You are on page 1of 49

TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

WEBER: Try to get what you normally get. We try to get, you know, if you
try to get a quarter, is that what you normally get?
SEDAK: An eighth or a quarter.
WEBER: An eighth or a quarter? Yeah. I mean, try to get a quarter if you
can get it, if you can only get an eighth that's fine too. I mean, in North
Dakota it doesn't matter if you sell a joint or if you sell an ounce, it's
still the same felony charge. I mean, we'd like to get the weights up
there just to show, but it's not a big deal. If you normally buy an eighth,
that's what you're going to buy.
(24:30 minute marker, Item 6)

Comment/analysis, Item 53-58


This portion of the transcript captures additional elements ofprobable
cause, and/ or, reasons to believe that support virtually all my findinqs and
opinions in this matter. WEBER'S admission, that he is engaging in sentencing
entrapment, and that this is the primary if not only reason for his use of
undercover informants making control buys, could not have been made more
clear by WEBER himself The implication of this is that the whole purpose of
makinq multiple buys from targeted individuals is to increase the sentencing
exposure and the consequent pressure on them to agree to become criminal
informants could not be more indicative of this being a well established
.fraudulent activity of WEBER's, and that said fraudulent activity was knowingly
aided and abetted by whomever, and/ or, whatever management entities were
charged, and/ or should have been charged with exercising oversight and
accountability measures for this public and office of safety sensitive activity.
It is also clear from the above that WEBER, by instructing this 20-yea.r-old
college student to be both the undercover informant trying to win his target's
confidence, and at the same time, playing the role of investigator and conducting

109
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

the investigation that WEBER himself should have been conducting, without the
intensive training made available to law-enforcement nation wide, is a craven and
reckless disregard of the young man's life. This unconscionable instruction by
WEBER, in fact, might quite reasonably have been directly responsible for Mr.
SADEK'S violent death
WEBER applying pressure to SADEK to attempt to buy LSD, a practice that
was atypical for SADEK, would have also have put him in significant physical
danger.
WEBER'S exaggerated and unconscionable use of the severe North Dakota
laws as a tool of coercion. is also clearly evident. However, by coercing this young
man into attempting to make contacts with druq traffickers, as considered
through the lens of my hands on experience with thousands of cases involving
the use of undercover criminal informants, could reasonably have walked the
victim into a homicidal situation. One of many similar cases involving my personal
participation exemplifies the same craven and reckless disregard for the life of a
CI, displayed by WEBER; a case that resulted in a change of the laws of the
state of Florida.
"Rachel's Law: in the year 2012, I was retained as an expert in Hoffman v
the Tallahassee Pulice Department. The details of the case parallel those of the
instant matter closely. Rachel Hoffman was a 23-year-old Woman who had just
graduated Florida state university. She had been arrested: for the Possession of 5
ounces of marijuana along with several ecstasy and Valium pills. She was
charged with possession of marijuana with intent to sell, which expose her to
significant time in a penitentiary, The police, using the same tactics WEBER
used coerced HOFFMAN into "making cases" as an informant to save herself
from a long prison sentence. They told her that if she could "set up" a hard drug
an-est-crack cocaine or heroin-it would go much better for her. While, HOFFMAN
unlike SADEK, actually had some experience in the "business" of actually selling

110
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

user amounts of marijuana, she was unprepared to fora.y into the ultra violent
uiorld of crack cocaine, As in the case of young ANDREW SADEK, whether or
not the young woman had the experience and knowledge for this dangerous task,
made no difference, Also, as in the case of ANDREW SADEK, the young woman
desperate to save herself, contacted crack dealers to set up a"buy." She was
murdered by the dealers within hours of their first contact,
My opinion in the HOFFMAN case was that the DEFENDANT OFFICER,
who had recruited RACHEL HOFFMAN and coerced her into the same type of
cooperation agreement that ANDREW SADEK had been forced into, had violated
some, but not all of the standards oflnformant Handling, of which 1 now accuse
mr. WEBER. I underuieni two lengthy depositions, after which the case was
settled for approximately $2 million and the officer fired from the police
department. What, in my opinion, is so much more egregious in WEBER'S
actions, and/ or, lack thereof is the fact that the victim, Andrew Sadek, was both
siqnificanilu and obviously a lot more unfit for the task he had been terrorized
into accepting.
What is extremely important to note is that, as a result of this case, the
State of Florida passed a law for the protection of informants that provides for a
mandatory oversight of the recruitment and use of informants including but not
limited to mandatory special training for law enforcement officers assigned to the
kind of duties that mr. Weber is now performing with no discernible oversight.21

On 11/22/ 13, SADEK'S CI file is created. But it only 6 pages long and it
does not contain any information concerning his initial debriefing
interview:
59. Andrew SADEK Cl File:
-Cooperating Individual Agreement for SADEK (CI 13-0356)

21 Florida statute section 914. 28, called "Rachel's law."

111
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

-Personal History Report for SADEK


-Deactivating Report
-2 Payment Vouchers (p. 1-6, Item 5)

Comment/ analysis, Item 59:


In addition to the already cited attorney general's mandates, as to the
minimum documentation of informant, the following is an except from an FBI
bulletin article, authored by FBI supervisory agent JAMES HIGHT, presented here
to additionally emphasize both the need for the meticulous documentation of
informant data, and the extent to which DEFENDANTS have simply ignored this
national and professional standard:22
Avoiding the Informant Trap: A Blueprint for Control Hight, James E., The FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin "My informant said .... " "I just talked to my informant about the robbery .... '' These phrases are
repeated hundreds of times a day in law enforcement agencies across the country, as hardworking police officers
gather information necessary to successfully perform their duties. Law enforcement often finds it necessary to use
information provided by individuals of less than sterling character and reputation, who live and fuuction within the
criminal element itself. Although a multitude of factors may motivate these individuals to provide information to the
police, the use of informants remains one of law enforcement's oldest and most essential investigative tools. Many
agency administrators raise valid concerns about the hazards involved in using informants and ask numerous
questions to quickly assess their informant program. Have they established some degree of organization and
accountability in the informants' direction and use? Have they implemented procedures to control the informants'
actions? Have they set forth formal regulations regarding the informant program? If the answer to these questions is
no, the agency and its officers may be at risk as negative concerns from civil libertarians, the courts, and the general
public grow in fervor over the use of criminal informant sources. When informants provide false or misleading
information, use their status for their own purposes, or become involved in criminal activities unrelated to the
investigation at hand, law enforcement often finds itself unprepared to deal with the inevitable fallout, which could
range from public embarrassment to a civil suit and result in a damaged image within the community. Yet, whether
they operate 1 informant or 100, when police agencies have a program that properly defines, documents, controls,

22 James E. Hight, Avoiding the Informant Trap: A Blueprint for Control,FBI LAW
ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN. (Nov.1988).

112
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

and provides accountability for the actions of their informants, they continue to gain vital information while
addressing the valid concerns of the public they serve,
Documentation
" Agencies should implement a formal filing system to properly maintain all related documentation on each
informant, The informant's identity should be concealed, and a simple numbering system within the files would
sufficiently accomplish this. A commanding officer should issue these numbers, while authorizing the creation of an
informal file. The authorization by the commanding officer to create this file also implies consent to the use of this
person as an informant. Only officers operating the informants, their commanding officers, and the head of the
department should know the identities of all of the informants. The case officer should place all of the information
the informant supplies in the created informant file, while the main file on a particular crime should contain copies
of reports or other investigative documents that apply to that ease only,
"Because informants occasionally report on more than one type of crime, and thus, other officers may need
to access the information the informant provides, a central file repository becomes necessary for the inclusion of all
information provided by an individual informant, Case officers should store these informant files in a secure location
with controlled access. They should maintain items such as record cheeks on prospective informants, any criminal
history information, and a photograph of the informant in this file. Also, a history of payments to informants may be
maintained in the file. Because agency needs vary, officers should consider each item maintained in the file on an
individual basis; however, the type of informant information maintained must remain consistent in each file. An
agency can demonstrate thoroughness and deliberate judgment in its use of informants by maintaining a file of
information on each informant, as well as one documenting the information each informant provides.
Control and Accountability
"When informants have little or no formal direction as to the scope of permissible activities,
problems can arise quickly .... "

60. WEBER admits during his Deposition that he does not give
informants any training and minimal guidance. WEBER also uses an
example in SADEK'S case, which turns out to be a reference to
SADEK'S source, of whom WEBER never conducted any
investigation whatsoever:
Q Do they receive any other kind of training?
A No. There again, usually the people that come to us that want to do this
line of work have already been involved in this, this drug activity, so.
(Lines 2-7, p. 43)
Q How much instruction do you give them on quantity to buy?

