BOYD · VEIGEL

AlTORl"EYS

July 9, 2009

VIA FAX 202.307.6777

AND REGULAR MAIL

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Re.: USA v. Connie C. Armstrong; Cause No. CR94-0276PJH

Our File No. 3964.060452

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

I am writing to summarize a section 2255 motion pending before the Hon. Phyllis Hamilton in the
Northern District of California. The underlying criminal matter arose nearly 20 years ago,
culminating in the 1997 conviction of my client, Mr. Armstrong. After five years of incarceration,
Mr. Armstrong received over 3,000 pages ofFOIA documents, including many DOJ memoranda,
revealing-for the first time-that the white-collar allegations upon which Armstrong was convicted
were the subject of a prior investigation which closed upon a finding of no illegal conduct, and
further revealing that Mr. Armstrong's prosecution he believes, based on the government
documents, was prompted by contacts with FBI Deputy Director Larry Potts by former Senator
Howard Baker, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer. See Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B".

Mr. Annstrong's motion was accompanied by just enough documentation to prompt an evidentiary
hearing. We requested that the motion be sealed, but the judge denied that request and served a

P.O. Box 1179 McKinney, Texas 75070 972.562.9700 Fax 972.562.9600

A Professional Corporation
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Ir.
July 9,2009
Page 2

show-cause order upon the local US. Attorney. That office's response is due in about 10 daysl [See
Exhibit C]. Due to the high sensitivity of issues presented in this case, we request an opportunity
to confer with you about Mr. A1mstrong's prosecution and a proper resolution of our motion. The
infonnation contained herein comes from Mr. A1mstrong of infonnation received from the
government in response to Freedom of Infonnation request.

As background, Mr. .A1mstrong was CEO and sole shareholder of Hamilton Taft, a company
engaged in the collection and processing of payroll tax deposits for large corporations (Sun
Microsystems, Scott Paper, FedEx, etc.) and handling approximately $7 billion of such deposits
arumally. A central question in Mr. A1mstrong's case was the characterization of these tax monies
in the hands of Hamilton Taft. Was Hamilton Taft a fiduciary, holding the tax monies in trust? Or
was Hamilton Taft a mere contractor, such that tender oftax monies by its clients created a debtor-
creditor relationship? This technical point was of some moment because it defined the duty owed
by Hamilton Taft and, by extension, whether its conduct could produce civil andlor criminal
liability.

In 1988, Hamilton Taft was owned by Cigna Insurance. Under Cigna's ownership, Hamilton Taft
made inter-company loans to Cigna, prompting a disgruntled Hamilton Taft employee to contact law
enforcement and allege that such loans were improper because the subject monies were trust funds
held for tax payments on behalf of the customers of Hamilton Taft. FOrA documents delivered to
Annstrong show the employee found a sympathetic ear, as his complaints were assigned to AUSA
Mike Yamaguchi for investigation. Yamaguchi was previously in the tax division of the New York
Peat, Marwick office and would later enjoy a brief stint as US. Attorney for the Northern District
of California.

Yamaguchi perfonned his investigation and closed his file upon a finding that the operations of
Hamilton Taft presented no violation of federal law. The FOIA records included a 1981 opinion
letter from Baker & McKenzie stating that Hamilton Taft, as a tax collector, was not required to hold
the tax monies in a segregated account and enjoyed the same freedom to invest the monies as that
enjoyed by the employer, subject, of course, to the quarterly payment requirements.

I The district court ordered a response within 30 days. On the 29 th day, the US. Attorney's
office requested an additional 30 days, alleging that the files were in storage and the AUSA who
handled the prosecution was no longer with the office. Disturbingly, the initial 30 days elapsed
without material effort to retrieve the files from local FRC, and-contrary to representation of
counsel-several ofthe AUSA's involved with the original case are still in the US. Attorney's office
in San Francisco.
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
July 9,2009
Page 3

Neither the fact of Yamaguchi's investigation nor its exculpatory conclusion was disclosed to
AnTIstrong before or during trial. Indeed they were never disclosed but merely transmitted to him
under FOlA. Fortunately, the failure to disclose a prior favorable investigation is an oddity, but the
Fifth Circuit nonetheless had the recent opportunity to consider the matter in u.s. v. Fernandez. 2
There, a unanimous panel analyzed an undisclosed investigation under the three familiar factors of
Brady. The panel found that the fact ofthe investigation was actually well-known during trial with
only the results ofthe investigation remaining undisclosed. The panel further found that the district
judge conducted an in camera review of the results and found no exculpatory material. Based upon
these findings, the panel held that no Brady violation occurred.

