t111909 Us V Bruno Am

1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
4
-versus- 09-CR-29
5
JOSEPH L. BRUNO
6
Defendant.
7 ---------------------------------------------
8 TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL held in and for the
9 United States District Court, Northern District of New York,
10 James T. Foley United States Courthouse, 445 Broadway,
11 Albany, New York, on THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2009, the
12 HON. GARY L. SHARPE, United States District Court Judge,
13 Presiding.
14 APPEARANCES:
15
16 FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
17 UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE - NDNY
18 BY: ELIZABETH C. COOMBE, AUSA and
19 BY: WILLIAM C. PERICAK, AUSA
20
21 FOR THE DEFENDANT:
22 McDERMOTT, WILL LAW FIRM
23 BY: ABBE D. LOWELL, ESQ. and PAUL M. THOMPSON, ESQ.
24 DREYER, BOYAJIAN LAW FIRM
25 BY: WILLIAM J. DREYER, ESQ. and APRIL M. WILSON, ESQ.

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY
2
GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE
1 (Court commenced at 9:00 AM.)
2 (Jury present at 9:00 AM.)
3 THE COURT: Good morning.
4 THE JURY: Good morning.
5 THE COURT: Miss Coombe, are you still up?
6 MS. COOMBE: I am still up, your Honor, thank
7 you.
8 THE COURT: All right.
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COOMBE (cont'd):
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Gluchowski.
11 A. Good morning, Miss Coombe.
12 Q. Good morning.
13 MS. COOMBE: May I approach, your Honor?
14 THE COURT: Yes.
15 BY MS. COOMBE:
16 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm handing you Government's
17 Exhibit GT 35. It's not in evidence. It's just been marked
18 for identification purposes.
19 A. Thank you.
20 (Pause.)
21 THE COURT: Bonnie, let the record reflect
22 that the document is a multi-page document and the witness
23 is reviewing the document. Thank you. (Very long pause.)
24 A. Okay. I'm through.
25 Q. Are these the memoranda that you testified about

3
1 yesterday --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. -- that the defense team brought to your attention
4 this week?
5 A. Yes.
7 THE COURT: Yes.
8 BY MS. COOMBE:
9 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm handing you the following
10 Government's Exhibits: GT 1, GT 12, and then GT 13, GT 14,
11 GT 21 and 25 and GT 17. Could we look at GT 1, please?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. This is an agreement with Sage Alerting Systems
14 Incorporated.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Does GT 35, the memoranda that you just reviewed,
17 refer at all to Sage Alerting Systems Incorporated?
18 A. No, it does not.
19 Q. Could we look now, please, at GT 12?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. This is an agreement with Sage Networks
22 Incorporated. Do any of the memoranda in GT 35 refer to
23 Sage Networks Incorporated?
24 A. No.
25 Q. If we could look now, if you could look at GT 13

4
1 14, 21 and 35. We'll just look at GT 13.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. Those are agreements and extension of agreements
4 involving Interliant?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do the memoranda in GT 35 refer at all to
7 Interliant?
8 A. No, I don't see that.
9 Q. If we could look please at GT 17. That's an
10 agreement with VyTek Wireless Incorporated?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Does GT 35 refer at all to VyTek Wireless
13 Incorporated?
14 A. No, I don't see that.
15 Q. What did Senator Bruno do for the companies
16 affiliated with Mr. Fassler in the agreements that we've
17 just looked at?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Did Senator Bruno consult with the Legislative
20 Ethics Committee regarding those agreements?
21 A. Not that I'm aware of.
23 THE COURT: Yes.
24 BY MS. COOMBE:

5
1 Exhibits GV 6 and GV 7.
2 A. Thank you.
3 Q. Your welcome. Could we look at GV 7, V as in
4 Victor. I don't even know any Victors. I don't know why I
5 said Victor.
6 THE COURT: Well, it communicates a "V", and
7 that's good enough. Thank you.
8 BY MS. COOMBE:
9 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, do you recognize GV 6 and 7?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Did you have any role in the preparation of these
12 documents?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What was your role?
15 A. Well, I drafted them consistent with the model
16 that was used for prior contracts between Mr. -- Senator
17 Bruno and Mr. Abbruzzese's companies.
18 Q. Who asked you to prepare these agreements?
19 A. I believe Senator Bruno himself asked me to
20 prepare this one.
22 THE COURT: Yes.
23 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm handing you your grand jury
24 transcript of August 28, 2008.
25 A. Okay.
6
1 Q. I would like to direct your attention to page
2 27 --
3 A. I'm there.
4 Q. -- lines 9 through 20. If you could read them to
5 yourself.
6 A. Okay. (Pause.) Yes. I'm through with that.
7 Q. Did I ask you this question and did you give this
8 answer:
9 Question: What was your role?
10 Answer: Well, this agreement is pretty much based
11 on agreements that Capital Business Consultants had with
12 what I will call the Abbruzzese entities, the same type of
13 terms. I was informed, I don't recall by whom, I don't
14 think it was Senator Bruno, I think it was either Ken
15 Riddett or Pat Stackrow -- let me think about that. Yeah, I
16 can't recall exactly who I spoke to about this, but I was
17 informed that Senator Bruno wanted a similar type agreement
18 prepared for BB Gardner Management Corporation, the
19 principal of which is Russ Ball. Did I ask you that
20 question and did you give that answer?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you have a, did you have an understanding of
23 what Senator Bruno would be doing for BB Gardner in return
24 for $20,000 a month?
25 A. Yes. I -- at some point, I know I had a

7
1 conversation with Senator Bruno about BB Gardner, and what
2 we discussed was the fact that BB Gardner was looking to
3 grow its business, and BB Gardner was a subcontractor for
4 ConEdison, and Senator Bruno was anticipated to help them
5 grow their business by providing advice.
6 Q. What did Senator Bruno do for BB Gardner to earn
7 $20,000 a month?
8 A. I, I don't know. I was not privy to that.
9 Q. Did Senator Bruno ever consult with the
10 Legislative Ethics Committee about his agreement with BB
11 Gardner?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Were you aware of whether Mr. Ball's companies had
14 contracts with ConEdison?
15 A. Yes, I was.
16 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Ball and his businesses
17 had in the past asked the Senate to intervene on his behalf
18 regarding disputes with ConEdison?
19 A. No, I was not aware of that.
20 Q. I would like to direct your attention to page 33
21 of your transcript, line 6 through 23.
22 A. Okay. I'm familiar with this.
24 answer:
25 Question: Were you aware that Mr. Ball and his

8
1 business had ongoing disputes with ConEd about the way they
2 were treated as a subcontractor and asked the Senate to
3 intervene on his behalf in the past to try to resolve these
4 disputes?
5 Answer: You know, I recollect -- I have a fuzzy
6 recollection of hearing some, something about, about BB
7 Gardner not being happy with ConEd. And I think what my
8 impression was was that BB Gardner wanted to get more
9 subcontract work than they were getting from ConEd. So, to
10 me, in my mind, that was the friction. But I don't know
11 that I knew that, you know, if it's true, that Senator Bruno
12 was supposed to do something to smooth things over between
13 BB Gardner and ConEd. I just knew he was trying to grow the
14 business. Which I need to be consistent with that. So I
15 believe that could be one of the things that they wanted him
16 to do.
17 Did I ask you that question and did you give that
18 answer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did anyone ever tell you that Mr. Ball's companies
21 had legislative interests and opposition to Consolidated
22 Edison's interests?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did Senator Bruno ever tell you that Mr. Ball's
25 companies had a legislative interest in joint bidding?

9
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did anyone else ever tell you that Mr. Ball's
3 companies had a legislative interest in joint bidding?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did Senator Bruno ever tell you that Mr. Ball's
6 companies had a legislative interest in opposition to
7 Consolidated Edison?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Have you ever heard of a company called Asentinel?
10 A. Yes.
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 BY MS. COOMBE:
14 Q. I'm handing you Government's Exhibit GW 5.
15 A. Thank you.
16 Q. Your welcome. If we could turn to the next page,
17 please. Do you recognize this document, Mr. Gluchowski?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. And this is a draft agreement for Asentinel,
20 between Asentinel LLC and Capital Business Consultants LLC.
21 When did you first hear of Asentinel LLC?
22 A. Well, I can't remember the exact time I heard of
23 Asentinel, but I remember hearing about a gentleman named
24 David Perdue who was, I believe, the principal of Asentinel.
25 And the context was, I received an agreement, this is

10
1 probably the same agreement, but I don't really remember
2 that it's the exact same agreement, and I was asked by
3 Senator Bruno to take a look at it and weigh in as to
4 whether or not I thought that it posed any ethical
5 considerations. And I did take a look at it. And I
6 reported back to him that I, I didn't think it would be a
7 good idea for him to enter into the agreement because it was
8 too open ended from the point of view that Asentinel or
9 Mr. Perdue had too much to say over Senator Bruno's duties
10 under the contract. I was also concerned that the contract
11 didn't preclude state agency activity, you know, or having
12 Senator Bruno pitch state agencies. And I just didn't think
13 it was a good idea for him to enter into an agreement that
14 was that nebulous.
15 Q. Did you have any understanding of why it might be
16 problematic for Senator Bruno to make pitches for
17 Mr. Perdue's company to state agencies?
18 A. Why that would be a problem?
19 Q. Correct.
20 A. Because there's a provision in the Public
21 Officer's Law, Section 74-3 that prohibits selling services
22 to a state agency outside the competitive bidding process.
23 So it would be okay if it was competitively bid, but these
24 contracts are sometimes done that way, but sometimes they're
25 done by requests for proposals.

11
1 Q. Now, if we could look at the second page, please.
2 Do you see the paragraph numbered three refers to
3 commissions?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you examine the fee arrangement that it was
6 commissions and --
7 A. I did notice that, yes.
8 Q. Did you suggest to anyone that it should be a
9 retainer instead?
10 A. You'll probably point me to the grand jury. At
11 this moment I don't recall, but that would have been
12 something that I was concerned about, would have been
13 concerned about, because the ethics committee typically
14 preferred straight salary arrangements because they were
15 more definite, they were more definable. Let me explain
16 what I mean.
17 They -- a straight salary arrangement is a known
18 number, whereas a commission could be any number depending
19 on how successful the businessman or woman was in getting
20 business. And the committee had a reticence to pass on
21 things where they weren't certain what facts would turn out
22 to be.
23 Q. You mentioned that you reported back to Senator
24 Bruno. What did you say to him?
25 A. I -- you know, I don't remember exactly, but to

12
1 paraphrase what I said, it would have been that I didn't
2 think it was a good idea for him to enter into the agreement
3 because I thought it gave too much control to Mr. Perdue or
4 his activities. And I know that Senator Bruno was sensitive
5 to the fact that he didn't want other people to be in a
6 position of telling him what to do and then to do it because
7 of his duties as a public official.
8 Q. Did you talk to Senator Bruno about your concern
9 that it didn't limit the possibility of him pitching the
10 software or Mr. Perdue's product to state agencies?
11 A. I don't remember addressing that specifically, but
12 it's quite possible that I would have said that. I just
13 don't remember.
14 Q. Was it your normal practice to communicate that
15 kind of information to Senator Bruno?
16 A. It would be, yes.
17 Q. Are you aware of whether Senator Bruno contacted
18 anyone on behalf of Asentinel?
19 A. No, I don't. No. It was just the one exchange
20 that we had. Well, there was a question asked, and a review
21 of the document, and a question answered.
22 Q. Did Senator Bruno say anything to you when you
23 reported back to him?
24 A. Ah, yes, he did. He told me he wasn't going to do
25 it.
13
2 Ethics Committee regarding Asentinel?
3 A. No, he did not. Well, he talked to me and I think
4 in his mind that was just as good.
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 BY MS. COOMBE:
9 Exhibit GU, as in umbrella, 1 and 2.
10 A. Thank you.
11 Q. Could we please look at GU 1? Mr. Gluchowski, did
12 you have any role in creating these agreements?
13 A. Yes. I drafted them at the request of Senator
14 Bruno.
15 Q. How did Senator Bruno contact you to ask you to
16 draft these agreements?
17 A. We had a telephone conversation wherein he advised
18 me that he was considering entering into an engagement or a
19 contract with companies that were affiliated with Jared
20 Abbruzzese, and he asked me, you know, if there were any
21 ethical considerations that he had to be mindful of in
22 entering into those contracts and performing under those
23 contracts. And, you know, I listened to him. He told me
24 specifics -- certain specific terms. He said that he wanted
25 there to be a clear statement that he was bound to abide by

14
1 the Public Officer's Law. He was specific about the
2 compensation and he was specific about payment of the
3 compensation, what terms. And he also wanted to make it
4 clear that he had sole discretion to determine what he was
5 going to do and when he was going to do it under the
6 agreement.
7 Q. Did Senator Bruno say anything about what he would
8 be doing for these companies?
9 A. Well, we did, we did talk about that, and I asked
10 the question, and he told me he would be providing
11 consulting advice. He mentioned that he had a background in
12 telecommunications, and that these companies had some aspect
13 of their existence that was related to that, and that he
14 could provide valuable business insight for these companies,
15 and that's the kind of work that he was going to do. And I
16 do remember advising him that because of the size of the
17 monthly payment that --
18 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm sorry, can I just interrupt
19 you, because I want to ask you something else before you
20 explain that to us.
21 A. Sure.
22 Q. Did he explain to you that these companies were
23 involved in acquiring other companies who were on hard times
24 and turning them around?
25 A. Yes. Absolutely. I do remember that now that you

15
1 mention it. They were companies that were in distress. And
2 what Mr. -- my understanding is a lot of Mr. Abbruzzese's
3 business was that he would find companies that were in
4 financial hardship and then provide management expertise
5 that improved the value of the company and then the company
6 could be sold at a profit. So that was, that was a big part
7 of the business, yes.
8 Q. You mentioned that Senator Bruno indicated the
9 terms. How much he would be paid?
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. How much did he indicate that he would be paid?
12 A. Ah, well, there were two corporations and each one
13 was to pay him $10,000 per month. And I believe the term
14 was for a year.
15 Q. So that would be $240,000 a year?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What was your reaction to that number?
18 A. Well, I thought it was a considerable amount of
19 money. And I pointed out to him at that time that there
20 would be an expectation that he would provide services for
21 the money, and, you know, I exhorted him to keep records of
22 what he did so that if it ever became an issue as to what he
23 did for the money, that there would be some record to rely
24 on.
25 Q. Did you make any suggestions to him about whether

16
1 he should use the Senate staff and his Senate office for
2 this or whether he should use a private staff and a private
3 office?
4 A. Yeah. I suggested that Senate source -- resources
5 should not be used in the endeavor.
6 Q. Did you suggest that he should have outside office
7 space and an outside cell phone?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. Why did you think that Senator Bruno should have
10 separate office space and a separate cellular telephone and
11 not use Senate personnel for conducting this business?
12 A. Well, I think under the -- I can't remember which
13 case, under the Ornstein (phonetic) case, that there was --
14 at least dicta in this Court of Appeals decision that
15 pointed out that it would be inappropriate for members the
16 Legislature to use legislative resources or employees for
17 that matter to use legislative resources for private
18 interests.
19 Q. Did Senator Bruno ask the Legislative Ethics
20 Committee for an advisory opinion regarding this agreement?
21 A. No, he did not.
22 Q. Did Senator Bruno tell you whether Mr. Abbruzzese
23 had any business before New York State?
24 A. Ah, I, I did ask that question, and I believe his
25 answer was that he wasn't aware of any.

