any of the searches that you executed
relating to the HANO contract?
A Yes.
734.
Q All right. This is the first page of a multi-page

exhibit. Can you tell us what it is that this exhibit is
and where it was recovered from?

A This exhibit was recovered during the search we
executed in Nate Gray's residence. It was found in that
same black backpack which was in the master closet.
Q All right. And let me ask you this, was there

anything on the subpoenas that you served to the
businesses associated with Mr. Gray that called for
anything associated with Camp, Dresser, and McKee?
A Yes.
Q Honeywell?
A Yes.
Q All right. Was this document that we are about to

go through, was it turned over in response to any
subpoena?
A No, it was not.
Q All right. Now let's go through some of these.

The first page, for the record, what's
written a t the top?
A Reads G i l b e r t , w i t h an u n d e r l i n e .
Q And --
MR. JENKINS: Judge, o b j e c t i o n . I t speaks
for itself.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q A l l right. L e t ' s go t o page 2 t h e n .
A l l right. And w i t h r e s p e c t t o p a g e 2 , i s
t h e r e a n y t h i n g on t h i s p a g e t h a t m e n t i o n s B e n j a m i n B e l l ?
A Yes.
Q And V i n c e S y l v a i n ?
A Yes. I f you l o o k a t t h e t h i r d p a r a g r a p h down.
Third b u l l e t point.
MR. DETTELBACH: J u s t blow up t h e t h i r d
p a r a g r a p h down. You d o n ' t h a v e t o r e a d i t . I f you
could s c r o l l over t o t h e r i g h t a l i t t l e b i t .
A l l right. And g o b a c k t o t h e w h o l e p a g e ,
i f you would. And i f you c o u l d f o c u s o n t h e h e a d i n g
of t h e page. J u s t s c r o l l down o n e l i t t l e b i t .
That's fine.
Q And moving f o r w a r d , you s a i d t h i s was n o t t u r n e d
over i n response t o any subpoena?
A No, i t was n o t .
Q A r e t h e r e a n y d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e word
Honeywell in this document?
A Yes, there are.
MR. JENKINS: Objection. It speaks for
itself. Once again, he's asking him to take it out
of context.
THE COURT: He can point to the part that
does say that.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q With respect to the --

MR. DETTELBACH: Could you go to the next
page, please. And can you blow up the top heading,
and then all the way from the fax line through about
the first paragraph, or the middle of the first
paragraph.
Q Who does Rick Sawicki work for?

A Honeywell.
MR. DETTELBACH: And if you could go then,
and just, if you could zoom out on the whole page.
Q And this particular exhibit, is this document just

there one time?
A No. There is a -- this document was modified and
sent out to another person.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. If you could
then go two pages forward. And if you could blow up
the top.
Q And what is this part that we are looking at?
A This is the same memo, it's just this one is
actually to Ray Valdez from Nate Gray.
Q All right. The heading has changed.

Now, going back to your time line now. Was
there a trip to New Orleans, Louisiana for the meeting?
A Yes, there was.
Q And where is that listed on your time line?

A If you look at the last two entries above the line
2/13 was the travel date for Nate Gray, William Giamio,
and Rick Sawicki, when they traveled to New Orleans.
And then 2/14 was the actual meeting date.
Q And what are the exhibits that are referenced

there?
A That refers back to the expense reimbursement forms
submitted by Sawicki and Giamio to Honeywell.
Q What exhibit numbers are those?

A 735 and 736.
MR. DETTELBACH: And could you please
display 736? Which one is the one we haven't
already seen? I'm sorry, 735.
Q Okay. And the other one we had up, that was the
one Mr. Sawicki showed?
A That's correct.
Q And whose expense report is this then?

A William Giamio.
Q And does it also reflect that trip?

A It does.
Q NOW, that then, is that the last entry on this time

line?
A It is.
Q Now, Special Agent Massie, does the time line show

the entire period of the New Orleans interceptions that
are reflected in the exhibits?
A No, it does not.
Q Let's move forward to August then of 2002.

MR. DETTELBACH: And if we could, can we
play Exhibit 1134.
Q And what's the date of this?

A This is August 5th, 2002. It's a conversation
between Nate Gray and Brent Jividen.
(Tape played) .
Q And just to be clear Special Agent Massie, that

last part of the call, was that a continuation of the
conversation which relates to another city and not the
City of New Orleans?
A Yes. The topic of the conversation switches to
Houston.
Q So now, with respect to the comments about the HANO

deal stalling. What was going on with HANO's financial
situation during this time period?
THE WITNESS: HANO was in receivership,
therefore HUD took over the Housing Authority and
were no longer letting out any projects for that

particular agency.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q All right. Now, with respect to Mr. Gray and

Mr. Jackson. Do they have any discussions about
Mr. Jackson's relationship with Honeywell there on your
exhibit list?
A Yes.
Q All right. And directing your attention to Exhibit

1137, can you tell us the date and participants in that
call?
A This is a conversation that occurred on
August 30th, 2002. This is another conversation between
Nate Gray and Gilbert Jackson.
Q And in comparison to the one we just heard, what is

the date in comparison to the one between Mr. Gray and
Mr. Jividen, which I think is 1134?
A It's 25 days later.
Q Okay, so about a month later?

A Urn-hum .
907
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you please play 1137.
(Tape played. )
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Are there any conversations between Mr. Gray and

Mr. Jackson that mention different housing markets other
than New Orleans?
A Yes, there are.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please play --
Q First of all, Exhibit 1138. Can you tell us the

date and participants in this call?
A This is a conversation which occurred on September
4th, 2002, also involving Nate Gray and Gilbert Jackson.
(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Massie, in addition to discussing

geographical areas, are there any interceptions in your
exhibit list that relate to different people on the team?
A Yes, there are.
Q Directing your attention to Exhibit 1141. Can you

please tell us the date and participants in that
particular phone call?
A It's an October 29th, 2002 conversation, also
between Nate Gray and Gilbert Jackson.

(Tape played. )
908
Q J u s t a c o u p l e names t h a t came u p t h e r e . D i d you
h e a r a r e f e r e n c e t o Mark M o r i a l ?
A I did.
Q And p r i o r t o t h i s h a d Mark M o r i a l h e l d a n y o f f i c i a l
positions?
A H e was f o r m e r l y t h e Mayor o f N e w O r l e a n s .
Q And you h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o -- i f you c o u l d r e f e r
t o a name Ben J e f f e r s ?
A Yes.
Q And who i s Ben J e f f e r s ?
A Ben J e f f e r s i s a c o n s u l t a n t e m p l o y e d b y CDM o u t o f
B a t o n Rouge, L o u i s i a n a .
Q And who was t h e o n e t h a t s a i d t h e name Ben J e f f e r s ?
A G i l b e r t Jackson.
MR. DETTELBACH: No f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s f o r
t h i s witness a t t h i s t i m e , y o u r Honor.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, y o u r Honor.
I f i t p l e a s e t h e c o u r t , I would l i k e t o
renew my m o t i o n t o r e d u c i n g t h e m a t e r i a l s t h a t
h a v e n ' t been reviewed y e t .
THE COURT: I h a v e n o i d e a w h a t you a r e
t a l k i n g about.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, would you l i k e u s t o
a p p r o a c h o r would you l i k e m e t o t e l l you w h a t I ' m

talking about?
THE COURT: I suppose. Why don't you come
UP.
follows : )
MR. WHITAKER: All of these conversations
take place right at the -- or a lot of them take
place in the first two weeks of February, 2002. I
think in order to put them in proper context, we
need to look at the self-suppressed -- so called
self-suppressed tapes that continue immediately
after these conversations where he's interpreting
and making, I have a particularized need.
I believe that when a full context is
developed, it will show that these things don't mean
what the government is conjuring them to mean.
THE COURT: I'll deny that but I don't
think you are impaired. I mean, your client and
Mr. Jackson both have the ability to take the stand
and give testimony as to how this should be
interpreted in light of other conversations or in
terms of other circumstances.
MR. WHITAKER: Right. But I don't think

they should have to choose. I don't think they
should be forced to choose to waiving a
constitutional right, a right protected by the
Constitution when there is material available.
THE COURT: The other problem you have, I
have relayed this before, is on the face of it, it

wouldn't be admissible. And you will be attempting
to offer your own client's out-of-court statements
in support of his own case, which would be hearsay.
MR. WHITAKER: Unless, of course, put what
the government played in proper context, in terms of
106.
THE COURT: I'm not sure if there is some
exception to the hearsay rule upon the notion to put
something in context. At least I'm not familiar
with any hearsay rule that says we allow hearsay to

put something in context.
So for the reasons I've put in the opinion
earlier, and also for the reasons it sounds like it
would all be hearsay, I'll deny it.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I'd join in that
objection.
But I want to ask the court, I'm notified
by the government that it is my intent in
considering putting Mr. Jackson on, the fact that

1 he's also charged in Louisiana, in terms of a tax
2 issue, would that preclude the government from
3 questioning about his taxes?
4 THE COURT: Are you going to get into
5 this?
6 MR. DETTELBACH: Depends on what he says.
7 Part of the tax evasion is he failed to report the
8 money that Mr. Gray was paying him.
9 THE COURT: We can deal with that later.
10 There has been no conviction.
11 MR. JENKINS: No, the judge in that
12 jurisdiction has continued that until after this
13 trial.
14 MR. DETTELBACH: It's not the fact of the
15 charge, it's the conduct.
16 THE COURT: Okay. We'll come to that

17 later.
18 MR. JENKINS: Thank you, your Honor.
19 (The following proceedings were conducted
in open court.)
- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. WHITAKER:
24 Q Good morning.
25 A Good morning.
912
Q Those conversations, a lot of those conversations

were talking about Gilbert -- Nate Gray and Gilbert
working out a strategy to get Gilbert hired as a
consultant to Honeywell?
A Some of them, yes.
Q And there was a discussion there about the mayor,

as you put it, the former Mayor of New Orleans?
A There was, yes.
Q And at the time of that discussion he wasn't a

mayor, was he?
A No, he just -- I believe he just resigned office at
that time.
Q And you know from your research and your expertise

that you've testified about in this area, that very often
people that have held political office, as soon as
they are out of political office go into the consulting
or lobbying business?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. He's not an
expert.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. Thank you, no
further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Agent Massie, you stated that Mark Morial had just

resigned office.
That's what you said a moment ago, correct?
Q In fact, his term was up. He didn't resign, his

term was up?
A That's correct. I'm sorry.
Q Now, you talked about earlier a document, a Fed-Ex

document, where allegedly a check was sent from Mr. Nate
Gray to Gilbert Jackson in New Orleans, correct?

A Yes.
Q And through the wire intercepts, you are aware

through the intercepts, at what point the check was being
mailed, correct?
A Based on the intercepts, yes.
Q And you had, in fact, as was displayed on the

Fed-Ex, that the address where the check was going,
correct?
A Yes.
Q And that was Gilbert Jackson's address, correct?

A That's correct.
(Z And in fact, he was in contact with an FBI agent in

New Orleans, Peter Smith?
A He had some contact with him, yes. I don't know
about that time.
Q Not that time, but at some point he was someone he

spoke with in New Orleans as part of this investigation,
correct?
A He was interviewed, yes.
Q The FBI agent?

A Yes.
Q Now, as you stated, you knew where the alleged

check was coming and where it was going, correct? To
Gilbert Jackson?
A Based on the intercepts. But we didn't know the
exact address until we obtained that particular document

pursuant to subpoena.
(2 All right. Well, the intercepts told you that Nate

Gray was sending the checks to Gilbert Jackson, right?
A Yes.
Q And you knew the address of CDM, Camp, Dresser,

McKee?
A Yes.
Q And you knew his home address, correct?

A Yes, we did.
Q Now, as relates to this incident, was there any

surveillance, or any agent that intercepted a follow up
to the alleged check to Gilbert Jackson?

Q Was there any search warrant, that you can recall,
that was used on Mr. Vince Sylvain to determine whether
he had received the money, the check, whatever?
Q No search warrant whatsoever?

A No.
Q And you didn't even try to get a bank account from

him, correct?
A Did I personally?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q The FBI in New Orleans, did they try to at least

look into the bank account to see if there was any 2500,
or anything of that nature, that went in there?
A I'm not sure to what extent the New Orleans office

researched that.
Q You didn't do it?

A I didn't do it.
Q I'm just trying to be specific.

You recall the date was February 6th of the
alleged conversation, correct? Involving the Fed-Ex?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. At least
could I get a year?
MR. JENKINS: 2002, I'm sorry.
Correct?
A T h e r e was a c o n v e r s a t i o n on F e b r u a r y 6 t h f y e s .
MR. JENKINS: Let me g e t t h e e x h i b i t .
E x h i b i t 720. C o u l d you p u t t h a t up, p l e a s e ?
Q Now, you s e e t h i s , i t ' s d a t e d F e b r u a r y 5 t h ,
correct?
A That's correct.
Q And t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t w e h e a r d was w h e r e N a t e
s a i d , h e y , i t was on my d e s k , i t w i l l g o o u t t o d a y o r
tomorrow, c o r r e c t ?
A He s a i d , i t d i d n ' t g o o u t y e s t e r d a y , i t w i l l go o u t
today. The c o n v e r s a t i o n w a s on t h e 6 t h .
Q Now, i f you r e c a l l , t h a t Fed-Ex a p p l i c a t i o n h a d t h e
d a t e o f F e b r u a r y 6 t h when i t was a c t u a l l y a t l e a s t
b r o u g h t t o Fed-Ex, correct?
A I t was d a t e d F e b r u a r y 6 t h a n d b a s e d on t h e
u n d e r l y i n g i n v o i c e s , i t was p i c k e d on F e b r u a r y 6 t h a n d
d e l i v e r e d February 7 t h .
(1 February 7 t h .
Now, e v e n a s G i l b e r t a n d N a t e were s p e a k i n g ,
you h e a r d from t h e w i r e i n t e r c e p t t h a t G i l b e r t h a d
a l r e a d y m e t w i t h Benjamin B e l l b e f o r e t h i s check even g o t
there, correct?
A I t i n d i c a t e d h e h a d a l u n c h m e e t i n g w i t h him on t h e
6th.
And you h a v e no e v i d e n c e t h a t a n y money went t o

Vince Sylvain from Gilbert Jackson, correct?
(1 Now, the government brought up the name Ben

Jeffers, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And who is Ben Jeffers?

A He was, based on my knowledge, a CDM consultant for
CDM in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Q And you also are familiar with the name Rick

Cloutier, correct?
A I am.
Q Was there any evidence that Gilbert Jackson had

given Ben Jeffers any money or any cash that you had?
A Not to my personal knowledge. I'm not sure what
New Orleans offices identified.
Q But in your investigation involving a Rick Cloutier

and Monique McGilbra, was there any evidence that Rick
Cloutier, that you had investigated, given any money or
things of value to Ben Jeffers?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. It calls for

hearsay. He's asking him -- I don't know if we are
calling for interviews, or what we are calling for.
MR. JENKINS: I said if he developed

anything through his investigation.
THE COURT: Do you have any personal

knowledge?
THE WITNESS: No personal knowledge, no.
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Through your investigation, did you obtain any

evidence of that event taking place?
THE COURT: Just things that you have
personal knowledge of.
Do you have any personal knowledge.
THE WITNESS: I don't have any personal
knowledge.
THE COURT: Or you have documentary
knowledge.
THE WITNESS: 1 documents.
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Now, as you stated from Mr. Whitaker, the

conversation that you heard involving Nate Gray and
Gilbert Jackson was:
One, becoming a consultant with Honeywell
through Honeywell.
And two, trying to make business transactions
work, correct?
A There were some conversations in which Gilbert was
trying to establish a consulting relationship with
Honeywell and trying to obtain some form of payment.
(Z And just finally, as to your investigation

919
i n v o l v i n g p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s , was t h e r e a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t
you h a d , s u r v e i l l a n c e , i n t e r v e n t i o n , o r a c t u a l l y b e i n g on
t h e scene, by G i l b e r t Jackson t h a t a c t u a l l y p a s s e d any
f o r m o f payment t o a n y p u b l i c o f f i c i a l ?
A O n l y t h e c a l l where h e i n d i c a t e s h e ' s g o i n g t o f l i p
it t o Vince S y l v a i n .
Q You s t a t e d e a r l i e r t h a t you h a d no e v i d e n c e t h a t
a n y money went anywhere, c o r r e c t ?
A O t h e r t h a n t h e T i t l e I11 i n t e r c e p t s .
Q Listen t o me. We a r e n o t t a l k i n g a b o u t w h a t you
heard.
MR. DETTELBACH: H e a s k e d him i f h e h a d
any evidence.
THE COURT: H e can ask t h e question.
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q I ' m a s k i n g you, a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t h e a c t u a l l y ,
p h y s i c a l l y p a s s e d a n y money t o a n y p u b l i c o f f i c i a l ?
A No d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e , n o .
MR. JENKINS: Thank you, y o u r Honor.
THE COURT: Do you h a v e a n y r e d i r e c t ?
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q J u s t t o b e c l e a r on t h e t i m i n g . When was i t , what
year was it, and what month was it, that the
interceptions happened that you talked about, the flip it
interceptions?
A That was in February of 2002.
Q At that point in the investigation, was your

investigation overt or covert?
A We were still in the covert stage.
Q And when was the first time that Gilbert Jackson,

what month was it, and year was it, the first time that
Gilbert Jackson was interviewed by the FBI?
A It was either March of '03 or April of '03.
Q Of '03?
A Yes.
Q And in doing things like search warrants, and the

like, what consideration, if any, do you afford to
letting people know that the investigation is ongoing?
A Well, that changes your investigation --
THE COURT: This is redirect. Okay.
THE COURT: Thank you. Would the United
States call your next witness.
States calls Peter Smith.
THE COURT: Would you raise your right
hand.
1 - - -
2 PETER SMITH
6 follows:
7 THE COURT: Please tell us your name, once
8 you get situated, and then spell your last name.
9 THE WITNESS: Peter Smith, S-M-I-T-H.
11 BY MS. PEARSON:
12 Q Good morning.
13 A Good morning.
14 Q Would you please tell the jury where you work?

15 A I'm an FBI agent in New Orleans, Louisiana.
16 Q And how long have you been with the FBI?

17 A 15 years.
18 Q What squad are you assigned to? What kind of cases

19 do you do?
20 A Public corruption.
21 Q And how long have you been working public

22 corruption cases?
23 A About three years.
24 Q Are you one of the investigators in the matter

25 involving Nate Gray and Gilbert Jackson?
A Yes.
Q Did you work along with FBI agents from other FBI
offices?
A Yes. I worked with agents from Cleveland and

Houston, Texas.
(1 What kind of investigative techniques were involved

in your investigation of Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson?
A Interviews, Federal Grand Jury subpoenas,
surveillance, court authorized wiretaps.
Q Now, I would like to ask you specifically about

some of the interaction that you had during this
investigation, and to begin with, have you had occasion
to interview Mr. Jackson?
A Yes.
Q On how many occasions?

A Three.
(Z And when did the first interview take place?

A March 5th, 2003.
Q And where did that interview take place?

A In CDM's office. Mr. Jackson's office and
conference room.
Q And besides you and Mr. Jackson, was anyone else

present?
A Another FBI agent, Scott Sellers and E. Tove, who
is the attorney that represents the firm of CDM.

Q And just the four of you then?
A Correct.
Q Just to be clear, did you have an opportunity to

ask Mr. Jackson questions during this meeting?
A Yes, we did.
Q Did he give you answers?

A Yes.
Q Did you talk about Mr. Gray during the interview?

A Yes, we did.
Q Did you talk about an individual by the name of

Monique McGilbra during the interview?
A Yes.
Q Did you speak about an individual by the name of

Garland Hardeman during the interview?
A Yes.
Q Did you speak about Brent Jividen during this
interview?
A Yes.
Q Now, I would like to ask you to begin with, who is

Mr. Jividen?
A Mr. Jividen works for Honeywell, Incorporated.
He's in the Housing Division.
Q And did you ask Mr. Jackson where Mr. Jividen
lives?
We asked Mr. Jackson that and he claimed --

924
MR. JENKINS: Objection to the statement

claimed.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Please answer.
A He claimed he didn't know where Mr. Jividen was
based or located.
Q And what was your reaction to that answer?

A I had trouble believing it because the
investigation up to that point had shown the evidence
that he knew Mr. Jividen, knew where he was located.
Q What evidence are you referring to, Special Agent
Smith?
A I had listened to some of the telephone calls that
were intercepted on the wiretap between Mr. Gray and
Mr. Jackson. And where they discuss meetings with
Mr. Jividen.
Q Special Agent Smith, did you ask Mr. Jackson who

Garland Hardeman is?
A Yes, I did.
Q Who is Garland Hardeman?
A Garland Hardeman is from California. At one time I
believe he was in politics out in Compton, California.
And is -- he what at one time, I don't know if he still

is, the fiancee to Monique McGilbra.
Q What answer did Mr. Jackson give you to the
question of who was Garland Hardeman?
A He said he never heard of him.
Q What was your reaction to that answer?

MR. JENKINS: I object to what was the
reaction.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q What was your response to Mr. Jackson's answer that

he did not know Mr. Hardeman?
MR. JENKINS: Objection. Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Again, I had trouble
believing it because through interviews we had done
up to that point, and again some conversations that
were overheard on the wiretap, my belief was
contrary to the fact that he didn't know who Garland
Hardeman was.
MS. PEARSON: Would you please play what's
been marked as Government's Exhibit 1228,
December 17th, 2002.
(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Smith, was this one of the calls you

reviewed as part of your investigation?
A Yes.
926
Q Regarding Monique McGilbra, who is she, please?

A She was the public official that worked for the
City of Houston.
Q Did you ask Mr. Jackson whether he knew Monique

McGilbra?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what response did he give you?

A He said he had met her at the 2001 Essence Festival
in New Orleans. And he said he also had met her on one
occasion involved in a conference in 2002.
Q What other interactions did he have when you

questioned him about that fact?
A Well, he said he had no other interaction with Miss
McGilbra on the phone or otherwise.
Q Did you ask Mr. Jackson whether he ever gave

anything of value to Miss McGilbra?
A Yes, we did.
Q And what was his answer?

A He claimed he had not.
Q Did you ask Mr. Jackson whether he knew who Camp,

Dresser, McKee's contact in the City of Houston was?
A Yes, we did ask him that. And again, he claimed he
didn't know who CDM worked with in Houston.
Q And again, who is CDM?

A CDM is Camp, Dresser, McKee. That was the firm
Mr. Jackson used to work for.
Q Now, sir, how did those answers comport or match up

with the information you learned through your
investigation?
MR. JENKINS: Objection, judge.
THE COURT: I'll sustain that.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q What was your response to Mr. Jackson's answers to

you regarding Miss McGilbra?
THE COURT: Don't ask him to characterize
what his impression was. We'll let the jury do
that.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Special Agent Smith, did you go on and ask

Mr. Jackson questions about Nate Gray?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did you ask whether Mr. Gray -- whether

Mr. Jackson knew if Mr. Gray knew Monique McGilbra.
A Yes, I did. And he claimed that he didn't know if
Mr. Gray knew Monique McGilbra.
Q Did you ask Mr. Jackson if he knew whether Mr. Gray

had ever given Miss McGilbra anything of value?
A Yes, I did.
Q What was his answer?

A No.
928

THE COURT: I didn't understand the last
response.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Special Agent Smith, did you ask Mr. Jackson

whether he knew if Mr. -- did you ask Mr. Jackson whether
he knew if Mr. Gray had ever given Miss McGilbra anything
of value?
A Yes.
Q And what was his answer?

A He stated he didn't know. He wasn't aware of
Mr. Gray giving anything of value to Miss McGilbra.
Q So essentially he said he didn't know?

MR. JENKINS: Objection. She's leading
and giving the answer.
THE COURT: He said just the opposite.
It's either he did not know, or he had some
knowledge and did not know of anything of value
being given, which?
THE WITNESS: He didn't know anything of
value being given by Mr. Gray to Miss McGilbra.
MS. PEARSON: Thank you. Would you please
play what has been marked as Government Exhibit
1194.
(Tape played. )
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Special Agent Smith, what was the date of that

phone call?
A I believe it was January of '03.
Q And the date of that interview with Mr. Jackson?

A March 5th of 2003.
Q Now, sir, did your investigation include looking

into a $2,500 check that had been sent from Mr. Gray to
Mr. Jackson?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what did you do regarding that $2,500 check?

A We subpoenaed Mr. Jackson's bank account records
from the Hibernia National Bank in New Orleans.
THE COURT: How do you spell that?
THE WITNESS: H-I-B-E-R-N-I-A.
A review of those records indicated on
February 7thf 2002, a $2,500 check along with
another $2,500 check and $2,000 check was deposited
to Mr. Jackson's checking account, and a thousand
dollars in cash was withheld.
THE COURT: Was withheld?
THE WITNESS: The checks totaled $7,000 of
it, and the deposit totaled $6,000.
BY MS. PEARSON:
930
Q What were you able to determine regarding the one

thousand dollar difference?
A It was taken out in cash, and I don't know where it
went from there.
MS. PEARSON: At this time, no questions
for Special Agent Smith.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Good morning, Mr. Smith.

A Good morning.
Q Excuse me, Special Agent Smith. My name is Andrea

Whitaker and I represent Mr. Gray. I just have a couple
questions for you today.
You said that you reviewed all these tapes
that we heard just now.
When did you review those tapes?
A I can't specifically remember the date and time I
reviewed them.
Q Do you have a time period over which you listened

to them?
A Usually I would review them within a couple days of
them being intercepted. The calls would be interpreted
in Cleveland, and they would be forwarded to me in New

Orleans.
Q And did you discuss the content of those tapes with

anybody when you were reviewing them?
A Probably my partner, Scott Sellers.
(Z Scott Sellers?
A And maybe other agents in Cleveland.
Q What agents in Cleveland were you dealing with?

A At the time it was usually Clyde Wallace.
Q When you say at the time, what are you referring

to?
A During Cleveland's on-going wiretap, he was usually
my point of contact.
Q Did you ever interview Garland Hardeman?

A Yes.
Q And when did you do that?

A It was in 2002. I'm thinking June or July,
something in that time period. I don't remember exactly.
Q And where did you do that?

A In Houston, Texas.
Q And what agents did you work with in Houston?

A Jake Whetland was the one I dealt with mostly.
Q At the time that you had interviewed Mr. Hardeman,

how long had you been working on this case?
A Several months.
MS. WHITAKER: May I just have a moment?

Q Just one last question.
,When you interviewed Mr. Hardeman, did you
review any tapes that you had intercepted that involved
him or that you intercepted in this investigation at all?
A Regarding Mr. Hardeman?
Q Regarding any of the intercepts?

A I reviewed some tapes at the time.
Q Do you remember what those tapes were?

MS. PEARSON: Objection. Relevance, your
Honor.
THE COURT: I'm not sure I understand the
relevance.
MS. WHITAKER: I think the relevance goes
to his knowledge of the investigation. He was
commenting on what he thought Mr. Jackson should
know about Mr. Hardeman, and he's discussed that as
a basis of his knowledge.
THE COURT: You are kind of relying upon
the objection that Mr. Jenkins made. Sounds like
you are going to ask him to characterize what the
tapes themselves state. And I think the tapes would
speak for themselves.
You've had access to all the tapes, if you
think they would be some help, you can play the
tapes. Otherwise, I think you are just asking him

to characterize --
MS. WHITAKER: I'm not sure we had access
to the tapes he has.
MS. WHITAKER: I'm sorry. I mean --
MS. PEARSON: I think she's going into the
subject we touched on at side bar, your Honor.

MS. WHITAKER: I'm sorry. I would be
happy to approach. I don't mean to --

BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q When you interviewed Mr. Hardeman, did you review

tapes that he was on?
A At that time I don't recall specifically if the
tapes I reviewed he was overheard.
THE COURT: I didn't understand your
answer.
THE WITNESS: At the time of the interview
with Mr. Hardeman, the tapes I reviewed up until
then, I don't recall having overheard Mr. Hardeman
on those calls I reviewed.
Q And at the time you interviewed Mr. Hardeman you

had been reviewing tapes all through those four or five
months or several months that you were involved?

A Yes.
MS. WHITAKER: No further questions.
MS. PEARSON: I might.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Jenkins.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Good morning, Mr. Smith.

A Good morning.
Q Initially the government asked you how many

interviews you had with Gilbert Jackson, correct?
A Yes.
Q And you stated that you had three interviews at

least at the CDM headquarters, correct?
A Three interviews with Mr. Jackson.
Q But do you recall also meeting with Gilbert Jackson

at my office at least two other times where he spoke with
the FBI and the government?
A Well, we met at your office but it wasn't an
interview.
Q Right.
MS. PEARSON: Please let him finish his
answer.
MR. JENKINS: Is that an objection?

THE COURT: Are you done?
THE WITNESS: We met at your office but it

wasn't an interview.
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q But we met and discussed my case at my office,

correct?
A Yes. The first occasion we met was myself, Scott
Sellers, you, and Mr. Jackson. And there was a problem
with -- we wanted to interview him but you had a problem
with the proffer agreement.
Q Correct.
A And so we didn't do that interview.
And second time was with Mary Butler from the
Department of Justice.
Q Correct.
Now, was there an additional interview
involving Mr. Jackson after you left the CDM headquarters
with his attorneys?
MS. PEARSON: Objection, your Honor. I
think he's going outside the scope of the direct.
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Where after you had a meeting in the CDM

headquarters with the lawyers, that you met with him
downstairs as he came out the building?

A Correct.
(Z When you met with him with he came out the

building, he had no attorneys present at that time,
correct?
A Correct.
Q Now, do you recall the date of the initial

interview you had with Mr. Jackson at the CDM
headquarters with the attorneys?
A March 5th, 2003.
Q And was those meetings recorded? Was that

particular interview recorded in any form or fashion?
A No, it was not.
Q So you merely took notes, that you remembered just

by notes?
A Correct.
Q Now, the government asked you about Garland

Hardeman, and you stated that Mr. Jackson told you he
didn't know him, correct?
A He claimed he never heard of him.
Q Right. Do you recall him telling you that, I don't

remember him or know much about him but I'll research my
records to see if I have anything on him?
A Yeah, he said he would search his records to see if
he could recall the name.
Q Right. And on a later interview when you met with

him, did he then tell you yeah, I remember Garland
Hardeman, how I met him?
MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT: No.

Did he later say he recognized Hardeman's
name?
THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.
Q Now, there was a time that you actually had an

interaction with Mr. Gilbert Jackson, correct? Is that
at Morton's Restaurant?
A Morton's Restaurant, correct.
Q You were on surveillance, correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q And in fact, at some point -- when you say you were

on surveillance, there was a Morton's Restaurant and
Gilbert Jackson was there, and Nate Gray, and someone
else, correct?
A Correct. Brent Jividen.
Q Brent Jividen.
And you were on surveillance as a part of
your official duty with the FBI, correct?

A Correct.
Q And at some point you even came engaged in a
conversation that Nate Gray and Gilbert Jackson was
having involving, I guess, a supporting event?
A It was a sports figure.
Q Sports figure.
And as a part of your job you were
surveilling him to see if you could see or follow
anything that they were doing, correct?
A Correct.
Q Now, in terms of that surveillance, did you see

Mr. Jackson give any public official any money?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you see him give any public official anything

of value?
A No, I did not.
Q Specifically, as part of this investigation, you

were aware that allegedly a $2,500 check was coming from
Nate Gray to Gilbert Jackson, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you knew who it was going to, which was Gilbert
Jackson, correct?
A It was going -- my understanding was it was going
to Gilbert Jackson intend for Vince Sylvain.
Q We'll get to that.

You were aware of where he worked, correct?
A Mr. Jackson?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q And presumably you had his address where he lived,

correct?
A Yes, I did.
Q And in fact, as I stated earlier, you had already

came in contact so you knew exactly where he was,
correct?
A At the time I received the check, I hadn't come in
contact with him.
Q Okay. Through your surveillance, is there any

evidence that Mr. Jackson had passed any cash or
checks -- I'm sorry, not through your surveillance,
through your investigation - - to a public figure?
A Well --
Q That you, yourself, was a part of?

A Interpreting the phone calls, he said he was going
to pay --
MR. JENKINS: When you interpreted --
MS. PEARSON: He was answering.
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q That's your interpretation. I'm asking you, as a

member of the FBI, do you have any video, that you see
940
yourself that he personally gave anything of value, gave
money or checks, to Vince Sylvain?
A No, sir.
MR. JENKINS: One moment, your Honor.
Q Agent Smith, as a part of the FBI investigation,

did you ever do a search warrant, a subpoena of Vince
Sylvainrs personal checking account?
A To this day we have not done investigation on no
one.
Q Did you set up a surveillance at Mr. Sylvainrs work

or office and determined if he had made a meeting with
Mr. Jackson?
A We surveilled his house on several occasions but we
never surveilled his office.
Q And as part of that surveillance, there is no video

or anything of that nature, to show that indeed a meeting
ever took place involving Mr. Jackson, correct?
A Correct.
Q Other than his house, did you have any other

surveillance on Vince Sylvain to see if he had met with
Mr. Jackson?
A No.
Q Does Mr. Sylvain, to your knowledge, have any

children?
A I believe he does.
941
Q Okay. And are you familiar, if you know, where his

children went to school?
A That I don't know.
MR. JENKINS: One moment.
Q Do you recall the dates of the surveillance on

Mr. Sylvain's home?
A Some time in 2003.
Q Okay. And when you say some time in 2003 -- I'll

be more specific.
You had information about when the alleged
money was coming. Did you have any surveillance or did
you attempt to surveil Mr. Sylvain at that time?
A No, I did not.
Q Are you aware of any other FBI agents who had done
so?
A I'm not aware of them.
Q Okay. Did you view any investigation material

where other FBI agents had done so?
A At the time of the payment?
Q No, there was no payment. At the time of the

alleged money being laundered?
A No, I hadn't.
MS. PEARSON: None, your Honor.

942
THE COURT: Thank you. We'll take about a
ten minute break. We'll reconvene five minutes
after.
Same rules continue to apply. Don't talk
about the case either among yourselves or with
anyone else.
We'll adjourn for about 10 minutes.
(Brief recess.)
conducted outside the presence of the
jury.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we would like
to move to reopen the whole issue of suppression
based on the testimony of this agent from New
Orleans, particularly with regard -- at any rate,
based on this agent's testimony, he was listening to
tapes during -- in the months leading up to his
interview to Garland Hardeman. And that he would
get them sent to him within a week or two after they
were actually intercepted. He would listen to them.
And those are the kinds of things he discussed with
Hardeman.
And that is right smack in the middle of
the self-suppressed period. The tapes from March,
April, and May, are tapes that supposedly no agent

who was involved in the investigation was still
involved in the investigation. But he was obviously
getting those tapes, he became involved in the
investigation, and he used those tapes in
examination, and he continues to be involved.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I join in that and
the government called them as their witness.
MR. DETTELBACH: In response, your Honor,
it is clearly obvious that, as we objected, that
this continues to be the discovery for the
suppression hearing that is occurring in front of
the jury. We object.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. DETTELBACH: All these questions about
who were you working with? When did you start do
doing it? The only thing those go to --
THE COURT: What about the point, though,
these were supposedly self-suppressed.

MR. DETTELBACH: They were
self-suppressed. And he hasn't listened to any of
them. If we have an evidentiary hearing, if the
court holds such a hearing, it will come out he
hasn't listened to any self-suppressed -- had any
access to any self-suppressed --
THE COURT: I'll hold it in abeyance.

944
Keep the agent around and we'll do a voir dire over
the noon hour, just to develop the record, in terms
of whether he had listened to the tapes during the
period that it was self-suppressed.

MR. DETTELBACH: I believe if the question
is put to him, you know, in a straightforward way
instead of trying to do this where you ask on cross
examination, what did you do this date? And when
did you listen to tapes? And what was the date of
this interview? Then it will be clear.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, he can't decide how
we are going to ask questions.
THE COURT: We'll see.
The deputy had indicated one of the jurors
had made some statement to her indicating that she
had given a response earlier that she did not have
any major opinions on the government's use of
wiretaps. And she's related, as I understand
that --
COURTROOM DEPUTY: She indicated to me
that when asked if she had any opinion with regard
to the wire taps or the videotapes, that she did not
have an opinion with regard to that, and it wouldn't
influence her decision with r e g a r d to the c a s e one
way or the other. And she has now informed me that

945
she believes she has f o r m e d a n o p i n i o n . She feels
d i f f e r e n t l y a b o u t t h e w i r e t a p s and videotapes, b u t
s h e does n o t b e l i e v e t h a t w i l l a f f e c t h e r d e c i s i o n
i n t h i s case.
THE COURT: Okay. D o e s anybody w a n t t o do
anything with that?
MR. WHITAKER: No, your Honor.
MR. JENKINS: No, y o u r H o n o r , on b e h a l f of
Mr. J a c k s o n .
MR. DETTELBACH: May we know w h i c h j u r o r
it is, y o u r H o n o r ?
MS. PEARSON: I t ' s a j u r o r , n o t an
alternate?
COURTROOM DEPUTY: It's a juror.
THE COURT: I t ' s , as I understand it,
Juror 2 7 .
MS. PEARSON: I n w h i c h s e a t i n t h e box, i f
you k n o w , y o u r H o n o r ?
THE CLERK: She's w i t h t h e l o n g blonde
hair.
MS. PEARSON: T h e one here o r t h e b a c k ?
THE COURT: S h e ' s the s e c o n d f r o m the
right, i n the b a c k . N o s h e ' s t h e --
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Third.
THE COURT: She's j u r o r 27 i s t h e s h o r t .

COURTROOM DEPUTY: She said 27. Maybe
she's got her number wrong. Let me check something.
respond?
COURTROOM DEPUTY: She's 26.
THE COURT: She's 26.
MS. PEARSON: Third.
THE COURT: Third one over.
Ask her to come in.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, could we be
heard on that before we bring her in and question
her?
As I understood it, it isn't she said
anything untrue in the voir dire, it's just after
listening to the evidence she's changing her mind
about it, and that's perfectly legitimate.
THE COURT: The only thing I would ask,
this is all second hand. I think it's important to

develop a reference as to what exactly from her own
statement.
MR. JENKINS: Judge may I say something
else?
THE COURT: Yeah.
Well she -- I don't know what her

sentiments are but I would ask you to come to the
w e l l a n d a s k h e r t o come o u t .
( J u r o r 2 7 was r e t u r n e d t o t h e
were c o n d u c t e d a t t h e s i d e b a r . )
THE COURT: Ma'am, d o you want t o come u p
here?
The d e p u t y i n d i c a t e d you h a d g i v e n some
s t a t e m e n t o r something.
JUROR: I j u s t w a n t e d t o l e t you know
b e c a u s e you --
THE COURT: W a i t you w a n t e d t o l e t u s know
what?
JUROR: T h a t my o p i n i o n h a s k i n d o f
c h a n g e d a b o u t o n e o f t h e q u e s t i o n s you a s k e d . You
a s k e d i f you h a d a n o p i n i o n a b o u t -- i f we t h o u g h t
i t ' s an i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y t o have t h e cameras.
And a t t h e t i m e I h a d n ' t r e a l l y t h o u g h t a b o u t i t , s o
I d i d n ' t have an opinion.
And a f t e r b e i n g i n h e r e a n d h e a r i n g i t a n d
s e e i n g i t , I k i n d o f have formed a n o p i n i o n a b o u t
it, t h a t I b e l i e v e it i s kind of an i n v a s i o n of
privacy.
But I t o l d h e r I d o n ' t t h i n k -- I haven't
formed a n o p i n i o n a b o u t t h e c a s e , j u s t f o r m e d a n
opinion about t h a t question.

948
THE COURT: You a r e n o t t o j u d g e w h e t h e r
t h e w i r e t a p o r d e r should have been g i v e n o r n o t
given.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And t h a t ' s n o t f o r you t o
judge. Some j u d g e made t h a t d e c i s i o n a n d a u t h o r i z e d
that.
So you a r e t o t a k e t h e e v i d e n c e a s i t ' s
o f f e r e d a n d t h e n make a d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r t h e
evidence t h a t ' s offered, guided by t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s
o f l a w , c o n v i n c e s you b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t o f
the defendant's g u i l t . I f i t f a i l s t o c o n v i n c e you,
you a r e r e q u i r e d t o f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t n o t g u i l t y .
I f i t d o e s , you a r e r e q u i r e d t o f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t
guilty.
Can you d o t h a t ?
JUROR: I think I can. I j u s t wanted t o
l e t you know, b e c a u s e you h a d a s k e d t h a t q u e s t i o n
previously.
THE COURT: Do you h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s ?
MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, w e w o u l d l i k e t o
know i f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n h a s b e e n s h a r e d w i t h a n y o f
the other jurors.
THE COURT: Have you s a i d a n y t h i n g t o t h e
other jurors?
949
THE WITNESS: They asked me, and I said I
changed my opinion about the question you asked
before.
THE COURT: Who did you say that to?
THE WITNESS: When I walked into the room,
they asked me what I talked to her about. And they
all said, you are trying to get off the jury.
THE COURT: She did not tell them what
question it involved.
Do you have anything else you want to ask?
Why don't you go back, ma'am. One
caution, don't say anything about why you were
brought out here. You are not permitted to say
anything to the other jurors about that.
Okay. Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And do you understand you are
subject to sanctions, including a citation for
contempt, if you violate this order and say
something to somebody else.
Do you understand that?
JUROR: Okay. I won't sa r a word.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead back.
(The juror withdrew from the
courtroom.)
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, I do want to
be heard briefly. And I have to say we are renewing
our motion in limine to keep any suppression issues
away from this jury.
THE COURT: I don't think there has been
any.
MR. DETTELBACH: I think that whole last
about, it was aimed at nothing other than the
suppression issue in the case. All the questions
about certain wire taps communicated with other
people have no relevance to the issues.

THE COURT: I think you are wrong.
your next witness.
MS. BUTLER: Yes, your Honor. The United
States calls Glynnis Nelson.
THE COURT: Ma'am would you raise you your
right hand.
- - -
GLYNNIS NELSON

follows :
THE COURT: Please take a seat. Once you
get situated, tell us your name and spell your last
name.
THE WITNESS: My name is Glynnis Nelson.
Last name is N-E-L-S-0-N.
THE COURT: Ms. Butler.
MS. BUTLER: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Miss Nelson, please tell the members of the jury
where you work?
A CDM.
Q And is that short for Camp, Dresser, and McKee?
A Yes, it is.
Q When did you start working for CDM?
A September, 1998.
Q And in what office of CDM have you worked since
1998?
A The New Orleans office.
Q Would you mind pulling that microphone a little
closer or raise your voice a little bit.

A All right.
Q Thank you.
Would you tell us where you were born so we
can understand where that accent is from?
A Capetown, South Africa.
Q And what were your duties when you were hired in

September of 1998 at CDM?
A I was hired as Gilbert Jackson's executive
assistant, and also the Office Manager for the New
Orleans office.
Q Would you tell us in general terms what your

responsibilities are at CDM?
A I manage the day-to-day facilities management type

activities for the local office. And I also manage
Gilbert Jackson's schedule, calendar, meetings, telephone
calls. Things like that.
Q And have those principally been your duties since

1998?
A Yes.
Q Now, do you have an understanding of Mr. Jackson's

educational background?
A Yes. He went to Southern University, has a degree
in construction management, I believe.
Q And do you know if he has any engineering

background?
A I don't believe, other than working for CDM.

Q What was your understanding of Mr. Jackson's
position at CDM?
A He was in charge of the development efforts in the
urban markets on a national level.
Q In that capacity, how frequently did Mr. Jackson

travel?
A He traveled a lot.
Q Was most of your contact with Mr. Jackson in fact
by phone?
A Yes.
Q As Mr. Jackson's executive assistant, did you keep

a calendar of appointments for him?
A Yes, I did.
(1 And how did you know what to put in the calendar?

A I scheduled meetings across the country for him and
put it in the calendar.
Q Now, did you also keep a phone or contact list for
Mr. Jackson?
A Yes, I did.
Q And in what form did you keep that?
A I kept it on my computer in my outlook database.
Q And how did you decide what information to put in

that database?
A Contact numbers that, you know, people I called to
schedule meetings; or people who would call asking for

Gilbert, that way.
Q Was Mr. Nate Gray's name and contact information in

your contact list for Mr. Jackson?
A I believe it was.
Q Was Mr. Ben Jeffers' name and contact information

in that database?
A Yes, it was.
(2 What kind of working relationship did you and

Mr. Jackson have?
A We had a good working relationship.
(2 Did you have any contact with Mr. Nate Gray?

A Yes, I did.
Q And how is it that you came in contact with

Mr. Gray?
A Through working with Gilbert Jackson. Initially
just via telephone, fielding calls from Mr. Gray to
Mr. Jackson.
Q Have you ever met Mr. Gray personally?

A Yes, I have.
Q And on approximately how many occasions?

A I met him last summer at Gilbert's wedding.
Q Was that the first time?

A Yes.
Q Now, if you could tell the members of the jury,

about how frequently do you recall speaking with Mr. Gray
955
by phone?
A It was inconsistent. Sometimes it was very often
and then sometimes I wouldn't talk to him for a couple of
weeks.
Q To your knowledge, did Mr. Gray have a business

relationship with CDM?
A Yes, he did.
Q And what was your understanding of that business

relationship with CDM?
A He was a consultant for CDM.
Q To your knowledge, did Nate Gray and Mr. Jackson

have a business relationship apart from CDM?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q Do you know of any reason why Nate Gray would pay

Gilbert Jackson on a regular basis?
MR. JENKINS: Objection. Speculative.
THE WITNESS: No. No, I don't.
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Do you know of any work that Gilbert Jackson was

doing for Honeywell in New Orleans?
A I don't know what, if anything, you know, I had

heard the name around but not any work, no.
Q Now, did you have occasion in your work to deal

with someone named Monique McGilbra?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q Have you e v e r met Miss M c G i l b r a ?
A Yes, I m e t h e r .
Q And d i d you h a v e a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w h a t t y p e o f
work M i s s M c G i l b r a d i d ?
A I u n d e r s t o o d t h a t s h e worked f o r t h e C i t y o f
Houston, I b e l i e v e t h e B u i l d i n g Department. And s h e was
a c l i e n t o f CDMs i n H o u s t o n .
Q Now, h a v e you e v e r a c t u a l l y m e t M r . M i s s M c G i l b r a ?
A Yes.
Q T e l l t h e members o f t h e j u r y a b o u t how you met h e r ?
A She a t t e n d e d t h e E s s e n c e F e s t i v a l i n N e w O r l e a n s i n
2 0 0 1 a n d was a g u e s t i n t h e CDM s u i t e .
Q C o u l d you t e l l t h e members o f t h e j u r y w h a t t h e
Essence F e s t i v a l i s , p l e a s e ?
A I t ' s a n A f r i c a n American m u s i c f e s t i v a l t h a t r u n s
e v e r y y e a r o v e r 4 t h o f J u l y weekend f o r t h r e e d a y s .
Q Now, were you i n v o l v e d i n o b t a i n i n g t h e t i c k e t s
t h a t CDM d i s t r i b u t e d f o r t h a t f e s t i v a l i n t h e summer o f
'Ol?
A Yes, I was.
Q And w h a t d i d you d o i n t h a t r e g a r d ?
A I would g e t t h e c h e c k c u t f o r t h e t i c k e t s . And I
would a c t u a l l y g o down t o t h e S u p e r Dome a n d p u r c h a s e t h e
tickets.
Q And did you do that at any particular person's
direction?
A At Mr. Jackson's direction.
Q What did you do with the tickets after you obtained

them?
A I would give them to him.
Q Now, did you have any role in actually handing out

the tickets?
A No.
Q Do you know who did?

A Mr. Jackson.
Q Was there also -- did Mr. Jackson ever provide you

with a list of the people to whom he provided the
tickets?
A No. He mentioned names but he didn't give me a

list, no.
Q Now, was there also a suite involved in the Essence

Festival entertaining in the summer of 'Ol?
A Yes. That's where we hosted clients.
Q Were you actually the host on site at the event?

A Yes, I was.
Q Did you see Miss McGilbra in the suite that summer?

A That's when I met her for the first time.
Q And was she alone or with anyone?

A She, if I recall, had two women with her and she
came over and introduce herself to me.
Q Do you recall being contacted about hotel

accommodations for Miss McGilbra in connection with the
festival?
A Yes, I was.
Q Tell the members of the jury about that?

A If I remember correctly, Rick Cloutier, who is in
our Houston office, called and asked me if I could do
some research on availability of hotels over the Essence
Festival weekend.
Q And did you do that?

A Yes, I did.
Q Now, I want to switch gears to the Super Bowl in

2002.
Do you know if that was played in New Orleans
that year?
A Yes. Yes, it was.
Q And did you have any involvement in any

entertainment for CDM with respect to the Super Bowl in
New Orleans?
A No, I did not.
Q To your knowledge, did CDM host any event at the

Super Bowl?
A No, they did not.
Q Did there come a time when you were asked to

collect some materials from Mr. Jackson's office?
A Yes. When Mr. Jackson was terminated, I was asked
to pack up his office.
MS. BUTLER: And could you please show
Government's Exhibit 724, please.
Your Honor, may I approach? I'll just use
this book.
THE COURT: Why don't you use that.
MS. BUTLER: Miss Nelson --
THE COURT: No, why don't you use that.
MS. BUTLER: I'm sorry.
Q Ms. Nelson, I'm showing you what's been marked as

Government's Exhibit 724, and the actually the cover of
this book.
Do you recognize it?
A Yes. I collected it from Mr. Jackson's office when
I was packing it up.
MS. BUTLER: Thank you. No further
questions.
Do you have anything Mr. Whitaker?
MS. WHITAKER: Just one moment, your
Honor.
- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Good morning, Miss Nelson?

A Hi.
Q My name is Andrea Whitaker, I represent Nate Gray.

I have just a couple questions for you.
You are employed by CDM, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you would agree that Mr. Jackson -- you might

not be aware of other business ventures that Mr. Jackson
might have, is that right?
A Correct.
MS. WHITAKER: No other questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Jenkins?
MR. JENKINS: Yes, your Honor.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. JENKINS:
(Z Miss Nelson, you are familiar with Rick Cloutier,

correct?
A I do.
Q Rick Cloutier, you are familiar with him?

A Yes.
Q He works out of the Houston office of CDM?
A Yes, he does.
Q And if you know, what was the relationship between

Rick Cloutier and Monique McGilbra, in terms of a
business relationship, if you know?
A She was a client of his.
Q In Houston?
A Yes.
Q And the government asked you about -- well,

apparently he had called you about researching and
getting a hotel room for her for what event was that?
A Correct.
Q What event, if you recall?

A I'm sorry. For the Essence Festival.
Q The Essence Festival?

A Yes.
Q And in terms of the Essence Festival, CDM actually

owned a suite that was being used for the Essence
Festival, right? Or leased it, anyways?
A Yeah. We rented the suite for that event.
Q And CDM is, of course, or was, of course, Gilbert

Jackson's employer, correct?
A Correct.
(2 And Exhibit 724, the Honeywell proposal?

A Um-hum .
Q When you gathered the documents there were other
books and brochures in his office as well, correct?

A Yeah, there were a lots of things on the shelves in
1 h i s office.
2 MR. JENKINS: I have n o t h i n g f u r t h e r , y o u r
3 Honor. Thank you.
4 THE COURT: D o you have a n y r e d i r e c t ?
5 MS. BUTLER: No, your H o n o r .
6 THE COURT: T h a n k you, m a ' a m .
7 THE W I T N E S S : T h a n k you.
8 THE COURT: Would t h e g o v e r n m e n t c a l l y o u r
9 next witness.
10 MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, the g o v e r n m e n t
11 c a l l s R o d n e y Joel t o t h e stand.
12 MR. WHITAKER: Your H o n o r , w e w o u l d l i k e
13 t o approach b e f o r e t h i s w i t n e s s t a k e s t h e s t a n d .
14 THE COURT: A l l right.
15 (The f o l l o w i n g discussion w a s
16 c o n d u c t e d a t s i d e b a r , b e t w e e n c o u r t and
17 c o u n s e l , o u t of t h e h e a r i n g of t h e j u r o r s as
18 follows: )
19 THE COURT: Who i s R o d n e y J o e l ?
20 MR. DETTELBACH: R o d n e y J o e l i s a Camp,
21 Dresser, a n d M c k e e e m p l o y e e w h o M r . J a c k s o n
22 approached and a s k e d f o r a n e x t r a $ 2 , 5 0 0 .
23 MR. WHITAKER: T h a t goes t o t h e C l e v e l a n d
24 w a t e r c o n t r a c t , and n o t h i n g e l s e .
25 MS. PEARSON: No t h a t w a s w i t h Special

Agent Massie.
MR. WHITAKER: Except the reason the court
gave him permission to break up Mr. Massie's
testimony was so they would handle each geographical
area. And it was based on oral presentation
evidence, now this is going back and revisiting
Cleveland.
THE COURT: Why wasn't he called then?
MR. DETTELBACH: For the record, what
occurred was we were prepared to present the Joe
Jones several witnesses yesterday. We had about two
hours of agent testimony, when the court ruled we
were prohibited from doing that. We started calling
other people in.
And we also broke up Special Agent
Massie's testimony to allow Mr. Sawicki to testify
out of order.
THE COURT: Again, it is not a witness
called twice, so I'll deny your objection.
MR. WHITAKER: Yesterday at the side bar
he said specifically he was moving to a different
geographical area.
THE COURT: What rule says I don't have
discretion.
MS. WHITAKER: You absolutely have
discretion in this.

THE COURT: You want to come forward.
RODNEY JOEL
follows :
THE COURT: Please take a seat state your
name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Rodney Joel, J-0-E-L.

- - -
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Good morning, sir. Would you tell the jury where

you attended school?
A I went to Cleveland State University.
Q And what degree did you earn there?

A Civil engineering degree.
Q Did you get a masters later on?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And where did you earn that degree?
A I went to Purdue University.
Q And what topic did you earn your masters in?

A Civil engineering.
Q Sir, in what profession have you spent most of your

professional career?
A As a civil engineer.
Q And just be careful of the mike. I know the chair

won't move but if necessary, you will have to lean
forward or reposition the microphone.
And again, in what profession have you worked
for most of your career?

A Civil engineering.
Q Moving backwards in time to 1990. Where were you

employed in 1990?
A Camp, Dresser, McKee.
Q And is that sometimes referred to as CDM?

A Yes, ma'am.
Q And which office of CDM were you working?

A I started working in the Edison, New Jersey office.
Q And what were your responsibilities there?

A To help develop the industrial sales business.
Q And who was your direct supervisor at that time?

A When I started it was -- it was Peter Turnercliff
but soon after that he left and Lou Tortora was my
supervisor.
Q NOW, tell the jury what kind of product or service

you were selling?
A Water treatment, waste water treatment for
manufacturing plants, the discharge of waste, how to
treat the waste of the needed water, for the process, how
to make sure that the water was clean.
Q Were you selling your service to both governmental

and private clients at that time?
A No, I started off strictly with private clients.
Q And did you eventually move on to serve

governmental clients?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And in that vein, did you approach the City of

Cleveland for work?
A Eventually, yes, ma'am.
Q When did that happen that you approached the City

of Cleveland?
A Well, I was living in -- I started -- I was living

in Philadelphia working in Edison, New Jersey and the
firm -- I was able to get some work in Pittsburgh with
Westinghouse, some industrial clients. So they asked me
to move to Pittsburgh and start a Pittsburgh office. And
I did that in the end of '91, and around middle of '94,
Lou, my boss, had known that I we went to Cleveland
State, asked me if I would start coming to Cleveland and
see if there was opportunities for CDM in Cleveland.
Q Now, at that time were you commuting or did you

physically live in Cleveland?
A No. I would come in for a day. I lived in

Pittsburgh and drive across -- either drive back at night
or spend the night.
Q Did you receive any help from anyone else at CDM as

you started to try to get business in the City of
Cleveland?
A Yes. When it appeared that there might be
opportunities, CDM was doing work for the Regional Sewer
District as a subcontractor to another firm. And as I
got to meet the other engineers from different
prospective clients, it appeared that there would be work
there, so I started to come.
Q Did you work with anyone from the group called the
Urban Initiative within CDM?
A When it became apparent there might be an
opportunity -- CDM had an internal group of people that
was called the Urban Initiative to help engineers like

myself deal with municipalities in urban centers.
Q And who within the Urban Initiative gave you help

relative to the City of Cleveland?
A Well, initially it was the fellow who was in charge
was Fred Elwell.
Q What did Mr. Elwell do to help you?

A When he knew that we were opening up, or looking to
968
open up, he facilitated a meeting with Julius Ciaccia,
the Water Commissioner.
Q And did Mr. Elwell eventually bring in anyone else

from his group?
A Yes. Gilbert Jackson was a member of the group.
Q And what was your understanding of Mr. Jackson's

area of expertise?
A Well, he understood the urban market, and that's
why he was part of the Urban Initiative. And how to deal
with the politicians, and specifically in communities
that had a minority urban center.
Q So was it determined that you and Mr. Jackson would

work together in Cleveland?
A Yeah. We held a planning meeting, a strategy
meeting, CDM calls it CDM wins. And what transpired is
we would get in some of the CDM folks, Fred, Nate --
excuse me Fred, Gilbert, and other technical staff, and
we would analyze what are the issues? What are the
projects? And what's the approach to take to solve -- to
try to position ourselves to win the project?
Q And how did you do that relative to the work you

did versus what Mr. Jackson did?
A Well, I was most comfortable in dealing with the
engineers. And then Gilbert was comfortable dealing with

the non-engineers. So we split it up. My job was to
969
work with engineers, and his was with the administration.
Q Now, are you aware of whether or not Mr. Jackson

eventually met Julius Ciaccia, the Commissioner?
A Yes. I took him to a meeting to meet Ciaccia.
Q And will you describe for the jury what occurred

during Mr. Jackson's first meeting with Mr. Ciaccia?
A Well, we went in specifically -- and this is a
typical question we would ask any new client, what does
it take to win work with you?
And we asked, we'd asked Ciaccia, do we need
to have a consultant to help us get access to the
politicians? We were new in town, we didn't have a lot
of contacts that were non-technical. All of them were
technical.
Q And what was Mr. Ciaccia's response to your

question about needing a consultant?
A He recommended, he said that he recommended that we
contact a gentleman by the name of Nate Gray.
Q Now, did Mr. Ciaccia make any other recommendations

to you, apart from the consultant?
A Well, his recommendation was that you need to keep
my staff, my technical staff happy. And you need to keep
the people across the street happy.
Q Now at this time did you know who Mr. Gray was, the
recommended person from Ciaccia?
A No, neither Gilbert or I knew -- had heard of
Nate's name at that time.
Q What did you do to better inform yourself?

A Well, I had previously, as I was marketing
Cleveland, I contacted a firm called the Ralph Tyler
Companies, and specifically, initially Ralph Tyler, Sr.
and then he transitioned out, and then Ralph Tyler,
Jr. who then took over the firm.
I contacted him, I said, do you know Nate
Gray?
He said yes.
I asked if he would facilitate a meeting for
us with Nate.
And he agreed to do so.
Q And do you remember approximately when this meeting

took place?
A I don't recall what period. I'm thinking '95. I'm
sorry, I don't recall the exact date.
Q But you did eventually meet?

A Yes.
Q And who attended this first meeting?

A We had a lunch meeting, Ralph facilitated it, at a
restaurant on the east side of Cleveland. And it was
Ralph, Ralph Tyler, Nate Gray, Gilbert Jackson and
myself.
971
Q What type of work did you understand Mr. Gray to do

at that time?
A I understood that he had a parking lot management

business, and a consulting business.
Q And what was the nature of the consulting work that

he did?
A He -- during lunch we talked about what type of
services he provided, and what we were looking for. And
what we were looking for was, because we didn't know who
the non-technical decision makers, give us an entree to
meet them first, and go in and introduce ourselves to
them. It was to open doors for us.
Q Did you learn who some of his other consulting

clients were?
A He had mentioned two other ones. One was a solid
waste company; and one was a computer company.
Q Now, was there a decision made to hire Mr. Gray?

A Well, after that initial lunch meeting, Gilbert and
I felt that Gilbert -- that Nate was a potential
consultant. So I called Lou Tortora, who was responsible
for the area, my boss. I called Lou, I said, I told him
that we had met an individual that might be able to help
us. Suggested that he facilitate a trip, because he was
in Edison, New Jersey to Cleveland, meet with Nate, make

sure he feels comfortable, and if he does move forward
and hire Nate as a consultant.
Q Was there an eventual written agreement entered

into with Mr. Gray?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q What role did you play in the written agreement?
A In the negotiation of the agreement, very little.
It was basically written and negotiated. The prices were
negotiated. So I wasn't involved in the writing of the
agreement and the details of it.
Q Have you seen the agreement?

A Oh, absolutely.
MS. PEARSON: Will you please show what
Q Sir, are you able to see that?

A Yes, ma'am.
MS. PEARSON: Let's enlarge the -- there
we have it again. Can we enlarge all the way down
to paragraph 1.2, keep losing the signal. From the
very top down to 1.2.
A I can read 1.2.
Q I want you to focus at the top, the line that

begins agreement?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Effective what date, please?

A April 15th of '96.
Q And between whom?
A Between CDM and Mr. Nate Gray.
MS. PEARSON: And now focusing on 1.2 at
the very bottom there.
Q What were the terms of this agreement, in terms of

compensation for Mr. Gray?
A He would receive a monthly retainer of $2,500.
Q And how often?

A For a period of 12 months.
Q Now, sir, did you have a role in paying Mr. Gray?

A The system was that Cleveland would just, when I
started a one man and then half a man, and then removed
one individual, so it really didn't have an
infrastructure. Pittsburgh had an accounting staff and
administrative staff, so the invoices were to go from
Nate here in Cleveland to Pittsburgh. He'd come in, the
invoices were addressed to me. The administrative
assistant would look at the invoice, would put a stamp on
it to charge it to a specific account.
Then if it was consistent with the terms of
the agreement, all the information that was required was
provided, it was then processed to Edison, New Jersey
where it was reviewed again and then inputted into the
system for payment.
Q Now, after this agreement was entered in April of

974
'96, did there become a time when you were interested in
a project with the City of Cleveland referred to as the

master plan project?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Did you express written interest to the City of

Cleveland by submitting a proposal?
A Yes, we did.
MS. PEARSON: Would you please show the
Q Sir, do you recognize this?

A Yes, ma'am.
Q What is it?
A That is the transmittal letter for our proposed --
for CDM's proposal for the development of a facility
master plan.
Q And what was the selection process regarding how

the city would select vendors for this project?
A What we understood it, you submit to proposal. It
went through a technical review committee. They then
rate the proposal. It would then go to the Water
Commissioner. He would then review it and then take it
across the street to the Mayor's office, present the
firms recommendations, come back with a decision. And

then the firm would be advised and you would get into a
contract.
Q Sir, who eventually won the master plan contract?

A Camp, Dresser, McKee .
Q And how did you learn that?

A Well, a couple weeks after submitting the proposal,
I walked around -- the Water Department is like five
stories, and usually the fourth and fifth floor are
engineers that I had gotten to know. So I would walk
around and people would kind of smile, hi.
And then a couple of them come said, Ron, you
are going to be happy soon. So I got the sense that we
were going to be -- we got selected.
Q How soon after being selected did CDM actually

start to do work in the City of Cleveland?
A Almost immediately -- we had almost no staff. We
had one and a half persons, so we started to bring staff
in. Gary Cole, our Project Manager from the Edison
office started to fly out ever week and we started to
staff up right away.
Q How soon after submitting your proposal in August

of '96 did you start this project?
A I would say within 30 days after notice. You know,
because the city wanted to move forward, we wanted to
move forward.
Q And sir, what impact did getting this project have

on the size of your Cleveland office?
A It created CDM Cleveland. Because it takes it from

one person to a dozen people. Because, you know, with a
long term big project to be done.

Government's Exhibit 716. We'll focus on the first page
first.
Do you recognize this, sir?
A This is appears to be the cover on the formal
agreement between the City and CDM.
Q And then if we could go inside, just to the first

page. Focusing on the top paragraph.
Sir, do you see the date May, '97 there?

A Yes, ma'am.
Q And what's that a reference to?

A That's the -- it's the effective date of the
beginning of the work.
Q Does this effective date actually come after the

date you really started to doing the work?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Now, I would like to take you to the very next

page, to the definition section. And ask you to focus on
item E.
What is there, sir?

A It's consultant means Camp, Dresser, McKee.
Q And then the next item F?
A Subconsultant means Ralph Tyler Companies and Water
Resource and Costal Engineering.
Q What was Ralph Tyler Companies' role in this

project?
A With the City, they have an entity, minority
business enterprise goal, and then woman business
enterprise goal. I believe the minority business
enterprise goal was 30 percent, and woman's business

enterprise was, I believe 8 percent. So 38 percent of
the total project was to be done by those two firms.
MS. PEARSON: And if you can go up to the
sixth page in, focusing on the first section of that

page, total compensation.
Q Sir, how much was Camp, Dresser, McKee going to be

paid by the City of Cleveland for the master plan
project?
A It was not to exceed the value of 7,100,000.
Q And how did this compare relative to other

Cleveland contracts for CDM?
A I believe it's one of the largest.
MS. PEARSON: Now, if we could just go to
the very last page of this document. I think it's
page -- there it is. Focusing on the right hand

side where the signatures are, lower right. You can
enlarge that just a bit.
Q Sir, do you recognize your signature there?

A Yes, that's my signature.
Q Did you sign on behalf of Camp, Dresser, McKee?

A Yes, ma'am.
Q And on what date did you sign?

A Well, the contract was executed November llth, '97.
I don't have that answer.
I would have had to sign that before
November llth, because as a consultant we signed it
before the City signs it.
Q Thank you.
Now focusing on the fall to winter of '96,
when you are actually on the ground working in Cleveland.
Were you still receiving invoices to pay Mr. Gray?
A Yeah, we were receiving monthly invoices pursuant
to the agreement.
Q And focusing now just on November of 1986, was your

attention called to one of the invoices you received from
Mr. Gray?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And please tell the jury what drew your attention

to that November invoice?
A Well, as I described earlier, the process was,

we've got an invoice from Nate to come to the Pittsburgh
office. They would check t o s e e i f i t was c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h t h e agreement. They would go t o E d i s o n .
Well, t h e r e was -- t h e v a l u e was d i f f e r e n t
t h a n t h e $2,500 amount, s o I g o t a c a l l a n d s a i d , you
know, d o I know why t h i s v a l u e i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e
$2,500.
Q How much was on t h e i n v o i c e ?
A I b e l i e v e i t was $ 2 , 9 5 0 .
Q A t t h a t t i m e were you a b l e t o e x p l a i n why t h e r e was
a f o u r hundred a n d --
A I d o n ' t r e c a l l t h e e x a c t , 425 o r 450.
Q Were you a b l e t o e x p l a i n why t h e r e was a 425 o r 450
d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i n v o i c e --
A No, ma'am, I was n o t aware o f i t .
What d i d you do t o f i n d o u t ?
A I c a l l e d G i l b e r t , G i l b e r t was managing N a t e . And
s o I c a l l e d G i l b e r t and a s k e d him, i s h e aware o f what
i t ' s for?
Q And what r e s p o n s e t h e M r . J a c k s o n g i v e you?
A He s a i d , j u s t go a h e a d and p a y i t .
Q What d i d you do?
A I said, I can't. I n e e d t o know why.
And s o we went b a c k a n d f o r t h . And f i n a l l y I
s i d e Nate, I c a n ' t a p p r o v e i t u n t i l you t e l l me.
T h e r e was k i n d of a p r e g n a n t p a u s e , t h e r e was
980
a pause. And he finally said that, it's to pay for
Ciaccia's daughter's tuition, college tuition.
Q What did you do after hearing that?

A I told him, we can't do that.
He said we have to.
I said, I'll give Lou a call an( tell him
what you just said.
Q Did you call Lou?

A I called Lou. I told him what Gilbert said.
He said --
MR. JENKINS: Objection to hearsay, your
Honor.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Please continue.
A He said, I'll get back to you in a couple days.
And a couple days later, he called and he
said, go ahead and, you know, process it.
Q And what did that mean to you?

A Go ahead and approve it.
Q What did you do?

A I felt really uncomfortable doing that. Didn't
think it was proper. So I sent it to him for his
approval.

981
witness what's been marked as Government's Exhibit
714, focusing on the November, '96 invoice.

Q Sir, can you see that?
A I can see that, yes.
Q Sir, do you recognize that?

A Yes, ma'am.
MS. PEARSON: Now I'll ask you to enlarge
the part including the part with the voucher number
on it.
Q Do you recognize what's written after the word

approval?
A That's Lou's signature.
Q Why isn't your signature there?

A It's not mine, it's Lou Tortora's.
MR. JENKINS: He's identified the
signature, and she asked him why it was there.
THE COURT: No. She asked him why his
signature wasn't there.
MS. PEARSON: Exactly.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q You may answer.

Why isn't your signature there?
A I didn't feel that what we were doing here was

proper, so I didn't want, frankly, to be involved so I
sent it to Lou.
Q Sir, how long did the additional four hundred --

well, first of all, look at the dollar amount there and
tell us with certainty whether it was 425 or an
additional 450?
A 425.
Q How long did the additional 425 stay in effect, to

your knowledge?
A Well, to my knowledge, I found out, until he was
terminated.
Q Did you have any role or additional -- well, did

you sign or approve documents regarding additional pay
increases for Mr. Gray?
A I'm aware that there is a document that increased
his salary, his retention, by another one thousand five
hundred dollars. It has my name but it was signed by
someone else on my behalf, it appears.
MS. PEARSON: And will you please show the

703.
Q Sir, do you recognize this?

A Yes, ma'am. That's the document I just referred
to.
I'm not surprised, you know, that there was
adjustments made. I just did not sign this piece of

paper.
Q And what date is on this piece of paper?
A June 23rd, '97.
Q
MS. PEARSON: Will you please show the
witness next what's been marked as Government's
Exhibit 702.
Sir, do you recognize 702?
Yes.
MS. PEARSON: We can enlarge the text so

it's more readable. Thank you.
A This extends his, his contract period by another
year.
Q And what's the date on this extension letter, sir?

A May 23rd, '97.
Q Over the course of time, when you and Gilbert were

working together, did you have an opportunity to meet and
review activities going on in other cities?

A Yes, we did. Soon after the project started in
Cleveland, I was living in Pittsburgh, I was responsible
for Pittsburgh and we hired staff here to take over
Cleveland and work on the Cleveland project. So my
involvement in Cleveland was very, very little, more than
an advisor.
But I was then asked to look into, begin to

984
investigate opportunities in St. Louis, and Chicago, and
Detroit, because my responsibilities changed a little

bit. And so we would have Urban Initiative meetings,
yes.
Q Was there anything memorable regarding those

meetings relative to you and Mr. Jackson?
A Yes. In one specific meeting my recollection is
that we would report on activities, what's going on in
different cities, and during a day long event, Gilbert
had indicated that he and Nate were in this city, that
city, that city.
And during the break I asked him, are you
guys in business together? Just kind of off the cuff
type of thing.
And he got, you know, back off buddy. You
know, get away.
And I said okay.
Q Sir, have you ever attend a fundraiser for the

Mayor of the City of Cleveland in New Orleans?
A Yes, I did.
Q Where was that event held?

A In Gilbert's house.
Q Who attended?
A Mayor White, Nate Gray, Gilbert, about four to six
subconsultants that were helping raise the funds, as well

985
as the Mayor of New Orleans came in, Mark Morial came in
and welcomed Mayor White into New Orleans in Gilbert's
house.
Q Did you play a role in making invitations to that

fundraiser?
A Yes, ma'am. I called the subcontractors that were

working on city projects with us, and asked them to make
the proper legal donation.
Q And did they do that, sir?

A Yes, they did.
Q What was the suggested amount of the donation?

A My recollection is, I think the maximum allowed was
a thousand dollars. And it was a thousand dollars per
individual.
Q Who collected that money?

A I received the check -- I did. I received the
checks, put them into an envelope, kept it in my pocket.
Q And what did you do with the envelope?

A Well, during the evening as things were winding
down, Gilbert asked me how much money we collected.
I said, I really haven't counted it, here it
is. We were standing next to each other and we started
to count.
Q Who else was standing next to you, if anybody?

A Initially no one, but then Nate came over so we
could give, you know, give him the checks. The
accumulation of the checks in the envelope.
Q And again, sir, how much was in there?

A My recollection is about $12,000.
Q Sir, do you recognize the individual you have

described as Nate Gray in this courtroom today?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Please point him out for the jury.

A The gentlemen who stood up.
THE COURT: He's identified Mr. Gray.
MS. PEARSON: At this time, your Honor, no

further questions for Mr. Joel.
THE COURT: Okay. Cross examination.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Mr. Joel, my name is Bill Whitaker, I represent

Nate Gray. I'm going to ask you a few questions.
A Yes, sir.
Q If I ask you anything you don't understand, just
let me know, I'll be glad to repeat it.
A Yes, sir.
Q You mentioned consultants and subconsultants.

These are a regular part of doing business for CDM,
aren ' t they?
A Yes, sir.
Q In fact, any major corporation that does business

with public entities has consultants and subconsultants?
A Absolutely.
Q Almost can't get the job done without them, can

you?
A Well, the requirements, as I indicated before, with
the City of Cleveland is, you have to have minority
business enterprise firms and you have to women business
enterprise firms, and so you have to form a team.
Q And as a matter of fact, you mentioned that one of

the things Ciaccia said to you is that you want to keep
the technical support happy as well?
A Yes, sir.
Q And by that you understood him to mean that the

tech staff has to interface with the CDM staff. And they
want to be able to get prompt responses, and if
something's developed they want to be able to address
those problems as quickly as possible?
A It was my job to make sure that I listened to the
client, the technical staff, and then brought the
technical people to help answer the questions.
Q And my question was directed to your comment that

Ciaccia had said, you are going to have to keep the
technical staff happy?
A Correct.
Q And that's one of the things that you have

consultants do, that they have the connections, that
they are on site, they can find out if a client is
unhappy or if a project -- there is some dissatisfaction
with a project and let you guys know so you can get that
thing smoothed over?
A That's correct.
Q You also mentioned that one of Gilbert Jackson's

jobs, one of the things he was hired to do, was to work
with the politicians in various cities?
A That's correct.
Q Okay. So it was important that he have a good

relationship with politicians. He got relationships with
people that would introduce him to politicians as well?
A That's correct.
Q Now, Camp, Dresser, and McKee actually allocates a

specific budget to various projects, don't they?
A I'm not sure I understand.
There is a budget that you negotiate with the
owner for scope of fees that you are going to do. And
you work against that budget with the scope.
Did I answer your question?
Q Well, isn't there a budget for sort of the process

of getting, of selling the project and getting the
project?
A Yes. There is a business development budget, yes.
Q And that in that business development budget, it's

very -- part of that business development budget would be
paying for things like wining and dining the officials

that you hope to talk to?
A Well, the wining and dining is too broad of a
statement.
Every client, every city, has rules and
regulations about what is acceptable level of -- you
could take them for breakfast and lunch but you can't
take them to a show, if that's what you are saying.
Q Okay.
A There are different rules.
So if you need to, if a client is amenable to
going to a legitimate event with you as a guest, and it's

not unusual for that, as long as it's consistent with the
rules and regulations of the firm, as well as the client.
Q So CDM has a budget for just that purpose. If the

officials are amenable to going to an event or going to
dinner, then CDM will use that portion, that will be paid
for out of that budget?
A The way projects are managed are, there is a
business development budget assigned to an individual,

like someone responsible for getting business.
Q Right.
A Okay. And they are held accountable for that
budget .
Did I get to the question you asked? I'm
sorry.
Q It seems like we got a little bit off of it. Let

me try to direct you back. Let me back up a little bit,
and then we'll get to the budget.
CDM will pay for those dinners or that event
that an official will be taken to in the course of the
business development?
A If it is legitimate, appropriate, yes.
Q And you find that out by one of the officials

amenable to doing that?
A You find that two ways.
One is the Office of General Counsel of the
firm, you ask them.
And then secondly, you state laws that you
need to know what is appropriate, what's not.
And then certain clients have certain
guidelines.
Q Okay. But you find out about the client guidelines
from the client?

A Correct.
991
Q Okay. And I guess it's your Office of General

Counsel that will tell you about the laws?
A Correct.
Q You did business in the City of Cleveland?

A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. You went out with officials, went out to

dinner, and the like, with the officials from the City of
Cleveland?
A I had lunches with technical staff of the city. If
that's what you mean by officials.
Q Okay. And did CDM pick up the cost of those

lunches?
A Yes, they did.
Q So you became aware of the fact that apparently

your legal department didn't think there was anything
wrong with that?
A That ' s correct.
Q Some of the events that clients will be taken to

might be a sporting event, or something?
A That might be correct.
Q And one of the reasons that that's done is so that

you can talk about the project. It's a good time to be
able to sit there and talk about the project?
A It's an opportunity to get familiar with the
individuals, yes.
Q Just get to know them?
A Yes.
Q Develop that relationship?

A Yes.
Q Because you want to develop relationships where you

can call on these people and have them be your
supporters, isn't that correct?
A Obviously you want them to know your firm, because
they are not going to feel comfortable hiring you if they
don't know the firm.
Q And if you get these officials to learn your firm

and like your product, then you maybe can count on them
being your supporters when they are in joint meetings
with other people from the city in question?
A That's reasonable, yes.
Q You mentioned a fundraiser. It's certainly not

uncommon to go to fundraisers for politicians in the
cities where you do business, is it?
A NO, sir.
Q CDM pays for that as well, don't they?

A Only in those states where it's legally allowed to
reimburse, you know, to pay for that.
(2 And the fund raisers you go to, though, are
generally in cities where CDM is doing business, or wants
to do business. Is that correct?

A That's correct.
Q And certainly from your point of view, there is

nothing wrong with that?
A Again, in certain states it is inappropriate,
in certain states it is. So it's depending on what is
appropriate within the state.
Q Well, clearly you thought there was nothing

inappropriate about going to a fund raiser for the mayor
of the City of Cleveland?
A That's correct.
Q And that's something I assume you would have also

checked with your legal department?
A That's correct.
Q Now, you were the Regional Director since when?

A I was not a Regional Director.
Q I'm sorry, what were you?

A I ultimately became a client officer, but I was a
client officer or officer in charge of Pittsburgh.
Q Okay. I heard you talking about Pittsburgh and

then Cleveland. Were you in charge of that region?
A No, Lou Tortora was in charge of the region.
Q What office did he operate out of?

A He resided out of Edison, New Jersey.
Q So you were within the -- for the people located in

the region you were the officer in charge of that region?
A For Pittsburgh and starting off the Cleveland
office, yes. But I moved, you know, as I said, I'm only
here part-time.
Q And in 1994, though, if I understood you correctly,

is when you began sort of courting the City of Cleveland?
A Looking for opportunities, yes.
Q And a man by the name of Elwell introduced you to

some of the people in Cleveland?
A Fred Elwell specifically introduced me over to one

individual, Julius Ciaccia.
Q So you met him in 1994. And did you meet anybody

else in the City of Cleveland after you were trying to
do --
MS. PEARSON: He's misstated the
testimony.
THE COURT: I'll overrule.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Did you meet any other people in your attempt to do

business with the City of Cleveland?
A Absolutely. I met technical staff, the engineers

that worked for the city Water Department.
Q Any other politicians?

A No. I pretty much stayed with the engineers.
THE COURT: Let me just ask.
The objection was, did you meet Julius
Ciaccia in '94. I think that was the objection.
MS. PEARSON: That's correct, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I don't recall if it was in

'94 or '95, but Fred introduced me. I don't know
the exact date.
THE COURT: Let me just -- try to keep the
questions to one question. They are compound
questions, so keep the questions to one matter and
then follow up with an additional one.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay.
Q Whenever it was that you met Mr. Ciaccia, that was

when you first started doing -- attempting to do business
in Cleveland, is that right?
A Well, I had previously visited the engineering

staff to get familiar. I went to the water plants to get
a sense of what's going on. So I'd done some homework
before I actually got to meet the commissioner.
Q And then apparently it wasn't until 1996 that

Gilbert Jackson and Mr. Gray came into the picture in the
Cleveland market, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And between 1994, and 1996, there were no contracts

or no business done with the City of Cleveland, is that a
fair statement?
A That is correct.
Q Now, you asked Ciaccia, do we need a consultant, is

that right?
A Yes, sir.
(Z That's a kind of question you would ask any person

in Ciaccia's position in any city in the country, isn't
that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Because you want to know that right off the bat and
you expect them to answer that question based on what
they know they need?
A That's correct.
Q And one of the things you like to find out when you
ask a question like that is, do they know anybody that
could fulfill that role?
A That's correct.
Q And you asked that question as well?

A Yes, we did.
Q And that's when you got the name of Nate Gray?

A That's correct.
Q Because that was the information that you look for

on every project and that's the information you got on
this project?
A That's correct.
9 97
Q And t h e n s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , CDM was a b l e t o g e t a
c o n t r a c t with t h e C i t y of Cleveland?
A S h o r t l y a f t e r what?
Q A f t e r N a t e Gray was h i r e d ?
A W e g o t -- y e s .
Q H e was h i r e d i n 1996, I t h i n k , A p r i l ?
A Yes.
Q And t h e n b y A u g u s t o f 1 9 9 6 ?
A You a r e c o r r e c t .
Q Okay. And a s a r e s u l t , t h e p a y m e n t s t o M r . Gray o r
M r . Gray's c o n s u l t i n g arrangement, g o t an i n c r e a s e ?
A That's correct.
Q And t h a t ' s what you would e x p e c t when someone h e l p s
successfully s e l l a project?
A That's correct.
Q And t h a t 7 . 1 m i l l i o n , i s t h a t w h a t you s a i d i t was?
A Yes, s i r , t h a t ' s t h e maximum a m o u n t .
Q That wasn't a l l p r o f i t though?
A Oh, n o . A s I i n d i c a t e d t o you, a t a minimum
38 p e r c e n t went t o o t h e r f i r m s .
Q And t h e n e v e n o f t h e money t h a t s t a y e d w i t h Camp,
Dresser, a b i g chunk o f t h a t was f o r t h e e x p e n s e s o f
running t h e project?
A Oh a b s o l u t e l y .
Q Camp, Dresser, McKee s e l l a g o o d p r o d u c t ?

A I believe they do.
Q You were proud of the product you were selling to

the cities?
A I'm very proud of having worked for CDM.
Q And you don't work for CDM anymore, though?

A No.
Q Who do you work for now?

A I work for a small community in southwest Florida.
Q But you are proud of the product you sold for CDM?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that product is used by cities around the

country, isn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you believe it to be very successful, is that

correct?
A I believe we bring significant value -- CDM brings
significant value to the clients.
Q And significant value to the citizens of your

client cities?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you around when the Nottingham contract was

negotiated?
A Around? I'm sorry. I don't know the -- no, I was
not involved with that negotiation. But around -- I mean
I was working for CDM, I think, during that period of

time.
Q And were you still located in Pittsburgh?

A Yeah, I was located in Pittsburgh until 1999 when I
moved to Florida.
Q 19 when?
A My daughter graduated -- three days after my
daughter graduated high school, so I think it was like
June whenever they get out of high school of 1999.
Q 1990?
A 1999, in June we moved to Florida.
Q All right.
Now, you talked a little bit about this
conversation you had with Lou Tortora about the $425?

A Yes, sir.
Q When you get these invoices -- and I'm going to

show you on this machine here, an invoice from 7/14.
When there is a change, if it's for a reason, or if it's
a significant reason --
MR. WHITAKER: Can we get this on?
Q You can put on the invoice exactly who it was that

asked for the change, isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q Okay. I'll give you an example of the invoice

of -- and I'm showing you a page from Exhibit 714 and
it's the invoice that says, received December 2 n d , 1998.

Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q And then over there on the bottom left hand corner

as you see it on the screen, it says per Gilbert Jackson?
A Yes, it does say that.
Q Okay. Now it's your testimony that you told Lou

that you thought that the $425 was an improper payment?
A I said that to Gilbert.
Q Okay. What did you say to Lou?

A I just -- I repeated what Gilbert had told me what
it was for, and it was his decision to make. He was

responsible for the contract, and for the area.
I didn't have the authority to say yea or
nay, at least I didn't believe I did.
Q Now, you actually had an attorney that went to

the -- that talked to the FBI and the United States
Attorney's Office that arranged for you to have a meeting
to discuss this with them, is that correct?

A I did not have -- okay. I did not have an
attorney.
You started off saying I had an attorney that

went to the FBI. I didn't have an attorney.
Q You gave a statement to the FBI in what's called a

proffer statement?
A I had the FBI come to my office and interview me.

Q And on just one occasion?
A Yes, sir.
(2 And that's the occasion you claim that Lou said

that you talked to Gilbert, and Gilbert said this thing
about the tuition?
A I didn't claim, he did it.
Q And you also claimed that's exactly what you told

Lou?
A Yes, sir.
Q And something that shocking you would certainly

expect somebody like your boss to remember, wouldn't you?
A I would -- it has eaten me up for ten years, so
when I got finally asked, I told the truth.
Q And you are telling us today that you also told Lou
Tortora?
A Absolutely.
Q And you would expect something -- well, we'll leave

it at that.
And after this conversation that you had with
Lou, you still, on many occasions, met with Nate Gray and
went out with Nate Gray?
A Met with him, if we had a meeting in Cleveland. I
don't recall ever going out with Nate Gray. Don't ever
recall, other than that original lunch. I don't recall

it.
1002
Q But you still continued to do business with him on

a regular basis?
A CDM did. Yes.
Q And you, as part of CDM?

A Well, I wasn't involved in Cleveland. Soon after
this project, I moved to, you know, we hired someone to

manage Cleveland and I moved on to other cities.
Q But you did have interaction with Nate Gray after

this conversation you said you had with Lou Tortora?
A Well yeah, he attended meetings, yes.
Q Did you ever say anything to Nate, what's the story

about this thing with Ciaccia?
A No, I never did.
MR. WHITAKER: If I might have one second
your Honor.
Nothing further, your Honor.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Mr. Joel, at some point during the examination you

stated that when CDM was trying to get into the Cleveland
market you had passed one employee, is that correct? In

the Cleveland area?
1003
A Yeah, we had -- actually there was no one -- once
it appeared that we were going to have an office there

was an individual from California who's wife family was
from Westlake, so they wanted to move back. We had no
objection. So he moved -- so it was he and I shared a
desk.
Q All right. And as a result of getting the

Cleveland contract, you said that at that point then you
were able to hire or bring in at least 12 employees,
correct?
A I believe we got to about 12 people.
Q Now, you were in the Cleveland office, and at the

time you were in the Cleveland office, did you know
Gilbert Jackson?
A I had -- did I know Gilbert? I knew of Gilbert

Jackson. I believe I'd met him before he and I got
together in Cleveland.
Q And when you say that you knew of him, he was

basically working out of the New Orleans area at that
time when you first became aware of him?
A Well, he was -- the firm had publicized that they
were creating this Urban Initiative and identified
Gilbert was a member of that, and another gentlemen,
Michael Pack became a member of that. So it was

advertised, so we as engineers could call upon,
internally, help in cities.
Q Now, at the time when you began opening up the

Cleveland office, prior to that you were stationed in
what office for CDM?
A I was living in Pittsburgh.
Q And at some point you meet Mr. Nate Gray, correct?

A Yes , sir.
Q All right. And after you met Nate Gray, do you

recall, was it you or in your meetings with Nate Gray,
you introduced him to Gilbert Jackson?
A No, both Gilbert and I met Nate at the same time,
at lunch that Ralph facilitated.
Q And one -- another question here is that, when that

Cleveland office went from one employee to 12, did you
hire local individuals or did you bring them in from the
other areas of CDM?
A Both.
Q Both.
And you did the interviews?
A Well, before we -- when we submitted the proposal,
we identified the staff, Gary Krol who was in Edison, New
Jersey as the Project Manager, different staffs. And
then we hired some local people that we needed to.
Q And in terms of local people, did you do the

interview, you were in the interviewing process of hiring
locals?
A I t h i n k I was i n v o l v e d e a r l y o n l y , yes.
Q And i n terms o f t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r s o f t h e l o c a l s ,
a n d you were t h e h e a d o f t h e C l e v e l a n d o f f i c e , who made
the f i n a l decision?
A Lou d i d .
Q Now Lou was h e r e a t t h a t t i m e w i t h you, c o r r e c t ?
A A g a i n , Lou was a R e g i o n a l Manager a n d h e c o v e r e d
different offices.
Q So b a s i c a l l y on a management c h a r t , i n t h a t a r e a
was Lou T o r t o r a , a n d t h e n i t would b e you, a n d t h e n who
was u n d e r you on t h e management c h a r t ?
A Well, i n t h e b e g i n n i n g w e h a d n ' t h a d someone
responsible f o r Cleveland.
Q Sure.
A B u t t h e n Gary K r o l was t h e P r o j e c t Manager, s o h e
kind of ran t h e project. The o f f i c e i n t h e b e g i n n i n g was
the project. So Gary K r o l was t h e P r o j e c t M a n a g e r .
Q My q u e s t i o n i s t h a t Lou made t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h a t
o f f i c e , you s a i d , a n d t h e n you was on t h e n e x t l i n e . And
who was u n d e r you?
A Gary, u n t i l we h i r e d a n o f f i c e m a n a g e r .
Q And a f t e r you h i r e d t h e o f f i c e m a n a g e r , and G i l b e r t
was s t i l l w o r k i n g o u t o f N e w O r l e a n s , c o r r e c t ?
A Yes, s i r .
1006
Q All right. Now, at some point the FBI or the

government contacts you about an investigation, correct?
A Yeah. TWO, one FBI agent and one IRS agent
appeared at my house. And my wife told them where I was
working and they came to my place of employment.
(1 All right. And do you recall on about what date

the initial contact with the FBI and the government, if
you know?
A I don't recall.
Q In any event, Mr. Whitaker asked you that prior to

meeting with the FBI, he asked you if you had an
attorney. And you said you did not, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q All right. And when you met with the FBI and you
gave them this information allegedly involving Gilbert,
Nate, and CDM, did you meet with them by yourself or did
you have an attorney at that time?
A I met with them by myself.
(r And you told Mr. Whitaker that you only met with
them one time, correct?
A They came to Florida, yeah.
Q All right. Now, do you recall the name of someone

named Stanley Greenfield?
A He ultimately is -- well he's my attorney that I
ultimately hired.
1007
Q He's your attorney that you hired.

And prior to meeting with the FBI, did you
and the government come to an agreement about your
testifying or giving any information before you would
talk to the FBI?
A NO, sir.
Q All right. Do you recall signing any document

where you and your attorney signed, stating you are not
going to talk to them unless you had an agreement or
proffer?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, could --
actually before I show it to the jury, may I show it
to Mr. Joel to see if he can identify it, because I
don't want to --
THE WITNESS: There was an interview --
MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, may we approach
before he approaches the witness with this document?
follows : )
MS. PEARSON: The date's wrong. He didn't
have that letter before.
MR. JENKINS: I just asked him the
question. You could clear it up on redirect

examination.
MS. PEARSON: You have the dates wrong.
You have the attorney --
MR. JENKINS: He said he had no attorney.
MR. DETTELBACH: He said --
MS. PEARSON: You got the dates wrong.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, all I asked for was
the attorney. Now this is the agreement and not a
proffer, that's all. I don't know if I have the
dates wrong. I know what he said.

THE COURT: You said March, 2005?
MS. PEARSON: There is a date on the
interview.
MR. JENKINS: I'm going back to the 302s,
but first I'm going to have him read this. He said
they already met and then he decides he wanted to
sign the proffer to testify.
They can clear that up.
THE COURT: I think if you are trying to
suggest that this is something that was said in the
letter in 2005, you asked him whether he was given
some agreement back in 2000.

1009
MS. PEARSON: When h e f i r s t s p o k e t o t h e m .
I t was t h e same y e a r .
THE COURT: What d a t e ?
MR. JENKINS: Judge.
MS. PEARSON: A p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e weeks
before that, early -- t h e f i r s t week o f March h e

s p o k e w i t h a n IRS a g e n t .
THE COURT: 2005?
MS. PEARSON: Yes.
MR. JENKINS: I a s k e d him i f h e e v e r h a d
an a t t o r n e y . Before he goes t o t r i a l , of course
h e ' s g o i n g t o come i n a n d d o a p r o f f e r . But t h e y
g a v e him a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o s p e a k a n d h e d i d n ' t s p e a k
t o them. And t h e n -- I b e l i e v e i t ' s wrong o n t h e r e .
THE COURT: I ' m not sure. What e x a c t l y
a r e you g o i n g t o ?
MR. JENKINS: I ' m g o i n g t o a s k him t h a t h e
h a d a l r e a d y spoken w i t h t h e government, and h e d i d .
H e can b r i n g t h a t up. And h e ' s g o i n g t o t e s t i f y
b a s e d on a n a g r e e m e n t t h a t h e h a s w i t h t h e
government. And I ' m g o i n g t o g o b a c k --

MS. PEARSON: H e h a s no a g r e e m e n t t o
testify. H i s i n t e r v i e w t o o k p l a c e on t h e 1 7 t h .
MR. JENKINS: L i k e I s a i d , you can c l e a r
t h a t up. I ' m g o i n g t o a s k him a b o u t a n a t t o r n e y . I

1010
don't know if those dates are correct.

THE COURT: You can ask him whether he had
a proffer letter covering it but make sure you ask
him if it was before he gave his statement.
MR. JENKINS: Actually, judge, I asked
him. And he said he only met with them one time.

I'll ask him again, did he have a proffer before he
gave a statement.
(The following proceedings were conducted
in open court.)
MR. JENKINS: May I proceed, your Honor?
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Now, Mr. Joel, did you meet with the government,

including the FBI, before you sat down with an attorney
and had given a proffer?
A Could you explain that again? Because obviously,

when I -- after I was served -- after the FBI and the IRS
agent came to Florida, they gave me a subpoena to appear
in Cleveland. I then contacted an attorney. We then
arranged for a meeting in Cleveland. I went to Cleveland

with my attorney. We sat in the office, and they -- I
didn't know the name, the technical term you just used --
and they explained to us that, obviously they wanted to
interview me. They wanted to make sure that I tell the

1011
truth, the whole truth, and that I signed a document.
It did not say that, that I would be, you
know, I have a deal, if that's what you are getting at.
So hopefully, I've responded to your
question.
MR. JENKINS: Okay. May I proceed, judge?
He's admitted --
THE COURT: Unless you don't have anymore
questions.
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Now, and in that meeting, do you recall them

telling you by signing a document, whereas they were
laying the ground rules for taking a statement and having
you testify?
A Yes, that was said.
Q And do you recall them telling you that any

information that you gave them at this time could not be
used against you in any criminal prosecution?
A My recollection of what they said is that -- they
used an example. They said that, my recollection is the
example they said is that, if you confess to a murder, we
can't charge you with murder. But if we -- and you say
that there is, you know, you buried the body in point A.
If we go to point A and the body is there but there is

other evidence you didn't speak to, we can then prosecute
1012
you based on the new evidence that you didn't say.
That's my recollection, the way they
explained it.
Q Now when you met with the FBI, did they tell you
they had located documents with your name on it where you
had approved the amendment to Nate Gray's contract?
A They had shown me the same document I believe they
showed today in court.
Q Correct. And in fact, it was Exhibit 703.

And you said to them that someone else signed
you name, correct?
A As I said today, someone signed that document,
signed my name.
Q Now, where do you presently work at this time?

A We work for a small city.
Q And when you told them that someone else signed

your name, allegedly you were referring to was a CDM
employee, correct?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And when you said that someone else had

signed your name, did you give them the name of who you
thought may have signed your name on this document?
A No, sir. I couldn't make out whose initials were
after that.
Q Now, there was another exhibit, 702, where they had

1013
your signature on it. How many exhibits -- how many
documents did they show you with your name on it?
A I can't -- I didn't count them.
Q Okay. And each of those documents that you alleged

that someone else had signed your name?
A No. It's not alleged. That's not my signature.
There is only one document that extended the $1500
payment that was signed by someone on behalf of me.
Q Now, when you talk about the $425 alleged increase

to Nate Gray, the FBI specifically told you, do you
recall, that we have information or evidence to make us
believe you signed it and you approved it, correct?
A I don't recall them -- they asked me the history as
I've relayed to you today in court.
Q All right. At some point you told them, if you

recall, that there were things at CDM involving the
higher-ups that you thought was improper, quote unquote,
extra pay incentives, correct?
A I have no recollection of that.
Q All right. About fundraising activities where

higher-up CDM executives would approve what they call
extra pay for those specified employees to be reimbursed.
Do you recall that?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did you name the name of those executives who

was, quote unquote, paying an extra pay for
reimbursements?
A Yeah. I recall, I believe I mentioned a gentleman
by the name of Carl Johnson, for one. There were two or
three individuals. I don't recall if I, if I stated

their names at that time. And I don't recall the name
now.
Q Now, when you alleged that you had some problems

with the $425 extra pay, and you alleged that it was
Gilbert Jackson who approved it. Remember now, I asked
you earlier that you were in charge of the Cleveland
office, correct? And Gilbert was in charge of the New
Orleans office.
You remember me asking you that?
A Well, it's not alleged. Gilbert did tell me that,
Gilbert's job was, he was based out of New Orleans. He
traveled around the country helping individuals like
myself, all over the country. So it wasn't that he was
working in New Orleans, he was working in most urban

centers from Atlanta, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, San
Francisco, Detroit, and Chicago, that I can recall.
Q But specifically, when we are talking about the

approval of any funding and money coming from the
Cleveland area, I told you about the documents the FBI

had. And you stated that Gilbert told you to do it.
Now, my question is --
Q My question is, is there any documentation, other

than your statement, that Gilbert ordered you, who was
head of that office, to approve such funding?
A No, there is no documentation. I did not sign -- I
didn't write an e-mail, didn't do e-mails, I didn't do
e-mails at that time in '95, '96, and there was no memo
written.
Q And finally, so at the time the FBI initially

questioned you about that money, they were investigating
you?
A They were investigating what -- they were asking if
I knew the history of payments to Nate Gray.
I told them, yes, I did.
They asked me for the specificity.
And I relayed to them the same true story I
relayed to you today.
MR. JENKINS: And your Honor, just for the
purposes of my representation of Mr. Jackson, I
would like to mark this Defense Exhibit 1, which is
the proffer agreement between the government and
Mr. Joel.
1016
THE COURT: You can mark that.
MR. JENKINS: Thank you, your Honor. I
have nothing further.

- - -
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Sir, you were asked some questions about wining and

dining by Mr. Whitaker, weren't you?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Did anyone ever discuss with you taking Julius

Ciaccia to the Fiesta Bowl?
A No.
Q What do you think your general counsel would have

said to that?
MR. JENKINS: Objection. Speculative.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Sir, when you first met with anyone from the

government, did you have any sort of agreement at all
regarding any criminal violation you may have committed?
A NO, ma'am.
Q Now, when you first talked with the FBI and the IRS
agent, where did that occur?
1017
A In my office in Florida.
Q Did you speak with anybody else in Florida about

the $425, other than the FBI and IRS?
A No, ma'am. Oh, I'm sorry, yes, I did.
Q Somebody from CDM?

MR. JENKINS: Objection. Leading.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Tell us who?
A Dick Fox, President of CDM; and Paul Comel,
Executive Vice President.
Q And what did you tell them relative to the $425?

A The same story I relayed to you today.
Q Now, when you spoke with the FBI and the IRS agent
in Florida, and you told them about the $425, what was
your motivation for telling it then?
MR. JENKINS: Objection. Motivation?
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Why did you tell them about the $425?

MR. JENKINS: Objection. Same question.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure where the
question goes. I assumed they asked him the
question and he told them this answer.
MS. PEARSON: Yes. But I think there has

been an implication that he only did it because he
1018
had c e r t a i n p r o t e c t i o n s , which he j u s t s a i d he
d i d n ' t have.
THE COURT: He's t e s t i f i e d t o t h a t . I'll
sustain the objection.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q S i r , a s you s i t h e r e t o d a y , h a v e t h e r e b e e n a n y
p r o m i s e s a t a l l made t o you r e g a r d i n g what may o r may n o t
h a p p e n t o you r e g a r d i n g t h e $ 4 2 5 i n c r e a s e ?
A No.
MS. PEARSON: No f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s , y o u r
Honor.
THE COURT: Thank y o u . You c a n s t e p down.
W e ' l l t a k e a l u n c h t i m e recess. We w i l l
r e c o n v e n e some t i m e , be b a c k h e r e a t 1 2 : 2 0 , o k a y .
Same r u l e s a p p l y . D o n ' t t a l k e i t h e r among
y o u r s e l v e s o r w i t h anyone e l s e a b o u t t h e c a s e .
Do n ' t form any o p i n i o n s o r e x p r e s s any. We'll
adjourn u n t i l t h a t t i m e .
I would a s k t h e a t t o r n e y s t o s t a y f o r a
second.
(The j u r o r s w i t h d r e w f r o m t h e c o u r t r o o m
a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e e d i n g s were c o n d u c t e d i n o p e n
court. )
THE COURT: I would a s k t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
t o b r i n g t h a t one a g e n t back.
1019
You want to retake the seat once.

MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, may I examine
the witness?
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I'm the one
that raised it and I would like to begin.
THE COURT: I'll ask the witness.
(The following voir dire examination
was conducted of Special Agent Peter
Smith. )
- - -
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
(Z There has been some -- you've given some testimony

that you reviewed certain materials gathered through
wiretaps.
A Correct.
Q What was the course of that? When was the first

listening to those, and what was the time over which you
listened?
A The first calls I reviewed were probably March or
April, 2002.
Q Okay. You mean you heard them in March or April?
A Yeah, I actually reviewed them March or April.
They were recorded, intercepted earlier than that.
Q Tell me the universe of the calls that you heard.

1020
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, I ' m g o i n g t o
a s k t h a t w e be a l l o w e d t o --
THE COURT: L i s t e n , i s t h e r e something
i r r e l e v a n t a b o u t what I ' v e j u s t a s k e d ?
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, t h e r e i s a
l a r g e r c o n t e x t t h a t I would a s k .
THE COURT: Well, you may g e t a c h a n c e t o
a s k t h e q u e s t i o n s --
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, y o u r Honor, b u t h e
d o e s n ' t have any d a t e s . H e ' s asked about s p e c i f i c
d a t e s a s t o t h e months y e a r s a g o .
BY THE COURT:
Q The w i r e t a p came on i n J a n u a r y 1 5 t h o f 2 0 0 2 .
A Correct.
Q What d a t e s , o v e r t h e t i m e p e r i o d s u b s e q u e n t t o
t h a t , d i d you h e a r c o n v e r s a t i o n f r o m ? I n o t h e r words,
t h e dates o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s .
A P r o b a b l y from mid-January t o mid-February, about a
30 day p e r i o d .
Q And t h e n w h a t ?
A And t h e n I d i d n ' t l i s t e n t o a n y more c a l l s u n t i l
t h e summer o r --
Q Of what y e a r ?
A 2002, l a t e summer maybe o f 2 0 0 2 .
Q What h a p p e n e d a f t e r t h e F e b r u a r y d a t e ?
1021
I just didn't review any calls from that period on.
And when did you first start listening to these
11s.
The January to February calls?
Well, any of the calls?
I'm sorry?
Any of the calls?
I'm thinking it was around April of 2002, somewhere
that timeframe.
That's when you first had exposure to them?
Correct.
inquire?
THE COURT: I don't know that we need any.
MR. DETTELBACH: I would like, for the
record, I would ask just very, very briefly.
THE COURT: Just don't lead.

- - -
EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Smith, were you the original case
agent assigned on this investigation?
A No.
Q All right. At some point, did something happen
regarding reassignment of cases in your office?

1022
A Yes.
Q Please explain in your own words the process that

occurred regarding reassignment of this matter in your
office?
A There was several agents assigned to this matter
within our office on the Public Corruption Squad. There
was an issue with something to do with the wiretap in
Cleveland. And they removed those agents and I was
assigned to the case.
THE COURT: And when were you assigned?
THE WITNESS: I think it was like April,
2002. Some time in the spring of 2002.
THE COURT: Do you have anything else?
Q And have you worked or had any contact with the

first people who were working on the case?
A No.
(Z And have you been exposed to any materials that

were intercepted or obtained in that period?
A No.
MR. WHITAKER: Just a couple questions,
your Honor.
- - -
EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
1023
Q And it was, if I understood your testimony earlier,

Agent Smith, you said that you had listened to the tapes
about two weeks after the tapes had been recorded?
A I that answer was in response to when I listened to
the December ' 02 tape.

Q You believe it was in April that you were assigned
to this case, and then you interviewed Mr. Hardeman in
July of '02, is that correct?
A June or July, I don't remember the exact date it
was.
Q In fact, I was asking you specifically about the

tapes that you played for Mr. Hardeman.
A I didn't play any tapes for Mr. Hardeman.
Q I think you testified that indeed you did play

some?
THE COURT: The record will reflect what
he said.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay, fine. No further
questions.
THE COURT: I'll deny the defendant's
motion.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, could we look
at the record of his testimony.
THE COURT: I'm still convinced that
there's no grounds to either strike his testimony or

to revisit the Title I11 issue.
MR. WHITAKER: In April of 2002 they
hadn't even discovered that the tapes were improper.
In April of 2002, the government itself did not know
the tapes were improper. It wasn't discovered until
the middle of --
THE COURT: The issue is whether the
evidence gathered under the improper Title I11
authorization in fact did later investigation.
And so in this case we have him testifying
he didn't have any contact with any of the other
agents, and that he didn't review the tapes during
the time it had been self-suppressed.
MR. WHITAKER: He could not have been
involved in April without having contact with other
agents because in April they didn't know that there
had been --
THE COURT: Irregardless. If he didn't

hear any of the Title I11 intercepts between the
February 16th and the time they went back on, it's
of no consequence.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, except I think if we
check the record you will he also see he did say he
got them and they were from two weeks earlier than
that.
1025
THE COURT: We'll on. We'll reconvene
h a l f hour.
(Luncheon r e c e s s . )
1026
THURSDAY AFTERNOON SESSION, AUGUST 11, 2005.
conducted in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Mr. Jenkins has indicated he's
been asked a number of times by certain reporters
for copies of proffers which had been earlier placed
under seal. And in effect, I understand you are
saying you are being harassed?
MR. JENKINS: Right. I refused to give it
to them. I said go to the clerk's office. Then
even asked your staff Miss Mackey the same thing.
And I think we all should be in agreement, nothing
goes out to anybody.
MS. BUTLER: Right.
MS. WHITAKER: Absolutely.
THE COURT: I don't understand. The
reporters are harassing you?
MR. JENKINS: Here, over there. I don't
know what group he's with.
THE COURT: Wait just a second.
One of the counsel has said that news
reporters are kind of chasing them and harassing
them, trying to get the FBI 302s, which had been
placed under seal.

1027
L e t me j u s t ask, we d o n ' t c h e w gum i n the
courtroom, s o t h e m a n i n t h e b l u e s h i r t -- w h a t ' s
your n a m e ?
A REPORTER: Me, sir?
THE COURT: Yes.
A REPORTER: Steve L u k e r .
THE COURT: G e t r i d of t h e g u m . We don't
have g u m i n t h e c o u r t r o o m .
H a v e you b e e n f o l l o w i n g t h e d e f e n s e
a t t o r n e y s , a s k i n g f o r m a t t e r s t h a t have been p l a c e d
u n d e r seal?
A REPORTER: If I have, i t ' s not my
k n o w l e d g e t h e y are under s e a l .
THE COURT: L e t m e j u s t s a y t o you, a l l
t h e s t a t e m e n t s are u n d e r seal, a l l t h e affidavits
a r e u n d e r s e a l , a n d s o I ' v e o r d e r e d t h a t t h e y n o t be
disclosed t o y o u .
A REPORTER: T h a t ' s fine. I have n o t
a s k e d f o r s o m e t h i n g t h a t I k n o w t o be u n d e r s e a l .
THE COURT: H a v e y o u l o o k e d t o see w h a t
you a r e g i v e n access t o ?
A REPORTER: Pardon?
THE COURT: L e t me suggest, s t a y a w a y .
T h e y have t h e i r o w n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n t e r m s of
t h i s case. A n d t h e case i s m o v i n g a l o n g and t h e y

1 have o t h e r t h i n g s t o do, o t h e r t h a n t o spend t h e i r
2 t i m e t r y i n g t o r e s p o n d t o you.
3 (The j u r o r s w e r e r e t u r n e d t o t h e
4 courtroom and t h e f o l l o w i n g proceedings
5 w e r e c o n d u c t e d i n open c o u r t . )
6 THE COURT: I would a s k t h e j u r y t o t a k e
7 t h e i r s e a t s a n d I would a s k t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o
8 c a l l t h e i r next witness.
9 MS. PEARSON: Your Honor, t h e U n i t e d
S t a t e s c a l l s Diane P i n s o n .
THE COURT: Ma'am, i f y o u ' l l come f o r w a r d .
Would you r a i s e y o u r r i g h t h a n d .
- - -
DIANE PINSON
c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s b y a n d on b e h a l f o f t h e
Government was f i r s t d u l y sworn a n d t e s t i f i e d
a s follows:
THE COURT: Please take a s e a t and s t a t e
19 y o u r name a n d s p e l l y o u r l a s t name.
20 THE WITNESS: Diane Pinson. L a s t name
21 s p e l l e d P-I-N-S-0-N.
23 BY MS. PEARSON:
24 Q ~ o o da f t e r n o o n .
25 A Good a f t e r n o o n .
Q Would you please tell the jurors where you work,
ma ' am?
A I work for the City of Cleveland, Division of
Water.
Q And what's your job there?

A I'm Assistant Administrator.
Q Will you explain briefly what you do?

A Yes. I assist on preparation of the budget and
maintaining the budget.
Q And who do you report to directly?

A Malinda Raymond, an Assistant Commissioner.
Q Who is Malinda Raymond's boss?

A Chris Mills, Commissioner.
Q How long have you been employed by City of

Cleveland's Water Department?
A 22 years.
Q And until recently who was the Commissioner of that

division during that 22 year period?
A Julius Ciaccia.
Q And he stopped being Commissioner about how long

ago?
A Maybe about a year, about a year ago.
Q Is it fair to say that in addition to working at
the City of Cleveland's Water Division under Julius

Ciaccia's control you also have a personal relationship
with him?
A That's correct.
Q Now, I would like to ask you about other

individuals you know.
Do you know an individual by the name of Nate
Gray?
A Yes.
Q Do you see Mr. Gray in the courtroom here today?

A Yes.
Q Would you please point him out?

Mr. Gray.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Do you also know an individual by the name of

Gilbert Jackson?
A Yes.
Q Do you see Mr. Jackson in this courtroom?

A Yes.
Q Would you please point him out?

THE COURT: She's identified Mr. Jackson.
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q Going back to Mr. Gray, Miss Pinson, how did you

meet him?
A Through Julius Ciaccia at Sixth Street Down Under,
it's a jazz club.

1031
Q What was the occasion that took you and Mr. Ciaccia
to Sixth Street Down Under?
A Just socializing at the bar.
Q Just so the jury understands, is this an event

widely attended by Water Division employees?
A No.
Q It was just a social event with the two of you?

A Yes.
Q And Mr. Gray was also there?

A Yes. We saw him there.
Q And how did you meet Mr. Jackson?

A At the Metropolitan, it's a restaurant downtown.
Q Is it also called the Metropolitan Cafe?

A Yes.
Q And describe how it is that you met Mr. Jackson

there?
A Socializing after work.
Q With whom, please?

A At that time it was Julius Ciaccia and my friend
Ray Cody.
Q Now, again, is this an event that was widely

attended by Water Division employees?
A No.
Q And Mr. Cody, you said he's your friend, is he --

describe what type of friendship the two of you have?
A I would describe it as best friends.
Q Did you attend an event at a place called

Alexandria's in Cleveland?
A Yes.
Q What kind of event was that?

A It was a, it was for Frank Jackson. I think it was
like a benefit for him.
Q Who invited you, ma'am?

A I was invited through Julius Ciaccia.
Q Who paid for your entrance?

A I have no idea.
Q Did you understand it to be a fundraiser?

A Yes.
Q Now, did there come a time when you and Mr. Ciaccia
and Nate Gray met at the Holiday Inn Express in
Cleveland?
A Yes.
Q Approximately when did that happen?
A It was cold outside, so it was in the winter.
Q Of what year, if you can recall?

A 2002.
Q And what brought you to the Holiday Inn Express in

the Winter of 2002?
A Just socializing after work.

Q Now, during the Holiday Inn event or the meeting
there, did you discuss with Mr. Gray the Essence
Festival?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell the jury what the Essence Festival

is?
A It's a jazz fest that happens in New Orleans in
July.
(1 Describe the nature of the conversation you had

with Mr. Gray about the Essence Festival?
A We were just talking about, well, I told him that I
was going to go to the Essence Festival that year. Nate
said that he had gone. And we were just talking about
the event itself.
And the conversation went on, and Nate said
there was a real nice hotel there, it was, it was called
Window Canal on Canal Street in New Orleans. And I said
well if it's so great hook a sister up on the room.
Q And two things I would like to follow up on.

First is, just describe the setting. You
said this place is a hotel, where within the building
were you?
A In the restaurant area.
Q And where exactly at the restaurant, in the
restaurant?
A Oh, at a table.
1034
Q Okay. And j u s t t h e t h r e e o f you s e a t e d a t a t a b l e ?
A Yes.
Q And a b o u t what t i m e o f d a y ? A r e w e t a l k i n g lunch,
dinner?
A A f t e r work.
Q Okay. And now I w i l l l i k e t o f o l l o w u p o n , you
s a i d you u s e d t h e t e r m hook a s i s t e r u p t o M r . G r a y ?
A Um-hum .
Q What d i d t h a t mean?
A To hook u s u p on t h e room.
Q B u t you u s e t h e t e r m hook u s up? Without u s i n g
hook u s u p , t e l l t h e j u r y what you were a s k i n g M r . Gray
t o do?
A Oh, t o p a y f o r t h e room.
Q Thank y o u . And d i d M r . Gray e v e n t u a l l y d o t h a t ?
A Yes.
Q How d i d you e v e n t u a l l y g e t t h e money f o r t h e h o t e l
room?
A He came down t o my j o b a t 1 2 0 1 L a k e s i d e a n d g a v e i t
t o me.
Q P h y s i c a l l y t e l l t h e j u r y w h e r e you w e r e a n d where
h e was when you g o t t h e money f r o m him?
A Oh, h e j u s t came i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t , a n d I m e t him
i n t h e parking l o t .
Q How d i d you g e t f r o m y o u r w o r k p l a c e t o t h e p a r k i n g
lot?
Oh, took the elevator down and walked outside.
And where outside did you meet Mr. Gray?
On the front of building.
Ma'am, what exactly did he give you at that time?
A check.
And how much was the check?
I don't remember. It was 1,088, or $1,078.
government what's been marked as Government's
Exhibit 712.
Ma'am, do you see that?
Yes.
Is this -- tell us what it is, please?
A check for a $1,078.
And do you see your name on it?
Yes.
And how is it that you came to have this check?
Oh, because I told Nate how much the room was going
be. And he came down to the building and gave it to
Did he give you any other money for the Essence
stival?
No.
But at one time you did tell persons while you were
1036
under oath you had also been given cash, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q But today you maintain all you received was this

check that's Exhibit 712?
A That's correct.
Q Now, once you arrived at the Essence Festival how

did you get your tickets?
A By Gilbert Jackson.
Q And tell us how that happened? Just physically let

the jury know how Mr. Jackson gave you the tickets?
A Oh, he just came down to the hotel, and I just met
him outside and got the tickets.
Q Did you stay at the hotel that Mr. Gray had

recommended?
A Yes.
Q Now, in addition to the money for the hotel in New
Orleans, did you receive any tickets to sporting events
from Mr. Gray?
A Just once.
Q And explain what that was, please?

A It was basketball tickets to a Cav's game. I took
my son.
MS. PEARSON: Just one moment, please,
your Honor.
Q Just for clarification, I've asked you if

Mr. Ciaccia was a Commissioner?
THE COURT: What's the objection? She
hasn't asked a question.
MR. WHITAKER: I don't know, just for
clarification.
MR. DETTELBACH: I can ask it differently.
(;2 What job did Mr. Ciaccia hold at the time that you
and he and Nate Gray were at the table at the Holiday Inn
Express when you asked for the hook up?
A He was Commissioner.
MS. PEARSON: Thank you, ma'am.
No further questions, your Honor.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q How do you pronounce your last name?

A Pinson.
Q Miss Pinson my name is Bill Whitaker and I

represent Nate Gray, so I'm going to ask you a few
questions.
A Sure.
Q And if you don't understand anything I ask, just

let me know and I'll repeat it.
You've known Mr. Gray for a while?
A Yes.
Q You know about his reputation for generosity in the

community?
A Yes.
MS. PEARSON: Outside the scope of direct.
MR. WHITAKER: I don't think it's outside
the scope at all. We are talking about actually his
generosity.
THE COURT: Within the community. You
asked her in your own case, and you can ask her
about his transaction.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q You had told Mr. Gray about how much your son liked
basketball?
A Yes.
Q In fact, your son plays basketball?

A Yes.
Q He's on a basketball team?

A Yes.
Q So when he had an opportunity to arrange for you --
but you aren't able to go to very many games are you?

A No, I'm not a real sports fan.
1039
Q So when h e had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o g e t a c o u p l e
t i c k e t s , he l e t you and y o u r son go?
A Yes.
(Z Now, w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e E s s e n c e F e s t , o r w i t h
r e g a r d t o t h e b a s k e t b a l l game, d i d he e v e r s a y a n y t h i n g
l i k e now I want you t o p u t i n a good word w i t h y o u r b o s s ?
A No, n e v e r .
Q Did h e a s k you t o do a n y t h i n g w h a t s o e v e r t o h e l p
him o u t ?
A Never.
Q Was i t y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t i t was j u s t a g i f t
o u t of h i s g e n e r o s i t y ?
A Correct.
Q And t o t h i s d a y h a s h e e v e r a s k e d you t o d o
anything with r e g a r d t o any c o n t r a c t s i n f r o n t o f t h e
Water Department?
A NO, never.
Q Now you s a y M r . C i a c c i a i s n ' t t h e r e anymore, i s
that correct?
A H e ' s s t i l l t h e r e , h e ' s t h e D i r e c t o r now.
Q H e ' s t h e D i r e c t o r o f what?
A The D i v i s i o n o f Water. Well a c t u a l l y o f t h e
Utilities.
Q Which i n c l u d e s t h e D i v i s i o n of Water?
A Correct.
1040
Q So when he left a year ago he left because he got

promoted, isn't that right?
A That's correct.
MR. JENKINS: Just on the --

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Miss Pinson, the Essence Festival is a social

gathering of music and musicians, is that correct?
A That's correct.
MR. JENKINS: I have nothing further.
MS. PEARSON: Nothing further, your Honor.
THE COURT: You can step down.
Would you call your next witness.
Shahid Sarwar.
THE COURT: If you would raise your right
hand.
SHAHID SARWAR
as follows:
1041
THE COURT: Please take a s e a t , and then
t e l l u s y o u r name a n d s p e l l y o u r l a s t name.
THE WITNESS: My name i s S h a h i d S a r w a r a n d
t h e l a s t name i s S , a s i n Sam, A-R-W-A-R.
THE COURT: M r . Dettelbach.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Where a r e you c u r r e n t l y employed?
A I ' m employed a t t h e C l e v e l a n d D i v i s i o n o f Water.
Q What ' s y o u r j o b t h e r e ?
A I a m a C a p i t a l P r o j e c t s Manager.
Q How l o n g h a v e you b e e n w i t h t h e C l e v e l a n d D i v i s i o n
o f Water?
A Over 11 y e a r s .
Q And c a n you t e l l u s t h e d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s y o u ' v e
h e l d over t h a t time?
A I was h i r e d a s C h i e f M e c h a n i c a l E n g i n e e r , a n d t h e n
I l a t e r t o o k o v e r a s P r o j e c t Manager o f t h e P l a n t
Enhancement Program, a n d I ' m c u r r e n t l y work a s t h e
C a p i t a l P r o j e c t Manager.
Q You r e f e r r e d t o s o m e t h i n g c a l l e d t h e P l a n t
Enhancement Program?
A Yes.
Q Can you t e l l u s , i s t h e r e a n acronym t h a t g o e s b y ?
A PEP, P-E-P.
1042
Q And what years was it that you worked in the PEP

program?
A From 1997 to 2004.
Q What was the PEP program?

A It's the plant -- it's called the Plant Enhancement
Program, and it's a series of capital improvement
projects for improving the treatment plants for the
Division of Water.
(Z And can you tell us, compared to other programs at

the Cleveland Division of Water, how big was the PEP
program?
A This is the largest program ever undertaken by the
Cleveland Division of Water.
Q When you were working on the PEP program, can you

tell us what your job duties were?
A I was working as the Project Manager and used to
supervise several contractors and consultants.
Q And what types of consultants or firms were there

that you would be working with?
A Engineering funds and engineering contractors.
Q And as a result of that, did the project involve,

in effect, contracts to hire those type of firms?
A That's correct. Yes.
Q And what involvement, if any, did you have in your

job in that process of selecting or hiring the firms for
1043
these engineering contracts?
A I used to direct the selection process, and select
the committee for evaluating the proposals or bids for
the contracts.
Q Now, you mentioned the process. Can you give us --

you walk us through what the process is for selecting
these professional engineering firms?
A For professional engineering firms we put out what
is called a request for proposals, which are mailed to a
large number of engineering companies that have expressed
an interest in the project. And a committee is formed by
the Project Manager that meets several times to evaluate
the proposals received from the engineering firms.
And then a recommendation is made to City
Hall for the Mayor's approval and the approval of what is
called a Consultant Review Committee.
Q And what is the Consultant Review Committee

composed of?
A The Consultant Review Committee is mainly composed
of Directors that work for the city.
Q The Mayor and his cabinet?

