UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK, D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON, and D-3 BERNARD N. KILPATRICK, Defendants. ______________________________/ Case No. 10-CR-20403 Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

EXCERPT OF JURY TRIAL VOLUME 81 Detroit, Michigan - Friday, February 15, 2013 APPEARANCES:
For the Government: Mark Chutkow R. Michael Bullotta Jennifer Leigh Blackwell Eric Doeh United States Attorney's Office 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Counsel for Defendant Kwame M. Kilpatrick: James C. Thomas

Michael C. Naughton
535 Griswold, Ste. 2500 Detroit, MI 48226 313-963-2420

Appearances(continued): Counsel for Defendant Bobby W. Ferguson:
Gerald K. Evelyn 535 Griswold Susan W. Van Dusen Law Offices of Susan W. VanDusen

Suite 1030 Detroit, MI 48226 313-962-9190
Michael A. Rataj 535 Griswold, Suite 1030 Detroit, MI 48226 313-962-3500

2701 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste 315 Miami, FL 33133 305-854-6449

Counsel for Defendant Bernard N. Kilpatrick: John A. Shea Alexandrea D. Brennan 120 N. Fourth Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734-995-4646

-

-

-

Suzanne

Jacques,

Official

Court

Reporter

email: jacques@transcriptorders.com Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography. Transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.

_

_

_

Excerpt of Jury Trial Volume 81 Friday, February 15, 2013

I N D E X Proceeding Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Page 4

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Excerpt of Jury Trial Volume 81 Friday, February 15, 2013

4

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

Detroit, Michigan Friday, February 15, 2013 9:01 a.m. (Jury in 9:05 a.m.) THE COURT: everyone. We're ready for the government to give its rebuttal argument. Mr. Chutkow, you may proceed. (9:05 a.m.) MR. CHUTKOW: Thank you, Your Honor. In my opening Be seated. Good morning again, -

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

statement in this case, in the evidence that you saw at trial, in my colleague's closing argument and in the indictment that will be handed to you for your deliberations in this case, this case has always been about bribery, extortion, and fraud. Rather than meeting those allegations head on through this case, the defense has often tried to justify their actions as somehow driven by desire for the advancement of minority business enterprises and Detroit-based businesses. Now, these goals are obviously very important, but they are not what drove the defendants to take the actions that they took in this case. Through the Kilpatrick years and again in this trial, that agenda was a smokescreen for their real agenda

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

5

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

which was helping themselves to the city's resources. reality, they were equal opportunity extortionists.

In

They drove If

out black and white contractors who got in their way.

minority business enterprises got in their way, in Ferguson's or Mr. Bernard Kilpatrick's way, they crushed them, and then they laughed at these people when they came to the Kilpatrick administration for help. First, Odell Jones. As you recall, when he

confronted Mr. Ferguson about the fact that Mr. Ferguson had not provided proper safety equipment to his own workers in the Book Cadillac Hotel, Ferguson was offended that Jones had the nerve to question him. You heard from Mr. Jones that after He went

that, invitations for bids for city business dried up.

to everybody in the administration, from Christine Beatty to Derrick Miller to the mayor himself, to try to get relief. Here is what Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Kilpatrick had to say about Jones' plea to Mr. Kilpatrick's family members: Ferguson, "Odell Jones called your mama, laugh out loud." Kilpatrick, "I know, and my sister." Ferguson, "Okay, I thought it was funny, should have followed my first mind. I know he wasn't" expletive.

Kilpatrick, "Yep." And then Tom Hardiman of Lakeshore Enterprise, he was completely shut out when he tried to find out what happened

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

6

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

to those two contracts that were canceled. everyone, as well.

He went to

When Hardiman reached out to

Mr. Kilpatrick's mother, the former congresswoman, this is what the mayor and Mr. Ferguson had to say about it. him just like they had done Odell Jones. Ferguson, "Tom Hardiman, Lakeshore, they called your mother's office on us. Zeke just called me." They mocked

Kilpatrick, "Laugh out loud." Ferguson, "You got to talk to DeDan and Zeke. expletive "is funny about the" expletive "the union and Lakeshore is saying. Hey, I not know I would become the MF-ing This"

man of the real man, KMK." Bernard Kilpatrick also did not hesitate to punish minority business enterprises that got in his way. recall the testimony where Jim Jenkins, who was a minority-based enterprise and a Detroit-headquartered business here in Detroit, he had the temerity of not hiring Bernard Kilpatrick's client to haul waste from the Book Cadillac Hotel. Bernard Kilpatrick asked Bobby Ferguson, You will

Bobby Ferguson, to see if he could find some city regulators to run Jim Jenkins out of town. And then there was Eric Simmons. Mr. Evelyn in his

closing argument made much of mentoring minority business enterprises. The defense claims -- and the only example they Well, you heard

gave of that was Eric Simmons of E&T Trucking.

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

7

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

the testimony of Tom Hardiman, that Bobby Ferguson asked them to put E&T Trucking onto his bid for the 2014 contract, and after that Lakeshore, in fact, won that contract, but once they won that contract, they started giving work to E&T Trucking directly. They cut Mr. Ferguson out and started working

directly with the person whose name was on the bid. What did Bernard Parker tell you about that? said that Bobby Ferguson became furious. Why? He

Because E&T

Trucking, Eric Simmons, wasn't paying him a fee for the work that he was receiving. And so what did Bobby Ferguson tell

Bernard Parker to do, who used to work at the human resources department for the City of Detroit? He told him to "Go to your

snitches and see if you can yank Eric Simmons' Detroit-headquartered business certification." mentoring. This is not

This is kneecapping somebody that was about to

stand on their own. These sewer jobs that you've heard about in this case, they may not have been glamorous, but it was valuable work for those that did excavation in the city and those that did engineering projects in the city. Now, Mr. Thomas in his

closing said that Mr. Ferguson was out there in the cold digging sewers that no one else wanted to do. Well, tell that to Avinash Rachmale. He told you

that he was home for days sick after they lost that first contract because he didn't know what to do. Tell that to Eric

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

8

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

Simmons or to Billy Hayes, or to Willie McCormick, all of whom did that kind of work and all of whom would have been happy to be out there in the cold doing it. Now I'd like to talk about Charlie Williams and Inland Waters. When Mr. Kilpatrick came into office, the first

thing that he did was hold up that 1368 sewer lining contract. Why? He held it up until Mr. Soave and Inland Waters dumped

their qualified minority business enterprise, their partner, Charlie Williams, in favor of Bobby Ferguson. Now, the defense claims that this was somehow justified because Charlie Williams was a minority front. Well,

you've heard that Charlie Williams was the long-time director of the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department. The defendants

indicated that mentoring of small companies is laudable if it's real, and we agree with that completely. No one disputes that, After

but look at what Tony Soave did with Charlie Williams.

this incident with the 1368 sewer lining contract, he continued to invest in Charlie Williams, and he's now the chairman of a company that makes $35 million a year and employs numerous Detroit employees. That wasn't a front, and that wasn't a

smokescreen by Mr. Soave. Let's talk about the real minority fronts in this case that were used by the defendants to line their own pockets. First, Akunna Olumba, you've heard tape,

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

9

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

Bernard Kilpatrick on tape trying to insert his ex-girlfriend, Akunna Olumba, as a figurehead in a trucking business to haul waste for the Synagro project. Where is the boots on the

ground, as the defense likes to say, in that case? And then they considered putting another gentleman who happened to be Bernard Kilpatrick's son-in-law, Daniel Ferguson, as the trucker, and they were going to hide his last name. They were going to use the name Leighton(sp) as Where is the

stenciled onto the doors of the truck.

transparency that the defendants like to claim is so important? Let's talk about Archie Clark for a moment. Bernard Kilpatrick was again caught on tape again telling Karl Kado that he wanted to insert Archie Clark, his buddy, into the food service contract at Cobo. Archie Clark had no Because he was

food service experience, so why give it to him? paying Bernard Kilpatrick.