17
1 Q. Did Senator Bruno tell you that Mr. Abbruzzese was
2 affiliated with Evident Technologies, a company seeking
3 funding from Senator Bruno?
4 A. No, I didn't know that at the time.
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 BY MS. COOMBE:
8 Q. I'm handing you Government's Exhibit GU 2 A.
9 A. Thank you.
10 Q. Your welcome. The first page is a fax cover sheet
11 from you to a Wayne Barr.
12 A. Mm-hmm.
13 Q. And then if we could look at the second page
14 please.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is this the draft agreement that you prepared?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. And now this has both companies listed in one
19 single document, is that correct?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. And it also at the bottom has signature lines for
22 both Jared E. Abbruzzese and Wayne Barr, is that correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. I would like you to look back at Government's
25 Exhibit GU 1 and 2. Those are the agreements that are

18
1 signed.
2 A. Yes. Right. Correct.
3 Q. There's no signature line for Mr. Abbruzzese on
4 those agreements. Why did Mr. Barr sign and not
5 Mr. Abbruzzese?
6 A. I don't really know. My expectation or my sense
7 was that Mr. Barr had authority, as one of the principals of
8 these entities, to sign contracts. And I, I thought that
9 that would be adequate.
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 MS. COOMBE: Your Honor, at this time the
13 Government moves the admission of the following exhibits:
14 GU, as umbrella, 5, GY 17, GU 3, and the rest are all GUs,
15 6, 24, 45, 60, 61 and 64.
16 MR. LOWELL: None of them have any
17 objections, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Admitted.
19 BY MS. COOMBE:
20 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm showing you Government's
21 Exhibit GU 5.
22 A. Thank you.
23 Q. Your welcome. Do you recognize this document?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you tell us what it is?

19
1 A. Yes. This is a document that memorializes the
2 termination of the two agreements that we were just speaking
3 of previously.
4 Q. Did you have any role in the preparation of this
5 document?
6 A. No, I did not.
7 Q. What work did Senator Bruno do for CTA and C & TA?
8 A. I didn't have much information about that other
9 than what is stated in the document; that he was involved in
10 some golf course opportunities in Florida, general
11 telecommunications advice, and an introduction to Len
12 Fassler and his efforts surrounding voiceover internet
13 protocol.
14 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, do you have any personal knowledge
15 of what Senator Bruno did for CTA and C & TA?
16 A. No, I do not.
17 Q. Did you ever have any role in the preparation of
18 Senator Bruno's annual statements of financial disclosure.
19 A. Oh, yes, I had an active role.
20 Q. What was your role?
21 A. My role, from 1970 -- 1997 on was to review the
22 document with Pat Stackrow before it was submitted for
23 filing to the Ethics Committee.
24 Q. Were you --
25 A. Ken Riddett was also involved in that process.

20
1 First, I would typically meet with Pat Stackrow, we would go
2 over any changes that occurred from the prior year, and work
3 to report those transactions accurately.
4 Q. Were you consulted regarding whether Senator
5 Bruno's relationship with CTA and C & TA should be disclosed
6 on his 2004 annual statement of financial disclosure?
7 A. I don't, I don't recall a discussion about that at
8 this time.
10 THE COURT: Yes.
11 BY MS. COOMBE:
12 Q. I'm handing you Government's Exhibit GY 16.
13 A. Thank you.
14 Q. Your welcome. Do you recognize that,
15 Mr. Gluchowski?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What is it?
18 A. It's an annual statement of financial disclosure
19 signed by Senator Bruno and date stamped May 16, 005.
20 Q. Could we please look at page 8 of the statement,
21 question 13? This question requires that the nature and
22 amount of any income in excess of a thousand dollars be
23 listed. And this says see attachment B.
24 Could we please look at the next page? This is
25 the attachment B.
21
1 MS. COOMBE: And, Ron, if we could look
2 side-by-side at this and GU 1, please, umbrella.
3 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, where on the statement of
4 financial disclosure is the relationship with CTA and C & TA
5 disclosed?
6 A. Under the schedule B, item number 4, Capital
7 Business Consultants LLC, consulting fees.
8 Q. Could you please look at GU 1? Where does it
9 refer to Capital Business Consultants?
10 A. GU 1?
11 Q. That's the agreement with CTA, Mr. Gluchowski.
12 A. Oh. It doesn't.
13 Q. And how about GU 2? Where does it refer to
14 Capital Business -- where does it refer to Capital Business
15 Consultants?
16 A. It doesn't.
17 Q. Okay. And if we could please look at page 3 of
18 the disclosure form.
19 A. Mm-hmm.
20 Q. Could we look at question 5? This requires that
21 any occupation or employment or business or profession be
22 listed. And it says --
23 A. Right.
24 Q. -- see attachment A.
25 A. Mm-hmm.
22
1 Q. Could we look at attachment A please? Where does
2 it refer to CTA and C & TA?
3 A. It doesn't refer to them by name, but under
4 consultant for Capital Business Consultants, that's where
5 that would have been captured for purposes of the disclosure
6 requirements.
7 Q. But the agreements themselves, GU 1 and GU 2, are
8 with Senator Bruno in his individual capacity, not with
9 Capital Business Consultants?
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 BY MS. COOMBE:
15 Exhibit GU 3 and GU 6.
16 A. Thank you.
17 Q. Your welcome. Could we please look at GU 3? Can
18 you tell us what this is, Mr. Gluchowski?
19 A. Yes. This is a memo from myself to Senator Bruno,
20 dated December 8, 2004, wherein I am advising Senator Bruno
21 about the status of the termination of his agreements with
22 CTA and -- terminating one agreement or agreements and
23 incorporating and initiating a new agreement with another
24 corporation.
25 Q. Do you see the handwritten note at the bottom of

23
1 the memorandum?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you recognize that handwriting?
4 A. It appears to me to be Senator Bruno's handwriting
5 and says "desk".
6 Q. And if we could look now at GU 6 please. Can you
7 tell us what this is, Mr. Gluchowski?
8 A. Yes. This is a memo from myself to Senator Bruno
9 regarding the consulting contracts and the fact that a new
10 contract was anticipated to run from January 1, 2005,
11 through June 30, 2005.
12 Q. And if you could look at the bottom please, do you
13 see the handwritten notes?
14 A. Yes.
16 A. It appears to me to be Senator Bruno's
17 handwriting.
18 Q. It says "okay JB" and does that say "discuss
19 later"?
20 A. It appears to say that.
21 Q. Did you discuss this later with Senator Bruno?
22 A. I, I don't remember discussing it with him, no. I
23 might have, I just don't remember.
25 THE COURT: Yes.

24
1 BY MS. COOMBE:
3 Exhibit GU 15.
4 A. Thank you.
5 Q. Your welcome. This is a letter agreement between
6 Motient Corporation and Capital Business Consultants, and it
7 provides that Capital Business Consultants will be paid
8 $20,000 a month by Motient from January 005 through
9 June 005.
10 Did you have any understanding about why the
11 payments with CTA and C & TA were terminated and the
12 payments were then from Motient Corporation instead?
13 A. No, I don't know why.
15 THE COURT: Yes.
16 BY MS. COOMBE:
17 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm handing you your grand jury
18 transcript from July 17, 2008.
19 A. It may have been a cash flow problem.
20 Q. Do you remember that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. Just by showing it to me now. It's working.
24 (Laughter.)
25 Q. There was some cash flow issues with CTA and

25
1 C & TA?
2 A. Yes. It's from -- somewhere I heard that. I
3 don't, I don't recall where I heard that from, but that was
4 the impression that I had, that there was just -- it was
5 just easy for Motient to provide the funds for the contract.
6 Q. Did you have an understanding that Senator Bruno
7 would do the same type of work that he did for CTA and
8 C & TA for Motient Corporation?
9 A. Yes, pretty much the same.
10 Q. Motient wound up paying Senator Bruno $120,000.
11 What did Senator Bruno do to earn $120,000 from Motient
12 Corporation?
13 A. I don't have much information about that. I don't
14 think I have any information about it.
16 Committee for an advisory opinion regarding the agreement
17 with Motient Corporation?
18 A. No.
20 THE COURT: Yes.
21 BY MS. COOMBE
23 Exhibit GU 24.
24 A. Okay. Thanks.
25 Q. Your welcome. Mr. Gluchowski, this is a fax from

26
1 R. Macklin to you. It says: Frank, sorry for the delay but
2 we switched CEOs at Terrestar and I couldn't get anyone to
3 authorize the check or sign the agreement. The check should
4 be mailed today. Rob Macklin.
5 And if we could look at page two. This is an
6 agreement between Capital Business Consultants and Terrestar
7 Networks. Were you involved in preparing this document?
8 A. Well, I was involved to some extent, but I
9 think -- well, I know that this document actually came from
10 either Terrestar or Brumley.
11 Q. Did you understand this to be a continuation of
12 the payments that had started with CTA and C & TA and then
13 occurred through Motient Corporation and now through
14 Terrestar?
15 A. Well, I -- well, what it was was that, given that
16 Motient was terminating on, I think it was June 30th of
17 005, this was a new agreement, a new agreement that would
18 provide Senator Bruno with an obligation to provide services
19 to Terrestar, for the term of this agreement for similar
20 compensation.
22 Committee for an advisory opinion regarding this agreement
23 with Terrestar?
24 A. No.
25 Q. What did Senator Bruno do for Terrestar in July

27
1 and August of 005 to earn $40,000?
2 A. I'm not aware.
4 THE COURT: Yes.
5 BY MS. COOMBE:
7 Exhibit GU 28.
8 A. Thank you.
9 Q. Your welcome. This is a termination agreement
10 between Terrestar Networks and Capital Business Consultants
11 indicating that the agreement was terminated early on
12 August 26th of 005. Were you the contact person to obtain
13 Senator Bruno's signature on this document?
14 A. Yes.
16 THE COURT: Yes.
17 BY MS. COOMBE
18 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm showing you Government's
19 Exhibit GU 56. Do you recognize that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What is it?
22 A. It is a letter agreement between Senator Bruno and
23 Jared Abbruzzese, dated March 1, 2006, wherein Jared
24 Abbruzzese sells his interest in some horse stock to Senator
25 Bruno.
28
1 Q. Did you have any role in the preparation of this
2 agreement?
3 A. Yes. I drafted it.
4 Q. Did you have any conversation with Senator Bruno
5 before you drafted it?
6 A. I, I, I don't recall having a conversation with
7 Senator Bruno. I recall a conversation with Pat Stackrow.
8 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, do you still have your grand jury
9 transcript up there from July 17?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 2008?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I would like to direct your attention to page 71,
14 lines 14 through 21.
15 A. Fourteen through what?
16 Q. Twenty-one.
17 A. Okay. Yes.
19 answer:
20 Question: Why did you draft it?
21 Answer: I drafted it because Senator Bruno asked
22 me to draft it. He said that he wanted the agreement in
23 writing because Jerry Abbruzzese wanted to get out of the
24 relationship with Senator Bruno involving these horses,
25 since he was going to become active in Friends of New York

29
1 Racing or one of those entities that was interested in the
2 NYRA franchise.
3 Did I ask you that question, and did you give that
4 answer?
5 A. Yes, but at this point I really don't remember him
6 talking to me about it.
7 Q. What was the issue with the NYRA franchise?
8 A. Ah, the NYRA franchise was expiring at some date
9 certain and there were a number of entities that were
10 competing to succeed NYRA in the business of operating horse
11 racing, thoroughbred horse racing in New York State.
12 Q. What was Friends of New York Racing?
13 A. It, it was an organization which was interested in
14 the franchise. I don't, I don't know if there -- if they
15 actually competed for the franchise or it was just a group
16 of interested horse people who had an interest in general
17 about how the franchise succeeded.
18 Q. Do you know which bidder Mr. Abbruzzese became
19 affiliated with?
20 A. I -- you know, I don't remember. There was one
21 called Empire. I think there was another called Excelsior.
22 And I don't know which one.
23 Q. Did Senator Bruno tell you that Mr. Abbruzzese was
24 a director of Friends of New York Racing in connection with
25 your involvement in drafting this agreement?

30
1 A. I don't, I don't think I knew that, no.
2 Q. Did Senator Bruno tell you that he had introduced
3 Mr. Abbruzzese to the person who became the executive
4 director of Friends of New York Racing?
5 A. No, I don't recall that.
6 Q. Were you aware that Senator Bruno had purchased
7 the thoroughbred horses that are being sold in this letter
8 agreement?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. How were you aware of that?
11 A. I was aware of that through my involvement in the
12 purchase, and can't remember right now what date that was,
13 but it was, it was a matter that transpired about 6 PM on a
14 Friday evening. And I was faxed a draft contract for the
15 purchase of two brotherhood broodmares from Earle Mack by
16 Senator Bruno. Senator Bruno asked me to, you know, to
17 determine -- to take a look at it and see if there were any
18 ethical reasons why he couldn't do that. My question to him
19 was did Earle Mack have business before the State. And he
20 said none that he knew of. And I think he knew that Earle
21 Mack had previously had business or, or certainly was a
22 prominent figure in the State financial world. And I looked
23 at that contract and suggested some changes to it. And as
24 far as I knew, the contract was consummated and Senator
25 Bruno wound up with the two broodmares. There was an

31
1 appraisal -- that was another thing that I was concerned
2 about; that it was not a sweetheart deal; that Senator Bruno
3 was paying fair compensation for consideration for the
4 horseflesh.
5 Q. Do you know that what you referred to as an
6 appraisal was actually a valuation, not an appraisal?
7 A. Well, that could be. I'm not an expert on horse
8 business.
9 Q. Neither am I. Could we look at the second page of
10 GU 56 please? It's dated March 1 of 2006.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Is that when this agreement was actually signed?
13 A. No. It was signed sometime after that.
14 Q. Why wasn't it dated the day that the parties
15 actually signed it?
16 A. Because Senator Bruno was emphatic, and I know I
17 heard this from Pat Stackrow for sure and possibly from
18 Senator Bruno himself, that March 1 was the day that they
19 had their meeting of the minds that the relationship would
20 cease because that was, that was shortly before Jerry
21 Abbruzzese's involvement with one of these entities that was
22 going to be interested in the racing franchise.
24 Ethics Committee regarding this investment of horses with
25 Mr. Abbruzzese?
32
1 A. No.
2 Q. Were you consulted regarding whether to disclose
3 this relationship on Senator Bruno's annual statement of
4 financial disclosure?
5 A. Yes, I was.
6 Q. Do you still have GY 16 up there, Mr. Gluchowski?
7 It's the 2004 annual statement of financial disclosure.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I would like to direct your attention to the
10 second page, to question 4.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It states: List any office, trusteeship,
13 directorship, partnership, or position of any nature,
14 whether compensated or not. And it continues.
15 Is the relationship with the horses and
16 Mr. Abbruzzese disclosed on this annual statement of
17 financial disclosure?
18 A. No, it is not.
19 Q. Why is it not disclosed?
20 A. Um, let's see ... the -- it was not, it was not
21 clear at the time that there was actually a partnership. I
22 had looked at whether or not the involvement of Jerry
23 Bilinski and Jerry Abbruzzese with Senator Bruno in this
24 horse venture was a partnership or a joint venture. And in
25 005, when I looked at it, there really wasn't enough