A The Mayor and his cabinet, that's right.
Q Or her cabinet?
A Yes, or her cabinet.
Q Now, with respect to the committee that -- the

1044
first committee that you mentioned. You said that the
Project Manager forms the committee. What kind of people
are on that committee and how many usually?
A It's usually five or six people. And the people
that are on the committee are either engineers or people
that work for engineers and work for water operations.
Operations of the treatment plants.
Q Technical people?
A All technical people.
(1 Are elected officials or political employees on

those committees?
A No.
Q And what is the purpose of having a committee of

technical experts?
A So that the most competent engineering firm is
selected to do the project.
Q Now, this committee, can you tell us how they
evaluate the proposals that come in on the different
companies?
A The committee meets and sets the criteria for
evaluation. And then every proposal is scored
individually by every committee member. And these scores
are put together in a spreadsheet that's called a
technical evaluation. And then a c'riterion is set for
wait for the fee, for the work, for the propose fee for
1045
the work. And fee proposals are then opened and added to
the scores that have been awarded to the engineering
firms on the proposals.
Q What kinds of factors are considered by the

committee in evaluating the proposals?
A It's mostly the past performance of the firm and
their understanding of the projects, of scope of the work

for the project, and the fees, of course.
Q And you mentioned fees. I was going to ask you,

you mentioned that there was some weighting process for
fees, as to how much that counts for?
Q When is it that the fee weight is set in this

process?
A Usually it's before the fee proposals are open and
before the committee knows what the firms have proposed
for doing the work actually.
Q And why is it that the fee weight is set before the

proposals are open?
A So that the project does not get steered one way or
the other.
Q Now, after the paper is looked at, all the

documents, is there another part of the process in
addition to the paper part?
A I don't, it's -- if add up the scores actually to

1046
make a recommendation.
Q Let me just ask you, have you heard the term oral
interview?
A Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. There is, after the fee
proposals, fee scores are added, usually short list of
forms, two firms are invited for oral interview. And the
oral interview is scored by the committee and added to
the score that has been set for the technical evaluation
and fee proposals.
Q And with respect to the oral interview, what

factors are taken into account in that score?
A I'm sorry?
Q How do you score the oral interview. What factors

does the committee take into account?
A They take into account again the understanding of
the firm, the scope of work, and the team that's been put
together. And you know, answers to the questions put by
the committee members.
Q Now, after you add up the numbers on the proposal,

proposals on these different categories, how do you
decide who wins in terms of the proposals? Highest
score? Lowest score? Who wins?
A The one with the highest score wins, yes.
Q And in the normal course of business what happens

then?
1047
A Then a recommendation is made to the Consultant
Review Committee by the Director of the Division of Water
for award of, or approval of award of work to the firm
that's been selected.
Q And what normally happens?

MR. WHITAKER: Objection to what normally
happens, your Honor.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q What normally happens?

A After, after the approval of the Consultant Review
Committee it is forwarded to the Mayor for signature and
then is sent back to the Division for proceeding with
signing a contract.
Q Now, I want to focus you on one of the -- you said

the PEP project had a sort of series of different phases?
Q I want to focus you on 2001. Were there any
contracts within the PEP program that were being awarded
in the year 2001?
A Yes, there were.
Q And what was the, the contract, the biggest

contract award during that period?
A It was the BCCS plan, bios computer control system.
Q And what was that for, you said the computer

control system?
A Was for programming of the computer control system
for the operations at the water plants.
Q And who was it who ended up winning that particular

contract?
A Camp, Dresser, McKee, CDM.
Q And now I would like to show you Exhibit 719.

And do you recognize this as the first page
of a multi-page document?
A Yes.
Q All right. And what is this document that you are

looking at from the cover? What kinds of documents are
these we going to be looking at?
A Programming services award documentation would be a
compilation of documentations for the water offices.
Q Let's go to page 5 of that document.

And again, what is it that we are looking
for? What is it that this page is, on page 5 that we are

looking at?
A This is the Board of Control resolution awarding
the contract to CDM.
Q All right. And does it give an amount of the

contract?
A Yes. It's about five million dollars; 4.74.

MR. DETTELBACH: Go out to the full page.
Q Are there any subcontractors there?
A Yes.
Q What is the first subcontractor?

A Ralph Tyler.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Now, if you
could go to page 7.
Q What is this?
MR. DETTELBACH: Before you blow it up.
Q What is this document?

A This is recommendation by the Division of Water
for the award of the contract to CDM.
Q And what's the date of this particular document?

A June 13th, 2001.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Now I would
like you to blow up the 1, 2, 3, 4th paragraph down.
It's a two line paragraph.
Q And if you could, could you please read what's

written on that paragraph?
A "A summary of the evaluation sheet is attached.
Points were awarded for technical qualifications, the
proposed fee and the oral presentations. CDM was
assessed to be the best qualified proposal."
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you go to the full
document.
Q Who signed that the at the top?

1050
A It's signed by the Commissioner of Division of

Water.
Q And the name, please?

A Julius Ciaccia, Jr.
Q Now, I now want to ask you some questions about the

rating process, that rating process that was referred to.
Who was CDM's chief competitor or competitors
in this particular contract?
A Malcolm Pirnie International.
(r If you could, would you spell that for the record?

A M-A-L-C-0-L-M. P I as in Pennsylvania, I-R-N-I-E.
Q And could you tell us the size of that firm?

A It's national, nationally known firm, and is a very
large firm in the water industry.
(Z And how about CDM?
A CDM also is equally large, actually, or maybe a
little larger, and is also a national firm.
Q Now, the first time that the committee, the

technical committee scored these two competitors, who
won?
A Malcolm Pirnie.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please displays 719, page

12.
Q All right. NOW, do you see the document that we

are looking at here?
1051
A Yes.
Q All right. And what kind of document is this?

A This is a summary of the technical evaluation.
Q All right. What's the date on this one?

A May 31st, 2001.
Q Now, if you could, could you go through the columns

from left to right on the sheet?
A The column, the first column is the technical
score. That is an average of --
Q Well actually, the first column, I think there is

one left of that?
A The very first column is the name of list of firms
that proposed for the project.
The next one is, is an average of the
technical score that was awarded by the committee.
Q What does it say about perfect score there?

A Hundred.
Q Please go on.
A Next one is a fee adjustment, which is the score
awarded on based on the fee that the firm proposed. And
the perfect score is five.
The next one is oral interview adjustment,
and that's from plus five to minus five.
And the next column is technical adjusted
score, which is a total of the previous columns.

Q That's the dark one that's hard to see?
Q Okay. Now, with respect to the first column, do
you see at the bottom there is a reference to something
called the Washington Group?
A Yes.
Q Now, did something happen that took them out of

competition here?
A Yes, the Washington Group declared bankruptcy and
was taken out of competition.
(1 Focusing on the top two, can you tell us on the May

31st, first of all, what was the technical score as
between CDM and Malcolm Pirnie?
A The technical score?
Q On the first column.

A Yes, the technical score for CDM is 64.8.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor -- never mind.
A And for Malcolm Pirnie, 73.
Q On this May 31st document, what's the fee

adjustment for CDM and Malcolm Pirnie?
A It's 5 for CDM and zero for Malcolm Pirnie.
Q I want to focus your attention on the oral

interview adjustment. Do you see that column here?
A Yes.
Q Tell us, first of all, what Camp, Dresser, McKee

r e c e i v e d on t h e o r a l i n t e r v i e w a d j u s t m e n t ?
A A minus f o u r .
Q So t h a t i s a minus 4?
A Yes.
Q A l l right. And what d i d Malcolm P i r n i e r e c e i v e on
t h e o r a l interview adjustment?
A A plus 3.5.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now i f you c o u l d blow up
t h e d a r k column.
Q And i f you l o o k c l o s e a t y o u r s c r e e n , c o u l d you
t e l l u s who won, a n d what t h e numbers were b e t w e e n t h e
f i r s t two?
A Malcolm P i r n i e was t h e h i g h e s t s c o r e w i t h 7 6 . 5 and
CDM h a d a s c o r e o f 6 5 . 8 .
MR. DETTELBACH: A l l right. Go b a c k o u t .
Q So d i d Malcolm P i r n i e g e t t h e c o n t r a c t ?
A No.
Q A l l right. Now, what was done w i t h t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
f e e p r o p o s a l a f t e r i t was c o m p l e t e d , t h i s r a n k i n g ?
A The f e e -- a f t e r t h i s r a n k i n g was c o m p l e t e d we
forwarded t h i s t o t h e D i r e c t o r f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
Q A l l right. A l l right. Now, p a y c l o s e a t t e n t i o n t o
my q u e s t i o n s h e r e . A t some p o i n t d i d you h e a r b a c k
s o m e t h i n g on t h i s ?
A Yes.
1054
Q Who did you have contact with on this?

A One of my two supervisors. And I don't exactly
remember which one.
Q But was -- your direct supervisor?

A Yes.
Q What would the two possibilities be?
A Probably it was the Assistant Commissioner of
Engineering, Alex Margevicius, M-A-R-G-E-V-I-C-I-U-S.
Q Or who would the other possibility be?

A It would be Robert Eagleton, he was the Capital
Projects Manager.
Q Did you have any direct contact with any people

higher on the chain there?
A No.
Q What was it that you understood you were supposed

to do, based upon what you heard?
A My understanding --
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q All right. What did you do?

A I was told by one of my supervisors --
THE COURT: Just what did you do?
THE WITNESS: We re-poll the committee for

readjustment of the scoring.
1055
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And specifically, with the re-polling of the

committee, from your standpoint who was supposed to win?
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Were you told to just score it again in some

neutral way?
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Let me ask you, did you receive an e-mail that's

been turned over and admitted in evidence in this case?
MR. DETTELBACH: All right.
Q Showing you 741. Do you see the "to" line here?

A Yes.
Q And is that your name?

A Yes.
Q And below, in the one line what does it say here?

And I can zoom in if you can't read it. I apologize.
A I can read it.
Q What does it say?

A It says, "the Mayor says to give it to CDM. See
me."
Q Now, what action did you take?
A I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question.
Q What did you do?

A I re-polled the committee for rescoring of the
evaluation.
Q All right. And other than this e-mail, do you have

any personal knowledge as to who made what decision above
your head?
A No.
Q All right. Just to be clear. All right were the

competitors rescored?
A I'm sorry, I didn't.
Q Was there a second scoring that happened then?

A Yes.
Q Now, let me be clear. In-between the first scoring

and second scoring was there additional information
provided from any of the companies?
A No.
Q Was there a second oral interview from any of the

companies?
A No.
Q All right, and who was the one who passed the
message on to the committee that there needed be to a
rescoring?
A I did.
Q Now I want to show you --
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, going back to
Exhibit 719, page 8 now. All right.
Q Do you recognize what page 8 is?

A Yes.
Q And what is page 8?

A It's a programming services budget ranking summary,
dated June 15th, 2001.
Q All right. And again, going through the columns --

THE COURT: Why don't you just ask him to
summarize how it was changed.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q All right. Can you tell us which columns were

changed?
A The fee adjustment columns and the oral interview
adjustment columns were changed.
Q What was changed in the fee adjustment column with

respect to Camp, Dresser & McKee?
A There was greater weight attached to the fee which
gave Camp, Dresser, McKee a fee adjustment score of plus
13.34 and Malcolm Pirnie a score of zero.
Q And with respect to the top where it says fee

adjustment on the top, is that change in weight being
reflected in any way?

A Yes.
Q And what i s t h a t ?
A The w e i g h t i s n o t shown on t h i s , b u t t h e r e i s
a p p a r e n t l y a g r e a t e r weight a t t a c h e d t o t h e f e e .
Q What d i d i t s a y on t h e l a s t o n e w e l o o k e d a t ?
A I t s a i d f e e weight p l u s f i v e .
Q P e r f e c t s c o r e o r something?
A P e r f e c t s c o r e was p l u s f i v e .
Q Now, g o i n g t o t h e n e x t column, w h a t was i t t h a t was
c h a n g e d on t h e o r a l i n t e r v i e w a d j u s t m e n t ?
A The o r a l i n t e r v i e w s c o r e s were c h a n g e d .
Q And f o c u s i n g on Camp, D r e s s e r & M c K e e , how, what
was Camp, D r e s s e r & McKee's s c o r e c h a n g e d f r o m a n d t o ?
A From minus 4 t o p l u s 4 .
Q Had t h e r e b e e n a s e c o n d i n t e r v i e w ?
A No.
Q And how d i d t h a t a f f e c t , t h e n , t h e f i n a l column,
the technical adjusted score?
A Camp, D r e s s e r , McKee was now h i g h e r t h a n Malcolm
P i r n i e w i t h a s c o r e o f 8 2 . 1 , a n d t h e Malcolm P i r n i e s c o r e
was 7 8 .
Q Now, M r . S a r w a r , would t h e a d j u s t m e n t t o t h e f e e
a l o n e have changed t h e r a n k i n g ?

THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q All right. And why is that?

THE COURT: They can do the math.
MR. DETTELBACH: Okay.
Q Now, you mentioned also that the point at which the

fees or the fee adjustment is set in the process is when?
A Is usually after the technical scoring but before
the fee proposals are open.
Q All right. Now, showing you another e-mail on the

door, part as Exhibit 741. And again, on this e-mail do
you see yourself cc'd here?
A Yes.
Q And who's the e-mail from and who is it to?
A The e-mail is from James Buncy, who is the
Consultant Program Manager to Julius Ciaccia, the
Commissioner of Water.
Q What's the date?

A Thirty-first May, 01.
Q And can you read the -- and just for the record,
I'm the one who highlighted this to make it easier, it's
not in the original.
Can you read the highlighting that I've done
here?
A Yes. It says, "the second page contains some of
the drawbacks associated with the CDM team. For the

Director's back pocket."
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, turning to the

attachment in this document.
Q What's the date on the top of the first page of

this two page document?
A Thirty-first May, 01.
MR. DETTELBACH: Turning to the second
page. All right.
Q Is there something on this page that relates to the

CDM fee proposal?
A Yes.
Q And directing are your attention -- what number is

it?
A It's number 13.
Q All right. And I can tell it's not that easy to

read for you. But can you read the first sentence of
number 13?
A "CDM took significant exceptions to the draft
contract language and, in the opinion of the evaluation

team, took significant exceptions to the scope of work
that would ultimately increase CDM's fee, if the scope
were on even par with the other proposers."
Q And can you explain, in evaluating proposals, how

you compare the different proposals and include the scope
that's included?
1061
A Yes. It is the understanding of the engineering
firm's scope of work is part of the evaluation, and the
fee that is proposed is according --
THE COURT: You don't have to be quite so
close to the microphone.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q You can move a little bit back from the mike, I'm
sorry. Go ahead. Explain the scope and the fee and how
those two interact?
A The scope is proposed by the understanding of the
scope of work is proposed by the engineering firm. And
the fee that is proposed is according to their
understanding.
Q And what is this particular paragraph saying about

CDM's scope in comparison to their fee?
A I'm says, "CDM has taken exceptions to the scope of
work." Which means that the fee that was proposed would
be lower than if they understood the scope perfectly.
Q And particularly, who was their competitor? It

says, "on the even par with the other proposers." Who
was the other proposer?
A Malcolm Pirnie.
Q And with respect to the oral interview. Could you
please read the next sentence?
A "CDM did not respond to written requests for

1062
clarifications to their proposal in a forthright manner.
In the opinion of the evaluation team, their responses
were contrary to their original proposal."
Q In your entire time at the Cleveland Water

Division, to your knowledge, has anything like this
rescoring ever occurred apart from this particular
example?
A No.
MR. DETTELBACH: Nothing further at this
time, your Honor.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Mr. Sarwar, my name is Bill Whitaker. As you know,
I represent Nate Gray.
I'm going to ask you a few questions, and if
you don't understand anything I ask, just let me know and
I'll be glad to rephrase it.
,Now, as I understood your recitation of
what's normal, after the polling it's normal for it to go
to the Mayor, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Because the Mayor is the one that has to make the

final decision?
1063
A That's correct.
Q And the Mayor is the one that's responsible to the

people of the City of Cleveland?
A That's correct.
Q In this case the Mayor said, I think we should give

more weight to the fee, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. Personal
knowledge, your Honor. That's the same objection he
made.
MR. WHITAKER: It was overruled.
THE COURT: No, sustained.
MR. WHITAKER: Pardon?
THE COURT: He can't testify to what
somebody else is thinking. He can testify as to
some document that's not otherwise barred.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Did you -- you are the one that reconvened the

polling committee?
A That's correct.
Q And you told them that they had to reevaluate?

A That's correct.
Q And what criteria did you tell them you had been
instructed they should reevaluate?
1064
A I told them that the original recommendation had

been turned down by City Hall.
Q Did you tell them that they had to reevaluate or

give more weight to the fee?
A The committee jointly decided they would give more
weight to the fee.

THE COURT: Were you told that from
anybody, to give more weight to the fee, or is that
something you came up with?
THE WITNESS: No. I was told that the fee
was important and we should have considered more, we
should have considered the fee to be important or

given more importance to the fee.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And that's one of the reasons, and that's one of

the things that the Mayor's charged with, is the
responsibility about the money he spends on behalf of the
taxpayers, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, you said one of the other things that is given

serious consideration is the work that a particular
company has done in the past, isn't that correct?

A That's correct.
Q And CDM had done a project for the Water Department

in the past, hadn't they?
A Yes.
Q And as a matter of fact, on that one they were

ranked first by the evaluation committee?
A Yes.
Q And they did a good job on that, didn't they?

A Yes.
Q The City was pleased with the work that CDM did?
A Very pleased.
Q Now, when you gave your instructions to the

re-polling committee, the only thing that you told them
in terms of what they needed or what the change that was
expected was that there was more weight to be give or
more consideration to be given to the fee, is that right?
A That's right. And that the recommendation had been
turned down by City Hall.
THE COURT: Why would you change the
interview score then?
THE WITNESS: Well, the committee decided
that they would reconsider the interview scoring as
well.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q But not on any instruction from you?

A No, not really.
Q And the Interview Committee is made up of who?

A The Interview Committee is the original Technical
Evaluation Committee.
Q It's made up of technical advisors?

A Yes.
THE COURT: You say, what did it change on
the interview?
THE WITNESS: The committee decided to
rescore the interview, actually.
THE COURT: I know they rescored it.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember exactly why
it was decided to rescore the interview.

BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q But you do remember the only instructions you gave

them was the question about the criteria for the fee?
A Yes. The recommendation had been turned down on

the basis of the fee from City Hall.
Q And that was the only basis?

A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Object, objection. Move
to strike.
THE COURT: I have a question, did you --
MR. WHITAKER: I'm sorry, did you overrule
that?
THE COURT: Yes, I overruled it.
You said there was some question as to
whether their proposed scope of work actually

matched what the bid document's was?
THE WITNESS: Yes, there was some doubt in
the mind of the committee.
4 THE COURT: Whatever happened with the
5 actual contract? Was there a fight over that? Or
6 did they, did they do as much work as you had
7 originally put in what you thought the bid documents
8 were?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, they agreed to perform
10 as much work as we thought they should have proposed
11 for.
12 THE COURT: For the original price?
13 THE WITNESS: For the original price.
15 (Z Sir, were there change orders on this contract?

16 THE COURT: Just a minute. You are not
17 next.
18 MR. DETTELBACH: I'm sorry, I apologize.
19 MR. JENKINS: You don't have to apologize.
20 I have no questions.
21 MR. DETTELBACH: I agree. I apologize.
22 MR. JENKINS: That's all right, Steven.
23 - - -
24 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Were their change orders?
A Yes.
Q Specifically you were asked questions by

Mr. Whitaker and the court about what happened here and
what was told. Was a specific firm name given as the
firm that was supposed to win?
A Yes.
Q And what firm was given that was the firm that was
supposed to win?
A Malcolm Pirnie.
Q And then the second time was there a specific firm

name given to the Committee as the firm that was supposed
to win in the second round?
A Yes.
Q And what was that, that was given to the Committee?

A It was the only other firm, was CDM. Because the
Washington Group was out of the running.
THE COURT: Thank you. Would you call
your next witness.
MR. DETTELBACH: United States recalls
Mike Massie.
THE COURT: Okay.
Where are we moving to now?
MR. DETTELBACH: Houston.
THE COURT: Mr. Massie, you remain under

oath.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Massie, before we move on to actually

the next time line, I want to ask you about specific
documents relating to the Honeywell Corporation.
A Okay.
Q Have you served any subpoenas on the Honeywell

Corporation?
A I have.
Q And where is Honeywell headquartered?
A It's in New Jersey.
Q And are those its only offices?

A NO, they have offices throughout the United States
and throughout the world.
Q And do they have offices in -- any offices in

Northeast Ohio?
A Yes, they have an office in the Cleveland area.
Q Now, are there documents that you have marked and

prepared for trial business records that describe what,
if any, relationship Nate Gray had with Honeywell?
A Yes, a number of different consulting agreements
and amendments.
Q All right. Now, I want to begin by showing you
1070
exhibit 834.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. All right.
Q What is 834?
A This is the first written document. This actually
indicates a commercial relationship between Nate Gray and
Honeywell. It's a letter dated January 28th, 1994.
Q And who is it from? What person is it to?

A It's from Brent Jividen and it's to --
Q I think the other way around?

A I'm sorry, from Nate Gray to Brent Jividen.
Q And on the top is there a fax box?

A Yes, there is a fax, it was faxed to Nate Gray,
921-4386, which is his fax number, from Brent Jividen at
Honeywell, the phone and fax number.
(Z Let's go through these sequentially.

At some point in time is there a more formal
written contract?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please show Exhibit 835.
Q Now, these documents, do you see on the lower right

hand corner as we show them the little HW and the number?
A Yes.
Q Where did you get these documents from that we are

showing you?
A Turned over pursuant to subpoena issued to the

Honeywell Corporation.
Q So these came from Honeywell?

A Yes, they did.
Q Now, with respect to this particular document that

we are looking at, 835.
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you blow up the top
paragraph on the first page, please?
Q All right. And specifically, can you tell us who

the parties listed in this page to the agreement are?
A Honeywell & Associates.
Q Where do you see the word ETNA Associates?

A It starts at the end of the second sentences and
carries on to the beginning of the third sentence.
Q Was that one of the entities that you served a

subpoena on?
A It was.
Q Now, where does it say that Honeywell is located in

this document?
A This one indicates Honeywell, in Honeywell Plaza,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Q And do they also have offices there?

A Yes.
Q Now, going to page 3 of that particular document,

if we could.
All right. Do you see in the middle of the
page what section 7 says?
A Yes, professional standards.
Q All right. And I just want to focus you on two,
7.2 and 7.3. Could you read those?
A Yes. 7.2 reads, "Consultant agrees to comply with
the letter and spirit of the various laws and regulations
designed to insure integrity and contracting of
governmental customers at the federal, state and local
levels of the United States, as well as with any
comparable foreign laws which may be applicable."
Q Please read the next paragraph?

A 7.3 reads, "Consultant shall not offer government
employees, either directly or indirectly, entertainment
or any form of gratuities, including meals at business
meetings which such employees are prohibited from
receiving by applicable agency regulations."
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. And if we
could now go to page --
Q We are not going through this on every document,

but are similar provisions on following documents also?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could we go to the last
page of this document.
Q And tell us what the dates of the signatories are?

MR. DETTELBACH: I'm sorry, one page
1073
before, I apologize.
A This is signed by Nathaniel Gray, President. And
then Honeywell is signed by William Giaimo. It looks
like Branch Manager.
Q And you heard Mr. Giamio's voice earlier on an

interception that was played for you?
A Yes.
Q What's his position?

A Branch Manager.
Q Now, is there a gift policy that governs employees

of the City of Houston, Texas?
A Yes, there is.
Q And now I want to refer you to Exhibit 844. What

is it that we are looking at that is 844?
A It's a document turned over pursuant to subpoena
issued to the City of Houston. This is the actual
executive order regarding gifts for public officials in
the City of Houston.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, objection to

the Houston law.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q What was the date, effective date of this

particular policy that you can read on the top?
A 11/2/93.
Q And looking under the first page, under
definitions, and just one paragraph A. You see 3A?
A I do.
Q What does 3A say?

A You want me to read it?
Q Yes.
A "Benefit. Any gift of food, goods, services,
money, lodging, transportation, or any other thing of
value, or the extension of a discount, rebate or other
price concession or privilege, or any other thing that
could reasonably be regarded as an economic gain or
advantage, whether offered or given directly to a City
employee, or any other person whose welfare the City
employee has an interest or is interested."
(1 And anywhere listed in this document, not this just

this paragraph, is there a dollar threshold listed for
that?
A No.
Q Now, could you please go to the next page. And

looking at the top, paragraph 6, do you see the paragraph
that says requirements?
A I do.
Q All right. And can you please read us A and B
there, but not the sub. You don't have to read every sub
on B, just the heading.

1075
A Okay. Paragraph 6 A reads, "Notwithstanding any
other requirements of this executive order that may be
construed to the contrary, City employees shall not
directly or indirectly accept a benefit under any
circumstances where an appearance or intent to influence

city affairs, or other impropriety, to result from the
acceptance.
"6B. Except as provided in part 7 below,
City employees shall not directly, or indirectly, accept
benefits from any person, including firms or corporate
entities and their officers and employees, who has any of
the following ties to any department, office, function,
or agency of the City."
Q What does number 3 say under that?

A "Persons who regularly engage in any business
activities, or any business or other activity that
requires the approval or licensure of the City."
Q And four?
A "Persons who act as lobbyists or consultants to
represent any business or personal interest before the
City. "
Q And 7?
A "Persons who stand to profit or receive an
advantage from any City action."
Q All right. Now, is there anywhere in this policy

1076
where it says who's supposed to enforce this policy?
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you go up one
paragraph just to responsibilities.
Q And tell us the three people that are listed, or

three offices that are listed?
A The Department Head or Department Director, the

Mayor, and the Chief of Staff.
Q Those are the three?

A Yes.
Q Now, the 1994 contract that I showed you that we

read that paragraph from, was that the last contract that
you found in time sequence with Mr. Gray's company and

Honeywell?
A No.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Please
display 838.
Q All right. And what are we looking at here on 838?

A This is another agreement for consulting services
between ETNA Associates and Honeywell.
Q First let's go to page 5 at the end, and let's see

the date of this.
A This one's in 2000.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: If we could go to page 3.
1077
Q And specifically, on page 3, under professional

standards, is there now an additional paragraph that's in
this par of it that wasn't in the last one?
A Yes, a paragraph is added which refers to the
Honeywell's code of business ethics.
Q It's one sentence. Please read it.

A "7.5. Consultant agrees to read and acknowledge in
writing that he will comply with Honeywell's code of
ethics and business conduct."
825.
Q And with respect to 825, do you know what it is we

are looking at here?
A This is the cover page for Honeywell's code of
business conduct.
Q All right. And specifically, where was this found?

A This document was obtained in the search we
executed in Nate Gray's personal residence.
Q All right. And was it turned over in response to

any subpoena?
A No, it was not.
MR. DETTELBACH: And specifically, could
you go to page 5 of this particular document.
And the bottom of the page, if you could

blow up that section.
Q What's the heading say?
A "We seek business openly and honestly."
Q And read the first bullet point?

A "Honeywell strictly prohibits bribes, kickbacks or
any other form of improper payment, direct or indirect,
to any representative of government, labor union,
customer or supplier in order to obtain a contract, some
other commercial benefit or government action. The
company also strictly prohibits any employee from

accepting such payments from anyone."
MR. DETTELBACH: And if you could go to
page 7, please.
And if you could blow up the first part
under that where you are right now.
Q And what's that heading?

A The government as a customer.
Q All right. And specifically, will you please read

the first two paragraphs there?
A The bullets?
Q No, the first paragraph and the first bullet only.

A "In addition to the provisions of this code, and
other Honeywell policies, employees working with the U.S.
Government, state or local governments, or governments of
those countries where we operate, have an additional
obligation to know, understand and abide by the laws,

1079
regulations and ethical standards of those governments
that may be more strict than those that apply to our
non-government customers and suppliers.
"If a government agency, whether federal,
state or local has adopted a more stringent policy than
Honeywell regarding gifts and gratuities, Honeywell
employees and representatives must comply with the more
stringent policy."
Q Special Agent Massie, was the last exhibit we

showed you regarding the contract --
MR. DETTELBACH: You can take that down,
I'm sorry.
Q Was that the last contract that was entered into

between ETNA and Honeywell?
A No, it was not.
Q And I think we left off we had done 837 and 838.

MR. DETTELBACH: If you could please
display 839.
Q What is 839?
A It's another professional services agreement. This
one pertains to 2002.
Q All right. Now, with respect to this particular

document, I would like you to focus on the first page and
number 2. And does this relate to compensation?
A It does.
1080
Q Please read that. The first two sentences only is

fine?
A "In consideration of performance of these services,
Honeywell shall pay to consultant the monthly fee of
$5,000 and no cents for work performed."
Q And the next sentence?

A "Reasonable expenses actually incurred in the
performance of services for Honeywell and directly
attributable thereto shall also be paid by Honeywell."
Q All right. And drawing your attention to paragraph

6.
MR. DETTELBACH: If you could scroll down.
another change or another provision.
Q All right. And on this contract is there another

reference to the same code of conduct that you talked
about before?
A There is.
Q And is it in this paragraph? You don't have to

read it.
A It is.
Q Now, this particular contract, could you go forward

to page 3 and tell us what the dates and signatures are
on this contract so we can put it in a time frame?

A Signing on behalf of Honeywell is William Giamio,
Business Manager, on July llth, 2002. And signing on

behalf of ETNA Associates is Nate Gray, President,
July loth, 2002.
Q S o t h i s one is 2002. Signed2002?

A Yes.
Q So this one --
MR. DETTELBACH: Please go to the next
page, attachment A.
Q All right. I'll use the screen for it. All right.
Do you recognize what I'm showing you here?
A Yes. This is a page which is attached to the
agreement.
Q And what does it say at the top?

A Project list. City of New Orleans. New Orleans
Housing Authority, New Orleans City Schools, City of
Cincinnati, Detroit Housing Authority, Cuyahoga
Metropolitan Housing Authority, City of Houston, Houston
Public Schools, Houston Housing Authority.
Q Special Agent Massie, is that the last or most

recent signed contract between Nate Gray and Honeywell?
A It is.
Q Now, with respect to the City of Houston, does the

Houston code have any provision regarding the
registration of lobbies?
A It does.

1082
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q All right. And what are we looking at on 855?

A This is another document turned over pursuant to
the subpoena issued to the City of Houston. It's from
the Houston code.
MR. DETTELBACH: On the right hand side of
the page, could you please pull up, starting halfway
down exactly. That first paragraph is enough. You
can blow more up. That's fine.
Q And can you read section 18-72, persons required to

register?
A Yes. "A person must register with the City
Secretary under this article if the person communicates
directly with a member of the legislative or executive
branch to influence municipal legislation or
administration action.
down.
Q And have you served a subpoena on the City of

Houston for any records relating to registration of Nate
Gray?
A I have.
Q And what response did you receive?

1083
A No records existed.
Q Have you served a subpoena that also called for any

registration of Earl Brown?
A Yes, I have.
Q What response did you receive?

A Also there is no records.
Q And finally, for Garland Hardeman?

A Yes. There is one registration made in 2003 for
Garland Hardeman.
Q What year was the first one?

A 2003. There was only one which was 2003 regarding
Hardeman.
Q And that one only related to who?

A Garland Hardeman.
Q Now, Special Agent Massie, with respect to the

Honeywell documents, other than Honeywell itself, did you
obtain any documents relating to commercial relationships
between ETNA and Honeywell?
A Yes.
Q And how did you get those other ones?

A The other ones were seized during the search
warrants executed in Nate Gray's residence.
Q Specifically and where from the residence?

A Also in that black backpack that was on the ground
in the master closet.

Q And what room was that off?
A Off of the master bedroom.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now let's look at Exhibit
821, please.
Q And what is 821?

A This is the another, this is the original version
of the 2002 professional services agreement.
Q All right. So this, what do you mean by the

original version?
A As it has the ink signature, which make it appears
as if it is the original.
Q And directing your attention to the lower right, is

there any H. W. Bates stamp numbers there?
A No.
Q Why is that?
A This wasn't turned over by Honeywell.
Q Was it turned over pursuant to the subpoena to

ETNA?
A No, it was not either.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now could we go to 822.
Q Now what is 822?

A This is a consulting agreement dated March of 2002.
Q All right. Now, this particular one, where was it

recovered?
A Also in the search of Nate Gray's residence.
Q Where?
A I n t h e b l a c k b a g i n t h e walk i n c l o s e t .
Q Now t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e x h i b i t , was it t u r n e d o v e r by
Honeywell?
Q A l l right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you p l e a s e g o t o --
Q Well l e t me a s k you, i s t h i s e x e c u t e d ?
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you p l e a s e g o s c r o l l
t h r o u g h t h i s a n d go t o t h e l a s t p a g e .
Q A l l right. And t e l l u s s p e c i f i c a l l y , what
s i g n a t u r e s t h e r e a r e and a r e n o t on t h i s one?
A T h e r e i s o n l y one s i g n a t u r e , t h a t ' s o f W i l l i a m
Giamio of Honeywell.
Q Under ETNA?
A There i s n o t h i n g .
Q I s t h e r e a n y d i f f e r e n c e between t h i s o n e w i t h
r e s p e c t t o c o m p e n s a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s and t h e one t h a t was
effectuated?
A Yes? T h i s one s t i l l c a l l s f o r M r . Gray t o b e p a i d
on a c o n t i n g e n c y .
Q And t h e o t h e r one?
A Was s t r i c t l y a $5,000 p e r month r e t a i n e r payment.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now i f w e c o u l d p l e a s e go

to Exhibit 823.
Q And again, what are we looking at here?

A It's another consulting agreement between ETNA and
Honeywell.
Q All right. And what year does this one pertain to?
A I can't tell without looking at the signature.
MR. DETTELBACH: Let's go to the signature
page. Thank you.
One page back, I believe.
Q All right. Which year is this one?

A This one is 2000.
Q And where was this version of this document

recovered?
A In the same black bag.
Q Was it turned over pursuant to subpoena?

A No, it was not.
Q In addition to the contracts, did you obtain and

review records relating to monies actually paid to
Mr. Gray and ETNA from Honeywell?
A Yes.
Q What types of records?
A Copies of checks, invoices, business records.
Q All right. And did you prepare a summary based on

those?
A I did.
847.
Q All right. What are we looking at in 847?

A This is a summary of deposits in the ETNA
Associates National City Bank checking account which were
from Honeywell.
Q And what years does it pertain to?

A This one starts in '97, I believe it goes through
until 2003.
could go to page 3 of that.
Q Well, is it one total or done by year?

A I believe it's done both by year and aggregate.
Q So please begin reading down just the totals, the

yearly totals at the bottom?
A You look at the second column, it indicates the
amount. The bold number is the total. So for '97 it
would be $61,843.75. For '98 it would be $75,843.75.
'99 is 11,000.
page.
A 2000 is 12,000. 2001 is 180,494.

1088
A 2002 is $49,322.91. And then 2003 is 27,249.89.
For a grand total of $417,754.30.
Q All right. Special Agent Massie, let's now focus

on the City of Houston, Texas.
Did you prepare a time line for evidence
relating to primarily the City of Houston, Texas?
A I did.
MR. DETTELBACH: And if we could please
distribute Exhibit 26A.
Q When does this time line begin and when does it

end?
A The first entry is on August, 2001. This one is a
three page time line with the last entry being
February llth, 2003.
Q All right. And again, calls below the line and

documents on top?
Q Does this time line relate to only one potential

contract or procurement?
A No. It involves three separate contracts that
occurred within the City of Houston.
Q What are the three reflected on this time line?
A First contract relates to the demand side
management contract with the City of Houston Division of
Building Services. It's pertaining to the energy

1089
deregulation in the City of Houston.
Q All right. So it's the energy contract. Which

other ones?
A Second one is airport parking shuttle bus contract
in Cleveland -- or Houston's international airport.
Q Okay.
A And the third one was a potential parking meter
collection contract.
Q Now, with respect to the Houston energy contract,

which companies are involved and on the time line?
A The contract was between Reliant Energy Solutions
and the City of Houston. Honeywell was a subcontractor
to Reliant.
Q All right. And with respect to the Houston airport

shuttle contract, which companies?
A That was a parking group under the name of First
Transit. They had entered that contract with a rental
car contingency or rental car committee.
Q And were there any subcontractors involved?

A Yes, ETNA Parking was a subcontractor.
Q And then finally, the parking meter or the

potential, I think you said, parking meter contract.
Did that one come through?

A No, it was never executed.
Q And who were the companies though that are

1090
reflected on that one?
A The two prime contractors were APCOA and AMPCO.
And once again, ETNA Parking was a subsidiary to one of
the companies. And Stan Broussard, attorney out of
Houston, was acting as the subsidiary to the other.
Q So let's take those in the order -- as we go

through the time line we'll just take them in order
contract by contract that you just gave me.
Let's start with the Houston energy services
contract.
Was a contract for energy actually bid and
awarded in the City of Houston?
A Yes.
809.
Q And tell us where we are on the time line?

A This is the very first entry.
Q All right. And with respect to 809, please tell us

what the document is that we are looking at?
A The actual document 809 is a request for council
action approving the selection of Reliant with the
recommendation of Monique McGilbra, Director of Building
Services.
Q Where do you see that?

A You see Monique McGilbra's signature up there.
1091
Q All right. NOW, in this particular document, is

there any information about the history or the
contracting process as a whole?
A Yes. There is a background as well as a
description of the selection process.

could blow up the bottom part of the page, then down
to scope of services at least.
Q All right. That first part that background

information. What does that convey?
A It indicates it's Senate Bill 7, which was passed
by Texas legislature deregulated the energy market for

the State of Texas which made it competitively bid.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, moving down. That's
fine. I think we can still see that part.
Q There is something called selection process; do you

see that?
A I do.
Q All right. And with respect to the selection

process, does it give any key dates in the selection
process?
A It does.
Q And what are the key dates as reflected on your

time line from this document?
A One refers to our first entry, which is August.

1092
2001, which is the date the city issued RFQs, or request
for qualifications, which they issued to 23 electricity
providers.
Q And at the bottom of the paragraph is there any
other date?
A Then the best and final proposals were submitted by
the three firms which were short listed, which is Reliant
Energy Solutions, and TXU, November 28th, 2001.
Q I'm sorry, you said three firms. You only named

two?
A It was initially three firms but the best and final
was only submitted by two firms.
Q Who was in the final three before the best of two?

A ENRON was in the final three before they had their
own problems.
Q And does it indicate indeed on this document who

was selected?
A Yes, Reliant was selected for the contract.
could scroll down, please, into the scope of work.
Q Did this contract relate only to demand side

management?
A No, it also related to the actual supplying of
electricity to the building facilities.
Q So now, focusing you on the third bullet, then

1093
setting aside the other ones, could you read just the
third bullet?
A Yes. It reads, "a comprehensive demand side
management program that will identify and implements
energy efficient projects and result in the installation
of higher efficiency capital equipment that will reduce
operating cost."
Q Now, Special Agent Massie, are there any documents

that reflect or relate to travel on the part of Brent
Jividen and Nate Gray during this time frame?
A Yes.
912.
And if you could just blow up the top.
Q And tell us whose expen'se report this is?

A This is an expense reports for Brent Jividen for
the dates August 20th, '01 through August 29th, 2001.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. And
specifically, then, if you could go forward two
pages. All right.
Q What's this back up? What is this back up

document?
A I thought you were telling her to back up.
This is a hotel receipt.
Q And who is this one for?

1094
A Brent Jividen.
Q And this document, where was it obtained from?

A This whole series of documents were obtained
pursuant to a subpoena we issued to Honeywell.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. So now -- and
then go to the next part of the expense record, the
next page, please.
Q And who's hotel bill was this one?

A Nate Gray.
Q And again, the date?

A August 20th, '01 was departure date.
MR. DETTELBACH: And please go forward one
more.
And bottom right, if you could blow up that
particular receipt.
Q And can you please tell us what this receipt is?

A It's a receipt for Houston's, which is a restaurant
located in Houston. It's paid for by Brent L. Jividen.
that down.
Q Now, moving to the right of the time line. You've

already told us who was short listed.
MR. DETTELBACH: But please display
Exhibit 851.
Q What is 851?
1095
A This is a letter from Monique McGilbra to Ray
Ehmer.
Q All right. And who is Ray Ehmer?

A He is a Vice President for Reliant.
Q And who is Monique McGilbra, by this letter?

A She's the Director of Building Services for the
City of Houston.
Q And what's the date on this letter, and what is it

asking for?
A This is October 3rd, 2001. And this is requesting
proposals to be submitted.
Q All right. So this is an RFP letter?

A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Now, moving
to the right again on the time line. The next
exhibit above is 803. Could you please display
that.
Q And what date is that?

A 803 is occurred on October 21st, 2001. This is a
receipt for an invoice from Amazing Tickets. Customer
name of Brent L. Jividen for a football game between the
Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Ravens on October 21st,
2001.
Q And what's the total amount of the bill at the

bottom on the right?
A $915.
Q I'm sorry?
A $915.
Q For how many tickets?

A This one is for 6 tickets.
Q All right. And is there payment information?

MR. DETTELBACH: You don't have to blow
that up.
A Yes, it's a credit card from Brent Jividen.
Q All right.
Q Moving to the right again on the time line, where

are we on the time line now?
A It was the fourth entry, move to the fifth entry.
Q All right. And can you please tell us the date.

MR. DETTELBACH: And display Exhibit 829.
A It is dated November 8th, 2001, consolidated
servicing agreement between Nate Gray and Garland
Hardeman.
Q First of all, tell us where it was you obtained -

there is a series of pages, but where you got this
document?
A This was also obtained in the search of Nate Gray's
residence.
1097
Q All right. And was it turned over pursuant to any

subpoenas?
A No, it was not.
Q Now, what's the top page of this letter?

A The top page is the thank you letter from Garland
Hardeman to Nate Gray.
Q What's the date of that thank you letter?

Q And where is Mr. Hardeman, from the document, where

is he writing from and where is the letter going to?
A The letter is going to Cleveland, Ohio. Garland
Hardeman resides in California.
Q All right. Now, from the review of the wiretap

evidence, who was Garland Hardeman in relation to Monique
McGilbra?
A It was her boyfriend.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now let's go to page 2 of
that document.
Q All right. With respect to page 2 of this

document, first of all, looking at the whole document --
MR. DETTELBACH: Let's look at the whole
page.
Q Can you tell us what it is?
A This is a letter to Nate Gray from Brent Jividen
approving the subcontracting and consulting services to

1098
SBS consultants, which is Garland Hardeman's company.
Q Now with respect to this document --

MR. DETTELBACH: Blow up the date, please.
Q What's the date of the letter?

A November 6th, 2001.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. And go out to
the screen please and blow up the bottom -- actually
blow up the one page of the body of the letter, the
one paragraph of the body of the letter.
Q And what does that say?

A It says, "per our conversation, I understand and
approve the subcontracting of the consulting services to
SGS Consultants, as provided for in Section 14 of our
agreement. These services are related to the City of
Houston in pursuit of energy demand management
partnership agreement."
MR. DETTELBACH: Scroll down a little bit.
Q And tell us who signed it.

MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I object to the
continued reading of everything. They speak for
themselves.
MR. DETTELBACH: Actually, you can scroll
down further.
Q What are we looking at right here?

1099
MR. DETTELBACH: Keep on going.
A It's a posted fax note. It was faxed to Garland.
And the fax number 310-923-1463 from Nate Gray looks like
on November 9th.
Q And 310, where is that?

A California.
MR. DETTELBACH: Go to the next page,
please. All right.
Q And this is a fax cover page?

A This is a fax cover page from Garland Hardeman to
Nate Gray.
Q And again, is there and 310 number?

A There is.
Q And what's the date of the fax on the top fax line?
A On the top fax is November 8, '01.
Q And who was it faxed to?

A Nate Gray.
Q And is there a 216 number after that?

A There is. It's Nate Gray's fax machine.
Q There's a one sentence note -- actually, just read

the last sentence of the note, "I have some --".
A "I have some information on actions that need to be
taken today regarding making a contact with Reliant."
MR. DETTELBACH: Go to the next page of

this exhibit, please.
1100
Q All right. Now, this is the first page of several

pages. Could you tell us what this is the first page of?
A The consulting services agreement between ETNA and
SGS Consultants.
Q All right. Now, you say the two parties to this

agreement are who? Can you read at the top, the first
paragraph, who the actual parties listed in this are?
A ETNA Parking, Inc. and SGS Consultants.
Q And from your review of the records, does ETNA

Parking have anything to do with the Houston energy
services contract?
MR. DETTELBACH: If you can scroll down,
please. Under services A and B.
Q All right. And under A, does it list what contract

that this relates to?
A Yes. It's procuring energy demand management
partnership agreement.
Q Please read B out loud.

A "Consultant shall act as the subcontracted
government liaison on behalf of the Honeywell Corporation
to bill and maintain relationships with the City of
Houston government officials."
Q And the date on this above, what's the date?
A November 6th, '01.

1101
Q And t h e d a t e t h a t M r . Hardeman f i r s t r e g i s t e r e d i n
t h e C i t y o f Houston, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r e c o r d s ?
A I t was n o t u n t i l 2003.
MR. DETTELBACH: A l l right. C o u l d you
s c r o l l down t o t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n p o r t i o n , p l e a s e .
And j u s t r e a d t h e f i r s t -- t h a t ' s f i n e .
Q What's t h e f i r s t paragraph of compensation?
A "The c o r p o r a t i o n a g r e e s t o p a y c o n s u l t a n t a
p e r f o r m a n c e c o m p e n s a t i o n f e e o f one h a l f o f one p e r c e n t
o f g r o s s r e v e n u e r e c e i v e d by t h e Honeywell C o r p o r a t i o n
f o r c o n s u l t a n t s 1 a s s i s t a n c e i n s e c u r i n g e n e r g y management
p a r t n e r s h i p a g r e e m e n t between t h e Honeywell C o r p o r a t i o n
and t h e C i t y of Houston."
Q And keep on r e a d i n g a b o u t t h e d u e d a t e ?
A "The f e e i s due and s h a l l b e p a i d w i t h i n 30 d a y s
a f t e r t h e C i t y o f Houston h a s o f f i c i a l l y a p p r o v e d t h e
p a r t n e r s h i p agreement."
Q A l l right.
MR. DETTELBACH: And now g o t o t h e f i r s t
page of t h a t e x h i b i t a g a i n .
And j u s t blow up t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e o f t h e
t e x t of t h e l e t t e r . J u s t t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e of t h e
cover l e t t e r .
Q What d o e s i t s a y ?
A I t s a y s , "Dear N a t e , I want t o t h a n k you f o r your

1102
g r a c i o u s h o s p i t a l i t y and t h e wonderful t i m e w e s h a r e d
t o g e t h e r w h i l e I was r e c e n t l y i n t h e C i t y o f C l e v e l a n d .
Enjoyed meeting V a l e r i e and having d i n n e r and d i s c u s s i o n s
w i t h Mike a n d K a r e n . "
Q Is t h e r e a l s o --
MR. DETTELBACH: If you s c r o l l down.
Q I s t h e r e a n o t h e r name l i s t e d i n t h a t p a r a g r a p h ?
A Brent.
Q Okay. Now, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h a t l a s t c o n t r a c t t h a t
w e went o v e r , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h a t s i g n e d c o p y , w e r e t h e r e
a n y o t h e r d r a f t s t h a t were r e c o v e r e d f r o m M r . G r a y ' s
home?
A Yes.
d i s p l a y 820.
Q What a r e we l o o k i n g a t ? What i s 820 a n d w h e r e was
i t found?
A 820 was a l s o f o u n d i n t h e b l a c k b a g i n N a t e G r a y ' s
closet.
Q And who was t h i s f a x c o v e r p a g e f r o m , a n d who i s i t
to?
A T h i s i s f r o m G a r l a n d Hardeman t o Nate G r a y .
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, if you c a n s c r o l l
down t h r o u g h t h e n o t e , a n d -- a n d p l e a s e , I ' m sorry,
go back up.
1103
Q And please read the note.

A "I have attached the consulting agreement for your
review and comments. I have only worked directly with
the vendor when establishing my consulting agreements, so
I prepared this agreement in that manner. If you have
suggestions or comments on how we can best expedite this
agreement I am open to your suggestions.
"I have been informed that we must move
expeditiously to consummate our agreement in order to
secure placement of Honeywell in the partnership
agreement.
"I left the amount of compensation blank
because you indicated that you would check on the actual
gross amount Honeywell was anticipating on this deal.
That was with the understand that the consulting fees
would be based on a percentage of the gross."
Q Now, is the contract that follows actually signed?

A It may have Nate Gray's signature, but it's not
executed.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Go to the
next page.
And I only want to focus on the
interlineations here, not the text. Could you
please focus on the first paragraph and blow that
UP.
Q And tell us what is crossed out?
A Honeywell's crossed out.
Q All right. And then what's written above?

A It says same as page 1.
next one. All right.
Q And what's the next interlineation that's made

there in writing?
A This one also has Honeywell crossed out, and it has
ETNA Parking at 13212 Shaker Square, Cleveland, Ohio,
44120.
Q And are there any initials or letters that are

written next to ETNA Parking or that interlineation?
A Yes, it's initialed NG.
Q Go down to the bottom of that page. The next

written interlineation there.
A It says 3 0 percent, one half of one percent. Also
with the initials NG.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. And then
finally scroll forward two pages.
All right. And if you could blow up the
top part.
Q And what changes have been penned in here?

A Honeywell is stricken, and it refers same as page 1
with NG initialed next to it. Also in the signature line

1105
Honeywell and Brent Jividen name is stricken and Nate
Gray's signature is on the page.
Q All right. Now, moving to the right on the time

line. Were there any other consulting agreements between
Nate Gray and others that mentioned the Houston energy
services contract?
A Yes, there is also an agreement between Nate Gray
and Earl Brown.
909.
Q Who is Earl Brown?

A Earl Brown is the brother to the then Mayor of
Houston, Lee Brown.
Q All right. And tell us 909, what it is and where

you recovered it from?
A 909 is the consulting agreement between Nate Gray
and Earl Brown. This one was also recovered in the
search of Nate Gray's residence.
Q And specifically?
A In that same black bag.
Q All right. Now, who are the parties to this

particular agreement?
A ETNA Parking and Brown & Associates.
Q And what is the date, if you can see it --

MR. DETTELBACH: If you b l o w up the top
paragraph.
Q What's the date of this one?

A November 21st, 2001.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right, scroll down.
Keep going. All right.
Q And please read under services, B?

A "Consultant shall act as the subcontracted
government liaison on behalf of the Honeywell Corporation
to build and maintain relationships with the Greater
Houston Area government officials."
MR. DETTELBACH: And please go down to the
compensation portion.
Q And what's the compensation provision in this
agreement say?
A "This is also one half of one percent of gross
revenue received by Honeywell."
Q Payable again when the money comes?

A Thirty days after.
could then go to the last page.
Q And tell us, is this agreement actually signed, and

who signed it?
A Yes, it's signed Earl W. Brown, President, Brown &
Associates Consulting Firm, and Nate Gray, President,
ETNA Parking.
Q Now, t a k e u s b a c k t o t h e t i m e l i n e a n d t e l l u s
where w e l e f t o f f on t h e t i m e l i n e .
A We were j u s t r e f e r r i n g t o t h e s i x t h e n t r y a b o v e t h e
line.
Q T h a t ' s 909?
A Yep.
Q And w h a t ' s t h e n e x t d a t e ?
A N e x t d a t e i s November 2 8 t h , 2 0 0 1 . Refers t o
E x h i b i t 808.
Q Okay.
A Which i s t h e b e s t a n d f i n a l p r o p o s a l s u b m i t t e d b y
Reliant.
MR. DETTELBACH: And if you c o u l d p l e a s e
show 8 0 8 .
Q A l l right. Now, i s t h i s d o c u m e n t , j u s t , is this
j u s t a very large binder?
A Yes, i t ' s a n e n t i r e b i n d e r .
(Z Where d i d you g e t i t f r o m ?
A T h i s i s t u r n e d o v e r by R e l i a n t p u r s u a n t t o
subpoena.
Q All right. Now, a r e t h e r e a n y r e f e r e n c e s i n t h i s
b e s t a n d f i n a l -- w h a t ' s t h e d a t e , f i r s t o f a l l ?
A November 2 8 t h , 2 0 0 1 .
Q I n t h e b e s t and f i n a l proposal submitted on t h a t
date, were there a n y r e f e r e n c e s t o Honeywell?

1108
A Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: And i f you c o u l d s c r o l l
t h r o u g h , we s e l e c t e d some o u t .
A l l right.
And i f you blow up t h a t l i t t l e g r a p h .
Q A l l right. Do you s e e Honeywell anywhere t h e r e ?
A Yes, u n d e r n e a t h t h e box f o r o t h e r f a c i l i t i e s .
MR. DETTELBACH: And j u s t s c r o l l t o t h e
n e x t page, p l e a s e . A l l right.
Q And do you s e e where i t s a y s o t h e r team members?
A I do.
MR. DETTELBACH: A l l right. C o u l d you
p l e a s e blow t h a t up and s e e i f t h e r e a r e a n y
r e f e r e n c e s t o Honeywell i f you go down f u r t h e r ,
please. S c r o l l down.
That's fine.
Q T h e r e were r e f e r e n c e s t h e r e t o o ?
MR. DETTELBACH: And i f you s c r o l l t o t h e
n e x t page. Go t o t h e n e x t p a g e . That's fine.
Q Were t h e r e a n y r e f e r e n c e s t o Honeywell i n t h i s
part?
A Yes, t h i s whole s e c t i o n p e r t a i n s t o Honeywell.
Q I ' m sorry, say again?
A T h i s whole s e c t i o n p e r t a i n s t o Honeywell a s a team
member.
1109
Q And had that been in any previous proposals that

you saw?
A No, it was not.
down, and let's go then to the next entry on the
time line, which is at 12/11/01.
Q Do you see that entry?

A I do.
Q What does that refer to?

A This is a reference to the letter of intent between
Honeywell and Reliant.
could please display Exhibit 811.
Q And what are we looking at?

A This is the letter.
Q This is the letter of the tenth?

A Yes.
Q And who are the parties on this letter? Who are

the people involved, their names?
A Brent Jividen from Honeywell and Ray Ehmer from
Reliant.
Q All right. And then moving one over then on the

time line. What's then the next entry?
A The actual effective date, deregulation, which is
January lst, 2002.

Q And Reliant got the contract?
A Yes, they did.
Q All right. Now, using the time line, can you tell
us where the wire interceptions then begin on this time
line?
A Continue to look over. If you look just below the

line, the first interception on this time line is
January 18th, 2002.
Q And what date actually -- the first one on this

time line is the 18th, when actually did the wire
interception under court authorization begin?
A It was either January 15th or January 16th.
Q So this was just a couple days after the wire was
up?
A That's correct.
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you please display
Exhibit 814.
Q And what is Exhibit 814?
A 814 is a check for $2,200 pay to the order of Shawn
Springs, drawn on Nate Gray's personal Key Bank account.
Q What does it say in the memo column?

A Indicates Super Bowl.
Q And if you could, tell us where you got this?
A This was found in the search warrant executed at

the ETNA office.
Q I'm sorry, at the ETNA?
A Offices.
Q All right. And was it turned over pursuant to

subpoena?
A No, it was not.
Q All right. Now, going back to your time line.

MR. DETTELBACH: If you could, please play
for us the first wiretap interception on your time
line, Exhibit 1143.
Q And tell us before you play it, who's on the call?

A This is a conversation between Nate Gray and
Garland Hardeman.
it, 1143.
(Tape played. )
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Massie, who was speaking when the

line was then communicated to the source?
A Garland Hardeman.
Q Now, directing your attention to the time line,

were there any further calls relating to the Super Bowl?
A Yes, there were.
Q Was there ever any discussion by Mr. Gray as to who

else was going with Mr. Hardeman?
A Yes.
1112
Q And where is that reflected?

A If you look at the very next entry, exhibit 1146,
which occurred on January 24th, 2002.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you please play 1146.
(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Massie, at the outset of that call,

did you hear some conversation about a hotel stay?
A Yes.
Q Referring you back to the entry on your time line

on the Browns Ravens game, do you see that?
A I do.
Q Was there a hotel bill that you have obtained for

that same time period?
A I have.
801.
Q All right. What are we looking at on 801?

A This is a copy of a bill from the Ritz Carlton in
the name of Miss Monique McGilbra. And then printed on
top it says Brent Jividen.
Q And the payment information on this particular

bill, what was the credit card paid under?
A Brent Jividen .
Q All right. Now, you heard some conversation about
1113
specific items. Were there any specific items charged to
the room here that you can see?
A Yes. Looks like gift shop, florist, fitness
center.
Q Gift shop, florist and fitness center?

A Yes.
Q What's the total on the bill?

A $563.20.
Q And the date matches with what part of the time

line?
A It's 10/20 and 10/21. 10/21 is the same date as
the Ravens and Cleveland Browns football game, which is
Exhibit 803.
Q Now, going back to the Super Bowl. Were there any

additional messages left by Mr. Gray for Mr. Hardeman
relating to the Super Bowl?
THE COURT: How much more do you have on
this?
MR. DETTELBACH: It's a significant
amount.
THE COURT: We'll take a break. We'll
adjourn for about 21 minutes 'til. About 12 or 13
minutes.
Continue not to talk about the case, not
to form any opinions or express any. We'll adjourn

for that period.
(Brief recess. )
THE COURT: If the jury will take their
seats.
I'll ask you to continue your cross
examination.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Massie, referring you back to the

weekend of the Browns/Ravens football game. I would like
to show you Exhibit 802.
MR. DETTELBACH: And if you blow up the
right side. Where it's -- actually, you can take it
down because it has credit card information.
Q Just tell us, you are familiar with that exhibit,
are you not?
A I am.
Q And where is it a receipt from?
A The Watermark restaurant in Cleveland, Ohio.
Q And who is the signatory on the bottom?
A Brent Jividen.
Q Do you remember the amount?
A It was roughly $150.
approach very briefly?
Q Just looking at this, can you read the amount?

1115
A Yeah, 143.80.
Q Thank y o u . A l l right. Now, a l l r i g h t . Going back
t o t h e t i m e l i n e i n t h e S u p e r Bowl s e q u e n c e .
W e l e f t o f f , w e had p l a y e d 1146. And t h a t
was b e t w e e n who?
A T h a t was N a t e Gray a n d B r e n t J i v i d e n .
(r Now, i n addition t o Mr. Jividen, is t h e r e an
i n t e r c e p t i o n shown on y o u r t i m e l i n e i n v o l v i n g anybody
e l s e a s s i s t i n g t h e S u p e r Bowl?
A Yes, t h e r e i s a l s o a c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n N,ate Gray
a n d G a r l a n d Hardeman a n d N a t e Gray a n d G i l b e r t J a c k s o n .
Q And t h e N a t e Gray a n d G a r l a n d Hardeman, w h e r e i s
t h a t one?
A T h e r e i s a n o t h e r o n e which i s t h e v e r y n e x t i t e m on
t h e t i m e l i n e , J a n u a r y 28, 2002. E x h i b i t 1147.
Q And w h o ' s r e f e r e n c e d i n t h a t c a l l ?
A Pardon?
Q Who i s r e f e r e n c e d i n t h a t c a l l ?
A T h i s i s N a t e Gray a n d G a r l a n d Hardeman.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please play t h a t Exhibit
1147.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q A l l right. Now t h a t was J a n u a r y 2 8 t h , 2002?
A That's correct.
Q A l l right. And i s t h e r e t h e n a f o l l o w u p w i t h
Mr. J a c k s o n h i m s e l f a n d N a t e Gray i n v o l v i n g t h i s m a t t e r ?
A Yes. The n e x t i t e m , J a n u a r y 3 0 t h , 2002 i s a
r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t 1125.
Q Who a r e t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s on t h i s c a l l ?
A N a t e Gray a n d G i l b e r t J a c k s o n .
Q S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , d i d you h e a r a r e f e r e n c e t o
Pampy I s ?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q What i s Pampy's?
A I t ' s a restaurant i n New Orleans.
Q And d i d you h e a r a r e f e r e n c e t o somebody named
Mark?
A Yes.
Q Who i s the Mayor o f New O r l e a n s ?
A Mark M o r i a l .
Q And d i d you h e a r a r e f e r e n c e t a l k i n g a b o u t
upgrading t i c k e t s ?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q Who d o e s J o e J o h n s o n r e f e r t o ?
A H e ' s a f o o t b a l l player f o r t h e New Orleans S a i n t s .
Q N o w on t h e same d a y , d i d M r . G r a y s p e a k a g a i n w i t h
Mr. Hardeman?
1117
1 A He did.
2 Q And what's that Exhibit Number on your time line?

3 A If you look, very next item, 1148.
4 MR. DETTELBACH: Please play 1148.
5 (Tape played. )
6 Q And is there a second clip from the same call?

7 A There is.
8 Q It's not on the time line, correct?

9 A No, it's not.
10 MR. DETTELBACH: Please play 1149 in the
11 same call.
12 (Tape played. )
13 Q All right. And did in fact Mr. Gray relay any

14 information to Gilbert Jackson that same day?
15 A Yes.
16 MR. JENKINS: Objection. It speaks for
17 itself. He's regurgitating each tape.
18 THE COURT: He's going on to something
19 else, I'll overrule it. Just go on.

21 Q Which tape is that reflected in?

22 A Exhibit 1150 is a voice mail that Nate Gray leaves
23 for Gilbert Jackson.
24 Q And with respect to this particular call, what

25 state was it placed from, and what state was it placed
to?
A From C l e v e l a n d , Ohio t o N e w O r l e a n s , L o u i s i a n a .
Q And w h a t was t h e d a t e ?
A A l s o on J a n u a r y 3 0 t h , 2002.
Q Now, were t h e r e a n y d o c u m e n t s t h a t were r e c o v e r e d
i n any s e a r c h e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e h o t e l ?
A Yes, t h e r e w e r e .
MR. DETTELBACH: And p l e a s e d i s p l a y
E x h i b i t 828.
And i f you c o u l d b l o w u p t h e t o p p a r t w i t h
t h e w r i t i n g on i t .
Q What i s t h a t a n d w h e r e was i t r e c o v e r e d ?
A T h i s i s a h o t e l b i l l f r o m H o t e l Le C i r q u e i n N e w
Orleans, Louisiana. T h i s was r e c o v e r e d i n a s e a r c h o f
Nate G r a y ' s r e s i d e n c e , i n the closet, also i n t h a t black
backpack.
Q Was t h i s t u r n e d o v e r p u r s u a n t t o G r a n d J u r y
subpoena?
A No, i t was o t .
Q Do you s e e t h e f o l i o b a l a n c e i n t h e l o w e r r i g h t ?
A I do.
MR. DETTELBACH: C o u l d you p l e a s e s c r o l l
t o the right, M i s s Rossiletti.

Q And w h a t ' s t h e b i l l ?
A 2369.49.
MR. DETTELBACH: Thank you. Please take
t h a t down.
Q Now, i n t h i s same t i m e f r a m e o n y o u r t i m e l i n e , are
t h e r e any i n t e r c e p t i o n s t h a t r e l a t e t o t h e a c t u a l energy
services contract involving M r . Gilbert?
A Yes, t h e r e i s a number.
Q A l l right. L e t m e f i r s t d i r e c t you t o 2 / 1 / 0 2 , that
date.
F i r s t o f a l l when i s t h a t i n r e l a t i o n t o
a c t u a l S u p e r Bowl?
A T h a t ' s two d a y s b e f o r e t h e a c t u a l S u p e r Bowl. The
S u p e r Bowl o c c u r r e d on F e b r u a r y 3 r d o f ' 0 2 .
Q Looking a t y o u r e n t r y t h e r e , 1 1 5 1 . Who was on t h a t
c a l l on t h a t d a t e ?
A N a t e Gray a n d B r e n t J i v i d e n .
Q S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , d i d you h e a r t h a t r e f e r e n c e
a t t h e e n d t o o n e o r two b u i l d i n g s a n d t h e number o f
buildings?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q Now h a d t h e s c o p e o f t h e p r o j e c t b e e n d e t e r m i n e d a t
t h i s point?
A No, i t h a s n o t .
Q And what d e p a r t m e n t was m a n a g i n g i t ?
A The B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e s D e p a r t m e n t .
Q And who was t h e h e a d o f t h a t ?
A Monique M c G i l b r a .
Q T h e r e was some names t h a t came u p . Did you h e a r a
r e f e r e n c e t o Rick?
A Yes.
Q And w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e H o u s t o n Camp, Dresser,
McKee o f f i c e , was t h e r e a R i c k t h e r e ?
A Yes, R i c k C l o u t i e r was i n t h e Houston Camp,
Dresser, McKee o f f i c e .
Q And you a l s o h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o O l i v e r S p e l l m a n ,
Jr.?
A Yes.
Q And a t t h i s p o i n t , was -- a t t h i s t i m e p e r i o d , was
h e named t o a n y p o s i t i o n s ?
A Yes. T h i s i s i n d i c a t e d h e ' s named C h i e f o f S t a f f
t o t h e Mayor o f H o u s t o n .
Q And t h e n f i n a l l y you h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o Ray?
A Yes.
Q Who was t h e l e a d p e r s o n a t t h i s p o i n t f r o m R e l i a n t ,
t h e l e a d c o n t r a c t o r t o Honeywell s u b ?
A Ray Ehmer.
Q Now, S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , w e a r e g o i n g t h r o u g h t h e
time l i n e o n l y a s i t r e l a t e s t o t h e e n e r g y c o n t r a c t . So
f i r s t -- a c t u a l l y l e t me j u s t show you E x h i b i t 8 1 9 . All
right.
And s p e c i f i c a l l y , d o you remember e a r l i e r you
saw a c h e c k f o r t h e S u p e r Bowl?
A I do.
Q How much was t h i s c h e c k f o r ?
A $2,200.
Q What i s ' t h e f a c e v a l u e on t h i s S u p e r Bowl t i c k e t ?
A I t ' s $400 a p i e c e .
Q What i s t h e d a t e t h a t i s l i s t e d a s t h e a c t u a l d a t e
o f t h e game?
A F e b r u a r y 3 r d , 2002.
MR. DETTELBACH: A l l right. You c a n t a k e
t h a t down.
Q Now, s i n c e w e are g o i n g t h r o u g h t h i s o n l y as it
r e l a t e s t o t h i s o n e c o n t r a c t , what i s t h e n e x t e n t r y t h a t
relates t o that particular contract?
S k i p o v e r 8 3 9 on t h e t o p , w e ' v e a l r e a d y d o n e ,
right?
A Pardon?
Q 839 on t h e t o p o f p a g e 2 , w e h a v e t a l k e d a b o u t
that?
A Yes, w e h a v e .
Q A l l right.
1122
A You a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t a b o v e t h e l i n e o r b e l o w t h e
line?
Q Below t h e l i n e ?
A Next e n t r y below t h e l i n e f o r t h e R e l i a n t Energy
c o n t r a c t i s E x h i b i t 1152, which i s August 2nd, 2002.
Q And who i s o n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r c a l l ?
A T h i s i s Nate G r a y a n d B r e n t J i v i d e n .
Q And I a s k e d you a b o u t t h e e n e r g y s e r v i c e s .
S p e c i f i c a l l y , i s m i s s McGilbra r e f e r e n c e d i n t h i s one?
A She i s .
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q S p e c i a l A g e n t Massie, d i d y o u h e a r a r e f e r e n c e t o
my p e o p l e i s y o u r p e o p l e ?
A Yes.
Q Who was s p e a k i n g ?
A Nate G r a y .
Q I s t h e r e a s p e c i f i c i n t e r c e p t i o n t h a t you h a v e
h e a r d w h e r e s p e c i f i c s u b c o n s u l t a n t s a r e named b y Nate
Gray?
A Yes.
Q To B r e n t J i v i d e n ?
A Yes.
Q Who a r e t h e s p e c i f i c p e o p l e named?
1123
1 A G i l b e r t J a c k s o n , E a r l Brown a n d R e g i n a l d T u r n e r .
2 Q Now, d i d you a l s o h e a r r e f e r e n c e s t o w i n e a n d d i n e
3 Monique?
4 A I did.
5 Q And s c o r e d b i g w i t h h e r ?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Who was s p e a k i n g ?
8 A Nate Gray.
9 Q Now, a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y , d i d you h e a r r e f e r e n c e s t o
10 any c i t i e s t h e r e ?
11 A Yes, Florida.
12 Q A l l right. Now, g o i n g t o t h e t o p on t h e t i m e l i n e ,
13 a r e t h e r e a n y e x h i b i t s t h a t p e r t a i n t o Miami, F l o r i d a ?
14 A Yes. If you l o o k a t , a b o v e u n d e r J u l y 2 8 t h , 2002.
15 T h e r e i s a r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t 833, w h i c h i s a n i n v o i c e
16 a n d b a c k u p f o r a t r i p t o Miami f o r N a t e G r a y .
17 Q And you s a y t h a t ' s f o r 7 / 2 8 ?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q So t h a t would h a v e b e e n how l o n g b e f o r e t h e c a l l w e
20 j u s t heard?
21 A Five days.
22 MR. DETTELBACH: Could w e d i s p l a y 833.
23 Q And S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , what i s i t t h a t we a r e
24 l o o k i n g a t on 833?
25 A I t ' s a n ETNA A s s o c i a t e s i n v o i c e b i l l t o H o n e y w e l l ,
1124
attention Brent Jividen.
Q And was this obtained pursuant to Grand Jury

subpoena?
A It was.
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. Now,
specifically, if you could blow up the entire top
half that has the writing on it just so we could
read it.
Q All right. Now who is it from and who is to?

A It's from ETNA Associates. Bill to Honeywell.
Attention Brent Jividen.
Q What's the mailing address on this?

A It's Keynote Circle, Brooklyn Heights, Ohio.
Q With respect to the description, first of all, is

there a date on this?
A Yes, there is.
Q What's the date.

A July 28th, '02.
Q Is there a description?
A There is.
Q What does the description say?

A There are two descriptions. One reads, travel N.
Gray, Florida. And the seconds one says, meals and
entertainment N. Gray, Florida.
MR. DETTELBACH: Could you please scroll

over to the right.
And read us the amounts.
The travel amount is 1537.91.
And what's the meals amount?
993.47.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, if you could go to
the last page of that exhibit. All right.
And was this attached as backup?
It was.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please blow up the
receipt on the left of the page.
No.
All right. That's fine.
And what restaurant is that for?
Tantra.
And then where does it list where it's at?
At Miami Beach, Florida.
And what is the amount on this particular bill?
Total is 981.23.
And does it have a name associated with it?
Card holder N Gray.
MR. DETTELBACH: And go back out to the
whole exhibit, please, the whole page.
At the bottom of the page under the Tantra, do you
25 see any initials?

A Yes, there is an NG.
Q On the tape did you also hear reference to a car?

A Yes.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, could you go to the
hotel bill on page 7.
All right. And if you could blow up the
top part of that. All right. Fine.
Q And with respect to the hotel bill, is there a name

in the upper left?
A There is, Nate Gray.
Q And is there a line on the hotel bill that is, that

says transportation?
A There is.
Q What is the amount next to transportation?

A 525.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, you can take this
down.
Q Special Agent Massie, in the same area of your time

line, is there another pairing like that, a call and then
an invoice from ETNA?
A There is.
Q Show us where that is on the time line?

A If you look, first the call is August 4, 2002.
Exhibit 1153. And the invoice is three days earlier

August lst, 2002, which refers to Exhibit 842.
Q Let's go through those one at a time. 1153 is a

call from who to who?
A This is a voice mail left by Monique McGilbra on
Nate Gray's telephone.

(Tape played. )
Q All right. And referring then to the other exhibit

you identified on the top of the time line 842?
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you please display
that.
Q And what is 842?

A It's another ETNA & Associates invoice billed to
Honeywell. Attention Brent Jividen.
Q And what's the date on this one?

A August 1st.
MR. DETTELBACH: If you could please just
display.
Q What's the last line say on the bottom of this

page?
A It says donation, Linda Lorelle. It has a thousand
dollars by the amount.
Q And then this was submitted by Mr. Gray to

Honeywell?
A Yes.
1128
Q And i n a d d i t i o n , i s there b a c k u p associated w i t h
t h a t i n t h i s e x h i b i t as w e l l ?
A T h e r e is.
Q A l l right. Now, d i r e c t i n g y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o
A u g u s t 5 t h of 2 0 0 2 . Is t h e r e a d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g M i s s
M c G i l b r a a n d t h e t h i n g s t h a t a r e b e i n g provided t o h e r ?
Q A n d a r e t h e r e a s e r i e s o f e x c e r p t s on t h e t i m e l i n e
from that call?
A Y e s , t h a t ' s correct.
Q And w h e r e are t h e y located?
A If you l o o k u n d e r n e a t h August 5th, b e l o w the l i n e ,
it starts w i t h E x h i b i t 1 1 5 4 , a l l the way down t h e l i s t t o
1134.
MR. DETTELBACH: L e t ' s s t a r t , i f you c o u l d
please p l a y --
Q Who's o n t h e c a l l s , I ' m s o r r y ?
A T h i s i s N a t e G r a y and B r e n t J i v i d e n .
(Tape played)
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Who s a i d t h e w o r d s v o l u m e o f b u s i n e s s ?
A Nate G r a y .
(Tape played. )
Q All right. And did you hear a reference to a
thousand dollar dinner?
A I did.
Q Who was speaking there?

A Nate Gray.
Q What was the amount on the receipt at the Tantra

restaurant in Miami Beach?
A It was about 995 or $985.
Q Now, what is the next entry on the time line?

A 1156.
Q All right. And who is that between?

A It's a continuation of the call we just heard
between Nate Gray and Brent Jividen.
(Tape played. )
Q All right. And Special Agent Massie, is there

another excerpt from this very same call that we've
already played in another part of the case?
A Yes, there is.
Q All right. And which was, which part of the case

was that?
A We played it during the New Orleans section. It
was the call, another portion of that call between Nate
Gray and Brent Jividen.
Q All right. And who is referred to in that part of

the call?
A Gilbert Jackson.
Q Is that the call that talks about there is another

congressman?
MR. JENKINS: Objection, judge, leading.
MR. DETTELBACH: I'll play the whole part
again.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Is that the part that says there is another

congressman, another Mayor?
A There is. It is.
Q Now, directing your attention to Exhibit 1157, can

you please tell us where that is on the time line and who
are the participants in that call?
A If you look to the very next entry to your right,
August 14, 2002. This is a conversation between Nate
Gray and Rick Cloutier.
Q And please explain who Rick Cloutier is?

A He's a Camp, Dresser, McKee, he's a Vice President
based out the Houston.
Q And what was CDM's role in the Houston energy
services contract?
A They were consulting engineer overseeing the

contract.
Q And d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d o f t i m e d i d M r . G r a y h a v e a
b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h them a l s o ?
A With CDM, y e s .
Q And who i s s p e a k i n g when t h e y s a y e - m a i l s t o
Monique McGilbra a r e p u b l i c d o c u m e n t s ?
A Nate Gray.
Q Is t h e r e a f o l l o w up phone c a l l w i t h B r e n t J i v i d e n
on t h e e - m a i l i s s u e w e j u s t h e a r d ?
A There i s .
Q And which e x h i b i t i s t h a t ?
MR. DETTELBACH: L e t m e j u s t a s k , you c a n
j u s t p l e a s e p l a y 1159.
Q So o t h e r t h a n R i c k C l o u t i e r , i s t h e r e a n o t h e r CDM
employee m e n t i o n e d h e r e ?
A Gilbert.
(1 Now you h e a r d a r e f e r e n c e t o Ray, f r o m y o u r
i n t e r c e p t i o n s , i s t h e r e a Ray i n v o l v e d h e r e ?
A Ray Ehmer.
Q And i n N e w O r l e a n s i s t h e r e a n o t h e r Ray?
A Yes, t h e r e i s a Ray V a l d e z i n v o l v e d i n t h e HANO
project.
Q And they don't use the last name, correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, did you hear Mr. Gray mention the name early
on 1157?
A I did.
Q While we're on that topic, with respect to

documents and public document, is there any conversation
between Nate Gray and Brent Jividen about Earl's
involvement on that subject?
A There is.
(Tape played. )
Q Did you hear a reference to BSD lA?

A Yes.
Q And what does that number correspond to?

A That's the project number for the energy project,
Building Services Division, project 1A.
Q In the City of Houston?

A That's correct.
Q Now, we've heard a conversation with Mr. Cloutier.

Is there another conversation on your time line between
Mr. Gray and Mr. Cloutier where Miss McGilbra is
mentioned?
A Yes, there is. Exhibit 1163, which occurred on
August 27th, 2002.

1133
Q And d i d you h e a r a r e f e r e n c e t o M o n i q u e ' s s i s t e r ?
A I did.
Q Who a s k e d t h a t q u e s t i o n ?
A N a t e Gray a s k e d t h a t q u e s t i o n .
Q Now, i s t h e r e a n y p a p e r e x h i b i t , d o c u m e n t , t h a t you
have recovered t h a t r e f e r r e d t o t h a t a l s o ?
A There i s .
830.
Q A l l right. F i r s t o f a l l , t h i s i s one page of a
m u l t i - p a g e document t h a t we a r e g o i n g t o g o t h r o u g h . So
c o u l d you t e l l u s what i t i s a n d where i t was l o c a t e d ?
A 830 i s a , i t ' s a s e r i e s o f d i f f e r e n t l e t t e r s a n d
t h i n g s which was s e i z e d from N a t e G r a y ' s p e r s o n a l
residence.
Q Where?
A I n a b l a c k b a c k p a c k w h i c h was l o c a t e d i n h i s
closet.
Q Were t h e s e d o c u m e n t s t u r n e d o v e r p u r s u a n t t o Grand
J u r y subpoena?
A No, t h e y were n o t .
Q So now l e t ' s s t a r t w i t h p a g e 3 o f t h a t . Actually,
w h i l e w e ' r e s t i l l t h e r e , l e t ' s j u s t d o t h i s page f i r s t .

Do you s e e t h i s f i r s t p a r t ?
A I do.
Q And d o you s e e t h e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s c h o l a r s h i p
fund? W h a t ' s t h e name t h e r e ?
A L i n d a L o r e l l e S c h o l a r s h i p Fund.
Q I s it s i g n e d a t t h e b o t t o m ?
A I t ' s s i g n e d b y Monique.
Q What's t h e f i r s t sentence say?
A I t says, " N a t e , t h a n k s f o r a l w a y s s u p p o r t i n g me."
MR. DETTELBACH: Now l e t ' s g o t o p a g e 3 ,
t o p of page 3. I f you c o u l d blow u p t h e t o p h a l f of
t h a t document w i t h t h e w r i t i n g o n i t .
Q And w h a t ' s t h e h e a d i n g h e r e ?
A Monique, u n d e r l i n e d .
(1 And w h a t d o e s t h e f i r s t b u l l e t p o i n t s a y ?
A It says, "Rick C l o u t i e r " and i n p a r e n s it r e a d s
"her s i s t e r " .
Q And t h e n i f you c o u l d j u s t r e a d down.
A Second b u l l e t p o i n t i s g r i l l .
Third b u l l e t point. House f u r n i t u r e . Follow
u p o n Honeywell, f o o t b a l l schedule, and t h e n F l o r i d a .
Q Now, you see t h i s r e f e r e n c e t o -- i n t h i s same

g r o u p o f documents, i s t h e r e any r e f e r e n c e t o b u s i n e s s
d o c u m e n t s r e l a t e d t o t h e Honeywell p r o j e c t s ?
A Yes.
1135
MR. DETTELBACH: A l l right. And i f you
c o u l d page forward t o t h e end, p l e a s e .
One b a c k , t h i s i s t h e s e c o n d p a g e a n d t h e n
what i s t h i s .
I ' m s o r r y , i t ' s covered up. Go t o t h e
s e c o n d p a g e o f t h e l e t t e r , g o i n g g o back t o where
you were.
Q And t e l l u s , what d o e s t h i s l e t t e r r e l a t e t o ?
A I t ' s l e t t e r t o Monique McGilbra f r o m Ray Ehmer
commencing demand s i d e management.
Q Now, t h e r e i s a l s o a r e f e r e n c e on t h a t b u l l e t l i s t
t o football schedule. Did you s e e t h a t ?
A I did.
MR. DETTELBACH: P l e a s e go t o page 2 of
t h i s exhibit.
Q What i s p a g e 2 ?
A I t ' s a p r i n t e d e - m a i l from N a t e Gray t o Monique
McGilbra d a t e d August 22nd, 2001. It reads, "Hi Monique.
I t was n i c e h a v i n g d i n n e r w i t h you. I h a v e s e n t you a
2001 s c h e d u l e o f t h e C l e v e l a n d Browns. T a l k t o you s o o n .
Nate. "
Q You s a i d August 22nd, 2001. How d o e s t h a t d a t e
r e l a t e t o t h e Houston r e c e i p t you t a l k e d a b o u t e a r l i e r ?
A I t ' s two d a y s l a t e r .

BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And when is this e-mail in relation to the

Browns/Ravens game?
A About two months prior.
Q Okay.
Q Now, there was a written reference to Monique's

sister on that exhibit. Was there any conversations
regarding getting a job for Monique herself?
A Yes, there was.
Exhibit 11 --
Q Well, who is on Exhibit 1167A, before we play it?

A The conversation between Nate Gray and Monique
McGilbra.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please play 1167A, from
(Tape played. )
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, could you please
display 1167B. Lines 20 through 24.
Q And what does Mr. Gray say in response to, "but we

are talking about business. I know we have a business
relationship"?
A He says, "well, absolutely."

1137
that down.
Q Now, is there another discussion between Mr. Gray

and somebody else regarding providing Miss McGilbra with
employment?
A There is.
Q Who is that?
A Nate Gray has a conversation with Stan Broussard in
which Miss Monique or Monique McGilbra's name comes up.
Q And is that a conversation we've already heard

portions of it?
A It is.
Q Where did that occur?

A That occurred in Nate Gray's office in Shaker
Square.
MR. DETTELBACH: We are not going to
replay the whole conversation. One of the parts we
are not going to play is the part where grease the
palm happened.
MR. DETTELBACH: Well, let's please play
exhibit --
Q Let me ask you, where is it reflected on the time
line?
1138
A You h a v e t o t u r n t o t i m e l i n e C .
Q A l l right. So t u r n t h e p a g e .
A December 1 3 t h , 2002. The v e r y l a s t i t e m . 1178.
Q A l l right. So t h e o t h e r e x c e r p t s a r e t h e same
e x c e r p t s o f t h a t same c a l l ?
A They a r e .
MR. DETTELBACH: So p l e a s e p l a y j u s t 1 1 7 8 .
Q S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , l o o k i n g b a c k a t t h e t i m e
line. The n e x t g r o u p o f c a l l s r e l a t e t o a n o t h e r
contract, right? Going b a c k t o where w e were on t h e t i m e
line?
A Yes, t h e y d o . They r e l a t e t o t h e p a r k i n g s h u t t l e
bus c o n t r a c t .
Q S k i p o v e r t h o s e f o r now s o w e c o u l d d o t h o s e i n
sequence. W h a t ' s t h e n e x t c a l l on t h e t i m e l i n e i n
sequence t h a t r e l a t e s t o M i s s McGilbra.
L e t m e j u s t d i r e c t y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o 1 1 6 8 , on
9/23/02. Do you see t h a t o n e ?
A I do.
Q Who i s t h a t b e t w e e n ?
A T h i s i s b e t w e e n N a t e Gray a n d G i l b e r t J a c k s o n .
MR. DETTELBACH: A l l right. Please p l a y
1168.
Q And where was the receipt from during the
Browns/Ravens football game?
A At the Ritz Carlton.
Q With respect to the Super Bowl, approximately how

much was the combined expenses for the tickets and the
hotel provided to Miss McGilbra?
A Approximately $4,600.
Q In the Fall of 2002, are there any calls about a

re-submission of those expenses to Honeywell?
A There is.
Q Directing your attention to Exhibit 1158, what date

is that on?
A This conversation occurred on August 16th, '02.
Q And who are the participants?

A Nate Gray and Brent Jividen.
(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Massie, was there anything at Nate

Gray's office regarding to re-submission of that $5,000?
A Yes, there was.
816.
Q What is 816? It's the first page of a multi-page

exhibit. What is it?
A It's an invoice history which was seized in Nate

Gray's o f f i c e .
Q You s a y s e i z e d , was t h i s t u r n e d o v e r p u r s u a n t t o
subpoena?
A No, w e g o t i t from t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t .
Q W i t h i n N a t e G r a y ' s o f f i c e , which room was i t i n ?

A I ' m not sure.
Q You a r e n o t s u r e which room t h i s came f r o m .
Okay. Now w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
i n v o i c e , c o u l d you, c a n you r e a d t o u s what t h e t o p s a y s ,
i n t h e t o p m i d d l e , what t h e h e a d i n g o f t h i s i s ?
MR. DETTELBACH: You d o n ' t h a v e t o blow i t
UP.
A I t s a y s , " s u p p l i e r p a i d i n v o i c e h i s t o r y between
December 3 1 s t , ' 0 1 , August 1 4 t h , ' 0 2 .
Q Do you s e e a n y r e f e r e n c e s t o Monique?
A No, I do n o t .
Q On t h e e x h i b i t ? D i r e c t i n g your a t t e n t i o n t o t h e
bottom?
A Yes, I d o .
Q C o u l d you p l e a s e r e a d what t h a t s a y s ?
A I t says, "resubmit with expense r e c e i p t s f o r
Monique S u p e r Bowl."
Q And t h e r e i s a n a r r o w t h e n f r o m t h a t ?
A I see t h a t .
Q And what d o e s it p o i n t t o ?
1141
A I n v o i c e number 760, A u g u s t 1, f o r f i v e t h o u s a n d .
Q And t h i s document, t h i s came f r o m who, f r o m ETNA
offices?
A Yes. T h i s i s i n t h e s e a r c h o f t h e ETNA o f f i c e s .
Q And S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , i s t h e r e a n o t h e r
c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n M r . Gray a n d M r . J i v i d e n on t h i s
s u b j e c t , t h i s $5,000 i n v o i c e ?
A There i s .
from 10/8/02.
Q And who was s p e a k i n g ? Who s a i d , f r o m when s h e went
down t h e r e ?
A Nate Gray.
Q Now, S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , o t h e r t h a n t h e S u p e r
Bowl, a r e t h e r e a n y o t h e r d o c u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g p u r c h a s e s
made b y M r . Gray?
A Yes, t h e r e a r e .
MR. DETTELBACH: P l e a s e show E x h i b i t 8 4 1 .
Q And i f you c o u l d t e l l u s what a r e w e l o o k i n g a t on
841?
A T h i s i s a r e c e i p t from a L o u i s V u i t t o n s t o r e .
Q A l l right. I ' m c r o s s i n g o u t t h e c a r d numbers, I'm
sorry. Whose name i s i t i n ?
A I t ' s i n Nate G r a y ' s , u n d e r n e a t h t h a t f i r s t red

line.
Q And what's the date of the receipt?
A December 18th, 2002.
Q And which Louis Vuitton store is this at?

A In Houston located at the Galleria Section.
Q All right. And what's across the street from the

Galleria?
A Marriott Hotel.
Q And did anybody stay at the Marriott Hotel?

A Yes, Nate Gray.
Q Are there any calls that relate to this purchase on

December 18th, 2002?
A There are.
Q And if you could orient us on the time line where

they are located?
A You have to go back to time line C.
Q Okay.
A About the middle of the page.
Q Under 12/18/02?
A Yes.
Q And what exhibits does it refer to?

A Exhibits 1180 through 1183.
Q All right.
(Tape played. )
1143
Q A l l right. And w h a t i s t h e n e x t c a l l i n t h e
sequence?
A 1181.
Q And t h e n w h a t i s t h e t h i r d c a l l i n t h e s e q u e n c e ?
A 1182.
Q And who i s on 1 1 8 2 ?
A T h i s i s a c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n N a t e Gray a n d
Monique M c G i l b r a .
Q And who s a y s e v e r y t h i n g i s r e a d y t o b e p i c k e d up?
A Nate Gray.
Q And a g a i n BSD 1 A p h a s e two, what i s t h a t ?
A T h a t ' s t h e p h a s e a n d p r o j e c t number f o r t h e e n e r g y
contract.
Q Now, a f t e r M r . G r a y a n d M i s s M c G i l b r a h u n g u p t h e
p h o n e , what d i d N a t e Gray d o ?
A H e c a l l e d up B r e n t J i v i d e n .
Q And what e x h i b i t i s t h a t ?
A 1183.
Q Now, d i d you h e a r r e f e r e n c e t o a n MOU?

A I did.
Q And have you actually a document in that respect?
A I have.
Q And where is that on the time line?
A Actually, the very next entry above the line, 846.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: And if you could please
display 846.
Q What is this and how was it obtained?
A This is a, this is the MOU, the fax cover sheet.
And this is obtained through our interceptions of Nate
Gray's fax machine.
Q So this is a document that was obtained through

actual court electronic surveillance?
A That's correct.
MR. DETTELBACH: If you could just blow up
the heading of that. Thank you.
Q And again, can you tell us what is interlineated,

what's the pen corrections or pen changes there?
A It was originally to Brent Jividen at Honeywell
from John Tipton. Brent Jividen is scratched out and
Nate Gray ETNA is placed in there.
Q And you picked it up being faxed to Mr. Gray?

A Yes. And that's his fax machine which we had the
court authorization to intercept.

1145
Q And who was John Tipton? Who does he work for?

A He also worked for Reliant on the energy contract.
Q Now, directing your attention to Exhibit 1188.

Were there are any conversations between Mr. Gray and
Mr. Jividen further about moving this contract along?
A Yes.
(Tape played. )
MR. DETTELBACH: Don't you wish you were a
lawyer?
Q Special Agent Massie, did Mr. Gray and Mr. Jividen

have any follow up conversation about assistance that
Monique McGilbra was providing on this?
A They did.
Exhibit 1192 from January 9th, 2003.
(Tape played. )
Q And who says I need 30 days on this one?

A Nate Gray.
Q And who was he referring to?

A He was referring to Monique McGilbra.
Q And is there another conversation about this same

MOU?
A There is.
Q And is it reflected in Exhibit 1195 at 1/20/03?

A It is.
Q And who i s on t h i s c a l l ?
A T h i s i s a l s o Nate Gray and B r e n t J i v i d e n .
MR. DETTELBACH: Please play then Exhibit
1195.
Q Now, r e f e r r i n g t o t h i s MOU, who i s a c t u a l l y t h e
p u b l i c o f f i c i a l t h a t s i g n s t h e MOU?
A I t comes from Monique McGilbra.
Q A l l right. And d o M r . Gray a n d M s . McGilbra have a
conversation about t h a t ?
A They d o .
Q Where i s t h a t on y o u r t i m e l i n e ?
A 1196.
Q Is t h a t t h e n e x t d a y ?
A It is.
Q Other than informing t h e p u b l i c o f f i c i a l , d i d
Mr. Gray i n f o r m anybody e l s e t h a t t h e a c t i o n h a d b e e n
taking place?
A He d o e s . Brent J i v i d e n .
Q When i s t h a t .
A T h a t ' s February 3rd, '03. 1197.

(Tape played.)
Q And Special Agent Massie, after Monique McGilbra

signed those documents, what did that allow Honeywell to
do with respect to the contract?
A Enter into a formal agreement with Reliant.
(1 Is that part of the exhibit?

A It is.
Q And where is that listed?

A Actually, the last item, number 850, above the
line.
Q So as we are going through the energy contract on

the top o f the line, that's the last one?
A That's correct.
Q And what's the date?

A February llth, 2003.
MR. DETTELBACH: And please display
exhibit 850.
And could you blow up the first paragraph
on the top of that and the heading. And can you
show us the date.
A February llth, 2003.
Q Now, Special Agent Massie, in the search of

Mr. Gray's home, were any documents recovered that relate
t o his work f o r Honeywell?

1148
A Yes, they were.
824.
Q All right. Now this is a multi-page exhibit we are

going to go through. Do you recognize, first of all,
where it is and where it was recovered from?
A I do. It was recovered in a search from Nate
Gray's residence in that same black backpack.
Q Was it turned over in response to subpoena?

A No, it was not.
Q Is the name Honeywell on those subpoenas?

A Yes, it is.
MR. DETTELBACH: Let's look at page 1.
Q And I ask you, is there -- do you see any reference

on this to the name -- first of all, what does it say on
the top? What's the heading on page one?
A It says contract, with an underline.
Q Do you see any references on page 1 to the name

Earl Brown?
A I do.
Q And where do you see those?

A One right there says how to handle my obligation
with Earl Brown, et cetera. And then also down below, it
says, Houston obligations bullet point Earl Brown.
Q And Earl Brown's brother was who?

A Lee Brown, the Mayor of Houston.
MR. DETTELBACH: Go to the next page.
Q And do you see actually the name Honeywell anywhere

on this particular document?
A Yes. In the heading.
Q Where is that?
(The witness marked it.)
Q Now, you say this was found in Mr. Gray's office or

home?
A Home.
Q Do you see any headings on this document that refer

to either the home or office in terms of the creation of
the document?
A Yes. If you look in the margin it says June 6th,
2P, looks like Shaker OFF, acronym for office.
Q And do you see any reference on this particular

contract to any subcontract agreements?
A Yeah, it just lists subcontract agreements.
next page, please.
Q This is all part of the same exhibit, is that

correct?
A It is.
Q What is the heading on this page?

A Brent.
1150
Q A l l right. And what d i d you s a y was t h e name o f
t h e p e r s o n who h e a d e d t h e Honeywell o f f i c e i n C l e v e l a n d ?
A W i l l i a m Giamio.
Q Do you s e e a n y r e f e r e n c e s t o B i l l o r B i l l G ?
A T h e r e i s a B i l l Giamio t h e r e , B i l l G .
Q Do you s e e a n y r e f e r e n c e s on t h i s p a g e t o
subagreements?
A Right there.
Q And what d o e s i t s a y ?
A "Subagreements colon, C i n c i . Says m e t e r i n g
s e r v i c e s s l a s h G i l b e r t s l a s h E a r l Brown."
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you now g o t o t h e
n e x t page, p l e a s e ?
(I! And d o you see a n y r e f e r e n c e s i n t h e s e b u l l e t

p o i n t s t o Monique?
A I do. Third b u l l e t point.
Q Read t h e t h i r d b u l l e t p o i n t ?
A I t says, "Houston, c o l o n , B r e n t a n d I t o s e t up
m e e t i n g w i t h Monique i n H o u s t o n t o d i s c u s s w h e r e we a r e
a n d w h e r e we n e e d t o b e s h o r t a n d l o n g t e r m . "
Q And w h a t ' s t h e d a t e on t h e t o p o f u p p e r l e f t o f
t h i s document?
A 4/30/02.
Q And t h e n i s t h e r e a l s o a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e C i t y o f
New Orleans here.

1151
Let me just ask you this, how many cities are
referenced on this one page?
A This one lists Detroit, Houston, New Orleans,
Cincinnati.
Q All right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you go to the next
page, please?
Q And what's on the top of this? Do you see the

heading?
A One heading reads Honeywell underlined; the other
heading is Brent 6/15/2002.
(Z And what's the first bullet point?

A Agreement for Houston slash Earl Brown.
MR. DETTELBACH: And could you go to the
next page.
Q And what's the title of the next page?

A Houston.
(2 And on this page entitled Houston, how many times

do you see references to Gilbert or Gilbert Jackson?
A First bullet point refers to Gilbert.
Third bullet point.
I think that's it. No, actually the last
bullet point.
MR. JENKINS: Just for the record,
objection. There is nothing on it that says Gilbert

Jackson.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q L e t ' s be c l e a r . Does i t j u s t s a y G i l b e r t h e r e ?
A It does.
Q I f you c o u l d , what i s t h e f i r s t r e f e r e n c e t o
Gilbert? C o u l d you r e a d t h a t ?
A Yes. I t s a y s , a b r i e f i n g l e t t e r from B r e n t --"

MR. JENKINS: Objection. I t speaks f o r
itself.
THE COURT: It does speak f o r i t s e l f .
MR. DETTELBACH: I w o n ' t a s k you a n y
questions about it. B u t c o u l d you j u s t b l o w u p t h e
l a s t b u l l e t p o i n t s o it c o u l d be r e a d .
Don't r e a d it o u t l o u d .
Thank y o u . You c a n t a k e t h a t down.
Q And j u s t t o b e c l e a r , w h e r e d o e s E a r l Brown l i v e ?
A H e l i v e s i n Fresno, C a l i f o r n i a .
Q A l l right.
Now, S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , o n p a g e 3 o f t h a t
document t h e r e were r e f e r e n c e s t o s u b a g r e e m e n t s u n d e r t h e
heading Brent?
A Yes.
Q And t h a t was t h e p a g e w h e r e you n o t i c e d G i l b e r t a n d
E a r l Brown?
A That's correct.
1153
Q Is t h e r e a n i n t e r c e p t e d c a l l w h e r e N a t e G r a y and
B r e n t J i v i d e n discuss s u b a g r e e m e n t s w i t h these t w o
people?
A Yes.
Q What e x h i b i t n u m b e r i s t h a t ?
A 1162.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please p l a y E x h i b i t 1 1 6 2
dated 8 / 2 3 / 0 2 .
( T a p e played. )
THE COURT: Where a r e you g o i n g ? Do you
need a recess?
MR. DETTELBACH: Actually, I t h i n k there
i s o n e m o r e d o c u m e n t a n d t h e n I t h i n k w e w o u l d be a t
a r e a l l y good b r e a k i n g p o i n t .
THE COURT: Why d o n ' t you do t h a t .
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Now, w i t h respect t o d o c u m e n t s t h a t w e r e recovered,
i s t h e r e a n y o t h e r l i s t s t h a t w e r e recovered i n t h e
searches?
A Yes, there w e r e .
Q A n d r e f e r r i n g you t o E x h i b i t 8 4 5 .
MR. DETTELBACH: W i l l y o u plea spla!
that.
Q A l l right. A n d w h a t i s E x h i b i t 845 and w h e r e w a s
i t recovered?
1154
A T h i s i s a -- i t ' s d a i l y l i s t s w h i c h w e r e r e c o v e r e d
f r o m t h e s e a r c h i n N a t e G r a y ' s h o u s e i n t h a t same b l a c k
bag i n h i s walk-in c l o s e t o f f t h e m a s t e r bedroom.
Q Was ETNA P a r k i n g o n e t h e e n t i t i e s s u b p o e n a e d ?
A I t was.
Q And was N a t e ' s S h e l l s u b p o e n a e d ?
A I t was.
Q And were a n y o f t h e s e t u r n e d o v e r p u r s u a n t t o
subpoena?
A No, t h e y were n o t .
Q The f i r s t p a g e , w h a t ' s t h e h e a d i n g a t t h e t o p o f
t h e page of t h e d a i l y o r g a n i z e r ?
A I n t h e b l o c k t h e name G i l b e r t .
Q And u n d e r -- Going down u n d e r n e a t h t h a t , d o you see
a n y r e f e r e n c e s --
MR. DETTELBACH: Can you b l o w u p t h e p a r t
i n t h e middle o f t h e p a g e a c t u a l l y .
Here, I ' l l c i r c l e i t . I f you c o u l d blow
it up. That's fine. Thank y o u .
Q A l l right. Do you see a n y r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e word
S u p e r Bowl?
A I do. I n t h e margin.
Q And w h a t ' s next t o t h a t ?
A T h e r e i s t h r e e names l i s t e d , T e r r y S t e w a r t , Monique
a n d Wayne J o n e s , a n d n e x t t o Monique i n p a r e n s i s Mark

Morial.
Q And w h a t ' s b e l o w Wayne J o n e s ?
A Honeywell. I n p a r e n s , N e w O r l e a n s , Housing
A u t h o r i t y and School System.
Q And t u r n i n g f r o m t h e p a g e h e a d i n g G i l b e r t t o t h e
n e x t page, p l e a s e .
Do you see a n y r e f e r e n c e s t o G i l b e r t h e r e ?
A I do. Second b u l l e t p o i n t . I t says Garland
m e e t i n g G i l b e r t 1 : 3 0 a t Pampy's.
Q And d o you r e c a l l t h e name, t h e 1 : 3 0 a t P a m p y ' s
b e i n g m e n t i o n e d anywhere on t h e r e c o r d i n g ?
MR. JENKINS: Objection, leading.
MR. DETTELBACH: Go t o t h e n e x t p a g e ,
please.
A l l right. And b l o w u p t h e t o p w h e r e
there is writing.
Q And d o you s e e t h e h e a d i n g on t h i s p a g e ?
A Yes, t h i s o n e i s h e a d e d Onunwor i n b l o c k s .
Q And w h a t ' s t h e t h i r d b u l l e t ?
A Ralph T y l e r . And t h e n i n p a r e n s , e n g i n e e r o f
record.
MR. WHITAKER: I o b j e c t t o t h a t one.
MR. DETTELBACH: And t h e n i f you c o u l d

1156
skip forward two pages.
All right. And if you could blow up that
calendar.
Q Do you see reference to Brent Jividen anywhere in

that outlet calendar?
A I do right there.
Q What does it say?

A It's says Brent Jividen about money, Detroit and
letter to Ciaccia total up date. Also asked about
Trenton.
that exhibit down.
THE COURT: We are going to recess for the
night. Over the night season don't talk about the
case either among yourselves nor with anyone else.
Don't form any opinions or express any. No
conversations, no research, no reading anything
about this, no listening to any reports. I'll ask
you to be back tomorrow at 8:OO.
Just to give you some update, it's my
general impression we are moving a little bit faster
in terms of the overall time of the case, but my
current expectation would be that it would go to you
some time perhaps the middle of next week you can
start your deliberations, is my current estimate,

1157
maybe a little earlier, a little later, but that's
the best guess right now.
So with, again, the caution that you
comply with all the requirements we had and with the
reminder that your attendance is mandatory, we'll
adjourn .
(The proceedings were adjourned 4:45
p.m., Thursday, August 11, 2005 until
8:00 a.m., Friday, August 12, 2005, at
which time the following proceedings were
I, Richard G. DelMonico, Official Court Reporter
in and for the United States District Court, for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of the proceedings herein.
G X ~ -
~YchardG. DelMonico
Official Court Reporter
568 U.S. Courthouse
Akron, Ohio 44308
(330) 375-5666
1 I N D E X
2 OPENING STATEMENTS:
On bejialf o f the G o v e r n m e n t ................... 142
3 On b e h a l f of Defendant Jones .................. 189
On b e h a l f o f Defendant Gray ................... 203
4 On beilalf o f D e f e n d a n t J a c k s o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 1
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
ON BE;;IALF OF THE GOVERNMENT:

Michzel Massie 239 404
N i n a 'Jpsshaw 412 448
Glorj.3 Lovelace 4 67 479
M i c h a 3 l Dubose 492 496
Emmanuel Onunwor 498 576
C a r m e l l o LoParo 67 1 67 5
M i c h a e l Day 67 6 700
J e f f Donovan 711 728
11 I1
774 826
Michael M a s s i e 873 894
Petes S m i t h 92 1 930
G l y n n i s Nelson 951 959
Diane Pinson 1028 1037
S h a h id S a r w a r 1041 1 0 62
Monicue McGilbra 1217 1280
G a r l ~ n dHardeman 1352 1379
O l i v s r Spellman 1397 1418
EASTERN DIVISION

)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Criminal Action No.
) 1:O4crOO58O
GILBERT JACKSON, )
)
Defendants )
- - -
VOLUME V
- - - $J !-:
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS -

HAD BEFORE THE HONORABLE
JAMES S. GWIN, JUDGE OF SAID COURT, ON .
FRIDAY, AUGUST 12, 2005 AT 8:00 A.M. , -
-
I
:. ,
( -1
APPEARANCES: - z
L ,,--4

Whitaker & Rowlands
Akron, Ohio 44304
For the Defendant ROBERT JENKINS, ESQ.


568 U.S. Courthouse
Akron, Ohio 44308
THE COURT: I'll ask the jury to take
their seats.
And I'll ask the United States to continue
your examination.
- - -
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
(1 Special Agent Massie, when we were finishing up

last night, we were speaking about which contract?
A The Energy Contract for the City of Houston.
Q I want to stay on Houston, but now switch to

another subject.
Special Agent Massie, are there any calls or
documents on this time line that relate, in addition to
that contract, to other contracts besides that?

A Yes, there are.
Q And what are the other two contracts?

A One is a shuttle bus contract related to a rental
car parking project. And the last one is a potential
parking meter collection and maintenance contract.
Q And for what cities?

A Both for the City of Houston.
Q Have you heard the name Earl Brown?

A I have.
Q And how is he related to the Mayor of Houston at

that time?
A That's his brother.
Q Now, have you prepared any exhibits that summarize

the flow of money from Earl Brown to Nate Gray?
A I have.

224.
Q All right. This is the first page of a multi-page

document. Are both the summary and the underlying
supporting documents attached to this exhibit?
Q What are we looking at?

A It's a summary of payments from the ETNA Associates
National City Bank account. These are checks cut to Earl
Brown.
Q And what was it that you physically used to come to

the numbers that are on this chart?
A This is from actual checks. Check copies.
Q What's the time period covered in this particular

document?
A Very end of 2001 through 2003.
Q How many months total?

A I believe 16.
Q In that 16 month period, can you show us where it

shows on this chart how much money went from ETNA to Earl
1161
Brown?
A You can see the total at the bottom, 40,000.
Q Now, are there any calls that are reflected on the

time line involving Earl Brown?
A There are.
Q Which page of the time line should we look at? And

what date for the first one?
A You need to turn to page 2 of the time line. The
very first date is August lst, 2002, Exhibit 1199.
Q Now, in relation to the beginning of electronic

surveillance in August of 2002, when was this call?
A This is during our second period of interception.
This is the first day.
Q So this is the first day?

A That's correct.
(1 And who is on this call?

A Nate Gray and Earl Brown.
(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Massie, you heard the name Danny

mentioned?
A Yes, I have.
Q On any of the competitor teams to Mr. Gray's was
there any Danny?

A Yes. Danny Lawson was the chief competitor.
1162
Q Now S p e c i a l Agent M a s s i e , I a s k e d you q u e s t i o n s
a b o u t p a y m e n t s o f money t o E a r l Brown. Did you f i n d a n y
documents e v i d e n c i n g a n y t h i n g p r o v i d e d t o O l i v e r
Spellman?
A Yes, I have.
Q And who was h e a t t h a t p o i n t ?
A He was t h e Mayor o f H o u s t o n ' s C h i e f o f S t a f f .
MR. DETTELBACH: Please d i s p l a y E x h i b i t
902. And i f you c o u l d b l o w i t u p f o r m e w i t h o u t
bottom numbers.
Q What i s 902?
A T h i s i s a c h e c k drawn on N a t e G r a y ' s p e r s o n a l Key
Bank a c c o u n t s , made o u t t o t h e R i o S u i t e s H o t e l a n d
C a s i n o , J u l y l o t h , 2002, f o r $ 5 9 6 . 2 3 .
Q And where i s t h e R i o S u i t e Hotel a n d C a s i n o
located?
A L a s Vegas, Nevada.
MR. DETTELBACH: P l e a s e show E x h i b i t 905.
Q And what i s 905?
A I t ' s a copy o f a h o t e l b i l l t u r n e d o v e r b y t h e Rio
S u i t e s p u r s u a n t t o F e d e r a l Grand J u r y subpoena. The b i l l
i s i n t h e name o f O l i v e r S p e l l m a n . I n t h e middle of t h e
b i l l you see a c h e c k w h i c h c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e c h e c k
number o f t h e a c t u a l c h e c k made b y N a t e Gray, w e j u s t

saw, for 596.23.
Q And does it have anything on this exhibit regarding

the dates of arrival and departure of the guests?
A At the top you see the arrival date of 9/20/02 and
departure date of 9/22/02.
Q Now, when the interceptions started in August, were
there any calls intercepted with Mr. Gray and
Mr. Spellman on this rental car contract?
A Yes, there were.
Q And can you direct us to the first one that's on

your time line here?
A Yes. If you go to the very next date, August 2nd,
2002, on the bottom of the time line Exhibit 1200, it's a
conversation between Nate Gray and Oliver Spellman.
(Tape played. )
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Special Agent Massie, on the time line are there

then a series of calls for the competition and bidding of
the shuttle contract?
A Yes, there are.
Q Where is that listed on the time line?

A If you go forward and you look to 12/05 starting on
August 30th, 2002.
Q And the series goes from August 30th until about

when?
A That particular series goes to 9/9. And it kind of
picks up again at the end of September.
Q Let's deal with that first series in that ten day

period. Who was involved in those calls?
A The calls involved Nate Gray, and a gentleman by
the name of Jim Lorrocco, Jack Santo who were members of
the First Transit team, which was the joint venture which
Nate Gray was a part of bidding for this particular
contract.
Q Is there also a individual named Craig Smedman in

this series?
A Yes. He's also another member of the team.
Q With about Earl Brown?

A Yes, there are also conversations with Earl Brown.
Q Let's start with the first one, as you said, on

8/3O/O2.
MR. DETTELBACH: And please play Exhibit

1205.
(Tape played. )
Q Special Agent Massie, did you hear them refer to a

person named Jim here?
A Yes.
Q And what's Jim's last name?

A Lorrocco.
Q And who i s h e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s e two p e o p l e ?
A He's p a r t n e r s w i t h J a c k S a n t o .
Q Now, d i d you f i n d a n y t h i n g i n a n y s e a r c h e s r e l a t i n g
t o t h e i n c e n t i v e program?
A Yes, I did.
908. And i f you c o u l d p a g e f o r w a r d t o t h e n e x t
page. A l l right.
(Z T h a t ' s t h e s e c o n d p a g e o f a two p a g e d o c u m e n t . Can
you t e l l m e w h e r e i t came from?
A T h i s was f o u n d i n t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t e x e c u t e d i n
t h e ETNA o f f i c e s .
Q A l l right. And what d o e s i t s a y ?
A T h i s o n e s a y s , H o u s t o n RAC, 3 , 0 0 0 h o l d J i m L o r r o c c o
f o r E a r l Brown.
Q Now g o i n g b a c k t o t h e t i m e l i n e a n d t h e c a l l s .
What's t h e n e x t c a l l i n t h e sequence?
A T h e r e i s a c a l l a t t h a t v e r y same d a y . This is
b e t w e e n N a t e Gray a n d E a r l Brown.
Q And i s t h a t E x h i b i t 1 2 0 6 ?
A That's correct.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q A l l right. Drawing y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e time l i n e

1166
t h r e e o r four days l a t e r . What's t h e next e n t r y i n t h e
sequence?
A 9/3/2002. I t ' s a r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t 1208, which
i s a n o t h e r c a l l between Nate Gray, J i m Lorrocco, and J a c k
Santo.
Q And d i d y o u h e a r M r . G r a y s a y h e was g o i n g t o c a l l
E a r l t h e next day?
A Yes, I did.
Q D i d he?
A Y e s , he d i d . If y o u l o o k a t S e p t e m b e r 4 t h , 2002,
t h e r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t 1165. It's a conversation
b e t w e e n Nate G r a y a n d E a r l Brown.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And S p e c i a l A g e n t M a s s i e , d i r e c t i n g y o u r a t t e n t i o n
back t o t h e t i m e l i n e , w h a t ' s t h e f i n a l c a l l on t h i s
sequence?
A I f you g o f o r w a r d f i v e d a y s l a t e r t o S e p t e m b e r 9 t h ,
2002, E x h i b i t 1209 i s a c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n N a t e Gray
a n d C r a i g Smedman, w h e r e h e r e l a y s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m
E a r l Brown.

(Tape played. )
Q All right. And what was the date of that call?

A This is on September 9th, of '02.
Q And then directing your attention to the time line,

what's then, skipping over those other ones, what's the
next one that relates to the airport shuttle contract?
A September 25th, 2002, Exhibit 1213.
Q And who was on that call?

A This is another conversation between Nate Gray and
James Lorrocco.
(Tape played) .
Q And what's the next call in the sequence?

A You have to flip forward to time line on page 3.
Q All right.
A And 1216.
Q What date is that?

A That's on October 8th, 2002. This is another call
between Nate Gray, Jim Lorrocco, and Jack Santo.
(Tape played. )
1216-B, page 3. And if you could blow up lines 1
through 12.
Q And do you see that?

A I do.
Q And when t h e y a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e p o l i t i c a l
i n f l u e n c e o f p e o p l e t a k i n g o f f e n s e , a t l i n e 4, what d o e s
Mr. Gray s a y ?
A H e s a y s , yeah, b u t I have t o t a k e o f f e n s e t o it
b e c a u s e , you know, w e a r e p a y i n g f o r , a h .
And t h e n L o r r o c c o r e s p o n d s , r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .
Q W h a t ' s t h e n e x t two l i n e s ?
A Grape Gray s a y s , okay.
And L o r r o c c o s a y s , t h a t w e d i d n ' t g e t .
Q And w h a t ' s t h e n e x t c a l l i n t h i s s e q u e n c e ?
A There i s a series o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t o c c u r r e d
t h e very next day. Next c a l l i s 1217 on 10/9/2002. It's
a c a l l b e t w e e n N a t e G r a y a n d C r a i g Smedman.
Q And t h e n w h a t was t h e n e x t c a l l i n t h e s e q u e n c e ?
A 1 2 1 9 , c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n Nate G r a y a n d J i m
L o r r o c c o , v e r y same d a y .
Q And w h a t E x h i b i t Number i s i t ?
A 1219.
MR. DETTELBACH: I ' m sorry. Please play
1219.
Q And S p e c i a l A g e n t Massie, a r e t h e r e some a d d i t i o n a l

calls that are reflected in that same sequence?
A There are.
Q And which numbers are those?

A Exhibit 1221 and Exhibit 1222, which is a
conversation between Nate Gray and Oliver Spellman.
Q Did you hear Oliver referred to in that last call?

A I did.
Q All right, we are going to skip over those and play

those with another witness.
What is the next call after those that relate
to the airport shuttle?
A You go forward to 10/16/02, Exhibit 1223. Which is
another conversation between Nate Gray and Oliver
Spellman.
Q And just to be clear, on the ones that we skipped

did they speak about the shuttle contract?
A They did.
Q Please play then Exhibit 1223.

(Tape played. )
Q And then what's the next call in this particular

sequence?
A It's a call the very same day, Exhibit 1224, which
is a conversation between Nate Gray and Earl Brown.
between Mr. Gray and Mr. Brown.

1170
(Tape played. )
Q Now, did Mr. Gray's team, First Transit, get this

contract?
A Yes, they were successful.
Q Where is that reflected on the time line?

A If you look towards the very end, a reference to
Exhibit 910, which is the shuttle bus management services
contract.
MR. DETTELBACH: If you could please
Q And this is a multi-page exhibit. What are we

looking at?
A This is the actual contract.
Q All right. Now, Special Agent Massie, as we were

going through we skipped, again, over some entries on the
time line that we haven't dealt with yet. What do those
entries pertain to?
A That potential parking meter collection and
maintenance contract.
Q All right. So the third contract?

A That's correct.
Q Please take us to the first entry that pertains to

that third contract.
A September 19th, 2002.
Q That's on the second page, sort of about three

quarters of the way to the right?
A Yes. Refers to Exhibit 1211.
Q And with respect to that contract, can you give us

the names of the companies who were the prime contractors
whose names we are going to hear?
A The prime contractors were AMPCO and APCOA.
Q All right. And are those nationwide companies?

A They are.
Q And who is on this particular call?

A This is a conversation between Nate Gray and Oliver
Spellman.
Q And what position did Oliver Spellman have at this

time?
A Chief of Staff.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please play the call 1211
from September 19th.
(Tape played. )
Q On that tape, after Mr. Spellman talked about

making recommendations, did you hear Mr. Gray ask him
about something?
A Yes.
Q What did he ask him?

A He says, are you going to the airport.
Q And when does this call happen in relation to the

hotel receipt for the Rio Suites in Las Vegas?
1172
A The h o t e l s t a y o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n S e p t e m b e r 2 0 t h a n d
September 22nd. So t h i s i s t h e d a y b e f o r e t h e a r r i v a l
d a t e i n Vegas.
Q And d i r e c t i n g y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e o t h e r s i d e of
t h a t t i m e f r a m e , a f t e r t h e 22nd, w h a t ' s t h e n e x t c a l l i n
t h i s sequence?
A September 24th, '02. Reference t o E x h i b i t 1212.
Q Who i s on t h i s c a l l ?
A A l s o Nate Gray a n d O l i v e r S p e l l m a n .
Q And d i d you h e a r M r . Gray s a y t h a t h e s t i l l w a n t e d
t o give Mr. S p e l l m a n a name?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q W h a t ' s t h e n e x t column i n t h e s e q u e n c e ?
A I f you g o t o S e p t e m b e r 2 5 t h , 2 0 0 2 , t h e r e i s a
r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t 1214, which i s a c o n v e r s a t i o n
b e t w e e n N a t e Gray a n d S t a n l e y B r o u s s a r d .
Q And who i s S t a n l e y B r o u s s a r d ?
A He's a n a t t o r n e y i n H o u s t o n , T e x a s , who i s a l s o
l o o k i n g t o become a m i n o r i t y b u s i n e s s e n t e r p r i s e .
(Z And h a v e we p l a y e d a n y c o n v e r s a t i o n s w h e r e h e ' s
been recorded b e f o r e ?
A We h a v e .
Q Which o n e w a s that?
A The conversation in which the grease the palm
comment was made.
(Tape played. )
Q All right. What's the next call in this particular

sequence?
A It's a conversation the very next day, 1215,
September 26th, 2002. Also between Nate Gray and Stanley
Broussard.
(Tape played. )
Q Did you hear a reference to somebody named Bruce

Cabana?
A Yes.
Q Who is that?
A That's the representative from APCOA.
Q And what's the next call in the sequence?

A If you turn over to page 3 of the time line, there
is a reference to Exhibit 1220, which is also a
conversation between Nate Gray and Stanley Broussard.

(Tape played. )
Q And Special Agent Massie, did you hear Mr. Gray say
1174
that the company should have gone to Oliver through him?
A Yes.
Q At the time that this phone call happened, or all

of these phone calls, was Mr. Gray registered as a
lobbyist with the City of Houston?
A No, he was not.
Q What is the next call in the sequence, which I

think is the last one?
A 1226, November 19th, 2002.
Q Who is in the last call in this sequence?

A This is also a call between Nate Gray and Stanley
Broussard.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please place 1126 from
11/19/02.
(Tape played. )
Q And Special Agent Massie, I asked you about whether

Mr. Gray was registered. Was Earl Brown registered as a
lobbyist in Houston?
A No, he was not.
MR. DETTELBACH: Nothing further, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Would counsel approach once?
Or we'll go forward with cross examination first.
Mr. Whitaker or Ms. Whitaker.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Good morning, Agent Massie.
A Good morning.
Q NOW, I ' m showing you an e x h i b i t from -- o r a page
from E x h i b i t , looks l i k e 824.
A Okay.
Q Does t h a t look l i k e 824?
A That's correct.
Q Okay. And i f I understood -- and t h e s e a r e n o t e s
t h a t you b e l i e v e were p r e p a r e d by M r . Gray?
A Yes.
Q I n f a c t , he has a l l kinds of n o t e s l i k e t h i s . We
have t h r e e o r f o u r o r f i v e pages h e r e , a l l of them with
d i f f e r e n t d a t e s on them, and t h e r e were o t h e r s t h a t you
t e s t i f i e d about a s w e l l , i s t h a t r i g h t ?
A That's correct.
Q And on t h i s one, M r . D e t t e l b a c h asked you, where
was t h i s c r e a t e d ? Do you remember --
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. T h a t ' s not
correct.
THE COURT: Don't a s k him t o r e p e a t t h e
question.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Did you say anything about where t h i s document was

1176
created?
A I just indicated there was a notation in the margin
that says Shaker 0-F-F.
Q And did you say that was some indication that

that's where it was created?
A 0-F-F would be an acronym for office.
Q My question is this. Is your testimony or was your

testimony -- just so I understand it -- was your
testimony that that's an indication where this - -
A It could have possibly been created there, yes.
Q It doesn't say that's why it's there, does it?

A No.
Q So in your, you know, using your investigative
methods, one of the ways you could do it, find out if
that's what it meant, is by checking to see whether there
is any notes on any -- or any notations on any other note
pads that would indicate something about where it was
created, right?
A Yes. But I don't recall seeing any other notations
like this one.
Q None whatsoever on any other notes?

A Not any notes that we seized, no.
(1 So really, in fact, there is no other evidence,
other than this notation here, whatsoever, that that's an
indication of where this was created, is there?

1177
A I can't say where that was created, no.
Q But my question was this. There is not a single

piece of evidence whatsoever that this is an indication
other than that note itself, that that's where it was
created?
A Yes. I don't know where it's created at.
Q Now, you talked about the Honeywell code and the
things in the contract, about following certain rules and
regulations, and not violating any laws, and that kind of
stuff?
A That's correct.
Q And for their consultants?

A For the employees and consultants.
Q And Honeywell actually has a legal department that
can help people out with regard to being consistent with
these various laws, don't they?
A They do have a legal department, yes.
Q And their legal department regularly reviews the

contracts and the activities of not only their employees
but their consultants?
THE COURT: Sustained. You have to --
that's a compound question. You could ask him about
whether they reviewed the contracts and separately
whether they reviewed the activities.

1178
MR. DETTELBACH: Also based on personal

knowledge.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Just based on your knowledge from your testimony

here with regard to Honeywell, you understand that the
legal department reviews contracts?
A Just based on a general knowledge of the legal
departments, I would assume they review contracts.
Do you know anything about what review
they did?
THE WITNESS: No, I don't.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll sustain the
objection.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Well, in the course of your investigation, when you

saw this code and you saw these things in the contract,
you did no investigation to find out how it is that those
things get in the contract?
A Interviewed employees at Honeywell.
Q You've seen e-mails as well, haven't you?

A Yes.
Q And documents?
A Yes.
1179
Q And documents about the legal department reviewing

the contracts of Nate Gray?
A I can't recall specifically.
Q Okay. And you know that when receipts are

submitted, that they have to go to higher ups to be
approved?
A Based on the expense documentation looks like
they are submitted to a higher authority, yes.
Q And based on your listening to the phone calls with

Mr. Jividen, and your looking at all the other documents,
he doesn't have the authority to approve them, they have
to go to people higher than him?
A I don't know the extent of Brent Jividen's approval
authority but it sounds like he needs to submit some
things.
Q Just to people above him on the chain of command?

A Yes.
Q And those people have to make decisions before

they are approved about whether they are legitimate
expenses?
A I would assume so, yes.
Q And they've got receipts for dinners and sporting

events, and those kinds of things, for people they hope
to do business that these higher ups have approved, isn't
that correct?
A I'm sorry, can you rephrase it?
Q Yes.
You know that there are receipts for dinners
for potential public customers that have been approved by
the higher ups?
A I've seen receipts submitted.
Q And payments made?

A And payments made.
Q Right. So obviously they were approved by the

higher ups?
THE WITNESS: Looks like there is some
type of approval process on the invoice, yes. I
don't know who approved it.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q But you know that it was somebody up the chain of

command?
A No. I would assume the person didn't approve his

own invoice.
Q Also you seen payments for taking potential

customers to sporting events approved?
A I saw approval of the Cleveland Browns tickets.
Q Did you do any investigation to find out whether
this was a pattern at Honeywell?

BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Did you do any investigation of the approval

process at Honeywell?
A Yes. Conducted interviews and reviewed their
documentations, sent them subpoenas, reviewed the
documents.
Q And from your review of the documents, and from

your subpoenas, and from your interviews, were you able
to determine whether it's routine, whether it's part of
Honeywell's practice, to approve dinners and/or sporting
events for potential customers?
MR. DETTELBACH: Relevance and personal
knowledge.
THE COURT: Let me ask counsel to approach
once.
follows : )
THE COURT: How would it be relevant if

somebody higher up approved?
1182
MR. WHITAKER: Because they have taken the
position by introducing, over my objection, this
Honeywell code and this Honeywell contract. And so
they have taken the position that this company would
not approve of the kinds of things that they are
accusing Nate Gray of doing. And I think that we
can show that in fact this company does approve of
it.
THE COURT: I guess they are two separate
issues. The one issue is whether they approved
dinners and supporting events. The second issue is
whether they approved payments to Oliver Spellman.
MR. WHITAKER: I'm not asking him about
that. I'm just asking about the investigation of
the approval process with regard to dinners and
sporting events.
THE COURT: Well, I'll let you go into it
but I don't want you to do it generally. If you
want to be specific about where the tickets for the
Cleveland Browns game, were they approved and were
the tickets for the Super Bowl, was that approved or
paid for.
But don't deal with it in such a broad
fashion. First of all, because I don't think he has
personal knowledge. And second of all, I think it's

unclear as to what's being asked.
So if you want to go to the specific ones,
I'll let you do that.
MR. WHITAKER: Understand this will be --
I mean, my position, I want to ask him generally
because that code is a very general thing. They're
taking the position that Honeywell would not approve
of this conduct.
THE COURT: He wouldn't have personal

knowledge.
MR. WHITAKER: I'll ask a foundation
question about that.
THE COURT: You can ask Brent Jividen or
somebody from Honeywell those type of questions.
MR. WHITAKER: He's testified about a
million things he doesn't have personal knowledge of
based on his review of the documents. So I'll lay
the foundation. That's all I'll ask him, questions
whether he looked at documents and whether he did an
investigation into that aspect of it.
THE COURT: The other part, he's not
qualified to give testimony on what somebody would
do or wouldn't do. He doesn't have personal
knowledge of it.
MR. WHITAKER: I'll ask a couple

1184
foundational questions.
THE COURT: I'm suggesting you can go into
specific ones but you are going to have problems, I
think, with more general questions.
MR. DETTELBACH: And your Honor, that was
the main thrust of our objection, is things that go
beyond the things that are the transactions in this
case. I think that was the thrust of our objection.

Because the Honeywell code is found in
Mr. Gray's position, it goes to his knowledge and
intent as to certain regulations and state law.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Did you do any investigation into the general

approval process at Honeywell?
A Other than reviewing their contractual documents,
no.
Q And the contractual documents we've already talked

about?
A Yes. Code of conducts and the contracts.
Q And other than that, you did no investigation into

the approval process of these kinds of receipts, like for
dinners and sporting events?

A Just interviews and reviewed a few of the
1185
contractual documents.
Q And when you say contractual documents, you are

simply talking about the contracts you've already
identified?
A Yes.
Q And when you say interviews, you are talking about

the interviews you did in connection with the people in
this case?
A Yes.
Q Now, I notice you said that about one contract that

when you issued the subpoena to Honeywell, you didn't get
a contract from Honeywell?
A Yes. That was the March, 2002, they did not turn
that over.
Q So did you -- when you became aware that that

contract actually existed, did you make any effort
whatsoever to get a search warrant to see what else they
may or may not have turned over?
A No search warrant executed on Honeywell.
Q Did you make any attempt whatsoever to intercept

phone conversations from Honeywell about their practice?
A Brent Jividen's phone, yes.
Q Just other than Brent Jividen?

A None other than Brent Jividen.
Q Now, you also talked about the Houston loss.

1186
The sun comes in, so if I'm squinting it's
not at you.
And you testified and identified the Houston
loss, right?
A The documents, yes.
Q And they go to what a public official can and can't

do, isn't that correct?
A Public officials in the City of Houston, yes.
Q And they are -- and the violation, it applies to

public officials. It tells public officials what they
can and can't do, is that correct?
A Yes, the City of Houston public officials.
Q Now, you also are aware that there is an Ohio law

about whether public officials can accept gifts, too,
aren't you?
A Yes.
Q And I'm going to --

MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, can we
approach.
follows:)
MR. DETTELBACH: I just want to place on
the record. I'm noting an objection to this. I've

1187
just been handed a seven page document. It's from
the Ohio Revised Code. There is no way for me to go

over it. I don't know what section it is, what it
applies to. I understand he's going to use it for
cross examination.
MR. WHITAKER: It's the ethics laws, your
Honor. Ethics laws about having to report gifts and
travel.
THE COURT: What's the relevance to this?
MR. WHITAKER: It's relevant to this

because it is Ohio law that indicates it is
permissible for public officials to accept gifts and
dinners, as long as they report them.
THE COURT: This is all with Houston.
MR. WHITAKER: There has been a huge
amount of conversation about Cleveland as well.
THE COURT: You'll have a chance to cross
examine him on this then, if it was relevant.

MR. WHITAKER: Well, I think this goes
across the board. They have introduced the laws
here and, you know. And also, you have to keep in
mind there has been a change, with Mr. Jones gone,
there has been a change in the anticipated
testimony. So we don't expect, obviously, Mr. Free1

1188
to be testifying. And one of the things I'll be
doing --
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection in
this form. If you want to try it with some other
witness. I don't believe it is relevant, but it's
certainly not relevant now.
If you want to attempt to raise the issue
again in your case in chief, you know, we'll hear,
you know, the arguments again. But the only
testimony we have about the ethics, first of all,
about the Honeywell contract which comports with the
local ethics rule, and then the Houston ethics rule.
So I assume it was offered by the government that he
didn't comport with the Houston, but the Ohio I
don't find to be relevant to that.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, we are talking about
people from Ohio, and you know, contracts entered
into in Ohio. I think it's relevant.
THE COURT: Well, mark it as an exhibit
and if you want to use it in your case, you can
raise the issue. But I think it's outside the scope
of the direct and I don't think it's relevant to
this Houston issue.
MR. WHITAKER: One of the things I might
do is ask the court to take judicial notice of this,

1189
because it certainly applies to the case, as far as
Cleveland and East Cleveland is concerned.
THE COURT: I don't know. I mean, you can
do that but have a proffered instruction, I suppose.
Are you contending that the government is
correct, that Mr. Ciaccia was getting 425 a month,
that comports with --
MR. WHITAKER: No, I'm not. I'm not. But
I am talking about a variety of --
THE COURT: You mean, the baseball games?
MR. WHITAKER: Yes, among others. That's
right.
THE COURT: You believe this code section

says that you can receive 20 tickets to baseball
games over two years?
MR. WHITAKER: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, why don't you --
you know, I think that's probably the best way

offered by way of instruction. But deal with that
as you might.
MR. JENKINS: Since you brought up the
question of Mr. Ciaccia and the government, was
there any banking records turned over by Mr. Ciaccia

in this case?
MR. DETTELBACH: There were a room full of

documents, and I'm not sure whether --
MR. JENKINS: You don't have to check.
MR. DETTELBACH: Each record the
government has, you have.
MR. JENKINS: The only reason I ask is
because in the paper this morning his attorney has
alleged that they had given the government banking
records of Julius Ciaccia.
MR. DETTELBACH: I'm not reading the
papers.
MR. JENKINS: Somebody brought that to my
attention and that's why I asked.
MR. WHITAKER: For the record, I was
referring to Defendant's Trial Exhibit X.
Q You are aware that corporations can be charged with

crimes the same as individuals, aren't you?
A Sure.
Q Now, there was a lot of discussion about Earl

Brown, and in fact you identified an exhibit that showed
how much ETNA paid Earl Brown, isn't that correct?
A Checks, yes.
Q And from your investigation, review of other

documents, you are aware that First Transit paid ETNA to
reimbursed ETNA for paying Earl Brown?
A I know First Transit paid ETNA. I'm not quite sure
about reimbursement.
Q You know from your review of the records that First

Transit paid ETNA an amount similar to exactly what ETNA
paid Earl Brown?
A I think they paid ETNA a much larger amount.
Q And let me ask you this.

Based on your investigation, do you know
whether First Transit paid the consulting fee for Earl
Brown?
A Directly?
Q No. Through ETNA?

A I don't know. Based on these conversations it
appears that they were aware of it.
Q And did you issue any search warrants for First

Transit?
A Subpoena.
Q Did you do any search warrants for First Transit?

A No. They turned over documents pursuant to
subpoena.
Q And did you make any attempt to intercept any phone

calls at First Transit?
A On First Transit facilities?
Q Yes.
1192
A No.
Q Okay. Even though you were aware of the fact that

they were contributing -- or it appeared that they were
contributing to the payments of Earl Brown?
A It appeared that they were aware of it, yes.
Q It appeared they were aware of it and approved it,

didn't they?
A I never seen an approval document.
Q And First Transit was the general contractor on the

project that ETNA was bidding for, right?
A That's correct.
(Z And ETNA was looking to be hired by First Transit

if they got the bid?
A ETNA was a sub.
Q Subcontractor, okay.
And both First Transit and ETNA, obviously
from the evidence, clearly understood that Earl Brown was
being used as a consultant for this process?
MR. WHITAKER: Maybe I made a compound
question out of that, let me see if I can do it
singularly.
THE COURT: It's not that. I don't know
he has personal knowledge as to what somebody else

has knowledge of.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Based on your review of just the documents, okay?

A Okay.
Q Just the documents, and only the phone calls that

you've identified here, it appears from this evidence
that both First Transit and ETNA were aware that Earl
Brown was being used as a consultant on this project?
A It appears as if Jack Santo, Jim Lorrocco, and
Craig Smedman from the First Transit group were aware
that Early Brown's services were being used.
Q And approved of Earl Brown's services being used?

A They didn't seem to have a problem with it.
Q They are all executives with First Transit, right?

A I know Smedman's with First Transit; Santo and
Lorrocco are with some other conglomerate that's

underneath that joint venture.
Q What do you mean underneath that joint venture?

A It was another parking company. I can't remember
the name right now, but they joint ventured with First
Transit on this particular project.
Q And they were executives from a company that was

joint ventured with First Transit.
A That's correct.
Q Do you know the name of that company?

1194
A I can't recall. Standard Park.
Q Now, there was a discussion about Danny Lawson, you

heard that?
A Yes.
Q And Danny Lawson was somebody local from Houston?

A Yes. He was their minority sub for the other team,
the competitive team.
Q And that was the team referred to as Shuttle Port?

A That's correct.
Q Did you --
THE COURT: Let me just ask for a second.
Is the light on on that microphone? Is there a
switch? That's okay.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Now, you heard some discussion about Danny may, of

having some influence with the Mayor, or influencing the
process politically?
A There was discussions on that, yes.
Q Did you make any attempt to subpoena Danny Lawson's

records or --
A I can't recall whether Shuttle Port's records were

subpoenaed or not.
Q Did you make any attempt to intercept any of the

phone calls of Danny Lawson or anybody from Shuttle Port?
1195
(1 Now, a lot of discussion about Earl Brown. Did you

subpoena Earl Brown's records?
A His consulting records? No.
Q Did you subpoena his financial records?

A I believe they were subpoenaed by our Houston
office.
Q Well, have you seen them?

A I have not personally seen them.
Q You haven't looked over Earl Brown's financial

records?
A Not his personal bank accounts, no.
(1 Have you looked over any of his financial records?

A No.
Q Any attempt to intercept any of his phone

conversations?
A I know there was an attempt to gain a background of
the conversations but we never got forward, nothing to
process to intercept his conversations, no.
Q When you say an attempt on the background, you are

talking about listening to the conversations that you
intercepted through Nate Gray?
A No. And also reviewing pen registers to determine
how much the phone facilities were used, and which
facilities he was calling.
Q And whose pen register? Pen register on whose

phone?
A Earl Brown.
Q And whatever you learned through that, none of that

is evidence in this trial, is it?
A No.
Q And none of your investigation of Earl Brown

warranted going any further with an attempt to do
intercepts or search warrants, is that correct?

THE COURT: What grounds?
MR. DETTELBACH: First of all it goes to a
theory that's not proper before the jury, as is this
entire line of questioning.
I'm not sure how it's relevant to this case.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q If I understood your testimony, and you can correct

me if I'm wrong, part of what you think Nate Gray did
wrong was to hire Earl Brown, isn't that right?
A To curry favored influence with Earl Brown's
brother.
Q So now I'll go back to my question.

As a result of that, did you make any attempt
to intercept any of Earl Brown's phone conversations?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. Same

question.
THE COURT: Yes. I'll sustain the
objection.
Whether they did or didn't. I don't know
that it's a defense to a bank robbery that you
didn't bring charges against a different bank
robber.
MR. WHITAKER: I'm not asking whether he
brought charges against Earl Brown, I'm asking
whether he attempted to intercept the communications
between Earl Brown and his brother, because he says
that's part of the problem with this case.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, you can ask that
question.
MR. WHITAKER: All right.
Q Did you attempt to intercept any conversations

that might have let you know what Earl Brown was talking
about with his brother?
A Not other than that initial pen register review
that I mentioned before.
MR. WHITAKER: If I might have one second,
your Honor.
Q I'm going to ask you a few questions about some
exhibits. We've got here an exhibit marked Defendant's
Exhibit M.
1198
Is that something you recovered from, in your
course of the investigation in this case?
THE COURT: Could you focus that out a
little bit? Could you zoom it out so it's a little
bit easier to see.
There you go.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Can you see it?

A Yes. This is the CDM contract with the City of
Houston.
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q And that's something you gathered through subpoena

in this case?
A Subpoena of CDM, yes.
Q And now I'm showing you what's been marked as

Defendant's Exhibit S.
Can you see Defendant's Exhibit S?
A Yes, I can.
Q And is that something you gathered by subpoena from

the City of Houston?
A It is.
Q Okay. And these attachments are also from the City

of Houston?
A Can you scroll up so I could see the Bates stamp?

Q Sure.
A Yes, they are.
Q Okay. And you can tell that because when you say
Bates stamp, you are talking about that DSD 000513,
right?
A Yes. That's how they stamped them when they turned
them over.
Q I'm showing you what's been marked as Defendant's

Exhibit 0. This is an expense report from Honeywell, is
that correct?
A Yes. For William Giaimo.
Q Yes. And that's something that you gathered

through subpoena?
A Yes, subpoena of Honeywell.
Q And you can tell that by the HW sticker?

A That's correct.
Q So all, there is a series of documents and if they

have the HW sticker, as you can see, it's hard to turn,
that means that you gathered them by subpoena from

Honeywell.
Is that correct?
A That's correct.
(2 And finally, can you identify what agreement this

is?
A Yes.
1200
Q What is it?
A That's the master agreement between Reliant Energy
Solutions, and looks like CH2M Hill.
Q Right. Is this something you gathered in the

course of your investigation?
A Can you scroll up again? I'm sorry.
Yes, from Reliant.
Q From Reliant.
Did you do that by subpoena?
A Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Nothing further, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Jenkins, do you have any
questions?

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Agent Massie, when you hear the term another

congressman, another mayor, another politician, do you
recall who made that statement that you intercepted on
the wiretap?
A Nate Gray.
Q Are you sure it was Nate Gray or are you sure it
wasn't Brent Jividen?

1201
A Nate Gray.
Q At least we agree that it was not Gilbert Jackson,

correct?
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection as to what he
agrees to.
THE WITNESS: Not on that conversation,
no.
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Well, when you made that statement not on that

conversation, is there a wire intercept where Mr. Jackson
says something that there is another congressman, another
mayor, another politician?
A In that particular context? I don't believe so,
no.
Q Okay. Now, when you say not in that particular

context, are you telling the jury there is another
context or another wire intercept that he actually says
that?
A No. But I know he refers to congressmen and
mayors.
Q He refers to them in terms he knew some, but

nothing about any type of attempted bribery or anything
of that nature, correct?
That's for the jury to decide. All right.

1202
When you are talking about a wire intercept
and you bring up the concept pen number, explain to the
jury what the pen number means?
A It allows you to review the phone history for a
particular telephone facility. Determine what numbers
are being dialed and which telephone numbers are being
called in.
Q And in particular, there was a conversation where

Miss Monique McGilbra was talking to someone, I believe
at the Louis Vuitton store?
A Yes.
Q And you all had her wired on that particular phone

number, correct?
A On Monique's cell phone, yes.
Q In terms of pen number and application, do you
recall if that was introduced? You supplied that to the
court?
THE COURT : Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
BY MR. JENKINS:
(2 Monique McGilbra?
A I don't think we marked that as evidence, no.
Q Okay. Now, let's talk about Garland Hardeman. And
he was, at one point during the investigation, Monique

McGilbra's boyfriend, right?
A That's correct.
Q And there was an issue about some tickets with the

Super Bowl. In terms of the person who purchased the
tickets, that was not Gilbert Jackson, correct?
A We have a check that indicates Nate Gray paid for
the tickets.
Q So the answer would be that Gilbert Jackson didn't

purchase them, correct?
Q And in terms of the hotel stay, as relates to the

Super Bowl, you would agree that Gilbert Jackson didn't
pay for that as well, correct?
A No. That was in the name of Nate Gray and then
changed to Garland Hardeman.
Q All right.
Now, do you recall at some point in a
conversation on 1/30/02, if you recall -- what day was
the Super Bowl in 2000 that you are referring to in this
case?
A February 3rd.
Q February 3rd.
And do you recall Gilbert Jackson in a
conversation with Nate Gray asking, what's the name of
the girl involving the Super Bowl tickets?

A I believe he says, what's her name, Monique.
Q Right.
A I think he indicated Monique.
Q And as you have told the jury before, Gilbert

Jackson actually lived in New Orleans, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And the Super Bowl, in terms of going, they have a

lot of social events, and things of that nature, correct?
A I've never been but I imagine so.
Q Now, do you recall a conversation, also on the same

date of January 30th, '02 where Mr. Hardeman, that you
intercepted, asked, how do I get in touch with Gilbert
Jackson, when speaking with Nate Gray?
A I recall there was a conversation between Nate Gray
and Garland Hardeman. I'm not sure if he asked that
specific question.
Q Okay. And you recall then Mr. Gray gave Garland

Hardeman Gilbert's cell phone number?
A I know he gave Gilbert, Hardeman and Monique's cell
phone number. I can't remember the other way around.
Q If fact, that's exactly what happened, because he

didn't have Mr. Gilbert?
A Mr. Gray said, you may already have Monique's cell
phone but I'll give it to you anyway.
Q Now, there came a time when Garland Hardeman had

1205
made a statement that, if you recall, he would try to
contact Gilbert Jackson for dinner, correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, in terms of all of that, in terms of the

dinner, the social events, was there any surveillance
involving Gilbert Jackson when he actually met Monique
McGilbra and Garland Hardeman?
A I did not personally do any surveillance. I'm not
sure.
Q Well, I know you didn't, but in terms of the FBI in

New Orleans, do you have any information about any
surveillance?
A I haven't seen any surveillance reports.
He said he hadn't seen any reports.
Q Now, based upon that statement, there is nothing,

from your investigation, where you have any evidence that
Mr. Jackson passed or sought any contract involving
Monique McGilbra, is that correct?

A He had a relationship with Honeywell.
Q NO, no.
My question was, in terms of Monique McGilbra
and Gilbert Jackson, is there any wire intercepts where

1206
he's actually -- between those two -- seeking or trying
to get an advantage on a contract in Houston?
A Not between those two, no.
Q Now, in terms First Transit. When you talked about

that part of Houston, Mr. Dettelbach talked about the
partners at First Transit.
Now you recall who the partners were?
A For the First Transit team?
Q Yes.
A Jim Lorrocco, Jack Santo, Craig Smedman, and ETNA
Parking.
Q Once again, Gilbert Jackson is not a part of that

team seeking a contract in Houston, correct?
Q No evidence of that and no wire intercepts?

A That's correct.
Q In terms of any involvement with Earl Brown in

Houston, are there any wire intercepts where he's
contacting Earl Brown or seeking any type of advantage
involving his brother? Between Gilbert Jackson and Earl
Brown?
A No, but we did not have Title 111.
Q Now, Oliver Spellman is the Chief of Staff,

correct?
A That's correct.
1207
Q Is there any wire intercepts or any surveillance

where Gilbert Jackson sought to gain a contract involving
Oliver Spellman in his role as Chief of Staff?
MR. JENKINS: One moment, your Honor,
please.
Q Now just finally in terms of the APCOA and AMPCO,

in terms of any wire intercepts or surveillance involving
Gilbert Jackson and those individuals, do you have any
such evidence involving that? Where he sought any of

those contracts?
A Could you rephrase that?
Q Sure.
In terms of Mr. Jackson, my client, in terms
of the APCOA, AMPCO contracts in Houston, any wire
intercepts or evidence where he sought to seek a contract
on those basis?
A Based on our wiretaps, I never heard Gilbert
Jackson discuss any of that.
Q Ever hear Gilbert Jackson come up in any of those

wire intercepts?
A Related to that subject?
Q Yes.
A No.
MR. JENKINS : Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have a n y r e d i r e c t .
MR. DETTELBACH: Very briefly.
- - -
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Is y o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n completed?
MR. J E N K I N S : Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, i t ' s not.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q A n d i s t h e C l e v e l a n d o f f i c e of t h e F B I t h e o n l y
o f f i c e of t h e F B I ?
A NO, i t ' s not.
Q Now M r . J e n k i n s a s k e d y o u some q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g
t h i s , a n o t h e r congressman?
A Yes.
Q A n d t o be c l e a r , w h o w a s s p e a k i n g d u r i n g t h a t p a r t ?
A Nate Gray.
Q A n d who w a s h e s p e a k i n g a b o u t ?
A Gilbert Jackson.
Q Now, h e a l s o a s k e d y o u some q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g
S u p e r Bowl t i c k e t s ?
A Yes.
Q Did Mr. Jackson, on a w i r e t a p i n t e r c e p t , m a k e a n y

o f f e r s regarding those t i c k e t s ?
1209
A He offered to switch the tickets out with a friend
of his, Joe Johnson.
Q And Joe Johnson, who was he and what's the

significance of his --
A He was an NFL player for the New Orleans Saints, so
he may have had access to player tickets.
Q And then finally, he asked you, Mr. Jenkins asked

you some questions about wiretap interceptions regarding
Gilbert Jackson and Monique McGilbra.

A Yes.
Q Are there any wiretap interceptions where

Mr. Jackson evidences or talks about knowledge of Miss
McGilbra's position?
A Yes.
Q And could you tell us what he says?

THE COURT: Well --
MR. DETTELBACH: All right. The tapes are
in, your Honor.
THE COURT: You already covered it.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And then finally the last question was, do you

remember the question he asked you about asking whether
Mr. Jackson ever asked Miss McGilbra anything relating to

business?
1210
1 MR. JENKINS: Objection. T h a t ' s n o t what
2 I said.
3 MR. DETTELBACH: I ' m sorry.
4 Q J u s t t o f o c u s y o u r a t t e n t i o n , d o you remember t h e
5 b i r t h d a y , happy b i r t h d a y p h o n e c a l l ?
6 A I do.
7 Q A t t h e v e r y e n d o f t h a t phone c a l l , what's t h e l a s t
8 t h i n g M r . J a c k s o n a s k e d Miss M c G i l b r a ?
9 A H e a s k e d i f s h e was p a y i n g C D M ' s c h e c k s o n t i m e .
10 MR. DETTELBACH: Nothing f u r t h e r .
11 THE COURT: W e ' l l t a k e a b r e a k , a b o u t 10,
12 12 minutes. About 1 7 o r 1 8 a f t e r w e ' l l t r y t o
13 reconvene.
14 I would a s k t h e a t t o r n e y s t o a p p r o a c h
15 once.
16 - - -
17 (The f o l l o w i n g s i d e b a r c o n s i s t i n g o f
18 p a g e s 53 t o 58 was f i l e d Under S e a l w i t h
19 t h e Court.)
20
21
( T h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n was
c o n d u c t e d a t s i d e b a r , b e t w e e n c o u r t and
c o u n s e l , o u t s i d e t h e presence of t h e
jury.
THE COURT: I just wanted to t a l k j u s t a
bit. Y o u had f i l e d t h i s , i t s e e m s l i k e a n
a d d i t i o n a l m o t i o n r e l a t i v e t o t h e T i t l e 111.
MR. JENKINS: Right.
THE COURT: Y o u ' v e seen t h a t ? You've
g o t t e n that, r i g h t ?
MR. DETTELBACH: T h a t w a s a sealed
document, y o u r Honor.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, w e have g o t t e n i t .
THE COURT: H a v e you responded y e t .
MR. DETTELBACH: We have n o t .
THE COURT: Okay. When a r e you g o i n g t o
get a r e s p o n s e i n ?
MR. DETTELBACH: W e w o u l d ask the court
for the weekend, i f w e c o u l d do t h a t .
THE COURT: T h e p r o b l e m is, i t ' s way o u t
of t i m e . I mean, m o n t h s o u t of t i m e .
MR. WHITAKER: The p r o b l e m w i t h that was,
i t w a s n e w l y discovered evidence.
THE COURT: It's i n the original letter.

1212
MR. WHITAKER: The falsity of it is what's

newly discovered.
THE COURT: What would be -- why was it
only discoverable now? You had after the first
trial even. There wasn't any evidence about the
airport. I don't understand how that would be new.
At the earlier trial there was testimony from Teamor

about his general assets.
MR. WHITAKER: What I'm saying is, I
developed evidence that a section of that affidavit
dealing, I believe with CS3, is not true.
THE COURT: CS3 being?
MR. WHITAKER: If I had it right, CS3 is
the person who testified about the IX Center being
sold for, you know.
THE COURT: Okay. But you had -- the
thing about that IX Center has been around forever.
MR. WHITAKER: That's true. But I was
unaware of, number one, the availability of
documents, that documents existed that will disprove

what's been put in that affidavit. I was unaware of
the potential sources.

In other words, who --
THE COURT: Why couldn't you have found

them?
MR. WHITAKER: For one thing, I was
preparing. It was a very short leave preparing for
trial and there is voluminous things necessary to
prepare for this trial.
None of that came to my attention. I
looked -- obviously, I looked at it, I reviewed it
with my client. We didn't have information at that
time that. I didn't conduct a separate
investigation. It was simply a matter of time.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, then, I don't
hear you really giving much of an excuse for why it
was filed.
MR. WHITAKER: The information just came
to my attention. I don't know if it could have been
gathered earlier.
I can tell you that as a result of the
leak, I believe certain things, the publication in
the Plain Dealer and Scene magazine, certain
information came available to me that wasn't
available before. And that's the basis of my
motion.
MS. PEARSON: Can I say his burden is to
share, if indeed it was false, the affidavit that
was filed. His motion doesn't even address that
point.
1214
MR. WHITAKER: Actually it does. And what
I said, it was demonstrably false at the time.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, help me because
I've gone through it quickly this morning.
How does that -- you know, how does that
leak Judge Oliver or Judge Matia's, how is that
frankly of any real importance to the issuance?
Because, help me, again my recollection is
Teamor was charged with or prior to Jones.

MS. PEARSON: Exactly. Only --
THE COURT: Was Teamor charged in any of
these other allegations?
MS. PEARSON: Not the RICO, no. Just
Jones.
THE COURT: So whether or not Teamor had
gotten rich on the IX Center, or not gotten rich,
how would that have had an influence on Judge Oliver
or Judge Matia's giving up the Title I11 as to Gray?
MR. WHITAKER: Well, clearly the
government thought it would because they put it in
the affidavit. And they lumped both, in terms of
the airport business, they lumped both Teamor and
Gray together with all aspects. They were partners
in the airport business.
THE COURT: But there is no allegation in

1215
this on the airport. It may have been part of the
investigation but there is no allegation in this
trial on the airport.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, I'm moving to
suppress the intercepts.
THE COURT: Help me again.
The Title 111, I've read through the
affidavits, but it's been a bit of time.
Is there any allegation -- I thought the
IX Center, those allegations were focused on Teamor.
THE COURT: Was there an allegation that
Gray was assisting Teamor in that?
MS. PEARSON: Not specifically in that
portion.
THE COURT: And the inflating of the
value.
MS. PEARSON: No, that was -- Ray Park was
their client that Teamor dealt with on his own.
There is also the association of Teamor and Gray but
not relative to that contract.
THE COURT: Was there any allegation that
Gray was part of the inflation of the IX Center
value?
MS. PEARSON: No, I don't think there is

at all.
THE COURT: In the affidavit.

All right. Get your response in.
MR. WHITAKER: Yes your Honor.
- - -
1217
seats.
And would the United States call your next
witness.
MS. BUTLER: Yes, your Honor, the United
States calls Monique McGilbra.

THE COURT: Just remain for a second.
Would you raise your right hand.

- - -
MONIQUE McGILBRA
as follows:
THE COURT: Please take a seat. And after
you've gotten seated, state your name and spell year
last name.
THE WITNESS: Monique McGilbra.
M-C-capital G-I-L-B-R-A.
THE COURT: Counsel.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Miss McGilbra, please tell the members of the jury

where you grew up?
A I grew up in Houston, Texas.
Q How far did you go in school?

A I g r a d u a t e d from c o l l e g e .
Q And what i s y o u r d e g r e e i n ?
A I h a v e a B a c h e l o r o f S c i e n c e d e g r e e i n Home
Economics.
Q Where d i d you go t o s c h o o l .
A Texas Southern U n i v e r s i t y .
Q Do you h a v e c h i l d r e n ?
A I do.
Q T e l l us t h e i r ages?
A I h a v e two c h i l d r e n . My d a u g h t e r T a y l o r i s 1 4 y e a r
o l d , a n d my s o n E l l i o t t i s 1 2 .
Q And a r e you m a r r i e d ?
A No, I ' m divorced.
Q Did t h e r e come a t i m e when you w e n t t o work f o r t h e
C i t y o f Houston?
A Yes, t h e r e d i d .
Q A p p r o x i m a t e l y when d i d you s t a r t ?
A I s t a r t e d i n January of 2000.
Q F o r how l o n g were you e m p l o y e d b y t h e C i t y o f
Houston?
A I was employed f o r a l i t t l e o v e r t h r e e y e a r s .
Q NO, p r i o r t o -- s o when d i d you l e a v e t h e c i t y ?
A I l e f t i n April, 2003.
Q P r i o r t o w o r k i n g f o r t h e c i t y , d i d you work i n
private industry?
1219
A I did. I worked for a commercial real estate

developer known as Gerald Heines or Heine.
Q And what did you do for them?

A I was Director of Retail Operations.
Q Could you tell the members of the jury what their

most famous property is in Houston?
A Hines Developer is well known for its mixed use
facilities, and in Houston it's the Galleria, which is a
large multi-use retail office and hotel complex.
Q Miss McGilbra, what were you hired to do by the

City of Houston?
A I was hired as the first Director of the Building
Services Department.
Q And what were your responsibilities as Building

Services Department Director?
A I was responsible for establishing a start up
business plan for this new department, which included
handling all of the development activities for the other
city departments, which included handling all of the
construction aspects, the property management, the energy
and environmental management, and security management.
Q What were you paid for your services as building

services director?
A Initially I was paid $104,000.
Q And what was your salary when you left?

A I believe it was around $114,000.
Q Now, I want to show you what is Government's
Exhibit 844. It should appear on that screen.
Ms. McGilbra, when you were working for the
City of Houston were you aware of whether or not there
was a city policy regarding whether or not city officials
could accept gifts?

A Yes, I was.
Q And what was your understanding of that policy?

A That city officials and employees were not allowed
to accept gifts.
Q And I'm showing you what is Exhibit 844. Do you

recognize that?
A Yes.
Q What is that?
A Executive orders from the Mayor of the City of
Houston.
Q And are those the orders referring to the gift

policy?
A Yes, it is.
Q Now, did you have -- did you personally follow that

rule?
A No, I did not.
Q And who was responsible for enforcing compliance
with that rule by the employees in your Building Services

1221
Department?
A In my department I was the person responsible for
carrying out the executive orders.
Q Now, tell the members of the jury why you left your
city job in April of 2003?
A I left in April after I learned that the OIG was
investigating me to pursue business interests in the
private sector.
Q And what did you think -- at the time, were you

under investigation by the city?
A I was. By the OIG, which is an internal
administrative arm of the Mayor's Office.
Q And what did you think would happen to the

investigation if you left the city?
A I thought that if I left the city, since it was an
administrative investigation, that, that that would be
the end of it, that if I left. And since I had job
opportunities waiting for me, I thought it would be best
for me to go ahead and take those opportunities and

leave, and in hopes that that would go away, that that
would resolve the investigation.
Q Approximately a year and a half after you left the

city, were you indicted in Federal Court in Cleveland?
A Yes, I was.
Q Can you tell the members of the jury, in your own

words, what you were charged with doing?
A I was charged with conspiracy and bribery.
Q And did you hire a lawyer?
A I did.
Q In consultation with your lawyer, did you enter

into a plea agreement with the government?
A Yes, I did.
Q Tell the members of the jury what you pled guilty

to in Federal Court in Cleveland?
A I pled guilty to conspiracy and one specific act of
bribery.
Q And specifically, what conduct did you admit to

having engaged in that violated the law?
A The Super Bowl weekend. I accepted things of value

involving the Super Bowl weekend.
Q And did you make any other admissions about your

involvement in that activity?
Tell the members of the jury what you told
the court you had done wrong?
A I used my influence as the Director of Building

Services Department to help contractors get contracts,
and I used that influence.
Q And specifically, what contractors did you admit

helping?
A Specifically Nate Gray and Honeywell.

1223
Q Now, was the agreement that you entered into a

written agreement, the plea agreement?
A Yes, it was.
MS. BUTLER: Could you display Exhibit
1460.
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Miss McGilbra, what is your understanding of your

responsibilities under the plea agreement?
A I'm responsible for cooperating with the government
as part of this, as a part of these proceedings, and
assisting them in any other issues that they have that I
may be able to assist them with.
Q And tell the members of the jury what you

understand that word cooperation to mean?
A To voluntarily, voluntarily provide information
about any other acts involving any other public officials
that I'm aware of.
Q And what's your understanding of the government's

responsibility under this agreement?
A That they would hopefully reduce my sentence.
Q Now who is actually going to sentence you?

A The judge .
Q So who actually has the ability to set the sentence

you will receive?
A The judge does.

1224
Q What are you hoping will happen as a result of your

plea?
A I'm hoping to get the -- I'm hoping that after I
fully cooperate that I will get a reduced sentence.
Q Now, Miss McGilbra, at the time that you entered

into your plea agreement in Federal Court in Cleveland,
did you also enter into a plea agreement with the
government in Federal Court in Houston, Texas?
A Yes, I did.
Q And Miss McGilbra, was that also pursuant to a

written plea agreement?
A Yes.
Q And what did you plead guilty to in Federal Court

in Houston?
A I pled guilty to dishonest services fraud.
Q Now, Miss McGilbra, tell the members of the jury

what it is that you did that you admitted violated the
honest services statute?
A In Houston, I used my influence to assist
contractors with business in the City of Houston in my
department.
Q In connection with your plea agreement and your

guilty plea in Houston, did that involve contractors
other than the ones that you admitted to being involved
with here in Cleveland?

A Yes, it did.
Q And can you remember which contractors were

involved in some of those admissions?
A The Keystone Group, Thacker Operating Company, and
Reliant.
Q Now, with respect to the plea agreement in Federal

Court in Houston, what's your understanding of your
responsibility?
A To fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
Q And what does cooperation mean?

A To provide information that can assist the
government with the investigation.
Q And do you have to answer all the government's

questions whether you want to or not?
A Absolutely.
Q And do you have to provide truthful testimony?

A Yes.
Q What's your understanding of what happens if you

don't provide truthful testimony?
A Then the government won't honor the agreement.
Q Now, who's going to sentence you in connection with

your plea agreement in Houston?
A The judge.
Q But what are you hoping will happen?
A I hope to get a reduced sentence.

1226
Q Now, Miss McGilbra, I want to go back to the year

2000 when you first went to work for the City of Houston.
When you started there, were you aware that
the Texas legislature had passed a bill to deregulate
energy in the State of Texas?
A Yes, I was.
Q And did you come to understand what that meant, in

terms of your responsibilities as the Building Services
Director?
A Yes.
Q And what was that?

A It meant that the Building Services Department
would initiate, on behalf of the entire city, a process
to identify an energy services contractor for the city so
that we could select and then purchase electricity on
behalf of the city in an open deregulated market.
Q Now, did the city hire a consultant to assist you

in the process of entering into a contract?
A Yes, it did. We hired Camp, Dresser, McKee.
Q And who did you principally deal with on behalf of

Camp, Dresser, McKee?
A Rick Cloutier.
Q Now, was there in fact a process in place to accept

proposals, analyze them and make a selection?
A Yes. Well, Camp, Dresser, McKee created a process

and administered that process.
Q Now, in addition to entering into a contract to

provide actually the supply of energy, was there another
component of that contract?
A Yes, there were two parts of the contract. The
first part was the supply side, and the second part was
the demand side, which is the use of the electricity. So
it was important as we selected a service provider that
the contractor be able to not only sell us and supply us
with electricity, but also be able to help us with energy
conservation initiatives, which involves the demand side,
conserving the demand.
Q Did that process, to select a contractor to provide

those two services, begin in approximately August of
2001?
A Yes.
Q Now, in the Fall of 2001, were you dating a man

named Garland Hardeman?
A Yes, I was.
Q To your knowledge, was Mr. Hardeman hired by any

company that was interested in obtaining business as part
of the energy services contract that your department was
supervising?
A Yes. He was hired by Honeywell.
Q Now, who did you understand him to be working with

pursuant to that contract?
A With Nate Gray.
(1 When, to your knowledge, was Mr. Hardeman hired as

a consultant for Honeywell?
A It's my understanding that on a business trip that
I took to Cleveland in October of 2001. And then I
stayed in Cleveland for social purposes, and Garland met
me in Cleveland for social purposes. It was at that time
that he met Nate and Brent Jividen with Honeywell, and
negotiated himself an arrangement with him to represent
Honeywell.
Q Did you have an understanding about whether or not

Mr. Hardeman was going to receive any money under that
contract that he had with Honeywell?
A Yes, it was my understanding of when Garland
advised me that he had negotiated himself a deal that he
would be compensated a success fee if Honeywell indeed
was selected as a subcontractor as part of the energy
services agreement.
Q And did you have an understanding about whether or

not you would receive a share or any portion of the money
that Hardeman would receive?
A It was my understanding that if Garland was
successful then, of course, the money that he would earn
would then be shared with me, as it related to expenses

1229
in and travel and things of that nature.
Q Now, when did you know that Mr. Hardeman had this
agreement to be paid a success fee if Honeywell got a
contract through your department?
A Subsequent to our trip to Cleveland in October of
2001. Upon our return -- upon my return to Houston,
Garland informed me shortly after I returned to Houston
that he had negotiated this deal, and that he would, of
course, be compensated if he was successful in helping
them.
Q Now, what did you do with respect to the energy

services contract when you knew that Mr. Hardeman, your
boyfriend, was their consultant?
A I then made, I then spoke to Rick Cloutier with

Camp, Dresser, McKee to find out the reputation of
Honeywell since he was representing Camp, Dresser who was
our consultant. So I checked with him to see if
Honeywell was a suitable contractor. And then I checked
with Oliver Spellman, who had introduced me to Nate
initially, and was now the Chief of Staff for the Mayor,
to advise him that Nate and Honeywell were interested in
this, and to get his blessing as well, to see if that was
okay with him for us to move forward with suggesting
Honeywell.
And upon doing that background work, then I

1230
suggested Honeywell to Reliant. I suggested that Reliant

consider them as a subcontractor.
Q Now, specifically who at Reliant did you tell that
you wanted Honeywell to be hired?
A I spoke to Ray Ehmer, who was the Vice President in

charge of, he was the Vice President in charge at the
time .
Q Now, what effect did you expect your statement to

Mr. Ehmer to have on Reliant?
A Well, I fully expected that unless Reliant had a
very good reason, since we now know that Honeywell is a
very suitable contractor, that they would indeed include
them as a subcontractor upon my recommendation.
Q Were you speaking to Mr. Ehmer in your capacity as

the Director of the Building Services Department?
A Yes, I was.
Q Now, you said you consulted Mr. Spellman. How is

it that you knew Oliver Spellman?
A When I was recruited to be the Building Services
Director, I participate in a panel interview of the Chief
Administrative Officer for the Mayor and several, several
department heads or Directors.
And Oliver was one of the three or four that
interviewed me as part of that panel interview.
And upon being appointed and selected for the

1231
position, Oliver was identified as someone who should be
a mentor for me, someone for me to learn the ropes about
conducting business at the city.
Q Now, you said you also spoke to Rick Cloutier?
A Yes.
Q And is it your testimony that you knew that Rick

Cloutier was the Senior Representative of Camp, Dresser,
McKee in Houston?
A Yes.
Q And what role did he provide directly to you?

A Rick Cloutier, his role for me - - of course his
company was working in parallel with our department on
the whole energy services procurement process -- but Rick
was also sort of a mentor in the private sector, because
of his experience in the private sector. And
specifically on this project, he provided advice and
counsel to me with regard to subcontractors and on
political matters as well.
Q When you consulted Mr. Cloutier, did you know that

Nate Gray was a consultant to CDM?
A No, ma'am, I did not.
Q Now, let's turn to Mr. Gray for just a moment.

Do you see him here in the courtroom?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you point him out?
1232
A He's standing.
Mr. Gray.
Q Please tell us how it is, what the circumstances

were when you first met Mr. Gray?
A It was in the Summer of 2001 that, that Oliver

Spellman phoned me one evening after work and asked me to
stop by and have a drink with him, that he had a friend
that was in town from Cleveland that he wanted me to
meet.
And so I had, I had to pick my kids up from
school and get home, so I didn't have much time, but I

agreed to meet them for drinks for about an hour. I only
had about an hour. And so I did, I went to Houston's
Restaurant in Houston, Texas and met Oliver Spellman and
he introduced me to Nate Gray at that time.
Q Did you have an understanding that that was going

to be a discussion about city business when you went?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you actually go to Houston's?

A I did.
Q And when you arrived there, did you know anyone

there besides Oliver Spellman?
A No, I did not.
Q Now, how were you introduced?

A O l i v e r i n t r o d u c e d N a t e a s h i s f r i e n d a n d b u d d y from
Cleveland. T h a t was, you know, t h a t t h e y were v e r y good
f r i e n d s a n d t h e y u s e d t o h a n g o u t a n d , you know, r u n
together i n Cleveland.
And h e i n t r o d u c e d m e a s h i s c o l l e a g u e i n
Houston.
Q Was t h e r e a n y o n e e l s e t h e r e t h a t you c a n r e c a l l a s
p a r t of your group?
A Not r e a l l y .
Q Not r e a l l y ? You d o n ' t r e c a l l ?
A I don't recall.
Q Now i n t h e t i m e t h a t you were a t H o u s t o n ' s , tell
t h e members o f t h e j u r y what you t a l k e d a b o u t ?
A Right o f f t h e b a t Nate and O l i v e r s p e n t a l o t of
t i m e t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e good o l d d a y s i n C l e v e l a n d when
O l i v e r S p e l l m a n worked h e r e a s t h e P a r k s D i r e c t o r i n
Cleveland.
So I w a s f a s c i n a t e d i n l i s t e n i n g t o them
t a l k i n g a b o u t p o l i t i c s i n C l e v e l a n d a n d how t h e y u s e d t o
r u n t h i n g s i n C l e v e l a n d when t h e y were h e r e t o g e t h e r .
And t h e n w e s t a r t e d t a l k i n g a b o u t s p o r t s a n d
football. And w e t a l k e d a b o u t t h e g o o d o l d d a y s when
Houston u s e d t o h a v e a t e a m c a l l e d t h e O i l e r s a n d t h e y
would p l a y t h e Browns. And s o we t a l k e d a b o u t C l e v e l a n d
a n d C l e v e l a n d Browns a n d t h e H o u s t o n O i l e r s a n d w e t a l k e d
1234
about football.
Q Did you talk about whether or not you would perhaps

see a game here in Cleveland?
A We did. At the end of the sports conversation,
because I was so intrigued with the dog pound and, you
know, Nate said, well, you got to come to a game. If you
are ever in Cleveland, let me know, I have season tickets
and it's no problem we'll go to a game.
Q Now, did you hear from Mr. Gray after you left
Houston's that night?
A I did.
Q Do you recall whether or not he sent you an e-mail?

A Yes, he sent me an e-mail, he did.
MS. BUTLER: Please show Exhibit 830.
Blow that up, please. Thank you.
Q Miss McGilbra, do you recall seeing this e-mail?

A Yes.
Q And did you in fact take a look at the Cleveland

Browns schedule that's attached?
A Yes.
Q And did you have any subsequent conversation or

e-mail exchange with Mr. Gray?
A Not, not immediately following our meeting. Not at
this time.
Q Did there come a time when you did talk to Mr. Gray
about the trip to Cleveland?
A Yes, I did. As part of our due diligence for the
energy services contract, Rick Cloutier and CDM suggested
that the city do site visits to look at the short listed
firms, and look at what their capabilities were, and also
to look at other cities in markets that were either
deregulated or going through deregulation.
So as part of those site visits we were
coming to the mid-west, Indianapolis, Chicago. And so I
suggested Cleveland. And I asked Rick is Cleveland a
city that we could visit? Are there reasons why we could
go to Cleveland? Because I was thinking that if we could
go to Cleveland then upon concluding business I could
stay -- I could get in touch with Nate and perhaps go to
a game if there was a game at the time.
Q And was something set up for you to see in some

mid-west cities?
A Yes.
Q What cities did you go to?

A Indianapolis and Cleveland. I mean Indianapolis,
Chicago and then Cleveland.
Q Now, at the time that you made your plans to come

to Cleveland, did you contact Mr. Gray?
A Yes. After Rick said, Rick Cloutier advised me
that yes, we could come to Cleveland, that Cleveland was

1236
either in the process of deregulating or had deregulated,
and then there was some contacts at the Water Department,
that we could look at some of the efficiency measures
that were taking place here, things that we could learn,
and then I called Nate and said, guess, you know, I'm
coming to town, take you up on that offer to go to the
football game.
Q And did you talk to him about what arrangements you

would make for your travel here?
A Yes, I told him I would be coming on business and
that so, you know, I would be coming with the team and --
with the work team, and then I would just stay on after
we concluded our business.
But then since I had never been to Cleveland
I didn't know where to stay, what hotel to stay in. And
I mentioned that to him, and he told me oh, don't worry
about taking care of any hotel arrangements, I'll take
care of everything for you. There is no need to do that.
Q Was there any talk about the Browns?

A When?
Q With Mr. Gray when you told him you were coming to
Cleveland?
A Yeah, he said that he, he had season tickets and
there was a game, and that we would go to the game.
Q At some point did you tell Mr. Gray that you would
1237
be bringing someone with you?
A Yes. At some time later, after talking to Garland,
he inserted himself in this trip. And so it was kind of
awkward, but I told Nate that I had a friend that was
coming, was it okay if he came to the game too? And Nate
said fine, there wasn't a problem.
Q Now was Chicago your third -- I'm sorry. Cleveland

your third stop on your due diligence trip?
A Yes, it was.
Q And when did you arrive here in Cleveland? What

day of the week?
A It was a Saturday. Saturday morning.
Q And what happened when you got here?

A When I arrived, we were scheduled to meet some
representatives from the Water Department after a lunch.
So when I arrived I had made arrangements to have lunch
with Nate. So I had lunch with Nate.
Q And where was your team?

A They were with me.
Q Now what happened during the course of the lunch

with respect to your appointment at the Water Department?
A There was another gentleman that I was introduced
to that worked for the City of Cleveland. He let Nate
know that the representatives from the Water Department
were not going to be available and that the meeting was

cancelled, that we weren't going to have a meeting.
Q So who advised you that your meeting fell through?

A Nate did, after someone advised him that the
meeting had been cancelled.
Q Did you have any understanding that Mr. Gray was

involved in setting up your meeting with the Water
Department?
A No. Not that I can recall.
Q So what happened after your official business fell

through.
A Then, I think to kill time before the team had to
go to the airport, we went to the Rock and Roll Hall of

Fame.
Q And do you recall whether there was anyone else

with you besides Mr. Gray and your team at the Rock and
Roll Hall of Fame?
A I really think there was another person, but I
don't, I don't really remember who that was.
Q So after the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame tour, what

happened to your team members?
A They went to the airport and returned back to
Houston.
Q And who actually was part of your team?

A Felix Johnson, who was the Energy Manager that
worked for me at the city, and Sean Tenneu, who was the
1239
project manager for Camp, Dresser, McKee who worked for
Rick Cloutier.
Q Now what did you do after the Rock and Roll Hall of
Fame tour?
A Then Nate, I think, took me to check into my hotel.
Q What hotel was that?

A The that was the Ritz Carlton.
Q Is that in downtown Cleveland?

A Yes, downtown Cleveland.
Q When you checked in did you give him your credit

card?
A No.
Q Did you inquire as to whether arrangements had been

made to pay?
A Nate had already assured me that it was all taken
care of. So when I got to the desk I didn't -- I
assumed, I took him for his word that it was all handled.
Q And did they ask for your card?

A No.
Q Now, how did you spend the day?

A I went to the spa and got a massage, and ordered
some room service and got some flowers.
Q And who were the flowers for?

A For myself.
Q And did you pay for those extra charges yourself?

A No.
Q Just charged them to your room?

A To the room.
Q Now, Ms. McGilbra, did Hardeman join you at the

hotel that Saturday?
A Yes, he did.
Q And where was Mr. Hardeman living at the time that

he visited with you in Cleveland?
A He lived in California.
Q And where did you live?

A In Houston.
Q Now, that night, Saturday night, did you go out and

see Cleveland?
A Yes, I did. Nate invited us to go out to dinner
and to have drinks.

A Yes.
Q And who was part of your group that night?

A Garland and I, Nate and Valerie. Nate and Valerie.
Q Now, who paid for the expenses of Saturday night's

entertainment?
A Nate did.
Q When you went to your room, was there a gift card
waiting for you?

A Yes.
1241
Q And what d i d t h e g i f t c a r d s a y ?
A There was a n o t e , I guess, from t h e c o n c i e r g e t h a t
t h e r e was a g i f t w a i t i n g f o r me t h a t I had t o go p i c k up
a t t h e g i f t shop.
Q On Saturday, d i d you -- had you p i c k e d up t h e g i f t ?
A No.
Q Now, what d i d you do -- was Sunday game day?

A Sunday was game day.
Q And what d i d you do t h a t day?
A On Sunday, Garland and I met Nate and V a l e r i e and
Brent J i v i d e n and h i s wife f o r brunch a t a r e s t a u r a n t
down i n t h e F l a t s , I t h i n k .
Q Now, d i d you remember having met M r . Jividen
before?
A I d i d n ' t remember having met him b e f o r e .
Q How was he i n t r o d u c e d t o you?
A A s Honeywell, Brent J i v i d e n -- t h a t he worked a t
Honeywell, b u t a s a f r i e n d of Nates.
Q Now, you s a i d t h a t t h e -- t h a t you went t o brunch

with M r . J i v i d e n and h i s wife?
A Urn-hum .
Q And M r . Gray and h i s g i r l f r i e n d V a l e r i e ?
A Yes.
Q And of course Garland was with you?
A Yes.
1242
Q Did you t a l k a b o u t a n y c i t y b u s i n e s s a t t h e b r u n c h ?
A No.
Q A f t e r t h e b r u n c h -- w e l l , d i d you p a y f o r y o u r m e a l
a t t h e brunch?
A No. I believe -- I t h i n k e i t h e r Nate o r Brent
p i c k e d up t h e t a b .
Q A f t e r b r u n c h , d i d you g o t o t h e game?
A Yes.
Q How d i d you g e t t h e r e ?
A T h e r e was some s o r t o f w a t e r t a x i t h a t we r o a d f r o m
t h e r e s t a u r a n t t o t h e stadium.
Q And when you a r r i v e d a t t h e game, d i d somebody h a v e
t h e t i c k e t s a l l r e a d y f o r you?
A Yes. Nate h a d t h e t i c k e t s .
Q And d i d you w a t c h t h e game?
A I did.
Q And w h a t was y o u r p u r p o s e i n b e i n g a t t h e s t a d i u m ?
A To e n j o y t h e f o o t b a l l game.
Q Was t h e r e a n y o f f i c i a l b u s i n e s s t o b e c o n d u c t e d
t h e r e , t o y o u r knowledge?
A No, my b u s i n e s s was d o n e when t h e team l e f t .
Q Now, when you were a t t h e game, i n f a c t , w a s t h e r e
some d i s c u s s i o n o f c i t y b u s i n e s s ?
A Yes. W h i l e I was a t t h e game, B r e n t J i v i d e n l e a n e d
o v e r a n d s t a r t e d t o s e l l h i s company t o m e , and s t a r t e d
1243
to talk to me about Honeywell and their interest in being
involved in an energy services contract.

And I was very sort of taken aback by it
because in my mind business was over and I wasn't
anticipating talking about any type of business at the
football game. And it really took me by surprise. And
so I leaned over and said to Nate, because I realized
obviously the whole reason he's even here, since he was
so vigorously trying to take advantage of the opportunity

to tell me about his company, that was the reason he was
there to talk to me and tell me all about his company.
So I said to Nate that I was uncomfortable
with that, and so tell him to stop doing that. And then
Nate spoke to him and he stopped.
Q Now, prior to your speaking with Mr. Gray, did

Mr. Jividen or you mention Felix Johnson?
A Yeah. When Brent was talking to me, I said to him,
when he told me he was interested, that we hadn't even
selected a prime contractor yet. So he was very early to
be talking to me about being a subcontractor.
And because we didn't even know who the prime
contractor would be, so how could I help him to make that
referral when we don't know who the contractor is. And
that if he just wanted to stay in the loop and be aware
of our timing of things and what's going on, that he

1244
should contact Felix Johnson in my department. That he's
in charge of that. And he could keep him updated with
what's going on. And he said he had already been in
touch with Felix so he knew who Felix was.
Q Now, when you told Mr. Gray you didn't want to

discuss the energy services contract with Mr. Jividen,
did Mr. Gray say anything about his relationship to
Honeywell at that time?
A No, not that I can recall.
Q Was there any further effort to engage in
conversation about city business during the game?
A No.
Q After the game, did you go back to the Ritz?
A Yes.
Q And did you follow up on that gift card, that

notice?
A I did. I did.
And I picked it up and it was a bathrobe.
There was a card inside that said from Honeywell.
Q And what did you do with the robe?

A I left it. I didn't take it.
Q And why did you do that?

A It wouldn't fit in my suitcase.
Q And did you pick up some things at the gift shop?
A I don't think so.

Q You d o n ' t remember t h a t ?
Q Now, d i d you h a v e a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a f t e r you g o t
t h e g i f t c a r d a n d t h e r o b e a b o u t who was p i c k i n g u p y o u r
e x p e n s e s f o r t h e weekend?
A Well, y e a h . A f t e r t a l k i n g w i t h B r e n t a t t h e game
a n d t h e n g e t t i n g t h e g i f t , t h e l i g h t w e n t on t h a t , t h a t
o b v i o u s l y t h i s whole t h i n g was s o r t o f a s e t u p , a n d t h a t
t h a t was t h e p u r p o s e o f Honeywell b e i n g a r o u n d o r B r e n t
being around. And s o i t was c l e a r t o me t h e n t h a t t h e y
were i n v o l v e d i n some way.
Q A f t e r y o u r l i t t l e s h o p p i n g t r i p , d i d you g o t o t h e
airport?
A I did.
Q And d i d M r . Hardeman g o t o t h e a i r p o r t ?
A He did.
Q Do you r e c a l l i f you went t o g e t h e r o r n o t ?
A I t h i n k we went s e p a r a t e l y .
Q Now, were you r e t u r n i n g t o H o u s t o n ?
A I was.
Q And was h e r e t u r n i n g t o C a l i f o r n i a ?
A Yes.
Q When you r e t u r n e d f r o m C l e v e l a n d t h a t weekend, d i d
you h a v e a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Hardeman a b o u t w h e t h e r h e
c o n d u c t e d b u s i n e s s t h a t week?
1246
A Yes, I did. Garland advised me that he, during the
game, had negotiated on for himself, cut himself into a
deal between Nate, or with Nate and Honeywell for him to
represent Honeywell in Honeywell's efforts to try and do

business with the City of Houston, with my department
specifically.
Q And is that the contract that you told us about?

A Yes.
Q Now, had in fact you introduced Mr. Hardeman on a

prior occasion to the Keystone Company with the intention
that he see if he could get hired by them as a
consultant?
A That's right. But I did not introduce him to Nate
with this purpose. He didn't tell me that he was
interested in doing that. He just took it upon himself

and did that.
Q Now, this time previously when you did introduce

him to a company, was that Keystone?
A Yes, it was.
Q And did Mr. Hardeman actually get hired by

Keystone?
A Yes.
Q And did Keystone, in that case, pay him on a

monthly basis, to your understanding?
A It is my understanding that he had a retainer with

Keystone that they paid monthly.
Q And did you get a portion of those monthly

payments?
A For a period of time Garland did send me money
for -- I'm not sure how many months.
Q Now, originally, what was your understanding of

what Hardeman was supposed to do for Keystone?
A When I introduced Garland to Keystone, it was my
understanding that Garland was going to help them to
market in cities that they weren't in and that he had
contact and relationships with. Because he was a former
Council member in California and was active in several

organizations that were national and knew other
politicians in other cities, it was my understanding that
Garland would use those relationships in other cities and
in California to help Keystone.
Q Now, when Keystone hired Mr. Hardeman, did Keystone

have a contract that was being managed by your department
involving a 911 emergency call station?
A Yes. They were currently working with my
department.
Q And did there come a time when Mr. Hardeman was

hired by Keystone under an agreement to lobby you to get
for Keystone a contract to build a fire super station?
A Yes. During the course of time, I guess, that

1248
Garland had his contract or agreement with Keystone,
there wasn't very much activity in the other markets that
he was supposed to be marketing, so they tapped him and
asked him to help them with their fire station bid. And
that, that bid was in my department.
So yes, they did hire him or agreed to pay
him a fee if he was successful in assisting them in
getting the fire station contract.
Q And how was he to be paid with regard to the fire

super station?
A It was my understanding that he was to get a lump
sum payment if he was successful in helping them.
Q Okay. And what was succeed under that contract?

A If they got, if they, if they were awarded the
contract.
Q And did that require you to recommend them?

A Yes, it would have, it would have required my
recommendation.
Q Now, is this contract that you just talked about,

the agreements with Keystone, is that part of your
Houston plea agreement?
A Yes, it is.
Q And did you also admit to receiving some cash from

Thacker Operating Company?
A Yes.
1249
Q And d i d you a l s o a d m i t t o g e t t i n g some L i o n King
t i c k e t s from R e l i a n t Energy?
A Yes.
Q And d i d you a l s o a d m i t t o r e c e i v i n g some f o o t b a l l
t i c k e t s from R e l i a n t o r Keystone t o i n f l u e n c e you?
A Yes.
(1 And d i d you a l s o a d m i t t o g e t t i n g some e x p e n s e s f o r
a t r i p t o San A n t o n i o , T e x a s ?
A Yes.
Q Now I want t o t u r n now t o w h a t was h a p p e n i n g i n t h e
E n e r g y S e r v i c e s D e p a r t m e n t a f t e r you r e t u r n e d f r o m y o u r
C l e v e l a n d f o o t b a l l weekend i n O c t o b e r o f 2001.
P l e a s e t e l l t h e members o f t h e j u r y what t h e
s t a t u s w a s of s e l e c t i o n f o r t h e energy s e r v i c e s c o n t r a c t
a t t h e e n d o f O c t o b e r o f 2001?
A W e h a d s h o r t l i s t e d t h r e e f i r m s a n d w e were
accepting proposals.
(Z And who was h e l p i n g you e v a l u a t e t h e p r o p o s a l s ?
A Camp, D r e s s e r , M c K e e .
Q Now, who were t h e t h r e e s h o r t l i s t e d f i r m s , i f you
know?
A E n r o n , TXU o u t o f D a l l a s / F o r t Worth, a n d R e l i a n t .
(2 What h a d h a p p e n e d t o Enron d u r i n g t h e s e l e c t i o n
process?
A Upon them a c t u a l l y t u r n i n g i n t h e i r b e s t a n d f i n a l
1250
proposal, then Enron collapsed, and so they pulled out.
Q Now at the time that you told Mr. Ehmer about

Honeywell, had Reliant actually been selected?
A No, I don't think they had been selected.
Q So were they still in the application process?

A Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, objection to
the continued leading question.
THE COURT: Sustained. You are leading on
that last couple questions.
MS. BUTLER: Yes, your Honor.
Q At what stage in the application process were you

in when you made your -- had your conversation with
Mr. Ehmer?
A We had -- we had received proposals, and it was
prior to best and final. It was prior, just prior to us
receiving the best and final proposals from the three
short listed firms.
Q And what was to that after the best and final

proposals were received?
A After the best and final proposals were received we
would evaluate those and make a selection.
Q And as Building Services Director, what was your

position in the process?
A My position would be to take the recommendation

1251
from Camp, Dresser, McKee into the Mayor.
But Camp, Dresser, McKee, the proposals were
so voluminous and complicated, that they pretty much
handled the review evaluation process and came up with a
matrix that determined who the contractor would be. Who
the winner was, if you will.
And so once they advised me of who that was,
based on the intricate matrix, my responsibility would be
to accept or deny that recommendation. And I did accept
the recommendation of Reliant, and then take that
recommendation to the Mayor.
Q And at the time that you were making that final

selection with Camp, Dresser's advice, did you know
whether or not Honeywell had been included in Reliant's
proposal?
A Yes, Honeywell was included in Reliant's final
proposal.
Q And did that influence you in your selection?

question.
A It did not influence me because -- because the --
because the proposals had been received and Camp,
Dresser, McKee had already done the evaluation, so it
didn't influence me. But I had already recommended

Honeywell to Reliant, so.
Q And at the time --

A But it didn't influence the selection at the time
of the selection.
Q At the time that you recommended Honeywell to
Reliant, did you also recommend Honeywell to any other
competitors?
A No, I don't recall doing so.
Q And why didn't you do that?

A I don't -- I have tried to figure that out, but I
don't know.
I think that perhaps Reliant's proposal, the
information that I got from them was that they included a
minority component. And so perhaps it looked like they
would be the likely, the likely winner. And so maybe I
just suggested Honeywell to Reliant thinking that they
would be successful.
Q Well, you said you think you did. Did you?

A I did recommend Honeywell to Reliant, yes.
Q And did you expect that Reliant would be the likely

winner?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you make a recommendation to the Mayor about
who the energy s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e r should be?

A I did.
Q And who was that?
A I recommended Reliant.
Q And did you have an understanding of what would

have to happen next in the process?
A Yes, I did. I knew the Mayor would then take my
recommendation to City Council for their final approach.
Q And did that happen?

A Yes.
Q And?
A And we got approved.
Q And did Reliant -- was Reliant awarded the

contract?
A Reliant was awarded the contract.
(2 Do you recall approximately what time of year it

was when Reliant was actually approved to receive the
contract?
A It was December 12th, 2001.
Q And when was energy supposed to be deregulated?

A January, 2002.
Q Now, on the demand side of the contract, were there

various phases to that contract?
A Yes. The demand side was, as I said earlier, was
to identify energy conservation initiatives to reduce
demand.
There were three phases:

1254
One was the initial audit phase, where the
contractor would coming in and do high level audits to
identify projects.
And then the second phase would be to do a
more detailed audit, which would require engineering
studies and surveys, which would cost money that the
contractor would be paid for.
And the third phase, which would be
implementation or construction.
Q What was your understanding of when in the process
the subcontractors on the demand side of the contract
would actually start to receive some money from the city?
A The contractor and the subs, because it's, you
know, all one team in our mind, would begin to be
compensated in phase two, because the in depth
engineering audit, as I said earlier, cost money. So it
was part of the contract and agreement that we would, of
course, pay for those.
But in phase one, the time spent on the
initial audits is at the costs and risks of the
contractor.
Q Now, did there come a time when you went to the

Super Bowl in New Orleans?
A Yes.
Q And when was that?

1255
A February, 2002.
Q Was it shortly after the Reliant contract was

entered into?
A Yes.
Q Now, did you go with anyone to that game?

A Garland.
Q And did anyone make arrangements for you for that

trip?
A Yes. We got tickets for the game from Nate.
Q And did anyone make any arrangements for your hotel

stay?
A Not that I'm aware of. Garland -- the question is
arrangements.
Garland was handling the arrangements for the
trip, so he was talking with whomever to get tickets or
to arrange for the hotel and to make those arrangements.
Q Do you have an understanding of who paid for your

hotel stay?
A I thought Garland had paid for the hotel.
Q And did there come a time when you learned

otherwise?
A Yes.
Q And who did you learn paid for your hotel?

A Nate.
Q Now, when you arrived in New Orleans, did you meet

anyone t h e r e who took you t o d i n n e r ?
A Yes. Gilbert.
Q And who was t h a t ?
A G i l b e r t Jackson.
Q P r i o r t o your a r r i v a l , d i d you know t h a t
Mr. Jackson was going t o meet with you t h a t weekend?
MR. JENKINS: Objection, leading.
THE WITNESS: Can you r e p e a t t h e q u e s t i o n ?
BY M S . BUTLER:
Q Yeah. Did you know t h a t M r . Jackson was going t o
be p a r t of your weekend a c t i v i t i e s ?
MR. J E N K I N S : Judge, I o b j e c t t o t h e term
h e r s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e y were p a r t of t h e weekend
activities.
THE COURT: Did you know t h a t you were
going t o go t o d i n n e r o r o t h e r w i s e meet him?
THE WITNESS: I d i d , because I c o n t a c t e d
G i l b e r t on my own a c c o r d .
BY M S . BUTLER:
Q Did you know M r . Jackson?
A Yes, I knew M r . Jackson.
Q How d i d you know him?
A I met him p r e v i o u s l y . I met him a t a conference,
t h e National Forum f o r Black P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

1257
Q Had you also been to the Essence Festival in the

Summer of 2001 in New Orleans?
A Yes.
Q And had you seen Mr. Jackson at that time?
A Yes.
Q Did you in fact have dinner with Garland Hardeman

and Mr. Jackson Saturday night?
A Yes. We had dinner at a restaurant in the French
Quarter. It looked like Gilbert was entertaining some
other guests, there were other people at the dinner, it
was a large group.
Q And did you pick up the tab?

A I did not.
Q Do you know who did?

A I assume Gilbert did.
MR. JENKINS: Objection to assumptions,
your Honor.
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Do you know if Garland Hardeman did?
A No, he did not.
Q They didn't arrest you when you left?

A No.
Q Now, where was the restaurant?
A It was in the French Quarters in New Orleans.

1258
Q Now at the time that you called Mr. Jackson?

A Um-hum .
Q Did you know whether or not there had been any

arrangements made with him to meet up with you that
weekend?
A I didn't.
MR. JENKINS: See, my objection is to
leading.
You need to rephrase the question.
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Prior to your, when you called Mr. Jackson, did he
seem to know that you were coming?
A No.
Q To your knowledge?
A To my knowledge, he didn't. I called Mr. Jackson
and informed him that I was coming and that maybe we
could get together and hang out, as we had done on
previous visits to New Orleans.
Q And what was his response?

A Positive, as usual.
Q Now, did you, on Saturday night, did you in fact

stay in the Hotel Le Cirque?
A Yes, I did.
Q Now, the next morning, was the game in the evening

on Sunday?
A Yes, Sunday evening.
Q And the next morning, did you do anything?

A Yes. At dinner the night before, Gilbert invited
us to join him at brunch for the Mayor.
Q And did you go?

A I did.
(1 And was the Mayor there?

A I believe so.
Q Pardon?
A Yes, I believe so.
Q And which Mayor are we talking about?

A Mayor Mark Morial.
Q Now, after the game, did you stay overnight in New

Orleans on Sunday night?
A Yes.
Q And did you do anything on Monday before you left

with Mr. Jackson?
A I don't remember.
Q Do you remember going to a restaurant in New
Orleans on Monday?
MR. JENKINS: Judge, objection, leading.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MS. BUTLER:
1260
Q Now, how did you get back from New Orleans to

Houston?
A I flew.
Q When you got back from the Super Bowl trip, what
was, at what phase was the demand side energy contract?
A Phase one.
Q And what was your role in supervising the

performance under the demand side contract?
A I was basically administering the, the demand side.
I sat in on weekly or bimonthly meetings that was held to

give updates and status reports as to how things were
progressing on the phase one.
Q And did there come a.time in the summer of 2002

when you took a trip to Florida with some family members?
A Yes.
Q Go ahead.
A I -- my family usually vacations in Florida during
the summer, and so we were going on our summer vacation
to Florida at this time. And I, in conversating with
Nate, he, I let him know I was going to be in Florida,
and he said he was going to be in Florida, too, around
the same time.
I'm not sure with if it was Tampa or where he
was doing some other business in Florida.
And so, but he said, you know, of course he

1261
always likes to get down south to, you know, to South
Beach, and could we get together and hang out?
And I said, well, I'm with my family on
vacation.
And so he says, well that was cool. And so
could all go out to dinner.
And so we did. He took us out to dinner.
And where did he take you to dinner?
It was in South Beach. Tantra.
And how many were in your party, approximately?
I think five.
How did you get to the restaurant?
He sent a car to pick us up.
And what kind of car was it?
A limo.
And did it take you home as well?
Yes.
Now, did you talk about any city business during
that dinner?
A No.
Q Did there come a time when you were supervising

performance under the energy contract, that you learned
that there was a conflict in personalities between some
of the parties.
A Yes. I was advised, I think by my own staff, and

1262
maybe even Nate had mentioned, or we talked about
personality conflict between Brent Jividen and Tipton,
who worked for Reliant. And it came to my attention that
they weren't getting along. And I surmised after talking
with several people that it was just a personality
conflict. And that they would just have to learn to play
nicely and work well together, and that this was no
reason to disrupt the flow of the contract because they
weren't getting along.
Q Did you intervene in that conflict?
A No. I mean, I didn't intervene between the two of
them, but I advised the team that we should just continue

to move forward. Because no one had told me that there
were any real reasons for the rub, other than just
personality.
Q And why would you care if Reliant kicked Honeywell

off the deal?
A Well, because I had --
MR. WHITAKER: Objection, first of all she
didn't say --
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Why did you intervene?

A I intervened because I --
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, she just said

she didn't intervene.
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Why did you make statements to the team?

THE COURT: You are going to have to lay a
foundation that she did something other than
everyone plays nicely.
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Did you make statements to any one regarding the

conflict, personality conflict?
A I told the team that we were going to move forward
with the team members that were in place. That Brent
would remain representing Honeywell. And that,
obviously, Reliant was our contractor, so obviously they
were going to stay with that. Honeywell would stay as
well. That we would learn how to communicate better and
move forward with the contract.
Q And why did you do that?

A I did that because I wanted to make sure that there
were no -- that Reliant didn't come up with a reason that
wasn't legitimate to perhaps get rid of Honeywell,
because I had taken the time to introduce Honeywell to
Reliant and wanted them to remain in good sted so that
they could benefit with their contract.
Q And what effect would Honeywell's being kicked off
the team have on Mr. Hardeman's contract?

1264
A If Honeywell was kicked off the team, then Garland
wouldn't be compensated. Because it was my understanding
that he would be compensated if Honeywell was successful.
And although they had been selected, they hadn't begun to
make any money yet.
Q Did there come a time when Mr. Gray expressed some

concern to you about the company called Thacker?
A Yes. Nate and I had a conversation about Gary
Thacker's role. He's a minority contractor out of
Atlanta. And it was my understanding that Thacker would
be a minority, could potentially be a minority component
as part of the team of Reliant and Honeywell and others,
because they were going to be hiring a number of
different subcontractors.
But Nate was concerned that Thacker would be
taking up a part of the contract that he thought would be
set aside for Honeywell.
Q Now, do you recall talking on the phone with

Mr. Gray about this?
A I do.
MS. BUTLER: Please play Exhibit 1166.
(Tape played. )
Q Now Ms. McGilbra, did you and Mr. Gray flirt with
each other?
A Yes, we did.
1265
Q You say there that, you know where you stand?

Stand where you stand.
A Yes.
Q What did you mean by that?

A Because Nate, Nate was in a relationship with
Valerie. And so I had met Valerie and she's a nice
person, so it would have been difficult to cross the
line.
Q If I could direct your attention to page 2 of this

exhibit, and in particular to lines 13 through 26.
And in particular, Ms. McGilbra, I want to
direct your attention to line 16, where it says:
"Weren't in the play. You wanted to be in
the play. You got in the play."
What are you talking about there?
A Just making an initial recommendation for Honeywell
to be a subcontractor to Reliant. So before I
recommended Honeywell, of course Reliant hadn't
considered Honeywell as a subcontractor.
Q And here where you say: "There were some problems

due to personality conflicts, so we were able to overcome
those and insure that you were involved."
Who's that a reference to?
A I'm just used to speaking in we instead of I or me.
Q Now directing your attention to page 4, at lines 19

1266
through 2 4 . I ' m s o r r y , 1 7 through 24.
Do you s e e a r e f e r e n c e t h e r e t o B r e n t , i n
l i n e 17?
A Yes.
Q "You h a v e n ' t h e a r d a n y t h i n g f r o m B r e n t ? "
A Yes.
Q And who was t h a t ?
A B r e n t J i v i d e n i s t h e s a l e s r e p f o r Honeywell.
Q And t h e r e i s a l s o a r e f e r e n c e t o a n E a r l ?
A E a r l Brown.
Q Yes. And you s a y t h e r e : "Now o f c o u r s e h e d o e s
have h i s l i t t l e c o n t a c t s and whatnot?"
A Yes.
Q What a r e you t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e r e ?
A T h a t E a r l Brown a l s o w a s -- h a d s e t h i m s e l f u p t o
b e a c o n s u l t a n t , a n d h e was v e r y much a mover a n d s h a k e r
a r o u n d town e n g a g i n g i n c o n s u l t i n g a c t i v i t y w i t h
d i f f e r e n t c o n t r a c t o r s around t h e c i t y .
Q And d o you know who E a r l B r o w n ' s b r o t h e r was?
A H i s b r o t h e r was t h e Mayor, Lee Brown.
Q And i s t h a t who h i r e d you?
A Yes.
C> Now, d i d you h a v e a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h M r . Brown
about h i s business?
A Yes.
Tell the members of the jury about that?
Earl and I would meet and talk often about --
MR. WHITAKER: Objection. Earl Browns's
conversation.
BUTLER:
7 (2 Did you have a conversation with Mr. Brown about

8 his activities in connection with contracts, city
9 business that you were involved in?
10 MR. WHITAKER: Same objection.
11 THE COURT: Wouldn't that be the same.
12 MS. BUTLER: Co-conspirators statement.
13 THE COURT: Who is the co-conspirator?
14 MS. BUTLER: Mr. Brown, Ms. McGilbra,
15 Mr. Gray.
16 Your Honor, you want me to do that this at
17 side bar?
18 THE COURT: I'll speak up here.
20 conducted at the sidebar, out of the
21 hearing of the jury, as follows: )
THE COURT: It would be hearsay. It's an
out of court statement offered to prove the truth of
the assertion.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I think it's a

1268
statement in furtherance at this point. Lee
Brown -- Earl Brown was a consultant to Honeywell.
In this conversation he tells her what Lee
Brown's -- it is in the outcome in how she does the
business.
THE COURT: What do you expect the
testimony to be?
MS. BUTLER: He tells her.
THE COURT: Earl Brown tells her?
MS. BUTLER: Earl Browns tells McGilbra
that he is setting up this consulting business. He
has this consulting business and he is building it
so his brother can join it when he leaves. And
our -- we believe we can argue from that that's a
significant link to Ms. McGilbra; that Lee Brown
wants her as well to do certain things in connection
with the energy services contract.
You can tell from the tape that Earl Brown
is actively involved in representing Honeywell's
interest. He's trying to protect --
THE COURT: I didn't understand that.

There has been no testimony of why it's not in
Ms. McGilbrals statement offered as a statement
against one the parties in the conspiracy.
MR. WHITAKER: This is the first time ever

1269
anybody said Earl Brown is a conspirator or
co-conspirator. When I was asking about him being

investigated, I wasn't even allowed to go into that.
And think about, you know, if we would
have, if the issue was that he was a co-conspirator,
that would have allowed a little more elbow room in
the investigation.
THE COURT: He's always been kind of
somebody that worked all these phone calls, he was
interceding on behalf of these interests.
MR. WHITAKER: But he didn't do anything
illegal with his brother, and that doesn't make him
a co-conspirator.
THE COURT: He talked to his brother to
try to influence his decision.
MR. WHITAKER: Consultants are allowed to
do this.
THE COURT: Just on this, I think there is
sufficient evidence. And I'm going to allow it. It
is a statement of a co-conspirator.
MR. WHITAKER: In that case, we never got
this statement.
MS. BUTLER: Yes you did. You absolutely
did. And I'll show you exactly where it is.
THE COURT: Show it to him. Sure.

MS. BUTLER: Sure.
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Ms. McGilbra, what did Earl Brown tell you about

his interests in business contracts that you were
administering?
A Earl said that he was building up a his consultant
company so that when his brother left office he would
have laid a good foundation for him.
Q And in particular, did Mr. Brown tell you something

about who his clients were?
A He was working with Nate, and he was working with
Gary Thacker, and I think he was working with Camp,
Dresser.
MR. WHITAKER: Objection to think, your
Honor.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry for the
expression.
THE COURT: Don't guess at it, but if --
THE WITNESS: Right. Okay.
THE COURT: Go ahead and ask another
question.
Did Mr. Brown ever mention to you Camp, Dresser,

McKee?
A Yes, h e d i d .
Q And what d i d h e t e l l you a b o u t them?
A That he had a working r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Rick
C l o u t i e r a t Camp, Dresser, M c K e e .
Q M i s s McGilbra, i n t h e c a l l w e j u s t l i s t e n e d t o , you
make t h e s t a t e m e n t on p a g e 4 a t l i n e 27, w h e r e i t s a y s :
"So I c a n a s k t h o s e q u e s t i o n s . But I would b e v e r y
i n t e r e s t e d t o know, know what you r e a l l y w a n t . B u t you
know --"
MS. BUTLER: T h a t ' s a t t h e t o p of page 5.
Q And t h e q u e s t i o n i s , what a r e you o f f e r i n g t o d o
t h e r e f o r M r . Gray?
As a r e s u l t of M r . G r a y ' s t e l l i n g you h e ' s
c o n c e r n e d a b o u t Thacker i n t h i s c a l l , what did you o f f e r
t o do?
THE COURT: I t h i n k it speaks f o r i t s e l f .
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q F o l l o w i n g t h i s c a l l , d i d you make a n y i n q u i r i e s ?
A J u s t g i v e m e a moment t o t h i n k .
Yes, I did.
Q T e l l t h e members o f t h e j u r y w h a t you d i d ?
A I inquired. I spoke w i t h R e l i a n t t o f i n d o u t
e x a c t l y what t h e i r i n t e n t i o n s w e r e w i t h r e g a r d t o T h a c k e r
a n d t h e y c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h e y were t a l k i n g w i t h t h e m a b o u t
being a minority subcontractor.
Q Now, d i d you c o n v e y y o u r c o n v e r s a t i o n s , y o u r
information t o Mr. Gray?
A Yes. I followed back up w i t h M r . Gray and a s s u r e d
h i m t h a t , n o t t o w o r r y , t h a t T h a c k e r w o u l d o n l y be a
m i n o r i t y component. And t h a t i t was my u n d e r s t a n d i n g
f r o m t h e i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s t h a t w o u l d -- t h a t t h a t w o u l d
i n n o way i m p a c t t h e i r p o r t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t .
Q Now, M s . M c G i l b r a , d i d t h e r e come a t i m e when you
r e c e i v e d L o u i s V u i t t o n p u r s e as a g i f t ?
A Yes.
Q T e l l t h e j u r y what t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s were?
A I t was my b i r t h d a y i n 2 0 0 2 , i n November, a n d I w a s
h a v i n g a b i r t h d a y p a r t y t h a t y e a r , a n d i n v i t e d Nate t o
come. And h e s a i d h e was c o m i n g . But a t t h e l a s t minute
he w a s u n a b l e t o make i t .
And s o s u b s e q u e n t t o my b i r t h d a y h e s a i d
s i n c e h e d i d n ' t make t h e p a r t y h e w o u l d g e t me a g i f t ,
and t o l d me whatever I wanted I c o u l d have. And I w a n t e d
a purse. I needed a p u r s e and wanted a p u r s e . And s o I
went a n d p i c k e d one o u t , a n d t h e n h e paid f o r i t .
Q And d o you r e c a l l t a l k i n g a b o u t t h a t on t h e p h o n e
w i t h M r . Gray?
A Yes.
MS. BUTLER: Could you please p l a y E x h i b i t

MS. BUTLER: Now i f we c o u l d s t a y t h e r e a t
p a g e 2 f o r j u s t a moment.
Q And d i r e c t i n g y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o l i n e s 24 t h r o u g h
27.
What d i d you u n d e r s t a n d M r . G r a y t o b e s a y i n g
when h e s a i d e v e r y t h i n g i s r e a d y t o b e p i c k e d u p ?
A T h a t t h e p u r s e t h a t I h a d s e l e c t e d was r e a d y f o r m e
t o p i c k up.
Q And d i d you i n f a c t p i c k i t u p ?
A I did.
Q And how much was t h a t ?
A $700.
Q Now, d i r e c t i n g y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o p a g e o n e o f t h i s
t r a n s c r i p t , 1182B.
T h e r e i s a r e f e r e n c e t h e r e a t l i n e 11 t h r o u g h
19. You s a y t h e r e -- M r . Gray s a y s : "Now o n e q u e s t i o n I
g o t f o r you, you g o t a s e c o n d ? BSD One A . " What i s BSD
One A?
A I t ' s phase one o f t h e energy s e r v i c e s c o n t r a c t .
Q And i s t h a t what you a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t h e r e i n t h i s
call?
A Yes, i t i s .
Q Now, M s . M c G i l b r a , d i d t h e r e come a t i m e when you

1 told Mr. Gray about a fire that you had in your
2 residence?
3 THE COURT: Let me just ask, how much more
4 do you have of her?
5 MS. BUTLER: I would say, eight, ten
minutes.
THE COURT: Why don't we recess now, I've
got a couple things over the lunch hour.
It's going to be just a bit longer just

because there are some other hearings.
Don't talk about the case among
yourselves. Don't form any opinions or express any

We'll stand adjourned until about 20
minutes 'ti1 one. It may be a few minutes after
that, but we'll try to get started as close to that
as we can.
So with again a reminder that you are
required to comply with all the earlier directions,
we'll adjourn at this time.
(Luncheon recess.)
1275
FRIDAY AFTERNOON SESSION - AUGUST 12, 2005
MS. BUTLER: Thank you, your Honor.
Q Miss McGilbra, just before the break I had asked

you if there ever came a time when you told Mr. Gray
about a fire that you had in your residence?

A Yes, I did.
Q And were you in fact living in temporary housing

for a time?
A I was. I was living in temporary housing for about
a year after I had -- after I had a fire in my home.
Q Did you have any conversation with Mr. Gray about

his giving you anything for your house?
A After construction had started on my home, I talked
with Nate several times about what the new house would
look like and plans to move into the house. And he said
that he would give me a grill as a house warming gift.
Q Did he offer you any furniture for your house?

A No.
Q Did you ever ask Mr. Gray to assist you in finding

a job for one of your step sisters?
A Yes, I did. I spoke to several people, including
Mr. Gray, about employment for my sister who was recently
graduating from Tuskegee with an engineering degree.
Q Do you know who ultimately helped her to secure

employment?
1276
A Yes. It was Rick Cloutier referred her to another
company that ultimately hired her.
Q Now, did you, yourself, have a conversation with

Mr. Gray about employment after you left the city?
A I did. As this was the mayor's last and final term
in, in my last year at the city, I started to talk with
several people, contacts that I had made, about what I
might do after I left the city, assuming I would leave
when the mayor's term was ended. And in fact, I did
speak to Nate Gray about that as well.
Q And were the people that you were talking to,

including Mr. Gray, people who had business interests
before your department?
A Some did, yes, and some not.
(1 Now, did there come a time when you met a gentleman

named Ben Jeffers?
A Yes.
Q Tell the members of the jury when and where,

please?
A I met Ben Jeffers on a trip to New Orleans to
attend the Essence Festival. Rick Cloutier had made
arrangement for me to stay in a hotel and receive tickets
for the Essence Festival, and told me to -- he gave me
Mr. Jeffers' name as a contact, as someone that I should
contact when I arrived to New Orleans.

1277
And so I actually contacted Mr. Jeffers while
I was in New Orleans but we arranged to meet upon my
return back to Houston. And so I stopped and met him at
a did he know 1's restaurant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
And that's how I met him face to face.
Q What happened in your meeting with Mr. Jeffers?

A When I met with Mr. Jeffers he gave me a tote bag
from the New Orleans Democratic Party. They had logos on
the tote bag. And there was a mug inside the tote bag
and also cash inside the tote bag to cover the hotel
expenses I just incurred.
Q How much was it?

A $500.
Q Miss McGilbra, do you recognize Government's

Exhibit 714?
A Yes.
(r What is it?
A It is the mug that I received inside the tote bag
from Ben Jeffers.
Q Did there come a time when you learned that Garland

Hardeman had been arrested?
A Yes. Even though I was, I thought, in a loving
relationship with Garland, he didn't tell me that he was
in trouble or he had been talking to the government about
his involvement in issues in California. It was actually

1278
Mike Serfass, who is one of the principal partners in the
Keystone Group, who informed me that Garland was in fact
in trouble, and had in fact been indicted. And he met
with me and showed me a newspaper clip that talked about
that indictment.
Q Did you discuss Mr. Hardeman's arrest with

Mr. Gray?
A Yes. After the article came out in the California
newspaper, and it sort of became known that Garland had
been indicted, Nate, while in Houston, stopped by to see
me in my office and told me that he was aware of

Garland's situation. And Garland had been calling him
and he would like -- he didn't want Garland to call him
anymore. And he wanted me to convey to Garland directly
that their contract and agreement would still be in good
standing but for me to ask Garland not to call him
anymore.
Q Did you ask why he wanted you to call Garland?

A He said that he didn't want to -- no, I didn't ask
why. I assumed.
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Miss McGilbra, did you in fact call Mr. Hardeman?

A I did.
1279
Q What did you tell him?

A I told him that Nate came by to see me and that he
wanted me to convey a message to him that he was going to
honor their agreement, but in light of his situation with
his recent indictment, Nate ask that he please not call
him anymore directly.
Q Now, did you relay your conversation with

Mr. Hardeman back to Mr. Gray?
A Yes, I did.
MS. BUTLER: Could you please play Exhibit
1193.
(Tape played. )
Q Ms. McGilbara, did you have a responsibility as a

public official to file any disclosure statements with
A Yes, I did.

A Yes, I did.
MS. BUTLER: Would you show Exhibit 843.
Relevance.
MS. BUTLER: I'm sorry, your Honor?
I'll sustain the objection.

1280
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Miss McGilbra, did you ever disclose to anyone --

BY MS. BUTLER:
(1 Did you ever disclose to anyone from the City of

Houston, in the government, that you were representing
Honeywell's interest while you were a public official?
A No, I did not.
Q And did you think the public had a right to know

that?
A Yes.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Miss McGilbra, my name is Bill Whitaker. As you

know, I represent Nate Gray. And I'm going to ask you
some questions. And if you don't understand anything I
ask you, just let me know and I'll be glad to repeat it.
A Thank you.
Q You mentioned your entered into a plea agreement?

A Yes, I did.
Q I'm going to put on -- if I could get -- as you can

1281
see that, you see that Exhibit Number down at the bottom?
That's a Y, Defendant's Trial Exhibit Y?

A Yes.
Q It's titled Plea Agreement for Monique McGilbra.

And then I'm going to go to the last page and
ask you, is that -- you see the signature on that line?
A Yes.
Q Is that your attorney, Mr. Rotatori?

A Yes.
Q And is this the agreement you entered into with the

government?
A It looks like it, yes.
Q Now, as part of that plea agreement, you agreed to

testify here, right?
A Yes.
Q And also as part of that plea agreement, the

government reserved the right to make a motion that would
give you a reduction in the guideline level until after
your testimony, isn't that correct?
Q And that the government, in their sole discretion,

can choose to either make that motion or not make that
motion, is that correct?
A That is my understanding, yes.
Q And in fact, your case was set for sentencing even

before this trial, wasn't it?
A Yes, that Is correct.
Q And it was continued to wait until this trial was

concluded?
A Yes.
Q And how much time did you expect to do before you

entered into the plea agreement, if you would have been
convicted?
A I'm not sure.
Q Well, in order to evaluate the plea agreement, you

had to figure out what the difference would be, in terms
of the time that you might serve if you got convicted, as
to the amount of time that was being recommended if you
cooperated, right?
A Yes. But I think that's hard to know since if you
are convicted it's left up to the judge to decide, based
on the Guidelines.
So how can one really know what the judge
will do?
Q Well, one could start by talking to their attorney

and saying, based on the Guidelines, what level do you
think I would be at, if convicted?
Did you do that with your attorney?
A We did have some conversations around that, yes.
Q Based on those conversations, what guideline or

1283
what level did you expect to be at in regards to the time
of your sentence?
A I don't remember the level.
Q Do you remember the number of years?

A It's about the same that I pled to. I think that's
what my attorney was recommending.
Q So you are going to do the same amount of time

whether you went to trial and were convicted, or entered
a plea and cooperating?
A If I remember my attorney's words correctly, I
think that's what he advised me. It would be about the
same.
Q So for your testimony here today, you are not

getting any benefit whatsoever, with regard to your
sentencing, for cooperating?
A I didn't say that.
Q Then I don't understand why it would be the same.

Tell me this, what benefit do you get by --
do you expect to get by testifying here?
A As I said earlier, reduction in sentencing.
Q From what to what?

A It's already been negotiated in the plea agreement.
(1 That's right, and now we want to share it with

these folks.
What is it?
A It's 30 months.
Q You expect to serve 30 months?

A I do.
Q And what did you -- and what is that reduced from?

A It was -- it just includes the departure that you
just spoke of for my cooperation.
I don't remember the levels or the years or
the months.
Q What you are saying, we are talking about what you

would have got. The benefit you got is that you are
going to get a lesser sentence?
A Yes.
Q Now what I'm asking you is, we understand the 30

months, lesser than what?
A I don't know the exact months.
Q You also -- and I'm going to show you what's been

marked as Exhibit Z.
Do you see that?

A Yes.
Q And that's a plea agreement that you entered into

in United States District Court in Houston.
Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q All right. And did you also make an agreement with

regard to your -- and we see on the last page of an
addendum, we see you signature, isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q And then on the last page of the actual agreement,

again, that's your signature?
A Yes.
Q All right. Did you make an agreement with respect

to sentencing with the Houston court?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what was that agreement?

A It's the plea agreement you just showed us.
Q And what benefit do you expect to get?

A A reduction in sentencing.
Q What do you expect to get as a result of the

Houston sentence?
A It's -- I'm not sure. I just know that it is
supposed to run concurrently.
(2 With the Cleveland sentence?

A Yes.
Q In other words, you don't expect to do any

additional time for entering that Houston plea?
A Yes.
Q And what was it that you thought you might be

subjected to in the Houston charges without the benefit
of a plea bargain?
A I don't know the exact months.

Q Approximately?
A I have no idea.
Q Now, you mentioned your friend Garland Hardeman, at

one point he came to you and asked you, did you think it
would be okay if he was a consultant for companies doing
business with the City of Houston?
A No.
Q Let me ask you this way.

At one point he came to you and convinced you
it would be legitimate for him to be a contractor for
businesses doing business with the City of Houston, isn't
that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, when you talked about him going to Cleveland,

before he came to Cleveland, you didn't know that you
were going to meet with anybody from Honeywell?
A Right.
Q You didn't know there was going to be any

discussion about you doing any business with anyone from
Honeywell?
A Right.
Q You didn't even know that Nate Gray represented

Honeywell?
A Right.
Q But you said that Garland at that time didn't even

know Mr. Gray himself, did he?
A As far as I know.
Q But you say he inserted himself in the trip?

A Yes.
Q Do you know why he inserted himself in the trip?

A To spend time with me.
Q So when you say inserted yourself it was?

A Between us.
Q Between you two.

Now you say it was during the football game
Mr. Hardeman talked to Nate Gray about a consulting
agreement?
A That's my understanding.
Q Or Honeywell?
A That's my understanding. I didn't physically see
or hear their conversation.
Q What were the physical seating arrangements?

A I think Garland was sitting next to me, and I
think -- and I think Nate was sitting next to me, too.
But I seem to remember Brent, I think, was
sitting behind me. In the row behind me.
Q It was shortly after this trip, and at the time,

and you didn't even know that Nate Gray and Garland had
talked about entering into a consulting relationship?
A Not during the football game.

1288
Q You didn't know that until after you got back to

Houston and at some point later had a phone call with
Garland?
A Yes. As soon as I got back, Garland telephoned me
and we talked about it.
Q This relationship, this relationship with CDM that

the City of Houston had, they were getting into the
energy business for the first time, right?
MS. BUTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: You have to lay a foundation
that she knows.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Why were there energy opportunities in Houston

around this time?
A Because the state had passed a bill for
deregulation in the State of Texas.
Q And the City of Houston had not been involved in

negotiating these kinds of contracts, correct?
A This was the first time that the state was
deregulating the purchase of electricity. So no, we
hadn't had these kind of negotiations before.
Q And as a result, a company was hired to make the --

to let the City of Houston know about what decisions
would be the good decisions to make with regard the
deregulation and who they hired?

1289
MS. BUTLER: Objection. Compound.

question.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q All right. The City of Houston hired somebody that

would inform them of proper decision making with regard
to these energy contracts?

A Was that a question?
Q Yes.
THE COURT: I think he's asking, did you
hire a consultant to give you advice on energy
contracts?
THE WITNESS: Yes, we did.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And who was that?

Q Okay. And I'm showing you what's been marked as

Defendant's Exhibit M. And I'm bringing it down.
Does that appear to be the contract between
the City of Houston and Camp, Dresser, McKee?
A Yes, it does.
Q Would you take a second and take a look at it to

make sure we have the right thing here?
A Okay. Yes.
Q Okay. Thank you.

1290
Now, one of the things that they were charged
with doing was making the recommendation of who to hire,
to the City of Houston?
A Is there a question?
Q Isn't it a fact that one of the things they were

hired to do was to make recommendations on who to hire
for the various parts of the energy business, to the City
of Houston?
A Yes.
Q And as a matter of fact, as soon as you got back

from the Cleveland trip you called Rick Cloutier of CDM
to ask him about Honeywell?
THE COURT: You need to ask questions.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Isn't it a fact that as soon as you got back to

Houston, one of the things that you did was to call Rick
Cloutier and ask him whether Honeywell was the kind of
reputable firm that could be a sub for Reliant?
A Yes, I did.
Q And when the package came to you from CDM, when the
proposal came to you from CDM, they had already included
their choice as Reliant and their choice as Honeywell as
a sub, isn't that correct?
A Yes. The proposals -- yes, the recommendation came

to me, including identifying Reliant as the preferred
1291
vendor. And Honeywell was one of the subcontractors that
Reliant had listed.
Q And the truth of the matter is, that's a

recommendation you wouldn't have been able to change
without going back and consulting with Camp, Dresser,

McKee?
A Is that a question?
Q Is it the truth of the matter that that's a

recommendation that you would not have been able to
change without going back and talking to Camp, Dresser,
McKee?
A Yes.
Q As a matter of fact, Rick Cloutier from Camp,

Dresser, McKee was the one that suggested the trip to
Cleveland, isn't he?
A No.
Q Rick Cloutier is the one that made the arrangements
for you to go to Cleveland, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q And he told you he thought it would be a good idea

for you to go to Cleveland, didn't he?
A Yes, he did.
Q And he's the one that attempted to set up or
arrange, as he told you, a meeting with the Water
Department?
Q And did he ever tell you why that meeting fell

through?
A No. There was no explanation.
Q Now, at that time there were three companies that
were in a position to get the overall general contractor
job. One of them was -- but only two of them were local
Houston companies, is that correct?
Q Which were the two that were local Houston

companies?
A Enron and Reliant.
(Z And you are aware that Enron had done a project in

the City of Cleveland as well, weren't you?
A No, I was unaware.
Q The city -- the trip to the City of Cleveland was

paid for by the City of Houston, your expenses in getting
there and travel expenses, that kind of stuff?
MS. BUTLER: Objection. Compound.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Did the City of Houston pay for your travel
expenses to get to Cleveland?
A Yes.
Q Did they pay for your travel expenses to get back

from Cleveland?
A Yes.
(2 And would they have paid for a hotel room for you
in Cleveland?
Would they have paid for that Saturday
night.
THE WITNESS: If it was required to stay
over, they would have. If I had official city
business. But the business itinerary concluded at
some point during the day on Saturday.
THE COURT: So would they have paid, I
guess is the question, for Saturday night given the
fact --
THE WITNESS: Not given the facts as
they are, no.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q At the time you landed in Cleveland, when you

thought that you were going to have official business in
Cleveland for the City of Houston, would the City of
Cleveland have paid for whatever hotel room you would
have needed to stay in that night?
A Not in Cleveland. Not given the facts as they are
Which means that the itinerary showed us

1294
concluding our business at an early enough time to get on
the plane to get back to Houston, which is what the rest
of the team did.
Q But at the time you landed you were unaware that

the Water Department interview had been cancelled?
A Right. I was unaware.
Q So having been unaware of that, it would have been

proper and the City of Houston would have reimbursed you
or paid for you planning to stay the night in Cleveland,
because you still had Water Department business?
question.
THE COURT: I thought the question was

just simply, if you would have stayed for the
football game, would Houston have paid for the room,
given the time schedule you had planned earlier?
THE WITNESS: And no. The answer is no.
Given the timetable, given the itinerary and
schedule of official meetings and business, the
answer is no, there would be no reason for the City
to pay for a hotel night on that Saturday.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Even if the Water Department would not have
cancelled?
1295
A Right.
Q The City of Houston paid for you to stay at hotel

in other cities on that trip?
A Yes, that's right.
Q What were the hotels you stayed at in the other

cities?
A I stayed at the Omni Hotel in Chicago. And we
didn't stay overnight in Indianapolis.
Q So there was only one night on that trip you stayed

overnight at the city's expense?
A We may have stayed two nights in Chicago, I'm not
sure. We conducted our meetings in Indianapolis the same
day and came on to Chicago.
Q You mentioned that there was -- that you got a robe

from Honeywell?
A Yes, I did.
Q Okay. And there was a note right in it that said,

you know, welcome to Cleveland from Honeywell.
Is that correct?
A I just remember it said from Honeywell. I don't
remember exactly.
Q And there were actual two robes, weren't there?

A Yes.
Q One of them you returned, is that correct?

A I don't remember returning the robe.
Q And then you took the other one with you?
A No, I didn't.
Q You took none?
There were two robes, though? You knew there
were two robes?
A Yes.
Q I thought I understood your previous testimony to

be you only left one of them behind?
A I did.
Q What did you do with the second one?

A I didn't -- I don't know what happen to the second
one. I don't know if Garland took it or what happened to
it.
Q So as far as you know, you left two of them behind?

A I just know I didn't take one, that's what I can
speak to.
Q When you went to the Super Bowl you didn't know
that Honeywell was picking up those expenses either, did
you?
A No, that's not true.
Q Pardon?
A I said that's not true.
Q When you went to the Super Bowl, you did know they
were picking up the expenses?
THE COURT: Why don't you ask questions.

1297
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Did you know when you went to the Super Bowl that
Honeywell was picking up the expenses?
A When I asked Garland where he was getting Super
Bowl tickets from, and he told me not to worry about --
no. I asked Garland if Nate was giving him the tickets
for the Super Bowl, or providing the tickets for the
Super Bowl. And replied to me, you don't need to know
about that. You don't -- the less you know, the better.
Then I understood that Nate had given him or
provided the tickets for the Super Bowl. And of course,
I already know that Nate and Honeywell at this point are
in partnership.
Q Did you know that Honeywell was picking up the

expenses, the other expenses to the Super Bowl?
A What other expenses?
Q Didn't you stay at a hotel?

A Yes.
Q Did you know Honeywell was picking up those

expenses?
A No.
Q And you didn't know that when you were on the trip.
You didn't know that Honeywell picked up the expenses for
the hotel?
A No.
Q You thought that the trip to Cleveland, in going to
the football game, was perfectly legitimate at the time
you did it, didn't you?
A Can you ask one question? Was that a compound
question.
Q You knew -- you thought that your trip to

Cleveland, including the --
THE COURT: Why don't you ask her --
that is compound.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q You thought going to the football game while you

were in Cleveland was a perfectly legitimate thing?
THE COURT: That's not a question.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Didn ' t you?

A Yes.
Q And you thought going to the Super Bowl, that trip

was perfectly legitimate as well, didn't you?
A No.
Q And you thought that the dinner that you had in

Miami, that Nate picked up the tab for, was legitimate as
well, didn't you?
A No.
Q Okay. Do you recall testifying at an earlier time

in this matter?
A Yes.
Q All right. Do you recall me --

MR. WHITAKER: Page 836.
Q Do you recall me saying: Even though you thought
the trip to Cleveland was appropriate, and you didn't
know Honeywell was paying for it, and you thought --
didn't even know who was paying for the trip to the Super
Bowl, and thought the wining and dining in Miami was
perfectly legitimate, you still pled guilty to the
conspiracy or all of these charges to this action, isn't
that correct?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, are we just
reading the question? That's six questions.
MR. WHITAKER: No, I'm reading from the
transcript.
She's given her response.
THE WITNESS: Did you ask me a question
after I read?
THE COURT: The transcript.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q I asked if you answered it that way, that's
correct.
A Right. That's all your part of the reading of the
transcript.
Q Now, you did a number of things in Houston that
you --
THE WITNESS: Was there a question
relating to you reading the transcript.
MR. WHITAKER: There was and --
THE COURT: The question was, did you
testify that way before?
THE WITNESS: When you asked the question
before, as you read in the transcript, there were a

number of points made in your question. And so I
did respond yes, but there are varying different
responses to those different questions. That's why
I want to make sure this time I get one question so
I can give one answer to each specific thing.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q You are aware that Garland Hardeman entered into

consulting contracts with other people as well, aren't
you?
A Yes.
Q And you are aware that -- well, in fact, you

insisted that Garland give you some money from one of
those contracts, didn't you?
A I didn't insist.
Q But he ended up paying you money from the Keystone

contract, didn't he?
1301
A He gave me some money for a number of months, as I
said earlier.
Q I'm going to show you has been marked as

Defendant's Exhibit F. This is called the calendar of
payments.
Do you see on the right hand side it says
Monique McGilbra payment?
A Yes.
Q It says that you got $600 in May from the Keystone

contract, is that correct?
A I see that whole list.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, from May to December.
Q And that was May of 2001, right?

A Yes.
Q And then on May llth, you got another $600 off that
contract, isn't that correct?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I think he's
asking her to confirm Mr. Hardeman's document.
THE COURT: Why don't you just ask her
what dates she got money on? Or ask her if she got
money on particular days.
Why are you even using the document?
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Okay. Do you remember what dates you got paid and

1302
in what amounts on the Keystone contract?
A I don't remember all of the dates, but the amounts

were five and $600 usually.
THE COURT: How many times in total,
approximately?
THE WITNESS: Seven, eight.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Well, would this document help refresh your

recollection about how many you got?
A Yes.
Q All right. So you got the one on May lst, $600?

MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I don't think
that's how you refresh.

THE COURT: That isn't how you refresh.
How does it differ from what she said?
She said seven or eight and it's nine or ten.

MR. WHITAKER: Or eleven or twelve.
THE WITNESS: And one is for a 100. Or
one is for 500.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Would it be reasonable, do you believe you may have

gotten 13 payments of $600?
THE COURT: Move the thing off the screen.
And overruled.
Do you believe you got 13 payments of
$600?
THE WITNESS: No. I don't dispute
receiving money from him. I did receive the money.
So I just don't recollect that it was 13 payments.
On the list I had 10 payments.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q I'm sorry?
A The list you keep referring to had 10 payments,
eight for $600, one for $100 and one for $500.
Q And then in 2002 it's got four more payments, isn't

that correct?
A Yes, so it does.
Q All for $600.

Nobody ever paid you anything from the
consulting contract that Garland Hardeman had with
Honeywell, did they?
A No, they did not.
Q And nobody promised to pay you anything from the

contract that Garland Hardeman had with Honeywell, did
they?
A No.
Q But you asked of Garland to pay you money, you

wanted him to commit to paying you money from that
contract, didn't you?

1304
A No.
Q And when you s a y -- w e l l , you would h a v e b e n e f i t t e d
i f G a r l a n d would have s t i l l b e e n y o u r b o y f r i e n d , it j u s t
means h e would have p i c k e d up t h e t a b f o r t r a v e l and
d i n n e r s , and t h a t kind of t h i n g ?
A Yes.
Q And you might have been a b l e t o g o more p l a c e s o r
h e m i g h t h a v e b e e n a b l e t o go more p l a c e s ?
A Yes.
Q Now, you a l s o g o t t i c k e t s from t h e R e l i a n t
Corporation, i s n ' t t h a t c o r r e c t ?
A Yes.
Q And what t i c k e t s d i d you g e t from t h e R e l i a n t
corporation?
A T i c k e t s t o a p l a y , t h e Lion King; a n d f o o t b a l l
tickets.
Q What were t h e f o o t b a l l t i c k e t s t o ?
A To a f o o t b a l l game.
Q Yeah. Which f o o t b a l l game?
Q W a s n ' t i t t h e Houston Texans?
A Yes. I ' m sorry. I ' m sorry.
Q You a l s o g o t t i c k e t s t o a n e v e n t p a i d f o r b y CDM,
d i d n ' t you?
A Yes.
Q And what was that about?
A It was a golf tournament.
Q You also got payments by Mr. Thacker, didn't you?

A Payments?
Q You got paid cash money from Mr. Thacker?

A Yes.
Q Five to $6,000, isn't that correct?

A Yes.
Q You certainly knew that wasn't proper, didn't you?

A Yes.
Q You also had a relationship with Mr. Thacker, isn't

that correct?
A Yes.
Q And this was during the time you were also going
with Mr. Hardeman?
A No.
Q You also got a gift certificate and a birthday

present from Louis Vuitton from Mr. Thacker, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q That was the same birthday party that Mr. Gray

couldn't make the party for?
A That's correct.
Q And what was it that Mr. Thacker got you from Louis
Vuitton?
A It was a gift certificate.

1306
Q And what did you get with that gift certificate?

A Luggage.
Q .How much was it for?

A I don't remember. I could guess.
Q You don't remember, is that what you are saying?

A I don't remember.
Q You said that you had some -- when you decided to

leave the City of Houston, you had some jobs lined up
that you could go to, right?

A Yes.
Q One of the jobs you had lined up while you were

still working for the City of Houston was a job with
Johnson Controls, wasn't it?
A Absolutely not.
Q Isn't that who you went to work for after you left
A A year later, yes.
Q Who did you work for in the initial year?

A I worked for myself.
(1 So you are saying that one of the jobs you had

lined up was not Johnson control?
A You are using the word jobs, and I'm going with
that. But I started my own business as a consultant and
I had clients and contacts I had lined up, but not a job
I didn't go and work for anyone when I left the city.

1307
Q Was Johnson Controls one of the clients you had

lined up for your private business?
A No, not at all.
Q But Johnson controls was one of the companies that

you were doing business with when you worked for the City
of Houston?
A When I was hired for the city they were already a
long standing contractor for the city, but I did not
personally contract them myself while I was with the City
of Houston for any new business, or for any business.
Q You met Mr. Gray through Oliver Spellman, isn't

that correct?
A Yes.
Q And he introduced him to you and you had a meeting

or socially. Was there any business discussed at that
meeting?
A Not that I can recall.
Q So it was just a, how do you do?

A Drinks.
Q And then the next time -- and other than that,

Oliver Spellman did absolutely nothing with regard to
your business on the energy contracts?

A He gave me the go ahead to make the referral of
Honeywell to Reliant.
Q And did he do that on the telephone?

1308
A No.
Q When was that it you had a conversation with him

about Honeywell and Reliant?
A After I returned from Cleveland, and I understood
that Garland would be involved with the project and that
there was -- and that I was considering making the
recommendation for Honeywell, then I went to Oliver and
got his approval to go forward with that recommendation.
Q Was that before or after you contacted Rick

Cloutier at CDM?
A I don't recall. But right around the same time I

talked to both of them.
Q In fact, when you talked to Rick Cloutier at CDM,

he told you he already knew about Honeywell and was
considering Honeywell for that subcontract, didn't he?
THE WITNESS: That was a two part
question.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q When you first talked to Rick Cloutier about

Honeywell, you found out that he thought they were a good
company?
A Yes.
Q Qualified to do the job?

A Yes.
Q And you also found out that he was already
considering Honeywell to sub for Reliant?
A I don't recall finding that out from Rick Cloutier.
Q It was your opinion that Reliant was the best

company for that job, isn't that correct?
A Only based on the recommendation of CDM after
evaluating the proposals. I did not have my own opinion

without the benefit of the professional analysis that had
been done during the bid evaluation process.
Q So you relied on what they recommended as the best

company?
A Yes.
Q And when you got the proposal back from them, they
had already hooked up Honeywell with Reliant as the
subcontractor. And you recommended -- I'm sorry, they
had already hooked up Honeywell and as a sub for Reliant?
A Can you repeat that?
Q Isn't that true?

MR. WHITAKER: When CDM --
THE COURT: When you got their bid was
Honeywell already a sub?

THE WITNESS: You are saying already.
When I received their bid, their final
proposal, Honeywell was included as a sub. But

1310
that's only after the fact that I made the
recommendation for them to include Honeywell, so I
fully expected to see Honeywell included in their
final bid document.
THE COURT: Was there any bid documents

before that?
THE WITNESS: Yes, there were. Yes, there
were.
THE COURT: Was Honeywell a sub?
THE WITNESS: No, they were not.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q There were other subs recommended for that job in

previous bids?
A What's your question?
Q Were there other subs recommended for the job that

Honeywell was ultimately recommended for, in the earlier
bids?
A No, not in exchange for -- but Reliant had many
subs that they listed, and Honeywell was one of them.
And if I'm understanding you, you are asking
me if Honeywell took the place of someone else
ultimately. And no.
THE COURT: You are confusing me.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: Was Honeywell listed as a sub

before you spoke to --
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: -- to Reliant?

THE WITNESS: No, they were not.
THE COURT: Who was going to do the energy
management?
THE WITNESS: Reliant.
THE COURT: Reliant themselves was going
to do the energy management?
THE WITNESS: Do that part of it. They
would have handled it. Reliant had the capability
of handling the building assessment part of the
contract themselves.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q There were two aspects to the energy contract. One

was the demand side, and the other was the supply side,
isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q And at some point CDM recommended that they look

at, there ought to be a different company handling the
supply side than is handling the demand side.
Isn't that correct?
A No, I don't remember that.
Q Do you remember there being discussion about the
fact that it might be a conflict of interest to have your

1312
supply side contractor also handling the demand side?
A I heard that talk, but not from CDM. From
contractors themselves trying to line up business for
themselves.
Q Well, you know now, based on your experience in

this business with the City of Houston, that indeed the
demand side and the supply side ought to be divided when
it's possible?
MS. BUTLER: Is that a question?
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Don ' t you?

A Could you repeat the question, please?
THE COURT: Do you believe today that the
demand and supply side of these contracts should be
divided?
THE WITNESS: I don't have an opinion
about that.
I believed at the time that it was to the
City -- in the City's best interest to have one
company do both. And I think one company can still
achieve both, if they have the expertise.
Reliant ultimately didn't have the
expertise on the demand side, and that was part of
their demise when they filed for bankruptcy. But if
you have the expertise, I believe that it is

1313
p o s s i b l e f o r o n e company t o d o b o t h . And t h e r e c a n
be efficiencies i n t h a t .
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q B u t you a l s o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e j o b o f t h e demand
s i d e i s t o r e d u c e t h e amount o f s u p p l y n e e d e d , d o n ' t you?
A Yes, I d o .
Q M r . T h a c k e r knew Mayor Brown a s w e l l , d i d n ' t h e ?
A Yes, h e d i d .
Q He m e t M r . Brown t h r o u g h Danny Lawson, d i d n ' t h e ?
A Yes.
Q Did you t e l l M r . Gray t h a t i t was R e l i a n t who would
make t h e d e c i s i o n s on who g o t w h a t , w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e
s u b c o n t r a c t o r s on t h e e n e r g y p r o d u c t ?
A Yes.
Q D i d you a l s o g e t a t h o u s a n d d o l l a r g i f t c e r t i f i c a t e
f r o m Nieman Marcus from somebody d o i n g b u s i n e s s w i t h t h e
city?
A Yes.
Q By t h e way, you n e v e r d i d g e t a g r i l l f r o m
M r . Gray, d i d you?
A No.
Q One o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t you t a l k e d a b o u t was t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e r e was a s l i g h t d i s a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n
Honeywell a n d R e l i a n t , i s n ' t t h a t c o r r e c t ?
A Yes.
1314
Q And part of the reason for that was that Reliant

really wanted the whole job for themselves and didn't
necessarily want Honeywell as a subcontractor?
A I think that's fair, yes.
Q As you said, you had a conversation to try to

smooth out those differences?
A Yes.
Q It's a benefit to the city to smooth out

differences between contractors and subcontractors, isn't
it?
A Yes.
Q For one reason, you certainly wouldn't want

subcontractors having to replace subcontractors after the
work on the contract has already begun, would you?
A No, I wouldn't.
Q So that's something that you would do in the normal

course of your job, period. If there was some kind of a
difference between a contractor and subcontractor, and
you could help work it out, that's something you would do
as part of your job, isn't it?
A Yes, that's true.
MR. WHITAKER: If I might have one second,
your Honor.
Q One of the things that you did in your job is when

there were charitable events organized by the city was
1315
try to get people to donate to those charitable events,
isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q And that's something you were encouraged to do by

the city as a cabinet level person?
A Yes.
Q And the city expected people doing business with

the City of Houston to contribute to the charitable life
of Houston, didn't they?
A Yes.
Q So when you called and asked, for example, people

to go to that golf outing that you talked about earlier,
that was business that the City of Houston expected you
to engage in, isn't it?
A I don't think I -- what golf outing are you
referring to?
Q Was there a charitable event that you organized

that you asked Mr. Gray to contribute to?
A Yes.
Q And that's an event. And you asked him to

contribute because you understood that to be something
that the City of Houston wanted and expected you to do as
part of your job?
A The event that I asked Mr. Gray to contribute had
no ties to the City of Houston.

1316
Q And what was it a benefit for?

A It was a benefit for scholarships for children, of
which I had been the Vice President of that foundation
for years prior to me working for the city. So it was in
no way tied to -- it was in no way tied to my position at
the city. I had been a fundraiser for that organization

for a number of years.
Q And it's something that you asked all of the

companies you did business with to contribute to, isn't
it?
A Not all of the companies that I did business with.
But I did ask more than one, certainly, yes. More than
Mr. Gray.
Q But as -- put that charity aside.

As part of your job, though, the city did
expect you to help raise money for charities that they
were sponsoring, the city was sponsoring?
A Yes, sometimes we would be asked to help find
sponsors.
Q And the sponsors that you had to look for, in a

large part, were sponsors, people doing business with
those particular departments?
A Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. Nothing else.

MR. JENKINS: Yes, y o u r Honor.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Miss M c G i l b r a , when you were g o i n g t o t h e E s s e n c e
F e s t , t h a t was i n N e w O r l e a n s ?
A Yes.
Q And a s you t e s t i f i e d e a r l i e r , i t was R i c k C l o u t i e r
who p r o v i d e d you t h e t i c k e t a n d h a d t h e h o t e l
a c c o m m o d a t i o n s p a i d f o r t h r o u g h Ben J e f f e r s ?
A Yes.
Q And R i c k C l o u t i e r i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h CDM?
A Correct.
Q I n terms o f t h e S u p e r Bowl you a t t e n d e d , you
t e s t i f i e d t h a t indeed t h e t i c k e t s and t h e h o t e l i s p a i d
f o r by M r . G r a y , c o r r e c t ?
A Yes.
Q And a t some p o i n t you c o n t a c t e d G i l b e r t J a c k s o n a n d
h e i n v i t e d you t o d i n n e r , correct?
A Yes.
Q And i n f a c t , t h e r e w e r e o t h e r p e o p l e a t d i n n e r a s
well, correct?
A Yes.
Q And d o you r e c a l l on two o c c a s i o n s -- w e l l , I'll

1318
change the question.
There came a time when you told the FBI that
Mr. Jackson did not speak to you about business on either
of those occasions, correct?
MR. JENKINS: I have nothing further, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have redirect?
MS. BUTLER: No, your Honor.
witness.
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes. The United States
calls Felix Johnson.
THE COURT: Mr. Johnson you want to raise
your right hand.
FELIX JOHNSON
follows :
THE COURT: Please come forward, take a
seat, and then state your name and spell your last
name.
MR. WHITAKER: My name is Felix Johnson.

Last name is spelled J-0-H-N-S-0-N.
- - -
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q And you can adjust the mike, if you need to.

Mr. Johnson, where do you currently live?
A I live in Missouri City, Texas, which is a suburb
of Houston.
Q Houston, Texas?
A That's correct.
Q And what's your job?

A I'm an engineer. I'm the Energy Manager for the
City of Houston.
Q How long have you worked for the City of Houston?

A 23 years.
Q And what does it mean to be Energy Manager for the

City of Houston?
A I'm responsible for the procurement of electricity,
natural gas, and the efficient use of those commodities.
Q Now, can you tell me, with respect to the City of

Houston, is it a large consumer of energy?
A Yes, sir, it is. We consume about 1.3 billion
kilowatt hours a year.
Q And with respect to the use of energy in the City
of Houston facilities --
THE COURT: Can you move that.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Yes.
With respect to the amount of the City of
Houston facilities, can you tell me how many square feet
of office space the City of Houston controls.
A I don't know exactly but I think it's approximately
between 10 and 12 million square feet.
Q I'm sorry, 10 to 12 million?

A Ten to 12.
Q Can you tell us what your educational background

is?
A Yes. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in
Mechanical Engineering from Tennessee State University.
And I'm a registered professional engineer in the State
of Texas.
Q Can you walk us through your employment history,

the jobs you've held in the City of Houston in your 23
years there?
A When I was first hired with the city, I was in the
Office of Energy Conservation. And for many years that's
all we did was actually define, seek products for energy
efficiency and do retrofits and redesign, air condition,
lighting, et cetera.
Q And then what happened?

1321
A Well, in 1999, the State of Texas, Senate Bill 7,
passed a deregulation Bill -- in 1999, the State
Legislature passed Senate Bill 7, and that was the
legislation that deregulated electricity in Texas.
Q Now, with respect to your particular job, at some

point did you move to a new department?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q And what was the name of that department?

A That was the Building and Services Department.
Q And under what mayor was that department created?

A Under Mayor Lee Brown.
Q And can you explain to us why this one new

department was being created?
A Yeah. There were problems where Public Works
managed most of the facilities, and the Design and
Construction Division, which for facility construction in
Public Works. And they were having problems in that and
so the mayor decided to create a new department just to
handle facilities.
Q And when you say facilities, what type of facility?

A Primarily buildings, office space, warehouses.
Q Now, who was the first time head of this new

department that Mayor Brown created?
A That would be Monique McGilbra.
Q And as a practical matter, who did you report to

o n c e you moved t o t h e new d e p a r t m e n t ?
A I r e p o r t e d t o Monique.
Q Now, you m e n t i o n e d t h a t s o m e t h i n g h a p p e n e d i n 1 9 9 9 ,
t h e d e r e g u l a t i o n of energy?
A Yes, s i r .
Q Now, what, i f a n y t h i n g , d i d t h a t c a u s e t h e C i t y o f
Houston t o do w i t h r e s p e c t t o p r o c u r e m e n t ?
A W e l l , we were on a r e g u l a t e d e n v i r o n m e n t s o a f t e r
t h e p a s s a g e o f t h e B i l l we s t a r t e d c o m p a r i n g t o p r o c u r e
e l e c t r i c i t y i n a competitive market.
Q And w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e n e r g y c o n t r a c t , how many
p a r t s of t h e c o n t r a c t were t h e r e ?
A T h e r e w e r e two p a r t s t o t h e c o n t r a c t .
Q What were t h e y ?
A F i r s t p a r t was t h e m a j o r p a r t was e l e c t r i c i t y ,
r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e commodity.
The s e c o n d p a r t was r e f e r r e d t o a s demand
s i d e management, DSM f o r s h o r t . And t h a t ' s e s s e n t i a l l y
energy efficiency.
Q And was t h a t b e i n g d o n e on s e p a r a t e c o n t r a c t s o r
t h e same c o n t r a c t ?
A T h i s was a l l done u n d e r o n e c o n t r a c t .
Q L e t me j u s t a s k you, how many y e a r s h a v e you b e e n
working i n energy s e r v i c e s ?
A I n e n e r g y , a l l my c a r e e r b a s i c a l l y .
1323
Q And you h a v e a n e n g i n e e r i n g b a c k g r o u n d ?
A Yes s i r .
Q Do you s e e any p r o b l e m w i t h d o i n g t h o s e t w o t h i n g s
under one c o n t r a c t ?
A No, s i r , I d o n ' t .
Q Now, what c i t y d e p a r t m e n t was a c t u a l l y i n c h a r g e o f
t h e procurement, l e t t i n g t h i s c o n t r a c t ?
A The B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e s D e p a r t m e n t .
Q Now, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e s
D e p a r t m e n t , were t h e r e a n y c o n s u l t a n t s h i r e d t o a d v i s e
t h e c i t y on t h e p r o c u r e m e n t ?
A Yes, s i r .
Q Who was i t ?
A T h a t was Camp, Dresser a n d M c K e e .
Q And who was y o u r l e a d c o n t a c t t h e r e ?
A H i s name was Sean Tenney.
Q Now, w i t h r e s p e c t t o Camp, Dresser --
L e t me a s k you, when I s a y y o u r l e a d c o n t a c t ,
what was y o u r r o l e i n t e r m s o f t e c h n i c a l v e r s u s b u s i n e s s ?
A I was t h e t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t , a s f a r a s t h e commodity
a n d DSM.
Q And who was t h e t e c h n i c a l p o i n t p e r s o n ?
A I was.
Q And when you s a i d t h a t y o u r c o n t a c t was w i t h S e a n
Tenney, d i d h e h a v e a c o u n t e r p a r t who h a n d l e d t h e
business side?
A Yes, he did.
Q What was that person's name?

A He was the Vice President of Camp, Dresser, McKee's
Houston Office. His name was Rick Cloutier.
Q Can you walk us through the process for the

procurement? The or stages of the process for the
procurement?
A First we issued what's called a request for
qualification. And basically it was advertised and all
interested parties submitted a statement of
qualifications.
With the Selection Committee we short-listed
it to three firms.
Q So then there is a short list?

A Yes.
Q Then what happened?

A Then we asked those short-listed firms to submit a
proposal, which also included a price for the commodity.
Q So the first proposal?

A Yes.
Q What was the next step after the first proposal?

A After that was the proposal that included the best
and final prices for the commodity.
Q Then there is a best and final?

1325
A Yes, sir.
Q What were the three firms that were short-listed?

A That was Reliant Energy, TXU Energy, and ENRON Ron.
Q And did something happen in the course of the
procurement that took one of those out of contention?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that and which company?

