OlmosDeposition by Rossputin

VIEWS: 441 PAGES: 43

More Info
									0001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 vs.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO (Pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, C.R.C.P. Rule 30) CORY VOORHIS Plaintiff, ) Case No. DE-0752-09-0199-I-1 ) ) ) Deposition of: ) MANNY OLMOS ) ) ) ) ) )

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Defendant. _________________________

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Western Deposition & Transcription, LLC 22 1400 16th Street, Suite 400 23 Denver, CO 80202 24 303.292.9400 25 0002 1 APPEARANCES: 2 For the Plaintiff: TOM MUTHER, Reg. No. 33956 3 MINAHAN & MUTHER, P.C. 5132 W. 26th Avenue 4 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone No. 303.986.0054 5 Facsimile No. 303.986.1137 E-mail: tom@minahanandmuther.com 6 ADRIENNE TRANEL, Reg. No. 40968 7 MINAHAN & MUTHER, P.C. 5132 W. 26th Avenue 8 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone No. 303.986.0054 9 Facsimile No. 303.986.1137 10

Transcript of testimony as taken by and before ROGER W. MEYERS, a Certified Digital Reporter and Notary Public of the State of Colorado, at 12445 East Caley Avenue, Centennial, Colorado, on Friday, August 7, 2009.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0003 1 2 3 4 5 6

For the Defendant: ROBERT ERBE, Esq. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement 6431 S. Country Club Road Tucson, AZ 85706 Telephone No. 520.670.4776 Facsimile No. 520.670.4891 E-mail: robert.erbe@dhs.gov

Western Deposition & Transcription, LLC 1400 16th Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303.292.9400

I N D E X Examination by Mr. Muther...........................5

EXHIBITS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0004 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 – – – – – Manuel Olmos Affidavit.....................70 Anthony Rouco Polygraph Report........ ..70 Steven Perino Report......................73 Joseph Gallion Investigation Report......83 Redbook Report ......... ..................85


Western Deposition & Transcription, LLC 1400 16th Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303.292.9400

FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2009 ****

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0006 1 2 3 4 5

COURT REPORTER: Today is August 7, 2009. The time is approximately 2:19, 2:20 p.m. We are at 12445 East Caley Avenue, Centennial, Colorado. This case is United States of America, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington Regional Office, Cory D. Voorhis v. Department of Homeland Security, docket number DE-0752-09-0199-I-1. Our deponent today is Mr. Manuel Olmos. Will counsel and all present identify themselves. MR. MUTHER: Tom Muther from Minahan & Muther for Mr. Voorhis in this matter. MS. TRANEL: Adrienne Tranel from Minahan & Muther, also representing Mr. Voorhis. MR. ERBE: Robert Erbe, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, agency counsel. COURT REPORTER: Mr. Olmos, would you raise your right hand. Do you swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? THE DEPONENT: Okay. COURT REPORTER: Okay, the answer will need to be verbalized. THE DEPONENT: Oh, okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. MUTHER: Q Good morning, Mr. Olmos, how are you? A Good afternoon. Pretty good. Q Good. Have you ever given a deposition before? A No. Q Oh, okay, so this is your first time. Let me just explain a little bit about this. It may be something that you just know intuitively and forgive me if I am, you know, going on about it is but the purpose of why we’re here, this is a deposition as a part of discovery in the MSPB matter that Mr. Voorhis currently has pending. The goal here is just to try to get some answers to some questions that we had. The goal is not to trick you or to you know, get you to say something that’s not factually accurate or true, so with that in mind if through the course of these questions if you’re confused by a question I have and I’ve been known to ask confusing questions, the last witness will probably tell you. Or, if I’m asking something that you can’t quite understand what I’m asking about or if I mischaracterize something you’ve said, please don’t hesitate to let me know that. That’s not my intention at all and I’d be more than happy to clarify or correct anything as we go along. I ask this of everybody so don’t be offended. Are you currently on any medication or taking any drugs or

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

alcohol that would prevent you from answering truthfully and honestly here today? A Just allergy medication. Q Okay, allergy, when you say allergy medication is that something that has? A Zyrtek. Q Zyrtek, over the counter? A Over the counter. Q Okay, you’ve never had an experience where that has prevented you from thinking or talking in a rational way? A Nope. Q Okay, good. All right, let’s start first with your background. What position do you currently hold? A I’m a Senior Special Agent with the U.S. Immigration, Customs Enforcement Office of Professional Responsibility. Q Okay, here in Denver? A In Denver, Colorado. Q Okay. And how long have you been in that position? A I’ve been there since I believe it was September of ’06, coming up on three years. Q September of 2006, okay. And upon becoming an ICE and I’m going to say an OPR agent, do you understand I don’t want to characterize -A Yeah, yeah, no, that’s fine. Q -- your title. Okay, did you take any training? A Yes. Q Okay. Was that a FLETC? A Yes. Q Okay. And when did you accomplish that training? A That was in, it was in September of ’06. Q Okay. So it’s fair to say then that based on the allegations that are present here you are a fairly new OPR agent at this time, correct? A Oh, yeah, uh-huh. Q And prior to this becoming an OPR agent what position did you hold at the agency? A I was a Senior Special Agent with the U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, Denver, Colorado, the Office of Investigations. Q Okay. And specifically what type of investigations did you do in that position? A For the most part they were mostly related, money laundering. Q Money laundering? A Uh-huh. Q You came from the Customs side of the house -A That is correct. Q -- in the merger? Okay. And were you working

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

for ICE in Denver from the time of the merger on until when you became an OPR agent? A Yes, uh-huh. Q Okay. How long had you worked as a customs agent prior to the merger? A Prior to the merger, since 1987. Q Okay. All of that in Denver? A No. Q No? A From 1987 to 1999 I was a Customs agent, I was actually a Senior Special Agent until 1999 I was in El Paso, Texas. Q Okay. Until 1999? A Uh-huh. Q Okay. As a agent in the Denver office prior to working you know being an OPR agent, did you have an opportunity to work with Mr. Voorhis? A No, I never did. Q Never did, okay. A Un-huh. Q Give me a sense of the size of the office. How many agents once the merger occurred, how many agents were in the Denver area? A I don’t know. I’m guessing here. I –- maybe 30. Q Okay, so had you seen Mr. Voorhis? I mean you heard his name? A I –- yeah, I heard his name and then I ran into him a couple of times I believe it was over at the – because when the merger came through we were still in separate offices and we would be detailed to the investigations office of Immigration and I would run into him maybe once or twice but I’ve never, that I can recall, I don’t think we ever worked together. Q Okay. All right, when did you first become familiar with or aware that there was an issue involving Mr. Voorhis and his disclosure of information? th A That was in October 16 , I think of ’06. Q Okay and how was it that you became aware of that? A I got a call from and I can’t remember the exact sequence here but I don’t know if Cop -- well let me back up. I don’t know if the Special Agent in Charge for Office Investigation, Jeff Cop, called me or it was our Deputy Special Agent in Charge out of El Paso for the Office of Professional Responsibility. I can’t remember who called me first. Q Okay. Who would, first of all who would that Deputy Special Agent in Charge? A That was Jim Frankson. Q Okay. But I assume you got calls from both of

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

these individuals in relatively short order -A Right, yes. Q -- on that day? A That’s how I recall it. Q Okay. And in terms of the allegations or the alleged wrongdoing that was, that Mr. Voorhis was said to have done, what was it your understanding that he had done wrong at the time? A Well, at the time the information was that he had released information that he had obtained through TECS. Q Okay. A And that’s the way I understood it initially. Q And did you know who he had released it to? A To the I can’t remember if it was, well I can’t say for sure that it was, when I had those conversations I don’t know if it was the gubernatorial race. It had to do with that or specifically to the Bob Beauprez campaign. So I don’t know which one exactly. Q Okay. And at that time did you know how that allegation got raised? A I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that. Q At the time that you got the call from either your Deputy SAC or Mr. Cop relating to this allegation, do you know how it is that either of those two or both of those two folks found out about this or it became known to them? A Oh, well I later found out how it ultimately came about. Well, actually no, back up. Jim Frankson had actually me that I would also either be getting a call or I should get in contact with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation because they apparently got the, I guess the initial information. Q Okay and was the Colorado Bureau of Investigation or I think it’s called the CBI -A CBI. Q -- were they involved in a criminal investigation when you contacted them about these allegations? A You know at that point I’ve got to tell you all I knew was it an investigation. I didn’t know which way this thing was going to go. Q But I guess my question was I mean CBI is a state agency, correct? A Correct. Q So they, I mean in terms of an investigation I mean they’re not the federal government. They’re not administratively investigating Mr. Voorhis. Am I correct in thinking that CBI is doing an investigation as well? A Well, you are correct. The only thing, the only distinction there that I later found out was that they obviously had their investigation unit and the particular