33
1 information to make a clear determination of whether it was
2 a partnership or a joint venture. A joint venture wouldn't
3 require reporting. A partnership required that -- well, the
4 essence of a partnership is that profits are shared
5 proportionately. And I don't know that there had been any
6 profits to determine what was going on yet. There was -- I
7 knew that there was no partnership agreement, and I pointed
8 out to Pat Stackrow that this was a grey area and I didn't
9 know if it was a partnership or not.
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 BY MS. COOMBE:
14 Exhibit GU-102.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you recognize that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. This is a note --
19 A. Mm-hmm.
20 Q. -- from Pat Stackrow to Senator Bruno dated
21 May 11, 2005.
22 A. Right.
23 Q. I'm going to direct your attention to the second
24 paragraph. It states: We have talked endlessly regarding
25 the question of whether or not to list the partnership,

34
1 which is in quotes, involving the horses. Frank wanted you
2 to be aware that he considers this a grey area. Also used
3 the word "murky". And it continues: Frank -- I'm sorry --
4 right now and since the very beginning, we list Mountain
5 View Farm under question 5, naming you as the sole
6 proprietor, and the description as breeding and raising of
7 thoroughbred horses. Since there has been no profit from
8 this partnership at this point in time, there is an argument
9 to be made that the partnership is covered under Mountain
10 View Farm. There is not a Schedule C on your income taxes
11 separating the partnership expenses from Mountain View Farm.
12 If your comfortable leaving it like this for the year, let
13 me know. If you think further discussion -- if you think
14 you need further discussion, a conversation with Ken Riddett
15 is necessary. If you list the partnership separate from the
16 Farm, the names of the partners have to be shown.
17 Do you see the handwriting on this document?
18 A. Yes.
20 A. It appears to me to be Senator Bruno's
21 handwriting.
22 Q. And it says "leave as is. Thanks."
23 A. Thank you.
24 Q. Why was this issue grey or murky?
25 A. Well, because my research could not definitively

35
1 make me comfortable as to what it was. It was -- in my
2 view, it was three men who got together on a venture to make
3 some money in the horse industry, but it didn't have all of
4 the earmarks of a partnership because there was no written
5 agreement. Which I know there doesn't need to be a written
6 agreement if there's an oral meeting of the mind, but from
7 what I could ascertain, there was no firm expectation as to
8 how expenses or profits would be, would be shared
9 prospectively. And I think it was only in 2005 that I
10 became aware of Jared Abbruzzese's and Jerry Bilinski's
11 involvement with these horses. Up until that time, I had
12 thought that Senator Bruno was the sole owner based on --
13 Q. So --
14 A. -- the contract that I had been involved with that
15 involved Earle Mack. So I just didn't have enough
16 information to know one way or the other what it was.
17 Q. Do you have an understanding about whether, in
18 determining whether something is a joint venture or a
19 partnership, the issue is determined by looking at the
20 intent at the time of the investment or what actually
21 happened?
22 A. Ah, well, I would, I would think an intent matters
23 most.
24 Q. Did you ask the three participants in this
25 investment, Dr. Bilinski, Mr. Abbruzzese and Senator Bruno,

36
1 what they had agreed upon?
2 A. No, but I -- that wouldn't be my place to do. It
3 wasn't the protocol that we had in the Senate at that time
4 for communicating with Senator Bruno.
5 Q. Do you know how those three men had decided that
6 the profits were supposed to be divided?
7 A. No, I did not.
8 Q. Why did Senator Bruno not want to show the names
9 of his partners in connection with this investment in the
10 horses?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Was it because of Mr. Abbruzzese's affiliation
13 with Evident Technologies?
14 A. I don't know that.
15 Q. Was it because of Mr. Abbruzzese's relationship
16 with Friends of New York Racing?
17 A. I don't know.
19 THE COURT: Yes.
20 BY MS. COOMBE:
22 Exhibit GU 57 and GU 58.
23 A. Thank you.
24 Q. Your welcome. Do you recognize these?
25 A. Yes.
37
1 Q. What are they?
2 A. They are letter agreements that terminate Jerry
3 Bilinski's interest in the -- what I later learned to be a
4 joint venture.
5 Q. Can you explain what the -- why there are two
6 different agreements instead of just one?
7 A. Yes. One has more information than the other, I
8 believe.
9 Q. Right. Does one of them refer to the offspring of
10 the mares? The second one? Let's go ahead and look at GU
11 58.
12 A. Okay. Yes.
13 Q. And this refers to, if we look at the third
14 paragraph, that the parties agree that effective this
15 date --
16 A. Mm-hmm.
17 Q. -- Darlene Bilinski has sold to Mountain View Farm
18 her one-third interest. And these would be the offspring of
19 the mares?
20 A. Right.
21 Q. And that the sale price is the amount of
22 33.3 percent of the net proceeds at public auction, which is
23 expected to be held in September 2006?
24 A. Mm-hmm.
25 Q. And then there's another one where the auction is

38
1 supposed to be held in August of 2006?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. So the second agreement, Darlene Bilinski retained
4 the ability to collect a third of the proceeds from the sale
5 of the offspring of the two mares?
6 A. Right. Well, that was actually part of the deal,
7 that a couple of these horses were going to be sold for a
8 sum certain. $80,000? Am I remembering that correctly?
9 Well, let me just look at it.
10 Q. Okay.
11 (Pause.)
12 A. Yes. Okay. I know what I'm talking about now.
13 So one agreement mentions that these horses would be sold
14 for $80,000.
15 Q. I want to focus right now on the Bilinski
16 agreements.
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. That doesn't refer to $80,000, right?
19 A. No. They both, yeah, Darlene -- I'm talking
20 about --
21 Q. Oh, the first one?
22 A. -- GU 57. That's $80,000. The second one deals
23 with the progeny from 2006, right?
24 Q. All right. And why was the agreement with Darlene
25 Bilinski instead of Doctor Bilinski?

39
1 A. I don't know. I assume that she was the actual
2 owner, legally.
3 Q. Did you prepare this document?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you talk to Senator Bruno about these
6 agreements?
7 A. Ah, not directly. I did this through Pat
8 Stackrow.
9 Q. I would like to direct your attention to the
10 second page of the documents?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What is the date on these agreements?
13 A. June 1, 2006.
14 Q. Is that when these documents were actually signed?
15 A. No.
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 BY MS. COOMBE:
20 Exhibit GU 60, 61 and 64.
21 A. Thank you.
22 Q. Your welcome. GU 60 is a letter from Mr. Riddett,
23 although it's not signed, to Dr. Bilinski, and it states:
24 As per our conversation, enclosed please find two copies of
25 the revised agreement. Please have Darlene sign and return

40
1 them to me.
2 And if we could look at the next page -- I mean GU
3 61. This is a letter from Mr. Riddett that's signed, to
4 Dr. Bilinski, and it's not to Darlene Bilinski, stating:
5 Enclosed please find the two fully executed original letter
6 agreements for your file.
7 And we could please look now at GU 64. This is a
8 letter from you to Dr. Bilinski. And it states: Dear
9 Dr. Bilinski: Enclosed please find duplicate originals of
10 the revised letter agreement reflecting the sale of
11 Darlene's one-third interest in broodmare and thoroughbred
12 stock to Mountain View Farm. The revision addresses
13 responsibility for boarding services for the yet to be named
14 2006 Colts at the side of the broodmares. Upon signing by
15 Darlene, please keep one original for your files. Please
16 return the other original to me.
17 In the hope of avoiding any confusion relative to
18 this matter, I am asking that you also enclose the previous
19 version of the document to me for destruction and that you
20 also destroy any copies of the document which may have been
21 made. Thank you for your courtesies.
22 And what's the date on this letter? It's
23 October 19th?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. 2006?
41
1 A. Right.
2 Q. Is this when the agreements were actually signed?
3 A. This -- well, there were -- there was, there was
4 several agreements. The letter from August 30th reflected
5 the original agreement. And after, after the original
6 agreement came back to Senator Bruno, he recognized that
7 there was no liens and encumbrance language, which I didn't
8 know anything about. It's apparently something common in
9 horse deals that people are concerned about. So there was a
10 direction to put in certain language. And that language
11 change was made. And that resulted in the September 12th
12 letter, submitting that.
13 And then there was another revelation that
14 these -- that this agreement, which was dated June 1st,
15 which was the date of the meeting of the minds, it needed
16 another change because of the responsibility for boarding
17 services for these two foals that were at the site of the
18 broodmares. So that the final document, the one that
19 everybody agreed was the right memorialization of the
20 meeting of the minds, that occurred on June 1st, but was
21 not dated until October 19th, 2006.
22 Q. Do you see the address at the top of this letter?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you recognize that address?
25 A. That's my address.
42
1 Q. Is that your home address?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Why did you use your home address on this letter?
4 A. Because this letter did not, on its face, seem to
5 have anything to do with Senate business. And we were
6 sensitive to not using Senate letterhead on matters that
7 didn't appear to have any Senate business. I know that
8 there's an ethics component to this letter, because Senator
9 Bruno was trying to extricate himself from a relationship
10 with Jerry Abbruzzese -- I'm sorry -- Jerry Bilinski that
11 would be problematic if Jerry Bilinski pursued the NYRA
12 franchise.
13 Q. I would like you to look back at GU 56. That's
14 the agreement with Mr. Abbruzzese.
15 A. Okay. I got it.
16 Q. Okay. Now, this agreement, if we look at the
17 second paragraph on the first page, it indicates that
18 Mr. Abbruzzese --
19 MS. COOMBE: I'm sorry, the paragraph above
20 that, Ron.
21 Q. It indicates that Mr. Abbruzzese owes a debt in
22 the amount of $40,000 to Senator Bruno.
23 A. Right.
24 Q. And was it a term of this agreement that in
25 exchange for Mr. Abbruzzese's one-third interest in the

43
1 horses, including their offspring, that that debt of $40,000
2 would be forgiven?
3 A. Yes.
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 BY MS. COOMBE:
7 Q. I'm handing you Government's Exhibit GU 45.
8 A. Thank you.
9 Q. Your welcome. Do you recognize that,
10 Mr. Gluchowski?
11 A. Let me take a look.
12 I recognize the document, but I don't know at what
13 point in time I first saw it.
14 Q. Did you see it at the time it was created in
15 September of 2005?
16 A. I believe so.
17 Q. Now, this agreement is a bill of sale, and it
18 indicates that Mr. Abbruzzese has agreed to pay $80,000 for
19 the '04 -- well, it doesn't indicate that it's '04 but --
20 oh, it does -- the '04 filly out of Ladies Night In to
21 Weatherwatch Farm. And it's signed by Senator Bruno. And
22 do you know what Weatherwatch Farm is?
23 A. No, I don't.
24 Q. Did you know that that was Mr. Abbruzzese's farm?
25 A. No, I did not.

44
1 Q. Did Senator Bruno consult with you when he sold
2 this foal to Mr. Abbruzzese for $80,000?
4 Q. I would like you to compare GU 56 with GU 57 and
5 58. That's the agreement that -- the termination agreement
6 with Mr. Abbruzzese and the termination agreements with
7 Dr. Bilinski.
8 A. Wait a minute. I have 56. What other ones am I
9 looking for?
10 Q. 57 and 58, the Bilinski termination letters.
11 A. Okay. I have them.
12 Q. Okay. And if we can look at the -- the first page
13 indicates -- let's look at the second page of both 56 and
14 57.
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. Mr. Abbruzzese had $40,000 of debt forgiven. Was
17 that related to the sale of that $80,000 foal that we just
18 looked at?
19 A. Yes, that's my understanding, that Mr. Abbruzzese
20 paid $40,000 by way of check initially and owed another
21 $40,000 on that sale.
22 Q. Okay. And it was --
23 A. That was told to me by Pat Stackrow.
24 Q. Okay. And where in GU 57 does it indicate that
25 Dr. Bilinski would be paid $80,000? Is that on the first

45
1 page?
2 A. Wait, what was the question again please?
3 Q. Where does it indicate how much Dr. Bilinski would
4 receive for his interest in the horses?
5 A. On which document?
6 Q. Oh, yeah, I think it's at the bottom of the -- if
7 we can look at the first ...
8 A. What number are we on?
9 Q. Fifty-seven.
10 A. Fifty-seven ...
11 Q. And you see the reference on the bottom is there
12 for the aforementioned 80 --
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. -- thousand dollar payment?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In addition, if we could look at GU 58, please?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In addition to that $80,000, Dr. Bilinski, through
19 Darlene Bilinski, also was going to be paid 33 percent, a
20 third of the amount that the offspring were sold for at the
21 auctions that fall; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Why did Senator Bruno pay Dr. Bilinski $80,000 for
24 the horses, plus the amount -- the 33 percent of what the
25 foes would be sold for at auction and only forgive $40,000

46
GLUCHOWSKI - CROSS - LOWELL
1 of debt for Mr. Abbruzzese?
2 A. I always thought that Mr. Bilinski was a better
3 bargainer. (Laughter)
4 Q. Do you know why?
5 A. No. No. I, I mean I'm serious. I just thought
6 that Jerry Bilinski made a better deal.
7 MS. COOMBE: I have nothing further, your
8 Honor.
9 THE COURT: Mr. Lowell.
10 MR. LOWELL: Thank you, Judge Sharpe.
11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LOWELL:
12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Gluchowski.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. Could you put GU-102 on the screen, to start off
15 with, please? This was -- you were discussing with Miss
16 Coombe a moment ago about how to deal with this horse
17 partnership, joint venture. Do you recall that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you hear her question, why did Mr. Bruno want
20 you not to disclose Mr. Abbruzzese and Dr. Bilinski's name?
21 A. Well, I didn't realize she said you...
22 Q. Sorry. Say that again.
23 A. I didn't appreciate that she said that it was me
24 who was not wanting to --
25 Q. No, no, she asked -- sorry to interrupt you.