Here, of course, the prior Hamilton Taft investigation was clearly exculpatory yet was never
disclosed to Armstrong. Further, the Hamilton Taft situation is more troubling from a policy
perspective because, unlike the Fernandez investigation that looked for conduct which violated a
known law, the Hamilton Taft inquiry turned on whether known conduct could be interpreted as
violating a yet-unknown law. Indeed, the aforementioned Baker & McKenzie opinion letter found
that "[tJhere does not appear to be any case law, regulation, or statute dealing with an independent
agent who actually pays over the taxes to the govennnent."

Standing alone, the govennnent's failure to disclose this exculpatory information is a fact that
walTants 2255 relief from the district court. But because this failure is merely one example of
serious improper conduct by the prosecution, and because that conduct is overlaid on a backdrop of
political influence, I request your personal review of this matter.

As noted, the 1988 Hamilton Taft investigation was initiated by a disgruntled former employee.
Fast forward to 1991, and another Hamilton Taft employee-recently fired for cocaine use-lodged
the same allegation raised in 1988. The employee made frequent entreaties to the FBI and the IRS,
falsely claiming that he was a CPA and was Hamilton Taft's controller. 3 At each tum, FBI and IRS
memoranda reveal that the employee was rebuffed and was told Hamilton Taft had been investigated
and that no laws were being violated.

About this same time, Hamilton Taft became engaged in a contractual dispute with one of its clients,
Federal Express. Simultaneously, the FBI and IRS agents in contact with the former Hamilton Taft
employee began receiving inquiries from an unnamed DOJ attorney in Washington, inquiring about

2 559 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2009).

3 Newspaperreports from the time also revealed the employee's stated wish to receive a 25%
bounty under the False Claims Act.
The Honorable Elic H. Holder, Jr.
July 9,2009
Page 4

the Hamilton Taft investigation. 4 Over the next few days, AUSA Yamaguchi is assigned the matter,
based upon his prior investigation. Yamaguchi notes on March 8, 1991 that his office does not have
probable cause to seek a search warrant. One week later, the Wall Street Journal publishes a
negative article about Hamilton Taft, citing the disgruntled employee. FBI memoranda reveal that
the employee was directed to the Wall Street Journal by Nancy Pelosi. (See Exhibit "B" attached.)
The article was published on Friday, March 15, 1991. On Sunday, March 17, two days after the
article's publication and nine days after Yamaguchi's statement that he lacked probable cause to
pursue a warrant, the DOJ issued a press release detailing its investigation of Hamilton Taft. Eight
days later, the press release had its apparently-intended effect when Hamilton Taft was placed into
involuntary bankruptcy by Federal Express.

On April 3, 1991, two weeks after the Federal Express filing, FBI Deputy Director Larry Potts sends
a status report to Howard Baker,5 then a director of Federal Express, and copies the report to
individuals associated with the staffs of Pelosi and Boxer. 6 This memo is the only communique
produced which reveals contact between Mssrs. Baker and Potts. All documents initiating the
involvement ofMr. Potts are missing, as are the follow-up reports promised in Potts' April 3 memo.

Despite the missing documentation, however, extraordinary conduct by the California prosecution
team reveals actions so bizarre that they are only explainable by continued pressure to commence
a prosecution and secure a conviction. Two evidentiary matters illustrate the point. Near the end
of trial, Armstrong learned that the government had placed a wire on his assistant and was in
possession of70 hours of recorded conversations. Because the time demands of trial deprived the
defense of an opportunity to hear these tapes, Armstrong requested a continuance. This request was
denied. AUSA Yamaguchi made an oral assurance to the district court, and FBI SA Hatcher
provided a corresponding sworn affidavit, that the tapes were generated by the Dallas field office,
concerned a different investigation, and were umelated to Hamilton Taft. To the contrary,
documents received by Armstrong years after trial reveal that AUSA Yamaguchi actually requested

4 Here, the FOrA records received heavy redaction, and embedded references reveal that

numerous collateral documents were omitted. Mr. Armstrong is filing a discovery motion in the
2255 proceeding that should fill some gaps.
5The Howard Baker in question is the former Senator from Federal Express's home state of
Tennessee and the fOlmer White House Chief of Staff under President Reagan.
6 The memo is copied to persons identified by their last name only. While persons with these
surnames were associated with the referenced congressional and senatorial offices at the relevant
time, the exact identity ofthe persons copied is not yet known.
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
July 9,2009
Page 5

that the Dallas field office conduct the surveillance as a courtesy and in support ofthe Hamilton Taft
prosecution. 7 Aside from applied pressure, it is hard to develop an explanation for this conduct.

