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: ) ANTHONY ROUCO ) ) ) ) ) )
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
Marked
1 – Three-page Calendar of Anthony Rouco.....28 8 2 – U.S. Customs Enforcement Document....... 82 9 10 11 12 13 14 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 0004 1 FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2009 2 **** 3 4 COURT REPORTER: Today is August 7, 2009. The 5 time is approximately 9:10 a.m. We are at 12445 East
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 6 7
Caley Avenue, Centennial, Colorado. This 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. Anthony Rouco. Counsel will identify themselves please. MR. MUTHER: Tom Muther from Minahan & Muther for Mr. Voorhis. MS. TRANEL: Adrienne Tranel from Minahan & Muther, also representing Mr. Voorhis. MR. ERBE: Robert Erbe, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security. COURT REPORTER: Thank you. Mr. Rouco, if you’ll raise your right hand. Do you swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give in this matter today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? THE DEPONENT: I do. COURT REPORTER: Thank you. EXAMINATION BY MR. MUTHER: Q Good morning, Mr. Rouco, how are you? A Fine, how are you? Q Is it okay if I call you Mr. Rouco, Agent Rouco, what’s appropriate, I don’t want to offend you. A Tony is fine. Q Tony, okay, great, wonderful, Tony. Have you ever been deposed prior to today? A No. Q No, okay. Essentially what’s going to happen is that this is a part of discovery in the case of Mr. Voorhis here, you are familiar with the fact that he was terminated from employment and is –- there’s an MSPB case pending case pending in that action, correct? A Correct. Q Okay, so this is the discovery process. Our goal here today is to elicit information from you that will be helpful for us in preparing Mr. Voorhis’ case for hearing. The goal is not to confuse you or to ask questions that are in some way going to be tricky or misleading in any way. If you -- if I ask you a question today that you don’t understand or may have multiple answers and you want to elaborate on those answers, please don’t hesitate to let me know that. I really want to make sure that we get the facts that we’re looking for from you and your side of the story as clearly as possible, so, please don’t hesitate to ask me to clarify any questions, all right? A Okay. Q Now, the questions not that you appear that this would be applicable to you but I ask these of all
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 8 9
deponents, are you currently on any medication that you would prevent you from testifying truthfully or coherently here today? A No. Q Are you currently under the influence of any other alcohol or other substances that might cloud your ability to testify? A No. Q Okay. Do you have any questions before we start? A No. Q Let’s start with just getting some background information from you and I’m not going to dwell too much, I think I know a lot of this but what position do you currently hold at the agency? A Supervisory Special Agent. Q Okay, and how long have you been a Supervisory Special Agent? A Q hold? A Special Agent. Q And how long did you hold that position? A 12 years. Q 12 years, okay. So you’ve got at least 21 years of law enforcement? A Yes. Q Okay. As a Supervisory Special Agent what are your primary job duties? A Right now I’m a supervisor of the Cipher and Forensic Unit so I supervise violations of computer crimes and the forensic examiners. Q And when you say supervise what does that entail? A Basically oversight, what cases worked, some guidance to the agents in terms of what they need to do, what they shouldn’t do. Q Okay. A And assigning workload. Q Do you perform, in your position as a supervisor of the Cyber and Forensic Crime Unit or division, I -A Unit. Q Unit, okay, do you have any or perform any primary law enforcement functions where you’re doing kind of nuts and bolts investigations or things that would require -- that would normally be done by an agent? A At times. Q Okay, what would those things be, those duties? A Maybe run some record checks. Q Okay, anything else? A Not really. Q Let me ask you the question and working with the A little over nine years. Okay and prior to that what position did you
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 9 10 11
supervisor or the Cyber Crimes Unit -- I don’t want to -the Cyber and Forensic Crimes Unit, is it ever necessary to get warrants? A Yes. Q Okay. And who would you go to to get a warrant? A Agent-wise or like a magistrate is usually who signs the warrants. Q The magistrate, okay a federal -A Federal yup, federal magistrate. Q Okay, do enforce state laws at all? A No. Q Okay, are you involved in the process for obtaining warrants? A I’ll review documents and I have gotten some documents –-warrants signed -- I’ve been the -- within the last six months on a couple. Q Within the last six months you’ve signed a couple warrants? A Uh-huh, yep. Q Meaning that you’ve signed that the information in this warrant is true and accurate and then presented it to a magistrate judge? A Yes. Q Can you recall when the most recent time you’ve done that is? A June I believe. Q So a month or so? A Actually, it was April, maybe April, May or June. I can’t remember exactly. Q Okay, okay. How long have you been a supervisor of the Cyber and Forensic Crimes Unit? A Maybe 2005, 2006. Q Okay, okay, within the last six months, well I take that back. Within the last one year have you been the subject of any investigations entailed by any misconduct on your part? A I believe so. Q What to your knowledge have you been the subject of investigation regarding? A I haven’t officially been told anything. Q Okay. A So I haven’t seen anything, I haven’t been told anything officially yet. Q Okay, well did somebody question you regarding alleged misconduct? A Yes. Q Okay and who was that individual? A OPR individuals. Q And do you know their names? A Manny Olmos. Q Okay. A Ed Cook and Steve Perino.
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 11 12
Q Okay. And specifically what was the subject matter of the investigation, to your knowledge? A I’m not really sure. Q Well, let me ask you, what was the subject matter of the questions that they were asking you during the investigation? A Basically if I knew what Agent Voorhis had done. Q Okay. Now, when I asked, because I asked if you had been the subject of any investigation in the last year and you indicated that the questions were relating to allegations of misconduct relating to Mr. Voorhis, how were you specifically implicated in that, as potentially somebody who is engaged in misconduct? A Basically my knowledge of the situation. Q Okay, okay, so you’re aware that there was a investigation into allegations of misconduct? A Yes. Q But you’re not aware of any findings? A No. Q Okay. Would it surprise you to know that an investigation was concluded and substantiated finding that you had engaged in, among other things, making false statements in Federal District Court? A Yes, I would be surprised. Q Okay. Let me ask you, you said that you had been questioned by OPR agents, when was that investigation or the questioning that took place, do you recall? A It was July of last year. th Q July 10 ? A I’m not sure of the date. Q Okay, okay. And since that time have you had any contact with OPR? A No. Q Okay. Since that time has anybody in your management chain told you that your duties have been restricted in any way? A No. Q Okay. Has anybody informed you that the agency referred for prosecution a case involving you, these same allegations involving this? A OPR told me that day in July that they would -they was going to present. Q Okay, so again based on what you said in the conversation in July -A Uh-huh. Q -- OPR indicated that they were going to present? A Yes. Q Okay and to your knowledge did they, in fact, present or do you have any knowledge of that?
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 12 13 14
A Just through the rumor mill I heard they did. Q Uh-huh. And when you say the rumor mill do you recall who it was that you heard that from? A No. Q Okay. You don’t recall if it was a supervisor or somebody in your chain of command that told you that? A No, I don’t think it was anybody in my chain of command. Q Okay. You don’t recall if it was somebody from OPR that told you that? A I don’t recall. Q Okay. Is it possible that you could have heard that from a U.S. Attorney’s office? A No. Q Why would that not be possible? A I don’t think they would have told me. Q Okay. Okay. So as of right now has the agency proposed any discipline against you for the same issues that were relating to your July, 2008 testimony? A No. Q Okay. Let me ask, now you mentioned that you had 21 years of law enforcement experience, at least 21 years and I think I made the point, are you close to retirement at this stage? A Close to being eligible. Q When would you –- your first –- you have a year so I assume you’re under 50, is that correct? A Correct. Q Okay, how old are you, sir? A 48. Q 48, so you have two years to retirement eligibility? A A little under two years. Q Okay, okay. Have you had any conversations either with management or OPR indicating that they are going to hold off on disciplining you and allowing you to retire? A No. Q Okay. Have you had any indications or conversations with management or OPR wherein they’ve asked you whether or not or sought assurances from you that you will retire at your earliest possible retirement date? A No. Q Okay. Okay. Let’s see if this –- all right, now in getting back to the nine years that you’ve been a Supervisory Special Agent, what if any training have you received regarding supervision in that period of time, that nine year period of time? A Within the first year I had to go through a week class in Dallas. Q Leadership Development Center?