Look at the records and see how

many payments National Media, Archie Clark's company, were making to Bernard Kilpatrick. I now want to talk about Amendment Number 4 to the 1368 lining contract. Mr. Kilpatrick's team claims that he was

too busy to sign that Amendment Number 4, which he did not sign until December 23rd, 2005, yet you've heard testimony from two witnesses, Bernard Parker and Derrick Miller, plus you've seen emails that showed that contract was held up that whole summer, not just in December but that whole summer, and they told

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

10

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

you -- this was not speculation or inference -- they both said they had face-to-face conversations with the former mayor where he was saying that he was holding it up until Bobby Ferguson got satisfied, until he got his payment on that sinkhole contract. Bernard Parker even told you about a meeting that he had outside of Ferguson Enterprises' headquarters, in his parking lot because he didn't want anyone to hear it, where he confronted Mr. Parker, he said, "Why are you siding with Inland Waters against me and the mayor on this issue?" Think about that. That shows unquestionably the "Why

partnership between the mayor and Bobby Ferguson here. are you siding with Inland against me and the mayor?"

You've also heard from Derrick Miller who told you that, in a show of force, he went to a meeting on December 16 at a Detroit restaurant between a gentleman named Dennis Oszust at Inland and Bobby Ferguson, said that Dennis Oszust knew who had the backing of the administration. Mr. Miller said that he

went to the restaurant and pulled Mr. Ferguson out for half an hour while they let Mr. Oszust just sit there. meeting where that $350,000 deal took place. That was the

That was the

meeting where Mr. Ferguson got his payment on that sinkhole contract. And guess about timing? One week later is when

Kwame Kilpatrick signed that special administrator's order giving the $12 million to Inland Waters.

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

11

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

Now, the defense claims that Bernard Parker is somehow tethered to the government. that means. I'm not sure exactly what

Mr. Parker was subpoenaed to testify in this case, There is no benefit he is receiving

just like everybody else.

aside from the witness fee that every single witness who comes into court receives. I now want to talk briefly about the outfalls contract, that's contract 849 and the $1.7 million no-show payment that Ferguson received in that case. The defense

claims that somehow this no-show payment was a legitimate claim, it was a legitimate settlement, a contract dispute between parties. If that was true, why is there no paperwork? That's a lot of money if And why did

Where is the settlement agreement?

you're going to settle a claim with somebody.

Ferguson give a fake invoice for the first payment of $450,000 there? Why did he have an invoice with his wife's name on it

and with bogus descriptions of environmental work and consulting work that he did not do? Because he knew this was

an extortion payment and he had to hide it. Now I'd like to talk about Walbridge and the Patton Park/Baby Creek project. The defense argues that that bid was

not held up, there was no delay, that it was, in fact, a patent infringement suit that delayed it. We don't dispute that.

There's never been a suggestion that that bid was delayed for any improper purpose. Where it became improper was after the

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

12

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

bid was opened on February 6, 2003. took their actions.

That's where these guys That's

That's when the extortion started.

when Mr. Miller told you that he had a meeting with Bernard Parker where he said, look -- and Bernard Parker was working for Walbridge at the time, he said, "You have to put Mr. Ferguson in on this project." "We already have somebody. And what did Mr. Parker say?

We have an excavator on this

project," and Mr. Miller said, "No," told him that "You have to go with Mr. Ferguson." And that's why, and you've seen this contract, this one page, hastily written, handwritten contract by Walbridge and Ferguson Enterprises where they say that if, if they are going to be awarded this contract, they will give Mr. Ferguson $12.73 million worth of work. Think about that. Just look at

the terms of that contract and ask yourself, they've already won this bid and the bids have been opened, and all of a sudden, they have to cobble this together and make sure that the administration sees it? The administration wanted to see

that they'd taken care of their buddy before they took action on this project. Now I wanted to jump back to Lakeshore and the $10 million contract, the 1361 contract that you've heard that was canceled. The defense argues that that was somehow -- that Well, you've

was canceled somehow because it wasn't needed.

heard from Darryl Latimer, the head of the Contracts and Grants

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

13

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

group, that said that it was needed.

They went through this

enormous process ending February 6, 2003, where Victor Mercado himself got the Board of Water Commissioners to approve that contract. Think of all the steps that had to take place to get

to that point, and then five months later he changes his mind and he cancels it. Why did that happen? Well, Mr. Latimer told you

that he always thought it was a good project and he never understood that. Well, let's take a look at Exhibit LS1-11.

This is when Bobby Ferguson became interested in that 1361 project. Ferguson, "Hello, Black, you haven't released that contract, right?" Kilpatrick, "Right. They know I'm holding it."

Ferguson, "Using your terms, it's still cool with you. I need to hold it for a long time." And then Mr. Ferguson texted Kwame Kilpatrick again. He was weighing his options to see whether he should go with Lakeshore, who had the 1361 contract, or Inland, who had the 1368 contract. Ferguson, "1361 is the same contract. 1361 prices

may be less than the other one, but, hey, you know the rest." Kilpatrick, "Cool." Think to yourself, why is the mayor of a major metropolitan -- major city in this country talking about the

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

14

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

prices of a contract?

Because he was going to share in the

prices of that contract. You've heard from Mr. Miller. He said that

Bobby Ferguson wanted this contract canceled, and so Kwame Kilpatrick told Victor Mercado to cancel it. You've

heard from Mr. Latimer who said that he wanted this contract kept. He didn't understand why they couldn't keep it. And he

had actually told that to Victor Mercado, but on July 13, 2003, Mr. Mercado comes into his office and tells him, "I want you to write me an email saying that there is no need for this contract." Think about that. Why does the director of DWSD

have to tell a subordinate who doesn't agree with him to write him an email? Because Mr. Mercado needed a cover story,

because he was uncomfortable with the decision, because just five months before, he had gone through a big process to get this thing approved in the first place. said he did it, he felt uncomfortable. And so Mr. Latimer The next day, he gets a

memo back from Victor Mercado following Mr. Latimer's supposed advice and canceling the contract. Now I want to talk about Heilmann Recreation Center. The defendants in their closings didn't say much about it and I'm not going to say much about it either because you can look at the text message between Christine Beatty and Bobby Ferguson on the day that the contract was awarded. That's all you need

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

15

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

to know.