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

person that I was dealing with was not in that unit. She was more in the unit of that –- that does the -– that monitors, that reviews, that controls access to the CCIC so I didn’t know for sure that this was definitely a criminal investigation. Q I see, okay. That’s helpful, thank you. All right and then did you open an investigation and begin investigating it, these allegations starting on October th 16 ? A Yes. Q Okay. And it’s true, is it not, that the FBI was likewise doing an investigation, correct? A They came into the picture, yes. Q Okay. When they came into the picture did your investigation continue? Did it stop or did it merge or something else? A I think Cory can relate to this. Yeah, it did merge, however, I wasn’t driving the bus so to speak and I was basically in the backseat. Q Okay and so that will explain I guess why it is that we have a bunch of statements written up by FBI agents leading up to the criminal aspect? A Correct. Q What was your role in the investigation prior to the criminal charges being launched and the case going to trial? A Well, I was always involved in the investigation. However, I wasn’t always, at least I don’t think so, was privy to all the transactions that were going on until after the fact or last minute type of thing. Some things I knew, some things I didn’t even know about until later. Q Okay and when you say some things you knew, what was it that you were being included in on with certain aspects? A Well, included? Q Yes. A Some of the interviews, not all of them. I know that when we met with Cory’s counsel I wasn’t present. Q Do you know why? A Well, there’s another component that comes into this and this is the AUSA office. He was not real fond of OPR being present and so that created a real issue. Q Which AUSA was this? A Jim Anderson. Q Okay. AUSA? A Yeah, AUSA, well that handled the case. Q Okay. Did he indicate why that was? A Well, because we were OPR and he really didn’t understand our function and how we operated. He didn’t understand that we did not only administrative but we

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

also did criminal and he was envisioning the OPR I guess within his entity that does nothing but I guess, at least from what I understood, administrative. So that kind of -– I had to kind of convince him and educate him and explain to him how we are OPR operate. Q And did he change his position on that? A He did eventually, yes. Q But he, at least initially then I hear you say that he excluded you from investigations? A Yes, uh-huh. Q Okay. So what else were you involved in in terms of what was going on? A Well, it was one of these things that we don’t want you involved but give us what we need, that type of thing. Q Okay. And what was the type of thing they were asking? A And basically –- well, you know, I would get records and documents, whatever they needed. You know I would try to contribute what I could, you know, on some things and -Q Were they asking you for technical advice relating to immigration laws, procedures, stuff like that? A No, not so much that. Just more records and I can’t think of what else. Yeah, I don’t think we got into real technical in terms of immigration type of things. Q Were they, I mean were they asking for that type of information? A No, no, I think it was more records and some of the, you know, access to certain records computer wise, and where they would be and how they would be and I’m trying to think of what else. Q And specifically what kind of computer records are you talking about? Are you talking about TECS? A Well, I’m talking about TECS and stuff like that. I would offer, I would say that look I can do these kind of searches to check. There’s certain things that I would have to make a request to headquarters but by the same token CBI could do some of these same information through their own side of the house so, I mean it’s hard to pinpoint exactly all the things. There were a few things or some items, let’s put it that way that I was able to bring and then there was some like we didn’t get into technical stuff like you’re saying if there was anything specific about immigration. Q Well, what about the databases that were more specific to INS? For example, I think CIS was one of the databases. At least maybe not in the criminal charges, I can’t remember to be honest in the criminal but definitely in the administrative portion of it was

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

whether CIS was improperly utilized. Is that something that they would come to you to ask? A Yes, yes. Q All right. And prior to this time did you have experience with CIS? A In what sense? Q Had you ever accessed CIS? A I had, uh-huh. Q Okay, as an agent or? A As an agent, right. Q Okay. A On a very limited basis. Q Okay. And is that something that you advised him on in terms of the uses and applicability of the databases related to CIS? A Well, they asked me more from the standpoint of, well not only just I think the basic queries that you could do which somewhere, you know, I told them basically this is what you can get to what I know, that you can pull and what I didn’t know I would ask individuals to help me understand. And the other side was they wanted to know if there were any kind of traps in the system. Q And by that what do you mean? A And by that in other words, it monitors everything you do. Q Okay. A And that was one of the things that they asked about. Q Okay. Who would you ask to get info, to get info from in order to –- on these more technical maybe or database related questions? A I’m trying to think of who I talked to. I know one of them was, I don’t know if he was the one or he turned me on to somebody but we have an intel specialist in El Paso, Raul Donohoe and I’m not sure if I asked him specifically because he deals a lot with databases and I don’t know if I asked him. Q I mean if you had asked him that would be something that you would have kept a record of, an investigative record of, no? A No, not necessarily, no. Q Okay. Did you –- any of the other agents, OPR agents I believe Mr. Cook and Mr. Perino I believe were in the office were at that time? A Well, Cook was there but Perino didn’t show up until towards the end of the –- let’s see I would say about the January of ’09 I believe it was. Q Okay. A Or ’08. ’08 I think it might have been. Q ’08, okay. A January of ’08 I think. Q Was Mr. Cook able to provide that kind of

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

information? A Yeah, he was able to help me on some things. You know, I would bounce things out which is not uncommon, you know, you do that a lot with agents. Q Okay. All right, let’s get to the time of the trial. You were present, you testified at the trial. A Yes, I did. Q Okay. And were you there at the trial after you testified? Did you observe any parts of the trial other than what you were giving testimony at? A No, just the testimony and I think that was it. Yeah, yeah, because I couldn’t go back in. Q Okay. Now, leading up to the trial you would agree would you not that this case garnered a certain degree of publicity in the Denver area, correct? A Uh-huh, correct. Q Let me ask you prior to this time had you ever had any experience dealing with a case that had as much publicity as this case? A I’ve had cases where I’ve had publicity -Q As much as this? A -- but not as much as this, no. Q And you know for lack of a better term the publicity became somewhat focused on you, did it not? A Oh, yeah, it was very personal. Q Okay. What –- when you say it was very personal what specifically are you referring to? A Well, I mean there was a former agent that was on there, Mike Riebau, that took personal attacks at me and was critical of my abilities and stuff and everybody just pretty much took off from there. Q Okay. And after the criminal prosecution occurred did this become better or worse? A I don’t know what you mean by that. Q I mean the criticisms leveled against you by the -A Well, you know I didn’t –- I just tried to set those off. I didn’t want to focus on that at all. I mean I would listen to them just like any other person I think you would react to it -Q Sure. A -- but you just set them aside and just you know pursue whatever tasks you have to do. Q I mean there was a certain degree of –- I mean I believe there was name calling involved, correct? A Well, not from my part there wasn’t. Q No, but towards you. A Oh, yeah. Q I believe one of the terms I saw and I wasn’t in Denver at the time that this was transpiring so I obviously was not privy to this but one was referring to you as Manny Almost, did you hear that instead of Olmos

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

as a? A Q -A Well, I grew up with that I mean so that doesn’t bother me. I mean I always heard the Almost so that was not a. Q Okay. Did you feel that the pundits, this public scrutiny was focusing on the fact that you failed to get a criminal prosecution? A You know, for me? Q Uh-huh. A I can only speak for me, I can’t speak for them or whatever. As far as I was concerned you know I was going to do my part and I was going to present whatever we had to the extent that I could put together the case with having said what I said but I wasn’t driving the bus per se and that was it. And if it went one way or the other it didn’t matter because you know what? I always knew that I still had the other part of it which I would tell the investigators, you know, this is not the end of the road for me guys. I still have another part that comes with this. Q Okay and when would you tell the investigators that? A Oh, when we were doing the criminal. Q Okay so before there was a conviction or an acquittal? A Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah. Q All right. Now, do you recall when it was that Mr. Voorhis was acquitted? th A I think it was April the 10 I think of ’08 or yes ’08 I think it was. Q Okay, that sounds about right. And where were you when he was acquitted? Were you at the courthouse? A I was at the courthouse. Q Okay. And how long after that period of time did you begin the administrative portion of this? A I think it was within probably a couple of weeks after that. Q Okay so within the April, 2008 time period? A Right, right. Q And what was going on at that point in time. I apologize, I’m not doing that on purpose. I have a frog in my throat. What was going on in terms of the investigation? A In terms of –- well at that point we were starting to interview people. Q And that again –- what was the scope of the investigation? You mentioned OPR’s scope was administrative at that point? Yeah, they could have said, I mean. That’s not something that you recall, the press

19 A Administrative, strictly administrative at that 20 point. 21 Q Okay and starting in April? 22 A Yes, uh-huh. 23 Q Okay. And you said you began interviewing 24 people? 25 A That is correct. 0023 1 Q How long did that interview process last? 2 A I think we finished, it might have been like 3 May, no I think it was July. I think I finished with rd 4 Cory and I think it was July the 3 or something like 5 that of ’09. I think he was the last one. 6 Q Well, I think we –- I understand the dates may 7 be a little bit confusing -8 A Okay. 9 Q -- but in fact there was an investigation or an 10 interview, a polygraph interview of Mr. Rouco on July th 11 10 , correct? 12 A Oh. 13 Q And that was part of this, was it not? 14 A That was yeah. Basically by then we had, we 15 were just now following up on additional, that particular 16 issue that had come up that being that probably Rouco 17 might have known more and then once I was done with him 18 we proceeded to vet that out. 19 Q Okay, was Mr. Rouco the last person that you 20 interviewed? 21 A So then at that point I think that was the last 22 interview that we did. 23 Q Okay. I’d like to show you a document that we 24 got from discovery. 25 A Okay. 0024 1 Q I have some copies of this. Okay, that probably 2 looks familiar. I’ll ask you to turn -- it’s kind of – 3 we’ve kind of done this in reverse chronological order I 4 guess is the best way to describe it so I’ll ask you to 5 turn four pages in if you could. 6 A The beginning of the report? 7 Q Correct. And I was going to ask you to identify 8 that this is a report of investigation. Do you recognize 9 maybe not this specific document but do you recognize the 10 form? 11 A Uh-huh, the form uh-huh. 12 Q Yep. 13 A I do. 14 Q And do you recognize and now I’ll ask you 15 specifically, have you ever seen this document as its 16 prepared here today? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Okay and how did you see this?