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 14 15 16
A Yes. Q Okay. No, well, I think Mr. Erbe both have gone to that class in the past. Okay. And you said a one week course? A Correct. Q Okay. And any other courses relating to supervision? A No, I don’t recall any, well but that doesn’t necessarily mean I haven’t. Q Okay, that’s fine. Now I’m ask –- not relating to specifically supervisory training but any training that you’ve received either as an agent or a Supervisory Special Agent, have you received any formal training relating to the disclosure of information as it relates to law enforcement activities? A Just on the TECS module when you have to go through on TECS every year. Q TECS and if you could, I believe I know what TECS stands for but do you happen to know what TECS just for the record? A Treasury Enforcement Communications System. Q Okay. And how long have you had access to TECS as an agent? A Since we merged so 2003. Q Okay. All right, and that’s the only training relating to disclosure? A I can’t recall any right off the bat. Q Okay. To your knowledge, what if any policies existed either at ICE or prior to that at INS relating to the disclosure of information? A The INS had put out memorandums or directives and recently we’ve gotten some directives and directions on the Privacy Act. Q Okay. When you say recently, that was subsequent to Mr. Voorhis’ removal? A I don’t know when he was removed so. Q Okay, well let me ask you, it was after September, October of 2006 when the alleged misconduct occurred in this case? A I don’t remember the exact dates when everything came out. Q Okay. You mention INS memos and directives. I’m going to show you a document. I think you’ve seen this before but this is just a -A Yes, I’ve seen it. Q Okay. Is this one of those memos and directives that you were referring to? A Yes. Q Okay. And this is the same document that you were provided in criminal court, correct, and identified? A Yes. Q Okay. And is this a document and again I’ll
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 16 17 18
note that part of it is underlined, is this a document that you -- and I understand that you know I’m talking about the specific document, obviously this is a copy of whatever document it is and there’s a page number at the bottom but excluding those two facts, is this a document that was in your possession prior to September, October of 2006? A Yes. Q Okay. The underlining on this document, would that be your underlining do you know or somebody else’s? A I don’t recall. Q Okay. And is this a document that you would have provided to agents that worked under you? A Yes, one of them. Q Okay. What other documents would you have provided? A I have a file in my file cabinet labeled Privacy Act so I would have given them anything in the file. Q Okay. A Stuff I’ve saved throughout the years. Q Okay. Now, how would you have given this to them? Would there have been a formal training on that? A No. Q When an agent started underneath you would you give that new agent this information? A Not necessarily. Q Okay. A If they asked about it. Q Okay, so if they asked about it you would have given it to them? A Yes. Q Okay. Do you recall specifically giving this document to Mr. Voorhis? A Yes. Q Do you recall specifically giving any other documents to Mr. Voorhis relating to the disclosure of information? A I’m not sure. Q Did you have any way of recording or keeping record of issuing this type of policy to agents that worked for you? A No. Q So this was a fairly informal -A Yes. Q -- thing if somebody had a question and you think –- thought that a document may answer that question you would give them that document? A Yes. Q Okay. Do you still maintain that Privacy Act folder in your file cabinet? A Yes. Q Okay. All right. In September and October of
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 18 19 20
2006 were you supervising Mr. Voorhis? A I supervised his Castorena case. Q Okay so when you say you supervised this case, what does that mean? A I have oversight of the Castorena case because my supervisor came in. He was –- her name was Kathy Edgell and she really didn’t want to deal with immigration issues. Q Okay. And was that the only immigration issue that Mr. Voorhis was dealing with at that time? A I’m not sure. Q Okay, but again you recall specifically that the reason why you would supervising Mr. Cast –- or Mr. Voorhis on this case was because his supervisor, what was her name again, I apologize. A Kathy Edgell. Q Kathy Edgell was not interested in handling immigration cases? A She didn’t have the knowledge base. I have all the knowledge on the case. Q Okay. Did you supervise Mr. Voorhis on a Bosnian and human rights cases at that time? A Yes. Q So that was another immigration case that you supervised him on? A Yes. Q Okay. How about airport immigration cases, would you supervise him on those? A I can’t remember if I was the supervisor at the airport at the time. Q Okay. So again it sounds like there was a number of, well at least some immigration cases other than Castorena that you supervised Mr. Voorhis over, correct? A Yes, human rights. I was the point of contact for human rights and war crimes. Q Okay. Now, do you remember in trial being asked a question as to whether or not you were his supervisor in September and October of 2006? A I don’t recall the question without seeing the transcript. Q Okay, I can show you that. This may take a second, I’ll just locate the page. Thank you, sir. Okay, the question was it’s starting and sorry, I don’t mean to –- well I’ll have you, I’ll read it to you and if you can certainly look at it if you need to but just for the record purposes I’ll read it and you can tell me if you agree or disagree or if this refreshes your recollection but do you recall being asked a question. “In September and October of 2006, Agent Voorhis really had two different supervisors?” Your response being, “Yes.”
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 19 20 21 22
“He had yourself,” the question being, “He had youself?” You answering, “Uh-huh.” And then the question being, “And Kathy Edgell?” “Correct. Does that refresh your recollection? Yes. Okay. Do you need to see that to confirm it? No. Okay. And just for the record again and Mr. Erbe, if you have any objection, that’s fine I just, I was reading from Page 757 of the Criminal Court trial testimony transcript and it was specifically lines 9 through 15. MR. ERBE: All right, I have no objection. I mean just for a point in clarification, when you say supervisors, that can be used in kind of a broader context, I mean an official supervisor was Kathy Edgell and he was just, as he said he was supervising him on a particular matter so I guess that’s what we all understand that to mean, right? I mean. MR. MUTHER: Well, no, that’s what I’m going to be asking about. MR. ERBE: Okay, okay. MR. MUTHER: I mean –- you know, I just wanted to make sure that there was no objection -MR. ERBE: Right, no objection. MR. MUTHER: -- regarding that. Q (By Mr. Muther) Okay. So again you were and in those cases at least you supervised Mr. Voorhis, the A Q A Q human rights cases, the Castorena case? A Yes. Q Okay. To your knowledge had Ms. Edgell supervised Mr. Voorhis on any immigration related matters? A I’m not sure. I have no knowledge of that. Q Okay. Okay. When asked this question during criminal trial, do you recall ever clarifying that I guess the parameters of what you were his supervisor for? A No. Q No, okay. So in September and October of 2007, is it fair to say that you had supervisory authority over Mr. Voorhis when it came to immigration related issues? A No. Q I just want to, 2006? A No. Q No, why is that not fair to say? A I was told just to provide guidance for the Castorena case. Q So guidance for the Castorena case. A Oversight. Q Oversight.
23 24 25 0023 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 0024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
A Q A
Kathy Edgell was his supervisor. And who told you that? Paul Maldonado.
