jeffrey collins deposition

8/9/2019 Jeffrey Collins Deposition

1/12

CONVERTINO v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFJUSTICE

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

Prepared for you by

Bingham Farms | Ann Arbor | Detroit | Flint | Grand Rapids | Jackson | Lansing | Mt. Clemens

PHONE: 248.644.8888 FAX: 248.644.1120

www.bienenstock.com

DA000018

Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-7 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 12


2/12

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

RICHARD CONVERTINO,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 07-CV-13842-DT

Hon. Robert H. Cleland

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE,

Defendant.

__________________________________________

The Deposition of JEFFREY COLLINS,

Taken at 801 West Ann Arbor Trail, Suite 233,

Plymouth, Michigan,

Commencing at 9:14 a.m.,

Thursday, April 23, 2009,

Before Viola Newman, CSR-4320, RPR.

DA000019



3/12

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

2 (Pages 2 to 5)

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Page 2

1 APPEARANCES:2

3 STEPHEN M. KOHN4 ERIK J. SNYDER5 Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto6 3233 P Street NW7 Washington, D.C. 200078 202.342.69809 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff.

10

11 LENORE M. FERBER12 Convertino & Associates13 801 West Ann Arbor Trail, Suite 23314 Plymouth, Michigan 4817015 734.927.990016 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff.17

18 JONATHAN E. ZIMMERMAN19 JEFFREY M. SMITH20 SCOTT A. RISNER21 U.S. Department of Justice22 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW23 Washington, D.C. 2053024 202.514.239525 Appearing on behalf of the Defendant.

Page 3

1 ALSO PRESENT:2 Richard Convertino3 Peter Fu4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 4

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS2 WITNESS PAGE3 JEFFREY COLLINS4

5 EXAMINATION 56 BY MR. KOHN:7

8 EXHIBITS9 EXHIBIT PAGE

10 (Exhibits attached to transcript.)11

12 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 1 5113 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 2 6614 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 3 7615 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 4 7716 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 5 7717 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 6 8618 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 7 11319 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 8 11420 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 9 11621

22

23

24

25

Page 5

1 Plymouth, Michigan2 Thursday, April 23, 20093 9:14 a.m.4

5 JEFFREY COLLINS,6 was thereupon called as a witness herein, and after7 having first been duly sworn to testify to the truth,8 the whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined9 and testified as follows:

10 MR. KOHN: Steven M. Kohn, K-O-H-N,11 attorney for Mr. Convertino.12 MR. CONVERTINO: Rick Convertino.13 MS. SNYDER: Erik David Snyder, attorney14 for Mr. Convertino.15 MR. FU: Peter Y. Fu, Department of16 Justice.17 MR. SMITH: Jeffrey M. Smith, Department of

18 Justice.19 MR. RISNER: Scott Risner, Department of20 Justice.21 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Jonathan E. Zimmerman,22 Department of Justice.23 EXAMINATION24 BY MR. KOHN:25 Q. Mr. Collins, would you please state your name and

DA000020



4/12

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

7 (Pages 22 to 25)

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

7 (Pages 22 to 25)

Page 22

1 you and say, let's divide these functions?2 A. Well, I believe Mr. Lewis was the -- what's it called,3 executive director of the executive office of the4 United States attorneys, who kind of worked in tandem5 as a -- to assist local U.S. attorneys, you know, when6 personnel issues or management issues arise. So it's7 a resource, someone who -- again, who I respected8 their input.9 Q. Did you ever read Mr. Convertino's Privacy Act

10 complaint?11 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, asked and12 answered.13 A. Yeah, I have read the complaint.14 BY MR. KOHN:15 Q. Okay. Now, did you review any documents in16 preparation for today's deposition?17 A. Yes, sir.18 Q. Okay. What did you review?19 A. I reviewed the letter that Rick sent to me asking why20 he was taken off the Koubriti case, my response to21 that letter, I also reviewed -- I also reviewed the22 actual OPR referral and Mr. Jarad's response to the23 referral, also my letter to Rick, based on when I got24 back from Mr. Jarad, that letter to Rick, also my25 interview with the inspector general.

Page 23

1 Q. Did you listen to a tape of that interview?

2 A. No.

3 Q. You have a transcript?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Were you ever questioned by the FBI concerning6 Mr. Convertino?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Were you ever interviewed by OPR concerning

9 Mr. Convertino, like sat you down for an interview?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Calling your attention, there came a time when you

12 learned that a reporter for the Daily Free Press,

13 Mr. Ashenfelter, was making some phone calls regarding

14 Mr. Convertino --

15 A. No, not that he was making phone calls.

16 Q. What -- how did you first learn that the Detroit Free

17 Press might be doing a story on Mr. Convertino and the

18 OPR?19 A. I first learned of it, I came in the office, I believe

20 it was in the afternoon, and our press person, Gina

21 Balaya, conveyed to me a message that she had spoken

22 to Ashenfelter and Ashenfelter had information about

23 unauthorized pleas with Mr. Convertino, information

24 about -- information regarding a person named

25 Shishani, other information that Rick had taken two

Page 24

1 unauthorized trips to Turkey, and that the reason Rick2 was removed from the Koubriti trial was because he

3 testified in front of that Grassley committee.4 Q. And did she mention anything in that initial5 conversation with Gina about that he knew there was an6 OPR inquiry?7 A. I don't recall her saying OPR.8 Q. Were some of the factors that she had mentioned in the9 OPR referral?