The second evidentiary point concerned AUSA Yamaguchi's undisclosed ties to Peat, Marwick's
tax division. That very office provided accounting services to Hamilton Taft and, at Armstrong's
request, prepared an opinion letter outlining the characterization of client funds once paid to
Hamilton Taft and the scope of permissible investments for those flmds. Armstrong sought
testimony from a Peat, Marwick auditor and introduction of his report. Documents reveal that
AUSA Yamaguchi threatened the auditor with indictment ifhe tried to testify. Again, this conduct
would seem to be far outside one's expectations.

The characterization of Hamilton Taft's cash as trust monies was central to Armstrong's
prosecution. But in addition to the criminal and civil litigation surrounding Hamilton Taft, the
bankruptcy court was also considering this very question. As a company with large cash flows, the
potential recovery from recaptured preference payments was very seductive to the bankruptcy
trustee. Unfortunately, the trustee's objectives diverged from those of the criminal prosecutors on
this important point. 8 The trustee argued that the monies were not held in trust; instead, they were
the property of Hamilton Taft, were part ofthe bankruptcy estate, and were subject to the recapture
of preference payments. This also meant, however, that Armstrong's ability to invest or distribute
those funds was governed only by the contractual relationship between Hamilton Taft and its clients.
Conversely, the prosecution (and Hamilton Taft's clients) wanted a trust characterization that would
allow a viable prosecution but would preclude the preference recapture.

The bankruptcy court sided with the prosecution's view, characterized the monies as trust monies,
and blocked the recapture of preference payments. The trustee appealed to the district court, and
in an odd coincidence, the matter was heard by Judge Charles Legge, who was also presiding over
Annstrong's criminal prosecution. Judge Legge affirmed the bankruptcy court. The trustee took
his appeal to the ninth circuit, which reversed upon finding that the monies were the property of
Hamilton Taft and not held in trust.

For a lawyer in search ofthe truth, this collateral bankruptcy proceeding provided a rare opportunity
to receive an advisory opinion on a controlling legal issue. For AUSA Yamaguchi, however, it was

7 The tapes have since been reviewed, and despite what hindsight reveals to be significant

and choreographed interrogation by Armstrong's assistant, the tapes contained no inculpatory

information and are in fact exculpatory.
8 Upon review of the prosecution's actions coupled with documentation produced under
FOIA, there is no question that the objective ofthe prosecution was to secure a conviction and not
to illuminate the truth.
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, JI.
July 9,2009
Page 6

an exercise in crisis management. As an example, consider that the ninth circuit invited the DOl,
upon rehearing, to prepare an amicus brief on whether the Court's holding would adversely impact
the government's ability to collect taxes. The DOl's tax division accepted this invitation, yet the
brief was actually authored by AUSA Yamaguchi who appeared "of counsel" to that division.

Armstrong's trial counsel argued that the ninth circuit's opinion in the bankruptcy matter
established, effectively, the "law ofthe case." The court refused that instruction, and on appeal, this
refusal was affirmed on curious and inexplicable grounds. The ninth circuit noted that the
bankruptcy opinion had been vacated as moot and, regardless, discussed only the relationship
between Hamilton Taft and the IRS, not Hamilton Taft and its clients. In granting vacatur, the ninth
circuit found that the matter had been settled during the pendency of rehearing, thus .mooting the
issue. This explanation is curious because the US. Supreme Court had recently reviewed a ninth
circuit case and held that "mootness by reason of settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment
under review." See u.s. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 US. 18,29 (US.
1994). As to the second ground relied upon by the ninth circuit, it misstates the prior holding;
moreover, it is axiomatic that a finding that the IRS is not a beneficiary of a trust held by Hamilton
Taft requires a corresponding finding that Hamilton Taft is not a trustee of monies tendered by its
clients as putative settlors. 9

These are just a few examples of material irregularities surrounding this prosecution. Frankly, I
cannot recall seeing undisclosed exculpatory investigations, political pressure by very high-level
persons, deliberate misrepresentations to a court by an AUSA and a special agent, and prosecutorial
involvement with collateral bankruptcy litigation all combined into a single case. As each page
turns, we are uncovering more and more concrete examples of misconduct. For this reason, I
respectfully request an opportunity to discuss this matter at your earliest convenience. 10

Very truly yours,

~d-L~~
...
BILL BOYD
Counsel for Armstrong
BB:sls
0709615/060452

9 Aside from Yamaguchi's meddling via an amicus brief, we do not suggest improper
conduct by the court of appeals. Our investigation on the impetus for a vacatur request, in contrast
to the typical dismissal, is ongoing.
10 Our motives here are undoubtedly selfish, yet the important goal of public confidence in

the DOl's prosecutorial decisions will be well-served by a brief meeting.

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
July 9,2009
Page 7

cc: VIA EMAIL Brian.Stretch@usdoj.gov;

FAX 415.436.7234; and REGULAR MAIL
Brian J. Stretch
Chief, Criminal Division
Assistant U.S. Attorney
450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36055
San Francisco, CA 94102
 -- .'
- . P •-I q(PfJ -0 f~ 9do?S'
,.------------~'-"

4/3/91
Mr. Baker:'vf7
RE:
til
CONNIE/C. ~STRONG, JR.,
AKA CHIP ~STRONG; .
DBAvHAMILTON TAFT AND COMPANY;
32ND FLOOR, SPEAR STREET TOWER,
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA;
FRAUD BY WIRE; MAIL FRAUD; TAX FRAUD;
00: SAN FRANCISCO

San Francisco has initiated a Fraud By Wire

investigation based on information received from the former
Comptroller of Hamilton Taft and Company (HTC) that the sUbject,
Armstrong, has embezzled over $100 million from the firm's
clients over the last three years. ·These allegations continue to
be front-page news in San Francisco and pn 3/15/91, the Wall
Street Journal ran a front7page article detailing the allegations
(copy attached).
HTC contracts .\Yith companies who owe taxes to numerous
state and local taxing authorities. Client companies make a lump
sum wire transfer of funds to the HTC account, and thereafter,
HTC issues checks to whatever taxing authority is owed money ..
The former Comptroller, I I, has alleged that
Armstrong diverted lump sum payments to his own use and
thereafter, incurred penalties associated with late payments and
7C passed these costs along to the client companies who were not
notified of the late charges. In essence the allegation is that
Armstrong is running a "Ponzi scheme" of considerable magnitude
which requires increasing amounts of cash to keep the operat'on
going. j~ t -JJj(p -
le t HTtin Febiuar f 1991 and on 3 1 91

You will be kept apprised of pertinent developments.

NOT APPROPRIATE FOR DISSEMINATION TO THE PUBLIC

Enclosure
L. fl/Zs
1 - Mr. Jones 1 - Mr. O'Hara
1 - Mr. Baker 1 - Mr. Esposito
1 - Mr. Potts' 1 - Special Assistants, CIO
1 - Mr. Bryant
GOM:gdm/sw (9)

QlfA ~
EXHIBIT "A"
 'SAN FFliliCISCO (196A=SF=93255) (P) DHe 3/8/91

From sAf=====",==~,~ (SQ' 5) b7C

CHIP All.oMSTRONG 0 Jr., dba

Hamilt.on Taft and Com.pany
1 Me.rket Plaza
Spear street Tower
San Francisco, California
FBW~ MF. Tax Fraud:
00: SAN FRANCISCO

The purpose of this memo is to'document events that

F~:=:==~~~~~'~e since @GbruCLl'L13p 199.) which is the date that
was last interviewed by the writer. On that
b~~:~t~~~,~'~~~~'~prcvideda nu~~e ~ 4_~uments h - iter-Whi~~
have been disse ~nal..e.o y _e writer to SA or the IRS
ctD here in San Francisco, telephone number 556-6850. It should
also be noted. that a ¢opy of th~se dQcument@ along witb ~ $umm~ry
of the writar.ts review of San Franoisoo file 196A-2868 has been
prepared and disseminated to AUSA MICHAEL Y~~GUCHI at 556-1328.
A copy of this summary is a matter of record under a separate
communication which is a part of this file.
Due to the fact that AUSA YAMAGUCHI was on annual leave
and did not return to his office until March 4, and/or 5~ 1991 no
overt investigation was undertaken. This matter was ~eterred to
Mr. \ GUCHI because of his revious referral - ' he handled ~)
rgg,arding Ham]. ton _aft in which he sUbseque.ntly declj.ned for ' ~
3;,g:k0] p~aSAcl1tiop..... , This, matter ~as investigated by Sll~, 7 I
I = _it was handled under-:-·SF 19$A-2868 ana was closed J.n
AUgust, 1.9SS.

With regard to information supplied byl f writer

was reluctant to initiate any overt~nvestigation for .tear that'
th,ere .~ul~ ~ .i~~,!l1;.t,~,l .u~Q~lltl.: ~.tt~~d. ~h.~;qiaJ"n .the . .
gg,vg~nt .£~-gl.Q ,6; !99BS,@QJ)f ~~ ~~..at.~9" ~ pmmi:~~l..pf'
oaptloned. .any "WiJ'the ma~$. fact t'fiat. ;i;t wa,s 'making overt
inqtlirias . t ,,' "has provided detailed infonna·tion which, 9-E
of this date, has been unable to be thoroughly corroborated.
Progress i,s being made-'to effect sllch"corroBo'ren:ron.~~~

I· '~ expressed apprehension in his mind regarding

the VDextensive DP tiflie it was taking for the government to decide
whether or not to initiate an investigation ~nd to effect some
.criminal proce:;s. ~eXlS},§.....t..Qlg~,!:),?ftS_.tll&Jt9.~~.11t-.JEl~:L";~q,,,,~~
__~.
yictim before any process 't'l'oU'd be f'orthco:m:tl"lg'. He was further

EXHIBIT liB"
 196A-SF-93255
PI<11jsgc

advi~e,g... OJl~~~ ttH:l,n~."Qcca~i.on RY the,'writer _Qt.__th~·16ot~ntial

~i..ylJ, 1:iability which nt~;-At1;,eJ~ to the revelation to the
general pUblic that the FBI was conducting or maybe conducting an
investig-ation into oertain alleged criminal &.ctivities on tpe
part of Hamilton Taft.

Nonetheless! on February 11~ 1991~r: !saw fit to

contact. the Congressional offices' here in San Francisco of
Congress persons NANCY PELOSI and B~EBARA BOXER. ~
x@p;rt.VsgntJAt~ n resswoman PELOSI C s of ice to J . I~=::=::=::==.E~=="
spoke ave rna of a investi ative re~orter e
$Q\11d oonsJ.?e r cQn1:acti ng 'jOfith bi s lnformat:-i oP g Qn fet>ruar¥-.JJ;f
~lf the w~1t~r as well as ~gentl iof the eID repor~ed
- r~c:.Q.iv1n9 'tele.iphone calls frQm an attorn~y a.t th$ Qeps;:tm§mtQf
J,ust1oa il~~1~ tnqlJtr¥ as to the FB! and/or IRS" connection if
(;l.ny with Hamilton Taft..
b7C
On February 13 0 1991 r during the interview of [ i
oonduoted by the writer; h~ was again qQestioned as to the reason
for making calls to the aforementioned conaressional offices. He
stated that he was concerned about I

On Wednesday, March 6 1991 0 the writer received a

~ JIRS CID who advised that 'he
M~. k~DPn ~
telephone call from. SAJ
had been called by a ;IN an investigative reporter
for the Wall Street Journal here in San Francisco. The purpose
Q..U.INGf s call to SWAIN was _.to con;tL...
rm that the IRS was
~=t~ng,~~M=j,n~..tlqg.t..iJID.,reg~rdinq,B£1flil.:tg:n......~=:--On the
morning of March 6 0 1991 0 the writer reviewed message slips that
had arrived on Tuesday; March 5, 1991, the writer having been on
sick leave that day and one of· them was from ~~LPH KING of the
Wall stre~t Journal. The writer did not return KING~s phone
call, however, in resp~~g to a page, for a telephone-calion
the afternoon call of M ~~ 1991, the writer became connected
to Mr. KING of t.h.e tV-all stree't. JournaL The 'Usual inqu.iries were
made. and the usual response, ~att is we oan neither c.onfirm
a.n.djQr-d&ny th$ e~isten.ce of any inv~sti.9·ati.cn was provided to
~!fr. K!NG ¥1h.0 s~e:med P~~9a:tp~d i2.Y -ehi~ 4"S1.Se,Qn~ 0

2
196A-SF~93255
PKM/sgc

an ~4arch 6 1':991 pf
p I head of corpora.te
security of Sun Micro Systems Inc. at 2550 Garcia Ave., Mountain
View, California 94043 9 telephone number (415) 336-0496 was
called by the writer in response to call that he had made to our
offic~ on Maroh 50 1991.

the that his office ha.d

been contacted by and was
accompanied by an attorner- on. e (ph) who advised that
the purpose of I ' ~ oontao . 0 'un, loro Systems was to
advi$e Sun Micro systems that it had bean the victi~ of a fraud
pe.xope-t.ri'!tt.ed by Hamilton rraft' en. Sun,MiorQ Syste.ms and numerous
othar corpo.rate clients of Ha~ilton'Taft. I ladvised
the writer ths.t he would fax certaiI1 documents UP to San '
Francisco at the writer's suggestion. These documents'included a
copy of the service agreement thed('~_betv.r~(;m sun:,~,ic:r;o" .
Systems ~nd Hamilton Taft dated.~ober 1,,_,198'l as well as copies
of certa1n Federal tax forms wh2cn had been e~eouted by employees
of Hamilton Taft Company. I . lalso actvi~e~ the writer.
that' ,ltad. of his own volitio~ conv/i?ned a meeting of ':':{:1'; ,'.'';'
several of the corporate representat2 ves who he had contacted ''-'''';-', " ' ." '
presumably in the first week of March telling these corporations
who are current and/or former clients· of Hamilton Taft, that they
had in fact been ,defrauded by Hamilton Taft. Sun Micro~systems
reluctantly agreed to "host." this meeting which 'Y-Jas to take place l
during the afternoon of March a, 1.991 at Sun Micro system~s
offices in Mountain View. '

Of the mornin I through

his associate f an investigator for the COJ;;porate
Security., Deparl.-Jnenl. OJ. un icro systems, facsirniled 16 ,pages of
documents to the VoJri ter. The most salient point of t1l-ese
documents was a lett.er' to Sun MicrQ sy~te~$. dat~d. Fe:!?,i'uary 13, ,i;~"
1991 from th.e .\~:RS in~·'FrE\sno. Tha let1:er r$t.e:t& to a' partic.nUar """ ..
ta~ identit~oation number utilit~d hy Sun Mioro sy~fems and·
r$fer'~hO$S a ta~ period ending se.ptember 30 t 19~O.' ,The letter ,~.
goes' on to. thank'tax payer (sun Micro systems) tor its r&ply I
dat.ed. Janua1:'y 25 t 19sn: and its' payment Qf $2G.O t 164 .. 25 in penalty.:
fees and for its late depo$it of ($5,215, 68.4-:86) 0 The .
S~.· gnifipEJV;e Qfth:'5 :j~It'L'lUunication is that Sun Micro Systems
throughl~hasrepresented, as of March 7, 1991, that
it did ~nact sen t:e appropriate money that is $5,215,684.86
to Hamilton Taft via a wire· transfer in order to pay employment
tax oblig-ations do and owi:r!g the IRS for the 'tax period ended
september 30 e 1990. Per a~ agreement Qf which tne~~~n
.
~ecei~tt that j.,s( i.heS~~iQ§l,_aq~t. e.~~~ HMiltolf- Taft ~d
Sun MIcro S1t$~t~t ft~mUt:;.'?n.. '!£L:t:t.is r~~n$.:P~l~..-for"t..q~
~~~~~_~~y~~~~a_~~~~!tj~~. 1t is an inference drawn by Sun
3
 196A-SF-93~55
PKM/sgc

Micro Systems personnel that this document tends to corroborate

what i ij'irtTaS 6.l1eging in his representations to the
government.
On the afternoon of March 7 p 1991 7 AUSA Y~~GUCHI was
personally visited by the writer and a brief update was provided
to him of ev~nts that have taken place. On March Sf 1991, copies
of the aforementioned facsimiles were provided to AUSA YAl-iAGUCHI
fore his revie\<l. On ~-1arch 8, 1991 p Mr. YAM.7\GUCHI suggested to
th~ writer -that efforts continue to accumulate enough probable
cause to cause the issuance of a search warrant for the offices
b7C at Hamilton Taft at the earliest possible date.

t
Th.e t'Ql.lowin9 cQrporations have been contact.eel by
] and/o.r his attorney and ~_~yl~~d t1}~t t,.l)ey' ,baye bean me j
1
victi~sof ~~ud perpetrated ,on them by Hamilton Taft. These ~­
corporations are Costal Savings Bank, Sun Micro Systems American j

west Airlines, and one or two chemical companies located at the

east coast. In additicn, I ~ advised 'tV'ri teL that he
has been contacted by representatives of Lloyds of London
Insur;ance company with respect to Hamilton Taft. It is JJ,Dkuo.wrt
~_9.~':".~~E.¥_~~!l.~.!Y..hicty~~,;>£~mp..~.!!.i~e __.~ il,l J~!!~Y_~_ ~iEr~~e~.J~~t: i v es.~! .1:pe
meet.~pg to be ..e1d .at Sun M2cro systems p'.!._:t~c;:es on the afternoon
of March 8 9 1991.

San Francisco at San Francisco, California:

Investigation is continuing.

4*
 BOYD · VEIGEL
ATIORNEYS

July 9, 2009

VIA EMAIL Brian.Stretch@usdoj.eov

AND FAX 415.436.7234

Brian J. Stretch
Chief, Criminal Division
Assistant U.S. Attorney
450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36055
San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: USA v. Connie Annstrong; Cause No. CR94-0276-PJH

Our File No. 3964.060452

Dear Mr. Stretch:

1 am writing to request your assistance with the pending Section 2255 motion filed in the
above-referenced cause. On June 19, 2009, your office filed a motion to extend the time for you to
respond to our motion in which you stated:

"The original Assistant United States Attorney CAUSA) assigned to the above-entitled
matter in 1994 is no longer with the Office and the government's file is in storage.
The matter has now been reassigned to an AUSA for the purpose of preparing and
filing an answering brief and the government's file is in the process of being retrieved.
The Movant's 2255 motion raises several issues on which the government would like
to assist the Court in reaching a conclusion. The government anticipates that the
newly assigned AUSA can obtain and review the record and file an answering brief
within 30 days. The government respectfully requests an extension of time to do so.

I am unable to reconcile this statement with records received from your office under the Freedom of
Infonnation Act. Accordingly, I respectfully request your assistance in verifying the current location
infonnation for the following persons listed on Exhibit "A" attached. Records from your office
indicate they all actively participated in the handling of this case for the government. As you know,
the pending motion touches on prosecutorial misconduct, so these are persons who likely possess
relevant infonnation.

~~'
BB:sls
~L:BOYD
0709614/060452
cc: The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
EXHIBIT "G"
P.O. Box 1179 McKinney, Texas 75070 972.562.9700 Fax 972.562.9600
A Professional Corporation
 EXHIBIT "A"

NAME ROLE IN CASE CURRENT POSITION

1. Joseph P. Russionielle 1988 - U.S.A. for Northern District who originally U.S.A. Northern District CA
2009 U.S.A Northern District CA investigated Hamilton Taft and closed case - no
violation.

2. Ronald D. Smetana Prosecuted Armstrong as Special AUS.A Assistant State Attorney General in Los
Assistant State Attorney General Angeles, CA
Los Angeles, CA
3. Barbara Valliere 1999 - AU.S.A Northern District CA - Briefed Chief Appellate, US. Attorney Office,
A.U.S.A Northern District CA appeal on Armstrong case. Northern District CA

4. Susan Badger Briefed with Mueller 2000 Motion on bond Office of U.S. Attorney in San Francisco,
A.U.S.A. Northern District CA revocation. CA, District 4

5. J. Douglas Wilson Briefed appeal for government against Armstrong. A.U.S.A in San Francisco.
1999 Chief Appellate
Northern District CA
6. George Hardy Assisted prosecutor 1994-97 on Armstrong case. US. Attorney Office
AU.S.A. Northern District CA San Diego, CA
7. Robert Mueller 1999 - U.S.A Northern District CA wrote appeal Director of FBI
U.S.A. Northern District brief on Armstrong appeal. Washington, D.C.
8. Mike Yamaguchi Prosecuting U.S.A - Armstrong case. Immigration Judge
AU.S.A 1988-92 San Francisco, CA
U.S.A Northern District 1992
9. William T. McGivern 1991 - FBI wrote letter asking for opinion in Retired 11-1-05 from CA Judge
U.S.A Northern District CA reopening Hamilton Taft after being closed 1988.

EXHIBIT "A"
0709621/06045217:9:09: 14: 15
Page Solo