• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

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

1 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. Attorney’s 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

2 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 government’s 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. O’Rourke, 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 government’s 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

3 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. Attorney’s Office February 08,  District of Rhode Island (401) 709-5000 2011

4 PROVIDENCE, RI—United States Attorney Peter F. Neronha announced today that a civilian program manager and senior systems engineer with the United States Navy’s 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, Mariano’s relatives, and Mariano’s associates in return for Mariano’s 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, Mariano’s 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 FBI’s 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

5 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 integrity—not self- serving criminals. NAVSEA is the largest of the Navy's five system commands and accounts for nearly one quarter of the Navy’s 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 NAVSEA’s 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 ASFT’s employees support NUWC contracts and are located at ASFT’s 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 FBI’s 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.

6 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 government’s 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 government’s 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

7 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 Mariano’s 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 Mariano’s 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 government’s 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

8 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-Gupta’s false plea to Bribery in April 2011. 12. Spencer who was the government’s 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 AUSA’s 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

9 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 government’s CHS in June 2010 and without independently corroborating any of the allegations beginning with the Vesudeva’s FCA complaint, the government set in motion a series of events that culminated in Mariano’s 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 Vesudeva’s 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- Gupta’s 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

10 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. Vesudeva’s affidavit along with an investigative report generated by a company hired by Vesudeva’s 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 Vesudeva’s are interviewed in RI on October 27, 2009 with the following people in attendance: For the Vesudeva’s: 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

11 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 Vesudeva’s attorney’s 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. Corrente’s (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 Kavchak’s 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 government’s 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

12 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 Spencer’s 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 Hegarty’s 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 WASN’T 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

13 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 Spencer’s 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 USAO’s 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

14 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 RMM’s job responsibilities and authority, supervisory chain of command and RMM’s authoritative limitations. See Exhibit [4] attached with CD, Captain David Hahn’s (PMS 425 PROGRAM MANAGER (PM)) and RMM’s 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 Rhine’s (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 Rhine’s 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 AUSA’S, 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

15 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 RMM’s immediate government supervisor up till 7/2004, and; 2) King upon retirement from the government became ASFT’s COO (Chief Operating Officer) on 7/2004. Therefore King’s knowledge of RMM’s 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 RMM’s 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-

16 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 Hegarty’s 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 RMM’s 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

17 government’s own ‘CHS’ Russell Spencer in writings (written post April 2011) found on Spencer’s 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 RMM’s brother to give to RMM. (Note that RMM spoke with Scavoni on 4/18/2011, the day Dutta-Gupta’s change of plea was announced in the newspaper and Scavoni denied ever giving money to RMM’s 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 SPENCER’S MISTRESS SANDRA WILSON AND HER CONNECTION TO THE JOINT ACCOUNT SET UP FOR MWILSON’S BENEFIT NOT FOR MARIANO

m. Agent Hegarty’s and the governments obvious lack of due-diligence in vetting Spencer’s 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 Spencer’s 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. Wilson’s 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 RMM’s defense team in late August 2011. In fact a review of the “consensual

18 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. Wilson’s existence hidden. Yet another example of Spencer’s 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 Spencer’s 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. Wilson’s 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

19 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 can’t 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 Spencer’s equal control over the account, the government’s 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. Wilson’s 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. WILSON’S AND MR. SPENCER’S “RELATIONSHIP” THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ATTORNEY CORRENTE ON MARCH 8, 2011 AND ALSO PROVIDED BY MS.

20 WILSON TO THE USAO DURING HER GJ TESTIMONY OF OCTOBER 5, 2011. ENCLOSURE 2 PLUS MS. WILSON’S 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

21 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-Gupta’s 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 Vesudeva’s, 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-Gupta’s 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 King’s interview Exhibit [6], Captain Hahn’s interview Exhibit [4], Joseph Rhine’s interview Exhibit [5], Scavoni’s 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 Spencer’s hard drive information Exhibit [13] (RS-HD File 0191781 attached with CD) as well as by many other government discovery exhibits which can be

22 found in Exhibit [14]). Spencer, the government’s 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/IV’s 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 Spencer’s 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 Spencer’s 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 IV’s (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 IV’s of 9/9/2011, 12/6/2011 and 1/6/2012 are provided in Exhibit [66] with attached CD. These IV’s 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

23 COMPLAINT AND INDICTMENT ALLEGATIONS

b).-Agents failed to review ASFT’s 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 O’Rourke, 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 Govt’s 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 Scavoni’s 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-Gupta’s COP of 4/28/2011 and Information package of 4/18/2011 that to continue the “scheme Spencer’s company ADQ was going to be used”. In writings of April 2011 which RMM found on Spencer’s 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

24 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 Scavoni’s sister’s “shell company JCH”

6) Payments to JCH by ASFT, “a shell company owned by Scavoni’s 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

25 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 Scavoni’s Grand Jury Testimony on 10/27/2011 that Scavoni perjured himself as the result of information provided by Spencer in an IV of

26 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] Spencer’s IV of 8/8/2011 and Exhibit [16] checks to Scavoni from Spencer attached WITH CD ).

6) During the GJ proceedings and Proffer IV’s 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 Scavoni’s perjured Testimony and their inability to corroborate his story in 2subsequent IV’s, 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 “doesn’t 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 Spencer’s own statements and the government’s own discovery, the USAO

27 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 Mariano’s and O’Rourke’s 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. SCAVONI’S 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 O’Rourke visited the Scavoni’s along with a family member and stayed in a room set aside for her when the house was purchased as Ms. O’Rourke 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 Valentine’s candy for Mrs. O’Rourke, her aunt and RMM’s 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 Ralph’s “Bag man”. An allegation that the AUSA could not corroborate during questioning of Peter Bria page 64 of Bria’s 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 didn’t 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

28 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 RMM’s “bagman”, yet a review of the only IV’s of Scavoni 4/21/2011 and 1/24/2012 in which agent Hegarty participated the subject of Scavoni being RMM’s bagman was never addressed. So how and when did Scavoni inform agent Hegarty he was RMM’s “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: IT’S WORTH NOTING HERE THAT SCAVONI’S 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 Scavoni’s testimony or addressed by anyone during his testimony. Scavoni’s statements made during his GJ testimony and interviews are proven in this document to be SUCH EGREGIOUS COUNTS (DOZENS) OF

29 PERJURY AND LYING WHILE UNDER OATH by the government’s 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 O’Rourke). These lies were during Q&A between himself and the AUSA’s, 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&A’s. However a few (10) egregious examples are provided to illustrate the magnitude of perjury facilitated by USAO Vilker and committed by Agent Hegarty:

30 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”. Hegarty’s testimony contradicts 100% the facts set forth by the USAO and Dutta-Gupta as stated in Dutta-Gupta’s 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-Gupta’s Proffer IV’s 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 Mulligan’s 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 Scavoni’s 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 didn’t! 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 Spencer’s mistress Ms. Sandy Wilson

31 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. Wilson’s testimony, the USAO began to investigate and further question Spencer about his relationship with Ms. Wilson which culminated with Spencer‘s 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. Wilson’s testimony that it began in 2006 and only ended in July 2011 when Spencer’s 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 (O’Rourke) 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

32 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 Spencer’s 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 Juror’s which version of RMM’s 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 RMM’s 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 RMM’s 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 RMM’s 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

33 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. Hegarty’s 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 59 as 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 context and 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

34 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 have committed 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 O’Rourke wrote checks to cash “in excess of 10,000.00 and deposited this money into RMM’s accounts during the period February/March 2007” and 4) that O’Rourke 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 O’Rourke 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 government’s own discovery (see Exhibit [29]) which was in Agent Hegarty and the government’s 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 HEGARTY’S, PERJURY , LIES , MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS ETC COMMITTED DURING HIS GJ TESTIMONY ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN VALIDATED BY USING THE GOVERNMENT’S 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

35 Inquest and NOT ASFT through 2005 as repeatedly stated by the government. D. Peter Bria (Exhibit [32] attached with CD) Bria’s lies and perjured statements (WELL OVER 20 TIMES) are extensive, extraordinary and include multiple instances of “unsubstantiated and false defamation of RMM’S character that were allowed to be considered by the Grand Jury with no redress. . The AUSA’s allowed Bria to spend a better part (more than 50%) of his GJ testimony lying about his relationship with RMM and impugning RMM’s 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 RMM’s 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 Bria’s ludicrous laundry accusation, 5) Falsely failing to tell the investigators that he regularly stayed at RMM’s 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 RMM’s character by portraying RMM as a “Hoodlum” stating that a) “He was like the god father” ,b) “he wanted

36 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 RMM’s 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 Bria’s 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 AUSA’s did not look into and report back to the GJ that Bria’s implication of a 2004 investigation was false and inaccurate, 11) Bria not divulging to the GJ or during any of his IV’s that he had access (again a key) to RMM’s storage facility in RI that held RMM’s 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 O’Rourke and Ms. Kathleen Almeida (RMM’s 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 Bria’s 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 RMM’s 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 RMM’s 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

37 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 Bria’s 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 Bria’s 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 Mariano’s [email protected] 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 Bria’s perjured, inflammatory and fictional GJ testimony against RMM it’s 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 Mariano’s 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.

38 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 testimony’s 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. O’Rourke 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 MARIANO’S CHARACTER

39 F Additionally, Gary Scavoni’s (10/27/2011), Peter Bria’s (10/27/2011), Agent Hegarty’s (4/26/2012 & 6/21/2012) and Charles Hill’s (5/24/2012) GJ testimony contain damning Q&A between themselves and the AUSA implying and insinuating that Mariano was a “Hoodlum” and impugning Mariano’s 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 Scavoni’s “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 guy’s 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 Hill’s 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 RMM’s 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

40 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

41 INDICTMENT GIVEN TO THE GRAND JURY AND THAT THIS PERJURED TESTIMONY WAS CONSIDERED TO BE MATERIAL TO THE ALLEGED CRIMINALITY OF MARIANO AND Ms. O’ROURKE 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, contractor’s 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  Anjan Dutta-Gupta  Gary Scavoni  Peter Bria  Agent Patrick Hegarty (DCIS)  Patrick Nagle  Michael Colapietro

No follow-up questions WERE EVER asked by any investigator or ASUA present at these interviews to impeach prior inconsistent statements and statements in total contradiction to witnesses now interviewed with personal knowledge of RMM and the government contracting processes, that RMM is said to have abused. NOTE1: See Exhibit [14] all 110 Jencks interviews WITH ANNOTATIONS with attached CD.