10 A. Yes, sir.11 Q. And do you remember approximately how long it was

12 between that discussion with her and the article13 coming out?14 A. Maybe a day or two.15 Q. Okay. So what then -- what's the next interaction you16 had concerning Mr. Ashenfelter's story, what did you17 do next about that story?18 A. I remember speaking with Mr. Gershel about it and I19 also remember our administrative officer, Michelle20 Tomstow (phonetic), was present because she had

21 information that Rick had not taken any unauthorized22 trips to Turkey and -- and the discussion I had, you23 know, with Alan was whether or not there is a way in24 which matters unrelated to the OPR, if the record25 could be set straight, that those examples which

Page 25

1 Ashenfelter had were inaccurate.

2 Q. So this was a meeting with Gershel, Michelle Thompson,

3 was it?

4 A. Not Thompson, Tomstow. I'm probably mispronouncing

5 it.6 MR. CONVERTINO: Tomstow.

7 A. I remember Michelle having --

8 BY MR. KOHN:

9 Q. That information?

10 A. -- about the trips.

11 Q. So it was -- do you know, did you ask her to collect

12 that for the meeting?

13 A. No, I did not.

14 Q. Now, you mentioned that you spoke to Gershel.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Was that -- in other words, what I want to know is so

17 you got a -- so you get the message from your press

18 person. Is the next thing you do, did you call19 Gershel or --

20 A. In terms of the exact sequence?

21 Q. Yeah.

22 A. I don't know if I spoke with Alan first or the message

23 first but I remember speaking to Alan about it.

24 Q. Okay. Now, tell me everything you remember about this

25 discussion with Alan.

DA000021



5/12

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

8 (Pages 26 to 29)

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

8 (Pages 26 to 29)

Page 26

1 A. What I recall is he was aware -- Alan was aware that2 Mr. Ashenfelter had information.3 Q. Who initiated the conversation with Alan Gershel?4 A. He did, because I walked in --5 Q. Gershel contacted you?6 A. Right.7 Q. Okay, so -- okay.8 I'm just trying to understand this, so9 Gershel may have been the first person who told you

10 about it and not the press secretary?11 A. I can't recall which one was first.12 Q. Okay. Okay. So Gershel, then what did he tell you?13 A. He said, is there any way the record could be set14 straight about matters collateral to the OPR. He15 said, obviously you can't talk about the OPR16 investigation to Ashenfelter, but is there a way in17 which matters unrelated to that could be to set the18 record straight, because he had information that these19 trips that Ashenfelter said Rick took that was wrong,20 that was wrong, and Michelle corroborated the fact, I21 remember she corroborated that didn't happen.22 Q. So what you're saying is when Gershel first contacted23 you he already was recommending at the time of the24 first round that you communicate or potentially25 communicate with the reporter to correct something

Page 27

1 that he understood was inaccurate from what the2 reporter was stating?3 A. That's correct.4 Q. So it was at the very first meeting?

5 A. It was -- yeah, it was at one of those --6 Q. Okay. So then was that in person or over the phone?7 A. It was in person.8 Q. Okay. Did Alan tell you who else in the office had9 been contacted by Mr. Ashenfelter?

10 A. No.11 Q. Okay. Did he ever tell you that he had meetings with12 Mr. Straus about Ashenfelter's phone call?13 A. I don't recall that.14 Q. Did he tell you that he had a meeting with Mr. Tukel15 about Ashenfelter's phone call?16 A. He may have said that.17 Q. Okay.

18 A. Because John was -- the little huddle -- I mean it was19 Tukel, Alan and myself, so Tukel may have been in on20 the conversations with Alan.21 Q. Okay, so did Tukel also -- was he there at the first22 meeting, Tukel, about present -- clarify about the23 trips to Jordan --24 A. I don't --25 Q. -- or Turkey?

Page 28

1 A. I don't recall John being at that meeting.

2 Q. Okay. And when -- what's the next thing that happened

3 vis-a-vis?

4 A. It was either talking with Gina first or -- one of the

5 two, getting information from Gina, I remember

6 speaking with Alan and -- and then that was basically

7 it.

8 Q. And then you called Ashenfelter?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And what did you tell him?

11 A. I told him that the information which he had conveyed

12 to Gina, that Rick had taken unauthorized trips to

13 Turkey, two trips he had in -- two trips to Turkey,

14 that that was wrong. I also told him that it was also

15 wrong to say that Rick was removed from the Koubriti

16 trial because he testified in front of the Grassley

17 committee.

18 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Ashenfelter ask you about the OPR

19 investigation?

20 A. He did not use the word OPR, no.

21 Q. Did --

22 A. He --

23 Q. -- anybody tell you before the article came out that

24 Mr. Ashenfelter had specific knowledge that there was

25 an OPR investigation of Mr. Convertino?

Page 29

1 A. Not in the way that you're wording it, sir, no.2 Q. Okay. When you read the newspaper, were you at all3 surprised to read information in it about the OPR4 investigation?

5 A. No, I was not surprised.6 Q. Why weren't you surprised?7 A. Because it was consistent with what -- the information8 I got from Gina, which indicated to me this is what9 Mr. Ashenfelter, the information he already had.

10 Q. Okay. You mean the substance of the information, not11 the fact of the OPR investigation?12 A. That's correct.13 Q. My question is did anyone tell you up until that14 article appeared that Mr. Ashenfelter was going to15 disclose the fact of an OPR investigation?16 A. No.17 Q. And the people you had the contact with was Tukel?

18 A. Yes.19 Q. Gershel?20 A. Yes.21 Q. And Gina?22 A. Yes.23 Q. Okay. Was there anyone else you spoke to about the24 upcoming Ashenfelter story?25 A. No.

DA000022



6/12

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Page 30

1 Q. When you learned Ashenfelter was planning a story, I'd

2 like to know to the best of your recollection the time

3 sequence, so you learned from the phone call. Was

4 it -- was that on the Friday and then the story came

5 out on the Saturday, to the best -- was that the

6 sequence?

7 A. Like I said, it was either a day or two, so it may

8 have been the following day the article came out.

9 Q. But not longer than two days?

10 A. Correct, it was a short time frame.

11 Q. And do you know the time period between your first

12 learning of this incident, Ashenfelter's inquiries and

13 your phone call to Ashenfelter, was that on the same

14 day?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. When you first learned of Ashenfelter's phone call,

17 did the thought enter your mind, and I understand your

18 testimony that no one actually told you this and

19 Mr. Ashenfelter did not tell you this, but I'm

20 wondering did the thought enter your mind that someone

21 may have given Ashenfelter your OPR letter to

22 Mr. Jarad, the recommendation or Jarad's letter back

23 to you or your letter to Convertino?

24 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, compound.

25 A. Yes.

Page 31

1 BY MR. KOHN:2 Q. Okay. When that thought entered your mind, from the3 time the thought entered your mind until the time the4 article came out, did you contact OPR and tell them

5 that there may have been a leak of the OPR materials?6 A. No, I did not.7 Q. Okay. Again, between those two time periods, did you8 undertake any review of the Privacy Act rules and9 regulations governing what's supposed to happen with

10 an OPR referral?11 A. During that -- did I review them?12 Q. Yeah, during that time period.13 A. No, I did not.14 Q. Did you ask either Mr. Tukel or Mr. Gershel to have15 contact with OPR to seek any type of guidance about16 how to deal with the fact that there might be some17 type of release of OPR materials?

18 A. No.19 Q. Did either of them suggest to you that you or someone20 else call OPR and get guidance?21 A. That suggestion was not made to me.22 Q. When you listened to your tape of your OPR -- excuse23 me -- when you read the transcript of your OIG24 interview --25 A. Yes.

Page 32

1 Q. -- did you notice any mistakes in it?2 A. I did not notice any mistakes.3 Q. So to the best of your knowledge what you told them4 when you were interviewed is still truthful?5 A. Yes.6 Q. Prior to the article coming out did either Tukel or7 Gershel give you any idea or make a suggestion as to8 who they think may have provided information to the9 Detroit Free Press?

10 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, relevance.11 A. Answer it? No.12 BY MR. KOHN:13 Q. After the article come out did Mr. Tukel ever give you14 speculation or, you know, give you ideas like who he15 thinks may have been the source?16 A. I don't recall that.17 Q. Mr. Gershel, did he ever?18 A. No.19 Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Straus about the leak?20 A. No, I did not.21 Q. Other than Tukel, Gershel and the press person, did22 you talk to anyone else about the leak either before23 it was published or after?24 A. No, I did not.25 Q. I'd like to call your attention to the late

Page 33

1 August/early September 2003 time period.

2 A. Okay.

3 Q. Do you remember learning that Mr. Convertino had had

4 some type of contact with investigators for the Senate

5 Finance Committee or Senator Charles Grassley?6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. Okay. How did you first learn of this contact?

8 A. Through Mr. Gershel.

9 Q. What did he tell you?

10 A. He told me that it was over -- it was a phone call,

11 that he learned that senate investigators were in the

12 office, U.S. Attorney's Office, and they had

13 interviewed Mr. Hmimssa and that fact of the interview

14 was not conveyed to management, wasn't conveyed to Mr.

15 Gershel. I do not believe it was conveyed to Mr.

16 Corbet, to Mr. Convertino's direct supervisor nor was

17 it conveyed to me, and so that's --

18 Q. Okay. So he told you that.19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. Did he express any concerns with this interview and

21 the procedures followed to do it?

22 A. Yes, there were concerns because, one, when there were

23 numerous instructions, directives, orders if you will

24 given to Mr. Convertino during the Koubriti trial that

25 whenever something goes on pertaining to the case that

DA000023



7/12

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

10 (Pages 34 to 37)

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

10 (Pages 34 to 37)

Page 34

1 he was to keep management informed, and the breakdown

2 in the communication between our office and the

3 counterterrorism section in Washington became so

4 severe if you will that Larry Thompson had to send Joe

5 Capone to the trial to sit in every day because there

6 was no reliance or confidence that the information

7 flow which was instructed to happen, it wasn't

8 happening and that's why Capone was there, to provide

9 that information flow.

10 Q. Was Washington, D.C. upset and angry about this

11 information flow?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And who from Washington, D.C. expressed this anger

14 about the information flow?

15 A. Well, Barry Sabin, David Nahmais. That is the reason

16 why, as I indicated, Joe Capone was detailed if you

17 will to the office, because that way Washington could

18 be guaranteed that they were getting information on a

19 timely basis. And Rick was instructed, he was

20 instructed by me, you know, before Capone even

21 arrived, before that even happened, to keep everybody

22 in the loop and that did not happen, and then when you

23 mentioned that time frame about the senate testimony,

24 it was another example of Mr. Convertino not keeping

25 everybody in the loop regarding an interview of a main

Page 35

1 witness.2 Q. Were people angry that he had done this again?3 A. Frustrated.4 Q. And who was frustrated?

5 A. Mr. Gershel was frustrated and I was frustrated.6 Q. Did you report this to Washington, D.C.?7 A. Report that --8 Q. Did you call someone in Washington, hey, senate guys9 are here interviewing this guy and Convertino didn't

10 let us know?11 A. No, not -- it didn't flow like that.12 Q. Okay. How did it -- just getting back to it. Okay.13 So you were frustrated. Did -- okay. So you were14 frustrated and you detected that Mr. Gershel was15 frustrated?16 A. Yes.17 Q. Now, what else was discussed in the meeting? Well,

18 actually, just going back, you mentioned this person19 named Capone?20 A. Yes, sir.21 Q. Was he detailed to the Washington -- to Detroit to22 actually provide help at the trial or just to sit23 there for informational purposes? Was he there to24 help Rick conduct the trial?25 A. To conduct it?

Page 36

1 Q. Yeah.2 A. No, he wasn't like to do the opening statement or, you3 know --4 Q. What about to work on the case?5 A. Yeah, he's there as a resource, to help, and he was --6 I instructed, you know, Mr. Convertino, and -- you7 know, and Keith Corbet to make him a welcome part of8 the trial team, when there's trial strategy, he's to9 be a part of those, you know, meetings.

10 Q. But he was also to report back to Washington11 everything he was learning?12 A. That is correct.13 Q. Do you know if he made those reports in writing or14 just orally?15 A. If who made those reports?16 Q. Capone.17 A. Back to Washington?18 Q. Yes.19 A. His method of communication, I'm not sure how he20 communicated his reports back to Washington.21 Q. Did he ever show you copies of any reports he was22 sending back to Washington?23 A. No, he did not.24 Q. Was he still around at the time of this meeting with25 the senate people?

Page 37

1 A. I don't believe so but I am not positive --

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. -- because I think after the trial ended, he may have.

4 Q. Okay. So Gershel informs you, did he inform you after

5 the interview had happened between the witness and the6 senate investigator people --

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. -- or -- after?

9 A. It was after, he learned of it after.

10 Q. Okay. And when he -- did -- were any -- was he

11 critical of Mr. Convertino for the way he had handled

12 this interview with the senate?

13 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection to form.

14 A. All right. I'm going to try to make it clear for you.

15 BY MR. KOHN:

16 Q. Sure, sure.

17 A. The actual interview, could care less. It wasn't the

18 interview. That wasn't what caused the frustration at19 all. It was the failure to inform of the interview,

20 so...

21 Q. Okay. And then was he upset about the failure to

22 inform?

23 A. Yes, because it was again a management issue in terms

24 of following directives from management to keep

25 everybody in the loop. Not that someone's trying to

DA000024



8/12

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

11 (Pages 38 to 41)

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

11 (Pages 38 to 41)

Page 38

1 run your case or take over your case, but simply to

2 keep everybody informed and that wasn't complied with.

3 Q. Okay. So after he told you this, what happened next?

4 A. In what --

5 Q. In the context of that interview that the senate staff

6 had with the witness and Mr. Convertino not keeping

7 you in the loop.

8 A. Well, okay. Shortly after that conversation --

9 Q. Yeah.

10 A. -- I mean, I discussed with Alan, we have to take Rick

11 off the case, he was removed from the case shortly

12 thereabouts.

13 Q. Okay. And whose idea was it to take him off the case,

14 yours or Mr. Gershel's or both of you together?

15 A. It was both together.

16 Q. And then -- and that happened at the meeting where he

17 told you he had once again failed to put you in the

18 loop or at a subsequent meeting?

19 A. It was -- it was -- I believe during that -- it wasn't

20 a meeting, it was a phone call where we discussed

21 that.

22 Q. So essentially he called you, he told you, now

23 Mr. Convertino has senate people, investigators

24 talking to a witness, he didn't put us in the loop, he

25 should be off the case or what do you think we should

Page 39

1 do to him?2 A. He felt up to his wits in trying to be able to -- it3 was almost you had an unmanageable employee.4 Q. Okay. And during that phone call was it also

5 discussed who should take it over or did that happen6 later?7 A. That was later.8 Q. So -- okay. So then what happens next vis-a-vis not9 the Koubriti matter per se but in terms of the senate

10 interview? Did you let anyone else know or did11 anyone -- in other words, Gershel now put you in the12 loop?13 A. Yes, sir.14 Q. Did you undertake any steps to put anyone else in the15 loop and inform them that this interview had happened16 with the senate investigator?17 A. I did not, no.

18 Q. Do you know -- did you ask Gershel to do that?19 A. It was my understanding that Rick was instructed to20 contact the Office of Legislative Affairs in21 Washington, you know, pertaining to this issue.22 Q. Okay. So when you say it was your understanding,23 did -- did you tell someone to make sure that happened24 or did someone recommend it or did someone tell you25 that they were going to tell Rick to do that? Like

Page 40

1 how did that happen?2 A. He was -- it all happened so quickly.

3 Q. Yeah, okay.

4 A. You know, between the discovery of the investigators5 interviewing Mr. Hmimssa, Rick going to Washington to6 testify, him being told to come into the office I

7 think the following Monday and he went to Washington

8 to testify, all that happened like real, real, real

9 quick.10 Q. Okay. Now, when Gershel had the phone conversation11 with you, did he tell you which office these

12 investigators had come from or who they were working

13 with from the U.S. senate? Did he say they were from14 Grassley's staff or the senate Financial Committee?15 A. I don't recall, I just recall investigators.

16 Q. When did you first learn who the -- where the

17 investigators were from, you know, which senate office

18 or committee?19 A. I can't recall if it was during the following Monday20 when I came back into the office or if that was

21 communicated to me like that Friday when everything

22 was moving so quickly.23 Q. So was the Gershel phone call on a Friday?24 A. I believe it was.

25 Q. And then when you learned it was investigators from

Page 41

1 the senate Financial Committee and/or Senator2 Grassley, did anyone make representations to you about3 Grassley or the senate Finance Committee's, you know,4 reputation vis-a-vis the FBI or DOJ or things that

5 may -- you don't know who these people were or6 problems they may cause?7 A. No.8 Q. Did you know at the time that Senator Grassley had9 holds on justice department appointees?

10 A. No.11 Q. Did you ever learn that?12 A. Yes.13 Q. Okay. How did you learn that?14 A. That was later on when Grassley -- he sent letters, he15 sent a letter to me and I think to Ashcroft,16 complaining about the treatment of Mr. Convertino.17 Q. Okay. But until you got those letters, you were

18 unaware that Senator Grassley had a hold on some DOJ19 nominees?20 A. I didn't know that. And you know what, I didn't even21 know who Senator Grassley was.22 Q. Okay.23 A. I never heard of the man, didn't know. I could care24 less if Rick went and testified in front of that25 committee, only thing I wanted to make sure is that he

DA000025



9/12

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

12 (Pages 42 to 45)

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

12 (Pages 42 to 45)

Page 42

1 followed protocol in doing so, that's all. I didn't2 know who Grassley was.3 Q. In terms of following protocol, you mentioned a letter4 that Senator Grassley sent to you and Senator5 Ashcroft. How do you know he sent it to Senator6 Ashcroft?7 A. It was addressed to us both.8 Q. Did you ever speak to Mr. Ashcroft, Attorney General9 Ashcroft about this matter?

10 A. No, I did not.11 Q. Did you ever speak to anyone who was from his office12 or a representative of his?13 A. No, I did not.14 Q. Did you ever talk to anyone -- did you -- about how15 Ashcroft was going to respond to the letter from16 Grassley?17 A. I remember kind of referring that letter on to Tukel,18 you deal with it; and there was communication from an19 associate attorney general, I can't remember the name,20 but they wrote a -- they wrote a response to the21 letter that was addressed to Ashcroft and myself, they22 prepared a response and they sent us, I guess -- they23 asked us for input into their response. So that was24 the extent of the interaction.25 Q. And Mr. Tukel was the point of contact with the

Page 43

1 Department of Justice on these matters?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did you read the letter that Senator Grassley wrote

4 concerning Mr. Convertino?

5 A. Yes.6 Q. Did you think -- how did you respond to that, like

7 react when you saw that letter?

8 A. I was -- I felt -- like I say, I didn't know Senator

9 Grassley. I just felt Senator Grassley quite frankly

10 was being fed inaccurate information. I didn't fault

11 him. I thought based on what he's been told I could

12 see his reaction, if he thought that was true, but

13 that's not what happened. So I thought the letter was

14 wrong.