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0026 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

A This I sent to I believe it was Cook because he was the one that said -– yeah I had sent the information to David Cook as per the resident agent in charge, Don Charrobe of OPR. Q I’m sorry, can you say that again? You sent it to David Cook? A Correct, at the instructions of resident agent in charge, Don Charrobe. Q Okay, your boss? A Yeah, right. Q Okay and why did your boss, Mr. Charrobe, tell you to send to this to Mr. Cook? A Actually I was filing a complaint is what was I doing. Q Okay. A And I told him that I would be filing one and he told me to send it to Cook and then he would pass it through the channels. Q Okay. Okay and again Mr. Cook is your coworker? A That is correct. Q Okay. So why was it important to send it to Mr. Cook? A I could have sent it to the JIC but in this case I just said I’ll send it to you and then he sent it up to the JIC. It ultimately -- whatever gets open ultimately goes to the intake center. Q Okay. A So whether it comes directly from the field agent into the JIC or if it comes to OPR and then OPR then sends it to the JIC. Q Okay. A And then the JIC determines where it’s going to go or who is going to look at it. It gets, it needs to be cleared at that point. Q So again my question is, is why would you send it to Mr. Cook if you could have just sent it directly to the JIC yourself? A I just chose to send locally. Q Okay. I’ll ask again and it may be that I’m asking it in a –- not in as direct way as I should but I’m looking specifically for the rationale, not the fact that you did do it. I understand that you did. A Right. Q But why you did it? A I just –- that was the route that I had decided to take. I mean I don’t know that there was anything special about it because my complaint was my complaint. Whether he took it or I sent it to the JIC, whatever I was sending in was going to be the make up of that report so it didn’t matter if it went to David or if it went to the JIC. The information would be the same. In other

21 22 23 24 25 0027 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0028 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

words, nothing was going to change. Q Right. So again I guess that’s sort of why I’m asking that question. Why involve an intermediary, in other words, he’s your co-worker. Why bug Mr. Cook to send your stuff on if you could have sent it yourself? A Yeah, it doesn’t, well like I said it’s just a preference. That’s all it is. Q So this would be the way that you would do it in any situation? A Well, what do you mean? Q You said it’s your preference so. A Yeah, that was, in other words, if I was -let’s just say that I was with the office of investigation, I could have sent it to Cook. I could have said Cook, I’m going to send you my complaint and then he would prepare it and then he would send it to the JIC or I could have gone straight to the JIC but it’s just a preference, that’s all it is. Q So again it’s -– there’s really –- I’m not hearing and correct me if I’m wrong but I’m -A Because there isn’t it’s just -Q -- I’m really not hearing an explanation of why you -- instead of on the e-mail you didn’t send it to the Joint Intake Center, instead of sending an e-mail directly to the Joint Intake Center you sent it to Cook. A Well, I can’t make it any more clear to you, it’s just a preference. I decided to send it through David as opposed to send it to the JIC. Q Okay. A Nothing prohibits me from not sending it to David. Nothing says I got to go to the JIC. As a matter of fact, I could have even gone to the OIG but I chose not. I just said I’ll give it to David and then he can kick up to JIC. Q Okay, when you said you could have gone to the OIG that’s an entity we haven’t discussed of yet. A Yes. Q You could have sent this to the OIG. Why didn’t you do that? A Again we’re back to the same thing. It’s just a preference, that’s all it is. Q Did you believe that the individuals you were complaining about had engaged in illegal activity? A I think that what they were attempting to do I think it was. Q Was criminal? And is –- tell me is there any obligation to report alleged criminal activity to OIG? A Well, here’s the thing is you have to make the report, whether it’s to OIG, whether it’s to OPR or whether it’s to the JIC. As long as you report it to one of those entities you’re reporting it. Q Okay. And is that true for you as an OPR agent

23 24 25 0029 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

as well as for every other employee of ICE? A Yes, as far as I know. Q Okay. MR. ERBE: Is that a directive of reporting employment conduct, you can just report it to any three of the bodies but there is a directive on reporting employment conduct. MR. MUTHER: Okay, thanks. I remember back in my days with the DHS there was a little bit of a turf battle as to OIG wanting to get copied on everything so. MR. ERBE: And that’s not to say, I guess that’s not to say, that’s not to say that once it gets reported to the JIC and then it goes up to OIG and they get first crack at it and then it funnels back down but how it’s reported doesn’t really matter. MR. MUTHER: Oh, I see. MR. ERBE: But OIG will eventually look at it, right? THE DEPONENT: That is correct. MR. ERBE: Okay. MR. MUTHER: Okay. All right. Q (By Mr. Muther) Now, in this report or in this, in Mr. Cook’s write up of the investigation he indicates that you allege that ASAC Gallion, SSA Garrison and SSA Lembke perpetuated intentional and malicious falsehoods also which were aimed at SSA Olmos in what appeared to be an attempt to discredit SSA Olmos’ credibility in an ongoing criminal and administrative investigation. Does that succinctly indentify your complaint? A I think that pretty much. Q Okay. And it goes on later to indicate that on th May 15 you sent an e-mail to this effect, correct? The second page of this document. It says on the top of that on May 15, 2008 Senior Special Agent David Cook contained an e-mail -A Right. Q -- containing information, correct? A That is correct. Q And did you in fact send that e-mail? A Yes, I sent the e-mail to him. Q And when did you send it, do you know? th A I imagine it was the 15 . Q Okay. And he says a verbatim copy of SSA Olmos’ e-mail follows. A Right. Q And I’ll go down to the second paragraph it says, “SSA Voorhis is the subject of a criminal and an administrative investigation involving the misuse of law enforcement indices and property.” A Uh-huh.

23 24 25 0031 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0032 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


Correct? That’s correct. Do you remember writing that?

A Vaguely, I haven’t seen this since I wrote it so I’m just going to say that but now I’ve got to take this at face value that this is the complaint and the report but I haven’t seen it since I wrote it. Q Okay. A I think it was the last time I think I saw this. Q All right. I mean do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Cook would change anything on your email? A No, I don’t think so. Q Okay. I guess I suppose had you forwarded it directly to the JIC yourself we wouldn’t have had a question about that, right? But anyway, let me ask you something. On May 15, 2008, what criminal investigation was pending against Mr. Voorhis? th A On the 15 of May, well at that point I don’t think that we had interviewed him yet because at the interview when you interview a subject there’s a potential to be a criminal investigation, it could turn into that. So I don’t know at that point if there is going to be one definitely but there could be one. Also, maybe the way you see it may not be accurate but there is the potential that it could go criminally depending on what the outcome is of that interview. th Q So in other words he may lie in July 10 of 2008 when you interview him and that may make it a criminal investigation at that time? Is that what your testimony is? A Let me see here. That’s what I’m thinking is why I wrote that. That’s the only thing that I can think of is in no way because we interviewed him in I believe it was July of ’09 if I’m not mistaken and we were doing some of the interviews and I still hadn’t interviewed him. Q But again I think -A That’s the only thing, now right there at that instant, no absolutely no, there was not a criminal investigation going on. It was, at that point it was administrative. Q I believe your testimony earlier was that it was strictly administrative at that point in time. A Right, well this is what I’m getting at is that when you go into administrative investigations there’s always the potential that it can go criminal. Q But it hadn’t gone criminal. A Oh, no, no, no, no, and that’s what I’m saying at that point from what I’m looking at here I guess the

23 24 25 0033 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0034 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

correct thing should have been administrative, just strictly administrative. Q Okay, so you were incorrect in saying that he was the subject of a criminal prosecution. A Right, at that point. Q And in fact I understand that at any point in time if somebody perjures themselves during any investigation that could turn potentially criminal but it’s true, is it not that OPR does not consider an administrative investigation criminal until that in fact happens? A Until that in fact happens, yes. Q Okay so as of May 15, 2008 -A That is correct. Q -- there was no criminal investigation? A No. Q But that is what you reported to Mr. Cook? A Yeah, right. Q Okay. Do you know why you made that mistake? A You know I don’t know. I don’t have the answer for you. Q Okay. What was the outcome into the investigations into either ASAC Gallion, the other two are escaping me here, SSA Garrison and SSA Lembke? A I have no idea. Q To your knowledge have any of them been disciplined? A Not that I know and I haven’t looked into it at all. Q Okay, I’ll refer you to the first page of this document. Do you recognize this document? A No, I don’t think I’ve seen this. No, I don’t think I’ve seen this document. Q Well, let me ask you not this specific document but do you recognize this format? A No. Q At the bottom it says on 5/15/08 SSA Manuel Olmos OPRDE, I assume DE is Denver, alleged that ASAC Joseph Gallion, Detroit I assume DT, SSA Orton Garrison and SSA Jeffrey Lembke DE and again I assume Denver perpetrated intentional and malicious falsehoods which were aimed at Olmos in what appeared to be an attempt to discredit Olmos’ credibility in an ongoing criminal and administrative investigation. Do you know what the next statement is? 6/26/08 JR upgraded to special inquiry. Do you know what that would mean? A Well, the only, well no I don’t know what that means. Well the only thing, I don’t know what the JR is but special inquiry I don’t know what they mean by special investigative unit but that’s all I can think of. Q Okay and then the next sentence FF Robert Kurtz assigned. Do you know who FF Robert Kurtz is?