Q Okay. Let me ask you a question, it seems at least when it came to complex immigration issues there was a understanding within management that Ms. Edgell should not be his supervisor or at least providing oversight, would you agree with that? A I wasn’t told that. Q Well, you indicated that she didn’t have a background or knowledge of immigration issues. A That’s true. Q So, and I presume from your earlier testimony that you were offering that as an explanation as to why it was that you were overseeing him, Mr. Voorhis on the Castorena case. A No, it was a complex case and due to the institutional knowledge I had it would have been difficult for her to pick up. Q All right, but again and how about why on human rights cases then? A I had received some training on human rights. Q Okay. Had gone to the conference or? A Yes. Q All right. And again you said you do not recall whether or not you supervised immigration issues coming into the airport? A I had some –- Mike Goodwin reported to me at the time. I’d have to look it up, my organizational chart from that time to see if I actually supervised the airport. Q Okay. Was there a time that you did supervise the airport? A Officially I’m not sure. Q Well, how about unofficially? I mean was there a time that you were answering questions of agents at the airport? A Yes. Q Supervisory-type functions at the airport? A Yes. Q Okay. It’s true, is it not, that you testified at trial that Ms. Edgell was out of the office a lot during this period of time? A Yes. Q Do you know why that was? A I know she had some medical issues with her father. Q Okay. Okay. Were you ever Mr. Voorhis’ official supervisor, formal supervisor prior to Ms. Edgell appearing on the scene possibly? A Prior to Ms. Edgell another supervisor named Lou Nigro coming on board in July of ’06, I was pretty much
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 21 22 23
the only additional group supervisor there. Q So you were essentially supervising the whole office prior to -A They had acting –- I’m not sure appraisal wise who I done appraisals on. Q Okay but if people had questions relating to immigration investigations as the only group supervisor in the office I would assume that most people came to you, correct? A Correct. Q That would have been expected, would it not? A Right. Q Okay. Expected by your managers that you would field these type of questions? A Yes. Q Okay. And you said that began to change in July of 2006? A Yep. Q But in July of 2006 even with Mr. Nigro and Ms. Edgell coming on board you continued to answer questions from agents regarding immigration investigations, correct? A Yes. Q Okay. And is it fair to say that you would expected them if you gave them advice for them to follow that advice? A Let’s put it this way, I offered my advice. What they did with it was their decision. Q Okay. All right. Now, there came a time did there not when you became aware that Mr. Voorhis had provided information to -- I want to say it in as neutral a way as possible to avoid any kind of appearance. I’m not trying to classify this one way or the other but, to individuals that were involved with the Beauprez campaign? A Yes. Q Okay. And when was it that you became aware of that for the first time? And just for the record your – th A I recollect that was October 13 of 2006. Q So the first time you became aware on October th 13 , 2006 -A 2006. Q -- that Mr. Voorhis provided –- that he told you that he provided information to the Beauprez campaign, is that right? A He told me he was the source of information. th Q And that again was October 13 ? A Yes. Q And in answering that question I see that you
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 23 24 25
refer to a calendar in front of you. Would it be possible for us to get copies of that calendar? MR. ERBE: Yeah, I have no objection. He brought the calendar to help him just because the dates are confusing so he brought a calendar to help him answer specific questions. MR. MUTHER: Okay. MR. ERBE: So I don’t have any -– he just printed that off with Microsoft Outlook. I just need to look at it to see if there’s any law enforcement sensitive information or anything on that but we can provide it. MR. MUTHER: Okay. If possible I’d like to take a look at it now. MR. ERBE: Okay. MR. MUTHER: I mean you obviously can get a copy. MR. ERBE: Not in this building, across the -MR. MUTHER: Not here. Or if this just was a print out of a calendar I don’t know if this is something that can be duplicated again fairly easily. MR. ERBE: Yeah, there’s only annual leave. You can look at it at this time. MR. MUTHER: Yeah, if I could get a copy of it just for the record. MR. ERBE: Sure. MR. MUTHER: And I don’t know since –- if it’s just possible to take that or not, I mean. MR. ERBE: Yeah, you can have that, I mean he can just print one out again. MR. MUTHER: Sure, okay. Maybe we could mark that as Exhibit 1, Deposition Exhibit 1. COURT REPORTER: Sure. THE DEPONENT: Just the October or? MR. MUTHER: To me it would be preferable to whatever you referred to now to answer that question would be. COURT REPORTER: One page? MR. ERBE: Well why don’t we –- can we just do August, September, October –MR. MUTHER: Sure. MR. ERBE: I think that’s the relevant issue and then maybe after that maybe. COURT REPORTER: Marking as Exhibit 1, three pages, calendar August, 2006; September, 2006; October, 2006. Lower right hand corner says 8/6/2009 5:28 p.m. Lower left hand corner says Rouco, Anthony. (Exhibit 1 was marked into evidence.) MR. MUTHER: We can just put that right here in the middle so if you need to take a look at it you’re welcome to do that. Q (By Mr. Muther) So now why is it that in
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 What about October 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
answering that question this calendar was helpful in you answering that? A Because I talked to Mr. Erbe nobody ever showed me a calendar or any type of documentation. Q I’m a little confused about that answer. When you say prior to talking to Mr. Erbe nobody showed you a calendar, why –- what does that have to do with you having to look at a calendar now? I mean you’ve obviously looked at –- when Mr. Erbe talked to you prior to today you’ve looked at a calendar prior to today and identified the date, correct? A Correct. Q So again my question is, what about looking at this calendar right now was necessary or why did you need to look at this calendar now to answer that question? A Just to verify. Q Okay, so was it something –- was it because of the day that it was or the, I mean were you recalling that it was on a specific day? Well, I strike the questions, all those questions. Why is it that you th believe it was October 13 , 2006? A Because it was a Friday. Q Okay. Now in October and I’ll just refer to the th same calendar there was a –- October 6 was a Friday. th nd September 29 was a Friday. September 22 was a Friday. again was or what about this th calendar showing that October 13 falls on a Friday helps th you in remembering that it was October 13 ? A Just the fact that I looked at a calendar. Q Okay, now this is different from what you told th Agent Olmos in July 10 of 2008, correct? A I’m not sure. What did I tell him? Q You don’t recall? A No. Q No? Would there be a reason why you wouldn’t recall? th A It’s –- when did you say, July 10 ? Q Yes. A That was over a year ago. Q Understood, but the conversation I’m talking about with Mr. Voorhis was over three years ago. A Correct. Q So why is – is there a reason why this conversation with Agent Olmos -- I believe a tape recorded conversation with Agent Olmos was – is not
21 22 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
memorable to you? A Not without seeing it. Q So you can’t remember anything about it without seeing it? A Nope. Q Not one thing that you said during that conversation? A Not unless I, not unless I see it. Q So it’s fair to say that your recollection of conversations that are a year old is somewhat limited? A Without some help. Q Okay. And so I suppose you then don’t recall the information you provided in the criminal trial of Mr. Voorhis regarding the date that you became first aware of the issues that underlie -A I don’t remember what I said in district court. Q Okay. A I have not seen a transcript of my testimony. Q You have not seen a transcript of the criminal trial? A No. Q That’s it, I don’t need that. All right, let’s start going through some of these then. One second, sorry, sorry, all right. If possible and I understand what you just indicated that your recollection of what was said during conversations is somewhat limited but I’d like to, to the best of your recollection here today, get a sense of how many, if you recall and how many times you recall, giving statements regarding Mr. Voorhis’ case. Do you recall who it is, what investigative agency you first provided a statement to regarding these matters? A The FBI and CBI. Q And was that on one occasion or two separate occasions or do you recall? A One occasion from what I remember. Q Okay. And do you recall having a telephonic interview with an investigator by the name of Mark Wilson? A Yes. Q Okay. And if his notes and his write up indicate that that investigation or that conversation th occurred on October 24 , 2006, would that be accurate to the best of your recollection? A Yes. rd Q Okay. And on April 3 , 2007, do you recall being interviewed by FBI Special Agent John Elvig and again CBI Agent Mark Wilson? A In April? rd Q April 3 , 2007?