15 Q. Did you in any way think Mr. Convertino may have been

16 responsible for giving Senator Grassley inaccurate

17 information?

18 A. Yes.19 Q. And how did you respond to that, the fact that someone

20 in your employment might give a U.S. senator

21 inaccurate information?

22 A. I mean that was Rick's I assume version of his

23 perspective of the incident and we were going to

24 respond to that perspective, which happened through

25 the associate attorney general's letter.

Page 44

1 Q. Okay. What about Mr. Tukel, did you observe how he2 reacted to the letter?

3 A. No.4 Q. Did you ever discuss with him his opinions or feelings5 about the letter?6 A. No, I can't recall that.7 Q. What about -- did you ever discuss with him or anyone8 in the office any concern that Mr. Convertino may have9 given a United States senator false or misleading

10 information?11 A. No.

12 Q. Would providing false or misleading information to a13 United States Senator be a potential criminal act?14 A. I'll have to review some statutes.15 Q. Okay. What about Mr. Gershel, did -- okay. Going16 back, I want to now try to talk about the time --17 okay, we have the interview.18 A. Which interview?19 Q. With -- where you learned about the interview with the20 witness.

21 A. Yes.22 Q. Okay. That was on a -- I understand a Friday.23 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Are we talking about24 Hmimssa?25 MR. KOHN: Yeah.

Page 45

1 BY MR. KOHN:

2 Q. And then on the Monday -- did you work on this matter

3 over the weekend?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Okay. So you went -- okay. And then on Monday, to6 the best of your recollection, what happened regarding

7 this senate investigator's discussions?

8 A. Well, I recall Monday is kind of being again brought

9 up to date as to the activity over the weekend and I

10 was told on that Monday that Rick had been instructed

11 by Keith Corbet to come to the office on Monday and he

12 did not come.

13 Q. And who told you that?

14 A. Who told me?

15 Q. Who told you that Rick had been instructed to come to

16 the office by Corbet?

17 A. I believe it was Alan.

18 Q. Okay. Was there like a -- when you came in, you said19 you were brought up to date. Was there a meeting or

20 was it by phone?

21 A. I think it was in person.

22 Q. Okay. And Alan was there?

23 A. I remember speaking with Alan, yeah. Tukel may have

24 been there, I'm not positive.

25 Q. Okay. So you were then told that Corbet had asked him

DA000026



10/12

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

19 (Pages 70 to 73)

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

19 (Pages 70 to 73)

Page 70

1 Q. And when Tukel came to you did he suggest a limited2 file review related to Farhat or did he suggest a more3 general file review?4 A. What I recall was at first it was just Farhat and then5 after Farhat and the results of Farhat were learned,6 then it was expanded to his other cases, Rick's other7 cases.8 Q. And that was from the -- that was Mr. Tukel reported9 that to you?

10 A. I believe so, yes.11 Q. What about Mr. Gershel, was he consulted on it?12 A. Yes, he was consulted.13 Q. Now, who assigned Tukel to do the file review?14 A. I would have.15 Q. Okay. Who suggested -- did he offer to do it or who16 suggested that Tukel be the one to do the file review?17 A. Well, I believe -- I mean Jonathan -- after the18 results of Farhat came out it was discussed, you19 know --20 Q. Okay.21 A. -- whether or not there should be additional reviews22 and I did not pose an objection to that. I thought23 that was the right thing to do.24 Q. And who recommended additional reviews? Was it25 Gershel, Tukel or both together?

Page 71

1 A. It may have been both together.

2 Q. And do you know how much time had transpired between

3 when Tukel came to you for a file review on Farhat and

4 when he came back and said maybe we should expand it?

5 A. I can't approximate the time, no.6 Q. Was it months, days, weeks?

7 A. No, no, it wasn't months. It was a short -- a short

8 window.

9 Q. When he came back to you and said they should expand

10 the file review, were there any other -- did they --

11 what was the basis that he told you, this is why we

12 should expand it?

13 A. Well, there was a concern that the Farhat plea was not

14 done in compliance with office policy, that there was

15 a dramatic 5K.1 departure, which was not approved by

16 Mr. Convertino's superior, supervisor, or by Alan

17 Gershel who has to sign off on all of those, and

18 they -- they meaning Alan and Jonathan spoke with Rick19 about that case and the information they were getting

20 back from Rick didn't pass muster, and based on his --

21 Rick's inconsistent statement as well and the fact

22 that office policy wasn't complied with in terms of

23 getting that plea done, that's when additional file

24 reviews were conducted.

25 Q. Now, in terms of the additional file reviews, did --

Page 72

1 was there -- did anyone suggest that Tukel undertake

2 them or was that just, since he had done the one, he

3 was going to continue the others?

4 A. He was going to continue it, yeah.

5 Q. Now, in terms of when Mr. Convertino was taken off the

6 Koubriti case, I understand Mr. Straus took it over?

7 A. That's right.

8 Q. Who recommended that Straus be given the Koubriti

9 case?

10 A. I discussed it with Alan and we felt that Eric would

11 be a good person for that assignment.

12 Q. And so Mr. Tukel wasn't in that discussion?

13 A. He may have been, he may very well have been and it

14 wouldn't surprise me if he was.

15 Q. And did Gershel recommend Straus for that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. When during the -- okay. At the time when you first

18 discussed a potential file review with Mr. Tukel, did

19 the issue that this may become an OPR matter come up?

20 A. No.

21 Q. When did the issue that this may potentially become an

22 OPR matter first come up?

23 A. It came up in my mind once that initial review of

24 Farhat was completed.

25 Q. Okay. And did you just -- did you tell that to

Page 73

1 Mr. Tukel?2 A. I did not use the word OPR, no.3 Q. Did he ever use it to you?4 A. I don't recall.

5 Q. At the time that the enlarged file review was6 commenced, do you believe Mr. Tukel understood it7 could lead to an OPR?8 A. Yes.9 Q. And why do you think Mr. Tukel thought it could

10 develop into an OPR?11 A. Well, it's just misconduct, misconduct by a12 governmental lawyer, which falls within the scope of13 an OPR investigation.14 Q. And up until -- at this time, I'm talking about15 August, September, maybe October, 2003, did anyone16 raise to you -- specifically did Tukel or Gershel ever17 make any comments to you that it might be to the

18 office's advantage for Convertino to retire or leave19 employment?20 A. No.21 Q. Do you remember there came a time when it was22 discussed about making Mr. Convertino like a duty23 AUSA, a permanent duty AUSA?24 A. I remember discussions about trying to transfer25 Mr. Convertino.

DA000027



11/12

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

21 (Pages 78 to 81)

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

21 (Pages 78 to 81)

Page 78

1 Q. Yeah, it has the first page of the hearing transcript,2 and then it's page 20 from that transcript, and I'm --3 I'm asking the witness if he ever saw this document or4 the hearing transcript for the Farhat sentencing?5 A. No, I have not.6 Q. Now, I'd like on Exhibit 5 if you could look at the7 one page that's attached, which is page 20 and I am8 calling your attention to line 20. There's an answer9 here, it says, they asked me -- and for the record

10 this would be Mr. Farhat talking -- they asked me to11 go to testify in front of congress. Mr. Rick12 Convertino asked me if I'm willing to do that. Yes, I13 agreed. Do you see that?14 A. Yes.15 Q. Now, for the record this incident was discussed in the16 article that appeared in the Detroit Free Press on or17 about January 16 or 17, 2004. My question for you is,18 before the article appeared in the newspaper, were you19 aware that at the Farhat sentencing hearing the issue20 of Farhat talking in congress came up?21 A. No.22 Q. And were you aware before the Detroit Free Press23 article was published that the issue of whether24 Mr. Convertino had contacts with congress about25 Mr. Farhat testifying had come up?

Page 79

1 A. No.2 Q. And were you aware before the Detroit Free Press3 article was published that there was an allegation4 that Mr. Convertino had not been truthful when he said

5 his first contact with the Grassley staff was in late6 August of 2003 when in fact this transcript7 demonstrated, that's Exhibit 5, that he had had8 contact with Grassley's staff before July 1, 2003?9 A. I'm sorry, I --

10 Q. Okay. Let me restate that. Were you aware before you11 saw the Detroit Free Press article, so I'm talking12 about sometime before that article hit the street --13 A. Right.14 Q. -- that there was an allegation that Convertino had15 been in contact with Senator Grassley's staff prior to16 at least July 1, 2003?17 A. Okay. I'm not familiar with the dates, July or

18 anything, but at the time that article came out I was19 aware of Rick's contacts with Grassley's committee. I20 mean, we talked about that.21 Q. But were you aware that there was an allegation that22 he had had contact with the committee before --23 A. No.24 Q. -- August?25 A. No.

Page 80

1 Q. Okay. You're aware of a letter that you sent on or2 about November 3rd, 2003, you sent a letter to OPR --3 A. Yes.4 Q. -- about Mr. Convertino. Who pro -- did you write the5 letter or did Mr. Tukel write the letter?6 A. Mr. Tukel wrote the letter.7 Q. And did -- when Mr. Tukel presented you -- did he --8 when you -- when Mr. Tukel presented you with the9 letter of -- excuse me, strike that.

10 Did he like hand it to you and say, here it11 is? Did you do drafts back and forth with Mr. Tukel12 or did he say, I'm done, this is what I have, you13 should sign it?14 A. I don't recall drafts going back and forth but he15 had -- he had done the heavy lifting on this and16 provided me with the letter.17 Q. And did you ask him to show the letter to OPR or to18 anybody before it was sent to OPR? Did you want him19 to vet the letter with like another group?20 A. It may have been vetted with the executive office of21 U.S. Attorneys.22 Q. Yeah, okay. Now, going -- so did you separately and23 independently investigate the veracity of the24 allegations contained in the -- in that November 3rd,25 2003 letter?

Page 81

1 A. No.2 Q. Did you rely upon Mr. Tukel --3 A. Yes.4 Q. -- to do that?

5 A. Yes.6 Q. Did you expect that Mr. Tukel would include in that7 letter exculpatory evidence that he may have uncovered8 related to Mr. Convertino and any of the allegations9 in the letter?

10 A. Could you say that again please?11 Q. Okay.12 A. Would I expect --13 Q. Would you have expected that if Mr. Tukel had found14 exculpatory evidence --15 A. Right.16 Q. -- about any of the allegations, would you have17 expected him to have included it in the letter or

18 excluded it from the letter?19 A. If he had exculpatory information?20 Q. Yes.21 A. I would have expected him at the minimum to tell me22 and maybe it should go in the letter, maybe it23 shouldn't. I need to see the relevance of it and24 evaluate it. I would want to know it.25 Q. Okay. Did he bring to your attention orally any

DA000028



12/12

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

JEFFREY COLLINS

April 23, 2009

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Page 102

1 BY MR. KOHN:

2 Q. I am just saying procedurally speaking can a pretrial

3 services officer provide information to an assistant

4 United States attorney about a defendant that -- in

5 which the assistant United States attorney is not the

6 principal prosecutor, yes or no, if you know? If you

7 don't know --

8 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Same objection. You can

9 answer.

10 A. I don't know what rules they have in terms of

11 disclosing that information to those who are not

12 parties or attorneys on the case.

13 BY MR. KOHN:

14 Q. Okay. You don't know. Now, going back to identity of

15 the prosecutor, do you think a pretrial services

16 officer has ready access to information as to who the

17 prosecutor is on the case for which they're serving as

18 the pretrial services officer?

19 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, speculation.

20 A. Yes.

21 BY MR. KOHN:

22 Q. Okay. If you can please look at the letter again, the

23 charging letter.

24 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Exhibit 6.

25 BY MR. KOHN:

Page 103

1 Q. Exhibit 6, and if I can borrow yours also. We're2 looking at this one, number five, where it says3 blind-sided. Do you see this?4 A. Yes.

5 Q. This is my question. Did anyone ever tell you --6 okay. You can look at that, help refresh your7 recollection if necessary.8 A. Go ahead.9 Q. Okay. Did anyone ever tell you, and this is not in

10 the wording in number five and when I'm done with the11 question if you want to look at it again, you can12 double-check that, but it's not in the wording of it13 because there's kind of a nuance to this question.14 A. All right.15 Q. Did anyone ever tell you that at the sentencing16 hearing itself Mr. Sauget, the prosecutor in the17 Makalda case, that he expressed surprise at the

18 hearing when he learned about the Convertino19 information?20 A. Did anyone tell me that Sauget expressed surprise?21 Q. Yeah, surprise at the hearing.22 A. Yeah, from -- at the -- that's contained in the OPR23 from Tukel relaying that to me.24 Q. Okay. So Tukel told you that?25 A. Right.

Page 104

1 Q. Okay. Did you tell anybody else orally that Sauget2 expressed surprise when he heard about Convertino's

3 involvement in Makalda at the sentencing hearing?4 A. Not that I recall.5 Q. Okay. I'm going to start throwing out some names, I'm6 going to ask you about any discussions or

7 conversations you had relating to Mr. Convertino.8 David Nahmais?9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Okay. What -- other than what you've already11 testified to, what other conversations have you had

12 with Mr. Convertino about him?13 A. That's it.14 Q. Okay. Did you discuss the OPR matters with him?15 A. No.

16 Q. Privacy Act case?17 A. No.18 MR. SMITH: You mean this case?19 MR. KOHN: Yeah.20 BY MR. KOHN:

21 Q. Barry Sabin?22 A. Yes.23 Q. Other than what you've already testified to, any other24 discussions with him about Mr. Convertino?

25 A. Yes.

Page 105

1 Q. Okay. Tell me what they were.2 A. Well, it was the meeting.3 Q. Okay. Which meeting?4 A. It was a meeting in my office with -- this was after

5 the indictment.6 Q. After the Koubriti indictment?7 A. Yes.8 Q. Okay.9 A. Sabin was in the office, Rick was in the meeting with

10 us, Rick, Sabin, Alan Gershel and myself, and Sabin11 was asking Rick about the indictment. There was a12 theory in the indictment that Barry Sabin had a13 question on and he asked Rick, how did you derive that14 theory, and Rick had consulted someone in our office15 in the appellate section named David Debold16 (phonetic), excellent lawyer, great reputation. He17 said he got this information from Dave Debold and then

18 Barry Sabin said, well, where did Dave Debold get it19 from, and Rick's response was, what do you think, he20 blew it out of his ass. That was during that meeting.21 And during that meeting I told Rick that type of22 language is just not acceptable, it's unprofessional,23 I'm not going to tolerate that, but that was a24 discussion about the case with Barry Sabin.25 Q. And did Mr. Sabin discuss that with you?

DA000029


jeffrey collins deposition

Documents