25 0035 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0036 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0037



Q Who is that? A He’s a Senior Special Agent in headquarters that’s assigned to the Special Investigations Unit. Q Okay and what is that SIU or Special Investigations Unit do? A They typically handle investigations involving OPR personnel and very I would say 15 SECs in that type of investigations involving those kind of category individuals. Q Okay. And then it appears that the next sentence, well there’s a sentence that starts VR 7/15/08. Do you know what that means? A No. Q And then it says FF and I assume FF is fact finder. Findings were unsubstantiated. A I agree with that, the FF. Q Okay. So from this document at least would you agree that it appears that the investigation into Mr. Gallion was unsubstantiated by Robert Kurtz. A That is what it says here. Q Okay. And the next document, is this a document that you’re familiar with ? A No, this one I haven’t seen. I haven’t seen this one. Q I mean again my specific question is have you ever seen this type of document before not necessarily this specific document? A No. You see reports of investigations, that’s what we work with. Yeah, I don’t, I’ve never seen this but to me just based on from what I’m seeing it looks like this may be a cover sheet from a fact finder standpoint as opposed to an OPR investigation. Q Okay and would you agree though that this is from Brian Moskowitz I believe is the –- at the time I believe he still is the SAC in Detroit through Tracy Lembke who I presume at the time was probably your third line, fourth line supervisor? A No. She was not in my line of supervision. Q No? A Un-huh? Q All right, why would it have gone through her then? A Maybe because Gallion falls under her for some program or something, I don’t know. Q I see she had already been taken out of that, your supervision by that time, correct? A Yeah, oh yeah, uh-huh. Q Okay, through Michael Harris, I see. And it appears at least to me and I would ask you to agree or disagree based on your feelings that this again shows

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0038 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0039 1 2

that this issue was unsubstantiated? A I’m sorry, what was that? Do I agree with that? Q Yes. A No, I don’t agree with that but that’s what they determined. Q I see so I’m asking you specifically if you agree that’s what the document says? A Oh, yeah, I mean I agree with the document. Q You don’t agree with the finding? A Right. Q Okay. Just like you really didn’t agree with the finding of the jury in Mr. Voorhis’ case, correct? A No, it was what it was. I can’t, I mean that’s how we get the jurors to go up and that’s how they decide. If that’s how they feel that’s how they feel. Q Okay but in fact you expressed your disagreement with the jury’s finding in an investigation interview that you did with Mr. Powers, did you not? A I’m not sure about that. Maybe I said that they really didn’t look at everything like they should have, at least the way I see it. Q So in other words you disagreed with their findings? A No, I can accept the findings. I just feel that I think they should have taken more time. Q The jury? A The jury, correct. Q Okay. And you expressed that to Mr. Powers, do you recall? A You know I don’t know if I did. Q But Mr. Powers was an individual you were interviewing pursuant to an investigation into Mr. Voorhis’ administrative -A You know I don’t know if that came up. I don’t know. Q Okay. So if it were in the records of Mr. Powers’ transcript in the investigation, you wouldn’t dispute that? A Oh, I wouldn’t dispute it, no, un-huh, but I can’t recall that I actually got into that discussion. Q Okay. Now, given the personal nature of the attacks, the press and the publicity leading up to the criminal trial and again given your apparent personal concerns that you were being, your credibility, your integrity was being impugned, why didn’t you recuse yourself from this investigation? The administrative portion of the investigation? A There was -– I don’t see that there was any need for that. I mean if there was an issue all of my work gets reviewed by several levels of supervision. If there was an issue with that I’m sure it would have come down and said we’re going to remove you from this

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0041 1 2 3 4

investigation, it’s going to be turned over to somebody else. Q My question was more one of your own judgment and feelings regarding your ability to do this investigation, why didn’t you ask to be recused? A Because I think I can be straight with things. They are what they are. It’s, I don’t try to bring in my feelings per se. I mean yeah, there’s some things that are said and everything but if something is for lack of a better example, if something turns out to be that it’s blue it’s going to be blue. I’m not going to try and skew that to something else that it should be this. It is what it is. Q But now in terms of your investigation into Mr. Voorhis and many of the –- these folks, Gallion, Lembke and Garrison, they were providing testimony, were they not? A Yes. Q In Mr. -A Well, you mean in the court or? Q In general, I mean they were involved in the investigation? A They were involved, I know Lembke was involved in the administrative and criminal but the others were not. I think of those names that you mentioned the only one that I can think of is Lembke. The rest were all -well Joe Gallion wasn’t even involved. The only other person was Garrison -Q Okay. A -- and in terms of administrative we talked to him. Q Okay so again Mr. Garrison was the subject of your investigation or at least he was a witness -A He was a witness, he was not the subject. Q -- in your investigation. Mr. Lembke was as well. You talked to Mr. Lembke as part of the investigation? A Oh, yeah, yeah, oh yeah, correct. Q And at the same time you’re filing a complaint because they’re impugning your credibility. A Yes. Q And you didn’t feel there was a conflict of interest involved there? A No, no. Q You didn’t feel that you were going to be unable to necessarily impartially look at their testimony and consider it in that regard from an impartial way? A I, no, I felt that I could do this. I didn’t, that was not, I could deal with that and if that was an issue, like I said I have several levels of supervision. If they felt that there was going to be a big issue then they would have asked me to be removed.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0042 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0043 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q So in other words because your supervisors didn’t say anything you figured you were okay going forward on this, is that right? A Yeah, you could say that. Q What was Mr. Gallion’s malicious statements regarding you? A Well, basically what they were trying, what they were trying to suggest and what I gathered from based on what Lembke had said, is they were trying to bring in an incident that happened in El Paso with Customs Internal Affairs. And this I talked to Cory about when we were walking out and Cory is fully aware of it, to some extent we talked about it. Q So there was -A Because there was talk that they were going to try to bring that in to try to I guess discredit me or something to that effect. Q Well, first of all, who was going to try to bring it in? A It was a criminal –- the defense at the time. Q Okay and why would Mr. Gallion be responsible for what the defense brought in? A Well, Gallion what happened is from what I understand is that and this is according to Lembke is Lembke was, went to Gallion because I think he either said he had talked to Gallion years back and remembered something to the effect of why I was in Denver so he went to Gallion to see what he knew about it from what I remember and Gallion somehow was going to put him in contact with the guy that knew as to what had happened in El Paso something to that effect. Q And so again what did Gallion do? A He was conduit is what he was. Q So he was going to put Lembke into contact with somebody and for that reason you filed a complaint against him alleging that he was negatively impacting your credibility? A Yes. Q Do you have any knowledge of anything that Mr. Gallion said in any way that was disparaging towards you? A Well other than what I heard from Lembke and that was it. Now, I can’t give you the verbatim what he said. I’m just going off from some of that stuff that I remember from off the top. Q Okay so now you’re an OPR agent? A Right, uh-huh. Q And you’re filing a complaint against an ASAC in Detroit based upon what somebody in Denver told you he said? A Now wait a minute, the complaint was actually filed on three individuals. Now, what the fact finder decided to do, who he wanted to specifically single out

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0044 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0045 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

as the main target that I can’t control. Q Sir, you -A But I know -Q Sir, you filed a complaint against Joseph Gallion, correct? A And there’s Bart Garrison and Jeff Lembke. Q Sir, my question is very simple. MR. ERBE: He’s saying that Gallion was the conduit to spread the rumor. That’s just, I mean he’s reporting Gallion for spreading the rumor. MR. MUTHER: That’s not what he just testified to. He testified to the fact that he was going to put him into touch with somebody who knew something. MR. ERBE: He was the conduit to El Paso to see what was going on. That’s what he’s saying. So you report the employee misconduct on all three individuals. If the ASAC does not stop that in its track and instead perpetrates it, then that employee ASAC is also employee misconduct as well. MR. MUTHER: But it was found to be unsubstantiated. MR. ERBE: That’s right, but it’s still an allegation of employee misconduct and has to be looked into. Q (By Mr. Muther) And again your basis was something that Jeff Lembke told you? A That is correct. Q Okay. Let’s turn to the third page of your report of investigation or I guess actually Dave Cook’s report of investigation. A Okay. Q Since September 2006 to the present day, I’m reading from the top of the paragraph -A Let me see, what’s the -Q Since September 2006 to the present day, this investigation has been intensely contested by SSA Voorhis and his supporters, many of whom are personnel of the ICE Denver office. Which supporters are you referring to? A The people that I’m referring to specifically is Jeff Lembke, Bart Garrison, Powers, Jordan, those are the individuals that I’m speaking about. Q And then of course Mr. Voorhis himself, correct? Why is Mr. Lembke’s and Mr. Garrison’s support of Mr. Voorhis something to include in a complaint to OPR? A I had received information –- this is prior to Lembke making the disclosure in the interview, the OPR interview, prior to that two things. One was it just happened that I was listening to the radio and there was talk about the El Paso incident. The other was I had heard from Dave Cook and I don’t know if he, I think he got it from Bart Garrison and I’m not for certain on that but there were some statements made to Cook something