That bid was rigged. All the defense did was attack LaJuan Wilks from the

recreation department, saying that she had an ax to grind. not sure really how to respond to that. You saw her.

I'm

She was

a diligent career employee of the recreation department, and the only reason that she got in trouble, because she was doing her job. She was administering two different recreation

department projects, the Heilmann Recreation Center which had been rigged unbeknownst to her, and the Patton Park, and guess who was on both of those recreation center projects, Xcel Construction, Ferguson's companies, and she knew that they were double dipping, they couldn't possibly be at both places. And so she made that known at a Board of Water Commissioners meeting, and for that, what happens? She gets

berated and demeaned by Bobby Ferguson, with her own boss sitting there doing nothing. I'd now like to talk about Mr. Ferguson's influence within the Kilpatrick administration. The defense said in

their closing that Mr. Ferguson had no pull on contracts. Well, take a look at the internal communications between Bobby Ferguson and the mayor, shows the complete opposite. First, the Baby Creek Walbridge project, during bid openings for award of subcontracts on that project for the Baby Creek, this is what Ferguson instructed the mayor of the City of Detroit:

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

16

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

Ferguson, "Baby Creek, I told you when I would call on you when I need help, help F-ing Victor. to sit in on the bid opening." Think about that. water department. Who is the client here? The I don't need DWSD

And he's telling the mayor that he doesn't Why do

want the water department to sit in on a bid opening? you suppose that is?

And why would the mayor listen to him?

Next, the sinkhole up in Sterling Heights, when Ferguson wanted a piece of that project, this is what he told the mayor: Ferguson, "We need to meet how I move in. great idea, sir. Holla in the morning." I got a

Now, the defense says that Mr. Soave is such a bigshot that there is no way that a mayor could bully him. Well, you've heard from Mr. Soave. He had business -- first of

all, he's centered in this city, he has businesses that can be messed with by regulators all over the place, from his scrap business to his sewer lining business, and if it was true that he couldn't get bullied, then why did he dump his good friend Charlie Williams and insert Bobby Ferguson in his place when the mayor told him to do that? Why didn't he just say, "No,

Charlie Williams is my longtime friend and I don't know who this guy Bobby Ferguson is"? him to. And then, when Ferguson was causing problems on the He did it because the mayor told

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

17

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

job site, why did Mr. Soave go back to the mayor and say, "Is Bobby still your guy?" right there? he did. And let's talk a minute about Kathleen McCann who used to work for Inland. She told you shortly after Why didn't he just dump Mr. Ferguson Or maybe

He didn't need the mayor's permission.

Kwame Kilpatrick was reelected mayor of the City of Detroit and Mr. Ferguson was back in the driver's seat again with contracts that he paid a visit to Inland Waters, and at that time he told Ms. McCann, "You act like Victor has ever made one decision ever." She told you that "Working with Mr. Ferguson was like

having a sword dangling over our head." Next, DLZ. Mr. Evelyn has told you that the 2012

downtown water main project, that Mr. Ferguson did a great job on that, he came in under budget and on time, as well as the previous pilot project that preceded that. If you look at your notes of the testimony of the head of DLZ, Pratap Rajadhyaksha, call him Mr. Pratap, he said something quite different. Mr. Pratap refused to give

Mr. Ferguson more work because he wasn't completing his previous projects. He said that he had set this up as a

competitive process so that each of the contractors could get a new link to the sewer project if they completed their own ones, but Mr. Ferguson wasn't finishing his. And what did Mr. Ferguson tell him? "You don't need

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

18

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

to worry about the director.

You need to worry about me."

The

director being Victor Mercado, the head of the water department. Unfortunately for DLZ, Pratap, Mr. Pratap didn't listen to Mr. Ferguson. And so what happens to DLZ? They get

their Detroit-headquartered business certification yanked with absolutely no notice to them so that they could respond. And

then somehow, mysteriously, it gets reinserted, also without any notice to them. If they truly weren't a

Detroit-headquartered business, then who was it that advocated on their behalf to get their certification back? If you look at the timing of that yanking of the certification and then the reinserting, the one thing that comes in mind is that the contract that was awarded for 2012 is what goes between those two. Now, you've heard from the deputy director of the Human Rights Department, Kim Harris, and he testified that he was told by his boss to yank that certification and that he was told it was on orders from the mayor. Now, Mr. Evelyn has shown you an exhibit, it was one of ours, in fact, LS3-9. It was a letter from Mr. Latimer of

the water department saying that he wanted an investigation to be done of the Detroit-headquartered business certification of DLZ. Well, what Mr. Evelyn didn't tell you about was the back Shortly before that letter was written,

story of that letter.

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

19

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

Mr. Latimer was summoned to the mayor's office for the first and only time along with Mr. Mercado, and that's where they had a discussion, and the mayor asked him about DLZ and asked him about their Detroit-headquartered business. When Mr. Latimer got back to the office after that meeting, Mr. Mercado came into his office and told him to write the letter that Mr. Evelyn showed you. Next, the defense claims that Mr. Kilpatrick did not use his power to help Mr. Ferguson in any way. Well, if that

was true, then ask yourself, why was it so important for Mr. Ferguson to purposely lose a major city bid, in this case the construction of the Detroit Police Department? Christine Beatty, "Why not Bobby in this?" Kilpatrick, "Bobby wanted to strategically lose a major bid. He will be in this one at bid time." Now, ask yourself, what contractor would spend the time and the money to put in the bid only to lose it and lose it on purpose? Somebody who didn't really have to bid because

they were partners with the mayor, the guy that made the decisions, and someone that wanted to conceal that partnership. In fact, the preference for Mr. Ferguson on city contracts got so extreme that it even trumped family ties. Mr. Kilpatrick's own sister, Ayanna Kilpatrick, couldn't get into the action after awhile. You heard Mr. Miller testify

that Ayanna Kilpatrick complained to him when she wanted to get

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

20

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

in on that Synagro sludge hauling trucking deal. This is what she had to say: Ayanna Kilpatrick, "Here we go with this Bobby bull again. Tardif canceled meeting with my guys today. Just Great

stated Bobby wants to do the same thing, waste hauling. if it's room for him, terrible if he's holding us up. make money too?"

Can we

Now, think about this, if Ayanna Kilpatrick couldn't get business from the city, do you think Odell Jones had a chance? But here's the rub, by putting Mr. Ferguson over his

own sister, Kwame Kilpatrick was really picking himself and his own financial benefit over his own sister. Now, Mr. Thomas in his closing argument said that Kwame Kilpatrick and Bobby Ferguson never denied their friendship. Well, that's not true. Here's what Mr. Kilpatrick

told Ferguson to tell reporters.

Ferguson -- and this is Darci

McConnell who used to work for the Detroit News: Ferguson, "Hey, Darci is asking me, are we friends and do we travel together and do we talk on the phone." Kilpatrick, "Don't confirm none of that. someone you support. city." Why did they have to hide their relationship, their partnership? that. Well, these last five months should tell you I am

You think I'm doing a great job for the

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

21

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

Now, I wanted to talk about money.

Mr. Kilpatrick You've heard

lived way beyond the means of a public official.

evidence in this case that he stuffed a half a million dollars into his bank accounts and his credit card accounts while he was the mayor. None of this came from his salary as mayor,

none of this came from an identifiable, legitimate source. Mr. Kilpatrick spent more than $840,000 more than he had in his accounts. How did the defense explain all this cash

going into his accounts and Bernard Kilpatrick's accounts, all the cash leaving Bobby Ferguson's business accounts, all of the cash found in Ferguson's safes all over the city? Well,

Mr. Kilpatrick's attorney said that it all came from gifts. First, Mr. Kilpatrick's wedding reception which occurred six years before he was mayor. One thing that is

undisputed in this case, when it comes to Mr. Kilpatrick, is that monetary gifts are preferred. The defendants claim that

this wedding was somehow a cash bonanza, that it allowed him to have a cash hoard that would take him through his time as mayor. Well, if that's true, then why did his banking activity

before he became mayor look so normal? If you look at this, this timeline, these lines are when he became mayor and when he left as mayor. Before he was

mayor, he was withdrawing cash from his bank accounts, not depositing it. get bribed. He was acting like a normal person who doesn't

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

22

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

But that all changed when he became mayor of the City of Detroit. Suddenly all the cash withdrawals become cash

deposits, and then he starts depositing regular round number figures into his credit card account. It took a little while

to ramp it up, as you can see, he continued to behave like a normal person for at least the first six months of his administration, but after that, it's all green, and look at the peak at the very end when he left office. And you will see if you look at the bank records that Mr. Kilpatrick was not depositing hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time into his bank accounts. They were regular,

round number figures, just enough to pay his bills, just enough to put into his bank account so that he could write checks or wire money, but not enough to cause suspicion or alert regulators, bank folks, that there was something wrong with his accounts. So how does the defense explain all that green, all that money that was going into Mr. Kilpatrick's bank accounts after he became mayor? It all comes down to what they called a All

Splash of Red, birthday parties, allegedly awash in cash.

we've seen in this case is checks like this one, a woman named Mablene Rodgers for $10. mayor." In the memo line it says, "To our

This is someone that probably believed in him. Agent Sauer has told you he didn't count any of

these checks when he came up with his monetary figures.

He

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

23

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

only looked at the cash.

So the defense then attacked

Mr. Sauer and suggested, "Well, did you go to every check cashing facility in the city?" There is no evidence that

Mr. Kilpatrick was going around with these checks and going to check cashing facilities. Look at the endorsement on the back of Mablene Rodgers' check, "For deposit only," signed by the mayor himself. The mayor apparently had the time and inclination to

sign a $10 check, and they're telling you that he didn't have the time to sign a $12 million Amendment Number 4. No, none of these checks account for the $840,000 in unexplained expenditures by Mr. Kilpatrick during his time in office. That $10, by the way, that $10 figure from Ms. Rodgers' check, is the same amount that William Tandy, the head coach of the Westside Cubs said that he was comfortable giving to Mr. Kilpatrick at one of those parties, but he felt that he had to step it up and give $100. He said that he had

to eat ramen noodles for a week to afford to do that. No check was turned down by the mayor, no matter how big or small, no matter whether the person could afford to give it. No one disputes that. Then the defense talked about the lavish parties, the lavish gifts that were given to the mayor at twice a year office parties in his honor by his office staff. As you heard

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

24

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

from Kizzi Montgomery, contributions were expected by these office staffers. Remember what -- how much money $32,000 a year. That's five times less

Ms. Montgomery made?

than the mayor of the City of Detroit, and yet she was expected to give him a present? And bear in mind -- and remember what they said about these presents. One of them included a $22,000 Rolex One thing to keep in mind

watch or a golf getaway vacation.

about Ms. Montgomery's testimony, she never said that there was cash, let alone balls of cash, given to the mayor. gifts. They were

She just recalled the two that were presented to him

that day on two different occasions. What these lavish parties show beyond any reasonable doubt is the selfishness of the mayor. It was a one-way

street, all for him, nothing for anyone else, except his partners over there. And think about this, if Mr. Kilpatrick was willing to shake down a modestly compensated staffer in his office, do you think that he had any reservations shaking down a businessman of means, a businessman who wanted something in return from the mayor? The real money in this game came from

businessmen who needed something back from the mayor, and the number one person on that list was Bobby Ferguson, and the cash they gave to Mr. Kilpatrick in return for those official actions was no splash of red. It was a tidal wave of green.

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

25

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

Now, Mr. Thomas in his closing argument tried to explain away the money that Mr. Rutherford gave to the mayor as a gift. They suggested that Mr. Kilpatrick asked

Mr. Rutherford to give him $10,000 in cash just before he went to Dubai so he could buy him suits, and that Mr. Kilpatrick asked him to give him another gift of several thousand dollars when they were both in Las Vegas so that he could go and shop and entertain. Think about that. What type of public official asks

for a gift from someone that's looking for something in return, let alone someone who is looking to land a casino in the same city that the mayor governs? No, that's not a gift, that's a

bribe, just like the payments to Mr. Ferguson, from Mr. Ferguson to the mayor, and just like the payments from Karl Kado to the mayor. Now, I'd next like to address the cash that was coming out of Mr. Ferguson's accounts. As you've seen on

spreadsheets and other sorts of charts, during the time that Kwame Kilpatrick was mayor, Mr. Ferguson took over $2.3 million out of his various business accounts. The defense doesn't

really address this directly, but they suggest that we did not show that there was a precise correlation between when Mr. Ferguson made a withdrawal and when a deposit came into Mr. Kilpatrick's account. correlation like that. You're not going to see a

You saw the safes stuffed with cash.

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

26

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

He didn't need to go to the bank to make a withdrawal to pay off the mayor. Now, the defense also argues about that $2.3 million in withdrawals saying, "Hey, some of it was legitimate business expenses." Well, ask yourself, what normal business withdraws So the defense showed you a bunch of

$2.3 million in cash?

checks to cash with memo lines on them that said "Truck parts." The problem was the truck parts don't always mean what they say. You saw Agent Paszkiewicz show you checks that said

"Truck parts" that were sequential checks on the same day, just under $10,000 that happened to be given to a jeweler, Golden Sun, for jewelry. No, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Kilpatrick were in a partnership together, and it involved cash and city business. Think about the evidence in this case. Mr. Kilpatrick went out Mr. Kilpatrick

of his way to steer contracts to Mr. Ferguson.

and Mr. Ferguson regularly met privately, and take a look at some of those text messages and the coded communications about their meetings. Andre Cunningham, you remember his testimony, he said that when Mr. Kilpatrick learned that Andre Cunningham's phone had been tapped, they went and they talked behind the Manoogian Mansion with their hands over their mouths, and then Mr. Cunningham said that who bought new phones for the mayor? Mr. Ferguson, a phone for Mr. Ferguson and a phone for the

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

27

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

mayor.

Why did they need their new phones?

It was

Mr. Cunningham's phone that was tapped. You've heard, as I said, Mr. Kilpatrick had hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing through his accounts that don't trace to any sort of legitimate source. You've heard that

Mr. Ferguson had access to millions of dollars of cash, much of it coming from contractors that were extorted by him with the help of the mayor. him all over town. And Ferguson had lots of cash available to Now, the defense suggests to you that that

cash all basically came at the very end because he was chased out of banks. those charts. Well, take a look at those cash withdrawals, He was withdrawing cash from his accounts

throughout the entire time that Kilpatrick was mayor. And we know from Mahlon Clift on at least one occasion, and I say one occasion, Mr. Kilpatrick and Mr. Ferguson were sharing in the spoils of their extortionate scheme when $90,000 was transferred between the two of them. Now, before I talk more about the evidence, I wanted to explain to you some of the legal standards that have come up in the closing argument and that you will need to use in evaluating this case. First of all, in your deliberations you're going to get our indictment in this case, and look at it very closely. It provides a structure to the allegations and the chapters that you've heard in this case. You'll also be getting a

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

28

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

glossary which gives all the exhibit numbers, and it correlates to that structure, to that indictment. If you use those two

things together, you'll be able to look at the exhibits in an orderly manner. And most of the chapters that you heard of are

in that indictment except for a couple, like the Heilmann Recreation Center, but other than that, all of the rest of them you'll see in the indictment. The only count that I really want to talk about on the instructions is the racketeering conspiracy, and that's Count 1. Now, for you to find a racketeering conspiracy, you

must find that the defendants agreed that one of the members would commit at least two types of listed crimes. Now, the

crimes don't need to be accomplished, they just need to be agreed upon. And I now want to show you that list of crimes. You

will see this in the indictment in Count 1, but it includes -federal offenses include extortion, mail fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of justice; and also state offenses, extortion and bribery. I want to first talk about the extortion offenses. You can, when you're deciding whether there were two types of activities that were agreed to by the defendants, pick any two of these federal or state extortion offenses that are shown here. Let me know if I'm going too fast. Or you could pick

any two of these state bribery offenses to satisfy the

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

29

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

requirement, or you can pick any of these two mail or wire fraud offenses. Or you can pick this obstruction offense.

Or you can select any two of these various chapters that you've heard in this case, any of these extortion, bribery, fraud or obstruction charges. All you need to do is

select two of them, but you all have to unanimously agree upon which two you select, and again, none of them have to be accomplished, but they have to have been agreed upon, and just one member of the conspiracy had to commit it. Now, I want to talk about the Kilpatrick Civic Fund and the mail and the wire fraud offenses. Mr. Thomas in his

closing argument showed you a demonstrative exhibit which suggested, it was a pie chart that suggested that Mr. Kilpatrick had only misused $13,000 of his Civic Fund for personal expenses, inappropriate personal expenses. I must say that this chart is incredibly misleading. You have heard in this case of over $200,000 in improper personal expenses used by Mr. Kilpatrick himself. The chart

also that was presented to you by the defense didn't include $200,000 that were given to family and friends, people like Christine Beatty, people like Bernard Kilpatrick. that's included in that chart. None of

That chart also doesn't include

the $150,000 in campaign expenses that were used for Mr. Kilpatrick's campaign, his campaign, nobody else's. In all, the defendants' chart is missing over

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

30

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

$550,000 in improper expenses. expenses for the year 2008.

Nor does that chart include any

That's an important year because

that was the year that the Kilpatrick Civic Fund was unwinding. That was the year when the mayor, Bernard Kilpatrick, Christine Beatty and other associates of theirs drained the fund of hundreds of thousands of dollars for their own use. You recall the testimony of April Edgar who had the checkbook for the Kilpatrick Civic Fund. Right up to 2008, she

told you who was write -- who was asking her, who was telling her to write the checks. It was Mayor Kilpatrick, nobody else.

She told you that that last meeting, that board meeting, was called by the mayor where they decided that they were going to give all that money to him for moving expenses. There was no

discussion of apportioning expenses in that meeting. And take a look at the IRS application, KCF-2. This

was the application that Mayor Kilpatrick -- well, he wasn't mayor -- Kwame Kilpatrick signed himself and was filed with the IRS to give them that tax-exempt status. And take a look at

what the requirement says that you're supposed to do when you dissolve a non-for-profit like this. another non-for-profit. former founders. And don't forget what the donors, the people who actually gave to the Kilpatrick Civic Fund told you. They were It's supposed to go to

It's not supposed to go to one of the

asked hypothetically by my colleagues, would they have given to

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

31

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

the fund if they had known it had been used for improper personal expenses like summer camp, golf, massages, things like that. They all said no. That is fraud.

Next, the defense claims that Mr. Kilpatrick paid back the Kilpatrick Civic Fund in 2009, that he had given it back $13,000, which they claim is the sum total of his improper personal expenses that he used from the fund. Well, first of

all, if they truly wanted to pay back the fund, they were going to have to pay back over $500,000, not $13,000. But, second, take a very close look at the timing of that check that was written to the Kilpatrick Civic Fund, paying it back that sliver of the amount of money that Mr. Kilpatrick used. It only came after the government sent a

criminal grand jury subpoena to the Civic Fund asking for its expenses. This put Mr. Kilpatrick, if he didn't know before, on notice that there was an investigation of the uses of that fund, and it was only after that subpoena came out, after almost a decade of using the fund for his own personal expenses, that he pays back a sliver of what was owed. Next I want to talk about Bernard Kilpatrick. Mr. Shea in his closing argument spent a lot of time talking about the credibility of Mr. Rosendall of Synagro. He said

that you can't trust Mr. Rosendall because he was stringing along Bernard Kilpatrick, and he was also lying to his bosses

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

32

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

at the headquarters of Synagro. Well, I can tell you that Jim Rosendall was certainly in a jam at that time. Why was he in that jam?

Because Bernard Kilpatrick, the mayor's hand-picked middleman for the Synagro deal, had gotten into a financial dispute. With who? Bernard Kilpatrick's hand-picked frontman for this

whole thing, Rayford Jackson, who had his own ethical problems. Those two were in a financial dispute, and Mr. Rosendall got caught in the middle. And Mr. Rosendall had Bernard Kilpatrick

breathing down his throat, telling him that he was going to get this contract, this billion dollar contract, killed if he didn't do anything about it. Now, Mr. Shea conceded, as he must, that Bernard Kilpatrick did threaten to blow up this deal, but he defends that extortionate action by saying the threat was not wrongful somehow because it was a legitimate debt that was owed to Bernard Kilpatrick. If that was true, if this was a

legitimate debt, then why did Bernard Kilpatrick not do what a normal person does when they have a legitimate debt? Why

didn't he go to court on a breach of contract or a collections? Because courts don't enforce extortionate debts. Can you imagine Bernard Kilpatrick going into a court and asking the judge to order Mr. Rosendall to pay, not Bernard Kilpatrick, but his ex-girlfriend, Akunna Olumba, and her so-called trucking company so that Bernard Kilpatrick could

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

33

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

get paid?

No judge is going to do that.

And why not?

Because

this whole thing was illegal. Now, Mr. Shea talks about checks that were written between Mr. Rosendall and Mr. Kilpatrick supposedly for consulting work. Those weren't corporate checks. Those checks

came from Mr. Rosendall's personal account. at the memo line, it says "Loan." consulting relationship.