A ENRON. That was when the best and final, before it
was due, I think, ENRON sort of imploded?
Q So then who were the final two?

A Reliant Energy and TXU Energy.
52 And what state are both of those located in?

A Texas.
Q Now, after you narrowed the process down to the, as

you said the short-listed, the final three, were there
any site visits conducted?
A Yes, sir, there were.
Q And whose idea was that?

A I believe that was Monique McGilbrals idea.
Q And what was your understanding of the purpose of
those site visits?
A The purpose of the site visits were actually to
visit, to evaluate the firms, the short-listed firms'
capabilities of performing the Demand Side Management
projects.
1 Q So those would be the three firms?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q Which are?
4 A ENRON, Reliant Energy, and TXU Energy.
5 Q Let's take this one by one.

6 Where was the site visit for Reliant?
7 A Their site visit was actually in Houston.
8 (Z Where was it specifically?

9 A At the University of Houston.
10 Q Let's take the second one, TXU. Where was it that

11 you did the TXU site visit?
12 A In Fort Worth, Texas.
13 Q Do you remember who the client was there?

14 A The client was the City of Fort Worth.
15 Q And then the third, ENRON, where was it that you

16 did your site visit for ENRON?
17 A There were two site visits. One was in
18 Indianapolis, Indiana; and the second one was in Chicago.
19 Q Take those one by one.

20 In Indianapolis, what ENRON client did you
21 see?
22 A Eli Lilly.
23 Q And in Chicago what ENRON client did you see?

24 A The City of Chicago.
25 Q Specifically, do you remember one facility that you

saw there?
A Yes.
Q And what was that?

A That was the new portion of the Midway Airport.
Q Now, I want to focus on that last one, the ENRON

site visit.
Did you arrange it?
A No, I did not.
Q And where did you understand you were going to be

going?
A What? After Chicago?
Q Well, as you were planning, what was your

understanding of where you were going to be going?
A Oh. Indianapolis, Chicago, and Cleveland.
Q Now, I asked you about Indianapolis and Chicago.

What was your understanding of what were you were going
to be going to see in Cleveland?
A I didn't have any idea.
Q Did anybody ever explain it to you?

A Sean Tenney and I sort of talked about it, and he
thought it was TXU.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Let me ask you this.

1328
Do you have any firsthand knowledge, as the
lead technical person, of what you could have possibly
been going to see in Cleveland?

A No, sir, I have no idea.
Q Now, this trip in the mid-west, you said this was

an ENRON trip?
A Yes.
Q How was it that you -- at some point did you come

to learn that the Cleveland portion of the trip did not
have to do with ENRON?
A That Friday at Midway Airport.
Q I'm sorry, you found out when? Where were you

standing when you found out this?
A At Midway Airport.
Q Tell us what happened?

A Well, the ENRON guys made a statement, they said,
we should have flown out of Midway back to Houston
instead of O'Hare.
I said, aren't you guys going back to
Cleveland?
And they sort of looked at me puzzled.
Q What did they do?

A They got back in the car and I assume they went
back to O'Hare Airport.
Q What did you do?

1329
A S e a n , Monique, a n d m y s e l f , w e g o t i n t h e car a n d w e
went b a c k t o t h e h o t e l .
Q So who were t h e t h r e e p e o p l e f r o m t h e H o u s t o n t e a m
on t h i s t r i p ?
A M y s e l f , Sean Tenney, a n d Monique M c G i l b r a .
Q S t i l l , a f t e r t h e ENRON g u y s l e a v e , h a s a n y b o d y t o l d
you what you were g o i n g t o s e e i n C l e v e l a n d ?
A NO, sir.
Q Now, t e l l u s what h a p p e n e d when you g o t t o t h e
hotel t h a t night?
A W e got t o the hotel. On t h e way b a c k , Monique
s t a t e d t h a t , s h e s a i d , g u y s we a r e on o u r own f o r d i n n e r
tonight. And s o , w e went b a c k t o t h e h o t e l .
L a t e r on a I r e c e i v e d a phone c a l l f r o m Sean
Tenney, a n d h e s a i d Monique h a d c a l l e d him a n d w a n t e d u s
t o m e e t her a t a restaurant.
Q Did you do t h a t ?
A Yes.
Q And who went t o d i n n e r t h a t n i g h t ?
A Well, Sean a n d I g o t a t a x i , when we g o t t h e r e
Monique was t h e r e . She was t h e r e w i t h a g u y t h a t was
i n t r o d u c e d a s G a r l a n d Hardeman.
Q Did you know him?
A No. F i r s t t i m e I m e t him.
Q Did you come t o a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f who h e was w i t h

relation to Miss McGilbra?
A From the conversation, I assumed that was her
boyfriend.
Q Still at this point, any idea about why you are

going to Cleveland?
A No idea.
Q What do you do next day when you wake up?

A We decided to meet them in the hotel lobby to get a
taxi to go to the airport together.
Q All right. And who went to the airport?

A Monique, Garland, Sean Tenney, and myself.
Q And what happened to Garland Hardeman?

A We dropped him off, I believe it was at American
airlines.
Q And did you see him again at all?

A No, I did not.
Q Where did you go?

A We went off to Continental. We flew Continental
Express from Chicago to Cleveland.
Q Did anything happen in the airport?

A Yes. After eating breakfast, I was -- there was an
area where there was only seating for two people at a
time. And I heard Monique saying to Sean, I think he'll
be okay with this.

Q Referring to you?
A I ' m assuming s o .
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q A l l right. You a r e a t t h e a i r p o r t , w h e r e d o you
go?
A We g e t on t h e p l a n e a n d we f l y t o C l e v e l a n d .
Q And when you g o t t o t h e a i r p o r t i n C l e v e l a n d , who
p i c k e d you up?
A We were p i c k e d u p b y N a t e G r a y .
Q And you a r e t h e l e a d t e c h n i c a l p e r s o n , h a d you e v e r
m e t Nate Gray b e f o r e ?
A No, s i r , I h a d n o t .
Q E v e r met him a f t e r ?
A NO, sir.
Q Now, where was i t t h a t M r . Gray t o o k you?
A I c a n ' t remember t h e name o f t h e h o t e l . I t was a
h o t e l i n downtown C l e v e l a n d . And w e w e n t t h e r e , we h a d
lunch there.
Q And who p a i d f o r t h a t ?
A I believe Mr. Gray p a i d f o r i t .
Q D i d anybody e l s e j o i n t h e g r o u p a t t h e l u n c h e o n ?
A Yes, t h e r e was s e v e r a l o t h e r p e o p l e . T h e r e was o n e
g e n t l e m a n t h a t was k i n d o f making wise s t o r i e s a b o u t
Cleveland p o l i t i c s . And t h e n w e w e r e j o i n e d b y a g u y by
the name of Brent Jividen.
Q Were you discussing any City of Houston business?

A NO, sir.
Q What was your reaction to seeing Brent Jividen?

A I was surprised to see him.
Q Why were you surprised?

A I had talked to him and met him several months
prior to that.
Q In what context?
A He had called me, I believe it was in April of
2001, and he wanted to come down and visit with me to
show me his services and products. And I believe in May
I set up an organized, coordinated to have an auditorium
of our facility managers. And he gives a presentation of
Honeywell services.
Q And you were going to answer my next question.

He worked for who?
A Honeywell.
Q When you got to Cleveland, at that point had he

gotten any business yet?
A No, sir, he had none.
Q Was Honeywell in the final three short-listed

groups for this energy contract?
A No. Honeywell did not submit a -- well, they
didn't submit a statement of qualification.

1333
Q Were you doing site visits for subcontracts?

A NO, sir, we were not.
Q At this point when you were in Cleveland had

anybody mentioned Honeywell to yourself as a Reliant's
subcontractor on Demand Side Management?
A No.
Q On this trip to Cleveland, did Mr. Jividen speak to

you on any matters of substance on the contract?
A NO, sir.
Q What happened at the brunch regarding -- were any

statements made at the brunch regarding the rest of your
day?
A I believe Mr. Gray leaned over to Monique and

something was whispered.
He looked over to me and said, Felix the
waste water guy we wanted you to talk to couldn't make it
today, so we are going to take you guys to the Rock and
Roll Hall of Fame Museum.
Q With respect to the waste water guy, did you have

any idea what he was talking about?
A No idea at all.
Q Had anybody ever talked to you about any waste

water meeting in Cleveland?
A No.
Q In the other cities you went to see, all the ones

1334
you m e n t i o n e d , d i d you h a v e some i d e a o f w h a t you were
going t o do?
A Yes, I did.
Q Now, you m e n t i o n e d t h a t M r . Gray s a i d you w e r e
g o i n g t o t h e Rock a n d R o l l H a l l o f Fame?
A Yes.
Q Did you do t h a t ?
A Yes, s i r , w e d i d .
Q And who went t o t h e Rock a n d R o l l H a l l o f Fame?
A M y s e l f , Sean Tenney, Monique, N a t e Gray, B r e n t
Jividen. I believe t h a t ' s a l l .
Q Had you e v e r s e e n i t b e f o r e ?
A No, I had n o t .
Q And d i d you l i k e i t ?
A Yes, I e n j o y e d i t .
Q What d i d you do t h e r e ?
A We t o u r e d t h e museum.
Q A s i n what c a p a c i t y ?
A As tourists.
Q And was t h e r e a n y b u s i n e s s g o i n g on t h e r e ?
A No, s i r , no b u s i n e s s a t a l l .
Q Now, when you were a t t h e Rock a n d R o l l H a l l o f
Fame, d i d anybody t e l l you a n y t h i n g a b o u t r e p o r t i n g on
this trip?
A Yes. Monique p u l l e d m e t o t h e s i d e a n d s h e s a i d , I
1335
just want you to know what goes on on the road stays on
the road.
Q Now, as you are going through the Rock and Roll

Hall of Fame, are you looking at the time?
A Yes, we are.
Q And why was it that you were concerned about the

time?
A It was getting late, and I can't remember exactly
what time my flight back to Houston was, but it was
getting pretty chose to that time.
Q At this point, who did you think was going back to

Houston?
A Myself, Sean Tenney, and Monique McGilbra.
Q All three of you?
A Yes.
Q Is that what happened?

A NO, sir.
Q What did happen?

A Well, outside in front of the museum, Monique
stated, she said, well guys, it's about time for you all
to catch a flight. I'm going to remain here in Cleveland
with friends over the weekend.
Q At that point when you leave for the airport, has

any City of Houston business been accomplished, that you
know of?
A None whatsoever.
Q And did you go to the airport?

A Yes, we did.
Q And do you remember what day of the week it was?

A It was on a Saturday.
Q Why do you remember that this was a Saturday?

A Because I could have been playing in a charity golf
tournament I play in every year. The City of Houston
Charity Golf Tournament. And this tournament had been
postponed because of rain earlier in the month October,
and it was re-scheduled for that Saturday.
Q Did Monique -- I'm sorry?

A I was thinking last night, I could have gone back
Friday night.
Q Did Monique McGilbra, did she --

Oh, I'm sorry, you could have gone back on
Friday night?
A Yes.
Q Because if you hadn't gone to Cleveland, had you

finished on time in Chicago to go back on Friday?
A Yes, I had.
Q Now, did in fact Monique stay on in Cleveland?

A As far as I know, yes, she did.
Q Do you have any idea how long?

A No, I don't know.
1337
Q Do you have any idea whether Garland Hardeman was

there?
A No, I don't.
Q Now, taking you back to Houston. You said that the

last phase was called the best and final proposal?
A That's correct.
Q When best and final proposals came in, as the lead

technical person, did you look at them?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Did you notice anything about Reliant's best and

final proposal regarding the DSM portion?
A Yes.
Q What did you notice?

A I noticed that Honeywell was listed as a major sub
for Demand Side Management for the facility side.
Q What was your reaction to Honeywell being in the

pest best and final proposal?
A It was shocking to me because Reliant had the
in-house expertise. I couldn't figure out why they were
hiring Honeywell as a major sub.
Q And prior to seeing that, had anyone ever mentioned

to you Honeywell being a sub?
A No, sir.
Q And when I mean anyone, CDM, anybody?

A No.
1338
Q Who won the contract for the Houston Energy

Services?
A Reliant Energy.
Q And did they have Honeywell as a sub?

A Yes, sir, they did.
Q Did you continue to work on the contract?

A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Did Reliant have any problems with Honeywell?

A Yes, they did.
Q And can you describe them?

A At one point in time the projects were not really
moving. Monique got on to me about the projects not
moving.
I talked to a representative of Reliant. He
stated to me that Honeywell was the problem.
And I told him, I said, if they are the
problem, fire them.
Q And did you find out whether that was possible?

A No. I found out in a update meeting, he stated, I
tried to fire Honeywell but politically I could not.
Q Now, did you, yourself, ever attend any meeting

where Monique McGilbra herself went to bat for Honeywell?
A Yes.
Q Just tell us about that?

A This was after the statement about they could not
1339
fire Honeywell. I believe it was two weeks later. And

she made the statement that we both relied on Honeywell.
If we could get together, reconcile the differences and
get the project rolling.
Q If it had been your decision to make, what would

you have done with respect to Honeywell?
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Well, in the best interest of the City of Houston,

what do you think should have happened to Honeywell?
MR. DETTELBACH: Well, they asked --
THE COURT: You can ask, you know, what
his observations were, but it's so indefinite, he's
not given any description as to what Honeywell's
problem was.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q With respect to your own state of mind, what did

you want to do with Honeywell Corporation?
THE COURT: I'll overrule that.
THE WITNESS: I was -- from the facts that

I had, I wanted to get rid of them.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Now, how long did you continue to work on the

Honeywell -- or I'm sorry, on the Energy Services
contract?
A I'm sorry, how long?
Q I mean, is it still something that you work on?

A Oh, yes. Yes.
Q At any point in time, did Nate Gray ever provide

you with any assistance in your doing your job?
A NO, sir.
MR. DETTELBACH: Nothing further, your
Honor.
MR. WHITAKER: Yes, your Honor, if I might
have one second.

- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Good afternoon, Mr. Johnson.

A Good afternoon.
Q My name is Bill Whitaker. I'm going to ask you a

few questions.
If I ask you anything you don't understand,
let me know and I'm glad to repeat it.
Now, you mentioned that on this trip was Sean

Tenney, i s t h a t how you p r o n o u n c e i t ?
A Tenney .
(1 Tenney, Sean Tenney.
And who d o e s S e a n T e n n e y w o r k f o r ?
A H e w o r k s f o r Camp, Dresser a n d M c K e e .
Q And you m e n t i o n e d a l s o R i c k C l o u t i e r ?
A Yes, s i r .
Q And who does R i c k C l o u t i e r w o r k f o r ?
A Camp, Dresser a n d McKee.
Q A r e you a w a r e o f t h e f a c t t h a t i n d e e d i t was R i c k
C l o u t i e r , who w o r k s f o r t h e same f i r m as S e a n T e n n e y ,
t h a t arranged t h e i t i n e r a r y f o r t h e Cleveland t r i p ?
A No, s i r , I ' m n o t aware o f t h a t .
Q And d i d you know t h a t ENRON, i n d e e d , h a d a p r o j e c t
i n t h e C i t y of Cleveland?
A NO, sir.
Q D i d you know t h a t t h e y were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e
e n e r g y a t t h e C l e v e l a n d Browns S t a d i u m ?
No g o o d f a i t h b a s i s . And h e ' s a n s w e r e d a l r e a d y .
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Now, l e t ' s t a l k a b o u t t h i s demand s i d e / s u p p l y s i d e .
You u n d e r s t a n d t h a t on t h e s u p p l y s i d e a
contractor is responsible f o r supplying energy, isn't

that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And on the demand side, a company would be

responsible for reducing the amount of energy that needed
to be supplied?
A That's correct.
Q And you could understand how someone might think

there might be a conflict between -- conflict having the
same company do both sides?
A Personally I can't understand it, no.
Q Now, this Reliant contract was passed unanimously

by the City Council, wasn't it?
A I believe it was unanimous.
Q Now, what was the reason that Camp, Dresser, McKee

were hired as a consultant on this project?
A We hired Camp, Dresser, McKee, we interviewed
several firms, and understand this was new in Texas.
There was almost no one, anyone that had any experience
on the Texas laws on the regulation. Camp, Dresser,
McKee had experience, they had worked with the City of
Dallas a few months prior on a pilot project on the Texas
deregulation. And that is one of the reasons we did hire
Camp, Dresser, McKee.
Q And you understood that one of their jobs was to
recommend both contractors and subcontractors that were

1343
qualified to do the business with the City of Houston?
A Not recommend, no, sir.
Q When you got a proposal from Camp, Dresser, McKee,

did it not include the names of people they recommended
in various contracting and subcontracting positions?
A I don't recall. I don't believe so.
Q I'm going to hand you -- I'm going to put up here a

document that we've marked, as you can see, Defendant's
Exhibit S.
Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q And can you identify that from the heading?

MR. DETTELBACH: I don't know he's ever
been shown it before. I don't see how he could

possibly identify a 20 page document from the
heading.
MR. WHITAKER: May I approach and let the
witness review the document, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Mr. Johnson, would you take a look at that and see

if you can identify it?
A What is the AB up here for?
This is from -- supposed to be from CDM?
Q Well, my question to you is, can you identify this

document?
A Put it like this. All the documentation from CDM
has their letterhead. I don't recognize this AB here.
Q Okay. But do you recognize the document?

MR. DETTELBACH: Asked and answered, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Whose it signed by?
THE WITNESS: It's not signed.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Who is on the signature line?

A Sean Tenney.
Q From where?
Q My question is, regardless of the letterhead, can

you identify the document?
THE COURT: Have you ever seen it before?
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Have you ever seen it before?

A I can't say I have, I haven't. I don't remember
this document.
Q What about the memorandum that's attached to the

letter?
And I'll fold that back. Take a look at
that. Is that something you can identify? Or have you
ever seen it before?

A I believe I have, yes.
Q And what is that?

A This is a memo to Monique from Sean Tenney. And
the subject is evaluation of best and final proposals
from retail electrical providers.
Q And that's attached as a memorandum with the same

AB notation in the upper lefthand corner, is that
correct?
A That's correct.
Q But it's your testimony here today that you think

that CDM was not charged with the responsibility of
recommending qualified contractors and subcontractors to
A Recommendations based on the proposals that we
received and we've evaluated, maybe so, but not a just
pure recommendation. I mean, the decision is the City of

Houston. We hired them to do a lot of grunt work. They
crunched the numbers.
When these numbers come in for the commodity,
it's not like comparing apples to apples. They do a lot
of the grunt work and a lot of research. They may
research certain companies for us for subs.
They don't come out of the blue and give us a
recommendation.
Q They research and evaluate certain companies to

1346
determine whether they are qualified to do the job, isn't
that correct?
A Well, we got the statement of qualifications, so
the actual Selection Committee made the determination,
with assistance of Camp, Dresser, McKee, if there was
anything they wanted to add, to add value, or education
to the Evaluation Committee. That's what they were used
for. The recommendation you have there was based off the
proposals that the City received.
Q Yes. And those proposals were given to Camp,

Dresser, and McKee to evaluate and make recommendations
on?
A Yes, sir.
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. There is no
question.
Q Isn't that true?

A Yes, sir, they were.
Q And you are familiar with -- a knowledgeable guy in

the industry -- you are familiar with the fact that
Reliant has gone bankrupt?
A Excuse me?
Q Has Reliant gone bankrupt?

A NO, sir.
Q No?
Are they still in business?

A Yes, sir.
Q What about their demand side of business?

A They are no longer in the demand side business,
demand side management business.
Q And that part of their business went out of

business, isn't that correct?
A My understanding from what they told us is that it
was a business decision they were no longer doing demand

side management.
Q Do you know whether that had anything to do with

their quality of the demand side work they did?
A No, I don't.
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes. Just to clarify on
this document.
- - -
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q This document, which is S, that you were shown?

A Yes.
Q You mentioned something about this being based upon

other documents.
1348
Can you see that or is there a glare?
A Yes.
Q Would you please read what I have underlined here

in the first sentence?
A It is says, best and final proposals from Reliant
electric providers -- I'm sorry, from retail electrical
providers, received on November 28th, 2001.
Q And what's the date of the memo?

A December 6th, 2001.
Q So when was this memo written in relation to when

this City of Houston received that best and final
proposal that you said surprised you?
A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
Q Did this come after or before you got that surprise

that Honeywell sent you?
A Oh, that came after.
THE COURT: We'll take ten minutes.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, he did raise

one question that I have one question as a result of
that.
- - -
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q In that same memorandum that you were shown,

1349
Mr. Johnson, CDM evaluates Honeywell as well, don't they?
You see that B.2 paragraph?

A Yes, sir, I see it.
Q And they gave a very favorable recommendation to

Honeywell, didn't they?
A Can I take a minute to look at this?
Q Sure.
A Well, it's mentioning several subs there. It's not
just speaking of Honeywell.
Q Was it your understanding that these subs were in

there because they had been evaluated as qualified by
CDM?
A No, sir, they had not been evaluated by CDM.

THE COURT: About 12 minutes.
Same rules apply.
(Brief recess.)
conducted at side bar, out of the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: We've talked a bit about the
schedule. I want to raise one other issue we had
during this last break. The last alternate had gone
to the deputy and said that it was something to the
effect her husband works with or owns an elevator

1350
company and some of the names of the businesses
sounded familiar. She hasn't talked to her husband
but some of the names.
THE CLERK: She believed four.
THE COURT: Does anyone ask any questions.
MR. JENKINS: Not on behalf of
Mr. Jackson.
MR. WHITAKER: Not Mr. Gray.
MR. DETTELBACH: CDM? ETNA? That might
be a different thing. I don't even know if she
mentioned --
THE COURT: Did she mention any names?
THE CLERK: She mentioned no names.
THE COURT: Why don't you get her real
quick. We'll do it real quickly.
(The juror was brought forward and the
following proceedings were conducted at
side bar.)
THE COURT: Ma' am, do you want to come up

here.
The deputy indicated that you had
expressed that you had some vague --
JUROR: Well, my husband works for an
elevator company. And, you know, he's been in the
elevator industry for 20 some years and he's worked

1351
in Cleveland, Akron, Canton, his company, as the

things go on, some of these ring a bell. I don't
pay a whole lot of attention. It was like twenty
years later, but he is part owner of the company he
works for now. Whether or not they had any direct
dealings with some of these companies.

THE COURT: Which names do you recognize?
JUROR: Where he previously worked, I'm
not sure. Johnson Controls today, you know, without
asking him.
THE COURT: You wouldn't be permitted to
do that.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Is that going to have any
impact on you?
JUROR: No. I just wanted to make you
guys aware of it. I'm an alternate at the third
level, chance of my having to do anything anyway.
I'm just here. I just thought I should bring this
up in case down the line.
THE COURT: We thank you for that. We'll
let you go back.

Okay. Don't say anything about what we
talked about.
Why don't we get going.
( T h e j u r y was r e t u r n e d t o t h e c o u r t r o o m
a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e e d i n g s were c o n d u c t e d i n o p e n
court. )
THE COURT: I'll ask the jury t o take
t h e i r seats.
And I ' l l a s k t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o c a l l
your next w i t n e s s .
MS. BUTLER:. Yes, y o u r H o n o r . The U n i t e d
S t a t e s c a l l s G a r l a n d Hardeman.
THE COURT: Would you r a i s e y o u r r i g h t
hand.
GARLAND HARDEMAN
c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s by a n d on b e h a l f o f
o f t h e Government, a f t e r b e i n g f i r s t d u l y
s w o r n , was e x a m i n e d a n d t e s t i f i e d a s
follows :
THE COURT: Please t a k e a seat. T e l l us
y o u r name, a n d s p e l l y o u r l a s t name f o r t h e r e c o r d
court reporter.
THE WITNESS: G a r l a n d Hardeman,
H-A-R-D-E-M-A-N.
MS. BUTLER: Thank you, y o u r Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
25 BY MS. BUTLER:
1353
Q Mr. Hardeman, please tell the members of the jury

where you live?
A Houston, Texas.
Q And where do you live before you moved to Houston?

A Inglewood, California.
Q Approximately when did you move, change your

residence to Houston?
A In 2003.
(1 Now, tell the members of the jury, where did you

grow up?
A Detroit, Michigan.
Q And how far did you go in school?

A I have a masters degree and one year of law school.
Q And where did you get your masters degree?

A Michigan State University.
Q After you finished your masters, did you move to

California?
A Yes.
Q And did you get married there?

A I did.
Q Do you have children?

A I do.
Q How many?
A Two.
Q And will you tell the members of the jury what your
1354
first job was out of school?
A I first worked as a Deputy Sheriff for Ingham

County Sheriff's Department. And after graduate school,
1982, I moved to Los Angeles and became a member of the
Los Angeles Police Department.
Q For how long were you a police officer?

A A total of about 18 and a half years. I retired
from the Los Angeles Police Department in 1996.
Q And what were the circumstances of your retirement?

A I had an injury. I retired on a disability.
Q Now, while you were still on the police force, did

you run for public office?
A Yes, I did.
Q What office did you seek?

A City Council in the Fourth District, City of
Inglewood, California.
Q And for how long did you serve?

A For approximately ten years; from 1989 to 1999.
Q And how many terms does that mean you served?

A I served three terms.
Q And why did you leave office?

A I was opposed by the Fire Department, and --
because I didn't support their eliminating our local fire
department and going with the county, and so they opposed
me, put a lot of the people out on the street against me.
So I failed to be reelected in 1999.
Q What kind of work did you begin to do after you

left office in 1999?
A I started my own lobbyist firm, public relations.
Q And what did you call that business?

A SGS Consultants, which stood for Strategic
Government Relation Services.
Q Were there any employees of SGS besides yourself?

A No.
Q Where did you operate the business of SGS?

A I began the operation in my home. And
approximately a year or so later, I had an office at 101
North Labrea in Inglewood.
Q When you first started SGS, did you have any

clients?
A Yes, I did.
Q Who were your clients?

A I started off with MR Beal, investment banking firm
out of New York. And Waste Management, second firm. I
had several other smaller local firms, developers and
insurance companies.
Q Did there come a time with you met Monique

McGilbra?
A Yes. In April of 2000, in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
1356
Q How did you happen to meet her in Charlotte in

April of 2000?
A I was attending a conference for the National Forum
of Black Public Administrators, of which I was organizing
an event, a reception for my client MR Beal.
Q And under what circumstances did you meet Ms.

McGilbra?
A I was working the conference and invited Miss

McGilbra and others at the conference to attend a
reception on behalf of my client.
Q Did you come to learn what Miss McGilbra did for a

living?
A Yes. She told me she was the Director of Building
Services for the City of Houston.
Q Did you stay in contact with her after that meeting

in Charlotte in April?
A Yes, I did.
(2 Did you develop a personal relationship with Miss

McGilbra?
A Yes, I did.
Q And thereafter, did you visit Miss McGilbra in

Houston?
A Yes.
Q And from time to time did Miss McGilbra travel to

where you were?
1357
A Yes, she did.
Q Now, did he there come a time with you met Mr. Nate
Gray?
A Yes.
Q Tell the members of the jury, please, when you

first met Mr. Gray?
A It was in October of 2001.
Q And how did you -- where did you meet him?

A I met him in Cleveland, Ohio.
Q And who introduced you to Mr. Gray?

A Miss McGilbra.
Q And what were you doing in Cleveland to meet

Mr. Gray?
A I was invited by Miss McGilbra to accompany her to
Chicago and Cleveland, where she indicated she was
conducting some city business. And I told her that I had

different contacts and had done some business in
Cleveland, and that I could spend some time reconnecting
with some of the elected officials that I had done
business with there. So that I would meet her in
Chicago, traveling on my own, and from there I would
travel to Cleveland on my own and meet her there.
Q And when is it that you were first introduced to
Mr. Gray that weekend?
A It was the evening that I arrived in Cleveland.

1358
Q And tell the members of the jury what the

circumstances were. Where were you? How did you come to
meet Mr. Gray?
A I arrived in Cleveland, Miss McGilbra had told me
that she add a room at the Ritz Carlton. So I went to
the Ritz Carlton, called the room. She was there. Went
up and met with her.
She told me we would be going out to dinner
that evening. And she told me that Mr. Nate Gray would
be the person that was hosting the dinner.
Q Did you go out that night?

A Yes.
Q Where did you first meet Mr. Gray?

A In the lobby of the Ritz Carlton. Mr. Gray met us
there. He drove us in his vehicle from the hotel to the
first place where we had cocktails. And then from there
we went to a location to have dinner.
Q And who picked up the checks for the cocktails and

the dinner Saturday night?
A Mr. Gray.
Q And who paid for your hotel expenses at the Ritz

Carlton?
A Mr. Gray.
Q Now, that weekend, in October when you were here in
Cleveland, did you attend any sporting events?

1359
A Yes. The following day we went to the Cleveland
Browns football game. I think they played the Baltimore
Ravens.
Q Now, before the game, did you eat a meal?

A Yes. At a waterfront location, I think either it
was the flats or warehouse district. I'm not exactly
sure.
Q Now, how did you get to the restaurant?

A I believe Mr. Gray picked us up, took us to the
restaurant. And then from the restaurant to the game we
took a flat boat ride.
Q Now, was anyone with Mr. Gray on Saturday night?

A Yes. Valerie, his girlfriend.
Q And was there anyone else also with you that

Saturday night besides Miss McGilbra?
A Well, there was someone else that met us for
dinner. It was an African American gentleman and young
lady, but I'm not -- I don't have a recollection as to
who they were, other than I was told that the gentleman
worked for the City of Cleveland.
Q Now, on Sunday morning when Mr. Gray picked you up,

was he with anyone?
A Yes, again with Valerie.
Q And when you got to the restaurant, were you joined
by anyone?
A By Brent Jividen.
Q And was he with anyone?

A Yes. He was with his wife.
Q And was that the first time you had ever met
Mr. Jividen and his wife?
A Yes.
Q And how were they introduced to you, and by whom?

A They were introduced to me by Mr. Gray. And I was
told that he was representative for Honeywell.
Q And how were you introduced to his wife?

A She was the wife of Brent.
Q No other details.
A They may have told me what she did but I don't
remember.
Q Now, during the brunch, did you talk about business

with anyone?
A Yes. I did make a pitch to Mr. Gray and

Mr. Jividen to represent them on their proposed
involvement in the energy contract in the City of
Houston.
Q And tell us exactly what you recall saying and what

was said to you by whom?
A Well, I told them that I had a lot of experience in
government. I was a former City Council member. And
some of the national companies that I represented

currently.
And that I had had interaction on the
national level with certain council members that were
active with the national city league, from the City of
Houston, and that I would like to represent them.
They appeared to be interested in my
proposal, and indicated that I would send them a written
contract proposal for them to peruse and get back to me
as to whether or not we could enter into an agreement.
Q Now, before you met Mr. Jividen at the brunch, did

you know that there would be a Honeywell representative
there?
A No, I did not.
Q Now, who paid for the brunch?

A I was told by Mr. Gray that Mr. Jividen had the
tickets to the game, and that he would be taking care of
the lunch.
Q And now, the whole time actually that you were in

Cleveland, did you pay for any meals or cocktails?
A I may have gone to a vending machine, or something,
I don't know. But for the most part, for the
entertainment that I experienced there, no, I did not pay
for that.
Q Now, did you take any pictures of that Sunday event
at the brunch and the game?

A Yes, I did.
MS. BUTLER: If you could show the witness
Exhibit 8 -- or 9, please.
Q Do you recognize that picture, Mr. Hardeman?

A Yes, I do.
Q Do you know where it was taken?

A It was taken on the flat boat that we took from the
restaurant where we had brunch and traveled to the
Cleveland Browns game to the stadium.
Q And do you recognize the people standing in the

picture?
A Yes.
Q Could you tell us who they are?

A In the front picture is Valerie, Mr. Gray's friend.
On the side of her is Monique McGilbra. And behind
Monique is, I believe her name is Judy. It was Brent
Jividen's wife.
Q Could you keep your voice up, please?

A Sure.
And behind Julie is Brent Jividen. And to
the side of Brent is Nate Gray. And to the other side of
Nate is myself, Garland Hardeman.
MS. BUTLER: Thank you.
Q Mr. Hardeman, did you actually arrive at the game?

A Yes.
Q And when you were at the game, did you continue
discussions about your business proposal?
A I don't think that we had much discussion at all,
in continuation of our discussion from the brunch. We
had basically established what was going to happen. We
may have had some informal social discussion but there

was nothing too much more about any business.
(1 From time to time during the game, did you leave

your seat?
A Yes.
Q Did you have an opportunity to overhear all the

conversations that were taking place among the six of
you?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you have an opportunity to hear a conversation

between Mr. Jividen and Miss McGilbra about the Energy
Services Contract in Houston?

A No, I did not.
Q Now, when you -- after the game, where did you go?
A We had to get back to the hotel because I believe I
had a flight that was leaving that afternoon?
THE COURT: Can I ask the parties to come

forward once?

follows:)
THE COURT: Does it make any difference
what flight he took back? I don't think you need to

make a big issue of that. Why don't you move it a
long. It is going too slow. Get to matters of
importance.
conducted open court.)
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Mr. Hardeman, after the game --

A Yes.
Q -- did you go back to the hotel and then to the
airport?
A Yes.
(2 Did you go by yourself?

A Yes.
Q Now, at any point did you have a conversation --

when you were in Cleveland, did you have a conversation
with Miss McGilbra about the fact that you had talked
about a business opportunity for SGS?
A Yes, we did have a brief conversation about that.
Yes.
Q And did you have any subsequent conversations in
Houston about that?

A Yes, we did.
Q By?
A By phone.
Q Where they in person or by phone?

A By phone.
Q Now tell the members of the jury, as best you can

recall, what you said and what Miss McGilbra said about
your business proposal?
A Well, I had indicated to Miss McGilbra that I had
made a proposal, and I was hopeful they would agree to a
contract.
And Miss McGilbra demanded that whatever
compensation I received, that she get 50 percent of it.
And I told her that I did I want to do that
anymore, because I had done that in another transaction,
or was currently doing that in another transaction that
she assisted with. And she reminded me I would not have
had the contact if it were not for her.
Q Now, did you specifically explain to her who you

client would be?
A Yes.
Q And what did you tell her?

A That it would be Honeywell as the main client, but
that I would be working with, as a subcontractor to Nate
Gray, who indicated he already had a contract with

1366
Honeywell and had done, you know, several transactions
with them in various cities.
MS. BUTLER: Please show the witness
Exhibit 805.
Q Mr. Hardeman, do you recognize this document?

A Yes.
Q What is that?
A It's a letter that I sent to Brent Jividen thanking
him for the football game and the brunch that we had
experienced in Cleveland.
Q And after you sent that letter, did you follow up

with any written proposal to anyone?
A Yes. I had communicated with Mr. Gray and he
indicated that my proposal should come to him, since I
would being subcontracting with him as opposed to sending
it to Honeywell.

A That's a fax from me to Mr. Gray.
Q And if it shows on there the date, November the

6th, 2001, is that when you believed you faxed it to
Mr. Gray?
A Yes.
MS. BUTLER: Could you show us the second

page, please.
Q Mr. Hardeman, do you see -- directing your

attention to the very first paragraph.
To whom did you draft the contract? Who did
you identify the as the parties to the contract in your
draft?
A To Honeywell.
Q And do you see the hand writing there?

A Yes.
Q Do you recognize that?

A Yes. It has Nate Gray's initials just above it
there. And it's to his company ETNA Parking, located in
Shaker Heights, Ohio.
Q Did there come a time when this document 820 was

sent back to you by Mr. Gray?
A Yes, I believe so.
Q And did it have the handwritten changes on it that

we seen?
A Yes, it did.
Q I want to direct your attention to the compensation

paragraph, paragraph 2.
Had you left that space blank?
A Yes.
Q Had you had any phone conversation with Mr. Gray
regarding the compensation schedule?

1368
A We had had some conversation regarding the fact
that he received one percent, and his existing agreement
with Honeywell, that he would do half of that one percent
with me as a subcontractor on working on behalf of
Honeywell getting the contract in the Cit of Houston.
Q Did you also have an understanding about when that

half of one percent of Mr. Gray's compensation would be
paid to you?
A Yes. It would be after they had realized some
income. After Honeywell had realized some income from
the Houston contract.
Q And what Houston contract are we talking about?

A For Energy Demand Management services.
Q Now, did there come a time when you typed in those

handwritten changes and sent the final document back to
Mr. Gray?
A Yes.
Q And is that Government's Exhibit 806?

MS. BUTLER: If we could see the second
page
Q Mr. Hardeman, do you recognize this document as the
final agreement that you entered into?
A Yes.
Q Now, approximately what date were your negotiations
completed?
1369
A I believe it was right around November 6th.
Q Now, did you also discuss with Mr. Gray wanting

some kind of document from Honeywell?
A Yes.
Q Tell the members of the jury about your

conversation with Mr. Gray regarding that?
A Well, I wanted to confirm that Honeywell understood
that I was working as a subconsultant with Nate Gray on
their behalf to establish the contract. And so

ultimately when it came to the compensation issue, that I
could rely upon the larger corporation to receive my
compensation if the subcontractor that I was working with
did not pay me.
Q And what response did Mr. Gray give you?

A He told me that he would talk to Brent and make
sure that I got that letter.

A Yes. It's a fax letter from Mr. Gray to myself but
the letter is addressed to Nate Gray from Brent Jividen,
indicating that he had Mr. Jividen's approval as a
representative of Honeywell to subcontract consulting
services to SGS Consultants, which was my company.
Q Could you move your face in closer to that

microphone?
A This seat doesn't move. It's kind of
uncomfortable.
Q Mr. Hardeman, is that your fax number, 310973 at
the bottom?
A Yes, it is.
Q And when you were negotiating by fax and by phone,

were you in California?
A Yes.
Q And were you talking to Mr. Gray in Cleveland, to

your understanding?
A Yes.
Q Now, did you ever -- after you entered into this

agreement that we just looked at with Mr. Gray and
Honeywell, tell the members of the jury what you did to
earn your fee?
A I communicated with Monique McGilbra in regards to,
I guess you would consider, inside or insider information

as to her discussions with Reliant, their issues with
Honeywell's approach, and their proposal to do
assessments of what it would take to do the Energy Demand
Management for the city buildings.
And I also communicated with Rick Cloutier of
CDM, who was the hired consultant for the Energy Demand
Management portion for the City of Houston.

1371
Q Now, Mr. Hardeman, in November of 2001 when you

signed this consulting agreement, did you register as a
lobbyist with the City of Houston?
A No, I did not.
Q At any time did you tell anyone in the City of

Houston, besides Ms. McGilbra, that you were a hired as a
consultant for Honeywell?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you tell any one at Reliant that you were hired
as a consultant for Honeywell?
A NO, I did not.
Q Did there come a time when you went to the Super

Bowl in New Orleans?
A Yes.
Q And when was that?

A In January of 2002.
Q Tell the members of the jury how you first became

involved in the planning for that trip?
A I had discussion with Monique McGilbra regarding
accompanying her to the Super Bowl. I told her that I
would like to go. And she told me that she had basically
the hook-up with Mr. Gray to make that happen, and for me
to give him a call and work out the details.
Q And did you get in contact with Mr. Gray?
A Yes, I did.
Q What happened after that?
A We had the conversation about the hotel
arrangements and how I would obtain tickets to the Super
Bowl.
Q And were some of those conversations by phone?

A Yes.
MS. BUTLER: Could you please play Exhibit
1143.
(Tape played. )
Q Mr. Hardeman, who were you referring to when you

said, I'll communicate it to the source?
A To Monique McGilbra.
Q And why did you call her the source?

A Because she was the source of my meeting Nate Gray.
She was the source that I had to go to, in terms of the
Honeywell contract. She was the source of making things
happen with Mr. Gray for us to attend the Super Bowl.
Q Now, Mr. Hardeman, did you get some information

from Mr. Gray about hotel arrangements?
A Yes, I did.
Exhibit 812. 853-A.
Q While were waiting for that, did you get a fax from
Mr. Gray?
A Yes.
Q And d o you r e c o g n i z e t h a t ?
A Yes.
Q I s t h a t w h a t ' s marked a s 853?
A Yes.
MS. BUTLER: And i f you c o u l d g o t o t h e
n e x t page.
Q Did t h e document i n f o r m you a b o u t w h e r e t h e h o t e l
was?
A Yes, i t d i d . Hotel Le Cirque.
Q And d i d you a l s o g e t i n f o r m a t i o n t h r o u g h t h a t f a x
a b o u t whether o r n o t t h e expenses were p r e p a i d ?
A Yes. For $2,369.49.
Q And d i d you g e t t h i s document b e f o r e you a c t u a l l y
t r a v e l e d t o New Orleans?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q Now, d i d you i n f a c t g o t o N e w O r l e a n s on
S a t u r d a y --
A Yes.
Q -- o f S u p e r Bowl weekend?
And d i d you s t a y a t t h i s h o t e l ?
A Yes.
Q And d i d you, i n f a c t , g e t t i c k e t s t o t h e S u p e r Bowl
game?
Yes. The t i c k e t s were a t t h e d e s k when I a r r i v e d .
The d e s k where?
1374
A At Hotel Le Cirque.
Q Now, did you happen to save a copy of your stub of

the tickets?
A Yes, I did.
MS. BUTLER: And could you show
Government's Exhibit 819, please.
Q Directing -- do you recognize this document?

A Yes.
Q Directing your attention to the bottom, where it

says, between the two logos?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall noticing that information when you

received the tickets?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any knowledge of whether or not the

price paid for the tickets was actually four hundred
dollars?
A I do not.
Q Now, after you arrived in New Orleans on Saturday,

did you have any -- did you make any dinner plans?
A Well, I was told prior to coming there basically
that Mr. Gray --
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I'm going to object
to the hearsay.
THE COURT: I don't know why we are

1375
s p e n d i n g t i m e on t h i s . I d o n ' t know t h a t t h e r e i s
really a dispute. I mean, w e h a v e h e a r d q u i t e a b i t
of t e s t i m o n y on t h i s a l r e a d y .
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I thought t h e r e
was some d i s p u t e a b o u t w h e t h e r M r . J a c k s o n was a
participant.
THE COURT: Why d o n ' t you t r y t o move i t .
And t r y t o a s k him e i t h e r t o s u m m a r i z e i t o r
w h a t e v e r , b u t r a t h e r t h a n --
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I don' t d i s p u t e t h a t
t h e y went t o d i n n e r . W e s t i p u l a t e t h e y went t o
dinner.
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q And d i d you go t o a b r u n c h on S u n d a y m o r n i n g b e f o r e
t h e game s t a r t e d ?
A Yes. W e were g i v e n a n i n v i t a t i o n by M r . Jackson t o
a t t e n d a b r u n c h on b e h a l f o f t h e Mayor.
Q And on Monday, a f t e r t h e game, d i d you meet u p w i t h
Mr. Jackson again? The Monday d a y f o l l o w i n g t h e game?
A Yes.
Q And what d i d you d o ?
A We went t o -- met him a t a r e s t a u r a n t , E m e r i l ' s ,

a n d had l u n c h .
Q And who p a i d f o r t h e d i n n e r on S a t u r d a y a n d t h e
l u n c h on Monday?
1376
A Gilbert Jackson.
Q And who paid for the Super Bowl tickets, if you

know?
A Mr. Gray.
Q Now, did there come a time in approximately April

of 2002 when you were confronted by the FBI?
A Yes.
Q Tell the members of the jury what happened there?

A On April the 17th, 2002, I was approved by FBI and
indicated that I was a target of investigation for a
attempted bribery of two Carson City elected officials.
Q At that time did you agree to begin cooperating

with the government?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you operate in undercover capacity or covert

capacity with the FBI?
A Yes, I did, for approximately seven months.
Q And subsequently, did you enter into a written plea

agreement with the United States Attorney's office in
California?
A Yes, I did.
Q And tell the members of the jury what you admitted

to doing in connection with that agreement?
A I admitted that I made an offer of something of
value to an elected official in exchange for their

1377
support for a client of -- Waste Management client that I
represented in the City of Carson.
Q As part of your agreement with the government,

what's your responsibility?
A To be honest and truthful and to cooperate with
them on any investigation that they have ongoing.
Q And what's the government's obligation under that

agreement, is your understanding?
A To recommend some form of leniency in sentencing
when I go before the judge.
Q And who will actually sentence you?

A The judge.
Q And in what court?

A California.
Q So what is your hope and expectation that will

happen to you at your sentencing?
A That I will receive a recommendation of leniency
from the government for my cooperation.
Q Now, were the charges against you actually made

public in approximately November of 2002?
A Yes.
Q And did you tell Miss McGilbra that you had been
confronted by the FBI when it first happened?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did you have any conversation with Miss

1378
McGilbra a b o u t y o u r c o n t r a c t w i t h M r . Gray a n d Honeywell?
A Yes.
Q And t e l l u s what you s a i d a n d what s h e s a i d ?
A I t h i n k I i n d i c a t e d b e f o r e t h a t M i s s M c G i l b r a made
a demand o f 5 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e c o n t r a c t , o r t h e
c o m p e n s a t i o n t h a t I r e c e i v e d on t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e
contract. And we h a d a b a t t l e a b o u t t h a t v e r b a l l y
b e c a u s e I d i d n ' t want t o c o n t i n u e t o h a v e t o p a y h e r f o r
contracts t h a t I received.
(1 Now, a f t e r you were a r r e s t e d , d i d you h a v e a
conversation with h e r about c o l l e c t i n g under t h e
Honeywell a n d ETNA c o n t r a c t ?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q T e l l t h e members o f t h e j u r y what s h e s a i d a n d what
you s a i d ?
A Well, I h a d made s e v e r a l phone c a l l s t o M r . Gray
a n d h a d n o t h a d them r e t u r n e d , s o I s p o k e w i t h Miss
McGilbra a b o u t i t . And s h e i n d i c a t e d t h a t s h e h a d s p o k e n
t o him r e c e n t l y a n d h e t o l d h e r t h a t I d i d n ' t h a v e t o
w o r r y a b o u t a n y t h i n g , t h a t I would b e t a k e n c a r e o f .
Meaning a t some p o i n t I would r e c e i v e c o m p e n s a t i o n .
Q Did you s a y a n y t h i n g a b o u t w h e t h e r you s h o u l d

c o n t i n u e t o c o n t a c t M r . Gray?
A She s a i d t h a t t h e r e was no n e e d f o r m e t o c o n t i n u e
t o c o n t a c t him, t h a t i t would b e t a k e n c a r e o f .
MS. BUTLER: May I have a moment.
i
No further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Mr. Hardeman, my name is Bill Whitaker. I

represent Nate Gray. I'm going to ask you a few
questions. If you don't understand anything I ask, just
let me know and I'll be glad to repeat it.
A Okay.
Q If I understood your testimony --

MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, before I begin
my examination, I would like to make a motion to

1
review some Jencks material that we've discussed on
other occasions, although I believe I can show a

particularized need for it.
THE COURT: Have you exchanged the Jencks
material?
MR. WHITAKER: I'm talking about Jencks
material that has been the subject of other motions

I
that hasn't been --
THE COURT: Do you have any statements
from him that you haven't given?

MS. BUTLER: No, your Honor, not that we 1
1 have access to.
2 THE COURT: I don't know what you are
3 talking about. The Jencks material typically deals
4 with the witness's statements.

5 MR. WHITAKER: And there are conversations
6 that I believe have been intercepted by Mr. Hardeman
7 that we haven't been able to review.
8 THE COURT: I'll deny it, understanding

9 from the government that they have given you every
10 statement that he's given to law enforcement
11 agencies, and other than the ones we talked before
12 about.
13 MR. WHITAKER: It deals with the ones we
14 talked about before. And I think I can show a
15 particularized need based on his testimony and the
16 testimony of Agent Smith earlier.
17 THE COURT: I'll deny that.
18 MR. WHITAKER: At some point I would like
19 the opportunity to proffer my particularized need.
20 Q Now, as I understood your testimony, Mr. Hardeman,

21 Monique invited you to go on the trip to Cleveland?
22 A Yes, that's correct.
23 Q You didn't insert yourself into that trip?

24 A No, I did not.
25 Q She asked you, would you go to Cleveland and hang

out with me?
A To Chicago and Cleveland, she invited me.
Q Chicago and Cleveland, okay.

And at the time you did not know Mr. Gray?
A No, I did not.
Q And at the time you didn't know Mr. Jividen either,

did you?
A No, I did not.
Q And at the time you didn't know that Honeywell, or

anybody from Honeywell was going to be around, or there
might be any opportunities to get involved in any
contractual relationships with your consulting company?

A No, I did not.
Q Okay. Now, tell the ladies and gentlemen of the

jury a little bit about your consulting company, what
cities you work in, what kind of clients you have?
A I basically have some satellite offices. And at
that time New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Washington
D.C. And I represented clients in investment banking and
engineering firms, waste management firms, developers.
Q And when you had your conversation -- then when you

got to Cleveland you found out Mr. Gray was in the
consulting business, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q All right. And that's with you had a discussion

with him about maybe doing business with him?
A Yes.
Q And one of the things you did, in terms of selling

yourself, was talk to him about just the things you are
saying here, in terms of what your experience was and
what you could do as a consultant?
A Yes.
Q And at that point, it was -- you were under the

impression that they already had a relationship with Miss
McGilbra, right?
A I was aware that they knew her.
Q And one of the things you sold them on was that --

was that, since you thought they already had a
relationship with Miss McGilbra, that your value would be
with the counsel people, didn't you?
A I felt that I had multiple values that I could
offer them, as I had proposed to many other clients.
Q Do you recall testifying previously at a hearing in

this matter?
A Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Could you turn this.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor.
THE COURT: What page?
MR. WHITAKER: 66.
THE COURT: I thought he's agreed with

what you asked him.
MR. WHITAKER: No. His answer is
different.
I don't have this on. I don't know how to
turn it on.
THE COURT: Look at your screen. This is
the question you asked him, and that's the response
he gives. I think he's agreed with you.
MR. WHITAKER: All right. Let me ask the
question differently.
(Z Do you remember telling the FBI that in fact you

thought they already had a relationship with Miss
McGilbra and that your value would be with the council
people. And your answer being, I probably have made that
statement?
A That sounds reasonably correct to me.
Q When did you start going out with Miss McGilbra?

A After I met her in April, probably in May.
Q Of what year?
A 2000.
Q And when did you break up with her?

A That's hard to say, because it wasn't a
conventional relationship where there was an actual
breaking up. It was probably more a over time
dissolution of our personal relationship. We had a

1384
business relationship on, in addition to that, so that
may have lingered and we may have continued to talk.
Q Do you remember when it was that your intimate

relationship ended?
A Probably completely discontinued some time in 2003
Q Now, you wanted to insure that Honeywell knew that

you were being hired as a consultant for the City of
Houston, isn't that correct?
A Can you repeat the question?
Q You wanted to make sure that Honeywell knew that

you were being hired as a consultant with the City --
with Nate Gray for the City of Houston?
THE COURT: Let me ask, would you ask the
question in the form of a question.
MR. WHITAKER: Didn't you?
THE COURT: Do you understand the
question.
THE WITNESS: That's kind of compounded,
and he put three things in there.
MR. WHITAKER: Let me break it down.
Q You agreed to enter into a relationship with Nate

Gray, right? Consulting business relationship?
A I did have a contractual agreement with Mr. Gray,

yes.
Q And it involved, in part, you doing some work on

business with the City of Houston?
A Yes.
Q And it also involved, in some part, Honeywell

Corporation?
A It did involve me acting basically as a

representative or agent for Honeywell as the primary
client, and working in conjunction with Mr. Gray as a
contract consultant with Honeywell.
Q And as a result of that, you wanted to insure that

Honeywell was aware of the relationship and you acting as
their representative, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q And that's why you wrote to them and e-mailed them

directly, isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, at the same time, you were actually paying

Monique McGilbra a portion of a consulting fee that you
were getting from the Keystone Group, isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you didn't disclose that to Mr. Gray or

Mr. Jividen, did you?
A No.
Q And you were kind of upset that you had to pay her
that fee, weren't you?
A I didn't like that, no.

1386
Q But she demanded it. She insisted on it, isn't
that correct?
A Yes, she did.
Q And you finally gave in and started paying her

a piece of that?
A Yes. Yes, I did.
Q Now, as a result, you were a little more reluctant

to tell her about the relationship that you expected to
enter into with Honeywell and Nate Gray, isn't that
correct?
A I told her about the relationship but I was
reluctant to want to pay her.
Q Did you tell her about the relationship after she

got back to Houston and you got back to California, in a
telephone conversation?
A I first mentioned it to her before we left
Cleveland that I had made a proposal. In fact, as I was
having the discussion with Mr. Gray and Mr. Jividen at
brunch, she was present.
Q And she heard that conversation?

A Well, you would have to asker whether or not she
heard it, but she was present.
Q Sitting right there?

A Yes.
Q Okay. And she immediately demanded a piece of that

c o n t r a c t too, d i d n ' t she?
A Yes.
Q And you said a b s o l u t e l y n o t , i s n ' t that true?
A I d i d n o t want t o have t o d o t h a t .
Q And you t o l d h e r t h a t ?
A Yes.
Q And a t no t i m e d i d you e v e r g i v e i n on t h a t
p a r t i c u l a r demand o f h e r s , d i d you?
A I n e v e r r e c e i v e d any c o m p e n s a t i o n from t h a t
contract.
Q But you n e v e r -- r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r you r e c e i v e d
i t , you n e v e r a g r e e d t o g i v e h e r a n y p a r t o f t h a t
c o n t r a c t when you r e c e i v e d i t , d i d you?
A I t was my t h i n k i n g t h a t I d i d n o t want t o h a v e t o
do t h a t , right.
Q And you t o l d h e r t h a t ?
A Yes.
Q And you n e v e r changed from t h a t p o s i t i o n w i t h
r e g a r d t o t h a t c o n t r a c t , d i d you?
A T h a t was my t h i n k i n g , t h a t I d i d n o t want t o p a y
her.
Q She w a s n ' t happy a b o u t t h a t , was s h e ?
A NO, she wasn't.
Q When you s o l d your s e r v i c e s t o t h e K e y s t o n e Group,
one of t h e t h i n g s you t o l d them was y o u r v a l u e w i t h

1388
respect to the City Council of Houston as well, didn't
you?
A Yes.
Q What was your value with regard to the City Council

people of Houston?
A As I indicated before, I had interaction with
members of the council at national level, National League
of Cities. And I knew several former council members
for the City of Houston, and some of the current ones as
well.
Q At some point you wrote a letter as a whistle

blower to the Office of Inspector General in Houston,
didn't you?
A Yes, I did.
Q And you wrote that letter complaining about all of

the things that you felt Monique McGilbra had done that
were illegal with the City of Houston, didn't you?
A They weren't all of the things. I wrote the letter
anonymously and I wanted to maintain my anonymity, so I
didn't put all of the details of what I knew her
involvement was, because they then would probably be able
to surmise or prove who wrote it.
Q You see what we -- you see here this marked

Defendant's Exhibit AA?
A Yes.
Q And you see the heading on this letter?
A I do.
Q Does this appear to be the letter that you wrote to

the Inspector General?
A It is.
Q I would like you to take a look at it, if you

would, and see if this is the complete letter and an
accurate copy of what you wrote to the Inspector General?

A Yes, this is the letter I wrote.
Q I would like you to take a look at this letter and

tell the folks on the jury, not in any detail, but each
specific act of wrongdoing that you said Monique McGilbra
engaged in when you wrote to these whistle blower people?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, the same rule

applies. The document speaks for itself.
THE COURT: I think that's true.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I thought they
had been reading from every single document.
THE COURT: He's not been called as a
character witness for her. I didn't know she was
putting her character at issue. I thought she was

acknowledging she had bad character.
MR. WHITAKER: I'm not -- the purpose of
asking him to read this is to show to the ladies and
gentlemen on the jury what an exhaustive list he has

1 w i t h regard t o w h a t s h e d i d .
2 THE COURT: Again, i t ' s irrelevant.
3 MR. WHITAKER: It's i r r e l e v a n t ?
4 THE COURT: Yeah, i t ' s irrelevant.
5 What's i t t e n d t o prove?
6 MR. WHITAKER: F i r s t of a l l , i t t e n d s t o
7 prove h e p u t i t i n t h e l e t t e r , e v e r y t h i n g t h a t --
8 THE COURT: He's acknowledged that.
9 MR. WHITAKER: T h a t he t h o u g h t s h e d i d
10 that was wrong.
11 THE COURT: So w h a t ?
12 MR. WHITAKER: So w h a t ?
13 THE COURT: So w h a t ? S h e did wrong, she's
14 testified t o the same thing.
15 MR. WHITAKER: T h e r e is nothing i n that
16 l e t t e r a b o u t a n y t h i n g she did w i t h M r . G r a y o r
17 Honeywell.
18 THE COURT: Why d o n ' t you a s k h i m t h a t
19 question.
20 MR. WHITAKER: Okay.
21 Q Is t h e r e a n y t h i n g i n t h a t l e t t e r w h a t s o e v e r a b o u t
22 a n y t h i n g t h a t M i s s M c G i l b r a did w r o n g w i t h H o n e y w e l l ,
23 Nate Gray, or B r e n t J i v i d e n ?
24 A Not i n this letter.
25 Q And i s there a n y t h i n g i n t h a t l e t t e r about a n y t h i n g

1391
she did wrong with the energy contract involving
Honeywell in the City of Houston?
A There is something, I think, regarding the energy

contract to the extent of her relationship with CDM who
is energy consultant for the City and some activities
that she was engaged in there.
And also with the company of Reliant, with
who she received free tickets from on a regular basis.
So yes, there is some indication of some
incidents and transactions she was involved in that I
believe were improper.
Q But nothing involving Nate Gray or Honeywell's

aspect of that energy contract, correct?
A There is nothing in this letter, no.
MR. WHITAKER: If I might have a second,
your Honor.
Well, I'll ask another question. We are

looking in the transcript for something I would like
to ask him about.
(Z I have Government's Exhibit 820, which is your

Consulting Services Agreement. In this, under the
paragraph compensation, it says the fee is due and shall

be paid within 30 days after the City of Houston has
officially approved the Partnership Agreement.
Isn't that correct?

1392
A Yes.
Q And b y P a r t n e r s h i p Agreement i t means t h e a g r e e m e n t
w i t h Honeywell a s a p a r t n e r i n t h e e n e r g y c o n t r a c t ?
A Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: I f I might have a second
h e r e , y o u r Honor.
Q Now, w e t a l k e d a b o u t -- you remember t e s t i f y i n g
under o a t h a t an e a r l i e r d a t e ?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And d o you remember m e a t t h a t t i m e s a y i n g
t o you, i n t h i s anonymous l e t t e r -- b u t i n t h i s anonymous
l e t t e r , you d e t a i l e d a l l o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t you t h o u g h t
s h e w a s d o i n g t h a t were i l l e g a l , a m I c o r r e c t ?
And y o u r a n s w e r b e i n g , y e s .
A Well, a s I ' m s t a t i n g t o you t o d a y , t h a t I d i d n o t
d e t a i l e v e r y t h i n g t h a t I knew s h e w a s i n v o l v e d i n .
Q T h a t ' s n o t t h e q u e s t i o n I was a s k i n g y o u .
The l a s t t i m e when you s w o r e t o t e l l t h e
w h o l e t r u t h a n d n o t h i n g b u t t h e t r u t h --
THE COURT: J u s t , were you a s k t h a t
q u e s t i o n a n d d i d you g i v e t h a t r e s p o n s e ?
THE WITNESS: That i s t h e response I gave.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank y o u . No f u r t h e r
questions.

1393
MR. JENKINS: Yes, y o u r Honor, j u s t a f e w .

- - -
CROSS E X A M I N A T I O N
BY MR. JENKINS:
Q Mr. Hardeman, when you were r e f e r r i n g t o t h e CDM
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n H o u s t o n , t h a t would be R i c k C l o u t i e r ?
A Yes.
Q Now, j u s t q u i c k l y , i n terms o f t h e d i n n e r a t t h e
S u p e r Bowl, you s a i d t h a t M r . Jackson p a i d f o r it,
correct?
A Yes.
Q And i s n ' t i t t r u e a l s o t h a t you h a d m e t h i m l a t e r
a t another conference i n t h a t year, t h e r e w a s another
conference of b l a c k c i t y o f f i c i a l s ?
A Yes.
Q And e v e n a t t h a t c o n f e r e n c e p e o p l e t h a t h e m e t a n d
had fun with, he a l s o p a i d f o r t h e i r d i n n e r s , c o r r e c t ?
Remember you t o l d t h a t t o t h e FBI?
A Yes.
Q And i n f a c t , you s t a t e d t h a t h e would o f t e n b y
d i n n e r f o r f r i e n d s and people t h a t h e m e t , correct?
A I d o n ' t know i f I s a i d h e d i d i t o f t e n .
Q W e l l , t h e c o n f e r e n c e where you a t t e n d e d t h e
c o n f e r e n c e where you saw him?
A I know o n s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s t h a t h e d i d .
1394
Q All right. Now, I just have one other question.

As to Gilbert Jackson, you have never been
involved on any deals with him concerning any kind of
business practice, correct?
A No, I have not.
MR. JENKINS: I have nothing further, your
Honor.

- - -
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Mr. Hardeman, you were asked about your satellite

offices of SGS in 'Ol?
A Yes.
Q Tell the members of the jury what your satellite

offices were, in fact?
A I had family members in those cities, and so I
utilized their local addresses, and I had a 1-800 number
that I utilized for people to contact me.
Q And prior to meeting Miss McGilbra, did you
actually have any clients who were seeking business with
the City of Houston actively?
A No. Not with the City of Houston but within the
City of Houston.
1395
Q And Mr. Hardeman, were you asked to lobby any

council people on behalf of this Energy Services
contract?
A No, I was not.
Q And when you were arguing, as you say, with Miss

McGilbra about whether she could have a piece of any of
these consulting agreements, what if anything did she say

about why she was entitled to the money?
A Because she was the source of why it was that I
received the contract. And she was going to be the one
that things had to go through, in terms of the
recommendation to the Mayor and City Council.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hardeman.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, two things were
raised there I just want to touch on briefly.

- - -
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q This thing about your satellite offices. You

didn't tell, when you were selling your services, you
didn't describe your satellite offices that way to Nate
Gray, did you?
A I don't think I described my satellite offices at
all.
1396
Q Well, you t o l d h i m you h a d s a t e l l i t e o f f i c e s i n a
v a r i e t y of c i t i e s ?
A I don't recall telling him that.
Q You were j u s t a s k e d a b o u t p a y i n g M i s s M c G i l b r a a
p o r t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t , b u t s h e also w a s demanding
250,000 from t h e Keystone c o n t r a c t on t h e f i n a l payout,
wasn't she?
A C o u l d you r e p e a t t h e q u e s t i o n , p l e a s e ?
Q M i s s McGilbra w a s a l s o demanding 250,000 on t h e
f i n a l payout f o r t h e Keystone c o n t r a c t .
MS. BUTLER: O b j e c t i o n , y o u r Honor.
THE COURT: D i d s h e make a demand f o r a
p a y o u t on t h e Keystone c o n t r a c t ?
THE WITNESS: She d i d .
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q And i t was 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 .
A No, t h a t w a s t h e payout w a s 250,000. And s h e
demanded 50 p e r c e n t o f t h a t .
Q D i d you a g r e e t o p a y t h a t ?
A I d o n ' t t h i n k w e r e a c h e d a p o i n t of m e a g r e e i n g ,
b u t it w a s d e f i n i t e l y something t h a t I f e l t I was
c o m p e l l e d t h a t I was g o i n g t o h a v e t o d o .
THE COURT: Would you p l e a s e c a l l y o u r
next witness.
1397
1 MR. DETTELBACH: Yes. The United States
2 calls Oliver Spellman.
3 THE COURT: While he's coming up, would
4 the counsel approach.
5 (A discussion was conducted at the

6 sidebar, out of the hearing of the
7 jurors, and off the record. )
8 THE COURT: You want to come forward,
9 Mr. Spellman?
10 Would you raise your right hand?
11 - - -
12 OLIVER SPELLMAN
16 follows:
17 THE COURT: Please come forward, tell us
18 your name and spell your last name.
19 THE WITNESS: Oliver Spellman,
20 S-P-E-L-L-M-A-N.
23 Q Mr. Spellman, in a loud clear voice, could you

24 please tell us where you currently live?
25 A Brooklyn, New York.

Q What' s your job?
A I'm unemployed.
Q Where were you born?

A Manhattan, New York.
Q And do you have any family?

A Yes, I have three children.
Q Please speak directly into the mike?

A I'm sorry.
Q How long have you lived in New York?

A Since December of 2004.
Q All right. And prior to living in New York, where

did you live?
A Houston, Texas.
Q And what was your career prior to your current

unemployment?
A I was a Deputy Commissioner for Harris County, from
January '03 to December '04. Prior to that I was Chief
of Staff for Lee Brown, Houston, Texas from January '02
to October of '02. And prior to that I was Parks

Director for the City of Houston from April of 1998
through January '02.
Q And then prior to that?

A Prior to that I was with the New York -- I'm sorry,
the City of Cleveland as the Parks Director from April of
'94 through May of '98.

1399
Q What caused you to leave your career in municipal

government?
A I was indicted for the offense of conspiracy to
violate the Hobbs Act by accepting a bribe as a public
official. In December I left my job, pled guilty.
Q Now, sir, what's your educational background?

A I have a law degree from Howard University and a
bachelors degree from St. Michael's College in Vermont.
Q Now, sir, you said that you worked in Cleveland,

Ohio. Who was the mayor when you worked in Cleveland,
Ohio?
A Michael White.
Q And when you moved to Houston, Texas who was the

mayor there?
A Lee Brown.
Q And does he have a brother?

A Okay. I think he has a couple of brothers.
(2 Does he have a brother who lives in California?

A Yes. Earl Brown.
Q You said at first you were the head of Parks, but

at some point did you receive a promotion?
A Yes, I did.
Q And that was to what position?

A Mayor Brown's Chief of Staff.
Q When you became Mayor Brown's Chief of Staff, could

1400
you compare y o u r a c c e s s t o Mayor Brown b e f o r e you were
t h e Parks Director?
A A s t h e P a r k s D i r e c t o r I was a d e p a r t m e n t h e a d . My
a c c e s s t o t h e mayor was on a n e e d b a s i s , w h e n e v e r w e h a d
i s s u e s t o d i s c u s s w i t h t h e mayor. A s Chief of S t a f f I
h a d a c c e s s t o t h e mayor u s u a l l y o n a d a i l y b a s i s .
Q Where d i d you s i t ?
A Across t h e h a l l .
Q And when d i d you l e a v e t h a t j o b o f C h i e f o f S t a f f ?
A I n October of '02.
Q And w h a t c a u s e d you t o l e a v e t h a t j o b ?
A I f l u n k e d a random d r u g t e s t a n d r e s i g n e d .
Q S i r , d u r i n g t h e t i m e t h a t you w e r e C h i e f o f S t a f f
d i d you a c c e p t a n y b r i b e s ?
A Yes, I did.
Q From who?
A Nate Gray.
Q Do you s e e him i n c o u r t ?
A Yes, I d o .
Q Would you p l e a s e i d e n t i f y him?
A The g e n t l e m a n t h a t j u s t s t o o d u p .
THE COURT: The w i t n e s s h a s i d e n t i f i e d
Mr. Gray.
Q S i r , a r e you t e s t i f y i n g h e r e p u r s u a n t t o a p l e a
agreement?
A That's correct.
Q What did you plead guilty to?

A Accepting a bribe as a public official.
Q Why did you plead guilty?

A Because I was guilty.
Q Under your plea agreement, what's your

understanding of your obligations?
A To tell the truth.
Q What's your understanding of what will happen to

you if you don't fulfill your obligations?
A The agreement would be null and void and there
could be additional charges.
C! What's your understanding of the benefit to you if

you do fulfill your obligations?
A The U.S. Attorney's Office could support a sentence
anywhere between 8 and 15 months.
Q And what is your understanding of who actually

decides whatever sentence you are going to get?
A The judge.
Q I want to ask you about the things you said you got
from Nate Gray.
First, before you were this Chief of Staff in
Houston, did you know Mr. Gray?
A Yes. I met Mr. Gray when I was Parks Director in
Cleveland.
1402
Q B e f o r e you became C h i e f o f S t a f f t o t h e m a y o r i n
Houston, d i d M r . Gray e v e r g i v e you a n y t h i n g o f v a l u e ,
l e t ' s s a y o v e r a hundred d o l l a r s ?
A No, h e d i d n o t .
Q A f t e r you were C h i e f o f S t a f f , how many t i m e s d i d
you r e c e i v e s o m e t h i n g f r o m M r . G r a y o f a v a l u e o f o v e r a
hundred d o l l a r s ?
A Twice.
Q What t h i n g s d i d you g e t ?
A I went t o Las Vegas t h e weekend o f September 2 0 t h
t o 22nd, 2002. Mr. Gray p a i d f o r t h e h o t e l b i l l .
And i n J u l y o f 2002 I a c c e p t e d a $ 2 , 0 0 0 c a s h
bribe.
MR. DETTELBACH: Please display,Exhibit
905.
Q Do you r e c o g n i z e w h a t ' s d i s p l a y e d o n 9 0 5 ?
A Yes, I d o .
Q And w h a t a r e w e l o o k i n g a t ?
A T h i s i s t h e room c h a r g e f o r t h e R i o S u i t e s H o t e l i n
Las Vegas.
Q And d i r e c t i n g you y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e r i g h t h a n d
corner.
Do you see t h e d a t e s I c i r c l e d ?
A Yes, I d o .
Q What a r e t h e y ?
1403
A September 20th, '02 through September 22nd, '02.
MR. DETTELBACH: We can take that down.
Q You also mentioned there was a cash payment?

A That's correct.
Q And walk us through, in your own words, the

discussions you had and how the cash payment came about?
A Mr. Gray would visit Houston on numerous occasions,
business reasons. We had social contacts. We would get
together, go to dinner, various venues in Houston. He
would always say, if there is anything I can do for you,
let me know.
Q What office did you hold?

A I was the mayor's Chief of Staff.
Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.

A On one of those occasions I said to Mr. Gray, could
you help me out with a little cash?
Q What did he say?

A He really didn't say anything. But the next time
that he came down, we went out -- we went out to dinner,
had a few drinks. In my vehicle, I took him back to the
Marriott. He left an envelope on the seat with $2,000 in
it.
Q I'm sorry?
A He left an envelope on the seat with $2,000 cash.
Q And what timeframe was that?

1404
A July of 2002.
Q Now, you mentioned that Mr. Gray was down in

Houston on business. Can you tell us during that
timeframe what, if any, contracts he was pursuing in the
City of Houston?
A I think he was competing --
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, objection to
this. He's guessing.
THE COURT: I'm sorry.
MS. WHITAKER: I said I think he's
guessing as to the things.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Did Mr. Gray tell you why he was down in Houston in

July?
A Yes.
Q What was he competing for?

A At the time he was competing for a contact a
Houston International Airport. George Bush Airport.
Q What was the nature of the contract?

A The nature was a shuttle service where basically
Mr. Gray was competing to get the shuttle service to
bring passengers to the rental car facility to pick up
their car.
Q Now you also mentioned there were meals and drinks,
and the like. Who would pay when you would go with
Mr. Gray?
A Mr. Gray.
Q Was there any other entertainment he provided you
with when you were Chief of Staff?
A A group of us we went to strip club during one of
his visits.
Q Who was in the group?

A Myself, Brent Jividen, Rick Cloutier.
Q Did you do anything in return for the things

Mr. Gray provided you?
A I used my office to give Mr. Gray information to

help him secure contracts.
Q Which contracts?
A The shuttle service contract.
And there was a proposed parking meter
maintenance contract that never occurred, but in the
discussion phases I was supplying information to
Mr. Gray.
Q With respect to the shuttle contract, do you know

whether Mr. Gray's group won that?
A Yes, he did.
Q Now, focusing on what you did on the rental car

contract. Can you please tell us if Mr. Gray at some
point contacted you about the contract?
A Yes, he did.
1406
Q Did he tell you who his competition was?

A Yes, he did.
Q Who was it?
A It was another joint venture. One of the
principles was a gentleman named Danny Lawson.
Q Was that significant?

A It was significant because in Houston Mr. Lawson
was a very prominent entrepreneur, and also had very
strong support from the mayor.
Q Specifically, what did Mr. Gray ask of you in that

contracting process?
A He asked, he said there was word on the street that
the mayor was favoring the local joint venture, of which
Mr. Lawson was a part of. Mr. Gray was an out of town
group, out of town from Houston.
He asked if I could ascertain whether or not
that was the Mayor's position.
Ascertain by how?
By asking the mayor.
And did you do that?
Yes, I did.
Why?
Because I accepted a bribe and felt obligated to
Gray.
Did you in fact speak with the mayor about it?

1407
A Yes, I did.
Q And how d i d you p u t i t when you went t o see t h e
mayor?
A Mayor, t h e word on t h e s t r e e t i s t h a t you a r e
f a v o r i n g t h e l o c a l v e n t u r e g r o u p o v e r t h e o u t o f town
g r o u p on t h e s h u t t l e s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t a t t h e a i r p o r t .
Q When you s a i d word on o u t on t h e s t r e e t w a s t h a t h e
was f a v o r i n g somebody, what was h i s r e a c t i o n ?
A H e s a i d , I ' m n o t f a v o r i n g anybody. It's not a city
contract. I ' m n o t making a d e c i s i o n on t h e c o n t r a c t .
I ' m n o t f a v o r i n g anyone.
Q The s t a t e m e n t " t h i s was n o t a c i t y c o n t r a c t " , what
was y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g where t h e c o n t r a c t was g o i n g t o b e
performed a t ?
A The c o n t r a c t i n v o l v e d t h e Houston A i r p o r t
D e p a r t m e n t , b u t i t was a c o n s o r t i u m o f r e n t a l c a r
o f f i c i a l s who a c t u a l l y made t h e d e c i s i o n , a n d who
actually got the contract, not the city.
Q And i n y o u r v i e w , c o u l d t h e mayor a f f e c t t h a t ?
A He's t h e mayor, c e r t a i n l y h e c o u l d l e t h i s
i n t e n t i o n s b e known, i n terms o f where h e was o n t h e
issue.
Q And t h e n w h a t ?
A Then t h e y would h a v e t o t a k e t h a t i n t o
c o n s i d e r a t i o n as t h e mayor.
1408
Q Now, a f t e r t h e mayor t o l d you t h a t , w h a t d i d you
do?
A I called Mr. Gray.
Q What d i d you t e l l him?
A I relayed t h a t information back t o M r . Gray. The
m a y o r ' s p o s i t i o n was t h a t i t was n o t a c i t y c o n t r a c t a n d
t h a t h e h a d no p o s i t i o n on t h e m a t t e r .
Q Now, why d i d you c a l l M r . G r a y b a c k a n d g i v e him
t h a t information?
A I accepted a bribe. I f e l t o b l i g a t e d t o answer h i s
question.
Q Now, a t some p o i n t d i d you l e a r n t h a t t h e r e was a
a n o t h e r p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e mayor m i g h t h a v e ?
A Yes.
Q And what was t h a t t h a t you l e a r n e d a s t i m e went o n ?
A I was m e e t i n g w i t h t h e mayor d u r i n g t h a t same
p e r i o d of t i m e , a n d t h e mayor b a s i c a l l y c h a n g e d h i s
p o s i t i o n on t h e c o n t r a c t . He s a i d h e , you know, h e was
i n f a v o r o f t h e l o c a l team, a n d a s k e d t h a t I c a l l t h e
A i r p o r t D i r e c t o r and r e l a y t h a t information t o t h e
Airport Director.
Q And what was t h e name o f t h e A i r p o r t D i r e c t o r you
were t o c a l l ?
A Rick Vicar.
Q And d i d you go h a c k t o y o u r o f f i c e and call t h e

1
1409
A i r p o r t D i r e c t o r immediately?
A I talked t o Mr. Gray a n d t h e n c a l l e d t h e A i r p o r t
Director.
Q Who d i d you c a l l f i r s t , t h e A i r p o r t D i r e c t o r o r
Mr. Gray?
A I t h i n k I might have c a l l e d M r . Gray f i r s t .
Q And what d i d you t e l l M r . Gray?
A T h a t t h e mayor h a d f l i p - f l o p p e d on t h e s h u t t l e
c o n t r a c t s a n d was now f a v o r i n g t h e l o c a l g r o u p .
Q I n t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n you h a d w i t h M r . Gray, d i d h e
m e n t i o n a n y o t h e r p e o p l e h e was w o r k i n g w i t h on t h i s
p r o j e c t i n t h e C i t y o f Houston?
A I t h i n k he mentioned a r e l a t i v e o f t h e mayor.
Q What r e l a t i v e ?
A H i s brother, E a r l Brown.
MR. DETTELBACH: Would you p l e a s e p l a y
1200.
MR. DETTELBACH: A l l right. You c a n s t o p
it t h e r e , a c t u a l l y .
Q Now, t h i s t a p e i s A u g u s t 2 , 2002. From t h e
c o n v e r s a t i o n , c a n you t e l l u s t h e b e g i n n i n g o f A u g u s t ,
was t h a t t h e f i r s t t i m e you a n d M r . G r a y h a d s p o k e n a b o u t
t h i s contract?
1410
Q And what month was it that you got your $2,000

payment from Mr. Gray?
A It was in July.
MR. DETTELBACH: Now, you can skip over
that one and let's go to 1221.
(Tape played. )
Q All right. And that's the conversation after which

you went to Mayor Brown?
A I'm sorry, could you?
Q After that conversation, is that then when you went
to Mayor Brown?
A Yes.
Q And then you did relate back to Mr. Gray the

results of your meeting with Mayor Brown?
A Yes, I did.
(Tape played. )
MR. DETTELBACH: You can stop there.
Q Now, Mr. Spellman, did you hear the comment that it

was okay to relate to the powers that be?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what were you telling Mr. Gray he could do
there?
A Whoever he was talking to, he could relay the
information that's the mayor's position.

Q You said at some point, I'm reading from his quote?
A Yes.
Q What were you physically doing when you were

talking to Mr. Gray then?
A I was reading from my notes that I made while I was
meeting with the mayor.
Q And finally, you said the mayor's position had

changed at some point?
A Yes.
(Tape played. )
Q Mr. Spellman, why was it that you were making this

phone call to Mr. Gray that we just heard?
A I had accepted a bribe and felt obligated to give
him the latest information.
Q With respect to the Aviation Director, did you hear

his name?
A His name was Rick Vicar.
Q Did you need Mr. Gray's permission to call him?

A No, I did not.
Q You also heard a message to the effect NG. Did you

hear that?
A Yes.
Q Is that what you said to the mayor, NG?
A No, I probably said Nate Gray.

1412
Q Now, shifting your attention to the second
contract, the parking meter contract. Could you tell us,
who are the major parking companies who compete for
parking meter contracts?
THE COURT: I hate to interrupt this but I
promised yesterday we were likely going to recess at
4:OO. What's your sentiment? Do you want to stay?
You want to go?
How many want to stay?
We'll go for a few more minutes. I don't

want you to play any more tapes that you played
earlier in the case.
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Sir, who are the major companies that typically

compete for parking meter contracts?
A Companies such as Standard, APCOA, AMPCO, All Right
Parking.
Q And do these large firms, do they do these

contracts alone?
A Sometimes they do; in other situations, in Houston,
usually a large parking firm will partner with a smaller
firm, minority firm, to kind of form a joint venture to
get a better sense of a diverse bid, so to speak.
Q And do city officials -- let me ask you, as Chief
of Staff to the mayor, did you sometimes play an informal

1413
role in these teams?
A Generally we would get calls from what's called
prime, larger contractors looking for smaller companies
that are in favor of the administration to partner with.
Q And you say in favor with the administration?

A Yes.
Q And how would that affect a team's chance in

getting a contract?
A The stronger the team with local vendors or
companies that have support of the administration that is
empowered, if you are a legitimate firm, and you have a
legitimate team, you have a better chance of receiving
the bid.
Q Mr. Spellman, the parking meter contract, did that

happen in this case?
A Yes, it did.
Q And what, if anything, did you do when you were

called by the parking meter company? Or I'm sorry, the
parking company?
A I was called by a gentleman named Bruce Cabena from
APCOA, who is the local Vice President or Manager in the
Houston area, looking for teams that might be --
companies that might be available that they could
potentially partner with.
Q After you hung up the phone with Mr. Cabena, what

1414
d i d you d o ?
A I c a l l e d M r . G r a y , b e c a u s e I knew h e w a s i n v o l v e d
i n parking.
Q And what t h e M r . Gray t e l l you?
A I t h i n k he s a i d he had a l r e a d y been approached by
AMPCO, which i s a d i f f e r e n t f i r m t h a n APCOA, a n d a g r e e d
t o be t h e i r p a r t n e r i f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r a c t was e v e r
let. And t h e r e f o r e , t h a t h e n e e d e d t o t h i n k a b o u t
w h e t h e r o r n o t h e w a n t e d h i s name s u b m i t t e d t o M r . Cabena
a t APCOA.
Q T h i s c a l l you made t o M r . Gray, d o you remember
when i t was i n r e l a t i o n t o y o u r t r i p t o L a s Vegas t h a t h e
paid for the hotel?
A I t h i n k it was S e p t e m b e r 1 9 t h , t h e d a y b e f o r e I
left.
Q And t h e n d i d you g o t o L a s Vegas?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q When you g o t b a c k , w i t h i n o n e o r two d a y s , d i d you
s p e a k a g a i n w i t h M r . Gray?
A Yes, I d i d .
Q And what was y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r what h a p p e n e d on
that call?
A I t h i n k on t h a t c a l l -- o r I ' m s u r e on t h a t c a l l ,
a t l e a s t from my memory, w h a t e v e r , I t h i n k M r . Gray s a i d
t h a t h e d i d n ' t want t o u s e h i s name f o r m e t o g i v e t o

1415
Mr. Cabena, but he recommended another gentleman, Stanley
Broussard, who would be the point person for his interest
in the partnership.
a Now at that point, when Mr. Gray gave you that name
Stanley Broussard, had you ever heard of him before?
A No, I had not.
Q Did you know whether he ran parking lots or not?

A No, I did not.
Q Did you know anything about him?

A No -
Q And what did you do with that name after Mr. Gray
gave it to you?
A I gave that name to Mr. Cabena with APCOA Parking.

Q You did?
A Yes.
Q Why did you do that?

A I had a business arrangement with Mr. Gray and I
felt obligated and wanted to help him increase the
chances of securing that contract.
Q Why was it that giving Mr. Cabena this person Nate

had given you would help Mr. Gray?
A Well, if the name came from the administration, it
would give Mr. Cabena the impression that maybe it would
put him in a better light with the administration if he
25 had a name coming out of the administration.

1416
Q And with respect to this particular action that you

took, what was your understanding of Mr. Broussard and
Mr. Gray's arrangement or relationship?
A I figured Mr. Broussard was representing Mr. Gray's
interest. I thought this was a relationship between

Mr. Broussard and Mr. Gray.
Q And Mr. Spellman, these two contracts, the

parking -- well, these two situations you described, as
you sit here today, is there any doubt in your mind that
the money and the things of value that you were getting
was influencing your official act?
A There is no doubt whatsoever.
Q How much were you making as a City of Houston

official at the time?
A $120,000.
Q Were you penniless?

A No.
Q Were you powerless?

A No.
Q And before you became Chief of Staff, did Mr. Gray

ever offer you anything like this?
A No.
Q Did you ever report to the City of Houston any of

the things that Mr. Gray gave you?
A No.
Q And what did you understand the rule to be about
public officials accepting things from people with
business interest from the city?
A In Houston the rule is, if you receive anything of
value over $250, it has to be listed on a final
disclosure form.
Q Did you do that?

A No, I did not.
Q And are you even allowed to take it?

A No, not if somebody is doing business with the
city.
MS. WHITAKER: Yes, your Honor. I have
about a half hour. I don't know if you want to wait

and do it Monday.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll recess, we'll
come back Monday morning.
Over the weekend, don't read anything
about this, don't listen to anything, don't form any
opinions.
Let me just -- wait. I'll ask for a show
of hands.
How many want to stay and get this over?
Okay. We will go forward with the cross

examination.
- - -
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Good a f t e r n o o n , M r . S p e l l m a n .
A Good a f t e r n o o n .
Q My mane i s Andrea W h i t a k e r a n d I r e p r e s e n t
M r . Gray. I ' m g o i n g t o h a v e some q u e s t i o n s f o r y o u . If
you d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d a n y t h i n g , p l e a s e a s k m e t o r e p e a t
it.
MS. WHITAKER: B e f o r e I b e g i n , y o u r Honor,
I would l i k e t o make a s i m i l a r m o t i o n t h a t
Mr. W h i t a k e r made e a r l i e r w i t h r e g a r d t o J e n k s
m a t e r i a l , w i t h M r . Spellman. I t h i n k t h e r e i s a --
we c a n show t h e r e i s a p a r t i c u l a r i z e d n e e d .
THE COURT: I ' l l comport w i t h t h e e a r l i e r
r u l i n g s I made.
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Mr. S p e l l m a n , M r . D e t t e l b a c h a s k e d you why y o u r
p o l i t i c a l c a r e e r ended.
Do you remember t h a t ?
A He a s k e d me why d i d I l e a v e my l a s t j o b i n T e x a s .
Q And you l e f t y o u r j o b i n Houston b e c a u s e y o u t e s t e d
p o s i t i v e f o r drugs, is t h a t correct?
A I n O c t o b e r , 2002, that's correct.

1419
Q And you sought treatment for that, is that right?

A That's correct.
Q And did you seek treatment again for that addiction

or just the one time?
A I'm sorry?
Q Did you seek treatment for your addiction more than

once or just the one time?
A I've been in -- I've sought treatment more than one
time, yes.
Q That probably didn't help your career as a

politician, did it?
A I wasn't a politician. I was a city worker.
Q You had already left working as a cabinet level

official at that point?
A When I resigned I left the City of Houston, yes.
Q And you claim that -- just to be clear -- that

Mr. Gray bribed you in exchange for, and you are pleading
guilty here today, for asking the mayor the question

about the parking contract and introducing him to Monique
McGilbra, is that right?

THE COURT: Why don't you ask one
question.
BY MS. WHITAKER:
B You are claiming that you violated the law because

1420
you asked a question to the mayor on behalf of Mr. Gray,
correct?
A No, I violated the law by accepting cash, by
accepting a payment at a hotel while I was Chief of
Staff, and providing sensitive confidential information
out of the City of Houston to Mr. Gray.
Q And you provided that information by asking the

mayor the question about the shuttle contract, is that
correct?
A I provided the information on the shuttle contract
and parking meter contract.
Q And --
A That's it.
Q And do you remember testifying under oath on

December 6th, 2004?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And do you remember again you were under

oath and you were asked why you pled guilty.
Do you remember what you said when you
testified under oath?
A No, I don't.
Q Do you remember saying under oath that the only two

things you had done wrong were introduce Miss McGilbra to
Mr. Gray, and the conversations with the mayor we
discussed earlier?
1421
A No, I don't recall that. I would like to see it.
MS. WHITAKER: If I could show it to the
witness, your Honor.
THE COURT: Just go ahead and ask him
questions.
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Did you say that day under oath, when you were
giving all the reasons you were pleading guilty, anything
about the parking meter contract?
A I don't recall.
MS. WHITAKER: May I approach?
THE COURT: You really want to spend the
time on it?
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Would you agree you did not mention it that day?

A I don't recall it.
MS. WHITAKER: I would like to approach.
THE COURT: Show it to him then.
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure.
THE COURT: Just see if this refreshes
your recollection.
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q In reviewing your testimony, did you see any
mention of the parking meter contract?
A No, I did not.

1422
Q And so it's your testimony today that you did not

introduce Mr. Gray to Mr. Miss McGilbra for any reason
but that you were friends, is that right?
A No. I introduced Miss McGilbra to Mr. Brent

Jividen and Mr. Gray at their request so they could get
to know her because they were in the energy business.
They worked for Honeywell.
Q Do you remember testifying on this in June of '05?

A Yes.
MS. WHITAKER: I'm on page 1047.
Q And do you remember being asked if your

introduction to Miss McGilbra, you did that because Nate
was your friend?
A I think that was part of the question.
Q And do you remember saying yes to that question?

A Yes.
he was asked about that subject on direct, your
Honor, today though.
THE COURT: You've got to lay a
foundation.
MR. DETTELBACH: It's not inconsistent
with anything. We didn't go into that.
MS. WHITAKER: It's inconsistent.
THE COURT: It could be inconsistent with

1423
the cross, but you still have to lay the foundation.
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q A moment ago you mentioned that Mr. Gray asked for

that introduction, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember saying on that day in June --

THE COURT: The way you do it is, you
say --
MS. WHITAKER: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: -- in June were you asked this

question and did you give this response.
It needs to be closely inconsistent to
what you believe with what he said here.
MS. WHITAKER: Okay.
Q In June, were you asked: And that's why you

said -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you said, "hey,
there is something going on in Houston you might be

interested in."
And do you remember saying, "that's correct"?
A I remember the conversation that we had about
potential energy contracts.
Q Right. I understand.
My question is about your testimony in June.
A Go ahead. I'm sorry.
Q That's okay.
1424
THE COURT: Is that inconsistent with what
he said just a minute ago?
MS. WHITAKER: He said Mr. Gray asked for
the introduction to Miss McGilbra.
MR. DETTELBACH: We don't believe it is
inconsistent.
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Next question you were asked, and maybe I could

help make an introduction.
And you said that's correct.
Do you remember saying that?
A Yeah, they asked to meet someone. I said yeah,
maybe I can facilitate a meeting.
Q Nothing in the testimony we've just discussed from

June indicates that Mr. Gray asked for that meeting, is
there?
A My recollection is that he did.
Q I'm asking about the testimony.

THE COURT: We'll let the jury decide
that.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Do you remember being interviewed by the FBI in
this matter?
A Yes.
Q I'm sure you wouldn't forget being interviewed by
the FBI.
And do you remember being interviewed twice
by the FBI?
A I remember being interviewed by the FBI in
September, '04 in Houston. And I remember meeting with
the U.S. Attorney and the FBI in October of '04.
Q And when you went to meet with the FBI the second
time, at that point you had agreed to cooperate with the
government and tell them everything you knew?
A I had agreed to do what's called a proffer, where I
met with U.S. Attorneys and the FBI, and they asked me
some questions and I gave them some answers.
Q And the terms of that proffer were for you to tell
the whole truth, correct?
A Yes.
Q And do you remember saying in that interview with

the FBI that Nate Gray never asked you to relay any
information to the mayor or intervene on Nate Gray's
behalf at all?
A Could you repeat that?
Q I'm sorry, I talk a little fast. I apologize.

That Nate Gray never asked you to relate any
information to the mayor or to intervene on Nate Gray's
behalf at all?
1426
A Nate asked me to get information regarding -- it
was on the tape -- regarding the shuttle contract.
Q I'm going to ask you to focus on my question.

THE COURT: Let me just, the way you do it
is, you have to ask him a direct question.
MS. WHITAKER: I'm sorry, I thought I was.

THE COURT: Ask him a direct question and
then if he gives an answer that you believe is
inconsistent with a prior statement, then you can
cross examine him on the prior statement. But you
don't start off the examination by asking him if on
a certain date he gave a certain response until
there is some inconsistent response.
MS. WHITAKER: I sorry, I thought I was
following up on the earlier question.
THE COURT: Why don't you ask him the
direct question: Did Nate Gray ever ask you to
intercede with the mayor on his behalf? If he gives
an inconsistent statement, then you could follow up

with him.
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Did Nate Gray ever ask you to relay any information

to the mayor?
A He asked me to let the mayor know that the word on
the street was that the mayor was favoring the local team
1427
on the parking shuttle contract and see if I could get an

answer from the mayor.
Q And do you remember telling the FBI Nate Gray never

asked you to intervene with the mayor on his behalf?
A The word intervene would be asking a question to
ask the mayor.

I don't remember exactly what I said to the
FBI.
THE COURT: Let me just, did Mr. Gray ever
ask you to lobby the mayor for his position?

THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Did he simply ask you to get
information?
THE WITNESS: He simply asked me to get
information.
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Do you think that you could help Nate Gray get

business in the City of Houston?
A I was in a position where I had some knowledge of

what was going on, on individual contracts.
So in terms of information, information could
lead to business, yes.
Q And do you remember telling the FBI on that same

time that you couldn't help Nate Gray get business in the
City of Houston?
1428
A Whatever Nate asked I tried to get the information
he needed. I did not want -- I think what you are
reading, I did not have the authority to sign contracts
as Chief of Staff. I was not a department head. I could
not pick a team. I could not sign a contract and say,
here, you are the person or the company to get a
contract. I didn't have the authority.
Q So you told the F B I you couldn't h e l p him get

business in Houston?
A I told the F B I I didn't have the authority to issue

contracts.
Q But you did talk to the mayor about the contract,

is that right?
A Yes.
Q And do you remember telling the FBI that you

couldn't remember telling Nate Gray that you talked to
the mayor about the contract?
A I'm not sure.
MS. WHITAKER: May I?
THE COURT: What are you going to do?
MS. WHITAKER: I'm going to refresh his

recollection that that's what he told the FBI.
MS. WHITAKER: I'm just referring to this
sentence here.
1429
THE COURT: D o n ' t t a l k t o him u n t i l you
g e t b a c k f r o m him t h e s t a t e m e n t .
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q Now, d o you remember t e l l i n g t h e FBI you d o n ' t
r e c a l l making a n y p r o m i s e s t o G r a y a b o u t t a l k i n g t o t h e
mayor a b o u t t h e s h u t t l e b u s c o n t r a c t ?
A No. I thought I s a i d I c o u l d n ' t r e c a l l . I
couldn't recall.
Q T h a t ' s what I s a i d , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ?
A I f I said I couldn't recall a t t h a t t i m e , yeah.
Q And you h a d g o n e t h e r e t h a t d a y t o t e l l t h e m
e v e r y t h i n g under your p r o f f e r agreement, i s t h a t r i g h t ?
A T h a t was two a n d a h a l f y e a r s a g o . I was t h e r e two
a n d a h a l f y e a r s a f t e r my c o n v e r s a t i o n s when a l l t h i s
s t u f f happened.
Q I understand.
You were a s k e d a l i t t l e b i t o n d i r e c t a b o u t
y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o M r . G r a y b e f o r e you became C h i e f o f
S t a f f , s o a few q u e s t i o n s on t h a t .
When you w e r e i n C l e v e l a n d you were c l o s e
f r i e n d s w i t h M r . Gray, i s t h a t r i g h t ?
A We w e r e f r i e n d s .
Q And you would f r e q u e n t l y g o o u t t o d i n n e r , g o o u t
t o bars?
A Mostly w i t h o t h e r people, yeah. I saw M r . Gray
around town. We went out once in a while.
Q You are saying it wasn't frequently?

A It wasn't weekly. I mean, maybe once a month, once
each two months, once each three months we would run into
each other, yeah.
Q And did your wife have a baby shower at one of

Mr. Gray's restaurants?
A Yes, she did.
Q And during that time when you were in Cleveland did

Mr. Gray ever ask you to do anything with business in the
city?
A No.
Q And during that time you were actually so close
that you call your son little Nate?
A It was a joke. It was a nickname that Nate and I
came up with, little Nate, because my son is short and
chubby like Nate.
Q So is that correct?
THE COURT: You want to withdraw that
question?
MS. WHITAKER: I'm going to lose my job
for asking that question.
Q And there was a point in time your relationship
continued then when you moved to Houston, is that right?
A We stayed in contact.
1431
Q And you would t a l k e v e r y o t h e r month, e v e r y c o u p l e
months, i s t h a t r i g h t ?
A When was i n Houston?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q And J would s e e e a c h o t h e r when M r . Gray came t o
town, r i g h t ?
A Correct.
Q And you, i n f a c t , c a l l e d M r . Gray t o t e l l him you
became C h i e f o f S t a f f , r i g h t ?
A I may h a v e .
Q And t h a t was e v e n b e f o r e you w e n t t o g e t sworn i n ,
you w a n t e d t o l e t him know t h e good news?
A Yes. I mean, I d o n ' t know I c a l l e d him f o r t h a t
purpose. We may h a v e t a l k e d a n d t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s may
h a v e come u p .
Q And when you would go o u t t o d i n n e r w i t h M r . Gray
i n H o u s t o n , a n d h e would buy you d i n n e r , d i d h e e v e r a s k
f o r a n y t h i n g i n exchange f o r t h e d i n n e r ? Something f o r
the city?
A For each d i n n e r , no.
Q And d i d you e v e r d o a n y t h i n g i n e x c h a n g e f o r t h e
d i n n e r s o r t h i n g s of v a l u e a t t h a t time?
A No. We would g o t o d i n n e r a n d t a l k a b o u t t h e
Indians. And i t was p r e t t y s o c i a l ,

1432
Q Getting back to the shuttle bus contract.

You said that Mr. Gray had asked you to ask
the mayor questions, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And at that point all the bids were in, correct?

A I'm not sure, but I think they were.
Okay. The proposals were in.
Q And it had already been narrowed down to four

different people, is that correct?
A It had gone from 14 to 4 to 2.
Q So by the time he asked you to do that, all the

proposals, all the bids were in, is that right?
A Yeah. They had narrowed the list, the short list
at that point in time.
Q And Danny Lawson, who was the other competitor, was

a political ally of the mayor, is that right?
A He was a supporter of the mayor. A businessman, a
local businessman.
MS. WHITAKER: We had heard some
conversations earlier today, I know Mr. Spellman
wasn't here, but we didn't want to play them to
waste the time.
Q Do you remember talking to him about that. And

Mr. Gray saying to you whatever it is, it is. I wouldn't
stay in the way of whoever the mayor wanted or the

1433
commission w a n t e d ?
A My i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s , however, i t t u r n e d o u t
Mr. Gray was, w e l l , w h a t e v e r I g o t t o l i v e w i t h .
Q And i f t h a t ' s h i s c h o i c e , h e y , you know, t h a t ' s
f i n e w i t h me. I t a i n ' t no p r o b l e m ?
A Yeah, h e s a i d t h a t .
Q And h e n e v e r a s k e d you t o d o a n y t h i n g t o t r y t o
c h a n g e t h e m a y o r ' s mind, d i d h e ?
A No, n o t c h a n g e t h e m a y o r ' s mind.
Q And h e n e v e r a s k e d you t o t a l k t o a n y d e c i s i o n
makers, did he?
A No, h e d i d n o t .
Q I n f a c t , h e n e v e r a s k e d you t o t e l l t h e mayor
anything, j u s t ask t h e question, i s t h a t r i g h t ?
A H e a s k e d m e t o l e t t h e mayor know what p e o p l e were
saying regarding the contract. Make s u r e t h e mayor knew.
Q And when you w e r e -- I ' m s o r r y , w h a t was y o u r
p o s i t i o n b e f o r e you were C h i e f o f S t a f f ?
A Parks Director.
Q And d u r i n g t h a t t i m e you h a d m e e t i n g s w i t h t h e
mayor? You c o u l d s e e him when you w a n t e d t o ?
A Yeah, I c o u l d see him when t h e r e was a n i s s u e , a
p a r k s i s s u e we d i s c u s s e d .
Q And t h e n you t a l k e d a l i t t l e b i t a b o u t t h e p a r k i n g
meter c o n t r a c t , i s t h a t r i g h t ?
1434
A Correct.
(3! And you said part of your business is giving prime

contractors, identifying different subcontractors, the --
I'm sorry, the prime contractor calls, you would identify
some subcontractors that were qualified.
Is that right?
A Well, I didn't have the authority to give
contracts. Once in a while I would get a call from a
contractor looking to put a team together.
There is a list in the city, it's public
information, a list of certified minority contractors who
are available to do city work. Sometimes they would ask
if we knew anyone on the list, or if we knew a particular
person, or if we had any recommendations.
Q Okay. So that was something that would happen as

an informal part of your job, is that right?
A Correct.
Q And that was the normal. And you didn't think it

was an inappropriate thing to do?
A Well, it's not normal to call someone to say, I'm
going to give somebody your name, is it okay with you.
Q My question was about the prime contractor calling

you and you giving a sub. That's a normal and
appropriate thing to do, is that right?
A Yeah, I guess so. I guess so. It happens.

Q And that was one of the things you were supposed to
do as the Chief of Staff?
A No. No, it was not something I was supposed to do.
Q I'm sorry, did you say it was an informal function

of your job?
A That's not -- if someone calls, you may provide an
opportunity to give them some names, if there are names,
because the lists are public. But generally you would
refer them to the minority, Minority Contracts
Department, or something.
Q I think we are saying the same thing, so I'll move

on.
When Mr. Gray gave you Mr. Broussard's name,
you knew Mr. Gray would be involved in that contract,
right?
A I knew Mr. Gray knew Mr. Broussard, that's all I
would know out of that. That okay, he would probably be
involved if he knew Mr. Broussard.
Q You didn't think that was a problem, did you,

because there were lots of subcontractors on two
different prime bids?
A It is appropriate to be on more than one team, yes.
Q So there was nothing wrong with Mr. Gray being a

sub on two different prime contractors?
A I had no idea who Mr. Broussard was, so.
1436
Q My q u e s t i o n was, t h e r e w a s n ' t a n y t h i n g wrong, f r o m
t h e c i t y ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , f o r M r . Gray, o r o t h e r
s u b c o n t r a c t o r s , t o b e on two p r i m e c o n t r a c t o r b i d s ?
A Mr. Gray c o u l d be on b o t h t e a m s .
Q M r . Gray was c o n c e r n e d a b o u t l e t t i n g h i s p r i v a t e
c o m p a n i e s know what b i d s h e m i g h t b e on?
A I t h i n k h e w a s c o n c e r n e d a b o u t l e t t i n g APCOA know
t h a t h e was i n v o l v e d w i t h AMPCO. They were somewhat, a t
the time, competitors.
Q They were two p r i v a t e c o m p a n i e s , r i g h t ?
A Two s e p a r a t e p a r k i n g c o m p a n i e s , y e s .
Q And p r i v a t e c o m p a n i e s ?
A Yes, t h e y a r e p r i v a t e .
Q And you s a i d t h a t you r e c e i v e d a l o a n f r o m M r . Gray
i n J u l y , is t h a t r i g h t , of '02?
he s a i d anything about any l o a n .
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q I ' m s o r r y , you r e c e i v e d a c a s h payment f r o m
Mr. Gray i n J u l y o f 2002, i s t h a t r i g h t ?
A That's correct.
Q Did you a s k him f o r a l o a n a t t h a t t i m e ?
A No, I d i d n o t . I n e v e r u s e d t h e word l o a n .
Q A l l right. I ' m going t o go back t o t h e i n t e r v i e w
w i t h t h e F B I now?
1437
A I remember that.
Q Do you remember telling the FBI that you asked
Mr. Gray for a loan because money was tight?
A Absolutely.
Q And that happened, the giving you the money, before

he ever asked you to have the question asked, to ask the
mayor the question, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And that happened in October of '02, is that

correct?
A I'm not sure. I thought it happened in August.
Q When Mr. Gray actually asked you to go ask the

mayor a question?
A Yeah. I'm not sure exactly. I thought it was
August.
Q The record will speak for itself. I apologize.

And when he gave you that money, he had never
asked you to talk to anybody on his behalf in the city at
that point, had he?

A I don't think so.
Q And when you got the phone call about the parking
meter contract, that was after Mr. Gray had already
loaned you the money, is that right?
A He did not loan me the money.
Q After he gave you the money, is that correct?

1438
A The c a l l -- I t h i n k I r e c e i v e d a c a l l , y e a h , t h e
c a l l was i n l a t e August o r S e p t e m b e r ; S e p t e m b e r .
Q Could i t have been October a s w e l l ?
A I t h o u g h t i t was I t a l k e d t o M r . Gray S e p t e m b e r
1 9 t h , b e f o r e I w e went t o Vegas. And I t a l k e d t o him
a f t e r I came b a c k .
Q September o r October?
A No, i t was S e p t e m b e r 1 9 t h .
Q I ' m s a y i n g e i t h e r September o r October, i t ' s s t i l l
s e v e r a l months a f t e r h e h a d g i v e n you t h e $ 2 , 0 0 0 , is that
right?
A I t was S e p t e m b e r 1 9 t h . I t was a f t e r I r e t u r n e d o n
t h e week o f S e p t e m b e r 2 3 r d .
Q So t h a t ' s a c o u p l e m o n t h s ?
A I t was a f t e r I g o t t h e money i n J u l y .
Q When h e g a v e you t h a t money, h e d i d n ' t a s k you t o
t a l k t o anybody o r d o a n y t h i n g o n b e h a l f o f t h e c i t y , d i d
he?
THE COURT: I t h i n k you a s k e d him t h a t .
MS. WHITAKER: Okay.
Q And when you h a d p l a n n e d t h e t r i p t o L a s Vegas
M r . Gray was s u p p o s e d t o g o w i t h you, i s t h a t r i g h t ?
A Yeah, h e t a l k e d a b o u t w a n t i n g t o g o .
Q And h e w a s n ' t a b l e t o go, was h e ?
A Correct.
1439
Q So he paid for the hotel?

A He paid for the room that I stayed in, which
violated the ethical requirements for the City of
Houston.
THE COURT: Let me just -- I would like to
have you ask a question.
MS. WHITAKER: Okay. I'm sorry.
Q And Mr. Gray had offered to give you help even when
there was nothing you could do for him, wasn't there? He
had offered, what can I do for you? If there is anything

I can do? Even when you had no ability to do anything
for him in bringing in business?
A In my position I had the ability to assist Mr. Gray
in getting city business.
Q My question to you, though, is even when you

weren't in that position, Mr. Gray said to you or would
say to you, Oliver, if there is anything you need, if I
can help you out, let me know?
A He would say that once in a while. I interpreted
that as meaning cash.
Q And that happened even when you weren't in any

position?
A I was always in a position of public influence as a
city department head or as Chief of Staff.
Q But Mr. Gray never asked you to do anything, and he

1440
had known you for many years, is that right?
A Specifically, he never asked anything specific
until the shuttle issue, the energy issue, and the public
meter maintenance contract issue. Otherwise, no, he did
not.
MS. WHITAKER: If I may just have a
second.
Q In fact, the day that you were fired, when you no

longer held the position of power, didn't Mr. Gray offer
if there was anything he could do to help you out, to let
him know?
A I resigned.
Q I'm sorry. The day you resigned and you no longer

held that position of power, didn't Mr. Gray say to you,
if there is anything I can do to help you out, Oliver,
let me know?
A I don't recall those exacts words, but I recall

talking to Mr. Gray after.
Q And didn't Mr. Gray -- or to help you in that

position?
A Yes.
Q And he knew that you couldn't do anything for him,

correct?
A Yes.
Q I just have one more question.
1441
I asked you earlier about your introduction

of Miss McGilbra to Mr. Jividen and Mr. Gray. You asked
for nothing of value and received nothing of value for
that introduction, is that right?
A That's correct.
MS. WHITAKER: No further questions.
MR. JENKINS: No, sir, your Honor.

- - -
BY MR. DETTELBACH:
Q Please explain in your own words what you told the

FBI at the meeting regarding the $2,000 Mr. Gray gave
you.
A I was in the meeting a couple hours. I admitted
accepting money from Mr. Gray. Initially I tried to play
it off as it was a loan. Thirty seconds later I admitted
that it was not. There was no terms of repayment or
anything like that. I just took the money when I
shouldn't -- I knew I shouldn't have.
Q And Miss Whitaker asked you some questions about

whether Mr. Gray asked you for any help while you were in
Cleveland working for Mayor White.
Do you remember those questions she asked

Q She j u s t a s k e d you some q u e s t i o n s w h e t h e r N a t e Gray
a s k e d you f o r h e l p w h i l e you w e r e i n C l e v e l a n d w o r k i n g
f o r Mayor W h i t e ?
A Yes.
Q Did M r . Gray n e e d y o u r h e l p t o g e t b u s i n e s s i n
C l e v e l a n d u n d e r Mayor W h i t e ' s r e i g n ?
A No.
Q Why n o t ?
MS. WHITAKER: O b j e c t i o n , y o u r Honor.
MS. WHITAKER: I ' m s o r r y , I have one
question.
THE COURT: No.
MS. WHITAKER: Specifically with t h a t
question.
THE COURT: I just sustained the
objection. H e d i d n ' t g i v e an answer.
MS. WHITAKER: I understand. I think he's
done. I was g o i n g t o a s k o n e more q u e s t i o n b a s e d on
h i s redirect. J u s t one q u e s t i o n .
THE COURT: Ask y o u r q u e s t i o n f r o m t h e r e .

- - -
RECROSS EXAMINATION
1443
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q You said that you spoke to the FBI that day, and 30
seconds later you took full responsibility for everything
you did, is that correct?
A No. I said I was with the FBI. And yes, after
once saying that it was a loan, that I admitted that it
was not.
Q Isn't it a fact that the large majority of the

eight page interview was the last paragraph you
admitted --
THE COURT: You said it was a loan early
and then what? Said later on that it was not a
loan?
THE WITNESS: And then right after talking
I said no, it wasn't a loan.
BY MS. WHITAKER:
Q When you took responsibility for everything, did

you ever mention the meter contract or --
MR. DETTELBACH: Objection. Beyond the
scope.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. It's
beyond the scope.
We'll see you Monday morning, 8:00
o'clock. Be here.
1444
Over t h e weekend, d o n ' t t a l k a b o u t t h e
c a s e w i t h anyone, d o n ' t form a n y o p i n i o n s o r e x p r e s s
any. Leave t h e p a d s f a c e down a n d w e ' l l d i s t r i b u t e
them t o y o u .
So w e ' l l a d j o u r n u n t i l t h a t t i m e .
- - -
(The p r o c e e d i n g s were a d j o u r n e d 4 : 55
p.m., F r i d a y , A u g u s t 1 2 , 2005 u n t i l 8:00
a.m., Monday, A u g u s t 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 . )
I, Richard G. Delmonico, O f f i c i a l C o u r t R e p o r t e r
N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f Ohio, E a s t e r n D i v i s i o n , d o h e r e b y
c e r t i f y t h a t t h e foregoing i s a t r u e and c o r r e c t
t r a n s c r i p t of t h e proceedings h e r e i n .
&,&A,/ 6d d ) g / ~ -
Richard G. ~ e l ~ o n i s
568 U.S. C o u r t h o u s e
Akron, O h i o 44308
( 3 3 0 ) 375-5666
I N D E X
OPENING STATEMENTS:
On behalf of the Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
On behalf of Defendant Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
On behalf of Defendant Gray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
On behalf of Defendant Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT:

Nina Upsshaw 412 448
Eric Brewer 459 --
Gloria Lovel6ce 467 479
Michael Dubose 492 496
Emmanuel Onunwor 498 576
Carmello LoParo 671 675
Michael Day 676 700
Jeff Donovan 711 728
11 It
774 826
Peter Smith 921 930
Glynnis Nelson 951 959
Diane Pinson 1028 1037
Monique McGilbra 1217 1280
Garland Hardeman 1352 1379
Oliver Spellman 1397 1418
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
EASTERN DIVISION

)
Plaintiff, ) Judge James S. Gwin
) Criminal Action
vs . ) Number 1:04CR0580
)
NATHANIEL GRAY, AND )
GILBERT JACKSON, )
1
Defendants. 1
- - - - -
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE
THE HONORABLE JAMES S. GWIN,
JUDGE OF SAID COURT, AND A JURY,
ON MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2005.

xm
?&
z
i-q-
nc
-
fi>
EZ
2~
VOLUME 6
- - - - -
APPEARANCES:
For the Government: STEVEN M. DETTELBACH,
BENITA Y. PEARSON,
MARY BUTLER,
Assistant U.S. ~ttorneys
Fourth Floor - U.S. Courthouse
801 Superior Avenue West
For the Defendant WILLIAM T. WHITAKER, ESQ.

Whitaker & Rowlands
190 N. Union Street
Suite 301
Akron, Ohio 44304

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Official Court Reporter: Susan K. Trischan, RMR, CRR, FCRR
U.S. District Court - Room 568
Akron, Ohio 44308-1811
440/570-6950
(Proceedings out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Why don't you take a seat?
We have had a report over this Monday, one of
the jurors has come in and said that somebody followed them
Friday and was writing down their license plate numbers, and
writing down the license plate numbers of three --
potentially three of the jurors who, as I understand it, had

parked somewhat near each other.
Do you know anything.about this?
MR. DEITEZBACH: Yes.
THE COURT: H a s an- from the United
States, any investigator or anybody else in any way followed
the jurors?
MR. DETTEL;BACH: No.
THE COURT: We have a representative from the
M&shalls Office.
To your understanding, is the Marshal s
Office, either by way of offering protection or otherwise to
jurors, has anybody followed any of the jurors?
THE DEPUTY MARSHAL : No, sir.
THE COURT: Do you know anything about this?

MR. WHITAKER: I h o w nothing whatsoever about
it, Your Honor. Nothing whatsoever.
I'mwondering, did they give a description?
THE COURT: I'm going to ask the juror to cone
in and give whatever description they can.
Do you know anything about this?
MR. JENKINS: No, sir, Your Honor, not at all.

MR. WHITAKER: I'vegot to tell you we find
it --
THE COURT: I'll tell you, I'm currently, if
there's anything that indicates that any of this is pointed
towards one or the other defendants, we're likely going to
have a hearing as to whether the bond ought to be
immediately revoked on this case because I'm not going to
permit that kind of conduct from somebody.
And, likewise, if we find evidence that some
representative of the government has in any way followed
these jurors, I'm going to look at sanctions against the
representative or the body who was involved in that.
So I'm going to ask that the deputy bring in
juror number 13.
I'd also ask, I want to speak to you just
about samething else.
Ma'am, would you come up here?
A JUROR: Yes.
(Proceedingsat side-bar:)
THE COURT: Okay. I want to talk to you about
that.
This is kind of a separate issue.
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: We've gotten some -- why don't you
step right over there for a second? I want to talk to the

parties about some of the other issues.
(Juror away).
THE COURT: There's also been a complaint by
"The Plain Dealer" basically complaining that somebody from
the Marshal's Office has been heavy-handed in telling "The
Plain Dealer" reporter to leave witnesses alone after
they've testified, if they don'twant to talk.
And unless somebody convinces me to the
contrary, the position I would say is the witnesses are free
to talk but they also have a right, if they don't want to
talk, not to be harassed.
And so and I also want the representative of
the Marshal's Office, don't get into any conversation with
them, but if you see somebody in this situation, what's the
Court security officer'sname?
THE DEPUTY MARSHAL: It's John.
THE COURT: Could you come forward?
(CSO present at side-bar).
THE COURT: Let me just, we're getting some
complaint from "The Plain Dealer" saying that the Marshal's
Office, but they m y be describing your position as well,
has interfered with their ability to interview witnesses
when the witnesses apparently did not want to, you know,
continue a conversation.
I've indicated without objection from the
parties that basically if the witnesses want to talk to the
reporters, they are free to do so.
If they don't want to, they've got a right not
to.
So I would ask the Court security officers and
the Marshal's Office to basically abide by that direction.
THE CLERK: Yes, I checked.
THE COURT: If they want to speak, they're
welcome to. If they don't want to speak, they also have
that option as well.
THE AGENT: I checked with that on Friday with
my men. No one talked to a news media person.
THE DEPUTY MARSHAL: I think I discussed it

with --
THE COURT: Sir, did you --
THE DEPUTY MARSHAL: Well, when JYr. Joseph

Jones was leaving, the attorney said "No corrrment,"they kept
bugging him. And he tried to get in the elevator after they
spoke to him the day before.
I said "Youmight want to limit going in and
out of the courtroom because the Judge doesn't like
distractions, so if you would limit. Every time a witness
leaves, you go up and leave and come back, it's more a
distraction for the Judge and the Court."
I reminded him if he kept going i
n and out,
the Judge might restrict access.
THE COURT: Stay away from him, okay?
THE DEPUTJ MARSHAL : No problem.
THE COURT: You guys can leave at this point.
Ma'am, would you come forward?
(Juror present at side-bar)
THE COURT: Can you tell us your number?
A JUROR: 27, my original number, not my juror
seat.
THE COURT: All right. Your original numbr.
There has been some description something
happened Friday.
A JUROR: Yes. Idhen three of us were walking
out of the building, there were three people behind us. And
when we got in our vehicles, people were writing down our
license plate nurribers. And the one person said "That'sone
of them," because my windows were down, and she looked at me
and smiled.
THE COURT: Would you describe the people?
How m y people?
A JUROR: Three. I only saw them in the
courtroom on Friday.
THE COURT: You did see them in the courtroom
on Friday?
A JUROR: Yes. They were present in the
courtroom, and two of them rode down in the elevator with
some of us jurors.
fund I think there were a couple other people
that weren't -- I don't remember who else was there.
THE COURT: Describe them.
A JUROR: The one gentleman, he sat over on
this side, he had gray hair, kind of unkenpt looking,
longer, about as long as mine. He had a white shirt on.
Tino ladies sat on this side, one was blond
hair about this long, yellow shirt, and the other one had
her hair pulled back.
THE COURT: Okay.
A JUROR: And, like, pin things in it.
THE COURT: Okay. What's their ages? What's
their races?
A JUROR: They were all white.
The gentlemn, I would put him at 45 to 50.
The longer blond-haired lady, mid-forties.
And the young girl, I would say 20s to 30s.
THE COURT: menties to 30s?
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you know who they are?
THE DEPUTY MARSHAL : Personally I don't know,
but 1 do know they sat in the front, two ladies.
A JUROR: They were a couple rows in front of
you.
THE DEPUTY MARSHAL: Yes, I do remaker than.
The gentlaran, he was a white gentlesoan?
A JUROR: Yes, with gray hair. There was
another guy --
THE DEPUTY MARSHAL: Curly hair, faded black
and wearing a tie?
THE COURT: Was the gray-haired guy kind of
bushy hair?
A JUROR: Yes. He sat all the way on that
side against the wall second row back mybe, but he was all
the way against the wall, and it wasn't anyone that had been
in the courtroom previous this week that I had noticed.
THE DEPUTY MARSHAL: I know the description of
the guy, the gentlemn.
A JUROR: Because on Thursday there was
another guy that sat in the row that you sit. It wasn't
him. It was a different one this time.
THE COURT: Does anybody -- I had some
suspicion who they were, but do --
MR. WHITAKER: My question is, two questions
actually.
THE COURT: Don't go to that.
Just do you know who they are?
MR. WHITAKER: I have no idea.
THE COURT: Is that going to cause you any
problems in fairly judging the evidence?
A JUROR: NO. NO.
THE COURT: Okay.
A JUROR: And no one contacted me this

weekend.
THE COURT: Have you talked to anybody else
about this?
A JUROR: Tina saw them, too. I said --
THE COURT: W t ' s her number, do you know?
A JUROR: She's one of the alternates. She
sits in the back row all the way against this side.
Is that number 14? I'm not sure.
THE CLERK: Mary, too?
A JUROR: I don't h o w if Mary Ellen saw that,
or not, but Tina, we had talked.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any other
questions for her?
MR. WHITAKER: Wt I was curious
abgut
is the
kinds of discussions you might have had with Tina dr anybody
else, and whether there was any suspicion who they might
have been or --
A JUROR: I just said did you see people
standing out there writing on their tablets when we left on
Friday, and Tina I believe said yes. I'm not completely
positive.
I have no idea who the people were. They
didn't have, you know, any tags on them or anything when I
saw them.
And what was discussed in the elevator was
credit cards.
THE COURT: He's saying he thinks they are
reporters.
THE DEPUTY MARSHAL: The one g e n t l m with
the white hair is.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have anything else?
Thanks, m ' a m .
(Juror away)
THE COURT: Can you get T ina?
(Pause)
THE COURT: Ma'am, would you come up here?
(Juror at side-bar).
THE COURT: There's been an indication that
you m y have -- sane people m y have -- something may have
happened Friday.
A JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Can you describe it for us?
A JUROR: There was three of us that walked
out to the parking lot together, and when we walked out
there was -- I'm not sure of the nurriber of people -- there
was a few people that were walking around writing down what
appears to be license plates of the vehicles.
THE COURT: Okay. Can you describe these
people?
A JUROR: Not really. I just was kind of -- I
just hurried up and kind of got in my car and left so.
THE COURT: Is that going to have any impact
upon your ability to fairly decide this case?
A JUROR: NO.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions? First
for the government.
MR. DEWTELBACH: No.
THE COURT: Do any of the defense attorneys
have any questions?
MR. WHITAKER: Yeah. Do you have any
suspicions about who they might be or --
A JUROR: No, sir, I don't. Like I said, I
just got in my car and I just left, so I have another job
I've been going to after I get done with jury duty. I just
get in my car and (indicating).
MR. WHITAKER: Did you have any discussions
with anybody else, any of the other jurors about it?
A JUROR: No, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Thanks, ma'am.
MR. WHITAKER: I'm wondering, who was the
other person? There were three persons?
A JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITAKER: It was you and the worran just
now and one mre?
A JUROR: One more. Another woman.
MR. WHITAKER: Do you know which number?
A JUROR: I'm not sure.
THE COURT: Nwnber or first name?
A JUROR: It's -- it's --
THE COURT: You're juror five. Is it juror
ll?
A JUROR: Yes, that's a possibility. I mean,
I don't know.
THE COURT: Okay. 'I'hank you.
A JUROR: Okay. Thank you.
(Juror away)
MR. DC-H: I would ask you to instruct
them not to discuss it when they go back.
THE COURT: Could you ask that one to came
back real quickly?
THE CLERK: The first one?
THE COURT: The one that was just here.
And also get number 11.
(Jurors at side-bar)
THE COURT: Just don't say anything about this
to anyone.
A JUROR: Oh, absolutely. Yeah.
MR. JENKINS : Judge, if they come in and they
recognize the reporters, should they at least announce to
the Court they are in the courtroom?
THE COURT: Ma'am, would you walk up here?
Did something happen on Friday when you were
leaving the building?
A JUROR: I don't know. Could have been.
THE COURT: Okay. Did anything unusual happen
in tern of people following you when you left the building?
A JUROR: NO.
THE COURT: Okay. You didn't notice anything?
A JUROR: No. We was out about ten minutes
early on Friday. No, I just went right to m y car and right
down the road.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any questions?
Do you have any questions?
Thanks, again.
m ' t talk to the other jurors about what I've
asked you.
A JUROR: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Unless there's
something further, we'll get started.
MR. DETEXBACH: Yes, Your Honor.
THE DEPUTY MARSHAL: I f I notice them in the
courthouse or --
THE COURT: I'm going to, unless there's some
objection, I'm going to put an order on that no one's to
have contact with or follow any of the jurors.
MR. WHITAKER: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. Could you -- you
can --
(Discussionhad off the record).