20 MR. ERBE: I think it was March. 21 MR. MUTHER: You’re right, I apologize. 22 MR. ERBE: It was transcribed on April. 23 MR. MUTHER: Yeah, yeah, you’re right. March 2, 24 2007. 25 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 0033 1 Q (By Mr. Muther) Okay. And how was that 2 interview conducted, in person or on the phone or? 3 A That was in person. 4 Q Okay. And I didn’t ask this question before and 5 I apologize but just to confirm, do you recall the th 6 October 24 conversation with Mark Wilson being 7 telephonic? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Okay. Was that conversation under oath? 10 A No. 11 Q Okay. Was the conversation you had with John nd 12 Elvig and Mark Wilson March 2 , 2007 under oath? 13 A I don’t recall. th 14 Q Okay. And how about on January 11 , 2008, do 15 you recall talking to a defense private investigator, 16 Anthony Divirgillio on the telephone? 17 A Vaguely. 18 Q Okay. Now when you say vaguely, do you recall? 19 A Yeah, I told him I didn’t want to talk to him. 20 Q Okay. But you did in fact talk to him? 21 A Just cursory stuff. 22 Q For jury stuff, I’m sorry? 23 A Cursory stuff I believe. 24 Q Cursory stuff. 25 A He was trying to convince me to meet with him. 0034 1 Q Uh-huh, and you did not want to meet with him? 2 A Nope. 3 Q Why was that? 4 A I just didn’t want to meet with him. 5 Q I’m asking then was there a reason for that? 6 A No. 7 Q Had you been told not to meet with him? 8 A No. 9 Q Okay. Had you been advised or suggested that 10 you not meet with him by anyone? 11 A No. 12 Q So this was a personal decision? 13 A Personal decision. 14 Q Okay and again you can’t specify why it was that 15 you did not want to meet with him? 16 A No, I just didn’t want to meet with him. 17 Q Were you doing something else that day, do you 18 recall or was it you did not want to provide assistance
19 or information to Mr. Divirgillio and the defense of Cory 20 Voorhis. 21 A I just didn’t want to talk to him. 22 Q Do you recall talking about your flush file with 23 Mr. Divirgillio? 24 A No. 25 Q You did have a flush file though? 0035 1 A Yes. 2 Q Okay, all right, all right. How about on April th th 3 4 and then again on April 7 , 2008, do you recall 4 providing testimony regarding Mr. Voorhis in criminal 5 court? 6 A Were those the dates of the trial? 7 Q Yes. 8 A Yes. 9 Q Yes, the dates of the documents reflected. Do 10 you have any reason to disagree with those dates? 11 A No. 12 Q Okay. And I don’t even need to ask but I assume 13 that was sworn, right? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Okay. They usually don’t let people testify 16 unless they swear you in in court. Now, after your 17 testimony in criminal trial do you recall having any 18 other conversations regarding Mr. Voorhis’ case with 19 anyone? 20 A OPR after that. 21 Q Okay. And who with OPR? 22 A Dave Cook and Steve Perino and Manny Olmos. 23 Q Okay. And do you recall roughly the date? 24 A All I recall is the last one, July, 2008. 25 Q Okay, but you talked to them two times prior to 0036 1 that? 2 A Yes, I went out there once that I remember. 3 Q Okay and I asked specifically did you talk to 4 them two times prior to that. Do you recall if it was 5 once or twice or more? 6 A It wasn’t any more and it might have been twice. 7 Q Okay. 8 A I just don’t recall. 9 Q And do you know were those conversations under 10 oath? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Did they swear you in? 13 A Uh-huh. 14 Q Did they transcribe those conversations? 15 A I believe so. 16 Q Okay and again I’m talking not specifically th 17 about the July 10 but the ones, the two prior to that. 18 A Right.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0037 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
Q At least prior to that. A One of them I remember them recording it and then I had to go through and type answers. Q What did you have to type? A Answers. Q Answers, okay. How – let me ask you, how did this go then? They were recording – they asked you questions? A Correct. Q You answered them verbally? A Yes. Q They were recording this? A Yes. Q And then they gave you a – the questions? A They took notes. Q Okay. And so right then and there they then generated these questions? A Yes, they had it on a computer. Q Okay. A So I had to go through the questions again and type my answers. Q Okay. And you said that that could have happened twice? A Yes. Q Okay. Do you know why it is that they would have had to talk to you more than once? Did they indicate that? Why? A No, no. Q Okay. Did they seem to indicate that they thought you were being deceptive in any way -A No. Q -- regarding your answers? How about let’s get to the July 10 interview. First of all, who was present at that interview? A Manny Olmos. There was a guy from headquarters. Q And the guy from headquarters, do you remember his name? A I just remember the name Geo. Q Geo. First name or? A First name. Q First name, okay. And was this the individual who was conducting a polygraph? A Yes. Q Okay. And why is it did they, well first of all did they provide you any information as to why it was that they were doing a polygraph? A No, they called me and asked if I was willing to take one. Q Okay. And what did you say? A Yes. Q Okay. So they called, was that part of one of the earlier conversations that you had with them or was
21 22 23 24 25 0039 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 0040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
this a separate conversation? A Separate. They called. Q Okay. And they asked you -A Would I be willing to come in and take a polygraph. Q Okay. Did that indicate anything to you regarding their feelings as to whether or not you were being deceptive? A No. It didn’t give me any indication. Q No? When they asked you the question, as an agent yourself, do you generally give polygraph examinations to people that you think are telling the truth? A Most generally we don’t give polygraphs so. Q Okay but I mean as an agent do you think that would be – the time and expense of bringing somebody from Washington, D.C. to give an polygraph examination, would that be something that you would do for somebody that you believe is not telling the -- or is telling the truth, excuse me. A Or just to verify information. Q Okay. So again from this fact you did not draw any conclusions that they had any doubt about your credibility? A No. Q Okay. And what were the results -– well walk us through it. What happened during this conversation? How long of an interview was this? A The polygraph took most of the morning. They go over the procedures –- how they, what’s involved. Q Uh-huh. A They ask me some baseline questions and then they administer the test. Q Okay and then after they administered the test did they indicate to you whether or not you passed or failed? A Yes. Q Okay. What did they tell you? A That I didn’t pass. Q Okay. And did they specifically indicate what you didn’t pass regarding? A No. Q Okay. And based on that did the test or I’m sorry, did the investigation end? A No, they questioned me the rest of the day. Q Okay. And how long did that last after you were taken off the polygraph machine? A Probably into the early evening. Q Okay so -A Probably 6:00, 6:30. Q So maybe five, six hours? A Oh, it was longer than that at least.
23 24 25 0041 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 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
Q And did they subsequently re-administer a polygraph test at any time regarding any of the additional information you provided after determining that you had not passed the polygraph? A No. Q Okay. Since that time have you taken any polygraph -A No. Q -- in this case? A No. Q Okay. And since that time has anybody asked to polygraph you again? A No. Q Okay. And it was at the end of this investigation, wasn’t it, that Mr. Olmos indicated that he was going to refer you for prosecution? A Yes. Q Okay. A They –- the way they said it is I think they would have to talk to the U.S. Attorney. Q Okay. And I didn’t specifically ask this. I was sort of asking more about formal investigations, but do you recall having a conversation with Mr. Voorhis over the telephone after the criminal trial? A Yes. Q And do you recall what that conversation was about? A Not totally. I has received a couple calls from a guy named Will Gibson. He said that Cory was on the verge of tears and give him a call. Q Okay. And do you recall what the substantive conversation was about? A No. Q Okay. All right. Let’s talk a little bit now about -– now that we’ve kind of identified –- well before I even move on to that can you recall any other conversations you had from October of 2006 until present regarding the facts underlying the allegations of misconduct involving Mr. Voorhis? A Just with Mr. Erbe. Q In preparation for depositions? A Yes. Q Okay. All right. And that includes with Mr. Cop, Mr. Maldonado, Mr. Charrobe, Mr. Olmos. You had no other conversations regarding Mr. Voorhis to your recollection? A I know I haven’t talked to the OPR guys since that July date and I – Maldonado and Cop were about deposition dates. Q I’m sorry, just about the dates you said? A And the process. Q And the process? Okay, but nothing substantive
25 0043 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 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
about the case? A No. Q Okay. All right. Let’s talk a little bit about the FBI’s conversations with you and I believe we -– I messed it up the first time so let me make sure I get it right. March 2, 2007. I’m going to ask you to look at a document and this was provided I believe it’s in the agency’s agency file if I’m not mistaken. I tell you the voluminous documents that we have in this case. A Right. Q It’s hard to keep it straight. MS. TRANEL: It should be in the OPR file. MR. MUTHER: That’s what I’m thinking. Q Have you seen this document? A Yes. Q Okay. When did you see this document? A I was provided this document in the criminal trial prep by I believe Jim Anderson. Q Okay and Jim Anderson was who? A The U.S. Attorney out of Wyoming. Q Oh, Assistant U.S. Attorney. All right. And does this document accurately reflect your conversations with the FBI investigator, Mr., I don’t have it in front of me there. I don’t want to butcher it. MR. ERBE: Elvig. MR. MUTHER: Elvig, thank you. Q (By Mr. Muther) Mr. Elvig and Mr. Wilson. A There’s just some minor stuff that, you know, to get assistance from ICE like an ink card. That was kind of -– they took a lot of stuff out of contents because they didn’t understand the process. Q Okay, well -A The role. Q -- let’s just talk about that. I couldn’t see where you were pointing but read the sentence that you think is taken out of context. A An individual must prove they have good moral character to get assistance, i.e., a green card from ICE. Q Okay. So -A That’s just kind of worded. Q You wouldn’t have said assistance, you would have said probably they need to show good moral character in order to get a green card? A Right. One of the -- yeah. Q Okay. Understood. Anything else that you think was taken out of context? A Not really. Q Okay. What was your understanding at this point in time in March of 2007, why was the FBI talking to you at this point? A Just to find out basically the facts of the
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 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
case. Q The case against Mr. Voorhis? A Yeah. They just told me basically they wanted to ascertain what went on. Q Okay. Now in this statement they indicate that you told them that some ICE agents began to maintain a flush file of cases in which an individual was allowed to plead down to a non-deportable offense, correct? A That’s correct but that’s another statement that wasn’t correct. I kept a flush file. Q Okay. So let me ask you –- I asked you a second ago to identify statements that you thought were taken out of context and you only identified one. A Right. MR. ERBE: I think he said more or less. THE DEPONENT: Yeah, more or less. That whole thing we could pick a part because they translated a lot of stuff wrong. Q (By Mr. Muther) Okay. But and I’ll just point this out for the one example you provided of this was where you didn’t say to get assistance getting a green card you probably just said to get a green card. This seems to be a fairly significant factual difference, does it not? A In part. I think they generalized a lot of stuff because they couldn’t understand the process. Q What’s there not to understand? Let me ask you about if you told the FBI that you kept a flush file why would they mischaracterize that in this affidavit? What’s confusing about that statement in your mind? A To mine? Basically that I told them that agents would bring me stuff that –- out of the ordinary. I don’t know how they interpreted that other agents kept it. Maybe other agents did keep flush files. Q But again, you’re saying here today that you told the FBI agent that you kept a flush file? A That I kept a flush file, correct. Q Okay. Did you let Mr. Anderson know that? A Yes. Q Okay. Why did you keep a flush file? A Basically because of immigration laws. A lot of stuff happens and basically a lot of people get charged in state, local jurisdictions and once a detainer is placed charges seemed to be mitigated sometimes enormously. They come to our custody, we remove them and then when they come back and something –- does some major crime kind of issue people are all usually like why didn’t you do something the last time? So basically I kept flush files on people that had went through the justice system but didn’t seem to be sentenced to appropriate sentences. Q Okay. And again what was the purpose of that?