Here's one, look

Doesn't sound like a

And Bernard Kilpatrick didn't have trouble taking cash from people, let alone Mr. Rosendall. You recall at the

end there when Mr. Rosendall was now working with the government undercover that Bernard Kilpatrick didn't take cash in the restaurant, and he also told you why he didn't take that cash. It was a public restaurant, and he didn't trust Akunna

who was there next to him to take that cash. He said that there were only three people in this city that were willing to go under the bus for him. them are sitting at that table over there. Two of

If that payment was

legal, why couldn't he take that in a public restaurant, why did it matter? Cash or check?

Mr. Shea also asks, well, why couldn't the mayor have expedited this Synagro project? special administrator's powers. After all, he had the

Well, keep in mind when That

Mr. Kilpatrick lost that special administrator's power. was in January of 2006.

Most of the bureaucratic steps in this

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

34

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

very complicated billion dollar deal took place after 2006. That's not to say that the mayor did not have power. He did.

He was still the boss of Victor Mercado, who was the head of the DWSD, but there were more bureaucratic steps that had to be taking place as a result of that. Now, Mr. Shea asks, well, why was Mr. Rosendall lying to his bosses? Well, he couldn't come clean to his

bosses because he was engaged in an illegal transaction with Bernard Kilpatrick. He didn't tell them about that because He was trying to

they would have never allowed him to do that.

keep them at bay and he was trying to keep Bernard Kilpatrick at bay and Rayford Jackson at bay. good job at it. And he wasn't doing a very

And we don't excuse that conduct by He went to jail

Mr. Rosendall, but he paid the price for it. for that.

And rather than undermining Mr. Rosendall's credibility, the fact that he was lying to his boss actually proves that he believed these threats were real. He knew that

what he was doing was wrong, and it certainly does not exonerate Bernard Kilpatrick of his conduct and behavior in this case. Now, the defense claims that Mr. Rosendall's testimony was bought and paid for. Well, when he came into

court to testify before you, he had already served his jail sentence. There was nothing more that he could get from the

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

35

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

government. Your Honor, I don't know when a proper time to break would be. THE COURT: You want to break? Yes. We'll take 15 minutes.

MR. CHUTKOW: THE COURT:

All right.

(Jury out 9:58 a.m.) (Recess taken 9:58 a.m. until 10:16 a.m.) (Jury in 10:16 a.m.) THE COURT: Be seated. Mr. Chutkow.

MR. CHUTKOW:

Thank you, Your Honor.

During the break, I was alerted to a mistake that I made during my closing. When I was telling you about DLZ and

the certification that had been yanked, that related to a contract 2014 and 2015, not to -- I said contract 2012. Now, I wanted to talk for a little bit about Karl Kado. Now, Mr. Shea in his closing argument acknowledged He

that Karl Kado made regular payments to Bernard Kilpatrick. appeared to acknowledge that those payments totaled in the

hundreds of thousands, although wasn't precise on what it was. He also appeared to acknowledge that Mr. Kado received a final, one-time payment of $100,000, and that all of these payments were in cash. Now, ask yourself if Bernard Kilpatrick ran a legitimate consulting business. Where are the invoices for the

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

36

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

services he provided?

Where is the contract to Mr. Kado? Where are the Form 1099's that you're Why didn't he ever

Where are the receipts?

supposed to keep track of these payments?

demand a check from Mr. Kado so that he could keep his own bank ledgers in order? It's because he didn't want anyone to know

about those payments. Now, Mr. Shea suggested to you that it was Kado that wanted to pay Bernard Kilpatrick in cash because he was skimming from his own company, but if Kado was paying a real consultant as opposed to a bribe or extortion, he could just write a check to him. As you've seen from this case, Mr. Kado

certainly -- he could have taken a deduction if he had written a check, and as you've seen from this case, Mr. Kado certainly could have used some help on his taxes. Now, on the subject of taxes, ask yourself this, why aren't the hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash that went between Kado and Bernard Kilpatrick on Mr. Kilpatrick's tax returns? Keep that in mind when you're considering the tax

counts in this case. Now, Mr. Shea played you some tapes between Mr. Kado and Bernard Kilpatrick, and in one of them they're talking about money that is owed by the city to Mr. Kado for a Department of Administrative Hearings, and in one of the tapes, the mayor of the city is talking to Bernard Kilpatrick and acknowledges that the city owes Mr. Kado, just a question of

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

37

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

how much.

Yet, on a later tape when Mr. Kado tells

Bernard Kilpatrick that he's not going to pay him, what does Bernard Kilpatrick say? "You don't want to pay me? It could

take you two years to get paid." Does that amount of time sound familiar? That's the

same amount of time that he told Mr. Rosendall that he could delay their operations permits for Synagro if he didn't get paid on that one. without me. Now, the defense, Mr. Thomas attacked Mr. Kado's memory, and specifically, he cited to the -- he suggested that Mr. Kado couldn't even keep his bribes straight, saying that at one point, the mayor allegedly went to Mr. Kado's office in the winter -- or in the summer, and yet he said there was eight inches of snow. Well, you all took notes that day when He said that Like Mr. Ferguson, the mantra was no deal

Mr. Kado was being cross examined by Mr. Thomas.

there were two different bribes that took place, one in the winter and one in the summer, and Mr. Thomas cut him off before he could finish his explanation. Now, Mr. Shea talked about Andre Cunningham who was a former executive assistant to the mayor and he admits that Mr. Cunningham paid cash to Bernard Kilpatrick and that it took place in the basement of the City-County Building, and he said that they did it there because it would look wrong to do it on the 11th floor, where the mayor's office was. Well, ask

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

38

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

yourself this, if it was legitimate, what does it matter what floor of the City-County Building that payoff took place? does matter if it was a bribe or an extortion. Now, Mr. Shea in his closing argument emphasized all the alleged work that Bernard Kilpatrick did for those various people, for Mr. Rosendall, for Mr. Kado, for Mr. Cunningham, for Mr. Rutherford, for the Civic Fund. Now, Mr. Shea is a It

fine lawyer, and I would submit to you that most of the work that was being done was by Mr. Shea trying to come up with an explanation why all of these people are paying Bernard Kilpatrick in the first place. Now, Mr. Shea also talked about the 2004 tax year, which is one of the counts in this case, and he argues that Bernard Kilpatrick cannot be guilty of a tax crime because there is no authorization form for the filing of that particular tax return. This isn't a serious defense. Are they

suggesting that Bernard Kilpatrick's tax preparers went rogue on him? They were simply preparing returns for him without his

knowledge? And when you think about that count, here's a funny coincidence, these supposed rogue preparers who sent the IRS the returns for Mr. Kilpatrick, they sent it in October, and they said that he owed $91,000 to the IRS. That very same day,

take a look at the check Mr. Kilpatrick happened to pay the IRS that same day $91,000. Ask yourself, how did

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

39

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

Bernard Kilpatrick guess the amount of money that he was supposed to pay the IRS? filing, of course. Now I want to talk about the, in general, the government witnesses and the defense attack on their credibility, particularly the ones that have pled guilty in this case. Defense claims that you can't believe them because Well, the defense seems quite willing to It's because he authorized the

they pled guilty.