(Ehd of side-bar conference).
THE COURT: So we'll go back on the record.
My impression of this is it's most likely a
reporter who has followed the witnesses -- or followed the

jurors.
I'm going to put an order on that no one,
including reporters, is to have any contact with any juror
until the jury is discharged.
You're not to say anything to tha. You're
not to be in proximity to them. You're not to follow them.
F;nd you'renot to m k e any efforts to contact them or any
other merriber of their f d l y until this jury is discharged.
It ' s again, you know, an example of behavior
that, you know, shows the disrespect for the process that ' s
going on.
We'll ask the jury to come in.
Let me just clarify, just to be clear as well,
no one is to seek to obtain any FBI 302s or any other
s t a t m t s that are under seal. And what I'm going to -- to
facilitate that, after each witness is called and testifies,
I'm going to require the defense attorneys to return the
302s that they had earlier received to the government.
Wait just a second, Gwen.
So after you've conducted your examination,
cross-examination of the respective witnesses, you're to
return the 302s to the government until such later time that
you can make a showing that you need them.
So you can have possession of the 302s until
that time, but after you've concluded the &nation as to
each of the witnesses, I want you to return those to the
government so that we know exactly where the 302s are during
the course of the trial.
But again, nobody is to make an effort to get
those prior statements by the witnesses.
So we will begin.
(Jury in1
THE COURT: Would the United States call your
next witness?
MR. DFITELBACH: The United States calls Ray
Elmer.
RAY EHMER,
of lawful age, a witness called by the Government,
being first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
THE COURT: Please take a seat. Once you get
seated, state your name and spell your last name.

THE WITNESS : My name is Raymond h e r ,
E-H-M-E-R.
THE COURT: M r . Dettelbach.
DIRMPT EXAMINATION OF RAY EHMER
BY MR. DETT-CH:
Q. Mr. Ehmer, what c o m i t y do you currently live in?
A. I live in Houston, Texas.
Q. And with whom?
A. I live with my wife.
Q And who is your current employer?
A. My current employer is Center Point Energy.
Q. And was there a period of time you worked for another
company in Houston?
A. Yes. I worked for a company called Reliant Energy.
Q. How long did you work with Reliant?
A. I worked for Reliant or its predecessor companies for
about 18 years.
Q Can you walk us through your career at Reliant?
A. Started in 1984 in their corporate planning area.
Worked in the regulatory arena mrketing and then i
n the
retail energy unit beginning in 2000 or 2001.
Q I want to direct your attention to 2000, 2001.
Can you tell us what you did there, what your
job was at Reliant?
A. My job was to head an origination business development
or sales organization. I had the title of vice president.
The name of the business unit was Reliant
Energy Solutions, and we had responsibility for selling
retail electricity to consumers and related energy services,
principally to large corrnnercial and industrial customers.
Q- Now, did something happen in 2001 that caused a
procurement opportunity for Reliant?
THE COURT: I'mnot sure what you mean by
"procurement opportunity."
Q Well, there was a contract up in the City of Houston?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. What was it that happened to cause that contract to
come up?
A. The electricity markets, beginning in January, 2002 in
the State of Texas, were deregulated, meaning that consumers
could choose their provider of electric service.
Q. And specifically with respect to the City of Houston,
the City itself, did that create a procurement opportunity
for Reliant?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Now, can you tell us sort of the scope or the
different parts of the Houston energy contract?
A. Yeah. There were principally two parts of it.
One, the City was interested in choosing a
provider to provide the electricity for all of their
facilities.
The second aspect of the contract was the City
was interested in something called demand side management
services -- some refer to it as energy efficiency or
conservation services -- which involved having a service
provider assess their facility to potentially retrofit those
facilities to M e them m r e energy efficient.
Q And was it going to be two separate contracts or the
same contract for both?
A. It was going to be under one separate contract.
Q. And with respect to your company, Reliant, did you do
both those things?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Were you interested?
A. very.
Q. Describe sort of your level of interest in getting the
Houston energy contract.
A. Well, the City of Houston, prior to the market's
deregulating, was the company's largest customer, so clearly
it was a customer that we were very interested in winning
that procurement.
Q. And what was y o w particular role in the procurement?
A. My role was to lead the sales team for Reliant as it
related to that effort.
Q Okay. Now,.hadthe City of Houston retained any
consultants to advise it in its decision on its contract?
A. Yes, they had.
Q. Who was that?
A. It was a firm by the name of Camp, Dresser, McKee.
Q. What was your m i n competition, your main competitors
on this contract?
A. Principally two other competitors: One company named
TXU which was an energy company out of Dallas, and the other
company was Ehron Corporation headquartered out of Houston.

Q. Can you tell us, sort of walk us through the three
steps in the selection process?
A. The way the City set up their procurement process, the
first step was either entitled an RFQ or RFI, basically a
qualifications round whereby the City would then narrow the
list of competitors down to a short list.
Those that were invited to participate in the
second phase would s ~ their
t response to their request
for proposal, and then there was a best and final after that
initial suScanittal of the request for proposal.
Q. Now, who was the point person for the City of Houston
on the procurement?
A. A woman by the name of Monique McGilbra who had the
title of director of building services for the City.
Q And who was her lead technical person?
A. A g e n t l m by the name of Felix Johnson.
Q Can you give us sort of the t h e frame for when the
procurement was going on?
A. Generally late summer of 2001 through Decerriber of that
same year.
Q. When was the actual decision made abut who won the
contract?
A. It was early Deceniber. I think there was a decision,
and final contract I think was signed around the 11th or
12th.
Q During that period, from the late summer to Decerciber,
can you describe sort of the frequency of your contact with
Monique McGilbra?
A. Probably on average, one time a week in o m 1
meetings.
There also probably was dialogue via the
telephone at that time.
Q. Now, in a contract of this mgnitude, can you tell us
sort of what the overall value of the contract is?
A. As I recall, it was a 30-mnth electricity contract
that had a total value, based on their historical
consumption, of about $180 million.
Q. So with respect to that, a contract of that magnitude,
are there usually going to be subcontractors?
A. It is typical to do that, although on the electricity
side there were not a lot of subcontractors that
participated in that portion.
Q hihen you say "the electricity side," that's opposed to
the demand side m a g e m a t side?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. And typically, who selects the
subcontractors that you're going to use as a prime?
A. Typically the prime contractor or general contractor.
In this instance for our company that would have been
Reliant.
Q In the process of competing for this particular
contract, did Reliant actually on its own suggest certain
subcontractors?
A. Yes, we did.
We suhitted several in our proposal.
Q. All right. And who were those that you came up with
on your own?
A. I mean, there were several mentioned.
Those that I rmember were a company by the
name of CH2M Hill, and a company by the name of Power Soul.
Q. And using those two examples, were there specific
reasons to have those two companies as subcontractors?
A. Yes, there was.
In the instance of CH2M Hill, they had a
particular expertise in the water and wastewater treatment
facilities that the City owned, and that was an area that
Reliant didn't have particular expertise in.
In the instance of Power Soul, they were a
minority-owned business that was beginning in the energy
comnodity space, and as part of the procurement, the City
had laid out, I guess, goals in terms of trying to encourage
minority and women-owned business participation.
Q. Now, at some point in the process, did it end up that
there was also a company called Honeywell that was a
proposed subcontractor?
A. Yes. Yes, it was.
Q. Now, is Honeywell a minority contractor?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. And at that time did Reliant have any business
expertise in demand side ~anagementitself in-house?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. I want to ask you about the process of how Honeywell
got in there.
Let me ask you, first of all, at what stage in
the three stages that you described, IVQ, proposal or best
and final, did Honeywell make its first appearance?
A. It made its first appearance in the best and final
proposal.
Q. Now, if you could please show Bihibit 808.
Do you recognize this cover page from what is
a large binder?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Wnnat are we looking at here?
A. This was the cover page of Reliant Energy'sbest and
final offer for the City of Houston.
Q. And what is the date on this particular best and final
proposal?
A. November 28th) 2001.
Q. Who took the sort of the lead on putting this binder

together for --
A. That was -- that was my responsibility.
Q. And is this the document that you talked about that
Honeywell is mentioned?
A. Yes. Well, this is the cover page of the f u l l
document, yes.
Q. Right. I mean it's -- can you show with your hands
A. Voluminous doczlment, three-ring binder. I wouldn't
venture to guess how m y pages.
Q Tell us -- you can take it down.
Can you tell us in your own words how it came
about that Honeywell was included in Reliant's best and
final proposal?
A. I guess the first mention was a meeting that we had
with the City of Houston, the purpose of which was to review
Reliant ' s first proposal, the middle proposal before the
best and final, to kind of review that document. Both the
consultants and the City of Houston gave suggestions of
where they thought the proposal was strong, where they
thought it potentially had holes.
It was at the conclusion of that meeting that
Ms. McGilbra from the City of Houston asked to speak with me
in private, and had mentioned to me as a suggestion to
enhance our proposal, she -- she suggested that the
inclusion of an additional subcontractor Honeywell in this
case could be added to our proposal.
Q. What was your reaction to that?
MR. WHITRKER: Objection.
A. Surprise.
Q- my?
A. Simply because we had expertise internally at the
company in that particular area similar to that of
Honeywell .
Q. Can you tell us in your own words at what stage of the
competition, in terms of importance, did this conversation
happen with M s . McGilbra?
A. I don't remember the exact dates, but as I recall we
mybe had a couple of weeks to finish up our proposal,
subnit it.
So it was at the most intense part of getting
our proposal done and then having it evaluated.
Q. And at this point when she spoke with you, how badly
did you want the contract?
A. I think I stated earlier, the City of Houston was our
largest customer previous, prior to deregulation, so it was
a very important contract for Reliant.
Q. All right. Now, I want to ask you some questions
about the meeting that preceded your conversation with
Ms. McGilbra.
How many people were at the meeting?
A. It was a room full of people. Maybe ten to 20.
Q. And people from what organizations?
A. Principally three organizations: Reliant Energy, the
City of Houston, and the City of Houston's consultant CI3IM or
Camp, Dresser, McKee.
Q. At that meeting did anybody bring up the name

Honeywell?
A. NO.
Q. bhen was the first time it came up that day?
A. It came up when Ms. McGilbra asked to speak with me at
the conclusion of the meeting.
Q Now, after Ms. McGilbra spoke with you, did you
contact anybody at Honeywell?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you call their Houston office?
A. No, I did not.
I called --
(2. Why not?
A. I don't recall exactly.
I either asked Ms. McGilbra or I later called
her to ask who a contact name for Honeywell was, and I
was -- I was or a member of my staff was given that
information, and then we contacted Honeywell.
Q. And what name were you given?
A. Brent Jividen.
Q. In what City?
A. In Cleveland, Ohio.
Q. And did you, indeed, meet with Mr. Jividen?
A. Yes, I did.
Q And did you, indeed, include Honeywell in that best
and final proposal?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Would you have done that had Ms. McGilbra not brought
up that name?
A. No, we would not have.
Q Now, as the actual contracting date approached, was
there another document involving Reliant and Honeywell?
A. As I recall, we executed, Reliant and Honeywell,
either a letter of intent or a memorandum of understanding;
basically a nonbinding agreement to agree to negotiate,
potentially work together, as it relates to the d m d side
mnagement activities for that potential contract.
Q. Please display Ekhibit 811.
All right. And if you could blow up the text
just so he can read it.
All right. Do you recognize what this is?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is 811?
A. 811 is a doctument, a letter of intent, addressed to
Mr. Jividen at Honeywell Energy Services.
Q. And if you could scroll up, could you please read for
us the date on this letter of intent?
A. December llth, 2001.
Q. Did you receive any calls from Ns. McGilbra regarding
executing letters of intent with subcontractors?
A. Yes, I did.
Several days prior to that date, so it must
have been Deceniber 10th or so, i%. McGilbra had called me
and asked that for all of our named subcontractors or at
least several of the named subcontractors, that we execute a
document similar to the one that we did here with Honeywell.
Q. And was Honeywell one of those that was mentioned?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Did Reliant end up getting the Houston energy
contract?
A. Yes, it did.
Q Please display 812. And this is the first page and,
first of all, do you see your name on this particular
document?
A. Yes, I do, in the upper right comer.
Q. And what is this?
A. This appears to be the cover page of the contract for
the electricity supply agreement between the City of Houston
and Reliant Energy Solutions.
Q. All right. You can take that down.
Now, Mr. Ehner, shortly after the contract
began, did you have a career change?
A. Yes, I did.
I -- I left Reliant Energy Solutions in July
of two -- or I think it was the end of June, 2001, to go to
a sister company which was at that time Center Point Energy,
my current employer.
Q After you m d e that job change, did you have any
further contact with the Houston energy services contract?
A. No, I did not.
MR. DFITEL;BACH : Nothing further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Cross-examination.
MR. WHITMER: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS--TION OF RAY EHP/IER
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Ehmer. My name's Bill Whitaker and
I represent Nate Gray, and I'm going to ask you a few
questions.
If I ask you anything you don't understand,
just let me know. I'mglad to repeat it.
A. Okay.
Q. As I understand it, Reliant's demand side business has
gone out of business?
A. I believe that is correct. It certainly was moving,
waning down prior to me leaving.
Q. And but the energy supply, the electricity side,
that's still going?
A. Yes, sir.
Q- Still doing business with the City of Houston?
A. Best of my knowledge, it is.
Q. Supplying electricity to the City of Houston?
A. Best of my knowledge, it is.
Q. An enormous contract?
A. Right.
Q. All right. So that was the important part of the
contract to you; not the demand side, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Although, if you could have got the denand side, that
would be a nice little piece of business as well, right?
A. Potentially it could be.
Q. Okay. Now, you're in the sales side of it, am I
correct?
A. At -- at that time?
Q. Yeah. With Reliant.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, let me rephrase that to be accurate.
You were on the sales side at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And so it was your job, sort of business
development and build the relationships that are necessary
to sell a contract of this magnitude, am I correct?
A. That, as well as the technical aspects of putting the
proposal together, et cetera.
Q. On the building relationships side and the business
development side, are you the one from Reliant that gave
Ms. McGilbra the tickets to the Houston Texans football
game?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Are you aware of the fact that Reliant did provide her
tickets to a football game?
MR. DE!TTELBACH: Objection. Basis of
knowledge.
M R . WHITAKER: She testified to that.
THE COURT: If he doesn't have howledge, he
can't testify.
MR. WHITAKER: Let me rephrase it.
THE COURT: Do you know anything dbout it?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, I do not.
THE COURT: Okay. You need to go on to an
area he has knowledge about.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. Do you have any knowledge about the tickets she got to

the Lion King production from Reliant?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Okay. You are aware that there is a budget for the
business development side, the building relationships side
of a contract like this?
A. There is a budget for the department that, yeah, that
involves sales. There certainly is a budget, yes.
Q. And sometimes that involves taking people that are
involved in the contract out to dinner?
A. That could be.
Q. All right. Sometimes to sporting events?
A. That could be, yes.
Q. Okay. Now, as I understand it, Honeywell was included
in the best and final proposal that was sul-anitted on
November 28th?
A. That's correct.
Q. So it was sometime before that that Honeywell was
suggested to Reliant?
A. That's right.
Q. All right. And you said around the time of your
presentation of the middle proposal?
A. That ' s correct.
Q. Do you have a date for that?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you have -- have you looked at that date on that
middle proposal in anticipation of your testimony here?

A. No, I have not.
Q. Were you asked by the government to check out those
dates or to look at that contract?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Okay. Now, if I understood your -- oh, the City of
Houston was new to the energy business, isn't that correct?
A. No. And let me -lain.
Q Sure.
A. The City of Houston bought electricity for years and
years, except it was not competitively procured. There was
a regulated utility that provided electricity, so they
clearly knew how to manage it and manage building and so on,
so forth.
Mhat was new was there was never competition
for the selection of energy because that only began to exist
in 2002.
Q. So they hired a company to help them with that
procurement process, which was the new part to them?
Q. And that was CDM?
A. That's correct.
Q. And are you aware that CDM m d e proposals about
subcontractors?
A. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Made --
Q. Recommendations and proposals and reviewed all
potential contractors and subcontractors?
A. Yeah, they certainly reviewed the proposals that we
subnit, and I think their job was to provide counsel to the
City of Houston.
Q. And one of their jobs was to advise them on what
companies were credible and what companies could do the job
and what companies couldnlt,isn't that correct?
A. I don't know because I didn't work for them.
Q. I know you didn ' t work for them but, you know, in
attempting to -- how many millions of dollars did you say
the electricity was?
A. I think it was about $180 million.
Q. In the process of trying to sell this $180 million
project, you certainly did look to see what kind of role CDM
was playing?
A. Certainly. They had a consulting role to the City.
What, you know, what directly they advised the
City on, I don't -- I don't how.
Q. Okay. But you do know one of the things that their
consulting role included was recornending and evaluating
potential contractors and subcontractors?
MR. DEIITEL;BACH: Objection. Asked and
answered.
THE COURT: Why don't you ask one question?
Q. Do you -- you are aware that one of their -- within
the scope of their charge was evaluating potential

contractors and subcontractors?
M R . DFITELBACH: Objection. Compound.
THE COURT: Well, do you know anything about

what their responsibilities were to the City of Houston?
A. Not in the specific.
I have a general idea that they advised the

City on all aspects of the contract, of which that would be
part, but I don't -- I never saw a contract between CCR/Iand
the City that specifically had that role laid out.
Q. Okay. Now, this meeting that you went to after this
su3cgnission of the middle proposal, you don't b o w what that
day was either, is that correct?
A. Not directly, I don't.
Q. Okay. And if I understood your testimony, that was a
meeting where the City officials could react to your
proposal and tell you -- give you suggestions and tell you
areas they might have been concerned about?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. And I think you used the word if there was
any holes in the contract, that's a time when you would have
wanted to know about it?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, just so we're clear on it, the
difference between the supply side and the demand side is on
the supply side, you provide the energy to the City, isn't
that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the demand side, the pwrpose of the d m d side is
to try to reduce the need for that supply?
A. That's correct.
Q All right. And you'll agree with me that it is
possible that someone might have thought it might be a
little bit of a conflict to have the people that are getting
paid to supply it also responsible for diminishing the
amount of supply that was necessary?
A. No, I would not agree with that. It's very typical to
conaningle those because price, which is the supply side of
the electricity times the volume, equals the value, the
total value that could be provided relative to all energy
procurement.
Q. I can understand how you might think that, but my
question is you can understand how somebodty else might think
it looks like that, you know, we might be better served
having a totally independent company responsible for the
reduction in the need --
MR. DElITELBACH: Objection.
Q. -- for the electricity?

He can't testify as to what somdmdy else
would think.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay.
9. But if there were any concerns like that, that was the
meeting where they needed to be raised, right?
A. It was the City'smeeting. Again, the purpose was to
review and get feedback to the various firms at that stage
in the process.
Q. You said somebody told you, somehow you got the name
of Brent Jividen as the contact person, but you don't know
where it came from; it might have even been one of your
subordinates that found out that Jividen was the name?
MR. DC-H: Objection. Compound.
Q. You didn't find out, it'spossible you yourself didn't
even find out that Jividen was the contact to call, is that
right?
A. That's right. I testified I didn't recall how that
name got to me.
Q. All right. And if I understood your testimony, it
might have been one of your subordinates that told you that?
A. That could have been.
Q All right. And actually, Mr. Jividen was surprised
when you called him, that you were calling him about this
contract, wasn ' t he?
MR. DITiTELBACH: Objection.
Q. Did Mr. Jividen, based on your understanding and your
perception of the phone call, did Mr. Jividen appear to be
surprised to get your phone call?
MR. DFITELBACH: Objection.
THE COURT: You'll have to rephrase it.
Q. How did Mr. Jividen react when you made the phone
call?
A. I don't remember. In fact, I don't remanber if I
placed the phone call to Mr. Jividen or my subordinate,
probably JW. Tipton, so I just don't recall.
MR. WHITAKER: If I might just have one
second, Your Honor.
(Pause).
Q. Oh. Let me ask you this way: Based on your
perception at the time, did it appear that Mr. Jividen was
not expecting the call?
MR. DmTELBACH: Objection.
A. Can you repeat that, I'm sorry, one more time?
Q. Based on your perceptions at the time, did it appear
that Nr. Jividen was not apecting the call?
A. NO.
Q. No what?
A. It did --
Q. It did not appear that way?

A. -- not appear that he was surprised.
Q All right. So in other words --
THE COURT: I don't understand what you -- why
don't you try to say he was surprised or he was not
surprised?
THE WITNESS: One, I don ' t recall if I mde
the call, but I did meet with W .Jividen.
I don't recall the surprise on his behalf of
being contacted.
Q Do you recall giving a statement to the FBI on
August 12th, 2003, at Page 4?

THE COURT: Wky don't you show it to him?
MR. WHITAKER: I will.

MR. DliWEJBACH : Your Honor, it ' s not his
statement.
MR. WHITAKER: I'll show you right now, Your
Honor. It sure appears to be.
THE COURT: It'snot, but it's a 302, right?
MR. WHITAKER: Yes.
THE COURT: Ask him if that refreshes his
recollection.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. I'm going to show you this. As you can see the front
page, it appears that it starts off "Mr. Ehmer was
interviewed."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, I want you to look at this line here.
THE COURT: Okay. Just show him the line.
Go ahead and read it, and then he'll ask you a

question.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q Okay. Do you see this line?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Starting "When Ehmer . "
A. It says "When Ehrner . "
THE COURT: Don't read the statement. Read it
to yourself and he'll ask you a question.
THE WITNESS : Okay.
(Pause).
A. Okay.
Q Now, my question to you is does that refresh your
recollection about whether Mr. Jividen appeared to be
expecting the call?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. Isn't it a fact that you told the FBI that he did not
appear to be expecting your call?
A. I don't -- I don't recall mking that statemat.
Q. But that's the statement you just read?
Q. Now, Honeywell is still in the demand side management,

aren't they?
A. I don't know if they are or they are not.
Q. You know Honeywell to be a major corporation in the

United States?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Providing services to many, m y cities?
A. I assume they do. I know they M e lots of products
and at one time were in the demand side management area.
I'm not aware that they still are in that area
of business.
Q. You don't know one way or the other, correct?
A. 1 don't know if they're in that business today --
Q. All right.
A. -- of derrwld side management.
I know they're a corporation that still exists
and have many lines of business.
Q. Now, another company that you mentioned was CH2M Hill,
am I correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And they were among your subcontractors that were a
part of the -- these proposals, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q All right. You know them to be a reputable company?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You know them to provide a good product, one that
you're proud to associate with?
A. Our experience when we had worked with t h e m on various
proposals was that they provided a good service.
MR. WHITAKER: If I m y have one second, Your
Honor.
( Pause) .
MR. WHITFXER: Nothing further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: J!Tr. Jenkins.
MR. JENKINS: No questions, Your Honor.
MR. DFlTELBACH: No, Your Honor.
witness?
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, m y we approach,
a scheduling matter?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Proceedings at side-bar:)
THE COURT: Just to complete what we had
talked about before, you need to return 302s.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I can return those
because the ones I was not cross-examining them, I will
bring them back.
THE COURT: You will bring them back at a
break?
MR. JENKINS: Tomorrow, because some of the
witnesses I knew I wasn't going to question.
THE COURT: And just to kind of fill that out,
gather all the ones that you have that dealt with the 302s
before, and I want you to return them.
If for any reason the case comes back for
another trial or some other reason, you know, we'll set up a
procedure where you can review the Jencks material prior to
the examination and because of the problems we have --
MR. JENKINS : Only problem I have, I have some
privileged notes that I wrote on them as relates to
Mr. Jackson.
THE COURT: Well, you can put them in an
envelope and seal them.
MR. JENKINS: Okay.
MR. WHITAKER: And we had some as well. I
mean, it's going to be no srrall task. We have them all over
the place right now. We have copies made of some, and
obviously we're going to prepare our closing based on some
of then, too, but I think we will do our best to gather them
up tonight and --
THE COURT: I don't know how you would use

them in closing.
MR. WHITAKER: Well --
THE COURT: But in any case, get them
together
What's the scheduling issue?
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, Your Honor.
With respect to the government's case, we're
prepared to offer our exhibits and rest.
THE COURT: Okay. Have you exchanged a list
of what exhibits you're going to offer?
MS. PEARSON: We haven't exchanged it, no.
MR. DETIELBACH: We have the list of the whole
we just prepared this morning, the list that we are prepared
to offer. I think we have enough copies.
MS. PEARSON: We do have enough copies.
THE COURT: Are they much different?
MR. DEITELBACH: No, not really. I think one
difference is the government plans to only offer the tapes
that were played, so fewer tapes.
There are a couple different &bits. It's
basically the same number.
THE COURT: Okay. What I would ask you to do
is provide them with a list of the ones you're going to
offer, go through them, and we will try to get through that
in the same general f o m t that we used the last time.
I'll tell the jury that we will take abut 15
minutes.
Get the list to them right away.
MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Wait.
MR. WHITAKER: We wanted to mention something.
MS. WHITAKER: I didn't think about this when
we were up here earlier talking about with the jurors, what
the jurors had said, but Friday we were loading up the car
and one of the reporters I think from "Cleveland Magazine"
had said "Is samething going on, is something going on" and
I said "Not that I know of."
And he said "I saw some 'PlainDealer'
reporters huddled together in the parking lot so I was
wondering if something was going on."
And I didn ' t think about the two in
comection, but I think that might be something to do with
that, just to let you know.
THE COURT: What's your schedule in terms of
who's your first witness?
MR. WHIT=: I have them.
THE COURT: They are all here?
MR. WHITAKER: Yes, we are ready to go. We
have every witness available that I'm aware of except the
guy that we told he could come in tomorrow mrning.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DC-H: Can we know who the
defendants plan on calling?
THE COURT: Yeah, m t ' s the order?
MR. WHITAKER: We're going to call Mr. Brown
first, then we're going to call Mr. Tortora, then we're
going to call probably one of the character witnesses and
then we're going to call Mr. Natkins.
Beyond that, we haven't --
THE COURT: Okay. That will take --
MR. WHITAKER: Then we have some more
character witnesses after that.
THE COURT: Okay. But you have basically a
full day?
MR. WHITAKER: I don't think. I think we will
get done fairly expeditiously. I think we m y be done early
today.
Yeah, we also, and in that line, too, Your
Honor, we would like to have the opportunity to make a
Rule 29 motion. There are some things we would like to
specifically argue.
THE COURT: You'll get that chance, but they
had in the motion filed on behalf of -- who's coming
tomorrow?
MR. WHITAKER: Brain Casey.
THE COURT: He had indicated you subpoenaed
somebody else with a lot more knowledge?
MR. WHITAKER: No, the government subpoenaed
Buddy Reneau and decided not to call him.
THE COURT: You didn't subpoena him?
MR. WHITAKER: No. We had been told Buddy had
been subpoenaed by the government as well.
THE COURT: So he still m y be in your case?
MR. WHITAKER: Certainly I'm going to meet
with him tonight, but I expect to be done --
THE COURT: I wonder, you know, in regard to
the motion, the motion as I recall did not come in because
of some closing.
I'm wondering whether given the schedule you
have, whether there might be an ability to try to get ahold
of Sozio and have Sozio try to get him here late this
afternoon.
M R . WHIT=: I asked him about that because
I wanted to meet with him tonight. Of course, that will be
a problem, too, because I want to meet with him, but he told
me he expects him back about 6:00 o'clock.
THE COURT: All right. We will take a recess
for a period of time and exchange those lists.
What's your expected witnesses?
M R . JENKINS: I have read the government's
mtion that they filed, I believe it's Friday, Saturday, and

I'm not going to call Mr. Jackson.
THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.
(End of side-bar conference).
THE COURT: Just for the jurors, it helps,
would the government call your next witness?
MR. DEITELBACH: Yes, Your Honor.
Subject to the offer of the government's
&bits, the United States rests.
THE COURT: Okay. We're in a position where
the government has mstly concluded their case. They
haven't completely concluded it because they have not
offered the &bits, so we're going to take a recess to
afford them the time to assemble all the exhibits that
they're going to try to offer, and to give the defendants an
opportunity to see if they have any objections to those.
And then for the Court to make a decision as
to whether the proffered &bit should be received or not
received.
I'm going to -- we'll stand in recess 15
minutes. There's a lot of witnesses -- or a lot of exhibits
so it rnay take some period of time beyond that, but I want
you to understand that we haven't forgotten about you and
it's just simply we will try to get through this as quickly
as we can.
Okay? Let me also once again remind you that
you can't talk about the case, either among yourselves or
with anyone else. You're also not to form any conclusions
or express any.
So remind you of the other instructions as
well.
And I w i l l renew the question I had e a r l i e r ,
have any of you read anything about t h i s case? Anybody
heard any news reports or otherwise listened t o anything

about this case? Has anybody talked t o you about t h i s case?
Have you talked about the case with anyone else?

Okay. We'll stand in adjournment, a l i t t l e
over 15 minutes, and w e ' l l come get you as soon as we axe

finished with t h i s .
(Jury out) .
(Recess taken) .
THE COURT: Does the government move the
admission of any &bits?

MR. DETTELBACH: W e do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What exhibits do you move the
admission of?
MR. DFITEL;BACH: On the first page, 3, 4 , 5
and 6 .
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, would you l i k e us
t o note the exhibits as we go along -- I mean the
objections?
THE COURT: No, I want the whole l i s t , so i f
you would just go through the &ole list.

MR. DETTEL;BACH: Yes, Your Honor.
Onthesecondpage, 7, 8, 9 , 10, 11, 14, 16,
1 9 , 23-A, 25-A, 26-A, 27-A, 100, 1 0 1 .

THE COURT: I'm sorry, loo?
MR. DmTEL;BACH: 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106,

107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118,
119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 130, 215, 224, 300,
301, 301-A, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 306-A, 307, 307-A, 308,
308-A, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313 through 366, 367, 368, 369,
401, 405, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417,
418, 419, 420, 430, 431 through 463, 465, 500, 501 through
521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706,
707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718,
719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 726-A, 727, 733, 734, 735,
736, 737, 740, 741, 742, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807,
808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 819, 820,
821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 833, 834,
835, 836, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 844, 845, 846, 847,
848, 850, 851, 852, 853-A, 855, 901, 902, 905, 907, 908,
909, 910, 912, 913, 914, 915, 1000, 1001-A and B, 1002-A and
B, 1003-A and B, 1006-A and B, 1012, 1012-A and B, 1014-A
and B, 1018-A and B, 1020-A and B, 1021-A and B, 1022-A and
B, 1025-A and B, 1026-A and B, 1027-A and B, 1028-A and B,

1029-A and B, 1030-A and B, 1032-A and B, 1033-A and B,
1066-C, 1035-A and B, 1036-A and B, 1038-A and B, 1039-A,
and 1039-B, 1040-A and B, 1041-A and B, 1042-A and B, 1043-A
and B, 1044-A and B, 1045-A and B, 1047-A and B, 1048-A,

1062-A and B, 1063-A and B, 1065-A, 1066-C, 10 --
THE COURT: Wait, I'm sorry. The list doesn't
have a 1066-C.
MR. DFITELBACH: Going to the next page, the
top of the next page, Page 23.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DETTELBACH: 1066-C, 1066-B, 1067-A and B,
1104-A and 1104-B, 1106-A and B, 1110-A and B, 1111-A and B,
1151-A and B, 1152-A and 1152-B, 1153-A and B, 1154-A and B,
1159-A and B, 1161-A and B, 1162-A, 1162 B, 1163-A and B,
1208-A and B, 1209-A and 1209-B, 1211-A and B, 1212-A and B,
1228-A, 1228-B, and 1 4 1 8 .
W e o f f e r those exhibits.
THE COURT: Okay. D o e s the defendant G r a y
have any objection t o any of t h o s e ?

MS. WHITAKER: Y e s , Y o u r Honor, I do. W e do.
D e f e n d a n t G r a y objects t o --
MR. JENKEQS: Judge, w o u l d you l i k e us t o do
them a t the s a m e time because we have the s a m e ones

basically?
THE COURT: Okay. Have you consulted w i t h
m. Whitaker?
MR. JEMDJS: Y e s , w e have.
THE COURT: And do you o f f e r the s a m e
objection?
MR. JENKINS : Y e s , Y o u r H o n o r .
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. WHITAKER: Subject t o enhancements.

THE3 COURT: What exhibits do you object to?
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we object to
Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 all for the same
reasons. These are M I . Onunwor's financial disclosures.
Mr. Gray has not been charged with anything in
connection with these. In fact, he's been specifically
acquitted of anything relating to these, so they are
irrelevant, they are prejudicial.
It's including the fact that there's a lot of
stuff that M r . Onunwor didn't report, so that fact isn't
hown to the jury as well.
THE COURT: What's your response?
MR. DFITELBACH: The response is the same as
when we offered the exhibits, they are overt acts in
furtherance of the concealment, and Mayor Onunwor
specifically testified he had a conversation with Mr. Gray
about not being sure to be able to trace the source.
MS. WHITAKER: I don't believe Mr. Onunwor was
asked this question at this trial.
THE COURT: I think they still are relevant to
the inquiry, so I think they are relevant and I'll receive
them even though he was acquitted on the public services
mil and wire fraud. I think they are still relevant to the
overall conspiracy so I'll --
MS. WHITAKER: May I just add that Mr. Onunwor
was not charged as a co-conspirator in the RICO conspiracy,

and he's the one that did these overt acts by sending them
in.
THE COURT: I know, but I think they are
relevant to the RICO conspiracy.
MS. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: So 1'11 receive 1, 2 -- or 1'11
receive 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Do you object to any other exhibits?
MS. WHITAKER: Yes, Your Honor.
We object to Exhibit 14, it's the audit. I
don't think that the audit is relevant. He hasn't been
charged with anything to do with the audit.
THE COURT: I think it's relevant.
It'sbackground mterial in tern of the
actions that were taken to both cancel the OMI contract and
also the -- it's relevant to his decision to terminate the
service contract with the Javitch Block law firm.
I%. WHITAKER: I think the record reflects he
actually withdrew his cancellation of the OMI contract.
THE COURT: Okay. There was some testimony to
that effect, but I think it's still background material for
what was going on.
And there was wite a bit of testimony about
the auditors' audit of these, so I'll receive 14.
Do you object to any others?
JS. WHITAKER: Yes. We have no objection to
THE COURT: Just tell me which ones you object

to.
MS. WHITAKER: Okay. We object to -bit
Nlmber 19, the subpoenas. You sustained this objection the
last time they were offered.
They are highly prejudicial. They
don't -- Mr. Gray received counseling from his attomey on
these subpoenas, and I think that they are irrelevant and
prejudicial.
THE COURT: I'll overrule that objection. In
this case there's quite a bit more testimony with regard to,
that the jury could draw an inference that the subpoenas had
been received and then all these sekngly business records
are contained in a knapsack in your client's closet, and I
think a jury could reasonably believe that the subpoenas are
relevant to the issue as to whether he had secreted
documents that were inculpatory so --
MS. WHITAKER: Again, I would just say as

Mr. Gray received counseling from his attorney on that, I
don't think that -- I think that creates a prejudicial view
of the jury of that fact.
THE COURT: So are you saying his attomey
told him to take mterials that were responsive to the
subpoena and he should secrete them?
MS. WHITAKER: No, I'm not saying that. I'm
sorry, I apologize if that is how it sounded.
I'm saying what advice Mr. Gray did or did not
get in relation to the subpoena was on advice of counsel,
and I think it's prejudicial to --
THE COURT: So you're in effect saying -- are

you saying his attorney told him to take the business
records from his office out to his house and put them in a
knapsack?
MS. WHITAKER: No, I'm saying he had
discussions with his attomey about whether or not certain
documents were or were not responsive.
THE COURT: What testimony do we have that
supports that?
I%. WHITAKER: None.
THE COURT: You're raking kind of a -- okay.
I'll overrule the objection. I'll receive 19.

MS. WHITAKER: We object, Your Honor, to
Exhibits 23-A, 25-A, 26-A, 27-A. These are the time lines.
THE COURT: I'll sustain those objections.
Exhibit 110. I think it's the photograph of the U.S. Bank
on Euclid Avenue. I think it's irrelevant.
THE COURT: I'll overrule that and receive it.
1502
MS. WHITAKER: Ekhibit 111 and 112 are the

same ones as the actual evidence. One is the photcgraph of
the evidence. I don't think you need both of them in there.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll sustain the objection
as to 112, and I'll receive 111.
MR. DlZTEZ3CH: And, Your Honor, just for the
record, some Courts don't allow that kind of stuff to go
back and that's the only reason we offered it.
Exhibit 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 and 126.
are photographs. We think that
All of ~ e s e
they are irrelevant, with a special -- 126, there's a
photograph of a garage with a backpack. Absolutely no
evidence with a garage with a backpack or photograph shown.
THE COURT: What's the relevance of 126?
MR. DFITELBACH: We can withdraw 126, Your
Honor. I don't think there was much testimony.
THE COURT: Okay. That will not be received.
The others will be received. I think they are
relevant.
-bit 130. I don't think there was any testimony about
tying these travel documents to any of the allegations
against EuIr. Gray.
THE COURT: I'll overrule that objection and
receive it. I think there is relevance.
MS. WHITAKER: We object to Exhibit 215 -- oh,
excuse me, no, we don't object to &bit 215. I apologize.
THE COURT: That will be admitted.
MS. WHITAKER: We object to w i t 224.
These are the summary of payments to Earl Brown. There's
been absolutely no testimony that Mr. Brown did anything
improper; that the contract with Mr. Brown was improper in
any "ay.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. I
think it is relevant, so it ' s relevant as to background, at
a minimum, so I' 11 overrule the objection.
I'll receive 224.
MS. WHITAKER: -it 301 and 301-A appear to
be the same letter, so we would object to Exhibit 301 and
have no objection to 301-A.
MR. DFITELLBACH: 301 is the signed one. 301-A
was a business record which was produced. It is unsigned.
They are identical other than that.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll receive them a ~ e n
though they are duplicate. I think there was some testimony
that one was received in the premises of Onunwor in East
Cleveland. I think that alone gives it same relevance.
MS. WHITAKER: The 301 was received from
his -- from the City Hall.
THE COURT: Yes. Well, I thought they were
his offices at city hall.
MR. DFITELBACH: That's correct, Your Honor.
MS. WHITAKER: Okay. We object to Exhibit
304. This is the partnership agreement at Javitch, Block.
I don't see what relevance it has.
THE COURT: What relevance is it?
MR. DETTELBACH: I suppose at this point we
can withdraw that and use that in the defense case if we
need it.
THE COURT: Okay. 304 will be withdrawn.
MS. WHITAKER: We object to Exhibit 305. I
don't know what relevance that has.
THE COURT: Those are the payments. Remind
me, 305 is what?
MR. DEITELBACH: Yes, Your Honor. That ' s the
Javitch financial records that shows the mney.
THE COURT: I think it's relevant so I'll
receive 305.
MS. WHITAKER: -it 306 and 306-A are the
same letter. We would object to 306, and have no problem
with 306-A.
MR. DFITELBACH: Your Honor, if we had to
choose one, we would choose 306 which is the signed one, but
we would withdraw the other if the Court wishes.
1505
THE COURT: The government withdraws 306-A,

and I'll receive 306.
BE. WHITAKER: Again 307 and 307-A aren't the
sarne letter, Your Honor. We would object to 307 and have no
objection to 307-A.
MR. DC
-H: And again, Your Honor, we
will withdraw 307-A which is unsigned, but we believe 307 is

the better exhibit.
THE COURT: I'll receive 307.
MS. WHITAKER: And again 308 and 308-A are the
same letter. We would object to 308. No objection to
308-A.
MR. DETIELBACH: And same response, we would
offer 308 if we had to choose between the two, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, do you withdraw
308-A?
MR. DETlELBlCH: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll receive 308, and 308-A is
withdrawn.
MS. WHITAKER: We would object, Your Honor, to
Exhibits 311 and 312. These are bank cards for ETNA and
Mr. Gray. They have account numbers on them and they are
irrelevant in terms of the evidence against Hr. Gray.
THE COURT: What's the relevance?
MR. DETTELBACH: Just to show the mney went
into an account controlled by the defendant, Your Honor.
r/rs. WHITAKER: I don't think -- I think
there's other documents, surmrwies, checks, all say where

the money has gone in this case.
THE COURT: I'll receive 311, 312, but we will
blank out the account numbers on them.
MR. DEITELBACH: Yes, Your Honor.
Exhibit 409, to the summary payments between CH2M Hill and
Ralph Tyler Company. They are not involving any payments
lMde to Mr. Gray.
THE COURT: I'll receive that. I think
there's evidence that a reasonable jury could believe that
Ralph Tyler just acted as -- to forward Mr. Gray's bills to
CH2M Hill and forward the payments to Mr. Gray, so I think
they are relevant.
MS. WHITAKER : W e would obj ect, Y o u Honor, to
*bit 410. I don't think that the -- Mr. Gray's contract

with Ralph Tyler, the sumnary of the payments to the Ralph
Tyler Company to EI'NA, we don't think they are relevant.
THE COURT: I think they are, and I'll
overrule the objection and receive it.

MS. WHITAKER: Exhibit 4 1 1 is the consolidated
s v . This is a sumrrary of &bits, I believe 408, 409
and 410. I believe those exhibits speak for themselves,
involve sumvaries and it is a s m r y and duplicative, 411.
THE COURT: I believe it is a sumnary but it
is necessary, so I'll overrule the objection and receive it.
MS. WHITAKER: We would object to Exhibit 430.
These are accounts receivable ledgers between Ralph Tyler
Companies and CH2M Hill, and I don't believe that they
involve Mr. Gray or EITNA and so they are irrelevant.
THE COURT: Okay. I think there's been some
relevance established, and I'll receive them.
MS. WHITAKER: We would object to -its
431, 463 for the same reasons I mentioned.
THE COURT: And I'll rule the same way. I
think there is relevance and they are admitted.
*bit 465. I don't believe there's been any testimony
about this article. It's a newspaper article that affords
hearsay and it's irrelevant.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DEITELBACH: This is an article that the
defendant is overheard discussing with Mayor Onunwor.
MS. WHITAKER: I don't believe anybody --
MR. DFITELBACH: It's on the tape.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll receive it.
MS. WHIT=: Your Honor, we would object --

I%. WHITAKER: I 'rn sorry.
THE COURT: If the parties wish, I'll consider
an instruction to the jury that it's not received for the
truth of the statements made in the newspaper article, but
it was just received for the fact that the article had been
published and it m y have relevance to conversations that
followed.
But it's somewhat up to the parties if they
want that instruction.
MS. WHITYXER: If it's going to be adnitted,
yes, we would like a limiting instruction, Your Honor.
THE3 COURT: Okay. Do you object to any of the
others?
MS. WHITAKER: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
We would object to Exhibits 500, 501 through
521 and -bit 522. These are payments between Ralph Tyler
Company and ETNA Associates.
We don't think there's been any evidence of a
crime involving the Ralph Tyler Campanies in payments to
ETNA, and they are irrelevant.
THE COURT: I think there's relevance. You
know, the argument the government makes was Ralph Tyler was
just a conduit to hide the payments that CH2M Hill was truly
intending to rn&e to EIN3, and that the fact that the

payments were kxmeled through Ralph Tyler for seemingly no
work and the exact same amounts were funneled through to
FIlVA was just an effort to hide the money from public
scrutiny as to where the money was caning from.
So I think they've got relevance and I'll
admit them.
MS. WHITAKER: Yes, sir.
Your Honor, we would object to Ekhibit 709.
It's the agreement between the City of Cleveland and Camp,
Dresser, McKee in April, 2003. I don't think there's been
any testimony tying this contract into anything of value
given to a public official, so they are irrelevant and
prejudicial.
THE COURT: What if they believe the idea that
Ciaccia was receiving $425 a mnth for his daughter's
education?
M S . WHITAKER: I believe that that was --
THE COURT: Or that he was receiving tickets

to 20 Indians' games?
I mean, if a jury believed that, wouldn't it
have relevance that Camp, Dresser, McKee had this contract?
PIS. WHITAKER: I think in terms of the Kent
State payments, those were, I believe, 1996 or 1997 so I
don't think they would have any relevance to a 2003
contract.
And I don't think that there's been any
evidence that taking Mr. Ciaccia or Ciaccia to an Indians'
game is illegal or --
THE COURT: Well, couldn't the government m k e
the argument that -- I thought it was a somewhat longer time
period, but couldn't the government m k e the argument that
they bought and paid for him in earlier years, and he gave
the contract later on in recognition of the monies he had
been receiving over earlier times?
MS. WHITAKER: I don't think, first of all,
that there's been any evidence that the 425, went to
Ciaccia, went to the Kent State University at all or was
intended to by Mr. Gray.
THE COURT: Unless you believe the testimony
about Mr. Jackson.
MS. WHITAKER: I also think something that
happened in 1996 is far too attenuated for 2003 to be a quid
pro quo for the Hobbs Act violation.
THE COURT: What was MY. Ciaccia's position in
2003?
MS. WHITFXER: 2003 I believe he was the
Co&ssioner, Water Comrrcissioner.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll overrule the objection
and receive it.
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we ob:ject to 710.
This is the final sheet from the Corrunissioner's agenda. I
don't think it's been shown anything of value was given
relating to this contract.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, we can -- it's a
little bit duplicative of the contract itself.
We will withdraw 710.
THE COURT: You will withdraw 710? Okay.
MS. WHITAKER: The 711, the Lexing
domentation for Nottingham Cleveland water division, I
think this was a time when they gave contracts to many
different corrpanies and there was no evidence that anything
was given of value in return for the Nottingham project.
THE COURT: Do you have any response?
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, Your Honor, the same
response as we did to 709, we do believe this is part of the
ongoing pattern providing things of value to Commissioner
Ciaccia.
THE COURT: I think your argument goes m r e to
weight rather than to admissibility, and I'11receive 711.
MS. WHITAKER: We would object, Y o u Honor, to
Exhibit 712. Ms. Pinson testified that MY. Gray never asked
her to do anything. There's been no evidence that this
check was made to do anything. There's no evidence that she
ever did anything in exchange for the hotel stay that she
had.
THE COURT: What was her position with regard
to Ciaccia at the time?
MS. WHIT=: She worked as a secretary, I
believe, in the water department.
MR. D?TPTELBACH: In addition to that, Your
Honor, she had a close personal relationship with him, and
there's a specific tape where Mr. Gray and W. Jackson say
that -- I think the exact quote is "That girl's special to
that man. If you want to stay in his good graces, you do
things for her."
MS. WHITAKER: I believe Ms. Pinson testified
they were friends. There was no testhny that they were
anything more than that or anything was asked of her since
she's the one that received the thing of value.
THE COURT: I'll overrule again. I think it
goes more to weight than admissibility.
MS. WHIT=: Your Honor, we would object to
&bit 713. I don't think that there has been -- there's
been ample evidence that things like baseball tickets are
not necessarily a violation or not violations of the Hobbs
Act, and then this, these records are irrelwant and
prejudicial.
THE COURT: I'll overrule, and I'll receive
the 8 -- 713.
MS. WHITAKER: Exhibit 714, we would object
to. I believe it's -- the exhibit goes back to '96,is that
right?
MR. DE;TTELBACH: Yes.
MS. WHITAKER: Mr. Gray's association with CC91/I
is a legitimate contract. He received these invoices and

payments pursuant to that contract, and I think it's
irrelevant.
THE COURT: I'll overrule and I'll receive.
think it has relevance.
Exhibit 715, these are the Kent State University records.
think that there's no connection to anything on those
records showing 425 in any relationship to any payments
allegedly made, and I think that they are prejudicial and
irrelwant. And I don't know that anybody testified about
them.
THE COURT: Didn'twe have testimony that this
increase in the monthly payments to Mr. Gray occurred about
the '96 time frame that she started college? That his
payments increased $425 when the contract had provided for a
$2500 monthly retainer?
MS. WHITAKER: Right. But as I said, Your
Honor, these records show no relationship to any $425
payment. That's just one of probably many bills Ciaccia had
at that time.
THE COURT: Was there any evidence there was
any kind of negotiation between JW. Gray and them or any
kind of reason given for -- why would they otherwise raise
the monthly retainer from 2500 to 2925?
MS. WHITAKER: I don't think that there was
any evidence about anything presented about why that these
records in particular, this exhibit, as well as I don't
believe it was identified. I don't remenher if it was.
MR. DE'ITEXBACH: It was, Your Honor.
MS. WHITAKIB: That they have any relationship
to this 425.
THE COURT: I'm not going to -- but you've got
testimony that Mr. Gray's got a contract, a number of
contracts. Each contract seems to be documented by a
specific written docurnat between CDM and him, giving a
particular dollar m u n t that they're going to pay, plus
expenses, right.
MS. WHITAKER: Urn-hmm.
THE COURT: And you've got testimony that at

this time period in '96,his payments under the written
contract are going to be $2500 a mnth.
There'sno other -- why would they ever raise
it to 2925 if they didn't have a written contract and
there's no testimony from anybody that there was another
reason why it was raised?
MS. WHITAKER: Well, I don't think there's
been any testhny b u t that these records, this
is -- where this 425 went or that's where his 425 was
supposed to go.
THE COURT: Except for the testimony about
Mr. Jackson's statement.
Okay. So I think again there is testimony
that supports it. There's relevance, so I'll overrule the
objection and I'll receive that exhibit.
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we would object to
Exhibit 717.
THE COURT: Rernind me, what is 717?
MR. DETTELBACH: 717, I believe, is Rony
Joel's letter proposing on that contract, it's basically his
cover letter where he is competing for that contract in the
same time frame.
THE COURT: I'll receive 717. I think it is
relevant.
MS. WHITAKER: And again we would object to
Exhibit 718. We think the agreement between the City of
East Cleveland and the City of Cleveland was irrelevant, and
there's no evidence that things of value were exchanged for
this contract in 2001.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection and
receive. I think there is relevance.
NS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we would object to
-bit 720. This is one of several payments made to
M r . Jackson. I don't think there's been any testimony that
this $2500 went anwere besides to Mr. Jackson. I think
it's irrelwant and prejudicial.
THE COURT: Didn't we hear a phone call about
the need to flip mney to this New Orleans official?
MS. WHITAKER: There's a conversation where he
says flip it, but there's no explanation of what that means,
if it ever happened.
THE COURT: Doesn't that go to weight, that
the jury could choose to believe when the person uses the
term "Flip it" in a discussion about a public official in a
decision-making position, the jury could choose to believe
"Flip it" doesn't have any relevance to transferring it, but
I think alternatively they could come to the conclusion that
it referenced the payment to him.
So I'll overrule the objection and I'll
receive 720.
MS. WHITAKER: I have the same objection, Your
Honor, to 721.
THE COURT: I'll overrule that.
MS. WHITAKER: 722, Your Honor, we don't think
is relevant.
THE COURT: I think it's relevant for the same
reason.
MS. WHITAKER: The same objection, Your Honor,
to 723.
THE COURT: That will be received. That's
also relevant.
MS. WHITAKER: Same objection, Your Honor, to
724.
THE COURT: That will be received.

MS. WHITAKER: And, Your Honor, 726-A and 727,
again our objection is that we don't think that there'sbeen
any evidence that any money given from Mr. Gray to Ivlr.
Jackson was used to violate the Hobbs Act or any other law
so we think it'sprejudicial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: There's also the RICO conspiracy.
What's the theory, why else would J2r. Gray be
paying Mr. Jackson mney?
MS. WHITAKER: Because Mr. Jackson was working
for Mr. Gray as a subconsultant.
THE COURT: I ' m sorry?
MS. WHIT-: Mr. Jackson was working for
Mr. Gray as a subconsultant.
THE COURT: I'll overrule that. I think there
was some evidence that there were payments to public
officials for public acts that were related to these
payments. I think it's also relevant to show the
relationship between Mr. Gray and M r . Jackson.
MS. WHITAKER : Object, Your Honor, to Exhibit
733. I ' m not sure that this is relevant. I don't believe
there was any testimony relating to it.
MR. DETTELBACH: There was, Your Honor.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, this is found in

Mr. Gray's home. It's an e-mail from Gilbert Jackson with
some writing on it where they talk about this particular
contract that they want Mr. Gray to help them get, and it
also says that the contract is going to be awarded
politically.
THE COURT: Can you pop it up? Is that it?
MR. DETTEXBACH: It shows both the connection
between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Gray, and it also is evidmce
that certainly it should have been turned over pursuant to
the grand jury subpoena, and it was not.
MR. D
-CH: Then at the bottom there's
some writing. It'shard to see.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll receive it. I think
it's relevant.
-bit 734. I don't think any of the to-do lists or those

notes are relevant, and they are prejudicial.
THE COURT : Overruled.
MS. WHITAKER: 740, Your Honor, is a duplicate
of the check that I spoke of earlier to Ns. Pinson. Besides
being duplicate, we have the same objection, but it is also
irrelevant and nothing was asked of Ms. Pinson for this
check.
MR. DEITELBACH: Your Honor, we withdraw this
exhibit.
THE COURT: Okay. That will be withdrawn.
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, Exhibit 741 and
742, I think they are the same e-mils from the same time
period.
MR. DITIELBACH: Your Honor, we can withdraw
742. I think 741 is the more carrlplete one of the two.
MS. WHITAKER: And, Your Honor, we would
object to 741.
I don't think that there's been any evidence
that something of value was given in exchange for anything
on these e-mils. I think the e-mils are irrelevant.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll overrule the
objection. I think they do have relevance.
Exhibit 801. These are the Ritz Carlton invoices. I don't
believe that the -- they are prejudicial, they are
irrelevant, and thereIs been direct testimony by
W . McGilbra that when she arrived and proceeded to the
hotel, she had no idea she would ever be doing any business
with either Mr. Gray or W . Jackson.
So there can't be any intent on any of this to
show an intent for anything official.
THE COURT: I'll overrule on there. I think
the government's theory is this was the start of a number of
gifts that were given in direct return for her official
actions.
MS. WHITAKER: Right. But I believe that the
only evidence in terms of when she received these gifts,

when receiving a gift in violation of the Hobbs Act, it has
to be knowing it's in exchange for something official.
And at this point both Ms. McGilbra and
Mr. Hardeman testified when they got there and proceeded to
the hotel and went to the gift shop or whatever they did,
they had no idea they would ever be asked to do anything,
Ms. McGilbra in her official capacity.
THE COURT: Except at the time she knew she
was in the energy service rrw?agment contract.
MS. WHITAKER: Right, but --
THE COURT: Well, at the time she goes, isn't
the more important time when she checks out? She checks out
after she'shad this discussion with Jividen and after
Jividen's note to her a h s t offensively I tried to get on
board the energy services contract.
When she goes down to check out, I think they
are relevant to the fact that she accepts the payment when
she knows Mr. Gray is connected with Jividen and she knows
Honeywell is interested in sticking their nose under the
tent in the electric service contract.
MS. WHITAKER: I think her testkny was
that was Mr. Jividen who discussed it with her; not
Mr. Gray, and that's who she thought was paying for the
hotel.
THE COURT: How does she explain Mr. Jividen
shows up to Mr. Gray's party?
MS. WHITAKER: I beg your pardon?
THE COURT: Mr. Jividen shows up to Mr. Gray's
party. What did she think; he walked in off the street?

MS. WHITAKER: She attmted to put an end to
that conversation.
THE COURT: I mean, couldn't a reasonable jury
find that when she gets in here, Jividen only accompanies
them because Mr. Gray had asked him to or allowed him to?
MS. WHITAKER: I don't think there'sbeen any
evidence abut whether or not -- why Mr. Jividen was there.
THE COURT: Well, couldn't a reasonable jury
draw the inference that she has these conversations with
Mr. Gray. She's going to come to a Cleveland Browns game.
Suddenly she'spresented with a sales pitch

from Honeywell, and the sales pitch is made by somebody that
seemingly MY. Gray has invited to accompany them both to
dinner and to brunch and to the game.
MS. WHITAKB?: Let me just say that the gift
shop is dated 10/19/2001 and that is before she ever has any
conversations with Mr. Jividen either about Honeywell.
think it's relevant.
MS. WHITMBI: Your Honor, we have the same
objections to W i t s 802, 803 and 804.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll overrule those
objections. I think they are each relevant for the same
reasoning.
Exhibit 814. It's irrelevant.
THE? COURT: What is --
MR. DC-H: This is the actual check

signed by Mr. G r a y which has the notation Superbowl in the
m. This was the money he used to pay for Ms. McGilbra's
tickets.
THE COURT: R&d, who is Shawn Spring?
MR. DETTELBACH: He's a player. He actually
is a former Ohio State player. He was playing at that time
I believe for the Redskins.
THE COURT: Okay. I think it's relevant and

Exhibits 817, 819. They are irrelevant and prejudicial, and
I believe --
THE COURT: They wouldn't be relevant under
your theory?
Why wouldn't they be relevant if Mr. Gray pays
for a Superbowl hotel stay for a woman who is going to mke
the final decision on who gets the contract for the power
service in Houston?
MS. WHITAKER: I think Exhibit 813 details the
same thing Exhibit 817 does. There was a hotel stay for
$3,069.
THE COURT: mcept 813 deals with Honeywell
taking the cost, and 817 deals with Mr. Gray being the
conduit for Honeywell eating the cost.
I' 11 receive t h a n both.
MS. WHITAKER: We would object to Exhibit 824;
relevant.
THE COURT: I'll overrule. I thirik there is
relevance to it.
MS. WHITAKER: We would object to %bit 825.
I don't think that Honeywell's code of business conduct has
anything to do with the laws that Mr. Gray has been charged
under.
I think it's -- it would be inproper for the
jury to rely upon it, and it's highly prejudicial.
THE COURT: Okay. 1'11 overrule that. I
think it is relevant.
MS. WHITAKER: We would object to the
organizer notes, IMibit 826, relevance.
THE COURT: Okay. 1'11 overrule. There were
statements made by Mr. Gray, they are not hearsay, and they
are otherwise relevant to the timeline and his activities.
MS. WHITAKER : We would object, Your Honor, to
-bit 828 for its relevance and prejudicial value. It's
also the same, the Ehing we have in 817 and 815, Your Honor.
think the fact that it's found in the knapsack itself is
relevant, where he was secreting it after having been served
with the subpoena, so I think it's independently relevant
from the earlier one.
-bit 830. I don't know that there's been any testimony
on it, and its relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled. I think it's relevant
to the relationship between Mr. Gray and Ms. McGilbra.
MS. WHITAKER: Y o u Honor, we would object to
Exhibit 841, prejudicial and irrelevant.
The testimony I believe for Exhibit 841 was
that it was a birthday present.
THE COURT: That m y be.
The jury could potentially believe that, but
couldn't the jury alternatively believe that that was to
McGilbra? And so I'll receive it, and it is relevant.
MS. WHITAKER: Wibit 844, Your Honor, we
would object to for the same reason that we object to the
Cleveland codes. Mr. Gray is not charged with anything with
the Houston code of conduct. He's not a public official
subject to these laws, and they are prejudicial and
irrelevant.
THE COURT: Okay. I think they are relevant
and I'll receive them.
MS. WHITAKER: We object to Exhibit 846,
relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't remember what that is.
MR. DJ3TTEL;BACH: Your Honor, this is the
actual letter and it has -- names crossed out, but it's
basically the mmrandum of understanding that all the
conversations are about trying to get Ms. McGilbra to get
this contract with the City of Houston.
THE COURT: I think it's relevant and I'll
receive it.
MS. WHITAKER: Exhibit 853-A, Your Honor,
again this is Hotel Lecirque. We have several different
1526
exhibits that are in. I think it's irrelevant and

prejudicial to have continued copies of the same
THE COURT: m y is this one different from the

other ones?
MR. DETTELBACH: Hold on, Your Honor.
(Pause).
MR. DJTJTELBACH: That's fine, Your Honor. We
can withdraw it. This came from Mr. Hardeman, actually. He
kept this.
We can withdraw it.
THE COURT: 853-A will be withdrawn.
MS. WHITAKEE?: -bit 855 and 901, Your
Honor, we would object to both of those.
Again W. Gray is not subject to the Houston
Code of Ethics. There's been no testimony with regard to
&bit 901, whether or not Mr. Gray was involved in telling
M r . S p e l M to or not to disclose anything.
THE COURT: I'll receive than. I think they

are relevant.
MS. WHITAKER: E&ibit 907, Yowr Honor, are
bank statements for Mr. Spellman. I definitely don't think
we had any testimony about that, as well as it includes his
account number. I think they are irrelevant.
MR. DFITELBACH: Your Honor, we'll withdraw
that.
MS. WHITAKER: And in terms of the
transcripts, first, Exhibit 1000 is an index of
interceptions.
Are we just going to put on the index the
calls that are introduced?
MR. DEITELRACH: Yes, thank you.
Your Honor, after the Court rules on the
objections, we would propose to redact the index to take out
any reference to calls not played.
MS. WHITAKER: okay.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me raise kind of a
different issue or I can come back to it later.

MS. WHITAKER: I just have a couple more.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. WHITAKF=R: We would object, Your Honor, to
all of the intercepted conversations pursuant to our earlier
motion to suppress the conversations and the motions to
suppress the CCTV recordings.
THE COURT: Okay. And I'll overrule it for
the same reasons included in my decision.
MS. WHITAKER: I'll object to the transcripts
going back, Your Honor. They can't be relied upon as
evidence, and I think if they go back to the jury room they
will necessarily rely upon thm as such.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll give the pattern Sixth
Circuit instruction on that, advising the jury they can
consider it but it's not evidence.
MS. WHITAKER: Okay. And there are a couple
specific calls.
We would object, Your Honor, to Exhibits
1078-A, 1078-B. It's conversations --
MS. WHITAKER: I'm sorry, it's on Page 24.
THE COURT: What's the grounds for the
obj ection?
MS. WHITAKER: It involves Mr. Jones.
Mr. Gray has been acquitted on any charges dealing with
Mr. Jones, so relwant and prejudicial .
THE COURT: Do you want to speak to the
relevance?
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, Your Honor.
For the reasons that we set forth before, and
we understand that the Court has -- has overruled us on
numerous of these tapes, but for the reasons we set forth
before, we believe that Mr. Gray's interaction with
Mr. Jones is probative of his intent and it'sprobative of
the ongoing and continuing nature of the pattem of
racketeering conduct, Your Honor. It goes to both the
intent.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to
1078-A and B.
MS. WHITAKER : Your Honor, the objection, we
also have an objection to Exhibits 1081-A and B. Those are
conversations between JW. Gray and Mr. Teamor regarding
.&!J Jones and the loan which J%r.Gray has already been
acquitted of.
THE COURT: Well, you were the one that
offered them.
MS. WHITAKER: 1081?
THE COURT: Yes. You offered 1081.
MS. WHITAKER: I think -- I apologize.
THE COURT: I think your father did a
cross-examination on that.
MS. WHITAKER: Apologize. I withdraw that
objection.
THE COURT: I think that's correct.
MR. DETITELBACH: That is correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's the one dealing with Jones'
"Nobody listens to MY. Jones."
E.WHITAKER: That was only pursuant, Your
Honor, to the overruling of our objections to all the
conversations involving Mr. Gray and Mr. Teamor and
Mr. Jones. We objected to all these conversations coming
in.
THE COURT: Let me just ask, do
, you -- Mr. Wtaker used them.

~
I
Do you want to object to them? I thought they

helped your case. If you want to object to them, I don't
know that the government ever offered them.
MS. WHITAKER: We offered them, Your Honor,
because the Court --
THE COURT: Let me just cut to the question.

MS. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: Do you object to them?
MS. WHITAKER: I object to them if Your Honor
is going to allow in either 1078-A which you already
sustained for us, or 1088 which is another one involving
Mr. T m r .
I think 1081 is necessary.
THE COURT: It doesn't go that way. You
either object or you don't object.
Let me just ask you, do you withdraw that? It
was something they used in their case and it seemed to help
them mre than it helps the government.
Do you want to just withdraw that?
MR. DlTITEGWCH: Yes. We will withdraw that,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. WHITAKER: All right. And then we would

object, Your Honor, for the same reason Ekhibit 1088 is a
conversation between Mr. Gray and Mr. T e m r about Mr. Jones
and the loan to Mr. Jones.
MR. DEITELBACH: Your Honor, we believe that
this is highly probative evidence.
THE COURT: Which one was this?
M R . DFITELBACH: This is the straight
prostitute, Your Honor.

MS. WHITAKER: I think that is a conversation
Mr. Gray attributes to somebody else on the conversation.
It 'snot even his statement.
THE COURT: I think he -- and he agreed with
Sam Miller that all politicians should be treated as if
they'reprostitutes and whores, so I think the statement's
context was that that was Mr. Miller's belief, but that's
also what Mr. Gray subscribed to.
So I'll receive it. I think it's relevant.
MS. WHITAKER: And then finally, Your Honor,
we would object to Exhibit 1418. This is the mug given to
McGilbra by Mr. Jeffers. There has been absolutely no
testkny or evidence that this in any way relates to
Mr. Gray or Mr. Jackson or any of the charges.
It's on the last page.
MR. D m . : Your Honor, the testkny,
there's a call where Mr. Jackson tells Mr. Gray they put Ben
Jeffers on their team. Hs. McGilbra testifies she got $500
in cash and the mug.
THE COURT: Well, is the m g itself --
MR. DEITELBACH: The mug itself goes to show

it really happened. They obviously cross-examined
Ms. McGilbra to the effect she'smiking all this up.
She has something to prove she was there.
That's the probative fact.
WHITAKER: I believe they were talking
about doing conversations about New Orleans. I don't think
there was any relationship to Mr. Jeffers working on
anything in Houston with either CllM or Honeywell. There's
no question.
THE COURT: It does give some support for the
government's argument that she was there, and it gives some

support for the testimony that money was delivered with a
mg
MS. WHITAKER : I don' t think it has anything
to do with any of the charges and it's prejudicial.
THE COURT: What again -- apart from the
general RICO allegation, what specific charge does it deal

with?
MS. WHITAKER: I don't think it deals with the
RICO .
MR. DFITELBACH: Your Honor, it goes to the
Hobbs Act conspiracy charge with respect to Houston, also.
This is Ms. McGilbra receiving a thing of value from people
associated with the Gray enterprise, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
M R . DmEll3ACH: Cash actually.
THE COURT: I'llstill receive.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, could I say something
quickly?
Actually it was Rick Cloutier and CDM that set
that whole thing in motion. They never charged Mr. Cloutier
with this whole enterprise.
THE COURT: Yes, but Mr. Jackson is associated
with CEDI.
MR. JENKDJS: That's correct.

THE COURT: So mybe W. Jackson had some
connection. Cloutier may have had others.
I'll receive it. I think it's got relevance.
So with -- do you have any other objections?
MR. JENKDJS: Judge, I have one involving on
Page 38, Tape number 1228-A, Page 38. So-called happy
birthday tape with Monique singing.
THE COURT: What's the grounds for the
objection other than her bad voice?
MR. JENKTI'JS: Bad voice, and what is the
relevance of it?
THE COURT: I think it tends to show
the -- you know, their relationship and it also tends to
show Mr. Gray's connection with her, the fact that she
seemed intoxicated, he was there.
And I guess someone could draw the inference
that they had a connection, you how, that they were out
to -- having drinks together.
So I think it's got some relevance.
THE COURT: Thanks. Okay. With the receipt
of those exhibits, let me just go through the list.
I'd ask you to give attention to these. Just
to try to clarify, the Court will receive 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 14, 19, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,
108, 109, 110, 111, 112.
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Or, I'm sorry, I'll receive 111
but I will not receive 112.
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121,
122, 123, 124, 125, 126.
MR. D F I T E L B A . : Your Honor, we withdraw 126.
THE COURT: That's true. I'm sorry.
126 will not be received.
130, 215, 224, 300, 301, 301-A, 302, 303, 305,
306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312 with the deletion of the
account numbers, 313, 3 -- 313 through 366, 367, 368, 369,
401, 405, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, '14, '15, '16, '17,
'18,419, 420, 430, 431 through 463, 465 -- and again I'll
consider an instruction dealing with that -- 500, 501 to
521, 522, 523, '24, '25, '26,701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706,
707, 708, 709, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 720,
721, '22, '23, '24, '26-A, '27,733, 734, 735, 736, 737,
740, 741, 7 --
?YE. WHITAKER: Your Honor, 740 was withdrawn.
MR. Dl3ITELBACH: That's correct.
THE COURT: I thought 742 was withdrawn.
MS. WHITAER: And 740.
MR. D
-CH: I believe that's correct,
Your Honor, we also withdraw 740.
THE COURT: Okay. 741 will not be received.
MR. DFITELBACH: No, I ' m sorry, 740 and 742
were withdrawn. 741 was not.
THE COURT: Okay. That is correct.
740 and 742 were withdrawn.

I' 11 receive 741, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805,
806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817,
819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830,
833, 834, 835, '36, '37, '38,839, 840, 841, 842, 844, '85,
846, 847, 848, 850, 851, 852, 855, 901, 902, 905, 908, 909,
910, 912, 913, 914, 915, 1000, 1001-A and B, 1002-A and B,
1066, 1035-A and B, 1036-A and B, 1038-A and B, 1039-A and
1044-A and B, 1045-A and B, 1047-A and B, 1048-A and B, or
1048-A, 1049-A and B, 1050-A and B, 1051-A and B, 1052-A and
1062-A and B, 1063-A and B, 1065-A, 1066-C, 1066-B, 1067-B,
1172-A and B, 1178-A and B, 1180-A and B, 1181-A and B, 1182
A and B, 1183 A and B, 1188 A and B, 1192 A and B, 1193-A
and B, 1194-A and B, 1195-A and B, 1196-A and B, 1197-A and
1224-A and B, 1226-A and B, 1228-A and B, and 1418.
Those will all be received.
With that, does the government rest?
MR. DFITELBACH: Your Honor, I want to make
sure on the list I have clarification as to three specific
things.
First of all, on Page 2 m y understanding was
16 was received without objection. I m y have missed it
when the Court read it. I want to be sure.
THE COURT: 16 will be received.

MR. DEJTELBACH: The second one, Judge, was
719 on Page -- the bottom of Page 8. Again I think this was
being received without objection and I just wanted to make
sure.
THE COURT: Yes. That will also be received.
MR. DFITELBACH: And then the last one was one
of the tapes, 1067. I think that the Court m y have just
said 1067-B. I want to mdke sure 1067-A, the tape --
THE COURT: 1067-A was also offered without

objection, save the overall objection so that will be
received.
MR. DFITELBACH: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: With that, do you rest?
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, Your Honor, we rest.
THE COURT: Okay. We will then proceed with
defense witnesses.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. Your Honor, we would
like to proceed with the defense witnesses, too, though for
the record we would make a motion for a judgment of
acquittal, and also renew the motion for mistrial based on
the lack of a severance with Mr. Jones and the introduction
of the evidence, et cetera, with Mr. Jones.
We would ask permission to argue that at some
other break so we can at least get a couple witnesses on
before lunch.
MR. JENKINS: We join in the motion.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll defer ruling on that,
but I would ask you to remind me and we will come back to
it.
MR. WHITAKER: Great.
MR. JENKINS: May I say one other thing before
comes out?
Earlier I made a statement as to whether or
not Mr. Jackson would testify, but I think --
THE COURT: Why don't you hold that?

MR. JENKINS: Okay.
THE COURT: You're not in your case yet. You
can make a decision on that when you get to Mr. Jackson's
case.
MR. WHITAKER: I want to mdke one quick motion
in limine or at least ask the govemment to approach the
bench before they ask about it. Based on the 302 of my
second witness, I believe they are going to ask him to opine
about the credibility of another witness which I think is
totally impermissible, and I would either like the Judge to
grant that motion in limine or at least have us approach the
bench before they ask a question asking him to opine --
MS. BUTLER: I'm not sure who you are talking
about.
MR. WHITAKF;R: Mr. Tortora.
MS. BUTLER: We believe under Rule 608 we can
ask an opinion about truthfulness.
THE COURT: Of who though?
MS. BUTLER: Mr. Tortora's opinion of
Mr. Joel.
THE COURT: Are you going to deal with
Mr. Joel in M r . Tortora's?
MR. WHITAKER: Yes.
THE COURT: Why wouldn't they under the rules
be permitted to ask that question?
MR. WHITAKER: Because I don't think there's
any rule that permits someone to give an opinion about
somebody else's credibility.
We would be here all day, you know, asking
people to opine on the credibility. I got some people I
would like to testify abut the opinion of some of their
witnesses as well.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, it's our
understanding that the whole reason to call Mr. Tortora is
to cast doubt on the credibility of Mr. Joel.
MR. WHITAKER: I'm going to ask, the only
question I will ask him about that is did anybody ever ask
him whether to approve a $425 payment that was supposedly
being used to pay Ciaccia's tuition, and he's going to say
he does not recall any such conversation, but something of
that nature is something he would definitely recall.
So how that opens him up to testify about some
opinion of a third party, I don't know.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, the witness further
said that if Mr. Joel said it, it's probably true, even
though he doesn't recall it.
MR. WHITAKER: That's exactly what I'm going
to with regard to the opinion. I mean, that's an opinion.
What I'm saying is --
MS. BUTLER: Which is permitted under 608(a).
THE COURT: This is what she's looking at.
(Indicating).
MR. WHITAKER : Yes, I see that. "Only
when -- only after the character of the witness for
truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation
evidence or otherwise."
Nobody is attacking Rony Joel. What I'm
saying is he may very well have honestly misperceived it
It's just a question of recollections.
I'm certainly not going to ask Mr. Tortora "Do
you think this guy is lying?" And if I did, I know that
would be objected to and it wouldn't be allowed in because I
asked that question in another trial and it wasn't, but I'm
not going to ask him that.
THE COURT: Okay. But if you're
basically -- credibility is not somebdy who is lying. It
also includes credibility, it includes people who
misperceive or who misrecall.
I think you're -- I'm not going to stop them
from going to it, and you can raise the objection if they
get into the examination and I'll consider it in the context
of the questions that you've put to him on your direct
examination.
But I think under 608(a), I think that'swhat
the rule says, if you attack the credibility of Mr. Joel,
they've got a right to ask the same witness opinion evidence
as to Mr. Joel's credibility.
MR. WHITAKER: All right. I still, if I could
just have a couple minutes before then, I need to factor
that in.
I didn't think that that was permissible
testhny. I didn't think it was permissible based on other
rulings, but --
THE COURT: Do you have somebody else you
could take now and we could get to him after lunch?

MR. WHITFXER: I want to try to get him on
before lunch, but we've got somebody else we can tdke now.
And I'llhave Andrea bring that witness on.
THE COURT: Okay. Why don't we do that? The
jury'sbeen out for a while.
(Jury in).
THE COURT: Would the jury take their seats?
I extend some apologies. I should have told

you it would take some time more. There's a lot of
exhibits, as you can probably guess or gather.
At this point in time I'd ask the defense to
call your first witness.
NS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we would call
Trevor Brown.
THE COURT: And this is in Mr. Gray's case.
CHARLES BROWN,
of lawful age, a witness called by the Defendant Gray,
THE COURT: Please come forward, take a seat,
and then tell the jury and the people here your name and
spell your last name for them.
THE WITNESS: My name is Charles E. Brown,
Sr. , B-R-0-W-N.
THE3 COURT: M s . Whitaker .
DIFUET EXAMINATION OF CHARLES BROWN
BY MS. WHITAKER :
Q. Good morning, Mr. Brown.
A. Good morning.
Q. My name's Andrea Whitaker and I represent Mr. Gray.
I'm just going to ask you a few questions
today. If you don't understand anything, please ask me to
repeat it.
A. Thank YOU.
Q. How long have you h o w Nathaniel -- excuse me.
Do you h o w Mr. Gray?
A. I do.
Q. And how long have you hown him?
A. Seventeen, 18 years now.
Q. And how do you know him? W e n did you first meet him?
A. Well, actually I first met him through his mom and his
uncles because they had a Sunoco station up the street from
me, and I had a store in East Cleveland.
Q. All right. Do you h o w other people in the c o m i t y
that h o w him?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you h o w his reputation for generosity?
A. I sure do.
Q. Does he have a good reputation in the community for

generosity?
A. He certainly does.
Q. Have you witnessed specific acts of generosity?
A. I have, on many occasions.
MS. WHITAKER: I have no further questions,
Your Honor.
MS. BUTLER: No questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir.
THE WITNESS : Thank you, Your Honor.
(Witness excused).
THE COURT: And would the defense call your
next witness?
MR. JENKINS: Judge, just for the record, I
have no questions.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, I --
MR. JENKDJS: No questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. I assumed Mr. Jenkins
had no questions. I'vebeen wrong before.
LOU TORTORA
THE COURT: Once you get seated, tell us your
name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Lou Tortora, T-0-R-T-0-R-A.
THE COURT: M r . mitaker.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF LOU TORTORA
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. How are you errployed, Mr. Tortora?
A. I'm an engineering manager for a ccnnpany called Earth
Tech.
Q. And what do you do for them?
A. I'm manager of their business development operations
for water business.
Q And when you say business developent, what do you
mean by business developent?
A. Most of this is strategic pursuits, developing
strategies, two years in advance, positioning and then
competing.
Q Who was your former employer?
A. Camp, Dresser, McKee.
Q- And from when to when did you work for Camp, Dresser,
McKee?
A. 1979 to 2003.
Q. And what did you do for them, say, between in the late
nineties up until 2003?
A. I was a division manager responsible for a geographic
area operations.
Q. And did that also include business development?
A. Yes.
Q And how m c h of Camp, Dresser & McKee's business is
public, related to public sector, that is political
subdivisions like cities and states?
A. Eighty to 90%.
Q Okay. Do you have a budget for business development
that gets attributed to certain projects?
A. Yes. There's specific pursued budgets and general
budgets.
Q. And the general is just what's called an overhead
budget?
A. They are all overhead budgets.
Q. Okay. But are they somehow divided between specific
projects and general overhead?
A. Not -- not really.
Q. Okay. When somebody s*ts an invoice to you, do you
sometimes have to determine which fund it comes out of?
A. Yes.
Q. And what are your choices in terms of business
developent?
A. It depends on the types of costs. If it's a
consultant cost, it would have to be logged as a consultant
cost. It may be going into some other overhead account.
Depends on the purpose.
Q. What's the size of your business developnent budget on

a specific project?
A. Typical rule of thumb would be 6% of the contract
value, so if a contract was $10 million, you could spend
upwards of $600,000 during the course of the pursuit.
Q. And does your business development budget include
entertainment expenses?
A. Not specifically identified, but yes, it would include
entertainment costs.
Q. All right. And the entertainment costs that are
expected with regard to the pursuit of public sector
business, does that include dinners and tickets to sporting
events and that kind of stuff?
MS. BUTLER: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Yes. Sustained.
Put another --
Q. What are same of the things that would be included in

entertainment expenses?
A. Entertainment expenses could include anything from
sporting events to dinners to lunches.
Q What's the purpose of taking people that you're
attempting to sell out to a ballgame or out to dinner or
that kind of thing?
A. Building personal relationships, understanding client
needs.
Q. And who are the kinds of people that you want to build
relationships with and you want to learn client needs?
MS. BUTLER: Objection. Relevance.
A. Repeat the question.
Q. What kind of people in sort of the City chart are the
kind of people that you want --
A. Anyone that would be within -- have a vote or a voice

within the selection of any consultant contract, whether
it's the water treatment plant operator, Commissioner,
Wyor, whatever.
Q And when you talk about needs, what is it you hope to
find out from these people? Why do you need to talk to so

many different people?
A. Most of the sales that involve large investments are
complex team sales so you're looking for vertical
understanding of what the project is and what the project
needs are.
So the water treatment plant, superintendent
might want more space between his pumps. The director of
utilities might want a facility that could be a legacy for
that person. You know, the Mayor might want a new facility
because it's going to bring water that attracts developtent
to the area.
They all have different needs.
Q. And is it important when you're selling a project of
this size, that you find out what those needs are?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Do you recall Rony Joel -- oh, what was your
relationship sort of in the hierarchy with Rony Joel?
A. Rony Joel worked for me in any number of positions in
the mid-nineties.
He was a direct report responsible for sales
and mketing within m y division.
Q Do you recall M r . Joel ever corning to you and asking
you to approve a payment that he said included $425 to pay
the tuition of a public official?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Specifically Mr. Ciaccia of the Cleveland water
department?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. And something of that nature, being asked to pay for a

payment of that kind, is that something you apect you'd
remember?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you have no reason to believe Mr. Joel would lie,
do you?
A. I don't think Rony would intentionally lie.
Q. In fact, until I met -- by the way, until I mentioned
you -- until I listed you a little over a month ago as a
witness, had the FBI ever come to talk to you?
A. NO.
Q. When they did, you also told them that you don't think
there would be any reason why Rony Joel would intentionally
lie, is that correct?
Q. And you still feel that way today?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
MR. WHITAKER: Nothing further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Cross-emmination.
MS. BUTLER : Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF LOU TORIORA
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q. Mr. Tortora, I'm Mary Butler, I represent the
government.
First, you were asked some questions dbout
business development activities when you were at C138vI, do you
recall that?
A. If you could be more specific.
Q. Okay. When you are attempting -- when you were at CDM
and you were attempting to obtain business from government
entities --
A. Yes.
Q. -- did you have an understanding that your corrrpany
required that you familiarize yourself with the rules and
the laws that governed what things of value you could give
to those government officials in the places where you were
soliciting business?
A. I'm sure of that.
Q. And because of that, you're aware that the
rules -- that there are rules in place in various
jurisdictions that govern what you can do for a public
official and when you can do it?
A. Yes.
Q. So, for example, you know that you could not give cash
to the Mayor of a city who is considering awarding you a
contract?
MR. WHITAKER: Objection, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Answer?
THE COURT: Go ahead and answer.
A. I was aware that you could not do that.
Q. Okay. And you would not, for example, give a $700
purse to the head of a department that was about to make a
decision about whether or not you could get a contract?
MR. WHITAKER : Objection.
A. I -- I would not.
Q And why wouldn't you?

A. I think there are limits on the types of entertainment
and the types of gifts any public official can accept.
Q. And, in fact, you h o w that it would also be wrong to
give season tickets, baseball season tickets to the Water
Cormnissioner for the City of Cleveland if you were trying to
get contracts from the water department?
MR. WHITWER: Objection, Your Honor.
A. I think in today's environment, yes.
Sane states allow that.
Q. NOW, you know, also, that it would be wrong to take a
public official who was deciding on whether or not to give
you a contract, to the Superbowl at a cost of approximately
$4500?
A. I would think that would be breaching on ethics.
Q. And, in fact, you could have to answer to people other
than your employer if you did that?
Q. Do you have an understanding of whether you might, in
fact, be violating the law?
THE COURT: Sustained. Don't ask him to give
legal instructions.
MS. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.
Q. Now, you worked for a number of years with Rony Joel,
is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, you were his boss?
A. Yes.
Q. And you know that Mr. Joel had authority to approve
certain types of payments in connection with the ordinary
activities of W ' s business?
A. Yes.
Q. And did some of those payments that he had the
authority to approve include payments to consultants
consistent with their consulting agreements?
A. Yes.
Q- Now, you would agree with me, would you not, that it
would be unusual for you to be asked to get involved in
approving the payment of a consultant fee pursuant to a
contract?
A. Depends on the circumstances.
Q Now, you were asked if you recalled a specific
conversation with Mr. Joel about a $425 increase in
Mr. Gray's payments, consulting payments, do you remeniber
that?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, do you rmember being asked the same
question by some FBI agents in June of this year?
A. I'm -- yes.
Q. And is it correct that you said that you didn't have a
specific recollection of that conversation?
A. That's correct.
Q. But, in fact, did you also say that you believed that
if Rony Joel said that happened, that there was a high
probability that it did happen?
THE COURT: Sustained as to form.
Q. Mr. Tortora, do you recall saying that if Rony
Joel --
THE COURT: Let me just, the appropriate way
is to ask him just the direct question. You can't
cross-earnine him with a prior statement until you've laid a
foundation that he's given some inconsistent testimony
today.
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q- Do you recall saying whether or not --
THE COURT: No. No. Not what he says. That
would be hearsay.
E. BUTLER: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: You have to ask him the question

directly.
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q. Is it true that if Rony Joel says that he had that
conversation with you, that there's a high probability that
he did?
A. I have no reason to believe Rony Joel intentionally
lied.
Q And, Mr. Tortora, based on your experience working
with Mr. Joel, do you have an opinion as to Mr. Joel's
reputation for honesty?
Q. Would you tell us your opinion of Mr. Joel's honesty?

A. Rony Joel is a salesm and a mketing person. Rony
can enibellish and he can use facts to the advantage of the
pursuit, but in tern of out and out lying, no, I don't
believe Rony would out and out lie.
Q. And do you have any reason to think that Mr. Joel
would lie about something which implicated himself in some
misconduct?
THE COURT: Sustained as to the form.
(2. Mr. Tortora, do you think that M r . Joel would lie
under oath in a courtroom?
MR. WHITAKER: Just a couple of questions,
Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMIJWTION OF LOU ?Y)RTORA
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. Did you approve any payment for mking payments to
Ciaccia for tuition?
A. NO.
Q. Okay. Would you remember doing that if you did?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, I'm going to hand you -- what's the
exhibit, do we know? I think I left it.
MR. WHITAKER: Let me just get the
identification of this exhibit, Your Honor.
Q. Okay. I'm going to show you a page from Government's
Exhibit 714.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I think it's beyond
the scope, but also I don't believe this is -- well, I don't
believe this is the exhibit in question.
MR. WHITAKER: I understand what you're saying
about beyond the scope. I was going to the approval
process, but if you believe that's beyond the scope, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: I think it is.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. Thank you.
No further questions.
Thank you. You can step down.
(Witness excused).
THE COURT: We're going to take a lunchtime
recess.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, no questions once again.
(Laughter).
THE COURT: I apologize.
Don't talk about the case. Don't form any

opinions or express any, and thank you, Mr. Jenkins, for
reminding me.
MR. JENKINS: That's okay.
THE COURT: I'm going t o ask you f i r s t next

time.
So we w i l l adjourn f o r 35 rrinutes, 12:30,
okay?
- - - - -
(Jury out) .
(Luncheon recess taken) .
- - - - -
AFTERNOON SESSION
(Jury in).
THE COURT: Would the defendant Mr. Gray call
your next witness?
MS. WHITXKER: Your Honor, we call Irvin
Taylor.
IRVIN TAYLOR,
THE COURT: Please take a seat, and then tell
the jury and the Court your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Name is Irvin Taylor, last name
T-A-Y-L-0-R.
DIRMPT EXAMICNATION OF IRVIN TAYLOR
BY MS. WHITAKER :
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Taylor. My name is Andrea

Whitaker. I represent M r . Gray.
If I am unclear, you have any questions,
please ask me and I'llbe happy to repeat it.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you know Nate Gray?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long have you hown him?
A. About 11 years.
Q. And how do you know him?
A. I used to work for him.
Q. Is that how you first met him?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know other people in the community that know
him?
A. Yes.
Q Do you know his reputation for generosity?
A. very gerUZOUS.
Q. Does he have a good reputation in the coxrmunity for
being generous?
A. Yes.
Q- Have you witnessed specific acts of his generosity?
A. Yes.
MS. WHITAKER: I have no further questions.
P/LS. BUTLER: No, sir. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. JENK.INS: No questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Jenkins.
(Laughter).
THE WImss: Huh?
THE COURT: No, Mr. Jenkins may have some
questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. It's just you can step
down.
THE WITNESS : Oh.
(Witness excused).
THE COURT: Would you raise your right hand?
CHARLES NATKINS,
of lawful age, a witness called by the Government,
THE COURT: Please take a seat.
THE WITNESS: Okay. ;Excuse me.
THE COURT: And tell us your name.
THE WITNESS: My name's Charles Natkins, N as
in Nelly-A-T as in Tom-K-I-N-S.
DIFET EXAMINATION OF CHARLES NATKINS
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. Mr. Natkins, where do you live?

A. Sarasota, Florida.
Q And how are you employed?
A. Vice President of Business Developxnent for Olefin
Financial Corporation.
Q How were you enployed prior to moving to Florida?
A. I was a partner in the law firm of Javitch, Block &
Rathbone .
Q. Was part of your business with Javitch, Block the tax

collection work at East Cleveland?
A. Yes.
Q. How come you no longer work for Javitch, Block?
A. I had a great opportunity with an existing client who
offered me a position.
Q. And what about the location?
A. Five minutes away from one of the nicest beaches in
the country so.
Q. All right.
A. It was hard not to turn it down.
Q. All right. Let me know, tell me a little bit about
when you first began doing tax collection, legal work for
tax collections in the City of East Cleveland?
A. It was approximately 1988 or 1989. I was getting
cases referred to me from an agency called FCA. FCA was
doing collection work for the City. However, the only money
they seemed to be collecting was money that my firm at the
time was collecting.
Q. What was the firm at the time?
A. It was Friedman, Natkins & Friedran.
Q. Okay.
A. At the time it might have been Friedman, Jacob &
Natkins, but I'm not -- that time frame.

Q. And so how did it develop that you got the work from
that sort of referral-type beginning?
A. I received a call from Gloria Lovelace who asked that
I talk to her about doing work for the City. They no longer
had the services of FCA, and she h e w that we had done good
work on the cases that we had, and she talked to us about
doing work for the City directly.
Was that primarily your account?
Yes.
And how did you do?
Great. We did very well.
How did you --
We --
Go ahead, I'm sorry.

We did very well.
How did you get along with Gloria Lovelace?
Great. Very well. Good person.
Did she have any complaints about your work?
No.
At some point then you moved to the Javitch, Block
firm?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And did you take the East Cleveland
account with you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you -- was that okay with Javitch, Block?
A. Oh, yes. Sure.
Q. Unquestionably, huh?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Was it okay with Gloria Lovelace?
A. We did have to go through a sort of a review process
by the City of East Cleveland because it was a new firm, and
the law director, James Hewitt, made some visit -- a visit
to the office and talked to us about his concern and making
sure that we were going to maintain the quality work that my
firm was doing.
Q. Did he do anything with respect to investigating the
percentage of minority on your staff?
A. Yes. That had been very important from the first time
that we ever started doing work for the City. They were
very concerned that we were going to be hiring adequate
minorities.
Q. Did he walk around and look at your staff?
A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. Did he make --
MS. PEARSON: Objection, Your Honor, to the
leading. We would ask counsel --
THE COURT: Sustained as to the form.

What kind of evaluation did he rrake?
He reviewed our processes. He walked around, he mde
a visual inspection of every eenployee.
Frankly, I believe he was counting heads to
mdke sure we had sufficient minority employees in the merged
operation.
Q- So once you started working for Javitch, Block and you
were approved by the City again, how did that work go?
A. It worked out fine. The relationship continued to
grow, and continued to do very well.
Q. And how about your relationship with Gloria Lovelace,
any problems with that?
A. None.
Q. In late 1997, there was a mayoral race, do you
remeniber that?
A. Yes.
Q And who was the -- ultimately the winning candidate?
A. Ehmnuel Onunwor.
Q. And did he make some campaign speeches with regard to
the tax work?
A. His campaign m d e some inflarnnatory remarks about our
firm and our collection tactics, published. Whether he was
saying it at political appearances I'm not sure, but I know
that his campaign was putting out statements to that effect.
Q How did it come to your attention?
A. It was published in a mgazine called "The East
Cleveland Challenger," I believe, and there were coments in
there about our tactics of collection, I guess.
Q. Was he correct in his complaints about your tactics?
A. NO.
Q. What did you do then once he was elected?
A. Well, we asked for a meeting. Obviously with a new
adtministration we felt it was important to be able to
address his concerns and the concerns of his staff, and
basically to say hello.
Q. How did you go about setting up that meeting?
A. With Gloria Lovelace, through her.
Q. Okay. Why did you go to the trouble of setting up a
meeting and sitting down with the Mayor and having Gloria
there?
A. Well, because although we believed that the coments
were not factual and they were just puffery for political
reasons, we wanted to make sure we were addressing the
concerns of the new administration Mayor Onunwor.
Q Did you want to keep that East Cleveland tax work?
A. Of course.
Q. Did that East Cleveland tax work generate
sufficient -- a sufficient amount of revenue for Javitch,
Block?
A. It was a profitable client, yes.
Q. Apgroximately how much, if you know, revenue was
generated, say in the 1996-1997 per year period?
A. Approximately $500,000.
Q. For each year?
A. I believe so.
Q Okay. It certainly was enough you didn't want to lose
that account?
A. Correct. That's ten years ago, but I'm quite sure on
that.
Q. At that meeting was there any discussion about
Mr. Gray whatsoever?
A. None.
Q What is it that lihmnuel Onunwor told you at that
meeting?
A. He wanted to -- he did mention about some of the
tactics that apparently he had talked about or been
published about us. He was very concerned about minority
relations and were we hiring enough minority esnployees and
things of that nature.
And he indicated that he hadn't made any
decisions and things of that nature, and it was basically a
get to -- hello type of meeting, say hello.
Q. Was there any discussion about needing a consultant of
any kind?
A. NO.
Q. Prior to that meeting, had you talked to Mr. Gray
about Mr. Onunwor or East Cleveland in any manner at all?
A. NO.
Q You do know Mr. Gray?

A. Yes.
Q How do you know Mr. Gray?
A. ~roximately-- I might have met him late 1996, early
1997.
We met in the gym, the Jewish C o m i t y Center
where we were both working out, in the locker room.
Q. All right. And just based on his personality, what
did you think of him?
A. Friendly, engaging, personable, very nice guy.
Q And what kind of business did you understand he was
in?
A. I knew he was a Cleveland businessmm; he was
well-known in the comrmity.
I knew he had parking, mT\SA, I think EINA
Parking; political consultant, things of that nature.
Q. Did there come a time when you talked to him about
East Cleveland?
A. Yes.
Q. And in relation to the meeting that you just talked
about with Rmmuel Onunwor, when was that?
A. Afterwards, probably a couple months.
Q. Before I ask you some questions about that, let me
back up just a little bit.
Did you -- did you take any transaction to try
to deal with the Mayor's concerns?
A. Yes. We had already implemented some measures to sort
of have a kinder, gentler approach to the collections.
That was always under constant review in any
event, and it was my job to remind the people to remember to
be nice.
I mean, you get more with sugar than vinegar.
Q. All right. Now, tell me about the conversation with
Mr. Gray.
A. Well, I talked to Mr. Gray.
Basically I mentioned the City of Cleveland
and other inner circle suburbs.
Q. For what pwrpose did you mention them?
A. Well, we were trying to expand our municipal
collection practice, and I made a casual coment that I
don't know if I'm going to keep the contract w i t h the City I
have in East Cleveland, and he said "East Cleveland. You're
doing work for them?"
I said "Yeah. There's a new Mayor Eh-mmuel
Onunwor." He says "Manny,I know Manny. I'veknown him for
years," and I didn't even know he hew that.
Q. And this was two months after your meeting with
Elnmnuel Onunwor?
A. m r o h t e l y.
Q. As a result did you report back to your managemat
cornnittee?
A. I had talked -- I went back and talked to the managing
partner, mentioned to him that Nate might be a good
individual to have on a consulting contract, he was
well-hown, k t the firm wanted to meet him, and so there
was a meeting set up thereafter.
Q. Just tell us a little bit about the process of how he
came to be hired.
A. Nate and I did have a little discussion. I told him I
didn't have authority to hire him; that it would be up to
the management colmnittee, and that he would have to meet
with, at least initially, managing partner Bruce Block.
That was set up.
There was about an hour meeting in our
offices, and thereafter Bruce went to the management
committee, which I'mnot on so they had their own separate
meeting, and they thought it was a good idea as well.
And from there, there was a contract drafted
and entered into the a g r m t .
Q. Did you let Mayor Onunwor how? Did you let Mayor
Onunwor know that you hired Mr. Gray?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you do that?
A. We wanted to rrake sure that we were addressing his
concerns. We wanted to let him know we were addressing his
concerns that he had talked to us about.
Q. Okay. Why didn't you carbon copy Gloria Lovelace when
you sent a copy to the Mayor?
A. Gloria was already a big supporter of ours. We didn't
feel it was necessary.
Q What were some of the things you asked Mr. Gray to do
under the contract?
A. Help mediate disputes at our discretion if they arose
between individuals, taxpayers and the City of East
Cleveland.
Q. Did you --
A. Help --
Q. I'm sorry, let me ask you a couple questions about
that provision, first.
Did you expect that there would be much in the
way of a need to mediate disputes?
A. Well, hopefully not.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, as I said, we were having a kinder, gentler
approach and we were hoping that wouldn't be necessary.
I mean, no one wants to be in that position no
matter what.
Q And so what are some of the other things that
you -- oh, by the way, did there ever come a time when he
needed to mediate a dispute?
A. Not a specific dispute, but a general constituent
concern about us as a collection firm.
And I did ask Nate to help intervene with the
Mayor and the administration to basically remind them that
anytime you do collection work, people are going to not like
it. Even if you're not screaming, even if you're the nicest
collection firm in the world, people still won't like it.
Q. What would you envision he might have to be able to do
if he did have to mediate any individual disputes?
A. Well, because of his reputation in the community, I
felt that he would be able to have the trust of both sides,
and be able to hopefully work out some kind of solution or
process of going forward that we can deal with the
individuals in issue.
Q. And how did you think he would be able to help with
that?
A. By being able to talk to the people and whatnot, just
in general.
Q. And what are sow of the other things that he agreed
to do under the contract?
A. He agreed to help us in terms of minority hiring. I
believe he agreed to help mediate any problems we might have
had with o w own employees.
He was -- we had asked him to help introduce
us or open a door so we could make presentations to other
corrununities; specifically, City of Cleveland and other
cities where it might be warranted to be able to obtain
additional collection work.
Q. Did there come a time when you had to evaluate your
rr;unicipal collection work?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was that?
A. 2002.
Q. And why?
A. Our work from the City of East Cleveland was
diminishing. We did not get other work from other
municipalities. We had contracts terminated by the City of
Warrensville Heights due to a new administration and some
files closed on us from Bedford Heights that went back to
R.I.T.A., and we just had to determine whether or not
rmicipal collections was a profitable profit center for the
firm.
Q. In the course of that evaluation, did you compare the
revenue with the expenses of various municipal clients?
A. Sure. That'show we determine the profitability.
Q And how was Mr. Gray's expense considered during that
process?
A. Well, because we had hired him to help open doors for
us in that area, it was necessarily applied in that profit
center.
There was no other profit center, really, that
was appropriate.
Q. Was Mr. Gray's m e applied to East Cleveland in
terms of this consideration?
A. Well, just as a whole for -- at the time I think East
Cleveland. We might have had slight work from another
municipality, but East Cleveland was the only one at that
time.
So, I mean, in terms of the profit center, it
was applied against that overall revenue.
Q. You've seen some e-mails from -- that were sent to and
from partners at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how Mr. Gray was -- how the expense for
Mr. Gray was referred to?
A. Just --
Q. In terms of what municipality or anything.

A. Well, East Cleveland, it was mentioned in a memo when
we were discussing the profitability of East Cleveland at
that time.
Q. What are some of the things that Mr. Gray actually did
do for you during the course of the contract?
A. We had work from the City of Cleveland through
Cleveland Public Power. We were having a dispute with the
law department. For whatever reason the law department did
not want to meet with us and discuss this dispute.
We called Nate and asked him if he could talk
to the law director and get us an appointment so we could at
least argue our side of the dispute, and he was able to do
that and we were able to get a meeting.
When we had our account terminated by
Warrensville Heights against the contract, I mean they broke
the contract, we asked him to try to intervene if he was
going to see Mayor Fudge, Marsha Fudge. He called me back
and said he did talk to her but she won't change her mind.
We did -- I did call him, asked him for
resumes. At one point we were having some difficulty
following -- excuse me -- hiring competent minority
candidates for our office, and I asked him if he knew
anybody was looking, if he could put out the word, and he
did send out some resumes.
Q. Why did you think Mr. Gray would be able to help in
finding minority applicants?
A. Well, he's well-known in the c o d t y , he's
well-known for the nice things that he does, and just felt
he would know a lot of people or other people who would know
people. It's a good networking.
Q Did you mention something that dealt with the law
director for the City of Cleveland?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. That was the first thing you talked about, he
was able to arrange that meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Had you been trying to arrange that
meeting yourselves earlier?
A. Yes.
Q Okay.
A. We also received an RFP from the City of Cleveland to
do other types of collection work. It was mostly nuisance
type collections where people had to go out and cut the
lawn, some other things. I think there might have been some
Cleveland Public Power, too, but the requirements were
rather onerous and we didn't feel it would be profitable so
we declined to bid on the project.
I don't know if Nate had anything to do with
that, but it happened when he was under contract with us.
Q. Is that one of the things you wanted him to do was
talk to the people in the City of Cleveland?
A. Yes.
MS. PEARSON: Objection, Your Honor. He said
he didn't know if JW. Gray had anything to do with it.
THE COURT: You're also leading.
THE COURT: So I'll sustain the objection.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. Do you h o w whether Mr. Gray met with partners in

terms of business developnent?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was the purpose of meeting with the partners?
A. To update status, see what was going on.
I had met with him on -- we actually ran into
each other numerous times just on social outings, not
together, but we happened to bump into each other.
I was asking what was the status of -- is
there anything going on with the City of Cleveland or
anything else, and it was really just for updates.
I also talked to him occasionally because
Mr. Gray gave our firm collection work of his own.
Q And did other partners meet with him for business
development as well?
A. Yes.
If I m y have one second, Your Honor.
(Pause).
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. NOW, you mentioned that your business at East
Cleveland started falling off at one point.
Why was that?
A. The state auditors came in and they were auditing
the -- East Cleveland has been in fiscal emergency for
years, as long as I can r e m e m k r , and they were auditing all
facets, and this was -- they were auditing the tax
department and generally the operation of the City.
And they had made a recommendation perhaps
that the City should consider going back to R.I.T.A.because
they were slightly less expensive than us.
Q. What was your response to that recommendation?

A. Well, obviously we might have been a little bit more
in fee, but we were offering so much more than what R.I.T.A.
could offer.
We were -- had a full-time employee working
down there. We had instructions to seize every account
whether we had an asset or not. Basically Gloria Lovelace
had a zero tolerance policy.
So in a normal collection practice you would
not sue every case you get, but we were doing that even if
it was $50, so the expenses to us were considerably higher
than if it had just been a little bit lower fee so -- and it
was a normal fee as well in the industry.
Q. Well, what is the normal fee in the industry with
private firms?
A. Well, it depends, but we were getting a third or,
excuse me, 33% from the City which is the same thing the
State of Ohio was paying us.
Q. The State of Ohio is also a client of Javitch, Block?
A. Yes.
Q. And the rate they are charged?
A. 33%, which made it quite unusual why the state
auditors were saying they should go back to R.I.T.A.because
they charge less.
Couldn't understand it.
Q Even at that rate, did you feel your service was a
benefit?
MS. PEARSON: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained as to form.
Q. Given that rate, what did you feel about what you
offered the City of Cleveland -- East Cleveland? I'm sorry.
A. The 33?
Q. Yes.
A. We -- we offered them great service and value, and we
did a good job for them.
Q. When you say value, how do you evaluate value?
A. Well, basically our expenses to collect an account.
We did for them what we didn't do for any other client.
I mean, we had a full-time qloyee there that
we even ended up paying taxes to the City of East Cleveland
because we had the qloyee there.
And again, as I say, we had our collectors on
that. Where R.I.T.A. might have had five collectors overall
for other delinquencies, we might have had three or four
just doing East Cleveland accounts or the equivalent of
three or four. It was spread over a number of people.
And then again the lawsuits, that took a
trmmdous amount of time and preparation every month just
to file the lawsuits, even if we didn't know if they had any
assets because of the zero tolerance.
Q. And how did this affect the revenues generated for the
City of East Cleveland?
A. We did very well. I mean, they did collect a lot.
Q. You mentioned you had an enployee right there. By the
beginning of 1998 did a new employee take that position?
A. Michael Dubose.
Q And how did Michael Dubose work out?
A. He was great.
Q. What was the turnover rate prior to Michael Dubose
going there, in terms of that position?
A. It was frequent.
We had tanpraries and then we had some
full-time people, and the one before Michael really didn't
work out. He didn't seem to do enough work, and that'swhy
we replaced him.
Q. Anybody have any trouble with Gloria Lovelace,
Mrs. Lovelace?
A. Trouble? No.
Q Was she -- that's okay. Fine.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you. No further
questions.
MS. PEARSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXWllXATION OF CHARLES N A ' S
BY MS. PEARSON:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Natkins.
A. Hi. How are you?
Q. Sir, you don't deny that in the late 1997, early 1998
period, the East Cleveland municipal collection contract was
one of the largest contracts of that sort for your firm?
A. NO.
Q. I mean, you didn't have one bigger at that time?
A. Well, yeah. Yes, we did.
Q. Muny collections contract?
A. Not m y , okay, no.
Q. In 19 --
A. Mimicipal, that was our largest.
Q. Thank you. You didn't understand that. Municipal; I
should have mde myself clear.
A. Thank YOU.
Q. And when Emrmuel Onunwor was elected Mayor, you were
concerned you might lose that big contract, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, that was one of the reasons you wanted to
attend this meeting that was held at his office, isn't that
true?
A. Yes.
Q. And after Ehmnuel Onunwor meeting with you, you hired
Nate Gray, is that true?
A. Subsequent to the meeting, yeah.
Q. "Subsequent"is better than "after"? Just after in
time, isnlt that true?
A. After, yes.
Q. Okay. And you entered into a written contract with
Mr. Gray, sir?
A. Yes.
Q And in that contract you agreed to pay Mr. Gray a
certain amount of money?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the amount as you sit there now?
A. I think it was a thousand a month.
Q. And you'll agree with me, sir, that initially you were
going to pay him $2500 up front and then 1,000 a month?
A. I believe that was the case, yes.
Q. And you wrote IZmnanuel Onunwor telling him that you
hired J!Ir. Gray, isn't that also true?
A. I did not write.
Q. The Javitch firm wrote to Mr. Gray?
A. Yes.
Q In fact, you mentioned a person by the name of Bruce
Block?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was he?
A. Managing partner.
Q. And he's the person you referred Mr. Gray to, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, you said you and Mr. Gray had a little
discussion in the JCC locker room, do you remaker saying
that?
A. Yes.
Q And, in fact, in that discussion did Mr. Gray tell you
that he wanted to be paid for his service?
A. Yes.
Q And you also told that to Bruce Block, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after hiring Mr. Gray, your firm sent a letter to
Elnrranuel Onunwor saying you hired him, right?
A. Yes.
Q And that letter didn't have anything attached like the
written agrement to P/lr. Gray, though, did it?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Do you recall ever telling Etmanuel Onunwor how much
M r . Gray was being paid by the Javitch firm?

A. NO.
Q And isn't it true that the contract you entered into
with Mr. Gray was specific to East Cleveland?
A. No. It had other things that we would ask him to do.
Q You didn't have any other Muny contracts at that time
for collection of the income tax from its residents, did
you, sir?
A. We might have had the City of Middletown, I think we
had Warrensville Heights, and I think we had some Bedford
Heights and Tiffen.
Q Speaking of Warrensville Heights and Bedford Heights,
did you send those Mayors letters saying "I'vejust hired
Nate Gray"?
A. NO.
Q. You didn't send one of those letters to the Mayor of
Warrensville Heights, Mayor Fudge?
A. She wasn't Mayor then.
Q. Did you send t h a n to whoever held the job at that
time, sir?
A. NO.
Q. Did you send it to the Mayor of Bedford at that time?
A. NO.
Q. You agree Mayor W t e was the Mayor of the City of
Cleveland, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mayor hhite get a letter saying "Hey, I just hired
Nate Gray"?
A. He was not a client so we did not send that, no.
Q. You didn't send him a letter, is that true?
A. Correct.
Q. You h e w that Mr. Gray was a friend of Elmanuel
onunwor'swhen you hired him, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, that was the reason for the contract, wasn't
it?
A. Pat of the reason.
Q In fact, you claim, sir, that you didn ' t b o w that
Nate Gray was making regular monthly payments to l3rvmnuel
Onunwor, don ' t you?
A. I had no idea that he was doing that.
Q. And you also claim that had you known, you would have
been very upset, isn't that true?
A. Of course.
Q. In fact, you would have been upset because you would
have believed it was wrong, isn't that true?
A. Yes.
MR. WHITAJGR: Your Honor.
Q. And illegal?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
Q. But you knew up front when you hired Nate Gray --
THE COURT: Let me just caution, I'll instruct
you on what the law is, so you can hear that witness's
testhny, but you should understand it's not the law.
Q. You knew up front when you hired Nate Gray that he
wanted to be paid?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wanted to keep the East Cleveland contract?
A. Yes.
Q. And you spoke on direct examination about a walk
around that James Hewitt did at your law firm, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q That was before Enmanuel Onunwor was elected Mayor,

wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, one of the things you talked about on
direct &nation is that per the contract, you believe
that Nate Gray could help you with dispute resolution,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you research his background into dispute
resolution beore you hired him?
A. I did not.
Q. Sir, did you research his background into locating and

referring to your firm qualified minority applicants before
you hired him?
A. No.
Q. Sir, in fact, when you hired Nate Gray, how m y
African American attomeys did Javitch have at that time?
A. None.
Q. m e n you terminated the contract with Nate Gray, how
m y African American attomeys did Javitch have at that
time?
A. None.
MS. PEARSON: No further questions at this
time, Your Honor.
MR. WHITAKER: None, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You can step down.
(Witness excused).
THE COURT: And would defendant Gray call your
next witness?
MR. WHITAKER: We call Agent Massie to the
stand, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Agent, you remain under oath from
earlier.
MICHAEL MASSIE,

being previously duly sworn, was examined
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, if it please the
Court, I will lay a foundation if it'snecessary, but I'd
like to proceed as upon cross-examination.
MR. DFITELBACH: We object to that and we have
no proffer as to the areas that are going to be covered,
either.
THE COURT: Why don't you start with
nonleading questions and see if you have a need to go to
leading questions?
DIRE@T EXDEJWTION OF MICHAEL MASSIE
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. Agent Massie, as I understand it you're the lead

investigator on this case?
A. I am.
Q And as the lead investigator, among other things, you

interviewed Ehmnuel Onunwor on a nurriber of occasions?
A. I have, yes.
Q. All right. Do you remaker interviewing him on
March 18th, 2003?
A. I do around that time, yes.
Q. All right. And do you recall at that time him telling
you that even before he became Mayor, that Mr. Gray was
helping him out at $500 a month?
MR. DEXTELBACH: Objection. I don't know if
we're going to get to the nonleading part, but that
seems --
THE COURT: Let me ask counsel to approach
once.
THE COURT: Just the question is I'm not sure
where you're going with it.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, Ehmnuel -- E$mnanuel said
that he was not mdking -- that he was not being paid any
kind of a monthly -- on any kind of monthly basis or regular
basis.
When I asked him specifically about this
statement and a number of others, he said "I don't h o w . "

So it's impeaching, I'm impeaching.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DEXTELBACH: I would just say my
recollection coincides with what the witness remembered
saying. He admitted d i n g -- he certainly may have said he
had no recall and others I think he achitted, so I think on
a question-by-question basis I think this would have to be
done.
THE COURT: Well, go ahead. Let's see where
each question goes.
(Ehd of side-bar conference).
THE COURT: Would you repeat your question?
MR. WHITAKER: I will, Your Honor. I wonder
if the court reporter could read it back, Your Honor.
"Do you recall Mr. Onunwor telling you that
even before he became Mayor, that Mr. Gray was helping him
out at $500 per month?"
A. I do recall him saying he received financial
assistance prior to becoming Mayor.
Q. Right. But my question is a little more specific than
that, Mr. Massie, and that is: Do you recall him
specifically saying "Iwas getting $500 every month prior to
becoming Mayor " ?
A. I recall him -- I don't recall the every month, no.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, if I could get the
overhead turned on, I'm going to ask the agent if this
refreshes his recollection.
THE COURT: You can show it to him.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. (Handing).
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. First of all, this is --
THE COURT: Point him to the line.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: He'll howwhat it is.
MR. WHITAKER: (Indicating).
THE WITNESS: Okay. I see it.
Q Is this a report you wrote --

A. Yes.
Q. -- as a result of your interview?
MR. DmTELBACH: Objection. He's refreshing
recollection.
THE COURT: So you've shown it to him.
Q. All right. Now, I'll ask you again: Did Mayor

Onunwor tell you that he was receiving regular monthly
payments even before he became Mayor?
A. Based on the reports, he received $500 per month.
Q. And that's something that you heard from l3mmnuel
Onunwor when you made your deal, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q- And do you recall him saying that on a different
occasion -- well, on March -- let me see, let me make sure.
It might have been the same time. I've got to check that.
On March 18th, that the only difference was
after the Javitch contract was that he was then getting $700
every month?
A. I don't recall.
Q. All right. Handing you what we've marked as
Defendant's-bit CC, does that refresh your recollection?
Look at the top paragraph where my thumb is.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall him telling you that after the contract
with Ralph Tyler but before the contract with CH2M Hill or
O m , that his -- that the amount of money he received
increased to $700 a month?
A. Which time are you talking about?
Q. March 25th, 2003.
A. I'm sorry, could you repeat that now that I how the
date?
Q. Right. At that time did he tell you that when
they -- there was a contract with Ralph Tyler, that his
payments increased to $700 a mnth?
A. I recall him saying that. I'mnot sure if it's that
March date.
Q Do you recall him telling you that he personally went
to Ralph Tyler because they couldn't find anybody that would
be the City engineer?
A. Service director, yes.
Q. And you -- did he also tell you that that was a
position that the person needed to be certified as an
engineer?
A. I don't recall if he told me that or not.
Q. In your investigation, have you learned that that is a

necessary component of that job?
A. It's typically an engineer's position, yes.
Q. I% you recall on Decaker 9th, Mr. 0nun.rtelling you

that after city council unanimously selected the engineer of
record, that his payments went to $700 a month?
A. I recall that, yes.
Q. Okay. And do you recall the date that the city
council unanimously selected Ralph Tyler to be the engineer
of record?
A. I don't recall a specific date, no.
Q. Okay. We can find that out probably through the

&rLbits, though, is that correct?
A. I don't know if the council resolution date's on
there.
Q. Now, one of the things that you identified was the
Honeywell code of some code that's put out by the Honeywell
legal department, isn't that correct?
A. Code of ethics, yes.
Q- Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. All right. You also received information that taking
public officials to dinners and to sporting events --
MR. I)-CH: Objection.

Q- -- was approved by the legal department?
Q Didn't you?
MR. DIZTTELBACH: Move to approach.
THE COURT: Sustained. It would be hearsay.
MR. D-CH: It's just another example of
an opportunity at cross-examination. It would be covered.
THE COURT: I already said it would be
hearsay.
Q. Let me ask you this: Did you yourself ever go talk to
any members of the legal department at Honeywell?
A. I personally, no.
Q Okay. Do you know whether any agents did?
Q. You heard the testimony of Mr. Spellman.
A. I did.
Q. And that he asked Nate Gray for payments because he
thought he could do him some good?
A. I heard him say he was bribed by Nate Gray.
THE COURT: Don't -- don't ask him to recall
what the testimony was.
That's what we ask the jury to do.
Q. You would agree with me that if there was a tape
recording where Spellrran was asking for help where he could
do any good, that that would be something fair for the jury
to consider?
MR. DITEZBAC'H: Objection.
THE COURT: I don't understand the question.
MR. WHITAKER: That if there's a tape
recording that contradicts that.
THE COURT: You can ask him if he knows of
some tape recording.
Q Do you know of a tape recording in which Oliver
Spellman is asking Nate Gray for help at a time when he

can' t do anything for him?
A. NO.
Q All right. I'd like to play Tape session 3783,
October 24th, 2000, 7676?
MR. DEITELBACH: Objection. I'd ask to
approach.
THE COURT: Why don't you come forward for a
second?
THE COURT: What's the 3733?
MR. DFITELBACH: I don't --
THE COURT: Well --
M R . WHITAKER: 3783.
THE COURT: What's the grounds for objection?
MR. DFITELBACH: Several. First of all, this
witness started as a defined witness in terms of prior
testkny. Now moving in two different directions. One is
a chance for Mr. r/urnitakerto try redo cross-examination
which didn't turn out well previously.
THE COURT: Why don't you go to a specific
question?
MR. DETTELBA.: First of all, it's hearsay.
It's a statement of Defendant Mr. Gray, and they are
offering it for the truth of the matters asserted.
THE COURT: That was a statemat of
Mr. Spellman.
MR. DmTELBACH: If it 's a statement of
Mr. Spellman, no, my understanding of what it is, it's a

conversation where Mr. Spellman tells Mr. Gray he flunked
$
the random drug test, Mr. Spellman admitted to that.

THE COURT: I don't know what statement --
MR. DFlTELBACH: It's --
THE COURT: It's a statement --

MR. WHITAKER: Mr. Spellman, Mr. Spellman's
the key here.
Mr. Spellman says he goes to Nate and asks him
for help at a time when he can't do anything for Nate.
And pursuant to Rule 106 it's a recording that
should be fairly considered with the testimony, and
weqthing that's been up to pint that the only reason he
asked for money was to get a bribe because he could do him
some good.
THE COURT: I'll overrule. If that's a fair
characterization of the tape, I don't think it's --
MR. WHITAKER: I identified it to him before.
MR. DETTELBACH: I understand. He did.
In addition, Your Honor, I would point out
there are conversations that happened after Mr. Spellman was
not on the phone which Mr. Gray talks about the fact that
Mr. Spellman is still doing things for him.
THE COURT: Okay. So do you want that played
or don't want that played?
M R . DC
-H: No, I don't.
THE COURT: Okay. As soon as we get to that
point, let me just indicate --
MR. DETTEBACH: Your Honor, I don't want the

whole -- I understand the Court's ruling, yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
( m d of bench conference)
MR. WHITAKER: May we play that tape?
THE COURT: There m y be a certain point where
the tape goes to irrelevant mtters, so when you're told

stop it, you how, in your direct.
MR. WHITAKER : Right. I think it ' s very
short, I think it's relevant, but --
(Tapeplaying).
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we will be marking
that as Exhibit GG for identification purposes and for the
record.
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. Do you recall listening to that phone conversation?
A. I do.
Q. All right.
MR. WHITAKEEI: Nothing further, Your Honor.
THECOURT: Mr. Jenkins.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MICHAEL MASSIE
BY MR. DFITELBACH:
Q. Special Agent Massie, beginning with that last there,
was that the end of Oliver Spellman's career in public
service?
A. No, it was not.
Q. What happened?
A. He went to work for the County Co&ssionerls office.
Q. And what position did he get a job at the County
Comnissionerlsoffice at Harris County?
A. Deputy cdssioner.
Q. Is it a position of power?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever intercept anything that indicated Nate
Gray did anything for Oliver Spellman after he left the
chief of staff job?
A, No.
Q. Now, with respect to the questions you were asked
about Ea-rsMnuel Onunwor, when Etmmnuel Onunwor spoke with you
on those occasions, did he have a plea agreement yet?
A. No, he did not.
Q. What did he tell you about the reason that he was
being paid by J%r. Gray?
A. He told me various different reasons at different
times.
Q. Well, with respect to the one, the coments that you
were being asked abut, did he bring up any specific
contracts when he talked to you before he had his plea
agreement?
A. Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Objection. Objection, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: What grounds?
MR. WHITAKER: He's already examined him all
about Onunwor, and I don't know if it has any relationship
to --
THE COURT: He's still allowed to ask him
follow-up questions.
BY MR. DC
-H:
Q- Before he had his plea agrement, what specific

contracts did Emmanuel Onunwor identify that he was being
paid for by Mr. Gray?
A. Three contracts he identified were the Javitch, Block
collections contract, the Ralph Tyler engineering contracts,
and the OMI water contract.
MR. DFITELBACH: Nothing further.
MR. WHITAKER: If I might, just one question
based on that, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF MI- MASSIE
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. You're certainly fully aware of the fact that he had
hoped to do himself some good by cooperating with you,
arm ' t you?
A. I'm not aware of what his motivations were.
Q. Okay. Well, certainly let's just concentrate on you.
You certainly told him from the very first mment you met
him that it would be very helpful for him to cooperate with
you?
MR. DFITELBACH: Objection. Leading.
A. I don't know if I instructed him on that specifically,
no.
Q. Isn't that something you routinely do, though, &en
you want to talk to somebodty that you are hoping to get
cooperation from?
MR. DFITELBACH: Objection. Relevance.
A. I may have made a statement "It would be in your best
interests to cooperate and get out in front of this,"which
we typically do.
Q. And the discussions you had in Decanber of 2004, that
was after he had been convicted, isn't it?
A. It is.
MR. WHITAKER: Nothing further, Your Honor.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF MICHAEL MASSIE
BY MR. DFITELBACH:
Q. The one you had in March, though, 2003, he hadn't been
convicted of anything, had he?
A. No, he had not.
(Witness excused).
THE COURT: Would you call your next witness?
DmSE McCRAY,
THE COURT: Please take a seat and then tell
us your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS : M i s e McCray, M-C-capital
C-R-A-Y.
Dim EXWl3BTION OF DENISE McCRAY
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. How are you today?
A. Fine. Thank you.
Q. Do you know Mr. Nate Gray?
A. Yes.
Q. Where do you live, by the way?
A. Lakewood, Ohio.
Q. Okay. And how long have you hown Mr. Gray?
A. About 17 years.
Q. Do you know other people in the c o m i t y that know
Mr. Gray?
A. Yes.
Q. By the way, what do you -- are you working or going to
school or what are you doing now?
A. I'm a graduate student.
Q. A graduate student in what?
A. Urban studies.
Q. Okay. Where?
A. Cleveland State University.
Q. Okay. M y question was do you know other people in the
cormunity that h o w Nate Gray?
A. Yes.
Do you h o w about his reputation for generosity?
Yes.
What is it?
He's very generous.
I'm sorry?
He's very generous. I'm sorry.
Does that include people from all walks of life?
Yes. Yes, it does.
Have you yourself witnessed specific acts of
generosity such as you've mentioned here of Mr. Gray?
A. Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you very much.
No further questions .
THE COURT: JW. Jenkins.
MS. BUTLER: Just one, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DENISE McCTQ~Y
BY MS. BUTLER:
Q Ms. McCray, were you invited to meet in Mr. Gray's
office in Shaker Square when he met with Mayor Onunwor and
gave him cash?
A. NO.
THE COURT: Sustained. Disregard the last
question, last response.
P/LS. BUTLER: No further questions.
THE COURT: You can step down, ma'am.
(Witness excused).
CASSANDRA ROBINSON,
THE COURT: Please take a seat, and then tell
the -- tell us your name and spell your last name for the
court reporter.
THE WITNESS: Cassandra Robinson, that's
R-0-B-I-N-S-0-N.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF CASSANDRA ROBINSON
BY MR. WHITAKER:
How are you today?
I'm doing fine. Yourself?
Good. Are you working now?
I'm a realtor.
A realtor?
Yes.
All right. Do you know W .Nate Gray?
Yes, I do.
Did you used to work for Nate Gray?
Yes, I did.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. For three and a half years.
Q. All right. Do you h o w other people in the corrmunity
that know him as well?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you h o w about his reputation for generosity
among all m a r s of the conmunity?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is that reputation?
A. He's a kind, generous person.
Q. Have you yourself witnessed specific acts of Mr. Gray,
specific acts of generosity on his part?
A. Yes.
M R . WHITAKER: Thank you. No further
questions, Your Honor.