42 The USAO presented Indictment of RMM, RMM Jr. and Mary E. O’Rourke of June 2012, with the same incorrect and misleading information despite over 15 months’ worth of interviews which contained exculpatory information and testimony that was not presented nor ever referenced by Hegarty or Prosecutor Vilker during Hegarty’s GJ testimony: The following Exculpatory Examples: a. The “6000.00 per/week” demanded by RMM in 1996 in which Dutta-Gupta states (in his COP, Information package and a narrative that the government continues to claim but which has no merit in fact or evidence nor can/has this allegation been verified by the government as it is entirely based on a lie) that “RMM agreed to allow Dutta-Gupta to increase significantly the hourly rate of an ASFT employee (GS) to make payments to Mariano and take care of Mariano’s needs”. AGAIN THIS ALLEGATION REMAINS A MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY AS SCAVONI’S HOURLY RATE WAS IN: 1996- 24.00/hr., 1997-27.00/hr., 1998-27.00 /hr. AND 1999-27.00/hr. and SHOWS ABSOLUTELY No significant increase in Scavoni’s hourly rate to “pay Mariano 6000.00/week” and “no 40,000.00 Scavoni salary increase in 1996/1997” as stated by Hegarty in his GJ testimony of 4/26/2012 (Exhibit [21]), Dutta-Gupta’s COP (Exhibit [10]), Information (Exhibit [11] and IV of 2/25/2011 (Exhibit [24]). NOTE 1: THIS IS AN ALLEGATION IN WHICH THE LEAD PROSECUTOR LEE VILKER ON AUGUCT 23, 2013 AGAIN CHANGES THE NARRATIVE ABOUT AND NOW STATES THAT THE DEFENSE “MISUNDERSTOOD” VILKER AND THAT SCAVONI’S SALARY WAS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED TO “TAKE CARE OF RMM” BUT THAT SCAVONI HAD ACCESS TO OTHER RESOURCES TO “TAKE CARE OF RMM” . THIS EVOLVING NARRATIVE IS ALSO FALSE AND A MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE CLAIM WHICH CAN BE REFUTED BY EXHIBIT [12A]. EXHIBIT [12A] TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE ALLEDGED RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO SCAVONI FROM UNINDICTED COMPANIES SUCH AS ABSTRACT PRODUCTION AND INQUEST TECHNOLOGIES AS WELL AS ADQ AND C&S TO SCAVONI. IT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT IF SCAVONI DID IN FACT TAKE CARE OF RMM AS BOTH DUTTA- GUPTA AND PROSECUTOR VILKER INCESSANTLY CLAIM THEN SCAVONI PERSONALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE RED APPROXIMATLEY-$856,768.00 DOLLARS BEFORE FILING/PAYING

43 TAXES, PURCHASING 2 NEW CARS, BUILDING A NEW HOUSE AT THE VILLAGES IN FLORIDA AND BUYING A 1/3RD OWNERSHIP OF THE ASFT CORPORATE BUILDING IN GEORGIA ON THESE EARNINGS FOR THE PERIOD 1996-2003 TO “TAKE CARE OF RMM”. THIS ALLEGATION REMAINS A SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED ARGUMENT WHICH LEAD PROSECUTOR LEE VILKER AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVE. IT’S ALSO A CLAIM THAT SCAVONI NEVER CORROBRATES IN HIS GJ TESTIMONY OR HIS 2 PROFFER IV’S. SO A QUESTION REMANS UNANWSERED: WHO WOULD KNOWINGLY PARTICIAPTE IN SUCH A SCHEME WHERE THEY WOULD LOSE OVER 900,000.00 OF THEIR OWN MONEY??? IT TRULY IS AN AMAZING ALLEGATION MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT 2 ½ YEARS LATER CONTINUES TO EVOLVE TO SEEMINGLY SUIT THEIR OWN NEEDS. AND WHY IF MARIANO WAS ALLEGEDLY GETTING ALL THIS CASH WOULD HE: 1. START TAKING CHECKS IN 2005; 2. NEED $36K FROM A LOAN GIVEN TO P&C TO GO ON VACATION???

b. Information located and retrieved by RMM and Ms. Edwardo (Corrente’s paralegal) from Russell Spencer’s hard drive (written March 2011 thru June 2011) provided in Discovery 1 (FILES LOCATED ON RS-HD) which clearly contradicts Dutta-Gupta’s (IV’s) and GS’s (GJ testimony & IV’s) version of the “so called scheme of Bribery, conspiracy, extortion and theft”. EACH OF THESE IV’S CONTAIN MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF THE “ALLEGED SCHEME” AND DO NOT CONTAIN ANY CORROBORATION BETWEEN THE INTERVIEWEES AND THE TESTIMONY’S OF RS/DS/GS/Dutta-Gupta & PN OF MEETINGS, KEY FACTS AND EVENTS AS LAID OUT BY THE USAO AND AGENT HERGARTY DURING HEGARTY’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE INDICTMENT AGAINST RMM AND MEO FOR THE PERIOD 1996-2011. AND NO ATTEMPT HAS EVER BEEN MADE TO RECONCILE THEM. THE USAO JUST PICKED A VERSION AND RAN WITH IT TO THE COURT ROOM WITHOUT LOOKING BACK. c. Information that RMM did not have the ability nor authority to just simply “add money to contracts” to perpetuate a bribery and extortion scheme that didn’t occur and could not have occurred. As my former defense attorney, Mr. Corrente, stated on numerous

44 occasions “bribery 101 is knowing the right person to bribe and it surely wasn’t you (Mariano)”. d. LACK OF UNDERSTANDING BY THE SPENCERS, DUTTA- GUPTA, NAGLE, SCAVONI, AGENTS AND THE USAO OF THE CONTRACTING PROCESS AND INHERENT SAFEGUARDS AND OF RMM’s POSITION AND RESPONSIBILITES. TO NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT HAS BEEN ALLEGED e. Total disregard of successive witness interviews which contradicted the storyline the USAO had run with. f. As stated previously USAO not divulging that defense counsel was provided with multiple versions in Discovery of RMM’s 302 of February 3, 2011(Exhibit s[37] and [38]attached) with CD): 1. One version was allegedly taken at his residence in Arlington, VA which was 3 pages. 2. The other version was allegedly taken at RMM’s NAVSEA office and was 8 pages. g. USAO and agent Hegarty not divulging that Russell Spencer’s interviews of 04/24/2012 (Exhibit [27] attached with CD) and 10/05/2012 (Exhibit [39] attached with CD) were not written up until 01/14/2013 and RS interview of 01/06/2012 (Exhibit [18] attached with CD) not written up until 03/12/2012. (Stephen Fessell reporting agent for all 3.) and were based on “the memory” of Agent Fessell. This is a very complex and at times confusing subject matter to have an agent unfamiliar with the subject use his memory and ‘notes’ to generate such important reports months after the interviews occurred!

6) USAO/Agents Demonstrating Additional Recklessness, Incompetence and Deliberate Manipulation of the Facts and Lying: A) The USAO burying key exculpatory discovery items in unrelated files. These items which numbered in the thousands each with multiple sub-files had to be reviewed one document at a time until ordered by the Court to be put it in a more readable form. Even at that, key evidence would be buried in bank account statements which if one did not look at every single document would never have been found. B). USAO Vilker falsely representing to the Court before Magistrate Almond in a hearing on May 8, 2012, despite having access to all bank records, that O’Rourke paid $95K in illegal funds toward RMM’s defense (Exhibit [40] attached with CD). They had all the bank records which did not support this and went ahead with the lie to make a

45 headline and to try and keep Mariano from getting a court appointed attorney due to lack of funds. This lie was ‘exacerbated’ by a story in the Providence Journal (written by Mulligan) in a fact less based (erroneous information he attributed to the RI USAO) article on 5/4/2012 without any correction to date by the USAO. Again all of this done to inflame the court against Mariano and O’Rourke and support the story line for the media.

ASFT email outsourced. Dozens of emails included as “evidence”; all emails given to government by the Defendants with opportunity to manipulate and corrupt emails to follow story line; NO SUBPOENAS ISSUED FOR ASFT EMAILS OR DUTTAGUPTA’S PERSONAL EMAILS!

C) THE USAO AND AGENTS NOT KNOWING THAT AS OF MID TO LATE 2005 THAT ASFT HAD OUT SOURCED THEIR EMAIL SYSTEM AND EXCHANGE SERVER MANAGEMENT,MAINTENANCE , STORGAE, EMAIL ARCHIVING ETC TO A 3RD PARTY VENDOR CALLED ‘123TOGETHER.COM’ OWNED AND OPERATED BY MICORSOFT (Exhibit [43] ATTACHED WITH CD). THEREFORE MICROSOFT “MANAGED” THE ASFT EMAIL ACCOUNTS OF ALL ASFT PERSONNEL FROM 2005 THROUGH 2011. HOWEVER THERE EXIST NO ASFT MICROSOFT EMAIL SUBPOENA’S IN DISCOVERY FOR COPIES OF ASFT EMAILS OF DUTTA-GUPTA, NAGLE, SCAVONI, WAYNE KING, ETC. SO WHERE AND HOW DID STEPTOE AND JOHNSON, ATTORNEYS FOR ASFT AND DUTTA-GUPTA AND THE GOVERNMENT AUTHENTICATE THE EMAILS THEY PROVIDED FROM STEPTOE AND JOHNSON FOR DUTTA-GUPTA, PATRICK NAGLE AND OTHERS WITHOUT RETRIEVING AND SUBPOENERING THESE EMAILS FROM MICROSOFT??? THEY WERE BATES STAMPED BY STEPTOE AND JOHNSON IN FEBRARY 2011. HOW DID THE GOVERNMENT AUTHENTIC THESE EMAILS??

46 They never did and were never going to be able to and unfortunately, Attorney Corrente helped this along by ultimately never challenging (as he promised he would in a pre-trial conference and in subsequent correspondence with AUSA Vilker) their authenticity pre-trial or at trial. TWO VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS REMAIN UNANSWERED: 1) HOW DID THE GOVERNMENT FOLLOW THE ELECTRONIC COMMINUICATION PRIVACY ACT OF 1986 (18 USC 2510-2522 AND AMENDED WITH THE SCA (STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT) USC 18 2701-12 ?(See Exhibit [3] with attached CD), AND ANY PROPER “CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROTOCOL”,FOR ALL OF THESE “ASFT” EMAILS WHICH WERE PRODUCED THEN PROVIDED (“BY ASFT TO THE GOVERNMENT” AS STATED IN THE GOVERNMENTS OWN DISCOVERY LETTER OF MAY 30, 2012 SIGNED BY TERRENCE DONNLLY) IN THE CONCORDANCE DATABASE OF DISCOVERY 1 AND IN THEIR PRETRIAL MOTION??? AND 2) HOW DID THE GOVERNMENT GET AUTHENTIC ASFT EMAILS FROM ASFT IN THE CONCORDANCE DATABASE FROM ASFT IN DISCOVERY AS FAR BACK AS 2005 WHEN IN DUTTA-GUPTA’S IV OF 2/25/2011 (EXHIBIT [24]) PARAGRAPH 303 DUTTA-GUPTA STATES “THAT ASFT MAINTAINED 90 DAYS BACKUP ON THEIR EMAILS” AND IN AN EMAIL DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 (ALSO PROVIDED WITH EXHIBIT [24]) BETWEEN DUTTA-GUPTA AND HIS SON INDIVAR THE FOLLOWING EXHANGE TOOK PLACE, INDIVAR STATES: “why do you have so many new websites and addresses now?” AND DUTTA-GUPTA REPLIES: “We are having problems with our .net internal system and our email system and I have decided to outsource the whole thing. It is now running concurrently with the old system. Once, everyone feels confident then I will kill the internal system”.

D).THE USAO DID NOT PROVIDE DEFENSE A COPY OF DUTTA-GUPTA’SCOMPUTER HARD DRIVE IN DISCOVERY. NOR DID THE USAO PROVIDE IN DISCOVERY DUTTA- GUPTA’S PERSONAL EMAILS FROM ‘AOL.COM’ AND ‘ORG1.COM A FACT CONFIRMED BY THE LACK OF A SUBPOENA TO ‘AOL’ AND ‘ORG1.COM’ FOR DUTTA- GUPTA’S PERSONAL EMAILS.

47 Note 1:Additionally on page 3 of the Criminal Complaint, Agent Hegarty states that he only reviewed “RMM’s emails and that of his “relatives and associates” but not Dutta-Gupta’s and his relatives and associates and nothing from Scavoni “WHY NOT?” Note 2: THE USAO PROVIDED THE HD’s OF MARIANO, NAGLE, SPENCER, ISENBERGH AND OTHERS BUT NO DUTTA-GUPTA AND NO SCAVONI HD…….AND NOTE THAT MS. O’ROURKE’S HARD DRIVE WAS NEVER REQUESTED AS SHE WAS NEVER BEING ACTIVELY PURSUED IN SUBPOENAS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE INVESTIGATION UNTIL MARIANO REFUSED TO PLEA AND O’ROURKE REFUSED TO BE BULLIED BY THE USAO. WHAT IS IT THAT THE USAO IS HIDDING FROM IN THIS CASE WITH RESPECT TO DUTTA- GUPTA?? His wife, Indrani Dutta-Gupta and daughter, Amrita Dutta-Gupta were never questioned despite the fact that Amrita’s former company Paramount is named as a defendant in the False Claims Act complaint originating in 2006 and they both were officers and/or salaried employees of ASFT as of February 3, 2011. The Dutta-Gupta's were given a letter from USAO that they would not be pursued as targets: WHY NOT and why not even questioned by federal agents? What made them different in this investigation versus Ms. O’Rourke who the government admits did substantial work as an employee of ASFT and twists the truth regarding the work done as a consultant to ruin her reputation and career as a method to get to Mariano and as retribution for not coming in for additional interviews. Note that P&C responded to 3 subpoenas and Ms. O’Rourke cooperated fully with all information known to her. Note 1: That Amrita Dutta-Gupta was representing herself as the Facilities Security Officer (FSO) for Paramount Solutions from May, 2009 thru 2010 when she was in TN in graduate school and at times out of the country as part of her studies in clear violation of federal

48 law. This was necessary as co-owner Jackie Wilson was unable to get any type of security clearance. All of this is a serious compromise of NISPOM (National Security Industrial Program), FSO (Facility Security Officer) requirements (See Exhibit [63] attached with CD). No action taken by the investigative team to follow up with DSS (Defense Security Service) and understand the magnitude and seriousness if a company and/or person(s) violates these important security procedures while doing classified work for the government. Paramount remains a going concern operating out of Middletown, RI and other locations with active government contracts requiring security of classified information and has never been investigated and/or cited for this violation. Nor has Ms. Dutta-Gupta been investigated and is therefore remains eligible to receive another security clearance despite this egregious and reckless compromise of security procedures. Again, the government turns a blind eye when it is convenient to do so. Note 2: Indrani Dutta-Gupta received a substantial salary from ASFT and other entities owned by ASFT and her husband and derived calculable benefits. However, neither her work product nor that of Amrita Dutta-Gupta who was being paid by ASFT through 2011 has ever been questioned. However, Ms. O’Rourke whose government relations efforts on behalf of ASFT and on behalf of the defense community in RI was revered and respected was dragged through the mud to get to Mariano. A common tactic used by the USAO to bully and harass when they don’t have the gumption to prove their case. GOVERNMENT ALLOWED SPENCERS TO CONTINUE TO SPEND MONEY FROM BUSINESS ACCOUNTS THAT THE USAO ALLEGED WERE ALL SHELL CORPORATATIONS FORMED TO PAY RMM AND OTHERS BRIBE MONEY A FACT NEVER REVEALED TO THE GRAND JURY

49 E) Allowing the Spencer’s to continue spending from C&S and SITI accounts during the investigation and after Criminal Complaint was filed: The Feds allowed the Spencer’s to spend 142,518.00 of alleged illicit funds from February 4, 2011 through September 2011 on the following: 1. Payroll 2. Company disbursements (how can a shell company have “ANY SUCH THING AS” legitimate disbursements?), 3. Continued use and payments of Company credit cards, 4. BMW car payments out of the C&S Technology PPLCU (People’s Credit Union) business account; and 5. Countless ATM cash withdrawal WHAT WORK DID THE SPENCER’S AND C&S OR SITI PERFORM AT THIS TIME other than continuing to lie to implicate RMM and others? THE INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETE.THE ALLEGED DEFENDANTS ARRESTED AND THE SPENCER’S HAD ALREADY ADMITTED THAT THEY NEVER PERFORMED ANY “LEGITIMATE WORK”? (See Exhibit [41] attached with CD for a breakdown of this spending) 6. The Feds also allowed the Spencer’s to spend 438,550 .00 “which for others had been identified by Agent Hegarty and ASUA Vilker as illicit funds” except it seems for the Spencer’s. From June, 2010 through February 3, 2011 the Spencer’s were allowed to pay many of the expenses mentioned above as well as additional personal expenses made using C&S company credit cards for purchases at: Bens Furniture Newport, Flint Audio, STALIASE Of Portsmouth, Newport Viking Hotel, Anthony’s Hair Salon, countless purchases of alcohol from Cardoza’s Wine and Spirits and on and on. 7. Allowing the Spencer’s while on “vacation” in September – October 2010 to personally spend 31K “of alleged illicit funds” from C&S PPLCU and SITI BOA business accounts. 8. Allowing the Spencer’s to continue to make numerous contributions to their retirement accounts and savings account held at Bank Newport during this period. 9. Allowing the Spencer’s to travel to their condo in Ft. Myers Beach “on vacation” per agent reports… This vacation home coincidently was purchased in July/August 2008 using C&S (wires to Fidelity National Insurance Co) money. The Spencer’s

50 made electronic transfers on August 5th ($7K) and 7th ($65K) of 2008 totaling $72K to purchase his FL home which they still own along with a luxury condominium on the water in Portsmouth, RI In an email dated August 11, 2008 to Dutta- Gupta, Spencer stated that he couldn’t make a payment to a vendor the week of August 8th as a result of being out of town yet he could make a $72K down payment and purchase a second luxury condo via wire transfers to the real estate agent in Florida. RMM had NO knowledge of any of these transactions. 10. And finally the USAO allowing Spencer to pay their fine assessed on Spencer at his plea hearing of June 2011 with C&S “alleged illicit funds”. The amount the USAO let Spencer withdraw was $330K from his business account to pay the government fine (See Exhibits [41] & [42] attached with CD for all the Spencer’s personal spending 7/2010-9/2011),

NOTE 1: All of the above spending should constitute fraud and theft of government property. If these were allegations were levied against RMM and MEO then they should also be levied against the Spencer’s: Russell, Debra and Lindsey. Mariano’s father never indicted as part of a conspiracy or with theft of government property, only tax evasion. Were those same funds when given to someone not on the government’s hit list to prove their narrative not illicit??? In fact, Mariano’s father cashed checks made out to him and gave half of the cash back to Spencer for his own use. Mariano, Jr. never given a 1099 or other information indicating that it was anything other than a gift and none of these funds came back to Mariano. Mariano, Jr. had separate counsel and is in poor health and chose to plea unfortunately without revealing the fact that Spencer got half the money back. Note that the same funds that Spencer put in the joint account and let Mariano borrow and paid P&C Strategies and other vendors for their services such as Abstract Production (owner Sherwin Han), Inquest Technologies (owner’s Michael Colapietro and Jeremy Carr) and NDC (Mariano’s brother) all were vendors who were never indicted yet paid out of same “alleged illicit” funds for which Mariano and O’Rourke were indicted on?? These accounts should have been frozen and used as part of Spencer being a CHS. Coincidentally, when Spencer became a CHS, he suddenly started putting notations in the memo sections of checks at the direction of

51 the government since it had not been done before. The Government should not be able to compromise the process and have it both ways. NOTE 2: If the Spencer family were PAID INFORMANTS, then it’s time the government divulge that information. The Grand Jury was handed an Indictment to rubber stamp and key components of it were based on the lies of their paid informant. NOTE 3: None of this spending by the Spencer’s from June 2010 through July 2011 was EVER revealed to the Grand Jury or otherwise authorized by any governmental agency. NOTE 4: Many questions remain unanswered: 1) Were the Spencer’s paid informants to cooperate w/the government and the investigation?, 2) Why wasn’t Debra Spencer indicted for Theft of Government Property as she is listed as an officer and owner of ADQ and C&S and received funds from both entities? 3) What deal did the government make with Debra Spencer? 4) Why wasn’t Lindsey Spencer (AKA Lindsay DeAngelis) indicted for THEFT OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY as she was paid ‘alleged illicit funds’ for years by Russell Spencer (her father) as an employee of both ADQ and C&S? And 5) Where is the governments letter outlining the deal that the USAO made with Russell Spencer to be “CHS” and lead informant and to keep his family (Debra and Lindsey) from being prosecuted?

USAO WAS NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO AUTHENTICATE TAMPERED TEXT MESSAGES AND EMAILS USED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY AND IN THE INDICTMENT

7).Defendants and other potential ASFT witnesses were allowed full access to email accounts; AGAIN WHERE IS THE APPLICATION OF THE ELECTRONIC COMMINUICATION PRIVACY ACT OF 1986 (18 USC 2510-2522 AND AMENDED WITH THE SCA (STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT) USC 18 2701-12 and no subpoena to Microsoft for ASFT emails under the 3rd party vendor Microsoft 123together.com the email exchange server service that ASFT outsourced to’ and used for “all their personnel accounts” beginning in late 2005 through 2011. Therefore the ASFT concordance database provided w/discovery should have never been allowed before the Grand Jury as there was no way to authenticate

52 these emails and all ASFT emails should have been subpoenaed from Microsoft 123together.com (exchange server) . (See Exhibit [43] attached with CD) a. Dutta-Gupta, PN, Wayne King, Phil Higgins (deceased), Tony Hill, Chuck Sippel and other potential key witnesses) from ASFT were allowed to continue to have access to their ASFT work email accounts from February 4 through April 11, 2011.

b. RMM ceased to have any access to his government emails as of February 3, 2011, the day he was questioned, turned in his badge and was escorted from the Navy Yard. c. Many emails provided via Steptoe and Johnson to the USAO for Dutta-Gupta were determined to HAVE BEEN changed, altered and/or modified by Dutta-Gupta prior to these emails being provided to the USAO in February and March 2011. Again, why was Dutta-Gupta allowed to have access to email and why were these emails stamped with Steptoe and Johnson bates numbers within their own system within 2 weeks of Dutta-Gupta being arrested? And why did Steptoe and Johnson act as the “middleman” to turn over key documents instead of the feds properly subpoenaing these emails? Again Steptoe had in its possession emails from Dutta-Gupta they thought were responsive within 2 weeks of Dutta-Gupta being arrested. Dutta- Gupta was prepared to turn over certain documents within days of being arrested. Was he tipped off? Did Stuart Baker, one of Dutta-Gupta’s attorneys and personal friends, and a former Homeland Security official with ties to the National Security Agency (NSA) have prior knowledge and tip off Dutta-Gupta? d. Why was there no confiscation of the ASFT email servers or security control applied to the “oversight of the server” from on or about 2/3/2011 forward? Why did the Feds fail to establish a ‘chain of custody’ which would have at a minimum ensured controlled access to as well as authenticity of emails. See paragraph 6 (C) pages 56 and 57 of this document for information on ASFT’s 3rd party vendor who managed, controlled and maintained ASFT’s email services and server. e. ALL THE SUSPECT EMAILS THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED AND/OR AUTHENTICATION ISSUES RESOLVED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND/OR MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS and prior thereto never presented to the Grand Jury if the integrity of the system was to be upheld by the USAO.

53 f. EMAILS WHICH INCLUDED THE TEXT MESSAGES WOULD HAVE BEEN A CRITICAL PART OF PRE- TRIAL DISCUSSIONS HAD Mr. CORRENTE PROVIDED THEM TO THE FEDS TO REVIEW AS PROMISED ON 2/25/2013 OR AS A PRE-TRIAL MOTION IN MARCH 2013 . ( Exhibit [44] attached with CD) Letter from USAO to Mr. Corrente, Burns & Levinson dated 6 February 2013 requesting the emails and (Exhibit [45] attached with CD) E-mail from Mr. Robert Corrente, Burns & Levinson to USAO Lee Vilker w/response to the USAO’s Letter stating that “our response would be forth coming”

g.MR. ROBERT CORRENTE NEVER PROVIDED DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION TO THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS A DECISION MR. CORRENTE MADE UNILATERALLY W/OUT DISCUSSIONS WITH RMM AND OTHERS THEREBY ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO USE THESE ALTERED E-MAILS AND FALSE TEXT MESSAGES AS PART OF THE USAO’S PRETRAIL MEMO(Exhibit [46] attached with CD). In fact, the USAO went so far as to say that 2114 exhibits were not challenged by any defense counsel. h. The government investigators not requesting continuous rolling subpoenas or search warrants for actual text messages between Mariano (AT&T) and Spencer (VERIZON) and others to ensure authenticity. Another ‘chain of custody’ issue which seriously compromised due process by the Feds and a lack of EPCA governance in particular the SCA (stored communications act) statute Exhibit [3]. Multiple Interview reports indicate that Russell Spencer printed and/or forwarded text messages off his AOL account and gave them to investigators when he saw them. No control mechanism in place to ensure the authenticity of the original text message and email! SEE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH WHICH ADDRESSES THE AUTHENTICATION ISSUES WITH TXT MESSAGES AND WHICH SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE GOVERNMENT TO SUBPOENA ACTUAL TXT MESSAGES FROM PHONE PROVIDERS. i. The ATT subpoenas of 3/21/2011 & 9/29/2011 for RMM cell phone number 401-835-37300 evidence WHICH clearly shows RMM never had a “Verizon Wireless Blackberry” (Exhibit 47 attached with CD) as referred to in the government’s text message exhibits of their pre-trial memo data of 5/8/2013, as

54 well as in the governments Criminal Complaint, Affidavit, IV(s) and Superseding Indictment. Once these text messages were received by Spencer and then forwarded to his AOL account, Spencer had opportunity and motive to manipulate them to fit his narrative and that of the USAO and its investigators. No way to verify them off RMM’s phone and corresponding emails that were also printed off Spencer’s AOL account and were not found in any of Mariano’s emails. Should have been able to do a one for one comparison at the very least of emails! NOTE 1: One such egregious example of an altered txt conversation which allegedly occurred between Mariano and Spencer took place on August 2, 2010 (see Exhibit [2] file 721) and follows: Allegedly from Spencer: To: 401835370, sent Aug 2, 2010 1:27 PM: Hey Bud are you coming to town this week!! Allegedly Mariano’s response: From: 4018353730, sent Aug 2, 2010 1:25 PM: No y, Notice that Mariano responds to the question 2 minutes before receiving it from Spencer ….. This example is one of many which RMM uncovered while reviewing the governments discovery and the reason attorney Corrente wrote in an email to lead prosecutor Lee Vilker on February 25 (hard copy provide in enclosure 3)” First, in response to your last letter, there are a number of text messages that you produced in discovery of questionable provenance. We are double checking to make sure our list is correct, and we will get that to you shortly. Depending on what we learn, we may or may not be able to agree on authentication for these. Obviously, if they have been tampered with, that alone will become an important issue.” Another pre-trial motion that Corrente never filed but yet would not have been necessary had the USAO and its investigators followed proper procedure in presenting valid and truthful evidence to the Grand Jury and the Court.

NOTE 2: THEREFORE ALL TEXT MESSAGES ADDRESSED IN THE EMAILS (IN EXHIBIT U) PROVIDED BY SPENCER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT OR AUTHENTICATED AND CHALLENGED BASED ON THE SAME ARGUMENT AS THE EMAILS AS STATED ABOVE. BUT AGAIN MR. CORRENTE WAS NEGLIGENT AND NEVER RESPONDED AND PROVIDED THESE FALSE TXT

55 MESSAGES FROM 401-835-3730 SENT VIA “MY VERIZON WIRLESS BLACKBERRY” TO THE USAO IGNORING THE CONCERNS OF RMM, HIS PARALEGAL AND MEO. ADDITIONALLY MR. CORRENTE NEVER CONVEYED IN WRITING (EMAIL OR LETTER) NOR INTIMATED DURING ANY MEETING PRIOR TO APRIL 2013 THAT HE HAD NO INTENTIONS OF SENDING OR PROVIDING THE ALTERED EMAIL AND FALSE TXT MESSAGES TO THE USAO AS WE HAD DISCUSSED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS AND HE HAD STATED HE WOULD. NOTE 3: IN A MEETING THE WEEK OF 18 MARCH, 2013 IN WHICH RMM, MS. O’ROURKE AND MR. CORRENTE WERE IN ATTENDANCE, MR. CORRENTE WAS ADAMANT ABOUT “ATTACKING THE GOVERNMENT’S PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, INVESTIGATIVE MALFEASNCE AND SLOPPINESS” AND PROVIDING THESE “FALSE TXT MESSAGES AND ALTERED E-MAILS” TO THE USAO DURING PRE- TRAIL MOTIONS. SOMETHING HE NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH. WHEN RMM QUESTIONED HIM ON WHY HE DID NOT FOLLOW THROUGH AS STATED HE WOULD ON MARCH 18, 2013 WHETHER DUIRNG PHONE CALLS OR IN MEETINGS (MS. O’ROURKE WAS IN ATTENDANCE) HE GOT MAD AND STORMED OUT OF MEETINGS NEVER ANWSERING THE QUESTION. LATER CORRENTE RESPONDED BY SAYING THEY WOULD BE USED “AT CROSS”.

8) The fact that Spencer has already been convicted of lying to the Feds during the investigation 3 times. And after reviewing Spencer’s interviews during this period referenced in the 3 counts for the charge of “lying to a federal agent” of 4/20/2012, Spencer actually lied 24 times and 17 of these lies were in regard to his relationship with Ms. Sandra Wilson. Spencer continued this lie over an additional 6 months finally “telling the partial truth” in January 2012.

MORE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT INCLUDING LYING TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WHO FEARED RETRIBUTION FROM USAO FOR THEIR CLIENT

56 9) Prosecutorial misconduct continued: A) ASUA’s Vilker and Donnelly’s fraudulent presentation and data package to Attorney’s Devereaux and Ryan on 12/19/2012 with respect to the “alleged fraudulent” loan to P&C from C&S of February 2007 for 36,000.00 is yet another example of the mob- like mentality of the USAO in manipulating data knowing defense counsel is unlikely to challenge them to protect an otherwise innocent client who is being targeted to get to someone else. AUSA’s Vilker and Donnelly decided to make this “loan conspiracy” even more implausible and added their own twist to the "loan of 2007 and its evolving narrative". Vilker and Donnelly used bits and pieces from three separate Spencer interviews (Exhibits [15] 8/8/2011, [18] 1/6/2012 and [27] 4/24/2012) and decided to replace (with their freedom of the pen) and add the following: 1) "Replaced Las Vegas with Puerto Rico" as the RMM destination where RMM would spend $36K allegedly demanded by RMM to be given to him through P&C. 2) Provided Attorney Devereaux with multiple cash deposits slips that Vilker tried to attribute to MEO and which were not in O’Rourke’s hand writing nor made by O’Rourke 3) Provided a copy of a 1000.00 check deposited into Mariano's account by MEO from Mariano's tenant (Benet Iovanilla) not some mysterious "co-conspirator", 4) Identified that “O’Rourke “had made thousands of $$ of ATM withdrawals during this timeframe” alleging that somehow this “cash” ended up in Mariano’s possession when in fact for the entire month of Feb, 2007 she withdrew $912.00 and the entire month of March 2007 she withdrew$ 2,300.00 while MEO without Mariano was out of town. 5) Bottom Line: $36,000 was never demanded by RMM to be paid through P&C for a trip to Vegas or Puerto Rico and MEO never gave $36,000 to RMM. The Feds were in possession of P&C and MEO’s bank records to absolutely prove this did not happen. Hegarty also testified falsely to this scenario before the Grand Jury on 6/21/2012 (Exhibit [22] attached with CD) that ultimately indicted MEO.