condemn officials like Andre Cunningham and Derrick Miller for taking bribes, and Karl Kado for bribing city officials, like Lou Pavledes, or Jim Rosendall for bribing people on the Synagro deal, and we don't disagree with their criticism. That's why these people have all been convicted. But it seems

odd that all of these people who are running around city hall, either working there or paying people off in city hall, are doing all this corrupt activity but never with any of these defendants. Now, Mr. Kilpatrick's attorney came up with an analogy for how you should determine whether somebody is telling the truth, had to do with, I guess, caring for your house; would you let these people housesit for you, or something like that. It's a ridiculous analogy. The proper

way to look at it, if you want to use their analogy, is that if your spouse was in an accident and someone came to your door and told you that, and then another witness came to your door

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

40

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

and told you the same thing, and then you received a text message telling you that your spouse was in an accident, and maybe other financial records, I don't know how that would work, but that confirm that, would you go to the hospital? course you would. Now, the defendants don't tell you -- what they don't tell you is about the government -- what the defendants don't tell you about the government witnesses, including those who have pled guilty in this case, is that they all support each other. Their testimony is consistent. They tell you Of

about a consistent pattern of behavior by the defendants. These people didn't get together to concoct their stories together, and yet the stories are the same. As I said in my opening statement, this case does not depend on the testimony of a single witness. just too many witnesses saying the same thing. There are

The defendants

spend so much time attacking a few of the government witnesses because they want to avoid two facts that they can't attack and they know they can't; the cash and the text messages. First, let me just make a quick mention of the cash. That is essentially the smoking gun in the hand of the defendant. There is no way to explain why a public servant has

that kind of money like Mr. Kilpatrick did except that he was getting paid off. And the text messages, these are the thoughts and

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

41

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

the words, without any filter, by the defendants, thinking that no one would ever see those things. As was said by somebody

else in their opening statement, the text messages are like going from your brain to your thumbs to the send button to the receiver. It's like a crime scene frozen in time for you to

review at any angle you want. If there's anything that you want to scrutinize when you're doing your deliberations, look at the text messages. You don't have to believe our interpretations of them, and you won't get any better evidence in a corruption case than the text messages in this case because corruption, by its very nature, happens with winks and nods, and the payoffs happen in the shadows when nobody is looking. Now, the defendants base their whole defense on an argument that you can't trust the government witnesses, but who are the government witnesses? Who picked these witnesses?

Bernard Kilpatrick, Kwame Kilpatrick and Bobby Ferguson picked these people. These are the people that they worked with, that

they were the long-time friends with, not us. Take Mahlon Clift. He did absolutely nothing wrong

other than to show too much loyalty to his friend, Kwame Kilpatrick. And what was his reward for that loyalty?

The defendants attacked his character, his business, because he was loyal to Mr. Kilpatrick, but he was not willing to commit a crime for him of perjury.

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

42

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

Now, the defendants question why Mr. Clift stopped his testimony when he was in the grand jury testifying about his relationship with Mr. Kilpatrick, and then he called his mother. Well, that's fairly obvious. He was under oath and

you have an obligation to tell the truth, and he had come to a moment where he was going to have to disclose that Bobby Ferguson had given him $90,000 in cash that he was going to deliver to the mayor. He knew that prosecutors didn't know

this, and he didn't know what to do. So he stopped and he asked if he could call his mom, who happens to be a lawyer. The defendants would have you

think that his mom told him to go lie under oath, to make up a story about the fact that this $90,000 was transferred between the two of them. That is just preposterous. What mom, least

of all a lawyer, is going to counsel her son to lie in a federal grand jury? That's not what she told him. She told

him to tell the truth. And if Clift wasn't actually carrying that money that day, that $90,000 from Mr. Ferguson to Mr. Kilpatrick, ask yourself, what possible motive would he have to make all this up? You saw the video of Agent Jensen who went through the airport 100 times with cash. off. Not once did that alarm go

That video completely shot down what the defense promised

to you in their opening statement, telling you that there were

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

43

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

metal strips in the cash that would have set off the alarms. Now, the defense argues that the government didn't want you to see that video. That's not true. The defense

played that video with the TSA Detroit security officer before we had a chance to. Mr. Jensen. twice. Now, ask yourself this. Why are the defendants That video was going to be played with

We didn't think you needed to see that video

fighting so hard to make you believe that Mahlon Clift is making all of this up? Because they know that if you believe

that what he said was true then they are guilty of committing bribery. They're guilty of, in exchange for all those city

contracts, Mr. Ferguson paying off the mayor. Next, I wanted to talk about Derrick Miller. Miller

told you that he was a friend since high school with the mayor. He asked the mayor to be his best man at his wedding. reluctant witness. defense? He was a

And what does he get in return from the Why did they do this?

He was attacked by them.

Because he came into this courtroom, and, the evidence showed, told the truth about himself and about them. And his testimony

was completely supported by Bernard Parker, by Kathleen McCann, by Tom Hardiman and by Karl Kado, and by every text message that you're going to see that he is on. Next, Emma Bell, a longtime family friend of the Kilpatricks, the defense took aim at her. They called her an

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

44

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

alcoholic and a gambling junkie, another longtime family friend thrown on the scrap heap. And, finally, the defense took aim at Andre Cunningham, a friend of the mayor's since college, a fraternity brother. Why? Because Mr. Cunningham admitted to you that he

was paying kickbacks to the mayor's father at the request of his friend, the mayor. So who did the defendants spare from their fire? Jon Rutherford, homeless shelter tycoon, a guy who pulled $650,000 a year from his publicly-financed homeless shelter and adult foster care services. Then bankrolled, used that money

to bankroll the likes of Mr. Kilpatrick so that Rutherford could land a casino on the Detroit Riverfront. guy that these guys chose to remain loyal to. The defense, the defendants in this case have engaged in a pattern of deception from the very beginning of their partnership, and it continues to this very day. the State Arts Grant. First, That is the one

The defendants lied to the state to

justify hundreds of thousands of dollars of state grant monies saying that it was going to be used for runaways and for seniors and vocational training and peer mediation. Mr. Evelyn in his argument said that the entire thing was transparent. If that was true, then why did

Mr. Ferguson have to doctor the invoices that he gave to the state? If the expenses were legitimate, just send in the real

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

45

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

ones.

Now, Mr. Thomas said that this chapter, the State Art Stealing public money is not overkill.

Grants, was overkill.

It's wrong and it's illegal. Then Mr. Ferguson told two sisters to lie to a federal grand jury under oath, to say that straw donations that they received from Mr. Ferguson to hide his relationship with the mayor and that were given to the mayor's campaign, say it was from them. Now, Mr. Evelyn in his argument appears to

acknowledge that he did counsel them to lie, but only that he wanted them to lie to a separate regulatory body, Michigan Gambling Commission, rather than the federal grand jury. yourself, where is the transparency in that? Now, the defense in their closing jumped quickly over that sinkhole. Why? Well, it might have to do with the This exhibit, Ask

evidence that they presented to you at trial.

