Prosecutorial Misconduct and Investigative Malfeasance Document Prepared for the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility

(Case 1:12-cr-00061-ML-LDA)

Prepared by:

Ralph M. Mariano

Rev10 DTD September 2, 2013

Document Revisions

Date:

Revision:

August 9, 2012

1st Draft

December 12, 2012

2nd Draft

April 1, 2013

Rev1

May 24, 2013

Rev2

June 1, 2013

Rev3

June 2, 2013

Rev4

June 27, 2013

Rev5

July12, 2013

Rev6

July 21, 2013

Rev7

July 31, 2013

Rev8

August 5, 2013

Rev9

September 2, 2013

Rev10

Introduction:

This document has been in the making for the better part of 2 years and it chronicles the Rhode Island U.S. Attorneys Office and its Assistant US Attorneys and investigators official misconduct, lack of investigative due-diligence all of which seriously compromised their ability to adhere to and uphold established protections pursuant to the Constitution of the United States in Case 1:12-cr-00061-ML-LDA, US v. Ralph Mariano et al.

This document was generated by me personally reviewing over one million pages of data and information provided by the government in discovery Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. 16(a)(1) in addition to the review of over 112 interviews and 15 grand jury testimony transcripts provided by the USAO on January 2013, 5 months in advance of the scheduled trial date. The material prepared by me outlines the misguided, negligent and deceitful actions taken by the prosecutors and investigators to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court to prove allegations not founded in fact or supported by the governments own evidence.

More specifically, the abuses of the grand jury process are particularly egregious in knowingly misleading the grand jurors who on a daily basis rely on the integrity of the prosecutors and the process in presenting evidence which has been validated and which can be proven at trial if an indictment is returned by them. Here the USAO and its investigators obstructed the grand jury process by presenting perjured and tainted testimony and facts in pursuit of the case that had been fabricated against me by the government and its witnesses and in particular, vindictively pursued Mary E. ORourke, a co-defendant, when I would not fall in line and plead to these false accusations and allegations.

This document consists of 97 pages which sets forth the extensive abuse of process and prosecutorial misconduct by the USAO and their investigators who compromised the integrity of the Court by perpetrating an ongoing fraud upon the court beginning with the filing of the Criminal Complaint on February 3, 2011, supported by a defective and untruthful affidavit signed by the lead investigator, Agent Patrick Hegarty, DCIS-Boston. This document before you does not merely state baseless and uncorroborated allegations by a disgruntled defendant. This document uses the governments own evidence with cross-references to all key documents to substantiate said claims.

This document is a plea to your office by me to address the outrageous and wrongful conduct in what my former attorney, former US Attorney (RI), Robert C. Corrente, had called the worst investigation he had seen in 30 years of practice. All of the referenced evidence and exculpatory information never presented to the grand jury is contained on the attached CD (Enclosure 1) which has 66 exhibits containing 2400 hundred files of information to substantiate the abuses and misconduct.

No matter the accusations or allegations made against the individual, no person, as a result of a flawed investigation and prosecutorial misconduct as widespread and as evident as in this case, should be forced to defend himself or herself against such seriously compromised allegations when numerous constitutional rights have been violated by the very people charged with protecting them and otherwise enforcing the law. Under these circumstances, justice has not and can never be served. Without your intervention, the federal judicial system in RI remains unchecked and its integrity seriously compromised.

Further, this case, if representative of systemic and ongoing abuses in the USAO for the District of RI, is a cancer in the judicial system which has affected many before me and will affect many beyond me if not corrected. This cannot be brushed under the rug as so many want so that the USAO can match the pleas to the press conference, ignore their own the evidence and move onto the next case. If this office and its investigators felt it was appropriate to conduct themselves as such in this investigation and more importantly before the court in the exercise of their duties, what guarantee are there that others have not similarly been affected? I trust this is a priority of your office and have provided this for your consideration, review and further investigation.

I am therefore formally requesting an investigation into the conduct of the USAO for the District of RI and its investigators in the handling of US v. Mariano, et al, including but not limited to the following individuals:

USAO:

Peter C. Neronha, USAO District of RI

AUSA Lee Vilker- Lead Prosecutor

AUSA Terrence Donnelly

Former AUSA Andrew Reich

Former USAO District of RI- Robert C. Corrente

Investigative Team:

Patrick J. Hegarty- Lead Investigator DCIS

Special Agent Dennis Lambert- NCIS

Special Agent Russell Griffiths- FBI

James D. Pitcavage- FBI

Special Agent Jason Rameaka-IRS

David Balkcom-IRS

The following is the Press Release from the USAO in this matter that was published worldwide as the owner of ASFT emigrated from India. Note that the very headline is incorrect as I have NEVER in my 28 year career been a program manager. The tip of the iceberg of prosecutorial misconduct and misinformation.

Naval Program Manager; Founder and President of Rhode Island and Georgia-Based Technology Firm Charged in $10 Million Kickback Scheme

U.S. Attorneys Office February 08, 2011

District of Rhode Island (401) 709-5000

PROVIDENCE, RIUnited States Attorney Peter F. Neronha announced today that a civilian program manager and senior systems engineer with the United States Navys Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in Newport, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., and the founder and president of a technology services company with offices in Rhode Island and Georgia, have been charged in U.S. District Court in Providence with bribery of a public official in connection with an alleged ongoing kickback scheme involving approximately $10 million of naval funds.

Criminal complaints and supporting affidavits unsealed in U.S. District Court in Providence allege that Ralph Mariano, 52, of Arlington, Virginia, a civilian program manager and senior systems engineer with NAVSEA; and Anjan Dutta-Gupta, 58, of Roswell, Georgia, founder and president of Advanced Solutions for Tomorrow (ASFT), with offices in Middletown, Rhode Island and Roswell, Georgia, participated in a kickback and bribery scheme in which Dutta-Gupta funneled approximately $10 million to Mariano, Marianos relatives, and Marianos associates in return for Marianos role in the funding of Naval contracts to ASFT. According to the affidavit, approximately $13.5 million in funding from the Navy was sent by ASFT to a subcontractor, mostly for work that was not performed. The subcontractor, over a period of years, allegedly kicked back a total of approximately $10 million to Mariano, Marianos relatives and associates, and back to entities controlled by Dutta-Gupta.

Dutta-Gupta was arrested on Sunday in Atlanta by U.S. Customs agents and turned over to the FBI as he entered the country on a return trip from Chile. Dutta-Gupta made an initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Atlanta on Monday and was released on $25,000 unsecured bond and he was ordered to surrender his passport. The defendant was ordered to appear before a Magistrate Judge in U.S. District in Providence on February 15, 2011.

Mariano surrendered to the U.S. Marshals Service in Rhode Island on Monday and made an initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Providence Monday afternoon before U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond. Mariano was released on $50,000 unsecured bond and he was ordered to surrender his passport.

Joining U.S. Attorney Peter F. Neronha in announcing the criminal complaints and arrest of Mariano and Dutta-Gupta were Edward Bradley, Special Agent in Charge Defense Criminal Investigative Services (DCIS), Northeast Field Office; Kirk Greffen, Acting Special Agent in Charge Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), Northeast Field Office, Newport, R.I.; James Burrell, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBIs Boston Field Office; and Phillip Hall, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Boston office of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Criminal Investigations.

U.S. Attorney Peter F. Neronha commented, While there is no shortage of other crime to be mindful of, public corruption will always be a focus of this office. The public has the right to know that those who work for them are doing so honestly. Taxpayer money must never be wasted, let alone stolen. When we discover bribery schemes like the one alleged here, we will do everything in our power to hold both the bribe payer and the person accepting the bribe accountable.

"The criminal complaint unsealed today details troubling allegations of public corruption impacting the integrity of the U.S. Department of Defense's contracting process, said Special Agent in Charge Ed Bradley, DCIS, Northeast Field Office. Unfortunately, as the complaint alleges, a Navy employee and a DoD contractor conspired to corrupt the DoD's procurement system and personally profit from their scheme. Stopping public corruption is a top priority for the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and DCIS is committed to working with the U.S. Attorney's Office and our law enforcement partners, to ensure that taxpayer's dollars are not misappropriated and therefore available to support the men and women who serve in the U.S. military."

Kirk Greffen, Acting Special Agent in Charge Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), Northeast Field Office, Newport, R.I., added, A $10 million heist is a major crime, whether the money is taken with a gun or with a keyboard. Fraud victimizes every taxpayer. It wastes billions of tax dollars and erodes public confidence. Citizens have the right to expect their public employees to be people of integritynot self-serving criminals.

NAVSEA is the largest of the Navy's five system commands and accounts for nearly one quarter of the Navys entire budget. NAVSEA has responsibility for establishing and enforcing technical authority in combat system design and operation, and uses its technical expertise to ensure systems are engineered effectively, and that they operate safely and reliably. Mariano plays a role in funding for NAVSEAs technical program and directs contracting officers to issue task orders through modifications on existing contracts. Mariano is also responsible for evaluating proposals during the solicitation and bidding process for new contracts. Mariano also has responsibility over Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Cost Plus Fixed Fee Adjustment (CPFA) contracts. IDIQ contracts give government officials like Mariano the flexibility to add funding to contracts when there is a legitimate need to obtain additional services from a contractor or sub-contractor.

ASFT is a technology services company that provides systems engineering, product assurance, program support, integrated logistics services and Autonomous Underwater Vehicle development to the Navy. The majority of ASFTs employees support NUWC contracts and are located at ASFTs Rhode Island office in Middletown, R.I.

Today's indictment reflects the emphasis the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Internal Revenue Service, FBI and the United States Attorney's Office place on thwarting crimes that undermine the public's trust in the government, noted James Burrell, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBIs Boston Field Office. The completion of this public corruption investigation, and those ongoing, reflect law enforcement's cooperative efforts to identify individuals and companies who seek to line their pockets at the expense of the taxpayers and businesses that play by the rules.

IRS Assistant Special Agent in Charge Phillip Hall stated, IRS Criminal Investigation often works jointly with other law enforcement agencies to provide financial investigative expertise. The charges brought in this case demonstrate our collective efforts to enforce the law and ensure public trust.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andrew J. Reich and Lee H. Vilker.

This matter is an ongoing, joint investigation being conducted by a team of agents from the DCIS Boston Resident Agency, Northeast Field Office; NCIS, Northeast Field Office; the FBI Providence Resident Agency; and the IRS-CID office in Rhode Island.

A criminal complaint is merely an allegation and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the governments burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

As you read through this document and reference the exhibits, the bravado encompassed in every quote of this press release will be self-evident. Further, as you read the Indictment some 15 months later, you will realize that despite gathering more evidence, the USAO still continued with the same mantra to provide consistency for the line given to the public and the press rather than the truth.

Although my background is systems engineering and I am not an attorney, the prosecution of this matter defies logic and the impact of negligently proceeding in this manner and intentionally misleading the Grand Jury along with Magistrate Lincoln Almond and Chief Judge Mary Lisi has forever compromised the integrity of the federal court system in RI. For this I implore your help in sorting this out and taking appropriate action in this matter

Synopsis of Allegations:

1. Anjan Dutta-Gupta (co-defendant) bought a company in 1996 to continue defense work in RI under the name ASFT (Advanced Solutions for Tomorrow).

2. Shortly after buying the company, it is alleged that Mariano made a stark demand of Dutta-Gupta and demanded payment of $6000 per week to keep the contracts funded that he had inherited as a result of the purchase of the former Amtech, Inc.

3. This allegation remains an absolute lie unsubstantiated by ANY credible evidence as set forth within this document with no corroboration among the governments key witnesses, witnesses before the Grand Jury or dozens of people interviewed by the USAO and its investigators.

4. Mariano was a lead systems engineer and was never in charge of awarding government contracts and had no other influence in the process of awarding government contracts.

5. ASFT nor the individuals (Anjan Dutta-Gupta and Gary Scavoni) alleged to have been paying Mariano this bribe money did not have the resources available under the contract or otherwise to pay such a bribe. Therefore aside from being a lie it was a mathematical impossibility which to this date AUSA and Lead Prosecutor AUSA Lee Vilker continues to parse to trying to still make it add up.

6. The USAO stated Mariano funneled money to ASFT for his own use. The examples used in the Affidavit and Indictment were examples of funding certificates which were requests for funding for the procurement of Submarine Weapon Ship-set Hardware, Spares to support said Hardware and to maintain an operational Supply Support Depot warehoused at ASFT in accordance with legitimate contract requirements competitively awarded to ASFT. These requirements for material were all authorized in accordance with all established processes and by a chain of authority and also consisted of the pass-through of earmark money awarded to ASFT by Senator Reed and Congressman Kennedy (retired) among others. This false statement made by the USAO is an absolute disregard and inexcusable ignorance of the process and of Marianos job responsibilities as a Senior Systems Engineer. In addition, these funding certificates were tampered with and a complaint was sent to the NAVSEA IG in June 2013 to request an investigation on how Marianos digital signature with a date and time stamp could appear in three (3) different versions all of which were produced at different times during discovery. There was obvious tampering with evidence and other possible violations of federal law by someone at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) as Mariano had no access to any computer system after February 3, 2011 and could not have recalled this document after it had been sent.

7. Beginning in 2004, Mariano borrowed money from his best friend at the time, Russell Spencer was a commercial contractor (from 1999-2011 with the following companies: ADQ, C&S and SITI) and not a government contractor under CCR or any other government recognizable authority, doing work under commercial purchase orders in accordance with the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation Sections 13.302 and 13.303) and who provided system engineering directive support and managed other commercial Vendors and consultant/subcontracts for ASFT and other companies. Spencer would in June 2010 become the governments Confidential Human Source (CHS).

8. The money Mariano borrowed from Spencer (in March 2004) was far more than Mariano realized, a fact that Mariano has never denied during this entire process. However this fact was twisted by the government into a bribery and extortion scheme dating back to 1996 which is patently false and an absolute lie.

9. Spencer in turn went along with this script because he and Dutta-Gupta involved themselves in a money laundering scheme in 2009-2011 (confirmed by Spencer in discovery RS-HD file (Bates) # 0191783 and SW-AOL file (Bates) #000109 which is an email where Spencer actually accesses/reviews a How to Launder Money web-site) to funnel money to Dutta-Gupta for his personal needs and to support another company owned by Dutta-Gupta.

10. Mariano was named as the ringleader and scapegoat by the players and it seems as directed by the government.

11. Dutta-Gupta was in discussions immediately to plea (February 18, 2011) to whatever the government wanted and his wife, Indrani Dutta-Gupta who was an officer of ASFT and his daughter who was a former owner of Paramount Solutions with Ms. Vesudeva and was accepting a salary from ASFT were given a pass and not pursued in exchange for Dutta-Guptas false plea to Bribery in April 2011.

12. Spencer who was the governments Confidential Human Source (CHS) since June 2010 pled to Conspiracy to Commit Bribery in June 2011 and later in January 2012 to Lying to Federal Agents about his mistress and certain funds that were given to her directly and through Mariano for her support and that of her children.

13. As a result of this lie by Spencer about the existence of his mistress from day one of the investigation tainted the facts, evidence and obstructed the entire case. If the investigators had (as they should have been) been aware of the existence of a mistress from day one the resolution of the case would have been different. Mariano could have been questioned regarding the joint account and any other monies borrowed from Spencer and Spencer could have admitted to whatever he was doing with Dutta-Gupta and his newly formed company SITI (2009) which Mariano had no knowledge of.

14. Patrick Nagle, former CFO for ASFT, pled to Conspiracy to Commit Bribery and signed onto the false and uncorroborated Information used by Dutta-Gupta and Spencer in their Change of Plea Hearings and to a questionable transaction in 2011to get money to Dutta-Gupta through Spencer.

15. Lastly, Gary Scavoni, an unindicted co-conspirator who allegedly was the bag man to give Mariano $6000 per week that no one had the ability to pay, testified and lied dozens of times before the Grand Jury about giving Mariano envelopes of cash containing $5000 (not $6000) and made outrageous inflammatory statements all of which were facilitated by the AUSAs present during the presentation to the Grand Jury and which were treated as material to the Indictment. Scavoni was given an immunity letter from the USAO after his perjured testimony facilitated by the USAO.

16. The government was informed subsequent to the Indictment that Mr. Scavoni set up a shell company through his sister which allegedly was managing rental payments to a third party for the building in Middletown housing ASFT which was refuted by Dutta-Gupta in one of his last interviews with the government. His wife was paid a salary for 3 years by a technology company while retired as an x-ray technician with Scavoni in Florida. The USAO alleges that Scavoni was actively retired and had left the conspiracy despite continuing to receive a salary and charging ASFT for business travel and the like and facilitating the payment of a salary for his wife. No investigation into this to date.

17. Spencer was essentially a paid informant as he was allowed to spend hundreds of thousands in allegedly illicit funds and neither he nor his wife and daughter who had access to these funds were ever charged with Theft of Government Property.

18. Spencer became the governments CHS in June 2010 and without independently corroborating any of the allegations beginning with the Vesudevas FCA complaint, the government set in motion a series of events that culminated in Marianos arrest, the ruination of families and careers and the loss of employment for 140 hardworking employees at ASFT which was shut down by the Secretary of the Navy based on misrepresentations by the USAO.

Scope of Investigation 1996-2011

1) Vesudeva False Claims Act Complaint (Qui Tam) was the basis for the investigation which resulted in charges in being filed in US v. Mariano et al:

2006- USAO in Northern District of GA receives FCA complaint information from the Vesudevas attorneys, Vogel, Slade & Goldstein.

In short, the basis of the complaint was that two RI defense contractors, Paramount Solutions, of which Ms. Vesudeva is a former co-owner and officer and Advanced Solutions for Tomorrow (ASFT), owned by Anjan Dutta-Gupta were defrauding the Navy with inflated invoices and paying a civilian Navy employee Ralph Mariano bribe money to obtain and retain government contracts. Note that Dutta-Guptas daughter, Amrita Dutta-Gupta was a co-owner of Paramount Solutions further complicating the matter along with Vesudeva and Jackie Wilson who still retains an ownership interest in the company continuing to operate in RI.

USAO-GA joins in the action and subpoenas are issued over the course of the next 3 years. Upon information and belief, no Navy officials are questioned regarding these allegations involving Mariano, hereinafter referred to as RMM.

Materials included the Complaint and Ms. Vesudevas affidavit along with an investigative report generated by a company hired by Vesudevas attorneys.

All materials contain false, inaccurate and uncorroborated evidence/information regarding RMM and others along with un-redacted social security numbers and other Personally Identifiable Information (PII) for various parties including some individuals not at all related to this matter and otherwise have no basis in fact.

Potential civil and/or criminal PII violations committed in accordance with two primary laws:

1. The Privacy Act of 1974 and the E-Government Act of 2002 imposes on federal agencies responsibilities for protecting personal information, including ensuring its security.

2. The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) requiring agencies to develop, document, and implement agency wide programs to provide security for their information and information systems (which include personally identifiable information (PII) and the systems on which it resides).

It is unclear how the private company hired by a non-governmental agency was able to obtain such detailed information without cause on so many individuals with no formal approval by a court or other law enforcement agency.

Materials are forwarded to USAO-RI (Attn. AUSA Lee Vilker) in May 2009 and the Vesudevas are interviewed in RI on October 27, 2009 with the following people in attendance:

For the Vesudevas: Shelley R. Slade and Jessica Ly from Vogel, Slade & Goldstein LLP, 5225 Wisconsin Ave., N.W., Suite 502, Washington, D.C.20015;

For the government: Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Lee Vilker, USAO-RI; AUSA Andrew J. Reich, USAO-RI; Special Agent (SA) James D. Pitcavage from the Federal Bureau of Investigation; SA Dennis Lambert from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service; SA Jason Rameaka from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); David Balkcom from the IRS; and the reporting agent, Patrick Hegarty.

From May 2009 forward until February 2011, upon information and belief, no interview of ANY Navy (NUWC, NAVSEA, etc.), Army, DCAA, SBA or other official who may have provided some validation for these allegations was conducted by USAO-RI nor by the lead investigator DCIS Agent Hegarty in support of the criminal complaint in this matter. Dozens of subpoenas for financial information were issued based on the names set forth in the investigative report paid for by the Vesudevas attorneys which was riddled with inaccuracies, factual misrepresentations, and a total fabrication full of lies. Also contained in this report were hundreds of pages for two individuals, one in RI and one in FL who had absolutely nothing to do with this investigation. Those individuals will be notified of the same. Note that when the RI USAO was questioned regarding the connection of a man in Florida named in this report to this case and why his tax checks and other bank records were in Discovery 1 in the SUNTRUST bank bank folder, Mr. Correntes (my defense attorney at the time) office was told that he was connected to the investigation and that the USAO could not divulge any information regarding him at that time. The USAO never did end up explaining why Mr. David Kavchaks banking information was provided with Discovery 1 and remains there unaddressed and uncorrected.

NOTE 1: This complaint is factually baseless and replete with lies which can be invalidated by the governments own evidence provided in Discovery 1, 2 and 3 in addition to the Jencks materials (interviews and Grand Jury transcripts) and contains, as stated previously, countless violations of PII law which have yet to be addressed by me or by the other parties affected.

2) The criminal complaint and supporting affidavit written by Agent Hegarty and signed by Magistrate Almond in US v. Mariano on 2/3/2011 was the product of a poorly conducted and inadequate investigation and contains false, inaccurate, factual misrepresentations and perjured information such as the following:

a. Agent Hegarty not conducting a thorough investigation into Spencers companies ADQ and C&S as evident by his lack of knowledge that ADQ ONLY worked as a commercial subcontractor to Abstract Productions and Inquest Technologies . ADQ NEVER WORKED FOR ASFT AS A COMERCIAL SUBCONTRACTOR AND WAS NEVER PAID BY ASFT. ADQ provided work product, status reports, and invoices to Abstract Production and Inquest Technologies and was PAID by Abstract Production and Inquest Technologies, for the period June 1999 through 2003 and never by ASFT as the government continues to allege even to this day. Agent Hegartys lack of knowledge that C&S worked directly as a commercial subcontractor to Inquest Technologies from mid to late 2001 through 3/2005 and was not paid by ASFT is inexcusable given the materials available to him to verify the same if had reviewed them. Therefore for the period June 1999 through March 2005 ASFT subcontracted and paid invoices from Abstract Production and Inquest Technologies. These invoices did not detail the work performed by ADQ or C&S or any other subcontractor, nor did these invoices detail the monies paid to any of Abstract Production or Inquest Technologies subcontractors. C&S only began working directly for ASFT as a purchase order (PO) commercial vendor in accordance with the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) subpart 13.302 and 13.303 (purchase orders) for material purchases and commercial subcontractor efforts/agreements in FY-2005. A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION REMAINS UNANSWERED: WHY WASNT ABSTRACT PRODUCTION AND INQUEST TECHNOLOGIES INDICTED BY THE USAO IN THIS ALLEGED SCHEME OF BRIBERY, CONSPIRACY AND THEFT OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF 6/1999-3/2005? DID THE GOVERNMENT SELECTIVELY INDICT THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE EASY TARGETS AND HELPED THE PRESS CONFERENCE STORYLINE? OR IS IT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT NO SCHEME EVER EXISTED THEY WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVE ANY CRIMINAL CONNECTION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE? One can very easily conclude that it was both. See Exhibit [1A] for a review of and extensive corroboration of the facts detailed and addressed in this paragraph.

b. Truncated and modified versions of the Russell Spencer, here in after referred to as RS, consensually recorded transcripts between RS and RMM (particularly the recording of 8/18/2011) where the government provided to the defense a recording beginning at 00:54:46 and the actual recording beginning at 00:48:43 a difference of 6 minutes and 3 seconds of important recording omitted by the government. (Exhibit [1] actual recorded transcription with my notes attached with CD),

c. Additional wiretap excerpts which were cut and pasted within the Affidavit to make them appear to be from the same recording or message (provided upon request)

d. Text messages addressed in the affidavit which were also cut and pasted to appear as if they came from the same text message and were allegedly from a Verizon Wireless Blackberry never owned by RMM. The Government made no attempt to ensure a proper chain of custody nor did they verify the fact that RMM has NEVER owned or used a Verizon Wireless Blackberry. This fact was verified by RMM with Verizon and his carrier continues to be AT&T.

e. No evidence of ATT and/or Verizon search warrants to retrieve real-time, actual text messages between RMM and Spencer. Instead the lead investigator DCIS Agent Hegarty allowed and relied on text messages provided by Spencer which were forwarded from Spencers phone to his AOL email, transferred to a Word document and then printed off by Spencer for the agents on multiple occasions. These word documents (Exhibit [2] provided with attached CD) containing the text messages were then used in ALL THE USAOs PROCEEDINGS (GJ examination of witnesses, GJ exhibits and USAO pre-trial memo) AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AUTHENTICATED PRIOR TO BEING PRESENTED TO WITNESSES AND TO THE COURT IN THE ORIGINAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINT SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE ALMOND. By way of example, in one of the text message conversations being used by the USAO, RMM responds to the question from RS BEFORE the text from RS was sent!

f. DCIS Agent Hegarty FAILED TO FOLLOW THE GOVERNANCE ADDRESSED AND IDENTIFED IN THE ELECTRONIC COMMINUICATION PRIVACY ACT OF 1986 (18 USC 2510-2522 AS AMENDED BY THE SCA (STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT) USC 18 2701-12 (See Exhibit( [3] attached with CD), NOR WAS ANY PROPER CHAIN OF CUSTODY FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED TEXT MESSAGES IMPLEMENTED AND/OR DEMONSTRATED PRIOR TO BEING PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE.

g. Inaccurate and false information regarding RMMs job responsibilities and authority, supervisory chain of command and RMMs authoritative limitations. See Exhibit [4] attached with CD, Captain David Hahns (PMS 425 PROGRAM MANAGER (PM)) and RMMs boss in Washington) IV of 5/26/2011 wherein he states: "Mariano had no budget authority. Assistant Program manager Joseph Rhine was the person with budget authority. Rhine would need to approve the funding for Mariano and exhibit [5] attached with CD, Joseph Rhines (PMS 425 Assistant Program manager) IV of 6/1/2011 wherein he states: Mariano did not have control over the finances of the office he was staffed to, Mariano did not have the authority to change the funding or tasks to be completed for the contractor . To change or add funding Mariano would have needed Rhines approval. THESE FACTS AND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS MADE BY KEY WITNESSES WERE ARROGANTLY AND NEGLIGENTLY IGNORED AGAIN AND AGAIN BY AGENT HEGARTY AND THE AUSAS, IN PARTICULARLEAD PROSECUTOR LEE VILKER, IN PRESSING ON WITH BASELESS CHARGES AND MAKING FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS (ESPECIALLY DURING THE CHANGE OF PLEA (COP) HEARINGS FOR DUTTA-GUPTA, SPENCER AND NAGLE) THAT THEY HAD THE PROOF OF THE SAME THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED AT TRIAL.

h. Inaccurate and false information with regard to the awarding of contracts to ASFT and other key information in support of contract governance and compliance processes showing a complete lack of understanding and investigation by the lead agent, DCIS Agent Hegarty of the NAVSEA and NUWCDIVNPT contracting processes within the Department of Defense (D.O.D).

i. Inaccurate information which falsely identified that RMM participated in contract proposal evaluations and reviews and was involved in contract awards to ASFT. This statement is a lie that was categorically refuted by multiple sources and in particular Wayne King in his interview of 7/11/2011 wherein King states: Mariano did not help ASFT win contracts. ASFT already had contracts. Mariano never assisted in the bidding process. This statement is relevant and very important for 2 reasons: 1) Wayne King was RMMs immediate government supervisor up till 7/2004, and; 2) King upon retirement from the government became ASFTs COO (Chief Operating Officer) on 7/2004. Therefore Kings knowledge of RMMs involvement in any contracts awarded to ASFT or any other contractor would be factual. (Exhibit [6] attached with CD)

j. Inaccurate and false information with regard to the number of open contracts ASFT had on 2/3/2011. Lead Investigator, DCIS Agent Hegarty stated of the 10 current ASFT contracts when in fact ASFT had only 3 current and open contracts Agent Hegarty based this false and misleading data provided in his Affidavit in support of the Criminal Complain on a Department of Defense (D.O.D) internet contract database review/search he conducted and not by investigating and speaking to knowledgeable contract officers or interviewing any NUWCDIVNPT/NAVSEA or DCMA (Defense Contract Management Authority) contract managers. As an example, all key NUWCDIVNPT/NAVSEA contract managers as well as individuals who had personal knowledge of RMMs job responsibilities were not interviewed until February 2011 AFTER the Criminal Complaint was filed and RMM and Dutta-Gupta were arrested. Agent Hegarty did an egregious disservice to RMM and others and seriously compromised this investigation by just reviewing an on-line Department of Defense internet contract databases. Reviewing such a database would have required that Agent Hegarty be knowledgeable and understand the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) and DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Authority) and associated Contract Audit manual DCAAM 7640.1. From Agent Hegartys statements in the criminal complaint and the examples above, he clearly lacked ALL of the following: 1)Lacked the knowledge and understanding of both the FAR and DCAAM 7640.1 to be able to just conduct internet review/research2) Lacked the understanding of the tasking process and how funding/money passes from DOD, Navy Comptroller, NAVSEA and NUWCDIVNPT to contractors to fund annually approved tasking/work/material purchases based on approved budgets 3)Lacked the knowledge that all tasking was approved by the PMS 425 PMs (Program Managers) (i.e. Captain(s): David Hahn, Brian Vance, Patrick Brady, David Veatch etc.)) and not by RMM. This fact in and of itself in accusing RMM of such serious allegations is baseless and 4) Lacked the knowledge and understanding of the NUWCDIVNPT funding certification process and governance by falsely stating/implying that somehow RMM controlled and manipulated this process. RMM legitimately was a signatory on said funding document. The process required 6 other signatures after RMM digitally signed it, in the chain of command after RMM, some whom RMM reported to. All these signatories were required to validate and approve the funding certification form to be able to pass on tasking, earmark money to ASFT and other companies and to purchase materials in accordance with approved tasking for the operational submarine force for the depot housed and operated at ASFT in Middletown, RI.

AGENT HEGARTY CONTINUES TO SET FORTH A SERIES OF LIES IN THE AFFIDAVIT:

k. Lies when he states allegations about RMMs demand of DUTTA-GUPTA & ASFT for $6000.00 per week starting in 1996 with additional demands in 1999 which led to the formation of a scheme that DUTTA-GUPTA nor the USAO have EVER provided evidence to substantiate and a scheme which is contradicted by the governments own CHS Russell Spencer in writings (written post April 2011) found on Spencers hard drive provided to defense as part of Discovery 1 on May 30, 2012 (Exhibit [13])

l. Lies when he states that Gary Scavoni passed money to RMMs brother to give to RMM. (Note that RMM spoke with Scavoni on 4/18/2011, the day Dutta-Guptas change of plea was announced in the newspaper and Scavoni denied ever giving money to RMMs brother to give to RMM.- Three (3) witnesses were in the room at the time of this phone call and heard this conversation and denials by Scavoni on speaker phone.

AGENT HEGARTY FAILED TO VET THE CHS SPENCER FAILING TO DISCOVER RUSSELL SPENCERS MISTRESS SANDRA WILSON AND HER CONNECTION TO THE JOINT ACCOUNT SET UP FOR MWILSONS BENEFIT NOT FOR MARIANO

m. Agent Hegartys and the governments obvious lack of due-diligence in vetting Spencers creditability as a trust worthy informant is replete throughout the entire investigation and materials produced by the government in discovery

n. A MAJOR example (one of many) is Agent Hegarty and the investigative team not being aware of and their total lack of knowledge of the existence of Spencers mistress (Ms. Sandra Wilson) in Virginia. A relationship which began in July, 2006. Ms. Wilson is such a relevant figure in understanding the bond and personal relationship/friendship that existed between RMM and Spencer and any resulting monetary transactions into a joint account set up by Spencer and RMM to support and help take care of Ms. Wilsons personal and family financial needs such as: weekly pay, food, monthly bills, medical, car repairs, purchase of 2 cars, school supplies, laptops, iPods, phones and clothing, spending money etc. (Note that ALL deposits into the joint account were the result of checks made out to Spencer and signed by Spencer.) The USAO and Agent Hegarty were made aware of Ms. Wilson by RMMs defense team in late August 2011. In fact a review of the consensual recordings that Spencer participated included RMM always making references to and about Sandy a/k/a Ms. Wilson. If one reviews the tapes they will always hear Spencer immediately change the subject or cough in an attempt to throw off the agents when RMM brings up Sandy in an obvious effort to keep Ms. Wilsons existence hidden. Yet another example of Spencers Obstruction of Justice in skewing the entire investigation by not immediately coming clean in June 2010 in identifying Ms. Wilson and explaining the main intent and purpose of the joint account. Countless time, money and lives could have been saved by Spencer (and others) telling the truth from the inception of this investigation.

o. As stated above, as the result of not knowing about the existence of Ms. Wilson, Agent Hegarty sets forth lies about bank accounts and the money RMM was receiving from his then friend, Spencer- who admits:

1) That RMM borrowed from him and Spencer loaned RMM money on occasion. This information was on Spencers hard drive writings (discovery 1 RS-HD file 0191820 Exhibit [65]) written post March, 2011;

2) That RMM began borrowing money from Spencer in March 2004 not prior to. This information is also contained in Discovery 1 RS-HD file 0191820, (Exhibit [65] attached with CD) and;

3) Agent Hegarty not knowing that there existed a Spencer Bank of America (BOA) checking account 039-4050-3800 used by RMM for Ms. Wilsons personal needs from 10/2006 through 7/2007 prior to RMM and Spencer opening the joint account in July, 2007. Again, this account at the direction of Spencer was used to allow RMM to take care of Ms. Wilson and her family financial needs: weekly pay, food, monthly bills, medical, car repairs, purchase of 2 cars, school supplies and clothing, spending money etc. for Spencer (see Exhibit [7] attached with CD)

p. As previously stated, Spencer deposited all the checks into the joint account with checks made out to him and signed by him. There is not one check made out to RMM and/or deposited by RMM. Upon information and belief, there are no IRS statutes (see Exhibit [8] for more information) that differentiate by where the money goes, who puts the money in or who ultimately spends it out of a joint checking account. Only rules are that taxes on interest earned is reported by all parties and it cant be HIDDEN in an off shore or foreign bank. Therefore since ALL the money deposited into the joint account was in fact by Spencer the donor then RMM should not have any liability with respect to that money and taxes. In addition since the evidence points to the reason for the joint account and Spencers equal control over the account, the governments allegation that the sole purpose of this account was to use it as a vehicle to funnel illicit funds to Mariano is baseless. Mariano was told by Spencer that these funds were his own and that he was able to accommodate Ms. Wilson who testified before that Spencer had told her on multiple times and as late as the July 2011 that when this was over he would take care of her. After Ms. Wilsons testimony the USAO called Attorney Corrente and told him that they found her testimony very credible.

NOTE 1: The aforementioned inaccurate and false data set forth in the criminal complaint and which was provided to the USAO by FBI/DCIS/NCIS agents allegedly had been validated as factual and accurate beforehand and were used to generate the complaint and indictment. To date, none of this data/allegations have ever been identified as inaccurate and/or false by the USAO and/or corrected in the Indictment and otherwise before the Court (Chief Judge Lisi and Magistrate Almond) and remain the basis for the upcoming sentencing in October 2013 for Dutta-Gupta, Nagle and Spencer.

NOTE 2: As stated, the above (items a-p) are examples of the lack of investigative legitimacy and integrity that Agent Hegarty and his team demonstrated throughout the investigation. See Exhibit [9] attached with CD which contains an extensive rebuke of these false statements, lies and misrepresentation identified in the Criminal Complaint and then used in part to generate the false and misleading Indictment,

NOTE 3: SEE ENCLOSURE 2 HARD COPY PROVIDED WITH THIS DOCUMENT. IT IS A VERY PERSONAL PAPER GENERATED BY MS. WILSON EXPLAINING IN GREAT DETAIL MS. WILSONS AND MR. SPENCERS RELATIONSHIP THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ATTORNEY CORRENTE ON MARCH 8, 2011 AND ALSO PROVIDED BY MS. WILSON TO THE USAO DURING HER GJ TESTIMONY OF OCTOBER 5, 2011. ENCLOSURE 2 PLUS MS. WILSONS GJ TESTIMONY EXHIBIT [64] ATTACHED WITH CD CLEARLY ARTICULATE AMONG MANY OTHER EXCULPATORY ITEMS 3 MAJOR AND CONSISTENT FACTS: 1) MS. WILSON AND SPENCER HAD A VERY INTIMATE AND CLOSE RELATIONSHIP AND THAT MS. WILSON BELIEVED THAT THEY WOULD ULTIMATELY MARRY AND MOVE TO FLORIDA 2) THAT SPENCER TOLD MS. WILSON ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS ABOUT THE ACCOUNT SET UP TO HELP HER OUT FINANCIALLY ON A REGULAR BASIS (FOR WEEKLY PAY, FOOD, MONTHLY BILLS, MEDICAL BILLS, CAR REPAIRS, PURCHASE OF 2 CARS, LAPTOPS, PHONES, IPODS, SCHOOL AND CLOTHING,SPENDING MONEY ETC) AND TO SEE RALPH WHENEVER SHE NEEDED MONEY FOR ANYHTING AND 3) THAT MR MARIANO PAID ME (MS. WILSON) OUT OF THE ACCOUNT THAT MR. SPENCER SET UP FOR ME. ADDITIONALLY MR. SPENCER IS NEVER TRUTHFUL ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP THAT HE HAD WITH RMM AND THAT THIS BOND AND PERSONAL FRIENDSHIP THAT EXISITED BETWEEN THEM AT THAT TIME WAS SO STRONG THAT NEITHER ONE OF THEM GAVE THIS ARRANGEMENT ANY THOUGHT AS IT WAS BEST FRIEND HELPING BEST FRIEND. MARIANO CONSIDERED HIM A BROTHER AND AS NO ONE LIVES IN A GLASS HOUSE, MARIANO DID WHAT SPENCER ASKED HIM TO DO.

To conclude: The lack of due-diligence of the investigative team and in particular lead Agent Hegarty caused Magistrate Almond to unknowingly sign on February 3, 2011 a Criminal Complaint that was not properly validated and contained fraudulent, perjured and inaccurate information and facilitated the tale of false and misleading allegations about RMM and others before the Court AND COMPROMISED THE VERY INTEGRITY OF THE COURT.

NOTE 4: THE GOVERNMENT ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSTATES THE AMOUNT OF MONEY MS. WILSON RECEIVED FROM RMM VIA SPENCER FROM 9/2006-1/2011, LEAD PROSECUTOR LEE VILKER INCESSSANTLY CLAIMS THAT MS. WILSON RECEIVED ONLY ABOUT 20K WHEN IN FACT THE FINANCIIAL SUPPORT TO MS. WILSON FROM 9/2006-1/2011 WAS IN EXCESS OF 300-400K. THIS CAN BE VALIDATED BY MS. WILSON, AND RMM WITH CHECKS, COUNTLESS ATM CASH WITHDRAWLS AND MANY DEBIT CARD PURCHASES AT A VARIETY OF STORES MADE BY MS. WILSON USING THE BANK ACCOUNT DEBIT CARDS. A FACT EVEN SPENCER CORROBORATES IN HIS IV OF 1/6/2012, (EXHIBIT [18], PAGE 1 PARAGRAPH 4).

FAILURE TO COLLECT DATA TO VALIDATE

CLAIMS MADE BY COOPERATING WITNESSES

IN EXCHANGE FOR LENIENCY

3) 2011-2013 USAO, its investigative agents, defendants (RS, Dutta-Gupta AND PN) and witnesses such as Gary Scavoni KNOWINGLY have been allowed by the USAO to continue to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court in the following manner:

A) USAO accepted the change of pleas (COP) of Dutta-Gupta (Exhibit [10] attached with CD), Russell Spencer and Patrick Nagle in 2011 based upon Dutta-Guptas Information package (Exhibit [11]attached with CD) filed with the Court that had no basis in fact or law then and this fact remains the same in 2013. Due to the investigators lack of due diligence a false and misleading Criminal Complaint with a supporting affidavit signed under oath by Agent Hegarty validated only by the interview of the Vesudevas, internet research by Agent Hegarty and the cooperation of Russell Spencer was filed by the USAO and has been spewed to the Court and the media as the truth since 2011. (Note: That the most egregious allegations about RMM which were addressed by Dutta-Gupta and AUSA Vilker during Dutta-Guptas COP in front of Chief Judge Lisi on 4/28/2011 of bribery, extortion and conspiracy and theft of government property are categorically refuted and rebuked by Wayne Kings interview Exhibit [6], Captain Hahns interview Exhibit [4], Joseph Rhines interview Exhibit [5], Scavonis payroll information retrieved from Building 11 at NUWC transferred to RI at the request of the defense from the ASFT bankruptcy trustee who had filed a motion to destroy key evidence unexamined by the investigators Exhibits [12 and 12A] and Spencers hard drive information Exhibit [13] (RS-HD File 0191781 attached with CD) as well as by many other government discovery exhibits which can be found in Exhibit [14]). Spencer, the governments star witness, who as the result of his decision to become a CHS (Confidential Human Source) pled to one charge conspiracy to commit bribery on 6/17/2011. However since this original plea Spencer has pled to an additional count of lying to federal agents. Spencer was charged with lying to federal agents during multiple interviews about his relationship with his mistress Ms. Sandra Wilson. As stated in paragraph 2 pages 22-26, of this document, the agents and Hegarty had no KNOWLEDGE OF THIS RELATIONSHIP WHILE USING SPENCER AS THEIR CHS. And then when the agents in fact approached Spencer to address his relationship with Ms. Wilson Spencer lied. In fact Spencer lied on 3 separate occasions (in Proffer sessions/IVs of 9/9/2011, 12/6/2011 and 1/6/2012) and multiple times during those interviews. Even when attempting to tell the truth Spencer continued to lie. As a result of Spencers incessant lying about Ms. Wilson he ultimately pled guilty to three counts of lying to federal agents on 4/20/12 despite the fact that Spencer actually lied no less than 24 times during those interviews not just 3 times. Additionally Spencers misleading of agents during the consensual recordings with RMM when Spencer intentionally changed the subject every time RMM mentioned Ms. Wilson WARRANTS AN INVESTIGATION OF SPENCER FOR A CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. The additional charge of lying to the FBI is a pattern that Spencer used throughout the investigation and in each of the 29 IVs (6/22/2010 thru 10/5/2012) that Spencer gave and which were produced in the Jencks materials which was provided to defense counsel on January 16, 2013. Each and every lie committed by Spencer relative to his relationship with Ms. Wilson during his IVs of 9/9/2011, 12/6/2011 and 1/6/2012 are provided in Exhibit [66] with attached CD. These IVs are annotated with back-up data proving the lie and refuting the allegations against RMM

FAILURE TO REVIEW ASFT CORPORATE RECORDS

PRIOR TO 2012 WHICH REFUTED THE CRIMINAL

COMPLAINT AND INDICTMENT ALLEGATIONS

b).-Agents failed to review ASFTs corporate records dating back to 1992 which were shipped to NETC Building 11 Middletown on or about April 2012. The USAO was set to allow the trustee in the ASFT bankruptcy to destroy these records until defense counsel was made aware of the pendency of this motion by Mary ORourke, who as a former employee was receiving copies of all motions in the bankruptcy. These records were NEVER reviewed prior thereto by the investigators and at best, only a sampling of the documents had been reviewed after being shipped to Newport in April 2012 and certainly no key documents such as annual employee payroll records, annual purchase order agreements in accordance with the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) subpart 13.302 and 13.303 (purchase orders) for material purchases and subcontractor (commercial and government) efforts/agreements and other important contract(s) information were analyzed, with agents therefore not validating important allegations (which can readily be refute by evidence/fact and the Govts own Discovery) set forth in the Criminal complaint and resulting indictment such as:

1 For Dutta-Gupta to provide Mariano his demand to receive 6000.00/week from ASFT, Dutta_Gupta agreed to increase Scavonis hourly rate substantially in 1996 by Dutta-Gupta to pay Mariano 6000.00/week. This entire statement was and remains factually false and a mathematical impossibility that the government has no evidence which they have that can support or substantiate this allegation (see Exhibits [12 and 12A] attached with CD for a rebuke of this allegation)

2 Beginning in or about 1999, Dutta-Gupta and Mariano agreed upon a mechanism by which payments would be made through subcontractors hired by ASFT, the subcontractors under the control of R.S (Russell Spencer).

The Allegation set forth in number 2 above lacks credence and is illogical since Spencer refutes and contradicts the facts as set forth in Dutta-Guptas COP of 4/28/2011 and Information package of 4/18/2011 that to continue the scheme Spencers company ADQ was going to be used. In writings of April 2011 which RMM found on Spencers HD file RS-HD-0191781(Exhibit [13]) attached with CD) Spencer states: Since the story (meaning February-April, 2011) has been in the Newspaper I have learned of a scam between Anjan and Ralph for 6000.00/week. I had no knowledge of this. They never discussed any business in front of me through the period we were in business together.

HOW CAN SUCH A MAJOR TENET AND ALLEGATION OF THE INTENT AND CONSPIRACY OF THE CASE MADE BY BOTH DUTTA-GUPTA AND THE GOVERNMENT BE SO CONTRADICTED AND NOT CORROBORATED BY THE GOVERNMENTS OWN MAIN CHS WITNESS?????

3) Mariano assisted in the evaluation and awarding of contracts,

4) Mariano just added money to ASFT contracts,

5) ASFT had 10 current and open contracts on or about 2/2/2011 and

Though not in the Complaint or Indictment,

information was found regarding Gary Scavonis

sisters shell company JCH

6) Payments to JCH by ASFT, a shell company owned by Scavonis sister, Joan C. Harkins, and which is where the monies that the USAO and Scavoni alleges were paid to RMM as part of a bribery and extortion scheme in 2000 thru 4/2004 ACUTUALLY WENT to Scavoni and his sister, her husband and Norman Cardinale via Scavoni and his shell company JCH.

(See Exhibit(s) [4], [5], [6], [12 and 12A], [13], [14], [60] and [65], attached with CD for information categorically refuting the allegations set forth in items 1-6 above))

TAINTED GRAND JURY PROCESS

2009-2012

4) Resulting from this incomplete and sloppy investigation and total disregard for the truth was a Grand Jury Process that was tainted by the USAO (in particular ASUA Vilker) knowingly facilitating the false testimony of the following witnesses in 2011 and 2012;

Gary Scavoni knowingly lied to the Grand Jury and

read the script of the USAO to fulfill an

immunity deal never revealed to the Grand Jury at

any time during his testimony. Scavoni never brought

back to the Grand Jury when other defendants/witness directly contradicted his testimony;

SCAVONI NEVER INDICTED!

A. Gary Scavoni: The USAO continues to name Scavoni as an unindicted co-conspirator. The theory behind categorizing him as such and presenting his attorney with a letter AFTER his testimony before the Grand Jury in October 2011 was that somehow because Scavoni moved to Florida when he got married in 2004, they determined that Scavoni allegedly left the conspiracy. Scavoni is said to have left the conspiracy (a conspiracy that never existed and that the government was only able to prove and corroborate through perjured testimonies, hearsay and unchallenged contradictory statements made by witnesses (Spencer, Dutta-Gupta, Scavoni and others) from one interview to the next)) and was said by AUSA Donnelly to be actively retired despite the fact that:

1) Scavoni continued to receive a salary from ASFT for business development and management support;

2) Scavoni retained a company AMEX credit card that was used regularly through 1/2011;

3) Scavoni attended management corporate strategy meetings, business reviews, summer picnics and holiday parties and was reimbursed for travel to these meetings/events from Florida, and;

4) Received other payments and benefits (health insurance, computers, cell phones for he and his wife) from ASFT, SIC and Dutta-Gupta through 2/3/2011:

5) The Government was aware on the day of Scavonis Grand Jury Testimony on 10/27/2011 that Scavoni perjured himself as the result of information provided by Spencer in an IV of 8/8/2011 exhibit [15] wherein Spencer states; CHS never gave Scavoni cash, only checks. The checks ranged from $7000 to $8000. Scavoni would tell CHS how much to write the check for and their own discovery (1-3) which contains all checks from Spencer to Scavoni from 6/1999-3/2004. Scavoni lied and the USAO knew it. What documents would they have referenced for his testimony other than witness interviews they had already taken in addition to whatever concocted story Scavoni had conjured up and which he even offered to embellish? (see page 33, line 12-14 GJ Testimony exhibit [17]) (see Exhibit [15] Spencers IV of 8/8/2011 and Exhibit [16] checks to Scavoni from Spencer attached WITH CD).

6) During the GJ proceedings and Proffer IVs Scavoni stated no less than 23 times that he received during the period 1999-2004 envelopes of cash w/5000.00 from Spencer and that he always met Spencer who always gave Scavoni cash and that he regularly passed these envelopes w/5000.00 and cash on to Mariano. Scavoni is adamant about the fact that Spencer always gave him envelopes of cash never checks when he states to Vilker during a Q&A on page 62 (about checks): Q. Did that subject ever come up? A. No, because it was never checks because checks were traceable. It was always right at $5,000 (Exhibit [17] attached with CD). In fact the government was so concerned with Scavonis perjured Testimony and their inability to corroborate his story in 2subsequent IVs, one with CHS (Spencer) (Exhibit [18] attached with CD) and the other with Scavoni (Exhibit [19] attached with CD) that the government interviewers actually asked Scavoni in the IV dated 1/24/2012 Exhibit [19] if he had ever had a brain injury or memory problems. The following are exact quotes provided by the investigators: Scavoni stated that he has not suffered from a traumatic brain injury and that he doesnt have any memory problems or any memory issues. AND THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES DEMAND BY MARIANO FOR $6000 PER WEEK??? SCAVONI TESTIFIES TO $5000???

7) Even though the government knew and was provided evidence that Scavoni had in fact never received any cash from Spencer as all payments to Scavoni were via checks from ADQ & C&S for his services as a Value Added Reseller for software for Inquest, as per Spencers own statements and the governments own discovery, the USAO continued to allow Scavoni to provide his testimony as if factual. In fact ASUA Vilker also allowed Scavoni to portray RMM as a Hoodlum during his GJ testimony when Scavoni refers to Mariano as the Don and that he feared Mariano because he could get him fired etc., etc.

8) It is important to step back for a moment and address the fact that Scavoni was like a family member to the Marianos and ORourkes and that he participated in all family functions and holiday gatherings. In fact, Scavoni asked RMM to be his best man at his wedding of March 2004.

SCAVONIS STATED FEAR OF RMM IS NEITHER

TRUTHFUL NOR BASED ON FACT AND CAN BE ATTESTED TO BY FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHER WITNESSES NEVER CALLED BY THE GOVERNMENT !!

Note 1: That in January 2011 (2 weeks before the criminal complaint was filed) Mary ORourke visited the Scavonis along with a family member and stayed in a room set aside for her when the house was purchased as Ms. ORourke and Mrs. Scavoni were best friends and Scavoni and his wife were introduced by RMM. One would suspect that Scavoni had already been contacted by the investigators at this time. Scavoni actually sent home Valentines candy for Mrs. ORourke, her aunt and RMMs mother, Dolores Mariano.

9) Mr. Scavoni also perjured himself during a Q&A on page 33 and 76 when he alleges that Ms. Stacey Yarrow a former ASFT employee would refer to Scavoni as Ralphs Bag man. An allegation that the AUSA could not corroborate during questioning of Peter Bria page 64 of Brias GJ testimony (Exhibit [32]), nor did they try to corroborate with Ms. Stacey Yarrow (again the individual who allegedly made the accusation). In fact the investigators had already interviewed Ms. Yarrow on 6/29/2011 (Exhibit [14]). So the question is why didnt agent Hegarty, AUSA Vilker and/or AUSA Dulce Donovan (both ASUA Donovan and Vilker participated in the interviews of all 3 people referenced in this paragraph) re-interview Ms. Yarrow to determine if this egregious allegation made by Scavoni was true???? Because the truth is they knew that Ms. Yarrow never made that statement and it was another Scavoni egregious perjured statement!

Also worth noting here is that agent Hegarty alleges on page 40 of his GJ testimony of 4/26/2012 that he had been informed by Scavoni that Scavoni was RMMs bagman, yet a review of the only IVs of Scavoni 4/21/2011 and 1/24/2012 in which agent Hegarty participated the subject of Scavoni being RMMs bagman was never addressed. So how and when did Scavoni inform agent Hegarty he was RMMs bagman???

10)Therefore since the Feds knowingly allowed Scavoni to provide a completely perjured GJ testimony then it is logical to assume the Feds allowed Scavoni undue and unfair influence on the Jurors and potentially influenced some jurors to believe RMM was a hoodlum. The feds allowed Scavoni to knowingly provide a completely perjured GJ testimony and to further exacerbate the proceedings by allowing Scavoni to portray RMM as a hoodlum violating at least 3 case law rulings: 1) United States v. Useni, 2) United States v. Basurto and 3) United States v. Hogan.

NOTE 1: ITS WORTH NOTING HERE THAT SCAVONIS PERJURED AND FALSE TESTIMONY WAS IN FACT USED AS MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN PREPARING THE INDICTMENTS!

11) Lastly, Scavoni violated his Immunity from

Prosecution Deal (Exhibit [20] attached with CD) made

with the USAO and signed by AUSA Lee Vilker on

October 31, 2011. This agreement was never revealed

to the Grand Jury prior to Scavonis testimony or

addressed by anyone during his testimony.

Scavonis statements made during his GJ testimony and interviews are proven in this document to be SUCH EGREGIOUS COUNTS (DOZENS) OF PERJURY AND LYING WHILE UNDER OATH by the governments own evidence found in Discovery 1-3, information and evidence located NETC Building-11 and the Jencks material (Exhibit [14] Attached with CD). YET HIS IMMUNITY DEAL REMAINS IN PLACE AND IS A GROSS EXAMPLE OF THE MANIPULATION OF THE GRAND JURY PROCESS.

DCIS Agent Hegarty lied to the Grand Jury

by knowingly providing false and misleading

Testimony facilitated by the USAO

B. DCIS Agent Hegarty: The Governments Lead investigator who (as previously addressed in paragraph 2 pages 15 through the top of 21 of this document) prepared the factually inaccurate, false and misleading Criminal complaint/affidavit, lied and misled the Grand Jury no less than 40 times during his 2 appearances on 4/26/2011 & 6/21/2011 in support of the Indictments of RMM, RM Jr. and MEO (Mary ORourke). These lies were during Q&A between himself and the AUSAs, in particular AUSA Vilker. The counts of perjury, lying and misleading the GJ are so extensive that its best to review Exhibits [21] & [22] provided with the attached CD with annotations which clearly identify and address the lies, perjured statements and misinformation knowingly provided during the Vilker/Hegarty Q&As.

However a few (10) egregious examples are provided to illustrate the magnitude of perjury facilitated by USAO Vilker and committed by Agent Hegarty:

1. Lying and totally changing the narrative of the central premise of the entire case relative to the 6000.00/week that RMM allegedly demanded from Dutta-Gupta in 1996 soon after Dutta-Gupta purchased AMTECH. Hegartys testimony contradicts 100% the facts set forth by the USAO and Dutta-Gupta as stated in Dutta-Guptas Information package, COP and Statement of Facts of April 28, 2011 in front of Judge Lisi and it is not reflective of information that Dutta-Gupta provided Hegarty and others (including Vilker) during Dutta-Guptas Proffer IVs of: 2/25/2011(Exhibit [23] page 6), 2/15/2012 (Exhibit [24], pages 3&4),(Exhibit [21] pages 81-82), and (Exhibit [10] pages 26-27). It is also an allegation that the Providence Journal in a report written on or about April, 19, 2011 by John Mulligan with information obviously provided to him by the USAO wherein Mulligans article states that "shortly after Dutta-Gupta acquired AMTECH he was summoned by Marino to his office where Mariano made a stark demand of Dutta-Gupta that if he (Dutta-Gupta) wanted to continue to receive funding from NAVSEA then he would have to pay Mariano 6000.00 per week.

2. Lying about the fact that he (Hegarty) see GJ testimony of 4/26/2012 Exhibit [21] page 83 had validated that ASFT/Dutta-Gupta increased Scavonis salary by 40,000.00 in or about 1996-1997 to take care of Mariano. This fact is refuted by the Scavoni payroll stubs located in building 11 see exhibits [12 and 12A], which were sealed and never opened by the investigators. Therefore a major question remains unanswered: How did Agent Hegarty as he stated before the Grand Jury, validate a $40,000.00 salary increase to Scavoni? Answer: He didnt! Defense counsel even tried to subpoena tax returns for Scavoni that should have been key evidence in his resources to pay a bribe and the government did not even have them in their possession.

3. Lying and misrepresenting the facts about the joint account held by RMM and Spencer and its relationship to Spencers mistress Ms. Sandy Wilson and that a substantial amount of the funds in the joint account were in fact used for Ms. Wilson and her family along with another friend of both RMM and Spencer, Mr. Junior (aka Tony) Scott. Note: Ms. Wilson testified to these facts during her Grand Jury testimony on 10/5/2011 and in a subsequent interview. Yet Agent Hegarty and AUSA Vilker continuously chose to down play and lie about the amount of money Ms. Wilson received. Former AUSA Andrew Reich even notified Mr. Corrente on 10/5/2011 and stated Ms. Wilson was very credible and truthful witness. As a result of Ms. Wilsons testimony, the USAO began to investigate and further question Spencer about his relationship with Ms. Wilson which culminated with Spencers additional charge of lying to federal agents pled to in April, 2012. And Mr. Junior Scott wrote a letter addressed to Mr. Corrente of March 30, 2011 outlining his relationship with Spencer and the financial help Spencer provided Mr. Scott.

4. Lying about the length of the Wilson-Spencer relationship; Agent Hegarty knew from Ms. Wilsons testimony that it began in 2006 and only ended in July 2011 when Spencers last text to her (which apparently they were not tracking) indicated that Spencer would take care of her (Ms. Wilson) when he got out and this was all over Yet Agent Hegarty chose to use 2008-2010 in his Grand Jury testimony when describing the period of the relationship to the Grand Jurors.

5. Lying and misrepresenting the facts about the amount of money provided to Ms. Wilson from Spencer via Mariano from 2006 thru 1/2011.

6. Lying about the C&S to P&C statement of work (SOW) agreement and not divulging that P&C (ORourke) re-wrote the entire agreement (Exhibit [25] with attached CD). And omitting the facts that Spencer was well aware of and knew that the C&S to P&C agreement was for defense/ASFT consulting initiatives/efforts and not for technical/engineering work for C&S and that Dutta-Gupta wanted to provide additional funds to P&C for her work with the delegation/defense community by paying P&C through C&S not by C&S. Therefore Spencer knew that C&S was in fact only being used as a conduit for ASFT and other companies such as Progeny and was only providing management efforts to allow P&C to provide services. This fact was confirmed by Spencer and validated in discovery 1 RS-HD file 0191821 and discovery 2 SW-AOL files: 256 & 373 (See Exhibit [26] attached with CD) and during Spencers IV of 4/24/2012 (Exhibit [27] attached with CD) and yet ignored by Agent Hegarty and the USAOs Vilker and Donnelly.

7. Not divulging to the Jurors which version of RMMs 302 he was referring to. Note RMM met only once with the investigators on February 3, 2011 so there should have been only 1 version of RMMs 302. Yet there exist two versions; one provided to the defense in a letter signed by AUSA Andrew Reich on March 24, 2011 allegedly taken at RMMs office on February 3, 2011 and was 8 pages and a 2nd version provided in Discovery to the defense in a letter signed by AUSA Terrence Donnelly dated May 30, 2012 consisting of 3 pages allegedly taken on February 8, 2011 at RMMs residence in Arlington VA. So which was Hegarty referring to during his testimony? No reason to have two versions of the same interview and not explain the same to the Grand Jury.

8. Lying and not divulging the fact that when he was reviewing and reading text messages as requested by AUSA Vilker during his testimony that the texts from cell phone 401-835-3730 should have been from ATT and not from a Verizon wireless blackberry that Mariano never had. No validation given for chain of custody or the fact that Spencer had forwarded these text messages to his computer and then printed them off from his AOL account and gave them to agents (Exhibit[2] with attached CD). No chain of custody, no expert authentication and three separate opportunities for Spencer to manipulate them during this unsupervised process as clearly was the case. See paragraph 7i pages 66, 67 and the top of 68 of this document for more information on the manipulation of text messages (which should be considered evidence tampering) by Spencer.

9. Lying during GJ Q&A pages 58 and 59 between he and Vilker and misrepresenting statements attributed to Mariano during a Spencer consensual recording of 7/7/2010, USAO takes "writers liberty" from what was actually said

Two examples of many: 1) On page 58 lines 13-19 are not in the order in accordance with the recording. There are missing questions and answers and line 14 is said later during the recording than Hegarty and Vilker have indicated. These intentional omissions make quite a difference in the interpretation and meaning of the actual conversation and 2) on page 58 Lines 21-25 are a lie. Hegartys testimony as recorded by the court stenography follows:

Q. Okay, now during that conversation some of it was difficult to hear, did Russell Spencer begin by saying he's not receiving prompt payments from ASFT and said that they'll skip a week?

..Yes

In the actual recording Line 23 Spencer states that they (ASFT/Nagle) are not sending invoices promptly he does not say payments. This makes a world of difference with respect to the context of the conversation and what follows.

Additionally on page 59as the above conversation continues the USAO again takes liberty with the truth and leaves out some very important facts between lines 1-3. Four to five lines of comments to be exact are omitted which create a huge impact and misrepresentation on the contextand end result of the conversation.

NOTE 1: To better understand the egregiousness of this lie see Exhibit [28] which contains the investigators notes and statements of the 7/7/2010 Spencer IV which clearly addresses prompt invoices and states nothing what so ever about PROMPT PAYMENTS

NOTE 2: Either the Agents and USAO are truly this unethical or people who have been alleged to havecommitted crimes just give up trying to prove their innocence.

10) Lying about the P&C and C&S loan agreement of 2007 wherein Agent Hegarty falsely states: 1) the loan was a way for Spencer to get RMM money 2) the loan was for RMM to go to Vegas, 3) that ORourke wrote checks to cash in excess of 10,000.00 and deposited this money into RMMs accounts during the period February/March 2007 and 4) that ORourke made thousands of dollars of cash/ATM withdrawals (from her bank account BOA: xxxx-xxxx-0939) during this period implying that somehow this money made its way to RMM when in fact ORourke made withdrawals (from BOA: xxxx-xxxx-0939) of $912.00 in February 2007 and 2000.00 in March 2007 (while on vacation without RMM). All of this false testimony by Agent Hegarty was refuted by using the governments own discovery (see Exhibit [29]) which was in Agent Hegarty and the governments possession at the time of this testimony under oath. Also see paragraph 9A) pages 68, 69 and 70 of this document for a more extensive rebuke of this LIE!

NOTE 3: AS STATED THESE ARE JUST A HANDFUL OF DOZENS OF EXAMPLES OF AGENT HEGARTYS, PERJURY , LIES , MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS ETC COMMITTED DURING HIS GJ TESTIMONY ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN VALIDATED BY USING THE GOVERNMENTS OWN DISCOVERY AND JENCKS INFORMATION. (AGAIN SEE EXHIBITS [21] AND [22])

ADDITIONAL WITNESSES PERJURED THEMSELVES

DURING THEIR GRAND JURY TESTIMONY

C. Michael Colapietro (Exhibits [30] and [31] are in the attached CD with his lies and perjured statements annotated. Mr. Colapietro also committed Company Fraud which can be proved w/information that was retained in Exhibit [31] attached with CD)) and perhaps was his incentive to draw attention away from himself. Also there should have been a line of questioning regarding Scavoni being paid by Inquest as a VAR for the software through ADQ/C&S and how these companies were subs to Inquest and NOT ASFT through 2005 as repeatedly stated by the government.

D. Peter Bria (Exhibit [32] attached with CD) Brias lies and perjured statements (WELL OVER 20 TIMES) are extensive, extraordinary and include multiple instances of unsubstantiated and false defamation of RMMS character that were allowed to be considered by the Grand Jury with no redress. . The AUSAs allowed Bria to spend a better part (more than 50%) of his GJ testimony lying about his relationship with RMM and impugning RMMs character and mental state that has no basis in truth nor backup material. Bria also tries to claim and imply that their friendship was hostile, goffer like and non-existent and based only on fear of RMM by:

1) falsely stating that he left his DC rotation job early as the result of the work environment when in fact he had to leave DC as his rotation and per-diem were ending (a fact that his supervisor Mike Kalisz confirms in his IV of 10/13/2011 see Exhibit [33] attached with CD),

2) Falsely stating that he and RMM had no personal contact from 2007 forward except for 2 work related emails when in fact Bria and RMM were in regular contact and remained what RMM thought were good friends through 2010 (see Exhibit [34]attached with CD, also see NOTE 1 below).3) the AUSA and Bria not mentioning during his GJ testimony that Bria asked RMM to be his Confirmation Sponsor with Bria actually taking Ralph as his confirmation name in or around 2004/2005,

4) Falsely stating that he regularly did RMMs laundry in 2003 and 2004. RMM has hotel receipts which categorically refute this lie which include regular laundry billing from Crystal City Hilton for the period of 2000 through early 2004 which RMM provided as part of his discovery to the government in 2012 and also can have the government contact Mr. Andrew Hicox (703-593-4453) a former bell person at the Hilton Hotel who did some errands for RMM and who will also refute Brias ludicrous laundry accusation,

5) Falsely failing to tell the investigators that he regularly stayed at RMMs apartment in VA. From late 2006 through fall 2007 (after he had left the government for a private sector job) whenever he traveled to VA for his new company and even had his own key to the apartment (a point Mr. Tejal Patel and many others can attest to).

6) Used RMM Hilton honors points to travel with his girlfriend to New York in 2/2004 (see Exhibit [35] attached with CD),

7) Traveled on vacation 9 times with RMM during a 7 year period (1999-2006), and exchanged birthday and Christmas presents annually,

8)Demeaning and defaming RMMs character by portraying RMM as a Hoodlum stating that a) He was like the god father ,b) he wanted a Tony Soprano aura about him and c) He was very demanding and expected me (Bria) to know things and this created a stressful and hostile work environment for Bria ,

9) Additionally Bria was allowed (without the formal request of the prosecution) to provide a psychoanalysis of RMMs mental state alleging a) on 4 occasions that RMM had a God Like Complex , b) stating on 2 occasions that RMM demonstrated a Bipolar Personality and c) when questioned by a GJ juror about why Bria would chose to spend time with RMM? Bria answered by comparing RMM to his uncle who was a drug addict and felt bad for Mariano. The AUSA allowing Bria a layman to address these points as if he were a trained professional in the area of Clinical and Medical Psychiatry when in truth Brias background is in Math and his job description with the government is classified as a mathematician is disgraceful.