MS. BUTLER: No, Your Honor.
(Witness excused).
MR. WHITAKER: Go right up there in front of
the Judge and he'll direct you to the chair after he swears
you in.
THE COURT: Afternoon. If you'll come over
this m y and before you do that, if you'd raise your right
hand.
WILLLIE HORrnN,

THE COURT: Please take a seat, and -- right
over here.
THE WITNESS: Over here.
THE COURT: Mr. *taker .
DIRECT MAMINATION OF WILLIE HORTON
BY MR. WHITAKER:
Q. What's your name, sir?
A. My name is Willie Horton, Sr.
Q. Mr. Horton, are you retired?

A. Yes.
Q And retired from what?
A. Retired from the Fisher Body division of General
Motors.
Q. How long did you work for them?
A. Thirty-eight years.
Q. Do you know Mr. Nate Gray?
A. Yes.
Q Is that him right over there?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. How long have you been knowing Mr. Gray?
A. mroximately 28 years.
Q- How is it that you know him?
A. From church.
Q Do you know other people in the c o d t y that know
him?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know other people within the church comrrolnity
that h o w him?
A. Yes.
Q Do you know about his reputation for gaerosity within
that corrmunity?
A. Yes.
Q And what is that reputation?
A. It'squite extensive.
Q. And have you yourself witnessed specific acts of
generosity on the part of Mr. Gray? .
A. Very generous.
Q. Have you yourself -- and I need to be specific about
this -- have you yourself actually witnessed his generosity?
A. Yes.
Q. And specific acts?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you. Further -- nothing
further. Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. JENKDJS: No questions, Your Honor.
MS. BUTLER: No questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You're in and out
quick.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(Witness excused) .
MR. WHITHER: Your Honor, subject to the
ruling you made on the other witness, we don't have any
other witnesses to call today.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. Let me just
ask, is there -- I'd ask the attorneys to come forward.
THE COURT: You have your last witness?
MR. WHITHER: Obviously I will rrake that
decision tonight, interview him, but yes, I have the one.
THE COURT: All right. Does anyone have any
objection if we go to Mr. Jackson's case?
MR. WHITAKER: No, not at all.
THE COURT: Just out of order.
MR. JENKDlS: And just I will put on the
record that it's my intent not to put on a case. That we're
going to rest.
THE COURT: The only thing I'm asking is
perhaps we could hear your case today and make a decision
yes or no whether you're going to offer any other evidence.
M R . -S: I just have the one defense
exhibit which was the Rony Joel proffer, that's it.
THE COURT: Let me be clear then. Do you have
any witnesses?
MR. JEtWDtS : No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You m y have some &bits?
MR. JENKINS: Just one.

THE COURT: Okay. But -- okay.
What my intent would be to tell the jury that
we've only got one witness left in the defense case.
MR. WHITAKER: okay.
THE COURT: No more than one.

THE COURT: And that do you envision any
rdmttal witnesses as it stands now?
MR. DETTELBACH: Not as it stands now.
THE COURT: What we can do is we will deal
with you roving your exhibits in.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: And then we will go over the
instructions.
I gave you basically a repeat of the ones we
had before, except for the removal of Jones.
MR. WHITAKER: All right. Although we
sulanitted some proposals last night, and we are going to ask
you to make some adjustments.
Won't take that long.
THE COURT: Okay. Those have been filed,
though?
MR. WHITAKER: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WHIT=: When you tell the jury there
m y be one more witness, I want you to use the word "May."
THE COURT: Yes.
M R . WHITAKER: Okay.
MR. DETTELBACH: I want the Court to know the

one witness left would be the witness m s t likely to
engender rebuttal.
THE COURT: So you might have rebuttal
testimony?
MR. DE;TTELBACH: Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Are you trying to intimidate
me?
MR. DmTELBACH: No.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Laughter).
(End of side-bar conference).
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, defendant
Gray has either completed his case and may potentially have
one witness additional. That witness, under an order I put
in predicting the time, that witness, if he testifies, would
be tomorrow m m i n g .
So and the defendant Jackson, at least at this
point in time, Mr. Jenkins.
MR. JENKDJS : Your Honor, on behalf of
Mr. Gilbert Jackson, subject to the admission of Defense
&bit 1, the Rony Joel proffer, we rest.
THE COURT: Okay. We will take a look at that
and also the exhibits that are being offered by Mr. Gray.
So we're in a position where we m y have one
more witness and then we may potentially have a rdxttal
witness from the government, or we m y also be in a position
where we will go just to final arguments tomorrow after my
instructions.
So in any case, we're going to recess for
today and I'm going to require you to be back at 8:00
tomorrow. I would say to you it took us a long time to deal
with the &its already. We're going to spend some time
on that, and we also have the -- just the logistical issue
of getting together the final instructions.
So you've received some of the evidence but
you don't have all of it because we m y have additional
testhny tomorrow. Importantly, you also don't have the
exhibits which are part of the evidence, so stay away from
any kind of determination, consideration or discussion of
the case until you begin your deliberations, which I'm
predicting are going to be tomrrow.
Leave the pads here. All the other orders
remain in effect, so no private investigation, no outside
referencing mterials. All the other adnonitions I gave
continue to control.
So if you'll leave your pads, we'll adjourn
today. Again tomorrow morning 8:00 o'clock, okay? Thanks.
We'll adjourn until that time, and I guess counsel for the
defendant Gray, you assemble the exhibits you want to offer
and approach.
(Jury out).
THE COURT: Let me just ask, do you have the
exhibits you want to m v e the admission to?
MR. WHITAKER: We don't right now, Your Honor.
I'm organizing that, but we have the one other thing we
wanted to do, I wanted to mve the introduction pursuant to
judicial notice of 102.02 of the Ohio Revised Code with
regard to the Ohio law on reporting gifts and dinners for
Ohio public officials.
I certainly think that since the Houston codes
and all of these others were introduced, it's certainly
important that that be taken into consideration as well.
I have a copy for the Court. We've marked a
copy of it as Defendant's -it X.
MR. D W E U W C H : I would like to see precisely
what's being offered.

M R . WHITAKER: I thought I gave you this last
week. Sorry.
MR. DmTEUWCH: Yes, Your Honor, we do
object.
The basis for the objection is that this is
I
one provision of the Ohio Revised Code. It is not the

provision that relates to the activities that form the basis
of the things that Mr. Gray did wrong.
Basically what they're doing is offering a
provision that says you have to report things. What they
are not doing is offering the conflict of interests
provisions, Your Honor, which would make it very clear.
And there's a very well-established body of
law on this in the State of Ohio that 1.02.03 says you
cannot either give, if you're a private person, or take, if
you're not a private person, anything of value. And the
Ohio Ethics Conmission has published opinions that say that
meals count, tickets count, golf outings count, there ' s a
specific opinion that says a golf outing, a cart rental
counts with people who are doing business before you in the
State of Ohio.
THE COURT: What b u t caddies?
MR. DFITELBACH: Pardon me?

THE COURT: What abut caddies?
MR. DFITELBACH: I don't know.
THE COURT: Same thing. Let me just do this,
I think the exhibit itself wouldn't be admissible, just the
statute, but what you'rereally requesting is an
instruction. I think that would be the format that would
deal with it more appropriately rather than just simply
giving than, the jury, an exhibit that is --
MR. WHITAKER: Right. And I appreciate that.
And not only that, Your Honor, it will allow

us to focus on the relevant language and avoid a lot of
irrelevant, and we would be glad to prepare an instruction
and request for that to present to the Court first thing in
the morning.
THE COURT: Well, take a look at the section.
We will recess for a bit.

I want you to assesrible your exhibits. I'll go
back, but my intent really is in the morning to move to the
witness and then a m s t inmediately move to the instructions
and then the final arguments.
So I'd rather we do it, we've got quite a bit
of time this afternoon to --
MR. WHITAKER: Sure.

THE COURT: -- try to, you know, deal with that
before we recess today, so that tomorrow morning hopefully
it will flow fairly smoothly.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, we will fashion a
handwritten request on the break, Your Honor, also, and when
you do come back we'd like the opportunity to address the
reason for our motion for judgment of acquittal and the
renewal of our motion for mistrial.
"COURT: Oka$ ,..
MR. WHITAKER:
THE COURT: We will recess for about 10 or 15

minutes.
(Recess taken).
THE COURT: Does the defendant Gray move the
admission of any &bit?
MS. WHITAKER: Yes, Your Honor, we do.
THE COURT: What exhibits do you move the
admission of?
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, w i t A is -- we
have withdrawn some. Do I just read what I'm going to
introduce?
THE COURT: Just tell me the exhibits you seek
to introduce.
MS. WHITAKER: w i t C is a packet of
Honeywell invoices, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Why don't you just give me the
letter?
MS. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: And if they aren ' t s u e what they
are, they can ask to see them.
MS. WHITAKER: Okay. D.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, C?
MS. WHITAKER: C as in Charlie.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. WHITAKER: D as in David, E I H, I, J I K,
M I 0,PI Q, R, S, X, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, F'F, GG, HH, 11, JJ,
KK, and LL.
THE COURT: I understand the defense has moved
the admission of Exhibits C, D, E, H I I, J, K, M, 0,P, Q,
R, S, X, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG, HK, 11, JJ, KK and LL.
Does the government object to any of those?
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor.
MS. WHITAKER: I'm sorry.
MR. WHITMER: There are two exhibits that
apparently are at the office, Y and Z, and we're unable to
identify them at the mment. And when we come in in the
morning, we will certainly call the government tonight and
let them know what they are, but we ask the Court for the
opportunity to let us --
THE COURT: Possibly reopen.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, we haven't closed, but to
ask the Court to accept, move their ahittance, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. But as to the exhibits that
have been offered, does the government have any objection?
MR. DETlTlBACH: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Which exhibits do you object to?
MR. DETTELBACH : Yes, Your Honor.
We object to Exhibit C.
THE COURT: Why don't you give me the list of
all that you object to?
MR. DEXTEEWCH: Yes, Your Honor. We object
to C, D, E. We're asking for a redaction on H. J, K, 0,R,
AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF. GG which we've already asserted an
objection. HH, 11, JJ, KK, and LL.
THE COURT: Okay. Could I see copies of each
of those?
MS. WHIT-: I provided a copy at the
beginning of the trial. There's several of them.
MS. =TAKER: Your Honor, I forgot to mention
that several of the exhibits are the plea agreements, and we
m v e their adnission subject to redacting the factual
portion as we did last time.
THE COURT: m y don't you wait?
MS. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: Let's go through these in order.
What's the grounds for objection as to
Defendant's Ekh.ibit C which appear to be the ETNA invoices
to Honeywell?
M R . DEITEUBACH: They are, but they are ETNA
invoices that don't have to do with the facts of this case,
and I think what they are designed to do, as are several of
the exhibits, is to talk about other things of value that
corporations give to public officials as part of a defense
that because this happens frequently, it is somehow
acceptable.
It's the first of several exhibits in that
regard, so it ' s relevance, Your Honor, and it ' s 403, both.
I don't see any transaction reflecting any of
these &its as relates to the contracts we're talking
about.
THE COURT: I'm not sure how they are
relevant.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, if it please the
Court, first of all, they are exhibits identified by Agent
Massie as we covered and pursuant to subpoena from
Honeywell .
It's also relwant in this sense: The
government has introduced volumes and volumes of payments
and et cetera, s m of which relate to specific issues here
and some of which don't.
I tfink this provides an overall picture of
his relationship with Honeywell. Equally as important,
especially given the fact that the Honeywell Code was
introduced, it shows the procedure by which things are
approved and not approved, and I think it's an essential
aspect of the case.
They've introduced all kinds of documents
svbpomed or gathered in the search from his office,
showing things that generally show this kind of procedure.
There'sbeen talk and testimony about the procedure and the
need for backup work, and this gives a far m r e complete
picture of that entire process.
So I think that, you know, in terms
of -- well, first of all, it's relevant.
Second of all, it's also relevant pursuant to
106 in the sense it gives a more complete picture of other
documents that have been introduced.
MR. DGITELBACH: I would also point out to the
Court that the Bates stamps are not sequential so I don't
know if it's fair to say that this is -- but this is a
selection sort of document.
MR. WHITAKER: We didn't -- we just pulled the
whole dibit. If they were, this is how it was given to

us. They may be out of order. Glad you noticed that, but
we didn't --
MR. DGITELBACH: Not out of order. It's 625
and skips to Page 5,000.
MS. WHITAKER: I copied them directly how they
are kept in the FBI office.
THE COURT: I guess I'm not real sure I
understand what the point would be.
There's a cover mem that deals with or a
cover invoice that's dated April 25th, and then there's some
receipts from a restaurant in Shaker Heights on November,
'02,seven months later.
And 1 guess I'mnot sure, they seem to be
expenses that Mr. Gray incurred at these restaurants, but I
don't h o w how they help you or how they are relevant.
MR. WHITAKER: They, what they are an
indication of, the government I believe took the position
that -- has taken, certainly created the impression that the
manner in which certain expenses were s*tted was
surreptitious and attempts to conceal, and I think that this
gives a more complete picture of exactly the process and,
you know, they come directly from EINA to Honeywell.
This is part of the process. This is the way
they were done. This is the way they have all been done.
They are authenticated and properly authenticated. There's
no reason not to.
And one of the things the government's also
arguing is deceit throughout this case including

specifically with the mail fraud.
THE COURT: I guess what again are the grounds
for the objection? They don't seem to show -- I have
questions as to whether they are relevant, but --
MR. DmTELBACH: That is the ground. The

grounds is the relevance and then it creates confusion.
We're going to throw a whole bunch of irrelevant invoices in
there, to the jury, and I don't see how that assists in the
truth-finding process.
That's the objection.
THE COURT: I'll receive it. I mean, I think
it really -- it's got only mrginal relevance at best.
There's tickets for a Panthers game, Browns versus Carolina
Panthers game in Dec&r of 2002, but there's no other
identifying information that I see on this as to who went to
it.
MR. WHITAKER: Right. That ' s correct.
THE COURT: There's a receipt for the W hotel
in New Orleans or W restaurant -- I guess the hotel?
MR. WHITAKER : Right.
THE COURT: But, I don't know, maybe there's
some relevance. I'll receive C.
W t ' s the objection as to D?
MR. DFITELLBACH: Again it's relevance and
unfair, prejudicial.
This is again now the beginning of another
series of exhibits in which unrelated charitable donations
are attqted to being introduced into evidence I assume to
support an argument that we think is improper that these
corporations do this and, therefore, this is part of the
normal course of doing business and it's okay.
It'snot relevant, it's fairly prejudicial,
and has a chance to confuse the jury with respect to the
real issues in the case.
I think this one purports to be a $275
contribution from a William Giaho who has been mentioned in
the case. He's Mr. Jividen's supervisor, involving the
National Conference of C o m i t y and Justice award dinner.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: What's it offered for?
MR. WHITAKER : I' m sorry, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I don't understand what it's
offered for.
MR. WHITAKER: It's offered for -- we asked
specifically in cross-exmination about the fact that Agat
rllassie was aware that all corporations that do business with
the City of Cleveland are asked to contribute by various
departments from the City of Cleveland.
This certainly goes to show that it goes to
support what his answer was, and goes to dmnstrate that it
is -- it is part of that process. Whether it's right or
wrong is something the j u r y will decide, but we asked him
specifically about this, and we have documentary support
supporting the answer that, indeed, it is across divisions
and throughout the City in terms of people doing business
with the City.
MR. DFITELBACH: And our response is that
whether this is right or wrong is precisely something that
the jury i
n this case is not being asked to decide.
M r . G i a k is not on trial, Honeywell is not
on trial, and this is again part of the selective

prosecution argument that the defendant is trying to go to.
MR. WHITAKER: No, this goes directly along
the lines with the questions that Agent Massie was asked
without objection on cross.
THE COURT: I'll receive it.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: I think it only has marginal
relevance, but I'll receive it.
what's --
MR. WHIT=: E is Honey -- I'm sorry.
MR. DFITE=LBACH: Again and I do think this is
prejudicial. This is again the same thing.
THE COURT: What's the source of it?
MR. DmTELBACH: It's from the Honeywell
documents it appears from the Bates stamp, Your Honor.
MR. WHITAKER: That's correct, and Agent
Massie identified it.
MR. DETTELBACH: This is again some sort
of -- this goes directly to the notion that we're going to
be trying conduct that is not part of the case and somehow
comparing that to defendant's conduct, and if it somehow
mtches that standard --
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to
that. There'sbeen no testimony abut anything to show that
they were -- this was in response to some pressure for some
rrolnicipality or local government to rake the donation, so I
don't think it's relevant.
What's the language under H you want deleted?
MR. DGITELBACH: H is three pages. We have no
objection to the &bit standing alone, but it is stapled
together. And Mr. Donovan stated one is an invoice that was
sent out and the other is an internal document.
And I think the defense's point on this
document, they were sending out something and open about the
fact that ITNA was working for outsiders. So while we have
no objection to the middle page, we do have an objection to
the fact that the page says it was sent outside the company
because it was not.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we would be glad to
accorrmdate that. We would be glad to take the staple out
and mark the second one as H-2 and H-1.
MR. D-CH: We would withdraw our
objection.
THE COURT: Okay. That will be received.
What's the objection as to J?
MR. DEITELLBACH: Again relevance and unfair
prejudice.
This is another donation that has nothing to
do with Mr. Gray, has nothing to do with Mr. Jackson or the
facts of the case, and we believe that it's again being
offered as some sort of a notion that there's a selective
prosecution or that this is okay because other people do it.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, it's actually the exact
same -- Oh.
THE COURT: Who is Heather Hogan and Chris
Nielson?
MR. WHITAKBX: They are C13[M executives, and
the second page will show that CCM reimbursed than for the
charitable contribution.
MR. DFITELBACH: Which may or may not -- the
reimbursement m y or m y not be appropriate, but it is not
the subject mtter of this case.
THE COURT: I'll receive J. I think it's got
some relevance as to the one -- you know, I think it would
have no relevance except for the fact that you made one
argument with regard to this $25,000 that they were opened
up for this scholarship fund, and I think this is somewhat
related to that.
MR. DmTELBACH: We would point out this time
around we were very careful with the juy to not say that
was a criminal act. It went to the defendants' intent, and
that's the way we spoke about that evidence.
THE COURT: With regard to K.
MR. DETTELBACH: This is again the same thing,
and I think also at this point I'd like to also add an
objection that I think the cumulative effect of more and
m r e of these becomes more and m r e prejudicial to the
government.
MR. WHITAKER: This is the specific $25,000
that was --
MR. DETITXBACH: No. It'swrong. This is the
wrong year.
MR. WHITAKEEI: Oh, it's the request for the
$25,000 scho~larshipfund.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll sustain the objection.
I think it's mlative and less relevant. It's in
Septeniber of 2003.
What's the objection as to O?
MR. DGITELBACH: 0,Your Honor, we object
again on relevance. This is again a document that is
written in July of 2003. It's after Mayor Onunwor has been
confronted and after ?&. Gray is aware of the wiretap.
And all this appears to be is
somebody's -- and it's not quite sure whose -- responses for
update to the fiscal commission abut how the conpany is
doing since the audit came out.
It'snot contenporaneous with the criminal
conduct in the case that Mayor Onunwor was involved with.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DETTELBACH: There is another exhibit
that's coming up. The next one --
THE COURT: Let me just, I think that this
would be hearsay so I'll --
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, this is the fiscal
consnission update. They introduce the fiscal cornnission
contract which apparently -- or the original fiscal
conmission report which was as much hearsay as this is.
I mean, this is just --
THE COURT: I don't know who is even the
author on this?
M R . WHITAKER: Pardon? The fiscal commission
is, the fiscal commission update.

MR. DmTELBACH: Your Honor, I don ' t think
this was authored by the fiscal commission. I think it was
an update offered to the fiscal commission written by
somebody else but, I don't know, it doesn't appear to be
written that way.
THE3 COURT: At first glance that's the way I
read it.
MR. WHITAKER: Oh, in other words, I forget
now --
THE COURT: Looks like it was some handout

given to the fiscal conunission updating them on what's going
on with the water department.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, when I asked Agent Massie
about it, at least at that time he thought it was a report
of the fiscal commission.
It m y be --
THE COURT: I don't know, but I think it would

still be hearsay, and given the time period it's also not
relevant.
MR. WHITAKER: Except that it incorporates
Om's response to the original fiscal commission report.
MR. DEXTELBACH: Your Honor, that ' s the next
document. We do not object to that. That's contesrrporaneous
objections that they filed.
THE COURT: Okay. In any case I'll reject 0.
MR. WHITAKER: P you're not objecting?
MR. DFITELBACH: Correct.
THE COURT: P will be received.

What's the objection as to R?
MR. DEXTELBACH: Your Honor, again this is a
newspaper article regarding Mayor Campbell and the
scholarship fund. This is already in evidence in one of the
Government's *bits. It's in the back of the e-mils I
believe of Kelly Carpenter Rotunno and we introduced those
so it's just duplicative.
MR. WHITAKEX: Do you know what number?
MR. I
)
-
C
H
: It's the last page of those
exhibits that was attached to it.
MR. WHITAKER: He's checking just to &e
sure.
THE AGENT: 737.
MR. WHITAKER: Because if that's the case,
Your Honor, we will withdraw it.
THE COURT: Okay. R is withdrawn.
MR. WHITAKER: I said if that's the case we

will withdraw it.
THE COURT: Okay. Can you get the exhibit?
MS. WHITAKER: Agent Massie is going to check

for us.
THE AGENT: Page 30 is 737.
MR. WHITAKER: That's admitted?
THE COURT: Okay. So that exhibit will be
withdrawn.
MS. WHITAKER : Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: That was admitted?
MS. WHITAKER: That m s admitted.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. m t ' s your next?
MR. DElITEUBACH: The next objection is we've

already been over which is Exhibit X which is the legal
point that the Court has us working on.
THE COURT: Okay.
M R . DEITELBACH: And then the next --
THE COURT: Well, X will not be received.

You know, we'll consider it as a request for
an instruction, although in reviewing the Code section I'm
not sure exactly what instruction you're asking for, but
maybe you can clarify that when we finish with this.
MR. WHITAKER: I will. I will.
THE COURT: I don't have copies of AA through
L;L.
MR. WHITAKER: AA is the -- oh, AA is the
whistleblower letter that Hard- testified to that he

wrote to the Office of Inspector General.
Would you like to look at a copy, Your Honor?
THE COURT: No, I'm familiar with it.
What's the objection as to that?
MR. DFITELBACH: Your Honor, with respect to
all these next series AA through FF, those were m k e d for
identification and used in cross-examination.asprior
inconsistent statements of a witness, and they should not be
admitted as substantive evidence.
They were used appropriately on cross and
that's what they were sdmitted for. They should not be
offered for the truth of the mtter asserted, and they are
taken out of -- one page of the exhibit is what it is.
THE COURT: Let me see the actual exhibits.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. I think, though, for
purposes of discussion here the 302s are different than the
AA, which is the letter written by Hardeman that he
testified to about.
MR. WHITAKER: I'm sorry, go ahead, Your
Honor.
MR. WHITAKER: It'soffered because Hardeman
testified that he wrote a letter. He testified that from
this stand that it was a letter that didn't
necessarily -- oh, that didn't necessarily include
everything and he might not have put that in for some reason
he gave.
THE COURT: He said he didn't put it in
because it would point back to him.
MR. WHITAKER : Right. And then when he was
impeached with his prior trial testimony, he acknowledges
that he testified under oath that it did include all of them
and that's -- and while he was testifying to that, he also
was identifying the document that he said included
everything he thought Monique did wrong.
And I think as such it's very important, given
his testimony here today. And it's actual evidence --
THE COURT: What's -- it's 613 I think they're
trying to offer it under.
MR. DFITELBACH: That ' s correct, Your Honor.
And our position is under 613 a witness was
cross-examined on this and he aclmowledged -- it was
cross-examination by omission is what it was, and he
acknowledged he did not put these allegations in this
courtroom in that letter, so there's no need to offer it to
prove that the statment was inconsistent.
So it would be extrinsic evidence of a prior
inconsistent statment, and I would also just point out it
has the prejudicial effect of in the big picture, it'san
eight or nine-page rant about the other bad acts of
M s . McGilbra that is a government witness in the case.
And under 608(b) it would certainly not be

admissible as against her. It would be extrinsic evidence
of other acts. So I think what is going on under Rule 403,
it would be -- the marginal value of the added value of
having a piece of paper over Mr. Whitaker ' s
cross-examination would be heavily outweighed by the
prejudicial effect of having W . McGilbra's past boyfriend's
lengthy diatribe at her, when it would not be admitted in
the course of testimony.
MR. WHITAKER: Of course, prior inconsistent
statements is exactly what 613 (b) permits.
I think this has the additional value of
supplementing his testimony that it was a complete listing
of everything that --
MR. DETTELBACH : He did not say that.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objections.
First, I don't think it's -- it's inconsistent
I think only in the sense that it's an admission. He did
not include certain language, so in terms of the admission
under 613, I think it has only marginal relevance.
I think under Rule 608(b), you know, it would
otherwise not be permitted, so considering it under Evidence
Rule 403 I'll turn it down. I think it's only got marginal
probative value under 613 as a mtter of a prior
inconsistent statement.
And I think under 608 and 403, I think it's
got major problems as extrinsic evidence.
MR. WHITAKER: Well --
THE COURT: It would obviously be hearsay and
irrelevant because her other bad acts are, you know, only
marginally relevant.
MR. WHIT-: It is silence is inconsistent,
and I believe 613(b) covers silence as an inconsistent, and
I believe case law supports silence as an inconsistent
statement.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WHIT-: Intent is an element of this
crime and this is a co-conspirator talking about his intent,
and so it's one that goes against his interest in terms of
talking as a co-conspirator at trial.
THE COURT: I thought he said just the
opposite. I thought he said he didn't put in the
identifying r m k s about the fire stations and some other
things because he wanted to make it not a statement against
interest. It was an anonymus interest.
In other words, the statement from the stand
that indeed this was his list of things and that it was a
complete list of what he intended, of what he thought,
including as a co-conspirator in this case, it goes to his
intent as a co-conspirator in this case.
MR. DETTELBACH: The problem is --
THE COURT: I don't understand what you're
saying.
MR. WHITAKER: It goes to his intent that
there was no intent to violate any law with regard to
anything Monique McGilbra did in this case.
THE COURT: I don't think he testified to
that. I thought he testified he did violate the law, but in
any case I'mnot going to receive it. I think under 608
it's estopped and under 408 as well.
MR. DETTELBACH: The next exhibits are 302s or
single pages of the 302s of Bnmnuel Onunwor. The added
problm is these are not prior statements of Rrmnuel
Onunwor; they are 302s and they are incomplete as well.
M R . WHITAKER: They are extrinsic evidence of
Brmnuel Onunwor's inconsistent statemats clearly and
unequivocally, and clearly are permitted under Rule 613(b).
MR. DETTELBACH: Disagree. Mr. Whitaker was
able to call Special Agent Massie to the stand and was able
to ask him questions with regard to those statements.
THE COURT: I think he's right, they are
actually not Onunwor's statements. They are a record of
what some FBI agent thought Onunwor said.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, I think they are -- go
ahead.
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, if I m y cite a
case Becall, 85 F. 3d 1193, and they allowed evidence,
extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by
calling an agent to review notes in the same way that we're
doing here.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think that you were
permitted to do that with Agent Massie, so you could call
him and ask him about the prior inconsistent statement, but
the actual 302s are different.
So I'll reject AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, and FF.
Are there any -- I do not have a copy of GG
through LL.
MR. WHITMER: GG, Your Honor, is the tape
that we just played. It will be -- it's just the recording
that we played when Agent Massie testified.

THE COURT: You object to that?
MR. DFITEI;BACH: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll overrule the objection
and I'll receive GG.
MR. WHITAKER: Oh, okay. HH, 11, JJ and KK
were the plea agreements that we're asking to admit subject
to the redaction of the factual basis.
MR. D
-CH: And we object.
THE COURT: Who is HH?
MR. DliTEXBlCH: HH is M s . McGilbra's plea in
Ohio. 11 is her plea in Texas. JJ is Spellman and KK is
Onunwor .
THE COURT: Okay. What's the grounds for the
objection?
MR. DETTELBACH: It is Rule 403, Your Honor.
The defendant, the co-defendants, the
witnesses were cross-examined extensively on their plea
agreements.
They were able to give answers on them. The
documents had several prejudicial matters which should not
be before the jury. One of them is the statutory maxhums
involved with the crimes in this case. Another one is
specific detailed calculations regarding guidelines which
the defense attorneys were able to ask about at some length,
so we don't believe the writing adds significantly more to
the cross-examination.
Unlike the last case, this didn't play out the
same way where we have witness sort of went through their
plea agreement and read certain parts to the jury. It
didn't happen that way, so we believe the writing would in
effect insert all those issues back into the case.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, response?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: First of all, they did testify
about it. They testified, for exarrp?le,dbout the
government -- recognizing that the government had the right
to move for downward departure, that that might effect the
Court's consideration in the sense that that is what the
Court considers. And I mean I don't -- you know, and they
testified extensively on direct examination.
I think they ought to have the complete
picture of what's being promised by the government. It goes
to motive, it goes to motive to exaggerate.
THE COURT: If you've looked at them, I'm not
sure the plea agreements help you. In fact, I think they
m y be indecipherable.
And the only thing that could potentially
help, I think, with the jurors is the issue of the statutory

rmxhmm, but I'd be inclined to delete that even if it went
back.
MR. WHITFXER: I think the --
THE COURT: Otherwise if anything, the
guideline calculations except as to Onunwor are relatively
mdest, even if they -- even if they, you how, hew how to
apply the guidelines to the particular defendants.
MR. WHITAKER: I understand what the Court's
saying.
I think it is still relevant, particularly
Onunwor. You how, we would be glad to let Onunwor's go in
and -- as the example.
1 mean, you how, I guess in the sense that
the government's asking that they are repetitive and worried
about the gross sentence, we could delete the gross sentence
and just do Onunwor.
MR. DmTELBACH: As long as the statutory
rmxhums would be deleted.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll sendhis back. I'll
delete the factual predicate associated with it and I'll
also delete the statutory maximum and I'll also delete the
guideline calculation range.
There still would be some language in there
about cooperation, so I suspect that's what you're
really -- okay.
MR. WHITAKER: We understand.
THE COURT: As to the others, I think there is
far less relevance, and I'll deny the request to admit
those.
Do you have any exhibits that we haven't dealt
with?
MR. DETTELBACH: There's one more.
MR. WHITAKER: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. DETTELBACH: It's something we dealt with
before. We're back at the tape 1081 which is the Joe Jones
ain't worth anything tape, which we -- m. Whitaker objected
to, we didn ' t play it, and then he played, and then we
withdrew wha we were going through our exhibits. And I'm
not quite sure what to say to the Court.
THE COURT: Do you want to m v e the a ~ s s i o n
of that?
THE COURT: Okay. 1'11 overrule and receive
it.
Okay. With that, do you rest?
MR. WHITAKER: Subject to my decision on
Mr. Casey tonight.
THE COURT: Okay. And then, Mr. Jenkins, do
you move the admission of any exhibit?
MR. JENKINS : Yes, Judge, and the only one
that we have on behalf of defendant Jackson is the proffer
of Rony Joel. Actually I gave you a clean copy. That's the
only one that I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there any objection to that?
MR. DETFELLBACH: Yes -- no. No, there's not.
THE COURT: Okay. That will be received
without objection.
And I'll understand, except for the last
witness, we'll proceed to the final instructions.
Let's take about 15 or so minutes and then we
will come back and talk about the final instructions.
Give me some hint, I've looked, since you
pointed these out at the last break, I've looked at your
proposed instructions quickly. Are there any major
differences between the ones proposed at this trial and the
one proposed at the earlier trial?
THE COURT: Because some look like the same

boilerplate.
MS. WHITAKER: Some are.
THE COURT: Point me to the ones you believe
have changed.
MR. WHITAKER: I f you could give us one
second, Your Honor, we have exhibits all over the place, h t
I h o w we have it here.
We're -- also, when we come back can we also
argue the Rule 29?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. WHITAKER: I know Your Honor made an

addition to the Hobbs Act.
The mail fraud, honest services mil fraud and
honest services wire fraud are both very different.
THE COURT: Any others?
MS. WHITAKER: Jury instruction number 12 I
believe is new.
There were a couple that I just -- it changed
the wording a little bit on because of Mr. Jones, but that
was it, it wasn't a substantive change.
THE COURT: So you're indicating instruction
number 18?
MS. WHITAKER: 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, there's
been changes to instruction number 23, instruction nwnber
29, instruction number 30, 31, 32. I believe that is it.
THE COURT: Have you reviewed these proposed
instructions?
THE COURT: I'll take a look at them and then
we'll come back in a couple minutes.
(Recess taken).
THE COURT: We, at this point in time, with
the understanding that the case may stay open for additional
evidence, I ' 11 hear arguments on the Rule 29 motion.
This again would be if there's any issues
tomorrow that the parties believe that change the, you know,
the background of this, bring thm to my attention, but
otherwise the rulings that will be made today will control
for tamorrow.
MS. WHITAKER: The Rule 29?
THE COURT: Right, the Rule 29 motions.
MS. WHITAKER: Rulings.
THE COURT: So you won't have to renew the
Rule 29 motion tomorrow if you decide to call one additional
witness.
M S . WHITAKER: Just so the record is clear,
this will serve as the Rule 29 on the goverrunent's

presentation, and that renewal of it again at the end of
presentation of our evidence.
THE COURT: Yes. That's what you w i l l be
doing today.
Why don't you go ahead?
MS. WHITAKER: 1'11 try to go slow for you.
On behalf of Mr. Gray, Your Honor, I'm rrdking
a Rule 29 motion, and as the Court has instructed, this will
serve as the Rule 29 motion at the conclusion of the
government's case as well as the Rule 29 mtion at the
conclusion of all the evidence in the case from both sides.
THE COURT: That's correct, with the
understanding that if you think that there's something
that'smjor in the evidence tomrrow that you think you
want to further comment on, just bring it to my attention.
But otherwise, I'll consider this as your
exercise of your opportunity to make the motion at the close
of both your own evidence and the government's evidence.
MS. WHITAKER: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.
On beginning with Count Number 1, Your Honor,
I believe in the government's case they have failed to
provide evidence of two predicate acts in the XCO count,
and I can go through specifically to each area or I can do
that as I go through the counts later in the indictment.
Also I don't know that they've shown this is
an ongoing enterprise that is a separate enterprise apart
from the alleged racketeering activity. I believe that's
something that they need to show and has not been shown yet.
THE COURT: Okay. What about conversation
between Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson talking about basically
taking this nationwide? And that they had -- I think there
was some taped conversation where they talked about the idea
of getting together to talk about not just these cities, New
Orleans, Cleveland, Houston, East Cleveland, but, you know,
there were a lot of opportunities nationwide.
MS. WHITAKER: Are you speaking to --
THE COURT: The element of whether it was
intended to be an ongoing enterprise.
NS. WHITAKER: fight. I don't think that that
goes to -- I don't think that's evidence of a separate

enterprise apart from the alleged racketeering activity.
I believe that that is part of what the
government has alleged was part of the racketeering
activity, and I believe RICD requires a showing of a
separate enterprise apart from the racketeering activity so
that I think specifically Congress didn't want anybody to
get in trouble for just doing two wrong acts.
You needed a separate ongoing enterprise apart
from the racketeering acts.
THE COURT: Okay. But the thing I'm really
kind of trying to ask about was isn't it still that what the
government's evidence tended to show, it tended to show that
while they m y have met in a couple of cities, there was an
intent that it would -- this association between Mr. Jackson
and Mr. Gray would continue beyond even the cities we had
testkny about in this case?
MS. WHITAKER: I know there was a conversation
that you're referring to, Your Honor.
I don't h o w that that -- I don't know that I
would agree w i t h the characterization of that being a "We'll
take it nation-wide" conversation.
THE COURT: Do you want to comment on that
specific issue, Ms. Butler?

MS. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor. We believe that
we have shown sufficient evidence in the light most
favorable to the government to establish that there was an
association, an agreement by individuals to carry on the
business through various other businesses.
That there was a business plan as evidenced by
the call Your Honor referred to and other evidence.
And that there was ageanent on the unlawful
purpose as part of the business plan.
Of course, the instructions and the case law
say that the association need not be formal, and obviously
the existence of the enterprise can be shown
circumstantially and directly. We have more than ample
evidence on that.
THE COURT: Okay. I think there is sufficient
evidence on that issue of the enterprise and the
association.
You m y win on that issue to the jury, but I
think a reasonable juror could find it sufficient even if
the jury did not find it, you know, could still find in your
favor, but I think there's enough to get to the jury on
that.
And thereIs this evidence, you how, of the
phone calls about the idea of going to other cities, and
also I'm recalling the testimony about the cost of hiring
additional Congressmen, additional Mayors, additional meals,
which I think are all kind of -- support the notion that an
enterprise exists apart from the specific acts.
So I'mnot persuaded that the mtion should be
given for that reason.
MR. JENIUNS: Your Honor, should we do them at
the same time instead of going back?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. JENKDJS: Would that be better for the
Court?
THE COURT: If you have any other comments.
MR. JENKINS: Yeah. That conversation, like
we stated earlier about the Congressmen, were not made by
either Mr. Jackson or Mr. Gray. In fact they were made by
someone else talking about Congressmen. In fact they
brought up the name Ray Valdes and Brent Jividen.
THE COURT: The conversation I was referring
to, and I think I have this correctly -- I stand to be shown
I was wrong -- the conversation I was talking about was 1
thought there was a conversation about going into different
cities, and I thought it was Mr. Gray who said in the
conversation -- it was actually a conversation, I believe,
with Mr. Jividen.
ME?. JENKINS: Correct.
THE COURT: Camplaining abut the cost and " if
we go into these different areas it's going to cost us that
much more to lay the groundwork."
ME?. m m s : Right.
THE COURT: "And how am I going to, you how,
cover my costs on that?"
MR. m S : Correct. But as it relates to
Mr. Jackson, Your Honor, I mean, each time we seem to come
out that allegedly he made those statements. He did not.
That was Mr. Jividen speaking with sameone about those
statements.
So there's nothing that indicated other
Congressmen, other Mayors, things of that nature.
THE COURT: Well, although again I'llpoint
out that there was this conversation between Mr. Gray and
Mr. Jackson, you how, talking about getting together and
talking about a bigger plan for other locales in the
country.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I believe the call
you're referring to is 1134. We can put that on the screen,
if you'd like.
And it'sMr. Gray talking to Mr. Jividen --
THE COURT: That might help.

MS. BUTLER: -- about going into other
jurisdictions, about Mr. Jackson and the expenses that could
be incurred in these additional jurisdictions.
MR. JENKINS: That ' s the conversation he's
talking about, that s correct.
THE COURT: I thought there was.
I thought there was also a second conversation
between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Gray.
MS. BUTLER: Talking about having Morial and
Jeffers and Nr. Stokes, that would be 1138. They are
talking about 50 cities and being housing gurus.
THE COURT: So as to the issue of whether
there was an enterprise, I think that again that there is
sufficient evidence --
MR. JENKINS: Yes.
THE COURT: -- to go to the jury on that.
MS. WHITAKER: If Your Honor would like, I can
deal with some of the predicate acts as we get into the more
substantive counts, although I would like to touch on some
of the Cleveland stuff since they are not subject to any of
the substantive later counts.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Whichwer order
you think makes most sense for your case.
HS. WHITAKER: Okay. I'll do Count 1 and come
back to that.
On Count 2, Your Honor, it's the East
Cleveland Hobbs conspiracy, I don't think that there's been
evidence, any evidence that Mr. Gray intended or conspired
in any way to give a quid pro quo, a payment in exchange for
any official actions.
I think the testimony was that he had been
receiving money before he was Mayor and that there
was -- there wasn't any availability to tie on the
govementlspart any payments in retwn for any official
acts.
THE COURT: I think there was.
Actually, I thought Onunwor's testimony was
better for the government in this case than in the earlier
one, and he testified to a specific conversation with
Mr. Gray, you know, at the initiation of his adninistration
which I think could support a jury's finding that there was
an intent to have specific acts related to the Mayor's
performance, and that the compensation itself was m r e
specifically tied to that.
Especially I'm recalling that conversation
about if this is going to be a more regular payment and if
it's going to be a higher amount, I'vegot to have, you
W OW, some contracts coming in myself to justify that.
So as to that ground and as to Mr. Gray, I

think there is sufficient evidence.
MR. JENKINS : Your Honor, as to East Cleveland
informtion dealing with Gilbert Jackson, as the Court
recalls, the only conversation or any type of evidence
that's addressed his involvement in East Cleveland had to do
with a conversation where Mr. Jackson stated he was going to
Washington, D.C. and it was just an aside, and M r . Gray said
"Oh,my Mayor's going there."
My client said "What'shis name, who is it,"
and he had to tell him the name of it.
Even Mr. Onunwor testified there was
nothing --
THE COURT: W t ' s the government's --
E.BUTLER: Your Honor, Mr. Jackson isn't
charged in the substantive Count 2.
MR. JENKINS: Right.
MS. BUTLER: We would argue that through his
participation in the conspiracy he's responsible for the
acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, but he's not charged
in the Count 2 substantive.
THE COURT: You mean the Pinkerton, the
Pinkerton claim, is that what you're referring to?
MS. BUTLER: We elected not to charge him
under Count 2. He may be under Pinkerton, wm though he
has little direct participation in this aspect of the
conspiracy, so long as he has knowingly joined knowing the
purpose and this is reasonably foreseeable, he's not
entitled to be excluded from the conspiracy charge for the
lack -- for the di minimus --
THE COURT: I think their point is can you use

the East Cleveland evidence to support a RICO conspiracy as
against him when there'svery little evidence that he had
any contact at all with the East Cleveland?
MS. BUTLER: And we say yes, Your Honor,
because we say that he joined a conspiracy 'knowing the aims
of the conspiracy, knowing the objects of the conspiracy,
and that this conduct which went on in East Cleveland is the
same conduct which he directly participated in, so he knows
it was reasonably foreseeable as part of the acts that the
conspiracy would undertake.
And that call that he does receive in
Washington, of course in that call he says "What is the
Mayor's m e ," but when Ray identifies him as "My Mayor" and
explains "and he doesn't do anything without me," Jackson is
fully informed, we know he's fully informed by that code
language right there.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure exactly how
this was dealt with in the instructions but --
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I believe the
instructions do address --
THE COURT: I mean, all the money itself
though from the East Cleveland, none of it that I can see
goes back to Mr. Jackson.
MS. BUTLER: It's enterprising money, Your
Honor.
I mean, it would be very difficult to show
that every penny that Mr. Jackson got on a mnthly basis
from EINA Associates was tied to specific phone calls or
meetings, but he's salaried through the enterprise.
It's obvious from the pattern of the evidence
that we presented of the payments themselves.
MR. m S: Judge, even the Court --
THE COURT: Well --
MS. BUTLER: For example, Your Honor, I would
just say that a simple --
THE COURT: Let me try to cut to where I'm at.
I'mnot sure -- and help me with this -- I'm
not sure whether, if there's sufficient evidence to support
a finding that Mr. Jackson associated himself with a RICO
enterprise on at least two other occasions, perhaps the East
Cleveland isn't of importance.
MR. JENKINS: Judge.
THE COURT: At least at this stage, you know.
MR. JENKINS: It's almost as if they're saying
he's a retroactive co-conspirator.
I mean, if you look at how they presented the
case and where it all began, there'sno connection
whatsower to rrty client and any alleged activities in
Cleveland.
THE COURT: You mean in East Cleveland.
MR. JENKINS: East Cleveland, yes.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, it's our position we
could have charged Mr. Jackson under the Pinkerton theory in
the substantive counts. We didn't in the exercise of our
discretion, but that doesn't change the fact that this is
just in a sense like any other -- like a narcotics
conspiracy.
A participant in a narcotics conspiracy
doesn t have to be in every day so long as he joins the
conspiracy knowing that the purpose, for example, is to
import narcotics and distribute them, and he knowingly
participates on at least one occasion.
This is not any different. We could have gone
ahead and charged him on a Pinkerton theory with the East
Cleveland conduct. We decided not to, but that doesn't
change the fact that so long as we proved that he joined a
conspiracy, knowing the objects, he is -- obviously these
are acts no different than the acts in which he himself
directly participated in. So it'svery difficult for him to
say not reasonably foreseeable.
THE COURT: Let me steer us back. I'm not
sure this isn't in@ortant, but we are back to she was making
a motion relative to the predicate acts.
In this case, I would find that as to
defendant Gray, I think there are -- is evidence that a
reasonable jury could find at least two predicate acts
within the ten years preceding, you know, in the relevant
time period.
I think there's sufficient evidence with
regard to the Houston issues. I think there's
sufficient -- and with regard to Houston, I think there's
evidence on at least a number of separate fronts; one, the
energy contract involving co-conspirator Jividen and the
Honeywell issue.
I think there's separately the issue w i t h
regard to the shuttle service, either of which would
support, you know, a criminal violation.
I also think there would be sufficient
evidence with regard to the New Orleans, with regard to this
potential payment to the New Orleans Housing Authority
person, person who had inluence within the -- person in the
Mayor's office.
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I had
thought that we had reserved, I would go back to Count 1
after I had dealt with some of the predicate acts you were
discussing, and I had moved on to discussing the East
Cleveland conspiracy Hobbs Act in Count 2.
THE COURT: Okay. In terms of then I'mnot
sure how you don't think that there's sufficient evidence
that he and Onunwor, you how, joined to conspire.
MS. WHITAKER: Again, as I stated, I don't
think that the evidence showed that in any way Mr. Gray
intended the payments to be a quid pro quo for anything.
That he had been receiving monthly payments and cash help
before he was there. That they weren't tied to any specific
contracts, and that's why I say they haven't shown a
violation of that.
THE COURT: I knew you offered that evidence
or examination, but I think there's other evidence and
specifically Onunwor's testimony that the contract payments
have been limited to three, maybe four before he became
Mayor, and then it became regular payments of a month.
Beyond that, I think if you just look at the
tapes themselves, it almost begs to m k e the argument that
they are just gifts. There's no statement about it "Here's
something to help you, here's something for your wife and
family."
Every one is just kind of a passing of an
envelope which I think begs the question, why would there be
no conversation if it's a gift?
Beyond that, there's the circumstantial
evidence of these phone calls setting them up where Onunwor
says "Can I come see you?" It just doesn'tmake sense that
that would be a circumstance that would be associated with
just gift giving.
In addition, you've got the problem that
you've got the amount. Most gifts would not be almost a
retainer agreemat where someone'spaid $700 every single
month.
So I think a reasonable jury could find that
there was in East Cleveland, was a quid pro quo and it
wasn't intended to be a gift.
So I don't h o w if you want to move on this
Rule 29 motion to a different topic, but as to that, I'd
find tihat it should go to the jury.
MS. WHITAKER: On Counts 3 through 9, Your
Honor, those are the substantive aiding and abetting Hobbs
Act. Each one of those dates, 9/30/02 through 3/11/03 in
Count 9 are ater, even with the government ' s own evidence,
that Emmnuel Onunwor did anything at all to benefit
Mr. Gray.
I don't think they can support,.mybeif it
was an atterrpted sort of --
THE COURT: Help me; was that after the law
firm was -- had the law firm ceased payments to Mr. Gray at
that time?
MS. WHITAKER: Yes.
THE COURT: And with regard to the CH2M Hill
contract, was that canceled at that time?
MS. WHITAKER: It wasn't canceled, but it had
already been entered into. There was nothing more that
Enmanuel Onunwor would be doing with regards to that.
THE COURT: Well, except he would have an
influence in whether it was continued.
MS. WHITAKER: They were in a contract. It
was said to be continued.
THE COURT: Yes, but they would have inluence
as to how long it was continued.
My recollection is he ultimately canceled the
contract on, I thought, 30 or 90 days' notice, so he would

have had authority with the water provider as to how long
the water contract was going to be provided.
So I think that there is sufficient evidence
on those counts that there wasn't,you know, a benefit
to -- by the Mayor's failure to take those actions.
MS. WHITAKER: I would just say, as I said
before, that I think that the Hobbs Act requires a specific
quid pro quo that these payments were m d e in terms of
something specific.
W. Onunwor never testified that the mney was
exchanged for not canceling a contract that the City had
already entered into with approval from city council, as
well as the Javitch contract was terminated on the same day
hrlly that we have Count 3, and --
THE COURT: I have a question, and this is

completely off the point but it's a mtter, how is it ever
ethical for a law firm to pay somebody to basically obtain
work for them?
I mean, is that ethical for -- I thought there
used to be an ethics law where attorneys were not permitted
to pay runners so you hunt down -- you're an ambulance
driver, and as people get in auto accidents, you start
giving the card of some law firm to the injured party. And
then when the law firm gets the PI case, they make a payment
to the ambulance driver.
1 thought that was unethical.
MR. DFITELBACH: Actually the State Bar is
looking at this, Your Honor.
MR. WHITAKER: The State Bar m y be looking at
it.
MR. DFITELBACH: At the firm.
MR. WHITAKER: I know that.
The issue -- but there's some issue as to
whether the services that Mr. Gray was contracted to do
violate that law.
THE COURT: I know you have to look at that
separate, but just as a matter of information I didn't
understand how some law firm pays somebody, because the
testkny from Natkins today was originally to the effect
that he was helping not only with East Cleveland, but he was
also helping get work from Cleveland.
MR. WHITAKER: Yeah, he was helping to set up
meetings and --
THE COURT: And that's not Mr. Gray's problem.

THE COURT: He's not a lawyer andhe
doesn't -- but I didn't understand how some law firm pays
somebody to basically --
MR. WHITAKER: Pound the bushes.

You how, I think Mr. Dettelbach is correct
that they are being investigated. I think that their
defense is that he was arployed to advise them on how to
deal with these clients and try to arrange meetings and that
kind of stuff I think, and that that's different than going
out and getting a percentage or a piece of the action --
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WHITAKER: -- for specific cases.
THE COURT: Okay. But back to that position
with regard to the law firm, I think they still are in a
situation where a reasonable jury could find that he acted
as a -- to benefit the law fim in intercession with the
Mayor on a fairly specific contract.
MS. WHITAKER: Right. But all of the payments
in Counts 3 through 9 are beginning on the day that
Mr. Gray's contract was terminated with Javitch, Block.
So I don't think that that can be -- if the
contract is over, how that can support these Hobbs Act
violations.
THE COURT: Do you want to respond?
MS. BUTLER: Y o u Honor, you can pay over time
for an official act already in force. But also the Court
will recall there were a number of other opportunities that
were king used.
One was trying to find something to replace
somebody that they could share in profits with. They talked
about demolition contracts, benefiting from housing
construction; this guy Pina who was going to come from
Boston to look into opportunities on the land and the land
bank; Ralph Tyler agreements were still pending.
There was plenty of ongoing activity after.
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, first, ?Xr. Onunwor
didn't testify that payments he was receiving were some sort
of payment plan on the Javitch, Block contract.
He had the Ralph Tyler contracts, had -- the
contract to be the engineer had been entered into already by
the time you get the first payment, and the other acts, the
dmlition contracts, all those other things, m y support
the Hobbs Act conspiracy charges, but there was never
anything done, M r . Onunwor never did anything on any of
those contracts.
So I don't think they can support Counts 3
through 9.
THE COURT: Okay. I would disagree. I think
there's sufficient evidence on those. There were these
payments, basic monthly payments in the early -- Noverriber
of -- well, Count 3 is September 30th.
MS. WHITAKER : fight.
THE COURT: 2002 payment which is much
earlier.
So I think there is sufficient evidence to go
to the jury on those.
So do you have any other motions relative to
those?
MS. WHITAKER: Yes, Your Honor.
Counts 10 through 12 are the -- excuse me, not
ten through -- yeah, ten through twelve are the checks from
the law firm to ETNA.
I think that there was no intent to defraud
the public of any honest services. I think that there was
no deceit, there was no hiding. These were all sent
through, as Mr. Dettelbach made the big deal of the one
time, they went through the bank, the invoices were in their
books, they had contracts, there was nothing hidden here
which is for a mil fraud violation.
THE COURT: I disagree so I'll let that go to
the jury. I think there is sufficient evidence.
MS. WHITAKER: I would make the same
arguments, Your Honor, for Counts 13 through 15. Those are
mil fraud charges regarding the ETNA invoice toss Ralph
Tyler. Again the invoices were sent and they were paid in
check. They were kept in the business records of both
companies. I don't think there was any intent to deceive or
defraud here.
THE COURT: What's the theory on -- why did
Mr. Gray give -- send her a statement for $10,000 and then
Ralph Tyler, almost for the same period of time, made a
statement to the water company?
And tha we have the whole payment pattern
where the $10,000 never is paid from Ralph Tyler until they
received the money from the water company.
MS. WHITAKER: I don't think that that in any
way shows any intention of fraud. I mean, most prime
contractors, whether it be construction or whatever, don't
pay their subcontractors until they get the payments
themselves.
I mean, it's completely normal business
practice for sanebody like CH2M Hill to not pay Ralph Tyler
until they got the mney from the City, and for Ralph Tyler
not to pay MY. Gray until he gets the mney from CH2M Hill.
THE COURT: Remind me, is there a written
contract between Ralph Tyler and EI!NA regarding the payments
every month?
MS. WHITAKER: No, there was no contract, but
as the records show there was business with Tyler Companies
and ETITNA for years and years before that, and they never had
a written contract.
THE COURT: Okay. I think there's sufficient
evidence to go to the jury on that so I'll deny the motions
as to those counts.
W . WHITAKER : On Count 20, Your Honor, it ' s
the East Cleveland wire fraud letting Mr. Tyler h o w -- I
believe this is the call where he's letting Mr. Tyler know
that they have been voted to be engineer of record.
That was a vote taken by City counsel.
Certainly nobdy didn't k n ~ wwhat was happening. You don't
defraud there. Mr. Tyler's companies is a reputable
company. They could do a good job. There was no deceit
about that, and in fact it was unanimously passed by City
counsel.
THE COURT: Okay. You want to comment on
that?
MS. BUTLER: Well, Your Honor, I think in the
light most favorable to the government, the jury heard calls
in which there's talk about how Gray, operating completely
under the radar of public scrutiny, is facilitating the
contracts for Ralph Tyler with the City. They are the
professional services contracts, and there's the engineering
contract and they are paying Gray for that service and Gray
is bumping it over to Ehmnuel Onunwor.
So there obviously is a fraud and these are in
fwtherance of the fraud scheme.
Oh, Your Honor, that's also the call where
Mr. Gray tells Ralph Tyler "You stole my Mayor." Obviously
suggesting to the jury that he has some improper influence
over the Mayor.
THE COURT: Okay. I think there's sufficient
evidence on that.
You also have Onunwor's testimony professing
that he really had great influence with city council in
deciding who to pick on these type of issues so I'll deny
the motion as to Count 20.
MS. WHITAKER: Counts 21 and 22 are more wire
fraud counts for East Cleveland. I'll deal with them
specifically, but both of them I don't think are in any way
in any furtherance of any scheme to defraud.
Count 21 is a call between Mr. Jackson and
Ivlr. Gray, and as Your Honor has noted moments ago there's
really no comection to Mr. Jackson with any East
Cleveland --
THE COURT: Remind me, what was the call in
Count 20?
m. WHITAKER: 21?
THE COURT: No, I thought you were just moving
as to --
MS. WHITAKER : Right.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, 21.
MS. WHITAKER: That's the call between M r .
Jackson and I&. Gray, where Mr. Jackson's going to be at, I
believe, at a convention in D.C., Mayor's conference in D.C.
This is the call which I referred to earlier.
It's =bit 1044. This is the call when Gray is talking to
Jackson, Gray says he thinks that his Mayor is going to be
in Washington at the conference Jackson is going to. They
talk about how Jackson will look him up.
Gray describes to Jackson Gnunwor has his
Mayor, and this is the call in which he says he loves his
Nate Gray and he doesn't take a step without him.
It's obviously in the light most favorable to
the government, he's cormm.icating in coded language to his
co-conspirator what the relationship is there, and he's
asking Jackson to take care of his public official while
they're in Washington.
MS. BUTLER: Now, of cowse m. Jackson is not
charged in that substantive count.
MS. WHITAKER : No, and I don ' t think any
conversation between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Gray, Mr. Gray can
be liable for some intent to defraud.
It's in no way in furtherance of anything to
do withMr. Onunwor. Mr. Jackson is the one that offered to
look up FsraMnuel and to take him to dinner. So Mr. Gray
didn't do anything in this conversation that would in any
way influence the scha-ne to defraud someone of honest
services.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, just a point. The
call itself doesn't have to be fraudulent. It has to be in
furtherance of an honest services fraud scheme.
THE COURT: I guess I don't have the
transcript right in front of me, but I'm not sure that you
established how that was in furtherance of the scheme.
I thought it was -- my recollection was that
the conversation was largely to the effect of "Hey, if you
see this guy, say hi to him."
MR. JENKDJS: Your Honor, that's one way.
Mr. Jackson says "Who is it?" He didn't even h o w him.
THE COURT: What specifically further -- why
don't you put the conversation up? Why don't you put the
transcript, not the --
P/LS. BUTLER: Your Honor.
THE COURT: You can go to the next page.

MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I think the
transcript shows Mr. Gray asked Mr. Jackson to holler at
him, to say hello to him, and Mr. Jackson offered "Maybe if
I get a chance I'll see if we can get him in on one of our
Mayor's dinners that my company is sponsoring."
I don't think that Mr. Jackson had
anything -- he didn't even know who he was, so how could
this be in furtherance of any scheme?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, we see it otherwise
obviously.
Not only is Mr. Gray communicating or
confirming to Jackson the power he has over this public
official, but he's asking him to spend some money on him,
find him in Washington.
THE COURT: I don't h o w that he's asking him
that.
Isn't that Mr. Jackson is just volunteering
that he will include him in?
MS. BUTLER: That's how the --
THE COURT: Let me finish.
Isn't it the law firm that's paying for the
dinner?
MR. JENKINS: Yes. And him being a good
southern guy said "I' 11 bring him to dinner."
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, that's how good
corrupt businessmen work. "You take care of my guy, you'll
see him there, this is who he is."
It couldn'tbe clearer, "This is my Mayor. He
doesn't move, he doesn't take a step without me."
THE COURT: I think it's evidence on other
charges you can use, but I'm not certain how it establishes
that this call furthered the -- you know, this was -- you
know, this met the elaents of honest service wire fraud or
mil fraud in this case.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I believe in the
light most favorable to the government, which is the test at
this point, this is a c o ~ c a t i o nobviously across state
lines where the business people, the corrupt business people
are talking abut how to handle their resource in
Washington.
And it couldn'tbe clearer that there's an
unlawful relationship or that that's what they think will
further their business.
I mean, Jackson could easily have said "Too
busy; not important enough,"but he doesn'tbecause he
appreciates the importance of managing their asset which is
this Mayor of East Cleveland.
And --
THE3 COURT: I'm going to give -- I'll grant
the motion as to Count 20. I don't think that a reasonable
juror --
MS. WHITAKER: 21, Your Honor.
MR. LJENKINS: 21.
THE COURT: I mean Count 21.
THE COURT: All right. Although I'm
not -- it's not a ruling on the admissibility of the
evidence.
I think the evidence is still admissible as to
background evidence on other parts of the case, but I think
again it's -- it's a stretch that the jury couldn't
reasonably take, I think, that the conversation here, where
it appears that Mr. Jackson doesn't really h o w Mr. Onunwor,
and the only real conversation is Mr. Jackson says that same
law firm that's paying for dinner, "1'11try to get him an
invitation."
I just don't think that was sufficient
evidence to show an execution of a schme or artifice to
defraud the public service of this.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I just say again that
the standard here is light most favorable to the government,
and that we believe that this call is Gray trying to get his
partner to handle his asset in Washington.
THE COURT: Well, go back to the first page.
MS. BUTLER: And Jackson of course isn't
charged; just Gray.
MS. WHITAKER: Right. Mr. Gray did not ask
Mr. Jackson to handle anybody.
THE COURT: Well, except for the fact that you
start out the confession that he doesn't even know where
he's at.
MS. WHITAKER: Doesn't know who he is.
THE COURT: He starts out "mere you at? Are
you in D.C.? I'm going to D.C. today. I leave in two
hours."
MS. BUTLER: "If you get a chance, holler at
my -- holler at r r p ~East Cleveland Mayor. He's going to be
there."
MS. WHIT=: Say hello to him.
MS. BUTLER: No, holler I think we -- it's for
argument whether holler means simply wave at him or holler
means host him, take care of him.
He goes on to say --
MS. WHITAKER: I just know that my 19 year old

sister would use it as a hello.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll grant the motion as to
Count 21.
MS. WHITAKER: Count 22, Your Honor, is the
phone call with M r . Gray and Mr. Pena, if I'm saying it
right. I don't think that this has been shown to be in
furtherance of the scheme as well. It'sMr. Gray
negotiating with somebody for a potential legitinate
contract who has been shown to do no business at this point.
I don't know how this call could be in the
furtherance of any scheme related to East Cleveland.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I would argue that
the Court was correct when it twice before denied Rule 29 on
this very evidence.
THE COURT: Remind me what conversation this
is.
E. BUTLIG?: Your Honor, this is --
THE COURT: Do you have that? Do you have a
transcript of this?
MS. BUTLER: Yes. Your Honor, this is Nate
Gray trying to get a mnetary, as he says, arrangment with
this Boston developer who's going to come and meet with
m w o r and talk about land bank developnent opportunities.
THE COURT: Okay. Yes, I'll deny as to that.
I do recall the conversation now, and I think a reasondble
juror could find that fhis was in furtherance of the
conspiracy or in furtherance of the public honest service
wire fraud.
Do you have any motion -- so 22 will stay.
MS. WHITAKER : Okay. Skipping, Your Honor, to

26, and this is the Houston conspiracy, Your Honor, I don1t
think that they have shown with regard to Mr. Spellman that
anything was given in return for the $2,000.
At that point he had no conversations with

m. Spellrnan about asking him to do anything, about anything
that could be mistaken for having given him the mney to do
any official acts.
I mean, even once -- I have something to say
about even what he did, is it an official act, but at the
point he received the $2,000 there had been no cormmnication
about anything. There had been regular conversations that
he testified to that he had for years.
THE COURT: Although at that point in time
he's in, you know, he's in a high position.
MS. WHITAKER: Right. But, you know, for it
to be --
THE COURT: Didn't Mr. Spelhan testify that

in that position as chief of staff, he had a lot of
influence over people who did M e contracting decisions for
the City of Houston in various departments?
MS. WHITAKER: But at the point he received
the $2,000, there'sbeen no conversations ever about
Mr. Gray asking to do anything.
THE COURT: Do you want to respond just in
terms of whether there has to be a real specific back and
forth before the $2,000 --
MS. BUTLER : Your Honor, I would just remind
the Court that Oliver Spellman said when he got that cash,
he took it as a bribe. He took it as money to influence him
in his official position.
MS. WHITAKER: I think that to be -- support a
Hobbs conspiracy, that it cannot just be that I'm going to
someday do sanething for you.
You need to have, in return for a specific
official act, a quid pro quo. And Mr. Spellrnan testified at
that point they never had any conversations about Nate doing
anything for him.
THE COURT: So what's your theory then, if you
had -- if he had somebody -- I guess you've already said
this. If you have somebody like Onunwor who's on a monthly
retainer, that you can't support this type of charge because
it's less specifically tied to any decision?
MS. WHITAKER: Well, I mean I think that --
THE COURT: Any one decision.
It's tied to mybe a group of decisions, but
because there's no back and forth and any one decision,
there's no evidence to support the charge?
MS. WHITAKER: Well, in relation to
Mr. Spellrran, I think there's no evidence that *en he took
the $2,000, that he had any intention, Mr. Gray had any
intention of asking him ever to do anything.
I think that's a necessary element of a Hobbs
Act, and therefore a Hobbs conspiracy charge.
THE COURT: Do you have any final response?
MS. BUTLER: Well, Your Honor, there -- it's
our position that he -- and he a&nitted this -- that he took
the money knowing that it was in exchange for his use of his
official position and that there were two specific contracts
that Nate Gray was attempting to obtain in the City of
Houston.
And he facilitated that.
THE COURT: I think the government' s right, I
think there's sufficient evidence and I'll deny the motion
as to that.
Hobbs Act where Ms. McGilbra received Browns tickets and a
hotel stay.
I think that neither of those gifts were given
when m . McGilbra had any idea she would be doing any
business.
THE COURT: Well, but Mr. Gray h e w it.
MS. WHITAKER: But that's not an element of
the Hobbs Act. She had to take the thing of value lcnowing
it was for --
THE COURT: She certainly knew when she
checked out.
MS. WHITAKER: After they checked out the last
day they were there, when she checked out --
THE COURT: I thought she testified she went

back to the hotel.
MS. WHITAKER: When she spent the night
there --
THE COURT: Didn't she say she had the dinner
the night before and Jividen was there?
MS. WHITAKER: She said the first time she
heard any mention of Honeywell or business with Houston was
at the Browns game.
At that point she had already spent both
nights in the hotel and received the tickets so she could
not have accepted any of those with any knowledge that it
was in return for any official acts.
THE COURT: I thought she went out to dinner
the night before with Jividen?
MS. WHITAKER: Her testimony was that nothing
was ever mentioned abut anything with relation to Honeywell

or Houston or work at all until she was sitting at the
Browns game.
At that point she had already spent both
nights in the hotel and gotten the tickets for the Browns
game because she was there.
THE COURT: I'm not sure the testimony was
that she had already checked out.

MS. WHITAKER: She had already gotten the
benefit, she had already spent the night in the hotel.

THE COURT: If she had checked out she could
have paid for her own room.
MS. WHITAKER : She nwer gave him a credit
card.
THE COURT: She could have gone back to the
hotel room and said "Here,put the charge on me."
MS. WHITAKER: Idhen she accepted those things
and spent the night and went to the game, at the point she
was accepting the things of value she did not have any
intent or knowledge that they were in exchange for any
specific official action.
I think they can't support a Hobbs Act.
THE COURT: She testified she h e w when the
contract was going on.
MS. WHITAKER: She also testified that when
she accepted the Browns tickets --
THE COURT: I think there's sufficient

evidence to support that with regard to the Browns weekend,
so I'll deny as to Count 27.
And really for the same reason if you mike the
mtion with regard to the Superbowl, I think that's even a

harder act or harder argument to M e . 1'11 deny this,
Count 28.
MS. WHITAKER: Well, my argument with regards
to Count 28, Your Honor, is that the only other act besides
recornding Honeywell to Reliant which happened, you know,
several months before this, was this idea that she sort of
smoothed over some sort of personality conflict between
Honeywell and Reliant.
Her testimony on that was that she did it for
Mr. Hardeman. It wasn't because Mr. Gray had given --
THE COURT: Well, they're paying Hardeman and

H a r d m ' s testified that he's pushing him to share the
money with her.
MS. WHITAKER: Hardemn testified --
THE COURT: And Hardman only gets paid if
Honeywell gets paid.
MS. WHITAKER: Actually incorrect, Your Honor.
M r . H a r d m ' s statment, his contract does not say he gets
paid when Honeywell gets paid. His contract says he gets

paid 30 days after some phase is complete or something is
signed.
THE COURT: At that point in time he had
gotten paid, hadn't he?
MS. WHITAKER: But I don't think that's a
thing of value to Ms. McGilbra. She testified that's the
only reason she smoothed over that personality conflict, was
so that Honeywell and because of Garland H a r d m .
THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny that.
I think there is evidence that supports the
notion it's a fairly specific quid pro quo, and the contract
is ongoing. I think you point out the fact that the
contract is ongoing. There's no value to Honeywell to keep
having someone in the decision-mking process smooth things
over for them.
MS. WHITAKER: I make the same argument, Your
Honor, with regards to 29. I think that the testhny from
Ms. McGilbra was that the purse was a birthday present, as
well as the arguments I'vemade in relationship to 27 and
28.
THE COURT: So how many $800 presents have you
gotten from somebody who lives 3,000 miles away and you see
--
MS. WHITAKER: Not enough, Y o u Honor.

Maybe we could instruct the Court to have
Mr. bhitaker purchase one of those before October.
THE COURT: Ask your father how many of those
purses he's bought for his wife.
MS. WHITAKER: I can answer that.
THE COURT: So 1'11 deny this, too, Count 29.
MS. WHITAKER: In regards to Count 30, Your
Honor, this is --
THE COURT: It'skind of the same argumat you

just made, isn't it, with regard to the $2,000 check?
MS. WHITAKER: Well, this is a little bit
m r e , Your Honor, as well.
Again this is at a point where it's months
later that he ever even asks him to do anything. I think
asking the Mayor a question cannot count as an official act
on the part of Mr. Spellman. You know, the
conversations --
THE COURT: Well, it was beneficial, wasn't

it, to know that? I mean they plotted the strategy they
were going to use with regards to that.
MS. WHITAKER: At that point, Your Honor, all
the bids were already in. There was nothing more to do.
THE COURT: Well, but they hadn ' t made the
final decision and they were trying to influence the
decision mdkers if the Mayor had stepped in.
MS. WHITAKER: Right. And again I would say
there'sno conversations about ever doing anything, and it's
months before that conversation is had is the problem with
using the Hobbs Act on these charges. It's one of the
things the Supreme Court has had a problem with on these
things.
THE COURT: Do you have any response?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I just add that
Oliver Spellmn getting information from the Mayor also gave
him the opportunity to tell him Nate Gray's position.
That's clear on the tape.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny as to that.
Vegas trip. I believe that the check -- and I don't know
the exhibit nunher -- shows that that was sent to pay for
the hotel in July; again, mnths before there had been any
conversation about M r . Spellman asking any questions or
doing anything for Mr. Gray.
THE COURT: How close was that to the parking
meter?
BE. BUTLER: Your Honor, there' s a
conversation that we played to the jury the Friday before he
leaves to the Vegas trip talking about his business interest
in that contract, in the Vegas.
THE COURT: In the parking lot meter?
MS. :
-
B Yes.
THE COURT: That's a couple days before?
MS. BUTLER: That's the Friday before.
MS. WHITAKER: But he paid for it in July.
The check has a July date that the government has entered
into evidence. That'swhen the hotel room was paid for, and
that was months before there was any conversation about the
parking contract or anything like that.
THE COURT: Okay. 1'11deny as to that. I
think there's sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury
could find in favor of the government.
You're on 32.
MS. WHITAKER: 32, right.
In relationship to rry previous arguments h u t
Ms. McGilbra not having done anything except -- for any
reason except M r . Hardeman's contract, that she initialed
when she thought -- first she didn't even know who was
paying for it, just her and Garland were going, I don't
think that it can support a mail fraud count.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny that as to 32.
MS. WHITAKER: Counts 33 and 35, Your Honor,
if I can just take one out of order because they are the
same type of documents, they are both the $5,000 consulting
fee. Mr. Gray had a contractual relationship with Honeywell
for m y years, far before he started seeking any work in
Houston.
The contract was in Honeywell's records, it
was in Mr. Gray's records. There'snothing that changes
this --
THE COURT: What's the government'sversion of
what this $5,000 invoice is for? Is that the one that you
contend is an invoice for the Superbowl trip?
MS. BUTLER: No. No, Your Honor. This is a
normal monthly invoice, and we would say that this is in
fwrtherance of the scheme. This is right at a critical time
when Honeywell is trying to get into phase two, which is the
only time they actually start getting money out of the City
of Houston.
THE COURT: I guess what I'm kind of curious
about, does this include qenses where he's passing off to
Honeywell monies used to bribe McGilbra, or is this just a
monthly retainer?
MS. WHIT=: I believe this is a monthly
consulting fee that he's had with Honeywell for years and
years.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, he uses the mnthly
retainer as general operating expenses for the corrupt
scheme.
He submits ordinary expenses like the
Superbowl and dinner in Miami, but on a regular basis as
he's taking people to dinner, paying his phone bill, paying
subconsultants, he's doing it out of his monthly retainer.
And then we heard numerous calls about how
it's getting tough for him to carry Mr. Jackson, the guy in
Detroit, and Earl Brown for that $5,000.
So for that reason that's why we say this is
in furtherance of the corrupt --
THE COURT: This is during the time period

that Brown is getting paid?
MS. BUTLER: Oh, yes, Your Honor.
MS. WHITAKER: I would just say he's had an
ongoing relationskip with Honeywell. He's gotten a monthly
retainer for m y , many years.
He probably paid his rent out of it. There's
no evidence that his Money went to do anything in
furtherance of the scheme.
THE COURT: I think it should go to the jury.
I understand your point, it m y be a good argument, but I
think that goes more to weight.
I think the fact that it's in the same time
period where he's paying Brown and paying some of these
other expenses tend to show that certain of this $5,000was
being used to carry on this Hobbs Act violation and mil
fraud.
And for the same reason -- what's the 981?
What's that for?
MS. WHIT-: Beg your pardon?
THE COURT: What's the $981 charge?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, that's the restaurant
tab in the 5 --
THE COURT: Yes. I'll deny as to that.
I think that's fairly clear.
MS. WHITAKER: I'm sorry, which one did
you --
THE COURT: The 981, the dinner for McGilbra,

and if you nuke a motion as to that.
MS. WHITAKER : I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You have a hard argument with
regard to it.
She's right in the process of ndking these,
some decisions that could affect his clients, so I'll deny
it as to that.
MS. WHITAKER: I don't know --
THE COURT: Is the government going to argue

to the jury that Mr. Gray was not truthful in the tapes when
he said that McGilbra is a piece of work?
MS. BUTLER: Or an expensive date, Your Honor?
MS. WHITAKER: I make the same motion, Your
Honor, in regards to Count Nuniber 32. Ms. McGilbra
testified that --
THE COURT: Which invoice was that?

MS. WHITAKER: That is the invoice requesting
payment for the hotel lodging during the Superbowl.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny as to that, for
the same reasons we talked about before.
MS. WHITAKER: And with regards to --
THE COURT: 33, is that -- that's a similar
argument you mdke with regard to the earlier $5,000 monthly.
MS. WHITAKER: Right. 33 and 35 are similar.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny as to both.
1\/LS. WHITFXER: Call 30 -- exase me -- 30 --
THE COURT: As to 36, I think there's also
sufficient evidence on this fax to Hardeman, especially
given Hardman's testimony that he and McGilbra had an
understanding -- or not an understanding, actually a bit of
a disagreement where she was pressuring him to remit half
the monies.
: ! T IMS.
H W Well, any understanding, Your
Honor, between Ms. McGilbra and Mr. Hardemn wouldn't in any
way be able to go toward Mr. Gray's intent to defraud
anybodtv.
THE COURT: Why would you otherwise hire a
competitor? He's really a competitor of Mr. Gray's.
MS. W H I T ! : I think the testimony was that
Mr. Hard- hew he had a contract with Ms. McGilbra. He
could bring other City contacts, as well as contacts in
California where Mr. --
THE COURT: Yeah, but the contract itself was

all tied to the Honeywell deal in Houston.
MS. WHITAKER: And again as I said, I think
that Mr. Hardamn's testimony was that when he was talking
to Mr. Gray and M r . Jividen and solicited them entering into
the subcontract with him, he was selling his services as to
other City employees, other City councilmen that he had
connections to; not because of his connection to
Ms. McGilbra.
THE COURT: You can make that argument, but I
think there's sufficient evidence to get to the jury on
that.
MS. WHITAKER: With regards, Your Honor, to
Count 37, this is the telephone conversation from Nate Gray
in which he leaves a message to Mr. Jackson.
I don't think that any conversation that
Mr. Gray had with Mr. Jackson about when they're coming
there, is in any furtherance of any scheme to defraud.
THE COURT: Is that the one about picking up
the tickets?
MS. WHITAKER: It'sa message left to
Mr. Jackson.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny this.
MS. BUTLER: It's also about how to reach the
people where he says "1 think, you know, I'll need a cell
phone but I'll give it to you again."
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, the answering
mchine, that's the call they were referring to. There was
no conversation involving Mr. Jackson.
THE COURT: I remember. Left various nunhers.
MR. m S : Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I'll deny this to them.
MS. WHITAKER: With regards to Count Number
38, Your Honor, this is a call mde to the hotel that
Mr. Gray and MJZ. Spellman were going to stay at.
At that point Mr. Gray had never asked
M r . Spellman to do anything. There was at that point no
evidence of any intent to defraud the public of any honest

services from Mr. Spellman.
THE COURT: But this again, this is --
MS. WHITAKER: They were both planning to go

at that point, when he m e this phone call, they were both
planning to go, as M r . Spellman said in his testimony, to
Las Vegas together as friends.
At that point he never asked him to do
anything that would violate his duty of honest services to
the public.
I think there's sufficient evidence.
You're at 39.
MS. WHITAKER: 39, Your Honor, is the
conversation between IvLs. Gray and -- Mr. Gray, excuse me,
and Ms. McGilbra. She specifically notes that she wasn't
asked to help at all with the airport shuttle contract, and
talks about that she told everybody that they all have to
get along.
THE COURT: Can you remind me of what this
conversation was?
This is a call 1167 where Gray is offering
Ms. McGilbra a job.
THE COURT: Is this the one where she said
she's going to be lucky?
MS. BUTLER: Yeah. It's a clip of the same
call where basically Gray is also saying he's fearful
Thacker is going to take a piece of Honeywell's business,
and he's asking McGilbra to get ahold of Reliant and to
protect their interest from Thacker taking m r e of their
business.
MS. WHITAKER: I think he ' s asking
Ms. McGilbra --
THE COURT: Can you put that up? Do you have
it?
MS. BUTLER: Two clips of the same call
because it's long.
THE COURT: Okay. Yes. I'll deny this. I
recall, this is the one where Mr. Gray's basically arguing
that he will keep Honeywell into the loop or the part of the
contract that would provide more mney, more of an income.
MS. WHITAKER: I would just say, Your Honor,
that I think he was asking what she understood Thacker's
intentions to be or what the intentions were; not to
prohibit Thacker.
And I think Ms. McGilbra specifically stated
she's not going to tell who to pick who, and that all the
little boys, as she put it, need to play nice together.
MS. WHITAKER: Count 40, Your Honor, is a

telephone call, another wire fraud allegation between
Mr . Gray and Mr. Spellman during which Mr. Spelhmn --
THE COURT: Is this a conversation either
before talking to the Mayor or after?
IvLS. WHITAKER: It's after talking to the Mayor
where he --
THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny as to that. I

think it does facilitate the fraud.
They're trying to get some inside information
that would assist Mr. Gray in choosing what tactics should
be used in terrns of whether trying to -- my recollection was
it was a discussion as to whether or not to undercut the
competing bid by giving out information suggesting that the
competing bid had made up the Mayor's position.
MS. WHITAKER: I'm just saying t?mt in
addition to that, Your Honor, these conversations between
Mr. Spellman and the Mayor, there's no provision that those
are wrong conversations to have, that this is in any way a
violation of Mr. Spellman's duty of honest services, and
that they are not --
THE COURT: Didn't he testify he shouldn't
have been given that informtion now?
MS. WHITAKER: He testified he shouldn'thave
taka the money.
I don't h o w that he testified that having a
conversation with the Mayor was something so --
THE COURT: It's not so important about that,
but I thought he testified that even if he had had the
conversation with the Mayor, that that was something that
should have been kept confidential and shouldn'thave been
given out to one of the competing bidders.
MS. WHITAKER: In fact, Your Honor, I think he
specifically said he told the Mayor what he was doing and
the Mayor didn't have a problm with him asking the question
and that was a perfectly legitinate thing to do.
THE COURT: I'm not s u e I recall it that way,
but I'll deny as to that. I think a reasonable jury can
find against the defendant on that.
MS. WHITAKER: Moving on to 41, Your Honor,
this is the Hobbs Act conspiracy in relation to the City of
Houston.
THE COURT: You mean New Orleans.
MS. WHITAKER : E x m e me, New Orleans . Thank
you.
I don't think that they've shown the necessary
elements of conspiracy. I don't think that there's been any
indication that Mr. Gray or Mr. Jackson conspired to violate
the Hobbs Act and to give anything of value in exchange for
an official act by any New Orleans official.
THE COURT: Do you have that? Do you feel the
same way, M r . Jenkins?
MR. JEWINS : Yes. Yes, Your Honor, as well.

THE COURT: Okay. I ' l l deny as to that. I
think there's evidence that the $2500 was sent down, and I
recollect a thousand dollars was taken out in cash.

MR. JEBKDJS: Judge, would you like to do at
the same time wen while arguing it we have in the back of
the jury instructions a little clip, I have some problems
with the wording, or should we do that afterwards?
THE COURT: Why don't we do it afterwards?
MR. JENKIINS: Okay.
MS. WHITAKER: Then i n regards to 42, Your
Honor, this is the m i l fraud count.
THE COURT: For the same reason, I think that,
you know, given the statement of Mr. Jackson, a jury could
find against them on --
MS. WHITAKER: I make the same argument, Your
Honor, with relation to Count 43 and 44.
THE COURT: Okay. And I'll deny them for the
same reason.
Okay. Mr. Jenkins, do you have any additional
arguments you want t o make?
MR. JENK7NS : No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. For the similar reasons
I'll deny what I understand to be a mtion on behalf of
Mr. Jackson for acquittal.
Let's turn fairly quickly, given the hour, to
the jury instructions.
I had envisioned them largely being similar to
the ones that were given earlier. I wanted to talk to you
about just a couple matters.
My understanding, from what you 've said, I
understand that defendant Gray's proposed instructions
through 17 are all basically ones that were already covered,
and that the first change you suggest is the --
MS. WHITAKER: I believe that ' s correct, Your
Honor, although I don't have it in front of me, the
highlighted version that shows me what the exact changes
are, but I think our first change is --
THE COURT: Is 18?
MS. WHITAKER: -- is 18.
THE COURT: Okay. It is --
MS. WHITAKER: And the change in that, Your
Honor, is just the third paragraph or the thing that says
third.
I brought it m r e in line with the Court's
instruction, that first sentence.
THE COURT: Okay. The question I'dhave is I
think it's almost the exact same language is already in.
MS. WHITAKER: I think that you're right abut
the first part of that paragraph, Your Honor, but I think

that it -- that there's a conviction for extortion under
color of official right requires quid pro quo was not in
your initial instruction, and case law requires the need for
that to be there.
THE COURT: Why don't you wait for a second
to --
E. WHITAKER: I think it begins on Page 46 of
your copy, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you know what page it's on?
THE CLERK: It's 44.
THE COURT: This is the language that's in
there, including the language, so I think the suggestion
you're n?dking about it, specific official act or acts is in
there.
So if that's the change that'sbeen suggested,
I think it's currently in the instructions.
MS. WHITAKER: That and the next sentence,
Your Honor, which says that a conviction requires a quid pro
quo.
MS. BUTLER : Your Honor, I don ' t think there' s
an opinion in this land that says that you should put that
in the jury instructions. It's not in the jury samples.
You have to have the concept, and we have that.
MR. WHITAKE=R: I think --
THE COURT: Well, I think that that
instruction is really covered by this language.
Let's go to instruction 19 that you proposed.
Jason, is this --
(Discussionhad off the record).
THE COURT: It'sbeen suggested is your 18 and
your 19, do they really kind of cover the same thing?
MS. WHITAKER: I think that they are obviously
on the same type of subject, Your Honor, but I think 19
gives a fuller explanation.
THE COURT: It seems like it's already
covered.
Actually it seems like both of yours are
somewhat redundant, and then I believe it is covered under
the -- on Page 44 of the instructions I'vedistributed.
As to instruction 20, I believe that the
language that's included in the exact same as you suggested.
MS. WHITAKER: Again, Your Honor, I think that
it makes it clearer to the jury to have a specific
instruction on this particular element, but --
THE COURT: No, what I mean is 20, isn't
20 -- I include this language here.
Look at the screen once, if you can see it.
MS. WHITAKER : Oh, you included it in your
jury instructions, yes.
THE COURT: I think the actual language you
proposed is in the instruction.
Let me just -- this language here I think
is -- tracks this language here.
MS. WHITAKER: Yes, I see that they are the
same, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there any difference that I'm
missing?
MS. W H I T ! : I don't -- I just was handed
the ones that you propose so I don't know if the rest of the
instruction is similar.
(Pause).
I think that there's --
THE COURT: I would think it indicates that
I've covered that, and I think that it largely is, if it's
not the identical language you proposed, it's nearly the
same.
What's the -- does the government have any
objection to the defendant'sproposed exhibit -- or proposed
instruction 21, official act defined?
MS. B U T . : Your Honor, it doesn't
incorporate the concept of withholding or providing
confidential information.
THE COURT: Well, providing confidential
information would be an action.
MS. WHITAKER: And the withholding covered by
the decision.
THE COURT: On any question, matter, cause,
suit.
I'm going to tentatively include that.
Does the government object to 22?
MS. BUTLER: To 22? Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What ' s the grounds for the
objections?
MS. BUTLER: Well, a couple.
First, it refers to a specific promise and,
that's not the case law. The case law is knowing that the
thing of value is being given in exchange for, and so the
word "Promise"I thi& overstates the govenment's burden
and significantly.
In addition, that same in exchange language,
it's actually not -- that doesn't track the instruction the
Court's giving dbout the element because it says "Inreturn
for."
should track it's supposed
statement of law, it should track the element that the
Court's -- as the Court's defining.
And in addition, there's this language "It is
only illegal when a public official is provided mney or
things of value in exchange for performing the official act
that is urged that a crime occurs," and of course that
suggests that it reads out every other law.
So it's a little too broad because of course
there are honest services violations conflicts of interest,
and indeed the offer is a crime.
This says "Is provided."
It appears that what the gravamen of the
defense is simply denial of intent, and so where this goes
wrong is where it tries to stay with the --
THE COURT: W e a note of this, Jason.
I'll include some overall statement if that's
what you want, but I think you do misstate what the
governing law is, so I'll try to change this only to the
extent that it, you know, I think misstates the law. And
I'll try to get some language to you tomorrow morning you
can review before we go to that, but assuming that you do
want that overall overview of the defense's position that
these rmtters are matters of gifts and also the element that
there was no relatively specific quid pro quo that is being
requested.
MS. WHITAKER : Yes.
THE COURT: All right. I'll try over the
night season to get something done on that.
I did not notice what difference the
instruction 23, how that differed from --
MS. WHITAKER: I don't have it, Your Honor, in
front of me, the old ones. I h o w I made a few changes, but
I can't put it before the Court today.
THE COURT: Mine is basically the same as what
it had been so.
And I think the government's proposal, and the
ones I currently have, have been also Sixth Circuit pattern
instructions.
They seem to have the same substance.
This seems to be the same as the -- I mean, do
you have any objections to the instructions that I've
offered to you on the aiding and abetting?
MS. WHITAKER: Not that I can notice after
quickly leafing through it right now, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Was there
anything else in yours that you believe was a change from

the earlier instructions that we used in the earlier case?
MS. WHITAKER: I h o w that I added something
to make it more clear of what the government' s burden was,
but again I don't have it in front of me, the red-lined
version, so I can't put the Court to that.
THE COURT: Do you know which instruction that
referred to?
MS. WHITAKER: 23 I 'm speaking of. Oh, what
it was, on my last --
THE COURT: Oh, you mean on the aiding and
abetting?
MS. WHITMER: Yes. Is that what you were
talking about?
THE COURT: Yes. I was asking about that, and
I thought you said you didn't notice any other differences
but --
MS. WHITAKER: Not just looking at it right

now.
THE COURT: Let me just ask generally is there
anything else that you propose relative to the instructions?
MS. WHITAKER: 29, Your Honor, and 30 and 31
and 32 are all proposed instructions that are different from
our last proposed instructions.
THE COURT: I think 29 i s already covered,
isn't it, in the early --

MS. WHITAKER: Starts w i t h 30 then.
THE COURT: Yes. 29 I thought was covered in
a different instruction.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, if we might --
MS. WHITAKER : Maybe not.

MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, could we waive
Mr. Gray's presence for just a few minutes for this
discussion?
THE COURT: We're only going to have a couple
mre.
Can you hold for a couple minutes?
THE DEFENDANT: (Nods affirmatively).
THE COURT: If he needs to take a couple
minutes, we can do it.
I just, I'mtrying to get some sense of -- I'd
rather have you here.
What's the government'sposition relative to
proposed instruction 29?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I think it'shere in
the conspiracy instructions. I'm looking.
Your Honor, on Page 20 of the Court's
instruction in Paragraph 3.
THE COURT: This is what they are referring
to. If you'll look at your screen, they're suggesting that
that covers the same thing, so I'll,based on this, I'll
deny the proposed instruction 29.
I think it is covered.
MS. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: And this is the Sixth Circuit
instruction.
MS. WHITAKER: All right. I mean, I
understand the Court's ruling. I would still offer the
instruction.
And then the next three are the only ones that
are different.
THE COURT: All right. Are they different in
any substantive way?
MS. WHITAKER: They're different in
substantive ways from our last proposed instructions.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. How are they
different?
Sorry, do you --
MS. WHITAKER: I 'm looking for the ones I was

just handed, Your Honor, to get back to you.
(Pause).
I think that ours are just a more brief
version of Your Honor's more extensive instruction.
THE COURT: Okay. But it sounds like you
don't know of any substantive differences.
MS. WHITAKER: (Nods affimtively).
THE COURT: All right. Well, we'll make the
changes that I indicated.
We will try to come up with some language on
the overall statesnent of Mr. Gray.
Do you have any objections to the ones that
are currently being proffered?
MS. BUTLER: By the government -- by the
Court?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. BUTLER : No, Your Honor.
I would note one, one clerical oversight which
has to do with the r
&
n of rerraining counts, and now I
guess it's gone down a little more.
THE COURT: Okay. What page is that on?
MS. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor. It's in the
description of the indictment.
It was on Page 14 at the very first sentence.
And then of course we have to take out the
count based on the Court's ruling today.
THE COURT: Okay. We will change those.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, also, we would renew
the motion that we made last time to have the Sixth Circuit
pattern concealment instruction given. It'snot part of
this.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any objection
to that?
MS. WHITAKER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear.
THE COURT: They wanted to include the pattern
Sixth Circuit instruction on an inference that can be drawn
from concealment.
MS. WHITAKER : You can ' t do that, Your Honor.
MR. JENKDKJS: Same objection as last time.
THE COURT: Okay. I will include that. I'm
familiar with the instruction, and I think there's
sufficient evidence to support it.
Finally, I was -- I would turn just briefly,
what instruction did you want? Because I've looked at Ohio
Revised Code Section 1.02 and 1.03.
MR. WHITAKER: Yes, here is what I would ask,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: And do you know what paragraph
specifically you're talking about?
MR. WHITAKER: With regard to the statute,
yes, we just put it away but we will g a b it back out.
MR. DE-ITELLBACH: Your Honor, we also drafted
something if the Court was trying to -- can we offer it to
the defense and the Court, also, if the Court is considering
that?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DETTELBACH: Which we think is a correct
statement of the law in this matter.
THE COURT: I'd ask you both to -- could you
mdke sure that you file these as additional proposed
instructions?
MR. DETTEL;BACH: Yes, Your Honor. Absolutely.
MR. WHITAKER: All right. Do you want us to
do that tonight?
THE COURT: Yeah, if you have something, I'll
listen to it now, but if you want to do it tonight, that's
fine, if you would rather do it in that fashion.
MR. WHITAKER: I think that ' s probably the
better idea.
THE COURT: Okay. I would ask, just try to
get it in somewhat earlier and we will review it and talk a
bit about that tomrrow.
MR. DETTELBACH: Just to be clear, we're not
necessarily asking the Court to do anything.
We just, what we wanted to do was craft
something that we thought was a correct statement of the
law.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything else we
need to talk about?
MS. WHITAKER: Yes, Your Honor. I would just
like to renew Mr. Gray's motion to dismiss based on
MY. Jones and the publicity that resulted from his plea.
THE COURT: Okay.

MS. WHITAKER: And mistrial for the joinder of
the two and all that evidence being allowed into this trial.
THE COURT: I don't think there was much
evidence on Mr. Jones in this case, so I'll deny it.
And we 'vealso, you know, I voir dired the
jury now three or four times, and on each occasion they've
indicated that they haven't read or heard anything about the
case.
Did you have something, Mr. Jenkins?
MR. JENKINS : Yes, Your Honor. On Page 37 as
to the language on Count 37, I object to the charges going
back to the jury, telephone call from defendant Gray in Ohio
to Gilbert Jackson in Louisiana, leaving a message conveying
to Jackson because, one, they haven't proved that
M r . Jackson got the message, so I have a problem with the
language.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. 3-ENKINS: Count 37, Page 37.
THE COURT: 1'11 sustain the objection.
MR. JENKINS: I have some other ones.
THE COURT: Or cut it off simply at "leaving a
message."
M R . JENKINS: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, since they don't have
the indictment and it would be very difficult for them to
h o w what that count involves, if we could simply -- I mean
at a minimum it should say "Leaving a message to Jackson"
and delete the word "Conveying"if counsel thinks that
that's a problem.
MR. JENKINS: I'll tell you really, Your
Honor, leaving a message as to the itinerary, if the
government would be agreeable with that.
MS. BUTLER: That would be fine.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll leave it like this.
I wanted to talk to you just a bit about one
other question.
Do you have anything else, Mr. Jenkins?
MR. -S: Yes, Your Honor. Count 42, Page
38, this has "E!I'!NA Parking, check number 23257 for 2500 made
payable to Gilbert Jackson from Nathaniel Gray regarding a
New Orleans official and W O ."
I would object to that statement. If we could
include "allegedly regarding" because once again it
pre-supposes that indeed a HANO official was involved then.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BUTLER : Your Honor, we don ' t mind
"Allegedly"but also if we could go backward, I think that
there was a redaction that's so severe the jury won't know,
won't be into what the allegation was in the indictment on
37.
THE COURT: Well, I mean you can --
MS. BUTLER: As to itinerary four, McGilbra in
New Orleans on Superbowl or as to itinerary on Superbowl.
MR. JENKINS: That's still that sentence.
THE COURT: I think they will recall.
MS. WHITAKER: I'm sorry, your Honor, I should
have mentioned this before.
We object --
THE COURT: I'll leave 37 the way it is.

MS. WHITAKER: All the "consulting'and
uconsulting services" in quotes I think are unnecessary and
meant to send a message to the jury that in some way this is
not a consultant.
I don't think there's any reason for the
"consulting services" or "consulting"to be in quotes as
is in the indictment.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, this is just the
charges.
THE COURT: Yeah. I'll sustain. I think it
is argumentative.
MS. BUTLER: But I mean that's what a charge
is.
MR. JENKINS: But this --
THE COURT: This isn't the charge. These are
the instructions.
MS. WHITAKER: These are the instructions
coming from the Court.
THE COURT: This is the instruction, so I'11
change that as we go through, the consultant, just for the
word "consultant."
MS. BUTLER: And of course we would ask that
the indictment go back, and the Court has ruled on that.

MR. JENKINS: Same objection.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny that request.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I have --
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. JENKINS: I have a couple more.
In Count 43, "Telephone call between Nathaniel
Gray in Ohio and Gilbert Jackson in Louisiana," and I think
it should read, if the Court would consider, "Allegedly
involving monies to a New Orleans official to get Honeywell
in the door."
THE COURT: okay.
MR. JErNKINS: And number 44, "Telephone call
between Nathaniel Gray in Ohio and Gilbert Jackson in
Louisiana discussing an alleged meeting with a senior HANO
official."
That's all I have on those, Your Honor.
MS. WHITAKER: Just have one quick moment,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: I want to raise one quick
procedural matter I wanted to talk to the parties about.
I would recommend, if the parties don't have
objection to this, that with regard to the exhibits, that we
try to assemble just an index to them just to send back, and
I would recornend that it be something, you know, very
nondescriptive.
But I think that would assist the jury if they
have a question abut something and being able to locate the
exhibit that it involves.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, I think
that's --
MR. JENKINS: Can we discuss it?
MR. DE'ITEL;BACH: As we put in our trial brief,
we believe that's a good idea.
What we were planning on doing and actually
what Ms. Rasoletti is already doing right now is based on
the rulings of the Government's Exhibits, taking that list

we have, taking out all the adritted, offered, so the jury
doesn't know there's any other process other than adritted,
and also taking out any things that the Court did not admit,
and it would be a list straight down they can read across.
It will have two columns, the nurciber and
description, and that's it.
MR. JENIUI'JS: Your Honor, on behalf of
IW. Jackson and I believe on behalf of IW. Gray, if we could
agree to the wording in terms of the &bits we would not
have an objection, but the trouble is how do you index those
and the words that go along with it?
THE COURT: Yes, I understand. What I would
ask you to do is endeavor to assemble a list of the exhibits
that have been offered, received, and I think you know what
the defendants' positions are.
But try as much as possible to -- I mean for,
like, Exkibit Nuniber 9, I think you probably have 2001,
Eh-mnuel Onunwor, financial disclosure statement or 10 could
be 2002, Eh-manuel Onunwor financial disclosure statement,
but try to keep them as --
MR. DFITELBACH: Wklat we tried to do is quote

from the document so people can't assume or that's probably
the way these were written, that's probably off the top of
the documents, so people can't say we're --
THE COURT: Okay.
E. WHITAKER: Again I would say their quotes
are very selective in what they are choosing. Simply maybe

a date or to and from is all that we are saying.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't you try to
assemble that? And hopefully it can be in a format so if
there's a specific objection, that we could potentially edit
it and still get one that can be agreed upon.
MS. WHITAKER: The only thing I would add,
Your Honor, is obviously we have just been given the
instructions. We are going to review them as soon as we get
back to the office.
There's some language in describing the
charges that if I may have overlooked, I reserve the right
to bring that to the Court's attention tomorrow.
THE COURT: Okay. We will see you tomrrow.
MR. DETTELBACH: Your Honor, the only other
thing I would ask for tomorrow is we did have some
complaints last time. I want to see if there's some way
they can listen to the calls last time and hear them.
We had some complaints they were having a
little trouble. mybe if we did as best as we can in the
limits with the jury room and if that's the case, okay, but
I wanted to tell the Court.
THE COURT: Idhat did they use last time? It
was on a computer, and is there a way to transfer it to a
similar computer?
THE AGENT: Yes, I mean the actual recordings
are on a disk.
THE COURT: Okay. What did they use for the
actual -- did they have earphones or did they have --
THE AGENT: They just had two speakers but

they had a jack where they could put four or six speakers so
make it a little easier for them to hear.

THE COURT: Do we have speakers or a jack we
can use?
Okay.
MR. WHITAKER: What's the transmitting device
you use?
THE AGEWT: A laptop, a wiped out laptop.
MR. WHITAKER: Is it going to take a disk or
CD?
THE AGEWT: CD.

MR. WHITAKER: Because we have to do that one
call. CD? Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. We will recess.
- - - - -
(Court adjourned).
- - - - -
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the foregoing is a correct
transcript from the record of proceedings in the
above-entitled matter.
S/ Susan Trischan, Official Court Reporter

Certified Realtime Reporter

?t\ro South Main Street
(440) 570-6950
I N D E X
DIRECT EXWINATION OF RAY EHMER

BY MR. DETTELBACH
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF RAY EHMER
BY MR. WHITAKER
Dim EX?&UNATION OF CHARLES BROWN
BY MS. WHITAKER
DIF!ECT'EXAMLNATION OF LOU TORTORA
BY MR. WHITAKER
CROSS-EXWlDGiTION OF LOU TORTORA
BY MS. BUTLER
REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF LOU TORTORA
BY MR. WHITAKER
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF IRVIN TAYLOR
BY MS. WHITAKER
DIRECT -TION OF C23WXS NATKINS
BY MR. WHITAKER
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CHARLES N A " S
BY MS. PEARSON
DIRMlT EXAMINATION OF MICHAEL MASSIE
BY MR. WHITMER
CROSS-EXUIINATION OF ?AICHAEL MASSIE
BY MR. DFITELBACH
REDIRE@r EXAMINATION OF MICHAEL MASSIE
BY MR. WHITAKER
RElCROSS--TION OF MICHAEL MASSIE
BY MR. DFITELBACH
DIRECT E=XAMINATION OF DENISE McCRAY
BY MR. WHITAKER
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DENISE McCRAY
BY MS. BUTLER
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF CASSANDRA ROBINSON
BY MR. WHITAKER
DIF5KT EXAMlINATION OF WILLIE HORTON
BY MR. WHITAKER
EASTERN DIVISION

1
) Criminal Action
1
NATHANIEL GRAY, AND
GILBERT JACKSON, )
)
Defendants.
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS HAD B E F O W

r n c=,
2-7 r2-I
THE HONORABLE JAMES S. GWIN, r
ac zaz
i n <
JUDGE OF SAID COURT, AND A JURY, $ ~ z
>a7-
X=3? -Q
ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2005. 4
APPEARANCES :
For the Government: STEVEN M. DETTELBACH,
BENITA Y. PEARSON,
MARY BUTLER,

Whitaker & Rowlands
190 N. Union Street
Suite 301
Akron, Ohio 44304

440/570-6950
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16TH, 2005
THE COURT: We convene today.
At the time we closed, Mr. Whitaker, you were
indicating you were going to m k e a decision as to whether
you were going to call one additional witness.
MR. WHITAKER: And I am not, Your Honor, so
subject to the a&ission of -- oh, yeah. I want to renew,
because I haven't had a chance to proffer this, my request
for Jencks mterial before I close so that I could examine
it.
And I told you I believe there's a
particularized need, and we're talking specifically about
the self-suppressed Jencks material.
Much of the testimony from Gnunwor who says
that it was in the fall of 2002 that he went -- or at least
one version of what he says is in the fall of 2002 when he
said "You know, I'm going to have to get another job if I
don't get some more money,"which is a contradiction from
some other statements that he's made, we've got Oliver
Spellman who has mde two or three different statements that
apparently occurred during that period, and I need to
correct myself on the --
THE COURT: It wasn't the fall of 2002.

MR. WHITAKER: No. It was the spring.
THE COURT: Winter/spring.
MR. WHITAKER: Right. But during the
self-suppressed period.
And, also, Spellman does the same thing.
And Monique, whose testimony was all over the
place, as well as Hardernan, purportedly had conversations
that we believe will contradict what they were saying in
front of the jury.
We should have the opportunity to review
those, or at the very least the Court should conduct an in
camera inspection.
THE COURT: Okay. And for the reasons I laid
out in the earlier orders, I'll deny that.

MR. WHITAKER: Then subject to the admission
of the exhibits --
THE COURT: I think we've gone through all the
exhibits.
MR. WHITAKER: Yes.
THE COURT: Is there anything additional? Any
&bits other than the ones we've dealt with already?
I'm just asking a generalized question, just
so the record is clear that you'vehad the chance to m v e
the admission of every exhibit you want.
MR. WHITAKER : I know you did, and I didn' t
want to answer it too hastily, but I believe that's the
case.
THE COURT: Okay. Just for the record,
Mr. Jenkins, who would be your first witness?
MR. JENKDJS: Your Honor, we rested.
THE COURT: Okay. And again, did you have any
exhibits other than the one that's already been offered and
received?
MR. JENKINS : No, Your Honor, other than that
one W i t .
THE COURT: Okay. What I want to do is we had
some discussion about the instructions yesterday.
I'm going to -- my thinking is that -- well,
before I go to that, though, let me just ask fonmlly does
the government have any rebuttal witnesses?
MR. DFITEL;BACH: No.
THE COURT: Let me just go to the way the
instructions currently are, and m y thinking would be that
we've gone through these already.
There had been some request for changes. I've
included some additional language.
We can go over that, and then we would recess.
I'll get copies of these instructions prepared, distributed
to the jurors so they can follow as the instructions are
given.
After -- and that will take a bit of time.
After that's completed, I would give the jury
the final instructions of law and then each of the parties
would have an opportunity to mdke final argument.
So the instructions will precede the final
argument.
What's the goverr~~ent's
thinking in terms of
the length of time you'd request? Before I cut it down.
MS. PEARSON: Before you cut it down, Your
Honor?
THE COURT: What are you thinking? My
recollection was the last trial was an hour.
MS. PEARSON: No, it was an hour and a half,
Your Honor. Well, two hours. We took a little less than
that.
THE COURT: Okay. And at that point in time,
of course, we had defendant Jones.
J%. PEARSON: Exactly. We had a little bit
more evidence.
This the, Y o u Honor, we would ask for an
hour and a half total.
THE COURT: Okay. What's your thinking?
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we have Mr. Gray as
you h o w is charged in every single count that the
government has to argue, and we would ask for an equal
m u n t of time as the government, an hour and a half.
THE COURT: What are you thinking,
M r . Jenkins?
MR. JENKINS: No more than an hour, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: I would do this: I'll give the
government an hour and a half, but I would suggest to you,
you how, don't -- use it wisely.
Don't just repeat yourself.
I'll give Mr. Gray an hour and 15 minutes and
I'll give Mr. Jerikins up to an hour and 15 minutes.
So between the two defense sides of the case,
you'll have somewhat -- well, significantly more than the
government, but I think that's kind of a fair division.
If you'll look at your screens, we can go to
the instructions. Most of this has been covered.
The early pages of this are just pattern Sixth
Circuit instruction.
This goes then and Page 13 begins a discussion
of the overview. We've gone through this both at the time
of the last trial. This tracks the same language as to the
last trial, although the counts related to Mr. Jones have
been r m v e d as well as the count that judgment was given
yesterday with regard to the one wire fraud count.
The next is an overview of the RICO count,
including the statute.
This all tracks the language which was used
the last time.
Then we go to the honest services wire and
mail fraud.
Then we go to the kind of a description as to
which mailing is alleged in each count.
MR. DETITELBACH: Your Honor, Count 21 may
still be in your chart.
THE COURT: You're right.
So again, the mailings or the wire
corrPnunications are there. Then we list the mailings. These
are broken down according to geogaphical area.
This is all language that had been used
beore.
Then on the Hobbs Act claims, these again are
the various counts, and a description of the elements of the
Hobbs Act violation, official act had been requested, and
that ' s included.
And then I've included this language relative
to the defense's,you know, position on it.
(Pause).
Then I've included this language under the
Ohio ethics law. This, and what I do, you both made
s ~ s s i o n son that. Instead, this is, I believe, just a
quote from the statute.
MR. DE;TTKBACH: It is, Your Honor, but it's a
quote from the statute that applies to public officials.
There's also a statute that says, in the same provision,
says that the private person can't do it either.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'll -- you're likely
correct on that.
1'11 -- do you know which section that is?
MR. DETITELBACH: Yes. It's subsection F, Your
Honor, of 102.03.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll include some language
from that.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I think on the
defense theory, also, the language doesn't exactly track the
Hobbs instruction because it talks about promises in
exchange as opposed to knowing acceptance.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I
understand what you're saying.
The objection we articulated yesterday was
that the defense instruction talks about there can be no
violation unless there was a promise, and that's not the
law.
The law is as it's stated in the instruction
is that "A public official wrongly obtained property bowing
that the property was given in return." "In exchange for a
promiseu it says there where the cursor is. It should say
"Knowing that the property was given."
We believe "Promise"overstates the
govement ' s burden.
THE COURT: With this language, I understand
what you're saying, the wording may be more appropriate, "in
exchange for the performance of any specific official act."
MS. BUTLER: Rather, Your Honor, we propose
just pasting in the instruction from Page 44 which says
"Wowing that the property was given in return for."
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I think that what
you're suggesting is fine, that given in exchange for a
specific official act knowing that, and maybe we could put
at the end of that sentence, "knowing."
MS. BUTLER: And our position is that that
overstates the government's burden.
THE COURT: I'm not sure in what way, the
language as it's currently fomlated.
MS. BUTLER : Your Honor, we would say " In
exchange" should come out and it should say "Knowing that
the property was given in return for." Taking --
THE COURT: Okay. I think I understand what
you're saying.
MS. WHITAKER: If we could --
THE COURT: Let me just -- "Was given for the
performance of any specific act."
I think it has the same effect.
MS. WHITAKER: Could we add at the end of that
official act, "With the official knowing that it was given
for such purpose" because that's the language as Ms. Butler
refers to that is the language i
n the statute.
THE COURT: What language are you suggesting?
MS. WHITAKER: At the end of that sentence,
"The performance of any official act with the official

knowing that it was given in exchange for that performance."
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I would say the
simplest thing would be to cut and paste from Page 44 the
language that says "Knowing that the property was given in
return for taking, holding or influencing specific official
act or acts."
MS. WHITAKER: I think that that Is what adding
that at the end does to this.
MS. BUTLER: Because private parties can
conspire to violate the Hobbs Act with the public official.
So in the second line where it begins
"knowing."
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. WHITAKER: I think that you need to add,
then, Your Honor, it's the official that needs to know it
was given in return. I think the next sentence doesn't make
that clear for our theory.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I think that'snot a
correct statement of law. I think if the briber or the
person conspiring to violate the law gives it to the public
official knowing that it's given in exchange for an official
act --
MS. WHITAKER: I don't think there's anything
i
n the Hobbs Act that doesn't require that a public official
know he's getting it in exchange for an official act. I
think that's specifically, and Courts have said that's
what's required.
THE COURT: What Court?
MS. WHITAKER: That's what the Supreme Court

said.
THE COURT: What decision?
MS. WHITAKER: In F o r m .
THE COURT: What's the cite?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, Evans is the most
recent Supreme Court case on this point.
THE COURT: What's the cite?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, it's cited
extensively in the Sixth Circuit's decision in Lanford, and
the cite for Evans is 504 U.S. 255.
THE COURT: At h t ?
MS. WHITAKER: I think even your jury
instructions, Your Honor, on Page 44, "Thepublic official
obtained property to vh.ich he knew, he or she knew he was
not entitled lcnowing that the property was given in return
for taking, withholding or influencing specific acts."
I mean, that's specifically abut the official
knowing. It has nothing to do with the person providing in
that sentence.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, in Evans the person
on trial was the public official.
THE COURT: So what authority do you have?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, the defense is that
Mr. Gray lacked criminal intent, not that M s . McGilbra
lacked it, so the instruction needs to say that Mr. Gray did
not give those gifts howing that he was doing it in
exchange for a specific official act being taken or
withheld.
THE COURT: You're not very clear.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, the --
THE COURT: The argument, is it over whether

the defense is correct in saying that public officials as
well need to h o w that it was related to a specific act?
I think you'reboth rraking much to do dbout
nothing because McGilbra's testimony was all to the effect
that she, you know, under these circumstances, how could she
be under the understanding that she was getting this purse,
this trip to the Superbowl unrelated to some public act?
MS. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor. But we're
talking about the defense theory of the case. And they
are -- I mean basically Gray's theory is that he lacked the
intent, so the instruction on the defense theory should say
that he didn't intend to give those gifts knowing that they
were being given in exchange for official acts.
And the way it is now, it's he didn't
intend -- well, I'm not sure what it is now, but I just
think that's not -- he just wants to deny his intent, and
you'vemade this in a denial of the public official's
intent.
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, we had right there
in Evans, the case the government cited, talking about the
official's intent, and specifically our theory is not that
I&. Gray did not have the intent. It is that Ms. McGilbra
didn't have the intent when she got the Browns game, and
Mr. Jackson did not have the intent when he took the $2,000,
and it was not the intent of the many of the co-defendants
to take money in exchange for anything.
And that's part of our theory. And it's
specifically directly quoted in Evans which the government
cites.
THE COURT: All right. I'll take a look.
I'llmdke a decision one way or the other on the thing.
MR. WHITAKER: Can we go back to the other
one?
THE COURT: That's the one where they've asked
that (f) be included. 102.03 I think is the section you're
talking about, right?
MS. WHITAKER: I beg your pardon, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I thought they were asking in the
ethics law that 102.O3(f) be included rather than the
section that was cited.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, in our proposed
instruction, I believe we have -- could cut and paste the
first sentence.
THE COURT: So this is the language they are
asking be included.
MR. WHITAKER: That isn'twhat we're asking,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: No, actually I think you're -- I'm
not sure that the language doesn't help you. "Such a
character as to manifest a substantial and improper
inhence."
MR. WHITAKER: I can't see the whole thing,
but have you included anything h u t the section that we
asked?
THE COURT: No. I just took the statute. I
thought they misstated the law and I thought you had as
well.
Okay. I'm going to just include the statutory
language.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, could we back up a
little bit? Oh, was that line all crossed off?
THE COURT: That's all out.
MR. WHITAKER: Pardon?
THE COURT: That's all out. This was language
you suggested, and I think the Code section is more
important because the obligations of the -- we don't have
Jones aiding and abetting Jones ' public, you know, wire
fraud or mail fraud count.
So in terms of the language about the
obligation to appoint, to name or identify meals over a
hundred dollars, I don't believe that's the relevant
provision of the Ohio ethics law that controls at this time.
MR. WHITAKER: Controls what?
THE COURT: Controls the issues in the Court.
MR. WHITAKER: In this Court?
THE COURT: Yes. Because your client was
acquitted on the count that said that he had aided and
abetted Jones' mailing the financial disclosure forms after
having failed to indicate the loan.
So that section you had proposed relative to
the Ohio ethics law dealt with the obligation of the
officeholder to report gifts, meals over a hundred dollars.
And so I did not think that was the section
that we're dealing with here.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. Well, that wasn't
my -- that didn't have anything to do with my request
for -- to include this instruction.
There has been testimony, and part of their
argument and their theory is that by offering meals to
Monique, among others, that they somehow per se violated the
law.
They were able to put in the Houston law, and
w h a t I'm looking for here is a balance.
There were three things that make what I

requested relevant.
First of all, they put in the Houston law, and
according to Spellman's testimony there was a Houston law
that wasn't put in that has to do with certain things that
you get, you mst report.
So obviously they weren't prohibited, per se.
That'snumber one.
NLlmber two, if the Houston law goes in, then
there's no -- the impression'sbeen given here that anything
done with a public official, including the sporting events,
are somehow per se illegal.
Now, in terms of requiring the other aspect of
the Ohio ethics law that you've spent three or four or five
paragraphs here putting in, that's not necessary because you
already got what rrdkes it a criminal act when you identify
that in both honest services and the Hobbs Act.
So that's the federal crime.
THE COURT: You want it out? I mean, you were
the one that proposed language on the Ohio ethics law.
MR. WHITAKER: I proposed very specific
sections.
THE COURT: Okay.
M R . WHITAKER: Seven, eight and nine.
THE COURT: I'm just telling you I don't think
they apply. I mean, you're talking abut the reporting
requirements of public officials, and that's not relevant.
Mr. Gray's not a public official, Mr. Jackson's not a public
official.
MR. WHITAKER: Yeah. That'swhy I thought the
Houston law wasn't relevant either because neither of these
clients are public officials, and it goes solely to public
officials, but since it's in I thought it was proper to say
that the tickets to sporting m t s --
THE COURT: I think you'rewrong. You've

reserved the issue.
Do you want the ethics discussion in or do you
want it out?
MR. WHITAKER: I need to look at the last
part, which I can't see as I'm looking at it now.
Could we scroll down a little bit?
THE COURT: Well, this language is out. The
strike out language is out. So that's the only language
that's in.
MR. WHITAKER : That ' s the only language that ' s
in?
THE COURT: This is the only language that's
in. This language will be taken out.
MR. WHITAKER: The paragraph up dbove only?
THE COURT: These two paragraphs are the only
ones going to be given.
MR. WHITAKER: So nothing about gifts over
$75?
THE COURT: Right.

MR. WHITAKER: Or, no, I object to that
instruction.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WHITAKER: That's not what I asked. It
has nothing to do with what I asked.
THE COURT: Let me -- quit acting like an
intemperate little kid.
You know, you make an argument, I tell you I
disagree with you, you've reserved the argument to the Court
I'm now at the point where I've told you I
think you're wrong and I've tried to explain for the record
why you're wrong.
Now, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm
just asking you, now that you decided that I'mnot giving
the instruction you want, do you want this other ethics
instruction?
MR. WHITAKER: And I'm trying to tell you no.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, then I'll take the
whole ethics instruction out unless the government has some
argument that it'sneeded.
MR. DETTELBACH: (Nods negatively).
MR. WHITAKER: I would like the language
you're taking out though preserved for the record in terms
of what I asked and what you're saying.
THE COURT: You can't do that. You know,
you're in a position where you said "I object to the
language" and then you'regoing to say "I'mgoing to raise
some issue on appeal because language I objected to should
have been given."
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. Let me just read what
I'm objecting to and telling you what I don't want in. That
would make the record accurate, if you'd just let me read
that paragraph that you have here that you'reproposing that
be included as a result of my request.
THE COURT: Wait. Wait. You're not
IMking -- I'm not s u e what you're saying.
MR. WHITAKER: What I'm --
THE COURT: Let me, because I want to get this
thing going, at some point you're going to have to stand up
and you're going to have to argue for the jury, and I would
think at some point you would be more concemed about that
than this.
MR. WHITAKER: I am concemed about that, and
I'd like to get to it as quickly as possible.
THE COURT: Let me -lain to you where you're
at.
You've made a written request for a proposed
instruction on the Ohio ethics law.
I've said I don't think it's appropriate.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: So in terms of what the record
shows, you've got a written request in.
If you lose the case, and you take an a-ppeal,
I would presume your argument is that " M y written proposed
instruction should have been given."
MR. WHITAKER: No. That's not -- your
written -- my written proposed instruction?
THE COURT: Your written proposed instruction.
MR. WHITAKER: Right. But you ' re asking me do
I want this language removed, and all I want is the record
to reflect what this language is.
It would take me about one second or ten
seconds to read it so it's preserved for the record, what
I'm saying I don't want in the transcript -- I mean in the
instructions.
THE COURT: You've asked that certain language
be r m v e d and I've agreed with you.
I've said if you want it remved, I'll take it
out.
M R . WHITAKER: But the record doesn't reflect
what that language is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, who's going to assign it as
error if --
MR. WHITAKER: Me. I'm going to say I wanted

this language and this is what the Judge suggested instead,
and I said no, I don't want that.
THE COURT: Well, the question is whether your
proposed language accurately reflects the law.
MR. WHITAKER: Is there any reason not -- is
there any reason not to take ten seconds? Maybe I'm wrong.
You know, maybe, but I think the record ought to be full.
THE COURT: We'll read it, but just as a
ratter of c o m n sense, you're now in a position where
you're saying "I want this language out, I win on that
argument, the language is out so it's not given to the
jury.It
SO what ' s the argument then? "Oh,no, I was

wrong. I asked that language be r m v e d but it really
should have been included"?
MR. WHITAKER : That won ' t be my argument, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WHITAKER: The language that I am
asking -- that I am answering your question "No"is "Under
Ohio law, no public official or employee shall use or
authorize the use of the authority or influence of office or
employment to secure anything of value or the promise or
offer of anything of value that is of such a character as to
manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the
public official or mployee with respect to that person's
duties.
"No person shall promise to give to a public
official or employee anything of value that is of such a
character as mifest -- as to mifest a substantial and
improper influence upon the public official or employee with
respect to that person's duties."
No, I do not want that included in the
instructions. I proffer what we originally filed last
night.
1739
THE COURT: Okay. All right. We will recess.

