VOL.

III UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -vsSHANE BUCZEK, Defendant. ------------------------------------09-CR-121S

Proceedings held before the Honorable William M. Skretny, Part IV, U.S. Courthouse, 68 Court Street, Buffalo, New York on March 4, 2010. APPEARANCES: MARY CATHERINE BAUMGARTEN, Assistant United States Attorney, Appearing for the United States. SHANE BUCZEK, Appearing Pro Se. BRIAN COMERFORD, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Appearing as Standby Counsel for Defendant. Michelle L. McLaughlin, RPR, Official Reporter, U.S.D.C. W.D.N.Y. (716)332-3560

147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RULE 29 MOTION 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 316 HENRY FALKOWSKI Direct Examination by Ms. Baumgarten Cross-Examination by Mr. Buczek Redirect Examination by Ms. Baumgarten 270 293 312 BRADLEY L. PARKER Direct Examination by Ms. Baumgarten Cross-Examination by Mr. Buczek Redirect Examination by Ms. Baumgarten Recross-Examination by Mr. Buczek 236 245 252 254 MATTHEW JOHNSON Direct Examination by Ms. Baumgarten Cross-Examination by Mr. Buczek 197 216 WITNESS ERIC J. SCHUMACKER Continued Direct Examination by Ms. Baumgarten Cross-Examination by Mr. Buczek Redirect Examination by Ms. Baumgarten Recross-Examination by Mr. Buczek Redirect Examination by Ms. Baumgarten Recross-Examination by Mr. Buczek ANNA S. MEDLOCK Direct Examination by Ms. Baumgarten Cross-Examination by Mr. Buczek Redirect Examination by Ms. Baumgarten I N D E X PAGE

153 156 165 171 173 174 177 184 194

148 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 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS A EVD. 248 I N D E X GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 11 39A 39 19, 20B, 21C 32 33 EVD. 155 241 242 285 291 292

149 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 (Jury not present in the courtroom.) THE COURT: Miss Labuzzetta. THE CLERK: Criminal case 09-121S, United Okay. Call the case please,

States of America versus Shane Buczek. THE COURT: Okay. Lets see, the attorneys

and Mr. Buczek and Mr. Comerford are all here. Jury is now back and fully assembled, and we're bringing them in. THE CLERK: THE COURT: And we -Do you want me to get them? If you would please. They're

running three minutes late. here at 9:15.

We told them to be

I guess, Mr. Schumacker, you're going to resume the stand. you go home? THE WITNESS: Yes. The government does have You remain under oath. Did they let

MS. BAUMGARTEN: a few more questions. THE COURT: Miss Baumgarten? MS. BAUMGARTEN: think further, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay.

Why is that not a surprise,

I had the evening to

And then you're going

to start cross-examination Mr. --

150 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 opposes? MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: Yes, your Honor. Primarily this is MR. BUCZEK: Judge, before we get started, All

I just want to have one thing to ask you. right.

I just have one thing, I would like to Just put

renew a motion to dismiss at this point. it on the record at least. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: Okay. Okay. Yes. Thank you.

Because I know

it's past due for paperwork.

We can't file

anything at this point, so I would like to go ahead and verbally put a motion to dismiss. Based on the

evidence I've seen so far, nobody has a claim against the defendant, and also under -- failure to state a claim upon relief can be granted rule -- I think it's Rule 12(b)(1) and lack of jurisdiction, and at this time I don't see anybody that has a claim against me. THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. And the government

All right.

a criminal case, and on that basis I will deny the motion. Okay. As soon as the jury gets in.

151 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 CLERK: THE COURT: MR. BRUCE: THE COURT: They're coming. Mr. Bruce, how are you doing? I'm doing well, Judge. Good. Your Honor, I might just

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

give these documents to the witness before they come back. THE COURT: Sure.

(Jury seated.) THE COURT: and gentlemen. THE JURY: THE COURT: Good morning. It's good to see you again. Okay. Good morning, ladies

Thank you for making the efforts to be here on time. I know one of or two of you had a little

bridge or traffic problem, but I want you to know I'm taking full credit for the weather. I've made

all the arrangements for perfect driving weather to get you here as close to on time as possible. We are resumed in the case of United States versus Shane Buczek. under way. testify. It's a criminal case. It's

We've had a couple of witnesses Back on the stand is Eric John He was sworn yesterday. You know I It's to

Schumacker.

think by now what your obligation is.

152 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 resolve the fact issues in this case. You are the

jury of the facts, the judge of the facts, and you get any fact issues resolved on the basis of evidence or the lack of evidence. Presumption of The

innocence is with Mr. Buczek, the defendant.

government and only the government has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on each essential element of the crime charged. good to have you back here. So it's

Remember, a couple

critical words or maybe three by some counts, common sense, I'll consider that one, intelligence, and experience. Apply that to your task and come

back with the unanimous verdict when you're asked to do that. case. And we're still in the government's But

There's no obligation on the defense.

stay with us.

I mean, it's going to be a full day And you were great

of testimony today I think.

yesterday, and we appreciate all of that. And Miss Baumgarten has a few extra questions that she thought about over the course of last evening, so we'll give her the opportunity to kind of wind down here with Mr. Schumacker, and then it will be time for cross-examination. Miss Baumgarten, you may proceed. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Thank you, your Honor. Okay.

153 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 E R I C J O H N S C H U M A C K E R, having

previously been duly sworn as a witness, testified further as follows: CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Mr. Schumacker, yesterday you testified

concerning a routing number. A. Q. A. Yes. Why is that important? Routing number is a specific number to a

specific financial institution or a bank used to transfer funds. Q. You also testified with respect to account Why are account numbers significant?

numbers. A.

An account number identifies an individual with

a bank. Q. Why is it necessary for the account number and

the routing number to be provided when an individual is attempting to use the direct check function or feature? A. Both are needed for the electronic transfer of

funds. Q. All right. If I can direct your attention to

Exhibit 18 in evidence, and in particular page 36, an entry occurring June 5, 2009. A. I'm sorry, you said June?

154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I believe it's June 5th, 2009. MS. BAUMGARTEN: witness, your Honor? THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. A. Q. Do you have the entry now, sir? Yes, I do. Okay. Now you've reviewed the computerized You may. May I approach the

screens are the screen shots, is that correct? A. Q. Yes. Was there an entry with respect to -- on

June 5th, 2009? A. Q. A. Yes, there was. And what does that entry state? It involves a promissory note recorded in

Cattaraugus County, county clerk with Little Valley, and it was recorded 12/9/2008. Q. A. Q. And where was that information derived from? I believe the filing. All right. Your Honor, the witness has what

has been marked for identification as Government Exhibit 11. that exhibit? A. Q. Yes. And what is that, sir? Have you had an opportunity to review

155 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 Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, A. Q. It's a filing. What does it appear to be -- or what entity

does it appear to have been filed with? THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Government Exhibit 11, where does it appear to Okay. Rephrase that question.

have been filed? A. Q. Cattaraugus County. Is that the promissory note, to the best of

your understanding, that's referenced in Exhibit 18 in the entry of June 5, 2009? A. Yes, it is. MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government moves

Exhibit 11 into evidence, your Honor. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: All right. Okay.

Judge, I don't have any

objections to the -- what is it called, a bonded promissory note. I have no objections to that. All right. Exhibit 11

THE COURT:

received, no objection. (Government's Exhibit 11 was received into evidence.) MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your

156 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 Miss Baumgarten. Any questions on cross-examination, Mr. Buczek? MR. BUCZEK: Yes, Judge.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. A. Q. A. Q. Good morning. Morning. Can you please state your name for the record? Eric John Schumacker. Okay. Thanks for being here this morning, and Like to direct your attention Is there a way we can

sorry to bother you.

to Government Exhibit 18. pop that up? THE COURT: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Yes.

Put it up, please.

Does this record actually show the routing

number at all? A. Q. No, it does not. Do you know what routing number they used? Is

there any indication -- do you know what routing number that was used at all? don't know? A. Q. No. Okay. Do you know what the -- the account and You're saying no, you

routing number was? A. No.

157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Getting back to the Depository Trust at 55

Water Street, is their routing number anywhere on there at all? A. Q. No, there's not. Do you know what the account number was for the

DTC offhand? A. Q. Not offhand, no. Not offhand okay. I don't see it in there. Is

it anywhere in the documents at all? A. Q. No. No. When these payments were made, the account

was credited, is that correct, initially it was credited? A. Q. Yes. Okay. Since it was initially credited, was

there -- so basically there was no indication to the customer from the DTC that wasn't paying, you know, there -- there was no indication that it was a -- how do I say it? back. A. Q. Not immediately. Right. How long was it before it actually was That it basically bounced

reversed? A. Q. Different times, either between two to 12 days. Two or 12 days?

158 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 A. Q. Between two and 12 days, yes. How long can it take for the very first initial How long -- how

transaction to come back to HSBC? many days? A. Q. I believe it was around five. Five days? Really.

When was the customer

notified? A. Q.

Do you know what day he was notified?

No, I do not. Okay. So -- so for that period of time I

believe it would appear to the customer that the payments were through, correct, because it looks like it was being credited. A. Q. I'm sorry, could you restate that? It appears that the credits were going through

initially. A. Q. A. To the customer? Right. They would get that information off their

billing statement. Q. Right. But it would show up as a credit on the

account? A. Q. Yes. Okay. So it would appear that it was going

through. A. From the billing statement.

159 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 out here. Q. Correct. Okay. So basically I believe

somewhere -- I don't know where it is -- the government -- okay. Do you assume it was the

defendant calling HSBC? A. From the -MS. BAUMGARTEN: Objection, your Honor.

He's asking him to assume, your Honor. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: type of -THE COURT: I'm going to permit it based You may ask the He can do that. How am I supposed to have any

on yesterday's direct examination. question. Objection overruled. MR. BUCZEK:

Do we -- do we have any

firsthand knowledge of who might have made these payments? a check? Do we know how process -- was it done by Do we have any indications of that? THE COURT: All right. Lets take a time

Do a consult with Mr. Comerford please. (Off the record discussion.)

BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Do you assume it was the defendant calling

HSBC? A. From all the information to the best of my

knowledge.

160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. To the best of your knowledge. Okay. But, it

is a presumption that -- maybe it wasn't the defendant, it could have been somebody else. could have been anybody, because it looks like these were not checks, correct? A. I don't have firsthand knowledge of whoever It

called. Q. Thank you. That's what I was waiting to hear.

But it would have been someone else, for example, sometimes certain banks do their own debiting automatically, you know, like when your bills due, you just do it automatically, just like if you have a gym -- if you can to a gym they automatically debit your account for $29 a month, you might not even know about it. What I'm trying to get to is

that we really don't know -MS. BAUMGARTEN: Objection, your Honor,

he's not asking a question, he's making a statement. THE COURT: objection. BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Okay. So we don't know who actually made the If it was He is. I'll sustain the

calls, I guess, they would have been. whoever.

161 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 A. Q. I'm sorry, please restate that. Okay. We don't officially know, we don't have

firsthand knowledge who actually made the phone calls to HSBC. A. No, but that individual did have the

information of the customer. Q. You can get that from anywhere. What I'm Could

trying to get to, do we have any recordings? it possibly have been a friend? A. Q. Okay. Which question first?

What I'm trying to get to, it could have been

anybody that made these payments, anybody. Correct? A. Q. Is that correct?

That is correct. Is there any transcripts or recordings on these

calls? A. Q. A. Q. Not to my knowledge. Is there a way we can get them? Not to my knowledge. I'm almost done, okay. Are you here today on

your public capacity or private capacity? A. I don't understand the question. I'm a

representative of HSBC. Q. Okay. So you're in for your public capacity. Okay. I

You're not here in your private capacity.

162 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 just want to make a record of it. So at this

particular time, I believe it's March 4th of 2010, you do not have a claim against the defendant, is that correct? A. Q. I don't understand the question. Do you have a claim against the defendant? Do

you have a claim? A. Q. This account is currently in collections. That's not the question. The question is do

you have a claim against the defendant. A. Q. I don't understand the question. It's either yes or no. MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: the question. Your Honor --

He said he did not understand

You can reput another question, if

you like, or the same one and we'll see what answer we get. BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Okay. Do you have some type of complaint

against the defendant? A. Q. I still don't understand the question. Okay. So basically on and for the record

there's no claim from HSBC at this point. MS. BAUMGARTEN: He's testifying. Objection, your Honor.

163 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 COURT: MR. BUCZEK: If that's the question -I'm just trying to find out

if HSB has a claim against me, that's all. THE COURT: Ask it that way. BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. A. Q. A. Q. Does HSBC have a claim against the defendant? Yes. Okay. Where is it? Ask the question ask then.

I don't understand that question. Where is your claim against the defendant?

You're coming in here reading computer screen information that's hearsay information, where's your claim? A. Q. Are you talking about the collection process? No. I'm talking about a claim. Where is the

claim? A. Q.

The bona fide claim, where is your claim?

I still don't understand the question. It's very simple, it's either yes or no. Do

you have a claim against the defendant? MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE WITNESS: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Objection, your Honor.

Sustained. Just answer the question. No. The witness says he

doesn't understand the question, and if he doesn't

164 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 understand it, then you're bound by that answer and you must ask another question. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: I have one more question. Miss Baumgarten, have a seat. Do you know anyone that has a

claim against the defendant? THE WITNESS: MR. BUCZEK: questions. No. Judge, I have no further

I ask for the whole testimony be

stricken from the record based on the hearsay evidence rule, the entire record, and I'll leave it as that. THE COURT: Okay. Miss Baumgarten, do you

have a comment, a statement, an objection? MS. BAUMGARTEN: the defendant's objection? THE COURT: Yes. His testimony previously Well, in responding to

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

is a follow-up to that yesterday, and the documents themselves are admitted into evidence over the defendant's objection. THE COURT: Okay. So you object to

striking of the testimony? MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: Yes, your Honor. Okay.

Objection sustained.

165 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 Any redirect? MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Yes.

All right. I'm done. Okay. I know. Take a seat,

and then you have an opportunity to recross the witness, ask questions, if it relates within the scope of any questions that are asked on what we call redirect. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. In addition to the screen shots that are in

evidence in Exhibit 18, was there an investigation conducted concerning those transactions by the fraud department of HSBC Bank? A. Q. Yes. At that time was that conducted by Michael

Parylac? A. Q. Yes, it was. Have you had an opportunity to review the

information obtained during the course of Mr. Parylac's investigation? A. Q. Yes. During the course of that investigation, was

the routing number and the account number obtained that were provided by the defendant in those screen

166 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 evidence. MR. COMERFORD: Judge, if he's relying on shots? A. Q. Yes, it was. It's accurate that the routing number and the

account number weren't directly provided within the screen shots, is that correct? A. Yes. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: Objection, Judge. Grounds? We want to review this

something that's been provided by someone who is not a witness, we want an opportunity to see that. THE COURT: Okay. That's not a proper If it's an

objection necessarily to the statement.

issue of discovery for further examination, I'll entertain that. Lets get the examination complete,

and if you need to provide information additional that you haven't already that relates to this examination, that's a proper request. So, let's

find out where you're going with your examination. MS. BAUMGARTEN: So I should not respond

to that at this point, Judge? THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Not yet.

167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Credit statements would have been provided to

the defendant concerning the account, is that correct? A. Q. Yes. And would those credit statements have provided

not only the original application of each of the payments, but also the returned check? A. Q. Yes, it does. And, in fact, you actually testified concerning

those transactions during yesterday's testimony, is that correct? A. Q. Yes. All right. Were the payments that you

testified concerning yesterday automatic payments? A. Q. A. No. How were they arranged to have occurred? They were phoned in and set up through our

process. Q. All right. In that telephone-in process, were

security questions asked? A. Q. Yes. What was the purpose of those security

questions? A. Q. To verify the identity of the customer. Would those security questions have been asked

168 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 Honor. THE COURT: Okay, Miss Baumgarten. Any by the HSB representative if a representative was actually who took the call? A. Q. Yes. Were those security questions also asked if the

defendant used the automatic phone system? A. No. But they would still have to provide the

information needed to do that transaction. Q. A. How would that have occurred? Through a series of prompts through the

specific phone call. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your

questions, Mr. Buczek? MR. BUCZEK: Yes, Judge. Just a second, Judge.

MR. COMERFORD: THE COURT:

Before you begin those

questions, is it your request that you want the credit statement information that was just testified to as well as the report relating to the identification of the account number and the routing up number, is that the issue here? MR. COMERFORD: We just want to see some

record from HSBC that has either the DTC routing number or the account number he used.

169 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 produced. THE COURT: Okay. And I believe the

witness testified that there is a record that reflects that. The government has the obligation

to produce that record. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, it was In

It's within the 3500 material.

particular it's within the 302s that were prepared by Special Agent Fred Falkowski. MR. COMERFORD: record, Judge. An FBI 302 is not an HSBC

If HSBC comes in here and says it

was this account number, this routing number, it's got to be somewhere. a right to see it. MS. BAUMGARTEN: The information that the We haven't seen it. We have

witness is relying on is the 302 that reflects the interview conducted by the special agent of Mr. Parylac. MR. COMERFORD: rely on an FBI 302? records. MS. BAUMGARTEN: It was information that It seems -- how can HSBC

Somewhere it came from their

was obtained during a conversation involving Mr. Parylac. THE COURT: Not the 302. Does the record exist or not?

170 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 record? MS. BAUMGARTEN: It's my understanding MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: Not that I'm aware of.

Was a search made for that

what we have that was conducted by -- during the course of the investigation has been provided. THE COURT: All right. Direct your

witness to make a search for the HSBC record, not the 302, the HSBC record. Once you get the results You can

of that, make it available to Mr. Buczek.

do one of two things, you can -- on the basis of the information you get, you can -- we can recall Mr. Schumacker, or we can make an appropriate motion in the event -- or based upon the results of the government's information that it gives to you as far as its availability, its existence. I will

take a look at that in the context of the testimony of this witness with respect to both the accounting number and the routing number as far as the DTCC is concerned. MR. COMERFORD: THE COURT: aside a little bit. take care of that. Thank you, Judge. So now you put that

Okay.