10) Bria providing false information with respect to an alleged NUWC investigation into RMM and Inquest in 2004 that never happened and which the AUSAs did not look into and report back to the GJ that Brias implication of a 2004 investigation was false and inaccurate,

11) Bria not divulging to the GJ or during any of his IVs that he had access (again a key) to RMMs storage facility in RI that held RMMs belongings from his apartment in Narragansett. Belongings which Bria took freely and used to furnish his apartment in R.I. during the 2006/2007 timeframe (Ms. Mary ORourke and Ms. Kathleen Almeida (RMMs former secretary) can validate this statement.,

12) Bria getting all tongue tied, nervous and skewing the truth during Q&A during his testimony pages 85-94 with AUSA Donovan about the checks he cashed for RMM from 2002 through 2007. Quite simply put Bria and RMM were very close personal friends and confidantes (at least that is what RMM thought until RMM read Brias GJ testimony). Therefore Bria would without any coercion or under any threat always help RMM by cashing checks at the Navy Federal Credit Union where Bria had an account and which was located at the Washington Navy yard where we worked. This was as the direct result of RMMs bank being Citizens Bank of Rhode Island of which there are no Citizens Bank branches in Washington or Virginia. So there was no covert or sinister reason other than Mr. Bria helping RMM out by cashing checks for RMM which were all paid back basically either at the same time or when I received my monthly per diem check which averaged at the time 3,500.00/month. RMM Citizens Bank statements for the period 1999-2004 were provided in RMMs discovery package to the government in 2012. Bria did in fact let RMM borrow $5000.00 once while on vacation in Puerto Rico in 2004. Bria took an advance off of his AMEX at the San Juan Marriott Hotel and Casino and RMM paid Mr. Bria back with check number 3446 Grand Jury exhibit 212. .

These are but a handful of Brias perjury and distortion of the truth that again the government never tried to correct.

However it is obvious by the questions asked by the GJ FOREPSERSON that Brias perjured testimony did in fact impact how some in the GJ negatively viewed RMM.

NOTE 1: The emails (contained in exhibit [34]) were considered Spam and/or fell outside the scope of the warrant as stated in an email from AUSA Vilker to Corrente on February 25, 2013 (copy of this correspondence also provided in Exhibit [34] where Vilker states: I just met with the agent concerning your e-mail. We previously produced 174 e-mails from Marianos marianom@mac.com account. These were e-mails that were provided to the government by Apple pursuant to a search warrant. These e-mails are from September 8, 2009 through October 25, 2010. In addition, I just learned from the agent that Apple provided an additional 1,203 e-mails from this account that the agent determined to fall outside the scope of the warrant, including many that are just spam

The emails in Exhibit [34] were found in what the agent considered to be either spam or outside of the scope of the warrant. After reading Brias perjured, inflammatory and fictional GJ testimony against RMM its hard to believe that any agent would consider any of the emails from Bria in Exhibit [34] to be just spam or outside of the scope of the investigation as they validate that Bria was in contact with RMM through 2010.

NOTE 2: Norman Godin a certified/accredited clinical psychoanalysis whom I have been seeing weekly since March 2011 as part of my pre-trial probation requirements should be contacted for an accurate and professional analysis of Marianos mental state.

NOTE 3: Bria should be charged or investigated for his unnecessary multiple counts of perjury and obstruction of justice in accordance with 18 USC statutes 1621 and 1623 for his reckless and fictional GJ testimony!

E. Charles (Tony) Hill (Exhibit [36] attached with CD), Hill whom RMM met twice in passing and conversed a couple of times with via E-Mail and one phone conference uses hearsay and the phrase Soprano in a very demeaning Q&A with Vilker in clear violation of United States v. Hogan in an attempt to portray RMM as a thug and a hoodlum. No foundation presented as to why Hill would be considered a credible witness as to RMM.

THE FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE COURT

OF THE EVIDENCE OF LYING BY GRAND JURY WITNESSES

AND COOPERATING WITNESSES

WHICH INVALIDATED THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,

INDICTMENTS AND PLEAS

NOTE 4:.-It was at this point in time (if it had not been done so beforehand) that the USAO had as a result of knowing that the COPs, GJ testimonys consisted of extensive perjury and lying by the witnesses and were suspect by the governments very own discovery and interviews) an ABSOLUTE DUTY and OBLIGATION AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT in accordance with Berger v. United states 295 us 78.88.(1935) and United states v. Shaygan 661 F. Supp 2d 1289, 1292 (S.D Fla 2009) to make sure that prior to the Indictment, they would be able to prove these allegations at the time of trial as represented to the Court by the USAO and in the COP hearings. They failed to demand back-up documentation from, Dutta-Gupta, Spencer, Nagle, Bria and Scavoni to prove the affirmative statement of facts given to the Court, under oath, by these Defendants. Instead, expecting more pleas, the USAO continued their win at all cost strategy by assaulting the remaining targets (Ms. ORourke and Mariano) with threats and bullying tactics. A modern day mob organization that seriously compromised due process rights as they went along and continued to perpetrate a fraud upon the integrity of the Court worse than any single crime alleged by them.

NOTE 5: All of the Grand Jury testimony (WITH THEIR MULTIPLE COUNTS OF PERJURED STATEMENTS) are clear violation of United States v. Basurto, 497 F. 2d 781 785-86 (9th Cir 1974), United states v. Useni, 516 F. 3d 634, 656 (7th Circa 2008), which explicitly states: That the USAO (in this case AUSA Vilker, Reich, Donnelly, ) knowingly had the RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY JUDGE LISI, DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND THE GRAND JURY of the above perjured testimony since they had interviews both before and after these individuals testimony in direct contradiction of what was testified to UNER OATH.

USE OF HEARSAY WITH ABSOLUTELY NO

BACKUP DATA IN EXISTENCE FOR USE AT TRIAL TO

ATTACK MARIANOS CHARACTER

F Additionally, Gary Scavonis (10/27/2011), Peter Brias(10/27/2011), Agent Hegartys (4/26/2012 & 6/21/2012) and Charles Hills (5/24/2012) GJ testimony contain damning Q&A between themselves and the AUSA implying and insinuating that Mariano was a Hoodlum and impugning Marianos character based on hearsay which would be clear violations of United States v. Hogan 712 F.2d 757 (2d cir 1983) where in that AUSA portrayed the defendant as a hoodlum in front of the grand jury and relied too heavily on hearsay evidence.

The Examples of such hearsay and abusive conduct are worth repeating:

1) Scavoni during a Q&A between he and Vilker (during Scavonis perjured GJ testimony) used the phrase The Don in an undignified and demeaning manner when referring to Mariano and the AUSA allowed this statement and line of testimony which had no relevance or basis in fact.

2) Bria during Q&A between he and Donovan used demeaning and defaming statements by portraying RMM as a Hoodlum stating that: a) He was like the godfather , b) he wanted a Tony Soprano aura about him and c) Bria comparing RMM to his uncle who was a drug addict.

3) Charles Hill during a Q&A with Vilker stated that he (meaning RMM) always struck me as one of the guys from the Sopranos when referring to RMM and admitted that he (Hill) was not being objective as he had moved his family from GA to take the position with ASFT. Note Hill retired shortly after he was relieved of his command of a Trident Submarine due to problems with his command style after 25 plus years in the Navy and Mariano is the one being called a Soprano by Hill????? Fact never revealed to Grand Jury. This speaks volumes to Hills character and demeanor given the fact that his leadership skills and style lead the Navy to relieve him of his command of a Trident Submarine after six months at sea.

NOTE 6: There are many more Perjured GJ Q&A and exhibits (to voluminous to provide here) which can be countered with more exculpatory evidence and which can be provided upon request. And it should be stated that these false and negative attacks on RMMs character seemingly had a cumulative effect on the Grand Jurors and as a result unfairly impacted their view of RMM in their deliberations. And each and every case of perjury should be investigated in accordance with 18 USC statutes 1621 and 1623.

INDICTMENT IS INVALID ON ITS FACE

AND SHOULD BE THROWN OUT ALONG WITH

PERJURED PLEAS SET FOR SENTENCING IN OCTOBER 2013 (DUTTA-GUPTA, NAGLE AND SPENCER) AND

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

AND PERJURY CHARGES AGAINST THESE

WITNESSES SHOULD BE PURSUED

INCLUDING GARY SCAVONI

G. Furthermore the USAO knew that all this perjured Grand Jury Testimony in accordance with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not to be used for a defendant(s) who have to stand trial on an indictment which the government knows is based partially on perjured testimony, when the perjured testimony is material, and when jeopardy has not attached. Whenever the prosecutor learns of any perjury committed before the grand jury, he/she is under a duty to immediately inform the court and opposing counsel and, if the perjury may be material, also the grand jury in order that appropriate action may be taken.

NOTE: The government's knowing use of false testimony violates due process. For an indictment to be dismissed on account of false testimony presented to the grand jury, the defendant must show prejudice amounting to either proof that the grand jury's decision to indict was substantially influenced, or that there is grave doubt that the decision to indict was substantially influenced, by testimony which was inappropriately before it. United States v. Feurtado, 191 F.3d 420, 424 (4th Cir.1999) (citing Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 101 L.Ed.2d 228(1988)). IT IS OBVIOUS BY A REVIEW OF THE INDICTMENT (EXHIBIT [52] ATTACHED WITH THE CD THAT THE PERJURED TESTIMONY WERE IN FACT USED TO GENERATE SAID SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT GIVEN TO THE GRAND JURY AND THAT THIS PERJURED TESTIMONY WAS CONSIDERED TO BE MATERIAL TO THE ALLEGED CRIMINALITY OF MARIANO AND Ms. OROURKE AND KEY TO THE INDICTMENT PROCESS. CLEARLY MANY OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE JURORS AND JURY FOREPERSON INDICATE THAT THE PERJURED TESTIMONY OF THESE WITNESSES DID IN FACT INFLUENCE THE GRAND JURY IN THEIR DECISION MAKING.

USAO AND ITS AGENTS COMPLICIT IN

PERPETUATING FALSE TESTIMONY IN

MULTIPLE INTERVIEWS

Additionally, when the USAO and agents finally started to interview key witnesses from NUWCDIVNPT, NAVSEA, contractors and other individuals in February 2011 and despite having received from these interviews credible evidence to prove otherwise, the USAO and investigative team lead by Agent Hegarty continued to facilitate the false testimony and misrepresentation of facts of the following individuals

Russell & Debra Spencer

Anja