Buczek 20100304 Transcript 3 - 121

VOL.
III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-vs- 09-CR-121S
SHANE BUCZEK,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------
Proceedings held before the
Honorable William M. Skretny, Part IV,
U.S. Courthouse, 68 Court Street,
Buffalo, New York on March 4, 2010.
APPEARANCES:
MARY CATHERINE BAUMGARTEN,

Assistant United States Attorney,
Appearing for the United States.
SHANE BUCZEK,
Appearing Pro Se.
BRIAN COMERFORD,
Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Appearing as Standby Counsel for Defendant.
Michelle L. McLaughlin, RPR,

Official Reporter,
U.S.D.C. W.D.N.Y.
(716)332-3560
147
1 I N D E X
2 WITNESS PAGE
3 ERIC J. SCHUMACKER
Continued Direct Examination by Ms. Baumgarten 153
4 Cross-Examination by Mr. Buczek 156
Redirect Examination by Ms. Baumgarten 165
5 Recross-Examination by Mr. Buczek 171
6 Recross-Examination by Mr. Buczek 174
7 ANNA S. MEDLOCK
Direct Examination by Ms. Baumgarten 177
8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Buczek 184
9
MATTHEW JOHNSON
10 Direct Examination by Ms. Baumgarten 197
Cross-Examination by Mr. Buczek 216
11
BRADLEY L. PARKER
13 Redirect Examination by Ms. Baumgarten 252
Recross-Examination by Mr. Buczek 254
14
HENRY FALKOWSKI
16 Redirect Examination by Ms. Baumgarten 312
17
RULE 29 MOTION 316
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
1 I N D E X
2 GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS EVD.
3 11 155
39A 241
4 39 242
19, 20B, 21C 285
5 32 291
33 292
6
7 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS EVD.
8 A 248
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
149
1 (Jury not present in the courtroom.)
2 THE COURT: Okay. Call the case please,
3 Miss Labuzzetta.
4 THE CLERK: Criminal case 09-121S, United
5 States of America versus Shane Buczek.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Lets see, the attorneys
7 and Mr. Buczek and Mr. Comerford are all here.
8 Jury is now back and fully assembled, and we're
9 bringing them in. And we --
10 THE CLERK: Do you want me to get them?
11 THE COURT: If you would please. They're
12 running three minutes late. We told them to be
13 here at 9:15.
14 I guess, Mr. Schumacker, you're going to resume
15 the stand. You remain under oath. Did they let
16 you go home?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government does have
19 a few more questions.
20 THE COURT: Why is that not a surprise,
21 Miss Baumgarten?
22 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I had the evening to
23 think further, your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Okay. And then you're going
25 to start cross-examination Mr. --

150
1 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, before we get started,
2 I just want to have one thing to ask you. All
3 right. I just have one thing, I would like to
4 renew a motion to dismiss at this point. Just put
5 it on the record at least.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MR. BUCZEK: Okay.
8 THE COURT: Yes.
9 MR. BUCZEK: Thank you. Because I know
10 it's past due for paperwork. We can't file
11 anything at this point, so I would like to go ahead
12 and verbally put a motion to dismiss. Based on the
13 evidence I've seen so far, nobody has a claim
14 against the defendant, and also under -- failure to
15 state a claim upon relief can be granted rule -- I
16 think it's Rule 12(b)(1) and lack of jurisdiction,
17 and at this time I don't see anybody that has a
18 claim against me. Thank you.
19 THE COURT: Okay. And the government
20 opposes?
21 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Yes, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: All right. Primarily this is
23 a criminal case, and on that basis I will deny the
24 motion.
25 Okay. As soon as the jury gets in.

151
1 THE CLERK: They're coming.
2 THE COURT: Mr. Bruce, how are you doing?
3 MR. BRUCE: I'm doing well, Judge.
4 THE COURT: Good.
5 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, I might just
6 give these documents to the witness before they
7 come back.
8 THE COURT: Sure.
9 (Jury seated.)
10 THE COURT: Okay. Good morning, ladies
11 and gentlemen.
12 THE JURY: Good morning.
13 THE COURT: It's good to see you again.
14 Thank you for making the efforts to be here on
15 time. I know one of or two of you had a little
16 bridge or traffic problem, but I want you to know
17 I'm taking full credit for the weather. I've made
18 all the arrangements for perfect driving weather to
19 get you here as close to on time as possible.
20 We are resumed in the case of United States
21 versus Shane Buczek. It's a criminal case. It's
22 under way. We've had a couple of witnesses
23 testify. Back on the stand is Eric John
24 Schumacker. He was sworn yesterday. You know I
25 think by now what your obligation is. It's to

152
1 resolve the fact issues in this case. You are the
2 jury of the facts, the judge of the facts, and you
3 get any fact issues resolved on the basis of
4 evidence or the lack of evidence. Presumption of
5 innocence is with Mr. Buczek, the defendant. The
6 government and only the government has the burden
7 of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on each
8 essential element of the crime charged. So it's
9 good to have you back here. Remember, a couple
10 critical words or maybe three by some counts,
11 common sense, I'll consider that one, intelligence,
12 and experience. Apply that to your task and come
13 back with the unanimous verdict when you're asked
14 to do that. And we're still in the government's
15 case. There's no obligation on the defense. But
16 stay with us. I mean, it's going to be a full day
17 of testimony today I think. And you were great
18 yesterday, and we appreciate all of that.
19 And Miss Baumgarten has a few extra questions
20 that she thought about over the course of last
21 evening, so we'll give her the opportunity to kind
22 of wind down here with Mr. Schumacker, and then it
23 will be time for cross-examination. Okay.
24 Miss Baumgarten, you may proceed.
25 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Thank you, your Honor.

153
1 E R I C J O H N S C H U M A C K E R, having
2 previously been duly sworn as a witness, testified
3 further as follows:
4 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN:
5 Q. Mr. Schumacker, yesterday you testified
6 concerning a routing number.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Why is that important?
9 A. Routing number is a specific number to a
10 specific financial institution or a bank used to
11 transfer funds.
12 Q. You also testified with respect to account
13 numbers. Why are account numbers significant?
14 A. An account number identifies an individual with
15 a bank.
16 Q. Why is it necessary for the account number and
17 the routing number to be provided when an
18 individual is attempting to use the direct check
19 function or feature?
20 A. Both are needed for the electronic transfer of
21 funds.
22 Q. All right. If I can direct your attention to
23 Exhibit 18 in evidence, and in particular page 36,
24 an entry occurring June 5, 2009.
25 A. I'm sorry, you said June?

154
1 Q. I believe it's June 5th, 2009.
2 MS. BAUMGARTEN: May I approach the
3 witness, your Honor?
4 THE COURT: You may.
5 BY MS. BAUMGARTEN:
6 Q. Do you have the entry now, sir?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. Okay. Now you've reviewed the computerized
9 screens are the screen shots, is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Was there an entry with respect to -- on
12 June 5th, 2009?
13 A. Yes, there was.
14 Q. And what does that entry state?
15 A. It involves a promissory note recorded in
16 Cattaraugus County, county clerk with Little
17 Valley, and it was recorded 12/9/2008.
18 Q. And where was that information derived from?
19 A. I believe the filing.
20 Q. All right. Your Honor, the witness has what
21 has been marked for identification as Government
22 Exhibit 11. Have you had an opportunity to review
23 that exhibit?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And what is that, sir?

155
1 A. It's a filing.
2 Q. What does it appear to be -- or what entity
3 does it appear to have been filed with?
4 THE COURT: Okay. Rephrase that question.
6 Q. Government Exhibit 11, where does it appear to
7 have been filed?
8 A. Cattaraugus County.
9 Q. Is that the promissory note, to the best of
10 your understanding, that's referenced in Exhibit 18
11 in the entry of June 5, 2009?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government moves
14 Exhibit 11 into evidence, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: All right. Okay.
16 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I don't have any
17 objections to the -- what is it called, a bonded
18 promissory note. I have no objections to that.
19 THE COURT: All right. Exhibit 11
20 received, no objection.
21 (Government's Exhibit 11 was received into
22 evidence.)
23 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your
24 Honor.
25 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you,

156
1 Miss Baumgarten.
2 Any questions on cross-examination, Mr. Buczek?
3 MR. BUCZEK: Yes, Judge.
4 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUCZEK:
5 Q. Good morning.
6 A. Morning.
7 Q. Can you please state your name for the record?
8 A. Eric John Schumacker.
9 Q. Okay. Thanks for being here this morning, and
10 sorry to bother you. Like to direct your attention
11 to Government Exhibit 18. Is there a way we can
12 pop that up?
13 THE COURT: Yes. Put it up, please.
14 BY MR. BUCZEK:
15 Q. Does this record actually show the routing
16 number at all?
17 A. No, it does not.
18 Q. Do you know what routing number they used? Is
19 there any indication -- do you know what routing
20 number that was used at all? You're saying no, you
21 don't know?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. Do you know what the -- the account and
24 routing number was?
25 A. No.
157
1 Q. Getting back to the Depository Trust at 55
2 Water Street, is their routing number anywhere on
3 there at all?
4 A. No, there's not.
5 Q. Do you know what the account number was for the
6 DTC offhand?
7 A. Not offhand, no.
8 Q. Not offhand okay. I don't see it in there. Is
9 it anywhere in the documents at all?
10 A. No.
11 Q. No. When these payments were made, the account
12 was credited, is that correct, initially it was
13 credited?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Since it was initially credited, was
16 there -- so basically there was no indication to
17 the customer from the DTC that wasn't paying, you
18 know, there -- there was no indication that it was
19 a -- how do I say it? That it basically bounced
20 back.
21 A. Not immediately.
22 Q. Right. How long was it before it actually was
23 reversed?
24 A. Different times, either between two to 12 days.
25 Q. Two or 12 days?
158
1 A. Between two and 12 days, yes.
2 Q. How long can it take for the very first initial
3 transaction to come back to HSBC? How long -- how
4 many days?
5 A. I believe it was around five.
6 Q. Five days? Really. When was the customer
7 notified? Do you know what day he was notified?
8 A. No, I do not.
9 Q. Okay. So -- so for that period of time I
10 believe it would appear to the customer that the
11 payments were through, correct, because it looks
12 like it was being credited.
13 A. I'm sorry, could you restate that?
14 Q. It appears that the credits were going through
15 initially.
16 A. To the customer?
17 Q. Right.
18 A. They would get that information off their
19 billing statement.
20 Q. Right. But it would show up as a credit on the
21 account?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. So it would appear that it was going
24 through.
25 A. From the billing statement.

159
1 Q. Correct. Okay. So basically I believe
2 somewhere -- I don't know where it is -- the
3 government -- okay. Do you assume it was the
4 defendant calling HSBC?
5 A. From the --
6 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Objection, your Honor.
7 He's asking him to assume, your Honor.
8 THE COURT: He can do that.
9 MR. BUCZEK: How am I supposed to have any
10 type of --
11 THE COURT: I'm going to permit it based
12 on yesterday's direct examination. You may ask the
13 question. Objection overruled.
14 MR. BUCZEK: Do we -- do we have any
15 firsthand knowledge of who might have made these
16 payments? Do we know how process -- was it done by
17 a check? Do we have any indications of that?
18 THE COURT: All right. Lets take a time
19 out here. Do a consult with Mr. Comerford please.
20 (Off the record discussion.)
21 BY MR. BUCZEK:
22 Q. Do you assume it was the defendant calling
23 HSBC?
24 A. From all the information to the best of my
25 knowledge.
160
1 Q. To the best of your knowledge. Okay. But, it
2 is a presumption that -- maybe it wasn't the
3 defendant, it could have been somebody else. It
4 could have been anybody, because it looks like
5 these were not checks, correct?
6 A. I don't have firsthand knowledge of whoever
7 called.
8 Q. Thank you. That's what I was waiting to hear.
9 But it would have been someone else, for example,
10 sometimes certain banks do their own debiting
11 automatically, you know, like when your bills due,
12 you just do it automatically, just like if you have
13 a gym -- if you can to a gym they automatically
14 debit your account for $29 a month, you might not
15 even know about it. What I'm trying to get to is
16 that we really don't know --
17 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Objection, your Honor,
18 he's not asking a question, he's making a
19 statement.
20 THE COURT: He is. I'll sustain the
21 objection.
22 BY MR. BUCZEK:
23 Q. Okay. So we don't know who actually made the
24 calls, I guess, they would have been. If it was
25 whoever.
161
1 A. I'm sorry, please restate that.
2 Q. Okay. We don't officially know, we don't have
3 firsthand knowledge who actually made the phone
4 calls to HSBC.
5 A. No, but that individual did have the
6 information of the customer.
7 Q. You can get that from anywhere. What I'm
8 trying to get to, do we have any recordings? Could
9 it possibly have been a friend?
10 A. Okay. Which question first?
11 Q. What I'm trying to get to, it could have been
12 anybody that made these payments, anybody.
13 Correct? Is that correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. Is there any transcripts or recordings on these
16 calls?
17 A. Not to my knowledge.
18 Q. Is there a way we can get them?
19 A. Not to my knowledge.
20 Q. I'm almost done, okay. Are you here today on
21 your public capacity or private capacity?
22 A. I don't understand the question. I'm a
23 representative of HSBC.
24 Q. Okay. So you're in for your public capacity.
25 You're not here in your private capacity. Okay. I

162
1 just want to make a record of it. So at this
2 particular time, I believe it's March 4th of 2010,
3 you do not have a claim against the defendant, is
4 that correct?
5 A. I don't understand the question.
6 Q. Do you have a claim against the defendant? Do
7 you have a claim?
8 A. This account is currently in collections.
9 Q. That's not the question. The question is do
10 you have a claim against the defendant.
12 Q. It's either yes or no.
13 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor --
14 THE COURT: He said he did not understand
15 the question. You can reput another question, if
16 you like, or the same one and we'll see what answer
17 we get.
18 BY MR. BUCZEK:
19 Q. Okay. Do you have some type of complaint
20 against the defendant?
21 A. I still don't understand the question.
22 Q. Okay. So basically on and for the record
23 there's no claim from HSBC at this point.
25 He's testifying.
163
1 THE COURT: If that's the question --
2 MR. BUCZEK: I'm just trying to find out
3 if HSB has a claim against me, that's all.
4 THE COURT: Ask the question ask then.
5 Ask it that way.
6 BY MR. BUCZEK:
7 Q. Does HSBC have a claim against the defendant?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Where is it?
10 A. I don't understand that question.
11 Q. Where is your claim against the defendant?
12 You're coming in here reading computer screen
13 information that's hearsay information, where's
14 your claim?
15 A. Are you talking about the collection process?
16 Q. No. I'm talking about a claim. Where is the
17 claim? The bona fide claim, where is your claim?
18 A. I still don't understand the question.
19 Q. It's very simple, it's either yes or no. Do
20 you have a claim against the defendant?
22 THE WITNESS: Sustained.
23 MR. BUCZEK: Just answer the question.
24 THE COURT: No. The witness says he
25 doesn't understand the question, and if he doesn't

164
1 understand it, then you're bound by that answer and
2 you must ask another question.
3 MR. BUCZEK: I have one more question.
4 THE COURT: Miss Baumgarten, have a seat.
5 MR. BUCZEK: Do you know anyone that has a
6 claim against the defendant?
7 THE WITNESS: No.
8 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I have no further
9 questions. I ask for the whole testimony be
10 stricken from the record based on the hearsay
11 evidence rule, the entire record, and I'll leave it
12 as that.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Miss Baumgarten, do you
14 have a comment, a statement, an objection?
15 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Well, in responding to
16 the defendant's objection?
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 MS. BAUMGARTEN: His testimony previously
19 is a follow-up to that yesterday, and the documents
20 themselves are admitted into evidence over the
21 defendant's objection.
22 THE COURT: Okay. So you object to
23 striking of the testimony?
25 THE COURT: Objection sustained. Okay.

165
1 Any redirect?
2 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Yes.
3 THE COURT: All right.
4 MR. BUCZEK: I'm done.
5 THE COURT: Okay. I know. Take a seat,
6 and then you have an opportunity to recross the
7 witness, ask questions, if it relates within the
8 scope of any questions that are asked on what we
9 call redirect.
10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN:
11 Q. In addition to the screen shots that are in
12 evidence in Exhibit 18, was there an investigation
13 conducted concerning those transactions by the
14 fraud department of HSBC Bank?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. At that time was that conducted by Michael
17 Parylac?
18 A. Yes, it was.
19 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review the
20 information obtained during the course of
21 Mr. Parylac's investigation?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. During the course of that investigation, was
24 the routing number and the account number obtained
25 that were provided by the defendant in those screen

166
1 shots?
2 A. Yes, it was.
3 Q. It's accurate that the routing number and the
4 account number weren't directly provided within the
5 screen shots, is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. BUCZEK: Objection, Judge.
8 THE COURT: Grounds?
9 MR. BUCZEK: We want to review this
10 evidence.
11 MR. COMERFORD: Judge, if he's relying on
12 something that's been provided by someone who is
13 not a witness, we want an opportunity to see that.
14 THE COURT: Okay. That's not a proper
15 objection necessarily to the statement. If it's an
16 issue of discovery for further examination, I'll
17 entertain that. Lets get the examination complete,
18 and if you need to provide information additional
19 that you haven't already that relates to this
20 examination, that's a proper request. So, let's
21 find out where you're going with your examination.
22 MS. BAUMGARTEN: So I should not respond
23 to that at this point, Judge?
24 THE COURT: Not yet.
167
1 Q. Credit statements would have been provided to
2 the defendant concerning the account, is that
3 correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And would those credit statements have provided
6 not only the original application of each of the
7 payments, but also the returned check?
8 A. Yes, it does.
9 Q. And, in fact, you actually testified concerning
10 those transactions during yesterday's testimony, is
11 that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. Were the payments that you
14 testified concerning yesterday automatic payments?
15 A. No.
16 Q. How were they arranged to have occurred?
17 A. They were phoned in and set up through our
18 process.
19 Q. All right. In that telephone-in process, were
20 security questions asked?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What was the purpose of those security
23 questions?
24 A. To verify the identity of the customer.
25 Q. Would those security questions have been asked

168
1 by the HSB representative if a representative was
2 actually who took the call?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Were those security questions also asked if the
5 defendant used the automatic phone system?
6 A. No. But they would still have to provide the
7 information needed to do that transaction.
8 Q. How would that have occurred?
9 A. Through a series of prompts through the
10 specific phone call.
12 Honor.
13 THE COURT: Okay, Miss Baumgarten. Any
14 questions, Mr. Buczek?
16 MR. COMERFORD: Just a second, Judge.
17 THE COURT: Before you begin those
18 questions, is it your request that you want the
19 credit statement information that was just
20 testified to as well as the report relating to the
21 identification of the account number and the
22 routing up number, is that the issue here?
23 MR. COMERFORD: We just want to see some
24 record from HSBC that has either the DTC routing
25 number or the account number he used.

169
1 THE COURT: Okay. And I believe the
2 witness testified that there is a record that
3 reflects that. The government has the obligation
4 to produce that record.
5 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, it was
6 produced. It's within the 3500 material. In
7 particular it's within the 302s that were prepared
8 by Special Agent Fred Falkowski.
9 MR. COMERFORD: An FBI 302 is not an HSBC
10 record, Judge. If HSBC comes in here and says it
11 was this account number, this routing number, it's
12 got to be somewhere. We haven't seen it. We have
13 a right to see it.
14 MS. BAUMGARTEN: The information that the
15 witness is relying on is the 302 that reflects the
16 interview conducted by the special agent of
17 Mr. Parylac.
18 MR. COMERFORD: It seems -- how can HSBC
19 rely on an FBI 302? Somewhere it came from their
20 records.
21 MS. BAUMGARTEN: It was information that
22 was obtained during a conversation involving
23 Mr. Parylac.
24 THE COURT: Does the record exist or not?
25 Not the 302.

170
1 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Not that I'm aware of.
2 THE COURT: Was a search made for that
3 record?
4 MS. BAUMGARTEN: It's my understanding
5 what we have that was conducted by -- during the
6 course of the investigation has been provided.
7 THE COURT: All right. Direct your
8 witness to make a search for the HSBC record, not
9 the 302, the HSBC record. Once you get the results
10 of that, make it available to Mr. Buczek. You can
11 do one of two things, you can -- on the basis of
12 the information you get, you can -- we can recall
13 Mr. Schumacker, or we can make an appropriate
14 motion in the event -- or based upon the results of
15 the government's information that it gives to you
16 as far as its availability, its existence. I will
17 take a look at that in the context of the testimony
18 of this witness with respect to both the accounting
19 number and the routing number as far as the DTCC is
20 concerned.
21 MR. COMERFORD: Thank you, Judge.
22 THE COURT: Okay. So now you put that
23 aside a little bit. You have the obligation to
24 take care of that. You can go to the podium and
25 start your cross-examination on everything else.

171
1 And you may also ask some questions about that if
2 you choose to at this time.
3 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, my main thing is
4 that --
5 THE COURT: Don't tell me what your main
6 thing is, okay. No. No. You can tell that to Mr.
7 Comerford, see if that can translate into a
8 question.
9 RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUCZEK:
10 Q. Okay. Do you know what the security questions
11 were asked of?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay. Is there any way we can find out? Is
14 there --
15 A. The call was not recorded.
16 Q. Okay. I'm not asking about the recorded call.
17 What I'm trying to find out is there a log of what
18 possible questions might be, whatever the -- I
19 don't know what the questions were. Do you know
20 what they were?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. Is there a way for you to do an
23 investigation on that and find out? There's got to
24 be a way. Okay.
25 THE COURT: No, let the witness -- what is

172
1 your question? Let's make that clear. Let the
2 witness answer.
3 BY MR. BUCZEK:
4 Q. Can we find out what the security questions
5 were, what was asked? Is there any way possible of
6 finding out what it was?
7 A. Sometimes they're different. I mean, they're
8 used by the customer service representatives.
9 There's no way of knowing what they asked at that
10 time. There's no way of myself knowing what they
11 asked at that time.
12 Q. How about maybe the answers?
13 A. There's no way of knowing that.
14 Q. Could it have been someone else that provided
15 the information?
16 MS. BAUMGARTEN: He's asking him to
17 speculate, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: It's okay. Overruled. You
19 may answer that question.
20 THE WITNESS: It could be. The person
21 that called in had the information of Shane Buczek.
22 MR. BUCZEK: Do you have firsthand
23 knowledge of this?
24 THE WITNESS: No.
25 MR. BUCZEK: Okay. Well, then you just

173
1 can't say it was the defendant.
3 THE COURT: It's what we call
4 argumentative. Sustained. Next question.
5 MR. BUCZEK: Could it have been someone
6 else?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 MR. BUCZEK: Thank you. That's all I need
9 to know.
10 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, if I may?
11 THE COURT: Question?
12 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Yes, please.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you step
14 back.
15 MR. BUCZEK: I'll ask --
16 THE COURT: This will be redirect.
18 Q. If the individual who had called on the account
19 didn't have the answers to those security
20 questions, what would have happened?
21 A. The call would have been discontinued.
22 Q. Does HSBC and its representatives provide
23 information on accounts to other than the account
24 holder?
25 A. No.
174
1 Q. So if a third-party had called and the
2 representative would have known that it was a
3 third-party, what would have occurred?
4 A. The call is discontinued.
5 Q. Would those direct check payments have been
6 scheduled?
7 A. No.
9 Honor.
10 MR. BUCZEK: I just have one question.
12 Q. I just have one question. The government
13 brought up the -- this promissory note that was
14 recorded in Cattaraugus County clerk's office.
15 Just one thing, is it true that there's a public
16 and private side of the account?
18 Q. And you don't understand the -- none of that,
19 right? There is a public and private side of the
20 account?
22 MR. BUCZEK: All right. I have no further
23 questions.
25 Honor.
175
1 THE COURT: Okay. You have a search to do
2 for the HSBC record.
3 THE WITNESS: Okay.
4 THE COURT: You'll be directed
5 specifically in that regard by Miss Baumgarten or
6 Mr. Bruce. Thank you, Mr. Schumacker, we
7 appreciate you being here.
8 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I think Mr. Bruce will
9 attend to it so we can call our next witness.
10 THE COURT: Make sure he gets it right
11 though, Mr. Bruce.
12 MR. BRUCE: I think I can handle it.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bruce.
14 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Anna Medlock, your Honor.
15 I don't -- your Honor, we seem to have
16 misplaced the originals of Exhibits 11 and 18. I
17 thought I had left them up at the podium.
18 MR. COMERFORD: We got them.
19 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Thank you. Your Honor,
20 it's just going to be a moment. We had to retrieve
21 the witness from room 212.
22 A N N A S. M E D L O C K, having been duly
23 sworn as a witness, testified as follows:
24 THE COURT: Morning.
25 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

176
1 THE COURT: Okay. Make yourself
2 comfortable. I think you're at a good position.
3 Speak at the microphone. It's going to pick you up
4 if you speak in a conversational tone. Keep in
5 mind that all of the testimony, questions and
6 answers and discussions are taken down by my court
7 reporter. Because you are here for the benefit of
8 the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please keep
9 your voice up so that it's loud enough for us to
10 hear. There's a few preliminary instructions.
11 Just make sure that you answer the question that's
12 asked of you. Try to be as concise and direct with
13 your response as you can be. Don't volunteer
14 information, because that causes all kinds of
15 complications. If you don't understand a question,
16 just ask that it be repeated. I'll assist in that
17 regard. If there's an objection to a question,
18 hold back with an answer, wait until I give you
19 further instruction. I'll resolve the objection,
20 and then what I will do is tell you whether to
21 complete an answer or wait for a new question and
22 then answer that question. Do you understand those
23 instructions?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
25 THE COURT: Okay. You may be directed

177
1 also to the screen to your left there, and you will
2 see exhibits. If you don't have the paper
3 document, the hard copy, you'll see it on the
4 screen itself. So, with that, if you would start
5 please in a conversational tone of voice and give
6 us your full name and spell your last name, please.
7 THE WITNESS: Anna S. Medlock,
8 M-E-D-L-O-C-K.
9 THE COURT: Okay. Your witness please,
10 Miss Baumgarten.
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN:
12 Q. Morning, ma'am.
13 A. Morning.
14 Q. Where are you employed?
15 A. The Internal Revenue Service.
16 Q. What do you do at the Internal Revenue Service?
17 A. I'm currently the chief planning analyst for
18 compliance services.
19 Q. How long have you been employed by the Internal
20 Revenue Service?
21 A. Thirty-five years.
22 Q. Where are you located, what office?
23 A. In Austin, Texas.
24 Q. Have you always worked for the Internal Revenue
25 Service in Austin?
178
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What are your duties in your current position?
3 A. Currently I assist the field director, oversee
4 the responsibilities that he has. I also serve as
5 the liaison to headquarters and to the rest of the
6 management team there in Austin.
7 Q. How many positions have you held during the
8 course of your employment at the Internal Revenue
9 Service?
10 A. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
11 Q. How many positions have you held during your
12 employment at the Internal Revenue Service?
13 A. I would say about 15 to 20.
14 Q. Currently how many employees do you supervise?
15 A. About 25.
16 Q. Have you supervised more employees during other
17 positions that you've held at the IRS?
18 A. Yes, I have.
19 Q. What is the greatest number of employees that
20 you have supervised?
21 A. About 400.
22 Q. What was your position at the time you
23 supervised 400 employees?
24 A. I was the operations manager for accounts
25 management.
179
1 Q. And what did that position require of you?
2 What were your duties?
3 A. I oversaw the responsibilities of customer
4 service representatives and some clerical
5 personnel. Those customer service representatives
6 also took calls at a call site. We also processed
7 any written correspondence coming in from
8 taxpayers. We respond to those inquiries. We also
9 processed 1040X amended tax returns.
10 Q. Okay. During the course of your employment
11 with the IRS, are you familiar with the types of
12 information that the IRS keeps and maintains?
13 A. Yes, I am.
14 Q. Are you familiar with the computerized
15 databases?
16 A. Yes, I am.
17 Q. And what do those computerized records on the
18 databases relate to?
19 A. They're tax filing histories for individual
20 taxpayers, and we refer to that individual tax
21 paying history as an account.
22 Q. That would be each person's or each company's
23 tax history?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you ever have access to any accounts that

180
1 contain money, that were in the possession or
2 maintained by the Internal Revenue Service?
3 A. No.
4 THE COURT: I want a clarification here.
5 Ask it again because you had a compound question
6 with respect to records for each person or each
7 corporation. It was blended I think in the
8 question. Ask specifically with respect to
9 information on each taxpayer account, and then each
10 business account in terms of corporations and
11 whether they're maintained.
12 Q. Does the IRS maintain computerized and other
13 records with respect to tax history information for
14 individuals?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Does the IRS maintain records and information
17 concerning tax information from businesses?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Are you familiar with the types of information
20 and the records maintained as to businesses?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Are you familiar with the information and
23 records maintained with respect to individuals?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is there limitations with respect to access for

181
1 those records?
2 A. Yes, there is.
3 Q. What is that based on?
4 A. Every employee accesses information only on a
5 need-to-know basis in order to help an individual
6 taxpayer that's assigned to them to work.
7 Q. Are you -- do you have any knowledge concerning
8 any trust accounts maintained by the Internal
9 Revenue Service?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Are there any trust accounts maintained by the
12 Internal Revenue Service?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Are there any trust accounts maintained with
15 respect to individuals?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Are there any trust accounts maintained with
18 respect to any businesses?
19 A. No.
20 Q. When you refer to the account, what are you
21 actually referring to?
22 A. It is a tax filing history for an individual
23 based on tax years and any information they have
24 filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
25 Q. Are you familiar with Social Security numbers?

182
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Are Social Security numbers used during the
3 business operations of the Internal Revenue
4 Service?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. How are they used?
7 A. It is the information that the customer service
8 representative needs in order to access the
9 information they need to help a taxpayer.
11 Internal Revenue Service based upon an individual's
12 Social Security number?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Are there any trust accounts -- let me start
15 again. Are you familiar with an alphanumeric
16 number that appears on the card stock for a Social
17 Security card?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you know whether the Internal Revenue
20 Service maintains any trust accounts for
21 individuals based on an alphanumeric number?
22 A. No.
23 THE COURT: Do you know what an
24 alphanumeric number is?
25 THE WITNESS: It would be a combination of

183
1 the alphabet and numbers.
2 THE COURT: Thank you.
4 Q. Do you have any control over any accounts
5 maintained by the Internal Revenue Service, and by
6 accounts I don't mean taxpayer information, I mean
7 bank accounts?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Do you know the defendant?
10 A. No, I don't.
11 Q. To your knowledge have you ever spoken to the
12 defendant?
13 A. No.
14 Q. To your knowledge have you ever received
15 correspondence from the defendant?
16 A. No.
18 Honor.
19 THE COURT: All right. Thank you,
20 Miss Baumgarten.
21 THE WITNESS: Could I pour a glass of the
22 water, sir?
23 THE COURT: Certainly. Sure. Take your
24 time. I think it's fresh within the last two
25 weeks.
184
2 Q. Good morning.
3 A. Good morning.
4 Q. It's real nice to meet you. I heard a lot
5 about you. Can you please state your name for the
6 record?
7 A. Anna Medlock.
8 Q. Thank you. Mrs. Medlock, I -- in preparing for
9 this case, I've been working on it for quite a
10 while, have you learned about the belief system
11 concerning the 1933 bankruptcy and HR 192 June 5th,
12 1933, passed at 4:40 p.m. in the afternoon that --
13 the theory is that everything is prepaid since
14 there is no lawful money, Article 1, Section 10 of
15 the United States Constitution all debts supposed
16 to be paid back in gold and silver and no state
17 should submit bills of credit.
18 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Objection.
19 MR. BUCZEK: Are you familiar with that
20 concept?
21 THE COURT: Did you understand the
22 question?
23 THE WITNESS: No.
24 MR. BUCZEK: I believe I went too fast,
25 Judge.
185
1 THE COURT: You did, for all of us. So,
2 on that basis that the witness does not understand
3 the question --
4 MR. BUCZEK: I'll do slower.
5 THE COURT: -- withdraw the question.
6 MR. BUCZEK: All right.
7 THE COURT: Be more deliberate please.
8 BY MR. BUCZEK:
9 Q. Are you familiar with the bankruptcy of the
10 United States in 1933?
11 A. No, I'm not.
12 Q. Are you familiar or heard anything about this
13 thing called acceptance for value, exempt from
14 levy, with your Social Security number without the
15 dashes, which is the creditor's side and with the
16 dashes is the debtor side, are you familiar with
17 that concept?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Have you ever heard of it at all? Whispered in
20 your ear at work, have you ever heard of it, maybe
21 on the Internet or anything?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Have you ever received documents sent in to
24 Austin, Texas, addressed to I believe your name,
25 Anna Medlock, people sending in their coupons which

186
1 they believe are money orders and accepted for
2 value and sent in to you and they signed the back
3 of the coupon mailed directly to your office, have
4 you ever received any of that ever?
6 MR. BUCZEK: From anybody?
7 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer
8 that question.
9 THE WITNESS: Not that I know of, no.
10 BY MR. BUCZEK:
11 Q. Not that you know of?
12 A. No.
13 Q. So possibly it might be true then?
14 A. Could be.
15 Q. Um-hum. I just have to say it's an honor to
16 meet you today. I've heard a lot about you over
17 the last five years and I learned about public
18 policy --
20 MR. BUCZEK: -- and -- I need to put this
21 on the record, Judge.
22 THE COURT: Can't do it that way.
23 Objection sustained.
24 MR. BUCZEK: I know. But I just wanted --
25 it's an honor to meet her, that's all.

187
1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. BUCZEK: And I've been to a lot of
3 seminars.
4 THE COURT: You can't do that, Mr. Buczek.
5 There is an objection. It's a stand-up objection.
6 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I'm sorry.
7 THE COURT: A silent one which I'm going
8 to acknowledge and sustain.
9 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Thank you, your Honor.
10 MR. BUCZEK: Are you aware of the
11 publications that are mostly on You Tube and
12 throughout the Internet on the bankruptcy of 1933
13 and accepted for value exempt from levy and
14 everything is prepaid apparently under public
15 policy, and I brought that issue up earlier --
16 THE COURT: No, you're losing the
17 question, so I'm going to take the initiative and
18 object to that question and require that it be
19 withdrawn.
20 MR. BUCZEK: Mrs. Medlock, are you
21 familiar with my belief system? Are you
22 familiar --
23 THE COURT: Is there a question before
24 this witness?
25 MR. BUCZEK: Yes. The question is are you

188
1 familiar with my belief system concerning the
2 bankruptcy of 1933?
3 THE WITNESS: No.
4 BY MR. BUCZEK:
5 Q. And House Resolution 192, June 5th, 1933,
6 passed in Congress which -- Judge, which was
7 repealed but codified in Title 31 Section 5118.
8 A. No.
9 Q. Never heard of this?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Have you learned about anything about the
12 banking system since you heard about this case and
13 my belief system, not just mine but probably
14 thousands?
15 A. No.
16 Q. About accepted for value?
17 A. No.
18 Q. So you're going to tell me you never received
19 any accepted for value documents mailed to your
20 office in the last five, ten years?
21 A. If it is, it probably came in through the mail
22 room and was routed to an area that could look at
23 it and determine what to do with it.
24 Q. Have you -- have you testified in other similar
25 cases similar as this one that people have a

189
1 certain belief system on a bankruptcy?
2 A. No.
3 THE COURT: What does acceptance for
4 value, what does that mean to you?
5 THE WITNESS: Something would be presented
6 so that it is accepted as money, accepted as money
7 or something like that.
8 THE COURT: So it has meaning, those
9 terms?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 BY MR. BUCZEK:
13 Q. Mrs. Medlock, do you know the definition of
14 money?
15 A. As written in the dictionary, no.
16 Q. Weights and measures, correct, gold and silver?
17 A. I don't know whether that is the definition of
18 money.
19 Q. I was just asking if you knew the definition of
20 money, weights and measures and gold and silver.
21 THE COURT: There was an answer to that
22 question.
23 BY MR. BUCZEK:
24 Q. I know. Are you familiar with Article 1
25 Section 10 of the United States Constitution?

190
1 A. No, I'm sorry not offhand.
2 Q. Would you like me to tell you what that is?
5 MS. BAUMGARTEN: He's supposed to be
6 asking her the question, not testifying.
7 MR. BUCZEK: I'm trying to get her to
8 understand the question, Judge.
9 THE COURT: Well, you have to do it
10 through a series of questions. I'm not supposed to
11 give you instructions, that's why you have your
12 standby counsel. Work with him a little bit
13 closer.
14 MS. BAUMGARTEN: It is relevance.
15 THE COURT: That's kind of a weak
16 objection, frankly.
17 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Well, he asked the
18 question. She said, no, she did not understand it.
19 THE COURT: Is this all relevant?
20 MS. BAUMGARTEN: That's why I said it's
21 also not relevant.
22 THE COURT: I must have missed that part
23 of it. So far this part is not relevant.
24 Sustained. Form of the question usually is the way
25 it's put. Sustained. Consult with your attorney

191
1 about what next to do.
2 MR. BUCZEK: I have one more question.
3 THE COURT: Not your attorney, but your
4 standby counsel. Okay.
5 MR. BUCZEK: Okay.
6 BY MR. BUCZEK:
7 Q. Did you consult with the United States
8 attorney's office about this case and did they prep
9 you up, testimony today?
10 A. We had a discussion, yes.
11 Q. Would you state on the record under penalty of
12 perjury that you never received anything A for V at
13 your office, accepted for value, exempt from levy?
14 A. I can't say whether something came in or not if
15 I didn't see it.
16 Q. So what I'm trying to get to, it might be true.
17 A. Well, certainly something could have come into
18 the Internal Revenue Service with my name on it.
19 Q. What I was trying to get to, Mrs. Medlock, is
20 that did the United States attorney's office block
21 you from talking about what we're discussing today?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. Last question I guess. Are you familiar
24 with the -- the Winston Shrout, Jean Keating,
25 Dr. Sam Kennedy, and the list goes -- it's very

192
1 long, and about everything's prepaid and you tear
2 the coupon off, which is actually a money order,
3 and they mail it directly to your office, have you
4 seen one of them at all in the last few years, at
5 least heard of it?
6 A. No.
7 Q. And would you say that under penalty of
8 perjury?
9 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, the witness
10 is under oath.
11 THE COURT: The witness is under oath.
13 BY MR. BUCZEK:
14 Q. Can you please tell me what the 1040V is?
15 A. It's a voucher.
16 Q. What do we use it for?
17 A. For payment.
18 Q. Can you give me an example?
19 A. When a taxpayer submits a payment, the 1040V is
20 a voucher that is submitted with the payment.
21 Q. So there -- would it be possible that they're
22 tearing a coupon off, signing the back of the
23 coupon, which is actually a bill from any bank, and
24 they're mailing it in with a 1040V, would it be
25 possible that the coupon from your mortgage and

193
1 your auto loan is actually really a money order,
2 and they're mailing it in with a 1040V, is it even
3 possible?
4 A. I don't think I understand the question.
5 Q. I'll rephrase it. Say you get a bill from HSBC
6 for a mortgage and you owe a thousand dollars, and
7 you tear the coupon off. There's a coupon, you
8 know, payment stub they call it. They sign the
9 back of it, write accepted for value, and they mail
10 it to Anna Medlock in Austin, Texas, with a 1040V.
11 The theory is what I'm trying to get to, is a lot
12 of people believe that the coupon is actually a
13 money order. Have you ever received any of that,
14 the coupon?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. And just to finish up with the gentleman
17 I mentioned earlier, Dr. Sam Kennedy, Winston
18 Shrout, Jean Keating, there is a lot of information
19 about you on You Tube by the way, have you seen
20 that?
21 A. No.
22 Q. You're famous. You're all over You Tube. I
23 thank you very much. I'm all done. Thank you.
24 THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Buczek, thank you.
25 Miss Baumgarten, is there any redirect?

194
1 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Yes, please.
2 THE COURT: Okay.
4 Q. If paperwork such as that described by the
5 defendant during his questioning of you was
6 received at the time that you supervised 400
7 employees, what likely would have happened to that
8 paperwork?
9 A. It would have come through the mail room and
10 processed in whatever manner it came in.
11 Q. Would there have been a referral within the IRS
12 to another department?
13 A. That's possible, yes.
14 Q. What would that department have been?
15 A. It would have been within the mail room
16 operation, because that's where the monies are
17 deposited and mail is opened.
18 Q. During the time frame that you supervised the
19 400 employees, how many pieces of correspondence
20 went out with your signature approximately?
21 A. About 900,000.
23 Honor.
24 THE COURT: Any questions, Mr. Buczek?
25 MR. BUCZEK: Yeah, just one. I just have

195
1 one question.
2 THE COURT: If it's one stay right there.
3 I'll let you ask it right from the table.
4 MR. BUCZEK: I just want to get a yes or
5 no on this. Do you ever go on the Internet and
6 look into this, look at the information concerning
7 the bankruptcy and some people call it the Wizard
8 of Oz, because we're in the fiction world today.
9 We're not in Kansas anymore, and, you know, your
10 name has been associated with a lot of these
11 things.
12 THE COURT: That's really not a question.
13 MR. BUCZEK: Have you ever seen it before?
14 THE WITNESS: No.
15 MR. BUCZEK: Okay. Thank you. That's
16 all.
18 Honor.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Miss Medlock, thank you
20 very much. We appreciate it. Have a good safe
21 trip back to Austin.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
23 MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government's next
24 witness is Matthew Johnson.
25 THE COURT: Everybody doing okay, ladies

196
1 and gentlemen?
2 M A T T H E W J O H N S O N, having been duly
4 THE COURT: Okay. Good morning.
5 THE WITNESS: Morning.
6 THE COURT: You're moving pretty quickly.
7 Almost ran into one of our CSOs. Okay. Couple
8 preliminary instructions to you, sir. Everything
9 that is discussed in the courtroom, questions,
10 answers, related matters on objections or arguments
11 gets taken down by my court reporter. Your purpose
12 here is to make certain that she captures
13 everything that you say, so you're here for the
14 benefit of the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
15 You have a microphone that's yours for now. Speak
16 at that device, keep your voice at a conversational
17 tone. That helps everybody. Associated with that
18 is, one, if you don't understand a question, please
19 ask that it be repeated. Don't try to answer it,
20 don't try to rephrase it. As far as any question
21 is concerned and then your answer, keep it as
22 succinct and as related as possible. Don't
23 volunteer information, because that causes all
24 kinds of difficulties. Bear in mind that if
25 there's an objection, you should wait until I rule

197
1 on the objection, then you will get an instruction
2 from me to continue with your answer or wait for
3 another question. Understand those instructions?
4 THE WITNESS: I do.
5 THE COURT: All right. Looks like you're
6 going to get picked up pretty well. Please state
7 your full name, spell your last name.
8 THE WITNESS: Matthew Todd Johnson,
9 J-O-H-N-S-O-N.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
12 Q. Morning, Mr. Johnson.
13 A. Good morning.
15 A. I'm employed with the Office of the Comptroller
16 of the Currency, and it is an agency underneath the
17 U.S. Treasury Department.
18 Q. How long have you been employed with the
19 Treasury Department?
20 A. Going on 24 years now.
21 Q. What is your current position?
22 A. I am a commissioned national bank examiner as
23 well as an external fraud specialist.
24 Q. If you would please let the jury know what
25 those responsibilities are within each of those

198
1 positions.
2 A. Sure. A commissioned national bank examiner is
3 an individual who has passed what is called a
4 commissioning test. So the Office of the
5 Comptroller of the Currency is responsible for
6 chartering, regulating, and supervising all
7 national banks here in the United States, as well
8 as foreign banks' branches here in the United
9 States. The agency itself not only do they ensure
10 that safety and soundness protocols are being met,
11 but we also do thing like looking at loans, looking
12 at investments, making sure the bank is run in a
13 safe and sound manner.
14 A commissioned national bank examiner is one
15 who has gone through a commissioning process, not
16 unlike what a CPA might do. It's a long process,
17 testing process, and you've got to pass all
18 elements in order to get the commissioning
19 designation. A national fraud specialist is a
20 position that my agency created many years ago that
21 allows the individual who is in that position to
22 work with law enforcement, to work with prosecutors
23 in investigating alleged crimes or alleged
24 fraudulent activity either against financial
25 institutions or fraudulent activities just in

199
1 general.
2 Q. Are you familiar with the Bureau of Public
3 Debt?
4 A. Yes, I am.
5 Q. What is that?
6 A. The Bureau of Public Debt is also part of the
7 U.S. Treasury Department. Essentially it keeps
8 tabs of the debt that the U.S. Government has.
9 Q. Are you familiar with the computerized systems
10 and information that are maintained and kept by the
11 Department of Treasury?
12 A. As it relates to the Bureau of Public Debt,
13 yes.
14 Q. All right. Have you had an opportunity to
15 search or cause a search to be done of the Bureau
16 of Public Debt with respect to the defendant Shane
17 Christopher Buczek?
18 A. Yes, I have.
19 Q. What were the results of that search?
20 A. Mr. Buczek does not have any type of account
21 associated with the U.S. Treasury Department or the
22 U.S. Government.
23 Q. What sort of accounts could an individual have
24 with the Treasury Department of the U.S. as
25 reflected in the Bureau of Public Debt?

200
1 A. The Bureau of Public Debt keeps, as I said,
2 keeps track of the debt that the U.S. Government
3 has. An individual can a open up an account and
4 it's called a treasury direct account. Previously
5 to that it was called a legacy treasury direct
6 account. But a treasury direct account is an
7 account where an individual can buy and sell U.S.
8 debt obligations. And what I mean by that is a
9 U.S. debt obligation is like a T-bill, a T-note or
10 even savings bonds, the double E savings bonds.
11 And they will maintain those items, like the
12 treasury bonds, in that account. In order for an
13 individual to use the money represented by the debt
14 obligations in that account, an individual must
15 sell them, then have that money transferred over to
16 let's say a regular bank account, and then you can
17 use that money. One thing that -- that account
18 cannot do is if you had an account such as a
19 treasury direct account, you cannot pay third-party
20 out of that account. In other words, you can't
21 write a check on that account, or wire money to a
22 third-party from that account.
23 Q. Are there checks that can be issued in any way
24 from a treasury direct account or a treasury legacy
25 account?
201
1 A. No.
2 Q. Is there a checking function on those accounts?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Is there a savings function on them, other than
5 the holding of those U.S. obligations?
6 A. Other than the holding of the U.S. obligations,
7 no.
8 Q. Could we back up just for a moment and explain
9 you used the term T-bill, T-bond and there was a
10 third that I missed.
11 A. T-note.
12 THE COURT: Okay. We're going to start
13 with that, but let me ask you one question. How
14 many are there around like you, a commissioned
15 national bank examiner? I want to know about that
16 first.
17 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the
18 question, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: You may be one of a kind for
20 all I know. You are commissioned, right?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.
22 THE COURT: You're a national bank
23 examiner, so how many are there?
24 THE WITNESS: Let me answer that question
25 this way. My agency employs approximately 2500

202
1 people. Of that 2500 people I'm going to say
2 commissioned-wise, maybe 1500 that are currently
3 with my agency. Obviously we have had a lot of
4 retirees that also have that commissioned national
5 bank status, they're just not employed anymore.
6 THE COURT: Ballpark 1500?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 THE COURT: Thank you. That's helpful.
10 Q. Where do you come to Buffalo from? Where are
11 you located generally?
12 A. I work and reside in Washington, D.C.
13 Q. If we can go back just to catch up and get an
14 explanation from you as to the T-bill, T-bond and
15 T-note?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. As to each of those terms please.
18 A. The T obviously stands for treasury, so
19 treasury bond, treasury note. They are what the
20 U.S. issues in order to finance the debt of United
21 States. If you have read the news lately, there's
22 a lot of talk and discussion about the debt of the
23 United States and where we are there. The holders
24 of those T-bonds, T-notes and T-bills could be
25 individuals such as here in the courtroom, or they

203
1 could be governments. For example, like I believe
2 now China, the country of China is now the single
3 largest holder of debt -- of U.S. debt obligations.
4 THE COURT: What's the benefit to holding
5 something that evidences a part of the U.S. debt?
6 THE WITNESS: Well, they'll get a certain
7 amount of interest on that based on whatever the
8 prevailing interest rates are. And if the T-bonds,
9 T-bills, or T-notes are sold at a discount, and
10 that factors into the interest as well. So it can
11 earn you money, like a savings account can.
12 THE COURT: Is that a published rate?
13 THE WITNESS: It is a published rate, but
14 it changes all the time.
15 THE COURT: Who watches over the changing
16 rate?
17 THE WITNESS: The Federal Reserve does out
18 of Washington, D.C.
19 THE COURT: Is it generally a good
20 competitive rate?
21 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I think the Court is
22 asking for investment advice.
23 THE WITNESS: I will say that holding of
24 U.S. treasury debt obligations is a very
25 conservative investment, and it's safe, because

204
1 it's backed by the full faith and credit of the
2 U.S. Government, as opposed to if you were to buy
3 stock in the market, then you have to rely upon the
4 quality and value of that company, whatever that
5 company is, to maintain the quality of the debt
6 obligation.
7 THE COURT: Okay. And that's helpful by
8 way background and by way of what your information
9 is that you possess. Okay. Let's move on from
10 there. Go ahead, Miss Baumgarten.
12 Q. Focusing back on the opening of such a treasury
13 legacy account, how does that occur? What is that
14 process?
15 A. Well, it's as simple as going to the Internet
16 and pulling up the treasury direct Web site and you
17 can open an account online there. And then the
18 specific process is there that are detailed on that
19 Web site.
20 Q. Do funds have to be transferred into a newly
21 opened account as part of the process?
22 A. Yes. In order to purchase debt obligations,
23 the T-bills, the T notes, the T-bonds, or the
24 double E savings bonds, you first have to have
25 money, and then you purchase them, and then the

205
1 instruments themselves reside in that account.
2 Q. In the event that an individual who -- or a
3 company who would open such a treasury legacy
4 account wished to sell off those U.S. obligations,
5 how would that occur?
6 A. They would just put a sell order in, and it
7 would be sold, and then most likely the money would
8 then be transferred out to a regular bank account
9 that one might have.
10 Q. When you say money, do you mean physical
11 currency?
12 A. Well, it's going to be like a -- probably a
13 wire transfer that is represented by currency, but
14 it's not actual currency.
15 Q. Are you familiar with the term pass through
16 account?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What does that term mean?
19 A. Generally speaking, a pass through account is
20 kind of like what the name says. It's an account
21 that something passes through it. Typically and
22 not exclusively, but typically a lot of foreign
23 banks will have foreign correspondent bank
24 relationships with banks in the United States in
25 order to promote investment or to allow their

206
1 customers to do something else somewhere else down
2 the road. So a foreign bank will open up an
3 account in a U.S. bank, and when they transfer
4 money that needs to be over here, it passes through
5 this account at this institution.
6 Q. Are you familiar with the term Federal Reserve
7 discount window?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What does that mean?
10 A. That Federal Reserve discount window is where
11 you would go actually to purchase debt obligations
12 of the U.S., either an individual can do that or in
13 some cases companies.
14 Q. And then those purchased U.S. obligations would
15 be held in your treasury legacy account?
16 A. If you want it to be held there, then you could
17 go through the treasury legacy account to do that.
18 Typically what happens if you're going to the
19 Federal Reserve discount window to purchase
20 something, it's either going to be held probably at
21 the Federal Reserve or at some other entity that's
22 going to hold this for you.
23 Q. Is there such a term as the treasury discount
24 window?
25 A. Not that I'm aware of.

207
1 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, may I
2 approach the witness?
3 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
4 MS. BAUMGARTEN: May I approach the
5 witness?
6 THE COURT: Certainly. Is that a
7 premarked exhibit?
8 MS. BAUMGARTEN: It's Exhibit 11 in
9 evidence, your Honor.
12 Q. Are you familiar with what's in Government
13 Exhibit 11?
14 A. I'm familiar with it to the extent that it was
15 provided to me to look at previously.
16 Q. In connection with your testimony here today?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. So you've reviewed it prior to
19 appearing here?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. Now, in that document there are
22 references to the treasury discount window. Can
23 you explain -- page 2. It's on the screen also.
24 Mr. Johnson, if you wouldn't mind taking your
25 finger and circling on the screen the term treasury

208
1 discount window. Do you see it on page 2 of
2 Exhibit 11?
3 A. Yes, I do. Not a real good circle.
4 THE COURT: That was a conservative
5 statement by the way.
7 Q. Do you see during -- in that -- on that page in
8 Exhibit 11 there is "via the pass through account
9 at the treasury discount window." Do you know what
10 that phrase means?
11 A. Not in this context, no.
12 Q. Does it have any meaning with respect to the
13 transfer of funds?
14 A. No.
15 Q. If you would please look at page 4 of
16 Exhibit 11, in particular paragraph 6. Do you see
17 a reference there Department of the Treasury bank
18 and the federal window?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You highlighted it. Thank you. What does
21 paragraph 6 mean?
22 A. I have no idea.
23 Q. Would it effectuate the transfer of funds from
24 the Department of Treasury to anyone's account?
25 A. No.
209
1 Q. Would it transfer funds to pay any debt --
2 A. No.
3 Q. -- on anyone's behalf?
4 A. No.
5 Q. If you will look at page 5 of Exhibit 11, what
6 does that document purport to be?
7 A. Well, it purports, as indicated at the top,
8 that it's a bonded promissory note. However, I
9 would have no idea what that term is. And in the
10 course of my job responsibilities with my agency, I
11 see these types of documents, unfortunately, almost
12 on a daily basis.
13 Q. So you have familiarity with this sort of a
14 document?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you have an understanding of what this sort
17 of document is being submitted to accomplish?
18 A. Well, it's submitted to try to allow or to
19 cause the U.S. Treasury to somehow pay someone's
20 debt obligations.
22 Department of Treasury on behalf of any
23 individuals?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Aside from those that would contain the U.S.

210
1 Government obligations?
2 A. That is correct. Other than if somebody opened
3 up a treasury direct account, then that account
4 obviously is there in the individual's name that
5 they can hold the debt obligations that you
6 referred to. Other than that, no.
7 Q. Would the submission of the bonded promissory
8 note on page 5 of Exhibit 11 actually cause funds
9 to be transferred from the Department of Treasury?
10 A. No.
11 Q. On anyone's behalf?
12 A. No.
13 THE COURT: What's done with it?
15 Q. What does it cause to have -- what happens if
16 someone submits this bonded promissory note?
17 A. Nothing. The Treasury Department probably --
18 obviously they take possession of it since it's
19 sent to them, and it just is maintained there.
20 Q. Does the Department of Treasury acknowledge any
21 of these bonded promissory notes one way or the
22 other?
23 A. No. However, I will say that I am aware that
24 the U.S. Treasury at times will send a letter back
25 to the individual who submitted them notifying them

211
1 that these are considered fictitious financial
2 instruments, and they should cease and desist from
3 sending them.
4 Q. If you would look at page 6 of Exhibit 11, are
5 you familiar with that document?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Have you seen documents -- first of all, what
8 is it, please?
9 A. Well, it states that it's a verified notice of
10 tender of payment. And what it is purporting on
11 this document it says notice for, if you see that
12 on the document there, that it's supposed to go to
13 an individual at HSBC Bank.
14 Q. Does page 6 of Exhibit 11 have any legal
15 affect?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Does it cause the Department of Treasury to
18 transfer funds to HSBC bank?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did it happen on this particular case?
21 A. No.
22 Q. What was the dollar amount of the bonded
23 promissory note in page 5 of Exhibit 11?
24 A. It states that it was for $30,000. However, if
25 you take a look at the very first paragraph of the

212
1 bonded promissory note where it starts memo --
2 THE COURT: Okay. Let's highlight that,
3 please.
4 THE WITNESS: -- it refers to a
5 500 million-dollar amount that is supposed to be in
6 an account at Treasury in the name of the
7 defendant.
9 Q. All right. Is there actually such an account
10 in the defendant's name at the Department of
11 Treasury?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Are you familiar with the term in that
14 paragraph private offset bond?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Does the Department of Treasury maintain any
17 accounts based on an individual's Social Security
18 number?
19 A. Not that I'm aware of. It may be a secondary
20 identifier, but I do not believe that it is a
21 primary identifier. And by that I mean typically
22 they're going to use a name, and then that would be
23 the primary identifier and then in order to make
24 sure you've got the right person, for example, my
25 name being Matthew Johnson, there's -- there are a

213
1 lot of us here in the United States, and so they
2 would use my Social Security number or even my
3 middle name to help narrow it down to who I am.
4 Q. Does the Treasury Department maintain trust
5 accounts by the mere fact that an individual has a
6 Social Security number?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Does the Department of Treasury maintain secret
9 trust accounts based upon the fact that an
10 individual has a Social Security number?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Is the defendant's Social Security number
13 referenced throughout Exhibit 11?
14 A. Yes, it is. I believe -- especially on that
15 page that we were just on, I think it's page 5, and
16 in that paragraph that's actually already
17 highlighted on the screen right after where it says
18 private offset bond with a number sign, the
19 131-68-5635 I believe is the defendant's Social
20 Security number.
21 Q. And is that also listed on that same page 5 at
22 the top of the document following note number?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. Is there an alphanumeric, meaning alphabet and
25 number combination number that follows?

214
1 A. Yes. Right after the Social Security number
2 there's a slash, and then there's a C for Charlie
3 22401901-B as in baker, P as in Paul, N as in
4 nector, 0006.
5 Q. Does that number have any significance with the
6 U.S. Department of Treasury?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Is there any significance to you with respect
9 to the $30,000 amount listed within Exhibit 11?
10 A. The only significance I would say it most
11 likely relates to something at HSBC Bank.
12 Q. All right.
13 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Excuse me, your Honor.
15 Q. With respect to, for example, a debt with HSBC
16 Bank, if there was a debt in the approximate amount
17 of $10,000, would the $30,000 referenced throughout
18 Exhibit 11 have a significance?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What would that significance be?
21 A. Well, the significance would be that obviously
22 the $30,000 would be going to pay the $10,000 debt
23 the individual actually has. The other issue that
24 possibly could happen was that if for some reason
25 HSBC took this as a legitimate document, they may

215
1 feel that they were overpaid and that ultimately
2 send $20,000 back to the individual who sent the
3 $30,000 item in.
5 Honor.
6 THE COURT: Okay. I'll tell you what
7 we're going to do. I think, ladies and gentlemen,
8 you've earned a break, okay, so we will resume
9 again at 11:00 o'clock, and Gerry -- I'm sorry,
10 Darryl, we'll put them in your custody at this
11 point.
12 Okay. Mr. Johnson, you're going to be excused,
13 but you are under oath, remember that please.
14 (Jury excused from the courtroom.)
15 (Jury seated.)
16 THE COURT: Thank you. Please have a
17 seat, ladies and gentlemen. Okay. We are
18 reassembled in the case of United States versus
19 Shane Buczek. The attorneys are back, present.
20 Mr. Buczek is here. The witness, Mr. Johnson, is
21 here. And ladies and gentlemen of the jury, not
22 last, not least, but you are here, roll call
23 waived. Are we ready to go forward on
24 cross-examination?
25 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, there was a

216
1 request by the defense with respect to one of the
2 pieces of evidence. We are trying to resolve that.
3 The government's trying to accommodate the request
4 so that they could at least flush out the issue
5 before we would have to object.
6 THE COURT: Do we need more time? Are we
7 okay to go forward?
8 MS. BAUMGARTEN: We could --
9 THE COURT: I think we're okay. All
10 right. Lets give it a try. Lets see where we come
11 out. We will be breaking though about five minutes
12 of 12. Okay. Cross-examination, Mr. Buczek.
14 Q. Okay, good morning.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. Thanks for joining us today. I guess I'll
17 start off by asking you to state your name for the
18 record.
19 A. Matthew Todd Johnson.
20 Q. Okay. Thank you. It's nice to -- nice for you
21 to come here today.
22 I guess I'll just start off with a few
23 questions about getting back to the -- to the
24 bankruptcy of 1933. There seems to be a huge issue
25 of people sending you -- you were mentioning

217
1 earlier you're getting every other day these bonded
2 promissory notes and all sorts of different
3 paperwork, was that correct?
4 A. I do receive a lot of information such as what
5 we've discussed already this morning. However you
6 mentioned something about a bankruptcy in 1933,
7 which I'm not aware of.
8 Q. I'm sure you read the constitution before,
9 right?
10 A. In a civics class I'm sure I did, yes.
11 Q. Okay. The only reason why I bring that up is I
12 was going to mention one little point. Have you
13 ever heard of Article 1, Section 10?
14 A. I'm not familiar with that off the top of my
15 head.
16 Q. Okay. It basically just states that all debts
17 supposed to be paid back in gold and silver.
18 Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution states
19 that all debt is supposed to be paid back in gold
20 and silver, and no states should submit bills of
21 credit. And if you look at the -- I might as well
22 ask you, it's called the Federal Reserve note I
23 believe it's called, which represents a debt. I
24 guess what I want to ask you -- the reason why I'm
25 bringing this up is I want to ask you what is your

218
1 main job at the OCC? I believe it's called the
2 comptroller of the currency. I thought it was
3 located in Texas. I didn't know they had a branch
4 in Washington, D.C. But can you just please give a
5 brief description of what you do there.
6 A. As I stated earlier this morning, I work for an
7 agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the
8 Currency or OCC. It is headquartered out of
9 Washington, D.C. And we are part of the U.S.
10 Treasury Department. The OCC has offices all over
11 the country. In fact I believe we even have a
12 satellite office here in Buffalo.
13 My job responsibilities at the OCC as a
14 commissioned national bank examiner, it gives me
15 the authority to examine and supervise all national
16 banks here in the United States, as well as foreign
17 branches that have -- foreign banks that have
18 branches here in the United States. I'm also
19 responsible for assisting law enforcement, whether
20 it's federal or state and local, on investigations
21 as it relates to fraud, or alleged fraud, and also
22 help serve as an expert witness in certain court
23 proceedings as it relates to whatever is being
24 charged.
25 Q. I didn't know we had a satellite office in

219
1 Buffalo.
2 A. I believe we do.
3 Q. Okay. I've never knew that. That's nice to
4 know. We'll go ahead and just basically ask you in
5 your office when you're sitting there your main
6 thing is basically just to work with law
7 enforcement, so you work with this every day, these
8 kind of issues and cases that come through your
9 hands every day --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. -- is that correct? So basically that's your
12 job and duty. So, would it be true that -- that --
13 would it be true that you might -- you might not
14 know really a lot of what goes on with the Treasury
15 Department with the offset account we briefly
16 talked about? Do you have a lot of knowledge on
17 that or just a little bit?
18 A. I'm very familiar with and have served as an
19 expert witness in anywhere between 15 and 20 times
20 in federal court as it relates to the instruments
21 that are presented here in this court proceeding
22 and as it relates to the fictitious financial
23 nature of these type of instruments.
24 Q. Have you -- have you learned about the reason
25 why these people are sending these promissory

220
1 notes? You're saying what in the world is this all
2 about. Have you heard about the belief system and
3 the bankruptcy of 1933? Have you even maybe late
4 at night, have a beer, sitting on the computer
5 saying what is this all about? Have you just sat
6 there and --
7 THE COURT: Let's stop it there. Let's
8 find out if you over a beer thought about what's
9 this all about. Let's start with that one.
10 THE WITNESS: I have certainly
11 contemplated as to why individuals will send in
12 these fictitious financial instruments in order to
13 attempt to pay off debt obligations that they owe.
14 The redemption theory, which is what this is about,
15 and the redemption theorists have a belief that the
16 U.S. went bankrupt in 1933 when we went off the
17 gold standard, when in fact that is not true. The
18 U.S. Government did not go bankrupt, and the U.S.
19 Government did not take the birth certificates of
20 individuals to act at collateral for the U.S.
21 Government debt.
22 BY MR. BUCZEK:
23 Q. A lot of people believe, but that's why --
24 isn't it true a lot of people believe what you just
25 said, what you're stating is not true?

221
1 A. There are numerous people who believe that the
2 redemption theory has merit.
3 Q. And isn't it also true that there's hundreds of
4 seminars going on throughout the United States of
5 America on that theory I should say?
6 A. Yes. There are individuals who conduct
7 seminars whereby people attend in order to gain
8 information as relates to this alleged theory.
9 Q. And the publications, have you read any of the
10 publications? Have you tried to review any of
11 their publications that they present at the
12 seminars?
13 A. I have reviewed numerous publications that are
14 presented at these seminars.
15 Q. Okay. Thank you. In your thought process what
16 was your conclusion to their belief system?
17 THE COURT: Do you understand that
18 question?
19 THE WITNESS: No.
20 BY MR. BUCZEK:
21 Q. I'll withdraw it, Judge. A lot of people
22 allege that we have some type of secret treasury
23 account. There's this secret thing going on. I
24 know -- well, actually I should ask you if it's
25 secret, we can't talk about it in the public, can

222
1 we?
2 A. I'm not sure exactly what your question is
3 implying.
4 Q. I just -- I'm just trying to make a point,
5 because the theory is that if it's secret, you can
6 never bring secret information into the public.
7 There is a public and private side, and we are
8 right now in the public, so that's why I was
9 referring back to the land of Oz. We're not in
10 Kansas anymore, are we?
11 Have you reviewed any of the information on the
12 Yahoo! redemption groups on Yahoo!, Yahoo! groups?
13 There is a lot of different groups out there called
14 Yahoo! redemption. Have you ever had an
15 opportunity to review it and look at the legalities
16 and merits of what they're talking about?
17 A. I'm not familiar with the terminology Yahoo
18 groups on redemption.
19 Q. Okay. I was just asking. Getting back to the
20 discount window, you were briefly talking about the
21 discount window, and do you know the locations of
22 where these discount windows are located at?
23 A. I believe that every Federal Reserve
24 district -- there are 12 of them across the
25 country -- that operate a discount window.

223
1 Q. And what happens, does somebody just walk right
2 into the store and they do their paperwork at that
3 point and hand over their negotiable instruments?
4 Or can you tell me a little bit what goes on there.
5 A. Well, individuals or companies, whether they
6 walk in or they do it through other means, will
7 utilize the discount window in order to purchase
8 and/or sell debt instruments of the U.S.
9 Government.
10 Q. Okay. So, we're selling debt instruments,
11 correct? Are any of these instruments backed by
12 any type of silver or gold?
13 A. The debt instruments are backed by the full
14 faith and credit of the U.S. Government.
15 Q. And who backs that?
17 Q. The full faith and credit you just mentioned --
18 by the way it's in the constitution. I am very
19 aware of it. Who would back the full faith and
20 credit?
21 A. There's not a backing of the full faith and
22 credit. It is -- the full faith and credit is
23 exactly what it means. It means the debt
24 instruments are backed by the ability of the U.S.
25 Government to pay its debt obligations.

224
1 Q. Is it possibly true that the full faith and
2 credit is backed by the American people and the
3 American people are really the banks?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. So getting back to the question, who is
6 backing the full faith and credit?
7 A. The U.S. Government.
8 Q. Okay. How is the U.S. Government backing it?
9 I'm trying to find ends to this rabbit hole.
10 A. You're going to have to be clear on your
11 question. I believe I answered what you -- what
12 you asked.
13 Q. I'm just trying to find out who's backing the
14 full faith and credit. Is it the United States --
15 you said the United States Government, okay. All
16 right. We have the United States Government.
17 Who's backing the United States Government? And
18 that's why I was asking you isn't it true that the
19 American people back the government, the American
20 people are actually the government?
21 A. Well, it is true that the American people are
22 the government. It's the operations of the
23 government and how the government establishes
24 monetary policy, not only domestically, but how we
25 relate to other countries around the world and how

225
1 we have the capability of servicing and paying back
2 our debt obligations as a U.S. Government. That is
3 the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.
4 Q. So, it might be true, okay, it might be true
5 that what I'm saying to you possibly could be true
6 that the American people are backing the full faith
7 and credit and the government, is that true?
8 Possibly, maybe?
9 A. I don't believe so, not in the context of your
10 question, no.
11 Q. So we really don't know who's backing anything
12 at this point. I'm trying to find out, because I
13 know back in the olden days, which I wasn't around,
14 our currency was backed with gold and silver, and
15 I'm familiar with the John F. Kennedy back in 1963
16 how he tried to go back to the silver standard.
17 I'm trying to find out who is backing all of this.
18 I'm not getting anywhere.
19 THE COURT: What's the question,
20 Mr. Buczek?
21 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I'm trying to make a
22 point here.
23 THE COURT: No point. You have to ask a
24 question.
25 MR. BUCZEK: Is I believe --

226
1 THE COURT: No. No. You can't -- not
2 what you believe.
3 BY MR. BUCZEK:
4 Q. The question is, once again, the American
5 people back all the transactions in this country.
6 The American people -- my question is the American
7 people -- do you believe the American people are
8 actually really the banks, their hard work and
9 labor and their blood?
10 A. No. The American people are not banks.
11 Q. Okay. I can go much deeper down the rabbit
12 hole, but I think that's at deep as I'll will go.
13 I would like to ask a question real briefly but the
14 T-bill, and you were talking about -- I think
15 another way of rephrasing it is there is an M1, M2,
16 and M3, am I correct on that?
17 A. If you're referring to money supply --
18 Q. Right.
19 A. -- that's what the M1, M2 and M3 talk about,
20 the different aspects of the money supply as it
21 relates to the U.S.
22 Q. Could you please explain to me what M1 is?
23 A. I'd have to have the information in front of
24 me. That's many economics classes ago.
25 Q. Okay. Have you ever heard of a publication

227
1 printed by the Federal Reserve called Modern Money
2 Mechanics and Two Faces of Debt? It's a
3 publication printed by the Federal Reserve, and you
4 can probably get it right off of Google if you
5 Google search it. I believe it's page 4, 5 or 6.
6 Have you ever heard of it?
7 A. I don't believe so.
8 Q. Okay. I was going to ask you a question, but I
9 can't. So, have you ever heard of the -- of the --
10 I had written down here. You were mentioning that
11 the Department of Treasury, correct, that's what
12 you control the currency, overlook the Department
13 of Treasury, the system.
14 A. No. Let's make sure we get it right. The
15 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is part
16 of the U.S. Treasury Department.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. So the Treasury Department is -- if I can refer
19 to it as more like the mothership and the OCC is a
20 pod ship.
21 Q. Okay. And what is the difference between the
22 Department of Treasury and the treasury of the
23 United States?
24 A. I don't believe there's any difference. I
25 think that the Department of the United States

228
1 Treasury is sometimes referred to as the treasury
2 of the United States.
3 Q. So there's really no difference between the
4 Department of Treasury and the U.S. Department of
5 Treasury, or the treasury of the United States, are
6 they all the same entity? Or are they different
7 entities with different names?
8 A. I would have to look at it in the context in
9 which that phraseology is used. But, generally
10 speaking, I have certainly heard the Department of
11 Treasury referred to as the treasury of the United
12 States.
13 Q. Okay. Is it true possibly, maybe that one is
14 for the public and the other one is for the
15 private, which we can't talk about in the public
16 because we're in the public, is it possibly true?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Are you familiar with an attorney that worked
19 for the Federal Reserve, his name is Walker F.
20 Todd, attorney-at-law. He now is retired, lives in
21 Ohio, and he worked for the Federal Reserve, an
22 attorney. Have you ever heard of Walker F. Todd?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with trustees, trusts,
25 beneficiaries, are you familiar with those terms?

229
1 A. Yes. As it relates to asset management, yes.
2 Q. Okay. In your own mind, can you please tell me
3 what the beneficiary's responsibility -- or what
4 the beneficiary -- what's your definition of a
5 beneficiary?
6 A. A beneficiary is somebody who benefits from a
7 transaction or an event.
8 Q. And a trust?
9 A. A trust would be -- like a trust account would
10 be an account that would be set up in order to
11 provide possibly future benefit to somebody in the
12 future or at that given time.
13 Q. And lastly would be trustee.
14 A. A trustee would be somebody who is overseeing
15 the trust.
16 Q. Isn't it possibly true that we are all
17 corporations, we are all trusts?
18 A. I have no idea what that means.
19 Q. Okay. I have a couple more questions. I know
20 we briefly talked about the discount window. I was
21 trying to get somewhere with that. But can we just
22 briefly touch on the treasury discount window. Is
23 there a difference between the discount window and
24 over here the treasury discount window?
25 A. As I stated earlier this morning, there -- to

230
1 my knowledge there is no such thing as a treasury
2 discount window. The discount window is called the
3 Federal Reserve discount window.
4 Q. And you have firsthand knowledge of that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What do they do with these bonded promissory
7 notes or promissory notes? Do they maybe sell them
8 on Wall Street as a stable backed security and --
9 I'll ask that question first.
10 A. The bonded promissory note that's referred to
11 as an exhibit that we already talked about this
12 morning, and also the ones that I have reviewed
13 over several years, are fictitious financial
14 instruments. They have no value at all.
15 Q. Okay. If you punch in the numbers to this
16 particular promissory note on the screen that we
17 saw earlier, do you think it might be betrayed on
18 Wall Street as we're speaking right now?
19 A. As I stated earlier, these are fictitious.
20 They don't have any value.
21 Q. I know, because we're in the public. So the
22 answer is no they wouldn't be. That note, it's not
23 being traded on Wall Street right now, right?
24 That's all, say yes or no.
25 A. Well, the answer is these are fictitious, so

231
1 they don't exist.
2 Q. So it's no, it's not being traded on Wall
3 Street right now.
4 A. Right, you can't trade fictitious items on Wall
5 Street.
6 Q. What makes you think it's fictitious? What
7 makes you think that? Because I need some
8 clarification.
9 A. They're fictitious because they don't exist.
10 Bonded -- these bonded promissory notes -- and
11 they're also referred to as a lot of different
12 things as well. The same item at times has been
13 referred to as a site draft or an international
14 bill of exchange, and there are various numerous
15 things that these are titled, and as a result, this
16 is just a -- has been morphed from something that
17 existed previously. And I might add too that as a
18 result of these types of instruments that are
19 coming to my agency's attention, as well as other
20 government entities' attention, there are a lot of
21 information out there on the Web site, as you
22 referred to earlier, that talk about why these are
23 fictitious and that these redemption schemes are
24 nothing other than a scam. And, in fact, my agency
25 itself has issued two alerts on this, not only to

232
1 the financial institutions, but to other government
2 entities which is in the public domain that
3 specifically talk about how these instruments are
4 fictitious.
5 Q. And if I worked for the government, I would do
6 everything thing I can to stop this too. Isn't it
7 also that people are stating that this is true,
8 that private people in the private world, you're
9 sitting down with your friends talking -- I believe
10 you said you lived in Washington -- and you might
11 go out and might chat about it, and isn't it --
12 answer the first question.
13 A. Can you state the first question please?
14 Q. Are there other people out there saying this
15 procedure, this process, public policy process is
16 true? Is there other people out there that stated
17 it's true, have you talked to them?
18 A. There are individuals who are out there that
19 promote these redemption scams.
20 Q. Can I ask you why you call it a scam?
21 A. Because it is.
22 Q. Can you back that -- can you back that up with
23 something?
24 A. I can back it up with there have been numerous
25 court proceedings around the country, as well as my

233
1 own investigation, on different items that come to
2 my attention that promote these redemption scams or
3 schemes, and that the items that support them are
4 completely fictitious and have no financial value.
5 Q. Are you familiar with the Ed Wahler case in
6 North Carolina, just took place about four months
7 ago in North Carolina? Are you aware of the Ed
8 Wahler case? I believe there was four individuals
9 involved in that, and he was -- are you familiar
10 with that?
11 A. I am familiar with the Ed Wahler case, yes.
12 Q. Could you please tell me more about that case?
13 A. Well, I was not part of those proceedings, so
14 I'm not sure what it is you would like me to tell
15 you.
16 Q. Could you please tell me how many counts he was
17 charged with?
18 A. I don't know the number of Counts.
20 MR. BUCZEK: Was he found guilty or not
21 guilty?
22 THE COURT: Sustained. You cannot
23 question along that line.
24 BY MR. BUCZEK:
25 Q. Okay. Despite this information from the

234
1 government which -- despite all this information
2 from the government and the proceedings, some
3 people believe that this still is true. That's my
4 question.
5 A. Yes, there are some people who still believe
6 that these redemption schemes are true.
7 Q. Okay. One more thing. Just getting back to
8 Modern Money Mechanics on page -- I believe it's
9 end of page 5 and it goes to page 6. It says banks
10 only accept promissory notes as payment. Of
11 course, banks don't loan money, because there is
12 none, and they monetize it up to nine times the
13 face value. Is that true?
14 A. Since I'm not familiar with the article that
15 you're referring to, I really can't comment on
16 what's on those pages.
17 Q. And also at this time you don't have a claim
18 against the defendant?
19 A. Do I have a claim against you?
20 Q. No, the defendant.
21 A. I don't have a claim against the defendant in
22 this case, correct.
23 MR. BUCZEK: No further questions, Judge.
25 Honor.
235
1 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much.
2 Mr. Johnson, you're excused. Thank you, sir.
3 MR. BUCZEK: Thank you.
4 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Just a moment please,
5 Judge, I think I have another witness available.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, may I ask a
8 scheduling question. When was the Court
9 anticipating to break?
10 THE COURT: Approximately 11:55, or a few
11 minutes before that.
12 MS. BAUMGARTEN: We're also going to see
13 if we can put a second witness on, your Honor, so I
14 will have --
15 THE COURT: Let's start with the next
16 witness, and I don't know if we can predict how
17 long cross-examination will take. So let's see
18 where we get.
19 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Thank you, Judge.
20 B R A D L E Y L. P A R K E R, having been duly
22 THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Witness, a couple of
23 very brief instructions. Just get comfortable.
24 Everything is going to be taken down verbatim by my
25 court reporter. Michelle is seated just to the

236
1 front and left of you. If you don't understand a
2 question, please ask that it be repeated. I'll
3 give the direction so that you can answer something
4 you understand. Be concise to the extent possible
5 that you can with your answers. Don't volunteer
6 information. If there's an objection, wait until I
7 rule on the objection, and then I will give you
8 instructions on whether to complete your answer or
9 to wait for another question. And don't volunteer
10 information that's not called for in any of the
11 questions or any of the discussions. Do you
12 understand those instructions?
13 THE WITNESS: I do.
14 THE COURT: All right. You're here for
15 the benefit of the ladies and gentlemen of the
16 jury, so speak in a conversational tone. The
17 microphone should pick you up okay. State your
18 full name, spell your last name, please.
19 THE WITNESS: Bradley L. Parker,
20 P-A-R-K-E-R.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Parker, thank you.
22 Your witness, Miss Baumgarten.
24 Q. Agent Parker, are you employed?
25 A. I am.
237
2 A. I'm a special agent with the Office of
3 Inspector General for the U.S. Social Security
4 Administration.
5 Q. Where are you located?
6 A. I have an office at 166 Washington Avenue in
7 Batavia, New York.
8 Q. What actually is your title?
9 A. I'm a special agent.
10 Q. What duties do you perform in that position?
11 A. We investigate allegations of fraud, waste, and
12 abuse within Social Security Administration
13 programs and Social Security numbers and cards.
14 Q. During the course of your employment as a
15 special agent with the Social Security
16 Administration, have you become familiar with
17 Social Security numbers?
18 A. Yes, I have.
19 Q. Have you also become familiar with the types of
20 documents and the information obtained and
21 maintained by the Social Security Administration?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Are you familiar with the computerized
24 databases containing information that the Social
25 Security Administration maintains?

238
1 A. Yes, I am.
2 Q. Are you also familiar with Social Security
3 cards?
4 A. Yes.
5 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, I'm showing
6 the witness what has been marked for identification
7 as Exhibit 39. May I approach?
8 THE COURT: You may.
10 Q. Agent Parker, are you familiar with that?
11 A. Yes, I am.
12 Q. What is that document?
13 A. It's the Social Security card that was mailed
14 to Shane Christopher Buczek.
15 Q. All right. Is that a record made by a person
16 with knowledge of the information contained within
17 that record?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Is it made at or about the time the information
20 contained within that record is actually -- is
21 actually received?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is it in the regular course or practice of the
24 Social Security Administration to make that record?
25 A. Yes, it is.
239
1 Q. Was that record kept and maintained in the
2 ordinary course of the business of the Social
3 Security Administration?
4 A. Yes.
5 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Just a moment, your
6 Honor, please.
7 Your Honor, for the sake of expediency, the
8 government doesn't have an exhibit tab. I would
9 like to affix an exhibit tab to an additional
10 document. I would like to show it to the defense
11 first though.
12 THE COURT: Go ahead, and we'll work the
13 tab later.
14 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, I'm going to
15 retrieve what's been marked as 39 from the witness.
16 Your Honor, if I may show what has been marked
17 as Government's Exhibit 39A to Agent Parker. It
18 has been shown to the defense.
19 THE COURT: Sure.
21 Q. Agent Parker, would you take a moment and
22 compare what's been -- you previously testified
23 regarding Exhibit 39 for identification and 39A.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. How do they compare?

240
1 A. 39A is the original document. And Exhibit 39
2 is a photocopy.
3 Q. Your testimony with respect to the records set
4 forth as to 39A, if I walk through all those
5 questions with you, would it be the same as to what
6 you testified to concerning 39?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Except it would be the original Social Security
9 card, is that correct?
10 A. Correct.
12 Exhibit 39A into evidence.
13 MR. BUCZEK: On what grounds?
14 MS. BAUMGARTEN: That it's the defendant's
15 original Social Security card.
16 THE COURT: So it's a duplicate copy, is
17 that what you saying?
18 MR. BUCZEK: I don't know even know. How
19 old is that version of the Social Security card?
20 How old is that?
21 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Agent Parker, can you
22 answer that question?
23 THE WITNESS: This card was issued on
24 May 4th, 2007.
25 MR. BUCZEK: Okay. That's a replacement?

241
1 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Is that a replacement
2 card, Agent Parker?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
4 MR. BUCZEK: Okay. I have no objections
5 with that.
6 THE COURT: All right. Then 39A will be
7 received into evidence.
8 (Government's Exhibit 39A was received
9 into evidence.)
11 Q. Would you read the defendant's Social Security
12 card --- Social Security number as reflected in the
13 Social Security card 39A?
14 A. Yes. The number is 131-68-5635.
15 Q. During the course of this ongoing
16 investigation, did you have an opportunity to
17 verify the defendant's Social Security number?
18 A. I did.
19 Q. And what was that Social Security number?
20 A. It's 131-68-5635.
21 Q. If you would refer to the reverse side of 39A,
22 is there an alphanumeric number on the reverse
23 side?
24 A. Yes.
25 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, with respect

242
1 to the Exhibit 39A, we don't have that on the
2 computer. I ask the Court's permission, because
3 the witness has testified that 39 is a copy of that
4 original exhibit, may we display -- I would have to
5 move it into evidence though first.
6 THE COURT: You can put it on Elmo. You
7 can put it on Elmo. But move it into evidence --
8 well, it actually is, the entire card.
9 MS. BAUMGARTEN: 39 is, your Honor. The
10 government would move Government Exhibit 39 into
11 evidence.
12 THE COURT: Okay. No objection to that,
13 Mr. Buczek?
14 MR. BUCZEK: No, Judge, I have no
15 objection to that.
16 THE COURT: I'll receive 39 as well.
18 evidence.)
19 MS. BAUMGARTEN: If you would please
20 display 39.
21 Agent Parker, would you use your finger to
22 circle the alphanumeric number on the computer
23 screen that's listed in Exhibit 39?
24 THE COURT: Enlarge and highlight, can you
25 do that please? It can be published now.

243
2 Q. Would you please read that alphanumeric number
3 into the record?
4 A. F-14731424.
5 Q. What is the significance of that alphanumeric
6 number?
7 A. That is the manufacturer's control number.
8 Q. What is the control number, what does that
9 mean?
10 A. It is a number that is imprinted on the -- the
11 reverse of the blank Social Security card stock by
12 the manufacturer of the card blanks.
13 Q. Why is that alphanumeric number placed on the
14 reverse side?
15 A. It's used as a security control measure so that
16 Social Security can record the blanks that are sent
17 out from the manufacturer and then received in by
18 Social Security.
19 Q. On the front side of Exhibit 39 there appears
20 to be typed information on the card, is that
21 correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What is that typed information?
24 A. It's a Social Security number as well as the
25 name associated with the number.

244
1 Q. In this particular exhibit what name is
2 reflected on Exhibit 39?
3 A. Shane Christopher Buczek.
4 Q. What is the address?
5 A. 7335 Derby Road, Derby, New York, 14047-9636.
6 Q. Is there a signature on Exhibit 39?
7 A. Yes, there is.
8 Q. What does that signature appear to be?
10 Q. Does the Social Security Administration
11 maintain any accounts or information with respect
12 to the alphanumeric number on a Social Security
13 card?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Does the Social Security Administration
16 maintain any trust accounts for any individual
17 based upon the alphanumeric control number on a
18 Social Security card?
19 A. No.
21 Honor.
22 THE COURT: All right. Miss Baumgarten.
23 Thank you. Mr. Buczek, any questions?
25 THE COURT: All right. Cross-examination,

245
1 please.
3 Q. Good morning.
4 A. Good morning.
5 Q. Would you please state your name for the
6 record?
7 A. Bradley L. Parker.
8 Q. Mr. Parker, you were saying that your office is
9 located in Batavia, is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And that's obviously in the state of New York?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How often do you go to Washington, D.C., and
14 get updated on, you know, just statutes of the
15 Social Security Administration, how often do you go
16 to Washington?
17 A. Not very often.
18 Q. So is it possibly true that maybe each
19 department knows certain things that other
20 departments don't know? Is that possible, maybe
21 like one department might know one aspect of the
22 Social Security system how it works, and another
23 department might know another? Everything is
24 departmentalized.

246
1 Q. What I'm trying to say is one department might
2 not know what the other department is doing, like
3 one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing.
4 Is that possible?
5 A. Not within Social Security.
6 Q. So you're saying everybody in Social
7 Security -- everyone knows what's going on?
8 A. I don't understand the -- the question
9 specifics.
10 Q. How many people work for Social Security
11 department of Batavia?
12 A. There are six of us.
13 Q. Oh, six. How many in the Western District of
14 New York?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Okay. Would you know the grand total of the
17 whole country?
18 A. Approximately 60,000.
19 Q. 60,000 people work for Social Security. Could
20 it be possibly true that out of that 60,000 maybe
21 just a few might understand the total concept of
22 the -- the number on the back of the Social
23 Security card and what it really represents?
24 A. I don't understand the specifics of that
25 question.
247
1 Q. Could we show Exhibit A to the eyewitness?
2 MR. COMERFORD: We're going to show it to
3 the government first, Judge, for identification.
4 THE COURT: Yes.
5 MR. BUCZEK: Exhibit A.
6 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, may I just
7 approach the witness and check one thing please?
8 THE COURT: Sure.
9 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I had not seen this
10 before. Despite that, the government doesn't have
11 any objection to this.
12 MR. COMERFORD: Thank you.
13 THE COURT: Defendant's A for
14 identification. You may use that. No objection.
15 MR. COMERFORD: May I approach the
16 witness?
17 THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Buczek, do you have
18 a question?
19 BY MR. BUCZEK:
20 Q. Yes, I do. Is that a Social Security card that
21 you have in your hand?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is it maintained in the regular course of
24 business of your department?
25 A. Yes.
248
1 Q. Is it the same sort of card that the government
2 just put into the record?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What's the name on it?
5 A. Shane C. Buczek.
6 MR. BUCZEK: I would like to move that
7 into evidence.
8 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Judge, I'm sorry. I
9 didn't object, I thought it was in evidence.
10 THE COURT: We'll receive it. It will be
11 received as Defense Exhibit A, no objection.
12 (Defendant's Exhibit A was received into
13 evidence.)
14 MR. BUCZEK: That's my first piece of
15 evidence.
16 THE COURT: It is.
17 MR. BUCZEK: Finally.
18 THE COURT: Well, your first exhibit.
19 MR. BUCZEK: It's hard to get in there.
20 BY MR. BUCZEK:
21 Q. Could you please tell me what your views are on
22 why -- can you please read the number on the back
23 of the card?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you.
249
1 A. C-22401901.
2 Q. Could the government please put up Exhibit
3 number 11?
4 MR. COMERFORD: Judge, can we publish that
5 for the jury?
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MR. COMERFORD: Thank you.
8 BY MR. BUCZEK:
9 Q. Could you please -- could you please read where
10 it says note number into the record?
11 A. Yes. 131-68-5635 slash C22401901-BPN0006.
12 Q. Is that the same alphanumeric number on the
13 back of the Social Security card that -- that's
14 read I believe Exhibit A?
15 A. Part of this alphanumeric number on the card is
16 there, yes.
17 Q. Could you please give us the number on the back
18 of the Social Security card again please?
19 A. The one I just read, the C22?
20 Q. Yes, please.
21 A. C22401901.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 A. You're welcome.
24 Q. Are you familiar with the BPN, do you know what
25 that stands for?

250
1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you want to know?
3 THE COURT: Well, there is a question, so
4 you do have to answer it.
5 THE WITNESS: No.
6 BY MR. BUCZEK:
7 Q. It stands for bonded promissory note. It's
8 0006. And I just want to ask one more question.
9 Is it possible there is a significance to that
10 number -- actually the alphanumeric number, there
11 is a letter and a bunch of numbers -- that you're
12 not aware of. Is it possible, because you
13 mentioned you had 60,000 people that work for -- is
14 it 60,000?
15 A. Approximately.
16 Q. Approximately. Is it possible that you might
17 not be fully aware of what that number is?
18 A. No, because based upon my education, training,
19 and experience I know that that is a manufacturer's
20 control number that's put on the back of that card
21 solely for that purpose.
22 Q. What about the number in front, what does that
23 number represent?
24 A. The Social Security number issued to Shane
25 Christopher Buczek.
251
1 Q. So who actually owns the card?
3 Q. Is it property -- isn't it true that Social
4 Security actually owns -- that's their card?
5 A. Not when we send it to you.
6 Q. You mean the defendant.
7 A. Correct, or any number holder. Once this card
8 is mailed out by Social Security to the number
9 holder, it's no longer Social Security's card. The
10 card belongs to the person to whom it was sent.
11 Q. So it is true that the Social Security
12 Administration is not the holder in due course.
14 Q. The registered owner to the Social Security
15 card, they're the actual owners, the beneficiary?
16 A. Who is?
17 Q. Social Security Administration.
18 A. No, sir.
19 Q. So who is the beneficiary?
20 A. I don't understand what you mean by
21 beneficiary. The owner of the card becomes the
22 person to whom it is sent.
23 Q. And you don't have a claim against me, do you,
24 or the defendant, or anybody in this room?
25 THE COURT: That you know of.

252
1 MR. BUCZEK: That you know of, thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
3 MR. BUCZEK: Okay. I have no further
4 questions. Thank you.
5 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
6 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Buczek.
8 Q. Does each piece of card stock that is sent from
9 the vendor to the Social Security Administration
10 for use in producing a Social Security card contain
11 an alphanumeric number?
12 A. Yes, it does.
13 Q. If an individual was to obtain a replacement
14 Social Security card, would the alphanumeric number
15 on the replacement card be the same as the
16 alphanumeric on either the original or any
17 previously issued Social Security card?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Would you please refer to what has been marked
20 into evidence as Government's Exhibit 39A?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What is the date on that Social Security card?
23 A. May 4th, 2007.
24 Q. What is the alphanumeric number on the reverse
25 side of that exhibit?

253
1 A. It's F14731424.
2 Q. Would you please refer to what is in evidence
3 as Defendant's Exhibit A?
4 A. Yes, is that -- yes.
5 Q. Is that card laminated?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. Is that how it's sent to an individual from the
8 Social Security Administration?
9 A. No. The cards are sent unlaminated in this
10 format here.
11 Q. Okay. What is the date, if you can see it, on
12 Defendant's Exhibit A?
13 A. Well, the date of the card stock is January of
14 1988. I can tell that by the reverse of the card.
15 When this particular replacement card was issued,
16 Social Security was not putting the issue date on
17 the front of the card like it was doing by the time
18 this card was issued in 2007, which was Government
19 Exhibit 39A.
20 Q. So Defendant's Exhibit A and the Government's
21 Exhibit 39A are each replacement cards?
22 A. Yes, ma'am.
23 Q. Are the alphanumeric numbers on the reverse
24 side of Defendant's Exhibit A and Government's
25 Exhibit 39A the same?

254
1 A. No.
2 Q. Why is that?
3 A. Because the alphanumeric number changes with
4 each individual card.
6 Honor.
7 MR. BUCZEK: I got one question.
8 THE COURT: You want to ask it now or
9 after the break?
10 MR. BUCZEK: Just right now, real quick.
12 Q. Do you know what year they started putting the
13 alphanumeric number on the back of the Social
14 Security card? Do you know what year that began?
15 I believe it was a certain year. Do you know what
16 year that was?
17 A. I do not know the exact year, but I believe it
18 was as early as the 1940s.
19 Q. Okay. And my research that I'm trying to
20 figure out myself is why in the world would they
21 put that -- a letter and a bunch of numbers on the
22 back of the Social Security -- what does that
23 number represent from your research and what they
24 tell you in the office?
25 A. It's the manufacturer's control number that is

255
1 put on each blank card stock for Social Security
2 cards.
3 Q. Is it possible that it might be some type of an
4 account? Is it a possibility?
5 A. No.
6 Q. You have firsthand knowledge of that?
7 A. Based upon my training, experience, and
8 education it is solely a manufacturer's control
9 number.
10 Q. But it's possible, maybe. Everything is a
11 possibility out there. There is a possibility that
12 it might be being used for something, just like the
13 Social Security company front, that it's a
14 possibility -- everything is possible, is that
15 correct?
16 A. I don't understand your question.
17 MR. BUCZEK: I have no further questions.
18 Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
20 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Agent Parker, thank
22 you, you are excused.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge.
24 THE COURT: Okay, ladies and gentlemen,
25 lunchtime. Don't discuss the case. Don't prejudge

256
1 it. See you back here at 2:00 o'clock. Thank you.
2 (Lunch recess was taken.)
3 (Jury seated.)
4 THE COURT: Good afternoon, ladies and
5 gentlemen, please have a seat.
6 Okay. We are resumed in the case of United
7 States versus Buczek, and the attorneys and
8 Mr. Buczek are present. The jurors are here, roll
9 call waived. We are in the government's case. The
10 government has the burden of proof beyond a
11 reasonable doubt. 11315 presumption of innocence
12 is with the defendant in this particular case and
13 in all criminal cases, and he has no obligation or
14 burden to do anything in this case.
15 With that, Miss Baumgarten, is there -- are you
16 ready with a next witness? Where are we?
17 MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government would like
18 to recall HSBC employee Eric Schumacker.
19 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I object to that.
20 THE COURT: Okay.
21 MR. BUCZEK: The eyewitness has already
22 testified. And I just received it just now, and it
23 should be a law due to the supplement of the proof
24 based on a request for discovery that this should
25 have been provided weeks, months, ago. I just got

257
1 it just now. I haven't even had an opportunity to
2 do my research on it. I would have to go to the UB
3 law library and look into this.
4 THE COURT: Let's --
5 MR. BUCZEK: I just got this.
6 THE COURT: I don't know what we are
7 talking about here. I think we should go to side
8 bar. Let's talk about this first.
9 (Side bar discussion held on the record.)
10 THE COURT: Okay. What has been produced
11 first?
12 MR. BRUCE: There are about -- well,
13 there's six pages, Judge. They were all produced
14 by the HSBC witness after he went back to his
15 office. He actually, as I understand it, had to go
16 to the collections department to get this. Each of
17 them relate to the transactions between HSBC and
18 Depository Trust Corporation. Each of these is
19 about three, four lines long, and all give the
20 account number, they all give the Depository Trust
21 company routing number, and they all list the
22 defendant's, not HSBC, but his Best Buy account
23 number.
24 Two things. One, the defendant opened the door
25 on this. The defendant made a demand. You, the

258
1 Court, asked me to make sure the witness followed
2 instructions. The witness did. He produced
3 what -- we didn't know what he was exactly going to
4 produce, but he's produced it. But I think that
5 given what Mr. Buczek tried to put in the record,
6 the government is entitled to go back on that, and
7 I don't think seven pages of computer screen
8 print-outs is an overwhelming amount of evidence to
9 digest in a short period of time.
10 THE COURT: That's the subject matter that
11 he testified about account numbers, and --
12 MR. BRUCE: Exactly. This is
13 corroborating evidence.
14 THE COURT: Well, it could be cumulative
15 evidence as well.
16 MR. BRUCE: It could be. He opened the
17 door to try to show some doubt as to whether the
18 account number was used, the routing number and so
19 forth.
20 THE COURT: Well, the obligation of the
21 government is to provide all information that
22 relates to --
23 MR. BRUCE: But we didn't have this. We
24 originally got this 30 minutes ago, 40 minutes ago
25 for the first time.

259
1 THE COURT: Well, did you ask for it from
2 the witness?
3 MR. BRUCE: Before we asked for everything
4 they got -- apparently they didn't make a complete
5 search, but they have now.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Buczek, you still
7 object?
8 MR. BUCZEK: Absolutely, Judge. And I'm
9 not sure exactly what rule it is, but I know it's
10 like the best rule evidence.
11 THE COURT: Best evidence rule.
12 MR. BUCZEK: Thank you. Yes, I just can't
13 remember everything. And secondly, these are
14 copies. It's information, and you can see here
15 it's all cut and paste, and I mean, you can
16 probably trim something out and stick it on there.
17 A 12 year old could do this. There's nobody to
18 testify that has firsthand knowledge. It would be
19 outrageous to bring this into the trial. This is
20 ridiculous.
21 THE COURT: Do you object?
22 MR. BUCZEK: Absolutely, Judge.
23 THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.
24 Okay. Thank you.
25 (End of side bar discussion.)

260
1 THE COURT: I believe we're up and
2 running, we're back from side bar. There was an
3 objection to the recalling of Mr. Schumacker. I
4 sustained the objection. What's next?
5 MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government will call
6 Zenaida Piotrowicz, United States probation
7 officer.
8 THE COURT: Let's have a side bar on this
9 please. Stay right there, Michelle.
11 THE COURT: Michelle, I reversed myself.
12 Want to accompany us?
14 THE COURT: Okay. The government's
15 intention is to call Zenaida Piotrowicz.
16 MS. BAUMGARTEN: -- Piotrowicz with
17 respect to the testimony that the defendant heard
18 on September 2, 2008. We are only going to refer
19 to it as a prior proceeding, not the nature of the
20 proceeding. During which he was present along with
21 his counsel, and the judge, along with Mr. May of
22 the Depository Trust company. At that time Mr. May
23 testified that not only did the Depository Trust
24 not provide services to individuals, but
25 specifically that he caused a search to be done,

261
1 that the defendant Shane Christopher Buczek or
2 Shane C. Buczek was not one of their customers and
3 did not have an account with the Depository Trust,
4 and could not have one based on the nature of the
5 services they provided. We intend simply to refer
6 to it as a prior proceeding.
7 THE COURT: Well, don't we already have
8 testimony with respect to that?
9 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Not from a person who
10 actually with personal knowledge can say that the
11 defendant was physically present during that
12 testimony approximately two weeks before he applied
13 for the Best Buy account that's at issue in this
14 case.
15 MR. BRUCE: It's -- in part it shows the
16 defendant was specifically put on notice of the
17 fact that he did not and could not have an account
18 and within a short period of time after that he
19 establishes the HSBC account and engages in the
20 fraud that the indictment alleges.
21 THE COURT: Hold on one second. Okay.
22 But you have the witness Joseph Kelly from DTCC.
23 MS. BAUMGARTEN: He did not testify
24 because he could not -- because he was not present
25 during that proceeding.

262
1 THE COURT: No, but he did say there is no
2 individual accounts, only participants with respect
3 to the DTCC.
4 MS. BAUMGARTEN: But he was not present
5 during the preceding on September 2, 2008, so
6 cannot say that the defendant, who was present in
7 the courtroom, was provided with specific notice
8 that -- not only couldn't an individual have an
9 account, but he did not.
10 MR. BRUCE: Prior to his engaging in the
11 crime.
12 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, object to that.
13 THE COURT: What's the date of the
14 proceeding?
15 MS. BAUMGARTEN: September 2, 2008.
16 THE COURT: And the indictment was like
17 seven days after that, right?
18 MS. BAUMGARTEN: No, sir, the indictment
19 in this instance -- no.
20 THE COURT: There was an indictment --
21 MR. BRUCE: Shortly after.
22 THE COURT: -- in September of 2008.
23 MR. BRUCE: It's within a week or ten
24 days.
25 MR. BUCZEK: I never had no indictment.

263
1 MR. BRUCE: The indictment alleges that
2 the scheme starts -- I don't have the --
3 MS. BAUMGARTEN: September 18, 2008. And
4 goes up to and including, because that's when the
5 defendant actually opened the account at Best Buy
6 was September 18, 2008. So that's the pivotal time
7 period, and thereafter makes the purchases, and
8 payments start on November 13th, 2008.
9 THE COURT: So you're going to introduce
10 Zenaida Piotrowicz as a probation officer?
11 MS. BAUMGARTEN: As she was present in the
12 courtroom also.
13 MR. BRUCE: We just introduce her as
14 Zenaida Piotrowicz, she was present.
15 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, it's not relevant.
16 It's prejudicial.
17 MS. BAUMGARTEN: It's directly relevant,
18 your Honor, to the issue of notice, therefore the
19 defendant's intent -- this is an intent crime and
20 we do have the burden of proof on that.
21 THE COURT: Hold on one second.
22 Mr. Bruce, if you move off to the side so I can
23 listen to Mr. Buczek.
24 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, it's absolutely
25 irrelevant.
264
1 THE COURT: Well, your intent is not
2 irrelevant. Your intent is relevant. Now it's a
3 question of whether or not this is evidence of
4 intent of willful conduct, at least that has
5 relevance to willful conduct. And you're
6 introducing it on the element of knowledge, that he
7 knew that he could not have an individual account
8 with DTCC?
9 MS. BAUMGARTEN: And he did not -- it's
10 not just that he could not have it, that's part of
11 it, but that he did not.
12 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, object. They're not
13 mind readers. I had no intent at all. It's
14 absolutely irrelevant. Who has firsthand
15 knowledge? I mean --
16 MS. BAUMGARTEN: This witness.
17 THE COURT: That's -- that's the point.
18 Their point is that you did have firsthand
19 knowledge on the basis of what took place at that
20 proceeding. How is this not more prejudicial than
21 it is probative, though, in light of everything
22 else here, because you're going to be establishing
23 a courtroom setting, right, through the witness.
24 From the jury's standpoint what are they going to
25 be thinking in terms of what was going on at the

265
1 time? I mean, it could very well be that they
2 ascribe to Mr. Buczek something more than just this
3 particular indictment.
4 MS. BAUMGARTEN: That's why I have
5 instructed the witness specifically that we are
6 sanitizing as best we can, your Honor, by saying it
7 was a prior proceeding. For all we know -- I mean,
8 it could be a civil proceeding. It could be for
9 whatever purpose. We are not attempting to
10 introduce it in the way of explanation for the
11 background.
12 THE COURT: But it's going to be in a
13 courtroom on a particular day before Judge
14 Schroeder, right?
15 MR. BRUCE: Yes.
16 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Yes. The defendant
17 raises an excellent point, without us getting into
18 his head, we would not be able to otherwise provide
19 this sort of information. His intent is squarely
20 at issue, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Well, as you know, that's part
22 of the standard charge. I mean, it's difficult to
23 get into anybody's head. It's a question of
24 establishing facts to a certain proof standard from
25 which an inference can be made or that establishes

266
1 an intent short of getting into somebody's head.
2 Mr. Comerford, anything from you on this --
3 MS. BAUMGARTEN: May I raise one other
4 point, your Honor?
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 MS. BAUMGARTEN: The Court has permitted
7 the defendant to argue that he had good faith, that
8 his belief was in good faith with respect to his
9 intent. This is the government's proof with
10 respect to the fact that he could not have good
11 faith in claiming that he thought he had an account
12 at the Depository Trust because of the nature of
13 the testimony that he had heard directly.
14 THE COURT: But now everybody has said
15 that has testified you cannot have an individual
16 account at the DTCC. And all the witnesses have
17 testified that there's no record that Mr. Buczek
18 had an account at DTCC.
19 MS. BAUMGARTEN: But his knowledge from
20 hearing it during this prior proceeding in the
21 government's estimation negates his argument that
22 he could have had good faith, because he heard to
23 the contrary before this course of conduct that's
24 alleged in the indictment.
25 MR. COMERFORD: That's only true, Judge,

267
1 if he believed him. And your witness testified --
2 the one who's the professional witness from the
3 treasury says he goes to trial, that he's told
4 people this before that the Treasury Department has
5 put out this information and despite all of those
6 things, many people still believe in the same
7 theories that Shane believes in. Just hearing it
8 one time does not eliminate an argument that he has
9 good-faith. You'd have to be assuming that Shane
10 heard everything, understood everything, believed
11 everything.
12 MS. BAUMGARTEN: But, once again, it's not
13 many people who are on trial before this Court,
14 it's the defendant. And the jury, as the trier of
15 fact, should be able to balance the evidence
16 concerning this contested issue about his good
17 faith. The government wants to introduce it
18 specifically to counter his argument that he's
19 articulated that he had good faith.
20 MR. BUCZEK: Judge --
21 MR. COMERFORD: We don't think it even
22 counters that argument, Judge.
23 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, there's many people --
24 it's in the millions. Last I heard it was over
25 25 million people that are involved in this freedom

268
1 movement. It's all, you know --
2 THE COURT: Yeah. I'm going to sustain
3 the objection. I think it's too attenuated. I
4 think you run the risk of unfair prejudice, because
5 you have to put the scenario into a courtroom, at a
6 proceeding. You have to establish that -- where
7 Mr. Buczek was, with whom. You have to establish
8 that he heard what was going on, that will put him
9 at counsel table with counsel, and with a
10 magistrate proceeding over -- presiding over
11 proceedings. I think it injects the possibility of
12 another issue, another proceeding, more confusing
13 than it is probative, unfairly prejudicial, and I
14 will sustain the objection.
16 MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government calls
17 Special Agent Fred Falkowski. It's actually Henry
18 C., your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon.
20 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
21 THE COURT: Gerry, don't let him get
22 beyond the corner of that witness box. Thank you.
23 H E N R Y F A L K O W S K I, having been duly
25 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Witness, I think

269
1 you know the routine, but just to make sure that we
2 go through a refresher course, and it's repetitious
3 of what I've told all the other individuals who
4 have been called to testify as a witness. You are
5 here to testify really for the benefit of the
6 ladies and gentlemen of the jury. They are the
7 judges of the facts. They make the determination
8 with respect to the issues in this case. And in
9 that regard they're here to hear testimony from
10 witnesses and review exhibits. As far as witnesses
11 are concerned, your testimony must be competent
12 testimony. As far as any question that is asked of
13 you, if you do not understand it, let me know, let
14 the attorney know, and you will get another
15 question. Don't volunteer information. That
16 complicates matters. Be as concise in your answers
17 as possible. As far as any answers that you give,
18 if they're in the context of an objection wait
19 until I rule on the objection to the question or
20 the point that you're at in your testimony. Once I
21 rule on it, I will tell you whether to continue
22 with your answer or wait for another question. Do
23 you understand?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
25 THE COURT: All right. Sounds like you're

270
1 going to be pretty good. Just talk in a
2 conversational tone. Let us know who you are,
3 spell your last name, please.
4 THE WITNESS: My name is Henry Falkowski,
5 F-A-L-K-O-W-S-K-I.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Witness.
7 Miss Baumgarten.
10 A. The FBI.
11 Q. How long have you been employed with the FBI?
12 A. Eleven and a half years.
13 Q. What position do you hold with the FBI?
14 A. Special Agent.
15 Q. What are your duties as a special agent?
16 A. I investigate violations of the laws of the
17 U.S., collect evidence where the U.S. is or may be
18 a party of interest, and perform other duties
19 imposed by law.
20 Q. Do you perform criminal investigations?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Are you familiar with the defendant?
23 A. Yes, I am.
24 Q. How?
25 A. I am the case agent in this matter.

271
1 Q. All right. I'd like to direct your attention
2 to December 4, 2008.
3 THE COURT: What does it mean to be a case
4 agent?
5 THE WITNESS: The case is assigned to me,
6 and I guess I would be sort of the director of the
7 activities that go on in the investigation.
9 Q. Are you primarily responsible for investigating
10 the circumstances regarding the defendant?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you assist the U.S. Attorney's office in
13 that regard?
14 A. I do.
15 Q. Was there communication by you on December 4,
16 2008, with respect to the defendant?
17 A. Yes, there was.
18 Q. How did that occur?
19 A. I received a telephone call from Kenneth May
20 from the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation.
21 Q. What was the nature of that telephone call?
22 A. It was in regarding the defendant in this case,
23 that he used a Depository Trust routing number and
24 a fictitious account number to pay off his Best Buy
25 HSBC credit account.

272
1 Q. Was information related to you concerning how
2 the defendant attempted to pay the Best Buy credit
3 account?
4 A. Yes, it was.
5 Q. What information was said to you?
6 A. Kenneth May advised me that he used the
7 electronic check direct function to attempt to make
8 payments to his account from approximately
9 November 13th to November 28th, 2008.
10 Q. Was there discussion between you and Mr. May
11 with respect to the nature of the business of the
12 Depository Trust?
13 A. He explained to me very generally what they do.
14 Essentially that they're a bank for banks, that
15 they deal in securities, that they do not deal in
16 any currency, and also that they don't have any
17 personal banking accounts with respect to their
18 customers.
19 Q. Did you have any discussions with anyone else
20 with respect to the defendant's activities on
21 December 4, 2008?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. And who was that with?
24 A. Michael Parylac. He's with the HSBC fraud
25 department.
273
1 Q. Is Mr. Parylac still employed at HSBC?
2 A. I don't believe he is.
3 Q. What information did Mr. Parylac provide to you
4 on December 4, 2008?
5 A. He provided me with the information that the
6 defendant used the electronic check direct function
7 to attempt to pay down his HSBC Best Buy credit
8 account. He also provided me with the routing
9 number and the account number that the defendant
10 attempted to use.
11 Q. Was any other information provided to you
12 concerning the specifics of the defendant's
13 attempts to pay down that account?
14 A. Initially he told me that he did open up the
15 account. That he used his New York State driver's
16 license and his Social Security card to open up the
17 account. That he began using it immediately, and
18 that he had made approximately $8,800 worth of
19 testimony -- I'm sorry, of purchases.
20 Q. Was any information provided to you as to
21 whether or not funds were transferred from
22 Depository Trust to HSBC?
23 A. Yes. Kenneth May told me that none of the
24 payments went through. They did not release any
25 funds to HSBC, and Mike Parylac told me that the

274
1 checks were returned and that the amounts went back
2 on his credit -- his credit card statement.
3 Q. Was any information provided to you concerning
4 the impact the direct check attempts had on the
5 defendant's credit account?
6 A. Yes. Mike Parylac explained the process to me
7 whereby a customer would make a check direct
8 payment, and immediately or shortly thereafter
9 the -- depending on the amount, the credit --
10 available credit would go up and the amount that he
11 owed would go down.
12 Q. What would that permit the card holder or
13 account holder to do?
14 A. Purchase more items.
15 Q. What steps did you take after the conversation
16 on December 4, 2008, with respect to the defendant?
17 A. I telephonically interviewed the defendant on
18 12/18 I believe 2008.
19 Q. How did that occur?
20 A. I called -- I called him up at home.
21 Q. Who answered the phone?
22 A. His father answered the phone. I had a brief
23 conversation with his father about his opening of
24 the Best Buy account and his purchasing of the
25 items, and I gave the father the opportunity to let

275
1 us come get the items voluntarily. And the father
2 explained to me that really wasn't his decision, it
3 was the defendant's decision. He's the one that
4 made the purchases.
5 Q. Did you speak with the defendant on
6 December 18, 2008?
7 A. I did. Initially the father -- the defendant's
8 father had told me that the defendant wasn't
9 available. Eventually towards the end of the call
10 I did speak with the defendant. He got on the
11 line, and --
12 Q. What was said then?
13 A. I confronted him with the idea -- I'm sorry,
14 not the idea, but with the information that he had
15 recently made quite a bit of purchases from Best
16 Buy, approximately $10,000. That was the number
17 that I raised that day.
18 Q. And was there a response from the defendant to
19 that?
20 A. Yes. He admitted that he did open up a Best
21 Buy account in September, and began using it right
22 away and made -- made some purchases.
23 Q. Was information provided to you by the
24 defendant concerning those purchases?
25 A. Yes. He told me that he purchased the washer,

276
1 a dryer, and a television, but he couldn't remember
2 any of the other items.
3 Q. Was there a discussion during that telephone
4 conversation on December 18, 2008, concerning
5 payment on the defendant's Best Buy account?
6 A. Yes. I initially asked him if he attempted to
7 make payments to the account using the direct check
8 function with HSBC and utilizing a Depository Trust
9 routing number and a Depository Trust bank account
10 number. He denied attempting to use a Depository
11 Trust routing number and account number to make
12 payments to the account.
13 Q. Did the defendant say anything else with
14 respect to payments on his Best Buy account?
15 A. Yes, he did. He advised me that he recently
16 had gained access to a United States Department of
17 Treasury trust account, and that he began using it.
18 And in the way he said he used it was by sending a
19 bonded promissory note in the amount of $30,000 to
20 the CFO of HSBC Bank, who I believe at the time was
21 located in Illinois.
22 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Just a moment, your
23 Honor.
25 Q. Was there any further information related to

277
1 you concerning other payment methods on the
2 account?
3 A. I asked him if he had made any traditional
4 payment to the account.
5 Q. And what did you mean by traditional payments?
6 A. What I meant was cash payments, regular paper
7 check payments, or money order payments. He denied
8 making any.
9 Q. What action did you take after the interview of
10 the defendant on December 18, 2008?
11 A. I recontacted him and we met face-to-face.
12 Q. When did that occur?
13 A. 12/29/2008.
14 Q. Where did that occur?
15 A. It occurred at the Burger King on Derby Road in
16 Derby, New York, close to his house.
17 Q. Who was present during that interview?
18 A. Myself, the defendant, and another federal
19 agent.
20 Q. Did the defendant provide information to you
21 during that interview concerning his Best Buy
22 account?
23 A. Yes. He again verified that he opened up the
24 account and began using it. He also provided me
25 with -- for me to look at the original -- some of

278
1 the original receipts from some of his purchases.
2 Q. Was there any other information the defendant
3 provided to you?
4 A. Yes, he also provided me a bonded promissory
5 note made out to HSBC Bank in the amount of $30,000
6 made -- sent to the CFO of HSBC Bank.
7 Q. Did there come a point in time when you
8 obtained copies of the bonded promissory note that
9 the defendant referenced and also the receipts?
10 A. Yes, later on that day in the afternoon the
11 defendant drove to the FBI in Buffalo where I was,
12 and allowed me to make copies of the receipts --
13 there were five receipts that day -- and the bonded
14 promissory note and the accompanying documentation.
16 approach the witness?
17 THE COURT: Yes.
19 Q. I'm showing the witness what has been marked in
20 evidence as Government's Exhibit 11. Are you
21 familiar with that document?
22 A. Yes, I am.
23 Q. What is that?
24 A. That is the bonded promissory note that the
25 defendant allowed me to copy and also showed to me

279
1 earlier that day.
2 Q. Was there further discussion with respect to
3 the source of the funds referenced in the bonded
4 promissory note?
5 A. During the interview, yes, there was. He
6 mentioned to me that upon gaining access to his
7 secret trust account with the Department of
8 Treasury that's how he made -- that's how he's able
9 to make -- to create the bonded promissory note and
10 send it to HSBC. He mentioned to me that he
11 claimed it as a secret trust account with the
12 Department of Treasury.
13 Q. Did he provide information about how actually
14 he accessed that secret trust account?
15 A. Yes, he advised me that he had sent paperwork
16 in to the Secretary of the Department of Treasury
17 Henry Paulson, and that he assumed that he had
18 gained access to the account since he hadn't gotten
19 a response from them. He used the term silence is
20 agreement, silence is consent during the interview.
21 Q. If you would look at page 1 of what's marked as
22 Government Exhibit 11 in evidence, what is that top
23 sheet?
24 A. That -- that looks like a cover sheet that was
25 for the Cattaraugus County clerk.

280
1 Q. Was information provided to you from the
2 defendant concerning the first sheet of Exhibit 1?
3 A. Yes. He advised that he took the bonded
4 promissory note and the accompanying documentation
5 to the Cattaraugus County clerk to put them on file
6 and make them a matter of public record.
7 Q. Was information provided to you concerning the
8 amount of the bonded promissory note?
9 A. Yes. $30,000.
10 Q. If I may direct your attention to
11 January 6, 2009. Did you take further action with
12 respect to the defendant?
13 A. Yes, I -- Ken May from the Depository Trust,
14 and Mike Parylac from HSBC fraud, the fraud
15 department, and I talked again that day. I
16 verified the information again that he had that
17 they had provided to me on December 4th, 2008.
18 Q. Why did you do that?
19 A. Because I didn't -- I didn't believe the
20 defendant that he used a legal means of paying off
21 his account.
22 Q. All right. How did the contact among you,
23 Mr. Parylac and Mr. May occur?
24 A. Via telephone.
25 Q. Were you able to confirm the information

281
1 previously provided to you on December 4, 2008?
2 A. Yes, I was.
3 Q. Was the routing number provided the same as
4 that which was provided on December 4, 2008?
5 A. Yes. Kenneth May again advised me of the
6 routing number and the account number, as did Mike
7 Parylac.
8 Q. Was information provided to you concerning the
9 actual payments that were attempted?
10 A. Yes. Mike Parylac also mentioned to me that
11 the defendant had called the HSBC fraud department
12 and wanted to see if they had received his bonded
13 promissory note.
14 Q. Do you recall when that contact was made by the
15 defendant to the HSBC fraud department?
16 A. I believe it was December 30th, 2008.
17 Q. Would that have been the day after you
18 interviewed the defendant in person?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did Mr. Parylac relate to you what the purpose
21 was for the defendant's contact to HSBC fraud
22 department on December 30, 2008?
23 A. The defendant was inquiring whether the payment
24 had been received, and if his account was zeroed
25 out, if the payments -- if the payment was actually

282
1 received by HSBC, if it was legitimate.
2 Q. Did you have a discussion with Mr. Parylac
3 concerning the outstanding balance on the
4 defendant's account on January 6?
5 A. I did. To the best of my recollection I think
6 it was approximately $8,900 was the amount of the
7 outstanding balance on the account.
8 Q. All right. If I may direct your attention to
9 January 16, 2009. Was further action taken with
10 respect to the ongoing investigation?
11 A. Yes, it was.
12 Q. What occurred on January 16, 2009?
13 A. A federal search warrant was executed at the
14 residence of the defendant.
15 Q. Who was present during the execution of that
16 search warrant?
17 A. Myself, other federal agents, the defendant,
18 and the defendant's parents and sister.
19 Q. During the course of the execution of that
20 search warrant, were photographs taken?
21 A. Yes, they were.
22 Q. Why?
23 A. It's a standard protocol whenever we conduct
24 search warrants, we like to maintain and preserve
25 the state that the residence was in before, during,

283
1 and after the search, and also to document which
2 items were seized.
3 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I'm showing the witness
4 what has been marked for identification as Exhibits
5 19, 20B, and 21C. May I approach, your Honor?
6 THE COURT: 19 is already in, isn't it?
7 THE CLERK: 19 is not in. 19 was
8 identified.
9 THE COURT: Okay. 19, 20B.
10 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Yes, your Honor, and 21C.
11 THE CLERK: Neither of them are in, Judge.
12 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You may.
14 Q. Agent Falkowski, I'm showing you Exhibits 19,
15 20B, and 21C. Are you familiar with those?
16 A. Yes, I am.
17 Q. What are they, please?
18 A. They're photographs of items that were seized
19 at the defendant's residence on January 16.
20 Q. Do those photographs accurately reflect the
21 items within that were seized from the defendant's
22 residence?
23 A. Yes, they do.
25 Exhibits 19, 20B, and 21C into evidence.

284
1 THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Buczek?
2 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I don't really object
3 to it, but I do want to point out that remember
4 these are copies. I mean, photographs I should
5 say, sorry.
6 THE COURT: All right. Are those copies
7 of photographs, is that what they are?
8 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I believe they're color
9 copies.
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 MS. BAUMGARTEN: We have actual that are
12 just not marked, your Honor. In order to
13 facilitate the distribution, we made photocopies.
14 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Buczek, you
15 want to take a look at the originals and see if
16 there's anything you object to.
17 MR. BUCZEK: Sure. Thank you.
18 THE COURT: And if they're identical and
19 you have no problem with them, I'll allow the
20 copies to be used, and I will receive the
21 photographs in evidence.
22 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Do you want us to mark
23 the original photographs, your Honor?
24 THE COURT: Mark them, yes.
25 MS. BAUMGARTEN: We're going to mark the

285
1 originals with the same number, your Honor.
2 THE COURT: Please.
4 approach again?
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I'm handing Agent
7 Falkowski the same photographs, just actual photos
8 as opposed to color photos.
9 THE COURT: Mr. Buczek, are there any
10 objections now?
11 MR. BUCZEK: No, Judge. I wasn't around
12 when this took place, so I wouldn't know.
13 THE COURT: Okay. All right. There's no
14 objection to 20, 20B, 20C received into evidence.
15 THE CLERK: 19, 20B and 21C.
16 THE COURT: Yes.
17 (Government's Exhibit 19, 20B, and 21C
18 were received into evidence.)
20 Q. Agent Falkowski, what is depicted in
21 Exhibit 19?
22 A. A table, a glass-top table.
23 MS. BAUMGARTEN: That is in evidence. May
24 we publish it to the jury please?
25 THE COURT: Yes.

286
2 Q. During the course of the execution of the
3 search warrant what items were seized?
4 A. All of the items that were on the receipts that
5 he had provided to me and that I made copies of and
6 which were the items that he purchased from Best
7 Buy.
8 Q. How was that information developed? How did
9 you learn that?
10 A. Oh. Well, we tried to match the serial numbers
11 from the actual receipt as close as we could to the
12 items that were at the residence that day. And for
13 the most part we were able to identify all the
14 items.
15 Q. What is depicted in 20B in evidence?
16 A. Those are boxes for items that were purchased
17 at Best Buy.
18 Q. What is depicted in 21C?
19 A. That is a home theater system.
20 Q. All right.
21 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, I'm showing
22 the witness what has been marked into evidence
23 Exhibit 20, 20A, 21, 21A, 21B, 22, 22A, 23, 23B,
24 24, 24A, 25, and 25A.
25 THE COURT: Okay, Miss Baumgarten.

287
2 Q. Agent Falkowski, if you would, I'm going to ask
3 you the same series of questions as to each of
4 those.
5 A. Okay.
6 THE COURT: They're all received.
7 MS. BAUMGARTEN: They are. They are all
8 in evidence.
9 THE COURT: So as a number is mentioned,
10 you will publish that, please.
12 Q. As to the first exhibit, Exhibit 20, what's
13 depicted in that photograph?
14 A. A Samsung flat screen TV.
15 Q. Where was the photo taken?
16 A. At the defendant's residence.
17 Q. Are each of the photos in the exhibits that
18 I've provided to you photographs taken at the
19 search warrant at the defendant's residence?
20 A. Yes, they are.
21 Q. And are each of those photographs photographs
22 of items that were seized during the search
23 warrant?
24 A. Yes, they are.
25 Q. All right. If you would proceed to the next

288
1 exhibit. I believe it should be 20A, what is that?
2 A. That is either the back side or side of the
3 item depicted in Exhibit 20.
4 Q. The next exhibit, which is 21? What is
5 depicted there?
6 A. It is a TV stand which contains a home theater
7 system and half of a TV.
8 Q. The next exhibit would be 21C.
9 A. 21A.
10 Q. 21A.
11 A. That is the Yamaha AV receiver which is part of
12 the home theater system.
13 Q. Is there 21B?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What is that?
16 A. That's the back side of the -- one of the
17 components of the home theater system.
18 Q. Exhibit 21C, what's depicted in that?
19 A. That's a dryer and then half of a washer.
20 Q. 21C?
21 A. Oh, I'm sorry. No, I don't have 21C.
22 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I showed it to you
23 before. That's why -- is it in the pile that's
24 there?
25 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, yeah. That is

289
1 the home theater system.
3 Q. All right. Next one is 22?
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. What is that a photograph of?
6 A. The washer and the dryer.
7 Q. Is there another one that is of the washer and
8 dryer, is that 22A?
9 A. Yes. That is -- I believe it's the inside of
10 the door that opens, and it's to the dryer.
11 Q. Is there 23? What's depicted in that
12 photograph?
13 A. The washer.
14 Q. Okay. Is there a 23A? 23B.
15 A. That's the inside of the door to the washer.
16 Q. All right. Is there a photograph 24?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What is that a photograph of?
19 A. A Samsung blu-ray player.
20 Q. Is there a photograph 24A?
21 A. Yes, that is the back side of the blu-ray
22 player.
23 Q. Is there a 25, exhibit I mean.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What is that?
290
1 A. That is a Sony boombox.
2 Q. All right. And then 25A, do you have that
3 exhibit?
4 A. Yes. That is the back side of the Sony
5 boombox.
6 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I'm showing the witness
7 what has been marked as Exhibit 32 for
8 identification. Your Honor, may I approach?
9 THE COURT: Yes.
11 Q. Are you familiar with that document?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What is it, please?
14 A. The Best Buy receipt.
15 Q. Where was it obtained from?
16 A. From the defendant.
17 Q. During the course of the execution of the
18 search warrant?
19 A. Yes.
20 MS. BAUMGARTEN: All right. The
21 government moves Exhibit 32 into evidence, your
22 Honor.
23 THE COURT: No objection?
24 MR. BUCZEK: No, Judge.
25 THE COURT: All right. Thirty-two

291
1 received.
3 evidence.)
5 Q. What is the -- in Exhibit 32, what actually is
6 it a receipt for?
7 A. A Samsung washer, dryer, and then delivery on
8 those items.
9 Q. Was that the Samsung washer and dryer that was
10 seized on January 16, 2009?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I'm showing the witness what has been marked as
13 Exhibit 33 for identification. These were
14 previously provided to the defense, both 32 and 3.
15 Are you familiar with that document?
16 A. Yes, I am.
17 Q. What is it, please?
18 A. A Best Buy credit statement.
19 Q. Where was that obtained?
20 A. At the defendant's residence during the
21 execution of the search warrant.
22 MS. BAUMGARTEN: All right. The
23 government moves Exhibit 33 into evidence.
24 THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Buczek?
25 MR. BUCZEK: Well, I'd like to object,

292
1 Judge, based on having some type of firsthand
2 knowledge that these purchases took place by the
3 defendant, and that hasn't been offered at this
4 point.
5 THE COURT: It's the credit card statement
6 though that was provided to this witness, correct?
7 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Absolutely, your Honor.
8 THE COURT: All right. Objection
9 overruled on those grounds. I will receive 33 into
10 evidence.
12 evidence.)
13 MS. BAUMGARTEN: If you would put that on
14 the screen, 33.
15 THE COURT: You may publish it.
16 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Publish it please.
18 Q. Is Exhibit 33 a photocopy?
19 A. No, sir, that's the original.
20 Q. And who is it directed to?
21 A. Shane Buczek, 7335 Derby Road, Derby, New York
22 14047-9636.
23 Q. Does Exhibit 33 provide a date with respect to
24 when the statement covers?
25 A. Looking at the statement, the transactions

293
1 occurred from 10/11/2008 to 11/10/2008, and the
2 statement issues a due date of December 5th, 2008.
3 Q. What is the dollar amount on that statement
4 that's owed or the balance?
5 A. New balance is $1,664.74.
6 Q. In the lower portion of what is in evidence as
7 Exhibit 33, are there handwritten numbers?
8 A. Yes, there are.
9 Q. What are those handwritten numbers?
10 A. $1,664.74.
11 Q. Would you circle that on the screen for the
12 jury please?
13 MS. BAUMGARTEN: If I may have a moment,
14 your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Yes.
17 Honor.
18 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
19 MS. BAUMGARTEN: If I may just have a
20 moment.
21 THE COURT: Everybody doing okay, ladies
22 and gentlemen? Okay. Okay, cross-examination, Mr.
23 Buczek.
25 Q. Yeah. All right. Okay. Good afternoon.

294
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. Can you please state your name for the record?
3 A. Henry Falkowski.
4 Q. Okay. Thanks for being here this afternoon. I
5 just have a few questions. I'd like to start off
6 with some things that the defendant spoke to you
7 about back in I believe it was back in 2008, and
8 you had some communications with him several times
9 between the months of think it was October and
10 November and right into December and early into
11 January. Could you reflect a little bit on those
12 communications and reflecting to the visit that the
13 defendant had at the U.S. attorney's office way
14 back in September of 2008?
15 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Objection, your Honor,
16 hearsay and relevance.
17 THE COURT: No, I think the question is
18 would he reflect on it. You can answer that yes or
19 no.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, I would reflect on it.
21 BY MR. BUCZEK:
22 Q. You don't have to get too detailed, but
23 basically how many hours did we spend together
24 between the months of September and all the way --
25 from September all the way almost to January

295
1 of 2009 if you calculate it all the time together
2 that we spent together, how long was that?
3 A. It's difficult for me to say. We met on
4 several occasions.
5 Q. So maybe a good four or five hours a time that
6 I spent with the U.S. attorney's office and the
7 FBI, the defendant did?
8 A. I can't really say the amount of hours. I know
9 we met on a number of occasions.
10 Q. What was the discussion about that took place
11 with the defendant and the FBI and U.S. attorney's
12 office?
13 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Objection, hearsay. It's
14 also relevance, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Not necessarily, but to the
16 form of the question sustained. There's no
17 question before this witness.
18 BY MR. BUCZEK:
19 Q. Are you familiar with my belief system -- or I
20 should say the defendant's belief system? Are you
21 familiar with the defendant's belief system and
22 what he believes in?
23 A. You have explained to me different portions of
24 your belief system.
25 Q. And you know that there's others out there,

296
1 thousands, maybe millions, believe the same way
2 that the defendant does?
3 A. I don't know if there's anybody else out there.
4 I do know that you have told me that there are
5 others out there.
6 Q. Do you recall DVDs and CDs pertaining to
7 different seminars that the defendant attended
8 concerning the issues that we've been talking about
9 in the last three days on this trial?
10 A. I'm not sure if I know what you mean.
11 Q. DVDs that were provided to the FBI, CDs
12 pertaining to the issues at hand concerning the --
13 the treasury account, the public policy issue, the
14 issues on House Resolution 192 of the bankruptcy of
15 1933, and certain Jean Keating CDs and law
16 information, how you -- actually do you recall that
17 information that was given up, binders and books
18 and boxes, I mean, I could probably fill a whole
19 room with all this stuff. Do you recall that?
20 A. I do recall you providing me with information,
21 yes.
22 Q. Okay. Do you recall -- I don't remember the
23 exact date, but do you recall the defendant giving
24 you a copy of an affidavit that was written up by
25 an attorney that represented the Federal Reserve

297
1 system in Cleveland, Ohio, called Walker Todd? It
2 was an affidavit pertaining to the promissory
3 notes.
6 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Form, relevance, hearsay.
7 MR. BUCZEK: Goes to state of mind, Judge.
8 THE COURT: It might. Overruled. Calls
9 for a yes or no answer. Do you remember the
10 affidavit?
11 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that
12 information.
13 BY MR. BUCZEK:
14 Q. Okay. All right. Did you have an opportunity
15 to review or listen to any of the CDs, DVDs,
16 anything at all, did you do any of your due
17 diligence or any research or investigations
18 pertaining to the material that was given up back
19 in the fall of 2008?
20 A. It seemed to be a couple of questions in there.
21 Q. All right. Did you have an opportunity to
22 review and research the information the defendant
23 handed over?
24 A. I made a general review of the information that
25 you handed over.

298
1 Q. Also there was a -- I believe a book, hard
2 cover book that the defendant went out of his way
3 purchased and handed over to the -- I'm not sure if
4 it was the FBI or the U.S. attorney's office called
5 the Creature of Jackal Island. It's basically a
6 second look at the Federal Reserve system, and it
7 goes back to the state of mind. Did you have an
8 opportunity to review that at all?
9 A. I don't recall ever receiving that book.
10 Q. Okay. How about the CD?
11 A. I don't recall the CD.
12 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with an extremely
13 important case that just took place back in
14 November 20th of 2009, case number
15 108-CR-00055-RLV/DCK filed on 11/20/2009. Actually
16 it's a -- I only have a copy. It was the United
17 States of America versus Kathy Ray Wahler
18 pertaining to a very similar situation to this, but
19 a verdict came down. She was -- 39 counts --
22 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Form.
23 THE COURT: Yes. And if it involves --
24 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Relevance.
25 THE COURT: -- injecting the law into the

299
1 question and to get it before the jury, that will
2 be inadmissible. The law is not introduced as
3 evidence. I'm the one that instructs the jury on
4 the law. Case holdings are very fact specific in
5 most instances. The principles to be extracted are
6 related to the facts of the case in most instances,
7 and to query about a case holding in this
8 procedure, this circumstance, would be more
9 confusing than it would be helpful, and invades the
10 prerogative and the province of the Court as far as
11 instructing in the law. Objection sustained.
12 MR. BUCZEK: A few more questions we'll be
13 done, Judge.
14 Do you recall when you were speaking to the
15 defendant, the defendant mentioned to you about --
16 little bit of information on 12 U.S.C., Section
17 1813(l)(1). I'm not sure if you remember that far
18 back, but do you recall that at all?
19 THE COURT: He can testify if he recalls.
20 BY MR. BUCZEK:
21 Q. Do you recall that?
22 A. I don't recall that.
23 Q. Where the defendant --
24 THE COURT: No, once you get that answer,
25 you're bound by that --

300
1 MR. BUCZEK: Okay.
2 THE COURT: -- answer.
3 BY MR. BUCZEK:
4 Q. Okay. All right. The last thing -- actually
5 two more things I'll be done. Does the FBI or you
6 come here today in your public capacity or your
7 private capacity?
8 A. I come here as a special agent of the FBI.
9 Q. So that would be your public capacity.
10 A. I don't really know the distinction between
11 public and private capacity the way you use it.
12 Q. Well, this is the public. We're in the public
13 forum, so obviously you're here in your public
14 capacity.
15 THE COURT: A motion to strike?
16 MS. BAUMGARTEN: A motion to strike.
17 THE COURT: I'll grant that motion.
18 Disregard the statement of Mr. Buczek, ladies and
19 gentlemen, because that's his view. That's not
20 evidence. That's not testimony from the witness,
21 and it is not proper for you to consider that in
22 your deliberations.
23 MR. BUCZEK: And do you have a claim
24 against me?
25 THE WITNESS: Not that I'm aware of.

301
1 MR. BUCZEK: No further questions, Judge,
2 thank you.
3 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Buczek, thank
4 you. Anything, Miss Baumgarten?
5 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I do have some recross,
6 your Honor, but based on prior proceedings I think
7 a side bar with the Court -- it's with respect to
8 an area of cross-examination.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, the
13 government is requesting again that we be permitted
14 to have the witness testify with respect to the
15 prior proceeding on September 2, 2008. This
16 particular witness was also present during that
17 prior court proceeding. The government proffers
18 that we can properly sanitize that information.
19 The defendant, through his cross-examination of
20 this witness, has squarely put at issue what he
21 knew during the course of the fall 2008. The
22 references that I understand the defendant made
23 concerning meetings were proffers with respect to
24 pending criminal charges in another matter, so he's
25 opened the door directly by -- as a result of his

302
1 cross-examination.
2 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, objection. I wasn't
3 referring to that particular meeting. There was
4 several meetings, I would probably say 15 meetings
5 that took place, and I wasn't referring to the -- I
6 wasn't referring to that particular meeting. What
7 I was referring to was private meetings that we had
8 at restaurants and in all through Grand Island,
9 Tonawanda, Orchard Park, all over the place.
10 MR. COMERFORD: He didn't give any
11 testimony on it.
12 THE COURT: No. End that. I'll take your
13 objection. Objection sustained for essentially the
14 same reason. Intent is an issue. While this may
15 be to some extent relevant to state of mind and
16 intent, overall it's unfairly prejudicial, likely
17 to be confusing, injects another proceeding into
18 this sanitized court proceeding, which I think is
19 likely to result in unfair prejudice probably to
20 both sides. On that basis I will sustain the
21 objection.
22 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, may I address
23 one other issue that may be appropriate to do it
24 outside the presence of the jury based on the
25 Court's ruling?
303
1 THE COURT: Sure.
2 MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government would rest
3 at this time, but we would specifically only rest
4 as to Count I of the indictment, based on the
5 Court's prior ruling with respect to the
6 bifurcation. The defendant, it is my
7 understanding, had actually asked the government to
8 produce Mr. Kawski. I had an opportunity to speak
9 with Mr. Comerford. My latest understanding with
10 respect to that would be that it would abide the
11 event with respect to the jury's verdict on Count I
12 based on the Court's ruling.
13 MR. BUCZEK: That's fine. I don't need
14 him right. Now that's fine.
15 THE COURT: The resting will be with the
16 understanding that it's only with respect to
17 Count I?
18 MR. COMERFORD: Yes, Judge.
19 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I'm just going to say the
20 government rests at this time. I'm not putting the
21 elaborate discussion about the differing counts.
22 THE COURT: Certainly. Certainly.
23 MR. BRUCE: Mr. Buczek has provided us
24 with an exhibit list -- not an exhibit list, a
25 witness list, which, if my math is correct, has

304
1 somewhere in the neighborhood of 1400 witnesses on
2 it. He has a preamble to the exhibit list where he
3 tells me and presumably the Court what these people
4 are going to testify to. Perhaps we can take some
5 time after we rest to talk about it. The preamble
6 directs us to things that just have nothing to do
7 with this case.
8 MR. COMERFORD: Judge, I discussed this --
9 a couple of the witnesses he wants to call
10 including, Judge Schroeder, with a couple other
11 attorneys with my office. They suggested -- and
12 I've recommended to Mr. Buczek that perhaps he make
13 an offer of proof as to these witnesses outside the
14 presence of the jury, so that their relevance can
15 be determined by the Court before we subpoena
16 anyone or try to bring anyone in here. I think
17 that might be the best way to proceed.
18 THE COURT: With respect to the three
19 witnesses?
20 MR. COMERFORD: With respect to
21 particularly, Judge Schroeder, but whoever else is
22 on the list that Mr. Buczek intends on calling.
24 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, the reason why I
25 wanted to have Judge Schroeder --

305
1 MR. COMERFORD: You agree with that, you
2 want to do an offer of proof?
3 MR. BUCZEK: Just -- main reason is I'm
4 not going to be getting into the ineffectiveness.
5 What I want to focus on just my state of mind, I'm
6 not crazy. I'm not insane because I came back
7 competent. They had to put -- Judge Schroeder sent
8 me away for five months to a psych center. I came
9 back competent. And I'm sure you read the report,
10 I just need him to testify so we know that I'm
11 okay.
13 government was not intending by the mere fact that
14 we're discussing, based on the limitation of the
15 Court's ruling, resting at this point, we were not
16 intending to put at issue the defendant's
17 competency. The Court has made a ruling so we
18 don't think it is relevant.
19 MR. BUCZEK: It is an issue. The U.S.
20 attorney's put a motion in back in March of 2008
21 that I had a competency issue. It was filed by the
22 U.S. attorney's office.
23 THE COURT: At this point it would appear
24 that your competency is not an issue.
25 MR. BUCZEK: I know that.

306
1 THE COURT: It has not put in the fact
2 that it may have been made an issue previous,
3 that's all been resolved pretrial. So on that
4 basis, if that's all there is, I'm going to deny
5 your request with respect to Judge Schroeder.
6 MR. BUCZEK: But the jury doesn't know
7 that they --
8 THE COURT: They don't even know it was
9 raised early on. You come out equal on that one.
10 MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government is not
11 going to discuss it at any point, including in the
12 closing.
13 THE COURT: All right. You still want to
14 make an offer of proof beyond that? On Friday?
15 MR. BUCZEK: Oh, yeah.
16 THE COURT: We'll talk about it after the
17 government rests. Are you going to make an opening
18 statement?
20 MR. COMERFORD: Shane, let's talk about
21 that a second.
22 THE COURT: Talk to Mr. Comerford, all
23 right. Once you rest I'm going to let the jury go
24 for 15 minutes so we can at least try to get some
25 of this resolved and give Michelle a couple minute

307
1 break.
2 MR. BRUCE: Are we done with the agent?
3 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I can do -- I have to say
4 no further questions or something.
5 MR. COMERFORD: Judge, he would like to
6 make an opening statement and he does intend to
7 offer proof and call some witnesses that are in
8 town and available to testify.
9 THE COURT: Okay. When an opening
10 statement is made by any attorney or any person, as
11 you've heard me instruct the jury, the attorney or
12 individual who makes the argument -- not the
13 argument, but makes the statement to the jury that
14 it is expected that witnesses will testify to such
15 and such. All right. There has to be a good faith
16 belief or basis for the availability of witnesses
17 to testify to the information that's related to the
18 opening statement. If it's you in the first
19 person, if you're -- if it's not premised on
20 witness testimony that is likely to take place,
21 that's improper, and you cannot speak in the first
22 person. You are speaking in the capacity of
23 representing yourself, if you recall our
24 discussions in that regard. So you have to be very
25 careful when you make that opening statement

308
1 because I would have to, if you step out of line,
2 admonish you like I would any attorney in front of
3 the jury, and that could wind up being to your
4 prejudice, so, keep that in mind. Do you
5 understand what I'm staying?
6 MR. BUCZEK: Yeah. You got a point.
7 THE COURT: Okay. So be careful.
9 government -- I understand the government has the
10 burden of proof at each and every stage of the
11 proceeding and we understand that, your Honor. We
12 would object, unless the defendant is actually
13 going to put a case on, to it, that he actually
14 gets to make an opening statement. It's not for
15 the purpose of two cracks at a summation, your
16 Honor. I appreciate that he's likely not to be in
17 a position to begin his case, if that's what he
18 chooses to do, but I just want to make sure that
19 that is clear. Our position would be we would
20 object to an opening unless he intends to put his
21 own case on.
22 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I do have a very
23 important eyewitness who is actually from the
24 Federal Reserve. He's a retired attorney and all
25 he was going to do was testify on the double

309
1 bookkeeping entries and how the promissory notes
2 work and the banks survive off that system.
3 THE COURT: Well, your witness has to be
4 available, and if the witness is not available --
5 MR. BUCZEK: I understand that, and it
6 looks like I'm doing everything I can to get him in
7 here tomorrow. But, but I do have three already
8 lined up.
9 THE COURT: Okay. Then the scope of your
10 opening statement -- and I say this generally, and
11 I say it against the backdrop of what the
12 government did, because these are the same rules
13 that apply to everybody. What you say in the
14 opening is not -- is simply what you believe the
15 evidence will show. If you don't have evidence
16 that relates to the statement you make in your
17 opening statement, that's improper. So you cannot
18 nor can any attorney tell the jury these are the
19 facts of the case and not have, as Miss Baumgarten
20 is concerned, a case to present in connection with
21 what might be in some view defenses to the case.
22 You need to have a good faith prospect for putting
23 on a defense with evidence. Do you understand
24 that?
25 MR. BUCZEK: Yes.

310
1 THE COURT: Okay. All right. And it's
2 serious business, you understand?
3 MR. BUCZEK: I know it is, Judge.
4 THE COURT: Okay.
5 MR. COMERFORD: If -- if the government is
6 resting presumably now, I think we'd make a quick
7 Rule 29 motion outside the presence of the jury.
8 Does it make sense to do the opening now or
9 tomorrow?
10 THE COURT: Why don't the two of you talk
11 about it, and you let me know what you want to do.
12 MR. BUCZEK: Okay.
13 THE COURT: All right. If it -- if you
14 determine that according to the rules you'd be in a
15 better position to make an opening tomorrow, I'd
16 allow that to take place, but I will address the
17 Rule 29 motion today. Okay. And -- but you tell
18 me if you want to go forward with the opening,
19 that's okay. As well to the --
20 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, I do have a
21 couple of brief questions for the witness that I --
22 for the witness before I rest.
23 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Yeah.
24 Because that's where we left you were going to
25 resolve.
311
1 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I have one more issue,
2 and it's an -- I have it in my possession -- it's
3 an actual -- it's an actual letter from AT&T where
4 an individual that I know personally from New
5 Jersey had a letter from AT&T stating that his
6 account was paid off by his prepaid treasury
7 account. I have that letter. I have the
8 eyewitness. I'm doing everything I can to get him
9 in here. But I don't know how to properly do it.
10 I would love to get it into evidence but it talks
11 about the prepaid account and it's from AT&T it
12 says thank you for your payment for your prepaid
13 account. I strongly believe -- I strongly believe
14 this is real, and that's why I was hoping -- I know
15 you're not going to have Judge Schroeder in here,
16 that's why I wanted him to validate my belief
17 system. I know I don't have a mental issue at all.
18 I have a passion issue.
19 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Without seeing the
20 proposed exhibit, your Honor, it's awfully hard to
21 formulate an appropriate counter.
22 THE COURT: Okay. I think you need to
23 consult with Mr. Comerford a little bit more.
24 MR. BUCZEK: I will.
25 THE COURT: I think you should show that

312
1 particular exhibit to the government. Maybe they
2 won't have an objection. Maybe even if they
3 object, this may relate to knowledge and state of
4 mind and willfulness in terms of what you
5 determined would be the results of your specific
6 conduct. I don't know yet. But I think the
7 government can't make an intelligent argument one
8 way or another without seeing that document. So,
9 what you believe is one thing. But we have to be
10 able to intelligently discuss it okay, so let them
11 see it. Let them see it, today.
12 MR. BUCZEK: Oh, I have it. Thank you.
15 THE COURT: Okay. We're back, ladies and
16 gentlemen. And so we're going to resume, and Agent
17 Falkowski remains on the stand under oath. This is
18 redirect examination I think, and you want to go
19 forward now, Miss Baumgarten, and then we'll see
20 where we're going to be at that point.
22 Q. During the course of the investigation you
23 conducted concerning the defendant, did you verify
24 his identity?
25 A. Yes, I did.
313
1 Q. Did you obtain his Social Security number?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. Did you actually meet with the defendant?
4 A. Yes, I met with the defendant several times.
5 Q. Would you point out who the individual is that
6 you met with?
7 A. Greenish gray coat, blue shirt, blue tie with
8 white stars on it, Shane Buczek, the defendant.
10 Honor.
11 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I'll --
12 THE COURT: Any questions, Mr. Buczek?
13 MR. BUCZEK: You know I got millions of
14 questions, but I'll pass.
15 THE COURT: Okay. I probably shouldn't
16 have asked you that. All right.
17 Agent Falkowski, you are complete with your
18 testimony. You may step down.
19 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Pursuant to our side bar
20 conversation, your Honor, the government rests at
21 this time.
22 THE COURT: Okay. What does that mean?
23 It means, ladies and gentlemen, that the government
24 has presented you with the evidence that it
25 believes is sufficient for you to return a verdict,

314
1 a unanimous verdict, applying the proof standard of
2 beyond a reasonable doubt on each essential element
3 of the crime charged, which, if you remember, is
4 intentional bank fraud in violation of Title 18,
5 Section 1344.
6 The resting I believe is subject to reserving
7 on making certain that all of the exhibits received
8 into evidence are resolved. Any issues on those,
9 Miss Baumgarten?
11 THE COURT: Okay. So, that will take
12 place out of the presence of the jury, so that it
13 becomes kind of a tight package then, ladies and
14 gentlemen, the witnesses' testimony, whatever the
15 exhibits, we'll make sure that everything is in
16 order, and what -- what we come to now is I have to
17 meet with the attorneys. We have some matters that
18 we have to address. Once that's complete, then
19 it's up to the defendant to determine whether or
20 not he wishes to make an opening statement, whether
21 or not he wants to present a defense. A defense
22 requirement would necessarily have to involve
23 competent evidence, just as the government's case
24 would involve competent evidence, but it's a
25 determination that a defendant has to make, because

315
1 he's presumed innocent. Does not have an
2 obligation. We'll find out what Mr. Buczek decides
3 to do. But keep in mind that whether he testifies,
4 whether he puts on evidence, whether he puts on a
5 defense, if he chooses not to do anything like
6 that, it's his constitutional right, and that
7 should not affect the way you view him. The way
8 you view him is applying the presumption of
9 innocence, and that takes you right back to what?
10 Whether the government has proven its case on each
11 essential element, that is, is it intentional bank
12 fraud in violation of federal law, that it has
13 established by all of the essential elements by
14 proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So with that
15 we're going to be at least 20 minutes, 25 minutes
16 in that vicinity while I get everything worked out.
17 We'll have you back here, we'll find out what's
18 going to happen next, and we'll go from there. So
19 take a break and we'll see you soon, okay?
21 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, may I just
22 step out for a moment?
23 THE COURT: Certainly.
24 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I'll be right back.
25 THE COURT: Mr. Hochul, may I see on a

316
1 totally unrelated matter? Right here in the
2 courtroom that's fine.
4 THE COURT: Is the defense ready, or you
5 need more time?
6 MR. COMERFORD: We're ready, Judge.
7 THE COURT: Who's going to make the
8 Rule 29 motion, Mr. Comerford?
9 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I'll do it.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Buczek, go ahead.
11 MR. BUCZEK: Okay. Judge, I'm ready.
12 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead,
13 Mr. Buczek. You have a motion to make.
14 MR. BUCZEK: Yes. Judge, I move to
15 dismiss under Rule 29, proof has been
16 insignificant -- insufficient, sorry, Judge, to
17 each element. No proof who made these calls.
18 There's been no proof of intent, and I mean intent.
19 No proof of fraudulent intent at all. No proof of
20 executed of a scheme to defraud. There's no proof
21 whatsoever that I executed any type of scheme or
22 anything like that, testimony to whatever the
23 deposits in question here specifically -- I'm going
24 real fast, Judge.
25 THE COURT: That's okay.

317
1 MR. BUCZEK: I got all these thoughts in
2 my head.
3 THE COURT: I know.
4 MR. BUCZEK: I'm got a thousand motions to
5 dismiss. I don't believe there has been sufficient
6 testimony as to whatever the -- whether the
7 deposits in question have, specifically the
8 deposits of HSBC were insured by the FDIC. I'll
9 stop right there.
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 MR. BUCZEK: That's my motion.
12 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very
13 much. Miss Baumgarten.
14 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I believe Mr. Bruce will
15 respond to the Rule 29 motion on behalf of the
16 government.
17 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Bruce.
18 MR. COMERFORD: Judge, if I could add one
19 thing for a second. This is a motion as to the
20 bank fraud count. We'd obviously reserve, if
21 necessary, to make a motion on the offense while on
22 release count.
23 THE COURT: Yes. And the resting was with
24 respect to only Count I, and there's been no other
25 reference to another count in the charge up to this

318
1 point in time, so -- Mr. Bruce.
2 MR. BRUCE: Thank you, your Honor. As the
3 Court is aware, on a Rule 29 motion the Court must
4 consider the evidence in the light most favorable
5 to the government, and it must, of course, resolve
6 all inferences, even inferences that are in
7 equipoise. All of those inferences must also be
8 resolved in favor of the government in considering
9 the motions defended under Rule 29 -- the
10 Defendant's motion under Rule 29, I'm sorry.
11 As the Court is aware, there are three
12 elements, and I'll work -- I'll at least start at
13 the end. You recall Mr. Schumacker was an employee
14 of the bank. He had worked at the bank for some
15 period of time, and testified indeed the deposits
16 of the HSBC were insured by the Federal Deposit
17 Insurance Corporation. I submit that that evidence
18 is more than sufficient to take the case to the
19 jury on that element of the offense.
20 Of course, the most important thing here is was
21 there a scheme, and was the defendant -- or did the
22 defendant attempt to execute the scheme with the
23 attempt to defraud the bank. The evidence
24 succinctly stated is that the defendant set out on
25 a scheme to obtain a line of credit from Best Buy

319
1 which, in fact, turned out to be a line of credit
2 from HSBC, a federally insured bank, that he
3 obtained that line of credit for the specific
4 purpose of purchasing merchandise with no intent to
5 pay for that merchandise. And that he accomplished
6 that scheme by using the check direct feature that
7 HSBC offered to its customers, each time going
8 to -- each time that he incurred a balance, going
9 to the check direct feature, paying down the
10 balance, and within a short period of time of
11 paying down the balance to zero, going back out to
12 HSBC while that balance was reduced, and making
13 additional purchases, eventually getting those
14 purchases up to about 88 or $8,900. Each time that
15 he availed himself of the check direct feature that
16 HSBC offered him, he relayed to HSBC two facts, and
17 the first fact was that his account was at the
18 Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, and he
19 related that fact by telling HSBC the routing
20 number for the Depository Trust and Clearing
21 Corporation. The second fact -- and that is a fact
22 that is true, but it is a fact that was used in a
23 misleading context, because he really had nothing
24 to do, as the evidence has shown, with the
25 Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation. The

320
1 second fact was the fact of an account number that
2 HSBC was supposed to debit at the Depository Trust
3 and Clearing Corporation, and the third fact or
4 fact 2(a) or 2(b) might be better way to say it, is
5 the fact that of a check number. As the
6 evidence -- the evidence is very straightforward.
7 The defendant did not have an account at the
8 Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation. And as
9 the evidence shows, DTCC was a bank's bank. It
10 dealt with other financial institutions. It did
11 not deal with individuals. The defendant simply
12 did not have an account at that bank, could not
13 have had an account at that bank, but yet in each
14 of the six instances ascribed in the indictment or
15 listed in the indictment, he called HSBC and listed
16 quote, an account, an account that turned out to be
17 nonexistent.
18 To top that off, we had Exhibit 11 which was
19 the bonded promissory note which was a secondary
20 feature of the defendant's scheme to defraud. When
21 he was at a point where obviously the check direct
22 feature wouldn't work anymore, he sent in a bonded
23 promissory note which the witness Mr. Johnson
24 testified was, first of all, completely false,
25 contained any number of false statements within the

321
1 note itself, and it was actually a part of a scheme
2 or scam.
3 I submit, Judge, that from all of the evidence
4 that I have just gone through, and certainly
5 there's more evidence I haven't gone through, but
6 all of the evidence I've gone through, a jury would
7 be within its right to find the defendant guilty --
8 or find the defendant guilty of each -- or of the
9 count of the indictment.
10 THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Bruce. All right.
11 Considering what both of you have mentioned and
12 argued, and obviously I've been here and I have
13 heard the testimony of the witnesses, the standards
14 governing a Rule 29 motion -- and this is for the
15 benefit of both sides -- is well settled. And the
16 burden under this motion, Mr. Buczek, is a very
17 heavy burden, and there's a number of cases from
18 this circuit that talk about that, and that's the
19 Kahn case is one for example. It's a Second
20 Circuit case in 1986. I think there's the Walker
21 case which is a 1998 case. And the only way that I
22 can grant an acquittal motion under Rule 29 is if
23 the evidence is insufficient to sustain a
24 conviction, and so I've got to look at whether or
25 not it can be fairly concluded that the defendant

322
1 in this case is identified and guilty beyond a
2 reasonable doubt by way of a fair conclusion
3 against the backdrop of the evidence. I must draw
4 all reasonable inferences in favor of the
5 government. I must examine all the evidence in the
6 light most favorable to the government, and that's
7 with respect to each essential element of the
8 offense charged.
9 And in this case we're talking about three, as
10 has been mentioned, essential elements. And does
11 this evidence reasonably support a finding of
12 guilty beyond a reasonable doubt looking at it
13 under that standard? And I answer that yes. The
14 three elements, as all of you know, is first that
15 there was a scheme to obtain monies or funds owned,
16 under the custody and control of a bank by means of
17 materially false or fraudulent pretenses,
18 representations, or promises as charged in the
19 indictment. Second, that it was the defendant who
20 executed or attempted to execute the scheme with
21 intent to defraud, the intent being an issue, and
22 third, at the time of the execution of the scheme
23 the bank had its deposits insured by Federal
24 Deposit Insurance Corporation.
25 Looking at, for example, the testimony of

323
1 Schumacker with respect to the FDIC insurance, that
2 was testified to. There was no objection to that
3 testimony. That's a proper basis from which the
4 jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
5 the bank was federally insured at the time that
6 these monetary transactions took place.
7 With respect to the scheme, there was a number
8 of -- there were a number of witnesses who
9 testified as -- were here in the courtroom, but
10 recently even talked about Joseph Kelly's
11 testimony, and he was the witness called from the
12 DTCC. And it was made clear that only participants
13 had accounts at the DTCC. It was not possible for
14 individuals to have accounts. The accounts at DTCC
15 were essentially brokerage or company accounts.
16 The other witnesses including Schumacker and
17 Medlock, Matthew Johnson, I guess Bradley Parker
18 was also a witness, and Agent Falkowski, you take a
19 look at all of those witnesses and what they
20 testified to, including conversations with
21 Mr. Buczek, including the information relating to
22 the utilization of -- of certain documents that
23 were described as, if you will, fraudulent
24 documents of no value, taking all of that time --
25 that evidence together, you know, without detailing

324
1 it any further, that would be enough to support the
2 existence of a scheme as charged in the indictment,
3 viewing it most favorably, of course, to the
4 government. And then the evidence throughout was
5 that the defendant executed the scheme utilizing
6 representations, utilizing the procedure that was
7 in place for the check direct feature of the HSBC
8 Bank, there's enough there for the jury to conclude
9 from the evidence that it was this individual
10 defendant, who is Shane Buczek, being the one that
11 was in communication with the banks to make the
12 scheme operative.
13 So as I see it, the evidence is enough under
14 the standard for a finding of proof beyond a
15 reasonable doubt, and based on the evidence just
16 referenced in summary, a reasonable mind might
17 fairly conclude that the defendant is guilty beyond
18 a reasonable doubt, and correspondingly a motion
19 for judgment of acquittal is denied under Rule 29.
20 That's it.
21 If you want to make an opening statement today
22 or tomorrow, or you want time to think about it,
23 what do you want to do?
24 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I need to review all
25 the information I gathered today, because now my

325
1 whole outlook has changed today. But, you know, I
2 do want to make a record of one thing is that there
3 has not been one eyewitness on the stand in the
4 last three days that had firsthand knowledge of any
5 injured party at all. It's a wonderful display put
6 on the U.S. attorney's office of copies and the
7 chronological event of the story like a, you know,
8 you know how I feel about this --
9 THE COURT: I do.
10 MR. BUCZEK: It's just --
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MR. BUCZEK: It's a great story, but
13 there's no real party, there's no injured party,
14 there's no real eyewitness that testified to
15 anything.
16 THE COURT: Well, you know --
17 MR. BUCZEK: I just want to make a record,
18 that's all.
20 MR. BUCZEK: And the intent is definitely
21 not there. And I was just reviewing some of the
22 transcripts. I respect your finding though, I'll
23 keep it to that.
24 THE COURT: Okay. All right. You want
25 time then to consider overnight whether you want to

326
1 make an opening statement?
3 THE COURT: We'll resume tomorrow, but I
4 want to bring the jury back here. Your motion
5 under Rule 29 is denied, and then we will proceed
6 if you are ready with any witnesses tomorrow, but
7 again, if you have any offers of proof with respect
8 to witnesses, I suppose the government wants to
9 hear about those now.
10 MR. BRUCE: Judge, everything I've heard,
11 for instance, Mr. Buczek talks about calling his
12 father. His father was there when the search was
13 conducted. If his father has something to say
14 about what happened when the search was
15 conducted --
16 THE COURT: Let me put you on hold. It's
17 not that I don't want to listen to you, but maybe
18 what I should do is let the jury go. Because by
19 the time we get through this it's another 15
20 minutes or whatever. So I'll have the jury come
21 in, Darryl, and in the meantime I'll let you run
22 with it.
23 Go ahead, until they come in.
24 MR. BRUCE: The defendant's father was
25 present as I understand it when the FBI searched

327
1 the house. If there is something he has to say
2 about that that's incompetent -- or that's
3 competent rather, certainly Mr. Buczek is entitled
4 to put that on. If the defendant's father is going
5 to come in here and testify about the defendant's
6 beliefs, about the defendant's conversations with
7 him about his beliefs, about any of those things --
8 and I use his father only by way of example -- we
9 get into hearsay, and we get into incredible
10 hearsay, and I submit that that evidence is not
11 competent evidence for the jury to hear.
12 If Mr. Buczek, on the other hand, wants to get
13 on the stand and testify pursuant to the Court's
14 order with respect to our motion in limine about
15 his beliefs, that's okay within -- within the
16 parameters of the Court's order. But what he said
17 to other people, what other people's beliefs are
18 are hearsay. They're not relevant, and I would
19 submit that he has to make an offer with respect to
20 each and every one of those witnesses.
21 THE COURT: Well, they're not -- there may
22 be some exception to the hearsay rule if they're
23 offered to establish what his beliefs are, I think
24 under that scenario that's being offered for the
25 truth of the matter asserted, right --

328
1 MR. BRUCE: Exactly.
2 THE COURT: -- it would be hearsay. If
3 it's determinative of conduct, for example, by a
4 witness -- I mean, if it somehow relates to any of
5 the elements, I suppose, you know, it could be a
6 non-hearsay statement, but that really gets around
7 and doesn't concern the essential elements of the
8 crime charged, so it would have to be -- I'd have
9 to listen to the offer of proof to find out if
10 there's an exception to the hearsay rule that that
11 kind of testimony as to beliefs might -- might
12 possibly be in issue.
13 MR. BRUCE: I'd ask the Court to require
14 an offer and to rule.
15 THE COURT: Okay, Darryl, you can bring
16 everybody in.
17 (Jury seated.)
18 THE COURT: Okay. Don't get too
19 comfortable though. Okay. So, please come on in,
20 join us. Good to see you again. We're resumed in
21 the case of United States versus Buczek. I've
22 worked through everything with the attorneys and
23 Mr. Buczek. It's about 4:10, and we still have a
24 few matters that I have to address with the
25 attorneys. They're not resolved. So if you don't

329
1 have an objection, I'll let you go now. If
2 somebody objects, then I'll just keep you here to
3 5:00 o'clock, but that's really up to you. You
4 wouldn't be in the courtroom, you would be back in
5 the other room, probably not what you necessarily
6 want to do. But how about if we let you go now,
7 and we see you tomorrow at 9:00 o'clock, does that
8 work?
9 Couple things, I notice during the course of
10 the presentation of proof that a resident newspaper
11 reporter was present in court. And usually that's
12 a sign that there may be either some Internet or
13 other print type article that would be forthcoming
14 either this afternoon or tomorrow. So for that
15 reason remember what I told you before. Don't go
16 out of your way to search out any newspaper
17 article, report on the Internet, any other
18 electronic, audio or visual stories about this
19 particular case or anything similar to it. If you
20 see something tomorrow if you happen to pick up
21 newspapers or if you're tuned in to something, just
22 put it aside, don't look at it, don't think about
23 it, don't discuss this case. Again, everything
24 must be confined and constricted to the four
25 corners of -- four walls of this courtroom. And

330
1 that's to be fair to both sides. So, if I
2 recognize anybody else coming in and out that might
3 have some relationship to what you might hear or
4 see or read, I'll let you know as we go through the
5 trial. But tomorrow we'll see you back here at
6 9:00 o'clock. You've been terrific today. Thank
7 you very much. And be careful on your way home and
8 safe on your return tomorrow. Thank you very much,
9 folks.
10 THE JURY: Your Honor, to be here all the
11 way to five tomorrow?
12 THE COURT: Yes. Yes.
13 A JUROR: Just making child care
14 arrangements.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You can't
16 watch the children, Mr. Bridges, you have to be
17 here.
18 A JUROR: Okay. Thank you.
20 THE COURT: Okay. So you know what
21 Mr. Bruce is after, he wants to pin you down,
22 Mr. Buczek.
23 MR. BUCZEK: Oh, is he still here?
24 THE COURT: Mr. Bruce?
25 MR. BUCZEK: Yeah.

331
1 THE COURT: Always here.
2 MR. BUCZEK: Okay. I thought he was gone.
3 THE COURT: No. So, if you want to get up
4 there. I mean, are you prepared to discuss this
5 now, Mr. Comerford, or do you need -- does
6 Mr. Buczek need time maybe to discuss it tomorrow?
7 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I do have one
8 question. Maybe I should run it through Brian.
9 THE COURT: Go ahead. Do it so that I
10 don't hear it. Get it worked out between the two
11 of you.
13 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I'm going to review
14 all this and have it ready -- done early in the
15 morning when we get started. I think we're
16 starting at 9:00 o'clock. There is a lot of things
17 that happened today.
18 THE COURT: Well, sure. That's part of
19 what factors in perhaps to your opening and your
20 decision on that. Maybe also with respect to
21 whether you have witnesses to call or not. Those
22 are serious decisions that you have to make, and I
23 know you realize that, and I'm sure that's the
24 advice that your counsel -- well, that standby
25 counsel has given to you. So take the time, use

332
1 the time wisely though, because this all -- this
2 all affects your livelihood.
3 MR. BUCZEK: I know, but I do want to put
4 something on the record, and I don't have probation
5 to talk to, because probation is not here. But I
6 do want to go to the UB law library as soon as I'm
7 done here, and I have some things I need to look
8 up, and I want to -- but I want to make you aware
9 that's where I'm going right from here.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Well, just --
11 MR. BUCZEK: It's up in Amherst.
12 THE COURT: I know where it is.
13 THE CLERK: He's on electronic --
14 MR. COMERFORD: Normally he has to provide
15 24 hours notice to probation. If the Court will
16 permit, we'll call Mr. Kawski right now and give
17 him notice. I realize it's not 24 hours in
18 advance. If you have stuff you want to research, I
19 think that makes sense.
20 THE COURT: You can relate to Mr. Kawski
21 it's been approved by the Court, but just so
22 that --
23 MR. COMERFORD: We will, Judge.
24 THE COURT: -- they make it of record
25 there. And we'll see everybody back here at

333
1 9:00 o'clock tomorrow.
2 And I will do what you asked, Mr. Bruce, and
3 that is with respect to the calling of witnesses, I
4 will require an offer of proof, and I'll make a
5 ruling on whether they're proper to call, at least
6 in terms of the scope of the testimony that you are
7 suggesting you might get into. Okay.
8 MR. BUCZEK: And I still do have subpoenas
9 that are out there, so --
10 THE COURT: Okay. But we talked about
11 Judge Schroeder, and I mean that looks like that's
12 moot now.
13 MR. BUCZEK: That is finally moot, right?
14 THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. All right.
15 Thank you. We'll see you tomorrow.
16 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Thank you, Judge.
17 MR. COMERFORD: Thank you, Judge.
18 MR. BUCZEK: Thank you, Judge.
19 * * * * * *
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 CERTIFICATION
3 I certify that the foregoing is a
4 Correct transcription of the proceedings
5 Recorded by me in this.
8 s/Michelle L. McLaughlin
Michelle L. McLaughlin, RPR
9 Official Reporter
U.S.D.C., W.D.N.Y.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Buczek 20100304 Transcript 3 - 121

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buczek 20100304 Transcript 3 - 121

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Proceedings held before the

Honorable William M. Skretny, Part IV,

U.S. Courthouse, 68 Court Street,

Buffalo, New York on March 4, 2010.

MARY CATHERINE BAUMGARTEN,

Michelle L. McLaughlin, RPR,

2 GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS EVD.

7 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS EVD.

1 (Jury not present in the courtroom.)

2 THE COURT: Okay. Call the case please,

4 THE CLERK: Criminal case 09-121S, United

5 States of America versus Shane Buczek.

6 THE COURT: Okay. Lets see, the attorneys

7 and Mr. Buczek and Mr. Comerford are all here.

8 Jury is now back and fully assembled, and we're

9 bringing them in. And we --

10 THE CLERK: Do you want me to get them?

11 THE COURT: If you would please. They're

12 running three minutes late. We told them to be

14 I guess, Mr. Schumacker, you're going to resume

15 the stand. You remain under oath. Did they let

17 THE WITNESS: Yes.

18 MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government does have

19 a few more questions.

20 THE COURT: Why is that not a surprise,

22 MS. BAUMGARTEN: I had the evening to

23 think further, your Honor.

24 THE COURT: Okay. And then you're going

25 to start cross-examination Mr. --

1 MR. BUCZEK: Judge, before we get started,

2 I just want to have one thing to ask you. All

3 right. I just have one thing, I would like to

4 renew a motion to dismiss at this point. Just put

5 it on the record at least.

6 THE COURT: Okay.

7 MR. BUCZEK: Okay.

8 THE COURT: Yes.

9 MR. BUCZEK: Thank you. Because I know

10 it's past due for paperwork. We can't file

11 anything at this point, so I would like to go ahead

12 and verbally put a motion to dismiss. Based on the

13 evidence I've seen so far, nobody has a claim

14 against the defendant, and also under -- failure to

15 state a claim upon relief can be granted rule -- I

16 think it's Rule 12(b)(1) and lack of jurisdiction,

17 and at this time I don't see anybody that has a

18 claim against me. Thank you.

19 THE COURT: Okay. And the government

21 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Yes, your Honor.

22 THE COURT: All right. Primarily this is

23 a criminal case, and on that basis I will deny the

25 Okay. As soon as the jury gets in.

1 THE CLERK: They're coming.

2 THE COURT: Mr. Bruce, how are you doing?

3 MR. BRUCE: I'm doing well, Judge.

4 THE COURT: Good.

5 MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, I might just

6 give these documents to the witness before they

8 THE COURT: Sure.

10 THE COURT: Okay. Good morning, ladies

12 THE JURY: Good morning.

13 THE COURT: It's good to see you again.