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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
Was it –- I mean what were you looking to accomplish by keeping records of these –- of this situation. A Basically my thing was just to basically kind of a CYA deal for INS so if one of those guys actually came back and did something horrendous that when they say why didn’t you do anything I could point out that we did do the best we could. Q Okay. Let me ask you, prior to the events of September and October of 2006 I presume that you were keeping this flush file, correct? A Actually I had two of them. Q Okay, you have two flush files? A Bill Taylor has the first one. Q Okay. When you say you had two of them? A When I gave him the first one I started the second one. I just expanded basically. Q Okay so -A It’s a continuation of the first. Q If I’m correct then in understanding your testimony the two flush files, the first one was provided to Bill Taylor and so because you no longer had the file you had to start a new one? Or you did start a new one. A Correct, basically a continuation. Q Okay but it was again of the same type of information? A Yes. Q And how long had you been maintaining these flush files in total? A I don’t recall. Q Five years, 10 years, was it something? A I couldn’t give you an exact date. I’d have to see that first file. Q Okay. Why did you give it to Bill Taylor? A He was the chief of the major crimes unit at the time and I used to meet with him once a week on immigration prosecutions. The –- in our discussions I would present him a form to prosecute 1326s and when he would go through the criminal history and see that stuff got mitigated that’s how he made determinations who he would prosecute on. Conversations always came up I wish they would have done this and this and I told him I kept a file and he kept –- can I -– I’d like to see that. When he seen it he –- we would always go to the DA meetings, the yearly DA meetings and said that he would, you know, that they were always harping on ICE not or us not doing enough -Q Right. A -- so he said he asked for that so he could bring up some -– go over briefly and bring up some points that hey they do the best they can but it’s you guys who need to step up to the plate here. Q Okay. So you gave it to him in his capacity as
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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
an AUSA? A Yes. Q Okay and you don’t recall the dates of that then? A No. Q Did Bill Taylor when he was working as the chief there, did he seem to think that that was a problem what the State was doing? A Oh, in some instances, yep. Q Okay. Did you think that was a problem what the State was doing? A Oh, in some cases, yep. Q In the cases that you maintained the flush file on I would imagine? A Yes. Q Okay. How many cases were in that flush file? A Oh, I –- it was fairly thick. I don’t remember exactly how many. I never kept count. Q One inch, two inches? Are we talking a five volume flush file? A No. Q Maybe we could take a look at it. I think that Rob said you had it. MR. ERBE: Just for the record, this is the second flush file that was, that Mr. Rouco gave to OPR and I don’t know if he started another flush file after that. THE DEPONENT: No, that’s the last one. MR. ERBE: Okay. MR. MUTHER: Okay, we’re talking a good two pounds of paper. All right. If we can –- I don’t need to necessarily do this right now but we would, I know that you mentioned that we can take a look at this but that you have some concerns regarding information – Privacy Act -THE DEPONENT: PPR. MR MUTHER: -- information that you didn’t want to provide to us. MR. ERBE: Right, there’s a lot of personal identifiable information. There’s a presentence report in here that specifically says this cannot be released outside law enforcement. There’s an example of a case where an alien had slashed his girlfriend/wife’s face and she had a restraining order and I just felt very uncomfortable releasing that information any further. Like, there’s confidential stuff. MR. MUTHER: this -MR. ERBE: Sure. MR. MUTHER: -- we would be happy to see if there is anything that we would have to file to try to get but I don’t know if there would be or not. I doubt Okay, if we can take a look at
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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
it. Q (By Mr. Muther) All right. By the way, the flush file you had before, was it about this size, larger, smaller? The one that you gave to Bill Taylor? A I’m thinking it was larger. Q Okay. Now let me ask actually if I could maybe this will help in recollection, looking at the flush file the first document, the first page of the documents of the flush file shows the date of 5/2/07 and there’s a note that says “Per Sampson do not present 5:16 p.m., can’t get packet in time.” A Right. Q Would that be indicative of the problem that you were having? A Sampson was a deportation officer. Q Okay. A And basically he told me he couldn’t get –- in order to prosecute these and get them to grand jury they needed the discovery packet. He couldn’t get everything in time so. Q Okay. But now so that’s not the problem –that’s not the reason why you were keeping this document? A No. Q Okay but the date on there, 5/2/07, does that help you in identifying when it was that you would have maintained this document? A Oh, I probably got it before 5/2. I kept calling Sampson, hey we need this –- get the packet down to the U.S. Attorney’s office to prosecute the guy. Q Right, but my understanding is that this flush file is not an official A file, correct? A Right. Q So the fact that there’s a document in your flush file that has a date of 5/2/07 would you agree is indicative of the fact that you put this into your flush file sometime after 5/2/07? A Yes. Q Okay. Does that help you in identifying what it is that you may have talked to Mr. Voorhis -- or any documents in here I mean refresh your recollection as to when it is that Mr. Voorhis –- not Mr. Voorhis, I’m sorry, Mr. Taylor when you provided that first flush file to Mr. Taylor? A No. I don’t recall what date I gave that to him. Q A it. Q A Q A Okay. When did you stop doing ACAP? The exact date? Uh-huh. I’m not sure. Okay. Do you continue to maintain a flush file? No, we don’t do ACAP anymore so I don’t maintain
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 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
Q A Q ACAP.