We will come back --
MS. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I apologize, we got
these instructions at the very end of yesterday and I do
have some objections to some of them that I would like to
rrake a record of.
I will make my objections brief, but I think
they do need to go on the record.
THE COURT: What page?
MR. JENKINS: First, Page 11, Your Honor, and
this is I think the government --
THE COURT: Just tell me what page.
MS. WHITAKER: Page 11, objection. 1.09, I
think the jury was understandably annoyed with all the
approaching, and if there's nothing wrong with objections
both parties would ask to approach.
THE COURT: There's language in there about
that and I gave it to than, so I'll overrule the objection.
In fact it's right here. It's looking right
at you.
W . WHITAKER: I understand wkat you're
saying, Your Honor. I'mhappy to move on now.
I was just asking about something specific
about when we asked to approach.
On Page 13 on the overview of the indictment,
I would object to on several of the paragraphs you've got
"Others to which the Hobbs Act -- violate the Hobbs Act by
bribery or color of official right of extortion."
1 think color of official right of extortion I
think accurately reflects the law. I think "bribery"should
be stricken from all of these instructions.
I think when you have public official right
extortion, that's enough, that'swhat the law says.
Anything else has a tendency to broaden.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny that.
MS. WHITAKER: And that goes throughout all of
the instructions, including the honest services instruction.
I think that there needs to be something in
the RICO act instructions to indicate that these things that
the government specifically said aren't crimes, they said
that they rrade an effort this time not to say the $25,000
donation was a crime or the Jones stuff is not a crime as to
Mr. Gray cannot be used as a predicate act for finding a
violation of the RICO statute.
I think there needs to be some direction given
to them about what acts they can use as predicate acts for
the FUCO statute.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny that. You can
argue whatever you want to the jury, but I don't think it's
a proper instruction.
MS. WHITAKER: I think I noticed that you had
gotten all of the quotes out of all the consulting, is that
correct, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I don't know.
MS. WHITAKER: Okay. I would object to any
quotes that are still around the words "Consulting" or
"Consultants."
On Page 38, excuse me, 37 -- no -- 38, Count
42, I think that most of these conversations, the $25,000
check to Gilbert Jackson from Nathaniel Gray is enough, the
conversation, it makes the connection that the prosecution
is trying to m k e between the $25,000 -- 2500, excuse me,
and the HANO official.
I think that the instruction should just end
after "Nathaniel Gray."
THE COURT: Okay. I'll overrule on that.
MS. WHITAKER: I think on the instruction on
Page 39, Count 43, again the conversation -- telephone call
between Nathaniel Gray in Ohio and Gilbert Jackson in
Louisiana involving Honeywell in the door.
I think that saying "Monies and New Orleans
official" is argumentative and rrrdking the connection that
the government is seeking to mike.
THE COURT: Which count?
MS. WHITAKER: I'm sorry, 43 at the top of
Page 39 on my version.
And then down on Count 43, Your Honor --
MR. DFITELBACH: Yow Honor, this isn'ta
s t a t m t of why we think that it furthers. It's a charge
and we're allowed to direct the jury to the government's
theory of why we think a phone call furthers the fraud.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DElITELBACH: I mean, it gives them notice
and gives the jury notice why -- what's in the call and why
it furthers it.
THE COURT: I've changed it. These are the
instructions. You can argue whatever you want to the jury.
MS. WHITAKER: And on 43, Your Honor, we would
just ask that "Monies and New Orleans official" be stricken,
again just involving Honeywell.
MS. WHITAKER: On Page 42 of my copy, Your
Honor, the Hobbs Act extortion.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, what page?
MS. WHIT=: 42 on mine, Your Honor, it's
the Hobbs Act extortion, on -- in either four, maybe, I
think that there needs to be, similar to your instructions
on Page 44, an addition to the "Knowing that it was an
exchange for the official act."
The way the instruction reads right now -- or
"specific official acts."
The way the instruction reads right now there
is no intent needed beyond mere bribery, and I don't think
that's enough for a Hobbs Act violation. I just ask that
you add sane of the language you already have on Page 44 to
this instruction.
THE COURT: What's the government's position?
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, it's specifically in
there on Page 44, so the knowledge requirement.
THE COURT : O k a y . I think that' s correct. I
think it 's covered.
Anything else?
MS. WHITAKER: Yes. Just one second, Your
Honor.
(Pause).
And we object to the Pinkerton liability
instruction that we did last time.
THE COURT: What's -- again the theory on that
is h t ?
MS. WI-IITAKER: I don't have my notes. Doesn't
accurately state the law. We think that it's confusing to
add a term like that in a discussion of something that
hasn ' t been given to the jury.
THE COURT: It's the 2005 Sixth Circuit
instruction, I believe, so I think you'rewrong in terms of
whether it accurately states the law.
MS. WHITAKER: And we'd like to incorporate
the objections we made at the last trial with regard to --

MS. WHITAKER: -- the similarities.
MS. WHITAKER: Thank you.
THE COURT: Unless there's something further,
we'll get these printed and then we'll try to get started in
about 15 minutes.
M R . WHITAKER: Are you going to discuss if
we -- whether we rest in front of the jury, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Maybe; maybe not.
Maybe I'll just tell them.
MR. WHIT=: I would prefer to do it myself.
(Recess taka).
(Jury in).
THE COURT: I'd ask the jury to take their
seats.
Just for the record, does the defendant Gray
have any further witnesses?
MR. WHITAKER: NO, Your Honor. Defendant Gray
rests.
THE COURT: And does -- would defendant
Jackson call your first witness?
MR. JENKINS : No further witnesses, Your
Honor. We rest.
THE COURT: And does the government have any
rebuttal witnesses?
MR. DFITELBACH: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I would
advise you that we've spent some time going through
&bits, but at this point in time it now becomes my
responsibility to instruct you on the law which will apply,
applies in this case.
I will start by explaining your duties and the
general rules that apply in every criminal case.
Then I will -lain the elements or parts of
the crimes that the defendants are accused of corrnnitting.
Then I will explain the defendants' positions.
Then I will explain some rules that you must
use in evaluating particular testimony and evidence.
And last, I will -lain the rules that you
must follow during your deliberations in the jury room and
the possible verdicts that you m y return.
Please listen carefully to everything that
say.
You have two min duties as jurors. The first
is to decide what the facts are from the evidence that you
saw and heard here in court.
Deciding what the facts are is your job, not
mine, and nothing that I have said or done during the trial
was meant to influence your decision about the facts in any
way -
Your second duty is to take the law that I
give you, apply it to the facts, and decide if the
government has proved each defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.
It is my job to instruct you about the law,
and you are bound by the oath that you took at the beginning
of the trial to follow the instructions that I give you,
even if you personally disagree with them.
This includes the instructions that I gave you
before and during the trial, and these instructions.
All of the instructions are important, and you
should consider them together as a whole.
The lawyers may talk about the law during
their arguments, but if what they say is different from what
I say, you m s t follow what I say. What I say about the law
controls.
Perform these duties fairly. Do not let any
bias, sympathy or prejudice that you m y feel towards one
side or the other influence your decision in any way.
As you know, each defendant has pleaded not
guilty to the crimes charged in the indictment. The
indictment is not any evidence at all of guilt. It is just
the form1 way that the government tells the defendant &t
crime he is accused of comnitting. It does not even raise a
suspicion of guilt.
Instead, a defendant starts the trial with a
clean slate, with no evidence at all against him, and the
law presumes a defendant innocent. This presumption of
innocence stays with him unless the govemment presents
widence here in court that overcomes the presmption and
convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
This means that a defendant has no obligation
to present any evidence at all or to prove to you in any way
that he is innocent. It is up to the government to prove
that each of the defendants is guilty, and this burden stays
on the government from start to finish.
You must find a defendant not guilty unless
the government convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that
he is guilty.
The govemment must prove every elanent of the
crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a
reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible
doubt. Possible doubts are -- or doubts based purely on
speculation are not reasonable doubts.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon
reason and c m n sense. It my arise from the evidence,
the lack of widence, or the natue of the widence.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof
which is so convincing that you would not hesitate to rely
and to act upon it in making the mst important decisions in
your own lives.
If you are convinced that the government has
proved the defendant guilty by evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt, say so by returning a guilty verdict. If you are not
convinced, say so by returning a not guilty verdict.
You must make your decision based only on the
evidence that you saw and heard here in court. Co not let
any rumors, suspicions or anything else that you may have
seen or heard outside of court influence your decision in
any m y .
The evidence in this case includes only what
the witnesses said while they were testifying under oath,
and the exhibits that I allowed into evidence.
Nothing else is evidence. The lawyers'
statements and arguments are not evidence. Their questions
and objections are not evidence. My legal rulings are not
evidence. And my corranents and questions are not evidence.
During the trial, I did not let you hear the
answers to some of the questions that the lawyers asked. I
also ruled that you could not see some of the &hibits that
the lawyers wanted you to see. And sometimes I ordered you
to disregard things that you saw or heard, or I struck
things from the record.
You mst completely ignore all these things.
Do not even think about them. Do not speculate about h t a
witness might have said or what an exhibit might have shown.

These things are not evidence, and you are bound by your
oath not to let them influence your decision in any way.
There m y have been other evidence that was
admitted only against certain defendants and not others.
You m y only consider such evidence with respect to the
defendant against whom it was admitted.
You m y not consider it in any way against a
defendant whom the evidence was not adritted, and m s t
totally disregard it in evaluating the evidence against him.
W e your decision based only on the evidence
as I have defined it here, and nothing else.
Let me give you one caution. There's one bit
of evidence I'm going to c m e n t on specifically. There is
one exhibit that will be a reprint of a newspaper article.
You're not to consider that article for the truth of the
statemats contained within the article. You can consider
it for the fact that the article was printed, and you may
consider it with regard to what actions resulted from the
fact that a newspaper article touching upon a certain fact
or certain issues was published.
Now, you should use your comnon sense in
weighing the evidence. Consider it in light of your
everyday experience with people and events, and give it
whatever weight you believe it deserves.
If your experience tells you that certain
evidence reasonably leads to a conclusion, you are free to
reach that conclusion.
Now, sane of you m y have heard the terms
"direct evidence" and "circumstantial evidence."
Direct evidence is simply evidence like the
testkny of an eyewitness, which, if you believe it,
directly proves a fact.
If a witness testified that he saw it raining
outside, and you believed him, that would be direct evidence
that it was raining.
Circumstantial evidence is sinply a chain of
circumstances that indirectly proves a fact. If saneone
walked into the courtroom wearing a raincoat covered with
drops of water and carrying a wet umbrella, that would be
circumstantial evidence from which you could conclude that
it was raining.
It is your job to decide how m c h weight to
give to the direct and the circvlmstanti a l evidence. The law
mkes no distinction between the weight you should give to
either one, or says that any -- or says that one is any
better widence than the other.
You should consider all of the evidence, both
direct and circumstantial, and give it whatever weight you
believe it deserves.
Another part of your job as jurors is to
decide how credible or believable each witness was. This is
your job, not mine. It is up to you to decide if a
witness's testimony was believable and give it what weight
you think it deserves. You are free to believe wery-thing
that a witness said, or only part of it, or none of it at
all, but you should act reasonably and carefully in nuking
these decisions.
Let me suggest some things for you to consider
in evaluating each witness's testimony.
Ask yourself if the witness was able to
clearly see or hear the events. Sometimes evm an honest
witness nay not have been able to see or hear what was
happening and m y rake a mistake.
Ask yourself how good the witness's memory
seemed to be. Did the witness seen able to accurately
remember what happened?
Ask yourself if there was anything else that
m y have interfered with the witness's ability to perceive
or rem* the events.
Ask yourself how the witness acted while
testifying. Did the witness appear honest or did the
witness appear to be lying?
Ask yourself if the witness had any
relationship to the government or the defendant, or anything
to gain or lose from the case, that might influence the
witness ' s testimony.
Ask yourself if the witness had any bias or
prejudice or reason for testifying that might cause the

witness to lie or slant the testhny in favor of one side
or the other.
Ask yourself if the witness testified
inconsistently while on the witness stand, or if the witness
said or did something or failed to say or do something at
any other time that is inconsistent with what the witness
said while testifying.
If you believe that the witness was
inconsistent, ask yourself if this makes the witness's
testimony less believable. Sometimes it my; other times it
rray not.
Consider whether the inconsistency was about
something important, or about some unimportant detail.
Ask yourself if it seem& like an innocent
mistake, or if it seemed deliberate.
And ask yourself how believable the witness's
testkny was in light of all the other evidence. Was the
witness's testimony supported or contradicted by other
evidence that you found believable? If you believe that a
witness ' s testimony was contradicted by other evidence,
rernerrber that people sometimes forget things, and that even
two honest people who witness the same event m y not
describe it exactly the same way.
These are only some of the things you may
consider in deciding how believable each witness was.
You may also consider other things that you
think shed some light on the witness's believability. Use
your common sense and your everyday w r i e n c e in dealing
with other people, and then decide what testimony you
believe and how much weight you believe it deserves.
One m r e thing about the witnesses. Sometimes
jurors wonder if the number of witnesses who testified mdkes
any difference.
Do not make any decision based on the number
of witnesses who testified. bhat is more important is how

believable the witnesses were and how m c h weight you think
their testimony deserves.
Concentrate on that; not the numbers.
There's one more general subject that I want
to talk to you about before I begin explaining the elements
of the crimes charged.
The lawyers for both sides objected to some of
the things that were said or done duing the trial. Do not
hold that against either side. The lawyers have a duty to
object whenever they think that something is not permitted
by the Rules of Evidence. Those rules are designed to M e
sure that both sides receive a fair trial. And do not
interpret my rulings on their objections as any indication
of how I think the case should be decided. M y rulings were
based on the Rules of Evidence; not on how I feel about the
case.
Remesnber that your decision must be based only
on the evidence that you saw and heard here in court.
Now, that concludes the part of m y
instructions qlaining your duty and the general rules that
apply in every criminal case.
In a moment I will =lain the elements of the
crime that the defendants are accused of cornnitting.
Before I do that, I want to qhasize that the
defendants are only on trial for the particular crime
charged in the indictment. Your job is limited to deciding
whether the government has proved the crimes charged against
each defendant.
Also keep in mind that whether any other
person or entity should be prosecuted or convicted of a
crime is not a proper matter for you to consider.
The possible guilt of others is no defense to
a criminal charge. Your job is to decide if the government
has proved the defendants guilty. Do not let the possible
guilt of others influence your decision in any way.
Now, the defendants have been charged with
different crimes. I will explain to you in more detail
shortly which defendant has been charged in each
crime -- with each crime, but before I do that I want to
aphasize several things.
The fact -- the number of charges is no
evidence of guilt and this should not influence your
decision in any way.
In our system of justice, guilt or innocence
is personal and individual. It is your duty to separately
consider the evidence against each defendant on each charge,
and to return a separate verdict for each one of than.
For each one, you lmst decide whether the
government has presented proof beyond a reasonable doubt
that a particular defendant is guilty of a particular
charge.
Your decision on any.onedefendant or on any
one charge, whether guilty or not guilty, should not
influence your decision on any of the other defendants -- to
the other defendant or charges except as I m y specifically
instruct you in these charges.
Before defining the elements or parts of each
separate charge, I will give you an overview of the charges
in the indictment.
Count 1 of the indictment charges the
defendants Nathaniel Gray and Gilbert Jackson with
conspiring during the period from in or about the mid-1990s
through in or about January, 2005 with Brent Jividen and
others to violate the federal racketeering laws through the
following types of illegal activities:
Violating the Hobbs Act, that is interfering,
conspiring to interfere and attmpting to interfere with
commerce by extortion under color of official right, or
bribery.
Honest services mil fraud; that is, depriving
various municipal and state governments and their citizens
of the right to the faithful and honest services of their
public officials furthered through the use of the m i l or
interstate commercial carriers.
Honest services wire fraud; that is, depriving
various rraunicipal and state governments and their citizens
of the right to the faithful and honest services of its
public officials furthered through the use of the interstate
wire cormamications.
Count 1 contains a series of overt acts
allegedly taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. These
overt acts are divided into four m i n sections, each section
focusing on activity prirrarily related to a different City.
The cities discussed are East Cleveland, Ohio; Cleveland,
Ohio; Houston, Texas and New Orleans, Louisiana.
After Count 1, the indictment then charges 36
underlying substantive charges against various defendants
involving three of the cities discussed in Count 1: East
Cleveland, Ohio in Counts 2 through 15, 20 and 22; Houston,
Texas, Counts 26 through 40; and New Orleans, Louisiana,
Counts 41 through 44.
The next 17 counts, Counts 2 through 15, 20
and 22 center around alleged crimes involving the City of
East Cleveland, Ohio. These counts charge the defendant
Nathaniel Gray with specific violations involving Ehnanuel
Onunwor, the former Mayor of East Cleveland.
The crimes are alleged to have taken place
during the period from in or abut the beginning of 1998
through in or abut April, 2004.
Count 2 charges defendant Nathaniel Gray with
conspiring with IZmmnuel Onunwor and others to violate the
Hobbs Act by bribery or color of official right extortion.
Counts 3 through 9 charge Nathaniel Gray with
specific Hobbs Act violations and aiding and abetting such
Hobbs Act violations -- color of official right extortion or
bribery -- involving alleged cash payments by Gray to
Rrmnuel Onunwor.
Counts 15 -- Counts 10 through 15, 20 and 22
charge Nathaniel Gray with engaging in honest services mil
and wire fraud and aiding and abetting such offenses through
causing the miling and delivery of certain items and phone
calls that furthered the scheme. Each count describes the
mil -- the items miled or wirings.
The next 15 charges, Counts 26 through 40
center around crimes involving the City of Houston. These
counts charge defendants Nathaniel Gray and Gilbert Jackson
with various violations involving Monique McGilbra, Oliver
Spellmn, Brent Jividen and the brother of a high-ranking
Houston official, m n g others.
As alleged in the indictment, McGilbra was the
building services director of the City of Houston, and
Oliver Spellrran was the chief of staff to the Mayor of the
City of Houston.
The crimes are alleged to have taka place
during the period from in or about 2000 and continuing
through in or about January, 2005.
Count 26 charges defendants Gray and Jackson
with conspiring with each other and with Monique McGilbra,
Oliver Spellmn, Brent Jividen and others to violate the
Hobbs Act -- color of official right extortion or bribery --
involving various things of value provided by Gray, Jackson

and Jividen to Houston public officials, including McGilbra
and S p e l r n .
Counts 27 through 29 charge Hobbs Act
violations and aiding and abetting such violations involving
specific bribes to Monique McGilbra i
n return for official
acts intended to beslefit Gray and Gray businesses and
Jividen and his employer.
Count 27 involved the Cleveland Browns
football weekend in October, 2001. Count 28 involves the
Superbowl weekend in New Orleans in February, 2002. Count
29 involves the Louis Vuitton purse.
Defendant Gray is charged in all three of

these counts and defendant Jackson is charged in Count 28
relating to the Superbowl weekend in New Orleans.
Count 30 to 31 charges Nathaniel Gray with
Hobbs Act violations and aiding and abetting such violations
involving specific bribes by Gray to Oliver Spellman in
return for the use of his official position.
Count 30 involves a cash payment of
approximately $2,000. Count 31 alleges he paid a hotel stay
in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Count 32 through 40 charges defendants
Nathaniel Gray and Gilbert Jackson with engaging in a scheme
to cormnit honest services mil and wire fraud and aiding and
abetting such a scheme along with Brent Jividen, Monique
McGilbra and others through causing the mailing and delivery
of certain items, or use of the interstate wires that
furthered the schemes. Each count describes the item mailed
or the wirings.
Counts 40 through 44, the last four charges
for you to consider involve alleged crimes involving the
City of New Orleans. These counts charge defendant
Nathaniel Gray and Gilbert Jackson with various violations
involving an unnamed New Orleans official, Brent Jividen and
others. The crimes are alleged to have taken place in or
dbout 2002.
Count 41 charges defendant Nathaniel Gray and
Gilbert Jackson with conspiring with themselves and others
to violate the Hobbs Act -- color of official right
extortion or bribery -- by Gray or Jackson and by agreeing
to provide a thing of value to an official in the City of
New Orleans in return for official acts.
Counts 42 through 44 charge defendants
Nathaniel Gray and Gilbert Jackson with engaging in a scheme
to corrunit honest services mil and wire fraud and aiding and
abetting such a scheme along with Brent Jividen, New Orleans
official number one and others through causing the mailing
and delivery of certain items or phone calls that furthered
the schesne. Each count describes the item mailed or the
wiring.
I will now define the elements of each offense
charged in the indictment.
Count 1 of the indictment chaxges defendant
Nathaniel Gray and Gilbert Jackson with conspiring between
themselves and w i t h others to violate federal racketeering
laws.
Specifically, the govemment alleges that
beginning in or about the mid-1990s, in the Northern
District of Ohio and elsewhere, defendant Nathaniel Gray and
Gilbert Jackson, together with Brent Jividen and other
persons who were public officials, consultants and vendors
doing and seeking to do business with municipal governments,
howingly and intentionally conspired and agreed to conduct
or participate directly and indirectly in an enterprise that
affected interstate commerce through a pattern of
racketeering activity.
The government alleges that this conduct
violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(d).
Section 1962(d) of Title 18 of the United
States Code provides that "It shall be unlawful for any
person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of
subsection A, B or C of this section."
In this case, the government has alleged that
defendants Nathaniel Gray and Gilbert Jackson conspired with
themselves and others to violate subsection C of Section
1962.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962
n part that "It shall be unlawful for any person
provides i
mployed by or associated within any enterprise engaged in
or the activities of which affect interstate commerce to
conduct or participate directly or indirectly in the conduct
of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of
racketeering activity."
In order to convict a defendant of the crime
of conspiring to conduct or participate in the conduct of
the affairs of an interstate enterprise through a pattern of
racketeering activity as charged in Count 1 of the
indictment, the government mst prove the following elements
beyond a reasonable doubt:
One, that a conspiracy or agreement existed as
detailed in Count 1 of the indictment.
?fh70, that the defendant deliberately joined or
became a member of the conspiracy or agreement with
knowledge of its purpose, and agreeing that a mesober of the
conspiracy, not necessarily himself, would conduct or
participate in the affairs of the enterprise through a
pattern of racketeering activity, and the cmunission of at
least two acts of racketeering activity.
Under the law the government may, but is not
rquired to prove, that the defendants agreed that he
personally would be the one to comnit the two racketeering
acts.
Instead, the defendant need only have adopted
the goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal
endeavor, in this case, a violation of Section 1962, and
that the defendant m y have done so in a variety of ways
short of agreeing personally to undertake all of the acts
necessary for the crime's completion.
Three, that the counts charged in Count 1 of
the indictment existed.
Four, that the defendant agreed to be employed
or associated with the enterprise.
And, five, that the enterprise engaged in or
its activities affected interstate or foreign comerce.
If you find from your consideration of all the
evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond
a reasonable doubt for a defendant, you should find the
defendant guilty of Count 1.
If on the other hand you find from your
consideration that any of these elements has not been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the
defendant not guilty of Count 1.
The first elernat that a conspiracy -- is that
a conspiracy or agreement as set forth in Count 1 existed.
The same definition of the term agrement will also be used
applicable to the Hobbs Act conspiracies charged in Count 2,
26 and 41 of the indictment as well.
A conspiracy is a kind of criminal
partnership. It exists when two or m r e persons come to a
mutual understanding or agreement to try and accomplish a
comnon and unlawful plan. Under the law, a conspiracy to
cornnit a crime is a separate and distinct offense from
committing the crime itself. You m y find that the
defendant conspired or agreed to cormnit an offense even if
you find that the purpose or plan of the conspiracy was
never, in fact, completed.
For instance, in this case you may find a
conspiracy existed in Count 1 even if you find that no
racketeering acts were actually committed, or for Counts 2,
26 and 41 you m y find a conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act
occurred even if there was no actual Hobbs Act violation.
The element does not require proof of any
formal agreement, written or spoken, nor does this require
proof that everyone involved agreed on each of the details.
Indeed, each of the conspirators need have
known all of the names and identities of each of the other
alleged conspirators, but proof that people simply met
together from time to time and talked about common interests
or engaged in similar conduct is not enough to establish a
criminal agreement.
These are things you m y consider in deciding
whether the government has proved an agreement. But without
mre, they are not enough.
In essence what the government must prove is
that there was a mutual understanding, either spoken or
unspoken, between two or more people to cooperate with each
other, to conduct or participate either directly or
indirectly in the conduct of the affairs of an enterprise
that affected interstate commerce through a pattem of
racketeering activity.
In addition, the government must establish a
similar mtual understanding for Counts 2, 26 and 41 to
violate the Hob'sAct, as I will explain later. This is
essential.
An agreement can be proved indirectly, by
facts and circumstances which lead to the conclusion that an
agreement existed. But it is up to the government to
convince you that such facts and circumstances existed in
this particular case.
In your deliberations, you m y consider the
actions and the statemats of all the alleged participants
of the conspiracy, and you may infer the agreement from all
the circumstances and conduct of the alleged participants to
the conspiracy.
Since the hallnark of many criminal agreements
is secrecy, often the only evidence that is available with
respect to the existence of a conspiracy is that of
sehngly disconnected acts and conduct on the part of the
alleged individual co-conspirators.
It is sufficient to establish the existence of
a conspiracy if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the
minds of at least two alleged co-conspirators met in an
understanding to accomplish, by means alleged, the
objectives of the conspiracy, but you must be convinced of
that beyond a reasonable doubt in order to satisfy this
element.
Now, if you are convinced that there was a
criminal agreement, then you rnust decide whether the
government has proved a defendant howingly and voluntarily
joined the agreement.
You must consider each defendant separately in
this regard. To convict any defendant, the government mst
prove that he knew the conspiracy'smain purpose and that he
voluntarily joined it intending to help advance or achieve
its goals.
This does not require proof that a defendant
hew evexything about the conspiracy or everyone else
involved, or that he was a member of it from the very
beginning, nor does it require proof that the defendant
played a mjor role in the conspiracy or that his connection
to it was substantial. A slight role or connection may be
enough. But proof that the defendants sinply knew about the
conspiracy or was present at the crime scene at times or
associated with m&rs of the group was not enough, even if
he approved of what was happening or did not object to it.
Similarly, just because a defendant may have
done something that happened to help a conspiracy does not
necessarily mdke him a conspirator. These are all things
you may consider in deciding whether the government has
proved the defendant joined a conspiracy. But without more,
they are not enough.
What the govemment must prove is that the
defendant h e w the conspiracy's main purpose and that he
voluntarily joined it intending to help advance or achieve
its goals. This is essential.
A defendant'sknowledge can be proved
indirectly by facts and circumstances which lead to a
conclusion that he hew the conspiracy's main purpose, but
it is up to the government to convince you that such facts
and circumstances existed in this particular case.
NOW, some of the people or entities who may
have been involved in these events are not on trial in this
case. This does not matter. There's no requirement that
all the m&rs of a conspiracy be charged and prosecuted or
tried together in one proceeding, nor is there any
requirment that the names of the other conspirators be
known.
An indictment can charge a defendant with a
conspiracy involving people whose names are not known. As
long as the government can prove the defendant conspired

with one or more of them, &ether they are named or not does
not matter.
Count 1 of the indictment charges a conspiracy
or agreement to conduct or participate in the affairs of an
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
I will now define these terms. The terms
racketeering activity or racketeering acts as used in these
instructions means specifically illegal acts. The
categories of racketeering acts described in Count 1 of the
indictment are honest services mail fraud, which I will
define for you in the instructions on the substantive counts
of the indictment charging that crime.
Honest services wire fraud will be defined for
you in the substantive charges in the indictment charging
that crime.
Hobbs Act and Hobbs Act conspiracy will be
defined for you on the substantive counts of the indictment
charging that crime.
As I previously explained to you, the
government is required to prove an agreement. Specifically,
the government must prove that the defendant agreed that
someone, possibly but not necessarily himself, would commit
at least two racketeering acts of the type listed in Count
1.
A pattern of racketeering activity occurs when
at least two acts of racketeering of the type described in
the indictment were corrunitted within ten years of each
other.
The government'snot required to prove that
any acts of racketeering were actually completed.
You are, however, required to unanimously
agree as to the type or types of racketeering acts that a
defendant agreed would be c d t t e d before a conviction may
be returned. For example, to satisfy this requirement you
must unanimously find the defendant agreed to at least two
acts of honest services mil fraud, honest services wire
fraud or Hobbs Act or Hobbs Act conspiracy or any
combination thereof (for instance, an agreement to commit
two acts of mil fraud or an agreement to commit one act of
mil fraud and one act of wire fraud would suffice.
In considering this as to defendant Gray, you
will not consider evidence as to the $5,000 loan defendant
Gray made to Joseph Jones as alleged in Count 25.
You may find that the defendant agreed to m r e
than two, but you ray not return a guilty verdict without
unanimusly agreeing that he agreed that at least two acts
of these types would be coI-rPnitted.
You m y consider proof that the defendant
personally agreed to c
&
t or actually did commit
racketeering acts himself in assessing whether he agreed to
participate in conduct of the enterprise as required by law.
The two racketeering acts are related; that
is, they have the same or similar purposes, results,
participants, victims or methods of commission or are
otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and
are not isolated events.
You m y also consider whether the same act or
pattern was repeated m r e than once as evidence that the
acts were related. ?tnJoracketeering acts that are not
directly related m y nevertheless be related indirectly
because each is related to the N C O enterprise.
The relationship between the RICO enterprise
and the predicate racketeering acts may be established by
evidence that the defendant was enabled to co&t the
racketeering acts solely by virtue of his position in the
enterprise or involvement i
n or control over its affairs or
by evidence that the racketeering acts are related to the
activities of that enterprise, or by evidence that the
racketeering acts promted the purpose of the enterprise or
otherwise related to the activities of the enterprise.
The racketeering acts amount to or pose a
threat of continued criminal activity. This m y be
established when the evidence shows that the racketeering
acts are part of a long-term association that existed for
criminal purposes or when the racketeering acts are shown to
be a regular way of conducting the defendant's ongoing
legithate business or enterprise. This continuity m y
refer either to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to
past conduct that by its nature projects into the future
with a threat of repetition.
Continuity m y be demnstrated over a closed
period by evidence establishing a series of related acts
extending over a substantial period of time.
A threat of continuity on the other hand m y
be established by showing that the racketeering acts were
part of an enterprise of regular -- an enterprise1s regular
way of doing business, or that they m y be attributed to a
defendant operating as part of a long-term association that
exists for a criminal purpose. Either will suffice.
For the government to prove that the defendant
conspired to conduct or participate in the conduct of the
affairs of an enterprise, the government rmst prove that the
defendant entered the agreement with the understanding that
some person who was a merrkr of the conspiracy, not
necessarily himself, would take part in the operation or
management of the enterprise.
This means the intentional and deliberate
performance of acts, functions or duties which are necessary
to or helpful in the operation of the enterprise.
The government my, but is not required, to
prove that a defendant had pr- responsibility for the
enterprise's affairs or that he had a formal position in the
enterprise, but it -- but it mst show that some m e n b e r of
the conspiracy had some part in directing the enterprise's
affairs.
The next element under Count 1 is that an
enterprise as charged in the indictment existed.
An enterprise under the statute does not have
to be -- have any particular name or for that matter any
name at all. It does not need to be registered or licensed
as an enterprise. Nor does it have to be a comonly
recognized legal entity such as a corporation, trade union,
partnership or the like.
It m y be these things, but it may also be any
group of individuals associated in fact, although not a
legal entity.
A group or association of people can be an
enterprise if these individuals have joined together for the
purpose of engaging in common course of conduct.
The group m y be organized for legitimate or
lawful purposes or it m y be organized for an unlawful
purpose or both. Such an association of persons may be
established by evidence showing an ongoing organization,
formal or informal, and by evidence that the people rrdking
up the association function as a continuing unit.
Such an association m y retain its status as
an enterprise even though the membership of the association
m y change by adding or losing individuals during the course
of its existence.
In this case, the indictment alleges that the
enterprise was comprised of the defendant Nathaniel Gray
together with Gray's businesses and the employees and
consultants working for them and with them.
The indictment alleges that various people
participated in the enterprise, including Gray, Jackson,
Jividen and others.
It says that the enterprise used the Gray
businesses to conduct its commercial affairs.
It then sets forth various m e r and means
that Gray and those associated with Gray, with the Gray
enterprise, allegedly used to conduct the affairs of the
enterprise, including marketing themselves to vendors and
contractors who were seeking govemental contracts based
upon the conspirators' ability to influence public
officials, including those to whom the Gray enterprise was
providing things of value; entering into comnercial
relationships with those seeking government contracts and
taking steps to conceal those relationships; providing
things of value to public officials in order to gain access
to them and influence their official actions; acting as
intermediaries or buffers between Gray's clients and public
officials in order to conceal the things of value being
provided to than; and taking numerous steps to conceal the
thing of value being provided to the public official by the
enterprise.
The government is not required to prove that
the enterprise had a particular means or methd or that a
particular defendant had a specific role within the
enterprise. If you find that this group of individuals was
characterized by: An comnon purpose, an ongoing form1 or
informal organization, or personnel who function as a
continuing unit, then you m y find that the group was an
enterprise.
As used i
n these instructions, employed by or
associated with the enterprise means that the defendant
agreed to be connected to the enterprise in same meaningful
way and that the defendant h e w of the existence of the
enterprise and of the general nature of its activities.
The defendant need not have agreed to be
esnployed by or associated with the enterprise during the
entire period of its existence.
The phrase employed by or associated with is
to be given a c m n sense reading which focuses on the
interests of the enterprise and the relationship of the
defendant to those interests.
The defendant my, but need not, for example,
have a stake in the enterprise's goal, nor rrtust he agree to
have an official position within the enterprise or otherwise
be an insider to be deemed to be associated with the
enterprise. Moreover, you need not find that the acts of
the defendant benefited the interests of the enterprise. It
is sufficient if you find that the defendant agreed to be
connected to the enterprise in some meaningful way.
As used i
n Count 1 of the indictment
interstate or foreign comerce means trade, business or
travel between the states or between nations. The phrase
engaged in or the activities of which affected interstate
comerce as used in these instructions means to be involved
in or affect in some way, however minimal, trade or business
or travel between the states or across international
borders.
The government need not show any particular
degree of effect on interstate or foreign cmerce. Nor
must the government prove any particular defendant engage
in interstate or foreign cmerce or that the acts of the
defendants or the racketeering acts themselves affected
interstate or foreign comerce.
The enterprise itself my, but need not, be
engaged itself in interstate or foreign commerce. It is
only necessary that the activities of the enterprise have
some minimal effect on cmerce between different states or
across international borders. If the racketeering acts of
the enterprise do affect interstate or foreign comrce,
then it affects interstate cormerce. If you find the
government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
actions of the enterprise, including any action by a
defendant, affected in any degree directly or indirectly the
mvaent of mney, goods or services across state lines or
national borders, then you may find that interstate or
foreign cmerce was engaged in or affected as required by
the statute.
I will now explain to you the elements of the
different types of crimes w?ich are listed as racketeering
activities in the indictment and which are also included as
separate chaxges.
In addition to providing -- in addition to
proving -- I'm sorry -- in addition, in proving the
conspiracy as charged in Count 1, the government is not
limited to the specific racketeering acts that are describe
in the substantive counts of the indictment.
Counts 10 through 15, 20, 22, 32 through 40
and 42 to 44 of the indictment charge honest services mil
and wire fraud and aiding and abetting in such offenses.
Each of these counts alleges a scheme and
artifice to deprive cities, states and their citizens of the
right to the honest services of their public officials free
from fraud, dishonesty, bias and conflicts of interest
furthered through use of the mails and interstate wires.
The counts are grouped together, are grouped relating to the
four cities that I've already described.
Section 1341 of Title 18 of the United States
Code provides that Whoever, having devised or intended to
devise any scheme or artifice to defraud for purpose of
executing such scheme or artifice or attenpting to do so
places in any Post Office or authorized depository for mil
matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered
by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited
any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any
private or cmercial interstate carrier" is guilty of an
offense.
Code provides that "Whoever having devised or intended to
devise any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes
to be transmitted by means of wire comrunication in
interstate or foreign comerce any writings, signals or
sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice"
is guilty of an offense.
Section 1346 of Title 18 of the ~ t e States
d
Code defines scheme or artifice to defraud as including the
scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible
right of honest services.
The defendant can be found guilty of these
offenses only if the following elements are proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.
First, that there was a schane to deprive the
public or the City or State of the intangible right to the
honest services of a public official by materially false and
fraudulent pretenses as charged in the indictment.
Second, that the defendant participated in the
scheme or artifice to defraud with the intent to fraud.
And third, that for purposes of executing such
scheme or artifice to defraud as alleged in the indictment,
the defendant either, for mil fraud, placed or caused to be
placed in any post office or authorized depository for mil
matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered
by the Postal Service, or deposited or caused to be
deposited any mtter or thing whatever to be sent or
delivered by any private or comercial interstate carrier,
or, for wire fraud, transmitted or caused to be transmitted
by means of wire comnunication in interstate or foreign
comerce, any writings, signals or sounds.
The first element the government must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt is that there was a schme or
artifice to defraud the public, the City and the state of
their intangible right to the honest services of their
public official.
The first element is almost self-aplanatory.
A scheme or artifice is merely a plan for the
accomplishnent of an object.
A scheme to defraud is any plan, device or
course of action to deprive another of the intangible
services by representations or promises reasonably
calculated to deceive persons of average prudence.
It's not defined according to a technical
standard, but a standard that's a reflection of mral
uprightness, fundamental honesty, fair play and right
dealing. A scheme or artifice to defraud is limited only by
m ' s ingenuity in devising new methods to defraud the
cormnunity.
Fraud is a general terrn which embraces all the
various means by which human ingenuity can devise and which
are resorted to by an individual to gain an advantage over
another by false representation, suggestion or suppression
of the truth, or deliberate disregard for the truth.
Thus, a scheme to defraud is merely a plan to
deprive the public, City or state of their intangible rights
to the honest services of public officials by trick, deceit,
deception or swindle.
Public officials and public enployees
inherently owe a duty to the public and governmental
agencies they serve to act in that government's or that
agency's best interest. Thus, the term "scheme and artifice
to defraud" includes a schane and artifice to deprive
citizens, the City or the state of their intangible right to
the services of their public officials free from
self-enrichment, bias, self-dealing, and undisclosed and
concealed conflicts of interest.
A statement, representation, claim or document
is false if it is untrue when made and it is then known to
be untrue by the person mking it or causing it to be made.
A representation or pretense is fraudulent if
it was falsely made or maintained with the intention to
deceive.
A deceitful half truth or the concealment of
material facts, and the expression of an opinion not
honestly entertained m y also constitute false or fraudulent
statements or pretenses under the statute.
The deception need not be premised on spoken
or written words alone. The arrangement of words or the
circumstances in which they were used may convey the false
1781
and deceptive appearance. If there is deception, the rnanner

in which it is accomplished is immaterial.
The failure to disclose information may also
constitute a fraudulent representation if the person was
under a legal or professional or contractual duty to make
such a disclosure, the defendant actually knew such a
disclosure ought to be made, and the person failed to rrdke
such disclosure with the intent to fraud.
The false or fraudulent representation,
pretense or failure to disclose must relate to a material
fact or matter. A material fact is one that has a natural
tendency to influence or be capable of influencing a
person's decision.
A misrepresentation, pretense or concealment
must be reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary
prudence and carprehension.
This means that if you find a particular
statement of fact to have been false, you must determine
whether the statement was one that a reasonable person might
have considered important.
The same principle applies to fraudulent half
truths, pretenses or canissions of material fact.
The government is not required to prove that
the defendant himself originated the scheme to defraud.
Furthenmre, it's not necessary that the government prove
that a defendant actually realized any gain from the scheme,
that the intended victim suffered any loss, that someone
actually relied upon the misrepresentation, false statement,
false pretenses or that the scheme actually succeeded in
defrauding anyone. Although whether the scheme at all
actually succeeded really is not the question, you m y
consider whether it succeeded in determining v.hether the
scheme existed.
A scheme to defraud need not be shown by
direct evidence, but m y be established by all the
circumstances and facts in the case.
If you find that the govenvnent has sustained
its burden of proof that a scheme to defraud as charged did
exist, you should next consider the second element.
The second element that the government must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant
participated in the scheme to defraud lcnowingly and with the
intent to defraud.
With respect to a defendant's participation, a
defendant violates the mail fraud and/or wire fraud statute
if the defendant knowingly and intentionally devises a
scheme or participates in the execution at any stage. The
degree of a defendant'sknowing and intentional
participation compared to the degree of participation by any
other person in the scheme is not relevant and therefore
should be given no consideration in your determination of
whether the defendant was a willful participant in the
scheme.
Knowingly means to act voluntarily and
intentionally, rather than mistakenly and inadvertently.
Intent to defraud means to act knowingly and
with the specific intent to deceive for the purpose of
depriving another of the intangible right of the honest
services of public officials free from bias,
self-enrichment, self-dealing and undisclosed and concealed
conflicts of interest.
The question of whether a person acted
knowingly and with intent to defraud is a question of fact
for you to determine, like any other question or any other
fact question. This question involves one's state of mind.
Direct proof of knowledge and fraudulent
intent is not required.
Under the mail and wire fraud statutes, even
false representations, pretenses or statements or omissions
of material facts do not m u n t to fraud unless done with
fraudulent intent.
As a practical matter then, in order to
sustain the charges against the defendant, the government
must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
knew that his conduct as a participant in the scheme was
calculated to defraud and nonetheless he associated himself
with the alleged fraudulent scheme for the purpose of
defrauding another.
Now, the good faith of a defendant -- of a
particular defendant is a complete defense of the mil and
wire fraud charge contained in the indictment against the
defendant because good faith on the part of a defendant is
inconsistent with an intent to defraud.
A person who acts or causes another to act on
a belief or an opinion honestly held is not punishable under
this statute merely because the belief or opinion turns out
to be inaccurate, incorrect, or wrong. An honest rnistake in
judgment or an honest error in management does not rise to
the level of criminal conduct.
A defendant does not act in good faith if,
wen though he honestly holds a certain opinion or belief,
that defendant also howingly makes false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations or promises to others.
While the term good faith has no precise
definition, it encompasses among other things a belief or
opinion honestly held or absence of malice or ill will, and
an intention to avoid taking unfair admntage of another.
The burden of proving good faith does not rest
with the defendant because the defendant does not have an
obligation to prove anything in this case.
It's the government's burden to prove to you
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with an
intent to defraud.
If the evidence in this case leaves you with a
reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted with an
intent to defraud or in good faith, you must acquit that
defendant.
To conclude on this element, if you find that
a defendant was not a knowing participant in the scheme or
that he lacked an intent to defraud, you should acquit him.
On the other hand, if you find that the government has
established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was
a knowing participant and acted with intent to defraud, then
this element is satisfied.
The third element that the government r m t
establish beyond a reasonable doubt is the use of the mails
or use of interstate wires as charged in furtherance -- in
furtherance the scheme to defraud.
The use of the mils includes material sent
through the United States Postal Service and delivery by
interstate c m r c i a l carrier.
The use of wire transmissions includes wire,
telephone, radio and television conmunications in interstate
comerce or foreign comerce.
The indictment charges f o r each count of the
alleged mailing or wiring in further -- the indictment
describes for each count the alleged mailing or wiring in
furtherance of this scheme.
They are as follows. Now, Counts 10 through
15, 20 and 22 charge defendant Gray and relate to East
Cleveland, Ohio, and you'll see here is a chart -- you'll
have these instructions with you by the way when you go back
to the jury room. Each of those will set out as to each of
the counts the check nurclber involved or the mailing
involved.
It will set forth the prospective date and it
will set forth the person who the mailing was addressed to.
You see that goes to Counts 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.
As to the honest services wire fraud, the
following paragraphs deal with that, and again you'11 have a
delineation of the count, the communication that is alleged
to have been wire communication used to facilitate the
fraud, and the date that the wire comication occurred.
And again this goes to Counts 20 and 22 with
regard to East Cleveland.
Now, Counts 32 through 40 relate to the City
of Houston, and again the mailings are set out, including as
to each of them the count, the item that was mailed or
delivered, the date and the address of the recipient.
On Page 37, you'll see the wire use and again
we have a listing of the count, the corcnrrunication that is
allegedly involved, and the approximate date.
Now, Counts 40 through -- 42 through 44 relate
to the New Orleans matter, and again you'll see on the top
of Page 38 the count, the item allegedly mailed or
delivered, the date, the address.
And simply with regard to Count 43 alleging
mil services wire fraud, again a listing of a count,
c o ~ c a t i o ninvolved purportedly and the date.
The mailed matter or wire c o ~ i c a t i o nitself
need not contain a fraudulent representation or purpose. It
must, however, further or assist in the carrying out of the
scheme to defraud.
It's not necessary for the defendant to be
directly or personally involved in a mailing or wire
comnunication as long as the miling or wire c o d c a t i o n
was reasonably foreseeable in the execution of an alleged
scheme to defraud in which the defendant is accused of
participating.
In this regard it's sufficient to establish
this element of the crime if the evidence justifies the
findings that the defendant caused the mailing or wire
transmission by others. This does not mean that the
defendant rmst specifically authorize others to do the
mailing or wiring.
When one does an act with knowledge that the
use of the mils or the wire t r ~ s s i o n
will follow in the
ordinary course of business or where such use of mils or
wires can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually
intended, then he causes the mil or wire transmissions to
be used.
With respect to the use of the mails or wire
transmissions the government does not have to prove that the
miling or wire transmission was m d e on the exact date
charged in the indictment. It's sufficient that the
evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the
milings or wire transmission was m d e on a date
substantially similar to the date charged in the indictment.
Now, Counts 2, 26 and 41 of the indictment
accuse the defendants charged in each count of conspiring to
violate the Hobbs Act, Title 18, United States Code, Section
951 which nukes it a crime for two or m r e persons to
conspire or agree to violate the Hobbs Act, even if they
never actually achieve their goal.
As I previously aplained, a conspiracy is a
type or kind of criminal partnership. For to you find any
one of the defendants guilty of the conspiracy charge, the
government must prove each and ev- one of the following
elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
First, that two or more persons conspired or
agreed to cormit the crime of extortion under color o
official right, which I will define for you, and, second,
that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined the
conspiracy.
You must be convinced that the government has
proved each of these e l m t s beyond a reasonable doubt in
order to find a defendant guilty of a conspiracy charge.
The elements of a conspiracy have already been
defined for you with regard to Count 1. The same definition
of conspiracy or agreement and the elements that a defendant
joined a conspiracy apply here.
The indictment describes for each count the
circumstances of each instance of the alleged conspiracy to
comnit the Hobbs Act extortion under color of official
right.
They are as follows, and then these give you a
listing. For instance, in Count 2, the alleged conspirators
are Nathaniel Gray and Ehmnuel Onunwor. The dates were
approximately early April, '98 through April, 2004 and the
circumstances of the alleged conspiracy are as alleged in
the indictment.
And as to these, these kind of surrnraries in
the last column, I would indicate to you these are the
allegations that are made or the gist of the allegations
m d e in the indictment. The inclusion of these is just to
alert you as to what the government alleges. That's not
evidence of the purported circumstances or the purported
transmission.
You can see those as to each of the counts,
and they're set out in Counts 2, 26 and 41.
I will now define the underlying substantive
crime of Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right
which you will use in Count 1 as a main type of racketeering
activity and, two, for the conspiracy to violate the Hohbs
Act charges and, three, for the substantive Hobbs Act and
aiding and abetting charges.
Code, the Hobbs Act provides that: "Whoever in any manner
or any degree obstructs comerce or mvment of any
commdity or article in comerce by extortion or attempts to
do so is guilty of an offen~e.~
Fixtortion is defined as obtaining property
from another with his consent under color of official right.
Extortion under color of official right then
occurs when one uses his or her position as a public
official or the authority of a public office to obtain mney
or services not due the official or his public office from
another with their consent.
The indictment describes for each count the
circumstances for each instance of alleged Hobbs Act
extortion under color of official right.
These are as follows,And again you have a
l i s t i n g of Counts 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9 , 27, 28, 29, 30 and
31, with the first column being the listing of the named
alleged Hobbs Act violator, the approdte date and the
circumstances alleged.
And I repeat, these are the circumstances
alleged in the indictment. My listing of them here is not
evidence whatever that you are to consider.
Now, a defendant can be found guilty of this
offense only if all the following elements are proved beyond
a reasonable doubt.
First, a public official wrongfully obtained
property to which he or she knew that he or she was not
entitled knowing that the property was given in return for
tabling, withholding, or influencing specific act or acts
under color of official right.
Second, that the property was given with the
givers consent.
And, third, that interstate commerce or an
item mving in interstate comwrce was delayed, obstructed
or affected in any way or degree.
Extortion under color of official light occurs
whm a public official receives or a t t a p t s to obtain money
for property to which the public official is not entitled,
intending that the money or property is being given to the
public official in return for the taking, withholding or
other influencing of official action.
Although the official must receive or attempt
to obtain that mney or property, the government does not
have to prove that the public official first suggested or
induced the giving of the mney or property or that the
official asked for or solicited it.
While the official must receive or a t t q t to
obtain the money or property in return for official action,
the government does not have to prove that the official
action actually took or intended to take place.
Nor is it necessary to show the official could
have actually taken the action or actions in return for
which the payment was m d e or property provided or that the
official would not have taken the same action even without
payment or property.
In other words, the wrongful use of otherwise
valid official power m y convert dutiful action into
extortion under color of official right.
The term official act means any decision or
proceeding or controversy which is brought before a public
official in his or her capacity for a decision to be acted
upon.
The term property includes mney and other
tangible and intangible things of value. For instance, it
can include valuable gifts, interest free loans, valuable
contractual rights, and other things of value obtained or
provided to or for the benefit of a public official.
You m y use the same definition of affecting
interstate or foreign comerce provided in Count 1 of the
indictment to apply to the Hobbs Act charges. It's not
necessq to prove that the defendant specifically intended
to affect commerce.
If you decide that there was any effect on
interstate or foreign comnerce in any way or degree,
directly or indirectly, that is enough to satisfy this
elemat.
The effect can be minim1 and indirect.
Now, defendant Gray's position on the charges
of violating and conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act is that
there has been no violation of the Hobbs Act because he
contends there was never any gift or money that was given
knowing that the property was given in return for taking,
withholding or influencing specific official acts or
acts -- act or acts, and the public official did not know
that the property was given in return for taking,
withholding or influencing specific official act or acts.
An individual violates the Hobbs Act when he
provides mney or things of value to a public official in
exchange for performing a specific official act.
Defendant Gray contends that the gwenvnent
has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he provided
any money or thing of value to any government official in
exchange for a promise by the official to perform an
official act. Money or things of value given with a
general hope of support do not violate the Hobbs Act.
For you to find a defendant guilty of the
substantive offenses charged in Counts 3, 15 through 20, 22,
27 through 40 and 42 through 44 involving both honest
services mil and wire fraud and extortion under color of
official right, it's not necessary for to you find that he
personally committed the crime charged.
You may also find him guilty if intentionally
helped or encouraged somebody else to cormit the crime or if
he willfully caused an act to be done which would be a
federal crime if directly performed by him or another.
A person who does this is called an aider and
abettor. But for you to find the defendant guilty of such a
crime as an aider and abettor, you must be convinced that
the government has proved each and every one of the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
First, that the crime charged in the
indictment was cohtted.
Second, that the defendant helped commit the
crime or encouraged or caused somebody else to cordt the
crime.
And, third, that the defendant intended to
help or encourage or willfully cause the crime.
Proof that the defendant may have hown about
the crime, even if he was there when it was committed, is
not enough for you to find him guilty as an aider and
abettor.
You may consider this in deciding whether the
government has proved he was an aider and abettor, but
without more it's not enough.
What the government m s t prove is that the
defendant did something to help or encourage the crime with
the intent that the crime be comnitted.
proved all these elements, say so by returning a guilty
verdict on the charge in question.
If you have a reasonable doubt as to any of
these elements, then you cannot find the defendant guilty of
the charge in question as an aider and abettor.
Now, Counts 10 through 15, 22, 32 through 40
and 42 through 44 of the indictment accuse the defendants of
corrunitting the crimes of honest services mail and wire
fraud. Counts 3 through 9 and 27 through 31 accuse the
defendant of cmmitting the crimes of extortion under color
of official right or bribery.
In addition, as I've already told you, there Is
yet another way that the government can prove the defendant
guilty of any of these crimes.
This method is based upon the legal rule that
all r
n
-
s of the conspiracy are responsible for acts
cormnitted by the other members, as long as those acts are
conanitted to help advance the conspiracy and are within the
reasonably foreseeable scope of the agreement.
In other words, under certain circumstances,
the act of one conspirator m y be treated as the act of all.
This means that all of the conspirators rnay be convicted of
a crime committed by only one of them wen though they did
not all personally participate in that crime themselves.
But for you to find the defendant guilty of
extortion under color of official right or m i l or wire
fraud based on this legal rule, you mst be convinced that
the government has proved each and every one of the
First, that the defendant was a m a k e r of the
conspiracy as charged in the particular count of the
indictment.
Second, that after he joined the conspiracy
and while he was still a member, one or more of the other
members corrunitted the specific crime that you are
considering.
Third, that this crime was cormnitted to help
advance the conspiracy.
And, fourth, that this crime was within the
reasonably foreseeable scope of the unlawful project. The
crime must be one that the defendant could have reasonably
anticipated as necessary or natural consequence of the
agreement.
This does not require proof that each
defendant specifically agreed or knew that a crime would be
co~nnitted,but the government must prove that the crime was
within the reasonable contaplation of the persons who
participated in the conspiracy.
No defendant is responsible for the acts of
the others that go beyond the fair scope of the agreement as
the defendant understood it.
proved all of these elements, say so by returning a guilty
verdict on this charge. If you have a reasonable doubt
about any one of them, then under the legal Rule that the
act of one conspirator is the act of all would not apply to
that charge.
Next I want to say a word abut the dates and
the munts mentioned in the indictment. The indictment
charges that the crimes occurred on or about specific
indicates. The government does not have to prove that the
crimes happened on those exact dates, but the government
must prove that the crimes happened reasonably close to
those dates.
The same applies to the approximite munts of
money alleged in the indictment. The government does not
have to prove that the crimes involved the exact munts
alleged, but the government must prove that the amounts were
reasonably close to those amounts.
Next I want to explain something about proving
a defendant's state of mind.
Ordinarily there's no way that a defendant's
state of rrrind can be proved directly because no one can read
another person's mind and tell what another person is
thinking. But a defendant's state of mind can be proved
indirectly from the surrounding circumstances. This
includes things like what the defendant said, what the
defendant did, how the defendant acted, and any other facts
or circumstances that are in evidence that show what was i
n
the defendant's mind.
You m y also consider the natural and probable
result of any act that the defendant knowingly did or did
not do, and whether -- whether it is reasonable to conclude
that the defendant intended those results. This of course
is all for you to decide.
Now, that concludes the part of my
instructions ecplaining the elements of the crime.
Next I want to explain some rules that you
must use in considering some of the testimony and evidence.
A defendant has an absolute right not to
testify or present evidence. The fact that he did not
testify cannot be considered by you in any way. Do not even
discuss or consider it in your deliberations.
R m d x r that it's up to the government to
prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's

not up to the defendant to prove that he is innocent.
You've heard the testimony of witnesses and
have heard questions abut statements the witnesses m y have
m d e that may be different from the witnesses1 testimony
here in court. Such earlier statements are brought to your
attention only to help you decide how believable the
witnesses' testimony was. You cannot use it as proof of
anything else.
If you believe such a statement was made, you
can use it -- you can only use it as one way of evaluating
the witness's testkny here in court.
You've also heard before this case that
certain witnesses were convicted of a crime. An earlier
conviction was brought to your attention only as a way of
helping you to decide how believable such testimony was.
You cannot use it for any other purpose. It's not evidence
that the defendant was guilty of the crime that he is on
trial for now.
That's actually -- this instruction is not
applicable, and you'll disregard it.
You've heard testhny about defendant Gray's
character for generosity. You should consider the testimony
along with all the other evidence in deciding if the
government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he
co&tted the crime charged.
Now, you've heard the testkny of witnesses
who entered pleas and were promised that the government take
certain actions to recomrmd lower sentences.
It's permissible for the government to m k e
such a promise. But you should consider those witnesses1
testhny with more caution than the testimony of other
witnesses.
Consider whether his testimony nay have been
influenced by the government's promise.
Do not convict the defendant based upon the
unsupported testhny of such a witness standing alone

unless you believe this testimony beyond a reasonable doubt.
The government has offered evidence in the
form of tape and video recordings with the defendants and
others that were obtained without the knowledge of the
parties to the conversations, but with the consent and
authorization of the court or the consent of one of the
parties to the conversation.
These so-called wiretaps were obtained
pursuant to court order. The use of this procedure to
gather evidence is lawful, and the governmat is entitled to
use such recordings in this case.
Now, you've heard some tape and video
recordings that were received in evidence and you've been
provided with written transcripts of some of the tapes and
videos. Keep in mind that the transcripts are not evidence.
They are given to you only as a guide to help you follow
what is being said.
The tapes themselves are the evidence. If you
notice any differences between what you heard on the tapes
and what you read in the transcripts, you must rely upon
what you hear and not on what you read.
If you cannot hear or understand certain parts
of the tapes, you r u t ignore the transcripts as to those
parts -- as those parts are concerned.
Now, during the trial certain s u m i e s have
been admitted into evidence. These s m i e s were admitted
into evidence in addition to the materials they smmarized
because they may assist you in understanding the evidence
that has been presented
But the smmries are not evidence of the
material it surmrarizes, and is only as valid and reliable as
the underlying material it sumnarizes.
Now, you've heard testimony that after the
crime was alleged to have been corrpnitted, certain defendants
either concealed evidence or m d e false exculpatory
statements. If you believe that the defendant engaged in
such conduct, you m y consider this evidence along with all
the other evidence in deciding whether the government has
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he comnitted the crime
dharged.
This conduct m y indicate that the defendant

thought he was guilty and was trying to avoid punishment.
On the other hand, sometimes wen an innocent person m y
engage in such conduct for other reasons.
I'm going to go through with you right now
some -- I want to show you the exkibits, or not the exhibits
but the verdict forms.
See them on your screen. They're going to be
broken down as basically verdict forms Mr. Gray and then
separate verdict forms for Mr. Jackson.
You see each of them have up at the top the
count and they will have the general listing of the date and
the allegation.
The verdict forms are all in basically the
same f o m t , and they read just generally as follows:
"We, the jury in this case, having been duly
impaneled and sworn find the defendant Nathaniel Gray" --
and you will enter the words "guilty"or "not guilty" -- "of
the offense of RICO conspiracy as charged in Count 1 of the
superseding indictment, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1962(d)."
It then goes on to say "Each of us jurors
concurring in said verdict signs his/her name hereto this"
and today I believe for reference is the 16th day of August.
You will enter the date you've reached your
verdict. You will each twelve sign each of these. They
then go on, each one is somewhat different, for instance the
second one deals with Count 2 which involves the Hobbs Act
conspiracy, the date, the provision of the materials
allegedly to Onunwor, but they are all basically in the same
form; the only difference being the caption which points you
to the count, also points you to the allegation and the
date.
So you'll see as to each of these, they go
basically the same form.
To like effect, the verdict forms as to
defendant Jackson are in the basic -- same basic format.
For instance, in Count 1 it reads "We, the
jury in this case, having been duly impaneled and sworn find
the defendant Gilbert Jackson" -- and again you enter the
words "Guilty"or "Not guilty" -- "of the offense of RICO
conspiracy as charged in Count 1 of the superseding
indictment." And then it goes on and sets out the Code
section and sets the date.
So go through each of these. You'll need to
complete one verdict form as to each of the counts.
Okay. At this point in time I'd ask the
attorneys to approach.
THE COURT: Does the government have any
motion relative to the instructions --
MR. DC
-H: No.
THE COURT: -- other than what's been
expressed beore?
Do you have any motion relative to the
instructions you haven't --
MR. WHITAKEX: I have to look at the page
number, a reference to Count 25, with respect to the $5,000,
there is no Count 25.
THE COURT: That's not exactly what happened.
The instruction says that they are not to consider; I say
they are not to consider.
MR. WHITAKER: "In considering with regard to
defendant Gray you will not consider the evidence regarding
the $5,000 loan that defendant Gray made to Joseph Jones as
alleged in Count 25 of the indictment." There is no Count
25.
THE COURT: What I'm saying is that was not an

inadvertence that was overlooked, so I can instruct them
that in some ways I've told them once not to consider it so
if they follow my instructions they won't consider it.
If you want me to go through -- frankly, the
problem you have is if I go through and correct the
instruction, you're in a position where it m y slip by them,
but you're reenphasizing.
So I'11 do whatever you wish, if you want a
motion on that, but you're just kind of -- the instruction
as it states is correct, that they are not to consider it.
MR. WHITAKER: I agree with that.
THE COURT: But it's somewhat up to you as to
do you want that.
MR. WHITAKER: Yeah. You ' re right, Your
Honor, I'mnot going to rrake any motion with regard to that.
THE COURT: All right. Start here.
MS. PEAFSON: Your Honor, may we have a five
minute comfort break before we argue?
MR. JENKINS: I would like five minutes, too.
This is the first time I've ever had to go to the restroom.
THE COURT: If I don't break, it might mdke
the arguments shorter.
MR. -S: Yes, 1'11 take ten minutes, I
prcanise.
(End of bench conference)
THE COURT: There's been a request as to maybe
we will take a five minute break.
We're in a position if we don't take a five
minute break, the attorneys m y be very quick in arguing the
case, although you m y be very uncomfortable as well as the
attorneys.
We will take a couple minutes so we will
recess just until five until. We are going to stay strictly
on that time limit, so five minutes.
(Recess taken).
THE COURT: Let me just ask for the
government, I'd rather you move that sameplace towards the
back towards the bar so that counsel for the defendants and
I can also see whatever's being put up there.
MS. PEAFSON: This way, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Right. If you could put it maybe
a little bit this way. O k a y .
Where do things stand w i t h regard to the
index?
MR. JEWWYS : Your Honor, as to the
government'sversion, we agreed to that. They've given us
copies of the redacted revision.
MS. WHITAKER : We were just handed the copy,
and 1'11check at lunch and see if it's fine and then I will
get on a computer and make the changes I need to make.
THE COURT: How long do you tkink that will
take?
MS. WHITAKER: My changes will take about two
and a half minutes.
MR. DFITELBACH: And I don't b o w if the Court
wants to have what the rest of us have now or not.
THE COURT: Just at the time that the exhibits
are going to go back.
(Jury in.
THE COURT: Would the jury and everybody else
take a seat?
Ladies and gentlaen, at this point in time
the parties are given an opportunity to m k e final arguments
to you.
The final arguments are the opportunity for
the parties to go over with you what evidence they think has
been offered.
It's also their opportunity to suggest to you
what inferences they think you can reasonably draw from the
evidence.
The final arguments a r e not evidence and
you're not to consider them as evidence.
Now, the government has the burden of proof,
as I just aplained to you. For that reason, the government
goes first in final arguments. The defendants then mdke
argument to you.
The government then has an opportunity to
respond or make rebuttal argument.
So at this time, I would ask the government to
rrdke final argument.
THE COURT: M s . Pearson.
MS. PEARSON: Ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, the tapes speak for themselves. The videos speak for
thenselves. The still photographs you've seen, ladies and
gentlemen, they speak for themselves.
You heard from various witnesses in the
witness box, including public officials coninn vihat was
said on those tapes, confirm what you've seen in those
videos, confirm what you've seen in these still pictures.
And it's simply this: Defendants Nate Gray
and Gilbert Jackson had a c o m n goal. That goal was to get
public contracts for various businesses. And they had a
comon philosophy on how to do that, ladies and gentlemen.
That was to bribe public officials.
These bribes took m y forms. You've seen
that. You've seen that the bribes were in envelopes of cash
passed time after time after time to Ecrrnanuel Onunwor.
You've seen that these bribes took the form of
other things like trips. P/Ls. McGilbra, she'sa football fan
no doubt. Trips to Cleveland, trips to New Orleans, a
public official going to the Superbowl. Miami vacation
where she was treated to a $1,000 dimer, fully equipped
with a lkusine ride for her family, jokingly referred to
as Uncle Ben and Aunt Lucy.
You've also seen that Rrmnuel Onunwor got a
trip to Vegas on October 7th. He was given money so that he
could go to Vegas. Well, so did Oliver Spellmm.
Mr. Jackson and M r . Gray are partners in
crime. This crime takes an overarching form as to what the
Judge has already referred to as a RICO conspiracy. RICO.
It sounds daunting. It's not rocket science. It can
actually be boiled down into something that's fairly
understandable, although not exactly s m l e .
But before we go there, I'd just like to
remind you of h t the philosophies were that you heard from
the defendants' o m words.
You heard Mr. Gray say 90% of the time, 90% of
the time that you get a public contract, it's because you've
greased the palm, greasing the palm. His words.
You then heard him in a conversation where he
was talking with Ricardo T m r about Councilman Jones. He
referred to an individual Sam Miller. Special Agent Massie
testified that Mr. Miller is a very wealthy ran; well-known
in the Cleveland area. That Sam had taught M r . Gray that to
get what you want from public officials, you treat them like
what they really are; you treat them like straight
prostitutes.
And then lastly you heard Mr. Jackson, he gave
you his philosophy as well on what you do when he was
speaking with Mk. Gray. He was talking about that $25,000
loan, that $25,000 to the City of Cleveland and he said
"Honestly,Nate, nobody's given that kind of money unless
you're getting something in return."
And you heard these philosophies espoused over
and over and over again throughout the tapes, revealed
throughout the documents that you've seen again as the
witnesses testified.
And interestingly even WebsterlsDictionary
has a fairly accurate description of what a prostitute is.
It's not just a man or woman who trades sexual favors for
money, but it's actually a politician or person who debases
him or herself in exchange for a thing of value.
And that's exactly what Monique McGilbra did.
She debased her role as a public official for the City of
Houston in exchange for a $700 Louis Vuitton purse.
That's exactly what Emmnuel Onunwor did when
he decided, "Okay,to keep getting cash, I'll give up
contracts."
And you heard it from Oliver Spellman, that's
exactly what he did. He traded confidential inforration
that he received from Mayor Brown of the City of Houston for
a couple thousand dollars in an envelope left on a car seat,
and a trip to Vegas.
You heard these defendants, these cooperating
witnesses testify that they pled guilty, they've admitted to
being bribed and they've ahitted having been bribed by
Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson.
But to get back to RICO, you start with, as
Your Honor has already instructed you -- and keep in mind
his instructions are what controls, he's told you that. Any
surrnmry or reference I make is secondary to his. But the
RICO enterprise is at the center of all this, and this is
where Mr. Jackson and Mr. Gray come in.
You see, their corranon goal was to get
contracts, and you know there were four different cities
that we focused on i
n the indictment before you. We focused
on Houston, we focused on New Orleans, we focused on
Cleveland and also East Cleveland.
Well, to get contracts from these cities,
Mr. Jackson and M r . Gray put their heads together, and
Mr. Gray, making up this enterprise himself personally, the
business as he operates, you heard he has a series of EI!NA
businesses, his name scrambled. The employees for those
businesses, the consultants he hires for those businesses,
you heard Mr. Jackson is one of those consultants, right?
He earned about $168,000 from Mr. Gray. You saw an exhibit
to that effect.
And there are others who participated, like
you heard the name Brent Jividen, you'veheard his voice.
These individuals m k e up what we've referred to as the Gray
enterprise.
Now, the Gray enterprise is to get these
contracts. You know there was at least three for Houston,
right? There was an energy contract, and you h o w what
that's all about. All of you in the State of Ohio have been
forced to choose your own gas and utility provider, so
that's what happened in Houston with electricity.
There was a shuttle contract. This is one
that Oliver Spellrran and the Mayor Earl Brown's brother got
in w i t h .
And there was a parking meter contract where
the same fellow talked &out greasing the palm. Stan
Broussard, after Oliver called him and said "Hey,can you be
on both teams," remaker he spoke with Broussard about being
onboth teams.
Those were the three contracts.
Then you had the HANO contract in New Orleans
and Sylvain cane in with the $2500.
And there were three, at least three contracts
for the City of Cleveland, and Your Honor has already said
today everything involved with the RICO conspiracy doesn't
have to be an actual charge in the indictment, and Cleveland
contracts are one of those six things because you know there
was a Division of Water Con-dssioner Julius Ciaccia, and
while Julius Ciaccia was Conmissioner, the City of Cleveland
awarded to CtM, one of the companies tht Gray and Jackson
are representing. In fact, Jackson was an employee of CDM;
Gray was a consultant for CCM.
And in addition there was Honeywell. Gray, a
consultant for Honeywell; Jackson, a subconsultant for Gray,

for Gray's EI!NA Associates.
And then there's also First Transit. This is
the ccanpany that was going after the shuttle contract. You
know what that does, the shuttle that drives you back and
forth to the rental car at the airport.
And then there's also -- there's some of
Nate's own businesses like ETNA Associates, this is exactly
the business that was dealing with ErmMnuel Onunwor.
So we've got the three Division of Water
contracts. Remember there was the master plan contract,
Rony Joel testified about; there was the PEP contract that
S a r w a r testified about; and then there was the last
contract.
And East Cleveland, there are three, also, or
at least I'll group them that way. The first one you heard
just yesterday from Charles Natkins, the Javitch, Block
contract. And then Ralph Tyler actually had m r e than one
contract but I'll list him only once because that
engineering firm, he represents one vendor, one client of
Mr. Gray's.
And then lastly, there was the OMI water
contract.
But what needed to happen here, ladies and
gentlemen, so I'm sure you understood, you've been very
attentive all week, in order, for example, Honeywell to get
this energy contract, the Gray enterprise had to jump into
action.
You've heard these men speak. You've heard
witnesses testify. You h o w they have no technical degrees
but you also know they are very savvy, they are very smart.
They know what it takes.
So after you develop the enterprise, it
exists, there's what the Judge has referred to as the
pattern of racketeering activity. Just a fancy way of
saying a bunch of bad acts.
And you've seen evidence of those bad acts.
They were the Louis Vuitton purse, they were the cash to
Onunwor, the cash to Spellman regarding the Houston
contract, the $2500 shipped by Federal Express to Vince
Sylvain. For Julius Ciaccia, there's the 425 for his
daughter's tuition, and keep in mind that the limit of these
bad acts are only as limited as your imagination because
regarding Ciaccia and the City of Cleveland's water
division, there were also gifts to Diane right in front of
her boss, the Division of Water's Co~ssioner.
She asked Mk. Gray to give her money for a
hotel so she could go to the Essence Festival, and he did
that. And you h o w why? Because you heard, and we'll
review just briefly -- every call you hear today has been
cut severely -- "because that girl's special to that m."
So by giving money to her, and you saw
Mr. Gray's check, Exhibit 712, $1,078,hope to influence the
contract letting. All of these contracts were in play
during those various items.
You'll never forget the 22 Indians tickets.
There's also a conversation where Mr. Gray says "You know, I
was talking to Ciaccia and the conversation just wasn't
going right and I just switched gears on him. I brought up
the fact, I said 'Well,how's Diane' and then I mentioned I
had given Ray Coty ' s father a job. You mentioned Diane
Pinson testified Ray Coty was her best friend; also a
Division of Water employee.
Ray Coty went with her to the fundraiser that
she didn't have to pay for, that Ciaccia didn't have to pay
for, that Mr. Gray paid for.
And Ehrmnuel Onunwor, hard to forget, I' 11
remind you of some of the evidence but again it's just
envelope after envelope after envelope, each one filled with
crisp $100 bills.
And you'll have this back in the jury room.
You can study it. This is the one seized on the 11th of
&ch in 2003.
But ask yourselves, despite how savvy these
men are, why does Honeywell need the enterprise in between
itself and these contracts? Well, you h o w why now. They
needed a buffer. There needed to be some air, some space in
between the letting of the contract in exchange for these
bad acts or these things of value.
The Judge has told you, and correctly so, that
you're going to be required to find certain things about
these bad acts; that they are related, there's a continuity,
that the enterprise was ongoing. And you'll hear calls
about that. I'll r
&
d you of sane of them today. The
long-term arrangements that Sylvain wanted; Rmanuel Onunwor
saying "I'mgoing again in three years, I'm running for
reelection, I'm going to protect our business."
This business wasn't the Gray -- the Gray
enterprise wasn't going to stop itself.
The bad acts, I colloquially say they are a
bunch of bad acts, but the Judge has told you that they take
different forms. They are Hobbs Act conspiracy, there's
Hobbs Act substantive charges, there are mil and wire fraud
charges, and all of these are going to be presented to you
in the written instructions that you'll take back to study,
and you'll see exactly what each one means.
For instance, Hobbs Act is simply the giving
of somthing of value to a public official in exchange for
an official act or w
en a promise of the official act. The
public official doesn't have to ask first because you'll
hear sometimes extortion or bribery and, you know, typically
from extortion you think, oh, you have to point a gun and
m k e someone do it, but the public official doesn't have to
ask.
It isn't even necessary that the act is
actually finished. For instance we h o w that the HANO
contract didn't come through. HANO, unfortunately, went
bankrupt. All that was necessary there was that the $2500,
it was an agreement between Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson to give
the $2500 to Vince Sylvain to get this thing mving.
Along those lines, you're going to see at
times that there are different mil frauds and different
wire fraud acts that fall within an umbrella. The
conspiracy would be an umbrella. So I've just told you what
Hobbs Act is; giving something of value in exchange for an
official act.
Well, the Hobbs Act conspiracy is that along
with an agreement to do it, so there will be times when
there' s an agreement, for instance, to provide things of
value to various public officials in Houston. And those
individual things of value you see are charted separately as
substantive Hobbs Act. Just like there's overarching Hobbs
Act conspiracy to provide something of value to Vince
Sylvain, and then underneath that there's substantive
charges, the actual mailing of the envelope with the $500
check in it.
And Your Honor said that's honest services
mil fraud. And what's required there is that the mils be
used or caused to be used in deprivation of honest services.
And honest services are simply a citizens' and the
government'sright to q c t its public servant to act
without conflict, conflict-free representation.
So it really boils down to pretty much your
cannon sense. So, please, don't throw that out the window
as you review this case.
Farl'sbrother is another time when I'd like
you to use your c m n sense and again realize that a scheme
to defraud is not at all limited in any way, just like
Julius Ciaccia was influenced at times not only directly to
himself but in the interest of those he cared about, Diane,
Ray Coty, but Lee Brown, the Mayor, was gotten to through
his brother Earl Brown.
I'd like now to ask you to put on your
headphones for just awhile. We're going to go to an
electronic version of my presentation and you'll need it
just to hear the first call. You'll hear M r . Gray's voice.
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: Now, you'll need this for a
couple m r e calls, but I'd just like to say did you hear the
begiming of that call when it says "Stan,how you get i
n
the system with people you g-rew up with."
Ranember what you heard on cross-examination
h e n Ehmnuel Onunwor was on the stand and what you m y very
well hear when I take my seat, that Ehmnuel Onunwor knew
Gray before he was the Mayor of the City of East Cleveland
and that Gray occasionally helped him out financially then.
And remember that Onunwor also said, "Well,
yeah, he discouraged me when I said I was going to run for
Mayor but then there he was, he was behind me."
Mr. Gray's just told you his secret, how you
get in with people you grew up with. He was g-rooming
ElraMnuel Onunwor all along. From the time he started naking
his cdtments, Ehmnuel Onunwor was somebodty in the works.
And eventually when he landed the position, a public
position, elected Mayor, the contracts, in exchange for
money, went into full effect.
Would you please go on to the next one?
(Tapeplaying) .
MS. PEARSON: You might recall there what had
happened. The law firm Javitch had tdnated Nate Gray's

contract and he would continually bring up the collections
just to kind of go over there, but the person he saw was the
passing of the envelope. Keep in mind when you look at the
documents you'll see it was probably closer to 60 days, but
there were some interesting things that happened.
If you could put up 300, please, you see, this
is the contract, it actually has a cover letter on top of
it.
This is the contract that the Javitch law firm
entered into with Nathan Gray. Nathan, mind you. His real
name is Nathaniel and typically he's called Nate.
But even before that happened -- would you
please go to 308 and enlarge that?
You see this is a letter, Bruce Block, one of
the partners at the Javitch firm sent to Mr. Gray saying
"Look, I'm going to write to the Mayor and tell him that
we're hiring you. Do you have any thoughts on this?"
And you heard Mr. Natkins testify he didn ' t
write to any other Mayor, he didn't write to the Mayor of
the City of Cleveland, he didn't write to the Mayor of the
City of Bedford, he didn'twrite to the Mayor of the City of
Warrensville Heights. And even if he did send the letter,
why ask Mr. Gray to review it when his expertise was
supgosed to be in diversity hiring and business? If you use
your c o m n sense, it's clear Nate Gray was a friend of
Ermmnuel Onunwor's. Javitch h e w exactly who they were
hiring and why.
The next one, please. And this is the letter
that eventually went out to Ehnanuel ~unwor. "I'mpleased
to inform you that we've hired Mr. Gray." And Mr. Onunwor
told you what he aqected from Gray, absolutely nothing but
the receiving of mney on a regular basis because remember,
he said, before he was elected Mayor he would get the money
when he asked. And he thought mybe about four times he
asked, mybe about $500.
You remember he was cross-examined pretty
vigorously on how much money he had gotten at different
points in time, and you decide for yourselves, but seemed to
ndke it pretty clear, "BeforeMayor, four times, $500.
After I was Mayor, $500 on d m d . "
At some point that happened after this
contract was entered into, and after this contract was
entered there were others. But this contract was entered
into May, but remerriber the meeting that Onunwor had with
Mr. Gray in January where Mr. Gray said "Ifwe want to
continue this payoff, I'm going to need contracts?" In
February, Onunwor brought in Javitch. Interestingly
Mr. Block -- pardon me -- Mr. Natkins testified on direct he
set up the meeting. He said "I never met the Mayor before,"
and I thought at times he admitted honestly perhaps that he
was afraid he would lose the contract.
But you rememkr seeing a d o m t where
Ehlmanuel Onunworlsassistant sent out the letter setting up
the contract. You decide which way it really happened.
Can we go on to the next one, please?
(Tape playing).
MS. PEARSON: That was one of the other
contracts, the water contract. R a e , this is a contract
for which Mr. Gray was being paid by the Ralph Tyler Company
who was being paid by CH2M Hill.
And what you heard here was Mr. Gray speaking
to an employee of CH2M Hill to say "What'shamening? I
haven't been paid."
Would you please put up 411? And what
Mr. Casey was explaining is that "I haven't paid you because
East Cleveland hasn't paid us." And you also heard another
conversation where Mr. Gray spoke to Ralph Tyler and he said
"Well,you know, when I get the money we just flip it to
you." Jeff Donovan, one of his accountants, confirmed that.
This was simply a pass-through, and this was one of the
other contracts of the three contracts for East Clweland;
one of the reasons that Ehmnuel Onunwor was getting
envelopes full of cash from Nate Gray.
Would you please go to the Ralph Tyler
contract?
Now, I mentioned that Mr. Tyler had several
contracts. "I only put 1K there for him but the first one
came in January of 2000." And you might recall that
Emmnuel Onunwor testified "After I got the first contract
for Ralph Tyler, recognizing that was a business that Nate
wanted me to promote, one of the first things I did was ask
for 8 to $9,000 for traveling, and Mr. Gray's response to me
was 'I'mgoing to have to talk to Nate about that."'
Would you please look at 826? This is
handwritten, and you'll see a copy of the &its when you
get them back, but if we could enlarge the line that says
"Ralph/CH2MHill."
You see that "Ralph Tyler/CH2M Hi11/$9800"?
Now, go to the very top. You see this is a note handwritten
by Mr. Gray. You heard his assistant Nina has worked with
him a good nuniber of years, at least ten for the FITI;IA
businesses so that's his writing. And at the very bottom,
please, show the jury what ' s there.
"Ralph Tyler, Enmanuel." In his own writing,
you'll see how these payments were coming about.
Would you please go on to the next one?
(Tapeplaying).
MS. PEARSON: Now, ask yourselves: What
authority does Nate Gray have to officially give any
contractor notice that he's now engineer of record? You
heard the authority. He bought it. He bought it from the
rran who was then the myor of the City of East Cleveland.
If we could please look at 845, please, and
enlarge the top half. Great.
You see again Mr. Gray's handwriting,
"Onunwor,"and if you go down to the last handwritten line
on the left side, Ralph Tyler.
The Judge has said "State of mind is ahmst
impossible to know unless someone reveals it openly,"but
use your collective comon sense. Ehmnuel Onunwor sold his
office to Nate Gray. Nate Gray was handing out contracts,
and in this case it was engineer of record.
And this is an important one because this was
a mre permanent contract. R e m a k e r , the others had been
m r e temporary, ones that would have to be re-let time and
time again, but this was fairly significant. And did you
hear Mr. Tyler? He was concerned because his firm actually
had to be interviewed, that there would be a competitive
process. Well, you h o w there wasn't for the CH2M Hill
contract. You heard Mr. Onunwor say that the only other
interest letter he testified he tore up, he got rid of it,
didn't wen consider it because he knew it would interfere
with the mney that he was likely to get from Mr. Gray.
So there was not only these contracts. You
had what started out as a $500 payment as a result of the
Javitch contract on d m d , moving to $700 after the Ralph
Tyler contract, moving to a thousand dollars on a mnthly
basis.
At that time Mr. Gray suggested to Mr. Onunwor
"How about the first of the month?" And you'll see that it
did regularly happen about every 30 days, and close to or
about the first of the month.
Could we please start with 106? Go on to the
next one.
What you are just seeing here are images,
still photos of an envelope being passed or received from
the camera placed in Mr. Gray's office under
court-authorized wiretap permission.
(Tapeplaying)
MS. PEARSON: I wanted you to hear that again
because that "Protect our business" conversation happens on
the 29th of November, 2002, one of the same days when there
was an envelope that had just been passed.
And there's something else I want you to hear.
We're going to play 108 or you'll see, this is just another
still of the payoff January 3rd, 2003.
NOW, I need you to listen, put y o u headphones
on for 1048, please.
(Tapeplaying).
MS. PEARSON: Did you hear that? That was
this, the sound of crisp dollar bills being counted out by
Nate Gray on January 29th of 2003.
The next day, January 30th, 2003 ElmMnuel
Onunwor was there and he picked up that envelope filled with
cash.
So this is from March 11th. That's
January 30th. Let there be no doubt that there was cash in
each one of these envelopes. You heard the sound of the
crisp dollar bills.
And I'd like to play 1044 and the East
Cleveland part.
(Tapeplaying).
MS. PENSON: Is that how friends talk about
friends? Is that how you talk h u t somebodty you give
regular cash payments to because you're a generous man or
it's a gift?
That's what Mr. Gray said about Mr. Onunwor.
But as important as that comnent, this was Mr. Gray speaking
to Mr. Jackson about Mr. Onunwor. Now, you know from the
instructions you'vebeen given that Mr. Jackson isn't
specifically charged with the individual East Cleveland
charges, although the East Cleveland is part of the
overarching RICO scheme.
But you heard these men talk in their code
language. "Ehmmuel Onunwor, he doesn't M e a step without
me. He loves him some Nate Gray,"calling him "My little
East Cleveland Mayor."
Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson c o d c a t e enough
about public officials that Mr. Jackson knew exactly what
was going on; that Mr. Gray was handling EZraMnuel Gnunwor in
the same way that Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson handled Monique
McGilbra, in the same way they were handling Vince Sylvain,
treating them like straight prostitutes.
Can we please move on to the water division?
This is part of the Cleveland contract series.
If you want to go to 701. Oh, this is a
consulting agreement. You remember Rony Joel was on the
stand and he identified it as being the first that Mr. Gray
entered with CLIM in 1996. And that was April of 1996.
And then between April of 1996 -- would you
please go on to the next document -- a few things happened.
The first was C D f , which was starting a fledgling office
here in Cleveland, su3ckDitted a proposal for the master plan,
the first contract.
That's a pretty big deal, worth $7.1 million,
and you learned that CDM got that contract. Well, soon
after learning unofficially that it received the contract,
the next invoice from Mr. Gray was inflated from $2500 to
2925, an additional $425. And you heard what Mr. Joel
testified. Mr. Jackson told him that additional money
needed to be given to I&. Gray so that Mr. Gray could pay it
to Julius Ciaccia because his daughter had just started
college. And you saw the records and you will be able to
study them more closely.
The next one is just the master plan
a g r e m t . If you study, you will see it is $7.1 million
that they expected to receive.
You heard Lou Tortora testify yesterday. He
said "Look,Rony Joel is a salesman, he embellishes but
there's a high probability that if he said the 425 was for
Julius Ciaccia, it probably happened."
Use your common sense. What salesman
adxllishes to his own detriment? They don't. Idhat
salesman &llishes to the point of implicating himself in
a crime? Not likely to happen.
Would you please go on to the next one? 713,
you'll be able to see this, Special Agent Massie counted
there are at least 22 times that Nate Gray gave Julius
Ciaccia tickets to the Indians baseball game. These games
went on as you saw, M r . Dettelbach and Mr. Massie as he
questioned and answered, these games were around critical
times when those contracts were being considered.
Giving a thing of value to a public official
who's responsible for deciding whether or not your business
gets a contract, that's exactly &ere the buffer comes in.
That's exactly what the Gray enterprise is apert in doing.
The next: one, please. I think we will play
it. You may not need headphones for this.
(Tape playing).
BE. PIWGON: No doubt. There certainly would
be a problem, taking a public official who's deciding
whether or not -- this was the PEP, P-E-P contract, the one
where it was $4.75 million, $4.75 million being considered,
taking him to the festival while these are going on, being
considered, highly, highly inappropriate.
If you would go to 783, please. This is an
e-mil wkich you've seen and you'll be able to study again
if you decide you'd like to. It was originally sent to
Gilbert Jackson. He has written Nate Gray, and then at the
bottom he's letting Nate h o w they are interested in number
one, that flocculation contract worth $3 million.
And keep in mind, you don t get something, you
don't give something unless there's something in return.
Right around the time that'sbeing considered, there's also
the donation for the $25,000 to a charity no doubt, but you
heard Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson convert that even into a
business opportunity, a bad act.
Would you please go on?
(Tapeplaying) .
MS. PEARSON: And will you please just show
708? It's the actual check.
Now we can go on to 711, the Nottingham
flocculation sedimentation residuals contract which was
eventually award to CIM, the campany that enployed Gilbert
Jackson and Nate Gray as a consultant, firmly embedded in
the Nate Gray enterprise.
Now, can we please move on to the Diane
series?
(Tapeplaying).
MS . PEARSON: Again, Diane Pinson had a
special relationship with Julius Ciaccia. These men
understood it. They used it to their benefit. The check
for the Essence Festival hotel.
Would you please show the next one or play it?
(Tape playing).
MS. PEARSON: Give Ray Coty's father a job and
now Mr. Gray is focused on how to get the contract won for
CDf. You don't expect that kind of bias, that kind of
conflict of interest from a public official, unless of
course you bought him, unless of course you're lining his
pockets with things of value.
Will you please go on to the next series?
(Tape playing).
MS. PEARSON: Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson knew
exactly the position they had Ciaccia in. He couldn't screw
them. He had too much invested and they had too much
invested in him.
Now, let's look at HANO, New Orleans.
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: R e m a b e r , there was a conference
call. Rick Sawicki who took the stand was on that call. As
soon as that conference call ended, Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson
spoke privately abut bribing Vince Sylvain.
Will you please show 720? This was a check
that was miled. Nina Upshaw recognized it as one of their
own.
Will you please go on to 1132, the next call?
(Tape playing).
MS. PEARSON: Part of the long-term thing,
sound familiar? That's exactly what Onunwor wanted. That's
exactly what we just refreshed you on, but you heard Marc
Morial wanted it and Ben Jeffers was brought in, too, as a
consultant. This was an ongoing, a continuous series of
activities that were going on.
Please, 1120.
(Tape playing
MS. PEARSON: Keep that in mind, it's
Mr. Jackson speaking to Mr. Gray. And did you hear him say
he has like Monique's position, the w o n he has to say,
"Oh, what's her name" and pretend he doesn't know very well,
and when he talked with the FBI, not even be able to tell
the FBI whether Mr. Gray hew Monique or to say "Well, I met
her at a conference, I saw her once at the Essence Festival
but no telephone contract."
Then you heard the birthday call. I don't
know vd~odid it worse, her or Marilyn Munroe, "Ham
birthday." I won't do it for you, but you heard the song.
And then lastly the HANO contract that was
being vied for in the City of New Orleans, and again they
didn't get it, no one got it, but it'snot important to your
consideration of guilt regarding the crime put before you.
But we can move on to Houston.
THE COURT: You've got about -- you've used
about 45 minutes.
W t you see is again something handwritten by
Mr. Gray identified by his assistant Nina Upshaw, and you
heard Monique say that her sister had been provided a job by
Rick Cloutier. She recently had graduated with an
engineering degree. You also heard her say she had a house
fire and Mr. Gray promised her a grill. You can see this
list, it's like a gift list with the football schedule. You
heard that was provided to her, Florida; you heard about
that, the $1,000 dinner. We can go on.
Go to the e-mil quickly through that.
And then of course there is the famed
Cleveland trip. This is just the Ritz bill from that trip.
And keep in mind &. McGilbra testified "I didn't h o w this
was arranged so I could meet with Jividen when I got here."
But she h e w it before she checked out of her hotel. She
h e w it at the brunch before the football game. She
certainly knew it when he badgered her during the football
game. You heard her say she was annoyed by that.
And she hadn't checked out. At any point i
n
time she could have gone back to her hotel, paid her own
bill and not let Honeywell pick up the tab, but that didn't
happen.
If we could scroll through the next one, the
brunch receipt, the Watermark and the mzing tickets
invoice, this is for the Ravens-Cleveland Browns football
game M r . Jividen paid for. And then the photogaph,
Mr. H a r d m identified himself, Ms. McGilbra, Mr. Gray in
his accompaniment, the girlfriend Valerie and Mr. Jividen
and his wife.
Now, we can go on to 829. This should be
Garland Hardeman's contract with FIT\;IA. You saw initially
M r . H a r d m thought in his draft proposed to J3I!NA that he
was going to contract with Honeywell. Mr. Gray said "No,

let's do it between us" because that's what you do is keep
it within the enterprise.
But then he did get Honeywell, Mr. Jividen, to
write a letter saying it's okay that ETNA subconsult with
Garland because Jividen was involved, he was a participant
in the enterprise. And Mr. Harderran told you Monique
McGilbra was the source. "Shewas the source of the
contract, she was the source of my interactions with
Mr. Jividen and Mr. Gray."
That's why when he said to Mr. Gray "1'11
comnunicate that Superbowl information to the source,"he
was speaking about Ms. McGilbra.
If we could just roll through, in fact that's
the next call, isn't it?
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: First, it was Mr. Gray
complaining abut the price of the Superbowl trip to
Mr. Jividen. Then he's conmunicating about the arrangement
being set up with Garland.
I will go on and show some of the invoices
associated. $2200, this is what you have to pay when you
buy your Superbowl tickets late. You saw the face value was
actually 400.
Next ITNA invoice, pay attention to these
invoices, you'll see several of them. Notice that it
doesn't say lodging for Monique McGilbra, director of
building services for the City of Houston at the Superbowl,
but it says Nate Gray, Superbowl. And there will be others.
Why don't we just roll through these, if we can?
And again look at the description on that
invoice.
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: And in the next call, 1125, in
fact, you'll find it mtches up pretty well with Count 37 in
the indictment. What's important h u t it, if you hear
M r . Jackson and Mr. Gray talking about Monique, and again
Mr. Jackson didn't know whether Mr. Gray knew her, but he
knows quite a bit about her, doesn't he, Mr. Jackson?
He knows she likes to be seen. He believes
Bambi's,which is a pretty popular place in New Orleans, is
a place that she will enjoy being. And this is also a good
example of the Judge telling you about aiding and abetting;
that there are crimes a person can be charged with that he
didn't c o h t personally. But as long as a crime was
comnitted and the defendant helped or encouraged with the
intent that this crime be furthered, aiding and abetting.
So if you were to say "Well,Mr. Jackson
didn't rake the hotel arrangements, he didn'tpay Shawn
Springs, Mr. Gray did all that," well, you certainly heard
Mr. Jackson helped. He entertained her. Don't you recall,
or decide for yourselves collectively that Garland Hardman
said at most when he was in New Orleans he m y have spent
mney on a vending mchine. Otherwise pretty m c h
everything else was paid for by Mr. Jackson. The tickets
were delivered by Mr. Jackson.
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: We will cut some of these a
little shorter just to save time because you've been very
attentive.
We can go on to 816, I think. You ramber
W. Upshaw had help from Honeywell in deciding how to book
some of the receipts. This is something we received from
Mr. Gray's office. In fact, it wasn't turned over pursuant
to subpoena, but it was seized during the search.
You can see right on the bottom of this list
there's a note "Resdmit expense receipts for Superbowl."
If we could play the next.
(Tape playing)-
MS. PEARSON: And you remember that was the
$1,000 dinner. And then "She'snot shy, right, Mike?"
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: Now, keep in mind, while this
treating Monique McGilbra and her family to a $1,000 dinner
is going on, still Honeywell is involved now, they've gotten
in the best and final. The letter of intent has already
been issued. You heard M r . Elmer say I%. McGilbra insisted
on that, but things are still moving slowly, they haven't
gotten to phase two, the phase where Honeywell is actually
going to get some money.
Could we move forward to 1182?
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: You recall what happened just
before that, Monique McGilbra left a voicenail message for
Nate Gray "Oh, I've left a package across the street."
Well, that package happened to cost $700, the Louis V'uitton
purse. He's saying "Well, I just bought it." Well, how
about the contract? And again in phase two is the phase
where Honeywell actually gets paid.
That's the end.
Why don't we m v e on to the Spellman series?
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: And what was happening there,
you'll recall, Nate Gray was going to the Mayor's chief of
staff to get the Mayor's sentiments, to get his thoughts.
"How am I doing on this shuttle contract? Am I in or am I
out?"
And then the answer came.
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: You can stop there.
In addition to that, there's also the meter
contract.
Would you please show 902? This check was
written by ?Xr. n Vegas. It was actually
Gray to a hotel i
written in July. Mr. Spellman didn't go until later in
September.
Will you please go on then to 1211?
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: You can stop it there.
You've heard these. The bottom line is there
were these two contracts, and Mr. Spellman was getting help
to improve his chances, and Mr. Gray had already reached the
skids, he had given Oliver Spellmn $2,000 in cash in July
and now in Sept&r Mr. Spellrran is taking his trip.
And in fact the day after this call, you'll
see this call was on the 19th of Septaiber, on the 20th he's
in Vegas at the expense of Nate Gray.
Can we please go on to Earl Brown? Earl Brown
is the Mayor's brother, the Mayor of the City of Houston.
He wasn't registered as a lobbyist, however;
as a lobbyist who would be lobbying his brother. He was
working as the Mayor's secret agent, but more importantly he
was under contract with Nate Gray. You will see
documentation he was paid $40,000. He received regular
payments.
You heard telephone calls wherein M r . Gray
told Mr. Jividen, he said "You know I've got wenses. I've
got Earl, I've got Reggie, I'vegot Gilbert." He responded
"They'retoo much." He said "Well, they're my people who's
your people."
There's one call.
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: If you can please next just show
908. And again this is something in Mr. Gray's handwriting.
This is something that wasn't turned over to the FBI, but
you see $3,000,tell Jim Larock, so that's one of Mr. Gray's
First Transit partners, he said "Look, I've got a little
incentive for you. I'm going to give you this mney," and
that was so he could help c o ~ c a t with
e his brother to
help break the deadlock of what was occurring in getting the
shuttle contract.
m y don t we m v e on?
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: And please play 1152.
(Tape playing).
MS. PEARSON: And just the next one, please.
(Tape playing).
MS. PEARSON: You can stop it here.
You get the point.
That's how the Gray enterprise worked. You
had to figure this all into a budget, what it would cost to
maintain another Councilman, another Mayor, another public
official.
The next one, please.
(Tape playing) .
MS. PEARSON: You hear that, "No sense for us
not to succeed." Continuity, going forward.
RmEYnber Ben Jeffers. Monique McGilbra
testified that after she went to the Essence Festival, as

she was driving back she stopped in Baton Rouge and got a
Louisiana Dermcratic bag full of goodies. This was one of
the goodies. You'll have this back in the jury room, and
this was given to her along with $500 in cash by Ben
Jeffers. And who set up that arrangment? Rick Cloutier,
the same name you saw with the parens ater that, her
sister, the job.
Don't be mistaken, IW.Jackson knew exactly
what was going on. There m y have been times when there was
a missta and his attorney wasn't given the opportunity to
come up and question right away, but you heard his client's
voice. You h o w his interactions.
Can we go on to the next one?
(Tape playing).
MS. PEARSON: Well, you've heard the
aspirations. It's just too bad the actions taken to make
this enterprise a success were outside of the law.
You'll be able to consider the evidence, and
I'm going to have to wrap up and turn this over to the other
attorneys who would like to speak, and you'll hear again
from the government before we close, but I'd just like to
remind you that there were certain things done to conceal
the activity that you heard.
These discussions were done openly between
co-conspirators, members of the RICO enterprise,
participants. As the Judge has said, the authorization was
Court-authorized for the wiretap, for the taking of photos.
These people were speaking in ways they
wouldn't have spoken had they known you were listening, so
be mindful of that as you consider the credibility of the
witnesses who took the stand and also judging the weight of
the evidence that you heard.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
THE COURT: Let me just ask, do you want to
take a break? The next final arguments by the defendants

are probably going to be an hour or so each.
We could take a break now; we can go with one.
If we took a break, it would be short. Let me
just ask, how m y people would like to take a brief lunch
break now as opposed to an hour from now? How m y would
rather proceed for at least another hour?
Okay. I'll now call upon counsel for Mr. Gray
to make final argument.
MR. WHITAKER: 5O,OOO, 50,000 intercepted
phone calls, over a year. 50,000,maybe more, not w a
counting the closed circuit TV.
And not in one single phone call does somebody
say "I'mgoing to give you this in return for you doing a
specific act." Not one time.
And the Judge will tell you in his
instructions --
THE COURT: I've already given the
instructions.
MR. WHITAKER: The Judge has told you in his
instructions on the Hobbs Act, which you'll have back there
with you, it's only a violation of extortion if related to
an official ability, a specific official act.
I'm telling you I think that Is important.
That's a tremendous invasion that they conducted over a
year.
MR. DC-H: Objection.
The Court -- that's not a matter for your
concern. The Court issued the order allowing the wiretaps,
and you're not to consider whether that was well-advised or
not well-advised.
MR. WHITAKER: You can consider the fruits of
it. You can consider the m e r in which it was done. You
can consider what they got out of it.
THE COURT: Let me just -- let me just -- you
can consider the evidence generated by it, but you're not to
consider, you know, as a fact in this case the issue that
the order was given.
Stay away from the --
MR. WHITAKER : Okay. I' m not suggesting

anything about the order, Your Honor.
I'm suggesting that for over a year this man,
as I said earlier, couldn't even go to the bathroom without
the government knowing about it.
And you can see from that overhead camera, he
gets up and goes out and comes back in a few minutes, he
went to the bathroom.
The fact of the matter is, and you can
consider this, too, where was the invest.
igation pointed?
Idhat did the investigation do? What did they do with the
information they learned? Nobody else. All of this
tremendous criminal activity that's being described by CD9,
by Honeywell, by the legal department, by Lou Tortora, not
only do they not try to get an application to listen to his
phone calls, not only do they not issue him a subpoena, they
don't even go talk to him, they don't even go talk to him.
Imagine, he's supposed to have this guy Rony
Joel was supposed to have come in and said to them "Hey,you
know, I did this awful thing, but I got it approved by the
big boss. I got it approved by the big boss."
And what did they do? They walk out? I mean,
what would you e c t an investigator to do? Be on the
phone in a minute, "Wait,we just got some information that
this big executive down at ClX has approved this horrible
thing. Somebody get out there and talk to him right now,
walkie-talkies, whatever."
No, they are so -- they don't want to hear
that. They are so focused that they are going to believe
that Gilbert and Nate --
THE COURT: On what?
MR. DEITELBACH: The government's motives are
not at all on trial in this case.
THE COURT: Yes, you can consider the
investigation and that's something you need to consider, you
know, what was done and so forth, but the government's
investigative techniques are not on trial here.
MR. WHITAKER: But you can, as the Court said,
you can consider the investigation, you ca$ consider the
focus of the investigation, and you can consider what they
did with these 50,000 intercepted phone conversations.
I think it ' s important, too, with regard to
some of the things that you weren't told, and I think they
fit right in with what I was just saying about the
government being focused, not wanting to hear anything.
They were so focused on Nate Gray, that they didn't want to
hear anything else.
They also didn't want to share anything else.
For example, Elmanuel Onunwr testified he wore a wire for
the government, you know, where they could coach him to say,
for example "Hey,Nate, you know we did that East Cleveland
contract because you were paying me mney" or "Hey,you know
how all of this money that you had, you know, helped me out
back when I was penniless and powerless and you were
discouraging me telling me not to run for Mayor, it was too
difficult a job, you don't need the headache," that's
grooming him? Absolutely not.
But anyway, he says "Iwore a wire and I
started talking to him about the East Cleveland -- the water
contract, the CH2M Hill water contract and what it meant to
the City of Cleveland." And what did Nate say? " m u e l ,
it was your legacy, this is what we thought was going to
benefit the people of Cleveland."
Why was he even talking to Nate? Because
actually the job was a little too hard for him. And as he
told you, he said, "You know, I would get advice from Nate
for years and years and years. I would get advice on my
family, I'd get advice on politics, I'd get advice on
anything because the m 's a smart man, he ' s a good
businessman and I listen to him." And so they had these
conversations way back when.
And so when he comes and asks him about this
contract, he said "Ehmnuel,"but why didn't we hear that?
We didn't hear that, did we? That's one, and I'm going to
talk a little bit more about that contract.
But what about the Spellrran tape? We didn't
hear that, too. The man's just lost his job. He can't do
anything for anybody, and who does he call for help? Nate
Gray. He doesn't call Nate and say "Look it, you how, I
can do something for you in the future but I really need
your help now."
Nate -- and we're going to talk more about
that call, too -- but that's who he calls.
And what does Nate say? "Oliver, if I can do
anything at all to help you, I will." And why does Nate say
that? For the same thing that all of those witnesses came
in here and said, the same thing that most of the
prosecution witnesses that knew Nate said: He's a generous
guy that helps people out.
That 'swhat he -- somebody comes to him with a
problem, whether they are penniless and powerless, whether
they are a mover and shaker, all walks of life, he's a guy
that gave back to the c o m i t y that he came from.
That's -- and that's why Oliver calls him.
And finally, no introduction of what Eimmnuel
really said. There's Ehmnuel on the stand, and here'swhat
you were just told by the government. "Ermnuel says he
just got some money a few times before he became Mayor.
That'swhat he told you."
Yeah, that'swhat he told you here from the
first time, but nobody said anything about all of the other
things that he -- that that was the first time he said it,
and that he mde about ten different statements.
Now, Andrea is going to go over in some detail
the different statements, but I just want to talk about the
first one right now. I want to talk about the first one.
You heard me ask him, and I asked him
directly, I said to him "Wait a minute. You remember
testifying at an earlier date under oath?" And he said
"Yes, I do."
And I said "At that time I asked you were you
helping out -- was Mr. Gray helping you out with mney
before you were wen on the council?
"Yes.
"And was he giving you that mney in cash?
"Yes.
"And he was giving you that mney in a white
envelope?
"Yes.
"And that mney when he gave it to you,
anywhere between five and 700?
"Yes."
This is before he's even on council, and now
all of a sudden he only did it a couple of times and it
never munted to that, so all of the increase must be
solely based upon samehow these contractors.
It's not true, that's what it was. He told
you "I was confused."
"And he continued to do that after you were on
council?"
Right down here, "He tried to discourage me.
"Now,the 700 continued after you were
elected?
"Five to 700." He was confused there, too.
He's correcting me.
Yeah, it was 700. And, you h o w , the
interesting thing about that is -- and I mentioned this to
you earlier, too. I mentioned this to you earlier with
regard to that. Things don't look -- things sometimes look
bad, and they look bad until you see the whole picture.
And so when we pull up these pictures which
you've been shown time after time after time and you've been
shown on a television, and you've been shown with these
pictures, and you've heard all kinds of conversations --
and, by the way, there' s never any conversation about, "Hey,
there's a little m r e money because of that energy of record
contract" or, "Oh, this envelope has more money because we
just got the Ralph Tyler deal" or any of that kind of stuff.
There's no discussions, because what was in
the last envelope? What was in the last envelope that he
said he got a little early because he had to go to Nigeria?
$700. $700.
And here's what I'm saying about these
pictures. The fact of the matter is if they had 1995 on
them, if this camera had been up in 1995 or 1996, you know
what you would see? Exactly the same thing.
He comes in, he gets an envelope and cash,
they sit and talk politics, they sit and talk about his
family, they sit and talk about the things that were going
on, and he was penniless and powerless and he couldn't do
anything for anybody. And, guess what? That's not a crime.
And they can stretch and tell you well, he was
being groomed, but you don't groom somebody by telling them
"This job is too hard. You do not need the headache of this
job."
And that leads me to talk just briefly about
reasonable doubt.
MR. DFITELBACH: Your Honor, could I just see
that?
MR. WHITAKER: It s the highest standard in
law. It's the highest standard in law.
Down here is no evidence. If there's evidence
that rrrdkes you suspicious, not enough. If it's evidence

that rakes you think maybe it ' s possible, not enough.
E v a probdble or pretty sure or highly likely,
it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. And they're asking
you to believe Bmmnuel Onunwor -- when it's the first time
he's ever said it, and he's given all of these statements to
Mr. Massie that are campletely all over the place -- beyond
a reasonable doubt.
You can't do it, folks. You can't do it.
Ehmmuel Onunwor is not somebody that we're going to believe
in something this important, something that 's the m s t
important in all mtters and the m s t important mtters of
your life.
You know, I was talking abut this
investigation, and this was an investigation by one of the
mst powerful institutions in the world, the United States
government and the FBI. And every now and then we have an
opportunity in life to do something good and something
right, and me representing Nate is one of those
opportunities to do something that's good and to do
something that's right; to try to stand in between that
awesome power and the manner in which it's being used.
But I don't have any p e r . You're the ones
that have the power. You have the power to say "We'renot
going to let you lose. We're going to stand up for you,"
because our system, our constitutional systm says you're
the ones that make the decision; not Judges, not lawyers,
but regular people from all walks of life, you rnake the
decision because you have to rise above it.
And the one thing that the government and I
agree on is that you have to use your c o m n sense. And
we're going to talk a little bit about the contracts, and
we're going to see where c o m n sense, how c o m n sense
might apply here.
You know, a lot of these conversations you
hear and, you know, I don ' t understand it, you hear them
talking about building a business, consulting business,
you hear them talking about trying to -- mybe they can be
the housing gurus, where "we'llh o w enough h u t it that
we'll be consulting w i t h cities all over the United States.
We can make a lot of money doing that." Guess what? That's
totally legitkte. There are hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds of consulting companies out there, and that's what
they do.
And you heard, you heard Lou Tortora speak,
but even before him you heard a couple of the other people
that the government put in, "Yes,we all use consultants.
"What'syour object with consultants?
"Our objects are to get as close as possible
to the people that mdke decisions.
"And why?
"Becausewe need to know what their needs are,

we need to know what their products are, we need to have
long-term supporters so when they are in meetings mnths
down the road, they will be able to say no, this is a good
product and tkis is why. We need to have the supporters."
So if you have a choice to hire as a
consultant the brother of, for example, the Mayor or some
Stringer that doesn't know a n y m out there, who are you
going to hire? Well, guess what? It's pretty foolish if
you don't hire somebody that knows the people.
Building relationships, every single person
talked about it, it'sbuilding relationships. And when I
talked to you about why didn't we follow this through, did
you hear what Mr. Tortora said? And it was uncontradicted
and it was consistent with what other people said, and that
is that every big corporation has a budget for just that,
wining and dining.
MR. WHITAKER: Taking people --
MR. WHITAKER: He did testify to that.
THE COURT: You can talk about the evidence,
but there's not evidence on that.
MR. WHIT=: That's what Mr. --
THE COURT: I'm not talking about the evidence

and whether or not somebody else should be charged.
It's a question, under the law I've instructed
the jury has the government convinced the jury beyond a
reasonable doubt.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, Mr. Tortora and
somebody both testified to others --
THE COURT: You can talk about the evidence.
Don't talk about --
MR. WHIT=: That was evidence, that ' s what
I'm saying.
THE COURT: -- other cases in terms of whether
somebody else should be indicted or somebody else is --
M R . WHIT=: I'm not talking about anyone
else being indicted.
I'll try and phrase it in a m e r again that
will use our c m o n sense.
They have a $6,000 budget for business
develop-rmt, for business developnent. You heard about it,
you heard Mr. Sawicki, what Mr. Sawicki said. You heard
about what these other people, corporate, come in about what
business development is all about.
And is there a good reason for it? Yes,
there's a good reason for it. First of all, they want to
know what the needs are of everybody at every level. They
need to b o w what the technician's needs are, as it was
testified to, how far apart certain structures are because
that's something that the technician is concerned.
And there's a different concern with maybe the
water co&ssioner and a different concern with the Mayor,
and you cannot be successful unless you know all of those
concerns. And you learn those concerns by taking them to
dinner, you learn those concerns by taking them to sporting
events and you build relationships.
NOW, it m y be that that -- we don't want
that. You heard the instructions of the Judge, and you have
to follow those instructions, and you heard the testkny.
So it my be that we don't like that that's the way things
go about because, yes, if CrrM does that or Honeywell does
that -- by the way, who approved every one of those
receipts? Somebody higher up in the corporation; that's
what they are.
You bow, the only carplaint about where the
Superbowl receipts were, that there wasn't enough
documentation and that his superiors -- and whether it was
the legal department or whoever -- needed more
documentation.
But maybe we don't like that and maybe what it
ought to be, but on the other hand should we as taxpayers
have to pay for CLIM people or Honeywell people or CH2M H i l l
people or Johnson Controls or any of those other people,
taking folks out to dinner to learn their needs in order to
sell a product?
Maybe they should put it i
n a blind fund.
Maybe the law should change. I don't know.
THE COURT: Let me just -- again you'renot
being asked if you believe that public officials should be
wined and dined on private contractors' dollars. You're not
to make a decision based upon that.
Conversely, if you believe that it'swrong for
public employees to be wined and dined or taken to the
Superbowl, you're not to make a decision based upon that
belief.
You have to follow the instructions of law.
Now, stay away from this argument that
somehow -- I've instructed than what the law is, and you're
getting very close to suggesting to than that rrty
instructions don't control.
MR. WHITAKER: I'mnot saying -- in fact I'm
saying just the opposite, Your Honor. I'll say it again.
We have to follow the instructions the way the
Judge just gave them to you.
THE COURT: Well, speak to the evidence and
apply the evidence to the law.
MR. WHITAKER: Let's go to the specific counts
now. We'll get off that subject.
Let's start with Javitch and East Cleveland.
First of all, I'vealready talked to you abut Drmnuel and
his, really, lies. There's no other way to phrase it. For
good reason, he's trying to save ten years. But let'sgo to
the contracts themselves.
Look at the Javitch contract, okay? He's
running for myor and he starts his blah, blah, blah about
"The City of Cleveland's got too many complaints and we need
to do sanething about that and I'm going to look into this
contract" and some issue about minority hiring, so thm he
becomes Mayor.
?t\rothings happen. First of all, Javitch,
Block says, "Oh,you know, this Mayor, we h o w we're doing a
good job, but this Mayor could be a problm. You know, it's
a political reality,"he said this, "and I guess we better
go deal with him."
And the other thing is Gloria Lovelace who has
been the tax Comnissioner for a long time, the tax person,
deputy tax Cdssioner in charge of collecting the taxes
for a very long time, knows what a good job Javitch, Block
has been doing, particularly Mr. Natkins.
So a meeting gets set up. And you know what?
If you listen to what was said about that meeting, it was a
perfectly logical meeting given what was said. There was
discussion about minority hiring. There was discussion
about the complaints. And even though Javitch, Block
doesn't think they do it wrong, as they said, "Look it,
you're collecting taxes. Not everybody is going to be
happy. We're going to do a kinder, gentler approach."
Gloria Lovelace said "They already started
taking a kinder, gentler approach and, Your Honor," meaning
the Mayor, "We'regoing to take some specific steps to make
sure our minority hiring is appropriate."
Even though before they even got the job, the
law director came out and inspected it.
That' s in February.
Onunwor lies. Onunwor says "Right before the
meeting I told them they better get out and hire that Nate
Gray. They got to get out there and hire Nate Gray."
If you look at the letters, you look at the
letter saying they hired Nate Gray, you look at the
contract, it's in May. And that's exactly consistent, and
this is comon sense with exactly what M r . Natkins told you,
and that is "Nobody mentioned anything about Nate Gray,
nobody said to me anything about Nate Gray. We would have
run right out and hired him if we thought that that might
help us," not that they would do anything wrong, but they
would get out there and get the person they thought might be
able to talk to the Mayor, might be able to do what
consultants do and facilitate that whole situation.
But they weren't even told that. So whatever
underlying reason Onunwor claims for having said that, he
didn't say it. It's sometime a month or two later, which
February, into March or April, he's already working out with
Nate who he hows, thinks he's one of the nicest guys he
ever met, personable, friendly, a businessman, successful
guy, and he starts talking to him h u t Cleveland business
and he starts talking to him about -- he starts talking to
him about this problem he has over in East Cleveland.
"You how, I got, listen, you know, that new
Mayor that just got elected, he's yak yakking at us about
how we treat people," and Nate goes "I know that guy. I can
help you there. Why don't we enter into a contract?"
Nothing to do with the Mayor. That's a
perfectly legitkte arrangement. And they say "Great."
He goes back to his boss and he says "Look it,
he can help us at least deal with the perceptions that this
l3rm.nuel Onunwor has and he might be able to help us get
business in different cities,"and that's exactly what they
do. They draw up a contract.
They let Manny know, Eimmnuel Onunwor, they
let him know. They say "Look it,"with a letter, "We've
hired this guy and we've hired him to meet your two
concerns. If there's going to be any disputes,"which they
never thought there would be m y if any, "it would help to
have maybe Nate come in and at least find out, you how,
whether it's a problem with corrnrolnication or some
misunderstanding. We'll use him.
"And,number two, we ' re going to use him, help
us if we need a minority hiring,"which is exactly, exactly
what they did.
So do you believe Ihmnuel Onunwor or do you
believe Mr. Natkins? And you know what I just said to you
about reasonable doubt, it'snot if it's wen close. But
it's not even close. It'snot evm close.
There's no question. You saw Mr. NatkFns.
You saw his demeanor. You saw what he said, and it's
consistent with the facts in the evidence.
And then, we go on to the Ralph Tyler thing.
Now, he is all over the place with this Ralph Tyler thing,
but basically one of the things that he says is that they
needed to hire an engineer for the City and nobody wanted
the job. Nobody wanted the job. And this is one of those
situations here he says to Nate, asking his advice as he
always did, "What are we going to do? Nobody wants this
job."
He says "Let'sgo check with my friend Ralph
Tyler." Remerrber Nate's been working with Ralph Tyler a
long time in a perfectly legitinate relationship. "Maybe he
can do it."
Ralph Tyler says "Idon't h o w anything. I
know why nobody wants that job, and I certainly don't know
anybody that does, but we will look around, see what we can
find out."
They finally find somebody to get the job.
Meanwhile because of this contract and that contract, and
you'll hear later how m c h he changes his mind on that, he's
supposed to have gotten m r e money. It had nothing to do
with that contract, nothing whatsoever.
There was, first of all, there was absolutely
nothing at all happened with the mney. Second of all,
there was no time. His timing is so far off, there was no
tirne when what he's telling you could be accurate.
And we go to the CH2M Hill contract and how
that came about. Rmerriber he says with the CH2M Hill, "You
know, by this time I thought I'd go to Nate and say, 'Hey,
I'm getting -- you know, I need more money because if not,
I'm going to have to get a second job."'
Now, on his direct testimony he said "I was
just faking about -- oh, no, that I was serious about that,"
but on his cross, because he knew he said it before, he said
"No, I was just faking. And what did I tell him I needed?
I told him I needed $700."
$700? That's the same thing he was getting as
help from Nate when he couldn't do anything for any-.
Yet he's also claiming anytime he gets a new contract he's
going to $700. You h o w what c o m n sense tells you about
that? There was no relationship whatsoever to Nate's
generosity and what had been going on for many years and the
contract.
And what the law says and what you heard and
what you will see in those instructions in front of you, it
has to be something of value for a specific act. And look
what happened with the CH2M Hill people, look what happened.
He goes to Washington on some trip by himself
and he runs into these people; not somebody came to him and
said "Hey,you know, if you hire these people, I can give
you some mney ."
He comes back from Washington, and what is he
asked? "Do you know anything about these people or Ralph
Tyler? Do you know this? But I saw a company with a great
product. What can you find out about them for me?" And he
says "1 h o w those people. I know they work with -- you
know what, Bmmnuel. I'll set up a meeting between you and
them."
Why? Listen to the -- well, you won't listen
to it because you didn't hear it, but remember the testimony
about the legacy tape. It's because it's what's best for
the City of East Cleveland. This will make a difference.
They expected to save $1 million a year on the running of
the water department with this contract, and they -- you
heard him say and anybody else that talked about it, they
believe that had they had the right data -- and they still
believe and you can see from some of the exhibits they have
that OMI responds to that audit that criticized then. There
were problems with the data that they received, there were
problem with this, and that they really did expect it to
get around.
And you heard what everybody else that talked
about OMT and CH2M Hill said, too; a fine, reputable,
outstanding company, with a great product, including people
that had done business with them in Houston, including
people that hew then from other cities. "This is a good
company with a good product," and they thought in the
conduct of his honest services for the City of East
Cleveland he was doing the right thing.
And you can say that about all three
contracts, all three of them.
You can say that about Javitch, Block. What
happas when he goes and talks to the person that knows him
best? "Thesepeople are good for the City of East
Cleveland. We should keep then."
It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with
Nate Gray. That has to do with his own deputy tax
co~ssionerwho has been there for years. "In terms of
carrying out your honest services, my friend, you will keep
these people because they will mdke m r e money for you than
anybodty else."
And even when R.I.T.A. came in, that company
R.I.T.A., Regional Income Tax Authority, she says the same
thing, Gloria Lovelace, "Hey, I want -- you know, I
understand h t the audit says. I think that they're wrong.
This is a standard rate and they do such a good job, we will
generate m r e revenue with then than we will with R.I.T.A.
on a different rate."
He cuts that off right away. Is this guy,
some guy concerned about getting mney? He didn't even wait
for the audit to come out. "Let'sdo this."
And in this whole going south conversation
that they are talking about, what had happened was that
Javitch, Block had not been getting any new accounts "So
let's talk about what we need to do &out new accounts."
And h t does Elmanuel Onunwor say on that
tape? He says "Let'sjust see what happens with R.I.T.A.
If they do a good job, we don't need to get anybody."
Not "All right. We need to get somebody else
in there so we can put monies in our pocket."
No. "Let'ssee what's best for the City of
East Cleveland. Let's see what R.I.T.A. does. We will not
make any decisions and we will only mike the decision if it
comes time if it's necessary because it'snot good for the
City of East Cleveland."
Let's talk quickly about C13R.I.
How much time have I used?
A MALE SPEAKER: About a half hour.
MR. WHITAKER: CEDI, City of East Cleveland.
Somehow they got a $7 million contract because
s o w -- oh, this Ciaccia got his daughter's tuition paid
for.
You know, you heard all this s t u f f about
criteria? was the best for the job, that'swhy
they got the job. And this is before the second contract
where there was sane discussion where the Mayor said -- and
by the way, not a shred of evidence that the Mayor was
involved in receiving anything of value from anybody.
The Mayor made the decision to say "I think
the people for the City of Cleveland ought to have the
greater weight for the cost of the project,"but even before
that when you're talking about CDM, they got this first
contract and they got this contractor. And how did they
perform on that contract? What did the people that came in
from the water department say? "Good job. They did a great
job. They were a good capany."
So all this griping about the second contract
by somebody who apparently didn ' t h o w the whole picture
wasn't taking into consideration that the City of Cleveland
was very, very happy with the job that CTIP.I had done.
And this is the one where apparently Lou
Tortora is supposed to have approved this payment, $425 for
college? Snow me the college where $425 a month is going to
carry the day and my daughter, youngest daughter will be
going to a different college next year. It doesn't happen.
They put in this thing ran Kent State
University. There is no evidence whatsoever, and we didn't
see any bank records from Ciaccia, we didn' t see any $425
checks, we didn't see any $425 anything. And when they get
this explosive information from Rony Joel, the only thing
that even is irraginably close, they don't even go to say to
Lou, they don't even knock on his door, "Mr. Tortora, we
just heard something very shocking and we need to talk to
you about it.
"Did you approve a $425 payment for this guy's
tuition?
"No, I did not, and I never would."
And there's some discussion about, well, he
doesn't think Rony Joel would intentionally lie, but the
last question, the last question &en we got up here m s
"Wait a minute, let's cut through all this. Did you approve
that?
"No, I did not.
"Would you ever approve it?
"No, I wouldn't."
You know what? That's the first time they
heard that. They didn't bother to go talk to him. Use your
comon sense on that one.
They had to produce, and the other thing that
goes along with the CllM contract is this $25,000,and there
were a n m b r of exhibits you can look at. The check for
$25,000,the conversation where Gil said "Look,I mean, I
don't think these people are going to put up $25,000 unless
they hope to get something in return,"and the exhibit from
the City 737 in which you see the e-mils going out from the
City to every company that does business with the City, "We
want $25,000. We think if you're going to rrdke mney doing
business with the City of East Cleveland you ought to
contribute to the charitable life,"and somehow this is
wrong? Because Nate and Gilbert didn't make that decision.
They didn't decide. They had nothing to do with it. That's
what he's talking abut.
I think the big boys are up there, the Board
of Directors that voted on it aren't going to do it unless
they see they are going to continue to be able to do
business.
And again, you know, they seem to think it's
wrong. Maybe the law should be changed and the Mayor should
be told don't do that, don't send out these e-mils.
MR. DEFT-CH: Objection.
MR. WHITAKER : Don ' t have any of your
department heads --
THE COURT: Let me just, again you don't give
the law.
MR. WHITAKER : I haven ' t.
THE COURT: You were just talking about --