DIN1-60 which is on the right, is what they presented to you at trial. The government presented to you the left one, IN1-72. Mr. Ferguson passed off an altered document to you. They needed a document to make it appear that Mr. Ferguson had been at the scene of that sinkhole in late August of 2004. did they need that? Why

To try to undermine the text messages that

occurred in early September where Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Kilpatrick are talking about how they're going to, how they want to meet and how Mr. Ferguson can move in. If they could

only show that Mr. Ferguson was doing all that work at the

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

46

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

sinkhole, then I suppose their theory was, why does he have to get the mayor's help? But this was a lie to you, and the truth is that Ferguson didn't get to work at the site in late August. He got

there in mid September, September 14th, to be precise, and Agent Paszkiewicz showed you that, she showed you the daily field records from the DWSD when Ferguson first mobilized and came to that site. And that was all three weeks after the

sinkhole first emerged. But the defense presented you an alternative theory with an altered document to make it seem like he was there first. Now, take a look. The top document here is the

government's exhibit, is the real exhibit, and the defense exhibit, the fake, the altered exhibit, is on the bottom. And

take a look at that tail right there, that tail where the four is, and watch what happens. Somebody removed that date because

they didn't want you to see it. THE COURT: A JUROR: in front of you. MR. CHUTKOW: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes? I can't really see

Can I see that again?

Everything lined up, but the date was missing. Somebody made a mistake, though. the edge. Next, somebody had to remove the ticket number from They let that four hang over

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

47

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

the real exhibit because they knew that if it wasn't removed, someone like Agent Paszkiewicz or maybe the Inland folks would be able to find it. And, finally, there was one other thing that needed to be altered to make it look like Mr. Ferguson had been there when he claimed he did. The three on the top document, which

is the true document, you heard from Mr. Rozycki, Walter Rozycki from Inland, he said that that date must have been wrong, it says 3/23/04, March 23rd, '04, and that the sinkhole hadn't happened until August, and so that was obviously some sort of typo by somebody. Look what happens when she moves it, the three becomes an eight. So we're moving that top, that September,

the true date, September of 2004, and then just looping that three into an eight, that fit their theory, and that's what they passed off to you, and that would have been the evidence, that would have been the record in this case if Agent Paszkiewicz hadn't left the stand and known that there was something wrong and hunted for the truth that she presented to you later. Now, you've heard from a number of convicted businessmen and city officials who have told you about their crimes with these defendants, and you've heard from others who have not committed crimes but were compromised because of their dealings with these defendants. That's the problem when you

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

48

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

have a pay-to-play system. gets compromised.

It corrupts the system.

Everyone

None of this would have happened, none of

this pay-to-play would have happened if Mr. Kilpatrick hadn't set it in motion, if he hadn't let Mr. Ferguson run rampage through the contracting community with his endorsement and support. Now, as Mr. Thomas said, he talked about Lakeshore and the fact that they got more city contracts over time. Did

their share of city contracts grow during the Kilpatrick years? Yes. But ask yourself, when did it happen? It was only after

they agreed to Mr. Ferguson's extortionate demands, it was only after they gave him $1.7 million in no-show payments. It was

only after they gave him $800,000 in bogus management fees. Now, Lakeshore, it's a good company, but they paid a heavy price for dealing with these defendants to get to the table. They paid a price both financially and ethically. Contractors who did not want to play the game in this city, they stayed away. Honest businessmen like Odell

Jones did not have a chance or they went out of business. This isn't about protecting the contractors. are the real victims of this whole pay-to-play system? Who It's

the citizens, the people who pay the taxes, the people who pay the water utility bills, the people who put Mr. Kilpatrick in office. They're the ones who didn't get the best goods and

services for the lowest price, who didn't get honest

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

49

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

government. Now, you've been together for five months now and you all come from different backgrounds, but you share a common goal, to see justice done and to achieve a verdict. selected together and you represent the community. You were You've sat

together, you've listened to the evidence, you've taken notes and you've been very patient. together toward a verdict. In your deliberations, keep an open mind, listen thoughtfully to what each other has to say, be willing to be persuaded. If you work together in good faith, you can reach a It's now your time to work

decision that is wiser than any single person in this room. You together represent the community and you together can do what's right. Throughout this trial it has become completely clear that Mayor Kilpatrick and his accomplices, his partners, used the public that he was elected to serve. Mr. Kilpatrick was

elected by the citizens of Detroit to represent their interests, not the defendants', to look out for their welfare, not his own wallet. He was not elected so that he could

quietly stuff a half a million dollars into his bank accounts, so that he could make sure that Bobby Ferguson got $83 million in city revenues, so that he could make sure that his father was a middleman for deals with the city. act for the people of Detroit. He was entrusted to

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

50

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

Now, this isn't the first case of corruption in this country, and it's not going to be the last. Mr. Evelyn, during

his closing, read from the Profiles of Courage, a wonderful book by then Senator John F. Kennedy, who back in 1973, President Kennedy's sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, spoke eloquently about the corrosive effects of corruption in a commencement address that she gave at a women's college outside Boston. Ms. Shriver had her own moral standing to speak on

these issues because of her commitment to public service, exemplified by her founding of the Special Olympics. Unlike Mr. Ferguson and his Detroit Three Dimensional and Mr. Kilpatrick and his Kilpatrick Civic Fund, Ms. Shriver had a genuine, lifelong commitment to the most vulnerable members of our society. She was horrified by an

unfolding corruption scandal in our nation's capital, and here's what she told the college students that day, words that have a special meaning even now, and even in this courtroom. She said, "These are most bitter days and yet as our leaders stand revealed, we see not evil men but shallow and pathetic men. The final charge against these men, I think,

will not be their shabby deals, their frantic coverups, no, it will simply be that having been given the extraordinary power and opportunity to make life better in this nation and the world, they scarcely tried. can and run. Their message was grab what you

Let us see if we can make something grow in the

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

51

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

desert they left behind." I'm sorry to say that the bitter days that Ms. Shriver lamented those 40 years ago visited this city during the administration of Kwame Kilpatrick, and the scale of corruption was breathtaking. Corruption depends on indifference. We cannot turn It

away and ignore the corruption that occurred in this city. is time for the former mayor and his accomplices to be held accountable for their crimes. It is past time.

What you are

here to do is assess the responsibility for the shameful events that transpired in this city. do. That is something that you can

We've given you the tools to do it, the evidence, the law,

the lawyers and the judges, and the judge in this case took great care to select you as jurors. You are specially

qualified to render a decision in this case, and make no decision -- and make no mistake, this case is a case that can be decided, that should be decided. All of us in this room

know beyond a reasonable doubt that you are just the people to do it. With that, we wish you the best in your deliberations, and we hand this case to you. Thank you. (10:48 a.m.) (End of excerpt.)

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Government's Rebuttal Closing Argument Friday, February 15, 2013

52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Date: February 15, 2013 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 s:/Suzanne Jacques Suzanne Jacques Official Court Reporter -

C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, Suzanne Jacques, Official Court Reporter for the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript of the proceedings in the above-entitled cause on the date set forth.

10-CR-20403

USA v. Kwame Kilpatrick, et al

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful