20070709a Letter To Eric Holder

BOYD · VEIGEL AlTORl"EYS

July 9, 2009

VIA FAX 202.307.6777 AND REGULAR MAIL

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

Re.:

USA v. Connie C. Armstrong; Cause No. CR94-0276PJH Our File No. 3964.060452

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

P.O. Box 1179

McKinney, Texas 75070

972.562.9700 A Professional Corporation

Fax 972.562.9600

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

show-cause order upon the local US. Attorney. That office's response is due in about 10 daysl [See Exhibit C]. Due to the high sensitivity of issues presented in this case, we request an opportunity to confer with you about Mr. A1mstrong's prosecution and a proper resolution of our motion. The infonnation contained herein comes from Mr. A1mstrong of infonnation received from the government in response to Freedom of Infonnation request. As background, Mr. .A1mstrong was CEO and sole shareholder of Hamilton Taft, a company engaged in the collection and processing of payroll tax deposits for large corporations (Sun Microsystems, Scott Paper, FedEx, etc.) and handling approximately $7 billion of such deposits arumally. A central question in Mr. A1mstrong's case was the characterization of these tax monies in the hands of Hamilton Taft. Was Hamilton Taft a fiduciary, holding the tax monies in trust? Or was Hamilton Taft a mere contractor, such that tender oftax monies by its clients created a debtorcreditor relationship? This technical point was of some moment because it defined the duty owed by Hamilton Taft and, by extension, whether its conduct could produce civil andlor criminal liability. In 1988, Hamilton Taft was owned by Cigna Insurance. Under Cigna's ownership, Hamilton Taft made inter-company loans to Cigna, prompting a disgruntled Hamilton Taft employee to contact law enforcement and allege that such loans were improper because the subject monies were trust funds held for tax payments on behalf of the customers of Hamilton Taft. FOrA documents delivered to Annstrong show the employee found a sympathetic ear, as his complaints were assigned to AUSA Mike Yamaguchi for investigation. Yamaguchi was previously in the tax division of the New York Peat, Marwick office and would later enjoy a brief stint as US. Attorney for the Northern District of California. Yamaguchi perfonned his investigation and closed his file upon a finding that the operations of Hamilton Taft presented no violation of federal law. The FOIA records included a 1981 opinion letter from Baker & McKenzie stating that Hamilton Taft, as a tax collector, was not required to hold the tax monies in a segregated account and enjoyed the same freedom to invest the monies as that enjoyed by the employer, subject, of course, to the quarterly payment requirements.

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

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. July 9,2009 Page 3

Neither the fact of Yamaguchi's investigation nor its exculpatory conclusion was disclosed to AnTIstrong before or during trial. Indeed they were never disclosed but merely transmitted to him under FOlA. Fortunately, the failure to disclose a prior favorable investigation is an oddity, but the Fifth Circuit nonetheless had the recent opportunity to consider the matter in u.s. v. Fernandez. 2 There, a unanimous panel analyzed an undisclosed investigation under the three familiar factors of Brady. The panel found that the fact ofthe investigation was actually well-known during trial with only the results ofthe investigation remaining undisclosed. The panel further found that the district judge conducted an in camera review of the results and found no exculpatory material. Based upon these findings, the panel held that no Brady violation occurred. Here, of course, the prior Hamilton Taft investigation was clearly exculpatory yet was never disclosed to Armstrong. Further, the Hamilton Taft situation is more troubling from a policy perspective because, unlike the Fernandez investigation that looked for conduct which violated a known law, the Hamilton Taft inquiry turned on whether known conduct could be interpreted as violating a yet-unknown law. Indeed, the aforementioned Baker & McKenzie opinion letter found that "[tJhere does not appear to be any case law, regulation, or statute dealing with an independent agent who actually pays over the taxes to the govennnent." Standing alone, the govennnent's failure to disclose this exculpatory information is a fact that walTants 2255 relief from the district court. But because this failure is merely one example of serious improper conduct by the prosecution, and because that conduct is overlaid on a backdrop of political influence, I request your personal review of this matter. As noted, the 1988 Hamilton Taft investigation was initiated by a disgruntled former employee. Fast forward to 1991, and another Hamilton Taft employee-recently fired for cocaine use-lodged the same allegation raised in 1988. The employee made frequent entreaties to the FBI and the IRS, falsely claiming that he was a CPA and was Hamilton Taft's controller. 3 At each tum, FBI and IRS memoranda reveal that the employee was rebuffed and was told Hamilton Taft had been investigated and that no laws were being violated. About this same time, Hamilton Taft became engaged in a contractual dispute with one of its clients, Federal Express. Simultaneously, the FBI and IRS agents in contact with the former Hamilton Taft employee began receiving inquiries from an unnamed DOJ attorney in Washington, inquiring about

559 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2009). 3 Newspaperreports from the time also revealed the employee's stated wish to receive a 25% bounty under the False Claims Act. 2

The Honorable Elic H. Holder, Jr. July 9,2009 Page 4 the Hamilton Taft investigation. 4 Over the next few days, AUSA Yamaguchi is assigned the matter, based upon his prior investigation. Yamaguchi notes on March 8, 1991 that his office does not have probable cause to seek a search warrant. One week later, the Wall Street Journal publishes a negative article about Hamilton Taft, citing the disgruntled employee. FBI memoranda reveal that the employee was directed to the Wall Street Journal by Nancy Pelosi. (See Exhibit "B" attached.) The article was published on Friday, March 15, 1991. On Sunday, March 17, two days after the article's publication and nine days after Yamaguchi's statement that he lacked probable cause to pursue a warrant, the DOJ issued a press release detailing its investigation of Hamilton Taft. Eight days later, the press release had its apparently-intended effect when Hamilton Taft was placed into involuntary bankruptcy by Federal Express. On April 3, 1991, two weeks after the Federal Express filing, FBI Deputy Director Larry Potts sends a status report to Howard Baker,5 then a director of Federal Express, and copies the report to individuals associated with the staffs of Pelosi and Boxer. 6 This memo is the only communique produced which reveals contact between Mssrs. Baker and Potts. All documents initiating the involvement ofMr. Potts are missing, as are the follow-up reports promised in Potts' April 3 memo. Despite the missing documentation, however, extraordinary conduct by the California prosecution team reveals actions so bizarre that they are only explainable by continued pressure to commence a prosecution and secure a conviction. Two evidentiary matters illustrate the point. Near the end of trial, Armstrong learned that the government had placed a wire on his assistant and was in possession of70 hours of recorded conversations. Because the time demands of trial deprived the defense of an opportunity to hear these tapes, Armstrong requested a continuance. This request was denied. AUSA Yamaguchi made an oral assurance to the district court, and FBI SA Hatcher provided a corresponding sworn affidavit, that the tapes were generated by the Dallas field office, concerned a different investigation, and were umelated to Hamilton Taft. To the contrary, documents received by Armstrong years after trial reveal that AUSA Yamaguchi actually requested

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

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. July 9,2009 Page 5

that the Dallas field office conduct the surveillance as a courtesy and in support ofthe Hamilton Taft prosecution. 7 Aside from applied pressure, it is hard to develop an explanation for this conduct. The second evidentiary point concerned AUSA Yamaguchi's undisclosed ties to Peat, Marwick's tax division. That very office provided accounting services to Hamilton Taft and, at Armstrong's request, prepared an opinion letter outlining the characterization of client funds once paid to Hamilton Taft and the scope of permissible investments for those flmds. Armstrong sought testimony from a Peat, Marwick auditor and introduction of his report. Documents reveal that AUSA Yamaguchi threatened the auditor with indictment ifhe tried to testify. Again, this conduct would seem to be far outside one's expectations. The characterization of Hamilton Taft's cash as trust monies was central to Armstrong's prosecution. But in addition to the criminal and civil litigation surrounding Hamilton Taft, the bankruptcy court was also considering this very question. As a company with large cash flows, the potential recovery from recaptured preference payments was very seductive to the bankruptcy trustee. Unfortunately, the trustee's objectives diverged from those of the criminal prosecutors on this important point. 8 The trustee argued that the monies were not held in trust; instead, they were the property of Hamilton Taft, were part ofthe bankruptcy estate, and were subject to the recapture of preference payments. This also meant, however, that Armstrong's ability to invest or distribute those funds was governed only by the contractual relationship between Hamilton Taft and its clients. Conversely, the prosecution (and Hamilton Taft's clients) wanted a trust characterization that would allow a viable prosecution but would preclude the preference recapture. The bankruptcy court sided with the prosecution's view, characterized the monies as trust monies, and blocked the recapture of preference payments. The trustee appealed to the district court, and in an odd coincidence, the matter was heard by Judge Charles Legge, who was also presiding over Annstrong's criminal prosecution. Judge Legge affirmed the bankruptcy court. The trustee took his appeal to the ninth circuit, which reversed upon finding that the monies were the property of Hamilton Taft and not held in trust. For a lawyer in search ofthe truth, this collateral bankruptcy proceeding provided a rare opportunity to receive an advisory opinion on a controlling legal issue. For AUSA Yamaguchi, however, it was 7 The tapes have since been reviewed, and despite what hindsight reveals to be significant and choreographed interrogation by Armstrong's assistant, the tapes contained no inculpatory information and are in fact exculpatory. 8 Upon review of the prosecution's actions coupled with documentation produced under FOIA, there is no question that the objective ofthe prosecution was to secure a conviction and not to illuminate the truth.

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, JI. July 9,2009 Page 6

an exercise in crisis management. As an example, consider that the ninth circuit invited the DOl, upon rehearing, to prepare an amicus brief on whether the Court's holding would adversely impact the government's ability to collect taxes. The DOl's tax division accepted this invitation, yet the brief was actually authored by AUSA Yamaguchi who appeared "of counsel" to that division. Armstrong's trial counsel argued that the ninth circuit's opinion in the bankruptcy matter established, effectively, the "law ofthe case." The court refused that instruction, and on appeal, this refusal was affirmed on curious and inexplicable grounds. The ninth circuit noted that the bankruptcy opinion had been vacated as moot and, regardless, discussed only the relationship between Hamilton Taft and the IRS, not Hamilton Taft and its clients. In granting vacatur, the ninth circuit found that the matter had been settled during the pendency of rehearing, thus .mooting the issue. This explanation is curious because the US. Supreme Court had recently reviewed a ninth circuit case and held that "mootness by reason of settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review." See u.s. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 US. 18,29 (US. 1994). As to the second ground relied upon by the ninth circuit, it misstates the prior holding; moreover, it is axiomatic that a finding that the IRS is not a beneficiary of a trust held by Hamilton Taft requires a corresponding finding that Hamilton Taft is not a trustee of monies tendered by its clients as putative settlors. 9 These are just a few examples of material irregularities surrounding this prosecution. Frankly, I cannot recall seeing undisclosed exculpatory investigations, political pressure by very high-level persons, deliberate misrepresentations to a court by an AUSA and a special agent, and prosecutorial involvement with collateral bankruptcy litigation all combined into a single case. As each page turns, we are uncovering more and more concrete examples of misconduct. For this reason, I respectfully request an opportunity to discuss this matter at your earliest convenience. 10 Very truly yours,

~d-L~~ ... BILL BOYD Counsel for Armstrong

BB:sls 0709615/060452

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

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

cc:

VIA EMAIL [email protected]; FAX 415.436.7234; and REGULAR MAIL Brian J. Stretch Chief, Criminal Division Assistant U.S. Attorney 450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102

--

.'

-

.

P

•

-I q(PfJ -0 f~ 9do?S' ,.------------~'-"

4/3/91

Mr. Baker:'vf7 RE:

til

CONNIE/C. ~STRONG, JR., AKA CHIP ~STRONG; . DBAvHAMILTON TAFT AND COMPANY; 32ND FLOOR, SPEAR STREET TOWER, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; FRAUD BY WIRE; MAIL FRAUD; TAX FRAUD; 00: SAN FRANCISCO

San Francisco has initiated a Fraud By Wire investigation based on information received from the former Comptroller of Hamilton Taft and Company (HTC) that the sUbject, Armstrong, has embezzled over $100 million from the firm's clients over the last three years. ·These allegations continue to be front-page news in San Francisco and pn 3/15/91, the Wall Street Journal ran a front7page article detailing the allegations (copy attached).

7C

HTC contracts .\Yith companies who owe taxes to numerous state and local taxing authorities. Client companies make a lump sum wire transfer of funds to the HTC account, and thereafter, HTC issues checks to whatever taxing authority is owed money .. The former Comptroller, I I, has alleged that Armstrong diverted lump sum payments to his own use and thereafter, incurred penalties associated with late payments and passed these costs along to the client companies who were not notified of the late charges. In essence the allegation is that Armstrong is running a "Ponzi scheme" of considerable magnitude which requires increasing amounts of cash to keep the operat'on going. j~ t le t HTtin Febiuar f 1991 and on 3 1 91

-JJj(p -

You will be kept apprised of pertinent developments. NOT APPROPRIATE FOR DISSEMINATION TO THE PUBLIC L.

fl/Zs

Enclosure 1 1 1 1

-

Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.

Jones Baker Potts' Bryant

1 - Mr. O'Hara 1 - Mr. Esposito 1 - Special Assistants, CIO

GOM:gdm/sw (9)

QlfA

~

EXHIBIT "A"

'SAN FFliliCISCO (196A=SF=93255) From

sAf=====",==~,~

(SQ' 5)

(P)

DHe

3/8/91

b7C

CHIP All.oMSTRONG 0 Jr., dba Hamilt.on Taft and Com.pany 1

Me.rket Plaza

Spear street Tower San Francisco, California FBW~

00:

MF. Tax Fraud: SAN FRANCISCO

The purpose of this memo is to'document events that

F~:=:==~~~~~'~e since @GbruCLl'L13p 199.) which is the date that was last interviewed by the writer. On that b~~:~t~~~,~'~~~~'~prcvideda nu~~e ~ 4_~uments h - iter-Whi~~ have been disse ~nal..e.o y _e writer to SA or the IRS ctD here in San Francisco, telephone number 556-6850. It should

also be noted. that a ¢opy of th~se dQcument@ along witb ~ $umm~ry

of the writar.ts review of San Franoisoo file 196A-2868 has been

prepared and disseminated to AUSA MICHAEL Y~~GUCHI at 556-1328. A copy of this summary is a matter of record under a separate communication which is a part of this file. Due to the fact that AUSA YAMAGUCHI was on annual leave and did not return to his office until March 4, and/or 5~ 1991 no overt investigation was undertaken. This matter was ~eterred to Mr. \ GUCHI because of his revious referral - ' he handled ~) rgg,arding Ham]. ton _aft in which he sUbseque.ntly declj.ned for ' ~ 0] p~aSAcl1tiop..... , This, matter ~as investigated by Sll~, 7 I = _it was handled under-:-·SF 19$A-2868 ana was closed

3;,g:k

J.n

AUgust, 1.9SS.

I

byl

With regard to information supplied f writer was reluctant to initiate any overt~nvestigation for .tear that' th,ere .~ul~ ~ .i~~,!l1;.t,~,l .u~Q~lltl.: ~.tt~~d. ~h.~;qiaJ"n .the . . gg,vg~nt .£~-gl.Q

,6;

!99BS,@QJ)f ~~ ~~..at.~9" ~ pmmi:~~l..pf'

oaptloned. .any "WiJ'the ma~$. fact t'fiat. ;i;t wa,s 'making overt inqtlirias . t ,,' "has provided detailed infonna·tion which, 9-E of this date, has been unable to be thoroughly corroborated. Progress i,s being made-'to effect sllch"corroBo'ren:ron.~~~

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

EXHIBIT liB"

196A-SF-93255 PI<11jsgc

advi~e,g... OJl~~~ ttH:l,n~."Qcca~i.on RY the,'writer _Qt.__th~·16ot~ntial ~i..ylJ, 1:iability which nt~;-At1;,eJ~ to the revelation to the

general pUblic that the FBI was conducting or maybe conducting an investig-ation into oertain alleged criminal &.ctivities on tpe part of Hamilton Taft.

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

i

oonduoted by the writer; h~ was again qQestioned as to the reason for making calls to the aforementioned conaressional offices. He stated that he was concerned about I

On Wednesday, March 6 1991 0 the writer received a telephone call from. SAJ ~ JIRS CID who advised that 'he had been called by a ;IN an investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal here in San Francisco. The purpose Q..U.INGf s call to SWAIN was _.to con;tL... rm that the IRS was

M~. k~DPn

~

~=t~ng,~~M=j,n~..tlqg.t..iJID.,reg~rdinq ,B£1flil.:tg:n......~=:--On the morning of March 6 0 1991 0 the writer reviewed message slips that had arrived on Tuesday; March 5, 1991, the writer having been on sick leave that day and one of· them was from ~~LPH KING of the Wall stre~t Journal. The writer did not return KING~s phone call, however, in resp~~g to a page, for a telephone-calion

the afternoon call of M ~~ 1991, the writer became connected to Mr. KING of t.h.e tV-all stree't. JournaL The 'Usual inqu.iries were

made. and the usual response, a.n.djQr-d&ny th$ ~!fr.

e~isten.ce

~att is we oan neither c.onfirm inv~sti.9·ati.cn was provided to

of any

K!NG ¥1h.0 s~e:med P~~9a:tp~d

i2.Y

-ehi~ 4"S1.Se,Qn~

2

0

b7C

196A-SF~93255

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

the been contacted by

that his office ha.d was

and

accompanied by an attorner- on. e (ph) who advised that the purpose of I ' ~ oontao . 0 'un, loro Systems was to advi$e Sun Micro systems that it had bean the victi~ of a fraud pe.xope-t.ri'!tt.ed by Hamilton rraft' en. Sun,MiorQ Syste.ms and numerous othar corpo.rate clients of Ha~ilton'Taft. I ladvised

the writer ths.t he would fax certaiI1 documents UP to San ' Francisco at the writer's suggestion. These documents'included a copy of the service agreement thed('~_betv.r~(;m sun:,~,ic:r;o" .

Systems ~nd Hamilton Taft dated.~ober 1,,_,198'l as well as copies

of certa1n Federal tax forms wh2cn had been e~eouted by employees of Hamilton Taft Company. I . lalso actvi~e~ the writer. that' ,ltad. of his own volitio~ conv/i?ned a meeting of ':':{:1'; ,'.'';' several of the corporate representat2 ves who he had contacted ''-'''';-', " ' ." ' presumably in the first week of March telling these corporations who are current and/or former clients· of Hamilton Taft, that they had in fact been ,defrauded by Hamilton Taft. Sun Micro~systems reluctantly agreed to "host." this meeting which 'Y-Jas to take place l during the afternoon of March a, 1.991 at Sun Micro system~s offices in Mountain View. '

Of the mornin I through his associate f an investigator for the COJ;;porate Security., Deparl.-Jnenl. OJ. un icro systems, facsirniled 16 ,pages of documents to the VoJri ter. The most salient point of t1l-ese documents was a lett.er' to Sun MicrQ sy~te~$. dat~d. Fe:!?,i'uary 13, ,i;~"

1991 from th.e

.\~:RS in~·'FrE\sno.

Tha let1:er r$t.e:t& to a' partic.nUar

ta~ identit~oation number utilit~d hy Sun Mioro sy~fems and· r$fer'~hO$S a ta~ period ending se.ptember 30 t 19~O.' ,The letter

goes' on to. thank'tax payer (sun Micro systems) tor its r&ply

""" ..

,~. I

dat.ed. Janua1:'y 25 t 19sn: and its' payment Qf $2G.O t 164 .. 25 in penalty.: fees and for its late depo$it of ($5,215, 68.4-:86) The . S~.· gnifipEJV;e Qfth:'5 :j~It'L'lUunication is that Sun Micro Systems throughl~hasrepresented, as of March 7, 1991, that it did ~nact sen t:e appropriate money that is $5,215,684.86 to Hamilton Taft via a wire· transfer in order to pay employment tax oblig-ations do and owi:r!g the IRS for the 'tax period ended 0

september 30 e 1990. Per a~ agreement Qf which tne~~~n ~ecei~tt that j.,s( i.heS~~iQ§l,_aq~t. e.~~~ HMiltolf- Taft ~d

.

Sun MIcro S1t$~t~t ft~mUt:;.'?n.. '!£L:t:t.is r~~n$.:P~l~..-for"t..q~ 1t is an inference drawn by Sun

~~~~~_~~y~~~~a_~~~~!tj~~.

3

196A-SF-93~55

PKM/sgc

Micro Systems personnel that this document tends to corroborate what i ij'irtTaS 6.l1eging in his representations to the government.

b7C

On the afternoon of March 7 p 1991 7 AUSA Y~~GUCHI was personally visited by the writer and a brief update was provided to him of ev~nts that have taken place. On March Sf 1991, copies of the aforementioned facsimiles were provided to AUSA YAl-iAGUCHI fore his revie\
1

Th.e t'Ql.lowin9 cQrporations have been contact.eel by ~_~yl~~d t1}~t t,.l)ey' ,baye bean me j victi~sof ~~ud perpetrated ,on them by Hamilton Taft. These ~­ corporations are Costal Savings Bank, Sun Micro Systems American west Airlines, and one or two chemical companies located at the east coast. In additicn, ~ advised 'tV'ri teL that he has been contacted by representatives of Lloyds of London Insur;ance company with respect to Hamilton Taft. It is JJ,Dkuo.wrt ~_9.~':".~~E.¥_~~!l.~.!Y..hicty~~,;>£~mp..~.!!.i~e __.~ il,l J~!!~Y_~_ ~iEr~~e~.J~~t: i v es.~! .1:pe meet.~pg to be ..e1d .at Sun M2cro systems p'.!._:t~c;:es on the afternoon of March 8 9 1991.

t

] and/o.r his attorney and

j

I

San Francisco at San Francisco, California: Investigation is continuing.

4*

BOYD · VEIGEL ATIORNEYS

July 9, 2009

VIA EMAIL [email protected] AND FAX 415.436.7234

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

USA v. Connie Annstrong; Cause No. CR94-0276-PJH Our File No. 3964.060452

Dear Mr. Stretch: 1 am writing to request your assistance with the pending Section 2255 motion filed in the above-referenced cause. On June 19, 2009, your office filed a motion to extend the time for you to respond to our motion in which you stated: "The original Assistant United States Attorney CAUSA) assigned to the above-entitled matter in 1994 is no longer with the Office and the government's file is in storage. The matter has now been reassigned to an AUSA for the purpose of preparing and filing an answering brief and the government's file is in the process of being retrieved. The Movant's 2255 motion raises several issues on which the government would like to assist the Court in reaching a conclusion. The government anticipates that the newly assigned AUSA can obtain and review the record and file an answering brief within 30 days. The government respectfully requests an extension of time to do so. I am unable to reconcile this statement with records received from your office under the Freedom of Infonnation Act. Accordingly, I respectfully request your assistance in verifying the current location infonnation for the following persons listed on Exhibit "A" attached. Records from your office indicate they all actively participated in the handling of this case for the government. As you know, the pending motion touches on prosecutorial misconduct, so these are persons who likely possess relevant infonnation.

~~'

~L:BOYD

BB:sls 0709614/060452

cc:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

P.O. Box 1179

McKinney, Texas 75070

EXHIBIT "G" 972.562.9700

A Professional Corporation

Fax 972.562.9600

EXHIBIT "A" NAME

ROLE IN CASE

CURRENT POSITION

1.

Joseph P. Russionielle 2009 U.S.A Northern District CA

1988 - U.S.A. for Northern District who originally investigated Hamilton Taft and closed case - no violation.

U.S.A. Northern District CA

2.

Ronald D. Smetana Assistant State Attorney General Los Angeles, CA

Prosecuted Armstrong as Special AUS.A

Assistant State Attorney General in Los Angeles, CA

3.

Barbara Valliere A.U.S.A Northern District CA

1999 - AU.S.A Northern District CA - Briefed appeal on Armstrong case.

Chief Appellate, US. Attorney Office, Northern District CA

4.

Susan Badger A.U.S.A. Northern District CA

Briefed with Mueller 2000 Motion on bond revocation.

Office of U.S. Attorney in San Francisco, CA, District 4

5.

J. Douglas Wilson 1999 Chief Appellate Northern District CA

Briefed appeal for government against Armstrong.

A.U.S.A in San Francisco.

6.

George Hardy AU.S.A. Northern District CA

Assisted prosecutor 1994-97 on Armstrong case.

US. Attorney Office San Diego, CA

7.

Robert Mueller U.S.A. Northern District

1999 - U.S.A Northern District CA wrote appeal brief on Armstrong appeal.

Director of FBI Washington, D.C.

8.

Mike Yamaguchi AU.S.A 1988-92 U.S.A Northern District 1992

Prosecuting U.S.A - Armstrong case.

Immigration Judge San Francisco, CA

9.

William T. McGivern U.S.A Northern District CA

1991 - FBI wrote letter asking for opinion in reopening Hamilton Taft after being closed 1988.

Retired 11-1-05 from CA Judge

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

Page Solo