MR. WHITAKER: What am I talking dbout?
THE COURT: You're saying it's legal to do
that, and that the law should be potentially changed.
I've instructed you on what the law is. M y
instructions control.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, what I ask you to do is
look at this investigation in regards to this factual
information that the government found. Did they start an
investigation against Campbell or anybody else? No, they
MR. DC
-H: Objection.
THE COURT: Again, disregard the last comment.
MR. WHITAKER: YOU know, the government
introduced e-mils. You take a look at them, Exhibit 737.
And you want to h o w something? After all of
this, after all of these years of investigation, after all
of these allegations have been investigated, CDM is still
doing business with the City of Cleveland.
And what happened to Ciaccia? If what was
being said about Ciaccia was true, he would be out on his
ear. And you know what? Not any of the old Mayors, not
an- else involved in any other --
THE COURT: Let me just -- disregard that
comment.
Go on.
MR. WHITAKER: You -- okay. I'm just talking
about what you heard from the evidence stand.
THE COURT: Now, go on.
MR. WHITAKER: I am.
Ciaccia is the new service director.
THE COURT: I'm telling you, disregard that.
MR. WHIT=: Your Honor, it wasn't even
objected to.
THE COURT: This jury is the one that 'sgoing
to m k e a decision as to whether or not --
MR. WHITAKER: Am I wrong h u t that? I don't
understand.
THE COURT: -- as to whether or not improper
matters were given to him or to others.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. All I'm asking, folks,
is that you consider all of the evidence.
Now, let's talk about Houston. Let's talk
dbout Rick Cloutier, the manager of C13BVI from Houston.
Consider any investigations around Rick Cloutier and
consider what Rick Cloutier did in this case.
What was his job? C138vI, long before there was
ever any trip to Cleveland, had a contract with the City of
Houston to adtvise them on who to hire as contractors and
subcontractors for the City of Houston.
And Rick Cloutier handled the entire itinerary
for caning to Cleveland on that trip where they ended up
going to the football game.
Rick Cloutier and the people at CDM, not just
him, are the ones that made the decision and made the
recommendation. You heard ~onique,and there's no question
about Monique, you know, she goes into this hotel, doesn't
have any idea that Honeywell's even -- she's even going to
talk to somebody from Honeywell, doesn't have any idea
according to her, apparently, that Nate has an arrangmt
with Honeywell. And she starts g& up massages and
flowers and everything else, shopping on this hotel bill.
What we ended up finding out is that she had
an arrangment with some other company where she was getting
cash, getting paid cash, sometimes five or $6,000. But she
didn't get any of that from Nate Gray. She didn't get any
of that from a n y m involved in the Cleveland project.
In fact, there was never any money that came
out of the Cleveland project, that came out of that
Honeywell project, that had anything to do with any money
that she got.
Keep in mind this: They go back to Houston
and what does she do? What's the only thing she does? She
calls Rick Cloutier and says "What do you know about
Honeywell?
"Hey,Honeywell is a great company. Honeywell
has a good reputation, and as a matter of fact we're
concerned about this supply side/demand side stuff. Reliant
which now, apparently since we're getting close to when
Ehron went under, Reliant, they're going to supply all this
electricity. It m y be that we ought to have somebody else
do the demand side."
So when -- just a mnth later when the final
proposal comes up, pursuant to the recmendation from CCRVI,
it says "Reliant'sgoing to get it, these are some
subcontractors,"that including CH2M Hill was in there, too,
"but these are some subcontracts that including Honeywell
ought to be the subs on the job."
The only other thing she said was that she
smoothed out, she smoothed out that rift between Reliant and
Honeywell. There was some clash. You know what she also
told you Fn her job as a service director, it is her job, if
she's doing her honest services job, if she's doing what she
should be doing, that's what she should be doing. If
there's a problem between a sub, go solve it. "What are we
going to do? Go back and retire, go back to city council?"
By the way, city council mkes the final
reco~~hnendations,
city council makes the final decision. So
what does she do? She says "Look,guys, try to work this
out." If she's doing anhonest job, that's what she's
supposed to do.
And the other contract in Houston involves
Spellmn. And Andrea, if I leave her any time, Andrea is
going to talk to you a little bit about that, too, but
here's the thing about S p e l h and the contract.
You know, the only thing he's supposed to have
done, and remember you heard that conversation about
Spellman -- I mean about Jividen and Nate being glad that
Spellman got promted? That was because they were
consultants, and he was a resource and somebody they could
talk to. He hadn't asked for anything at that point, not
anything, no help whatsoever.
That was a consultant saying "Great,we have
somebody that's going to help us." And when he came to Nate
and said "Look, I need a loan,"he did it because of Nate's
reputation, he did it for the same reason he came to him
when he flunked that drug test. And there was nothing on
the agenda. There was nothing going on.
It wasn't until months later when he gets the
call and here's what he's told, "Don'tdo anything. Just
find out whether it's true because if somebody is coming
down here and pretending they are the Mayor, I'd like to let
those people how."
So ultimately what they are saying is he paid
this mney to have his friend try to influence a contract
when he told him not to influence it, a contract that the
City had absolutely -- and that's what he was told every

time -- it was not a city contract, the City was not making
any decision dbout it. And what was the end result? He was
told not to influence a contract that the City has no
decision-rrraking power in.
And what happens? The Mayor's thinking "Hey,
you know, that might be a good criteria,"and he sends it
down.
But just to show you how the fact that the
City didn t have it, they didn ' t pay any attention to the
Mayor. They gave it to the best, most qualified campany.
And who was paying Earl Brown? That ' s just
like the Honeywell receipts. You know, the Honeywell
payments, it wasn't Nate paying them. They went back up to
corporate office in Honeywell. Here First Transit was
paying Earl Brown. So what does Earl Brown have to say
about it? We didn't know, because everybdy thought there
was no reason whatsoever to talk to Earl Brown, no reason
whatsoever.
And yet when they talked to you about the need
for a buffer between all of these corporations, they're
claiming that all of these corporations are conmittkg this
horrendous crime and using Nate Gray as a buffer.
The investigation doesn't support the claim.
It simply doesn't.
In New Orleans, there's one conversation; the
long-term conversation. Of course they want somebody, just
what the other people up here said, "We want somebody that's
going to be a supporter long-term."
This flip-it conversation, was there
any -- did somebody go out and look at -- you know, did they
get this simultaneous when it happened, Vince Sylvain's
books, Vince Sylvain's bank accounts, Vince Sylvain
anything? No. There's all kinds of things you're talking
about just like with the Congressmen and the Mayor and this.
There are expenses, yes, there are apmses because you take
them out to dinner, you find out what their needs are, you
find out what the City needs and you find out if the company
you represent can supply those needs.
Nate Gray is a good and decent man, and
everybody that knows him thinks that. Nate Gray is generous
to a fault, and it was his generosity with Branmuel when he
was p d l e s s and powerless. It'shis generosity that mkes
Oliver Spellman call him when he's just lost his job, to
help people that are i
n need.
That's what he does. He's a good and kind
person, and it's reflected in all of those conversations.
And I think that it 's mst reflected, most
reflected in the conversation that you didn't get played for
you by the government, but was played for -- but was played
when Massie came back up and I asked him about it.
Anthony, would you play that conversation?
Just the end of it.
(Tape playing) .
MR. WHITAKER: "Ffnat'syour spirituality like?
You need to pray. You're in some serious trouble and you
should pray. And while we haven't talked about that and I
don't know your spirituality, and by the way, is there
anything I can do for you?"
Now, Nate Gray needs to pray. He needs to
pray that you m k e the right decision. He needs to pray
that he goes back to the corrnnunity that he deserves to go
back to, and more importantly the cormamity that deserves to
have him back.
Nate Gray is not guilty, not guilty, not
guilty, and I hope your verdicts reflect that on each and
every count, because, remerhr, you're going to get back
there and there's going to be some division and all of you
might not agree, but after you listen to everybody, if you
feel strongly that Nate Gray is not guilty, and I believe
the evidence supports that, be strong, stick to that
verdict. Don't give in just to compromise or get mving.
Do the right thing, hold true to your
convictions because, remenker, that phone call could not be
any clearer, Nate Gray is a good and decent man and his
c o d t y deserves him back.
Thank you.
MS. WHITAKER: Hello. Excuse me. Before I
get started I just want to correct one thing.
Bill said that the 737 were City e-mils, and
I don'twant you to get back there and look at those and say
that's not that. Those are CLM e-mails talking about rraking
that 25,000 donation, talking about the fact that every
other contractor that was bidding on that job was asked to
M e that donation and made a donation at that level.
"And if we wanted to be in the running, if we
wanted to be considered, if we want to be part of this
c o ~ t y ' business
s life, we should mike that donation."
That's what those e-mails were about, and they go to the
same thing he was talking about, and that's what you should
look at them for.
As my dad said, I'm going to go over some
specifics with regard to a couple of the cities that we've
been talking about.
First, we're going to talk about East
Cleveland. Now, I'm going to really focus on the
inconsistencies that we heard from Einmnuel Onunwor.
It's very clear that he's lying. He's lying
right here when you heard him speak. He's been lying many
times.
And let's remerriber that at all these times,
he's been nervous and trying to save himself. First, he
says, you heard him, that he got maybe four times some money
from Nate Gray.
But on March 18th in an interview with the
FBI, he says Gray had been giving him $500 per month. And
then to the FBI on March 18th and March 26th, he said that
Gray started giving 0nun.r $700 per month payments instead
of his routine $500 mnthly payments before he became Mayor.
And then he says under oath that these
payments before, under oath at a different time, before he
became Mayor these payments were from five to $700.
And let's remember what was in the envelope on
March llth, 2003, $700. Nothing had changed. Nothing had
changed in the amount of help Nate Gray was giving to
Rrmnuel Onunwor.
And then he says that it was only after the
Javitch, Block contracts that it became routine, monthly
payments. He says that on December 8th, 2004 and
D e c h r loth, 2004 to the FBI, although he later says to
you all that it didn't become regular until 2002.
Now, it ' s confusing and it ' s hard to follow,
it's hard to keep them all straight, but it's noticing these
problans, these lies that make you realize that you can't
believe what he's saying.
And it gets more confusing when we move into
the OMI contracts and the Ralph Tyler contracts. I'm just
going to try to pick apart a couple things that rake it very
clear that he's just not telling you the truth.
First, he keeps saying the reason that in
50,000 phone calls there'sno conversations about mney is
because he never, ever talked to Nate about money. He did
that i
n 1998, and then mgically the increases just started
happening for the next four or five years, and he nwer
discussed it again.
But then he tells you, "Oh, no, I went to Nate
and I asked him for more money for the OMI contract." It
just doesn't make sense because it's not true.
Then he tells you that the OMI contract is
what caused, when he went -- after the OMI contract he said
to Nate "Ineed more money, I need $700," h t he's already
getting $700 so how is that an increase?
And what's especially important to know about
that OMI contract is the date. That happened in the early
spring of 2002, and he wants you to believe that that's what
caused his payments to go to $1,000 a mnth.
And it 's confusing, so stick with me.
He claimed in an FBI interview on
Decerriber loth, 2004 and in other hearings under oath that
the Ralph Tyler contract, when he became the engineer of
record, caused his payments to go to $700 a month.
But that's after the OMI contract, so he was
alreadty getting a thousand dollars month, if you believe
him, but then the Ralph Tyler contract comes later and
that's when it went to 700 a mnth.
sul7posed.l~
It doesn't m k e sense because it's not true.
Why is this important? Why does it matter if
it doesn't match up? It matters because it shows that there
was nothing illegal happening. That Nate Gray was helping
him out as a friend long before he became Mayor at a time
where, if he would have followed Mr. Gray's advice, he
wouldn't have ran for Mayor. Certainly not ruin him to
discourage him from running.
It shows he's lying to save himself ten years
in jail. It shows that there ' s nothing done by Mr. Gray,
and that anything, any help he was getting started long
before he became myor.
All we have is this help that he's giving him
and then contracts and legitirrate contracts, checks,
invoices, all things kept in the normal course of business,
and the only thing we have to connect those two things
together is Ermmnuel Onunwor saying the one caused the
other. You can't believe him. Nothing he said on that
stand is consistent with what he said before. It's just not
true.
Next, I want to talk a little bit about the
specific Hobbs Act violations that you're going to be asked
to look at. And again as the instruction says, Hobbs Act is
extortion and as it relates to Mr. Gray it's going to be him
aiding and abetting in his own extortion.
And that'swhat it is, it's a public official
using his position to take, extort, to get mney or gifts
knowing that the gifts were given in return for a specific
act.
Now, the first of those counts are your East
Cleveland counts, and those are going to be 3 through 9. I
.wantyou to take a very close look on the dates of all of
those.
The first one you're going to be asked to look
at occurred on Septenriber 30th, 2002. Even Ehmnuel Onw?wor
told you that he took no official actions or discussed
taking any official action after Septeniber 30th, 2002.
The only thing the government can point to you
to say that what he did to support those payments are these
conversations about demolition and land bank contracts, and
there'sbeen no evidence whatsoever that Titcumnuel Onunwor
did anything or that Mr. Gray or anyone got any money or
expected to get any money in relationship to those
conversations.
In fact, the only testimony that was given was
a phone call where they talked about terminating a
contractor because he wasn't capable of doing the :job for
the City of East Cleveland.
In fact, even Enmanuel had to admit the reason
he asked Nate about those things was because it was the type
of developnent that was good for East Cleveland, and he
couldn't get it going on his own.
Now, we're going to look a little bit at
Houston. And some of the people in Houston you're probably
not going to like. Not too many of us get $700 purses for
birthday presents, but you can't let that influence your
decision here.
If you don't think they violated the law,
Mr. Gray and Mr. Jackson, that they were charged with, you
have to find them not guilty.
For example, Count 27 deals with
Ms. McGilbra's trip to the City of Cleveland. And as I
said, the instructions will tell you that you have to find a
public official taking something of value knowing that it
was given in retum for official acts.
The government's own witnesses told you that
when Ms. McGilbra received the tickets and the hotel stay in
Cleveland, she had no idea that business was even going to
be discussed.
In fact, her testimony was as soon as it was
brought up and that was at the game after she had stayed in
the hotel, after they had gone to brunch, after she had
gotten the tickets already, as soon as it was brought up,
she said "I don't want to talk about this. I'm on a social
went."
So she had no idea it would be discussed. She
had no idea until she was sitting there that day that
Honeywell was wen interested in energy business in
Cleveland.
That could not be a violation of the Hobbs
Act. That cannot be a violation that you find Mr. Gray
guilty on.
Ms. McGilbra also claims that she did her job
and helped with the contract running smoothly, and her
testkny was the reason she did that was so that Garland,
her boyfriend at the time, would get paid on his contract.
Again, this type of conduct does not support a
Hobbs Act violation.
The government's own witnesses have to admit
that Mr. Gray would have no reason to know that W. McGilbra
expected anythmg of value in exchange. They hired Garland
Hardeman because Mr. Hardeman said he had connections with
the City councilmen. Those are the ones voting on
contracts, not Ms. McGilbra. And Mr. Harderran told you he
didn't think they needed help with Ms. McGilbra. They knew
her. That's why he was there at the game, because they knew
her.
He sold his services based on his ability to
talk to the decision makers, and they would have no idea
that Ms. McGilbra wanted -- she didn't get but wanted some
mney from this contract because they told n o w about it.
It was an argument among Mr. Hard- and Ms. McGilbra.
And then on Counts 30 and 31 involving
Mr. Spellman, it's clear that when Mr. Spe1h-m m s first
talking to the FBI, after he had decided to cooperate, that
even he didn't think he did anything that was a violation of
the law, although he says as he did when he got up here,
"Nate Gray bribed me. I was under an obligation."
When asked "What happened? What did he do?
bhat did you do for that bribe," he couldn't think of any
act to support that staterent.
And the next time he testified under oath,
before we got here the only thing he could come up -- and we
showed it when I talked to him -- was asking the Mayor a
question. But by the time you saw him here to testify, he
had come up with two things he had done. One was asking the
Mayor a question and the other had to do with calling Nate
and seeing who's interested in being a subcontractor.
But even if you choose to believe him that
Nate Gray did those things and that Nate Gray was loaning or
giving Oliver Spellman $2,000 before even discussing, asking
the Mayor a simple question or choosing himself to call Nate
as he does in his normal course of business recornending
subcontractors to contractors, it's not a violation of the
Hobbs Act. It's not a violation that you're being charged
with to find out.
There is no evidence that Oliver Spellman or
Nate Gray, that the $2,000 or the trip given to Gil was
supposed to be for an official act. R m e n b e r , the $2,000
was in July, months before he was asked a question. And as
you saw with the government's evidence, the check for the
trip to Las Vegas which Mr. Gray was supposed to join him on
was sent in July, again mnths before he asked him to do
~~ything
Yes, he had conversations you heard where he
was talking business with him, talking about what he was
pursuing. He did that, as Mr. Spellrran told you, far before
he ever became Chief Counsel. He knew Gray was in energy;
that's why he thought maybe they would like to meet Monique.
I believe I have until about 25 after, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: It started at five after.
MS. WHITAKER: Ten after?
I'llbe very quick then.
I' 11 move on to the m i l and wire frauds.
Again you have to find these things to be in furtherance of
a scheme to defraud. For example, Counts 10, 11 and 12 are
invoices sent, checks sent to Nate Gray from Javitch, Block.
You know it's a legitimate contract. Those things are not
in furtherance of the scheme to defraud.
The Honeywell invoices, Mr. Gray had a long
and successful relationship with Honeywell from 1996. All
of a sudden these invoices are supposed to be illegal. The
invoices are legitimate and they are not in furtherance of
anything to defraud.
And as I said, the count -- the conversation
about the trip to Vegas when he's calling on a hotel, that's
Count 38, far before he ever asked Oliver Spellman to do
anything; not something in furtherance of a scheme to
defraud.
I obviously can't talk about everything, but
you'll tdke what we've talked about, you'll apply it to the
rest of the case and come back.
I appreciate your time. It'sbeen a pleasure
to do this case. It's been a pleasure to represent
Mr. Gray. He's as nice and generous as the people that
testified said he was.
MS. WHITAKER: We listened to the tapes, we
listened to the evidence. People say, you hear it on the
tapes, "How are you? How are your kids? How's your son?"
His reputation in the community is that he
helps people. He's generous to a fault, but it doesn't
mtter if you're powerful or penniless and powerless.
As you can tell from the dates on the earliest
tapes, the g o v ~ t ' had
s four years, five years to
prepare for this case. We've had six months.
And they've been very -- they've had a lot
m r e technical things, and we've struggled with the
information. There's been a lot of it, and we ask that you
don't take any of our struggling to manage it all out
against Mr. Gray.
I also want to remind you about reasonable
doubt. I know Bill talked about it a little bit, but it has
to be, as the Judge told you, so convincing that it's the
kind of information that you would rely upon i
n the most
important affairs of your own life.
I must tell you information from people like
Monique McGilbra, Oliver Spellman and Bnmnuel Onunwor is
not information I would rely upon in the m s t important
affairs of my life.
Unless the evidence convinces you, the highest
standard, you cannot find him -- you cannot find him guilty,
and that is not to say that we think the widence shows he's
probably guilty. It'squite the opposite. We think it
shows he's clearly not guilty.
50,000 phone calls and not one where he says
anything about being returned, picked up for dinner or game
or anything in return for an official act, and at no point
does he ever condition any help he's giving to anybody,
Oliver Spellrclan, Eixmnuel Onunwor, anybody for a contract or
official action.
The government's right, the tapes do speak for
themselves, 50,000 calls, and as she said they have no idea.
If they're doing this, if they're creating this massive
criminal scheme, why aren't they talking about it?
Bill touched on a little bit that you need to
stick to your beliefs when you're in there. There will be a
tendency to want to get out of here. It's been a long week
and a half, and we understand that, but if you believe that
the government has not met its burden, its burden to show
you that Nate Gray is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you
have to follow through on that. That is your duty here.
That's what we trust you all to do.
The most significant and only consistent
testhny in this case has been about Mr. Gray's character,
about the fact that he's a generous m. He'll reach in his
pocket and help you out, and don't convict him because of
that character point.
Most of the time we don't get a chance to do
something right. As jurors this is your chance. Listen to
the evidence and do the right thing, and the right thing
today is to find Nate Gray not guilty.
Our faith is that you will do that, that you
will go back to the jury room, that you will talk to each
other, and that you will come back with a verdict of not
guilty on all counts.
Thank you.
We're going to take a recess, about 15, 20
minutes before we go to MY. Jerikins' final arguments.
Leave the pads face down.
We will reconvene at 25 after, okay. Same
rules apply, don't talk either among yourselves or with
anyone else.
Don't form any opinions, don't express any.
(Recess taken).
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, at this time I'd
like to rrrake a motion for a mistrial based on the Court's
comnents during my closing arguments.
I think they were prejudicial. I think the
interruptions without objection were uncalled for, and I
think they were contrary to law. I don't know of any rule
of law that says I can't c m e n t on actual evidence that was
introduced from the stand, and I think it was prejudicial
the m e r in which done in front of the jury.
THE COURT: I disagree. First of all, there
were objections and there were objections about your general
line of argument that you were in effect saying that it was
necessarily legal because other companies do promtional
activities with public officials or with other people
outside.
So there was objection and you continued on
the same line of argument. Seemingly you didn't get the
point.
And the cments I made were, I think,
even-handed.
But again, it was a question that you
were -- I thought you were trying to make an argument of
what the law is; not what I -- and I basically instructed
the jury that the law was that this was necessarily legal,
and alternatively to rake some kind of argument that the
fact that other ccarrpanies weren't charged with it, that it
was somehow okay.
So I'll deny it.
Why don't we go back? You were trying to make
an argument of what the law is; not what I -- and that I
basically instructed the jury.
Here's the actual language, just for your
o m -- and there was an objection as recorded at Page 107.
MR. WHITAKER: There was that time, I agree,
but 1 think intent -- that was evidence and intent is --
THE COURT: So what's the theory; that if
another company has a marketing budget, that rrakes it legal?
Wait just a second. Close the --
MR. WHITAKER: No. The theory is --
THE COURT: What would the argument have been?
That you were mking there the argument that because other
people spend money on marketing, that necessarily this was
legal?
MR. WHITAKER: I didn't say it was necessarily
legal.
I said that was -- I was just -- I was quoting
facts that came from the witness chair, facts that were
admitted into evidence, that deal with a course of conduct
that goes to people's intent and also goes to the nature of
the investigation.
When they m k e an argument based on the
investigation and I don't think that argument is supported

by the investigation, I can coment on the investigation and
how the -- how it isn't supported.
And as I said, I don't how of any rule of law
that says I can't c m e n t on testimony that was introduced
into evidence.
I wasn't saying --
THE COURT: You weren't commenting on that.
You were cementing on what the law was.
MR. WHITAKER: I thought I was talking
about -- not the one you just showed us. I was talking
abut Mr. Tortora and what he said from the witness stand.
THE COURT: And you were saying other
companies have budgets of that amount, roaking the
implication that it's somehow legal that other people spend,
which we don't really have evidence on.
MR. WHITAKER: There were other people from
other companies that did testify.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, could you turn the
overhead projector back on?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Jury in).
THE COURT: The jury will take their seats.
At this point in time Mr. Jenkins has an
opportunity to rrake final arguments to you.
I just remind you that the comments of all the
attorneys are not evidence and are not to be considered as
evidence.
MR. JENKINS: Well, good afternoon. This is
my last opportunity to speak to you h u t this case, and
it's been long and tiring and I appreciate your time.
Now, what 'happenedin the case is mjor, as
you all know, that the government prosecutes and they
prosecute defendants -- and my client is Gilbert Jackson --
by proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt that they

committed the alleged acts that they claim they cormitted.
And the way they do this is through evidence,
and the evidence is supposed to prove to you beyond a
reasonable doubt that they codtted a crime.
Now, when we talked about this particular
case, there was East Cleveland, there was Cleveland, there
was Houston, there was New Orleans. And initially it was
all sort of divided up to you in those areas so you could
see how allegedly they would prove their case.
But as you noticed this morning, initially
when the govenvnent first began to talk to you they threw in
Miami, Cleveland, New Orleans, Houston, back to Florida, and
again that's done in such a way to give you an idea that
these things were going back and forth allegedly to show
there was a conspiracy involving my client Gilbert Jackson
and Nate Gray.
But the truth of the matter is, as they told
you earlier, it'sbroken up into segments and that's how I'm
going to proceed at least in my closing part of it.
NOW, if you notice they also start out with
things like inflmtory terms like greasing the palm, treat
like straight prostitutes and something here, unnecessary
return or whatever, and again those are inflmtory, as I
believe it.
But you're sur~posedto decide this case beyond
a reasonable doubt on the evidence. And what that means is
that after you all get the case, if you believe that the
government has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt,
you all are going to talk about it, you're going to fuss
about it, sometimes you might even cry, but you're going to
come together as a unit and you make your decision.
And I always tell jurors all the time once you
get the case, if you believe that the government or the
State in some cases have proven to you beyond a reasonable
doubt that my client or any other client, you should find
than guilty as charged, there's no question, because we live
in a society where we have laws. That's all we can live by.
But on the other side of it, once you listen
to the evidence and you believe that they haven't proven to
you beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should acquit them,
find them not guilty.
Now, sometimes you're going to say "Well, I
believe they did it, but they didn't prove it." Well,
again, that's not rightous and you all should talk about
that.
And sometimes when you go back in that room
initially somebody will say "Ithink they did it." Some of
you are going to say you think that my client and Mr. Gray's
not guilty so you should talk. It shouldn't be fast, it
shouldn'tbe quick to get out.
What's tonight, Wednesday? You go home -- is
it Tuesday? I'm lost up here, I'm sorry. I'm lost.
Whatever is on TV, you shouldn't rush to do that. So in any
event, take your time and come back with a reasonable
verdict for both sides, and that's what it's about.
And what I did here, I'm going to go back and
forth and talk a little bit about this, this graph just a
little bit, and begin with East Cleveland. NOW, ranember, I
told you we have -- and I know samebody -- I didn't misspell
but somebody misspelled Onunwor, so when you say it 's
misspelled, it's ELrnnanuel Onunwor on the graph, but I told
you we have laws.
And one thing in this particular case, and the
Judge has already given you the jury instruction and the
law, and I'll read this and give you m y idea of what I think
happened.
NOW, Count 1 of the indictment says Nathaniel
Gray and Gilbert Jackson conspired together to violate the
Hobbs Act. Now, the Hobbs Act is an individual that
violates the Hobbs Act where he provides mney or things of
value to a public official in exchange for performing a
specific act.
And you see how jurors, especially if you
have -- you apply the facts to the law and see if they apply
because you're going to find out there's more to it than
just that part.
You heard earlier about extortion, extortion.
I tell you, M r . Whitaker explained extortion as part of
Hobbs. Wortion under color of official right is when a
public official receives or attempts to obtain money or
property to which the public official is not entitled,
intending that the mney or property is being given to the
public official in return for the taking, withholding or
other influence of official action.
Final point. While the official -- again
while the official receives or attempts to obtain the money
or property in return for his official action, the
government does not have to prove that the official actually
took or intended to take the action.
And that's important when you listen to the
last part of the Hobbs Act. Again, while the official must
receive or a t t q t to obtain, they have to prove that to
you.
Now, let's talk about another part of that.
When you talk about prosecution, you talk about a righteous
prosecution, we have something called due process. Due
process means that even if they charge a defendant, my
client and the other client, they have the right to defend
themselves in court. But as a part of due process you have
fundamental fairness in any judicial process.
So initially let's look at East Cleveland.
They charged my client with being involved i
n East Cleveland
with a conspiracy. When you look at the telephone calls and
you have the opportunity to play them back and you have the
list, if you play back -it 1044, that's the first phone
call dealing with my client and the only phone call dealing
with him and East Cleveland. And that's the one where he's
speaking with Nate Gray and he says "I'min Washington,
D.C . " And Nate says, "Oh,my Mayor, he ' s going to that
conference."
And Gil says "What'shis name," and he says
spell it. What that shows you right then and there is when
they charged him with that particular involvement, there' s
no evidence of any crime whatsoever.
The fact that he says "What'shis name? I'll
take him to dinner," they're going to have to show you mre
than a phone call, see? So already they're trying to tell
you that he was involved in a crime simply by talking on the
phone and saying "hihat'shis name?"
That'snot fundamentally fair, but they're
supposed to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt what
evidence they have to show that he was engaged in anything
in East Cleveland. Nothing's there. Nothing whatsoever.
And, in fact, when EtrnMnuel Onunwor got on the
witness stand, and you all look at your notes, not one
question asked of him involving Gilbert Jackson; not one.
"Did you even know him? Did you ever meet
him? Did you ever engage in any kind of business?" But you
see they still charged him, so when you start looking at all
of this individually, East Cleveland, there's nothing there
that my client did anything improper.
But what the government did earlier today whm
they started throwing everything in from the beginning,
Miami, Houston, New Orleans, Cleveland, East Cleveland, it
mkes you think that, hey, they were going back and forth,
and that's not what happened. You see, talk about it. Talk
about this case because it's not very easy.
I started out about this, "treat like straight
prostitutes," inflmtory. One of their main witnesses
Oliver Spellman said something I thought was very -- pretty
bad myself, when he was talking about City errployees, he
said -- and you all raeaiber, play it back -- "1hope no low
life City employee gets to find out what happened to me."
So again we all can put up witnesses, but when
you try to stir everybody up, what h a m when you hear
those conversations, and he says somebody may have written
down low life City qloyee, so the fact that he came in
here with an employee agrement, you have to understand
what's going on with him also because he is trying to help
himself, there's no question about it.
So when we have terms, we have them also, to
show vihat hamened with other aqloyees. And that ' s what
~appens.
Now, East Cleveland, once again nothing
happened.
They're trying to tell you that Gilbert
Jackson and Nate Gray conspired together. Now, they talked
a lot together. They talked on the phone many times
together, and I'll read this to you, here's same m r e law.
"Count 1 of the indictment. The government
mst prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
One, that a conspiracy agreement existed between the
parties."
So they have to prove that to you beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Now, the first closing by the government, you
heard nothing about reasonable doubt, just throwing out
stuff hoping it will stick, but they have to prove that to
you.
"Secondly,two, that the defendant
deliberately joined or became a m m k r of the conspiracy or
agreement with howledge of its purpose, and agreeing
that -- and agreeing that a member of the conspiracy, not
necessarily himself, would conduct and participate in the
affairs of the enterprise."
You heard the law. They have to prove that
they actively engaged in an enterprise; not just merely
talking on the phone. They have to actively prove that my
client readily got involved with, if they could prove a
conspiracy; not just talking.
And this is the other part about the
conspiracy, and you all have the law and the Judge gave it
to you.
"If you are convinced that there was a
criminal agreement," now, if you ' re convinced that, okay,
there was a criminal agreement, "thenyou must decide
whether the government has proved the defendant howingly
and voluntarily joined that agreement. You m s t consider
each defendant separately in this regard.
"To convict any defendant, the government must
prove that he knew the conspiracy's main purpose and that he
voluntarily joined it intending to help it attain its
goals."
Once again if you believe that their case --
they had to prove Gilbert joined that, if it was Nate, to

bribe a public official. And I'll get to the public
official.
But this is important. "Proof that a
defendant simply knew about a conspiracy or was present at a
crime scene at times or associated with mesnbers of the group
is not enough."
So again the fact that he was talking on the
phone is not enough. They must prove that, hey, one, he
knew about, you know, supposedly bribing a public official.
Even if he approved of what was going on, say,
okay, maybe he didn't approve it, if he didn't object to it,
"Simply because the defendant may have done something that
helped the conspiracy does not necessarily M e him a
conspirator."
"These are things that you may consider in
deciding whether the government has proved the defendant
joined."
So let's say wen if he was at a scene where
somebody was talking about it, they still have to prove that
he joined, participated and h e w about public officials
being allegedly bribed.
That's the law.
NOW, East Cleveland, I talked about that, I
don't need to stay there any longer.
Then we go to Clweland. Now, Cleveland, the
way they're trying to say that m y client coktted this
so-called conspiracy involves, first one, the so-called
$25,000 scholarship. You heard they were talking that this
was a good thing for the scholarship, it helps people, but
you also heard him in business saying, hey, remember, you
heard about the fact that m y other businesses participated
and/or donated to the scholarship.
My client didn't have any control over the
mney. That was the Board of Directors, you heard the
evidence about that, that he couldn't approve that but,
"Yeah,"he said, "we hope to get something in return,"but
that is not a crime.
What he's saying is that in consideration for
the contract or whatever, but again he had no authority to
approve a contract.
He ' s working for CtM. That was his job. And
it was donated to the Mayor's office for a good cause.
Now, where is there a conspiracy there? I
have no idea. They took the phone call out and said, "Okay,
you heard that that meant that he did." U'h-uh, he had no
way to prove that; no way to prove that whatsoever. Nate
couldn't have conspired with him if he wanted to because
someone else had the authority to approve it, and you heard
about how the scholarships came about.
Before you even get in the door you have to at
least donate.
Rony Joel, now, interesting enough, once again
we're still in Cleveland, they're saying, "Hey,we can
prove -- if we can't use the scholarship, we can prove he
was involved with Rony Joel," the so-called $425.
Now, Mr. Joel, two things I can tell you about
him. One, we had documentation that his name was signed on
some of these so-called amendments to Nate Gray's agreement,
so now the FBI is there. You better believe they went to
him and said What is this? How did you keep amending Nate
Gray ' s agreement?"
This is argument. Think about it. You got
the FBI coming to you saying "Hey,you're involved in a
conspiracy."
Now, ordinarily you would think that or the
government would have you think that he cooperated from the
beginning. Not at all. Not at all. He said "Wait a minute
now. Before I do anything else, I need an agreement." And
that's when I asked about the defense exhibit proffer
agreement involving Rony Joel.
And initially I asked him did he have an
attorney, and he said no. That's what he told you all; he
said no.
Now, in the instruction you heard that if you
think a witness deliberately lied to you, you can disregard
his entire testimony. You can take part of it and think he
told the truth, you can take some, say he did.' t, do
whatever you want to, but if he lied to you, you decide; you
can disregard his entire testimony. He said no.
Well, he didn't know that I had the agreement
and 1 had his attorney's name on it. Something else he told
you from over here. He said "When I talked to the FBI and
when I talked to the government, they gave me an agreement
and that agreement was a proffer, so whatever I told them

that I did wrong, they would not use that against me."
Remenhr that? He even said something about
mwcder, raerrber that? He tried to turn over here and said
"If I told them about a murder, they can't use that against
me." Well, that's what he said, but in his proffer
agreement they're talking about that "First and foremost
this provision is necessary in order to ensure that the
client does not lose the opportunity for a proffer."
Now, that's between the government and
Mr. Joel.
Now, Mr. Whitaker brought up Mr. Tortora and
he asked the question or the question asked to him by the
FBI earlier, "Is there anything that you think Mr. Joel
would lie?" That's what he asked Tortora. And then you
have to think, well, if you're faced with the government and
you're dbout to be indicted or you are indicted, you might
try to push yourself from that. You h o w how he did it?
The first time he said, "Well,somebody else signed my name
on one of those documents," so now he's backing up somewhat.
Second time he said "Inever signed it. I
don't know who signed it. Lou Tortora did."
Lou Tortora said "I didn't sign it. I don't
recall him ever coming to me with it."
The problem we have here is simply this: If
he doesn't cooperate, there's a possibility he may be
indicted because we have signatures with his name on it.
Now, the $425 scholarship just didn't add up.
I think it was Mjr. Wtaker said "Iwish I could send my
sons, you how, to college on that type of mney, $425." It
doesn't make sense.
But the thing that's important here is he does
have an interest. Look at that part on credibility in your
jury instructions. He has an interest not to tell the truth
or he has an interest to testify falsely.
And here it is, his agreement. Doesn't get
any better when he said about "Ican tell them anything,
they can't use it against me." Right here, Defense Exhibit
Nbmber 1.
That's Cleveland, and once again they are
trying to tie him into a conspiracy involving Mr. Ciaccia.
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing whatsoever.
Nothing involving a conversation. Remerber, I
think it was the government that said the tapes speak for
thesnselves. We have all the tapes involving Cleveland, we
have all the tapes of all the East Cleveland. Not one
conversation where he's talking about engaging in any
activity or giving any gift to a public official, not one.
Not one.
But wrhat's going to happen here is that the
government gets the last opportunity and they have to draw
you back into it, and they have to draw you back into the
idea of a conspiracy. And the one way is to play the tapes
involving Ehrmuel Onunwor abut the payoffs.
The other is to tell you that, well, Gilbert
and Nate were so close together that he had to how, but
that's not enough that he had to how. They have to prove
to you that he was involved in the conspiracy.
And that's the law. That truly is the law.
They simply just can't say that. They have to prove it to
you.
She said the tapes speak for themselves.
Well, not necessarily because you got plea agreements. If
the tapes speak for themselves, we would never have to get a
plea agreement from someone to come in and explain what
happened. They do not see.
Earlier in their statemmt what they told you,
follow the money. There's no East Cleveland mney involving
Gilbert Jackson. No, he said follow the trail. You know
how you can prove it? Follow the money. In Cleveland the
mney was not even here. $25,000 went for a scholarship for
the kids. There's no other connection except Rony Joel, and
J!W. Joel had an interest about lying in this case.
Now, this goes back to what I told you, you
said, "Yeah,you know, they are still proving it, but we
still think he was involved with it," that'snot what the
law is. You have to follow the law. You may feel "I think
he was involved, I feel it," but if they haven't proved it
to you beyond a reasonable doubt, you cannot find him guilty
of this charge. You cannot.
-
Follow the money trail in Cleveland? N o t h i n g ,
no video. And that video is going to come back to haunt the
government, not so m c h Enmanuel Onunwor because if you
notice while he was testifying he didn't really have
anything to do with Gilbert Jackson, but he kept saying the
magic words, bribe, bribe, bribe.
And then I thought we were going to have a
bribe meter, it was like slashes, slashes, slashes, he said
"bribe"16 times to try to enforce to you that, "Hey,Nate
bribed me and on the other side Nate brought Gilbert in to
say this was a conspiracy."
Initially he told the FBI, Mr. Massie
testified and others, that before he was convicted at trial,
it was a gift, you see.
Once he's convicted, it changes.
So again you have to look at his testimony
about whether or not he had an interest involved in it.
Sure, he talked a lot, but once again reasonable doubt, they
have to prove to you with evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Now, we talk about Monique McGilbra and that's
that Houston connection, and the reason I'm doing that like
this and I have it on the screen here, I'm sorry, I'm doing
it like tkis is because if you take it as they said they
were going to present it to you, City by City and not try to
throw it together like they did, then you can see the
fallacy of the argument about a conspiracy.
Just because you're talking with someone
doesn't mean you conspired with them.
Now, the public official that they told you
about in Cleveland? Julius Ciaccia. Nothing to do with
Gilbert Jackson. East Cleveland, Mayor Onunwor, nothing.
So all right, let's talk about Houston.
Now, the public official that they allege that
m y prove to you that Mr. Jackson is involved with that part
of the investigation and conspiracy was Monique McGilbra.

You remember me asking her "Did Mr. Jackson at
any time talk to you or try to influence you on any type of
business?" Her answer was "No,not at all. Not at all. l1
In fact, when we talked about Houston, when

they put Mr. Massie back on the witness stand, I asked him,
as Mr. Dettelbach would say "Special Agent Massie, what was
the team that they were talking about in Houston involving
the so-called shuttle contract, the rental car?"
He named other individuals. He didn't name
Gilbert Jackson. He said I think it was G i a h , Sawicki and
others. That was the team they were talking about putting
together to get a contract.
That's coming from them. That's their
evidence, you see. That's involving the so-called shuttle
and rental car.
That came from the government. No conspiracy
there.
So we go to Monique McGilbra. Now, this is
pretty interesting. With Monique, they want you to focus in
on the New Orleans trip. Every tape that she says speaks
for itself said Mr. Gray paid for the hotel, Mr. Gray paid
for the Superbowl tickets, and Mr. Gray tried to contact
Gilbert by leaving a message that they were coming down.
Now, they talked about the tickets, but that
alone is not a conspiracy. You see? So they're trying to
say the Superbowl tickets, tie him in with that, the fact
that they talked about it.
If you remakr Garland Hardonan, ha I asked
him, he said the tickets were left at the desk. Garland
told you he was the one that called Gilbert or Monique
called Gilbert, one of them, to go to at the
Superbowl. They told you that. Look at your notes.
Now, Monique did say this, she said When we
called him, he was at dinner with other people and invited
us there." That's what he toldyou -- that's what she told
you, "he invited us to came over to dinner."
Not one word about any business, not one word
about paying any mney, not one word about trying to
influence a contract.
It gets a little better. Garland Hard-
told you every time he met Gilbert, he met him later at a
conference, he would pay for dinner. That's the type of guy
he is. He would pay for the dinner. He would pay for
everyone.
Garland told you "He nwer talked to me about
any business, he never tried to influence me whatsoever."
See, what the gov-t approach is they're
trying to back door Gilbert Jackson by saying, yeah, Nate
Gray was trying to influence these people and Gilbert had to
know because that was his boy. Maybe I shouldn'thave used
slang, but that was like the lady said "Hook me up," and you
ask what does "Hookme up" mean, it was his friend.
So the point is they back door Gilbert in and
that's how they allege the conspiracy, and Monique told you
Wh-Uh, not at all." She got everything that she could.
No phone call. He didn't buy the Louis
Witton purse. Let me tell you sanething; if he had bought
a Louis Vuitton purse, even as this trial was going on his
wife would have left him, you see, because she'shere. So
there's no conversation that he bought her a purse or any
gift of that nature, nothing.
But again they're trying to use these gifts to
try to influence you that he has something to do with the
conspiracy. Not true. Not true whatsoever, you see?
And again, the phone calls they talk
about -- some things they talked about were wrong in terms
of individuals, but nothing that was a criminal act. They
want to tell you that, oh, you lanow what? Hey, don't forget
this. Gilbert had a $2500 contract with Nate as a
consulting fee agreement. That's not illegal. It m y have
been improper in terms of his job, but that'snot a federal
offense, you see? And I'm just telling you the honest truth
about my position on it.
Maybe his job didn't like it, but it was not
illegal. There was nothing illegal with a consulting
agreement.
One of the things you're going to hear when
you get to New Orleans is that, and a couple of them you
heard from Gilbert, in fact when you go back there, and I
gave you one, it was Exhibit 1044, play that phone call.
Another one is Exhibit 1129. If you get a chance, play it.
You see, i
n that conversation, there was another one, if you
listen to the whole thing and not stop it, you would hear
him say "Nate, all I can do is make introductions." He told
that to Brent Jividen. "They got to sell their product."
Who was that that came in and said you know
what? We needed to have a diverse team to get in and we had
an individual who couldn't get us any meetings so indeed
they hired Gilbert because he's from New Orleans. He got
than the introduction. The tape says "All I can do is get
them an introduction. They have to sell their product."
Well, if you're already influencing a public
official so you don't have to sell a product, that makes no
sense. She told you, remember what she said, she
said -- the government, they didn't h o w they were being
taped.
So that's telling you right there that he
didn't know he was being taped and he's telling you "All I
can do is make introductions. They got to sell the end
product." And that's what that was about. That's all that
was abut; nothing whatsoever.
But again it's a conspiracy because he lives
in New Orleans, he has contacts in New Orleans, and he got
the meeting that the middle level individual couldn't get.
That'swhat he told you. They got the meeting. That's all
that took place; nothing more.
Well, I guess that's a little bit better. So
you know what? Going to say forget what Robert Jenkins
said, we still got him though, we still got him on this
so-called flip it phone call where they say allegedly he's
trying to influence Vincent Sylvain, a public official in
New Orleans.
Now, remerriber I told you that the video and he
came back, Agent Massie told you about, he came back and
told you about surveillance, surveillance. If we stayed
with Cleveland as they told you we knew when the money was
going to be passed to Mayor Onunwor, we h o w the time, so we
were able to get a camera in, do surveillance, we know
exactly what time even though they told you one time they
changed routes from Cleveland so they went to another
location from the bank, and allegedly that'swhere he got
the money. That's surveillance.
Well, if you go back to New Orleans they told
you we had the wire intercepts. We had them. We h e w what
time the Federal Express money was coming. We knew what
time it was coming, we knew where it was going.
And if you listen to the conversation you
won't hear Gilbert says "Hey,Nate, I need 2500." You
listen to the conversation, the one I just give you and Nate
says "Oh,by the way, Gilbert, I'm going to send you this
mney. I'm going to send you this money." It's not like he
asked for it. That'swhere honest services comes in, he
didn't ask for it. m l y the law to it. You see he didn't
ask for it.
Now, here we go, he says "1'11give Nate and
I'll flip it to my boy in the Mayor's office." Back to the
surveillance. I asked Agent a t h right here, I said "Agent
Sinith, is there any evidence that that mney went to Vincent
Sylvain? Did it attesnpt to go to Vincent Sylvain?
"No. No."
Now, that goes back to what I told you all
about the Hobbs Act and the conspiracy with the RICO, that
you must attenpt or give it to them. He told you, there's
no evidence that mney went anywhere, none.
NOW, see, that ' s the hard one there. That 's
the hard one. Yeah, you know what, but he said he wasn't
going to do it. That's not enough. That's not enough. You
have to amly the law. You m y not like that. You m y not
like the way you have to apply it, but that's the law.
The fact that he said it, they have to prove
to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he attempted to do
something or he gave it to him. There's no evidence that
mney went anywhere I think out of his bank account.
They said "You know what? We got a thousand

dollars out of it." They knew where Vincent Sy1vai.n lived.
I asked him "You knew where he lived?" They said "Yes."
They knew his bank account and knew exactly where he was
coming and they proved to you they could do it.
And the reason I asked Agent Peter Smith this
question, "But,yeah, Agent Smith, didn't there come a time
vhen you actually had surveillance on Gilbert Jackson in
Mount Driskill, New Orleans?" And he said "Yes," so they
knew. They had surveillance in a restaurant, saw something
totally different, eating, and engaged in conversation with
him, but when the proof comes about whether or not the mney
was passed or attapted to be passed, nothing, you see.
So it's not guilty by he said it. No. No.
They have to prove it, you see. They have to prove it.
Now, how they attempt to prove it on their
part, they go back to this. "Let'sdirty up Nate and we can
kind of bring Gilbert in," like greasing the palm has
nothing to do with Gilbert Jackson, nothing, none of this.
"But if we keep saying this, mybe the jury will believe
it."
They talked dbout it. Yes, they talked about
it, certain conversation about business. They k e ~ telling
t
you, "Hey,Gilbert Jackson said there's always another
Councilman, another Mayor." He never said that. That was
Brent Jividen. Never said that. Never.
Well, got him on that. What am I going to say
now? Well, here it is, that don'tmatter. Talking h u t we
need to do this thing. Nate said the Housing Authority
guru, they cut the conversation off. When you listen to the
rest of it, Gilbert tells you once again "We can make
introduction. They've got to sell their own product."
And that's all he says. Monique McGilbra,
public official, none, she said no, nothing happened. He
wasn't on the team, see, Cleveland, East Cleveland, it ' s a
hard decision.
Now, New Orleans, again, that ' s why I read the
law to you about that public official. Passed it or
attarpted? No evidence whatsoever, but they h e w when it
was coming, no question about it. As I told you they
watched Mayor Onmwor in the parking lot. They hew where
it was. It didn't happen.
Look, I' 11 tell you something else, also. And
it wasn't that I was doing this to try to dirty up the
government, the FBI, whatever.
I asked this question: "Agent Smith, isn't it
true that you met with Gilbert Jackson at least three times
in his office?
"Yes,sir, I did.
"And, Agent Snith, isn't it true you met once
at my office I was retained?
"Yes."
But there was another time when he left the
office with his attorneys, c m downstairs and they
intercepted him and talked to to him. NOW, that was done
for one reason, to show you that when they have this
investigation, they'rewatching, they knew, they stopped it.
Same thing could have been done about that
mney. Then we wouldn't have had an issue about it.
Now, m. Dettelbach has the opportunity to
come and tell you "You h o w what? Forget that. All he said
was this so we can prove it."
Where is the public official? Didn't happen.
See, the idea is if we could prove to you that Nate did it
and that was his boy, his friend, we can bring him in that
way. Didn' t happen.
Not one piece of evidence about any public
official, not one gift, not a dollar, not a trip.
Again the Superbowl tickets had nothing to do
with Gilbert. The only thing he did was southern
hospitality, invite them to dinner, take them out to brunch.
That ' s not a crime.
It would be a crime if he did it to take them
out and said, "Hey,Monique, now, what about that contract?"
No. She said the tapes speak for themselves. Didn't
happen, and this is where the hard part comes because like
I'm telling you and the Judge has already told you what we
say is not law, but you can go back there and start thinking
and talk about it. You know, you're going to say, well,
mybe that was his turn to talk and, well, those are the
facts of the case. I'm only giving you the facts of the
case as I see them and how the law is and how it came out
through the evidence. Nothing else.
And that Is the same thing he can do.
Now, they can play the conversations that they
are talking about business, and I'm sure he -- he has the
final closing and he has to bring you back to that
conspiracy, so I'm sure he's got to play those tapes and the
video to try to focus you back towards Nate and make you
reference Gilbert, but if you do it by City as they said
they were going to do, East Cleveland, Cleveland, New
Orleans, Houston, none of that.
He was a businessman. They were talking about
business and that was it.
One thing I want to talk about also, I put on
the screen, you see the name Ben Jeffers? Now, Monique
McGilbra told you and there was something about the S,
Monique had a contact with a guy by the name of Rick
Cloutier. Rick Cloutier was the guy who instructed Ben
Jeffers, not Gilbert -- she testified, look at your notes --
instructed Rick Cloutier from CllM to instruct Ben Jeffers to
give Monique $500 of that mney. Not Gilbert. Gilbert was
a CTXvI employee in New Orleans. Rick Cloutier was in another
City. Monique's contact was with him. So that little thing
of throwing Gilbert in with Ben Jeffers and the mud, that's
another way, red herring to CllM. It wasn't true. It was
Rick Cloutier.
Rmeniber, she left and went to another City --
I believe it was Baton Rouge -- and got the money, that's
what happened. It had nothing to do with him. It was two
employees in two different cities, Rick Cloutier and Gilbert
Jackson. So that mud has nothing to do with my client.
Now, you hear him talking on the phone about,
"Hey,we put a team together involving Marc Morial ran New
Orleans and Ben Jeffers." That's the team they put together
so it had nothing to do with that, so when they try to throw
other things in there that's not consistent, look, sometimes
things happen in a trial. I believe it was Agent Massie,
and I'm sure it was a mistake when he said that Mayor Marc
Morial resigned from office, and I cross-exaMined him
briefly, I said "Agent Massie, isn't it true that he
finished his term and he didn't resign?"
You see, now, if I had just left that alone
you would say "Oh,resigned from office so the Mayor was
forced out." That's not what happened. So it was a slip on
his part, I'm sue, he's a nice guy, but the point is we
have to listen to everything about that.
He never resigned. He finished his term. So
those little things happen in the trial so that'swhy we
have to be on top of everything. I didn't ask that question
because it was just a dumb question, I wanted to make sure
you understood he didn't resign because of a problem; he
finished his term and left. Those are the kind of things
that happen.
There was so much material in this trial, I
probably forgot something, but I hope not, and if I did, you
all talk about it in the back. One thing for sure is that
once you come to an idea as a group, you how, talk to your
fellow jurors, no screaming and yelling of course, but try
to convince than one way or the other. And it m y come to
the day where you say "Hey,you how, this is my position,
and I'm going to try to convince you."
So you try to talk to each other and please
don't give up because you're tired or whatever because you
got personal freedoms at stake, personal freedoms.
And one thing I can tell you, even if you, you
know, more than anything else you'vegot to agree if they
could charge my client in East Cleveland simply about
talking on the phone about who is your Mayor, then w h a t else
1920
would happen in a case like this?

And those are things that we talk about, when
we're talking h u t fundamental fairness in the legal
process have nothing to do with him but he's still sitting
up here in terms of that particular case.
One moment, Your Honor.
(Pause)
MR. JENKDJS: Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Your Honor.
The United States in rebuttal.
I have a limited time to respond and I'mnot
going to get to talk about everything that you just heard.
But you'vebeen paying attention, and we're not supposed to
talk about everything. That's your job to consider all the
evidence i
n the case.
But the fundamental problm with both of the
defendants' counsel'sargument is that their arguments are
contradicted by their clients' own words when they didn't
think that anybody was listening to them.
Mr. Whitaker tells you that the only reason
that M r . Gray gave public officials a thing of value, cash,
mtever, was not in exchange for any influence but was out
of generosity.
The problem is that his own client was caught
on tape, caught on tape saying that 90% of the time in the
public sector the only reason you get business is greasing
the palm.
He talks about his client, about giving money
to public officials because they're friends with public
officials or to be kind or nice to than.
But his own client was caught on tape talking
about public officials.
Please play 1088.
(Tape playing) .
MR. DETEEBACH: Mr. Gray's o m words, and
Mr. Whitaker can't explain that because there is no
explanation for that.
And let'sbe clear about what a prostitute is.
You pay for something, you get something back. The only
difference in this case is instead of the money being passed
across a bed, it's being passed across the conference table.
And, ladies and gentlemen, that conversation
hamened on Noverriber 30th, the day beore with one of the
days you have Mayor Onunwor receiving one of those envelopes
from Mr. Gray. The day before.
These are not complicated concepts and you
have to look at the evidence in this case through the lens
of Mr. Gray's own words. These aren't inflmtory terms,
or if they are they're not my inflmtory terms. It's what
they said, their own words. If it ' s inl m t o r y , it should
be, it should mdke you angry at that.
And what about what Mr. Jenkins said? Again
he can't get away from his client's own words caught on
tape. He's trying to get as far away as he can from
Mr. Gray, of course, but he can't because his client is
caught repeatedly working with Mr. Gray on these ratters.
You heard the tapes about Mr. Jackson's
participation in -- as his lawyer put it -- southern
hospitality at the Superbowl.
He is participating in helping Mr. Gray to
provide something of value to a public official. And he
tells you that there'sno tape of his client talking about
providing things of value to public officials in Cleveland?
His client's caught on tape discussing flying
the water Conmissioner out to Arizona to see the Ohio State
Buckeyes in the national championship game. You heard it
this mrning. His client is caught on tape doing it.
He talks about his client not agreeing -- and
we'll talk about that, because the crime of conspiracy is a
crime of agreement. The agreement alone is the crime --
about not agreeing to do anything with Vince Sylvain in New
Orleans? But he can't get away from the tapes. His client
is caught on tape. You actually have the agreement, direct
evidence of the conspiratorial agreement between his client
and Nate Gray to provide mney to a public official, to,
quote, flip it to him.
And you also heard his words about the fact
that the public official called him late at night and wanted
to get straight on where he was, and, rm&r, he told him
not to worry; "You'llbe part of the long-term thing."
They can't get away from their clients' own
words.
F;nd they made some con-anents about same of the
evidence in the case. And those tapes, those evidence,
that's perfectly permissible direct evidence that you should
consider in this case.
And the defendants say there should be m r e
tapes? That's hard to even say with a straight face.
There's direct evidence tape after tape after tape of
criminal conduct in this case.
And they're trying to place it in context?
They're saying we're not placing it in context? They have
no burden to put on any evidence in this case, let's be
clear about that, but what tape do they play? One tape that
shows sort of an effort to harass or slime a government
witness who stood up to Mr. Gray and testified here? That's
the tape?
Focusing --
MR. WHITAKER: Objection, Your Honor. Move to
strike. We weren't permitted to play tapes.
THE COURT: W h a t ?
MR. WHIT=: I object to him suggesting we
were permitted to play tapes because we didn't.
THE COURT: Let me ask counsel to approach.
MR. DETIEXBICH: What I just said to the jury
was to place in context, and they are permitted and actually
did play a tape.
MR. WHITAKER: bhm I wanted to play that
legacy tape and you did not permit me, you said "You can't
play that and you can't play any tapes where your client's
on there because it will be hearsay."
THE COURT: I said that there are some hearsay
rules --
THE COURT: -- as far as playing tapes but --
MR. WHIT=: For example, I tried to play
the legacy tape.
THE COURT: And you're right, it'snot a
statemat. He told the -- you told the jury you weren't
allowed to play tapes.
MR. WHITAKER: I wasn't allowed to play
certain tapes.
They act like I can play tapes.
(Ihd of side-bar conerence).
THE COURT: I'll overrule. 1'11 just give you
the instruction that the defense had access to the same
tapes.
There may have been evidentiaxy rules that
stopped the playing of some tapes, but the defendants had
access to the same conversations that the government had
access to.
MR. DEXTELBACH: Let's focus on P k . Jackson
and what his lawyer just got finished telling you because
his defense is to put ear plugs in and cover his eyes and
just sort of deny that the evidence came in against him the
way it did.
And I don't have time to correct all the
misstatements that I thought I heard. I don't. But the
fact of the matter is unfortunately for him you didn't have
the ear plugs on. You were listening to the tapes.
And the talk on the tapes establishes that if
there were ever something about co-conspirators, people who
agreed to work together, partners in crime, you would see a
picture of Gilbert Jackson and Nate Gray. They're working
together.
And you heard evidence on this, ladies and
gentlemen, that time after time they worked together on
different things.
You know, out of the four cities in this case,
M r . Jackson is directly involved in three, a l l except East
Cleveland. And let me correct what his lawyer said. He is
not charged in Count 2 which is the East Cleveland count of
the indictment. Mr. Jackson is not charged with that. He's
not charged in any of the East Cleveland counts, okay? So
usually the prosecutor doesn't have to correct what
somebody'snot charged with, but he's not.
He's charged in the RICO conspiracy count, the
overall count, and the cities that he participated in.
And if you look at the way that the roles
shifted over time, the evidence shows exactly that he is and
that they are co-conspirators.
Ccarrpare, for instance, the way things work in
Cleveland to the way they worked in New Orleans. In
Cleveland, you heard the evidence, in Cleveland, okay,
Mr. Jackson represented the corporation and Mr. Gray was the
local person, so the mney went from Mr. -- from the
corporation to Mr. Jackson to Mr. Gray, and those things
were provided to public officials.
Okay? And just like a classic conspiracy.
In New Orleans it was flipped, to use
Mr. Jackson's own words, the roles were flipped. The money
went from Honeywell to Mr. Gray, to Mr. Jackson, his
subconsultant, in that way so that I&. Jackson could use it
to influence public officials.
Just like for baseball fans a double play, the
ball hit to the shortstop, ball hit to the other side of the
field, he flips it and Mr. Gray flips the money. It's a
classic conspiracy.
You heard coments about Rony Joel. You heard
Rony Joel on the stand. You heard this has been eating him
up for ten years.
And Mr. Jenkins again is not correct about
what his agreement was. First of all, when he testified on
this stand here in this court, he has no agreement
whatsoever with the government. What he said can be used
against him in any form. Ask yourself whether somebody has
an incentive to come in and confess that they comnitted a
crime with no protection.
And it's also not right that he had any sort
of letter with the government. When the FBI came to him in
Florida, he confessed. The FBI knocked on his door and it
had been eating him up for ten years, and he confessed and
then he got a lawyer and got a proffer with the government
where he repeated the exact same thing he said before.
But those statements, those confessions that
he made, he had no protection at a l l for doing those.
And you heard about the fact that, well, you
can't -- somehow some things -- you can't match the number
425 to the tuition payments. The number's not the key
thing. Look at the date. How would Rony Joel possibly h o w
when Cornrcissioner Ciaccia's daughter started college? How
would he even know?
He says that this is when, this 425 was for
his daughter. Turns out, you go to Kent State, you got the
records and you'll have them, that's when she started
college, right then.
And again he's charged in a conspiracy. The
agreement to send the money to a public official is enough.
The ag-reement to do it is enough.
And again, you heard with your own ears about
how he participated with Ms. McGilbra.
Now, one of the counts, Count 1 is a RICO
conspiracy, and I want to M e sure the record is clear
about one thing. With respect to the pattern that you have
to find, you only have to find that any of the
co-conspirators, any one c b t t e d two of the acts and that
they meet the definitions that the Judge gave you, two, one
miling, one phone call, two mailings, any cambination, one
Hobbs Act violation and a mailing, that's it, that's all you
have to find.
And again with the law of conspiracy, all you
need is the agreement, and that each -- and that the
defendant you're considering agreed to participate howing
the ends of the conspiracy.
With respect to the mail fraud charges that
you heard about, let me be clear and let me correct, okay,
what the gravamen of the offense is.
It's the fact that these public officials are
being provided things of value and it comprcanises their
independence. They've got undisclosed conflicts of
interest. The people, that's the false pretense. The
people don't h o w what's going on. And it's not Mr. Gray's
job to decide what's in the best interest for the people of
the City of East Cleveland or Houston or New Orleans. It's
for the people to decide.
And maybe they wouldn't think it's such a good
thing that their Mayor is going to Mr. Gray's office every
mnth and getting passed an envelope full of cash. Maybe
they would think that that would take away the right to his
honest services.
That's the gravamen of the offense. That's
the thing that's being taken ram the people; the false
pretense that their public official is beholden to anybody
but than.
Mr. Gray doesn't get to decide what's in the
best interests of the people of Cleveland. They get to
decide.
And with respect to the Hobbs Act, those
charges, again, some of the charges are Hobbs Act conspiracy
charges where there's not a specific allegation that
anything was actually given to a public official. It's just
the agreement to bribe public officials, and then there are
some specific bribes that are charged.
And I&. Whitaker, the problm with her
argument is there's no such thing as a bribe any more
because she tells you when it suits their goal, that if you
make the bribe before the public official takes action like
what happened with Mr. Spellman, well, that couldn' t
be -- nothing wrong with that. That happened before so how
could he have known exactly what he was going to be doing?
But then she tells you that if a payment goes
to a public official after they took the official act, oh,
that's no good either. I mean, according to her argument,
Mr. Gray would have to be following around Mayor Onunwor,
and the moment that he said "Okay, let's recomnend Ralph
Tyler," "Okay,here's your money."
That's not the way it works and that's not
what the Hobbs Act is about.
MS. PEARSON: Ten mhutes.
MR. DE-rTELBACH: It's providing things of
value in exchange for official acts.
THE COURT: You've got about sevm minutes.
MR. DC
-H: And in t h i s case there have
been numerous specific acts and contacts identified.
In New Orleans, it's the HANO, getting that
executive sponsorship for that program that M r . Sawicki told
you abut.
In Cleveland, there's three specific contracts
that water department gives out, '96,2001, and 2003.
In Houston, there's the energy service
contract; there's the parking meter contract; and that
airport shuttle that you heard Mr. Spellrclan talk about on
tape.
And then in East Cleveland, there are three:
The collections, the engineering and the water.
Any of those would suffice for each count,
any. Any one. You don't get off on the bribery charge
because you're paying for m r e than one official act.
Any one would suffice, and we've identified
m y of thm.
How do you know that the defendants knew what
they were doing was wrong because of their argument that
they didn't intend to do anything wrong? One way to judge
somebody's intent is to look and see if they've got
something to hide. If you don't do anything wrong, you've
got nothing to hide. m y did Mr. Gray think he has to get
his story together with Mayor Onunwor walking around the
Cleveland Clinic? Why does he have to take a bag full of
highly confidential documents and stick it in his bedroom
closet when grand jury subpoenas call for them?
Why does Mr. Jackson w h a he's interviewed by
the FBI in New Orleans have to deny that he h o w
Ms. McGilbra very well or that he even bows whether
Mr. Gray or Ms. McGilbra knew each other or whether he h e w
anything was being provided to Ms. McGilbra? I guess he
forgot about his southern hospitality when he was speaking
to the FBI because he knew these things were wrong, and
Mr. Gray did, too.
And there was concealment that went throughout
the entire conduct in this case. Sham contracts,
pass-through money trends, all of those things. Just
looking at Mayor Onunwor alone, is that the way you give a
gift? You want to give somebody a gift, cash in envelopes
in your office on a mnthly basis? I mean, why not write
the guy a check if everything's okay? Write him a check.
Send it to him in the mil, "Here'syour check."
You have to come to my office and get a cash
gift every month like a salaried qloyee? And let's be
clear about that March llth, the one thing I want to clear
up. That wasn't a mnthly payment. That was an extra
payment. He had just seen him ten days or twelve days
before on February 27th. He was going on a trip and he
asked Mr. Gray for mre mney.
Talking about concealment? That Gloria
Lovelace, the one who is supposedly ~avitch,Block big
defender, she'snever even told that M r . Gray is part of
anything. It makes no sense.
And that's how I would like to end, by talking
about c m n sense; an important, important thing that the
Judg-etold you about.
They want you to look at each piece of
evidence in isolation. They don't want you to look at it
through this lens over here.
But you can't look at it in isolation. Look
at it together. Ask yourself how you'd use your common
sense to look at all the evidence together.
Imagine in two weeks or so you're done with
this whole thing and you're sitting on your porch and your
neighbor comes over and says "Ihaven't seen you for a
while. What you been doing?
"Oh, I been on a jury.
"Oh, that sounds interesting. What was it
about?
"Oh, it was about these allegations of
corruption.
"Oh, that sounds like an interesting case.
Well, h t was the evidence?
"Well, first there was all these documents
that came in about all these specific contracts that were
involved, a l l the agrments and there was a l l these sham
contracts and sort of shady contracts.
"Oh, interesting. What else? Is that it?
"No,there was financial documents, checks,
m y trails and receipts from hotels and Superbowl tickets
and all these things that showed things of value going
directly to public officials at the same time as those
contracts were involved.
"Oh,that sounds pretty good. So is that it?"
You say "No, there was also taped
conversations, hundreds of thm, where they're talking about
these exact contracts during the same time as they are
providing the things of value and they are planning
providing the things of value, too."
"Oh,well," your friend says, "Well, is that
it?
"No, there was also videotapes of handing of
public officials envelope after envelope full of money,
videotapes in one of the defendant's offices.
"Wow,all right. So is that it?
"Oh,yeah, no, I forgot. Four people who also
did it came in and said, 'Yeah,we w e r e also participating
in it" and three public officials said 'Yeah,they were
bribes. '
"Wow," so your friend says "What did you do?
''Oh,you bow, we let them go."
MR. WHITAKER : Objection Your Honor.
Disregard the last comment.
MR. D-CH: Ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, use your comnon sense. Don't be distracted by other
arguments or other people who aren't here or corporations
who aren't here. It's not a trial abut consulting business
as a whole.
Use your c m o n sense and apply it to these
defendants based on this evidence in this case; these
transactions, these things of value being provided to public
officials; not the private sector, but public officials.
And based on that widence, we ask you to
render the only appropriate verdict in this case, a verdict
of guilty on all counts.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Let me finish up by explaining
some things to you about your deliberations in the jury room
and your possible verdicts.
The f i r s t thing you should do a s you go into
the jury room is to choose someone to serve as your
foreperson. This person will help you guide your
discussions and will speak for you here in court.
Once you start deliberating do not talk with
the jury officer, the deputy clerk, to me or to anyone else
except each other about the case. If you have any questions
or messages you m s t write than down on a piece of paper,
sign them and give them to the jury officer.
These are usually written by the foreperson.
The jury officer, the deputy clerk, will give
them to me and I will respond as quickly as I can.
I may have to talk with the attorneys and it
m y take me some time to get back with you.
Again any questions or messages normally
should be sent to me through your foreperson.
The exhibits that were admitted into evidence
will be provided to you. It will take us sane minutes to
get them all assembled, but those will all be sent back to
you in a period of time.
One more thing about messages. Do not ever
write down or tell anyone how you stand on your votes. For
example, do not ever write down or tell anyone that you are
split six-six or eight-four, whatever your vote happens to
be.
That should stay secret until you're finished.
Remennber, you m t make your decision based
only on the evidence that you saw and heard here in court.
Do not try to gather any information about the case on your
own while you are deliberating.

For example, do not conduct any experiments
inside or outside the jury room. Do not bring any books
like a dictionary or anything else to help you in your
deliberations.
Do not conduct any independent research,
reading or investigation about the case. And do not visit

any of the places that were mentioned during the trial.
Mdke your decision based only on the evidence
that you saw and heard here in court. Your verdict, whether
it is guilty or not guilty, must be unanhus. To find a
defendant guilty, every one of you must agree that the
government has overcome the presunption of innocence with
evidence that proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
To find him not guilty, every one of you must
agree that the government has failed to convince you beyond
a reasonable doubt.
Either way, guilty or not guilty, your verdict
must be unanimous.
Now that the evidence is in and the arguments
are completed, you will be free to talk about the case in
the jury room. In fact, it will be your duty to talk with
each other about the evidence and to rake every reasonable
effort you can to reach u n a n h u s agreement.
Talk with each other. Listen carefully and
respectfully to each other'sviews and keep an open mind as
you listen to what your fellow jurors have to say. Try your
best to work out your differences.
Do not hesitate to change your mind if you are
convinced that the other jurors are right, and that your
original position was wrong.
But do not ever change your mind just because
the other jurors see things differently or just to get the
case over with. In the end, your vote must be exactly that,
your own vote. It's important for you to reach unanimus
agreement, but only if you can do so honestly and in good
conscience. No one will be allowed to hear your discussions
in the jury roan and no record will be made of what you say,
so you should all feel free to speak your minds.
Listen carefully to what the other jurors have
to say and then decide for yourself if the government has
proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, if you decide that the government has
proved the defendant guilty, then it will be my job to
decide what the appropriate punishent should be. Deciding
what the punishent should be is my job, not yours. It
would violate your oath as jurors to even consider the
possible punishment in deciding your verdict.
Your job is to look at the evidence and decide
if the government has proved the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Now, remeniber that each juror is only on trial
for the particular crimes charged in the indictment. Your
job is limited to deciding whether the government has proved
the crimes charged. Also, remenikr that whether anybody
else should be prosecuted or convicted for these crimes is
not a proper matter for you to consider.
Possible guilt of others is no defense to a
criminal charge. Your job is to decide if the government
has proved these defendants guilty. Do not let the possible
guilt of others influence your decision in any way.
Let me finish up by repeating something I've
said to you earlier. Nothing I've said or done during this
trial was meant to influence your decision in any way.
You decide for yourself whether the government
has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rem- that if you elected to take notes
during the trial, y o u notes should be used only as memory
aids. You should not give your notes greater weight than
your independent recollection of the evidence. You should
rely upon your own independent recollection of the evidence
or lack of evidence, and you should not be unduly influenced
by the notes of other jurors.
Notes are not entitled to more weight than the
nemry or impression of each juror.
Whether you took notes or not, each one of you
must form and q r e s s your own opinion as to the facts of
this case.
At this point we're going to take you to begin
your deliberations. I am going to excuse juror number 34,
39 and 40. We do use the alternate jurors in a lot of
cases, but we've completed this case without having lost any
of the jurors.
I do want to caution you, you're not permitted
to talk to an- about this case until such time as we
have a verdict.
I'd ask the attorneys to approach for just a
second. I'd ask the three alternate jurors to approach.
Actually in the meantime I'm going to ask the jury to head
back. I do want to thank you for your time and your
assistance in resolving this case. Jury service is very
central to our government, and we thank you for your
cormunity -- or your connnmity thanks you for your service.
I'll ask the regular jurors to go back at this
time. I'll ask the alternates to come up to the well.
(Jury out).
(To the alternates: )
THE COURT: The only thing I wanted to caution
you on was again to reiterate don't say anything about this
case to anybody until we have a verdict. Don't read
anything about this, don't listen to any news reports. In
cases such as this, there is same potential that other
jurors may become ill or unable to complete their service,
and there are same provisions that could allow one of you to
be called back, but that would -- it's important for that
reason that you not read or discuss anything about this case
with anyone until you have -- we have a verdict.
Now, after we have a verdict, you1re free to
talk to whoever you wish, but until that time don't talk
with anybody abut the case.
Finally, II d ask you if you would leave your
pads with us.
A JUROR: They don't have enough notes for
everybody. Do you want to send this over to them?
THE COURT: They've got enough.
A JUROR: Oh, do they have enough?
THE COURT: I'm sure quite a bit. But again
with the thanks of ours, don't steal that, that would be a
federal offense.
A JUROR: I missed that.
A JUROR: I have a question. If one of us
would be called back for any reason, would we be voting on
all the counts or just the counts that we would be part of
the discussion of because we wouldn't be privy to what's
going on in there.
THE COURT: It likely won't happen, but the
procedure would be they would have to reinitiate the whole
deliberations so they would have to start over so that
whoever would happen to be called back would be in the
complete deliberations.
I don't expect that to happen, but just on the
happenstance that it could, I'm going to order that you not
talk about the case until we get a verdict.
A JUROR: We don't need to come back tomrrow?
THE COURT: Right.
A JUROR: What's the -- who's going to be
likely left out of the loop?
THE COURT: You're the first alternate.
A JUROR: Me?
A JUROR: She is.
THE COURT: I believe you're the first
alternate. You're juror number 39.
A JUROR: m g .
THE COURT: Okay. I believe you're juror
number 39. Actually I'mnot sure. You're juror nurriber 34?
A JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay.
A JUROR: I was actually the first one.
THE COURT: You're actually the first
alternate, so okay.
We will adjourn. Thanks so much.
I'd ask the attorneys to assemble the exhibits
and then rrake sure that they are altogether, and then I'm
also going to hand a copy of the verdict forms. See if you
agree to those, and if there's any problems bring it to our
attention.
(Pause).
THE COURT: We reconvene.
The deputy indicates there may be some
question or coment about or some -- somebodty wanted to put
something on the record about the verdict forms?
MR. WHITAKER: Actually I wanted to put three
things on the record, Your Honor.
With regard to the verdict forms, instead of
just having the count, it's got -- I don't know, where are
they?
THE COURT: Right here.
MR. WHITAKER: With respect to M r . Gray, for
example, starting with Count 2 it says -- well, that's not
it.
"Cash in envelope to l3nmnuel Onunwor."
And then they are all, as you go through,
Count 4, "East Cleveland, cash in envelope, cash in envelope
to Fhmmuel Onunwor, cash in envelope," and then "$700 in
envelope."
And then later on and I'll just jmp to Count
13, "East Cleveland, ETW Associates, $10,000 invoice to
Ralph Tyler Companies."
And I just object to there being any
descriptions. I don't mind that number and I don't mind the
identification of the crime, but the description I just
think out of the context of the entire instruction has a
potential, let'sput it that way, to be misleading.
THE COURT: What's the government's position,
or what's your position? I think they are probably similar
for you, Mr. Jenkins.
MR. JENKINS : I don ' t have any on mine, Your
Honor, with cash or anything of that nature because I looked
at than.
THE COURT: Why don't you look at your
mnitor?
This is Count 1. I assume there's no
objection to that.
MR. WHITAKER : Right.
THE COURT: As to Count 2.
MR. WHITAKER: I don't -- again, the
description in parentheses, I don't think is necessary and
it has the potential to be misleading.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, it's essentially
what's in the instruction, in the box.
THE COURT: I think Count 2 is fine. It says
generally "Conspire to provide things of value to Brmnuel
MR. WHITAKER: I think Hobbs requires more
than that.
THE COURT: No, this is just to try to alert
them, so they've got some sense as to w h a t the count refers

to.
MR. WHITAKER: I appreciate that and I
understand it, Your Honor. I'm just saying when you look at
it that way out of the context of the jury instruction, I
don't think it's necessary.
You're correct, that Is what it does do, but it
states the crime is just the providing of things of value.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, our position is when
they're not getting the indictment, we have to give them
some guidepost.
MR. WHITAKER: Same things with 3 and 4.
THE COURT: 1'11 change 3 to say "Payment to
MR. WHITAKER: I see that, Your Honor. I
actually object to there being any description there.

THE COURT: Okay. I'llmake the same changes
to 4 and 5.
MR. WHITAKER : Same objection.
THE COURT: Make the same changes to 6.
MR. WHITAKER: Same objection. Same objection
on 7, Your Honor, and 8.
Same objection to 8.
THE COURT: That was 9.
1'11 overrule the objection. I'll leave 10
the same.
Leave 11 the same.
MR. WHITAKER: Just so the record reflects
over objection, I understand.
THE COURT: 12 the same, 13 the same, 14 the
same, 15 will remain the same, 16 will remain the same, 17
will r a i n the same, 18 will remain the same, 19 will
remain the same, 20 will remin the same, 21 will remain the
same, 22 will remain the same. 23 is out, right?
MS. PEARSON: Right. I think 24 and 25 are
still there right now.
THE COURT: Can you r e that, Gwen?
23 and 24 are both out.
MR. WHITAKER: So is 25.
THE COURT: And 25.
26 will r a i n the same, 27 will r m i n the
same, 28 will remain the same, 29 will remin the same, 30
will remain the same, 31 will r m i n the same, 32 will
remain the same, 33 will remain the same, 34 will remain the
same, 35 will r a i n the same, 36 will remain the same, 37
will remain the same, 38 will r a i n the same, 39 will
remain the same, 40 will r a i n the same, 41 will remain the
same, 42 will remain the same, 43 will remain the same and
44 will remain the same.
MR. WHITAKER: All right. Note my objection
to all of those, Your Honor.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. As I understand it, you
didn' t have any objection?
MR. JENKINS: No, I didn't have any objection.

THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I may have missed
something, but was there a verdict form for Count 16 still
in your set? It shouldn't be.
THE COURT: It'sprobably in here.
THE CLERK: It' s probably in there, Judge, but
I took than out when they were printed.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me just put, so you
remeniber.
THE CLERK: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Have you gotten all the
exhibits together? Have they been shipped back yet?
MR. WHITAKER: No, they haven't.
MR. DlTTU8ACH: I've gone over with
Ms. Whitaker the Defendant's Ekhibits. We just got back.
THE COURT: All right. What facilities do we

have for the tapes?
KS. WHITAKER: Can I just note for the record,
Your Honor, we resolved mst of our differences.

The only thing I would object to on the
government's witness list is that they listed the
transcripts as evidence, and I don't think that they are
evidence.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, let me see the exhibit.
MS. WHITAKER: And also, Your Honor mentioned
that you didn't have a copy of the tapes that we're
introducing. This is a copy of our tapes and our evidence
list for the Court.
THE COURT: All right. What's the --
MS. WHITAKER: I just think under the heading
of W i t s it mdkes it look like they are &nibits, and
they're not.
THE COURT: Well, I'll overrule that. I think
they are exhibits. They are just simply not evidence.
They were offered. I think the instruction
reads to the effect that they actually have been marked as
exhibits, but they are not to be -- so I think they are.
1949
MS. WHITAKER: Okay. I just wanted to note my

objection for the record.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, then I had two
quick motions.
One of them is that when I objected or rather
you called me up to the stand after my objection about
Mr. Dettelbach's coment that we could have played any of
the tapes, and my objection is that that's simply not true.
I think that the Court's instruction to the
jury after you called us up to the bench was misleading.
As a matter of fact, one of the things you
told us when we were in preparation for this trial and we
said we needed more time to listen to all 50,000 tapes was
that we couldn't get them, there was no theory of evidence
by which we could get them in anyway. And what you said
consistently is that if our client is on the tape, for the
most part they can't be introduced because you can't
introduce his statements or the statements of
co-conspirators if you intended to use than in an
inculpatory manner.
And I think that is what the jury --
THE COURT: You mean exculpatory?
MR. WHITAKER: I mean exculpatory, you're
correct.
And I think that misled the jury. I don't
think it can be corrected by instruction, and that's why I
mve for a mistrial.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny that. The thing
I said was, I believe, completely right, and you
misrepresent what happened.
lvlany of the taped conversations were your own
clients, and throughout I had said I have sane real
questions as to whether you could offer them as exculpatory
&its.
And I continued to think that. I think I how
of no exception to the hearsay rule that allows them.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, assuming that to be true,
assuming that to be correct, that ' s rrty point about my
objection to him saying we could introduce them. That's my
point.
We can't.
MR. DE;TTELBACH: I'll let the record speak for
itself, but I think that was not what I actually said
either. And it was in response to M r . Whitaker ' s improper
argument to tapes he had access to basically implying that
they did not have access to things that they did have access
to.
THE COURT: That was my take; that you didn't

have access to the 50,000 conversations.
MR. WHITAKER: I didn't say that, nor did I
intend for that to be corranunicated.
In fact, there it is. I object to his
suggestion that we were permitted to play the tapes
because -- you said you only played one tape, as if we could
have played all of them.
MR. D m . : They are trying to place it
in context, and of course under Rule 106 they can and did
introduce two tapes that the Court ruled they were
appropriate to place in context specific calls played by the
government.
THE COURT: All right. Well, in any case I'll
deny.
MR. WHITAKER: The second one is this, the
government, in the course of their closing argument, made a
statement about the defendants presenting evidence. I think
it might have been around this soliloquy here, and any
mention by the government of the defendant producing
evidence is contrary to law and unconstitutional, and on
that basis we also move for a mistrial.
MR. JENKDJS: I join in that motion, Your
Honor. It was in the closing statement.
MR. D-CH: What I said is they have no
burden to put on any evidence in this case.
MR. WHITAKER: "But nonetheless," suggesting
that we could.
THE COURT: I '11deny, and for the additional
reason that you didn't rrdke any objection, so there is a

contenporary -- contemporaneous objection rule that if
there s an improper argument, you're supposed to stand up
and object, and also for the fact that I don't think that
they implied that you had an obligation to offer evidence.
M R . WHITAKER: I think just in response to
that, I think it's plain error and I think you can reach it
now while there's still an opportunity before the jury
reaches a verdict.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I do think at least in
one part of the closing argument we made an objection as to
the government's statement, if indeed the jury came back
with a not guilty verdict, they should feel guilty about
that, and we objected and mved for a mistrial.
THE COURT: You d i d n ' t move for a mistrial.
MR. JENKINS: I know. I'm doing it now.
THE COURT: And I sustained the objection so.
MR. WHITAKID: And I join in that objection on
behalf of Mr. Gray.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Recess taken).
(4:lO p.m.)
THE COURT: We will convene.
We have received two c ~ i c a t i o n sfrom the
jurors.
The first one reads "Could we please get some
highlighters?" Highlighter pens.
The second one asks -- and I'll just respond
yes. The second asks "How late do we need to stay tonight?"
1 don't h o w what they'reparticularly asking.
MR. JENKINS: Iwas thinking they might leave

at 5:00 and come back in in the morning.
M R . DC
-H: They didn't ask that.
THE COURT: The only thing, I hesitate
sometimes to give them a specific time just because I think
there's a tendency, if somebody's right on the cusp of a
decision, which I don't think they are going to be tonight.
MR. JENKINS: Right.
THE COURT: But if they are on a cusp of a
decision, it has some effect of pressuring somebody.
J%S. WHITAKER: I would agree with you in a
n o m l situation, but I think I would agree with
Mr. Jackson -- Jenkins i
n this particular situation.
We've had a long day with the instructions and
the arguments, and I think the chances of them coming up
with something in the next hour is pretty slim. And to let
than go at 5:00 today, I don't think it's a problem, and
bring them back tomorrow morning.
M R . DC
-H: I don't think it mtters
tonight.
I think the only problem is I think you do get
into the expectation that there's a set schedule for them.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, eight hours, that's a
whole day's of work regardless so --
MR. DFITELBACH: Juries stay -- I mean juries

sometimes go home --
MR. JENKINS: Judge, may I ask you a question?

THE COURT: Yes.
M R . JENKINS: I'rn kind of curious as to what
could they be highlighting because they can't mark the
widence.
MR. DETTELBACH: Actually he could be right.
You might want to warn them not to alter the widence.
MS. PEARSON: The *bit list or the
instructions.
MR. DETTELBACH: The instructions.
MR. JENKINS: Hopefully, because otherwise --
THE COURT: I'm going to respond on the time,
I'm going to just respond we will not stay late tonight.
And then with regard to the highlighters, I'll
say "Yes. Do not mark the exhibits."
All right. We will recess.
THE COURT: Do they have -- let me just ask,
before you go, did they have these exhibit lists?
MS. PEARSON: Yes.
MR. JENKINS : Yes, Your Honor.
MS. BUTLER: Yes.
THE AGEWT: Yes.
(Recess taken).
(5:25p.m.)
THE COURT: We received a note from the jury.
The note reads "What time are we going to leave?"
(Jury in).
THE COURT: If the jury will take their seats,
we're going to recess for the night.
You'll need to get in tomorrow morning about
ten after 8:00, okay?
I'll just remind you again that now that
you've recessed from the deliberations you're not to talk
about the case either m n g yourselves or with anyone else.
Don't form any opinions, don't express any,
don't read anything about tkis, don't do any private
investigation, don't listen to any news reports about this,
all the other things that we started with continue to remain
in effect.
Okay? So we'll adjourn at this time and we'll
see you tomorrow morning.
(Jury out).
(Court adjourned).
- - - - -
CERTIFICATE
dbove-entitled matter.


(440) 570-6950
EASTERN DIVISION

)
) Criminal Action
1
NATHANIEL GRAY, AND 1
GILBERT JACKSON, 1
)
Defendants. )
- - - - -
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE
:..>
.: - >
THE HONORABLE JAMES S. GWIN,
-
cL d131
---
i-ZJ
, b ' i t j
JUDGE OF SAID COURT, AND A JURY, -.-. : llru*
?,-, .- -:: .*
0 3 i'
,, .,.-3
ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2005. z3., .: ! o

- - - - - "7
A
-. -
-.?T=J
VOLUME 8 1 8
' ?-?
APPEARANCES :
For the Government: STEVEN M. DETTELBACH, 'V
BENITA Y. PEARSON,
MARY BUTLER,

Whitaker & Rowlands
190 N. Union Street
Suite 301
Akron, Ohio 44304

440/570-6950
THE COURT: Why don't you take a seat for a
second?
We have received a comrrunication or a question
from the jury.
The question reads as follows: "Do we have
find that an defendant actually comnitted a Hobbs Act
violation in order to say he is guilty of conspiring to
comnit a Hobbs Act ~iolation?~~
If you want to COW up and take a look.
(Pause).
THE COURT: Do you have any first response?
M R . DC
-H: We believe that the answer
should be no.
It'sclearly that the law is you do not have
to comnit a substantive violation to be guilty of the
conspiracy. It's in the Court's instructions. So we
believe the one word answer "Nousuffices.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, we don't believe that.
We think that they should be told that the instruction on
the Hobbs Act is contained within the instructions that you
have there, and to put any separate emphasis on that would
be prejudicial and a mistake.
They do have the instructions. They should
read the instructions -- you've read the instructions -- and
rrake their decision based on the Court's instructions.
THE COURT: It seems it's somewhat related to
the Pinkerton question.
MR. DETTELBACH: I think it's related to the
question of the conspiracy, defining a conspiracy more than

that.
THE COURT: Take a look at the mnitor.
M R . JENKINS: I can't see it frornthere.
THE COURT: This is at least what I was giving
some consideration.
(Pause).
MR. DE-CH: That's the - - no, that's the
Pinkerton instruction.
No, conspiring to --
THE COURT: Wlhat this is is it's the pattern

Sixth Circuit instruction on conspiracy generally together
with the pattern Sixth Circuit instruction on the Pinkerton
liability.
MR. DEITELBACH: My read of the question is it
goes mre towards a deliberation on conspiracy than it does
on the Hobbs Act because the last part is "in order to find
he is guilty of con~piracy.~'
So we believe that any response would be - -
THE COURT: I haven't instructed on what the
Hobbs Act -- I think you're right, but I think you're wrong
in thinking that -- the response is not directed to the
Hobbs Act.
The response is directed to what the elements
of a conspiracy are.
MR. JENKINS: That s correct.
MR. DETI'EIBACH: Part of it is I'm having a
hard tine seeing.
THE COURT: Well, look at those.
MR. DET_CELBACH: Thank you, YourHonor. I'm
sorry.
MS. PEAR3ON: I think this is correct, I think
this is the instruction that they should be referred to.
MR. DE?TELBACH: I don't know how it
continues.
M y only c o m t is the part that I would like
the jury in some part directed to is the part of the

conspiracy -- the definition of a conspiracy that says that
you need not find that the substantive crime actually
occurred; that conspiracy is a crime in its own right.
I think that m y be on the continuation page
after the one that we're looking at.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, we would object .
The only thing we think the Court should do is
reread the instruction.
MS. WHITAKER: Tell them to read the
instructions.
MR. DETIEXEACH:: It's - -
THE COURT: Did I give you copies of this?
Here's -- take a look.

MR. DElTlXB7lCH: 3.02, Paragraph2.
THE COURT: I only have three copies

don't you share one?
MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, we would think that what
the Court gave in 3.02, Paragraph 2, is responsive on

Page 18 of this.
THE COURT: Yes. I think you're off, though,
on that's not what they're asking.
I think their question - -
MR. DE?TELBACH: To we have to find the
defendant actually comnitted a Hobbs Act violation in order
to say he is guilty of conspiracy to ~omnit.~'
MS. BUTLER: That's substantive act testimony.
THE COURT: They haven't asked "Do we have to
find that an actual Hobbs Act violation was corrarnitted before
we can find the defendant guilty of conspiracy?"
MS. PEARSON: It seems to be.
MS. BUTLER: Isn't that the question?
MS. PEARSON: If you look at it, they seem to
be asking that very thing.

THE COURT: It reads "Do we have1'- - it's
inartfully written, but "Do we have find that a defendant
actually comnitted A-N Hobbs Act violation in order to say
he is guilty of conspiracy to comnit a Hobbs Act violation?"
MS. PEARSON: Yes.
THE COURT: So I don't think they are asking
"Do we have to find that a Hobbs Act violation was actually
comnitted before we find a con~piracy?~~
I think they're directing their question mre
towards the particular defendants, whether he himself has to
have comnitted one of the Hobbs Act violations before he
could be found personally liable under the conspiracy count.
And that'swhy the response I had drafted goes
mre towards the Pinkerton liability.
MR. DE-CH: But Pinkerton liability, it's
my understanding, relates to whether you can find - - relates
to deliberation on a substantive count. In other words, it
relates to substantive counts that a defendant m y not have
personally comnitted, and whether he's guilty or innocent of
those counts.
It doesn't relate to whether he's guilty or
innocent of a conspiracy charge.
It's a theory of finding somkdy guilty on a
substantive charge based on a conspiracy theory.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DE?TELBACH: And that's the only reason
why we think that perhaps in addition to what the Court's
referring to, that we refer them to the part of the
conspiracy charge that tells them the law of conspiracy.
Either way, I think that if the answer is a
one word answer "No1'
suffices. I think the law --
MR. JENKINS: I would object to that.

MR. WHITAKER: Well, my position is they
should just be referred to the instructions as a whole.
MR. JENKINS: That's correct.
MR. WHITAKER: And that the, you know, the
Court has already instructed on all of the elements of both
conspiracy and Hobbs Act.
MS. WHITAKER: I mean, and I think the fact
that we all don't know exactly what they are talking about
is why we should refer them to the instructions as a whole.
MR. DE'ITELBACH: Well, I think they are asking
a fairly - - I mean, they are asking a question that is a
know -- there is a knowable answer to the question.
And whether the Court fashions its own
instruction or refers them to a specific part of the
instructions, I do think it's not inappropriate to give the
jury sore guidance as to what the law is on a question if
they asked a question like this, and this is a question
there is an answer to.
MR. WHITAKER: If the Court is only going to
give a portion of the instruction --
THE COURT: Why don't you wait a second?

MR. WHITAKER: I was going to say I agree with
that portion if you were just going to give a portion.
MS. PEARSON: 3 . 0 2 ?
MR. JENKINS: NO.
MR. WHITAKER: Wtever this is.
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, we think that - -
THE COURT: Let me just as to the second part,
this is the language -- I don't understand whether
the - - I'm not sure whether the governrent objects to this,
but --
MS. PEARSON: We don't see it yet.

THE COURT: 1'11 show you in just a second.
(Pause).
THE COURT: Leave it off for a second.
Here's the two sections that -- this was the
language under -- it was the language in the -- this is the
language I proposed.
THE COURT: This is largely taken from the
Judge under the Pinkerton liability grounds, which says that
a defendant need not actually c
&
t the Hobbs Act violation
himself.
That my not -- perhaps that's not the -- I
think the concept is similar to the circumstance or the
question we're being asked, but it's not exactly on point.
This would be the alternative. This is under
the pattern Sixth Circuit instructions. It takes some
language from 3.04 which says that the third element, they
must prove that a member of the conspiracy did one of the
acts described which in effect says one of the ~ m b e r sof
the conspiracy needs to have done the act; not necessarily
the defendant.
MR. DETTELRACH: Under these particular
conspiracy charges, though, there is not an overt act
requiremt so I don't think this one would also be
appropriate.
In looking at what the Court was going to
instruct the jury on, the first one, I guess specifically
you look near the end of the first page of the Court's
proposed instruction, the last sentence, I guess to sort of
articulate what our -- what our potential problem is with
it, it says "But for you to find one of the defendants
guilty of conspiracy to cornnit a Hobbs Act violation based
on this legal rule,"and the legal rule we're defining for
them isn't a legal rule that pertains to conspiracy. It's a
legal rule that pertains to the substantive count.
THE COURT: I understand what you're saying.
MR. DLTTELBACH: Okay. Yes, Your Honor.
And I don't - - and on the overt acts part, the
problem is that, and again I think the Court is ready to
address the concept.
THE COURT: I'm not certain; you believe
there's no requirement for an overt act for a Hobbs Act
conspiracy?
MR. DETIELBACH: Yes. That's correct, Your
Honor.
MS. PEARSON: Yes.
MR. DETIZLWlCH: Nor did the Court instruct
the jury.
THE COURT: I did not instruct them on that.
MR. DETTELBACH : That s right. And I think
the Court's correct on that. It's patterned after the
narcotics statute, and the law is clear that statutes that
don't have a specific requirement for an overt act like 18,
Uinited States Code, Section 371, that there is not an overt
act requirement.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, if you're going to do
anything with it, I would urge you to read this type of
instruction; not to change it or d i f y it because it's
clearly not clear exactly what they're asking, but I think
this addresses all parts of the issue; not to d f y it to
meet the government's need.
MS. PEARSON: Well, in that case we can simply
refer back to the original instructions, not provide any
additional instruction at all.
MR. WHITAKER: That's what I said.
MR. DC
-H: To be clear what the
governmat is proposing is we refer them to the original
instructions and specifically direct them to the definition
of conspiracy, 3.02.
THE COURT: It doesn't answer their question
though.
MR. JENKINS: That s right.
And I think this does answer the question,
Your Honor, what you had provided that you intended to read
to the jury.
MS. BUILE?: It's not accurate. For instance,
Your Honor, if they are asking about Count 41 which is the
Vince Sylvain conspiracy, it's a New Orleans conspiracy, the
question could be whether or not they have to show that the
money went to Vince Sylvain in order to convict him of
the - - in order to convict a defendant of the conspiracy.
In that case, the question would be directed
at - - and I think that is a fair reading of the question.
Maybe the Court's right, there are other potential readings.
They did put that word "defendantnin the first sentence,
but I think if you read the question as a whole, that is
fully possible one of the things they m y be considering,
that type of question.
And the answer to that would be t o look a t the
conspiracy instruction and the idea that the substantive
crime doesn't have to be cornnitted. That's sort of trying
to put a little concrete --
THE COURT: I apologize because is it the

government's position that in this circumstance, if, for
instance, the conversation was -- if the conversation was
"Yes, we'll bribe Vince Sylvainu and then there was no
additional evidence that anything was done with that, that
there was no mney sent, that there was nothing other than a
conversation that, ''Yes,we both agreed that we willI1 - -
MS. PEAIISON: Yes.
THE COURT: - - I1we11 bribe him," that that
would be enough to support a conviction under a conspiracy
with no -- nothing other than --
MR. DETTELBACH: I think that would be legally
correct.
I think in this case there'smre, but I
think --
THE COURT: I think --
MR. DETIELBACH: -- but legally the agreement,

and you would have to show that both defendants agreed to
participate.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, I think that's incorrect.
MR. DETIELWlCH: I mean, I think that the law
of conspiracy is clear that the agreement existed, nurrkr
one, and then they would have to find for each individual
defendant, that each individual defendant possessed a
specific intent to enter into the agreement.
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, just like you - -
MR. DETTELBACH: So that if, for instance, the
mney got sent and got lost or one of the two defendants
hung up the phone and then later changed their minds but do
not withdraw from the conspiracy in some way, that that
would technically meet the elements.
I think in this case you have the mney going
down, being sent down to Mr. Jackson, but certainly the
conspiracy law does not require the conpletion of the crim.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, even if you would
consider that, then you'd have to give an instruction about
withdrawing from the conspiracy.
M R . D@ITELBACH: If that were a defense.
MR. JENKINS: If that's what the issue was.
I think this addresses the question.
MR. WHITAKER: Not only that, if that was all
that was necessary, I think there would be serious
constitutional problems with the statute.
MR. JENKINS: Ekactly.
THE COURT: I'm going to give this
instruction, so.
MR. JENKINS: The one you handed to us, Your
Honor?
THE COURT: No. The top of it together with
the first paragraph.
MR. JENKINS: What about Paragraph 5 as well?
MS. PEARSON: No.
MR. WHITAKER: You're saying you're going to
do the A, B and C and then the first paragraph, Your Honor?
Did I understand you correctly?
MR. JENKINS: I think he should read the whole
thing.
THE COURT: I'mnot sure where you talk
about -- I'm inclined just to give this response.
MR. DETTELERCH: Your Honor, can I request
that the Court consider if it's doing this, to at least then
add something that says "For definition of these terms, you
can refer to my instructions -- for the definition of these
terms, please refer to the instructions I've already
provided," because you're telling them what the elemts
are, I think, up above, including agreement.
At least we could say that they can look back,
and I think that's also consistent with the defense%
request to refer them back to --
MR. WHITAKER: Well, actually my first request

is I agree with Ms. Pearson, let's just tell them refer back
to the instructions.
MR. JENKINS: Refer back to the instructions
and nothing else, Your Honor, if that's going to be the
case.
MR. DFITE;LBACH: And again but I think again
we don't believe there is an overt act requirement. We
haven't defined overt acts for them. We haven't given them
a list of overt acts because they don't have the indictmt,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to give them the
response I've just shown you so.
MR. WHITAKER: Could you show it to - -
MS. WHITAKER: All of that, is that what
you're saying, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Just what's on the screen.
1'11 take this section out.
MR. WHITAKER: You're going to take C out?
THE COURT: Do you have s o w authority that an

overt act is required?
The g o v e m t has argued that there's no
element under the Hobbs Act conspiracy for an overt act.
M R . WHITAKER: I thought that c m out of
their proposed instructions but, you know --
THE COURT: No, that came out of the Sixth

Circuit instruction generally for conspiracy.
MR. DETTELBACH: And I would note there has
never been in either trial any objection to that that was
contemporaneously served by any defendant.
MR. WHITAKER: No, we didn't file any
authority for this.
THE COURT: Do you have any case law that says
an overt act is required for this?
MR. WHITAKER: We haven't done any research on
this, and one of the reasons is because it wasn't in the
instruction.
THE COURT: There was no overt act element
given in the instructions.
MR. WHITAER: This was something just
created?
THE COURT: Just now.
MR. WHITAKER: I didn't know it was a new
instruction. I thought it came out of Pinkerton.
THE COURT: The question is there'sno overt
act requirement in the instructions. Nobody requested it
and it had not been included.
MR. WHITAKER: So is this -- this doesn't come
out of the instructions, is that what you're telling me?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, I think it's a mistake to
change the instructions at this time.
THE COURT: It's similar to the instructions.
MR. DETTELR74CK: It's almst - - here's the
instructions that were given right here, and as you can see
there's no -- it had not been requested, nobody ever asked
that there be a third element, that there be an overt act.
MR. WHIT=: And then why not just refer
them to this instruction? Why change the instructions now?
THE COURT: This is the instruction
specifically on the RICD conspiracy, and then later it's
just a reference that the Hobbs Act conspiracy is similar.
MR. DC-H: I think Page 39 is where it
refers back, and the Court actually included a sentence even
on Page 39 that said '!Evenif they never actually achieved
their goalH at the bottom in the first paragraph.
THE COURT: Here's the language under the
Hobbs Act.
MR. WHITAKER: Is this the instruction you
gave them, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. WHITAKER: Okay. Can you scroll down a
little bit?
TKE COURT: And this is the language.
M R . WHITAKER: So why can't we just refer them
to these sections? I don't understand the reason why we
couldn't refer them to these sections.
I think changing the - -
MR. JENKINS: I agree, Your Honor. I think
that the last paragraph should be included, and it goes on
to the last page, because it answers both parts of the
question where it begins "In other words."
THE COURT: I don't object. I think the
problem you have is you're not responding to them. They've
got the instructions back there, if they had been able to
figure it out, so you're just asking them to rerrain in
confusion.
But it sounds like that's what the government
wants and it sounds like that's what each of you want.
You're probably going to get, you know, who knows what.
They don't understand it apparently now, but
if everyone's agreed that you want to leave them kind of in
the dark on this specific question they asked --
MR. DETTELEACH: With respect to the proposal

that the Court has mde now which is the first - - this
shortened proposal, I think that's fine. I don't think it
misstates anything. It's responsive to the question.
The only additional request we have is to add
the sentence that the defendant is asking for which is "For
definition of these tern, please refer to these sections."
MR. JENKINS: No.
MR. DC-H: So the governrent's position
is clear, I think what the Court is proposing at this time
is responsive to their question, and I would ask you to
refer them back to what -- refer them to everything.
What you have is in addition to what they
already have.
THE COURT: What's your position?
MR. WHITAKER: Our position is either - - not
to change any instructions; to refer them back to the
instructions you gave them.
If you want to refer them specifically to that
instruction, that would be in the alternative, yeah, the
whole thing. That would be it.
THE COURT: Well, except I'm going to go with
my proposal.
The problem you have really is there's no
answer to the question in the instructions, so this
instruction here doesn't give you the response that they've
asked for.
So their question is "Do we have to find a
defendant actually comnitted a Hobbs Act violation in order
to say he is guilty of conspiracy to comnit a Hobbs Act
violation?'I
I think they're asking does an individual
defendant have to have a personal connection with a Hobbs
Act violation before he can be found guilty of the
conspiracy count, and at least I don't recall anything in
the instructions that specifically deals with that.
MR. WHITAKER: Your Pinkerton instruction
specifically does.
THE COURT: That, the goverm-ent - -
MR. WHIT=: It says unequivocally.
THE COURT: That actually hurts you, I think.
I an, if you want to M e that argument, 1'11 consider
including it, but the Pinkerton instruction is directed
towards a different issue, as to whether sowone could
substantively be found guilty of some offense just because a
co-conspirator comnitted it and it was foreseeable.
MR. WHIT=: We gave them a complete set of
instructions and they went back to the jury as it is.
I don't think we can be changing instructions
after a day of deliberation. I think it's a mistake, I
think it's prejudicial, and I think they need to be referred
to these instructions. And that's what I'm asking the Court
to do, to refer them to these instructions.
MR. JENKINS: I agree, Your Honor; for a
change after they have k e n given to them, I would agree to
that as well.
MR. DE?TELBACH: I don't think this is a
change at all.
THE COURT: It isn't a change.
MR. DE?TELBACH: There is another one in the
RICO instruction, "A person not necessarily himself to
comnit the two racketeering acts.
THE COURT: This is the language. The
language I talked about I believe is right in the
instruction.
This is language that was given to the jury,
albeit with regard to the RICO.
So I'm going to give the instruction I
propose, and I would indicate I don't believe it's a change
of - - I don't believe it's a change of -- in fact, it's
language taken really out of the final instructions given to
the jury.
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, just one thing then.
If the Court is going to do that, would the
Court consider the last paragraph on the first page to be
included, the one that you handed to us?
THE COURT: What's the government's position?
MR. DETEIXACH: I think that last paragraph
is the one that implicates the Pinkerton. I, to be totally

blunt, I don't think that last paragraph is either
responsive or necessarily a correct statemt of the law.
THE COURT: Yes, I agree. I think it does
deal with a separate issue. The Pinkerton liability is a
separate question.
So 1'11 send this back to them as it's in this
form, and I'll provide s m additional copies.
MR. JENKINS: Judge, one other --
MR. WHITAKER: I understand, your Honor. At

least I want the record to reflect it's over my objection.
I think it's prejudicial. I think it unnecessarily focuses
on a specific aspect of it. It changes what they were
originally told, in my opinion, and I'm asking the Court not
to do it.
MR. JENKINS: And I join in the objection.
But, Judge, I have another issue or question
to ask the Court; whether or not the timelines were
collected from the jury that had gone back yesterday.
THE COURT: My understanding is they didn't go
back.
MR. DETIXUXCH: We didntt send them back.
MR. WHITAKER: Their copies didn't but --
MR. JENKINS: I1mnotsure. I wantedto W e

sure. If the Court would inquire of the jurors once they
c m , if they have a timeline.
THE COURT: Have you seen the titrelines?
THE CLERK: No, I haven't seen them. I took
back to the jury what they all agreed on.
MR. WHITAKER: We think some of them might
have --
MS. WHITRKB?: They were given to them during

the trial.
THE CZERK: I know the jurors had those at one
tine. I don't know if they still do.
THE COURT: And when you take this back, would
you ask the jurors if they have the timeline?
THE C U R K : Yes. And collect them if they
have them?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: But if they have them, we want
to know about that.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll adjoum.
(Recess taken).
- - - - -
(12:50p.m.)
THE COURT: I want to do two things. The
first is I'm not sure I completed the record by setting
forth on the record what the response was.
The response I intend to give to the jury or
that has been given to the jury will be as follows: "In
order to convict a defendant of the crime of conspiring to
comnit a Hobbs Act violation, the governrent must prove the
llFirst,
that two or m r e persons conspired or
agreed to cornnit the crim of Hobbs Act violation.
"Second, that the defendant knowingly and
voluntarily joined the conspiracy.
"Under the law, the government m y , but is not
required to, prove that the defendant agreed that he
personally would be the one to cornnit the Hobbs Act
violation.
"Instead,the defendant need only have adopted
the goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal
endeavor, and the defendant m y have done so in a variety of
ways short of agreeing personally to undert*e all the acts
necessary for the crin-elscompletion." I
I
So that was the response that ;he Court gave

to the jury relative to their question.
i
I
I
Second thing I wanted to let h o w is the

I
deputy has found that inadvertently that tirelines were
apparently carried by the jurors back to the -- back to the
jury room,'so they were back there.
And we've recovered them.
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, on behalf of

Mr. Jackson, which it appears that the jurors must have had
them for at least two hours of deliberation yesterday and
2:OO o'clock now, they rmst have had them since this morning
about 8:15 when they began, based on the fact that the Court
had sustained the objection that they shouldn't go back
because of the prejudicial effect, I would have to move for
a mistrial on behalf of Gilbert Jackson in this particular
rratter.
MR. WHITAKER: And on behalf of Mr. Gray, I
would like to m k e the same mtion. I would like to
incorporate Mr. Jenkins1 r e m k s without having to repeat
them.
I would also say that one of the reasons that
o w objection was sustained on that is because the manner in
which the timeline is written is similar to a closing
argument, and it is certainly prejudicial for them to have
them back their during their deliberation. Certainly s m
of the ways some of the things are characterized are
definitely directly out of the closing arguments of the
government.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm going to -- 1'11
bring the jury back in.
1'11 give them a supplemental instruction to
disregard that.
1'11 deny the motions for mistrial.
Beyond that, I think you don't fairly
characterize the tiwlines, so I'll ask that they be
retained for any reviewing Court, but I think the timelines
themselves are not the way you described them.
So they are fairly - - they are intended to be
a generalized tineline, but to make the argwnent that they
are - - or to characterize them as a type of final
argument - -
MR. WHITMER: Well, they are simply not
complete. All they are are the government'shighlights.
They are not even complete.
They are what the govenvnent thinks are the
mst inculpatory r e w k s .
THE COURT: We will have - - we will include
them as part of the -- in fact, 1'11 mark each of them as a
Courttsmibit, but in terms of a reviewing body, I think
counsel have some responsibility to fairly reflect what the
record is.
So we will take a look in a minute and we can
ask the Court of Appeals, if they come to this, to take a
look and see whether you fairly describe them as something
that is a final argument.
But in any case, I t mgoing to ask them to be
brought back in.
W'hy don't you bring the jury back in?
MR. DETIELBACH: And, Y o u Honor, just to
complete the record, I want to point out the government did
not send back the timelines; that they had been distributed
to the jury.
So the g o v e m t did not send the tindines
back in its copy of the exhibits.
THE COURT: Just so the record is clear, my
understanding was that the actual -- there's one, for
instance, that says January 29th, 2002, the timeline says
that there's a phone call, Exhibit 1124-A,and it identifies
Mr. Gray as saying Wake some real mney" under quotation.
Where again was that taken from?
MR. DE?TELBACH: Each and every entry on the
tireline is from an exhibit admitted in evidence. It is a
direct quotation from the exhibit admitted in evidence.
The actual quotations on the recordings are
words that were in the transcript -- they were on the tapes
and also reflected on the transcripts to which the
defendants have stipulated to as accurately reflecting the
words spoken there, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't you go ahead

and get them?
MR. WHITAKER: And precisely my point, the
mst inculpatory words out of context and out of any
conversation. That's exactly my pint.
(Jury in).
THE COURT: I'd ask the jury to take their
seats.
Let me just indicate that we 've just -- the
deputy has just collected certain tirelines. These
tirrielines were presented to you to afford you some
assistance in following the testimny as it came in through
the case.
These tirelines are not evidence in the case.
They're not intended to be evidence. They weren't given to
you as evidence.
Instead, they were given to you wrely as an
aid to help you follow the evidence as it came in during the
trial.
I'm going to specifically again instruct you
that they are not evidence in the case, and in reaching your
conclusions on any of the counts of the indictment you're
not to consider them as evidence in any way. Okay?
So with that supplemental instruction, we're
going to return you to the jury room. Okay?
(Jury out) .
THE COURT: And we'll adjourn.
MR. DETTELWlCH : Thank you, Your Honor.
(Recess taken).
- - - - -
(5:20p.m.)
THE COURT: Why don't you take a seat for a
second?
We received a c m i c a t i o n from the jury
indicating they've reached a verdict, so 1'11 ask the deputy
to bring the jury in.
Let rrie ask.
(Jury in).
THE COURT: Would the jury take their seats?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you
selected one of your mmbers to serve as the foreperson?
A JUROR: We have.
THE COURT: Juror number 20, have you been
selected as the foreperson?
A JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Has the jury reached a verdict?
A JUROR: Yes, we have.
THE COURT: Would you hand the verdict to the
deputy?
A JUROR: (Handing).
THE COURT: Case Number 2004CR580, United
States versus Nathaniel Gray, verdict as to Count 1
involving the RICO conspiracy.
"We, the jury, in this case having been duly
impaneled and sworn find the defendant Nathaniel Gray guilty
of the offense of RICD conspiracy as charged in Count 1 of
the superseding indictment in violation of 18, United States
C, Section 1962 (d). Each of us jurors concurring in said
verdict signs his or her name to this verdict this 17th day
of August, 2005.11 Verdict signed by twelve mmbers of the
jury-
Verdict Count 2. I1We,the jury, in this case
having been duly impaneled and sworn, find the defendant
Nathaniel Gray guilty of Hobbs Act conspiracy in violation
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951, again signed
by twelve members of the jury.
Verdict as to Count 3. I1We,the jury, in this
case having been duly impaneled and sworn find the defendant
Nathaniel Gray guilty of the offense of Hobbs Act as charged
in Count 3 of the superseding indictment, in violation of
18, United States Code, Section 1951 and 2 , " again signed by
twelve ~ m b e r sof the jury. Each of these has the date of
August 17th, 2005.
having been duly impaneled and sworn find the defendant
in Count 4 of the superseding indictmt, in violation of
18, United States Code, Section 1951 and 2 . "
Verdict, Count 5. "We, the jury, having been
duly impaneled and sworn find the defendant Nathaniel Gray
guilty of the offense of Hobbs Act as charged in Count 5 of
the superseding indictment, in violation of 18, U.S.C.,
Section 1951 and 2.l1
in Count 6 of the superseding indictment, in violation of
18, U.S.C.,Section 1951 and 2.
I1We,the jury, in this case having been duly
of the offense of Hobbs Act as charged in Count 7 of the
superseding indictment, in violation of 18, U.S.C.,Section
1951 and 2.
superseding indictment, a violation of 18, U.S.C . ,
Section 1951 and 2 . "
Verdict, Count 9. We, the jury, in this case
in Count 9 of the superseding indictmat, in violation of
18, U.S.C.,Section 1951 and 2 . "
Verdict, Count 10. "We, the jury, in this

case having been duly impaneled and sworn find the defendant
Nathaniel Gray guilty of the offense of honest services mil
and wire fraud, East Cleveland, as charged in Count 10 of
the superseding indictment.I1
Verdict, Count 11. Ifwe,the jury, having been
duly impaneled and sworn, find the defendant Nathaniel Gray
guilty of the offense of honest services mil and wire
fraud, East Cleveland, as charged in Count 11 of the
superseding indictment.
Verdict, Count 12. I1We,the jury, having been
duly impaneled and sworn find the defendant Nathaniel Gray
guilty of the offense of honest services mil and wire
fraud, as charged in Count 12 of the superseding indictmt.
of the offense of honest services mil and wire fraud as
charged in Count 13 of the superseding indictment.
irpeled and sworn find the defendant Nathaniel Gray guilty
charged in Count 20 of the superseding indictmt.
impaneled and swom find the defendant Nathaniel Gray guilty
of the offense of Hobbs Act conspiracy as charged in Count
26 of the superseding indictmt.
We, the jury, in this case having been duly
impaneled and swom find the defendant Nathaniel Gray guilty
superseding indictmt.
We, the jury, in this case, having been duly
impaneled and sworn, find the defendant Nathaniel Gray
guilty of the offense of Hobbs Act as charged in Cowlt 30 of
the superseding indictment.
the indictmt -- of the superseding indictmt.
guilty of the offense of honest services mil and wire fraud
as charged in Count 32 of the superseding indictmt.
"We, the jury, in this case, having been duly
impaneled and swom, find the defendant Nathaniel Gray
I1We,the jury, in this case, having been duly
guilty of the offense of Hobbs Act conspiracy as charged in
Count 41 of the superseding indictment.
as charged in Count 43 of the superseding indictment.
guilty of the offense of honest services mail and wire fraud
as charged in Count 44 of the superseding indictmt."
Case Number 2004CR-580, United States versus
Gilbert Jackson.
impaneled and sworn, find the defendant Gilbert Jackson
guilty of the offense of RICO conspiracy as charged in
Count 1 of the superseding indictment, in violation of 18,
U.S.C.,Section 1962. Each of us said jurors concurring in
said verdict signs his/her name hereto this 17th day of
August, 2005." Each of the verdicts are signed by twelve
members of the jury.
Verdict, Count 26. I1We,the jury, having been
duly impaneled and sworn, find the defendant Gilbert Jackson
guilty of the offense of Hobbs Act conspiracy as charged in
Count 26 of the superseding indictment.
impaneled and sworn, find the defendant Gilbert Jackson
the superseding indictmt.
impaneled and sworn, find the defendant Gilbert Jackson not
impaneled and swom find the defendant Gilbert Jackson not
guilty of the offense of honest services m i l and wire fraud
impaneled and sworn find the defendant Gilbert Jackson not
as charged in Count 36 of the superseding indictment."
Count 37. I1We,the jury, in this case, having
been duly impaneled and swom, find the defendant Gilbert
Jackson guilty of the offense of honest services mil and
wire fraud as charged in Count 37 of the superseding
indictmt.
Count 38. I1We,the jury in this case, having
been duly impaneled and sworn find the defendant Gilbert
Jackson not guilty of the offense of honest services m i l
and wire fraud as charged in Count 38 of the superseding
indictment."
Verdict, Count 39. "We, the jury, in this
case, having been duly impaneled and sworn, find the
defendant Gilbert Jackson not guilty of the offense of
honest services mil and wire fraud as charged in Count 39
of the superseding indictment."
Count 40. I1We,the jury, in this case, having
Jackson not guilty of the offense of honest services mil
and wire fraud, Houston, with regard to Count 40 of the
superseding indictrqt.
Count 41. We, the jury, in this case having
Jackson guilty of the offense of Hobbs Act conspiracy as
charged in Count 41 of the superseding indictment in
violation of 18, U.S.C., Section 1951(a).
Count 42. "We, the jury, in this case, having
been duly impaneled and sworn, find the defendant Gilbert
Jackson guilty of the offense of honest services mail and
wire fraud as charged in Count 42 of the superseding
indictment, in violation of 18, U.S.C.,Section 1341, 1343,
1346 and 2.
impaneled and sworn find the defendant Gilbert Jackson
as charged in Count 43 of the superseding indictmt."
And Count 44, "We, the jury, in this case,
having been duly impaneled and sworn, find the defendant
Gilbert Jackson guilty of the offense of honest services
mil and wire fraud as charged in Count 44 of the
indictmt . l 1
Is there any request to c o w forward to
examine the verdict forms?
MR. JENKINS: Yes.
THE COURT: (Handing).
(Pause).
(Side-barconference had off the record
THE COURT: Is there any request to poll the
jury?
MR. WHITAKEEt: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. JENKINS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Juror number one, did you find
defendant Gray guilty of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44?
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I'm going to --
MR. DETIEIBiCH: 22, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, I thought I asked - - 22
as well? Did you find the defendant guilty of Count 22 as
well?
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I'm going to read through these
and I'll ask the jury as a whole as to whether the verdicts
I read accurately reflect what you found.
So if any of you believe that you did not
reach the verdict that I read to you, I want you to raise
your hand.
You'll need to irmdiately let me how. Okay?
As to defendant Gray, did the jury find the
defendant guilty of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44?
Is there any juror that did not find the
defendant guilty of those counts?
MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I was asking for
individual poll.
THE COURT: Well, I've read the nwribers.
Juror nurrlber one, did you find the defendant
guilty of those counts?
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Juror nuniber 31, did you find the
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT : Juror nuniber 20, did you find the
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Juror 1 6 , did you find the

A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Juror 6, did you find the
A JUROR: Yes.

A JUROR: Yes.
THE3 COURT: Juror 27, did you find the

A JUROR: Yes.
A JUROR: Yes.

A JUROR: Yes.
A JUROR: Yes.
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Juor 13, did you find the
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And Juror 20, did you find the

A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: As to defendant Jackson, I'd ask

you to give attention to these.
Did the jury find the defendant guilty of
Counts 1, 26, 28, 37, 41, 42, 43 and 44?
Juror number one, did you find defendant
Jackson guilty of those counts?
A JUROR: Yes.

defendant Jackson guilty of those counts?
A JUROR: Yes.
A JUROR: Yes.
A JUROR: Yes.

A JUROR: Yes.

A JUROR: Yes.
A JUROR: Yes.

A JUROR: Yes.

A JUROR: Yes.

A JUROR: Yes.

A JUROR: Yes.
THF: COURT: And Juror 22, did you find the

A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I want to thank you for your
service on this case.

I earlier told you you're not allowed to talk
about the case.
I1mgoing to release you from that
instruction.
You're free to talk to whoever you wish,
although you have a right not to talk about the case if you
do not wish to talk.
Unless there's something further, 1'11 recess.
1'11 ask you to stick around for a few
minutes, okay? But we will recess at this time and youlll
be taken back to the jury room, again with the thanks of
your comrrunity for your service.
So we'll adjourn at this tire.
(Jury out).
THE COURT: Why don't you take a seat?
Sentencing .inthis case will be set for
Noverhr 1 6th.
MR. JENKINS: I need a date, Your Honor.
MR. JENKINS: I need a date.
THE COURT: Novehr 16th, 2005 at 12:30 and
it will be set for Cleveland, Ohio.
Now, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Gray, before that tine
youllleach get a copy of a pre-sentence report which is a
compilation of the background of these events.
It will also be background of your own
~ 2001
personal history, and a background if you've had any

criminal convictions before.
You need to go through those carefully with
your counsel, and if either of you believe there's any
mistakes in those, you need to bring those to the attention
of the probation officers before the time of the final
sentencing.
So if there's any objections, there's an
opportunity to have those heard at the time of the
sentencing.
Is there any objection to continuation of
bond?
MR. DETIWXACH: Your Honor, we would like to
be heard on that.
Your Honor, we would ask the Court to consider
revoking bond in this case, and we would pint the Court to
several things that have just changed.
One is that the law changed. Under 18, United
States Code, Section 3143, while the Court -- previously the
burden was to'establish that the defendants were a risk of
flight, now they are faced with the burden clearly, by clear
and convincing evidence, showing this Court that they are
not a risk of flight.
And I would say the facts have changed, too,
because as the Court knows there are significant sentences
that now face these defendants and the certainty or near
certainty of those sentences they were not facing before.
I would pint out that that, that poses an
incentive for somebody looking at the kind of numbers that
these defendants are.
THE COURT: I suppose so, but in this case
Mr. Gray's lived in Cleveland, what, his whole life.
MR. DETIELBACH: He has lived in Cleveland his
whole life. I would point out to the Court his Shaker
Square office is no longer there.
THE COURT: Okay. Does he still entertain the
business interests he had before?
MR. DETIELBACH: He does not. The business
interests? I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Yes, the gas station.
MR. DETTELBAM: Well, the answer to that
question is I don't - - I don't know that his business
interests are the same as they were before.
I certainly would admit to the Court that I
think that cuts both ways, to be honest.
I think obviously he poses less of a danger to
the c o m i t y , I would be frank with the Court, because I
don't think he can do the kinds of things because of the
publicity in this case but --
THE COURT: Usually we look to what's the
dangerousness to the public and what's the risk of flight.
MR. Dl3TELBiCH: I think the risk of
flight --
THE COURT: In terms of risk of flight, his
family is where?
MR. DETIELBACH: His family, his ex-wife is in
Cleveland and his girlfriend are in Cleveland, and he
has --
THE COURT: Does he have any children?

MR. DETIISWCH: He does, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Where are they?
MR. DETI'ELRA.: I believe they are in the
Cleveland area, Your Honor. I'm not sure of the location of
all the children, but I think the Court can also consider
something that is specific to the facts of this case which
is the defendant's conduct during the period of the
investigation.
I think that goes to in fact whether he has
respect for the court processes, and there was evidence the
Court heard of obstructive type of conduct in this case, a
failure to follow grand jury subpoenas that were served upon
his businesses, and I think those things are the kinds of
things that give the Court some insight as to whether, now
faced with what he's faced with, whether the respct for the
Court -- that's what keeps people, the respect for the
Court -- is there such that it can clearly and convincingly
show Your Honor at this point that he is not going to flee
because this defendant, both defendants have the means to
flee. It is only the respect for the Court and the Court
processes that will keep them; nothing else.
THE COURT: Do you want to be heard?
MR. WHITAKER: Actually very briefly, Your
Honor.
I think one of the things that this trial has
demnstrated is that his ties to this c o m i t y are deep and
long. His family's here, his children are here, his friends
are here, his church is here, his business is here.
He has a great deal of respect for the
process. He was here every time. He was attentive. He
responded in every way. And while I understand what
Mr. Dettelbach was saying, with regard to the subpoena
process, you know, he did tell - - and we heard testimony --
Nina to gather every single documat that was requested

under the .-s
THE COURT: I don't want to particularly - -
MR. WHITAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm inclined to continue the bond.
But what 1'11 do is I'm going to ask Pretrial
Services to do another review.
MR. WHITAKER: Sure.
THE COURT: And 1'11 set this for a hearing
sometime next week.
It's been so long since the bond was
originally set in this case that I don't rewmber, frankly,
the specific circumstances of the case.
And so I'm going to ask them to do an update
in tern of what the circumstances are.
MR. WHITAKER: I did talk --
THE COURT: And then I'll be in a better

position, we can go forward with a f o m l hearing if the
government seeks to continue to seek the revocation of the
bond.
MR. WHITAKER: I will tell the Court I did
talk to Pretrial in this Court, the supervisor in this case,
and he does recormend a continuation.
THE COURT: And 1'11 ask the deputy to contact
Pretrial Services and ask them to prepare an updated report,
and 1'11 ask the deputy to schedule a hearing on this
sometirw next week.
I recall less about M r . Jackson.
MR. JENKINS: Your Honor, for the record, I
also spoke with Pretrial Services on several occasions,
and --
THE COURT: He's being mnitored in New

Orleans?
MR. JENKINS: In New Orleans and in the
Cleveland area.
THE COURT: In t e r n of family in the New
Orleans area?
MR. JFNKINS: Well, Judge, his wife is a
sitting District Judge in Orleans Parish. She's elected.
He has family in New Orleans, he has children in New
Orleans. He's being monitored through the Court system
there. He's never had any problem there.
In fact, I think the Court m y be aware that
he was always the first one here 7:00 a.m. prompt every
mrning, this trial and the last trial.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, with regard to
defendant Jackson 1'11 ask the Pretrial Services to again
provide an updated report --
MR. m N S : Yes, sir.

THE COURT: - - to make a determination as to
whether the conditions of bond should be changed, and we'll

try to make those at the same tine.
MR. JENKINS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We will try to set those hearings
kind of back-to-back.
THE COURT: Okay. Unless there's something
else, we will adjourn on the case.
MR. JENKINS : Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thanks.
(Court adj o u m d ) .
CERTIFICATE
above-entitled matter.


(440) 570-6950

Transcript of Trial of Nate Gray, Emmanuel Onunwor and Joe Jones For Bribery

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Transcript of Trial of Nate Gray, Emmanuel Onunwor and Joe Jones For Bribery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

NATHANIEL GRAY, and

For the Government: BENITA Y. PEARSON, ESQ.

For the Defendant WILLIAM T. WHITAKER, JR., ESQ.

For the Defendant ROBERT JENKINS, ESQ.

Court Reporter: Richard G. DelMonico

2:04-CR-580, United S t a t e s v e r s u s Joseph Jones and

t h e r e anything else w e need t o d e a l with?

MR. EMOFF: Yes, y o u r H o n o r .

THE COURT: What?

MR. EMOFF: May I u s e t h e podium?

THE COURT: No, I c a n h e a r you f r o m h e r e .

MR. EMOFF: T h e r e a r e a number o f m o t i o n s

resolved t h a t I think require it.

THE COURT: Okay. I ' m n o t s u r e o f any.

There h a s been a f l u r r y of motions and we've d e a l t

MR. EMOFF: Well, a s o f t h i s m o r n i n g , your

MR. EMOFF: Request f o r p r e t r i a l o r d e r , i n

THE COURT: I have i n d i c a t e d t h a t I

directed, it may not have gotten on the docket, but

I'm going to grant that motion.

MR. EMOFF: In it's entirety?

THE COURT: So they won't be any interim

arguments during this trial.

MR. EMOFF: There was a second part of

that, your Honor, which was that there be absolutely

no comment or argument whatsoever by counsel for

either side in front of the jury.

THE COURT: Well, that is a matter I'll

take under advisement. In terms of objections,

sometimes it's helpful to have someone simply say

the general grounds, hearsay grounds, lack of

knowledge. So I'll deny it as to that. But again,

I don't want people ever making speaking objections

MR. EMOFF: That's my concern is that

often, tour Honor --

THE COURT: Well, we'll deal with that in

terms of the context of an individual objection.

MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, there is a notice

of possible violation of protective order that was

filed on behalf of Mr. Jones.

THE COURT: And I, again, I'm in the

process of issuing a decision on that, but that's

got nothing to do with the trial.

MR. EMOFF: Your Honor, there is a motion

some clarification on.

We asked that the government be compelled

And for purposes of confrontation and cross

examination, if the government calls him as a

witness. The court has denied that motion, but what

I would respectfully ask the court to do is to

videotape and make it an appellate exhibit in the

event he is called as a witness and the Sixth

Circuit would want to look at the videotape.

THE COURT: I think that's, it won't be

offered in this case, but I want you to produce it

so that we have a complete record for any reviewing

MR. DETTELBACH: Yes, your Honor. There

are five hundred videotapes which were taken as part

of that case, and we will preserve them all and mark

them as exhibits. I'm not sure he hasn't identified