Okay but as of 5/2/07 you were doing ACAP? Yes. Okay and –MR. ERBE: If you could identify for the record
MR. MUTHER: Okay. Q (By Mr. Muther) Alien, what is ACAP? We used to call it DCAP in Miami. Detained criminal alien program. What is ACAP stand for? A Alien Criminal Apprehension Program. Q Ah, okay. A And you know for awhile I was the point of contact for presenting these so the U.S. Attorney would have one point of contact. Q Okay. A There was a time after even we got done doing the ACAP that Jim Hardy now had them present these to me to just review them before they went down to him so that he got what he wanted. Q Okay, well that’s good because I think we’ve –I’ve just identified another area where you were the supervisor or point of contact relating to immigration issues, that being ACAP, correct? A No. Q No? A I was just the point of contact. Q Well, okay. A Basically they wanted to make sure some of these would not have INS history on these and for the U.S. Attorney to make a determination, but no, I didn’t supervise John, I never supervised John Sampson. Q Understood, but you were involved in the ACAP program? A No. Q As a supervisor? A Involved in the prosecution of 1326s. Q Okay. When you then say that you were the ACAP point of contact what do you mean when you say that doesn’t mean that you were involved in the ACAP program? A I was –- well let me clarify. I was the point of contact for the 1326 prosecutions. I didn’t supervise the ACAP program. Q Okay and be –- as being the point of contact with the 1326 prosecutions, you would come into contact with this type of information? A Yes. Q And this as the type of information that you would keep in your flush file? A Or the 213s from agents that had done ACAP. Q Okay. And again that was as late as 5/2/07? A Uh-huh, yes. Q If not later. So then it would not have been
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0056 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 0057 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
unusual for Mr. Voorhis to talk to you about this type of issue in September and October of 2006 if you were the point of contact relating to this type of information, correct? A No. Q All right. All right. Okay. I’m sorry, I’m just trying to -MS. TRANEL: While he’s looking, I’ll offer for the record that the FBI interview is (indiscernible). THE DEPONENT: Okay. MR. MUTHER: Okay. Q Let’s talk a little bit about and I maybe failed to raise this at the time, policies that were in place after the merger of INS and Customs into what became know as or is now known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement. How would you characterize in your opinion the situation regarding policies as they were applicable to agents after the merger? A In my opinion they were kind of slow in getting out policies. Q How long did it take them, in the case of, for example disclosure of information, did ICE ever come up with its own policy? A Yes. Q Okay and do you recall when that was? A No. Q Okay. That was the policy you were requested to find earlier about that you couldn’t recall if it was before or after Mr. Voorhis –- the issues in 2006? A Yes. Q Okay. In the interim before –- while ICE was working to get these policies implemented what were agents expected to do? A That’s a good question. It depends on what they were seeking advice on. Q Well, let’s say disclosure of information. Was there any indication as to what policies they were supposed to be following while they were awaiting ICE’s policies? A No, basically as far as A files we depended on citizenship and immigration services to maintain the files for stuff, for guidance. Q Okay. A And for TECS it was –- there were rules in place for TECS already. Q How about personnel policies? A I’m not sure. Q Okay. Well, for example if after the merger you had a personnel issue, as a supervisor if an agent came to you with a personnel issue what would you, what policies would you look to? A I would go to my supervisor but I would have to
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0058 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 0059 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
be –- you would have to be more specific in terms of, I mean there’s an array of personnel problems. Q Would you agree with me if I told you or if I said, I’m not going to tell you that if I were to pause it that legacy INS employees were expected to follow legacy INS policies and legacy customs that they were expected to follow legacy custom policies until ICE superseded one of those policies? Had you ever heard that said? A Not like that. And it was in terms of subpoenas or summonses and we still have a subpoena for one thing and a summons for other stuff so. Q Okay. So that’s not something you were familiar with, that concept of following your legacy organization’s policies until ICE superseded? A Basically was confusing and some parts still are frankly. Q Okay. All right. Let’s talk a little bit about your trial testimony and you know what, actually just for a moment why don’t we take a break. Give you an opportunity to rest. I might have to use the restroom if they have them. They have toilet paper, they must have a restroom. (Off the record from 10:19 to 10:29.) COURT REPORTER: And we’re back on the record. Mr. Rouco, you’re still under oath. THE DEPONENT: Okay. Q Okay. I asked you whether or not you had any conversations with managers or OPR in between October of ’06 and present and you indicated other than what we discussed, including with Mr. Erbe in preparation for today, you had not but just from an abundance of clarification, have you had any kind of communications, be it verbal, written or otherwise with managers relating to this matter between October of 2006 and present other than what you’ve already indicated? A Just basically process issues, what was going on. Like admin leave stuff. Q When you say admin leave, what do you mean? A Cory was on admin leave, yeah, stuff like that, office stuff but. Q But nothing substantively relating to testimony you provided, information that Mr. Voorhis had provided substantively relating to the case? Anything like that? A Can you clarify your question? Have I had conversations with anybody? Q Conversations or any communications, be they written, verbal, e-mail, whatever, smoke signals regarding the substance of this case other than what you’ve already discussed in terms of what we’ve gone through in terms of investigative notes or investigative meetings and your preparation for this deposition with
15 16 17 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
Mr. Erbe today? A With management or with? Q With management or your? A Oh, nothing substance, just basically kept them informed if I had to go to court or OPR. Q Okay. And I believe it was your testimony earlier that up until Mr. Erbe showed you a calendar you had never looked at a calendar to identify what the first day it was that you talked to Mr. Voorhis about these instances or these issues? A No. About the interview, CBI, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney’s office out of Wyoming, OPR, they never showed me any documentation at all. Q But I mean and you never looked at a calendar to verify what day it was that you in fact talked to Mr. Voorhis? A No. Dates ran together. Every time I got interviewed I was expected to remember dates and my mind just kept racing to remember dates. It wasn’t until I was able to look at the calendars, the phone records, my statements and court testimony that I was able to say th with some authenticity October 13 was the day I was. Q Okay and so I guess what you’re testifying or telling me now is that you were confused about the dates when providing that testimony? A Yes. Q And did you inform the individuals when testifying that you were confused about the dates? A Yes, I told everybody that I couldn’t remember dates. Q So again if I’m looking at a calendar three years later roughly -A It wasn’t a calendar. Basically it was phone records, a calendar, court testimony, my statements. Q When you say phone records, what records are you referring to? A Cell phone records. Through this whole process I was trying to piece together bits of conversations over a long period of time and without any documentation it just all ran together. It was difficult to say when I learned of specific issues. Q Okay. And again after Mr. Olmos informed you that he’s going to refer your case for criminal th prosecution on July 10 , 2007, you didn’t go back and do that same piecing together of information from phone records? A I didn’t have access to my phone records. The only thing I could –- I didn’t have any –- my court testimony, the only thing I had was the statement from the FBI.
15 16 17 18 19 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
Q And again you didn’t seek to get all this information to verify what the timeline was? A I didn’t know who to go to to get it. Q You were –- you said you were prepared by the AUSA in preparation for criminal trial? A I was poorly prepared by the Assistant. My meeting lasted 15 minutes with them. I was told to concentrate on one paragraph in that statement and that was it. Q Okay. But I mean did you ask him how to go about getting criminal court transcripts? No. I mean you’re aware, I would assume that an agent with 21 years that criminal court transcripts are public documents. A Right. Q I mean in fact as part of the ACAP program you know that most documents relating to criminal prosecutions are public, correct? A Correct, that’s correct but I would have to pay for it and I wasn’t about to pay for my court testimony. Q Even though –MR. ERBE: Well, for the record though, I mean we’re talking about the preparation with the AUSA. This was prior to his court testimony so there would have been no court testimony for him to look at. MR. MUTHER: No, we’re talking about after Mr. th Olmos in July 10 , 2008, I’m sorry, 7 informed him that th –- July 10 , let me get the date right -– 2008 informed him that he was going to refer the case to criminal, for criminal prosecution. MR. ERBE: Right. MR. MUTHER: Against Mr. Rouco. MR. ERBE: Right, you went there but then you jumped back to the AUSA and said and your last question was did at the time you were meeting with the AUSA didn’t you -- couldn’t you –- didn’t you ask them for the court testimony? MR. MUTHER: Well that was –MR. ERBE: I just want to make sure that we’re talking about –Q (By Mr. Muther) Mr. Olmos, let me get it clarified -- so Mr. Olmos tells you he’s going to refer th you for criminal prosecution in July 10 of 2008, correct? A Correct. th Q And it’s your testimony that in July 10 , 2008, you didn’t know how to get the criminal court transcript? A Q
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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
A No, I said I didn’t get a court –- I know how to go about getting it. Q Well, I think the record will reflect what you said but I think your subsequent testimony was that you didn’t want to pay for that. A Correct. Q Okay. So just so this is clear, you’re told by th an OPR agent on July 10 , 2008 that he’s going to refer you for criminal prosecution. Did he explain why? A Nope. Q But he explained to you that you failed a polygraph, correct? A Yes. Q And you did, at that point in time were not concerned enough to pay for court transcripts? A No. Q Okay. As a law enforcement officer you were not concerned ethically speaking about attempting to try to clarify the record? A Oh, absolutely. Q But not enough to pay for criminal transcripts to do that? A No, I figured if something was going to be done I would get copies of it anyway. Q If something was going to be done against you? A Uh-huh. Q Well, I’m talking about an attempt to try to clarify your testimony in criminal trial that you gave under oath. You didn’t feel like you had a need or -A No, I testified to the best of my ability in federal court. Q All right. During the criminal trial you testified to the fact that CIS printouts are releasable, do you remember that? A No. Q Would you agree with that statement if I said it here today that CIS printouts are releasable? A It depends to who. Q Okay. A It is a question I would ask you. Who would need to know? Q We can just go to what you said at court. Actually, you know what? You just –- you made a real important, interesting point. You said that you, until you got the criminal transcript you weren’t able to put together the dates, correct? That you needed this criminal transcript in order to do it? A I don’t think it was the criminal transcript, it was the OPR, my statements. Q Okay, but you did review the criminal transcript in helping put together the dates?