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0046 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

about that, you know, Manny almost was involved in some incident in El Paso and everything, that type of thing. To me I –- the initial one –- I think the first one that I heard was I think what Dave Cook had mentioned and then when I heard the radio you know I said, well I guess they’re going to try and bring it up. And then when I had the interview with Lembke he pretty much told me you know, I didn’t solicit that information. He gave it up on his own and he said this is what happened and this is where I was going with this. Q Let me ask you, why does that categorize them as a supporter of Cory Voorhis? A Well, it’s just my interpretation. Q Okay, so in other words because they were raising allegations of misconduct against you they must be supporters of Cory Voorhis? A No, not necessarily true. Q Well then explain why is -– because they raised these issues why are they supporters of Cory Voorhis? A No, no, well they are supporters in the sense that they truly believed that he was innocent in what he did and they felt that he did no wrong whatsoever. I disagree with that. Q Uh-huh. A And that’s why I say that they’re supporters of Cory Voorhis. Q Okay and again that’s something that you felt important to include in your complaint against them -A I did. Q -- pending your investigation into Mr. Voorhis? A Yeah, if you want to look at it that way, sure. Q Were you ever questioned by anybody regarding this allegation? A Yes, I was interviewed by Robert Kurtz I think is the name. Q And was it involving just the ASAC in Detroit or was it involving Garrison and Lembke? A No, just -- well it wasn’t necessarily specific to one, it was just the allegation in general. Q Okay, let’s talk a little bit about that allegation. A Okay. Q What are you supposed to have done in El Paso? A The allegation that surfaced in El Paso, there was an agent there that made some bogus, baseless, malicious statements about myself and other Hispanic agents and this agent was a white agent. Q Okay, that’s, what were those allegations? A They said that I and others, other Hispanic agents, we were part of the Mexican Mafia, that we were corrupt, that we, he made several things. I can’t remember all of them but those were the ones that stand

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0048 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0049 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

out. Q What time frame are we talking about? A We are talking –- this was before I want to say the later, the late part of 1998 because we were in the process of receiving the Commissioner’s award. Q Okay. 1998. A It was sometime in I want to say September because I think we went to Washington in October of 1998. Q Was the Commissioner’s conference here in Denver? A It was in Washington, D.C. Q I was going to say I was at the Commissioner’s conference in 1998 I thought it was here in Denver. A That’s when Kelly was the commissioner. MR. ERBE: This is Customs. THE DEPONENT: Customs. MR. MUTHER: Customs, there we go, all right. Q (By Mr. Muther) I wasn’t questioning you on that, I just -A Actually it was pretty nice. Q Okay, so there were allegations that you were in the Mexican Mafia? A Right. Q Were those reported to OPR or the equivalent thereof at Customs? A Well at that time it wasn’t set up the way it’s set up now. Back then you had Customs internal affairs and then you had the Office Inspector General which was under, because we were under Treasury, so it would be Treasury. What happened ultimately is they assigned it to a flying squad, they assigned the allegation to a flying squad which was made up of individuals -- I think one of them was out of headquarters and the other ones were either senior, no they were either RACS of other internal affairs offices. Q Okay and what was the finding of the flying squad? A It was unsubstantiated. Q Okay, now were you transferred from El Paso or did you voluntarily relocate? A I directly attribute my transfer to this, to the incident. Q Okay so -A I basically received a letter that said you take the job or you lose your job, either move to Denver or you lose your job. Q So in other words then these allegations –somebody in Customs took these allegations to be serious enough to suggest that you transfer, is that correct? A Well, that’s not the way the letter, that’s not the way the letter was prepared. Q Understood but I’m asking your interpretation of

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0050 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0051 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

that letter. A My interpretation of the letter is I attribute that directly to the allegation. Now the letter said on the other side that it was for the good of the service. Q Sure, but they fire people for the good of the service, right? A Well I don’t know about that but -Q For the efficiency of the service, I mean that’s the standard on which termination actions are taken, right? MR. ERBE: But just for clarification I mean this was and correct me if I’m wrong, Manny, this was a nationwide transfer of a lot of agents –MR. MUTHER: Okay, I understand, wait, wait, Bob, Bob, I understand –MR. ERBE: -- and he was –MR. MUTHER: This is a deposition, I prefer to get it from him. MR. ERBE: Oh, I understand. MR. MUTHER: And you’re essentially at this point in time testifying for him. MR. ERBE: I understand that but you’re getting confused because you’re saying –- because the way he’s giving an answer and you’re thinking that because of the allegation he’s being transferred and I think –MR. MUTHER: The record will speak for itself. MR. ERBE: Okay, okay. MR. MUTHER: And your clarification is appreciated, but at the end of the day if I’m confusing it -– I said it, if I’m confusing something let me know. THE DEPONENT: Uh-huh. Q (By Mr. Muther) Okay, that’s, I’m not here to confuse you. I’m just hearing you say that you directly attributed your transfer to Denver to the allegations that were made against you in El Paso, correct? A That is correct, that’s what I attribute that to. Q Okay, all right. Did you challenge that transfer based on that? A Yes. Q Okay. And was that substantiated, your challenge? A Well, we ultimately came to the agreement just earlier this year. I’m trying to remember, I want to say May finally this thing was put to bed, in May of ’09. Q Okay, so this is an issue that’s pending? A Oh, ongoing. MR. ERBE: Just for clarification he filed an EEO complaint, so that’s why -- just so you –- I mean –THE DEPONENT: And there was a lot of stuff that came with this but without getting into all the -Q (By Mr. Muther) I understand, but you had a

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0052 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0053 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

pending EEO complaint until May of ’09? A Yes. Q And I assume you filed it probably within 45 days of your transfer or they would probably would have said it was untimely, correct? A Well, there was all kinds of issues, but -Q Okay, when did you file it? MR. ERBE: It complicated it because at that time there was also a national lawsuit with a Hispanic agents within Customs so that created a lot of issues that you know it’s very convoluted. Q (By Mr. Muther) But anyway, you had a pending and I don’t need to know the details, I don’t want to know the details, but during the pendency of your EEO complaint you were simultaneously and I’m not saying the two are related in any way but you were likewise doing the investigation into Mr. Voorhis, correct? A Yes. Q Okay. And okay. And so the fact that Mr. Lembke, Mr. Garrison and to a certain extent as a conduit or however you want to refer to it, the ASAC in Detroit, Mr. Gallion, were discussing this issue and raising this issue it was related again to these same allegations that were leveled against you in El Paso about being a member of the Mexican Mafia? A Right. Q Okay. Okay, let’s talk a little bit about the investigation, the administrative investigation. Did he -– well let’s talk a little bit about the investigation, sorry I got a little bit off the track there but you investigated a number of people in the administrative investigation, correct? I mean I should say you questioned a number of people? A I interviewed yeah. Q It’s getting late, I apologize. Ms. Jordan? A Yes. Q Mr. Lembke? A Yes. Q Mr. Garrison? A Yes. Q Mr. Powers? A Uh-huh. Q Mr. Rouco? A Yes. Q And I believe also Mr. Cop and Mr. Maldonado? A No. Q No, which of those two are? A I didn’t talk to either one. Q Okay. Did anybody? A No. Q All right, who else did you talk to in your investigation?

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0054 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0055 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

A Snow, Al people. Q A number. Q here and A

Robert Cruz, Ike Goodwin, John Fiordalis, Chris Sosa, Santos Valenzuela, I interviewed about 15 All told about 15? I mean I’m guessing, I’m just throwing that Let me show you the document that’s provided take a look at that. Oh, yeah, I did talk to Paul. I forget.