47
1 A. Oh.
2 Q. Well, let's clear the air. Did Mr. Bruno ever
3 tell you that he did not want to put the name of Abbruzzese
4 or Bilinski or anyone else on the disclosure form if that
5 was what was required?
7 Q. Did he say I want you to do research and come up
8 with a way to avoid putting Dr. Bilinski's or
9 Mr. Abbruzzese's name on it?
11 Q. So when Miss Coombe asked you that, that was not a
12 correct premise of the question, was it?
13 MS. COOMBE: Objection.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 BY MR. LOWELL
16 Q. How many years did you work with Mr. Bruno on
17 ethics issues?
18 A. From 1997, January of 1997 to December 30th,
19 2008.
20 Q. So that's 11 years?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In that time, you looked up a number of contracts
23 that you identified?
24 A. It's actually 12. Twelve. It's just before 2009.
25 Q. Got it. In that number, 12 years --

48
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. -- you looked at a lot of contracts you said?
3 A. Well, I looked at a lot of contracts for Senator
4 Bruno.
5 Q. That's what I meant.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. And you said you were involved in a number of
8 financial disclosure forms?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In any of the reviews and any of the work that you
11 did, did Mr. Bruno ever tell you how to come out on an
12 opinion or a piece of advice?
13 A. No, he never did.
14 Q. Did he ever fail to take your advice?
15 A. Not that I'm aware of.
16 Q. On this particular issue, 102, you're very clear
17 that Mr. Bruno never said to you I don't want to report the
18 names of anybody?
19 A. No. I'm clear. I'm very sure of that.
20 Q. All right. Thank you. In your testimony
21 yesterday you talked about an ethics opinion that you had
22 something to do with its creation concerning a company
23 called McGinn Smith?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I would like to return. Would you look at

49
1 Government's Exhibit, please, GA 6, and it will be on your
2 screen for convenience. This was a request that you
3 identified that came to the committee, correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And you indicated that this was the letter that
6 started a process, is that fair?
7 A. That's a fair statement.
8 Q. And the process ended with a letter returned by
9 the committee to Mr. Bruno later on. That would be GA 9.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Now, go back to GA 6 --
12 MR. LOWELL: Please, John.
13 Q. And look on the screen, Mr. Gluchowski. GA 6. I
14 would like you to look at GA 6 on the right side of the
15 screen.
16 MR. LOWELL: And now I would like you, John,
17 to please put up Defendant's C 54 on the left side of the
18 screen.
19 Q. Now I would like you to turn to the second page of
20 C 54. And on the right should be GA 6, please. That's the
21 same, isn't it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The Government's Exhibit GA 6, right?
24 A. Mm-hmm.
25 Q. Now, if you'll turn back to the first page of

50
1 C 54, you'll see that the letter that came to the committee
2 had a cover, didn't it?
3 A. Ah...
4 Q. Do you see C 54 --
5 A. This letter that came to the committee.
6 Q. You see the memo that covers it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you see that it's to Vicky Doren?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Who's Vicky Doren?
11 A. She was a secretary who worked at the ethics
12 committee. In fact, she still does.
13 Q. And then it's to a bunch of people, four people.
14 Can you identify them?
15 A. Yes. By name?
16 Q. Just the names. Robert Bergin...
17 A. Robert Bergin and Mark Glaser, Victoria Graffeo,
18 and Ken Riddett.
19 Q. What roles did they play at the time?
20 A. They were conference counsel. But to explain,
21 each conference in the Legislature -- and a conference would
22 be the Senate majority, Senate minority, Assembly majority
23 and Assembly minority had a representative who served under
24 the bylaws as extra order staff to the committee to help the
25 staff of the committee in discussing ethics issues and

51
1 arriving at recommendations to make to the committee.
2 Q. And then there are CCs on the bottom to three
3 additional individuals, each with the abbreviation of Esq?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Which stands for attorney in our world. Who are
6 they?
7 A. These are people who also worked r the conferences
8 and who were probably actually attending the meetings at the
9 time. So in the case of Jack Casey, he worked for Victoria
10 Graffeo. So Victoria Graffeo probably was not coming to
11 that meeting but Jack Casey was. Carolyn Kearns would have
12 attended instead of Mark Glaser and Edward Wasserman instead
13 of Robert Bergin.
14 Q. And these were attorneys who worked under you when
15 you were doing work at the committee, is that right?
16 A. What's that?
17 Q. Did they work for you? Any of these individuals?
18 A. These people? No, they did not.
19 Q. They worked with you on these kinds of issues?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The letter that's on the right side, GA 6, was
22 distributed to each of those people, correct?
23 A. Yes. Right.
24 Q. For purposes of considering the issue?
25 A. Yes.
52
1 Q. And you discussed it, I suppose, with them?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You drafted the response, GA 9, which we'll get to
4 in a second, but you did that, not by yourself, you had help
5 and discussed it?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. That was your practice?
8 A. Right. Well, the practice was for the staff of
9 the committee to draft language and then we would have what
10 we call a conference counsel meeting. And the conference
11 counsel and the committee staff at the meeting would discuss
12 the draft. And it was typical for the conference counsel to
13 make suggestions to point out inadequacies that as far as
14 what facts were known and to just weigh in on how the
15 committee would be presenting its advice. So very often,
16 changes were made to the advice before it was presented to
17 the committee.
18 Q. Yesterday you were asked the question about the
19 response that occurred. And the response is GA 9.
20 MR. LOWELL: So if would clear the screen
21 please, John, and please just put up GA 9.
22 Q. And this was the result of the process you just
23 described?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. And if you'll turn to the next page, which we

53
1 looked at yesterday. It said -- I'm sorry. You were asked
2 questions about the section that's called facts, F-A-C-T-S.
3 Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. If you enlarge that. And you were asked questions
6 about where the facts came from?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. And you said it came from the letter that was
9 submitted?
10 A. That's true.
11 Q. But you also did your own research, it turns out?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And I don't want to go over it in detail, but you
14 said you looked at the legal definitions involved?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you looked to see whether or not the
17 responsibilities, you understood what they meant, correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. But you did more than that too?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You actually looked up the company?
22 A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
23 Q. And the company was McGinn Smith. And you were
24 asked questions as to whether you knew whether McGinn Smith
25 was either an investment adviser or investment brokerage; do

54
1 you remember the question.
3 A. Yes.
4 MS. COOMBE: It's not an investment adviser.
5 THE COURT: I'm sorry.
6 Q. I'm sorry. Do you recall being asked questions as
7 to whether you knew they were investment bankers and
8 investment brokers?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you said initially --
11 A. Right.
12 Q. -- you thought they were investment bankers and
13 you looked that up?
14 A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
15 Q. But as it turned out, you actually knew that they
16 did more than that, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And the way you did that is?
19 A. By doing research on Standard and Poors to
20 discover that that also involved the selling of securities.
21 Q. And if you look at GA 7 on the screen, please.
22 And if you would enlarge that, please. That's your notes,
23 correct?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. And it shows the research you did in 1992?

55
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And it shows that you saw that they were
3 investment service, brokerage, right?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. So that had to be an understanding you had when
6 you were writing the opinion?
7 A. It was.
8 Q. Now, as a process matter, when you or the staff
9 that you worked with had any questions that you needed
10 answered, was there any prohibitions on you asking those
11 questions or doing the kind of research that you did?
12 A. No. But there were protocols about questioning
13 members. Usually we would check with the co-chair and let
14 the co-chair know that we thought that it would be
15 appropriate to make a contact and ask a question. And that
16 that was the protocol. Actually less so later on. When the
17 committee was in its infancy and adolescence, there was a
18 great sensitivity by the members of the committee to what
19 the staff did. The committee wanted to make sure that the
20 staff didn't have -- didn't become a runaway freight train
21 and become an inquisitory body.
22 Q. When you spoke to the lawyers that were listed on
23 the memorandum that I identified with you --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- was there any discussion among you that you

56
1 shouldn't do the adequate research in the law or as to
2 McGinn Smith or any other issue?
3 A. No, no. Actually, there was, there was a concern
4 that the committee have sufficient information to make an
5 intelligent decision.
6 Q. And that's what you tried to do?
7 A. Yes, that's what I tried to do.
8 Q. And in terms of the letter that was written to the
9 committee, GA 6. Can we go back to that, please? Look at
10 that letter a second.
11 A. Could it be a little -- thank you.
12 Q. You worked in Mr. Bruno's office and at the
13 Legislative Ethics Committee for a while to know the
14 practice that was employed in Mr. Bruno's office concerns --
15 in concern of ethics issues? Do you --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Mr. Bruno, as he did with you, often asked
18 attorneys to be involved, is that right?
20 Q. Looking at the date of this letter, 1993, which
21 attorney was in Mr. Bruno's office working on these kinds of
22 issues?
23 A. Ah, that would be Ken Riddett.
24 Q. And do you know a man named Tim Collins?
25 A. Yes.
57
1 Q. Who was there, you said yesterday, from the period
2 when you got there and left shortly thereafter?
3 A. Four months. He was there for approximately four
4 months.
5 Q. But you knew he was there this period of time?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you knew he became a judge?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. At the time that you worked with him either in
10 your office, in his, or your overlap, did you know him to be
11 a careful person?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Why are you smiling?
14 A. He was very fastidious.
15 Q. Did you know him to be somebody who would try to
16 get things done right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you know him to be an honest person?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you have any reason that Mr. Collins would be
21 involved in a process and not try to put in all the
22 information he thought was necessary?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you ever get involved in the process with
25 Mr. Bruno and exclude any fact that you thought was
58
1 necessary?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did Mr. Bruno ask you to?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did anybody in his office ever ask you to?
6 A. No.
7 Q. And the opinion that came back, GA 9.
8 MR. LOWELL: If you'll put that on the
9 screen, please.
10 Q. That's what you, and with the help of the other
11 lawyers, put together; is that a correct statement?
12 A. Right. The opinion. This is the cover letter.
13 Q. Yes. If you'll go to the next page. This is what
14 you crafted with the other lawyers?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you were providing --
17 A. Let me point out that this language, no member of
18 the Legislature could have any interests... That, you know,
19 that's language that's been around since 1954, that
20 statutory language. And the language of this opinion
21 mirrors the language of many opinions that the committee
22 passed upon.
23 THE COURT: 1954 was the first year that the
24 law was passed?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.

59
1 THE COURT: That is what you're referring to?
2 THE WITNESS: That's what I'm referring to.
3 And it's been adopted by a number of other states as well.
4 THE COURT: Thank you.
5 BY MR. LOWELL:
6 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, in the opinion you wrote in the
7 second to last paragraph, you pointed out that you were
8 advising that the general rule is intended to guard against
9 substantial conflicts of interest between the members'
10 outside activities and his official duties, period. Do you
11 see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. That was a particular phrase, substantial
14 conflicts of interest, you put in there?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. And it later on says that there should not be, to
17 use the phrase, a special benefit provided.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. That's in the next paragraph. Absent any special
20 benefit to his prospective employer. Correct?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. And you were advising that that's one of the ways
23 you know as whether there is a substantial conflict?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. That's what you were advising?

60
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. On the next page, the paragraph that's marked --
3 begins public officers, you wrote: Most notably, the member
4 is prohibited from making compensated appearances before
5 state agencies with regard to certain matters enumerated
6 under Section 73, period. Do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Because you were advising that you could appear
9 before an agency, it just shouldn't be compensated, right?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. You can open the door for somebody in front of a
12 state agency but it can't be compensated?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. And you were explaining to Miss Coombe before that
15 you could even be in front of a state agency for
16 compensation as a member of the Legislature but you gave
17 advice to members that said what on that subject?
18 A. That as long as they did not share in the revenues
19 that accrued to that engagement, that was not prohibited
20 under the law.
21 Q. And then you were beginning to explain. As you
22 understood it.
23 A. As I understood it.
25 BY MR. LOWELL:
61
1 Q. And as you understood it, and gave advice to
2 people in the tenure you had at the Ethics Committee and
3 when you were working in the majority conference, you
4 also --
6 THE COURT: Let him finish the question
7 please.
8 BY MR. LOWELL:
9 Q. Did -- you also gave advice concerning what you
10 were talking about, competitive bidding. What was that?
11 THE COURT: Hold on. Reread the question
12 please.
13 (Court reporter reads back question.)
14 THE COURT: No, I'll allow the answer to that
15 question. You may answer.
16 A. Yes. What advice I would have provided with
17 respect to competitive bidding was --
18 THE COURT: No, I'll sustain that objection.
19 Wait for the next question.
20 BY MR. LOWELL
21 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, let me ask the question better.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. You talked about what you said about substantial
24 conflict. You talked about what you said about special
25 benefit. You talked a moment ago about what you said about
62
1 appearances. And now I want to ask you, what, if any,
2 advice did you give members or their staff on whether a
3 member or staff could appear before a state agency
4 concerning the issue of competitive bidding?
7 BY MR. LOWELL:
8 Q. Did you give that advice to Mr. Bruno, ever?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And what advice did you give Mr. Bruno?
11 A. The advice with respect to that issue was that a
12 member of the Legislature would not be barred from making an
13 appearance before a state agency with respect to a matter
14 such as getting business from the state agency or having the
15 state agency render a decision as long as the contract for
16 that business was competitively bid.
17 Q. So a member can be compensated even in that
18 circumstance, was the advice you gave?
19 A. That's true, yes.
20 Q. I would like to turn to the employment you spoke
21 of as to Wright Investors Services. You were asked whether
22 you were aware at some point that there was this employment?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you said that you were.
25 A. Right.
63
1 Q. Miss Coombe asked you if you could put the
2 sequence of events in order. Do you recall that question
3 yesterday?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And I think you said it's hard?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. At any of your -- by the way, I'm sorry, you were
8 shown some excerpts from a grand jury appearance you made
9 yesterday and today. You held it up.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How many times did you appear before a grand jury?
12 A. At least twice, if not more.
13 Q. And in addition to that, how many times did you
14 meet with prosecutors and the FBI over the last few years?
15 A. I would say on four occasions.
16 Q. Now, when you were trying -- did you, did you have
17 the occasion to try to put together a time sequence in any
18 of those an appearances or any of those meetings?
19 A. No.
20 Q. At those occasions that you were at those meetings
21 or in the grand jury, did any of the FBI agents or any of
22 the attorneys provide you documents or notes of
23 conversations you or others had to help you put together a
24 time sequence?
25 A. Not for that purpose. I was shown documents but I

64
1 don't think they were for that purpose.
2 Q. And in trying to come up with the date that you
3 first would have talked to anybody about Mr. Bruno's work
4 with Wright Investors Services, did anybody ever ask you
5 about the occasion in which Wright Investors Services
6 changed Mr. Bruno's status from that of being a consultant
7 to a part-time employee?
8 A. No, I didn't have any involvement in that.
9 Q. They didn't ask about that?
10 A. No.
11 Q. If I tell you there was such an occasion, does
12 that refresh your recollection as to when you might have
13 heard about Wright Investors Services?
15 THE COURT: The gist of what you're asking is
16 okay, but to tell anybody anything is a foundational speech.
17 That's the problem I have. I'm not foreclosing the
18 question. Just ask it in the right way. Does that -- does
19 this subject refresh your recollection?
20 MR. LOWELL: Yes, sir.
21 BY MR. LOWELL:
22 Q. Are you aware of the subject of Mr. Bruno having
23 his status changed at Wright Investors Services?
24 A. Yes, I am.
25 Q. Now, I want you to think about that a second.

65
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. I would like you to try to place that in time.
3 A. Yes. 1998.
4 Q. Does that refresh your recollection, did you have
5 conversations about that subject at the time?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And with whom did you have them?
8 A. Ah, well, most likely with Ken Riddett and Helen
9 George.
10 Q. And in saying that, you understood that
11 Mr. Riddett was playing what role?
12 A. Well, he was the executive counsel or chief
13 counsel to the Senate majority at the time. His role was as
14 an intermediary between Wright Investors Services and
15 Senator Bruno with respect to changing that form of
16 engagement and ensuring that there were no adverse
17 consequences to that, you know, for doing that, ethically.
18 You know, his concern would have been to make sure it was
19 done the right way?
20 Q. And you remember, in whatever way, ten years
21 later, that conversation occurred?
22 A. Yes. I have a vague recollection, yes.
23 Q. And that...
24 THE COURT: No, no, you're -- no, I'm sorry
25 to have interrupted you. Go ahead. I was going to -- I'm

66
1 going to offer you the opportunity at a spot that's
2 convenient for you to take the morning break. But I'm sorry
3 to have cut you off. Finish your flow of questions.
4 MR. LOWELL: Excellent time, Judge. This is
5 a good time for a break.
6 THE COURT: That's okay for you?
7 MR. LOWELL: Absolutely. Thank you for
8 asking.
9 THE COURT: I apologize for interrupting.
10 Let's stop for 20 minutes, until 10 of, please.
11 (Brief recess at 10:30 AM.)
12 (Court reconvened at 10:50 AM.)
13 (Jury present at 10:53 AM.)
14 THE COURT: Mr. Lowell, please.
15 MR. LOWELL: Thank you, your Honor.
16 BY MR. LOWELL:
17 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, before the break, I was trying to
18 put together the timeline of when you were involved in
19 discussions concerning Mr. Bruno's involvement employment
20 with an entity known as Wright Investors Services. I would
21 like to turn back to that a moment.
22 Yesterday you said it is hard to put together the
23 timeline. Is it still hard today?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you recall the conversation, topic that you had

67
1 with Mr. Riddett concerning the first occasion you had to
2 discuss Mr. Bruno's employment with Wright? Do you have any
3 kind of recollection of it?
4 A. I have some. I mean one of the questions was, you
5 know, why is this necessary, why is it happening. And my
6 understanding from the conversation with Ken Riddett was
7 that there was some SEC consideration that was relevant to
8 the switchover. But I didn't know more than that.
9 Q. And do you have a firm recollection as to how many
10 times you were involved in understanding Mr. Bruno's
11 employment with Wright Investors Services?
12 A. How many times was I...
13 Q. Yeah, involved in that issue.
14 A. Involved in understanding?
15 Q. How many times? Do you have a recollection?
16 A. I don't have a firm recollection. I would think
17 it was like two or three maybe.
18 Q. Going to show you, not for identification but what
19 is marked as Defendant's Exhibit E 46 and Defendant's
20 Exhibit E 47. Just for identification.
21 MS. COOMBE: May I see it before you show it
22 to the witness?
23 MR. LOWELL: You mean again.
24 MS. COOMBE: Yes.
25 MR. LOWELL: Yeah, sure.

68
1 MS. COOMBE: Thank you.
2 (Pause.)
3 MS. COOMBE: Thank you.
4 MR. LOWELL: May I approach, your Honor?
5 THE COURT: Please.
6 BY MR. LOWELL:
7 Q. The first document will be what I've asked to be
8 marked for identification as E 46. And the second one is
9 what I have marked as E 47.
10 A. Thank you.
11 Q. And if you'll look at that just to yourself and
12 when you're done looking at to yourself look up or indicate
13 that you have.
14 MR. LOWELL: Your Honor, may I approach
15 again?
16 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
17 BY MR. LOWELL:
18 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Gluchowski. Let me just get
19 something for the Government's attorneys.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 THE COURT: May I inquire, are you asking him
23 to review portions which you've highlighted?
24 MR. LOWELL: Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. Trying
25 to speed things up.

69
1 THE COURT: As I am. Which is my purpose of
2 asking the questions.
3 Would you just look at the portions that he
4 highlighted?
5 BY MR. LOWELL
6 Q. Just look at the portions on that page and read
7 them to yourself, and tell me when you're done, look up, and
8 then I'll know you're done.
9 (Pause.)
10 Q. Just that page, please, sir. Just that page, the
11 first page.
12 A. This document is from 2006.
13 Q. I understand. I don't want to you testify about
14 the document I just want you to read that to yourself.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. And then look at the other page just by itself.
17 (Pause.)
18 THE COURT: The object here is for you to
19 review these to see whether this prompts anything in your
20 mind about sequence of events. That's the object.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
23 BY MR. LOWELL
24 Q. Are you done, sir? Don't go to the next page.
25 There's too much information.

70
1 A. Okay. Yes.
2 Q. All right, now --
3 A. This (speaking)
4 Q. I just want to ask you whether looking at that
5 document refreshes your recollection as to the subject we're
6 talking as to when you became involved in understanding
7 Mr. Bruno's involvement with Wright Investors Services.
8 Does it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And what is your refreshed recollection?
11 A. That I had a conversation with Helen George in
12 2006.
13 Q. And how about earlier with Mr. Riddett?
14 A. Ah, earlier with Mr. Riddett as well.
15 Q. And about the earliest one, what does it refresh
16 your recollection the subject being?
17 A. The subject being the change over from consultant
18 to employee.
19 Q. And what is it you recall the issue was?
20 A. The issue -- well, one of the issues was the
21 financial disclosure statement and, you know, the fact that
22 there would be a change in what is reported now because, as
23 an employee, that would have to be reported. The law --
24 Q. And do you -- sorry.
25 A. No, just that the law in existence, still the same

71
1 law, asks the question --
2 THE COURT: As you understand it.
3 A. As I understand it, asks the question of
4 employment. And so it's clear, that if you are an employee,
5 you have to reflect your employer.
6 Q. If you are an employee?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Would that be in your understanding different if
9 you were a consultant or some other capacity for which you
10 were receiving income?
11 A. Yes, it would make a difference.
12 Q. Now, do you also recall, having gotten your
13 recollection refreshed, Miss Coombe asked you questions
14 about did Mr. Bruno go to the Ethics Committee and seek an
15 opinion, and she asked you about a few different entities.
16 A. Yes, I remember.
17 Q. Did this subject come up at the time that you and
18 Mr. Riddett were having the question about his change of
19 employment?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And what was the issue?
22 A. The issue was whether or not there should be an
23 opinion asked for in the case of Wright Investors Services.
24 And our conversation together and then with Miss George was
25 to the effect that no opinion was needed because facts were

72
1 similar to McGinn Smith, and that was adequate.
2 Q. And did you -- you participated in those
3 conversations?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. With the individuals you identified?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And was that your conclusion?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And is that what ended up happening in terms of
10 Mr. Bruno did or did not seek any additional advice after
11 the McGinn Smith opinion was rendered?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. That's what happened?
14 A. That's what happened.
15 Q. Based on your and Mr. Riddett's advice?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Another set of questions you were asked was about
18 a particular memo that was shown to you, that memo was 2006.
19 And if we can put that on the screen. GS 10. And you
20 recall the conversation about this yesterday,
21 Mr. Gluchowski?
22 A. Oh, yes.
23 Q. And you went through it elaborately. I won't do
24 the same. But now you see that this memo is dated 2006,
25 right?
73
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And your involvement in the issue of Wright.
3 A. Mm-hmm.
4 Q. As you now are refreshed, it was much earlier than
5 that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Eight years earlier than that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And in between that time, Miss Coombe asked you
10 about this particular document, and you were giving
11 Mr. Bruno advice, as you had done before?
12 A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
13 Q. And after?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. This one was he asked you a question.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And the question was whether he could call
18 Mr. Comer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, you didn't initiate that question to him. He
21 initiated it to you?
22 A. Yes. I didn't know who Mr. Comer was.
23 Q. So this was in conformity with what you understood
24 his practice which was to ask advice of his attorneys?
25 A. Yes.
74
1 Q. And when he did that, you tried to give him the
2 best advice you could?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And here you said, don't call?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. And as far as you know, he didn't call?
7 A. As far as I know.
8 Q. Again, you don't know of a time where you gave him
9 advice that he didn't follow, correct?
10 A. No, I don't know of any occasion when I told him
11 my opinion and he acted contrary to my opinion.
12 Q. And when you were explaining this -- clear the
13 screen please, John -- you said yesterday you made a
14 distinction at the time about something you called public
15 unions and private unions. Do you remember that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I think the distinction you made about public
18 unions were that if they had public members.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And private ones, I guess, don't have public
21 members.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. But whether they're public or private, you
24 understood that in a given session of the New York State
25 Legislature, private and public unions have interests that

75
1 will be affected by the Legislature; correct?
2 A. Yes. I mean that any entity, its conceivable,
3 could have and probably will have some interests before the
4 Legislature at some point.
5 Q. And as you explained earlier, that doesn't mean
6 that a legislator, in the advice you gave, didn't have --
7 could not be in a business that dealt with people who had
8 interests, correct?
9 A. No.
10 Q. That's how you gave advice?
11 A. Right. The classic example is if the Legislature
12 were doing a tax cut, that nobody could vote on it because
13 they would all benefit from their own tax cut. So there has
14 to be some particular benefit that accrues to the individual
15 or group or business that the legislation relates to, to
16 make it be a substantial conflict of interest, whether it's
17 a private union or public union.
18 Q. As to the particular question that was asked about
19 Mr. Comer, you've described the issue of a pilot light bill,
20 right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And I think you said it had been pending for quite
23 sometime.
24 A. Yes. I was familiar with this bill probably from
25 I think my earliest participation with the rules committee

76
1 going back to '97. It was just a bill that came up every
2 year and I never thought it passed. I read today in the
3 paper it passed, but I didn't know that.
4 Q. You didn't know?
5 A. Maybe it was after I left.
6 Q. And as to the bill in question, in a session of
7 the New York State Legislature, how many bills are
8 introduced?
9 A. Um, gee, in a year, it's common in the Senate to
10 introduce about 9,000 bills. The Assembly may introduce
11 about 15,000 bills. It's about the average.
12 Q. So in the advice that you gave Mr. Bruno and in
13 other advice you gave to members or staff, was the fact that
14 there were ten thousand bills in the Legislature at any
15 given time something that prohibited them from working for
16 any company that would be, I don't know, in your phrase,
17 generally affected by those bills?
18 MS. COOMBE: Objection. Form.
19 THE COURT: Sustained as to form as it
20 relates to anybody in the Senate or the Assembly other than
21 Mr. Bruno. That's the foundational requirement.
22 BY MR. LOWELL
23 Q. Yes, sir. In the advice that you gave Mr. Bruno
24 in his employment that you have testified to in your
25 conversations, you've testified about what Mr. Riddett and

77
1 this issue, did you provide advice on the issue of whether
2 the pendency of ten thousand bills would prohibit employment
3 by the fact that they had just been introduced?
5 THE COURT: I'll allow the answer to that
6 question.
7 A. No, I didn't.
8 Q. It would not be a prohibited factor in the advice
9 you gave?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. And in this particular instance, you were about to
12 describe yesterday there was something particular going on
13 with this bill that brought it to the forefront of your
14 attention?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Why?
17 A. Because the IBEW had a position on the bill, and I
18 can't remember if it was pro or con, but the utilities had
19 the opposite position on the bill. And it was
20 controversial. I know that the IBEW had changed lobbyists,
21 because I had been lobbied directly on the bill by the
22 particular lobbyist when he got the account from IBEW. So
23 it was just something I was aware of.
24 Q. And -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
25 A. Because, you know, usually in my capacity, I

78
1 wasn't lobbied directly, because the people who were
2 subordinate to me would deal with the lobbyists more
3 directly.
4 Q. On this particular matter, some action was very
5 imminent in which you were involved yourself?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. And that was the basis of the advice you gave?
8 A. Right. But I think the bill had moved to the
9 calendar, and the fact that it was close to passage had
10 increased the amount of scrutiny that the bill was getting
11 and the manner of attention.
12 Q. And that was why at that point you said don't call
13 Mr. Comer?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And IBEW, the union that is written on the piece
16 of paper you looked at, that's not a public union?
17 A. No, it's not.
18 Q. And in terms of Wright Investors Services, there
19 was yet another time that you became involved in the issue
20 of Mr. Bruno's employment with that company, is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In the same year you are talking, 2006?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And do you recall what the issue was then in 2006?
25 A. Yes. It was the fact that there had been press

79
1 report of an investigation, and Wright became concerned that
2 the investigation would reflect badly on the company and
3 would have an adverse affect on its business.
4 Q. And so you became involved in conversations with
5 somebody at Wright on that issue?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you remember who that was?
8 A. Helen George.
9 Q. And in those conversations, besides yourself and
10 Helen George, did anybody else participate?
11 A. Ken Riddett, but I don't know if we were all on
12 the phone at the same time. I don't recall that. I think
13 he talked to Helen George and then asked Helen George to
14 call me and then I talked to Helen George.
15 Q. And these were all telephonic?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did the topic of whether Mr. Bruno's employment
18 with Wright on that date being something that could continue
19 was raised?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And did you consider the issue?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And did you have a conversation about that subject
24 with Miss George?
25 A. Yes, I did.
80
1 Q. And do you recall the conversation?
2 A. I have a vague recollection of the conversation.
3 If you have a document that, you know, is more pertinent or
4 is directly pertinent to the conversation, I would probably
5 reflect (sic) my recollection, because I haven't seen any.
6 Q. Just for identification then. DX 48. Again,
7 please just look at it briefly to yourself.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. And see if it refreshes your recollection about
10 this conversation. And then when you're done, please look
11 up so I'll know you're done.
12 (Pause.)
13 A. Okay. I'm ready to talk about this issue.
14 Q. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection of this
15 conversation?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So you identified the subject of being an article
18 and whether it was okay for Mr. Bruno to continue to be
19 employed by Wright and whether or not anything that
20 Mr. Bruno and Wright were doing caused any issues; is that a
21 fair way of describing what the subject matter was?
22 A. It's fair.
23 Q. What do you recall telling Miss George on the
24 subject?
25 A. Well, I remember in the conversation, telling Miss

81
1 George that Senator Bruno was concerned about ethics issues
2 and he did not want to be party to an appearance of a
3 conflict of interest; that I always advised him
4 conservatively with respect to ethics issues; and that we
5 did not think that his continued relationship with the firm
6 posed a conflict of interest, in that, you know, it was
7 still abiding by the advice of McGinn Smith even at that
8 point.
9 Q. And you said we. Did you discuss that with
10 Mr. Riddett?
11 A. With Ken Riddett, yes.
12 Q. Did Miss George raise the issue of whether or not
13 there was anything about the rules that you were advising
14 Mr. Bruno or her about --
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. -- that were clear cut or not clear cut?
17 A. No. I told her that the law, as I understood it.
19 THE COURT: No, overruled.
20 A. The law, as I understood it, was, was vague, and,
21 in fact, there was a case from 1923 in Brooklyn Supreme
22 Court that found a statute almost identical in verbiage to
23 the one at issue to be unconstitutional. So the exact
24 situation was in 1923, a Supreme Court justice of New York
25 State ruled that --

82
2 THE COURT: I have no idea what he's talking
3 about. Can we clarify this --
4 MR. LOWELL: Yes.
5 THE COURT: -- as to what issue we're talking
6 about here. And I don't want to hear about a 1923 Supreme
7 Court decision.
8 BY MR. LOWELL
9 Q. I don't, I don't -- putting aside the Supreme
10 Court decision, what the Judge said, put -- tell us just
11 what you told Miss George.
13 Q. And tell us the subject matter pertained to. I
14 think you said it was vague. Is that the subject?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Just tell me -- and in explaining its being a
17 vague subject --
18 A. Right.
19 Q. -- did you explain that there was a opinion in
20 your head?
21 A. Yes. I --
22 Q. And did you explain that it was -- what's the
23 opinion between it being vague and what you said about this
24 opinion, without telling us about the opinion.
25 THE COURT: Tell us what you told -- tell us

83
1 about the conversation --
2 A. Right.
3 THE COURT: -- with Miss George.
4 BY MR. LOWELL:
5 Q. Well, then tells us please.
6 A. I told her that there was a Supreme Court ruling
7 in Brooklyn that found the language of the statute
8 unconstitutional.
10 THE COURT: I'll allow this. Go ahead.
11 BY MR. LOWELL:
12 Q. And just to be clear, in New York, the Supreme
13 Court is actually the lowest court --
14 A. The lowest, correct.
15 Q. -- in the process right?
16 THE COURT: Let me stop you. Just to avoid
17 some confusion here. We are, unlike -- every other state in
18 the union sets up their court differently. I say every
19 other state. There might be one or two others. In New York
20 State, the highest court is the Court of Appeals. In the
21 federal level would be the equivalent of the Supreme Court
22 at the federal level. At the state level, you then have
23 Appellate Divisions that, there are four of them in New York
24 State which are the intermediate appellate courts. And then
25 in general your trial courts are Supreme Courts. Beneath

84
1 that comes specialized courts, like court of claims that
2 you've heard about and other lower courts. Go ahead.
3 MR. LOWELL: Thank you.
4 BY MR. LOWELL:
5 Q. Okay. So to move this along, please --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- you said to her that she asked you about the
8 contours of this issue of whether public legislators
9 employees could have part time, and you were saying that as
10 to this issue... And now pick it up from there as to the
11 issue of this point, what did you tell her?
12 A. I told her that the law was not clear and ... and
13 that there had been a lower court case that held so, and
14 that the language -- and the reason that it's not clear is
15 because the language in Section 74 is --
18 MR. LOWELL: And what -- I'm sorry, I'll
19 finish this, Judge.
20 BY MR. LOWELL
21 Q. The issue being the issue of the conflict of
22 interest law, both in the one you were telling her about --
23 A. Right.
24 Q. -- and the one she was asking you about?
25 A. Yeah.
85
1 Q. And that's what --
2 A. It's, it's a penal statute that is not -- it's
3 auditory. In other words, it's directed -- it's like you
4 should do this, you should do that. There isn't any clear
5 line where conduct in violation of this statute lies. So
6 you don't know if you're on one side of it or the other.
7 And that's the problem with the statute.
8 Q. Thank you. And the issue to the issue of whether
9 or not the unions for whom Mr. Wright -- sorry -- Mr. Bruno
10 and Wright Investors Services were doing any work, did the
11 topic of whether there were any public funds come up?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And did you and Mr. Riddett do something to find
14 out whether there was an answer to that question?
15 A. Yes. There was an inquiry made as to whether or
16 not public funds were involved in any of these engagements.
17 And it was determined that there was not.
18 THE COURT: Inquiry to whom?
19 THE WITNESS: Ah, oh, who was asked?
20 THE COURT: Right.
21 THE WITNESS: Probably to Wright to Wright
22 Investors Services, as far as I know.
23 BY MR. LOWELL
24 Q. Did Mr. Riddett go and do any research to see
25 whether or not there were any New York State funds in

86
1 these -- any of these funds (sic)?
2 A. I believe he did, but I'm not certain exactly.
3 Q. But you were in a conversation in which the
4 results were reported?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And that's what you remember being reported?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you have any reason to know that that was not
9 an accurate statement of --
10 A. No. No.
11 Q. I would like to turn to the next topic that you
12 were asked about, the issue of Mr. Bruno's employment with
13 entities by which there is the name Sage, Interliant, and
14 VyTek.
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. You were asked to look at GT 1. And I would like
17 to put that on the screen. Do you see GT 1 on your screen?
18 A. Yes. It's a little small in the print.
19 Q. We can enlarge it so that you recognize it.
20 MR. LOWELL: If you'll just enlarge the Sage
21 part down to there, please, John. That's good.
22 Q. The question was asked, were you involved or
23 sought, and your answer, I think, was no.
24 A. No.
25 Q. But that doesn't mean that some other lawyer

87
1 wasn't involved in the process, given what you understood
2 Mr. Bruno's practice to be, correct?
3 A. That could be the case.
4 Q. You were showed GT 1, correct?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. You were showed GT 13. Would you put the front
7 page of GT 13 up. Do you remember seeing that yesterday?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You were shown GT 14?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You were showed GT 17?
12 A. Yes.
14 A. Correct.
16 A. Also. Yes.
17 Q. You were showed the first page of GT 12? Do you
18 remember that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now let's look at the second page, please. Do you
21 see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you see the markings?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Do you recognize the handwriting?

88
1 A. No, I do not.
2 Q. Do you see the date?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you know which attorney that you identified was
5 involved in Mr. Bruno's office on or around that date?
6 A. Yes. That would be Tim Collins would have been
7 the chief counsel.
8 Q. And do you recognize Mr. Collins' handwriting when
9 you see it?
10 A. No, I don't. He didn't work there long enough for
11 me to recognize it.
12 Q. And you weren't shown G B 23. Would you put GB 23
13 on the board -- on the screen? You weren't shown this.
14 Could you look at the second -- sorry -- third and fourth
15 page. First the third. Do you see that handwriting?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you recognize it at least as being the same as
18 the handwriting before?
20 MR. LOWELL: Withdraw the question.
22 MR. LOWELL: Withdraw the question. Sorry.
23 BY MR. LOWELL
24 Q. Would you look at the fourth page of this document
25 which is in evidence? You do see it's a heavily marked up

89
1 piece the paper, correct?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 MR. LOWELL: And if you go back just for a
4 moment to the first page, please, John.
5 Q. You see the date is March 20, 1995. Do you see
6 that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. Now if you would turn to the next to
9 the last page. One more please. And if you look at the
10 bottom right.
11 A. McGinn Smith.
12 Q. Yes. Please. Would you read what it says?
13 A. See McGinn Smith letter re similar.
14 Q. Earlier you said that you had a conversation with
15 Mr. Riddett in which the issue of the McGinn Smith letter
16 came up as being applicable. Do you recall that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you see this reference to -- another reference
19 to a McGinn Smith letter?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Re similar?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you don't know who wrote that?
24 A. No, wait a minute. I would think Tim Collins,
25 since he was the lawyer who worked there, unless Senator

90
1 Bruno engaged outside counsel. But I don't know that he
2 did.
4 THE COURT: Sustained. The jury will
5 disregard that answer, please.
6 MS. COOMBE: Move to strike.
7 THE COURT: Wasn't asked for. Don't give
8 gratuitous comments, please.
9 THE WITNESS: Okay.
10 BY MR. LOWELL
11 Q. Now, you were asked questions about another
12 document that we were shown only for identification, but
13 it's been put into evidence, so I would like to put it on
14 the screen please. And that would be C 9 A.
15 MR. LOWELL: Which the Government has marked
16 as CT 35 Judge but they moved to, so I'll try to come up
17 with one.
18 Q. I would like you to first look at the document,
19 and you see the first page?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You see it says attached is a memo from Frank
22 Gluchowski which discusses the ethics implications of your
23 investment at Brunswick Equities. Do you see that?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. If you'll look at the next page. Do you see that

91
1 next page is a memo from you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Again, tell me about the process by which
4 something like this would come about.
5 A. Ken Riddett asked me to take a look at probably
6 some documents or look into some material that evidenced
7 transactions and, you know, for the ethics considerations.
8 And I did. You know, he would ask me to, you know, given
9 what I knew about the State ethics laws, to take a look and
10 see if there was anything that needed to be addressed either
11 by way of remedy or reporting financial disclosure purposes.
12 Q. When you got that kind of question from
13 Mr. Riddett, was your understanding that he wanted you to do
14 any work to come up with an answer?
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. Did Mr. Riddett tell you how he wanted you to come
17 out on the issue?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did Mr. Bruno tell you how he wanted you to come
20 out on the issue?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you actually do work on this issue?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If you'll just skim through on the screen the
25 various pages. And the next page. And the next page. And
92
1 the next page. So it shows you did quite a bit of work, is
2 that right?
3 A. Well, I've done more work on other things but,
4 yeah, there was some work done.
5 Q. If you'll look at what you did then on page two.
6 You looked up the issues, didn't you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. If you'll look at the first page, it states
9 various --
10 MR. LOWELL: I'm sorry, the next one, John.
11 Q. It states the facts that you were working with,
12 correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you had no prohibition on getting those facts,
15 right?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Mr. Riddett never said don't find out what you
18 need to know, did he?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Neither did anybody in the office?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Miss Coombe asked you if ever in providing the
23 this advice you had seen the name Sage Alerting, right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. But you did know the name Sage, didn't you?

93
1 A. I recognized Sage, but not Sage Alerting.
2 Q. And you did know Sage was related to Mr. Fassler,
3 correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Indeed, if you look at the first paragraph, what
6 does it say?
7 A. It says Brunswick Equities formed early in 2000
8 has one-third interest shareholders JLM Equities --
9 Q. You have to slow down, Mr. Gluchowski, because
10 she's trying to get it down.
11 A. Joe Magno, principal, Sage Equities, LLC, Len
12 Fassler, principal, and Capital Equities LLC, Joe Bruno,
13 principal. Brunswick Knowledge Inc. is a wholly owned
14 subsidiary of Brunswick Equities LLC.
15 Q. When you got such a request, what was your
16 understanding as to what, what Mr. Bruno or Mr. Riddett or
17 whoever initiated it was asking you to conclude?
18 A. They were asking me to take -- to consider the
19 existing law and the Public Officer's Law and legislative
20 law that pertains to ethics and determine if the transaction
21 or relationship was in any way in violation of the law so
22 that it could be fixed, and also to determine what the
23 reporting requirements would be as far as public disclosure.
24 Q. Or whether he could actually engage in the
25 enterprise?
94
1 A. Oh, yes.
2 Q. And you concluded, if you'll look at the whole
3 page of the -- the one before with Mr. Riddett. Thank you.
4 Take a look at this. We'll enlarge it and read the second
5 paragraph.
6 A. So long as no net revenues are generated from the
7 state agency contracts with Microknowledge -- which
8 Microknowledge has procured, all of which are through
9 requests for proposals and not competitively bid, there are
10 no problems for you. The law prohibits you from sharing in
11 net revenues from state contracts unless they are
12 competitively bid.
13 Q. Okay. And that's what you were saying earlier as
14 to what the -- you were advising in various occasions, this
15 is an example?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You know what prompted this request?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. Would you turn to G -- C 9 B. I'm sorry. We'll
20 put it on the screen. That's a 2000 memo. Did the issue
21 come up again?
22 A. Did it come up again?
23 Q. If you'll look at C 9 B, sir, see the first page
24 says Senator FYI?
25 A. Yes.
95
1 Q. Now turn to the second page. Can you identify
2 this?
3 A. Oh, yes, yes. This is a memo from myself to Ken
4 Riddett on Microknowledge Inc. Senator Bruno asked you
5 whether a copy of an e-mail he received regarding
6 Microknowledge Inc. was indicative of a conflict of interest
7 for him. The bulk of the e-mail is from Microknowledge
8 Inc. team not further identified to Beth Coco.
9 Q. You can stop there. I don't want to take too much
10 time on the subject.
11 A. All right.
12 Q. Now if you'll turn to the next page. Do you see
13 this memo?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you see that it's a memo from JLB to Ken
16 Riddett?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you see what the question is?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is this a conflict, question mark?
21 A. Yes, I see that.
22 Q. It says please advise.
23 A. Right.
24 Q. Did this kind of question conform to what you
25 understood the practice of Mr. Bruno was in terms of asking

96
1 for advice on issues of ethics?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Was it in conformity with what you've described as
4 what you told Helen George?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. And when this issue came up in 2001, did
7 Mr. Riddett tell you how he wanted you to come out the
8 second time?
9 A. No, not at all.
10 Q. Did Mr. Bruno?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And did you provide the advice?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And as far as you know, he followed it?
15 A. As far as I know.
16 Q. When Mr. Bruno asked you specifically or
17 Mr. Riddett asked you specifically, is something a conflict,
18 did you understand that was really him saying find a way
19 around the conflict?
20 A. No, I, I took it to mean is this a substantial
21 conflict because that's what the law prohibits.
22 Q. That's your understanding?
23 THE COURT: As you understand it.
24 A. As I understand it.
25 THE COURT: Do you understand it's not up to

97
1 you to tell us what the law is? That's all we're talking
2 about, all right?
3 THE WITNESS: All right.
4 BY MR. LOWELL
5 Q. Let's move on to the next series of contracts that
6 you were asked about, please. You were asked about
7 contracts that you had something to do with concerning an
8 entity called C T & A?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. LOWELL: Would you put G 1 on the screen
11 please? GU. I'm sorry GU 1. And if you would enlarge that
12 please. No, no, I'm sorry. Is there a way to enlarge it as
13 a whole?
14 Q. Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You identified that, that that's something you had
17 to do with?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you see the date February 18, 2004?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And now, if you'll put on either G 5 or GU 2 A, if
22 you have it on the -- in your ... it can be G 5. And you
23 see the date is the same?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And it's on your letter -- it's on your fax or...

98
1 A. Mm-hmm.
2 Q. Head.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. If you look at the second page. And you see that
5 this was something that you did, right?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. You wrote the text?
8 A. Yes. I drafted this and then faxed it to Wayne
9 Barr.
10 Q. And it came ultimately to be what was GU 1 that
11 you identified?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you got involved in this process why?
14 A. Because Senator Bruno asked me to assist him in
15 writing a contract that included reference of the Public
16 Officer Law and incorporated the terms of the agreement as
17 he understood it.
18 Q. And that was your understanding as the purpose is
19 to make sure that your review was to see whether or not the
20 law was considered?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you put it in there?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. And look at the last sentence. You've mentioned
25 something about the last sentence, at least the idea of it.

99
1 Further, we understand that you will have sole discretion to
2 determine your role in providing services to us. Do you see
3 that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You understood that Mr. Bruno was a part-time
6 legislator?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Like many, many of the legislators?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And was balancing his time between public and
11 private service?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And so he needed discretion as to how he could
14 perform those jobs, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you all made that clear?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Miss Coombe showed you one particular financial
19 disclosure form and asked you where was GU 1 represented.
20 You said you thought it was in the question which it listed
21 Capital Business Consultants. Remember that?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. And she said but this contract says the name Joe
24 Bruno. Remember?
25 A. Yes, I do.
100
1 Q. But many of the other contracts in the same
2 company had Capital Business Consultants?
4 Q. Didn't it? And when you're going to determine
5 what entity to put on the form, do you want to see who's
6 writing the checks?
7 A. Let me -- can I answer why some are Senator Bruno
8 and why some are Capital Business.
9 Q. As best you can.
10 A. Sure. Um, I just followed Senator Bruno's
11 direction. At first he said this is a contract between
12 himself and this entity. I didn't -- I don't think I even
13 knew Capital Business Consultants existed --
14 Q. When did you --
15 A. -- when I did the ones with his name. And then
16 when -- at some point he told me, no, no, they should be
17 Capital Business Consultants. So it was really a mistake.
18 Q. That's what I wanted to indicate. If it was done
19 differently one time, it was a mistake?
20 A. Yes, it was. I mean I probably should have been
21 more --
22 Q. Look at --
23 A. -- more aggressive in asking -- you know, making
24 sure that he wanted his name on it. But I didn't think of
25 it. At the time I was into listening to what he said and

101
1 following the direction.
2 Q. The document you just looked at the draft was
3 February of '04, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. But just ten months later, here's another
6 contract, same entity, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And it's still in '04, isn't it?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And would you read the last sentence of the first
11 paragraph?
12 A. This letter will confirm the termination of our
13 engagement by both C & TA and CTA of Capital Business
14 Consultants effective December 31, 2004.
15 Q. So you certainly knew at that point --
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. -- that CBC, Capital Business Consultants, was the
18 entity, right?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. And you were shown GU 15, and I would like to do
21 that again, please. GU 15 was a contract that took over in
22 December of '04. Do you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you were asked about it. It's a company
25 called Motient.
102
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you see that? And above Mr. Bruno's signature,
3 what's listed?
4 A. Capital Business Consultants.
5 Q. And in terms of this particular contract, on
6 December 20th, would you look at G 7 A? Hold on. I'm
7 sorry. Not G. Our G. Defendant's Exhibit G 7 A.
8 MR. LOWELL: Your Honor, we would move into
9 evidence defendant's G 7 A, as in alpha.
10 MS. COOMBE: No objection.
11 THE COURT: John.
12 THE CLERK: It's not in yet.
13 THE COURT: Okay. We're all on the same
14 sheet of music. It had not been admitted. It now is.
15 MR. LOWELL: This is a record. Would you
16 please put it up.
17 Q. And look at the second page first. And this is a
18 contract you would have been involved in the writing of,
19 correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. It says in the very first line Capital Business
22 Consultants, correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. It's also in 2004, right?
25 A. Right.
103
1 Q. And look at the first page. This confirms that
2 this was something you were involved in, because it's being
3 sent to you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And if you look at G 6 please. This was I think
6 admitted. It's Government's Exhibit G 6. GU 6. Government
7 GU 6 please. Thank you. This is from you to Senator Bruno.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And in the very first paragraph, you're indicating
10 early this month you had a conversation with Jerry
11 Abbruzzese about terminating the current consulting
12 contracts with Capital Business Consultants. Right?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. There was never an attempt by you or anybody to
15 not show that Capital Business Consultants was Mr. Bruno's
16 business, right?
17 A. No, not at all.
18 Q. And you were in the process?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. If -- please, I would like to..
21 MR. LOWELL: Your Honor, we would look like
22 to move into evidence defendant's G 29.
25 BY MR. LOWELL:
104
1 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm going to put it on the screen
2 and enlarge it just a bit. Can you identify the handwriting
3 on the bottom?
4 A. That's mine.
5 Q. And this would indicate you were involved in the
6 revision or review of this contract?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And, again, it clearly identifies Capital Business
9 Consultants on the top, right?
10 A. Yes, it does.
11 Q. And it reflects that you were involved in the
12 process?
13 A. Yes, it does.
14 Q. And if you look at GU 21.
15 MR. LOWELL: And if you'll enlarge the whole
16 thing, please, John.
17 Q. And you see that this is an e-mail from W. Barr
18 Jr. to Rob Macklin. I don't know if you know who those are.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Some of them you do, right?
21 A. Right. I know the names, yes.
22 Q. And you knew they were associated with the
23 entities --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- that you were seeing contracts from?

105
2 Q. And you see it says: Please coordinate through
3 Frank Gluchowski, Esquire.
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. LOWELL: Okay. Clear the screen.
6 BY MR. LOWELL:
7 Q. And if you'll look at --
8 MR. LOWELL: I would like to move, it hasn't
9 been, your Honor, Defendant's G, as in golf, 28.
12 BY MR. LOWELL
13 Q. This is a fax cover, the same as you had seen
14 before to you from Mr. Macklin.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And this one dated July 28, '05?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Covers another of the drafts of the agreement if
19 you look at the second page.
20 A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
21 Q. Right? And it reflects again you're in the
22 process looking at these contracts?
24 Q. And in your head, at the time that you were
25 looking at the CTA, C T & A, Motient, Terrestar, you

106
1 absolutely knew that these companies had something to do
2 with Jerry Abbruzzese; correct?
3 A. Yes. Well, it was my understanding that they
4 were.
5 Q. Right.
6 A. I mean I didn't have any physical evidence. You
7 know, I didn't have documents that showed his connection,
8 but I was under the belief that he was associated with these
9 companies in some fashion.
10 Q. Because either Miss Stackrow or Mr. Bruno or
11 somebody told you?
12 A. It was, it was more from the continuation of the
13 contracts after the first one.
14 Q. Which you knew?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Okay. Nothing had changed, as far as you knew?
18 Q. And you said that you did this work. Miss Coombe
19 asked you why did you use your letterhead --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- on some of these.
22 A. Right.
23 Q. And you indicated you explained why?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In part of your job as being the lawyer in the

107
1 committee and in Mr. Bruno's -- in the majority
2 conference --
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. -- which is a way of saying, I guess, where the
5 party in control has the most employees, is that fair?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You saw the overlap between some of his private
8 matters and ethics laws, right?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And that's why you were involved?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And it took some amount your time?
13 A. Some.
14 Q. But that was okay; you were an ethics lawyer, and
15 you thought that that was okay?
16 A. Yes. I thought it was perfectly -- I thought it
17 was part of my job.
18 Q. And in addition, I mean I take it, did you work
19 just 40 hours a week on your Senate work?
20 A. No.
21 Q. So you worked more than your salary?
22 A. Typically 50, 60 hours a week, and I would wind up
23 with several hundred hours in excess of the requirement.
24 Q. You were asked some questions about some horse
25 transactions. Going to turn to those.

108
1 If you can, please, ...
2 MR. LOWELL: Your Honor, we would move into
3 evidence, with the agreement as I will explain it when it
4 gets to the issue, Defendant's K 2.
5 MS. COOMBE: Based on the proposed
6 stipulation that Mr. Lowell and I have discussed, I -- the
7 Government has no objection.
8 THE COURT: Well, just characterize the
9 stipulation for me. Is it admitted subject to redaction?
10 MR. LOWELL: No, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Is it admitted subject to
12 limitation?
13 MR. LOWELL: It is being admitted for the
14 distinction between an appraisal and a valuation letter.
15 THE COURT: As long as the Government is
16 satisfied to that, there's no objection to the admission of
17 the entire exhibit.
18 MS. COOMBE: That's correct, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I'll
20 admitted it.
21 MR. LOWELL: Thank you, sir.
22 Q. Let me show you K 2. Thank you. You see the
23 front page from Amy, who you recognize to be somebody in
24 Senator Bruno's office?
25 A. Yes.
109
1 Q. And the Frank there would be you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And it says: The first two pages are the details
4 about the horses involved. The next seven pages of the
5 contract. Let me know what you think. Thank you. Do you
6 see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And this would conform to the practice that you
9 explained about having transactions which might implicate
10 ethics that you were put in the process of?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if you'll turn to the second page, do you see
13 that this is a letter on the letterhead of WTC, Work
14 Thoroughbred Consultants?
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. And it's dated April 1, 2004?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. This is a letter, you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. This is not an appraisal, is it?
21 A. No.
22 Q. It's a letter valuation?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Where this person is expressing his opinion?
25 A. Correct.
110
1 Q. And he's expressing his opinion about thoroughbred
2 horses?
3 A. Mm-hmm yes.
4 Q. You see what they are, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And he says that it is my opinion that 50,000 for
7 this package would offer fair market value to a potential
8 buyer?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And that's for three?
12 Q. Turning to the next page. It's the exact same
13 date, correct?
14 A. I can't see it.
15 Q. I'm sorry.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And it's from a different entity. This one called
18 Highclere.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. A man by the name of Stuart Morris?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you know whether he wears a hat?
23 A. Yes.
24 THE COURT: Do you know whether he's related
25 to Kobe Bryant?
111
1 THE WITNESS: I suspect not. (Laughter.)
2 I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.
3 MR. LOWELL: That's all right. (Laughter.)
4 BY MR. LOWELL:
5 Q. It says Dear Dr. Bilinski. I'm sorry,
6 Mr. Gluchowski. It says Dear Dr. Bilinski. And then he
7 says follows our appraisals. He uses that phrase, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. But this is also a letter, isn't it?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And it indicates the same horses, if you'll look
12 at the one before and the one ...
13 A. Yes, it does.
14 Q. If you add up the numbers, his comes to 105,000?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So on the very same day, two different people that
17 are doing valuations of the same horses are presenting two
18 different valuations?
19 A. Correct.
20 MS. COOMBE: Objection. That's the point of
21 the stipulation, is there's a difference between valuation
22 and appraisal.
23 MR. LOWELL: I just said two different
24 valuations. I used the exact phrase, two different
25 valuations.
112
1 MS. COOMBE: That's not --
2 THE COURT: How am I going to resolve a
3 discrepancy over the stipulation?
4 MS. COOMBE: Well, I object to the form of
5 the question.
6 MR. LOWELL: All right. I withdraw the
7 question, Judge.
9 MR. LOWELL: I want to be as fair on this as
10 I can be. I thought I did it right.
11 BY MR. LOWELL:
12 Q. Can you look at the first one please? Does it
13 list three horses?
14 A. Yes, it does.
15 Q. Does Mr. Werk give his opinion?
16 A. Yes, he gives an opinion.
17 Q. What does he give his opinion as being the value?
18 What does he say? What does it read in the last sentence?
19 A. He's saying that in his opinion $50,000 for the
20 package, that being three horses, would offer fair market
21 value to a potential buyer.
22 Q. Okay. Now turn to the second, and I don't know
23 that this is that difficult, can you see the numbers for --
24 that are expressed there?
25 A. Right.
113
1 Q. Can you add up, can you add up the numbers?
2 A. Yeah, 95,000 and 45, so it would be 140.
3 Q. You can see that on the same day there are
4 different numbers?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Thank you. If you look at the next page. That's
7 an actual letterhead of a law firm?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. That was involved in this transaction, as you
10 understood?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if you turn to the next page. You see what it
13 says? It says to Honorable Joe Bruno, enclosed herewith is
14 the agreement of purchase and sale. Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And this was part of the package Mr. Bruno wanted
17 you to look over?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Do you know anything about horses at the time?
20 A. No. I had been to Saratoga and I knew how to lose
21 money. (Laughter)
22 Q. Did you know, did you know a good deal about
23 ethics?
24 A. I knew something about it, yes.
25 Q. Were you looking at this to determine anything

114
1 about the quality of the thoroughbred or about whether this
2 contract was something that Mr. Bruno could do?
3 A. I looked at it to determine whether or not I
4 thought it was something Senator Bruno could do ethically.
5 Q. And on that subject, you were shown a series of
6 documents. May I please put GU 56 to begin with. Do you
7 remember talking about this one?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. LOWELL: And the second page, please,
10 John.
11 Q. It says March 1, 2006?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. You understood that's when the parties came to
14 what you called a meeting of the minds?
15 A. Yes. I, I -- that's my understanding, yes.
16 Q. It's not unusual for an agreement to be made on a
17 day and then the paperwork follow after, is it?
18 A. No. In fact, when I did this, what my first
19 concern was whether or not I could date a document
20 March 1st that was being signed sometime later.
21 Q. And you looked into it?
22 A. So I researched it, and I determined that there's
23 no prohibition as long as that's when the meeting of the
24 minds occurred; that that was my opinion that you could do
25 that.
115
1 Q. And that's what you so did?
2 A. Exactly.
3 Q. And in 2006, when this was occurring, you were
4 explaining that you understood the reason to dissolve their
5 interests was for a particular reason?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What was the reason that they were going to
8 dissolve their relationship?
9 A. Because Mr. Abbruzzese was contemplating entering
10 into a relationship with an entity that was going to bid on
11 the NYRA franchise.
12 Q. And that would have been something that he,
13 Mr. Bruno, would be prohibited to have a relationship in,
14 correct?
15 A. (No response.)
16 Q. Well, I'm sorry. Tell me why that was something
17 that required dissolution of their relationship on horses.
18 A. Well, it would certain -- NYRA, the NYRA franchise
19 was a big deal, a lot of money involved, and if
20 Mr. Abbruzzese was going to compete for the franchise, it
21 would be very problematic for Senator Bruno to be his
22 business partner, especially in a horse transaction. Just,
23 just wouldn't look right. So ... you know, I don't know
24 that it would be found outright illegal, but I think it
25 would certainly be problematic.