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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
A No, I haven’t reviewed the criminal transcript. Q Right, because earlier today you testified to the fact that you haven’t reviewed this. A I haven’t reviewed the criminal transcript. Q Okay. So when you just said that about criminal transcripts that was –- you were mistaken about that? A Yes. Q Okay. Okay. Okay, you were asked specifically the question and the question starts, “Now turn to Government Exhibit 305, please. You’ve testified about the central index system record.” And you stated, “Correct.” Now, the central index system is CIS, correct? Correct. Okay and you’ve indicated “Well, tell me do you think it would be okay for a special agent to give this document to an political campaign?” To which you replied, “Basically based on the Privacy Act I don’t see an issue. Personally I don’t give the documents out.” So based on your understanding of the Privacy Act would you agree still today that you see no issue with an agent giving a CIS printout to a political campaign? A No, based on what I know today. Q Okay and what changed your opinion of that? A Just some research. Basically I’m not a Privacy Act expert. You know a lot of those questions needed clarification and nobody objected to any of my testimony until the end. Q Okay, so -A They made it seem like a very black and white issue and it’s a very gray issue, very complicated. Q Very complicated, right. But prior to this, I mean prior to September and October of 2006, well heck prior to the criminal trial you viewed it was okay to give out CIS information to a political campaign. Would A Q you agree with that statement? A Not necessarily. Q Okay, so why did you say that then when you were testifying? A Basically caught off guard about the Privacy Act. Q But again, were you being untruthful? A No, I just testified -Q You testified to your opinions and at that time you said basically based on the Privacy Act I don’t see an issue so was that a truthful or an untruthful statement? A It was a truthful statement. Q As of the date of the criminal trial, correct? A Correct.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0068 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 0069 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Q And what you’re testifying now is that after that time you researched it and you found that you –that you -- that may not be accurate? A Correct. Q Okay. But at that time it was accurate? A Correct. Q Okay. MR. ERBE: Can I see that? MR. MUTHER: Oh, I apologize, I don’t mean to be hiding the documents. Yeah, you can see this as soon as I figure out -- 8-0, where was it? Where was it? There it is, 830. It’s line -- in the line 8 area. I’ll wait till you take a look at that. MR. ERBE: I mean then just for the record, I mean, and then it goes on to say, the next question is “When you say you don’t think so, you’re probably aware of the policy against political campaigns?” His answer is, “A campaign, you’re not supposed to do it to campaigns.” I just want to make sure -- I mean, we’re talking about political campaigns. I just want to make sure his testimony is being read accurately as far as –MR. MUTHER: That’s fine. MR. ERBE: Okay. Q (By Mr. Muther) So it’s your understanding that based on that clarification that it was okay to release it, just not to political campaigns? A Correct I guess. In a law enforcement realm. Q Okay. What is on a CIS printout? A Name, date of birth, A number, country of citizenship, possibly an FBI number if applicable. Q Status? A Yes. Q How somebody became a –- entered the country? A Yes, there’s a code. Q Okay. Let me ask you, when was it that you found out that John Marshall had any affiliations with the Beauprez campaign versus Beauprez as a congressman? A I don’t recall the exact time. Q Can you give me a generalized time? A Not without looking at some stuff. Q Okay. Was it before or after this became an issue, Mr. Voorhis’ disclosure became an issue? A It was after. Q Okay. Just give me five minutes. MR. ERBE: Okay. COURT REPORTER: Can we go off the record? MR. MUTHER: Yeah, we can. (Off the record from 10:45 to 10:47.) COURT REPORTER: All right. Back on the record. MR. MUTHER: Thank you. COURT REPORTER: Mr. Rouco, you’re still under. THE DEPONENT: Okay.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0070 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 0071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Q (By Mr. Muther) Okay, all righty, I noticed on a couple of occasions and to a couple of people, well, on a couple of occasions at least you indicated that Mr. Voorhis had lawyered up and that that was an indication to you that there was an issue, a problem. Do you recall saying that to agents, FBI agents? A I believe I -th Q Do you recall saying that on July 10 , 2008? A Specifically no I would have to see my. Q Okay, let’s turn to that. Okay, in GP I believe the individual who was conducting the polygraph. You indicated you knew him as Geo and from the transcript it looks like it was GP on the transcript here refers to Supervisory Special Agent Giovanni Perez. A Okay. Q Does that name ring a bell? A No, but I knew him as Geo. Q Okay. On page 189 and I’ll show this to you and maybe rather than do it the way we did it the last time I’ll show it to Bob so he has an opportunity to actually look at it. In the middle of that page is – A Okay, are you talking about right here? Q Right down there, yeah. What did you know? A Basically that he had done more than he had told me he did. Q Okay and it was when you found out that he had lawyered up? A Yes. Q Okay. Isn’t it true that you in fact put Mr. Voorhis in contact with Bill Taylor and aided him in getting an attorney prior to this? A Nope. Q No? A No. Q You did not contact Bill Taylor on behalf of Mr. Voorhis? A I did not contact Bill Taylor on behalf of Mr. Voorhis. Q Did you contact anybody on behalf of Mr. Voorhis when it came to getting an attorney? A No, I called the –- Bill Taylor when the -– when I knew Cory was the source but I didn’t solicit Bill Taylor for Cory. Q Why did you call Bill Taylor when you knew that Cory was the source? A Because I thought he would be surprised as we all were. Q And at that point in time Mr. Taylor was no longer in the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s office, correct? A Correct. Q He was not with the federal government, correct?
19 20 21 22 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
A Correct. Q This was the subject of a criminal investigation at that point? A I didn’t know it was the subject of a criminal investigation at that point. Q Subject of concern? A Yeah, maybe subject of concern. Q And it’s your testimony that you contacted a private bar attorney and gave him information? A I didn’t give him any information. I just told him that Cory was the source. Q Okay. A That was it. I still had talked to Bill Taylor prior to that. Q And so you told Mr. Taylor that Cory was the source? A Correct. Q And again why? A Just because I knew Bill. Bill knew Cory Voorhis and I just thought he would be surprised. Q Okay and it’s your testimony that that had nothing to do with obtaining or getting Mr. Voorhis an –strike the question. That had nothing to do with attempting to help Mr. Voorhis in obtaining counsel? A Absolutely not. Q Okay and it just so happens that Mr. Taylor subsequently began representing Mr. Voorhis? A Not to that –- that was after that fact. He was represented by a guy named Mike Norton at the time. Q Okay. Okay. On page 255, line 5 of your July th 10 , 2008 investigation, the transcript. Wait a second. I’ll move on. I’ll come back to it. Well, what was your relationship with Mr. Voorhis while you were working with him? A Professional. Q Would you characterize it as a good relationship? A Yes. Q Did you have any issues with Mr. Voorhis prior to September or October of 2006? A No disciplinary stuff. Q Performance? A No. Q Okay. How would you characterize your relationship with him now? A I haven’t talked to him. Q Okay. What are your feelings about him? A I really don’t have any. Q You don’t have any? A Un-huh. Q Is that saying that you’re neutral towards him?
20 21 22 23 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
I mean -A I don’t agree with what he did. Q When you say what he did, what did he do specifically that you don’t agree with? A Basically talking to a political campaign. Q Okay. Anything else that he did that you disagree with? A I haven’t seen any documentation of what he’s done so I really can’t comment on other stuff. Q Are you saying that you’ve heard that he’s done other things through the rumor mill or? A No, I just can’t comment because I haven’t seen anything. It would be inappropriate to comment on rumors or innuendo from other people. Q Okay. So what you said to Mr. Olmos during your th July 10 , 2008 interview, “I don’t want to go to bat for him” meaning Mr. Voorhis, “He fucked me.” What would you have meant by that statement? A Basically that I thought he was an idiot and that he got hisself into this and if he expected me to come to his rescue I wasn’t going to do it. Q What did that have to do with you that he got himself into this and you’re not going to come to his rescue? How did that using your statement fuck you? A Basically going through all this, calling me as a witness when nobody else seemed to be called as a witness. Q Okay and again I remind you this is during the same interview and subsequent to finding out that you failed a polygraph, correct? A Correct. Q So again I’ll ask you, the reason that you said that was because he just got you involved in this, is that right? You thought he fucked you because he was calling you as a witness? A Basically he wasn’t truthful to me when he told me he was the source. Q Okay, so was that the reason why you said he fucked you? A To the best of my recollection. Q And when you said to Agent Olmos “I’ll throw him under a bus in a fucking heartbeat after all this.” A Yeah, he lied to me. Q Uh-huh. And again, this is in the same interview that just prior Agent Olmos told you that you were lying, correct? A I’d have to see it. I haven’t seen it. Q Okay. And when you said you’ll “throw him under a fucking bus” or a “bus in a fucking heartbeat”, what did you mean? A I wasn’t going to stick by him.