Q Yeah, so you did talk to him? Does that reflect your recollection, did you talk to Mr. Cop at all? A No, I didn’t talk to Cop. Q Okay, all right. Now, in interviewing these individuals did you tape record or transcribe in any way the investigative notes? A What we did is or what I did was I recorded the interviews and then they submitted a written affidavit. Q Okay. And why both just out of curiosity? A Purely in this I made my intentions known to my supervisor that I would be recording all interviews because there was always this thing that I was doing something underhanded, they were, you know, people were always suggesting that, you know raising these issues and I said you know, to avoid all of that we’re just going to record them so that if that ever surfaces the recording is there. Q Okay, I’m actually more interested not in why you tape recorded it, that seems to me like a fairly sound law enforcement thing to do. I’m asking why you did both, a tape recording and an affidavit? A Well, because we take, we just usually take from the witnesses we just take a affidavit. We talk to them, we interview them but we don’t record them. Subjects we record and then take an affidavit but in this case because of all the people that are going to be involved and knowing what I went through in the criminal, some of the things that were surfacing that you know to avoid any issues down the road that’s why I chose to do both, to record the interview and then get the affidavit. Q Okay, not to beat a dead horse but I don’t think you quite understood my question. A Well, I’m not sure which. Q You’re tape recording a conversation -A Right. Q -- you have everything that’s said -A Uh-huh. Q -- why are you getting an affidavit as well? A Because technically we’re supposed to grab the affidavit. Q Is that a requirement? A Yes, that is a requirement and that’s why. And the recording was nothing more than a safeguard, I guess,

19 if you will, in case any issues came up that no I didn’t 20 say that or he said this or whatever, the recording is 21 there. 22 Q Okay, so you’re required to get an affidavit -23 A Yes. 24 Q -- of everybody you talk to? 25 A Yes. 0056 1 Q Okay. Is that a policy or is that just a -2 A Yes, no that is policy. 3 Q preference? Okay. All right, so let’s talk a th 4 little bit then about the July 10 interview of Tony th 5 Rouco. Prior to July 10 , just so it’s clear, July 10 6 was the polygraph interview. 7 A Okay. 8 Q Prior to that how many times had you talked to 9 Mr. Rouco? 10 A He was interviewed twice. I wasn’t involved in 11 the interviews. 12 Q Okay, who was it that was involved in those? 13 A Dave Cook and Steve Perino. 14 Q Okay. All right and why wouldn’t you have been 15 involved in those? 16 A What happened right about that time something 17 came up, I can’t remember but they said no. I’m trying 18 to think what it was that they wanted me to start working 19 on. What was it? I can’t remember what it was. 20 Something came up because I was even opposed to it 21 because I wanted to interview him and they said no, just 22 turn it over to these guys because you’ve got to take 23 care of it and I’m trying to remember what it was that 24 they wanted me to take care of and that’s why I didn’t 25 interview them. 0057 1 Q Okay because you were doing something else? 2 A Something else, right. 3 Q Okay. And so why were there in looking through 4 the records I think that Mr. Rouco was the only person 5 who was questioned on more than one occasion, am I 6 correct in that? 7 A No, I think Judy was interviewed twice and it 8 wasn’t because they were follow-ups. They just didn’t 9 get through the questions and there was just a 10 continuation. 11 Q With Ms. Jordan you mean? 12 A Yeah, with Jordan I believe it happened and I 13 think that was it. 14 Q But with Mr. Rouco there were follow-up 15 questions, correct and there was -16 A No, no, not follow-up, it was just a 17 continuation. In other words they didn’t get through all 18 the questions I think is what it was.


th 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0058 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q Now, are you referring to then so the July 10 interview? th A No, just prior, this is prior to the July 10 . Q All right. So but Mr. Rouco was the only individual that you called back due to potential discrepancies in their testimony, correct? A No, that doesn’t sound right. I think it was -Q Was there someone else? A What do you mean? Q Was there someone else or are you saying that you did not call Mr. Rouco back because of discrepancies? A No, it wasn’t discrepancies, it was we didn’t finish all the questions. We didn’t have enough time to finish them. We still had a lot more and I think that’s what happened that it trickled in. As a matter of fact I don’t know if it was the day after or maybe they had to set him up for another day or something but it wasn’t a discrepancy I don’t think. Q And are you referring -A I’m talking about the two interviews that were done prior to the polygraph. Q Right, correct. And I understand that, I got that. Now I’m moving on to the next interview, the third th interview on July 10 . A Oh, okay. Q Mr. Rouco was the only individual who was questioned a second time based on those discrepancies or apparent discrepancies, correct? A Oh, I see what you’re saying, yeah, okay, yeah he was called in because we were trying to vet the information on the polygraph. That’s when I called him and I called Cory for a polygraph, if they would be

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0059 1 willing to take one. 2 Q Okay and Mr. Voorhis refused to take a 3 polygraph. 4 A Yes, he declined. 5 Q Mr. Rouco said sure, I’ll do it. 6 A Yes. 7 Q You were present for the polygraph interview, 8 correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q As well as another agent, at least one agent. 11 A No, the polygrapher. 12 Q Polygrapher. 13 A Sorry, trying to get that out. 14 Q Yeah. A Mr. Perez, correct? 15 A Correct. 16 Q Anybody else? 17 A In the interview or?

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0061 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Q Yes. A No, it was just basically us two. Q Okay. And how familiar was Mr. Perez with the case at that point? A He was –- I provided him –- I’m trying to remember what I gave him. I don’t know if I sent him a summary or I briefed him or a combination of both and basically in a way it was a learning experience for me too because I had a different impression of how it worked and they clarified me as to how it works. Q Okay. A So that kind of limited the amount of information that they needed per se. So in other words they knew how they were going –- after telling them pretty much a summary and giving them some stuff that they wanted to read I had materials available or whatever, they decided how they were going to approach it. I didn’t dictate to them or whatever. Q All right, so you didn’t have to give them much in order for them to do their polygraph? A Right. Q Okay. And Mr. Rouco failed the polygraph, correct? A That is correct. Q All right. And after he failed the polygraph you continued asking him questions, did you not? A Yes. Q Can I ask, some of those questions were substantively related to the allegations against Mr. Voorhis, were they not? A Yes. Q Is there a reason why after the polygraph was concluded that you didn’t re-administer a polygraph to Mr. Rouco relating to those follow-up questions? A No, when the polygraph takes place OPR does not call the shots. It’s a polygrapher and the process was once he failed then the next step there and I was taking the polygrapher’s lead, is they interrogate the person and that’s what that was. Q Okay but they asked for example during that Rouco denies that he knew computer printouts were in the shred bin. A Right. Q That’s in the testimony. That was never followed up or corroborated through the use of a polygrapher or a polygraph? A No, in other words no, no. Q Okay. Okay and is there a reason why to your knowledge? A No it just didn’t happen. Just for the record from my understanding from what was related to me is that there’s, in a polygraph you can’t ask numerous questions.

20 21 22 23 24 25 0062 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0063 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

You’ve got to limit it to certain and only one or two at the most because they were very clear with that with me because I was under the impression well I guess you can ask all these things and they said no, you’ve got to narrow it down to a certain thing. Q Understood but you could have called him back the next day, right? A I could have, uh-huh. Q Or the day after? A Sure. Q I mean you had the polygrapher there. A Well, again, it was only done for that and that’s when we decided we were at the end and that was it. Q Okay. All right. You ultimately concluded –well I should take that back, I’m not entirely sure of that. Did you open an investigation into Mr. Rouco? A Yes, there was an investigation done. Q Okay and were you responsible for that or was another agent? A Another agent. Q That would have been Steven Perino? A That is correct. Q Just out of curiosity, is Steven Perino related in any way to Elizabeth Perino? A Yes, husband and wife. Q Okay. I couldn’t remember where I remembered Elizabeth Perino’s name until I saw Steven Perino. A And actually I don’t even know her by Elizabeth. I just later found out but she goes by Betsy. Q Okay. And, in fact, Mr. Perino substantiated a number of allegations against Mr. Rouco including willfully giving false testimony under oath during the federal criminal proceeding? Were you aware of that? A No, I’ve never seen the Redbook on Rouco so I don’t know what he put in there or how he put it together, whatever. Q Just out of curiosity, why wouldn’t you have? A I was not the –- I was –- because I was still wrapping up Voorhis’ case and I was told by management to turn over that case because they wanted to finish up with that entire investigation so they gave that portion to Perino so I wasn’t involved, I was never asked, you know, or anything. I made all my materials were available there. If he had a question he’d come ask me but I never saw the Redbook. I never saw what went out, how it was put together so I have no idea. Q Okay so if I’m understanding this correctly -A Right. Q -- there were allegations of dishonesty that were made against Mr. Rouco that were being investigated at the time you closed your investigation into Mr.

22 23 24 25 0064 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0065 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Voorhis, is that correct? A No, no, say that again. That doesn’t sound right but go ahead. Q My understanding is that there were allegations of however you want to call it, falsification, lack of candor, something involving Mr. Rouco’s dishonesty -A Right. Q -- that were pending investigation at the time that you closed your investigation into Mr. Voorhis? A I wasn’t –- I was completing it. Now, that doesn’t mean that something can trigger it to continue an investigation but at that point I was already beginning to complete the investigation. Q But again I’m –- Mr. Rouco’s investigation -A Right. rd Q -- didn’t end until April 3 of 2009, correct? A I don’t know what the date is. Q Well, I’ll show you the -A Oh, I see what you’re saying. That’s when the Redbook came out, uh-huh. Q Okay and you completed your investigation of Mr. Voorhis when? A I don’t know, I can’t remember the date. Q It’s prior to that, correct? A You know, I don’t know. Q Okay. A I don’t know when I finally -Q How was it that this complaint was generated, the complaint against Mr. Rouco? A Well, it stems from the polygraph, from everything that we knew up to that point and then the results of the polygraph. At that point the investigation was opened on Rouco as from what I recall. Q And do you know who opened it? A I did. Q You did? A Uh-huh. Q You didn’t forward it to Mr. Cook? A No. I did forward it to the JIC. It goes to the JIC. Q Okay. A It always goes to the JIC. Q Okay. I’ll show you another document which was provided to us in discovery. I don’t have a copy to make it a deposition exhibit but you can just show Mr. Erbe. MR. ERBE: I’ve got a copy. MR. MUTHER: Okay. Q (By Mr. Muther) Could you identify what this document is? A This is the from what I -– this is what the polygrapher -- that was his report.

23 24 25 0066 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0067 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Q Okay and what was that -– when was that dated? A I mean I’m not familiar with there reports so I -– well from what I see here it’s 7/30 of ’08. That’s the day I see when it was signed. Q 7, when was that? A 7/30/08. Q Okay and that’s the -– in essence that’s a synopsis of the report of the findings, correct? A The report, right. Q Okay. Do you know when did you first see this document? A I don’t know, I mean it’s hard to say because we were going back and forth. Once he finished and I know there was a time there when we weren’t able to talk to each other because I don’t know if he was on travel or I was on travel or something but I ultimately –- he finally sent me the what would be his report. Q Okay and meaning this document right here? A Right, well, when he sent it to me initially it wasn’t with the heading and everything. He just said look, this is my report, this is what’s coming. Q Okay and when did you see that do you know? A No, I can’t even give you a date. I just don’t, I can’t. Q Was it a week, a day after, a week after the investigation? A I don’t know. Q Regardless you knew at the day of the investigation, July 10 , that Mr. Rouco had failed his polygraph, correct? th A On the 10 , yes, we already knew. Q Okay. All right. Okay. All right, I’m getting through all this stuff. Now, you in addition to polygraphing Agent Rouco, supervising Special Agent Rouco, you also recorded that conversation, did you not? A The polygraph itself, yes. Q And the subsequent interrogation? A Oh, yes, everything was recorded. Q Okay. Did you have Mr. Rouco, Agent Rouco fill th out an affidavit after that July 10 , 2008? A No, no, un-huh. Q But I thought you said that is OPR policy to have an affidavit completed after -A In that case it wasn’t because of the length of that interview which was no different than what we did with Cory. Q Right. In Mr. Voorhis’ case you didn’t have him fill out an affidavit, correct? A Right. So it’s basically because of the length and the amount of information that was just involved it

23 was just going to be pretty hard for the individual to 24 try to -– so it was more we would go with the recording. 25 Q Okay. You, however, completed an affidavit 0068 1 regarding the testimony of Agent Rouco, did you not? 2 A In regards to the -th 3 Q July 10 , 2008? 4 A It was –- I call it a summary. It’s what we 5 call an agent’s affidavit which we do those. 6 Q Right. Let me show you, I’m just going to go 7 here. 8 MS. TRANEL: We have a copy. 9 MR. ERBE: I have a copy here. 10 Q (By Mr. Muther) Is this the affidavit that you 11 completed? 12 A Yeah, it looks like it, uh-huh. 13 Q And this is a one, two, three page affidavit not 14 including signatures, right? 15 A Right. 16 Q And let me ask you this real quickly -17 A Sure. 18 Q -- in terms of signatures I see a signature on 19 the third page, is that yours? 20 A On number 3, yes, that’s me. 21 Q Number 4 who are those folks who signed? 22 A That is Perino and Cook. 23 Q Okay, why did they sign, as witnesses or? 24 A Yeah, right, right, uh-huh. 25 Q Witnesses to your signature? 0069 1 A Right. 2 Q But not to -3 A To me affirming to my affidavit. 4 Q Okay but they were not present during the July 5 10, 2008? 6 A They were present. They were –- what happened 7 is we had a –- we were recording in a separate room 8 because of the way the process that was involved during 9 the polygraph we didn’t want to interrupt that so in case 10 you know the system broke down on us, the recording or 11 whatever, somebody could still continue to record. 12 Q So they were -13 A So they were in a separate room as I was 14 initially. I was not always in the room because there’s 15 a prepping process that’s involved. 16 Q Okay. So -17 A And as a matter of fact I wasn’t involved in it 18 and I wasn’t going to be involved in the actual 19 interrogation until Rouco requested that I come into the 20 interview or to the interrogation. 21 Q Okay and is that on the record do you know? 22 A Yeah, it is. 23 Q Okay. All right. We may want to mark that as

24 25 0070 1 2 3 4 5

Exhibit 1 for this deposition just so we can keep track. And Bob, I don’t have a copy of this but the document that -COURT REPORTER: Do you want to include this cover page? MR. MUTHER: No, you can just rip it off. Do you need, I’d also like at this point in time move in the th polygrapher’s report dated July 30 if I can find it. COURT REPORTER: Marking as Exhibit 1, the cover page says Department of Homeland Security, Affidavit, State of Colorado, County of Jefferson, Manuel Olmos, Exhibit 1. (Exhibit 1 was marked into evidence.) MR. MUTHER: Exhibit 1, thank you, and Exhibit 2. COURT REPORTER: And Exhibit 2 -- one, two, three, four page -- Immigration and Customs Enforcement polygraph report. The first paragraph references October 2006 and that’s Exhibit 2. (Exhibit 2 was marked into evidence.) MR. MUTHER: Okay, thank you. Q All right. I’ll show you another document now while we’re dispensing with housekeeping stuff. Oh, I’m sorry, this is again –- it appears to be some sort of memorandum or report of investigation on your part, correct? A Uh-huh.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0071 1 Q What is, did you prepare this? 2 A No, I was just going to say this is not my 3 report. 4 Q Okay, that’s –- and I’m just noticing that now 5 too it’s by Mr. Perino, correct? 6 A That is correct. 7 Q And Mr. Perino was the individual who was 8 investigating Mr. Rouco, correct? 9 A Right. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

th Q Did that investigation start on July 10 ? A Well, I don’t know, it could have. It might have been later, I don’t know. There’s no way -– these reports aren’t set up like the other reports. Q Like what reports? A Well I’m talking about office investigation. Q Oh. But I mean this appears to have been generated by Mr. Perino -A Correct. Q -- dated July 11, 2008 and pertaining to the polygraph examination of Mr. Rouco conducted on July 10, 2008. th th A So probably on the 10 , well the 11 is probably

23 24 25 0072 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0073 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

th when it was opened because I know on the 10 it was very late and I don’t know that we actually opened it that day. I can’t say. Wait a minute, this is under Cory’s case. Q this? A That you’d have to ask him. Q Well, I mean you were the case agent on this right? A Right but I don’t control what they write. You know, if they are involved in something and they write something I can’t tell him you can’t write that or you can’t add that or whatever. Q I’m just saying, I’m sorry, keep going. A No, I was just going to say that’s something I don’t –- that’s not my place to tell them that they can’t do that. Q No and I in no way wanted to imply that you should have told him not to do something. My question is why wouldn’t you have known about it if it was your case? A Well, I knew about it but it wasn’t for me to tell them you can’t do that. Do you follow me? Q Okay, so you knew that Mr. Perino was going to do this? A I knew that he had written a report and I probably thought –- I’m pretty sure I saw it but it wasn’t my position to say hey, you can’t do that. You can’t write that report. Q I understand that and believe me, it’s crystal that you are not in a position to tell him not to write a report -A Right. Q -- what did you know about why it was that he wrote this report on July 11, 2008? What did he tell you on that day or subsequent as to why he wrote this report? A You’d have to ask him. I don’t know. It’s not like we sat down and we said hey, why are you writing this report? You follow me, in other words I didn’t question him so I don’t know. That’s something you would have to ask him. Q Okay. And when you saw this report generated, presumably you did, you didn’t question it? A No, I mean. Q Okay, all right. MR. MUTHER: I’ll mark this for purposes even though I realize it hasn’t been generated by Mr. Olmos as agreed. COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 3, three page report, Case No. 2007-00389 prepared by Perino, Steven M., Report No. 059. (Exhibit 3 was marked into evidence.) This is not under Rouco’s case. Uh-huh, but okay so why would Mr. Perino do

24 25 0074 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0075 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


MR. MUTHER: Okay, thank you. Okay. You did ultimately complete the

investigation in I believe August of ’08, does that sound about right? A That sounds about right, August I don’t know the exact date but I know it was in August. Q Okay. And in completing the investigation what did you, physically what did you have to do in order to get this we call them a Redbook prepared. What did you include in that? A Well, you look at all your testimony interviews, all your documentation that you have and then from there you gather your information to support the allegation or in the case of it not –- can be substantiated or unfounded then you do that as well. So you bring everything together and you prepare a report. Q Okay. And in preparing your report I noticed that the testimony of Mr. Rouco, the taped testimony of Mr. Rouco on July 10, 2008 was not in the Redbook is that correct? A You mean the actual, the whole transcript? Q Yes. A No, it was not, no. Q Okay, why not? A Because it was so voluminous and we just decided to do –- I think that’s why I did the agent’s affidavit. Q Okay, because of the size? A The size. Q I mean in talking about the Redbook, I don’t know the copy I got was a voluminous document. A Yes. Q Multi volume. A Well -Q At least by the time it got to us. It may have been one volume for you. A From what I remember it was probably about that big, I mean yeah. Q Okay. And you included other testimony of other individuals in the transcript? A I probably -– I might have, I can’t remember exactly all the components of it. Q Okay. And again the only reason why you didn’t include Mr. Rouco’s transcript was because it was of the size? A That is correct. The other issue that comes with it is all of these pieces of information get uploaded to the system and I think that if we would have uploaded Rouco’s transcript I think it would have locked down the system. Q Did you try? A I don’t know if I did. Q Okay. Now in Exhibit, so you said that’s why

0076 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0077 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0078 1

you prepared this affidavit? A The agent’s affidavit, correct. Q Okay. And I notice in this affidavit nowhere in here is it indicated that Mr. Rouco was administered a polygraph examination and he failed that. Why wasn’t that included in your affidavit? A Well, it’s just a style of writing I mean whether, you would have liked to have seen it. That’s a different -– that’s just the way I wrote it. Management didn’t have a problem. Q Well, did management know? A Know what? Q That he had failed a polygraph? A Well, yes. Q Who in management knew? A From my immediate supervisor all the way to the El Paso office which is where our SAC office is at. Q So your management knew? A Yes. Q How about management in Denver and in headquarters, non-OPR management? A That I don’t know because I don’t speak at that level. Q So you’re saying that your management was okay, they reviewed this prior to you -A They didn’t review that specifically but my immediate supervisor knew because he was present as well when this polygraph was taken. Q Okay but my question is, I mean I think your answer to my question was is that your management was okay with the fact that your affidavit did not include evidence of the polygraph results, correct? A No, I don’t agree with you. It was just the way I wrote it. I mean because it doesn’t come right out and tell you that I don’t know what the -Q Does it imply it anywhere? A It’s there I think. Q Show me, please. A I thought it did but I guess it doesn’t. Q I mean correct me if I’m wrong, somebody flew from Washington, D.C. to Denver to administer this polygraph report, correct? A No, he’s not from Washington, D.C. Q Where is he? A He’s from, I think he was out of Houston. Q Okay, so somebody flew from Houston? A Right. Q To administer a polygraph report? A Right. Q Mr. Rouco fails the polygraph report? A Right.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0079 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0080 1 2 3

Q Okay. And an investigation is subsequently opened regarding Mr. Rouco’s lack of candor and falsification -A Right. Q -- pertaining directly to that failure of the polygraph report? A Right. Q And that’s not mentioned anywhere in the affidavit? A It’s not in the affidavit but I think it’s documented. It’s not –- if you’re suggesting that I’m trying to conceal something I’m not. I’m just writing the results of the interview. Just because I didn’t capture everything that you’d like to see there you know, I don’t know what to tell you on that. That’s the way it was written. That’s the way I wrote it. Q Well, let’s get into this a little bit. A Okay. Q You say you documented, where did you document it in the Redbook? A It’s in the case opening. I think in the Redbook I’m not sure I would have to look at it again if it’s there or not. Q And while you’re looking through that let me just ask you, Agent Rouco’s candor or truthfulness is, that’s an important part into the investigation into Mr. Voorhis, isn’t it? A It is. MR. MUTHER: Why don’t we take a five minute break and you can take a look. COURT REPORTER: We’re off the record. (Off the record from 3:57 to 4:08.) THE DEPONENT: So do you want me to take this or? COURT REPORTER: We’re back on the record. Mr. Olmos, you’re still under oath, all right? THE DEPONENT: Okay. Q Mr. Olmos, do you see anywhere in this summary or multi-page Redbook summary anything referring to the polygraph examination of Mr. Rouco? A No, there isn’t. Q Okay. And I’ve already showed you Exhibit 2, the polygraph report. That’s not included anywhere in your Redbook or the investigative materials supporting it is it? A I don’t think so. Q Okay. What’s that? No, okay. In terms of subsequent complaints or actions Ms. Jordan was investigated subsequent to her involvement in this case, was she not? A It was actually based on her testimony in court. Q But there was a subsequent investigation --

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0081 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0082 1 2 3 4

A Yes. Q -- against her. Who started that complaint? A That was Perino, Steve Perino. Q Okay and Ms. Jordan was again I believe one of the people I believe you identified as a supporter of Mr. th Voorhis in your e-mail of May 15 ? A Yes. Q Mr. Lembke, there was an investigation started relating to Mr. Lembke, correct? A Are you referring to the –- I’m not sure. Q Well, I’m referring to the one that you started based on your personal feelings about what he said. A Oh, the interview that I had with him, yes. Q When you say the interview you had with him you’re referring to again his allegations or comments regarding the Mexican Mafia? A That is correct. Q Okay. And he was a supporter of Mr. Voorhis? A Yes. Q Mr. Garrison, there was an investigation likewise? A No. Q Well, Mr. Garrison was identified in your same complaint about Mr. Lembke. A Oh, well yeah, I mean with that complaint yeah. Q Okay. And he was again a supporter of Mr. Voorhis? A Right. Q And how about Mr. Powers? Was there any investigation into Mr. Powers -A No. Q -- to your knowledge? A Un-huh. Q Okay. Let me ask you, as part of your, you mentioned that you had this EO activity that was settled in May of 2009, did you amend your complaint to add the allegations relating to Gallion that you raised with OPR in that complaint? A Are you referring to the EO that I had from way back from El Paso? Q Correct. A No, that was in and of itself, it stood by itself. Q But you indicated that it wasn’t resolved until May of 2009. A I can’t remember, for some reason I keep thinking it was May of I guess ’08 or something like that. I don’t know the exact date. Q Well, May of ’09 was three months ago, two months ago. A ’08.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0083 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0084 1 2 3 4 5

Okay, so it was May of ’08. Yeah. Okay so it was a year and three months? Yeah, it’s been –- yeah, because I was trying to get a hold of that document for tax purposes. Q Okay. Well May of ’08, that was the same time frame that you filed the complaint about Gallion wasn’t it? A I don’t know the exact date when we settled on the EEO. Q Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m wrong. I’m getting my dates confused. It was May of ’06, wasn’t it, it was after the criminal trial? Just the dates. Oh, no, okay, th it was. It was May 15 of 2008 that you filed your complaint against Gallion, Garrison and Lembke, correct? A Right. Q And that was the same month then that you settled your complaint? A Again, that’s what I’m trying to tell you, I don’t know. I can’t remember. I’m trying to remember what months it was that we settled that. MR. MUTHER: Okay. Okay, let’s -- this is the document that we were just referring to, the complaint. I’d move that in as Exhibit -COURT REPORTER: 4. MR. MUTHER: -- 4. I guess I don’t have to move anything, it’s my deposition, right. I’ll just call it Exhibit 4. COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 4 is pages -- eight pages, I think. (Exhibit 4 was marked into evidence.) MR. MUTHER: Eight pages sounds about right. Top page says -- it’s a cover page for a report, case type and file number is 2008-06-926, subject Joseph Gallion. Okay, Exhibit 4. MR. MUTHER: Okay, thank you. Q And just for clarification based on one of the questions you answered earlier, Mr. Powers, there was no allegation of ethics violation that you forwarded regarding any fund raising activities he may have been involved in? A No. Q That wasn’t something you were involved in? A No. Q Do you know if anybody was? A No, there was never to my knowledge there was nothing filed, a case opened on it. Q Well when you say a case open on it I mean any complaint maybe that was filed against him? A No, that’s what I’m saying. I’m not aware of any.


6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0085 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0086 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Okay, all right. MR. MUTHER: I think we’re done. MR. ERBE: Okay. MR. MUTHER: Thank you. THE DEPONENT: Thanks. COURT REPORTER: So same reading? MR. ERBE: Same, yeah. You’re going to read before, you’re not going to waive signature. You’re going to read the transcript and then you can see any errors in it, correct them. THE DEPONENT: Okay. MR. ERBE: And then send it back. He’s going to be at a different address so I’ll give you a different. THE DEPONENT: I’ll just get it directly from you or? MR. ERBE: He’s send it directly to you. THE DEPONENT: Oh, okay. COURT REPORTER: We’re off the record. MR. MUTHER: Before we go off real quick, I’m sorry, Mr. Voorhis just reminded me you said probably because you said you reviewed this and answered questions, we should probably identify this as Exhibit 5, this being the Redbook. COURT REPORTER: I was just trying to find one exhibit. MR. MUTHER: We’ll just go ahead and do it since that’s kind of what we’ve been doing to be safe. COURT REPORTER: And Exhibit 5. MR. MUTHER: And that’s 25 pages. COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. MUTHER: Sure. COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 5, 25 pages, oh, yeah, it says right at the top, Case No. 2007-00398 prepared by Manuel Olmos 061. Exhibit 5 and with that we are off the record. (Exhibit 5 was marked into evidence.) MR. MUTHER: Yes, thank you. (Off the record at 4:16 p.m.)


/// I, MANUEL OLMOS, do hereby certify that I have read the foregoing transcript and that the same and accompanying amendment sheets, if any, constitute a true and complete record of my testimony.


8 Signature of Deponent 9 ( ) no amendments 10 ( ) amendments attached 11 12 13 Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of 14 ______________, 2009. 15 16 Notary Public: ____________________ 17 Address: __________________________ 18 ___________________________ 19 20 My commission expires:_____________ 21 22 Seal: 23 24 25 0087 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and 4 correct transcript from the record of proceedings in 5 the above-entitled matter. 6 7 8 9 10 _______________________ September 8, 2009 11 Cheryl Turner 12 Western Deposition and Transcription, LLC 13 1400 16th Street, Suite 400 14 Denver, CO 80202 15 303.292.9400 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

To top