57 NOTE 1: The aforementioned is a very egregious case of fraud and perjury committed by the AUSA. It is also addressed in Hegarty’s GJ testimony of 6/21/2012 Exhibit [22], Spencer’s interviews of 8/8/2011 Exhibit [15], 1/6/2012 Exhibit [18] and 4/24/2012 Exhibit [27]. The egregious fraud and perjury is that the AUSA and agents worked diligently with Spencer from 8/8/11-4/24/12 until Spencer finally remembered this so called “conspiracy loan” the way that the AUSA needed him to remember it to fit their narrative and implicate MEO who they now call a “minor participant”.

NOTE 2: The Feds never seized any of MEO’s hard drives as she was only a target to get to RMM , the alleged kingpin, ringleader, “don”, “bi-polar…Tony Soprano”, who had a “God complex”, etc. etc. etc. This is a fact confirmed multiple times to defense counsel in trying to fit Ms. O’Rourke into their narrative by both Vilker and Donnelly.

NOTE 3: This entire fraudulent and perjured episode can be 100% refuted by evidence found in the government’s “own” discovery. (Exhibit [29] with attached CD).

NOTE 4: Multiple examples of lies have been shrugged off by defense counsel by stating that as he “the USAO just fudged a little”. The USAO has not “fudged” the numbers and facts. The USAO has blatantly lied and misled the court to save face because they began the prosecution of a white collar case unlike any they had ever done before as per their former boss, Attorney Corrente, involving complex government contracting and failed miserably in identifying and vetting key witnesses and defendants who lied and now seek deference in sentencing for their “cooperation”. A complete abomination of the system.

58 THESE ARE EGREGIOUS EXAMPLES OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH AND ARE A SERIOUS COMPROMISE OF FJC (Federal Judicial Center) 2010: (Exhibit [48])

In writings of 2010 as a result of the ’Late’ Senator Ted Stevens case:

. . . it is the responsibility of the United States Attorney and his senior staff to create a Culture where ‘win-at-any-cost’ prosecution is not permitted. Indeed, such a culture must be mandated from the highest levels of the United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney General. It is equally important that the courts of the United States must let it be known that, when substantial abuses occur, sanctions will be imposed to make the risk of non-compliance too costly.

United States v. Stevens, 593 F.Supp.2d 177, 181 (D.D.Ct. 2009) Phoenix, Arizona San Francisco, California San Francisco, California Chris Miles Peter Davids Jonathan Katchen R&W Attorney, FPD Associate Assistant Attorney General San Francisco, California Jones Day State of Alaska, Dept. of Law

The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor– indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.

59 It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935) . . . it is the responsibility of the United States Attorney and his senior staff to create a culture where ‘win-at-any-cost’ prosecution is not permitted. Indeed, such a culture must be mandated from the highest levels of the United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney General. It is equally important that the courts of the United States must let it be known that, when substantial abuses occur, sanctions will be imposed to make the risk of non-compliance too costly.

United States v. Shaygan, 661 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1292 (S.D.Fla. 2009) “The Court finds [the government’s] explanation wholly incredible.” United States v. Stevens, 593 F.Supp.2d 177, 181 (D.D.Ct. 2009)

NOTE 1: Please read Paragraph 4 page 13 & 14 of document (fjc2010_Prosecutorial Misconduct) Exhibit [48]: A very important excerpt follows: while this may seem self-evident, the government may not rely on perjured testimony to secure an indictment before the grand jury. United States v. Useni, 516 F.3d 634, 656 (7th Cir.2008); United States v. Basurto, 497 F.2d 781, 785-86 (9th Cir. 1974) (“We hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated when a defendant has 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 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.”). Again see Exhibit [48] attached with CD.

60 NOTE2: THE INDICTMENT IN US VS. MARIANO, ET AL SHOULD BE DISMISSED FORTHWITH AND THE ACTIONS OF THE USAO AND ITS INVESTIGATORS ADDRESSED AS THIS CASE WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON PURJURED TESTIMONY FACILITATED BY THE USAO AND AGENT PATRICK HEGARTY

9) Continued: More examples of prosecutorial misconduct:

B) The USAO provided multiple false and incorrect financial charts (dated: 4/19/2011, 7/23/2012 and 5/2/2013 which can be provided upon request) which were still in draft form 6 years later and which continued to be off by $3.9 to $5.5 million dollars in favor of the government to support their allegations against Mariano and others.

NOTE 1: These charts have been refuted time and time again and as late as May 2013 and were to be addressed by Mr. Corrente pre- trial. However, again in failing to execute the agreed upon defense strategy that would as he stated: “pull the scab off the USAO” ’ this is yet another issue that remains unchallenged RMM has dozens of financial files which were generated using the government’s own discovery which clearly demonstrates and validates the government’s continued error of $3.9 to $5.5 million dollar discrepancy.

C) The USAO’s ASUA’s (Lee Vilker, Andrew Reich and Terrence Donnelly) “knowingly” violated Ralph M Mariano’s and Mary E. O’Rourke’s “Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment” as identified in ‘United States v. Useni’ and ‘United States v. Basurto’.

D) The Government “knowingly” provided and utilized as material for the Indictment multiple perjured Grand Jury testimony and statements from multiple witnesses. These testimonies were provided by the government in the Jencks material of January 16, 2013. Certain material testimonies were used to obtain the Indictment and they were mainly from the following individuals Grand Jury testimony

61 1. Gray Scavoni (unindicted co-conspirator) testimony of 10/27/2011 (Exhibit [17] attached with CD),

2. Patrick Hegarty (Governments Lead Investigative agent) testimony’s of 4/26/2012, and 6/21/2012 (Exhibits [21] and [22] with annotations/ notes/evidence attached with CD),

3. Peter Bria testimony of 10/27/2011 (Exhibit [32]) attached with CD,

4. Charles Hill testimony of 6/xx/2012 (Exhibit [14[) attached with CD

E) ASUA Lee Vilker lying to other client’s attorney’s (Attorney Devereaux and Traini) on at least 2 occasions in April/May 2011 by representing the following: “RMM is very close to pleading”. A totally false allegation!

F) “Inadvertently” withholding (USAO’S Vilker’s words) from Discovery partial C&S tax returns from 2005-2008. From day one, ALL OF ADQ, C&S AS WELL AS THE SPENCER’S TAX RETURNS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AND CONSIDERED RELEVENT TO THE CASE so the “inadvertently” statement by Vilker in his correspondence is dubious at best. More importantly, the tax returns provided were missing vital schedules which should have been included and the government refused in defense motion subpoena’s to provide any/all of the Spencer’s TAX returns as well as the missing ADQ and C&S returns. NOTE1: How did the government validate and source funds and provide vital parts of their case without first reviewing the tax returns of ADQ, C&S and the Spencer’s from 1999-1/2011???? NOTE 2 :) Why did Chief Judge Mary Lisi in a response to defense motion for important tax information relative to key witnesses and defendant Russell Spencer’s companies on March 28, 2013 reject the defense request to subpoena the tax returns

62 when she concluded the request was “overboard” “that these very important documents were not relevant to the case”? GIVEN JUDGE LISI’S PENCHANT FOR WANTING TO PUNISH TAX CHEATS, HER DECSION TO DENY DEFENSE THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION (SEE EXHIBIT [66A]) WAS DECONCERTING AND ONE THAT WENT UNCHALLENGED BY ATTORNEY CORRENTE! Tax returns from Scavoni who allegedly had the ability to pay $6000 per week to Mariano were not relevant to proof of the ability of him to do so??

G) The USAO’s lack of due-diligence and integrity for: 1) “Not ensuring that Spencer was ‘vetted” properly “by the investigators” in accordance with Former Attorney General Alberto R Gonzalves: “The Attorney General’s Guideline Regarding the use of FBI Confidential Informants (CHS) dated 12/13/2006 (Exhibit [49] attached with CD) and 2) Not validating that Spencer would be a reliable informant vice one who “re-wrote history” and who lied and/or perjured himself well over 100 times as well as, committing obstruction of justice and whose wife Debra stated on 15 July, 2010 in an email (Exhibit [50] attached with CD) produced in Discovery))“we will do anything to avoid prosecution of Russ”, clearly implying repeated lies and fabrication and manipulation of the facts…..Note: again Russell Spencer was charged with “admitting to lying on 3 separate occasions” to the FBI on April, 20, 2012 a charge which carries a fine and up to 5 years of imprisonment (so we knew in 4/2012 that Spencer was a liar). His 29 IV’s provided as Jencks material to defense of January 2013 would prove that these 3 lies (or what should be called incidents of lying since he lied dozens of times within those interviews) were only the “tip of the iceberg”. Why does Spencer have a ‘Prosecution Version of Probation Department Report’ on his hard drive in June of 2011???

H) Spencer being provided a Preliminary copy of the Prosecution Version of the USAO’s ‘Probation Department Report’ by ASUA Reich and Vilker in June 2011 (Exhibit [51] attached with CD) It is unclear why he would have this internal document in his possession at this time if only to be able to comport his story with the agreed upon

63 narrative to frame RMM and others so as to be able to validate the initial press conference with a series of pleas. SCAVONI AND SPENCER PERJURY REGARDING PAYMENTS TO MARIANO GOES UNCHECKED IN GRAND JURY AND MULTIPLE INTERVIEWS

I) The USAO knowingly as stated previously in this document allowed Scavoni to commit perjury no less than 23 times during his GJ testimony and IV’s in which Scavoni incessantly states that he “received only cash from Spencer” when in fact Scavoni received only checks from Spencer with accompanying 1099’s for being a Value Added Reseller of Software (VAR). J) The USAO already had information from CHS in their own discovery files that these ‘Scavoni’ incidents of perjury could have been emphatically and categorically validated and confirmed to prove that Scavoni was an absolute liar. By their own evidence and lead witness Russell E. Spencer (aka CHS) in his interviews to the government of:

1. 8/8/2010 where Spencer states that he never gave Scavoni cash, only checks. The checks ranged from$7000 to $8000 and would have been for VAR efforts. ” (Exhibit [15] attached with CD), and; 2. Finally all of this can be 100% refuted w/information produced in the Government’s own production to Defense in Discovery 1 dated 5/30/2012 File: RS-CB-ADQ-000001 To RS-CB-ADQ-000796 and Discovery 3 dated 10/10/2012 File: RS-STORAGE -000001THROUGH RS-STORAGE- 004595 (Exhibit [16] (Checks to Scavoni 6/1999-3/2004) with attached CD)

 NOTE 1: THE USAO HAD THIS DATA AVAILABLE IN 2011 AND THROUGH 4/2012 YET CONTINUED TO USE THE FALSE MATERIAL IN GENERATING THE SUPERCEDING INDICTMENT (AND FALSE AND INCORRECT FINANCIAL CHARTS) WHICH CONTAINED LIES AND INACCURATE INFORMATION TO INDICT RALPH M MARIANO, RALPH MARIANO JR .AND MARY E O’ROURKE INJUNE 2012.

64

 NOTE 2: ADDITIONALLY THE USAO AS REQUIRED BY LAW NEVER PROVIDED THIS EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO THE GRAND JURY, DEFENSE COUNSEL OR THE COURT. THEY DID A DOCUMENT DUMP AND HOPED THE MATERIAL WOULD NEVER BE UNCOVERED.

K) Multiple interviews conducted by Mr. Hegarty (dating back to 2009) and many which Mr. Vilker and others from the USAO’s office participated in again available for review in the Jencks material of February 2013 (attachment [14]) and Discovery 1-3 have AND can empathetically and categorically corroborate that Mr. Scavoni , Mr. Spencer, Mr. Hill, Mr. Bria, Mr. Colapietro and Mr. Hegarty committed multiple counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to federal agents all facilitated by the USAO and provided misleading information both with respect to the facts ALLEDGED with this case and with respect to Mariano’s character making Mariano out to be a “hoodlum and a thug” (which is a clear violation as identified in the ruling: United States v. Hogan) during their GJ testimony.

These LIES and misleading statements were used as material evidence in this case in 3 instances and are clearly serious compromises of the FJC Prosecutorial misconduct of 2010 and the Hyde amendment (Exhibit [48]:

1. Used as material evidence in the original Indictment of 5/2012,

2. Used as material evidence in the Superseding indictment of 6/21/2012 ((Exhibit [52] attached with CD)

3 .Used by the government in its pre-trial memo to the Court on 5/8/2013 ((Exhibit [46] attached with CD)

USAO FACILITATING PERJURY AND DELIBERATELY MISLEADING THE GRAND JURY KNOWING THAT

65 EVIDENCE DOES NOT EXIST TO SUPPORT ONGOING NARRATIVE BEING PEDDLED BY USAO

L) Lead prosecutor Lee Vilker’s, prosecutorial misconduct and perjury committed during Grand Jury Q&A: 1 .As stated numerous times throughout this document Agent Hegarty’s perjured and mislead the GJ during his testimony (s) of 04/26/2102 and 06/21/2012. These lies and misstatements are further exacerbated by the actions of the lead prosecutor AUSA Lee Vilker who deliberately misled the Grand Jury in a rehearsed format and whose sole purpose it seems was to deliberately mislead the GJ and cover up their own lack of due diligence from the day they were handed this investigation in Spring 2009 and violate the Grand Jury process as described in both United States v. Useni and United States v. Basurto. 2. As stated, there are so many examples of AUSA Vilker and Agent Hegarty lying and providing false and misleading statements to the GJ during the Q&A between Hegarty and Vilker on 04/26/2012 and 6/21/2012 that it’s best to just read the annotated GJ files (again see Exhibits [21] and [22] provided with attached CD).

SCAVONI REMAINS AN UNINDICTED CO- CONSPIRATOR DESPITE LYING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY-PERJURY AND LYING IN HIS INTERVIEWS WITH FEDERAL AGENTS- OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

3. Gary Scavoni testified on 10/27/2011 and his attorney received a letter consummating his IMMUNITY DEAL with the USAO on 10/31/2011 (Exhibit [20] attached with CD). AUSA Lee Vilker made no mention of this deal during Scavoni’s testimony before the Grand Jury. Scavoni was very willing to read the “script” and even went so far as to say “can I embellish on that last part, also??” see page 33 lines 12-13 of Exhibit [17].

66 NOTE 1: In fact Scavoni’s immunity letter stresses if the government determines that Scavoni has lied or committed perjury the deal was off and he could be prosecuted. AUSA Vilker knew as a result of CHS’s IV’s of 8/8/2011 and 1/6/2012 (Exhibits [15] and [18] attached with CD) that Scavoni committed dozens of counts of perjury. Yet AUSA Vilker the lead prosecutor HAS NOT INDICTED Mr. Scavoni which in and of itself is misconduct. By ignoring the fact that another key witness has lied to the court the prosecutors are covering it up in an attempt to wrap up this case so that their missteps and lies are not uncovered. ADDITIONALLY NEITHER Lead prosecutor Vilker nor AUSA DONNELLY HAVE MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO CORRECT SCAVONI’S OR AGENT HEGARTY’S PERJURED GJ TESTIMONY’S despite having much of this brought to their attention in the presentation given to them by Mr. Corrente on May 2, 2013. And more importantly, all of this was known to them PRIOR to requesting an indictment from the Grand Jury.

Instead the USAO chose to ignore these facts and pressed on with threats and bullying tactics perhaps now in cahoots with Mr. Corrente who needed to withdraw from this case to keep his job with Burns & Levinson and his safeguard himself from further incidents of his own malpractice.

4. ONE SUCH EGREGIOUS EXAMPLE OF (MANY) SCAVONI and AUSAVILKER TEAMING UP TO COMMIT PERJURY AND MISLEAD THE GJ FOLLOWS: Lee Vilker and Scavoni GJ testimony of 10/27/2011 ((Exhibit [17] attached with CD) page 42 line 25 through page 48 line 13 Vilker asks Scavoni multiple questions with regard to Scavoni’s Notebook identified as GJ-Exhibit 30. The entire context of the conversation as addressed by Vilker to Scavoni was to play out a theory before the GJ that RMM was manipulating equipment purchases for his own use by asking “are the purchases referenced in the notebook legal?” Scavoni’s answers are all over the place but Scavoni basically states that many are for “personal

67 use”. On Page 48 when Vilker addresses with Scavoni the last item the “Q&A” text follows: 5 Q. Well, I guess my question is: Like, if 6 this was for Mr. Johnson, the Dell notebook, what 7 makes you think that that was something that he 8 didn't need for work? 9 A. He would probably order it from his own 10 work or the government. 11 Q. So you're making an assumption on your 12 part? 13 A. Yes. 99 percent of these are assumptions. 14 Q. Okay NOTE 1: Scavoni states that for the last 7 pages he has been making “assumption not from fact or knowledge”, Vilker’s response is” Okay”. NOTE 2: No challenge by Vilker to the statement by Scavoni yet “assumptions” during his entire testimony are treated as if they were verifiable facts before the GJ with no clarification or guidance to the GJ on how these “assumptions” are to be treated going forward into their deliberations. NOTE 3: The Bill Johnson being addressed in the Q&A was actually the PMS 425 Deputy Program Manager (DPM) in 2002. Meaning that everyone worked for Mr. Johnson as he was second in command to the Captain so Mr. Johnson was ordering something that he needed for work and it was ordered from his own office legitimately.

NOTE 4: It was not until contracts awarded after October 2006 and forward that a contract clause (H24S) was added to limit the purchasing by contractors of IT (information technology), communication devices and work tools for and by government employees. Scavoni lied (again) and AUSA Vilker misled the Grand Jurors (again) by incessantly implying that RMM had pressured and forced Scavoni to make illegal and/or illegitimate purchases under contracts N66604-98-D-4482 and N66604-02-D-1365 when in fact all of these purchases were legitimate and all were approved by the CO (contracting officer) or COA (contracting officer administrator). Therefore if Agent Hegarty and the USAO had conducted their due-diligence they would have known

68 this very important fact and would not have provided false grand jury exhibits 156-199 (provided by Scavoni via his attorney in a notebook Scavoni had retained circa 2002- 2003) implying that these purchases were illegal.

TO CONCLUDE: All of above data outlined in Paragraph 9 PAGES 68-82 ARE EXAMPLES OF EGREGIOUS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WHICH ARE SERIOUS COMPROMISES OF THE FJC (Federal Judicial Center) 2010) These are clear criminal and ethical violations by the USAO and its investigators and should be reviewed at a minimum to determine if the Indictment should be vacated as the USAO and lead investigator in this case seriously compromised the ethical, moral, civil and legal governance processes and the integrity of the Court to “Win At All Cost” and criminally/civilly violated Ralph M Mariano and Mary E. O’Rourke’s constitutional rights and compromised the integrity of the Court.

Spencer’s computer hard drive, basement and storage facility filled with bizarre and telling evidence of Spencer’s pre-disposition to lie and manipulate data to save himself.

10).Spencer’s discovery Gems provided by Spencer and found in Government’s Discovery: A. Spencer’s “money laundering email” of 12/8/2009 www.howtolaundermoney.com. This information was used by Spencer after meeting with Dutta-Gupta of 11/15/2009. “It is an actual web site!”

69 B. Spencer’s “hidden funds”; the phrase Spencer used on the document of 3/2002-7/2003 and these funds were traced to the purchase of a house by the Spencer’s in Florida in 2003. C. Spencer’s altered/forged Citizens bank statements of “December 2002” so that his year-end balance would be less and would have been used to hide money from the IRS. (Data/Information found in Discovery, Spencer’s storage facility and Basement Boxes identified that Spencer annually under-reported his business and personal ‘gross income’ on his taxes. RMM has this data (too extensive to add to the CD) to prove this fact it can be provided upon request). Note again, Spencer never charged with Theft of Government Property or Tax Evasion. D. One of the only discovery rulings in this matter that remains difficult to understand is Judge Lisi’s denial of the motion of March 28, 2013 requesting Spencer’s, ADQ and C&S tax returns for the period 1999-2010 (again see exhibit [66A]). Why would this information not already have been part of the initial investigation to prove allegations of bribery? E. Spencer’s “cut and paste” documents of 1999 and 2000 demonstrating an early propensity to fool RMM and others and clearly demonstrates Spencer’s willingness to modify and alter bank statements, word documents, emails and text messages to provide “false information to the investigators”. This was the reason that RMM wanted Mr. Corrente to provide to the USAO all the tampered email and text messages files to the USAO as Mr. Corrente stated he would do in February, 2013 and something Mr. Corrente ULTIMATELY failed to do( See Exhibit [61] with information for items a-d attached with CD).

11).Fraudulent Activities of NUWC (Naval Undersea Warfare center) in providing Discovery to Government to implicate RMM: Manipulated/altered NUWC Funding Certificates(Exhibit [53] attached with CD) It was alleged that Mariano funneled money to ASFT to facilitate the payment of bribes to himself to influence contracts which the USAO should have known had no authority over. Funding certificates were used as the vehicle by which

70 Mariano demanded that these payments went to ASFT. These funding certificates were tampered with. a. The fact that NUWC and possibly others within the Navy worked very hard to modify/alter important “funding certificates” is a criminal offense in and of itself aside from involving tampering with evidence of an ongoing criminal matter

b. One certificate dated in December 2010 was altered at least 3 times and has the same RMM digital signature and time stamp-down to the minute-and involve the distinction between Earmark money and program money. Any alleged fraudulent money obtained by Spencer from 2005 would have derived itself mainly from earmark money which was awarded to ASFT by Congress. These multiple versions of fraudulent certificates were produced in Discovery by the Government. How can the USAO not even recognize that they are producing fraudulent documents and/or upon being given such information not pursue its own investigation into Obstruction by someone at NUWC?

c. Someone within the Navy/NUWC worked very hard it seems to change these particular certificates implying the obvious differences between the “Earmark” Vs. “Program Funding” which was/ is critical to the Theft of Government Property defense.

d. NAVSEA IG and NUWC leadership was forwarded this information on June 14, 2013 via a formal complaint by RMM with a request for further investigation (Exhibit [54] attached with CD).

12) JCH (Joan C Harkin) Consulting and Gary Scavoni The Feds lack of knowledge of the fact that their witness, Scavoni, formed a shell company using his sister which continued to be funded through 2007 is inexcusable especially since as of August 2013, the narrative on how Scavoni paid the alleged bribe has now evolved to include “additional sources”, As stated previously, an analysis of even

71 funds received through this shell corporation still leaves Scavoni in the red to pay bribes to a man he shared Palm Sunday and Easter dinner with. RMM had NO knowledge that this company existed until February 2011 when MEO informed him as she was the registered agent for service. a. JCH consulting existed and was allegedly acting as a rental manager per Scavoni’s interview of 1/24/2012 (Exhibit [19] attached with CD). It was set up in 11/30/2000 as a business consulting operation and upon information and belief, it is now known that Joan C. Harkins never operated this business nor did she have the background to be any type of consultant for any business in RI. b. Joan C Harkin is Gary Scavoni’s sister, lived in Maine when JCH set up and later moved to The Villages (Florida) with the help of Scavoni and worked part-time for The Villages until quitting due to ongoing heart issues. She had no formal professional background to do “consulting”. Interestingly, in December 2010, the Harkins rather abruptly moved back to Maine and sold their house in The Villages. Perhaps Scavoni had already been approached by the feds at that time to cooperate and Scavoni would do and/or say anything to protect his closest sibling. c. In the ASFT materials in Building 11 there were checks and invoices from and to JCH-ASFT from 2002 through 5/2007 for purposes unknown. d. Cashier checks from JCH to Norman Cardinale for 6639.00/monthly in 2000-2003. Simply put: “Why”???? Again, Dutta-Gupta confirms that ASFT had no rental agent. NOTE1: RMM HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THESE TRANSACTIONS AND THE EXISTENCE OF “JCH”! See Exhibit [60] attached with CD for extensive JCH ‘material/evidence/information’.

e) Dutta-Gupta in his interview of 11/11/2012 categorically denied and stated that JCH provided no services to ASFT and that ASFT was not paying JCH rent money for the ASFT building in Middletown from 2000-2007. (Exhibit [55] attached with CD), Dutta-Gupta totally contradicts Scavoni’s assertions. (Note: JCH was in business from 2000-2007). Scavoni continues to commit Perjury and the USAO remains complicit in its denial of Scavoni’s misdeeds while using him as the main witness before the Grand

72 Jury to back up this concocted bribery and extortion scheme and conspiracy to defraud the government led by the “don”, RMM

f) AUSA Donnelly’s ridiculous claim on 29 March 2013 that Gary Scavoni was “actively retired from ASFT” since 2004. There are countless references located in discovery which contradict AUSA Donnelly’s claim such as: expense reports to company functions, attendance in support of business development meetings, reviews etc., annual employee reviews and active use of his ASFT AMEX Card along with his W2’s through 2010 located in Discovery. Also note there is no definition or phrase as being “actively retired”. Scavoni was not actively retired and remained involved in to some degree with ASFT. Discovery and information provided by the government clearly provides evidence that Scavoni continued to act as an ASFT employee and certainly was not retired. Scavoni still to this date, remains uncharged, unindicted and free from any responsibility for ruining lives with his lies. Some additional Scavoni information refuting the USAO: g) Gary Scavoni’s name is all over the ASFT bankruptcy petition of April 2011 as being a co-debtor invalidating among other evidence that AUSA Vilker believes he walked from the “scheme” in 2004. h) At the 26:04 minute mark of the 11/18/2011 RS/Dutta- Gupta/PN recording made by Spencer, Dutta-Gupta states: “I have been giving SIC money to Gary”. Him and Sandy are having problems so I give him some money”. (TRANSCRIPT CAN BE PROVED UPON REQUEST) i) Reference Nagle’s IV of 6/27/2011 page 6: Exhibit [56] attached with CD: ND Management was incorporated in 11/19/2002. Where did Scavoni get $55-60k to buy into ND Management IN 2002 when he was allegedly paying bribes to Mariano which already put him in the red? Reference Exhibit [12a] j) Scavoni’s wife, Sandy Scavoni was being paid via one of ASFT’s “subsidiaries” Visual Logistics Inc. (VLI) from in or around mid-2004 when the Scavoni’s got married through 8/2007. Ms. Scavoni retired as an x-ray tech when she married Scavoni in March 2004 and they moved to The Villages in Florida.(Exhibit [62] attached with CD) Ms. Scavoni remains silent when questioned by friends about

73 this saying she does not know anything… Did Scavoni forge his wife’s name on documents? Where is the culpability for submitting false time cards for work never done? Ms. Scavoni has not worked one single day since quitting her job in RI in 2004 to move to FL . Being paid by VLI is perhaps the reason she never pursued an unemployment claim further in Florida as she was “employed” by VLI either with or without her knowledge.( again see Exhibit [62]). Again, Ms. O’Rourke was viciously attacked by the USAO , Dutta- Gupta and Spencer for not providing “services of any value” all the while individuals such as the Scavoni’s, Indrani and Amrita Dutta-Gupta and Deborah and Lindsay Spencer were never questioned or accused of Theft of Government Property. Ms. O’Rourke was vindictively targeted because of her relationship with Mariano and with the several of the AUSA’s knowing of Ms. O’Rourke and her family used that knowledge, including the death of her mother a few months after the indictment in September 2012, to bully and harass her to their advantage clearly knowing how this situation would influence the decision of Mariano and O’Rourke in the proposed “plea package” presented and accepted on May 30, 2013. The lowest form of human life uses no less the remaining elderly parent of a defendant in continuing to prosecute a case founded on lies and deceit.

13) .Misstatements/Lies to SecNav by USAO and investigators which closed a company with 140 plus employees providing exemplary work on valid and legitimate contracts: a. What statements were made based on the above lies/falsehoods which convinced the SecNav to take the “unprecedented step” of cancelling all of ASFT’s contracts and later suspending NUWC’s contracting authority. b. Did the USAO inform SecNav that neither their office nor the DCIS/NCIS had questioned ANYONE at NUWC or NAVSEA regarding these devastating allegations prior to February 2011 and they were relying solely on the statements of the Vesudeva’s? Rekha Vesudeva readily admitted that she had no government contracting expertise nor did her husband yet they were relied on to describe how Paramount Solutions and ASFT were involved in

74 a bribery scheme to get contracts. The Spencer’s who were unvetted liars who by their own words (found in emails on RS’ hard drive) would “do whatever it takes to keep RS out of jail”? This was the data in addition to internet research of government contracts by Agent Hegarty was the basis for a Criminal Complaint that led to the demise of an entire company without any provision to keep things going pending further investigation?? What was the Secretary of the Navy told or was Dutta-Gupta involved in more than getting caught money laundering with Spencer in 2009-2011? c. Note that Vilker admitted that he thought the NAVSEA internal report was hastily written in April 2011 by certain individuals with obviously questionable knowledge of the facts and circumstances and a preordained notion that RMM was guilty and a cigar smoking thug who flew first class and drove Cadillacs while charging the government for the same-TOTALLY FALSE and can be proven with documentation. The reviewers totally ignored RMM’s 29 year record of work history and interviews invalidating any USAO claims stated in the Criminal Complaint. A total abuse of the process. AUSA Vilker even commented that in reviewing this report which was completed in 2 months (April, 2011) was at best “dubious”.

14) Negligence by the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC)

1. Suspending RMM without pay on 13 March, 2011 based on the Criminal Complaint and Affidavit filed on Feb 3, 2011, when they should have known:

a. RMM’s correct job description and attendant responsibilities and the correct information regarding ASFT’s outstanding contracts. b. The impossibility of a scheme to pay an unknown government engineer the sum of $6000 per week (or 312,000.00/year) beginning in 1996-1999 when the total monies available to pay all ASFT company task driven employee payroll and company expense’s under contracts N66604-94-D-A734 and N66604-98-D-4482 was only $1.1 million/year, with a possible maximum annual award fee (profit) for ASFT of approximately 88k to 100K/year. Meaning RMM “demanded” that ASFT pay him 300% of

75 their award fee/profit annually. Mathematically implausible and a false allegation written apparently by an agent and approved by a USAO’s office with absolutely no background in government contracting and no common sense. c. Total failure to see that the affidavit was riddled with misinformation and lies regarding procedures for awarding and funding contracts and SBIR’s. This part of the story made for good news coverage and was eventually dropped. d. Agent Hegarty prior to filing a false and inaccurate affidavit should have read the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) and DCMA (Defense Contract Management Authority) guidelines which would have allowed him to fully understand the “contracting processes and its governance. e. Agent Hegarty should also have completed all interviews of key NAVSEA and NUWC personnel prior to filing a criminal complaint. Instead these interviews commenced in February, 2011 after RMM was arrested and career ruined. An individual who worked extensively with RMM at NUWC was never interviewed despite multiple calls saying it was going to be scheduled and cancellations. Feds did not seem interested in the real story once again. f. That the additions to contracts which were provided via the funding certificates which it alleged were part of a bribery and extortion scheme were actually annual tasking which was funding driven by requirements to procure submarine ship-set materials, NUWC AIMTC Workflow design and maintenance, Ship-set Spares procurement, etc. to support the Depot/Warehouse and operational submarine force. The funding certificates also reflected the transfer of ASFT allocated Earmark (plus-up) money from the Congressional delegation through NAVSEA.

Conclusion:

76 1. The USAO office and the AUSA’s involved along Lead Investigator, Agent Patrick Hegarty's misconduct, malfeasance and lack of ethical conduct as well as their clear and serious compromises of multiple statutes and case law permeating the “Culture of Win at all Cost” behavior in this case must at a minimum be reviewed, examined, investigated and if appropriate prosecuted

2. USAO’s ethical indifference to the Grand Jury process and proceedings in this matter and its resultant corrective inaction in violation of United States v. Useni and United States v. Basurto with respect to using perjured Grand Jury testimony of Scavoni and Hegarty and others clearly facilitated a fraud upon the integrity of the Court as well as its processes and was used as material information to indict Mariano and Ms. O’Rourke. All of this clearly comprised the due process rights of these individuals in accordance with the 5 th amendment and is a complete abomination of the Grand Jury process.

3.It is also apparent by the evidence found in discovery and a thorough review of the GJ testimony’s that both Agent Hegarty and the ASUA’s (in particular AUSA Vilker) knowingly violated United States v. Useni and United States v. Basurto and stated rulings which serve as guidance for upholding the laws governing the Grand Jury process and that these suspected compromises of the process must and should be reviewed.

4.Lead Defense attorney (Mr. Robert Corrente of Burn & Levinson) knowingly allowed the Government to provide in their pre-trial motions altered emails and false text messages in a case wherein his name appeared on a subpoena pursuant to an ongoing investigation in his office and a Grand Jury which was in fact convened prior to resigning as US Attorney. This conflict and the impact it had on him not zealously challenging the USAO during this entire process must be reviewed as conduct which compromised the office of the US Attorney by defending a case started in an office where one had all of his AUSA’s complete time sheets so he would be apprised of all activity in the office. In

77 addition, with a relatively small staff, it is hard to imagine that Mr. Corrente would not have been part of the decision making process to convene a Grand Jury in a case involving a defense contractor supporting the state’s only $1B Navy lab

5 .Mr. Corrente failed on 7 February 2011 to divulge any of these facts to Mariano. He stated he was unaware of the case and later when questioned by co-defendant’s counsel regarding his name on a subpoena referencing an “ongoing investigation” (Exhibit [57] attached with CD) to RBS Citizens bank requesting the Bank records of C&S Technology, Spencer’s company for the period 2006 to the present 5/24/2009 as well as possibly other subpoena’s associated with this cases prior to the RBS subpoena, he denied that he recalled the case. The level of compromise by a defense attorney who started a case he now seeks to defend rises to the level of “substantial participation” as Mr. Corrente was a self-admitted micro-manager. Mariano was never aware of any email exchange between the DOJ and his office and in fact it appears that instead of asking the other AUSA on the subpoena in question, AUSA Vilker, the email exchange was with former AUSA Andrew Reich, who abruptly retired after learning Mr. Corrente had agreed to continue to represent Mr. Mariano through to the end. Mariano sought new counsel via a Marsden Motion after a complete breakdown with Mr. Corrente based upon this subpoena and other inaction and questionable behavior by Mr. Corrente.

6.Mr. Corrente informing Mr. Mariano that “ as a result of the revolving door policy he would be unable to enter in the case as Mr. Mariano’s lead attorney but that he could in fact : communicate, aid and assist Mr. Mariano and then enter his appearance on 6/26/2011.

This was not true and is a clear compromise as stated in:

78 18 U.S.C.§ 207(b)(i), [the former U.S. Attorney] is barred from representing [the individual] in matters relating to the plea agreement these are matters which were actually pending under his responsibility as [a] former United States Attorney for the [district in which he served]. See 5 C.F.R. § 737.7.

The material submitted indicates that these matters were actually pending through the termination of [the former U.S. Attorney's] Government service. Therefore, under the statute, [he] is barred [for two years following his termination of service as U.S. Attorney for that district] See the following: MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

It is clear, however, that § 207(c) does not reach all situations in which a former official is involved in conveying information to agency officials. The language of § 207(c) - which bans "any communication . . . or appearance"- is narrower than that of other subsections of the Ethics in Government Act. See Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 166-67 (1990) (looking to the statute as a whole in interpreting § 209). Notably, subsections 207(b)(1) and 207(f)(1) not only prohibit former officials from communicating or appearing on behalf of persons or entities with respect to matters in which the former officials "personally and substantially participated" during their government service, these provisions also prohibit former officials from "aid[ing] or advis[ing]" persons or entities on such matters. 18 U.S.C. § 207(b)(1) & 207(f)(1)(B) (1994) (emphasis added). The prohibition on "aid[ing]," "advis[ing]" and "communicat[ing]" in these subsections demonstrates that § 207(c)'s prohibition on "communication" alone does not reach behind-the-

79 scenes work on matters that are before a former official's department or agency. See, e.g., Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983) (Exhibit [58] attached with CD) The above is further emphasized in accordance with information relative to Government officials Seeking Employment and Post- Employment Restrictions Where it is stated that reliance on the oral or written advice of an agency ethics official or the Office of Government Ethics cannot ensure that a former employee will not be prosecuted for a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 207, or 208 . Where Personal and substantial participation implies. To participate "personally" means to participate directly. It includes the direct and active supervision of the participation of a subordinate in the matter. To participate "substantially" means that the employee's involvement is of significance to the matter. Participation may be substantial even though it is not determinative of the outcome of a particular matter. However, it requires more than official responsibility, knowledge, perfunctory involvement, or involvement on an administrative or peripheral issue. A finding of substantiality should be based not only on the effort devoted to the matter, but also on the importance of the effort. While a series of peripheral involvements may be insubstantial, the single act of approving or participating in a critical step may be substantial. Personal and substantial participation may occur when, for example, an employee participates through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, investigation or the rendering of advice in a particular matter. a. Had Mariano known the above facts that Mr. Robert Corrente did indeed participate in these proceedings while he was the sitting US Attorney for Rhode Island and these ‘allegations’ were in fact initiated by him, he never would have been retained by RMM. b. Again clear ethics violations and conflict of interest as it is clearly stated as the former US Attorney who initiated this case Mr. Corrente would have been prohibited from knowingly communicating, aiding and assisting Mr. Mariano. c. Mr. Corrente informed Mr. Mariano and Ms. Michele Mariano (defendant’s sister) at 10:00am on 7 February, 2011 that he “did

80 not recall the case and did not participate in it”, but that he could work behind the scenes until late June 2011. Both a conflict and serious compromise of ethics as a result of his former position. d. When Mariano ran out of funds, Mr. Corrente agreed to stay despite the fact that the court would not approve him to be a CJR appointment. e. However abruptly in April 2013, Mr. Corrente unilaterally changed the agreed upon defense strategy and never told anyone including his paralegal, that a $300K receivable had now become an issue, and that all prosecutorial misconduct and investigative malfeasance materials would only be used “on cross” .Mariano soon realized Mr. Corrente NEVER had any intentions of aggressively using any of this information as leverage to assist in Mariano’s negotiations or defense at trial. 1. 2 ½ YEARS OF REVIEWING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS TO PROVIDE MR. CORRENTE WITH TRUTHFULL AND ACCURATE INFORMATION AND TO EXPOSE THE LIES AND UNETHICAL PROCESSES WAS THROWN TO THE SIDE. 2. FOR 2 ½ YEARS MR. CORRENTE ENCOURAGED MARIANO TO “FIGHT ON AND WE WILL WIN” WENT TO MR. CORRENTE STATING IN APRIL/MAY 2013 THAT: “MARIANO WAS SUDDENLY DELUSIONAL AND “SUICIDAL” TO NOT TAKE A DEAL THAT WAS WORSE THAN ONE OFFERED IN 2011 THAT INCLUDED A CHARGE OF BRIBERY WHICH WAS NOT PLED TO ON MAY 30, 2013 but was only 55 months; however even day in jail is too much as the truth has never been put before the Court by the USAO as they have no interest in it. 3. NO EFFORT MADE BY MR. CORRENTE OR THE GOVERNMENT TO CORRECT THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT OR THE MEDIA REGARDING THE TRUE FACTS IN THIS MATTER. 4. DUTTA-GUPTA, NAGLE AND SPENCER SCHEDULED TO BE SENTENCED IN OCTOBER 2013 BASED ON INFORMATION ATTESTED TO BY THE GOVERNMENT CONTAINING ABSOLUTELY FALSE STATEMENTS NEGATED IN THE

81 PRESENTATION TO THE USAO ON MAY 2, 2013 ( EXHIBIT [59] attached with CD) AND BY THEIR OWN DISCOVERY THROUGHOUT THIS CASE AND THROUGHOUT THIS DOCUMENT. YET THE USAO PRESSES ON WITH THE LIES. 5. WHEN MARIANO QUESTIONED THE INACCURACIES OF MONETARY AMOUNTS PROVIDED IN THE GOVERNMENTS PRE-TRIAL EXHIBITS HE WAS TOLD BY MR. CORRENTE “NO ONE CARES”- AND TO PUT IT BEHIND HIM.

THE INTEGRITY OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS WAS SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED THROUGHOUT AND THE MAGISTRATES, JUDGES AND GRAND JURORS WRONGFULLY MISLED. THE FINAL BLOW WAS THE “PACKAGE PLEA” THAT WAS PUT BEFORE RMM AND MEO TO PUT THIS CASE TO BED ONCE AND FOR ALL. RMM BELIEVES THAT MR. CORRENTE HAD A PART IN THIS TO SAVE HIS OWN JOB KNOWING RMM WOULD DO ANYTHING TO KEEP MEO OUT OF JAIL SINCE MR. CORRENTE KNEW SHE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE FIRST PLACE, NEVER MIND RMM FACING A TRIAL AND POSSIBLE JAIL TIME AS CHARGED. MR. CORRENTE’S MANTRA TO RMM WAS THE FOLLOWING: “STATEMENT PLUS COMMENT EQUALS JAIL TIME” HOW CONVENIENT THAT MR. CORRENTE DESPITE MANY TIMES STATING HE WOULD “PULL THE SCAB” OFF THE USAO, FAILED TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS OR TAKE ANY ACTION TO DEFEND MARIANO WHEN IT COUNTED AND MARIANO NOW FACES JAIL TIME AS A RESULT UNLESS WISER MINDS PREVAIL AND THIS MATTER IS SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE TRUE FACTS ADDRESSED. THIS DOCUMENT AND CORRESPONDING EXHIBITS PROVES THAT THERE IS A CANCER INHERENT IN THIS CASE AND IN THE USAO’S OFFICE, PAST AND PRESENT, WHEREIN THERE IS NO REGARD FOR THE RULE OF LAW DESPITE THE FAÇADE THAT IT IS THERE WHO ARE PROTECTING THE SAME BY THEIR UNETHICAL AND VICSIOUS ACTIONSTHE FRIGHTENING PROSPECT IS THAT LEFT UNCHECKED, HOW MANY OTHER CASES WITH DEFENDANTS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE BANDWIDTH TO REVIEW A MILLION DOCUMENTS ARE BEING WRONGLY INDICTED, PROSECUTED AND FORCED TO PLEA AT THE

82 HANDS OF THE USAO-DISTRICT OF RI. PLEASE BE PART OF THE SOLUTION.

83

Load more

  83

Copy Link