You have the obligation to You can go to the podium and

start your cross-examination on everything else.

171 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 that -THE COURT: thing is, okay. No. Don't tell me what your main No. You can tell that to Mr. And you may also ask some questions about that if you choose to at this time. MR. BUCZEK: Judge, my main thing is

Comerford, see if that can translate into a question. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Okay. Do you know what the security questions

were asked of? A. Q. No. Okay. Is there any way we can find out? Is

there -A. Q. The call was not recorded. Okay. I'm not asking about the recorded call.

What I'm trying to find out is there a log of what possible questions might be, whatever the -- I don't know what the questions were. what they were? A. Q. No. Okay. Is there a way for you to do an There's got to Do you know

investigation on that and find out? be a way. Okay. THE COURT:

No, let the witness -- what is

172 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 your question? witness answer. BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Can we find out what the security questions Is there any way possible of Let's make that clear. Let the

were, what was asked?

finding out what it was? A. Sometimes they're different. I mean, they're

used by the customer service representatives. There's no way of knowing what they asked at that time. There's no way of myself knowing what they

asked at that time. Q. A. Q. How about maybe the answers? There's no way of knowing that. Could it have been someone else that provided

the information? MS. BAUMGARTEN: speculate, your Honor. THE COURT: It's okay. Overruled. You He's asking him to

may answer that question. THE WITNESS: It could be. The person

that called in had the information of Shane Buczek. MR. BUCZEK: knowledge of this? THE WITNESS: MR. BUCZEK: No. Okay. Well, then you just Do you have firsthand

173 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 back. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: I'll ask -This will be redirect. to know. MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: Your Honor, if I may? else? THE WITNESS: MR. BUCZEK: Yes. Thank you. That's all I need can't say it was the defendant. MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: argumentative. Objection, your Honor.

It's what we call Next question.

Sustained.

MR. BUCZEK:

Could it have been someone

Question? Yes, please. Why don't you step

MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: Okay.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. If the individual who had called on the account

didn't have the answers to those security questions, what would have happened? A. Q. The call would have been discontinued. Does HSBC and its representatives provide

information on accounts to other than the account holder? A. No.

174 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 Honor. Honor. MR. BUCZEK: I just have one question. Q. So if a third-party had called and the

representative would have known that it was a third-party, what would have occurred? A. Q. The call is discontinued. Would those direct check payments have been

scheduled? A. No. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. I just have one question. The government

brought up the -- this promissory note that was recorded in Cattaraugus County clerk's office. Just one thing, is it true that there's a public and private side of the account? A. Q. I don't understand that question. And you don't understand the -- none of that, There is a public and private side of the

right? account? A.

I don't understand that question. MR. BUCZEK: All right. I have no further

questions. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your

175 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 COURT: for the HSBC record. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay. You'll be directed Okay. You have a search to do

specifically in that regard by Miss Baumgarten or Mr. Bruce. Thank you, Mr. Schumacker, we

appreciate you being here. MS. BAUMGARTEN: I think Mr. Bruce will

attend to it so we can call our next witness. THE COURT: though, Mr. Bruce. MR. BRUCE: THE COURT: I think I can handle it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bruce. Anna Medlock, your Honor. Make sure he gets it right

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

I don't -- your Honor, we seem to have misplaced the originals of Exhibits 11 and 18. thought I had left them up at the podium. MR. COMERFORD: MS. BAUMGARTEN: We got them. Thank you. Your Honor, I

it's just going to be a moment. the witness from room 212. A N N A S.

We had to retrieve

M E D L O C K, having been duly

sworn as a witness, testified as follows: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Morning. Good morning.

176 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 COURT: comfortable. Okay. Make yourself

I think you're at a good position. It's going to pick you up Keep in

Speak at the microphone.

if you speak in a conversational tone.

mind that all of the testimony, questions and answers and discussions are taken down by my court reporter. Because you are here for the benefit of

the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please keep your voice up so that it's loud enough for us to hear. There's a few preliminary instructions.

Just make sure that you answer the question that's asked of you. Try to be as concise and direct with Don't volunteer

your response as you can be.

information, because that causes all kinds of complications. If you don't understand a question, I'll assist in that

just ask that it be repeated. regard.

If there's an objection to a question,

hold back with an answer, wait until I give you further instruction. I'll resolve the objection,

and then what I will do is tell you whether to complete an answer or wait for a new question and then answer that question. instructions? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Yes, sir. Okay. You may be directed Do you understand those

177 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 also to the screen to your left there, and you will see exhibits. If you don't have the paper

document, the hard copy, you'll see it on the screen itself. So, with that, if you would start

please in a conversational tone of voice and give us your full name and spell your last name, please. THE WITNESS: M-E-D-L-O-C-K. THE COURT: Miss Baumgarten. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Morning, ma'am. Morning. Where are you employed? The Internal Revenue Service. What do you do at the Internal Revenue Service? I'm currently the chief planning analyst for Okay. Your witness please, Anna S. Medlock,

compliance services. Q. How long have you been employed by the Internal

Revenue Service? A. Q. A. Q. Thirty-five years. Where are you located, what office? In Austin, Texas. Have you always worked for the Internal Revenue

Service in Austin?

178 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 A. Q. A. Yes. What are your duties in your current position? Currently I assist the field director, oversee I also serve as

the responsibilities that he has.

the liaison to headquarters and to the rest of the management team there in Austin. Q. How many positions have you held during the

course of your employment at the Internal Revenue Service? A. Q. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? How many positions have you held during your

employment at the Internal Revenue Service? A. Q. A. Q. I would say about 15 to 20. Currently how many employees do you supervise? About 25. Have you supervised more employees during other

positions that you've held at the IRS? A. Q. Yes, I have. What is the greatest number of employees that

you have supervised? A. Q. About 400. What was your position at the time you

supervised 400 employees? A. I was the operations manager for accounts

management.

179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And what did that position require of you?

What were your duties? A. I oversaw the responsibilities of customer

service representatives and some clerical personnel. Those customer service representatives We also processed

also took calls at a call site.

any written correspondence coming in from taxpayers. We respond to those inquiries. We also

processed 1040X amended tax returns. Q. Okay. During the course of your employment

with the IRS, are you familiar with the types of information that the IRS keeps and maintains? A. Q. Yes, I am. Are you familiar with the computerized

databases? A. Q. Yes, I am. And what do those computerized records on the

databases relate to? A. They're tax filing histories for individual

taxpayers, and we refer to that individual tax paying history as an account. Q. That would be each person's or each company's

tax history? A. Q. Yes. Did you ever have access to any accounts that

180 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 contain money, that were in the possession or maintained by the Internal Revenue Service? A. No. THE COURT: I want a clarification here.

Ask it again because you had a compound question with respect to records for each person or each corporation. question. It was blended I think in the

Ask specifically with respect to

information on each taxpayer account, and then each business account in terms of corporations and whether they're maintained. Q. Does the IRS maintain computerized and other

records with respect to tax history information for individuals? A. Q. Yes. Does the IRS maintain records and information

concerning tax information from businesses? A. Q. Yes. Are you familiar with the types of information

and the records maintained as to businesses? A. Q. Yes. Are you familiar with the information and

records maintained with respect to individuals? A. Q. Yes. Is there limitations with respect to access for

181 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 those records? A. Q. A. Yes, there is. What is that based on? Every employee accesses information only on a

need-to-know basis in order to help an individual taxpayer that's assigned to them to work. Q. Are you -- do you have any knowledge concerning

any trust accounts maintained by the Internal Revenue Service? A. Q. No. Are there any trust accounts maintained by the

Internal Revenue Service? A. Q. No. Are there any trust accounts maintained with

respect to individuals? A. Q. No. Are there any trust accounts maintained with

respect to any businesses? A. Q. No. When you refer to the account, what are you

actually referring to? A. It is a tax filing history for an individual

based on tax years and any information they have filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Q. Are you familiar with Social Security numbers?

182 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 A. Q. Yes. Are Social Security numbers used during the

business operations of the Internal Revenue Service? A. Q. A. Yes. How are they used? It is the information that the customer service

representative needs in order to access the information they need to help a taxpayer. Q. Are there any trust accounts maintained by the

Internal Revenue Service based upon an individual's Social Security number? A. Q. No. Are there any trust accounts -- let me start Are you familiar with an alphanumeric

again.

number that appears on the card stock for a Social Security card? A. Q. No. Do you know whether the Internal Revenue

Service maintains any trust accounts for individuals based on an alphanumeric number? A. No. THE COURT: Do you know what an

alphanumeric number is? THE WITNESS: It would be a combination of

183 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 time. weeks. Honor. THE COURT: Miss Baumgarten. THE WITNESS: water, sir? THE COURT: Certainly. Sure. Take your Could I pour a glass of the All right. Thank you, the alphabet and numbers. THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Do you have any control over any accounts Thank you.

maintained by the Internal Revenue Service, and by accounts I don't mean taxpayer information, I mean bank accounts? A. Q. A. Q. No. Do you know the defendant? No, I don't. To your knowledge have you ever spoken to the

defendant? A. Q. No. To your knowledge have you ever received

correspondence from the defendant? A. No. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your

I think it's fresh within the last two

184 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 Judge. question? THE WITNESS: MR. BUCZEK: No. I believe I went too fast, concept? THE COURT: Did you understand the CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. A. Q. Good morning. Good morning. It's real nice to meet you. I heard a lot

about you. record? A. Q.

Can you please state your name for the

Anna Medlock. Thank you. Mrs. Medlock, I -- in preparing for

this case, I've been working on it for quite a while, have you learned about the belief system concerning the 1933 bankruptcy and HR 192 June 5th, 1933, passed at 4:40 p.m. in the afternoon that -the theory is that everything is prepaid since there is no lawful money, Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution all debts supposed to be paid back in gold and silver and no state should submit bills of credit. MS. BAUMGARTEN: MR. BUCZEK: Objection.

Are you familiar with that

185 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 COURT: You did, for all of us. So,

on that basis that the witness does not understand the question -MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Are you familiar with the bankruptcy of the I'll do slower. -- withdraw the question. All right. Be more deliberate please.

United States in 1933? A. Q. No, I'm not. Are you familiar or heard anything about this

thing called acceptance for value, exempt from levy, with your Social Security number without the dashes, which is the creditor's side and with the dashes is the debtor side, are you familiar with that concept? A. Q. No. Have you ever heard of it at all? Whispered in

your ear at work, have you ever heard of it, maybe on the Internet or anything? A. Q. No. Have you ever received documents sent in to

Austin, Texas, addressed to I believe your name, Anna Medlock, people sending in their coupons which

186 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 they believe are money orders and accepted for value and sent in to you and they signed the back of the coupon mailed directly to your office, have you ever received any of that ever? MS. BAUMGARTEN: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: that question. THE WITNESS: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. A. Q. A. Q. Not that you know of? No. So possibly it might be true then? Could be. Um-hum. I just have to say it's an honor to I've heard a lot about you over Not that I know of, no. Objection.

From anybody? Overruled. You may answer

meet you today.

the last five years and I learned about public policy -MS. BAUMGARTEN: MR. BUCZEK: on the record, Judge. THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. BUCZEK: I know. But I just wanted -Can't do it that way. Objection, your Honor.

-- and -- I need to put this

it's an honor to meet her, that's all.

187 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 seminars. THE COURT: You can't do that, Mr. Buczek. It's a stand-up objection. I'm sorry. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: Okay. And I've been to a lot of

There is an objection. MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT:

A silent one which I'm going

to acknowledge and sustain. MS. BAUMGARTEN: MR. BUCZEK: Thank you, your Honor.

Are you aware of the

publications that are mostly on You Tube and throughout the Internet on the bankruptcy of 1933 and accepted for value exempt from levy and everything is prepaid apparently under public policy, and I brought that issue up earlier -THE COURT: No, you're losing the

question, so I'm going to take the initiative and object to that question and require that it be withdrawn. MR. BUCZEK: Mrs. Medlock, are you Are you

familiar with my belief system? familiar -THE COURT: this witness? MR. BUCZEK: Yes.

Is there a question before

The question is are you

188 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 familiar with my belief system concerning the bankruptcy of 1933? THE WITNESS: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. And House Resolution 192, June 5th, 1933, No.

passed in Congress which -- Judge, which was repealed but codified in Title 31 Section 5118. A. Q. A. Q. No. Never heard of this? No. Have you learned about anything about the

banking system since you heard about this case and my belief system, not just mine but probably thousands? A. Q. A. Q. No. About accepted for value? No. So you're going to tell me you never received

any accepted for value documents mailed to your office in the last five, ten years? A. If it is, it probably came in through the mail

room and was routed to an area that could look at it and determine what to do with it. Q. Have you -- have you testified in other similar

cases similar as this one that people have a

189 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 question. BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. I know. Are you familiar with Article 1 terms? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Mrs. Medlock, do you know the definition of Yes. Thank you. certain belief system on a bankruptcy? A. No. THE COURT: What does acceptance for

value, what does that mean to you? THE WITNESS: Something would be presented

so that it is accepted as money, accepted as money or something like that. THE COURT: So it has meaning, those

money? A. Q. A. As written in the dictionary, no. Weights and measures, correct, gold and silver? I don't know whether that is the definition of

money. Q. I was just asking if you knew the definition of

money, weights and measures and gold and silver. THE COURT: There was an answer to that

Section 10 of the United States Constitution?

190 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 of it. question. A. Q. No, I'm sorry not offhand. Would you like me to tell you what that is? MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: Objection, your Honor.

Grounds? He's supposed to be

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

asking her the question, not testifying. MR. BUCZEK: I'm trying to get her to

understand the question, Judge. THE COURT: Well, you have to do it I'm not supposed to

through a series of questions.

give you instructions, that's why you have your standby counsel. closer. MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: objection, frankly. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Well, he asked the It is relevance. Work with him a little bit

That's kind of a weak

She said, no, she did not understand it. THE COURT: Is this all relevant? That's why I said it's

MS. BAUMGARTEN: also not relevant. THE COURT:

I must have missed that part

So far this part is not relevant. Form of the question usually is the way Sustained. Consult with your attorney

Sustained. it's put.

191 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 about what next to do. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: standby counsel. I have one more question. Not your attorney, but your

Okay. Okay.

MR. BUCZEK: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q.

Did you consult with the United States

attorney's office about this case and did they prep you up, testimony today? A. Q. We had a discussion, yes. Would you state on the record under penalty of

perjury that you never received anything A for V at your office, accepted for value, exempt from levy? A. I can't say whether something came in or not if

I didn't see it. Q. A. So what I'm trying to get to, it might be true. Well, certainly something could have come into

the Internal Revenue Service with my name on it. Q. What I was trying to get to, Mrs. Medlock, is

that did the United States attorney's office block you from talking about what we're discussing today? A. Q. No. Okay. Last question I guess. Are you familiar

with the -- the Winston Shrout, Jean Keating, Dr. Sam Kennedy, and the list goes -- it's very

192 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 long, and about everything's prepaid and you tear the coupon off, which is actually a money order, and they mail it directly to your office, have you seen one of them at all in the last few years, at least heard of it? A. Q. No. And would you say that under penalty of

perjury? MS. BAUMGARTEN: is under oath. THE COURT: The witness is under oath. Objection. Your Honor, the witness

MS. BAUMGARTEN: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. A. Q. A. Q. A.

Can you please tell me what the 1040V is? It's a voucher. What do we use it for? For payment. Can you give me an example? When a taxpayer submits a payment, the 1040V is

a voucher that is submitted with the payment. Q. So there -- would it be possible that they're

tearing a coupon off, signing the back of the coupon, which is actually a bill from any bank, and they're mailing it in with a 1040V, would it be possible that the coupon from your mortgage and

193 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 your auto loan is actually really a money order, and they're mailing it in with a 1040V, is it even possible? A. Q. I don't think I understand the question. I'll rephrase it. Say you get a bill from HSBC

for a mortgage and you owe a thousand dollars, and you tear the coupon off. There's a coupon, you They sign the

know, payment stub they call it.

back of it, write accepted for value, and they mail it to Anna Medlock in Austin, Texas, with a 1040V. The theory is what I'm trying to get to, is a lot of people believe that the coupon is actually a money order. the coupon? A. Q. No. Okay. And just to finish up with the gentleman Have you ever received any of that,

I mentioned earlier, Dr. Sam Kennedy, Winston Shrout, Jean Keating, there is a lot of information about you on You Tube by the way, have you seen that? A. Q. No. You're famous. You're all over You Tube. I'm all done. Thank you. I

thank you very much. THE COURT:

Okay, Mr. Buczek, thank you.

Miss Baumgarten, is there any redirect?

194 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 Honor. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: Any questions, Mr. Buczek? Yeah, just one. I just have MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: Okay. Yes, please.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. If paperwork such as that described by the

defendant during his questioning of you was received at the time that you supervised 400 employees, what likely would have happened to that paperwork? A. It would have come through the mail room and

processed in whatever manner it came in. Q. Would there have been a referral within the IRS

to another department? A. Q. A. That's possible, yes. What would that department have been? It would have been within the mail room

operation, because that's where the monies are deposited and mail is opened. Q. During the time frame that you supervised the

400 employees, how many pieces of correspondence went out with your signature approximately? A. About 900,000. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your

195 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 Honor. THE COURT: very much. Okay. Miss Medlock, thank you Have a good safe all. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your one question. THE COURT: If it's one stay right there.

I'll let you ask it right from the table. MR. BUCZEK: no on this. I just want to get a yes or

Do you ever go on the Internet and

look into this, look at the information concerning the bankruptcy and some people call it the Wizard of Oz, because we're in the fiction world today. We're not in Kansas anymore, and, you know, your name has been associated with a lot of these things. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE WITNESS: MR. BUCZEK: That's really not a question. Have you ever seen it before? No. Okay. Thank you. That's

We appreciate it.

trip back to Austin. THE WITNESS: Thank you. The government's next

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

witness is Matthew Johnson. THE COURT: Everybody doing okay, ladies

196 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 gentlemen? M A T T H E W J O H N S O N, having been duly

sworn as a witness, testified as follows: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay. Good morning.

Morning. You're moving pretty quickly. Okay. Couple Everything

Almost ran into one of our CSOs.

preliminary instructions to you, sir.

that is discussed in the courtroom, questions, answers, related matters on objections or arguments gets taken down by my court reporter. Your purpose

here is to make certain that she captures everything that you say, so you're here for the benefit of the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You have a microphone that's yours for now. Speak

at that device, keep your voice at a conversational tone. That helps everybody. Associated with that

is, one, if you don't understand a question, please ask that it be repeated. don't try to rephrase it. Don't try to answer it, As far as any question

is concerned and then your answer, keep it as succinct and as related as possible. Don't

volunteer information, because that causes all kinds of difficulties. Bear in mind that if

there's an objection, you should wait until I rule

197 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 on the objection, then you will get an instruction from me to continue with your answer or wait for another question. Understand those instructions? I do. All right. Looks like you're Please state

THE WITNESS: THE COURT:

going to get picked up pretty well. your full name, spell your last name. THE WITNESS: J-O-H-N-S-O-N. THE COURT: Okay.

Matthew Todd Johnson,

Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. A. Q. A. Morning, Mr. Johnson. Good morning. Where are you employed? I'm employed with the Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency, and it is an agency underneath the U.S. Treasury Department. Q. How long have you been employed with the

Treasury Department? A. Q. A. Going on 24 years now. What is your current position? I am a commissioned national bank examiner as

well as an external fraud specialist. Q. If you would please let the jury know what

those responsibilities are within each of those

198 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 positions. A. Sure. A commissioned national bank examiner is

an individual who has passed what is called a commissioning test. So the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency is responsible for chartering, regulating, and supervising all national banks here in the United States, as well as foreign banks' branches here in the United States. The agency itself not only do they ensure

that safety and soundness protocols are being met, but we also do thing like looking at loans, looking at investments, making sure the bank is run in a safe and sound manner. A commissioned national bank examiner is one who has gone through a commissioning process, not unlike what a CPA might do. It's a long process,

testing process, and you've got to pass all elements in order to get the commissioning designation. A national fraud specialist is a

position that my agency created many years ago that allows the individual who is in that position to work with law enforcement, to work with prosecutors in investigating alleged crimes or alleged fraudulent activity either against financial institutions or fraudulent activities just in

199 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 general. Q. Are you familiar with the Bureau of Public

Debt? A. Q. A. Yes, I am. What is that? The Bureau of Public Debt is also part of the Essentially it keeps

U.S. Treasury Department.

tabs of the debt that the U.S. Government has. Q. Are you familiar with the computerized systems

and information that are maintained and kept by the Department of Treasury? A. yes. Q. All right. Have you had an opportunity to As it relates to the Bureau of Public Debt,

search or cause a search to be done of the Bureau of Public Debt with respect to the defendant Shane Christopher Buczek? A. Q. A. Yes, I have. What were the results of that search? Mr. Buczek does not have any type of account

associated with the U.S. Treasury Department or the U.S. Government. Q. What sort of accounts could an individual have

with the Treasury Department of the U.S. as reflected in the Bureau of Public Debt?

200 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 A. The Bureau of Public Debt keeps, as I said,

keeps track of the debt that the U.S. Government has. An individual can a open up an account and Previously

it's called a treasury direct account.

to that it was called a legacy treasury direct account. But a treasury direct account is an

account where an individual can buy and sell U.S. debt obligations. And what I mean by that is a

U.S. debt obligation is like a T-bill, a T-note or even savings bonds, the double E savings bonds. And they will maintain those items, like the treasury bonds, in that account. In order for an

individual to use the money represented by the debt obligations in that account, an individual must sell them, then have that money transferred over to let's say a regular bank account, and then you can use that money. One thing that -- that account

cannot do is if you had an account such as a treasury direct account, you cannot pay third-party out of that account. In other words, you can't

write a check on that account, or wire money to a third-party from that account. Q. Are there checks that can be issued in any way

from a treasury direct account or a treasury legacy account?

201 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 this way. A. Q. A. Q. No. Is there a checking function on those accounts? No. Is there a savings function on them, other than

the holding of those U.S. obligations? A. no. Q. Could we back up just for a moment and explain Other than the holding of the U.S. obligations,

you used the term T-bill, T-bond and there was a third that I missed. A. T-note. THE COURT: Okay. We're going to start How

with that, but let me ask you one question.

many are there around like you, a commissioned national bank examiner? first. THE WITNESS: question, your Honor. THE COURT: all I know. You may be one of a kind for I don't understand the I want to know about that

You are commissioned, right? Yes, I am. You're a national bank

THE WITNESS: THE COURT:

examiner, so how many are there? THE WITNESS: Let me answer that question

My agency employs approximately 2500

202 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 people. Of that 2500 people I'm going to say

commissioned-wise, maybe 1500 that are currently with my agency. Obviously we have had a lot of

retirees that also have that commissioned national bank status, they're just not employed anymore. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Where do you come to Buffalo from? Where are Ballpark 1500? Yes. Thank you. That's helpful.

you located generally? A. Q. I work and reside in Washington, D.C. If we can go back just to catch up and get an

explanation from you as to the T-bill, T-bond and T-note? A. Q. A. Yes. As to each of those terms please. The T obviously stands for treasury, so They are what the

treasury bond, treasury note.

U.S. issues in order to finance the debt of United States. If you have read the news lately, there's

a lot of talk and discussion about the debt of the United States and where we are there. The holders

of those T-bonds, T-notes and T-bills could be individuals such as here in the courtroom, or they

203 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 rate? THE WITNESS: of Washington, D.C. THE COURT: competitive rate? MS. BAUMGARTEN: I think the Court is Is it generally a good The Federal Reserve does out could be governments. For example, like I believe

now China, the country of China is now the single largest holder of debt -- of U.S. debt obligations. THE COURT: What's the benefit to holding

something that evidences a part of the U.S. debt? THE WITNESS: Well, they'll get a certain

amount of interest on that based on whatever the prevailing interest rates are. And if the T-bonds,

T-bills, or T-notes are sold at a discount, and that factors into the interest as well. So it can

earn you money, like a savings account can. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Is that a published rate? It is a published rate, but

it changes all the time. THE COURT: Who watches over the changing

asking for investment advice. THE WITNESS: I will say that holding of

U.S. treasury debt obligations is a very conservative investment, and it's safe, because

204 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 it's backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, as opposed to if you were to buy stock in the market, then you have to rely upon the quality and value of that company, whatever that company is, to maintain the quality of the debt obligation. THE COURT: Okay. And that's helpful by

way background and by way of what your information is that you possess. there. Okay. Let's move on from

Go ahead, Miss Baumgarten.

BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Focusing back on the opening of such a treasury What is that

legacy account, how does that occur? process? A.

Well, it's as simple as going to the Internet

and pulling up the treasury direct Web site and you can open an account online there. And then the

specific process is there that are detailed on that Web site. Q. Do funds have to be transferred into a newly

opened account as part of the process? A. Yes. In order to purchase debt obligations,

the T-bills, the T notes, the T-bonds, or the double E savings bonds, you first have to have money, and then you purchase them, and then the

205 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 instruments themselves reside in that account. Q. In the event that an individual who -- or a

company who would open such a treasury legacy account wished to sell off those U.S. obligations, how would that occur? A. They would just put a sell order in, and it

would be sold, and then most likely the money would then be transferred out to a regular bank account that one might have. Q. When you say money, do you mean physical

currency? A. Well, it's going to be like a -- probably a

wire transfer that is represented by currency, but it's not actual currency. Q. Are you familiar with the term pass through

account? A. Q. A. Yes. What does that term mean? Generally speaking, a pass through account is It's an account Typically and

kind of like what the name says. that something passes through it.

not exclusively, but typically a lot of foreign banks will have foreign correspondent bank relationships with banks in the United States in order to promote investment or to allow their

206 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 customers to do something else somewhere else down the road. So a foreign bank will open up an

account in a U.S. bank, and when they transfer money that needs to be over here, it passes through this account at this institution. Q. Are you familiar with the term Federal Reserve

discount window? A. Q. A. Yes. What does that mean? That Federal Reserve discount window is where

you would go actually to purchase debt obligations of the U.S., either an individual can do that or in some cases companies. Q. And then those purchased U.S. obligations would

be held in your treasury legacy account? A. If you want it to be held there, then you could

go through the treasury legacy account to do that. Typically what happens if you're going to the Federal Reserve discount window to purchase something, it's either going to be held probably at the Federal Reserve or at some other entity that's going to hold this for you. Q. Is there such a term as the treasury discount

window? A. Not that I'm aware of.

207 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 witness? THE COURT: premarked exhibit? MS. BAUMGARTEN: evidence, your Honor. THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Are you familiar with what's in Government Thank you. It's Exhibit 11 in Certainly. Is that a MS. BAUMGARTEN: approach the witness? THE COURT: I'm sorry? May I approach the Your Honor, may I

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

Exhibit 11? A. I'm familiar with it to the extent that it was

provided to me to look at previously. Q. A. Q. In connection with your testimony here today? Yes. All right. So you've reviewed it prior to

appearing here? A. Q. Yes. All right. Now, in that document there are Can

references to the treasury discount window. you explain -- page 2.

It's on the screen also.

Mr. Johnson, if you wouldn't mind taking your finger and circling on the screen the term treasury

208 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 discount window. Exhibit 11? A. Yes, I do. Not a real good circle. That was a conservative Do you see it on page 2 of

THE COURT: statement by the way. BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q.

Do you see during -- in that -- on that page in

Exhibit 11 there is "via the pass through account at the treasury discount window." that phrase means? A. Q. Not in this context, no. Does it have any meaning with respect to the Do you know what

transfer of funds? A. Q. No. If you would please look at page 4 of Do you see

Exhibit 11, in particular paragraph 6.

a reference there Department of the Treasury bank and the federal window? A. Q. Yes. You highlighted it. Thank you. What does

paragraph 6 mean? A. Q. I have no idea. Would it effectuate the transfer of funds from

the Department of Treasury to anyone's account? A. No.

209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. A. Q. Would it transfer funds to pay any debt -No. -- on anyone's behalf? No. If you will look at page 5 of Exhibit 11, what

does that document purport to be? A. Well, it purports, as indicated at the top, However, I And in the

that it's a bonded promissory note. would have no idea what that term is.

course of my job responsibilities with my agency, I see these types of documents, unfortunately, almost on a daily basis. Q. So you have familiarity with this sort of a

document? A. Q. Yes. Do you have an understanding of what this sort

of document is being submitted to accomplish? A. Well, it's submitted to try to allow or to

cause the U.S. Treasury to somehow pay someone's debt obligations. Q. Are there any trust accounts maintained by the

Department of Treasury on behalf of any individuals? A. Q. No. Aside from those that would contain the U.S.

210 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 obligations? A. That is correct. Other than if somebody opened

up a treasury direct account, then that account obviously is there in the individual's name that they can hold the debt obligations that you referred to. Q. Other than that, no.

Would the submission of the bonded promissory

note on page 5 of Exhibit 11 actually cause funds to be transferred from the Department of Treasury? A. Q. A. No. On anyone's behalf? No. THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. What does it cause to have -- what happens if What's done with it?

someone submits this bonded promissory note? A. Nothing. The Treasury Department probably --

obviously they take possession of it since it's sent to them, and it just is maintained there. Q. Does the Department of Treasury acknowledge any

of these bonded promissory notes one way or the other? A. No. However, I will say that I am aware that

the U.S. Treasury at times will send a letter back to the individual who submitted them notifying them

211 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 that these are considered fictitious financial instruments, and they should cease and desist from sending them. Q. If you would look at page 6 of Exhibit 11, are

you familiar with that document? A. Q. Yes. Have you seen documents -- first of all, what

is it, please? A. Well, it states that it's a verified notice of And what it is purporting on

tender of payment.

this document it says notice for, if you see that on the document there, that it's supposed to go to an individual at HSBC Bank. Q. Does page 6 of Exhibit 11 have any legal

affect? A. Q. No. Does it cause the Department of Treasury to

transfer funds to HSBC bank? A. Q. A. Q. No. Did it happen on this particular case? No. What was the dollar amount of the bonded

promissory note in page 5 of Exhibit 11? A. It states that it was for $30,000. However, if

you take a look at the very first paragraph of the

212 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 please. THE WITNESS: -- it refers to a bonded promissory note where it starts memo -THE COURT: Okay. Let's highlight that,

500 million-dollar amount that is supposed to be in an account at Treasury in the name of the defendant. BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. All right. Is there actually such an account

in the defendant's name at the Department of Treasury? A. Q. No. Are you familiar with the term in that

paragraph private offset bond? A. Q. No. Does the Department of Treasury maintain any

accounts based on an individual's Social Security number? A. Not that I'm aware of. It may be a secondary

identifier, but I do not believe that it is a primary identifier. And by that I mean typically

they're going to use a name, and then that would be the primary identifier and then in order to make sure you've got the right person, for example, my name being Matthew Johnson, there's -- there are a

213 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 lot of us here in the United States, and so they would use my Social Security number or even my middle name to help narrow it down to who I am. Q. Does the Treasury Department maintain trust

accounts by the mere fact that an individual has a Social Security number? A. Q. No. Does the Department of Treasury maintain secret

trust accounts based upon the fact that an individual has a Social Security number? A. Q. No. Is the defendant's Social Security number

referenced throughout Exhibit 11? A. Yes, it is. I believe -- especially on that

page that we were just on, I think it's page 5, and in that paragraph that's actually already highlighted on the screen right after where it says private offset bond with a number sign, the 131-68-5635 I believe is the defendant's Social Security number. Q. And is that also listed on that same page 5 at

the top of the document following note number? A. Q. Yes, it is. Is there an alphanumeric, meaning alphabet and

number combination number that follows?

214 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 A. Yes. Right after the Social Security number

there's a slash, and then there's a C for Charlie 22401901-B as in baker, P as in Paul, N as in nector, 0006. Q. Does that number have any significance with the

U.S. Department of Treasury? A. Q. No. Is there any significance to you with respect

to the $30,000 amount listed within Exhibit 11? A. The only significance I would say it most

likely relates to something at HSBC Bank. Q. All right. MS. BAUMGARTEN: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. With respect to, for example, a debt with HSBC Excuse me, your Honor.

Bank, if there was a debt in the approximate amount of $10,000, would the $30,000 referenced throughout Exhibit 11 have a significance? A. Q. A. Yes. What would that significance be? Well, the significance would be that obviously

the $30,000 would be going to pay the $10,000 debt the individual actually has. The other issue that

possibly could happen was that if for some reason HSBC took this as a legitimate document, they may

215 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 Honor. THE COURT: we're going to do. Okay. I'll tell you what feel that they were overpaid and that ultimately send $20,000 back to the individual who sent the $30,000 item in. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your

I think, ladies and gentlemen,

you've earned a break, okay, so we will resume again at 11:00 o'clock, and Gerry -- I'm sorry, Darryl, we'll put them in your custody at this point. Okay. Mr. Johnson, you're going to be excused,

but you are under oath, remember that please. (Jury excused from the courtroom.) (Jury seated.) THE COURT: Thank you. Please have a We are

seat, ladies and gentlemen.

Okay.

reassembled in the case of United States versus Shane Buczek. The attorneys are back, present. The witness, Mr. Johnson, is

Mr. Buczek is here. here.

And ladies and gentlemen of the jury, not

last, not least, but you are here, roll call waived. Are we ready to go forward on

cross-examination? MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, there was a

216 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 right. out. of 12. request by the defense with respect to one of the pieces of evidence. We are trying to resolve that.

The government's trying to accommodate the request so that they could at least flush out the issue before we would have to object. THE COURT: okay to go forward? MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: We could -All Do we need more time? Are we

I think we're okay.

Lets give it a try.

Lets see where we come

We will be breaking though about five minutes Okay. Cross-examination, Mr. Buczek.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. A. Q. Okay, good morning. Good morning. Thanks for joining us today. I guess I'll

start off by asking you to state your name for the record. A. Q. Matthew Todd Johnson. Okay. Thank you. It's nice to -- nice for you

to come here today. I guess I'll just start off with a few questions about getting back to the -- to the bankruptcy of 1933. There seems to be a huge issue

of people sending you -- you were mentioning

217 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 earlier you're getting every other day these bonded promissory notes and all sorts of different paperwork, was that correct? A. I do receive a lot of information such as what However you

we've discussed already this morning.

mentioned something about a bankruptcy in 1933, which I'm not aware of. Q. I'm sure you read the constitution before,

right? A. Q. In a civics class I'm sure I did, yes. Okay. The only reason why I bring that up is I Have you

was going to mention one little point. ever heard of Article 1, Section 10? A.

I'm not familiar with that off the top of my

head. Q. Okay. It basically just states that all debts

supposed to be paid back in gold and silver. Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution states that all debt is supposed to be paid back in gold and silver, and no states should submit bills of credit. And if you look at the -- I might as well

ask you, it's called the Federal Reserve note I believe it's called, which represents a debt. I

guess what I want to ask you -- the reason why I'm bringing this up is I want to ask you what is your

218 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 main job at the OCC? I believe it's called the I thought it was

comptroller of the currency. located in Texas. in Washington, D.C.

I didn't know they had a branch But can you just please give a

brief description of what you do there. A. As I stated earlier this morning, I work for an

agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or OCC. Washington, D.C. It is headquartered out of And we are part of the U.S. The OCC has offices all over

Treasury Department. the country.

In fact I believe we even have a

satellite office here in Buffalo. My job responsibilities at the OCC as a commissioned national bank examiner, it gives me the authority to examine and supervise all national banks here in the United States, as well as foreign branches that have -- foreign banks that have branches here in the United States. I'm also

responsible for assisting law enforcement, whether it's federal or state and local, on investigations as it relates to fraud, or alleged fraud, and also help serve as an expert witness in certain court proceedings as it relates to whatever is being charged. Q. I didn't know we had a satellite office in

219 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 Buffalo. A. Q. I believe we do. Okay. I've never knew that. That's nice to

know.

We'll go ahead and just basically ask you in

your office when you're sitting there your main thing is basically just to work with law enforcement, so you work with this every day, these kind of issues and cases that come through your hands every day -A. Q. Yes. -- is that correct? So basically that's your

job and duty.

So, would it be true that -- that --

would it be true that you might -- you might not know really a lot of what goes on with the Treasury Department with the offset account we briefly talked about? Do you have a lot of knowledge on

that or just a little bit? A. I'm very familiar with and have served as an

expert witness in anywhere between 15 and 20 times in federal court as it relates to the instruments that are presented here in this court proceeding and as it relates to the fictitious financial nature of these type of instruments. Q. Have you -- have you learned about the reason

why these people are sending these promissory

220 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 notes? about. You're saying what in the world is this all Have you heard about the belief system and Have you even maybe late

the bankruptcy of 1933?

at night, have a beer, sitting on the computer saying what is this all about? there and -THE COURT: Let's stop it there. Let's Have you just sat

find out if you over a beer thought about what's this all about. Let's start with that one. I have certainly

THE WITNESS:

contemplated as to why individuals will send in these fictitious financial instruments in order to attempt to pay off debt obligations that they owe. The redemption theory, which is what this is about, and the redemption theorists have a belief that the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933 when we went off the gold standard, when in fact that is not true. The

U.S. Government did not go bankrupt, and the U.S. Government did not take the birth certificates of individuals to act at collateral for the U.S. Government debt. BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. A lot of people believe, but that's why --

isn't it true a lot of people believe what you just said, what you're stating is not true?

221 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 question? THE WITNESS: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. I'll withdraw it, Judge. A lot of people No. A. There are numerous people who believe that the

redemption theory has merit. Q. And isn't it also true that there's hundreds of

seminars going on throughout the United States of America on that theory I should say? A. Yes. There are individuals who conduct

seminars whereby people attend in order to gain information as relates to this alleged theory. Q. And the publications, have you read any of the Have you tried to review any of

publications?

their publications that they present at the seminars? A. I have reviewed numerous publications that are

presented at these seminars. Q. Okay. Thank you. In your thought process what

was your conclusion to their belief system? THE COURT: Do you understand that

allege that we have some type of secret treasury account. There's this secret thing going on. I

know -- well, actually I should ask you if it's secret, we can't talk about it in the public, can

222 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 we? A. I'm not sure exactly what your question is

implying. Q. I just -- I'm just trying to make a point,

because the theory is that if it's secret, you can never bring secret information into the public. There is a public and private side, and we are right now in the public, so that's why I was referring back to the land of Oz. Kansas anymore, are we? Have you reviewed any of the information on the Yahoo! redemption groups on Yahoo!, Yahoo! groups? There is a lot of different groups out there called Yahoo! redemption. Have you ever had an We're not in

opportunity to review it and look at the legalities and merits of what they're talking about? A. I'm not familiar with the terminology Yahoo

groups on redemption. Q. Okay. I was just asking. Getting back to the

discount window, you were briefly talking about the discount window, and do you know the locations of where these discount windows are located at? A. I believe that every Federal Reserve

district -- there are 12 of them across the country -- that operate a discount window.

223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And what happens, does somebody just walk right

into the store and they do their paperwork at that point and hand over their negotiable instruments? Or can you tell me a little bit what goes on there. A. Well, individuals or companies, whether they

walk in or they do it through other means, will utilize the discount window in order to purchase and/or sell debt instruments of the U.S. Government. Q. Okay. So, we're selling debt instruments, Are any of these instruments backed by

correct?

any type of silver or gold? A. The debt instruments are backed by the full

faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Q. A. Q. And who backs that? I don't understand that question. The full faith and credit you just mentioned -I am very

by the way it's in the constitution. aware of it. credit? A.

Who would back the full faith and

There's not a backing of the full faith and It is -- the full faith and credit is It means the debt

credit.

exactly what it means.

instruments are backed by the ability of the U.S. Government to pay its debt obligations.

224 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Is it possibly true that the full faith and

credit is backed by the American people and the American people are really the banks? A. Q. No. Okay. So getting back to the question, who is

backing the full faith and credit? A. Q. The U.S. Government. Okay. How is the U.S. Government backing it?

I'm trying to find ends to this rabbit hole. A. You're going to have to be clear on your I believe I answered what you -- what

question. you asked. Q.

I'm just trying to find out who's backing the Is it the United States -All

full faith and credit.

you said the United States Government, okay. right. We have the United States Government.

Who's backing the United States Government?

And

that's why I was asking you isn't it true that the American people back the government, the American people are actually the government? A. Well, it is true that the American people are It's the operations of the

the government.

government and how the government establishes monetary policy, not only domestically, but how we relate to other countries around the world and how

225 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 question. MR. BUCZEK: Is I believe -we have the capability of servicing and paying back our debt obligations as a U.S. Government. That is

the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Q. So, it might be true, okay, it might be true

that what I'm saying to you possibly could be true that the American people are backing the full faith and credit and the government, is that true? Possibly, maybe? A. I don't believe so, not in the context of your

question, no. Q. So we really don't know who's backing anything I'm trying to find out, because I

at this point.

know back in the olden days, which I wasn't around, our currency was backed with gold and silver, and I'm familiar with the John F. Kennedy back in 1963 how he tried to go back to the silver standard. I'm trying to find out who is backing all of this. I'm not getting anywhere. THE COURT: Mr. Buczek? MR. BUCZEK: point here. THE COURT: No point. You have to ask a Judge, I'm trying to make a What's the question,

226 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 COURT: what you believe. BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. The question is, once again, the American No. No. You can't -- not

people back all the transactions in this country. The American people -- my question is the American people -- do you believe the American people are actually really the banks, their hard work and labor and their blood? A. Q. No. Okay. The American people are not banks. I can go much deeper down the rabbit

hole, but I think that's at deep as I'll will go. I would like to ask a question real briefly but the T-bill, and you were talking about -- I think another way of rephrasing it is there is an M1, M2, and M3, am I correct on that? A. Q. A. If you're referring to money supply -Right. -- that's what the M1, M2 and M3 talk about,

the different aspects of the money supply as it relates to the U.S. Q. A. me. Q. Could you please explain to me what M1 is? I'd have to have the information in front of That's many economics classes ago. Okay. Have you ever heard of a publication

227 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 printed by the Federal Reserve called Modern Money Mechanics and Two Faces of Debt? It's a

publication printed by the Federal Reserve, and you can probably get it right off of Google if you Google search it. I believe it's page 4, 5 or 6.

Have you ever heard of it? A. Q. I don't believe so. Okay. I was going to ask you a question, but I

can't.

So, have you ever heard of the -- of the -You were mentioning that

I had written down here.

the Department of Treasury, correct, that's what you control the currency, overlook the Department of Treasury, the system. A. No. Let's make sure we get it right. The

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is part of the U.S. Treasury Department. Q. A. Okay. So the Treasury Department is -- if I can refer

to it as more like the mothership and the OCC is a pod ship. Q. Okay. And what is the difference between the

Department of Treasury and the treasury of the United States? A. I don't believe there's any difference. I

think that the Department of the United States

228 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 Treasury is sometimes referred to as the treasury of the United States. Q. So there's really no difference between the

Department of Treasury and the U.S. Department of Treasury, or the treasury of the United States, are they all the same entity? Or are they different

entities with different names? A. I would have to look at it in the context in But, generally

which that phraseology is used.

speaking, I have certainly heard the Department of Treasury referred to as the treasury of the United States. Q. Okay. Is it true possibly, maybe that one is

for the public and the other one is for the private, which we can't talk about in the public because we're in the public, is it possibly true? A. Q. No. Are you familiar with an attorney that worked

for the Federal Reserve, his name is Walker F. Todd, attorney-at-law. He now is retired, lives in

Ohio, and he worked for the Federal Reserve, an attorney. A. Q. No. Okay. Are you familiar with trustees, trusts, Have you ever heard of Walker F. Todd?

beneficiaries, are you familiar with those terms?

229 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 A. Q. Yes. Okay. As it relates to asset management, yes. In your own mind, can you please tell me

what the beneficiary's responsibility -- or what the beneficiary -- what's your definition of a beneficiary? A. A beneficiary is somebody who benefits from a

transaction or an event. Q. A. And a trust? A trust would be -- like a trust account would

be an account that would be set up in order to provide possibly future benefit to somebody in the future or at that given time. Q. A. And lastly would be trustee. A trustee would be somebody who is overseeing

the trust. Q. Isn't it possibly true that we are all

corporations, we are all trusts? A. Q. I have no idea what that means. Okay. I have a couple more questions. I know I was

we briefly talked about the discount window. trying to get somewhere with that.

But can we just Is

briefly touch on the treasury discount window.

there a difference between the discount window and over here the treasury discount window? A. As I stated earlier this morning, there -- to

230 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 my knowledge there is no such thing as a treasury discount window. The discount window is called the

Federal Reserve discount window. Q. A. Q. And you have firsthand knowledge of that? Yes. What do they do with these bonded promissory Do they maybe sell them

notes or promissory notes?

on Wall Street as a stable backed security and -I'll ask that question first. A. The bonded promissory note that's referred to

as an exhibit that we already talked about this morning, and also the ones that I have reviewed over several years, are fictitious financial instruments. Q. Okay. They have no value at all.

If you punch in the numbers to this

particular promissory note on the screen that we saw earlier, do you think it might be betrayed on Wall Street as we're speaking right now? A. As I stated earlier, these are fictitious.

They don't have any value. Q. I know, because we're in the public. So the

answer is no they wouldn't be.

That note, it's not

being traded on Wall Street right now, right? That's all, say yes or no. A. Well, the answer is these are fictitious, so

231 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 they don't exist. Q. So it's no, it's not being traded on Wall

Street right now. A. Right, you can't trade fictitious items on Wall

Street. Q. What makes you think it's fictitious? Because I need some What

makes you think that? clarification. A.

They're fictitious because they don't exist.

Bonded -- these bonded promissory notes -- and they're also referred to as a lot of different things as well. The same item at times has been

referred to as a site draft or an international bill of exchange, and there are various numerous things that these are titled, and as a result, this is just a -- has been morphed from something that existed previously. And I might add too that as a

result of these types of instruments that are coming to my agency's attention, as well as other government entities' attention, there are a lot of information out there on the Web site, as you referred to earlier, that talk about why these are fictitious and that these redemption schemes are nothing other than a scam. And, in fact, my agency

itself has issued two alerts on this, not only to

232 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 financial institutions, but to other government entities which is in the public domain that specifically talk about how these instruments are fictitious. Q. And if I worked for the government, I would do Isn't it

everything thing I can to stop this too.

also that people are stating that this is true, that private people in the private world, you're sitting down with your friends talking -- I believe you said you lived in Washington -- and you might go out and might chat about it, and isn't it -answer the first question. A. Q. Can you state the first question please? Are there other people out there saying this

procedure, this process, public policy process is true? Is there other people out there that stated

it's true, have you talked to them? A. There are individuals who are out there that

promote these redemption scams. Q. A. Q. Can I ask you why you call it a scam? Because it is. Can you back that -- can you back that up with

something? A. I can back it up with there have been numerous

court proceedings around the country, as well as my

233 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 guilty? THE COURT: Sustained. You cannot own investigation, on different items that come to my attention that promote these redemption scams or schemes, and that the items that support them are completely fictitious and have no financial value. Q. Are you familiar with the Ed Wahler case in

North Carolina, just took place about four months ago in North Carolina? Wahler case? Are you aware of the Ed

I believe there was four individuals

involved in that, and he was -- are you familiar with that? A. Q. A. I am familiar with the Ed Wahler case, yes. Could you please tell me more about that case? Well, I was not part of those proceedings, so

I'm not sure what it is you would like me to tell you. Q. Could you please tell me how many counts he was

charged with? A. I don't know the number of Counts. MS. BAUMGARTEN: MR. BUCZEK: Objection, your Honor.

Was he found guilty or not

question along that line. BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Okay. Despite this information from the

234 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 Honor. government which -- despite all this information from the government and the proceedings, some people believe that this still is true. question. A. Yes, there are some people who still believe That's my

that these redemption schemes are true. Q. Okay. One more thing. Just getting back to

Modern Money Mechanics on page -- I believe it's end of page 5 and it goes to page 6. It says banks Of

only accept promissory notes as payment.

course, banks don't loan money, because there is none, and they monetize it up to nine times the face value. A. Is that true?

Since I'm not familiar with the article that

you're referring to, I really can't comment on what's on those pages. Q. And also at this time you don't have a claim

against the defendant? A. Q. A. Do I have a claim against you? No, the defendant. I don't have a claim against the defendant in

this case, correct. MR. BUCZEK: No further questions, Judge. Nothing further, your

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

235 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 COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Johnson, you're excused. MR. BUCZEK:

Thank you. Just a moment please,

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

Judge, I think I have another witness available. THE COURT: Okay. Your Honor, may I ask a

MS. BAUMGARTEN: scheduling question. anticipating to break? THE COURT: minutes before that. MS. BAUMGARTEN:

When was the Court

Approximately 11:55, or a few

We're also going to see

if we can put a second witness on, your Honor, so I will have -THE COURT: Let's start with the next

witness, and I don't know if we can predict how long cross-examination will take. where we get. MS. BAUMGARTEN: B R A D L E Y L. Thank you, Judge. So let's see

P A R K E R, having been duly

sworn as a witness, testified as follows: THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Witness, a couple of Just get comfortable.

very brief instructions.

Everything is going to be taken down verbatim by my court reporter. Michelle is seated just to the

236 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 front and left of you. If you don't understand a I'll

question, please ask that it be repeated.

give the direction so that you can answer something you understand. Be concise to the extent possible Don't volunteer

that you can with your answers. information.

If there's an objection, wait until I

rule on the objection, and then I will give you instructions on whether to complete your answer or to wait for another question. And don't volunteer

information that's not called for in any of the questions or any of the discussions. understand those instructions? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: I do. All right. You're here for Do you

the benefit of the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, so speak in a conversational tone. microphone should pick you up okay. The

State your

full name, spell your last name, please. THE WITNESS: P-A-R-K-E-R. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Parker, thank you. Bradley L. Parker,

Your witness, Miss Baumgarten. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. A. Agent Parker, are you employed? I am.

237 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Where are you employed? I'm a special agent with the Office of

Inspector General for the U.S. Social Security Administration. Q. A. Where are you located? I have an office at 166 Washington Avenue in

Batavia, New York. Q. A. Q. A. What actually is your title? I'm a special agent. What duties do you perform in that position? We investigate allegations of fraud, waste, and

abuse within Social Security Administration programs and Social Security numbers and cards. Q. During the course of your employment as a

special agent with the Social Security Administration, have you become familiar with Social Security numbers? A. Q. Yes, I have. Have you also become familiar with the types of

documents and the information obtained and maintained by the Social Security Administration? A. Q. Yes. Are you familiar with the computerized

databases containing information that the Social Security Administration maintains?

238 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 A. Q. Yes, I am. Are you also familiar with Social Security

cards? A. Yes. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, I'm showing

the witness what has been marked for identification as Exhibit 39. May I approach? You may.

THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. A. Q. A.

Agent Parker, are you familiar with that? Yes, I am. What is that document? It's the Social Security card that was mailed

to Shane Christopher Buczek. Q. All right. Is that a record made by a person

with knowledge of the information contained within that record? A. Q. Yes. Is it made at or about the time the information

contained within that record is actually -- is actually received? A. Q. Yes. Is it in the regular course or practice of the

Social Security Administration to make that record? A. Yes, it is.

239 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Was that record kept and maintained in the

ordinary course of the business of the Social Security Administration? A. Yes. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Honor, please. Your Honor, for the sake of expediency, the government doesn't have an exhibit tab. I would Just a moment, your

like to affix an exhibit tab to an additional document. I would like to show it to the defense

first though. THE COURT: tab later. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, I'm going to Go ahead, and we'll work the

retrieve what's been marked as 39 from the witness. Your Honor, if I may show what has been marked as Government's Exhibit 39A to Agent Parker. has been shown to the defense. THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Agent Parker, would you take a moment and Sure. It

compare what's been -- you previously testified regarding Exhibit 39 for identification and 39A. A. Q. Yes. How do they compare?

240 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 A. 39A is the original document. And Exhibit 39

is a photocopy. Q. Your testimony with respect to the records set

forth as to 39A, if I walk through all those questions with you, would it be the same as to what you testified to concerning 39? A. Q. Yes. Except it would be the original Social Security

card, is that correct? A. Correct. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Exhibit 39A into evidence. MR. BUCZEK: On what grounds? That it's the defendant's The government moves

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

original Social Security card. THE COURT: that what you saying? MR. BUCZEK: I don't know even know. How So it's a duplicate copy, is

old is that version of the Social Security card? How old is that? MS. BAUMGARTEN: answer that question? THE WITNESS: May 4th, 2007. MR. BUCZEK: Okay. That's a replacement? This card was issued on Agent Parker, can you

241 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 MS. BAUMGARTEN: card, Agent Parker? THE WITNESS: MR. BUCZEK: with that. THE COURT: All right. Then 39A will be Yes, it is. Okay. I have no objections Is that a replacement

received into evidence. (Government's Exhibit 39A was received into evidence.) BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Would you read the defendant's Social Security

card --- Social Security number as reflected in the Social Security card 39A? A. Q. Yes. The number is 131-68-5635.

During the course of this ongoing

investigation, did you have an opportunity to verify the defendant's Social Security number? A. Q. A. Q. I did. And what was that Social Security number? It's 131-68-5635. If you would refer to the reverse side of 39A,

is there an alphanumeric number on the reverse side? A. Yes. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, with respect

242 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 the Exhibit 39A, we don't have that on the computer. I ask the Court's permission, because

the witness has testified that 39 is a copy of that original exhibit, may we display -- I would have to move it into evidence though first. THE COURT: can put it on Elmo. You can put it on Elmo. You

But move it into evidence --

well, it actually is, the entire card. MS. BAUMGARTEN: 39 is, your Honor. The

government would move Government Exhibit 39 into evidence. THE COURT: Mr. Buczek? MR. BUCZEK: objection to that. THE COURT: I'll receive 39 as well. No, Judge, I have no Okay. No objection to that,

(Government's Exhibit 39 was received into evidence.) MS. BAUMGARTEN: display 39. Agent Parker, would you use your finger to circle the alphanumeric number on the computer screen that's listed in Exhibit 39? THE COURT: do that please? Enlarge and highlight, can you If you would please

It can be published now.

243 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 BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Would you please read that alphanumeric number

into the record? A. Q. F-14731424. What is the significance of that alphanumeric

number? A. Q. That is the manufacturer's control number. What is the control number, what does that

mean? A. It is a number that is imprinted on the -- the

reverse of the blank Social Security card stock by the manufacturer of the card blanks. Q. Why is that alphanumeric number placed on the

reverse side? A. It's used as a security control measure so that

Social Security can record the blanks that are sent out from the manufacturer and then received in by Social Security. Q. On the front side of Exhibit 39 there appears

to be typed information on the card, is that correct? A. Q. A. Yes. What is that typed information? It's a Social Security number as well as the

name associated with the number.

244 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 Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Miss Baumgarten. Q. In this particular exhibit what name is

reflected on Exhibit 39? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Shane Christopher Buczek. What is the address? 7335 Derby Road, Derby, New York, 14047-9636. Is there a signature on Exhibit 39? Yes, there is. What does that signature appear to be? Shane Christopher Buczek. Does the Social Security Administration

maintain any accounts or information with respect to the alphanumeric number on a Social Security card? A. Q. No. Does the Social Security Administration

maintain any trust accounts for any individual based upon the alphanumeric control number on a Social Security card? A. No. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your

Mr. Buczek, any questions? Yes, Judge. All right. Cross-examination,

MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT:

245 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 please. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. A. Q. Good morning. Good morning. Would you please state your name for the

record? A. Q. Bradley L. Parker. Mr. Parker, you were saying that your office is

located in Batavia, is that correct? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. And that's obviously in the state of New York? Yes. How often do you go to Washington, D.C., and

get updated on, you know, just statutes of the Social Security Administration, how often do you go to Washington? A. Q. Not very often. So is it possibly true that maybe each

department knows certain things that other departments don't know? Is that possible, maybe

like one department might know one aspect of the Social Security system how it works, and another department might know another? departmentalized. A. I don't understand the question. Everything is

246 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. What I'm trying to say is one department might

not know what the other department is doing, like one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing. Is that possible? A. Q. Not within Social Security. So you're saying everybody in Social

Security -- everyone knows what's going on? A. I don't understand the -- the question

specifics. Q. How many people work for Social Security

department of Batavia? A. Q. There are six of us. Oh, six. How many in the Western District of

New York? A. Q. I don't know. Okay. Would you know the grand total of the

whole country? A. Q. Approximately 60,000. 60,000 people work for Social Security. Could

it be possibly true that out of that 60,000 maybe just a few might understand the total concept of the -- the number on the back of the Social Security card and what it really represents? A. I don't understand the specifics of that

question.

247 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 witness? THE COURT: a question? BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Yes, I do. Is that a Social Security card that Yes. Mr. Buczek, do you have before. Q. Could we show Exhibit A to the eyewitness? MR. COMERFORD: We're going to show it to

the government first, Judge, for identification. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: Yes. Exhibit A. Your Honor, may I just

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

approach the witness and check one thing please? THE COURT: Sure. I had not seen this

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

Despite that, the government doesn't have

any objection to this. MR. COMERFORD: THE COURT: identification. Thank you.

Defendant's A for No objection.

You may use that.

MR. COMERFORD:

May I approach the

you have in your hand? A. Q. Yes. Is it maintained in the regular course of

business of your department? A. Yes.

248 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 evidence. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Could you please tell me what your views are on It is. Finally. Well, your first exhibit. It's hard to get in there. Q. Is it the same sort of card that the government

just put into the record? A. Q. A. Yes. What's the name on it? Shane C. Buczek. MR. BUCZEK: into evidence. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Judge, I'm sorry. I I would like to move that

didn't object, I thought it was in evidence. THE COURT: We'll receive it. It will be

received as Defense Exhibit A, no objection. (Defendant's Exhibit A was received into evidence.) MR. BUCZEK: That's my first piece of

why -- can you please read the number on the back of the card? A. Q. Yes. Thank you.

249 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 A. Q. C-22401901. Could the government please put up Exhibit

number 11? MR. COMERFORD: for the jury? THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. Judge, can we publish that

MR. COMERFORD: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q.

Could you please -- could you please read where

it says note number into the record? A. Q. Yes. 131-68-5635 slash C22401901-BPN0006.

Is that the same alphanumeric number on the

back of the Social Security card that -- that's read I believe Exhibit A? A. Part of this alphanumeric number on the card is

there, yes. Q. Could you please give us the number on the back

of the Social Security card again please? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. The one I just read, the C22? Yes, please. C22401901. Thank you. You're welcome. Are you familiar with the BPN, do you know what

that stands for?

250 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 A. Q. No. Do you want to know? THE COURT: Well, there is a question, so

you do have to answer it. THE WITNESS: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. It stands for bonded promissory note. It's No.

0006.

And I just want to ask one more question.

Is it possible there is a significance to that number -- actually the alphanumeric number, there is a letter and a bunch of numbers -- that you're not aware of. Is it possible, because you

mentioned you had 60,000 people that work for -- is it 60,000? A. Q. Approximately. Approximately. Is it possible that you might

not be fully aware of what that number is? A. No, because based upon my education, training,

and experience I know that that is a manufacturer's control number that's put on the back of that card solely for that purpose. Q. What about the number in front, what does that

number represent? A. The Social Security number issued to Shane

Christopher Buczek.

251 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. So who actually owns the card? Shane Christopher Buczek. Is it property -- isn't it true that Social

Security actually owns -- that's their card? A. Q. A. Not when we send it to you. You mean the defendant. Correct, or any number holder. Once this card

is mailed out by Social Security to the number holder, it's no longer Social Security's card. card belongs to the person to whom it was sent. Q. So it is true that the Social Security The

Administration is not the holder in due course. A. Q. I don't understand that question. The registered owner to the Social Security

card, they're the actual owners, the beneficiary? A. Q. A. Q. A. Who is? Social Security Administration. No, sir. So who is the beneficiary? I don't understand what you mean by The owner of the card becomes the

beneficiary.

person to whom it is sent. Q. And you don't have a claim against me, do you,

or the defendant, or anybody in this room? THE COURT: That you know of.

252 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. BUCZEK: THE WITNESS: MR. BUCZEK: questions. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Buczek. That you know of, thank you. No, sir. Okay. I have no further

THE WITNESS: THE COURT:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Does each piece of card stock that is sent from

the vendor to the Social Security Administration for use in producing a Social Security card contain an alphanumeric number? A. Q. Yes, it does. If an individual was to obtain a replacement

Social Security card, would the alphanumeric number on the replacement card be the same as the alphanumeric on either the original or any previously issued Social Security card? A. Q. No. Would you please refer to what has been marked

into evidence as Government's Exhibit 39A? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. What is the date on that Social Security card? May 4th, 2007. What is the alphanumeric number on the reverse

side of that exhibit?

253 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 A. Q. It's F14731424. Would you please refer to what is in evidence

as Defendant's Exhibit A? A. Q. A. Q. Yes, is that -- yes. Is that card laminated? Yes, it is. Is that how it's sent to an individual from the

Social Security Administration? A. No. The cards are sent unlaminated in this

format here. Q. Okay. What is the date, if you can see it, on

Defendant's Exhibit A? A. Well, the date of the card stock is January of I can tell that by the reverse of the card.

1988.

When this particular replacement card was issued, Social Security was not putting the issue date on the front of the card like it was doing by the time this card was issued in 2007, which was Government Exhibit 39A. Q. So Defendant's Exhibit A and the Government's

Exhibit 39A are each replacement cards? A. Q. Yes, ma'am. Are the alphanumeric numbers on the reverse

side of Defendant's Exhibit A and Government's Exhibit 39A the same?

254 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 Honor. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: after the break? MR. BUCZEK: Just right now, real quick. I got one question. You want to ask it now or A. Q. A. No. Why is that? Because the alphanumeric number changes with

each individual card. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Do you know what year they started putting the

alphanumeric number on the back of the Social Security card? Do you know what year that began? Do you know what

I believe it was a certain year. year that was? A.

I do not know the exact year, but I believe it

was as early as the 1940s. Q. Okay. And my research that I'm trying to

figure out myself is why in the world would they put that -- a letter and a bunch of numbers on the back of the Social Security -- what does that number represent from your research and what they tell you in the office? A. It's the manufacturer's control number that is

255 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 put on each blank card stock for Social Security cards. Q. Is it possible that it might be some type of an Is it a possibility?

account? A. Q. A. No.

You have firsthand knowledge of that? Based upon my training, experience, and

education it is solely a manufacturer's control number. Q. But it's possible, maybe. Everything is a

possibility out there.

There is a possibility that

it might be being used for something, just like the Social Security company front, that it's a possibility -- everything is possible, is that correct? A. I don't understand your question. MR. BUCZEK: Thank you. THE WITNESS: You're welcome. Nothing, your Honor. Agent Parker, thank I have no further questions.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: you, you are excused. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: lunchtime. Okay.

Thank you, Judge. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Don't prejudge

Don't discuss the case.

256 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 it. See you back here at 2:00 o'clock. (Lunch recess was taken.) (Jury seated.) THE COURT: Good afternoon, ladies and Thank you.

gentlemen, please have a seat. Okay. We are resumed in the case of United

States versus Buczek, and the attorneys and Mr. Buczek are present. call waived. The jurors are here, roll The

We are in the government's case.

government has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 11315 presumption of innocence

is with the defendant in this particular case and in all criminal cases, and he has no obligation or burden to do anything in this case. With that, Miss Baumgarten, is there -- are you ready with a next witness? MS. BAUMGARTEN: Where are we? The government would like

to recall HSBC employee Eric Schumacker. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: testified. Judge, I object to that. Okay. The eyewitness has already

And I just received it just now, and it

should be a law due to the supplement of the proof based on a request for discovery that this should have been provided weeks, months, ago. I just got

257 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 first? MR. BRUCE: There are about -- well, They were all produced it just now. I haven't even had an opportunity to I would have to go to the UB

do my research on it.

law library and look into this. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: talking about here. bar. Let's -I just got this. I don't know what we are I think we should go to side

Let's talk about this first. (Side bar discussion held on the record.) THE COURT: Okay. What has been produced

there's six pages, Judge.

by the HSBC witness after he went back to his office. He actually, as I understand it, had to go Each of

to the collections department to get this.

them relate to the transactions between HSBC and Depository Trust Corporation. Each of these is

about three, four lines long, and all give the account number, they all give the Depository Trust company routing number, and they all list the defendant's, not HSBC, but his Best Buy account number. Two things. on this. One, the defendant opened the door You, the

The defendant made a demand.

258 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 Court, asked me to make sure the witness followed instructions. The witness did. He produced

what -- we didn't know what he was exactly going to produce, but he's produced it. But I think that

given what Mr. Buczek tried to put in the record, the government is entitled to go back on that, and I don't think seven pages of computer screen print-outs is an overwhelming amount of evidence to digest in a short period of time. THE COURT: That's the subject matter that

he testified about account numbers, and -MR. BRUCE: Exactly. This is

corroborating evidence. THE COURT: evidence as well. MR. BRUCE: It could be. He opened the Well, it could be cumulative

door to try to show some doubt as to whether the account number was used, the routing number and so forth. THE COURT: Well, the obligation of the

government is to provide all information that relates to -MR. BRUCE: But we didn't have this. We

originally got this 30 minutes ago, 40 minutes ago for the first time.

259 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 Okay. object? MR. BUCZEK: Absolutely, Judge. And I'm THE COURT: the witness? MR. BRUCE: Before we asked for everything Well, did you ask for it from

they got -- apparently they didn't make a complete search, but they have now. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Buczek, you still

not sure exactly what rule it is, but I know it's like the best rule evidence. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: remember everything. copies. Best evidence rule. Thank you. Yes, I just can't

And secondly, these are

It's information, and you can see here

it's all cut and paste, and I mean, you can probably trim something out and stick it on there. A 12 year old could do this. There's nobody to It would be This is

testify that has firsthand knowledge.

outrageous to bring this into the trial. ridiculous. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Thank you. (End of side bar discussion.) Do you object? Absolutely, Judge.

I'll sustain the objection.

260 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 please. THE COURT: I believe we're up and There was an I

running, we're back from side bar.

objection to the recalling of Mr. Schumacker. sustained the objection. MS. BAUMGARTEN: What's next?

The government will call

Zenaida Piotrowicz, United States probation officer. THE COURT: Let's have a side bar on this

Stay right there, Michelle. (Side bar discussion held on the record.) THE COURT: Michelle, I reversed myself.

Want to accompany us? (Side bar discussion held on the record.) THE COURT: Okay. The government's

intention is to call Zenaida Piotrowicz. MS. BAUMGARTEN: -- Piotrowicz with

respect to the testimony that the defendant heard on September 2, 2008. We are only going to refer

to it as a prior proceeding, not the nature of the proceeding. During which he was present along with

his counsel, and the judge, along with Mr. May of the Depository Trust company. At that time Mr. May

testified that not only did the Depository Trust not provide services to individuals, but specifically that he caused a search to be done,

261 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 that the defendant Shane Christopher Buczek or Shane C. Buczek was not one of their customers and did not have an account with the Depository Trust, and could not have one based on the nature of the services they provided. We intend simply to refer

to it as a prior proceeding. THE COURT: Well, don't we already have

testimony with respect to that? MS. BAUMGARTEN: Not from a person who

actually with personal knowledge can say that the defendant was physically present during that testimony approximately two weeks before he applied for the Best Buy account that's at issue in this case. MR. BRUCE: It's -- in part it shows the

defendant was specifically put on notice of the fact that he did not and could not have an account and within a short period of time after that he establishes the HSBC account and engages in the fraud that the indictment alleges. THE COURT: Hold on one second. Okay.

But you have the witness Joseph Kelly from DTCC. MS. BAUMGARTEN: He did not testify

because he could not -- because he was not present during that proceeding.

262 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 days. MR. BUCZEK: I never had no indictment. crime. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: proceeding? MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: September 2, 2008. Judge, object to that. What's the date of the THE COURT: No, but he did say there is no

individual accounts, only participants with respect to the DTCC. MS. BAUMGARTEN: But he was not present

during the preceding on September 2, 2008, so cannot say that the defendant, who was present in the courtroom, was provided with specific notice that -- not only couldn't an individual have an account, but he did not. MR. BRUCE: Prior to his engaging in the

And the indictment was like

seven days after that, right? MS. BAUMGARTEN: in this instance -- no. THE COURT: MR. BRUCE: THE COURT: MR. BRUCE: There was an indictment -Shortly after. -- in September of 2008. It's within a week or ten No, sir, the indictment

263 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. BRUCE: The indictment alleges that

the scheme starts -- I don't have the -MS. BAUMGARTEN: September 18, 2008. And

goes up to and including, because that's when the defendant actually opened the account at Best Buy was September 18, 2008. So that's the pivotal time

period, and thereafter makes the purchases, and payments start on November 13th, 2008. THE COURT: So you're going to introduce

Zenaida Piotrowicz as a probation officer? MS. BAUMGARTEN: courtroom also. MR. BRUCE: We just introduce her as As she was present in the

Zenaida Piotrowicz, she was present. MR. BUCZEK: It's prejudicial. MS. BAUMGARTEN: It's directly relevant, Judge, it's not relevant.

your Honor, to the issue of notice, therefore the defendant's intent -- this is an intent crime and we do have the burden of proof on that. THE COURT: Hold on one second.

Mr. Bruce, if you move off to the side so I can listen to Mr. Buczek. MR. BUCZEK: irrelevant. Judge, it's absolutely

264 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 COURT: irrelevant. Well, your intent is not Now it's a

Your intent is relevant.

question of whether or not this is evidence of intent of willful conduct, at least that has relevance to willful conduct. And you're

introducing it on the element of knowledge, that he knew that he could not have an individual account with DTCC? MS. BAUMGARTEN: And he did not -- it's

not just that he could not have it, that's part of it, but that he did not. MR. BUCZEK: mind readers. Judge, object. They're not It's

I had no intent at all.

absolutely irrelevant. knowledge? I mean --

Who has firsthand

MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT:

This witness.

That's -- that's the point.

Their point is that you did have firsthand knowledge on the basis of what took place at that proceeding. How is this not more prejudicial than

it is probative, though, in light of everything else here, because you're going to be establishing a courtroom setting, right, through the witness. From the jury's standpoint what are they going to be thinking in terms of what was going on at the

265 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 time? I mean, it could very well be that they

ascribe to Mr. Buczek something more than just this particular indictment. MS. BAUMGARTEN: That's why I have

instructed the witness specifically that we are sanitizing as best we can, your Honor, by saying it was a prior proceeding. For all we know -- I mean, It could be for

it could be a civil proceeding. whatever purpose.

We are not attempting to

introduce it in the way of explanation for the background. THE COURT: But it's going to be in a

courtroom on a particular day before Judge Schroeder, right? MR. BRUCE: Yes. Yes. The defendant

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

raises an excellent point, without us getting into his head, we would not be able to otherwise provide this sort of information. at issue, your Honor. THE COURT: Well, as you know, that's part I mean, it's difficult to It's a question of His intent is squarely

of the standard charge. get into anybody's head.

establishing facts to a certain proof standard from which an inference can be made or that establishes

266 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 an intent short of getting into somebody's head. Mr. Comerford, anything from you on this -MS. BAUMGARTEN: point, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. The Court has permitted May I raise one other

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

the defendant to argue that he had good faith, that his belief was in good faith with respect to his intent. This is the government's proof with

respect to the fact that he could not have good faith in claiming that he thought he had an account at the Depository Trust because of the nature of the testimony that he had heard directly. THE COURT: But now everybody has said

that has testified you cannot have an individual account at the DTCC. And all the witnesses have

testified that there's no record that Mr. Buczek had an account at DTCC. MS. BAUMGARTEN: But his knowledge from

hearing it during this prior proceeding in the government's estimation negates his argument that he could have had good faith, because he heard to the contrary before this course of conduct that's alleged in the indictment. MR. COMERFORD: That's only true, Judge,

267 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 if he believed him. And your witness testified --

the one who's the professional witness from the treasury says he goes to trial, that he's told people this before that the Treasury Department has put out this information and despite all of those things, many people still believe in the same theories that Shane believes in. Just hearing it

one time does not eliminate an argument that he has good-faith. You'd have to be assuming that Shane

heard everything, understood everything, believed everything. MS. BAUMGARTEN: But, once again, it's not

many people who are on trial before this Court, it's the defendant. And the jury, as the trier of

fact, should be able to balance the evidence concerning this contested issue about his good faith. The government wants to introduce it

specifically to counter his argument that he's articulated that he had good faith. MR. BUCZEK: Judge -We don't think it even

MR. COMERFORD:

counters that argument, Judge. MR. BUCZEK: it's in the millions. Judge, there's many people -Last I heard it was over

25 million people that are involved in this freedom

268 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 movement. It's all, you know -THE COURT: the objection. Yeah. I'm going to sustain I

I think it's too attenuated.

think you run the risk of unfair prejudice, because you have to put the scenario into a courtroom, at a proceeding. You have to establish that -- where You have to establish

Mr. Buczek was, with whom.

that he heard what was going on, that will put him at counsel table with counsel, and with a magistrate proceeding over -- presiding over proceedings. I think it injects the possibility of

another issue, another proceeding, more confusing than it is probative, unfairly prejudicial, and I will sustain the objection. (End of side bar discussion.) MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government calls It's actually Henry

Special Agent Fred Falkowski. C., your Honor. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Gerry, don't let him get Thank you.

beyond the corner of that witness box. H E N R Y

F A L K O W S K I, having been duly

sworn as a witness, testified as follows: THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Witness, I think

269 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 know the routine, but just to make sure that we go through a refresher course, and it's repetitious of what I've told all the other individuals who have been called to testify as a witness. You are

here to testify really for the benefit of the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. judges of the facts. They are the

They make the determination And in

with respect to the issues in this case.

that regard they're here to hear testimony from witnesses and review exhibits. As far as witnesses

are concerned, your testimony must be competent testimony. As far as any question that is asked of

you, if you do not understand it, let me know, let the attorney know, and you will get another question. Don't volunteer information. That

complicates matters. as possible.

Be as concise in your answers

As far as any answers that you give,

if they're in the context of an objection wait until I rule on the objection to the question or the point that you're at in your testimony. Once I

rule on it, I will tell you whether to continue with your answer or wait for another question. you understand? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Yes, your Honor. All right. Sounds like you're Do

270 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 going to be pretty good. conversational tone. Just talk in a

Let us know who you are,

spell your last name, please. THE WITNESS: F-A-L-K-O-W-S-K-I. THE COURT: Miss Baumgarten. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Where are you employed? The FBI. How long have you been employed with the FBI? Eleven and a half years. What position do you hold with the FBI? Special Agent. What are your duties as a special agent? I investigate violations of the laws of the Okay. Thank you, Mr. Witness. My name is Henry Falkowski,

U.S., collect evidence where the U.S. is or may be a party of interest, and perform other duties imposed by law. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Do you perform criminal investigations? Yes. Are you familiar with the defendant? Yes, I am. How? I am the case agent in this matter.

271 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 agent? THE WITNESS: The case is assigned to me, Q. All right. I'd like to direct your attention

to December 4, 2008. THE COURT: What does it mean to be a case

and I guess I would be sort of the director of the activities that go on in the investigation. BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Are you primarily responsible for investigating

the circumstances regarding the defendant? A. Q. Yes. Do you assist the U.S. Attorney's office in

that regard? A. Q. I do. Was there communication by you on December 4,

2008, with respect to the defendant? A. Q. A. Yes, there was. How did that occur? I received a telephone call from Kenneth May

from the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation. Q. A. What was the nature of that telephone call? It was in regarding the defendant in this case,

that he used a Depository Trust routing number and a fictitious account number to pay off his Best Buy HSBC credit account.

272 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Was information related to you concerning how

the defendant attempted to pay the Best Buy credit account? A. Q. A. Yes, it was. What information was said to you? Kenneth May advised me that he used the

electronic check direct function to attempt to make payments to his account from approximately November 13th to November 28th, 2008. Q. Was there discussion between you and Mr. May

with respect to the nature of the business of the Depository Trust? A. He explained to me very generally what they do.

Essentially that they're a bank for banks, that they deal in securities, that they do not deal in any currency, and also that they don't have any personal banking accounts with respect to their customers. Q. Did you have any discussions with anyone else

with respect to the defendant's activities on December 4, 2008? A. Q. A. Yes, I did. And who was that with? Michael Parylac. He's with the HSBC fraud

department.

273 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. Is Mr. Parylac still employed at HSBC? I don't believe he is. What information did Mr. Parylac provide to you

on December 4, 2008? A. He provided me with the information that the

defendant used the electronic check direct function to attempt to pay down his HSBC Best Buy credit account. He also provided me with the routing

number and the account number that the defendant attempted to use. Q. Was any other information provided to you

concerning the specifics of the defendant's attempts to pay down that account? A. Initially he told me that he did open up the That he used his New York State driver's

account.

license and his Social Security card to open up the account. That he began using it immediately, and

that he had made approximately $8,800 worth of testimony -- I'm sorry, of purchases. Q. Was any information provided to you as to

whether or not funds were transferred from Depository Trust to HSBC? A. Yes. Kenneth May told me that none of the They did not release any

payments went through.

funds to HSBC, and Mike Parylac told me that the

274 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 checks were returned and that the amounts went back on his credit -- his credit card statement. Q. Was any information provided to you concerning

the impact the direct check attempts had on the defendant's credit account? A. Yes. Mike Parylac explained the process to me

whereby a customer would make a check direct payment, and immediately or shortly thereafter the -- depending on the amount, the credit -available credit would go up and the amount that he owed would go down. Q. What would that permit the card holder or

account holder to do? A. Q. Purchase more items. What steps did you take after the conversation

on December 4, 2008, with respect to the defendant? A. I telephonically interviewed the defendant on

12/18 I believe 2008. Q. A. Q. A. How did that occur? I called -- I called him up at home. Who answered the phone? His father answered the phone. I had a brief

conversation with his father about his opening of the Best Buy account and his purchasing of the items, and I gave the father the opportunity to let

275 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 us come get the items voluntarily. And the father

explained to me that really wasn't his decision, it was the defendant's decision. made the purchases. Q. Did you speak with the defendant on He's the one that

December 18, 2008? A. I did. Initially the father -- the defendant's

father had told me that the defendant wasn't available. Eventually towards the end of the call He got on the

I did speak with the defendant. line, and -Q. A. What was said then?

I confronted him with the idea -- I'm sorry,

not the idea, but with the information that he had recently made quite a bit of purchases from Best Buy, approximately $10,000. that I raised that day. Q. And was there a response from the defendant to That was the number

that? A. Yes. He admitted that he did open up a Best

Buy account in September, and began using it right away and made -- made some purchases. Q. Was information provided to you by the

defendant concerning those purchases? A. Yes. He told me that he purchased the washer,

276 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 Honor. BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Was there any further information related to a dryer, and a television, but he couldn't remember any of the other items. Q. Was there a discussion during that telephone

conversation on December 18, 2008, concerning payment on the defendant's Best Buy account? A. Yes. I initially asked him if he attempted to

make payments to the account using the direct check function with HSBC and utilizing a Depository Trust routing number and a Depository Trust bank account number. He denied attempting to use a Depository

Trust routing number and account number to make payments to the account. Q. Did the defendant say anything else with

respect to payments on his Best Buy account? A. Yes, he did. He advised me that he recently

had gained access to a United States Department of Treasury trust account, and that he began using it. And in the way he said he used it was by sending a bonded promissory note in the amount of $30,000 to the CFO of HSBC Bank, who I believe at the time was located in Illinois. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Just a moment, your

277 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 concerning other payment methods on the account? A. I asked him if he had made any traditional

payment to the account. Q. A. And what did you mean by traditional payments? What I meant was cash payments, regular paper He denied

check payments, or money order payments. making any. Q.

What action did you take after the interview of

the defendant on December 18, 2008? A. Q. A. Q. A. I recontacted him and we met face-to-face. When did that occur? 12/29/2008. Where did that occur? It occurred at the Burger King on Derby Road in

Derby, New York, close to his house. Q. A. Who was present during that interview? Myself, the defendant, and another federal

agent. Q. Did the defendant provide information to you

during that interview concerning his Best Buy account? A. Yes. He again verified that he opened up the He also provided me

account and began using it.

with -- for me to look at the original -- some of

278 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 original receipts from some of his purchases. Q. Was there any other information the defendant

provided to you? A. Yes, he also provided me a bonded promissory

note made out to HSBC Bank in the amount of $30,000 made -- sent to the CFO of HSBC Bank. Q. Did there come a point in time when you

obtained copies of the bonded promissory note that the defendant referenced and also the receipts? A. Yes, later on that day in the afternoon the

defendant drove to the FBI in Buffalo where I was, and allowed me to make copies of the receipts -there were five receipts that day -- and the bonded promissory note and the accompanying documentation. MS. BAUMGARTEN: approach the witness? THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. I'm showing the witness what has been marked in Are you Yes. Your Honor, may I

evidence as Government's Exhibit 11. familiar with that document? A. Q. A. Yes, I am. What is that?

That is the bonded promissory note that the

defendant allowed me to copy and also showed to me

279 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 earlier that day. Q. Was there further discussion with respect to

the source of the funds referenced in the bonded promissory note? A. During the interview, yes, there was. He

mentioned to me that upon gaining access to his secret trust account with the Department of Treasury that's how he made -- that's how he's able to make -- to create the bonded promissory note and send it to HSBC. He mentioned to me that he

claimed it as a secret trust account with the Department of Treasury. Q. Did he provide information about how actually

he accessed that secret trust account? A. Yes, he advised me that he had sent paperwork

in to the Secretary of the Department of Treasury Henry Paulson, and that he assumed that he had gained access to the account since he hadn't gotten a response from them. He used the term silence is

agreement, silence is consent during the interview. Q. If you would look at page 1 of what's marked as

Government Exhibit 11 in evidence, what is that top sheet? A. That -- that looks like a cover sheet that was

for the Cattaraugus County clerk.

280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Was information provided to you from the

defendant concerning the first sheet of Exhibit 1? A. Yes. He advised that he took the bonded

promissory note and the accompanying documentation to the Cattaraugus County clerk to put them on file and make them a matter of public record. Q. Was information provided to you concerning the

amount of the bonded promissory note? A. Q. Yes. $30,000.

If I may direct your attention to Did you take further action with

January 6, 2009.

respect to the defendant? A. Yes, I -- Ken May from the Depository Trust,

and Mike Parylac from HSBC fraud, the fraud department, and I talked again that day. I

verified the information again that he had that they had provided to me on December 4th, 2008. Q. A. Why did you do that? Because I didn't -- I didn't believe the

defendant that he used a legal means of paying off his account. Q. All right. How did the contact among you,

Mr. Parylac and Mr. May occur? A. Q. Via telephone. Were you able to confirm the information

281 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 previously provided to you on December 4, 2008? A. Q. Yes, I was. Was the routing number provided the same as

that which was provided on December 4, 2008? A. Yes. Kenneth May again advised me of the

routing number and the account number, as did Mike Parylac. Q. Was information provided to you concerning the

actual payments that were attempted? A. Yes. Mike Parylac also mentioned to me that

the defendant had called the HSBC fraud department and wanted to see if they had received his bonded promissory note. Q. Do you recall when that contact was made by the

defendant to the HSBC fraud department? A. Q. I believe it was December 30th, 2008. Would that have been the day after you

interviewed the defendant in person? A. Q. Yes. Did Mr. Parylac relate to you what the purpose

was for the defendant's contact to HSBC fraud department on December 30, 2008? A. The defendant was inquiring whether the payment

had been received, and if his account was zeroed out, if the payments -- if the payment was actually

282 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 received by HSBC, if it was legitimate. Q. Did you have a discussion with Mr. Parylac

concerning the outstanding balance on the defendant's account on January 6? A. I did. To the best of my recollection I think

it was approximately $8,900 was the amount of the outstanding balance on the account. Q. All right. If I may direct your attention to Was further action taken with

January 16, 2009.

respect to the ongoing investigation? A. Q. A. Yes, it was. What occurred on January 16, 2009? A federal search warrant was executed at the

residence of the defendant. Q. Who was present during the execution of that

search warrant? A. Myself, other federal agents, the defendant,

and the defendant's parents and sister. Q. During the course of the execution of that

search warrant, were photographs taken? A. Q. A. Yes, they were. Why? It's a standard protocol whenever we conduct

search warrants, we like to maintain and preserve the state that the residence was in before, during,

283 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 after the search, and also to document which items were seized. MS. BAUMGARTEN: I'm showing the witness

what has been marked for identification as Exhibits 19, 20B, and 21C. THE COURT: THE CLERK: identified. THE COURT: Okay. 19, 20B. Yes, your Honor, and 21C. May I approach, your Honor? 19 is already in, isn't it? 19 is not in. 19 was

MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE CLERK: THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q.

Neither of them are in, Judge. Okay. Thank you. You may.

Agent Falkowski, I'm showing you Exhibits 19, Are you familiar with those?

20B, and 21C. A. Q. A. Yes, I am.

What are they, please? They're photographs of items that were seized

at the defendant's residence on January 16. Q. Do those photographs accurately reflect the

items within that were seized from the defendant's residence? A. Yes, they do. MS. BAUMGARTEN: The government moves

Exhibits 19, 20B, and 21C into evidence.

284 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 copies. THE COURT: Okay. We have actual that are In order to THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: Any objection, Mr. Buczek? Judge, I don't really object

to it, but I do want to point out that remember these are copies. say, sorry. THE COURT: All right. Are those copies I mean, photographs I should

of photographs, is that what they are? MS. BAUMGARTEN: I believe they're color

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

just not marked, your Honor.

facilitate the distribution, we made photocopies. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Buczek, you

want to take a look at the originals and see if there's anything you object to. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Sure. Thank you.

And if they're identical and

you have no problem with them, I'll allow the copies to be used, and I will receive the photographs in evidence. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Do you want us to mark

the original photographs, your Honor? THE COURT: Mark them, yes. We're going to mark the

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

285 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 originals with the same number, your Honor. THE COURT: Please. Your Honor, may I

MS. BAUMGARTEN: approach again? THE COURT: Yes.

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

I'm handing Agent

Falkowski the same photographs, just actual photos as opposed to color photos. THE COURT: objections now? MR. BUCZEK: No, Judge. I wasn't around Mr. Buczek, are there any

when this took place, so I wouldn't know. THE COURT: Okay. All right. There's no

objection to 20, 20B, 20C received into evidence. THE CLERK: THE COURT: 19, 20B and 21C. Yes.

(Government's Exhibit 19, 20B, and 21C were received into evidence.) BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Agent Falkowski, what is depicted in

Exhibit 19? A. A table, a glass-top table. MS. BAUMGARTEN: That is in evidence. May

we publish it to the jury please? THE COURT: Yes.

286 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 BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. During the course of the execution of the

search warrant what items were seized? A. All of the items that were on the receipts that

he had provided to me and that I made copies of and which were the items that he purchased from Best Buy. Q. How was that information developed? How did

you learn that? A. Oh. Well, we tried to match the serial numbers

from the actual receipt as close as we could to the items that were at the residence that day. And for

the most part we were able to identify all the items. Q. A. What is depicted in 20B in evidence? Those are boxes for items that were purchased

at Best Buy. Q. A. Q. What is depicted in 21C? That is a home theater system. All right. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, I'm showing

the witness what has been marked into evidence Exhibit 20, 20A, 21, 21A, 21B, 22, 22A, 23, 23B, 24, 24A, 25, and 25A. THE COURT: Okay, Miss Baumgarten.

287 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 BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. Agent Falkowski, if you would, I'm going to ask

you the same series of questions as to each of those. A. Okay. THE COURT: They're all received. They are. They are all

MS. BAUMGARTEN: in evidence. THE COURT:

So as a number is mentioned,

you will publish that, please. BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. As to the first exhibit, Exhibit 20, what's

depicted in that photograph? A. Q. A. Q. A Samsung flat screen TV. Where was the photo taken? At the defendant's residence. Are each of the photos in the exhibits that

I've provided to you photographs taken at the search warrant at the defendant's residence? A. Q. Yes, they are. And are each of those photographs photographs

of items that were seized during the search warrant? A. Q. Yes, they are. All right. If you would proceed to the next

288 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 before. there? THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, yeah. That is exhibit. A. I believe it should be 20A, what is that?

That is either the back side or side of the

item depicted in Exhibit 20. Q. The next exhibit, which is 21? What is

depicted there? A. It is a TV stand which contains a home theater

system and half of a TV. Q. A. Q. A. The next exhibit would be 21C. 21A. 21A. That is the Yamaha AV receiver which is part of

the home theater system. Q. A. Q. A. Is there 21B? Yes. What is that? That's the back side of the -- one of the

components of the home theater system. Q. A. Q. A. Exhibit 21C, what's depicted in that? That's a dryer and then half of a washer. 21C? Oh, I'm sorry. No, I don't have 21C. I showed it to you

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

That's why -- is it in the pile that's

289 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 home theater system. BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. A. Q. A. Q. All right. Okay. What is that a photograph of? The washer and the dryer. Is there another one that is of the washer and Next one is 22?

dryer, is that 22A? A. Yes. That is -- I believe it's the inside of

the door that opens, and it's to the dryer. Q. Is there 23? What's depicted in that

photograph? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. The washer. Okay. Is there a 23A? 23B.

That's the inside of the door to the washer. All right. Yes. What is that a photograph of? A Samsung blu-ray player. Is there a photograph 24A? Yes, that is the back side of the blu-ray Is there a photograph 24?

player. Q. A. Q. Is there a 25, exhibit I mean. Yes. What is that?

290 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 A. Q. That is a Sony boombox. All right. And then 25A, do you have that

exhibit? A. Yes. That is the back side of the Sony

boombox. MS. BAUMGARTEN: I'm showing the witness

what has been marked as Exhibit 32 for identification. Your Honor, may I approach? Yes.

THE COURT: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q.

Are you familiar with that document? Yes. What is it, please? The Best Buy receipt. Where was it obtained from? From the defendant. During the course of the execution of the

search warrant? A. Yes. MS. BAUMGARTEN: All right. The

government moves Exhibit 32 into evidence, your Honor. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: No objection? No, Judge. All right. Thirty-two

291 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 received. (Government's Exhibit 32 was received into evidence.) BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. What is the -- in Exhibit 32, what actually is

it a receipt for? A. A Samsung washer, dryer, and then delivery on

those items. Q. Was that the Samsung washer and dryer that was

seized on January 16, 2009? A. Q. Yes. I'm showing the witness what has been marked as These were

Exhibit 33 for identification.

previously provided to the defense, both 32 and 3. Are you familiar with that document? A. Q. A. Q. A. Yes, I am. What is it, please? A Best Buy credit statement. Where was that obtained? At the defendant's residence during the

execution of the search warrant. MS. BAUMGARTEN: All right. The

government moves Exhibit 33 into evidence. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: Any objection, Mr. Buczek? Well, I'd like to object,

292 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 Judge, based on having some type of firsthand knowledge that these purchases took place by the defendant, and that hasn't been offered at this point. THE COURT: It's the credit card statement

though that was provided to this witness, correct? MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: Absolutely, your Honor. Objection

All right.

overruled on those grounds. evidence.

I will receive 33 into

(Government's Exhibit 33 was received into evidence.) MS. BAUMGARTEN: the screen, 33. THE COURT: You may publish it. Publish it please. If you would put that on

MS. BAUMGARTEN: BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. A. Q. A.

Is Exhibit 33 a photocopy? No, sir, that's the original. And who is it directed to? Shane Buczek, 7335 Derby Road, Derby, New York

14047-9636. Q. Does Exhibit 33 provide a date with respect to

when the statement covers? A. Looking at the statement, the transactions

293 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 moment. THE COURT: and gentlemen? Buczek. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Yeah. All right. Okay. Good afternoon. Okay. Everybody doing okay, ladies Okay, cross-examination, Mr. Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. If I may just have a occurred from 10/11/2008 to 11/10/2008, and the statement issues a due date of December 5th, 2008. Q. What is the dollar amount on that statement

that's owed or the balance? A. Q. New balance is $1,664.74. In the lower portion of what is in evidence as

Exhibit 33, are there handwritten numbers? A. Q. A. Q. Yes, there are. What are those handwritten numbers? $1,664.74. Would you circle that on the screen for the

jury please? MS. BAUMGARTEN: your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. Nothing further, your If I may have a moment,

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

294 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 A. Q. A. Q. Good afternoon. Can you please state your name for the record? Henry Falkowski. Okay. Thanks for being here this afternoon. I'd like to start off I

just have a few questions.

with some things that the defendant spoke to you about back in I believe it was back in 2008, and you had some communications with him several times between the months of think it was October and November and right into December and early into January. Could you reflect a little bit on those

communications and reflecting to the visit that the defendant had at the U.S. attorney's office way back in September of 2008? MS. BAUMGARTEN: hearsay and relevance. THE COURT: No, I think the question is You can answer that yes or Objection, your Honor,

would he reflect on it. no. THE WITNESS: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q.

Yes, I would reflect on it.

You don't have to get too detailed, but

basically how many hours did we spend together between the months of September and all the way -from September all the way almost to January

295 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 of 2009 if you calculate it all the time together that we spent together, how long was that? A. It's difficult for me to say. We met on

several occasions. Q. So maybe a good four or five hours a time that

I spent with the U.S. attorney's office and the FBI, the defendant did? A. I can't really say the amount of hours. I know

we met on a number of occasions. Q. What was the discussion about that took place

with the defendant and the FBI and U.S. attorney's office? MS. BAUMGARTEN: Objection, hearsay. It's

also relevance, your Honor. THE COURT: Not necessarily, but to the There's no

form of the question sustained. question before this witness. BY MR. BUCZEK: Q.

Are you familiar with my belief system -- or I Are you

should say the defendant's belief system?

familiar with the defendant's belief system and what he believes in? A. You have explained to me different portions of

your belief system. Q. And you know that there's others out there,

296 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 thousands, maybe millions, believe the same way that the defendant does? A. I don't know if there's anybody else out there.

I do know that you have told me that there are others out there. Q. Do you recall DVDs and CDs pertaining to

different seminars that the defendant attended concerning the issues that we've been talking about in the last three days on this trial? A. Q. I'm not sure if I know what you mean. DVDs that were provided to the FBI, CDs

pertaining to the issues at hand concerning the -the treasury account, the public policy issue, the issues on House Resolution 192 of the bankruptcy of 1933, and certain Jean Keating CDs and law information, how you -- actually do you recall that information that was given up, binders and books and boxes, I mean, I could probably fill a whole room with all this stuff. A. yes. Q. Okay. Do you recall -- I don't remember the Do you recall that?

I do recall you providing me with information,

exact date, but do you recall the defendant giving you a copy of an affidavit that was written up by an attorney that represented the Federal Reserve

297 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 system in Cleveland, Ohio, called Walker Todd? was an affidavit pertaining to the promissory notes. MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: Objection, your Honor. It

Grounds? Form, relevance, hearsay.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT:

Goes to state of mind, Judge. It might. Overruled. Calls

for a yes or no answer. affidavit? THE WITNESS: information. BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Okay. All right.

Do you remember the

I don't recall that

Did you have an opportunity

to review or listen to any of the CDs, DVDs, anything at all, did you do any of your due diligence or any research or investigations pertaining to the material that was given up back in the fall of 2008? A. Q. It seemed to be a couple of questions in there. All right. Did you have an opportunity to

review and research the information the defendant handed over? A. I made a general review of the information that

you handed over.

298 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Also there was a -- I believe a book, hard

cover book that the defendant went out of his way purchased and handed over to the -- I'm not sure if it was the FBI or the U.S. attorney's office called the Creature of Jackal Island. It's basically a

second look at the Federal Reserve system, and it goes back to the state of mind. Did you have an

opportunity to review that at all? A. Q. A. Q. I don't recall ever receiving that book. Okay. How about the CD?

I don't recall the CD. Okay. Are you familiar with an extremely

important case that just took place back in November 20th of 2009, case number 108-CR-00055-RLV/DCK filed on 11/20/2009. it's a -- I only have a copy. Actually

It was the United

States of America versus Kathy Ray Wahler pertaining to a very similar situation to this, but a verdict came down. She was -- 39 counts -Objection, your Honor.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT:

All right. Form. And if it involves -Relevance.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: Yes.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT:

-- injecting the law into the

299 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 question and to get it before the jury, that will be inadmissible. evidence. the law. The law is not introduced as

I'm the one that instructs the jury on Case holdings are very fact specific in The principles to be extracted are

most instances.

related to the facts of the case in most instances, and to query about a case holding in this procedure, this circumstance, would be more confusing than it would be helpful, and invades the prerogative and the province of the Court as far as instructing in the law. MR. BUCZEK: done, Judge. Do you recall when you were speaking to the defendant, the defendant mentioned to you about -little bit of information on 12 U.S.C., Section 1813(l)(1). I'm not sure if you remember that far Objection sustained.

A few more questions we'll be

back, but do you recall that at all? THE COURT: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. A. Q. Do you recall that? I don't recall that. Where the defendant -THE COURT: No, once you get that answer, He can testify if he recalls.

you're bound by that --

300 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. BUCZEK: THE COURT: BY MR. BUCZEK: Q. Okay. All right. The last thing -- actually Does the FBI or you Okay. -- answer.

two more things I'll be done.

come here today in your public capacity or your private capacity? A. Q. A. I come here as a special agent of the FBI. So that would be your public capacity. I don't really know the distinction between

public and private capacity the way you use it. Q. Well, this is the public. We're in the public

forum, so obviously you're here in your public capacity. THE COURT: A motion to strike? A motion to strike.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT:

I'll grant that motion.

Disregard the statement of Mr. Buczek, ladies and gentlemen, because that's his view. evidence. That's not

That's not testimony from the witness,

and it is not proper for you to consider that in your deliberations. MR. BUCZEK: against me? THE WITNESS: Not that I'm aware of. And do you have a claim

301 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. MR. BUCZEK: thank you. THE COURT: All right, Mr. Buczek, thank No further questions, Judge,

Anything, Miss Baumgarten? MS. BAUMGARTEN: I do have some recross,

your Honor, but based on prior proceedings I think a side bar with the Court -- it's with respect to an area of cross-examination. THE COURT: Okay.

(Side bar discussion held on the record.) THE COURT: Okay. Your Honor, the

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

government is requesting again that we be permitted to have the witness testify with respect to the prior proceeding on September 2, 2008. This

particular witness was also present during that prior court proceeding. The government proffers

that we can properly sanitize that information. The defendant, through his cross-examination of this witness, has squarely put at issue what he knew during the course of the fall 2008. The

references that I understand the defendant made concerning meetings were proffers with respect to pending criminal charges in another matter, so he's opened the door directly by -- as a result of his

302 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 cross-examination. MR. BUCZEK: Judge, objection. I wasn't There was

referring to that particular meeting.

several meetings, I would probably say 15 meetings that took place, and I wasn't referring to the -- I wasn't referring to that particular meeting. What

I was referring to was private meetings that we had at restaurants and in all through Grand Island, Tonawanda, Orchard Park, all over the place. MR. COMERFORD: testimony on it. THE COURT: objection. same reason. No. End that. I'll take your He didn't give any

Objection sustained for essentially the Intent is an issue. While this may

be to some extent relevant to state of mind and intent, overall it's unfairly prejudicial, likely to be confusing, injects another proceeding into this sanitized court proceeding, which I think is likely to result in unfair prejudice probably to both sides. objection. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, may I address On that basis I will sustain the

one other issue that may be appropriate to do it outside the presence of the jury based on the Court's ruling?

303 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 COURT: Sure. The government would rest

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

at this time, but we would specifically only rest as to Count I of the indictment, based on the Court's prior ruling with respect to the bifurcation. The defendant, it is my

understanding, had actually asked the government to produce Mr. Kawski. with Mr. Comerford. I had an opportunity to speak My latest understanding with

respect to that would be that it would abide the event with respect to the jury's verdict on Count I based on the Court's ruling. MR. BUCZEK: him right. That's fine. I don't need

Now that's fine. The resting will be with the

THE COURT:

understanding that it's only with respect to Count I? MR. COMERFORD: MS. BAUMGARTEN: Yes, Judge. I'm just going to say the I'm not putting the

government rests at this time.

elaborate discussion about the differing counts. THE COURT: MR. BRUCE: Certainly. Certainly.

Mr. Buczek has provided us

with an exhibit list -- not an exhibit list, a witness list, which, if my math is correct, has

304 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 somewhere in the neighborhood of 1400 witnesses on it. He has a preamble to the exhibit list where he

tells me and presumably the Court what these people are going to testify to. Perhaps we can take some The preamble

time after we rest to talk about it.

directs us to things that just have nothing to do with this case. MR. COMERFORD: Judge, I discussed this --

a couple of the witnesses he wants to call including, Judge Schroeder, with a couple other attorneys with my office. They suggested -- and

I've recommended to Mr. Buczek that perhaps he make an offer of proof as to these witnesses outside the presence of the jury, so that their relevance can be determined by the Court before we subpoena anyone or try to bring anyone in here. that might be the best way to proceed. THE COURT: witnesses? MR. COMERFORD: With respect to With respect to the three I think

particularly, Judge Schroeder, but whoever else is on the list that Mr. Buczek intends on calling. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: All right. Judge, the reason why I

wanted to have Judge Schroeder --

305 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. COMERFORD: You agree with that, you

want to do an offer of proof? MR. BUCZEK: Just -- main reason is I'm

not going to be getting into the ineffectiveness. What I want to focus on just my state of mind, I'm not crazy. competent. I'm not insane because I came back They had to put -- Judge Schroeder sent I came

me away for five months to a psych center. back competent.

And I'm sure you read the report,

I just need him to testify so we know that I'm okay. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, the

government was not intending by the mere fact that we're discussing, based on the limitation of the Court's ruling, resting at this point, we were not intending to put at issue the defendant's competency. The Court has made a ruling so we

don't think it is relevant. MR. BUCZEK: It is an issue. The U.S.

attorney's put a motion in back in March of 2008 that I had a competency issue. U.S. attorney's office. THE COURT: At this point it would appear It was filed by the

that your competency is not an issue. MR. BUCZEK: I know that.

306 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 right. THE COURT: It has not put in the fact

that it may have been made an issue previous, that's all been resolved pretrial. So on that

basis, if that's all there is, I'm going to deny your request with respect to Judge Schroeder. MR. BUCZEK: that they -THE COURT: raised early on. They don't even know it was But the jury doesn't know

You come out equal on that one. The government is not

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

going to discuss it at any point, including in the closing. THE COURT: All right. You still want to On Friday?

make an offer of proof beyond that? MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: government rests. statement? MR. BUCZEK: Yes, Judge. Oh, yeah.

We'll talk about it after the Are you going to make an opening

MR. COMERFORD: that a second. THE COURT:

Shane, let's talk about

Talk to Mr. Comerford, all

Once you rest I'm going to let the jury go

for 15 minutes so we can at least try to get some of this resolved and give Michelle a couple minute

307 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 break. MR. BRUCE: Are we done with the agent? I can do -- I have to say

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

no further questions or something. MR. COMERFORD: Judge, he would like to

make an opening statement and he does intend to offer proof and call some witnesses that are in town and available to testify. THE COURT: Okay. When an opening

statement is made by any attorney or any person, as you've heard me instruct the jury, the attorney or individual who makes the argument -- not the argument, but makes the statement to the jury that it is expected that witnesses will testify to such and such. All right. There has to be a good faith

belief or basis for the availability of witnesses to testify to the information that's related to the opening statement. If it's you in the first

person, if you're -- if it's not premised on witness testimony that is likely to take place, that's improper, and you cannot speak in the first person. You are speaking in the capacity of

representing yourself, if you recall our discussions in that regard. So you have to be very

careful when you make that opening statement

308 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 because I would have to, if you step out of line, admonish you like I would any attorney in front of the jury, and that could wind up being to your prejudice, so, keep that in mind. understand what I'm staying? MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. You got a point. So be careful. Your Honor, the Do you

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

government -- I understand the government has the burden of proof at each and every stage of the proceeding and we understand that, your Honor. would object, unless the defendant is actually going to put a case on, to it, that he actually gets to make an opening statement. It's not for We

the purpose of two cracks at a summation, your Honor. I appreciate that he's likely not to be in

a position to begin his case, if that's what he chooses to do, but I just want to make sure that that is clear. Our position would be we would

object to an opening unless he intends to put his own case on. MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I do have a very

important eyewitness who is actually from the Federal Reserve. He's a retired attorney and all

he was going to do was testify on the double

309 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 bookkeeping entries and how the promissory notes work and the banks survive off that system. THE COURT: Well, your witness has to be

available, and if the witness is not available -MR. BUCZEK: I understand that, and it

looks like I'm doing everything I can to get him in here tomorrow. lined up. THE COURT: Okay. Then the scope of your But, but I do have three already

opening statement -- and I say this generally, and I say it against the backdrop of what the government did, because these are the same rules that apply to everybody. What you say in the

opening is not -- is simply what you believe the evidence will show. If you don't have evidence

that relates to the statement you make in your opening statement, that's improper. So you cannot

nor can any attorney tell the jury these are the facts of the case and not have, as Miss Baumgarten is concerned, a case to present in connection with what might be in some view defenses to the case. You need to have a good faith prospect for putting on a defense with evidence. that? MR. BUCZEK: Yes. Do you understand

310 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 COURT: Okay. All right. And it's

serious business, you understand? MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: I know it is, Judge. Okay. If -- if the government is

MR. COMERFORD:

resting presumably now, I think we'd make a quick Rule 29 motion outside the presence of the jury. Does it make sense to do the opening now or tomorrow? THE COURT: Why don't the two of you talk

about it, and you let me know what you want to do. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Okay. All right. If it -- if you

determine that according to the rules you'd be in a better position to make an opening tomorrow, I'd allow that to take place, but I will address the Rule 29 motion today. Okay. And -- but you tell

me if you want to go forward with the opening, that's okay. As well to the -Your Honor, I do have a

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

couple of brief questions for the witness that I -for the witness before I rest. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Yeah.

Because that's where we left you were going to resolve.

311 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. BUCZEK: Judge, I have one more issue,

and it's an -- I have it in my possession -- it's an actual -- it's an actual letter from AT&T where an individual that I know personally from New Jersey had a letter from AT&T stating that his account was paid off by his prepaid treasury account. I have that letter. I have the

eyewitness. in here.

I'm doing everything I can to get him

But I don't know how to properly do it.

I would love to get it into evidence but it talks about the prepaid account and it's from AT&T it says thank you for your payment for your prepaid account. I strongly believe -- I strongly believe

this is real, and that's why I was hoping -- I know you're not going to have Judge Schroeder in here, that's why I wanted him to validate my belief system. I know I don't have a mental issue at all.

I have a passion issue. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Without seeing the

proposed exhibit, your Honor, it's awfully hard to formulate an appropriate counter. THE COURT: Okay. I think you need to

consult with Mr. Comerford a little bit more. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: I will. I think you should show that

312 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 particular exhibit to the government. won't have an objection. Maybe they

Maybe even if they

object, this may relate to knowledge and state of mind and willfulness in terms of what you determined would be the results of your specific conduct. I don't know yet. But I think the

government can't make an intelligent argument one way or another without seeing that document. what you believe is one thing. So,

But we have to be

able to intelligently discuss it okay, so let them see it. Let them see it, today. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Oh, I have it. All right. Thank you.

(End of side bar discussion.) THE COURT: gentlemen. Okay. We're back, ladies and

And so we're going to resume, and Agent This is

Falkowski remains on the stand under oath.

redirect examination I think, and you want to go forward now, Miss Baumgarten, and then we'll see where we're going to be at that point. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BAUMGARTEN: Q. During the course of the investigation you

conducted concerning the defendant, did you verify his identity? A. Yes, I did.

313 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 Honor. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I'll -Any questions, Mr. Buczek? You know I got millions of Q. A. Q. A. Q. Did you obtain his Social Security number? I did. Did you actually meet with the defendant? Yes, I met with the defendant several times. Would you point out who the individual is that

you met with? A. Greenish gray coat, blue shirt, blue tie with

white stars on it, Shane Buczek, the defendant. MS. BAUMGARTEN: Nothing further, your

questions, but I'll pass. THE COURT: have asked you that. Okay. I probably shouldn't

All right.

Agent Falkowski, you are complete with your testimony. You may step down. Pursuant to our side bar

MS. BAUMGARTEN:

conversation, your Honor, the government rests at this time. THE COURT: Okay. What does that mean?

It means, ladies and gentlemen, that the government has presented you with the evidence that it believes is sufficient for you to return a verdict,

314 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 a unanimous verdict, applying the proof standard of beyond a reasonable doubt on each essential element of the crime charged, which, if you remember, is intentional bank fraud in violation of Title 18, Section 1344. The resting I believe is subject to reserving on making certain that all of the exhibits received into evidence are resolved. Miss Baumgarten? MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT: Okay. Yes, your Honor. So, that will take Any issues on those,

place out of the presence of the jury, so that it becomes kind of a tight package then, ladies and gentlemen, the witnesses' testimony, whatever the exhibits, we'll make sure that everything is in order, and what -- what we come to now is I have to meet with the attorneys. we have to address. We have some matters that

Once that's complete, then

it's up to the defendant to determine whether or not he wishes to make an opening statement, whether or not he wants to present a defense. A defense

requirement would necessarily have to involve competent evidence, just as the government's case would involve competent evidence, but it's a determination that a defendant has to make, because

315 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's presumed innocent. obligation. to do. Does not have an

We'll find out what Mr. Buczek decides

But keep in mind that whether he testifies,

whether he puts on evidence, whether he puts on a defense, if he chooses not to do anything like that, it's his constitutional right, and that should not affect the way you view him. The way

you view him is applying the presumption of innocence, and that takes you right back to what? Whether the government has proven its case on each essential element, that is, is it intentional bank fraud in violation of federal law, that it has established by all of the essential elements by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So with that

we're going to be at least 20 minutes, 25 minutes in that vicinity while I get everything worked out. We'll have you back here, we'll find out what's going to happen next, and we'll go from there. take a break and we'll see you soon, okay? (Jury excused from the courtroom.) MS. BAUMGARTEN: step out for a moment? THE COURT: Certainly. I'll be right back. Your Honor, may I just So

MS. BAUMGARTEN: THE COURT:

Mr. Hochul, may I see on a

316 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 totally unrelated matter? courtroom that's fine. (Off the record discussion.) THE COURT: need more time? MR. COMERFORD: THE COURT: We're ready, Judge. Is the defense ready, or you Right here in the

Who's going to make the

Rule 29 motion, Mr. Comerford? MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Mr. Buczek. Judge, I'll do it. Okay. Okay. Mr. Buczek, go ahead. Judge, I'm ready. Go ahead,

All right.

You have a motion to make. Yes. Judge, I move to

MR. BUCZEK:

dismiss under Rule 29, proof has been insignificant -- insufficient, sorry, Judge, to each element. No proof who made these calls.

There's been no proof of intent, and I mean intent. No proof of fraudulent intent at all. executed of a scheme to defraud. No proof of

There's no proof

whatsoever that I executed any type of scheme or anything like that, testimony to whatever the deposits in question here specifically -- I'm going real fast, Judge. THE COURT: That's okay.

317 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 much. dismiss. my head. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: I know. I'm got a thousand motions to MR. BUCZEK: I got all these thoughts in

I don't believe there has been sufficient

testimony as to whatever the -- whether the deposits in question have, specifically the deposits of HSBC were insured by the FDIC. stop right there. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Okay. That's my motion. All right. Thank you very I'll

Miss Baumgarten. MS. BAUMGARTEN: I believe Mr. Bruce will

respond to the Rule 29 motion on behalf of the government. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Bruce.

MR. COMERFORD: thing for a second. bank fraud count.

Judge, if I could add one

This is a motion as to the We'd obviously reserve, if

necessary, to make a motion on the offense while on release count. THE COURT: Yes. And the resting was with

respect to only Count I, and there's been no other reference to another count in the charge up to this

318 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 point in time, so -- Mr. Bruce. MR. BRUCE: Thank you, your Honor. As the

Court is aware, on a Rule 29 motion the Court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and it must, of course, resolve all inferences, even inferences that are in equipoise. All of those inferences must also be

resolved in favor of the government in considering the motions defended under Rule 29 -- the Defendant's motion under Rule 29, I'm sorry. As the Court is aware, there are three elements, and I'll work -- I'll at least start at the end. You recall Mr. Schumacker was an employee He had worked at the bank for some

of the bank.

period of time, and testified indeed the deposits of the HSBC were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. I submit that that evidence

is more than sufficient to take the case to the jury on that element of the offense. Of course, the most important thing here is was there a scheme, and was the defendant -- or did the defendant attempt to execute the scheme with the attempt to defraud the bank. The evidence

succinctly stated is that the defendant set out on a scheme to obtain a line of credit from Best Buy

319 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, in fact, turned out to be a line of credit from HSBC, a federally insured bank, that he obtained that line of credit for the specific purpose of purchasing merchandise with no intent to pay for that merchandise. And that he accomplished

that scheme by using the check direct feature that HSBC offered to its customers, each time going to -- each time that he incurred a balance, going to the check direct feature, paying down the balance, and within a short period of time of paying down the balance to zero, going back out to HSBC while that balance was reduced, and making additional purchases, eventually getting those purchases up to about 88 or $8,900. Each time that

he availed himself of the check direct feature that HSBC offered him, he relayed to HSBC two facts, and the first fact was that his account was at the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, and he related that fact by telling HSBC the routing number for the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation. The second fact -- and that is a fact

that is true, but it is a fact that was used in a misleading context, because he really had nothing to do, as the evidence has shown, with the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation. The

320 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 second fact was the fact of an account number that HSBC was supposed to debit at the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, and the third fact or fact 2(a) or 2(b) might be better way to say it, is the fact that of a check number. As the

evidence -- the evidence is very straightforward. The defendant did not have an account at the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation. the evidence shows, DTCC was a bank's bank. dealt with other financial institutions. not deal with individuals. And as It

It did

The defendant simply

did not have an account at that bank, could not have had an account at that bank, but yet in each of the six instances ascribed in the indictment or listed in the indictment, he called HSBC and listed quote, an account, an account that turned out to be nonexistent. To top that off, we had Exhibit 11 which was the bonded promissory note which was a secondary feature of the defendant's scheme to defraud. When

he was at a point where obviously the check direct feature wouldn't work anymore, he sent in a bonded promissory note which the witness Mr. Johnson testified was, first of all, completely false, contained any number of false statements within the

321 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 note itself, and it was actually a part of a scheme or scam. I submit, Judge, that from all of the evidence that I have just gone through, and certainly there's more evidence I haven't gone through, but all of the evidence I've gone through, a jury would be within its right to find the defendant guilty -or find the defendant guilty of each -- or of the count of the indictment. THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Bruce. All right.

Considering what both of you have mentioned and argued, and obviously I've been here and I have heard the testimony of the witnesses, the standards governing a Rule 29 motion -- and this is for the benefit of both sides -- is well settled. And the

burden under this motion, Mr. Buczek, is a very heavy burden, and there's a number of cases from this circuit that talk about that, and that's the Kahn case is one for example. Circuit case in 1986. It's a Second

I think there's the Walker And the only way that I

case which is a 1998 case.

can grant an acquittal motion under Rule 29 is if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction, and so I've got to look at whether or not it can be fairly concluded that the defendant

322 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 this case is identified and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by way of a fair conclusion against the backdrop of the evidence. I must draw

all reasonable inferences in favor of the government. I must examine all the evidence in the

light most favorable to the government, and that's with respect to each essential element of the offense charged. And in this case we're talking about three, as has been mentioned, essential elements. And does

this evidence reasonably support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt looking at it under that standard? And I answer that yes. The

three elements, as all of you know, is first that there was a scheme to obtain monies or funds owned, under the custody and control of a bank by means of materially false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises as charged in the indictment. Second, that it was the defendant who

executed or attempted to execute the scheme with intent to defraud, the intent being an issue, and third, at the time of the execution of the scheme the bank had its deposits insured by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Looking at, for example, the testimony of

323 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 Schumacker with respect to the FDIC insurance, that was testified to. testimony. There was no objection to that

That's a proper basis from which the

jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the bank was federally insured at the time that these monetary transactions took place. With respect to the scheme, there was a number of -- there were a number of witnesses who testified as -- were here in the courtroom, but recently even talked about Joseph Kelly's testimony, and he was the witness called from the DTCC. And it was made clear that only participants It was not possible for The accounts at DTCC

had accounts at the DTCC.

individuals to have accounts.

were essentially brokerage or company accounts. The other witnesses including Schumacker and Medlock, Matthew Johnson, I guess Bradley Parker was also a witness, and Agent Falkowski, you take a look at all of those witnesses and what they testified to, including conversations with Mr. Buczek, including the information relating to the utilization of -- of certain documents that were described as, if you will, fraudulent documents of no value, taking all of that time -that evidence together, you know, without detailing

324 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 it any further, that would be enough to support the existence of a scheme as charged in the indictment, viewing it most favorably, of course, to the government. And then the evidence throughout was

that the defendant executed the scheme utilizing representations, utilizing the procedure that was in place for the check direct feature of the HSBC Bank, there's enough there for the jury to conclude from the evidence that it was this individual defendant, who is Shane Buczek, being the one that was in communication with the banks to make the scheme operative. So as I see it, the evidence is enough under the standard for a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and based on the evidence just referenced in summary, a reasonable mind might fairly conclude that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and correspondingly a motion for judgment of acquittal is denied under Rule 29. That's it. If you want to make an opening statement today or tomorrow, or you want time to think about it, what do you want to do? MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I need to review all

the information I gathered today, because now my

325 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 whole outlook has changed today. But, you know, I

do want to make a record of one thing is that there has not been one eyewitness on the stand in the last three days that had firsthand knowledge of any injured party at all. It's a wonderful display put

on the U.S. attorney's office of copies and the chronological event of the story like a, you know, you know how I feel about this -THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: I do. It's just -Okay. It's a great story, but

there's no real party, there's no injured party, there's no real eyewitness that testified to anything. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: that's all. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: not there. transcripts. All right. And the intent is definitely Well, you know -I just want to make a record,

And I was just reviewing some of the I respect your finding though, I'll

keep it to that. THE COURT: Okay. All right. You want

time then to consider overnight whether you want to

326 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 make an opening statement? MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Yes, Judge. We'll resume tomorrow, but I Your motion

want to bring the jury back here.

under Rule 29 is denied, and then we will proceed if you are ready with any witnesses tomorrow, but again, if you have any offers of proof with respect to witnesses, I suppose the government wants to hear about those now. MR. BRUCE: Judge, everything I've heard,

for instance, Mr. Buczek talks about calling his father. His father was there when the search was If his father has something to say

conducted.

about what happened when the search was conducted -THE COURT: Let me put you on hold. It's

not that I don't want to listen to you, but maybe what I should do is let the jury go. Because by

the time we get through this it's another 15 minutes or whatever. So I'll have the jury come

in, Darryl, and in the meantime I'll let you run with it. Go ahead, until they come in. MR. BRUCE: The defendant's father was

present as I understand it when the FBI searched

327 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 house. If there is something he has to say

about that that's incompetent -- or that's competent rather, certainly Mr. Buczek is entitled to put that on. If the defendant's father is going

to come in here and testify about the defendant's beliefs, about the defendant's conversations with him about his beliefs, about any of those things -and I use his father only by way of example -- we get into hearsay, and we get into incredible hearsay, and I submit that that evidence is not competent evidence for the jury to hear. If Mr. Buczek, on the other hand, wants to get on the stand and testify pursuant to the Court's order with respect to our motion in limine about his beliefs, that's okay within -- within the parameters of the Court's order. But what he said

to other people, what other people's beliefs are are hearsay. They're not relevant, and I would

submit that he has to make an offer with respect to each and every one of those witnesses. THE COURT: Well, they're not -- there may

be some exception to the hearsay rule if they're offered to establish what his beliefs are, I think under that scenario that's being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, right --

328 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. BRUCE: THE COURT: Exactly. -- it would be hearsay. If

it's determinative of conduct, for example, by a witness -- I mean, if it somehow relates to any of the elements, I suppose, you know, it could be a non-hearsay statement, but that really gets around and doesn't concern the essential elements of the crime charged, so it would have to be -- I'd have to listen to the offer of proof to find out if there's an exception to the hearsay rule that that kind of testimony as to beliefs might -- might possibly be in issue. MR. BRUCE: an offer and to rule. THE COURT: everybody in. (Jury seated.) THE COURT: comfortable though. join us. Okay. Okay. Don't get too So, please come on in, We're resumed in I've Okay, Darryl, you can bring I'd ask the Court to require

Good to see you again.

the case of United States versus Buczek.

worked through everything with the attorneys and Mr. Buczek. It's about 4:10, and we still have a

few matters that I have to address with the attorneys. They're not resolved. So if you don't

329 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 an objection, I'll let you go now. If

somebody objects, then I'll just keep you here to 5:00 o'clock, but that's really up to you. You

wouldn't be in the courtroom, you would be back in the other room, probably not what you necessarily want to do. But how about if we let you go now,

and we see you tomorrow at 9:00 o'clock, does that work? Couple things, I notice during the course of the presentation of proof that a resident newspaper reporter was present in court. And usually that's

a sign that there may be either some Internet or other print type article that would be forthcoming either this afternoon or tomorrow. So for that Don't go

reason remember what I told you before.

out of your way to search out any newspaper article, report on the Internet, any other electronic, audio or visual stories about this particular case or anything similar to it. If you

see something tomorrow if you happen to pick up newspapers or if you're tuned in to something, just put it aside, don't look at it, don't think about it, don't discuss this case. Again, everything

must be confined and constricted to the four corners of -- four walls of this courtroom. And

330 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 that's to be fair to both sides. So, if I

recognize anybody else coming in and out that might have some relationship to what you might hear or see or read, I'll let you know as we go through the trial. But tomorrow we'll see you back here at You've been terrific today. Thank

9:00 o'clock. you very much.

And be careful on your way home and Thank you very much,

safe on your return tomorrow. folks. THE JURY:

Your Honor, to be here all the

way to five tomorrow? THE COURT: A JUROR: arrangements. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You can't Yes. Yes.

Just making child care

watch the children, Mr. Bridges, you have to be here. A JUROR: Okay. Thank you.

(Jury excused from the courtroom.) THE COURT: Okay. So you know what

Mr. Bruce is after, he wants to pin you down, Mr. Buczek. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: Oh, is he still here? Mr. Bruce? Yeah.

331 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 question. there. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Always here. Okay. No. I thought he was gone.

So, if you want to get up

I mean, are you prepared to discuss this

now, Mr. Comerford, or do you need -- does Mr. Buczek need time maybe to discuss it tomorrow? MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I do have one

Maybe I should run it through Brian. THE COURT: Go ahead. Do it so that I

don't hear it. of you.

Get it worked out between the two

(Off the record discussion.) MR. BUCZEK: Judge, I'm going to review

all this and have it ready -- done early in the morning when we get started. starting at 9:00 o'clock. that happened today. THE COURT: Well, sure. That's part of I think we're

There is a lot of things

what factors in perhaps to your opening and your decision on that. Maybe also with respect to Those

whether you have witnesses to call or not.

are serious decisions that you have to make, and I know you realize that, and I'm sure that's the advice that your counsel -- well, that standby counsel has given to you. So take the time, use

332 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 there. the time wisely though, because this all -- this all affects your livelihood. MR. BUCZEK: I know, but I do want to put

something on the record, and I don't have probation to talk to, because probation is not here. But I

do want to go to the UB law library as soon as I'm done here, and I have some things I need to look up, and I want to -- but I want to make you aware that's where I'm going right from here. THE COURT: MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: THE CLERK: Okay. Well, just --

It's up in Amherst. I know where it is. He's on electronic -Normally he has to provide If the Court will

MR. COMERFORD:

24 hours notice to probation.

permit, we'll call Mr. Kawski right now and give him notice. advance. I realize it's not 24 hours in

If you have stuff you want to research, I

think that makes sense. THE COURT: You can relate to Mr. Kawski

it's been approved by the Court, but just so that -MR. COMERFORD: THE COURT: We will, Judge.

-- they make it of record

And we'll see everybody back here at

333 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 9:00 o'clock tomorrow. And I will do what you asked, Mr. Bruce, and that is with respect to the calling of witnesses, I will require an offer of proof, and I'll make a ruling on whether they're proper to call, at least in terms of the scope of the testimony that you are suggesting you might get into. MR. BUCZEK: Okay.

And I still do have subpoenas

that are out there, so -THE COURT: Okay. But we talked about

Judge Schroeder, and I mean that looks like that's moot now. MR. BUCZEK: THE COURT: Thank you. That is finally moot, right? Yeah. Okay. All right.

We'll see you tomorrow. Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Judge.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: MR. COMERFORD: MR. BUCZEK: * * *

Thank you, Judge. * * *

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

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the foregoing is a Correct transcription of the proceedings Recorded by me in this.

s/Michelle L. McLaughlin Michelle L. McLaughlin, RPR Official Reporter U.S.D.C., W.D.N.Y.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful