declaration of ted w. cassman in support of jamie …1 i, ted w. cassman, declare: 1. i am one of...
TRANSCRIPT
Cristina C. Arguedas (CA Bar 87787)Ted W. Cassman (CA Bar 98932)Raphael M. Goldman (CA Bar 229261)Arguedas, Cassman & Headley, LLP803 Hearst AvenueBerkeley, CA 94710Telephone: (510) 845-3000Facsimile: (510) 845-3003
John M. O’Quinn (SBN 15296000)The O’Quinn Law Firm2300 Lyric Centre Building440 LouisianaHouston, Texas 77002Telephone: (713) 223-1000 Facsimile: (713) 223-0103
Lloyd E. Kelley (SBN 11203180)Lloyd E. Kelley & Associates2726 Bissonnet, Suite 240PMB #12Houston, Texas 77005Telephone: (281) 492-7766Facsimile: (281) 652-5973
Tammy Tran (SBN 20186400)Pete Mai (SBN 24029702)Of counsel: David Tang (SBN 24014483)The Tammy Tran Law Firm2915 FanninHouston, Texas 77002Telephone: (713) 655-0737Facsimile: (713) 655-0823
Attorneys for Petitioner Jamie Olis
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JAMIE OLIS, et al.
H-03-CR-217
DECLARATION OF TED W. CASSMAN IN SUPPORT OFJAMIE OLIS’ MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 1 of 18
1
I, Ted W. Cassman, declare:
1. I am one of the attorneys representing Jamie Olis on his motion to set aside his
conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which is presently before this Court. I
have been admitted pro hac vice to represent Olis before the Southern District of
Texas.
2. I make this declaration in support of Olis’ motion for discovery.
3. As set forth in Part III of Olis’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
of His Motion to Set Aside His Conviction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“§ 2255
Memorandum”), compelling evidence from a recent civil trial demonstrates that
the United States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) in Houston acted purposefully to
sabotage Olis’ ability to prepare and defend his case by blocking funding from his
former employer, Dynegy. I am informed and believe that the evidence
presented in Olis’ § 2255 Memorandum and the accompanying declarations
derives from limited discovery related only to the USAO’s contact with Dynegy’s
CEO, Bruce Williamson. However, testimony at the recent Yates v. Dynegy civil
trial demonstrates that the USAO had frequent contact with other Dynegy
employees — including attorneys in Dynegy’s general counsel’s office — during
the prosecution of Olis. See, e.g., Transcript of Testimony of Bruce Williamson
(attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Lloyd E. Kelley in Support of Olis’
Motion to Set Aside His Conviction) Vol. II, 105:20-106:9 (“there was
communications going on between the litigation team at Dynegy and the
investigative team of the FBI and Department of Justice”). For these reasons, we
are requesting discovery concerning communications between the USAO and
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 2 of 18
2
Dynegy and its agents concerning Olis, fees and related issues from both the
USAO and Dynegy.
4. As set forth in the § 2255 Memorandum, the evidence now establishes that
government witness Jeffrey Heil presented false and misleading testimony, and
that the government presented the jury with false and misleading arguments
based upon Heil's testimony. See § 2255 Memorandum at 22-26, 54-63.
a. Heil testified that the University system sold its investment in Dynegy the
company after disclosed the S.E.C.’s objections to the accounting
treatment of Project Alpha on April 25, 2002. Trial Transcript Day 7 at
215:25-222:20. Heil further testified that the University system sustained
a huge loss of over $100 million. He further testified that he focused on
Dynegy’s positive cash flow numbers as a primary motivating factor for his
decision to have the University system purchase Dynegy stock. Id.
220:18-221:6. The government relied upon Heil’s testimony to argue to
the jury that Olis’ allegedly fraudulent conduct relating to Project Alpha
was intended to and did in fact inflicted enormous losses on shareholders,
such as the University of California and its pensioners. See, e.g., id. Day
1, 104:7-18; Day 8, 41:7-24, 43:17-23.
b. We have previously presented the Court with records demonstrating that
in fact the University of California did not respond to Dynegy’s April 25,
2002 disclosures by selling Dynegy stock. Instead the University
purchased an additional 900,000 shares. A defense investigator, David
Fechheimer, has spoken to Jeffrey Heil and to Melvin Stanton, who is the
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 3 of 18
3
University’s Treasurer. I am informed and believe that Heil told
Fechheimer that he knew that the government was attempting to obtain
the University’s purchase/sale records for Dynegy stock prior to Olis’ trial
through Mr. Stanton, and (2) Stanton told Fechheimer that he obtained the
University’s purchase/sale records for what he understood was delivery to
the government prosecution team in this case. We seek discovery to
establish whether the USAO possessed these records at the time of Olis’
trial.
c. Entries in the docket of Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical
Benefits Trust v. Dynegy, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-01571 (S.D. Tex),
reveal that the parties deposed Jeffrey Heil in that civil action. According
to Dynegy’s filings, Heil testified during the deposition that he had
available to him as of April 29, 2002 an investment advisor’s report
discussing Project Alpha in detail. Nonetheless, Heil advised his employer
to purchase Dynegy stock on May 6 and 7 of that year. See Dynegy’s
Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (No. 4:02-cv-01571
Docket # 596), a true and correct copy of a portion of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A, at 10-11. This information would have severely
undermined Heil’s testimony. We seek discovery to determine whether
the government possessed it at the time of Olis’ trial.
5. Entries in the Pirelli docket also demonstrate that the University system’s
investment officers were well aware by May 1, 2002, that Dynegy would be
required to reclassify cash flows as financing rather than operations — but
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 4 of 18
4
nonetheless recommended purchasing an additional 900,000 shares of Dynegy
stock. See Appendix in Support of Defendant’s Opposition to Lead Plaintiff’s
Motion for Class Certification, Volume 1 (No. 4:02-cv-01571 Docket # 433), true
and correct excerpts of which are attached hereto as Exhibit B, at Tab 2.
6. Other filings in the Pirelli docket demonstrate that the plaintiffs’ attorneys and the
USAO’s prosecution team actively cooperated in sharing evidence and preparing
their cases. See Exhibit C hereto, a true and correct copy of excerpts from the
Declaration of Paul G. Howes in Support of Final Approval of Class-Action
Settlement (No. 4:02-cv-01571 Docket # 682) at ¶ 46. This suggests that the
government likely was in possession of much of the information presented in the
class action — some of which appears to have been exculpatory, and was not
produced to Olis’ attorneys. We seek discovery on this issue.
7. The pleadings in the Pirelli docket also demonstrate that ICA — a participant in
one of the so-called “outside hedges” the government alleges Olis hid from
Arthur Andersen — was in fact owned by Arthur Andersen partners. See Exhibit
C at ¶ 39. We seek discovery from the government and from Arthur Andersen to
show the nature of the relationship between Andersen and ICA and the
government’s knowledge of it at the time of Olis’ trial.
8. I am informed and believe that Holli Nichols became Dynegy’s Chief Financial
Officer after Michael Mott and that witnesses testified during the Yates trial that
she provided accounting expertise to the USAO during the investigation and
prosecution of Olis. Ms. Nichols is therefore likely to have intimate knowledge
concerning the accounting issues relevant to Project Alpha and will know what
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 5 of 18
5
information was shared with the government from Dynegy’s accounting experts
concerning its compliance with GAAP.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my
personal knowledge, information and belief. Executed on November 28, 2007, in
Berkeley, California.
/s/ Ted W. Cassman Ted W. Cassman
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 6 of 18
ExhibitA
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 7 of 18
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 8 of 18
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 9 of 18
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 10 of 18
ExhibitB
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 11 of 18
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 12 of 18
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 13 of 18
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 14 of 18
ExhibitC
Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 15 of 18
Case 4:02-cv-01571 Document 682 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 1 of 40Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 16 of 18
Case 4:02-cv-01571 Document 682 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 25 of 40Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 17 of 18
Case 4:02-cv-01571 Document 682 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 28 of 40Case 4:03-cr-00217 Document 328 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 18 of 18