21 22 23 24 25 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
Q Did you feel to that point? A No. As this the more violations I Q Well, that’s
like you had been sticking by him process went on, the more it went learned he had committed. interesting because I just asked
that same question about five minutes ago and you indicated that you knew that he had provided information to a political source but you could not comment on anything else because you didn’t know it first hand. So I might have to ask that same question again and this time ask what additional information did you learn then through the investigation that you did not just specifically testify to prior? A That he had met downstairs in our building with political campaign members. That he met with the Trailhead group, actually watched one of the first commercials before it aired but I haven’t seen his redbook so I don’t know what he’s been charged with. Q Again none of that has anything to do with the fact that he lied to you. When did you find out that he allegedly lied to you? A Actually as soon as –- basically as the process went on that’s when I learned that he lied to me. Q And who told you that he lied to you? A Basically he didn’t say he lied. Jim Anderson said that he was meeting downstairs in our building. The OPR guys told me he had met with the Trailhead group. Q And you said the third thing, that he had watched a political advertisement before it aired? A Yes. Q Okay, who told you that? Was this before or after you felt -A Well, which one? Q Well, I’m still asking the question. Before or after your opinion was that you would throw him under a bus in a fucking heartbeat after all this? A The political campaign commercial I learned after. Q When did you learn that? A Recently. Q Within the last month? A Yep. Q Okay. How about him meeting downstairs? Who did you hear that from? A Jim Anderson. Q Was this during the 15 minutes of prep you had prior to giving testimony? A Yes. Q When did you learn about him meeting with the Trailhead group? A I believe it was during one of the OPR interviews.
23 24 25 0078 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 0079 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Q A Q
Do you recall which one? No. Now, do you know if it was ever proved that
Mr. Voorhis met with the Trailhead group? A No. Q Or met downstairs in the building, in your building? A Proved in which way? Q Well you indicated that Mr. Anderson told you about meeting downstairs but you also were aware that Mr. Voorhis was acquitted of any criminal charges, correct? A Correct. Q So when did you –- have you ever learned to this day that that was ever proved? That he did in fact meet downstairs with Mr. Marshall? A No. I haven’t seen any documentation. Q Okay, so again this was something that your knowledge at best was based upon the statements of an AUSA who was unsuccessful in criminally prosecuting Mr. Voorhis? A The one part, yes. Q Okay and how about the meeting with the Trailhead group? When was that proved or to your knowledge was that ever proved? A Not to my knowledge. Q Okay. And how about the fact that he viewed a political advertisement prior to it being aired? Was that ever proved? Not to me. Okay. But again based on those things, those facts that became disclosed to you throughout the process you would throw him under the bus in a fucking heartbeat? A Uh-huh. Q Why did you tell Manny Olmos that you talked to Cory Voorhis in September, late September? A Because I couldn’t remember any dates. Q Why didn’t you tell him that? MR. ERBE: Could we get a year, just more focus -- September -MR. MUTHER: Yeah, September 2006. MR. ERBE: Okay. THE DEPONENT: I did tell him I couldn’t remember the dates. Q (By Mr. Muther) Okay. Okay, I thought that was what I was referring to earlier. It’s actually page 225 th of your July 10 , 2008 interview. You made a comment to Manny Olmos that he’s always watched your back. A That who has always watched my back? Q Well, that Mr. Olmos has always watched my back, your back. You haven’t seen that? A I haven’t seen that. A Q
24 25 0080 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 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
Q It starts, the line of questioning starts on 224, you’re welcome to look at that but that specific question, statement is on 225. A Oh, that he’s always been honest with me. Q So and again this was just after telling you that you failed a polygraph, right? A Uh-huh. Q How is being honest with you watching your back? A It’s just an expression. Q What specifically are you referring to where he was honest to you? A Basically when he had come over to ACAP duty he didn’t do it a whole time but he was –- I don’t know during the course of investigations and when he needed something he’s always been honest with me. Q So I’m sorry that during, while he’s doing investigations and he needed something from you? A Or needed something from me or needed to go take care of other things, he’s just always been an honest guy with me. Q So again so when he’s needed something from you he’s been, in your opinion watching your back? A It’s just an expression. Q You indicated that it was -– or this opinion that you felt that he had watched your back or he had been honest with you was because of the work he had done in ACAP? A No, he didn’t do very much work in ACAP. Q In fact you criticized Olmos because of the fact that he didn’t complete the training. A It wasn’t criticized, I was frustrated because he didn’t do it. Q Okay so -A But he gave me a good reason why he could not do it. Q And that -A And that’s why he was honest with me. Q So he failed to complete training. A Thirty days he failed to do the 30 days. Q Okay and again in the same or you used one example of ACAP. A Right. Q And he failed to complete training. You were frustrated about that, you complained about that and that’s what you’re saying you were referencing in this statement that he’s always watched your back? A It’s just an expression. It doesn’t mean any more, it doesn’t mean any less. Q Okay. Let’s take a five minute. I might be done, or close to done. MR. ERBE: Oh, really? MR. MUTHER: Okay.
0082 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 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
(Off the record from 11:09 to 11:16.) COURT REPORTER: We’re back on the record. MR. MUTHER: Okay. Just as a matter of housekeeping I showed a document to Agent Rouco earlier in the testimony titled the Privacy Act of 1974. He identified this as being the document that he had recognized as being INS policies relating to the Privacy Act and just for the clarification of the record that is located at Exhibit or attachment G of Mr. Voorhis’ reply to the proposed removal and is that your understanding? THE DEPONENT: Yes. MR. MUTHER: So we won’t have to mark it as a separate exhibit. And in terms of other housekeeping I don’t think there were other, any other exhibits. Well, we did refer to the flush file, to page 1 of the flush file. I don’t know how we want to address that if page 1 has got objectionable information in your mind. If we –if that’s something you all are willing to release I have no objection to just simply possibly, because we don’t have a copier here, you know, identifying it for the record and Bob you providing that at a later time. MR. ERBE: I’ll have that blacked out, date of birth. No, I don’t see any, yeah, you can have a copy of this. I’ll just go to the office. If you want to mark it. MR. MUTHER: Oh, okay, that would be fine. We can mark this document then as Exhibit 2. I’m just doing that for clarification since we did refer to it. COURT REPORTER: Marking as Exhibit 2 one page U.S. Customs enforcement document requesting office for acceptance, explanation of prosecution. Has a handwritten date of 5/2/07, Exhibit 2. (Exhibit 2 was marked into evidence.) MR. MUTHER: Okay, thank you. And, no we don’t need to have this as part. Can we get the dates? Q (By Mr. Muther) And just a point of clarification, Agent Rouco, you indicated that you have in the April, May, June time frames signed warrants that have been presented to federal district court magistrates? A Yes, affidavits for search warrants. Q Okay. And can you be more, at all specific regarding those dates? A No, not without seeing a document. Q Okay. That’s something that we would want to get clarification for down the road simply because it appears that this report of investigation was completed April 3, 2009. To the extent that there’s some –- a level of ambiguity we would want to make it clear for the record that these activities occurred after April 3, 2009.
2 3 4 5 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
MR. ERBE: What activities, him signing an affidavit for a search warrant? MR. MUTHER: Yeah. MR. ERBE: Okay, I mean I guess we could respond to an interrogatory of, without releasing the case name. MR. MUTHER: Yeah, I don’t need the case name, just that simple fact. MR. ERBE: Right, okay. MR. MUTHER: That it was after the, as Supervisor Special Agent recalls signing affidavits for search warrants prior to or post April 3, 2009. MR. MUTHER: Okay, and that will conclude that. Okay, before we go off the record how do you want to handle the reading? Do you want –MR. ERBE: He’ll read and sign, yeah, he wants to read and sign. MR. MUTHER: So send it to you? MR. ERBE: You can go ahead and send it directly to Mr. Rouco. MR. MUTHER: Okay, that’s fine, thank you very much. COURT REPORTER: We’re off the record. (Off the record at 11:29 a.m.) /// I, ANTHONY ROUCO, 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.
________________________________ Signature of Deponent ( ) no amendments ( ) amendments attached
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of ______________, 2009. Notary Public: ____________________ Address: __________________________ ___________________________ My commission expires:_____________ Seal:
CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
__________/s/___________ September 8, 2009 Cheryl Turner Western Deposition and Transcription, LLC 1400 16th Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303.292.9400