113
TRIAL· MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

A There again> typically it'll come out in an interview of what they can buy.
We don't have them buy stuff that they normally wouldn't buy. Like in
Andrew's situation, we talked about a gentleman with about two
ounces, and I asked him, "Is that normally what you buy?" He said,
"No." So we stick to what they normally can buy. We don't send them into
a place where they don't normally buy pounds of weed. We're not going to
put them in that situation and make it look like what he normally doesn't
already do.
Q How is the location determined as to where they do the buy? Do you give
any guidance?
A So the only guidance that we give on the location is when we explain to
them that, you know, they are going to be known as a number> but, you
know> they could have to come back to court to testify. We don't give any
guarantees on that. So the only guidance we give is we just tell them try
not to do it in some area that you would never normally go to that area,
you know, whether it's, you lmow, a Catholic church in a pew or
something. If you don't normally go buy drugs there, don't go buy --
Because once they get that, once they get their description on their
warrant or whatever> they're going to know, it's probably you. So that's
really the only, I mean, that's one of the guidance that we give, is don't
make it in an area where you don't normally wouldn't buy drugs from
these individuals already, so.
(Lines 6-25 p. 46 and Lines 1-12 p. 47, Item 10)
Note, item 60:
WEBER, here, shows clear indication he is keenly aware of the dangers of
sending an informant as inexperienced us Andrew Sadek; into dangerous
situations that are beyond the victims knowledge and experience, yet, WEBER,
makes no effort. whatsoever in controlling, and/ or, even monitoring any of

114
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

ANDREW's desperate attempts at "lining up" drug cases, His testimony here
merely pays lipservice to how his duty to protect his informant should have been
carried out, the opposite of his actual performance.

WEBER admits during his Deposition neither himself nor his task force
conducted investigations into LIIIIII LNU or the other individual
mentioned by SADEK as sources of illegal drugs:
61. Q Do you know if there was ever any follow through with the guy in
Fargo [LIIIIII LNU]?
A No. He didn't. You know, we offered that he can go and work with -- I
informed him that's a different task force and that he can certainly go up
and do work up there and that we would give him credit, but he never took
on that option.
Q Have you ever investigated either of those two individuals that I just
mentioned?
A For our task force, no
(Lines 20-25 p. 74 and Lines 1-4 p. 75, Item 10)

62, On 11/24/14, after the initial interview, SADEK begins to


communicate with WEBER via text message, there is no indication
of any investigative follow-up resulting from Mr. SADEK'S attempts
at being an undercover informant; specifically his attempts at
convincing individuals to engage with him in illegal drug sales. The
victim is left out on his own with no training, supervision or
oversight other than a series of text messages. DEFENDANTS make
no attempt whatsoever to protect this untrained amateur from
making errors that can quickly result in a violent death, as did
happen. WEBER relentlessly continues to pressure the young man

115
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

to set people up for arrest, A significant number of text messages


and excerpts from WEBER's deposition testimony, in support of all
opinions and findings in this matter have not (with the exception of
some items listed below) been reproduced in the instant report as
possibly being unnecessarily redundant in an already lengthy
document; however, should it become necessary I reserve the right
to include these in both future reporting and trial testimony,

SADEK communicates with WEBER via text message about an individual


known as THE TIRE SLASHER, whom SADEK attempts, but fails, to
engage in narcotic trafficking:

63. From Extraction Reporl on SADEK'S phone: WEBER/SADEK text


11/26/ 13 at 5:23PM:
SAD EK: My contact only knows the first name of The Tire Slasher
REDACTED sorry
WEBER: Ok
11/27 /13 at 8:07AM
WEBER: See if you can find out more ... like what class he is in ... or
dorm .. , or vehicle he drives
(p.10-11, Item 7)

On 3/10/14 WEBER sends a text to SADEK that foreshadows SADEK'S


demise:
64. From Extraction Report on_SADEK'S phone: WEBER/SADEK text
3/10/14 at 3:06PM:
WEBER: Are you still alive

116
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

SADEK: Yes REDACTED keeps telling me he is out I'm working on new


contracts
(p.22, Item 7)

On 4/07 / 14 WEBER continues to pressure and threaten SADEK via text


message:
65. From Extraction Report on SADEK'S phone: WEBER/SADEK text
4/07 / 14 at 10:31AM:
WEBER: You need to get something lined up or I am going to charge
you out. There is a lot of dope on campus. Ask around if you don't
know anyone. We need to get these done.
SADEK: Okay
{p.22, Item 7)

On 4/ 17 / 14 WEBER continues to pressure and threaten SADEK via text


message. It is unknown if there was further communication between
WEBER and SADEK after this point:
66. From Extraction Report on SADEK'S phone: WEBER/SADEK text
4/ 17 /14 at 3:20PM:
WEBER: You have until May 1 to get the next deal done. Otherwise I
will cut warrants for your arrest on your deliveriee:
(p.22, Item 7)

During his deposition, WEBER explains his contact with SADEK between
February and May 2014:
67. DEP JASON WEBER Deposition dated 10/ 17 / 17:
Q Do you know if you met up with Andrew to take photos of his text
messages related to the buy on 1/27 / 14?

117
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

A I honestly, I don't recall.


Q: Any contact that you're aware of between February 3, 2014 and
February 12, 2014?
A February 3 of 2014 and February 12, is that what you said?
Q Yeah.
A No. Other than if there's phone calls, I don't recall.
Q And there's a name and then the word, the text, is blacked out, is this
sorneone new or a repeat person?
A That's a repeat person he's talking about from Deal Number 3.
Q And then are you aware of any contact that you had with Andrew
between February 12, 2014 and March 10 of 2014?
A No.
Q On March 10, 2014, you sent Andrew a text and it said, "Are you
still alive?".
A Yep.
Q Do you remember that?
A Yep.
Q Did you have any concerns about him?
A I didn't. He hadn't been contacting me, or I hadn't heard from him
for awhile. I didn't have any concerns. I just asked, you know, it was
just a figure of speech, threw it out there, "Are you still alive?" I
mean, what's going on, and he did reply back to me, so.
Q So no concerns he was in danger?
A No.
Q Weren't aware of anybody out to get him?
A No.
Q And then there's a blacked out text name, Is that the same target
person that's mentioned in the 2/ 12/ 14 text? .

118
TRIAL • MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

A I believe so. Yep.


Q And then any contact with Andrew between March 10, 2014 and
4/7/2014?
A I don't recall. I mean, there might have been some phone calls where I
tried calling him or whatever, but I don't know.
Q Any further discussion other than the two texts on April 7, 2014'2
A I don't recall.
Q Any contact between April 7, 2014 and April 17, 2014?
A There again, I don't recall. You know, I might have tried calling his cell
phone, because I wasn't getting a response with text messages, but I
don't know.
Q. Then on April 17, 2014, you gave a deadline of May 1 to complete
another buy?
A Correct.
Q Why the May 1st deadline?
A Because at that point, he was, I was under the impression that he was
going to be graduating from school, and he will be leaving the Wahpeton
area, and it would be difficult for him to complete what he needed to
complete traveling back and forth to wherever he's going to go.
Q Did you have any contact with Andrew SAD EK between the time of the
text on April 7, 2014 and May 1, 2014, the day that he went missing?
A No.
Q So prior to Andrew going missing, when was the last contact you had
with him?
A It would have been on April 7th, so where he text back, "Okay."
(Lines 21-25 p. 91, Lines 1-25 p. 92 & p.93 and Lines 1-17 p. 94)

❖ 05/01/ 14: SADEK disappears on the day WEBER set as the final deadline.

llY
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

On 05/02/ 14 there is a Call for Service generated by North Dakota State


College of Science (NDSCS) Campus Police for SADEK as a Missing Person:
68. Call for Service Blotter Dated 05/02/14 by OFC. Whitney LINK
Missing Person: Andrew SADEK
Blotter: On 5/2/ 14, I, Officer Link was called by MELrSSA SCHROEDER
who is the secretary with Campus Police who had called to inform me
that she had just received a phone call from ELIZABETH PHARRES with
Resident Life who had said we are missing a student from Nordgaard
Hall. I made contact with PHARRES and she gave me all the information
regarding the missing individual. xxxxx
Andrew John SADEK dob/- /93 OLN/- -4196
N ordgaard Hall - and his home address is [blank]
His Cell phone number is ----1 150 and his home number is - -
--6029. SADEK's vehicle is still in the parking lot ND/JBZ500
2004 Mazda 6 4 door Red in Color.
His Parents names are John and Tammy SADEK-
- · Home Number of- -6029 Tammy --0135)
and John --3820).
On 5/2/ 14, I Officer LINK contacted the parents at 1500 hrs to see if
Andrew was at their home. TAMMY had told me that he was not and that
he was at school. I informed TAMMY that ANDREW'S roommates had
went to resident life and reported ANDREW missing at 1300 hrs. I had
asked her if she had talked to him recently and she had stated "No Last
Saturday". I informed her that we are looking into his disappearance and
going over cameras to get more of an accurate time of when he left
Nordgaard Hall. She told me he was not on any medications and he was
excited to graduate in May that this type of thing is weird for him. I had

120
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

asked TAMMY some questions regarding ANDREW so that we were able


to enter him in as a missing person. She had told me he has no tattoos,
gave me his social security number- -9346), his place of birth
(Valley City) and that he was Caucasian. (p. l, Item 271)
XXX

C9._nJ:1p,ent/ analt1sis, Item 60-68:


All comments listed in item 59 continue to be applicable as to items 60
through 67. Additional elements ofprobable cause, and/ or, reasons to believe,
indicative of defendant WEBER, and all those names and, as yet unnamed
DEFENDANTS charged with exercising supervision and oversight of WEBER'S
law enforcement actiuiiies.of displaying a craven and reckless disregard of
uirtuallu every narcotic investigative and informant-handling standard that I have
ever been exposed to, and/ or, taught in my now five decade career; in particular
DE'FENDANTS' duty to protect the young man whom WEBER had coerced into
taking on the role of an undercover criminal informant, as follows:
a. WEBER'S admission under oath, that he did not train, and/ or, coach the
young college student in any manner, as to the safest way to engage in
this extremely hazardous role, it is obvious throughout the materials
reviewed. When dealing with experienced criminal informants, this is
often not necessary thing to do, mainly because these types of
inform.an.ts have a history of already being engaged in that world.
However, in the case of the victim, WEBER and his superuisoru staff
were confronted with an overwhelming amount of evidence that the
young Mr. SADEK, had no experience whatsoever in that extremely
dangerous criminal environment. WEBER's testimony in this item,
highlights his too obvious unfitness for the job of informant handling
and/ or having anything whatsoever to do with undercover operations.
b. WEBER's admission, under oath, that he conducted no investigation

121
MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
TRIAL -
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

whatsoever into "LIIIIII" -the individual whom ANDREW SADEK had


identified us his source of marijuana, is once again, a breaihiakinq
admission of, either WEBER'S unfitness for this kind of duty, and a
continuation of elements o] probable cause supporting my opinion that
the entire goal and purpose behind the targeting of the victim, and lilcely
many others, had nothing to do with the enforcement of narcotic laws,
and was totally motivated by the acquisition of arrest and informant
statistics in DEFENDANTS' ongoing hunger for federal funding money.
c. WEBER1s communications with SADEK, are captured in text message
conversation and reveal that he relentlessly pursues the young man
with threats ofprosecution and long jail sentences, unless it produces
more statistics-arrests and converted informants. No evidence of
WEBER having any concerns as to the possible dangers represented by
the individuals with whom SADEK is attempting to deal. Instead,
WEBER orders SADEK to act both as an undercover informant AND as a
police investigator an extremely dangerous double duty that has too
often. resulted in violent death. During the past quarter century, I have
been training classes of advanced undercover operatives whom I
specifically advise never to engage in both the rollover an undercover
operative and at the same time do a physical investigation of the
individual targeted. This latest sign that the undercover officer and/ or
informant is operating as an investigator will result in a violent death,
almost instantly.
The model of experienced undercover DEA agent, Everett
HATCHER, is a prime example of the dangers of even the most
experienced and best trained undercover operatives being murdered as
a result of simply being caught in a lie. I was intimately inuolued in this

122
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

case as a DEA expert in undercover tactics23 and reserve the right to


explore the details ofthi.s case in tesiimoriu, as an object example of the
extraordinary and unconscionable dangers SADEK was exposed to by
this "double tasking" of the victim ..
d. The specifics, above, in the text relating to ANDREW SADEK'S
attempted contacts with a drug dealer with the nickname and/ or street
name "THE TIRE SLASHER, " revealed a specific example of
DEFENDANTS' shocking disregard over even the notion ofprotecting the
young man. Here it is exiremelu important to note that WEBER, again in
contradiction to any and all National and professional, investigative
reporting requirements, failed to document in any shape or form,
SADEK'S attempted contact with "THE TIRE SLASHER" whose contact
with the victim. was only discovered on Mr. SADEK'S phone, here again
presenting element ofprobable cause indicative of the illegal tampering
unih. evidence.
As an expert, with decades of experience on the street and an
intensive knowledge of the use of "Street names," it is my opinion that,
beyond a reasonable certainty, "THE TIRE SLASHER" is a street name
that describes a person who has earned said name by acts of extreme
violence; a likely person of interest in a homicide investigation in this
matter. Yet, in what I can only describe as a cowardly disregard for this
young man's life, DEFE.NDAN1'5~ in particular WEBER, not only took no
act whatsoever to protect this hapless young inductee, but instead put
pressure on him to do the job that WEBER and all named and as yet
unnamed DEFENDANTS, should have undertaken; that is what placed
the victim in extraordinary danger, all evidence of which was concealed
by DEFENDANTS' intentional omission of material evidence.
23Special Agent Hatcher was murdered while working undercover posing as a drug dealer by
Costabile "Gus" Faraxw in February 1989,

123
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

DEFENDANTS' lack of adherence to the basic minimal standards of


the requirements to protect one's informant resulted in the crippling of a
possible homicide investigation, and in particular, in the concealment of
the identity of an individual-THE TIRE SLASHER -- who should have
been a prime suspect; an act that, on its own, merits a criminal
investigation by an independent federal agency.
e. Weber, under oath, testifies that he had no concerns whatsoever
about the safety of ANDREW SADEK, demonstrating once again, this
man's complete disregard for any duty to protect his informant-a
decades old professional and national standard. In short, his actions
have already demonstrated this disregard; however, his admission
under oath provides significant reasons to believe that all those deemed
responsible for Webbers training, oversight and the very choice of Weber
to fill this position, are equally responsible for the death of the victim.
f Weber's final threatening text to Andreu) Sodek; found on the victim's
phone by plaintiff's attorney's investigation is repeated here for
emphasis: 4/ 17 / 14 at 3:20PM: WEBER: "You have until May 1 to
get the next deal done. Otherwise I will cut warrants for your
arrest on your deliveries."
g. Mr. SADEK would never again be seen alive after the deadline of this
final threat. Up to this point all of the evidence covered in the instant
report demonstrate beyond a reasonable certainty, that Weber and all
defendants, both named and unnamed, charged with oversight of this
investigation, were well aware of the impossibility of this young,
inexperienced and untrained college boy, to satisfy the demands
imposed on him. If they weren't aware, they were either paying no
attention whatsoever to Weber's actions and thereby disregarding all
duties of oversight and accountability, and/ or, they themselves were

124
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

unfit and/ or insufficiently trained for the supervisory positions they


were filling. In either case Mr. Weber had coerced and relentlessly
pressured ANDREW into a deadly box from which there was no exit.
h. During my career I have had significant professional exposure to
informants placed in identical situations to that of the victim, resulting in
suicides. For example) NYPD detective JOSEPH NUNZIATA, a corrupt
officer who had taken part in the theft of heroin from the police evidence
uauli. NUNZIATA, was pressured by Federal agents and prosecutors to
go undercover as a criminal informant targeting corrupt members of the
NYPD, or face a lengthy prison sentence. The differences between
NUNZIATA and SADEK were that NUNZIATA knew who his targets were
and that the crimes involved seriously affected public safety, while
SADEK was ordered to go out and find College kids, pot smokers and to
"line them up" for WEBER; NUNZIATA) was an experienced but corrupt
undercover cop himself who needed no training to protect himself, and
his every moue would be covered, documented and reported buy
squads offederal agents. SADEK had no experience whatsoever in the
drug world commerce, was offered no training, no protection, and in
essence was put out on the street on his own with none of his actions
ever documented, nor any of the individuals whom this hapless young
man attempted to target ever investigated in any way shape or form.
The threats ofprison time issued to both NUNZIATA and SADEK, 20-40
years, were similar. NUNZIATA and one other corrupt cop in the same
position, committed suicide.
i. Suicides by individuals who are "Flipped" (coerced) into takinq on the
role of an undercover criminal informant, are much too commonplace to
ignore when reflecting on the possible deadly outcomes ofth.e choice
that WEBER forced upon SADEK,

125
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

SADEK goes missing immediately after the deadline tolls on his final
threat from Weber. The ensuing events reveal additional elements of
probable cause, and, more reasons to believe in support of all opinions
and findings in this matter.

On 05/02/ 14 a Press Release was sent out and then Wahpeton PD sent
out a Code Red Alert for SADEK:
69. Call for Service Blotter Dated 05/02/14 by OFC. Whitney LINK
On 5/2114 at 2115 hrs, The First Press Release was sent out to all
media in our area making the aware of the situation of a. missing.
student on campus. Wahpeton Dispatch sent out a CodeRed Alert in the
Wahpeton area making them aware and the Notify System also sent out a
message to all faculty, staff and students that attend NDSCS,
(p.1-2, Item 271)

On 05/02/ 14 after the Code Red Alert for SADEK was sent out, DEP.
WEBER contacts OFC. LINK to reveal that SADEK was an informant. The
only documentation of their phone call is found in OFC. LINK'S report:
70. Call for Service Blotter Dated 05/02/14 by OFC. Whitney LINK
After the alert had been sent out I, Officer Link received a phone call
from SEMCA Agent Jason WEBER stating that they had Felony Warrants
waiting to be signed for SADEK. SADEK had been in some trouble for
buying from a confidential informant of theirs. He agreed to do some
work for Semca in order to make his charges disappear but did nut fulfill
his word and the warrants were to be issued on him May 1.
(p.2, Item 271)

126
TRIAL · MICHAEL LEVINE • SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTlAL

Note 70: As of the present date we have not received any investigative files
by WEBER concerning SADEK'S disappearance. There is no record of the
phone call to OFC. LINK documented by WEBER.
Note 2: OFC. LINK states that SADEK was "buying" from the CJ.s.

On 05/05/ 14 DEP. WEBER issues warrants for SADEK's Arrest:


71. Warrant for Arrest of Defendant SADEK dated 05/05/14
ND v Andrew SADEK
Delivery of a Controlled Substance -Two Counts
Signed 0 5 / 05 / 14 by District Court Judge Bradley A Cruff.
(p.5, Item 22)

Statement of Probable Cause on the Delivery of a Controlled Substance


charges against SADEK:
72. Statement of Probable Cause against SADEK dated 05/05/14
Based on the investigation of the Southeast Multi County Agency Drug
Task Force: Count 1: The Defendant, on or about April 4, 2013, in
Parking Lot #4 of NDSCS Campus, Wahpeton, Richland County, willfully
delivered approximately 2.22 grams of marijuana, a controlled
substance, Schedule I, to a Confidential Informant working for
the SEMCA drug task force. The Defendant was paid $60.00 for the
marijuana and in exchange gave to the Cl a plastic baggie with a leafy
green substance inside. The substance was sent to the state lab and was
confirmed as cannabis. This location is
within 1000 feet of NDSCS.
Count II: The Defendant, on or about April 9, 2013, in Parking Lot #4 of
NDSCS Campus, Wahpeton, Richland County, willfully delivered

127
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

approximately 1.13 grams of marijuana, a controlled substance,


Schedule I, to a Confidential Informant working for the SEMCA drug task
force. The Defendant was paid $20.00 for the marijuana and in exchange
gave to the Cl a plastic baggie with a leafy green substance inside. The
substance was sent to the state lab and was confirmed as cannabis. This
location is within 1000 feet of NDSCS.
(p.4, Item 22)

Note 72: The author of the Statement of Probable cause is not listed.

On 05/05/14 DEP. WEBER also issues a summons against SADEK:


73. Summons for Defendant SADEK dated 05/05/14
ND v Andrew SADEK
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
Summoned to appear at court on O 6 / IO/ 14
Signed 05/05/ 14 by District Court Judge Bradley A. Cruff.
(p.4, Ilem 23)

Statement of Probable Cause on the Possession of Drug Paraphernalia


summons:
74, Statement of Probable Cause against SADEK dated 05/05/ 14
Based on the investigation of the SEMCA Drug Task Force, the
Defendant, on November 21, 2013, in Nordgaard Hall on NDSCS
Campus, Room_, in Wahpeton, Richland County, North Dakota
knowingly had in his possession drug paraphernalia, which was used
or possessed with the intent to be used, to process, prepare, analyze,
pack, repack, store, contain, conceal or otherwise introduce into the
hurnan body a controlled substance, namely marijuana. SEMCA agents

128
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

performed a consent search on a dorm room that the Defendant shares


with another individual. In the Defendant's desk drawer agents found
an orange grinder with marijuana residue, and the Defendant admitted
ownership of the grinder. (p.3. Item 23)

Note 74: The author of the Statement of Probable cause is not listed.

Comment/ analysis, Item 69-74:


The above items 69- 74, provide significant support for my opinion that the
victim, ANDREW SADE.l(, had in fact been arrested with a deferred processing
and prosecution, accomplished by WEBER without the authorization of any
prosecutor.

75. SADEK'S body is discovered 2 months after he disappeared. On


08/04/ 14, the Final Autopsy report reveals that SADEK died due to a
gunshot wound to the head, but that the manner of death remains
undetermined.
Comment/analysis, Item 75:
The violent death suffered by ANDREW SADEK, beyond a reasonable
certainty, is a direct result of DEFENDANTS' unlawful and sadistic abuse of
police power and authority as described throughout this report.

In February 2015, DEP. WEBER is promoted to the title of Coordinator,


which is classified as a supervisor position for SEMCA:
76. DEP JASON WEBER Deposition dated 10/ 17 / 17:
A My current employment is with the Richland County Sheriffs Office.
Q What's your current role with the Richland County Sheriffs Office?

129
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

A I'm assigned to the SEMCA Drug Task Force, and I'm currently the
coordinator for the task force.
Q Can you give me a better description of what the coordinator position is
for the SEMCA Task Force?
A So the coordinator position is basically a supervisory level position
where I supervise three other agents and day-to-day, still day-to-day
activities, drug cases, along with administrative work to include, you
know, grant reporting, and bills, and anything that comes around with the
administrative stuff.
Q How long have you been the coordinator for SEMCA?
A In roughly January or February of 2015, I was named interim
coordinator, and then roughly around, I think it was October of 2015, I
was named permanent coordinator.
(Lines 9-25 p. 8 and Lines 1-5 p. 9, Item 10)

Comment/ analysis, Item 76:


The fact that WEBER received a promotion after his informant ANDREW SADEK
died under unknown circumstances provides significant support to my opinion
that one of the motives behind WEBER'S modus operandi, as described
throughout this report, which was and continues to be personal and professional
self-promotion. This fact must also be considered additional probable cause
indicative of WEBER'S actions and lack thereof, as described herein; having been
aided and abetted by management level defendants, both named and unnamed,
with the responsibility of oversight and accountability for SEMCA.

❖ Lack of Supervision of SEMCA between 2009~2015. According to the Bureau


of Criminal Investigation of the Attorney General's Office, SEMCA did not

130
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

have a supervisor between 2013-2014, the time in which SEDAK worked as


an informant:
77. Attorney General BCI Report dated 01/27 /15
A defined task force supervisor must be assigned. All the other task forces
around the state have an assigned coordinator that is usually appointed
by the task force board. This would make a direct contact for board
members and other officials that have questions in relation to the task
force. Deputy WEBER is doing a lot of the coordinator work already but
no official appointment has been made. (p. 3, Item 2)

DEP. WEBER confirms that while SADEK was a Confidential Informant,


there was no direct supervisor for SEMCA. In fact, it appears that from
2009-2015 SEMCA did not have an official supervisor managing and
reviewing the daily practices of the Drug Task Force:
78. DEP JASON WEBER Deposition dated 10/ 17 /l7:
Q Who was the director of SEMCA in 2013 and 2014?
A So at that time BCI had a director in there until 2009. That agent got
transferred out to Bismarck, and at that time with the big oil boom, they
didn't hire anybody for Wahpeton, and everybody that was being hired
was being sent out west. So at that time, we referred to our board of
directors, our chiefs and sheriffs, as our supervisors.
Q. Is that still the case today?
A That is not the occasion. I'm the supervisor of the task force now.
Q So you'd be considered the director of SEMCA?
A Correct. Director, coordinator.
Q But in 2013, 2014 that would have been, the position wasn't filled. ls
that what you're telling me?
A Correct.

131
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

(Lines 17-25 p. 5 and Lines 1-8 p. 6, Item 10)

WEBER claimed that while there was no supervisor, SEMCA agents


referred to the board members as their supervisors. But then WEBER
states that the board members knew little to nothing about SEMCA'S
handling of informants:
79. DEP JASON WEBER Deposition dated 10/ 17 / 17:
Q How much information would those board members have as to what you
were doing out in the field with confidential informants?
A So when we deal with confidential informants they probably wouldn't have
a lot of information. A lot of them don't wanted to know who we're working, I
guess. So they probably wouldn't have a lot.
(Lines 8-15 p. 19 Item 10)
Comment/analysis, Item 76-79:
These items indicate th.at from 2009 to 2015, SEMCA was just a group of officers
running a drug task force without informant handling training and without proper
supervision. The recruitment, management and overall control of undercover
criminal informants could not be more officer and public safety sensitive. After
more than five decades in this business, I find this fact almost incomprehensible
in its conscious disregard of not only public safety, but the price paid in the health
of our system ofjustice as well. More reason that this entire matter be urgently
transferred to the appropriate independent federal enforcement agency.

80. DOWN TRADING:


a. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS: US PROSECUTORS, DUTY TO BE
COGNIZANT OF COOPERATING DEFENDANT WITNESSES "TRADING
DOWN."

132
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

"Make [cooperation] agreements only with 'little fish' to get 'big


fish.'... The integrity of government-indeed our very way of life-
demands it."- Stephen Trott, Assistant Attorney General, United
States Department of Justice. 24

Comment/ analysis, Item_ 80:


The totality of evidence review herein> indicates beyond a reasonable
certainty that Mr. WEBER, not only used uncontrolled and unuetied informants to
ensnare the victim into a trap from which he would never survive> but at least one
of these informants was an actual drug dealer whom WEBER had permitted to
mitigate his own exposure to the severe drug laws by the creation of a crime
starring the hapless victim-down trading-and then hiding the act by his refusal
to adhere to National professional standards of investigative reporting. All this
for the purpose of the building both arrest statistics and numbers of informants in
order to create the false impression of a real drug problem that merited Federal
funding.

❖ Funding for SEMCA of RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFIC~

WEBER admits during his deposition that he is in charge of applying for


the grant funding. This creates a clear picture of WEBER arresting small
time drug users, flipping them to target other users while never seeing
these cases through to court. All WEBER is doing is creating statistical
arrests and informant files so he can get grant funding for SEMCA:

24 Stephen S. Trott, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S.Department of Justice.


''The Successful Use of Snitches, Informants, Co-conspirators and Accomplices as Witnesses
for the Prosecution in a Criminal Case; January 1984 Revision FOIA Request #CRM-960224F.
The Hon. Stephen S. Trott is currently serving as a Federal Judge in the 9th District. Excerpted
from Informant Law Desk Book

133
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

81. DEP JASON WEBER Deposition dated 10/ 17 / 17:


Q Where does the funding come from for SEMCA?
A So the funding comes from a couple different places. We are, we run
through a Byrne JAG Grant and the Lottery Fund Grant, and that's
basically divvied out through North Dakota BCI, and then it's a match
grant. So the grant pays 65 percent and then the 35 percent comes from
all the entities that are in SEMCA, all the counties and the cities that
are part of the MOU or part of the SEMCA task force.
Q Okay. I'm just a little unclear. There were two different grants?
A Yep.
Q That you use to fund SEMCA?
A There's two grants. It's called the Byrne JAG Grant and then the
Lottery Grant.
Q What's the Byrne JAG Grant? Is that a State of North Dakota thing?
A That's a Federal grant.
Q Federal grant?
A Right.
Q And do you have to apply for that grant annually?
A Correct.
Q Are you in charge of doing that now?
A Correct.
Q And how long have you been receiving funding from the Byrne JAG
Grant?
A We've been receiving funding, I mean, for sure since I've been back
there, 2008, but I think since the induction of the task force, but I'm not
positive,
(Lines 4-25 p. 25 and Lines 1-11 p. 26)

134
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Q Generally what criteria do you need to provide them with in order to


receive this grant money, or what criteria are they looking for?
A It's just an application process, show them that we're basically in
existence, and, you know, kind of what we're about, and the money that
we're asking for. It's kind of a yearly revolving thing.
Q Are they provided with the statistical information that you put
together as to the number of cases you're handling?
A So not at the time of the grant application. The statistics come in
quarterly reports that go on a Byrne JAG Grant Federal website, and
those are reported quarterly.
Q Is there a requirement that they have as to the number of cases you
process every year?
A No.
(Lines 6-23, p. 27, Item 10)

Comment/analysis, Item 81:


WEBER omits the fact that the grant applications directly ask: the
participants to prove their usage of the grant money through statistics, and each
previous year's arrest, aeirure and the number of informants recruited statistics
are relied upon when considering the dispersing offuture grant funds. The
funding grant application even provides examples of measureable terms such as
"Increase the number of drug-related arrests by 10-percent. ') See the grant
applications below for more details

The Lottery and JAG Grant Application demonstrates that the grant
funding will go towards an increased number narcotic arrests. This
description will remain the same for the 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014
Applications:

135
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

82. 2011 Lottery and JAG Grant Application


Project Description: Briefly describe the project that is proposed. How will
this project address specific problems. Include specifics about the
services to be provided, how the services will be provided (how often and
by whom), and the project accomplishments:
Assistance with be provided to the local agencies by the task force
through the utilization of conventional and undercover activities being
conducted by agents. These services will be provided through the funding
of this grant. The result of a cooperative effort between the local officers
and the task force agents will result in drug arrests in each of the local
jurisdictions. (p.9 of Application, Item 332)
The 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 JAG and LOTTERY Applications all
named HARRIS BAILEY (Director of Finance), LARRY LESHOVSKY (Sheri}])
and CONNIE RAGUSE (Fiscal Officer}. Again, the applications all stated that
the effort between the local officers and task force agents will result in
drug arrests.

The Lottery and JAG Grant Application also demonstrates that the
objectives for achieving goals for the use of grant funds will be based on
measureable terms: an increased number narcotic convictions. Again,
this description will remain the same for the 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014
Applications:
83. 201 l Lottery and JAG Grant Application
Objectives (Activities directed at achieving goals): State the project's
objectives, in terms of specific steps or benchmarks that will eventually
lead to accomplishing the goals. Objectives must be clearly expressed and
in measurable terms (example: Increase the number of drug-related
arrests by 10-percent)

136
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

1. Purchase illegal drugs from drug dealers.


2. Intercept drugs before they can be distributed by initiating the
execution of search warrants.
3. Share intelligence information with other agencies and improve
communications.
4. Increase the number of felony convictions for drug activities.
(p.12 of Application, Item 332).
The measureable objective for how the Grant Funds are spent is named by
SEMCA to be is an increased number offelony convictions for drug
activities. The application even encourages agencies to use arrests as proof
that the funds are being used.

The Lottery and JAG Grant Application also demonstrates that the
Performance Measures for the use of grant funds will be based on an
increased number of drugs purchased, cases, search warrants, and
narcotic convictions. The application also encourages agencies to use
arrests as proof of a project's success.
Again, the same description is seen on the 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014
Applications:
84. 2011 Lottery and JAG Grant Application
Performance Measures (How you measure your project's success):
(Example: Number of drug-related arrests 2007)
1. Number of quality drug purchases in the task force area.
2. Number of search warrants executed in the task force area.
3. Number of cases generated by the task force and other agencies.
4. Number of felony drug convictions.
(p.12 of Application, Item 332)

137
TRIAL· MICHAEL LEVINE· SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

The JAG Guidelines indicate that agencies must submit their performance
measures online quarterly as part of the requirement for the grant:
85. 2011 Lottery and JAG Grant Application
Progress Report Requirements
Performance Measurement Tool (PMT)-online reporting is required.
A. Program performance measures due quarterly on the 20th of the
month following the end of a quarter.
B. Program performance measures and Narrative due on the 20th of the
month following the end of the quarter ending September 30.
Paper based progress reports include the following:
A. Data and narrative showing the progress on meeting the project's goals
and objectives;
B. Project activities linked to the specific objectives of the project period;
and
C. Problems encountered.
(p.13 of JAG Guidelines, Item 332)

86. In 2011--14, Southeast Multi-County Agency of the Richland


County Sheriff analysis of JAG and Lottery funding for SEMCA in
2011-2014:

BJA reports 2011 2012 2013 2014


Total Drug Arrests 146 130 94 82
Total Grant Funding $131,476 $137,200 $116,700 $129,480

The JAG Guidelines indicate that agencies must submit their performance
measures online quarterly as part of the requirement for the grant:

138
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

2011 Lottery and JAG Grant Application


Progress Report Requirements
Performance Measurement Tool (PMT)-online reporting is required.
A. Program performance measures due quarterly on the 20th of the
month following the end of a quarter.
B. Program performance measures and Narrative due on the 20th of the
month following the end of the quarter ending September 30.
Paper based progress reports include the following:
A. Data and narrative showing the progress on meeting the project's goals
and objectives;
B. Project activities linked to the specific objectives of the project period;
and
C. Problems encountered.
(p.13 of JAG Guidelines, Item 332)

2011 BJA Quarterly Reported Statistics on Task Force Activities:


2011 Report Statistics on Task 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total
Force Activities
~---·
66. New Investigations initiated 48 42 28 32 150
67. Number of judicial warrants 0 0 0 0 0
served (federal)
67. Number of judicial warrants 11 4 4 9 28
served (state)
68. Individuals Arrested (felony) 47 30 31 38 146
68. Individuals Arrested 0 0 0 0 0
{misdemeanor)
70. Total Drugs seized in Grams
A. Heroin 0 0 0 0 0

139
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

B. Cocaine 0 0 0 1.5 1.5


C. Crack Cocaine 0 0 0 0 0
D. Marijuana Commercial 3.7 88.4 505 55.5 652,6
E. Marijuana Hydroponic 0 0 0 0 0
F. Methamphetamine ,5 .35 0 5.5 6.35
G. Methamphetamine Ice 0 0 12 0 12
H. Ecstasy 0 0 0 0 0

I. Other 0 0 0 0 0

74. Number of Firearms seized 2 0 0 17 19


76. Numher of state forfeiture cases 5 2 2 2 11

77. Value of assets from forfeiture 0 0 0 0 0


(property)
77. Value of assets from forfeiture 130 0 10000 189 $10,319
(cash)
77. Value of assets from forfeiture 6800 9000 0 9000 $24,800
(vehicles)
78. Defendants for Federal 0 0 0 0 0
prosecution
79. Defendants for State prosecution 47 30 31 38 146
(felony)
79. Defendants for State prosecution 0 0 0 0 0
(mis.)
82. Number of DTOs disrupted 0 0 0 0 0

83. Number of DTOs dismantled 0 0 0 0 0


(p.7-9, pt Quarter) (p. 3-5, 2nd Quarter) (p. 3-5 Jrd Quarter) (p.2-4, 4th Quarter)
(Item 332)

140
TRIAL· MICHAEL LEVINE· SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

2012 BJA Quarterly Reported Statistics on Task Force Activities:


2012 Report Statistics on Task 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total
Force Activities
·---·•-···-·····-
66. New Investigations initiated 41 26 32 26 125
67. Number of judicial warrants 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
served (federal)
67, Number of judicial warrants 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
served (state)
68. Individuals Arrested (felony) 51 22 28 17 118
68. Individuals Arrested 0 0 6 6 12
(misdemeanor)
70. Total Drugs seized in Grams
A. Heroin 1 0 0 0 l
B. Cocaine 0 0 16 3.5 19.5
C. Crack Cocaine 0 0 0 0 0

D. Marijuana Commercial 197 54 334.5 78.85 664.35


···-
E. Marijuana Hydroponic 0 0 0 0 0
F. Methamphetamine 41.5 95 43 5.25 185.75
G. Metharnphetamine Ice 0 0 0 0 0
H. Ecstasy 2 0 0 0 2
,._oM•urn

I. Other 0 0 2 0 2
J. Prescription Pills (added 2nd N/A 121 32 0 153
Quarter)
74. Number of Firearms seized 0 0 0 1 1
76. Number of state forfeiture 2 2 1 1 6
cases
77. Value of assets from forfeiture 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

141
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

(property)
77, Value of assets from forfeiture 417 3610 701 3270 $7998
(cash)
77. Value of cash related to drug N/A 3610 701 3000 $7311
activity
··-··•

77. Value of assets from forfeiture 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
(vehicles)
78, Defendants for Federal 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
prosecution (felony)
79, Defendants for State 36 N/A N/A N/A N/A
prosecution (felony)
79. Defendants for State 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
prosecution (mis.)
82. Number of DTOs disrupted 0 0 0 0 0

83. Number of DTOs dismantled 0 0 0 0 0

(p.2-4, 1st Quarter) (p. 2-4, 2nd Quarter) (p. 2-4 3rd Quarter) (p.2-4, 4th Quarter)
(Item 333)

2012 Report Statistics on Task Force Activities Jan-Dec 2012


Cases initiated 105
Individuals Arrested for Drugs 94
Federal Charges for Arrests 0
·--·~····
State Charges for Arrests 88
Drugs Removed in grams:
A. Methamphetamine 89.75 g

142
TRIAL" MICHAEL LEVINE" SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

B, Cocaine 0
C. Crack 0
D, Marijuana 2052.75 g
........
E. Heroin 0
F, Stimulants 0
G. Depressants 109 g
H.LSD 0
~- ...
I. Hallucinogens 3.5 g

J. Other 112 g

Number of Firearms seized 2


Value of assets from forfeiture (cash) $22,163
Buy Money Spent $9,645
Cls Signed Up 16
Cls Deactivated 13
(Monthly Reports totaled, Item 334)

2012 Report Statistics on Task Force Activities Jan"Dec 2012


Cases initiated 85
Individuals Arrested for Drugs 82
Federal Charges for Arrests 0
State Charges for Arrests 74
Drugs Removed in grams:
A. Methamphetamine 75 g
'""'

B. Cocaine 14 g
C, Crack 0
•--~-
D. Marijuana 1186 g

143
TRIAL· MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

E. Heroin 0

F. Stimulants 4g
G. Depressants 118 g
-··--····""-
II.LSD 0

I. Hallucinogens Og
--~·
J. Other 54,5 g

Number of Firearms seized 1


Number of other weapons seized 1
Number of vehicles seized 2
Value of assets from forfeiture ( cash) $5,098
Buy Money Spent $11,875
Cls Signed Up 12
Cfs Deactivated 2
(Monthly Reports totaled, Item 33 5)

Comment/ analysis, Item 82 - 86:


Items 82 through 86 provide significant support for my opinions and
findings indicative of DEFENDANTS' having directly caused the violent death of
Andrew SADEK, as a result of their substandard, and/ or, corrupt, and/ or reckless
misuse ofpolice power and authority having been motivated by a quest for Federal
funding dollars, as follows:
(a) items 82 through 85 present incontrovertible evidence that, in order to
qualify for the federal funding, reports citing arrests, numbers of informants
recruited and seizures of drugs must be submitted quarterlu.
(b) The charts reproduced here citing the specifics of SEMCA'S "production"
presented to the Federal funding agency as "justification" for the receipt of
more dollars, indicate that in excess of 95% of a/Tests and seizures emanate

144
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

from violations of the marijuana laws involving small and user quantity
amounts of the drug) as it is tupified by the events documented in. this
report.
{c) SEMC'A )S four years of operation during which they received in excess of a
half-million dollars in federal funding, in the midst of a. national opioid crisis,
resulted in not a single heroin arrest; and not a single DTO [druq trafficlcing
orqanization}, having been taken. down, and extremely small, possibly user
quantities of methamphetamine seized.
{d) The vast majority of arrests cited by WEBER in his statistical reports as
felonies, would not even be grounds for an arrest in the growing majority of
states, and instead are handled by a misdemeanor appearance summons.

❖ Violations of the Richland County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual by DEP.


JASON WEBER et al.

87. Richland County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual:


311 - CONDUCT
311.3.8 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILl'l'IES
Supervisors and managers are required to follow all policies and
procedures and may be subject to discipline for:
(a) Failure to take appropriate action to ensure that employees adhere to
the policies and procedures of this office and that the actions of all
personnel comply with all laws.
(b) Failure to promptly and fully report any known misconduct of an
employee to his/her immediate supervisor or to document such
misconduct appropriately or as required by policy.

145
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

(c) The unequal or disparate exercise of authority on the part of a


supervisor toward any employee for malicious or other improper purpose.
(p. 142, Item 3)
Comment/analysis, Item 87:
At the time SADEK was an informant, according to WEBER' deposition
testimony, SEMCA did not have a supervisor and rather, the deputies split
responsibilities between themselves. This in itself is a violation ofpolicy and
ultimately led to the absence of any supervisory oversight a.nd accountability as
relates to the conduct of any aspect of the investigation targeting victim.

88. Richland County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual:


1005 Performance History Audits
1005.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Performance History Audits are collections of data designed to assist
supervisors in evaluating the performance of their employees.
Performance History Audits can help identify commendable performance
as well as early recognition of training needs and other potential issues.
While it is understood that the statistical compilation of data may be
helpful to supervisors, it cannot account for and must be carefully
balanced with the many variables in law enforcement.
1005.2 RESPONSIBILITIES
Under the authority of the Chief Deputy, the supervisors are responsible
for collecting performance indicators and other relevant data to generate
and provide a yearly Performance History Audit Report for each deputy.
The Chief Deputy will also forward a copy of each Performance History
Audit Report to the Sheriff for review,
1005.3 COMPONENTS OF PERFORMANCE HISTORY AUDITS

146
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Performance History Audits will include the following components:


• Performance indicators
• Data analysis
• Employee review
• Follow-up monitoring (p. 479, Item 3)

Comment/ analysis, Item 88:


The Richland County Sheriffs Office Policy Manual depicts that the
supervisors are responsible for collecting performance indicators on all employees
on an annual basis. Since SEMCA did not have a designated supervisor, were
any performance reviews of task force members completed? As of the present
date we have not received any performance reviews for WEBER; continued
evidence of a total disregard by all management level defendants, both named
and as yet unnamed, for any and all oversight, accountability and supervision
measures as relates to the law enforcement operations of [3EMCA.

Informant Policy as delineated by the Richland County Sheriff's Office


Policy Manual. DEP. WEBER committed many violations of the Informant
Policy, starting with SADEK'S informant file:
89. Richland County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual:
601 Informants
601. 2 INFORMANT FILE SYSTEM
The SEMCA Drug Task Force supervisor or the authorized designee shall
be responsible for maintaining informant files. A separate file shall be
maintained on each informant.
601.2.1 FILE SYSTEM PROCEDURE
Each file shall be coded with an assigned informant control number.

147
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

An informant history shall be prepared to correspond to each


informant
file and shall include the following information:
(a) Informant's name and/ or aliases
(b) Date of birth
(c) Physical description: height, weight, hair color, eye color, race, sex,
scars, tattoos or other distinguishing features
(d) Current home address and telephone numbers
(e) Current employer, position, address and telephone numbers
(f) Vehicles owned and registration information
(g) Places frequented
(h) Informant's photograph
(i) Evidence that a criminal history check has been performed
(j) Briefs of information provided by the informant and his/her
subsequent reliability; if an informant is determined unreliable, the
informant's fl.le will be marked as "Unreliable. 11
(k) Name of deputy initiating use of the informant
{l) Signed informant agreement
{m) Annual status review and update on active or inactive status of
the informant
The informant files shall be maintained in a secure area within the SEMCA
Drug Task Force, These files shall be used to provide a source of
background information about the informant, enable review and
evaluation of information given by the informant, and minimize incidents
that could be used to question the integrity of members of Richland
County Sheriffs Office or the reliability of the informant.
(p. 320-321, Item 3)

148
MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
TRIAL"
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

90, Richland County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual:


601 Informants
601.3 USE OF INFORMANTS
Before using an individual as an informant, a deputy must receive
approval from the SEMCA Drug Task Force supervisor. The deputy shall
compile sufficient information through a background investigation to
determine the reliability, credibility and suitability of the individual,
including age, maturity and risk of physical harm. (p. 321, Item 3)

Comment/ analysis, Item 89-90:


(a) Andrew SADEK'S informant file only contains six (6) pages: his informant
agreement, his personal history report, deactivating report, and three (3)
vouchers for the purchase of drug evidence. The mandated, critically
important information, highlighted in bold italicized letters, were intentionally
ignored by WEBER and simply omitted from reporting. Once again, it is
important to note that there was no managerial oversight of anything that
WEBER did or did not do.
(b) It is my opinion, as has been stated throughout this report, that the reason
that ANDREW SADEK died a violent death, a too common ending for those
who choose the life of a criminal informant, was because he was coerced and
threatened into that choice, by DEFENDANT WEBER'S relentless onslaught of
threats. The policy manual states unequivocally that [WEBER] "shall compile
suffi_cient information [about a prospective informant/ through a background
investigation to dete1mine the reliability, credibility and suitability of the
individual, including age, maturity and risk of physical harm" in order to
fudge whether or not the in[onnant, among other things, could safely perform
that extremely dangerous undertaking,"

149
TRIAL· MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

(c) Of course WEBER, by now typically, simply ignored the Sheriff's Department
mandate and, by his own volition and with no supervisory approval, forced,
Andrew SADEK, who was demonstrably unfit for the task of "lining up drug
buys" as an undercover criminal informant; into undertakinq a task that
would result in his violent untimely death.
(d) If Weber had complied with his own department's policy, and if there were
any knowledgeable and experienced oversight to enforce policy, ANDREW
SADEK would be alive today.

91. Richland County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual:


Report Preparation
313. l PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Report preparation is a major part of each employee's job. The
purpose of reports is to document sufficient information to refresh
the employee's memory and to provide sufficient information for
follow-up investigation and successful prosecution. Report writing is
the subject of substantial formal and on-the-job training.
313,1.1 REPORT PREPARATION
Employees should ensure that their reports arc sufficiently detailed for
their purpose and reasonably free of errors prior to submission. It is the
responsibility of the assigned employee tocomplete and submit all reports
taken during the shift before going off-duty, unless permission to
delay submission of the report has been approved by a supervisor.
Generally, reports requiring prompt follow-up action on active leads or
arrest reports where the suspect remains in custody should not be
delayed.
All reports shall accurately reflect the identity of the persons involved,
witnesses, all pertinent information seen, heard or assimilated by any

150
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

other sense and any actions taken. Employees shall not suppress, conceal
or distort the facts of any reported incident, nor shall any employee
make a false report orally or in writing. Generally, the reporting employee's
opinions should not be included in reports unless specifically identified as
such. (p. 146, Item 3)

Comment/analysis, Item 90-91:


Defendant Weber's intentional disregard for his department's report writing
mandates, as documented throughout this report, could not be more clear, as it is
the complete and total absence of any oversight review of this man's toork:
There is no legitimate reason why WEBER did not write reports to document, at
minimum, all of the following:
(a) the specific probable cause justifying the initiation of targeting the victim;
(b) The history of association between victim and the two criminal informants;
(c) Debriefing statements associated with every action taken by his criminal
informants;
(d) Investigati.on into each and every attempted undercover contact made by
the victim ANDREW SADE!(, whether successful or not;
(e) A full and complete debriefing of ANDREW SADEK that, at minimum,
delved into whatever criminal contacts he had- if any; and
(f) Documentation into all aspects of the Controlled Buys, all ready cited as
having been omitted by WEBER,

92. Richland County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual:


Report Preparation
313.2 REQUIRED REPORTING

151
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Written reports are required in all of the following situations on the


appropriate office-approved form unless otherwise approved by a
supervisor. (p. 146, Item 3)

93. Richland County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual:


307 - Missing Person Reporting
307.1.1 DEFINITIONS
High-risk missing person - The missing person is:
(b) Regardless of age, is believed or determined to be experiencing one or
more of the following circumstances:
7. Is absent in a way that is inconsistent with established patterns of
behavior and that cannot be readily explained. Most children have an
established and reasonably predictable routine.
8. Is involved in a situation that would cause a reasonable person to
conclude the person should be considered at risk.
(c) An individual who may be at risk of injury or death and (N.D.C.C. § 12-
68-03):
1. May be the subject of foul play. (p. 121, Item 3)

Comment/analysis, Item 92-93:


(a) Defendant WEBER'S intentional disregard for his department's Report
writing mandates continues. According to the Richland County Sheriff's
Office Policy Manual, SADEK should have been classified as a "high risk."
missing person case. Instead, Dep. WEBER and Richland County Sheriff's
Department did not initiate any investigation and instead allowed the
inexperienced and under-qualified College Police of NDSCS to investigate CI
SADEK'S disappearance;

1.'52
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

(b) SADEK. did not return to his dorm room or tell any friends and family
where he was going. This was inconsistent with his established patterns
at the college and could not be explained. SADEK was involved with
SEMCA, which put him at risk as he dealt with an increased number of
drug dealers and users. Furthermore, he would be at risk of injury or
death if it were in any way publicly announced that SADEK was an
informant. As already discussed above, just this knowledge alone should
have given the Sheriff's Department reason to believe there was a risk: of
foul play.
(c) Despite SADEK meetinq multiple criteria for a High-risk Missing Person, the
Richland County Sheriff's Department and Deputy WEBER did not write
any reports (or we have not received any reports) documenting the Richland
County's Sheriff's Department involvement in the missing person case of
Andrew SADEK.

94. Richland County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual:


307 - Missing Person Reporting
307.6 REPORT PROCEDURES AND ROUTING
Employees should complete all missing person reports and forms
promptly and advise the appropriate supervisor as soon as a missing
person report is ready for review. (p.125, Item 3)

Comment/analz1sis, Item 94
WEBER states in his Deposition that he did in fact assist with SADEK'S missing
person case by advising College Police, participaiinq in a physical search, and
advising local law enforcement on SADEK'S drug contacts. WEBER'S deposition
is the only place in which this information is documented. But despite this level of

153
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

investigation, WEBER continues to violate his departmental reporting mandates


by not writing a missing persons report or any kind. of investigative report.

95. Richland County Sheriff's Office :PQl~fY Manual:


311 - CONDUCT
311.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy establishes standards of conduct that are consistent with the
values and mission of this office and are expected of its members. The
standards contained in this policy are not intended to be an exhaustive
list of requirements and prohibitions but they do identify many of the
important matters concerning member conduct. Members are also
subject to provisions contained throughout this manual as well as any
additional guidance on conduct that may be disseminated by the Office
or the member's supervisors. This policy applies to all employees (full-
and part-time), reserve deputie,s and volunteers.
311.3.3 CONDUCT
(q) Failure of any employee to promptly and fully report activities on
his/her part or the part of any other employee where such activities
resulted in contact with any other law enforcement agency or that
may result in criminal prosecution or discipline. (p.137, Item 3)

Comment/ analysis, Item 95


WEBER continues to violate his departmental reporting mandates by failing to
write reports documenting his interaction other law enforcement agencies and his
participation in the search for SADEK.

96. Richland County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual:

154
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

319 - Mutual Aid and Outside Agency Assistance


319,3 ASSISTING OUTSIDE AGENCIES
Generally, requests for any type of assistance from other agencies are
received via radio transmission and are routed to the Chief Deputy's office
or an on-duty supervisor for approval.
Any such response to assist an outside agency should be considered for
authorization pursuant to law or an established mutual aid plan.
319.4 REQUESTING ASSISTANCE FROM OUTSIDE AGENCIES
If assistance is needed from another agency, the employee requesting
assistance shall first notify a supervisor of his/her intentions. The
handling deputy or supervisor should direct assisting personnel to where
they are needed and to whom they should report when they arrive.
(p.168, Item 3)

Comment/analysis, Item 96
Again, since WEBER assisted at least two outside agencies during SADEK'S
missing person case, he violated the Richland County SO's Conduct Policy by not
documenting his involvement.

97. Richland County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual:


31 l - CONDUCT
311.3.4 PERFORMANCE
(a) Neglect of duty.
(c) Unsatisfactory work performance including, but not limited to,
failure, incompetence, inefficiency or delay in performing and/ or
carrying out proper orders, work assignments or instructions of
supervisors without a reasonable and bona fide excuse.

155
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

(e) The wrongful or unlawful exercise of authority on the part of any


employee for malicious purpose, personal gain, willful deceit or any
other improper purpose.
(h) The falsification of any work-related records, the making of
misleading entries or statements with the intent to deceive or the
willful and unauthorized removal, alteration, destruction and/
or mutilation of any office record, public record, book or paper
document.
(i) Failure to disclose or misrepresenting material facts or the making
of any false or misleading statement on any application, examination
form or other official document, report or form, or during the course
of any work-related investigation.
0) Failing to participate in, or giving false or misleading statements,
or misrepresenting or omitting material information to a supervisor
or other person in a position of authority, in connection with any
investigation or in the reporting of any office-related business.
(p. 140, Item 3)

Comment/analysis, Item 97:


WEBER'S handling of CI SADEK exemplifies a complete neglect of duty.
WEBER is one of the worst informant handlers I have ever witnessed and his
misleading reports and omissions are so widespread that it is almost
unfathomable. With WEBER now serving as Coordinator of the Drug Task Force,
it is my recommendation SEMCA be decommissioned and denied further grant
funding in order to save the lives of the members of the public, any of whom are
at risk: to be targeted for entrapment and turned into statistics to fuel this
fraudulent operation.

156
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Michael Levine, Consultant, December 29, 2018

Attachments:
Rule 26 Testimony
Updated CV
Awards List

157