116
1 Q. When you say illegal, you mean a violation of an
2 ethics law?
3 A. In violation of the law.
4 Q. As you understood it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. But this was an attempt to make sure that wasn't
7 the case?
8 A. As far as I knew, that's what it was.
9 Q. It was dissolving this arrangement in a goal to
10 make sure there was no ethics issues?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. That's how you understood your role?
13 A. That's exactly right.
14 Q. And on the bottom of this page -- I'm sorry, I may
15 have the wrong page. If you'll put up GU 57. If you look
16 at the bottom of the page.
17 MR. LOWELL: Ask if we can enlarge this, just
18 the last part. Thank you, John.
19 Q. There's a whole lot of horses being discussed and
20 a whole lot of interests and it indicates that there be a
21 $80,000 payment. Do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. In those interests.
24 A. Mm-hmm.
25 Q. If you'll turn to GU 45, which Miss Coombe showed

117
1 you. That was also a bill of sale having to do with a horse
2 interest, right?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And that sum was for $80,000, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you -- I take it did you know or not know
7 anything about how the valuation of these horses were done?
8 A. I, I had seen something somewhere that provided
9 some insight as to what at least someone thought the horses
10 were valued. So I did some analysis to determine that this
11 amount would be in the range of that valuation stated.
12 Q. Okay. Did you understand the valuation system of
13 horses was far from a science?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Would it be fair to characterize it as very
16 subjective?
17 A. I think that's fair.
18 Q. You said something about in trying to come to an
19 issue of financial disclosure, you wanted to determine
20 whether this arrangement was a partnership or a joint
21 venture.
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Why?
24 A. Because a partnership requires specific reporting
25 on the financial disclosure statement, while a joint venture

118
1 could be disclosed in other ways, such as the disclosure
2 through the entity Mountain View Farm, which was where
3 Senator Bruno's interests in the horses were located and
4 operated, as far as I knew.
5 Q. Do you have an understanding of why joint ventures
6 don't need to be reported and partnerships do?
7 A. No, I think it's just a -- I think it's just an
8 anomaly in the law. I think when the law was written,
9 nobody thought about joint ventures. I'm sure if somebody
10 had, they would have included joint venture in the
11 requirement to be listed.
12 THE COURT: Is it your opinion --
13 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
14 THE COURT: -- your understanding that a
15 joint venture is something other than a partnership?
16 THE WITNESS: My understanding is that a
17 joint venture may be a partnership, but may not be a
18 partnership.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 BY MR. LOWELL:
21 Q. And those are very technical legal differences?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And, please, would you look at K 29 that was
24 admitted yesterday or the day before. And if you look at
25 the last page. I'm sorry, the last two pages. And if
119
1 you'll enlarge the -- that's it, enlarge the one on the left
2 please.
3 Do you see a -- this appears to be a
4 reconciliation of various expenses for various of the
5 entities involved?
6 A. Yes. I don't think I've ever seen this before,
7 though, but that's what it appears to be.
8 Q. Okay. Do you see that for April '04, there's
9 expenses listed?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you see that those expenses are different?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Okay. If you look down to the next item. You see
14 the next entry about expenses, and they're different?
15 A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
16 Q. Do you see that?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. And if you look at the next one, they appear to be
19 the same?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And if you look at the next one, they appear to be
22 the same?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if you look at the next one, they're
25 different?
120
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. One of the issues you said you were taking into
3 consideration as to whether or not the expenses or profits
4 were the same, right?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And this document appears to indicate that
7 sometimes they weren't?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. So in informing you -- I know you didn't see the
10 document -- you were looking to determine whether that was
11 the case?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And it was one of the factors you put in your head
14 to make a decision as to whether or not this venture was a
15 joint venture, is that true?
16 A. That's true.
17 Q. And with what you saw, what you did, you made a
18 conclusion?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And the conclusion was?
21 A. That it was a joint venture and not a partnership.
22 Q. And Mr. --
23 A. But I made that conclusion in 2006.
24 Q. Right.
25 A. Not in 2005.
121
1 Q. Did Mr. Bruno direct you to any particular result
2 in your analysis?
3 A. No.
4 Q. And given your experience with Mr. Bruno, if you
5 would have said, guess what, it's a partnership, put it on
6 the form, what would he have done?
7 A. I believe he would have complied, because he
8 always did.
9 Q. I would like to turn to a document GV 6 that you
10 were shown. This was having to do with BB Gardner. You
11 understand BB Gardner to be an entity associated with the
12 man on the left Russell Ball?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And it follows the same form of contract that we
15 have identified probably too many times.
16 A. Yes, it is the same form.
17 Q. And you were involved in the process?
18 A. Yes, I was.
19 Q. And, again, on the bottom it says Capital Business
20 Consultants.
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Now, do you happen to know from your involvement
23 in Mr. Bruno's involvement, when, if any, there were
24 disputes between Roadway Contracting, an entity that
25 Mr. Ball was associated with, and ConEd? Do you know what
122
1 years?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Do you know if they predated the years of this
4 consultancy?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. Do you know whether or not this consultancy had
7 anything to do with paying Mr. Bruno to help with those
8 disputes?
9 A. No, I don't.
10 Q. You mentioned that it had something to do with
11 expanding business?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you know whether it had anything to do with
14 expanding business beyond ConEdison?
15 A. Yes. I believe, I believe Senator Bruno indicated
16 in the conversation that, that Russ Ball was looking to move
17 both into Westchester work and Long Island work, yeah Long
18 Island, yeah.
19 Q. Now --
20 A. The adjacent --
21 Q. Sorry.
22 A. The adjacent counties to New York City.
23 Q. And in terms of what Mr. Bruno did, you were asked
24 questions, what did he do for his $20,000 a month for one
25 company; you remember that question?

123
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you were asked what did he do for his $10,000
3 for another company, do you remember that?
4 A. Right. Yes.
5 Q. You were asked what did he do for Mr. Gardner,
6 right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I'm sorry. For BB Gardner, right?
9 A. Mm-hmm.
10 Q. The people he was working with, Mr. Ball,
11 Mr. Abbruzzese, Mr. Fassler, would they be good people to
12 ask what it was he was doing?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Would you be a good person to ask?
15 A. Not in my opinion, because Senator Bruno and I did
16 not typically discuss his day-to-day outside activities.
17 Q. Let me turn to the topic of the Dave Perdue issue
18 which you did.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You said you identified Dave Perdue, you knew who
21 he was.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. How did you know who he was?
24 A. Senator Bruno had sent me a document, some sort of
25 contract to look at, and I think Dave Perdue's name was

124
1 somewhere on it, in some of that material. Might not have
2 been on the actual contract but may have been on some
3 additional cover sheet or whatever.
4 Q. And that form -- sorry. Did that follow the same
5 process of Mr. Bruno asking one of his ethics lawyers to
6 look at a contract?
7 A. Yes, it did.
8 Q. And you did as you had done the other?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Perdue?
11 A. I, I don't recall that I did, but I may have,
12 because I, I think there's some evidence that I did.
13 Q. Well, I don't know if there's evidence. Can I put
14 on GW 3. This is in evidence. GW. And if you would
15 enlarge the -- it says Dave Perdue. Can you see that on
16 top?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. If you kind of keep going and enlarge down further
19 please, right in the middle. That's it. Thank you.
20 Do you see the entry that says 4/23/2004?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Joe will have his attorney Frank Glocoski -- sorry
23 for the spelling -- call me.
24 A. I see that.
25 Q. Does that help refresh as to whether or not you

125
1 had a conversation.
2 A. It leads me to believe that it's quite possible
3 that I did. But do I recall the actual conversation? No.
4 Q. Whether you did or did not have a conversation,
5 you're sure you were in the process?
6 A. Oh, yeah.
7 Q. And you're sure you looked at the contract?
8 A. I'm sure. And I'm sure Senator Bruno talked to me
9 about it, and I'm sure I said it wasn't a good idea. That's
10 what I remember.
11 Q. You know after giving your advice Mr. Bruno didn't
12 enter into this contract with Mr. Perdue?
13 A. Well, I don't believe he did.
14 Q. Another example of his following your advice?
15 A. Appears to be so.
16 MR. LOWELL: I have one last topic, your
17 Honor, but it will take more than five minutes. Would you
18 like me to continue?
19 THE COURT: How long will it take in your
20 best estimate?
21 MR. LOWELL: I think 15 or 20. Probably 15
22 or 20.
23 THE COURT: Well, I know Miss Coombe is going
24 to have some questions in cross. So we'll give you 65
25 minutes today. So we're going to adjourn for lunch at this

126
UNITED STATES v BRUNO 09-CR-29
1 point until 1:00. The jury will step aside. The parties
2 will remain for a second please. You're excused, Mr.
3 Gluchowski.
4 THE WITNESS: Can I walk out right now?
5 THE COURT: Sure.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
7 (Jury excused at 11:55 AM.)
8 THE COURT: On the record please. As we wind
9 this down and we think about the topic that I discussed with
10 the attorneys last night, in anticipation of explanations
11 offered to the jury, I want to give you a quick vignette of
12 precisely what I'm talking about that could lead to a
13 question by them. And I am not commenting on the good faith
14 defense and the predicate for that. I understand that as a
15 separate issue. Who told who what and upon what advice did
16 somebody rely is a separate issue under the good faith
17 defense. But the question well could come up, given the
18 nature of the examination that's been conducted, from the
19 jury about one legal aspect or another. So let me give you
20 a vignette of what I just heard and the difficulties in that
21 regard.
22 Here is somebody who clearly was a component
23 at one time or another of the New York State Legislative
24 Ethics Committee. By law, a joint venture is a partnership.
25 By law, that's what it is. Here, we have a law requiring

127
1 legislators to disclose their interests in partnerships and
2 we have advice being given that you don't have to disclose
3 your interest in a partnership. That's the gist of it, that
4 is the kind of problem I'm talking about, not from the
5 context of the issues in this case, but in the context of
6 what advice I give that jury, either in my direct charge or
7 as we anticipate questions they may have during their
8 deliberations. I only point that out because here's a
9 vignette that is exactly what I was talking about last
10 night, and everybody better give some thought to that as we
11 engage in that process. Mr. Lowell.
12 MR. LOWELL: Yes, just briefly, your Honor.
13 You have way more experience than I do on this subject, but
14 I do want you to know that we did independent research and I
15 just have to tell you that we disagree. That there is a
16 profound set of law on what a joint venture is.
17 THE COURT: There's a profound set of federal
18 law on what a joint venture is versus a partnership, but
19 that's not what I'm talking about.
20 MR. LOWELL: Okay.
21 THE COURT: What I'm talking about is, the
22 law we're dealing here with is the Public Officer's Law,
23 which requires legislators to disclose their interests in
24 various entities. If the object of the law is disclosure,
25 and the Legislature has made a decision that some interest

128
1 in a partnership is included in that law, so that it should
2 be disclosed, then advice given the differences between
3 joint ventures and partnerships, not to disclose, in my
4 view, is hardly consistent with the purpose of that law.
5 MR. LOWELL: That's right. But that's -- the
6 issue is whether or not the state ethics committee ought to
7 take this issue and either, one, clarify it, which the
8 present law amendment will do, but more importantly,
9 discipline people if they don't. But that's the nebulous
10 ground we're in. Because, Judge, I just want to again
11 press, we gave you this, look at the disclosure forms from
12 other legislators, to be informed as to whether everybody on
13 the planet --
14 THE COURT: I've looked at your summary
15 exhibit. I beat to death the issue of foundation with you.
16 Unless you --
17 MR. LOWELL: Right.
18 THE COURT: Unless you offer appropriate
19 foundation, that exhibit is not going into evidence. We're
20 not concerned here with what every other legislator did.
21 This is not what this trial is about. Based on the
22 foundation that's been presented to me so far. I'm not
23 going to rule on it until whatever foundation is going to be
24 laid is laid, and then the offer is made, I will then
25 determine at that point. But I have long since ruled, under

129
1 Rule 403, we're not getting off into what anyone else may
2 have done. The issue here is what was done here and what
3 the foundation was for what was done.
4 MR. LOWELL: I get -- look, I do understand,
5 and I understand the foundation issue has to be addressed.
6 The last point I would make on this, and I
7 now understand what you now meant about partnership and
8 joint venture is. I'm not sitting here telling you I know
9 what's supposed to be done and not supposed to be done. I
10 have no clue. I have less clue now than when I started this
11 case. But what I do know on this issue is joint ventures or
12 other financial entanglements get put on question 4 or
13 question 5, that's where the advice that whoever gives all
14 of these legislators, I think, makes those documents
15 relevant. Because you'll never find anything like what you
16 and I might think, hmmm, they wanted full disclosure. It
17 should be whether it's a partnership, a joint venture, a
18 handshake, we're in a club. I mean look at question 4. I
19 don't think question 4 even requires you putting in any way
20 business entity. It looks like "other". Some do. Some
21 don't. And we'll revisit that at the right time when you
22 tell me.
23 THE COURT: Yeah, but what others may or may
24 not have done on the basis on any evidence I've heard thus
25 far is not sufficient to constitute a foundation.

130
1 MR. LOWELL: Not even -- well, we are going
2 to put together what Mr. Riddett said on the subject.
3 THE COURT: I understand exactly what you're
4 going to do. To the extent you've asked, for instance,
5 Mr. Gluchowski, is the advice you gave Senator Bruno
6 consistent with the advice that you gave others, that's as
7 far as we're going with that issue. There was an objection
8 to that question. I allowed the answer for precisely that
9 purpose. But we're not going beyond that under Rule 403.
10 MR. LOWELL: Okay. I understand.
11 THE COURT: Unless, unless some additional
12 foundation is laid. And I believe that, without addressing
13 what that is -- defense counsel, the Government, and I know
14 what I'm talking about. In other words, it has to do with
15 the details of the good faith defense and what constitutes a
16 predicate and what doesn't.
17 All right. Thank you.
18 MR. LOWELL: Thank you, Judge.
19 (Lunch recess at 12:03 PM.)
20 * * * * *
21
22
23
24
25

t111909 Us V Bruno Am

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

t111909 Us V Bruno Am

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

8 TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL held in and for the

9 United States District Court, Northern District of New York,

10 James T. Foley United States Courthouse, 445 Broadway,

11 Albany, New York, on THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2009, the

12 HON. GARY L. SHARPE, United States District Court Judge,

16 FOR THE GOVERNMENT:

17 UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE - NDNY

18 BY: ELIZABETH C. COOMBE, AUSA and

19 BY: WILLIAM C. PERICAK, AUSA

21 FOR THE DEFENDANT:

22 McDERMOTT, WILL LAW FIRM

23 BY: ABBE D. LOWELL, ESQ. and PAUL M. THOMPSON, ESQ.

24 DREYER, BOYAJIAN LAW FIRM

25 BY: WILLIAM J. DREYER, ESQ. and APRIL M. WILSON, ESQ.

1 (Court commenced at 9:00 AM.)

2 (Jury present at 9:00 AM.)

3 THE COURT: Good morning.

4 THE JURY: Good morning.

5 THE COURT: Miss Coombe, are you still up?

6 MS. COOMBE: I am still up, your Honor, thank

8 THE COURT: All right.

9 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COOMBE (cont'd):

10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Gluchowski.

11 A. Good morning, Miss Coombe.

13 MS. COOMBE: May I approach, your Honor?

14 THE COURT: Yes.

16 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm handing you Government's

17 Exhibit GT 35. It's not in evidence. It's just been marked

18 for identification purposes.

21 THE COURT: Bonnie, let the record reflect

22 that the document is a multi-page document and the witness

23 is reviewing the document. Thank you. (Very long pause.)

24 A. Okay. I'm through.

25 Q. Are these the memoranda that you testified about

3 Q. -- that the defense team brought to your attention

6 MS. COOMBE: May I approach, your Honor?

7 THE COURT: Yes.

9 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm handing you the following

10 Government's Exhibits: GT 1, GT 12, and then GT 13, GT 14,

11 GT 21 and 25 and GT 17. Could we look at GT 1, please?

13 Q. This is an agreement with Sage Alerting Systems

16 Q. Does GT 35, the memoranda that you just reviewed,

17 refer at all to Sage Alerting Systems Incorporated?

18 A. No, it does not.

19 Q. Could we look now, please, at GT 12?

21 Q. This is an agreement with Sage Networks

22 Incorporated. Do any of the memoranda in GT 35 refer to

23 Sage Networks Incorporated?

25 Q. If we could look now, if you could look at GT 13

1 14, 21 and 35. We'll just look at GT 13.

3 Q. Those are agreements and extension of agreements

6 Q. Do the memoranda in GT 35 refer at all to

8 A. No, I don't see that.

9 Q. If we could look please at GT 17. That's an

10 agreement with VyTek Wireless Incorporated?

12 Q. Does GT 35 refer at all to VyTek Wireless

14 A. No, I don't see that.

15 Q. What did Senator Bruno do for the companies

16 affiliated with Mr. Fassler in the agreements that we've

17 just looked at?