RESOURCES FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED LEARNERS CHOICE MODULE SUBMISSION, ANNE RAWLEY EDEN.
United States vs. Rawley Winsor - Final After Clarifications
Transcript of United States vs. Rawley Winsor - Final After Clarifications
United States of America vs. Rawley Winsor
Case Materials
2
Proud Sponsors of the 2012 National
High School Mock Trial Championship
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MESSAGE FROM THE AUTHORS ............................................................................... 5
SPONSORS AND DONORS ........................................................................................ 7
MISCELLANY ........................................................................................................... 10
CASE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 11
THE PROBLEM ........................................................................................................ 12
INDICTMENT .......................................................................................................... 13
STIPULATIONS ........................................................................................................ 16
WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST .................................................................................... 18
DECLARATION OF BLASDELEZO “BUDGE” DEBACA ................................................ 19
DECLARATION OF JO/E LEAPHORN ........................................................................ 25
DECLARATION OF SYDNEY GUTIERREZ ................................................................... 31
STATEMENT OF POPE VICTORIO ............................................................................ 37
DECLARATION OF RAWLEY WINSOR ...................................................................... 43
DECLARATION OF LESLIE GROVES .......................................................................... 49
EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................. 55
BLASDELEZO “BUDGE” DEBACA NOTES RE: CARL MANKIN ................................... 56
ITEMS BELONGING TO MANKIN SENT TO RAWLEY WINSOR AND EXPRESS MAIL RECEIPT .................................................................................................................. 57
FIREARMS SALES RECEIPT ...................................................................................... 61
FORQUE KITCHEN AND BAR RECEIPT ..................................................................... 62
PAYYAL RECEIPT ..................................................................................................... 63
ACCOUNT RECORDS SUBMITTED AS EXHIBIT A TO PLEA AGREEMENT IN STRUCTURING CASE ............................................................................................... 64
4
RUBBING MADE BY JO/E LEAPHORN FROM PAD IN RAWLEY WINSOR’S HYATT REGENCY HOTEL ROOM ......................................................................................... 66
MESSAGES RETRIEVED BY LESLIE GROVES FROM EVE KENDALL’S E‐MAIL ACCOUNT ............................................................................................................................... 67
LETTER FROM RAWLEY WINSOR TO JO/E LEAPHORN ............................................ 70
IOD LETTER CONFIRMING MANKIN’S ALIASES ....................................................... 72
BLASDELEZO “BUDGE” DEBACA PLEA AGREEMENT ............................................... 74
PRE‐TRIAL ORDER ................................................................................................... 79
APPLICABLE LAW‐ MOCK TRIAL VERSION .............................................................. 81
JURY INSTRUCTIONS .............................................................................................. 83
MESSAGE FROM THE AUTHORS
Dear Mock Trial Participants,
On behalf of all of the members of the Host Committee, we sincerely hope that you enjoy this
year’s national problem, United States v. Rawley Winsor. Writing this case has taken more than
eighteen months and during that time, this problem has gone through many drafts, and it
would not have been possible without the exceptional contributions of several individuals. First
and foremost, the authors thank the remarkable New Mexican author Tony Hillerman for
writing Sinister Pig, the novel that inspired this case. We also must thank the Hillerman estate,
which graciously granted us permission to use the book.
Second, the authors wish to extend their personal gratitude to Michelle Giger, Karl Johnson, the
Center for Civic Values Board of Directors, and the entire host committee. It is a very rare thing
for National hosts to invite authors from out of state to write a case, and it is rarer still that they
give the kind of support for the authors’ creative vision and many, many personal foibles that
we have experienced here.
In addition, Mr. Grode would like to thank Jayne Bird, his future wife, for her valuable support
and endless encouragement as well as the Pennsylvania Bar Association for providing an
ongoing avenue for his legal creative spirit through the Commonwealth’s high school mock trial
program. Mr. Grode also thanks his employer, Goldblum & Hess, for their boundless pride in his
work as a mock trial author.
Mr. Kaufman would like to thank his exceptionally supportive wife, Sarah, and his son Daniel
(who may not have noticed the time with Daddy he lost, but still). He also thanks the fabulous
people of the Philadelphia Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Association for their support.
The case could not have been competed without the steadfast support of the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, United States Attorney Zane David
Memeger, and Civil Division chief Peg Hutchinson. Mr. Kaufman is honored to work in an office
that supports civics education and with and for such wonderful people. Finally, Mr. Kaufman
thanks Pete and Joe, lifelong friends, mentors, and role models, with whom he could not be
more proud to share one more trip to the Rodeo. This one is for you two.
The authors are deeply grateful for the assistance of Special Agents Josh Nugent and Chris
Curran of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for their expert advice and
6
work above and beyond the call of duty to make Exhibit 3 possible, and the authors thank
Assistant United States Attorneys L.C. Wright, Arlene Fisk, Nancy Dick, Maureen McCartney and
Bernadette Farnan for helping us understand and interpret the murder‐for‐hire statue and the
indictment and providing samples of murder‐for‐hire indictments and plea agreements.
The authors would also like to thank long‐time mock trial supporter, David Trevaskis, for the
(ab)use of his likeness. Importantly and especially, the authors thank Jane Meyer, who let them
live their dreams. It won’t be the same without you, Jane.
The authors also thank www.theREALsouthwest.com, a department store of products made in
New Mexico and the southwestern United States, for allowing us to use an image of their Zia
sun necklace.
As you will see in the pages that follow, this year’s case addresses complex issues of corruption,
corporate and governmental intelligence, relations between Native American tribes and the
United States, and personal and corporate greed. We hope you will enjoy trying the case as
much as we enjoyed writing it for you.
The Case Writing Committee
Jon Grode Paul Kaufman
Principal Case Authors
Michelle Giger Karl Johnson
Principal Case Editors
7
SPONSORS AND DONORS
Franchini Circle ‐ $25,000 and up Center for Civic Values National High School Mock Trial
Championship, Inc. State Bar of New Mexico
Guardian – $10,000 and up American Board of Trial Advocates
Foundation InfoTeam Internet Solutions
Champion – Up to $9,999 Keleher & McLeod PA Law Offices of Lynda Latta LLC Luebben Johnson & Barnhouse LLP Senior Lawyers Division of the State Bar of
New Mexico
Patron – Up to $4,999 Center for Legal Education of the State Bar
of New Mexico, Inc. The Joseph C. and Esther Foster
Foundation, Inc.
Benefactor – Up to $2,499 David M. Berlin and Barbara M. Gillooly Briones Business Law Consulting Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Gerald and Debbie Dixon Glynnie H. Franchini Michelle Giger and Karl Johnson Anthony Gonzales and Mark Johnson Jack, Lisa, Aidan and Connor Jacks Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA New Mexico Defense Lawyers Association Dr. Karl Robinson and Melissa Patterson Rodey Dickason Sloan Akin & Robb PA Matthew A. Vance H. Nicole and Jim Werkmeister
Fellow – Up to $1,499 12th Judicial District Bar Association
1st Judicial District Bar Association Allen Berlin Sarah M. Bradley David Buchholtz Barbara M. Gillooly, CCR John P. Hays Thomas F. Keleher Linda K. Estes Giraffe Award Endowment of
Albuquerque Community Foundation Lewis and Roca LLP Williams & Associates Court Reporters Sheehan & Sheehan PA Mary Ann Sweeney and Edward Ricco
Fellow – Up to $999 Larry Bakko Daniel J. Behles Briggs F. Cheney Civerolo Gralow Hill & Curtis PA Cuddy & McCarthy LLP Gaddy Jaramillo Touchet Ranne B. Miller Narvaez Law Firm Miller Stratvert PA Mr. and Mrs. Hal Simmons Frank Spring Sutin, Thayer & Browne PC Aleli and Brian Colón
Supporter – Up to $499 The Hon. Bruce and Mrs. Mary Black Catron Catron & Pottow PC Hugh Dangler Michael K. Daniels Katsler Law Offices, Ltd. Kathleen M. Mixon J. Milburn Walters Court Reporting
8
Friend – Up to $199 Anonymous The Hon. Henry Alaniz Jeffrey Albright Colin Alcott Erika Andersen The Hon. Abigail Aragon Anna Aragon The Hon. M. Christina Armijo Atkinson & Kelsey PA David Baca and Georgianne Smith Bannerman & Johnson, PA Naomi Julia Barnes Lynn Bauling Arthur Beach Robert Becker Rachel Berenson Michelle Blake William Brancard The Hon. Beatrice Brickhouse Felix Briones, Jr. Peter J. Broullire, III Don Bruckner Shannon Bulman Calvert Menicucci, PC The Hon. Neil Candelaria Kathleen D. Carter Rodina Cave David Chacon Roxanna Chacon Denise M. Chanez C. Brian Charlton Vanessa Chavez Community Bank Delfido Conroy Joe Conte Matthew Coyte Erin Croke Ernestina Cruz Curtis & Lucero Law Firm Rick De Stefano The Hon. Maria Dominguez Martha A. Domme Diane P. Donaghy Larry Donahue Shannon L. Donahue Lisa K. Durrett Don E. Dutton
Katy Duhigg Brian F. Egolf The Hon. Sandra Watkins Engel Ann Farris Ella Joan Fenoglio Charles V. Garcia Mary Garza Jerry Hamilton Stephen S. Hamilton Michelle D. Harris Randy Harris David Harrison Glenna Hayes Bruce L. Herr Sue Herrmann Charlotte Hetherington Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence H. Hill Melissa Hill Phyllis D. Hill‐Maglione Richard Jacobs Arthur Jaramillo Samantha Jarrett Anthony Jeffries J. Gayolyn Johnson Paul A. Kastler Bonnie and Hank Kelly Nancy M. King Barbara and John Klaudt Barbara J. Koenig and Michael J. Maccini Keya Koul The Hon. William Lang Robert Lara Twila B. Larkin Robert Lasater Marron Lee Helen Lopez Brigitte Lotze Cindy J. Lovato‐Farmer The Hon. Alan M. Malott Dennis Manzanares Robert A. Martin Barbara Martinez R. Martinez Vincent E. Martinez Paula G. Maynes John F. McCarthy Susan McDevitt Lynn McKeever
9
Friend – Up to $199 Mark Meiering Walter J. Melendres Jane Meyer Robert Tito Meyer Richard C. Minzner Victor P. Montoya Maureen Moore Lynn E. Mostoller Dr. Kate Mulqueen Zenon F. Myszkowski Judy and Tim Flynn‐O'Brien Catherine Oliver Thomas Olson Monica M. Ontiveros Craig Orraj Peter and Jean Ossorio Leonard Padilla Paralegal Division, State Bar of New Mexico Harold Parks Parnall Law Firm Tom Peckham Jessica Perez Peter M. Romero & Associates, PC Mae Peterson Artie Pepin Ed Pitts Wesley O. Pool The Hon. John Pope Paula Powers Rosa Qualencia Racca Law Firm Gary Don Reagan Melissa Reeves Ray Regan JoAnne Reuter Charles Reynolds Jefferson Rhoades William F. Riordan Barbara A. Romo Antonia Roybal‐Mack Saenz & Torres, PA
Pia Salazar Salazar, Sullivan, & Jasionowski Joseph Sapien Leslie Saucedo Ronald J. Segel Steve Scholl Deborah S. Seligman William Sheridan Herbert T. Shillingburg, DDS Mary H. Smith Richard Spinello Robert St. John Thomas L. Stahl Mark D. Standridge Barbara G. Stephenson Edward Stone Raynard Struck Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Swift Elizabeth Taylor Ronald T. Taylor Norman S. Thayer Denise M. Torres Mary T. Torres Kay Ann Tysee Kim R. Udall Glenn Valdez Laure Van Heijenoort Charles J. Vigil Allan L. Wainwright William George Walker Walther Family Law Kevin Washburn John D. Watson Jane Webster Joel Weikman The Hon. Elizabeth E. Whitefield‐Thorne and
Paul Thorne David N. Whitham Vickie Wilcox Kathryn Wissel The Hon. Briana Zamora Bradford Zeikus
10
MISCELLANY
Case and Rules Question and Answer Report and Final Case Posting
Please follow the directions on the Trial Materials – Clarifications section of the national website on how to submit your questions about the case or rules.
An updated, clean copy of Case Materials will be published on the website on April 25, 2012, by 5:00 PM. All teams are required to use clean, updated copies of the case materials in all trial rounds.
Disclaimer
All persons and names used in this case are meant to be fictitious. While the names may bear a relation to certain famous New Mexicans and other famous fictional characters, any further similarity to those persons or to any other actual persons is strictly coincidental.
Copyright © 2012 by the Center for Civic Values
All rights reserved. Permission to duplicate portions of these materials for non‐profit educational purposes is hereby granted, provided attribution is given to the Center for Civic Values and the Case Writing Committee members.
The 2012 National Competition logo is Copyright © 2012 by Jon Grode. Mr. Grode has given permission for the organizers and participants to use this logo in competition materials, promotional materials, and in other non‐commercial materials related to the competition (such as team shirts, giveaways, etc.).
11
CASE SUMMARY
On April 23, 2010, in a dusty ditch thirty miles into the Jicarilla Apache natural gas field, a body
lays, cooling, a .308 rifle slug in his heart. Although it would take weeks to match the DNA, the
body belongs to a man named “Carl Mankin,” a former Marine and field officer with the
Intelligence Operations Division of the Department of Homeland Security, late a semi‐retired
private investigator with an Albuquerque firm specializing in False Claims Act litigation.
Mankin’s assignment was simple: track down leads suggesting that CH4, a major local energy
company, was siphoning off millions of cubic meters of natural gas, gas that was never reported
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and on which tens of millions of dollars in royalties were never
paid.
The story that begins with Mankin’s body ends in the courtroom of the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico, where one of the most powerful politicians in the country
– former United States Representative Rawley Winsor – stands trial for solicitation of murder.
Her/His accuser: a former intelligence officer named Budge DeBaca, who admits pulling the
trigger on the rifle that killed Mankin but claims that s/he was hired to do so by Winsor, whose
campaigns ran on CH4 money and who built her/his reputation as a manager while serving as
an officer of CH4. Plea in hand, DeBaca produces testimony and evidence of a clandestine plan
that culminated in a shadowy meeting in the lobby of the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Albuquerque,
New Mexico, all organized by Winsor. Winsor, a dedicated public servant, protests her/his
innocence vehemently and publicly, stating that her/his dealings with CH4 brought billions of
dollars to New Mexico and to the Jicarilla Apaches, whom s/he proudly represented for years
and from whom s/he partly descends. Winsor admits that a meeting with DeBaca occurred, but
claims that it was DeBaca attempting to blackmail her/him, not a murder for hire. According to
Winsor, DeBaca acted on her/his own.
Testifying alongside DeBaca for the prosecution are Jo/e Leaphorn, the FBI special agent who
cracked the case by tracing the paper trail from DeBaca to CH4 and Winsor; and Sydney
Gutierrez, the Senator’s long‐time aide and a Ramah Navajo. Testifying for the defense are Rep.
Winsor; Pope Victorio, a wilderness guide and trapper who observed both the drilling and the
killing; and Leslie Groves, Mankin’s business partner and computer specialist. One of New
Mexico’s hottest companies lies in ruin, undone by its own fraud on the United States. Will its
representative be the next to fall?
Trial is joined May 4, 2012.
12
THE PROBLEM (Balance this page left blank intentionally)
13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CRIMINAL NO. NHSMTC‐12 ) DATE FILED: April 29, 2011
Plaintiff, ) ) VIOLATIONS: vs. RAWLEY WINSOR, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) )
Count 1 – 18 U.S.C. § 2, 18 U.S.C. § 1111, 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder‐for‐hire or conspiracy to commit murder‐for‐hire; conspiracy to commit murder) ‐ 1 Count
) ) ) ) )
Count 2 – 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1958, 1113 (Attempted use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder‐for‐hire or conspiracy to commit murder‐for‐hire; conspiracy to commit murder ) – 1 count
INDICTMENT
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:
1. On or about March 29, 2010, defendant RAWLEY WINSOR placed a telephone call from the
offices of the United States House of Representatives in Washington, DC, to New Mexico to
Blasdelezo Cassin DeBaca (“DeBaca”). RAWLEY WINSOR contacted DeBaca to arrange a
meeting with DeBaca in order to further an attempt to solicit DeBaca to commit homicide.
2. On or about March 30, 2010, DeBaca met defendant RAWLEY WINSOR at the Sangre de
Cristo Catholic Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Defendant RAWLEY WINSOR offered to
pay DeBaca to commit the murder of “C.M.,” a person known to the grand jury, for a total
payment of $100,000.
3. DeBaca agreed to commit the murder of “C.M.” in exchange for the payment of monies
equal to or in excess of $50,000.
4. Defendant RAWLEY WINSOR paid $50,000 to DeBaca through a transfer of United States
currency as a down payment on the murder of “C.M.”
14
5. Defendant RAWLEY WINSOR flew from Washington, DC, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, with
the intention of participating in this meeting and delivering this currency.
6. On or about April 18, 2010, defendant RAWLEY WINSOR met DeBaca in the Hyatt Regency
Hotel in Albuquerque, New Mexico. At or about this time, RAWLEY WINSOR agreed to pay
DeBaca an additional $150,000 to murder “P.V.”
7. In April 2010, defendant RAWLEY WINSOR communicated additional information to DeBaca
to assist DeBaca in locating and murdering “C.M.”
8. Defendant RAWLEY WINSOR paid or caused to be paid an additional $50,000 to DeBaca
through wire transfer and/or “PayYal” payments on the internet for the murder of “P.V.”
9. The payment of $50,000 was made by wire transfer that traveled in interstate and
international commerce to a “PayYal” account maintained by DeBaca under the PayYal
identifier “IDont.”
10. Defendant RAWLEY WINSOR further agreed to pay or cause to be paid an additional
$150,000 to DeBaca after the murders of both “C.M.” and “P.V.” were completed.
11. On or about April 23, 2010, DeBaca killed C.M. by shooting C.M. in the chest.
12. On or about April 23‐24, 2010, DeBaca placed personal effects from C.M.’s body into the
United States mail in order to prove that C.M. was dead so that defendant RAWLEY WINSOR
would pay DeBaca.
13. On or about April 23‐24, 2010, DeBaca took substantial steps toward killing P.V. by, among
other things, traveling to a meeting with P.V. and searching for P.V. at P.V.’s home with the
intention of killing P.V. if s/he could be located.
WHEREFORE, the grand jury finds that probable cause exists to charge defendant RAWLEY
WINSOR as follows:
COUNT ONE
14. On or about March 30, 2010, through on or about April 23, 2010, in the District of New
Mexico and elsewhere, the above‐named defendant conspired and agreed with DeBaca
and/or others known and unknown to the grand jury to murder “C.M.” in violation of the
15
laws of the State of New Mexico, that is, New Mexico Code, Section 30‐2‐1, and the laws of
the United States, that is 18 U.S.C. § 1111.
15. Defendant offered to pay a thing of pecuniary value, to wit, monies equal to or in excess of
$50,000, for such murder; and
16. Defendant and/or her/his co‐conspirator or co‐conspirators known to the grand jury
traveled in interstate commerce and/or utilized the United States mails and/or utilized
instrumentalities of interstate commerce to form the conspiracy and/or to accomplish its
ends.
17. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1111, and 1958.
COUNT TWO
18. On or about March 30, 2010, through on or about April 23, 2010, in the District of New
Mexico and elsewhere, the above‐named defendant conspired and agreed with DeBaca to
murder “P.V.,” in violation of the laws of the State of New Mexico, that is, New Mexico
Code, Section 30‐2‐1, and the laws of the United States, that is 18 U.S.C. § 1111.
19. Defendant offered to pay a thing of pecuniary value, to wit, monies equal to or in excess of
$50,000, for such murder; and,
20. Defendant and/or her/his co‐conspirator or co‐conspirators known to the grand jury
traveled in interstate commerce and/or utilized the United States mails and/or utilized
instrumentalities of interstate commerce to form the conspiracy or to accomplish its ends.
21. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1111, 1113 and 1958.
Lisa Carol Fremont___ Lisa Carol Fremont GRAND JURY FOREPERSON
L.B. Jeffries_________
L. B. Jeffries UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CRIMINAL NO. NHSMTC‐12 ) DATE FILED: April 29, 2011
Plaintiff, ) ) VIOLATIONS: vs. RAWLEY WINSOR, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) )
Count 1 – 18 U.S.C. § 2, 18 U.S.C. § 1111, 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder‐for‐hire or conspiracy to commit murder‐for‐hire; conspiracy to commit murder) ‐ 1 Count
) ) ) )
Count 2 – 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1958, 1113 (Attempted use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder‐for‐hire or conspiracy to commit murder‐for‐hire; conspiracy to commit murder ) – 1 count
STIPULATIONS
1. Jurisdiction, venue and chain of custody of the evidence are proper and may not be
challenged.
2. All documents, signatures and exhibits, including pre‐markings, included in the case
materials are authentic and accurate in all respects; except as noted below, no
objections to the authenticity of the documents or exhibits will be entertained. The
parties reserve the right to dispute any legal or factual conclusions based on these items
and to make objections other than to authenticity.
3. All statements made by witnesses and all physical evidence and exhibits were
constitutionally obtained and may not be challenged on this basis.
4. Before either party may solicit expert testimony from a witness, it must first tender that
witness to the court as an expert.
5. Once identified by a witness, Exhibits 3 (.308 casing and associated report) and 11
(letter from IOD) are admissible by any party without further foundation, if admissible
pursuant to Rules 401‐404.
6. The authenticity of Exhibit 8 is limited to the fact that it is what it purports to be, i.e., a
rubbing from the Hyatt hotel room made by Jo/e Leaphorn. It is not stipulated that the
17
rubbing is of a note written by Rawley Winsor or that the handwriting on the note is
Rawley Winsor’s, nor is the admissibility of this exhibit otherwise stipulated.
7. As the lead investigating agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the custodian of
law enforcement records pertaining to the prosecution. As the lead investigating officer,
Jo/e Leaphorn is a representative of the FBI and the nominal custodian of those records.
8. If it can be shown that the documents that compose Exhibit 9 were records of a
regularly conducted business activity, they may be introduced without the testimony of
their regular custodian.
9. The transactions identified in Exhibit 7 are accurately reported, and Rawley Winsor
personally made each of the transactions identified in Exhibit 7.
10. Rawley Winsor was separately charged with misdemeanor structuring in violation of
Title 31, United States Code, 5324(a)(1) and (d)(2) based on having withdrawn money
from a federally‐insured bank in amounts designed to avoid federal reporting
requirements. On December 13, 2011, s/he pleaded guilty to that offense. Her/His
sentencing hearing will be scheduled once the trial in this case concludes.
11. The individual known for purposes of this trial as “Carl Mankin” and identified by the
grand jury as “P.J.” was a human being within the meaning of Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 1111, 1958(a) and 2 and New Mexico Code, Section 30‐2‐1.
12. P.J., a/k/a “Carl Mankin,” died on or about April 23, 2010. The cause of the death of P.J.,
a/k/a “Carl Mankin” was internal bleeding and respiratory failure resulting from a bullet
wound to the chest. The bullet in question was a .308 cal. slug, consistent with having
been fired from a rifle, including but not limited to a Winchester Model 70.
13. The individual identified in the Indictment as “P.V.” is Pope Victorio.
14. This matter has been bifurcated, and this trial is restricted to the determination of guilt
or innocence. If the defendant is found guilty, sentencing will occur in a separate
hearing at a time and place to be determined by the Court.
18
WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST
The following witnesses shall be called by the parties.
FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENDANT
Blasdelezo “Budge” DeBaca Pope Victorio
Jo/e Leaphorn Rawley Winsor
Sydney Gutierrez Leslie Groves
The following exhibits may be used by teams in competition. They are pre‐marked and are to be referred to by number as follows:
EXHIBIT NUMBER EXHIBIT NAME
1 Blasdelezo “Budge” DeBaca’s Notes re: Mankin
2 Items belonging to Mankin sent to Rawley Winsor and Express Mail Receipt
3 .308 Casing from Body and Firearms Report from FBI Laboratory Services
4 Firearms Sales Receipt
5 Forque Kitchen and Bar Receipt Paid by Rawley Winsor
6 PayYal Receipt
7 Account Records Submitted As Exhibit A to Plea Agreement in Structuring Case
8 Rubbing made by Jo/e Leaphorn from Pad in Rawley Winsor’s Hyatt Regency Hotel Room
9 Messages Retrieved by Leslie Groves from Eve Kendall’s E‐Mail Account
10 Letter from Rawley Winsor to Jo/e Leaphorn
11 IOD Letter Confirming Mankin’s Aliases
12 Blasdelezo “Budge” DeBaca Plea Agreement
19
DECLARATION OF BLASDELEZO “BUDGE” DEBACA
My name is Blasdelezo Cassin DeBaca, although since my youth, I have been known as Budge, 1
because I don’t. I’m 51, and I currently reside in United States Penitentiary – Tucson. I expect to 2
be in federal prison for most of the rest of my life. On April 23, 2010, I killed the individual now 3
known publicly as Carl Mankin. One shot, one kill. 4
I learned early, growing up in New York City, that I’d have to fight for anything I wanted in life. 5
When some guy slapped my sister around, my brothers and sisters and I made sure he wouldn’t 6
do it again. He wound up in a coma or something and I got an assault conviction, even though I 7
never touched the guy. When I turned 18, I tried to join the Army, but they wouldn’t take me 8
on account of my record. As I’m walking out of the station, this guy who had heard me speaking 9
Spanish with the sergeant says that the Army’s not the only way to serve my country. I’m not 10
allowed to talk much about what I did, or even what agency paid my bills, but Uncle Sam 11
wanted me to stop communism from spreading in South America. Later, when the Soviet Union 12
fell, my mission changed to drug interdiction. I stayed in Nicaragua for a few years, but I worked 13
most of Central and South America at one time or another. 14
The prosecutor says the defendant has a constitutional right to know about what I did, and I am 15
told I can say this without breaking the National Security Act: 16
During my years as an employee of the United States government, I performed a number of 17
acts that would have been illegal under the laws of the United States had they taken place on 18
U.S. soil or targeted American citizens. In the service of my country, and acting in accordance 19
with my orders, I have lied on many occasions, including twice while under oath in foreign 20
courts, have stolen property, and have committed acts that have resulted in the deaths of 21
others. I have been trained in surveillance, counter‐surveillance, intelligence gathering, 22
deception, and the effective use of various weapons, including firearms, and martial arts 23
techniques. 24
Eventually, I got tired of living in the trees with only the birds to keep me company. In 1998, I 25
had my 20 years in, and I retired, figuring I’d go back to the New York and open up a tapas place 26
or something. I was only 38, though, and I was bored out of my mind in months. On vacation in 27
New Mexico a few months later, I fell in love with the place and decided to stay in the area. I 28
made a bunch of new friends, and one of them introduced me to bird watching, which 29
definitely helped to calm my nerves. Plus, I realized I could make a better living teaching people 30
to do what I used to do than making goat cheese empanadas. I found some land in northern 31
New Mexico that reminded me of Peru and Costa Gravas. After seeing the sun set one night, I 32
named my company Red Mountain, and within a year, I’d trained half a dozen field officers. I 33
20
used the money I made to buy the adjacent land above the tree line, and when the military and 34
intelligence agencies needed to practice in someplace like the mountains of Afghanistan, Red 35
Mountain was ready. 36
The invasion of Iraq created a need for competent, trustworthy operatives. By 2005, I employed 37
over a thousand officers, and we were a critical part of military operations. Unfortunately, as 38
the war grew unpopular, so did we, and it was easier to blame “mercenaries” for committing 39
“atrocities” than it was to recognize that the difference between innocent and insurgent is not 40
always clear. In 2006, one of our units was accused of murdering a group of civilians. There was 41
no real evidence, but there were a lot of Iraqis willing to testify that they saw it done, and it was 42
a huge black eye for the company. I tried to shield my people from blame when Congress came 43
calling, but I misremembered something, and I had to plead guilty to lying to Congress. 44
The end came much quicker than I would have thought possible. During the hearings, this 45
Agency hack named Adam Canfield leaked a photo supposedly showing a Red Mountain 46
Humvee running down a kid. Canfield was with the Inspector General, basically internal affairs, 47
you know, one of those office drones who likes to come into the field with a fake ID in the 48
name of “transparency” but really just wants to tell the people actually doing things how the 49
“regulations” said that they should be done differently. Anyway, those photos can be doctored 50
easily, especially if you have someone skilled with computers, like Canfield did. I knew Canfield 51
would get his one day because all secret agents blow their cover at some point. No one is that 52
good. 53
The shame of it all is that Rawley Winsor, from the New Mexico 5th Congressional District, had 54
been personally briefed on our operations, and s/he could have softened our landing. Instead, 55
that snake gave this whole speech during my hearing about how s/he was disappointed 56
because s/he thought we were true patriots like her/him. I just snapped, and I said some things 57
I shouldn’t have. There’s no crime worse than leaving one of your own behind. Red Mountain 58
could have been fined, or even suspended, but instead we were debarred: no more 59
government contracts, not even guarding a post office. Could we have gone to work for some 60
foreign dictator? Sure. But that’s not who I am. I paid every single employee three months’ 61
salary and didn’t take a dime for myself. I may not have had two pennies to rub together, but I 62
had something Winsor never will: honor. 63
Of course, honor doesn’t pay your bills. Red Mountain was toxic in the political climate, and my 64
convictions stood in the way of getting other work. The real estate market fell, and even selling 65
our land didn’t keep me in the black for long, so I did odd jobs: private investigation, short order 66
cook, clerk at J‐Mart, that kind of thing. Still, I had made good friends back in New Mexico, 67
including Pope Victorio, another burned spook and fellow birdwatcher. My therapist told me to 68
stop keeping so many secrets, so I even told Pope when one of my agency buddies gave me the 69
21
best birthday present ever: an old IOD file showing ole’ Captain America, Rawley Winsor, 70
spitting on a soldier’s coffin. 71
After talking things through with Pope and my therapist, I decided not to do anything with the 72
photo. I was finally ready to leave the past behind, when on March 29, 2010, I get a call from 73
area code 202, prefix 225: the House of Representatives. “Please hold for Rawley Winsor.” And 74
then s/he’s on the line. S/He wanted to meet me, in person, in the parking lot of Sangre de 75
Christo Church in Albuquerque, at like 10:00 the following night. S/He sounded very worked up, 76
even over the phone. I mean a meeting in the middle of the night in an empty parking lot on my 77
home turf? That could only mean a job, and not one you want to tell your mother about. I 78
thought about telling her/him to bug off, but only someone as powerful as Winsor could get 79
Red Mountain back in business. 80
I was glad to see that by the time we got to the church, s/he had calmed down. No one likes a 81
twitchy client. S/He said that there was someone in town who was a threat to national security, 82
but s/he was so obviously lying that I laughed in her/his face. Then s/he drops her/his voice real 83
low and says, “We need this guy out of play, you understand?” That sobered me up real quick. I 84
thought this was just a corporate intel gig, but what Winsor was asking was totally different. 85
S/He offered me $100,000 on the spot, and s/he said s/he had fifty grand in the car. I was about 86
to walk away anyway ‐ I mean, I’m no criminal ‐ but s/he grabbed my arm real tight and said 87
“It’s an old friend of yours.” I knew what s/he meant immediately: the target was “Adam 88
Canfield.” Adam Canfield and Rawley Winsor ruined my life, and now one of them wanted to 89
pay me to kill the other one? Winsor popped the trunk, and I was fifty thousand dollars richer. 90
Now, while I was definitely happy to get a chance to take out Canfield, I wouldn’t have just 91
sought out the opportunity. I’m a professional, and I don’t carry grudges. This one was all about 92
the money and the chance to get Red Mountain back in business. 93
One thing I learned a long time ago is that no job is ever what it appears, so I started doing 94
research on Winsor – not Canfield – hitting the local library archives and checking out Federal 95
Election Commission filings. Turns out that CH4 is where Winsor made her/his money and that 96
it’s been one of the biggest contributors to the Friends of Rawley Winsor and Winsor for New 97
Mexico. We’re talking max money from the company and every member of its board and senior 98
leadership, plus max corporate contributions to friendly Political Action Committees. Plus, I 99
called around to a couple people in town who used to be in my line of work and they confirmed 100
that they had done work for CH4: tailing site inspectors, checking out their advance hotel and 101
plane reservations, etc. CH4 knew it was being inspected weeks before anyone showed up. 102
Now, somehow, Canfield had gotten word of it. Bad news for CH4: Canfield was a real black‐103
hearted son of a gun, the kind of guy who would blackmail his own mother. 104
22
So the good news was that I knew why I had been hired, and I had some insurance in case my 105
employer tried to stab me in the back. Finding Canfield was another story. The guy was a 106
damned ghost. But, I had a few notes on her/him from back in the day, and knew a few 107
identifiers, like the fact that Canfield walked with an exaggerated limp. I kept a notebook, but it 108
was really a loose collection of ideas rather than concentrated thoughts. I knew it was a matter 109
of time: if Canfield had what he needed already, either CH4 would have already paid, or I’d 110
have read about it on the cover of the Albuquerque Journal. So Canfield was around, and I just 111
needed him to make a mistake. And what a mistake it was. 112
I was out with Pope one morning around then trying to catch a glimpse of a painted redstart. 113
Pope was distraught because this guy Mankin had told her/him a tale of fraud and corporate 114
wrongdoing and wanted Pope to serve as his guide so he could take a look at some of CH4’s 115
meters. The story sounded suspicious from the get‐go, but when Pope told me about Mankin’s 116
limp, I knew right away that Canfield had picked up the name Mankin as an alias and had fallen 117
right into my lap. It wasn’t too hard to trick Pope into letting me serve as Mankin’s guide 118
instead. 119
Of course, that solution was also a problem. If I did what I had been hired to do, Pope might put 120
two and two together, and I knew her/his silence was not guaranteed. Pope has told a lot of tall 121
tales over the years, and s/he is kind of known as an attention hog, but even so, as much as it 122
pained me, Pope was in the way. Still, from what I had learned in my research and what Pope 123
had revealed unwittingly, CH4 was running some kind of scam, and Pope was smack dab in the 124
middle of it. I doubted they liked loose ends any better than I did. So I called Winsor and told 125
her/him that we needed to meet. S/He tried to get me to set up some kind of night meeting 126
again, but s/she wouldn’t be in New Mexico for any night anytime soon, and I didn’t want to 127
leave a paper trail flying to DC. We agreed to meet in the lobby bar of the Hyatt Regency Hotel 128
in Albuquerque the next night, April 18th, before s/he hosted some fundraiser. Truth be told, it 129
didn’t bother me one bit to make Winsor sit across from me out in front of God and country. 130
The meeting was tense. I explained the situation to Winsor, and s/he immediately started 131
sweating. S/He was a whole lot less eager to have a second body. But I’d done my homework, 132
and I was offering to settle things for both Winsor and CH4. I told the Honorable Representative 133
to get her/his buds to throw in the cash. I demanded another $150,000, or $250,000 total, the 134
same amount my land in northern New Mexico would cost me to get back, with another fifty 135
grand up front for killing Pope. I gave her/him a drop box address and my PayYal account, then I 136
charged the most expensive things on the menu to her/his room. I wasn’t even worried about 137
blowback, because I had the whole conversation on tape. Or thought I did. My piece of junk 138
recorder didn’t turn on. 139
23
The next morning, I swung by the drop box and saw a note on Hyatt stationery – “Operation 140
Two Birds a go. Payment agreeable on proof of completion AFTER April 22.” Apparently, 141
operational security was a foreign concept. At least one of us still remembered how to handle a 142
covert operation: I burned the note on the spot. An hour or two later, fifty grand landed in my 143
PayYal account. I called Pope to reschedule my meeting with Mankin, and the next day, April 144
20, I hit a gun show with a fake ID and paid cash for a used hunting rifle and a waterproof bag. 145
Then I called Pope and set up a “bird watching” trip on the 24th to a part of the reservation 146
where no one would ever find her/his body. It was hard to do, but I’ve deceived people before, 147
and s/he bought it. 148
I went to the plant on April 23 several hours before Canfield was to arrive, and I set up about 149
three hundred yards from the meeting site. Canfield came in slowly and scanned the area well, 150
but I was camouflaged perfectly. I dialed him in and shot him once, in the chest, just to his left 151
of centerline. But then some clouds rolled in, and I couldn’t find the shell casing. I was furious; 152
what a rookie mistake. I looked for a few minutes, but even though it was pitch black, I knew 153
that someone else was out there. When you’ve been where I have, you trust those senses. I 154
grabbed Canfield’s wallet and a medallion he had around his neck and took off. I sent the 155
medallion to a P.O. Box that Winsor had given me, per our agreement. I wiped my prints off the 156
gun and ditched it in a dumpster. 157
The next morning, I got ready to kill my friend, but Pope didn’t show, and I realized I’d been 158
made. I drove past Pope’s place, but s/he wasn’t there. I started making some calls, but I 159
couldn’t find her/him. I ran home to grab some shut‐eye and get some things I would need on 160
the run, but before dawn, Jo/e Leaphorn showed up. I had some hope that they wouldn’t find 161
my secured safe, but when I saw Pope go into the house, I knew I was cooked. Pope’s one heck 162
of a tracker. 163
I saw Jo/e come out with my notebooks and extra passports, and I knew I was going down. But I 164
wasn’t going down alone, not again. I cut a deal and sang as long and as loud as I could. It’s 165
intense – 240 months, no parole. But I’m only 51, and even 20 years sure beats the life I was 166
looking at, or worse, the death penalty. Heck, they probably even could have extradited me to 167
somewhere they want me badly. The Paraguayans think I killed their President with a fork, 168
which totally wasn’t me, and in Costa Gravas, they still call me Angel de la Muerte after a mix‐169
up at a government minister’s wedding. I just hope that they throw away the key for that 170
scumbag Winsor. 171
24
WITNESS ADDENDUM I have reviewed this statement, and I have nothing of significance to add. The material facts are true and correct. Signed,
Blasdelezo “Budge” DeBaca SIGNED AND SWORN to before me at 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 National High School Mock Trial Championship.
Molly Johnson Giger Molly Johnson Giger, Notary Public State of New Mexico My Commission Expires: November, 1, 2012
25
DECLARATION OF JO/E LEAPHORN
My name is Jo/e Leaphorn, I am 36, and I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of 1
Investigation (FBI) assigned to the Albuquerque Field Office. For over a century, the Bureau has 2
been responsible for policing crimes in what federal law calls “Indian Country,” and I am proud 3
to be a part of that mission. I investigate crimes throughout New Mexico, but I do most of my 4
work in and around the four Navajo reservations and the Jicarilla and Mescalero Apache 5
reservations. I am an Alamo Navajo by birth, but after 13 years here, the Apaches have come to 6
accept me as one of their own. 7
I have always wanted to be a cop and to protect the people of the reservation. I graduated from 8
Arizona State with a degree in Criminology in 1994 and joined the Tribal Police a year later, 9
after completing the Indian Police Academy run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Office of Justice 10
Services. I also did some liaising with Shadow Wolves around then and was instrumental in 11
bringing down a large drug smuggling gang. Then a couple years later, I was tipped off by 12
someone I grew up with that one of the most notorious bone thieves in the world, Dakota 13
Smith, was planning to rob the Apache Nugget casino. I busted him myself. That got me on the 14
FBI’s radar, and I made agent a year later, after I completed the required five months training 15
program at the FBI Academy. That training includes legal, physical, procedural, forensic and 16
weapons skills, and recruits are rigorously tested before they become Special Agents. The 17
Academy also taught me the value of cooperating witnesses. I’m well known for my ability to 18
get convictions by using cooperators, even though it’s caught up with me once or twice when it 19
turned out that someone was just telling me what I wanted to hear and the defendant was 20
innocent… or at least not guilty, if you know what I mean. 21
I’ve been working out of the Southwest Field Office for nine years. My first assignment was in 22
Phoenix, working high‐profile organized crime cases. Everything went great until I was accused 23
of extorting money from someone we were investigating. I went before an administrative 24
tribunal, and they cleared me of that, but they found that I had lied to my fellow agents about 25
my actions. I was assigned up here two months later, and I haven’t heard a peep from 26
Washington since. I love working on the reservation, but it’s kind of dull, and it’s no way to get 27
ahead in the Bureau. It’s kind of hard to earn a bonus when the Special Agent in Charge 28
sometimes forgets to do your performance evaluation. Unless I hit another case like Smith, it’s 29
probably all I’ll ever do. 30
The Jicarilla Apaches aren’t a big tribe, only a few thousand in all, and you get to know the 31
troublemakers real well. So when Pope Victorio showed up at my office one day in April 2010, I 32
didn’t think much of it. Pope’s a natural tracker like you wouldn’t believe, but not someone 33
overly concerned with the law of private property. I’ve had to cite Pope more than once for 34
26
trespassing and for poaching a few times. Pope is known around the local law enforcement 35
community for her/his tall tales. In addition, Pope had disgraced the Shadow Wolves by 36
accepting a bribe, which never sat too well with me, and s/he offered me one, which was flat‐37
out offensive. I will never forget that. 38
So I didn’t believe it when Pope told me about seeing Budge DeBaca shoot some guy named 39
Mankin out on the Reservation, near one of the CH4 rigs. The location made sense; the whole 40
town knows s/he works the back country for CH4. But first off, there’s no one around here 41
named Mankin, and second, I was more worried what Pope was doing out there ‐ sometimes 42
the locals grab a piece of equipment or some piping and sell it for scrap. But Pope insisted, and 43
so I humored her/him by running an ID check for this Mankin guy, using a business card Pope 44
showed me. Instead of a result, I got a very official looking screen demanding my ID and 45
password. I punched that in, and a window came up with the seal of the Intelligence Operations 46
Division over at Homeland Security and a phone number I could call to justify my need to know. 47
I was out the door before Pope’s jaw left the floor. 48
By the time we reached the site, it was nearly dawn. The body wasn’t hard to spot, and the 49
cause of death was clear – a large‐bore rifle shot to the chest. The body hadn’t been dragged, 50
but from the dirt impressions around it, it looked like someone had moved it. The victim had no 51
ID, and his shirt was hanging open. I grabbed Pope and asked her/him to help me track the 52
shooter’s position. The shooter had done a good job of obscuring her/his tracks, but Pope is the 53
best tracker in 33 counties. Walking what appeared to be the line of fire as the sun came up, I 54
got a huge stroke of luck: Pope spotted a shell casing. Unfortunately, it was a .308, one of the 55
most popular bullets for hunting in the West. I called in the body, and I used the Tribal Police 56
workstation to run a search on the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, a service 57
of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that tracks weapons used in crimes. 58
Most people know about the ballistics matching of bullets, but the way that a firing pin strikes 59
the cartridge can be just as distinctive, and we actually catch more bad guys with the shell 60
casings than the bullets, which are often deformed by impact. The results came back late that 61
night. The shell matched a Winchester Model 70 hunting rifle that was in the Park Service 62
database because it was used to illegally kill a buffalo in Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming 63
back in ‘08. 64
After it was forfeited to the Park Police, the rifle had been sold by the government to a licensed 65
private gun dealer, Margot Wendice. The next morning, I called her office, and her secretary 66
told me that she was just heading home from a gun show in Albuquerque. I caught her on the 67
highway, heading north. At first, she wasn’t able to help much; the Model 70 is a very popular 68
rifle. But when I pulled out a photo of DeBaca from the Department of Motor Vehicles, she ID’d 69
DeBaca immediately and said she had sold her/him a 70. Only Wendice said DeBaca’s name was 70
27
“J.J. Gittes.” I didn’t show her any other photos; I didn’t have any other suspects. This whole 71
thing screamed “Spook.” 72
Based on the gun and Pope’s testimony, I got a warrant to search DeBaca’s place. Our initial 73
search didn’t find anything suspicious, but I brought Pope in, and s/he found a concealed safe. I 74
got a locksmith to crack it open, and I found a few thousand dollars in twenties, a couple of very 75
high quality fake IDs, and a stack of notebooks containing all kinds of crazy stuff, lots of it in 76
code, including pictures of this Mankin guy. I gave the prosecutor a couple of these pages from 77
one of the notebooks. 78
I arrested DeBaca on the spot and I’d barely even started showing her/him the evidence when 79
the story started pouring out. At first, I couldn’t believe what s/he was saying. I mean, murder 80
for hire? Rawley Winsor? I have a framed letter from Rep. Winsor on the wall of my office 81
congratulating me on the Smith case. It sounded just like someone lying to save her/his hide. 82
But the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. I mean, what if Budge was right, and 83
Mankin was close to blowing the whistle on CH4? Winsor was a bigwig there. Everyone knows 84
that. Plus, according to Federal Election Commission records, CH4 is one of Winsor’s biggest 85
contributors. If the company was dirty, that gave Winsor lots of motive to keep Mankin quiet. I 86
mean, when the guys giving you money made it by stealing it from your voters, that’s not good 87
for your career. And speaking of careers, it wouldn’t be good for mine to let a U.S. 88
Representative get away with murder. In fact, catching a murdering U.S. Representative is a 89
way to the top of the Bureau. 90
When you’re dealing with cooperators, the fastest way to figure out if they’re telling the truth is 91
to check the details. That’s especially true when you’re dealing with someone like DeBaca. 92
Around town, people don’t trust DeBaca, after that whole thing in front of Congress. S/He had 93
always been straight with me, though. So I made a couple of quick calls to verify the details of 94
Budge’s story, especially the parts about Budge meeting Winsor. I told Tuayese, the bartender 95
at the Hyatt, that I had a subpoena for their credit card records. I didn’t, but I’ve known him 96
since he got caught dealing dope in high school, and I knew he wasn’t going to call me on it. I 97
learned that DeBaca had eaten there, and Winsor paid for the meal. Plus, Pope told me that 98
s/he’d seen the two of them together that night, and s/he’d heard Winsor tell DeBaca that s/he 99
had a problem that s/he needed help with. I got a copy of the receipt from Tuayese for the 100
Bureau’s records. 101
So everything that DeBaca had said checked out, and then s/he gave us the location of the gun. 102
There weren’t any prints on it, but we pulled some reservation dirt out of the barrel. DeBaca 103
had basically fallen on the sword, and that’s usually the sign of a great cooperator – or a very 104
good liar. Anyway, DeBaca said that there was one more fact that would prove her story, but 105
s/he wouldn’t talk until s/he had a deal. Her lawyer and the prosecutor made a deal: if DeBaca’s 106
28
info panned out, then the death penalty would be off the table and the government would 107
recommend a sentence of 20 years. I was stunned; I mean DeBaca is a cold‐blooded killer. I 108
don’t care if s/he gave up the guy from the grassy knoll, there’s no way s/he should ever get off 109
that easy. In over a decade of law enforcement, I’ve never see a deal that sweet for a murderer. 110
While the ink was drying, DeBaca gave us the address of the P.O. Box in DC where s/he claimed 111
to have sent Winsor proof of Mankin’s death. But s/he sent it Express Mail, and more than two 112
days had passed. I figured it would be long gone, but I decided to check with the United States 113
Postal Inspection Service just in case. It wasn’t where it was supposed to be, but the Postal 114
Inspectors found it in a different P.O. Box at the same office. In the package was Mankin’s 115
identification and a Zia sun necklace that Mankin had been wearing when he died. I had the 116
Postal Inspectors take pictures for evidentiary purposes and re‐stuff the envelope. Guess we 117
just got lucky, eh? 118
Anyway, I had the Postal Inspectors put the package from DeBaca into the right box while I 119
caught the redeye to DC. The next morning, who should appear but Sydney Gutierrez, Winsor’s 120
top lieutenant. S/He went straight to Winsor’s box, and s/he looked totally relieved to have 121
found the package. I arrested her/him on the spot for conspiracy to commit murder. I’ve known 122
Sydney since way back, and s/he’s not the killing type. It just didn’t fit. I tried to interrogate 123
her/him, but s/he asked for a lawyer, and that’s that, you know? 124
Turns out arresting a Congressional aide is like kicking a hornet’s nest. Within hours, I had 125
everybody from the Deputy Director on down screaming at me, and I spent the next 48 hours 126
getting grilled about everything I’d done while they kept me moving so that the Washington 127
Post couldn’t find me. Three days later, Gutierrez came in just long enough to invoke 128
“legislative immunity,” whatever that is. The Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section 129
took the case away, and the Bureau put me on the next flight out of town with instructions not 130
to come back before my retirement dinner. 131
But a good investigator doesn’t let something like that stop her/him and definitely not on a 132
career case. As soon as the wheels touched down, I was on my way to the Hyatt. I talked it over 133
with Tuayese, who told me that the room Winsor used was reserved for celebrity sorts. We 134
don’t get many of those around here, so I sweet‐talked the manager, who I dated in high 135
school, into letting me into the room. There wasn’t much, but the room did have one of those 136
stationery notepads. I pulled out a pencil and did a rubbing, a classic law enforcement 137
technique I learned at the Academy. It wasn’t super‐clear, but it looked to me like it said “Op….. 138
Birds… go… AFTER April 22.” The last part was really clear. There were some other impressions 139
on the pad, but they didn’t mean much. The hotel logs showed that only one other guest had 140
even reserved that room, and they did not show whether or not she had even picked up her 141
key. I had some basic training in handwriting analysis from the Indian Police Academy, and the 142
29
Bureau gave me updated training. I had high marks in those classes, and even though it was 143
nine years ago, I still remember most of what I learned. The handwriting looked to me exactly 144
like the handwriting on Winsor’s note in my office. I packed up the evidence and sent it to DC 145
with my regards and an affidavit. 146
I figured that was the end of it, but then I got a call from Linda Brown. She’s a local lawyer well 147
known for her work in False Claims Act cases. The False Claims Act is a federal statute that 148
allows private citizens who learn of fraud committed against the United States to bring a 149
federal case exposing that fraud. In our area, a lot of these cases involve Indian reservations. 150
See, there’s oil and natural gas under a lot of reservations, and if companies want it, they have 151
to pay royalties, per barrel of oil or cubic meter of gas, to the tribes that own the land. The 152
companies have to report the volume of oil or gas and their profits on it to the Bureau of Indian 153
Affairs, which holds the lands in trust for the tribes. 154
As you can imagine, there’s a huge incentive to lie – if they report half the barrels, they can 155
double their profits. These cases can be worth tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to 156
the tribes and 15% or more of every dollar goes to the whistleblower and her attorneys. Linda 157
confirmed that her firm had hired Mankin and his assistant, Leslie Groves, to investigate CH4 158
because they had a whistleblower complaint. I talked with her for a few minutes, telling her 159
what I could and “no commenting” the rest. Two days later, the Albuquerque Journal started a 160
series of headline stories about CH4 and its connection to Mankin’s death. The stories ran for a 161
week, and pretty soon our little field office was host to a dozen or more BIA inspectors. 162
Still, I thought Winsor would be the One That Got Away. Then came the next bombshell – on 163
May 23, the Journal published a bunch of photos of Winsor, including one of her/him spitting 164
on a soldier’s coffin. I mean, that was back in Vietnam, but when you wrap yourself as tight in 165
the flag as Winsor did, it doesn’t take much. Primary season was over, but s/he went down hard 166
in the general election. A week later, the lawyer from Public Integrity calls me out of nowhere. I 167
guess being a disgraced congressperson associated with a bankrupt company isn’t much 168
protection. We subpoenaed Winsor’s bank records and, even though there wasn’t any direct 169
evidence of the payments to DeBaca, there were a whole series of carefully orchestrated cash 170
withdrawals, all of them just under the legal reporting limit. I don’t care what reservation 171
you’re from – in the United States that’s illegal. Banks are required to report financial 172
transactions over $10,000 in order to prevent criminals from moving large amounts of money 173
anonymously. It is a federal crime, called “structuring,” to intentionally try to frustrate these 174
rules by moving amounts just under $10,000 so you’re not reported. 175
DOJ liked what they were seeing, and they offered Gutierrez immunity. S/He spilled the beans 176
in a hurry once her/his own tail was out of the fire. The House counsel saw the evidence of 177
structuring and the transcript from Gutierrez’s interrogation, and the House decided to waive 178
30
the legislative immunity entirely. It’s no small thing to arrest a U.S. Representative, and the 179
prosecutors took their sweet time getting around to indicting Winsor. It didn’t help that 180
Mankin’s assistant Leslie Groves was telling anyone who would listen that Budge acted alone or 181
that Sydney Gutierrez put her/him up to it. Groves had documents to back up her/his story, but 182
even someone who creates fake documents for the good guys is still a forger at heart, 183
especially when s/he’s actually a forger. The right person’s headed to jail, just as soon as this 184
jury does the right thing.185
WITNESS ADDENDUM I have reviewed this statement, and I have nothing of significance to add. The material facts are true and correct. Signed,
Jo/e Leaphorn SIGNED AND SWORN to before me at 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 National High School Mock Trial Championship.
Molly Johnson Giger Molly Johnson Giger, Notary Public State of New Mexico My Commission Expires: November, 1, 2012
31
DECLARATION OF SYDNEY GUTIERREZ
My name is Sydney Gutierrez, and I have been proud to work with Rawley Winsor for over 20 1
years. I have no interest in being part of this witch hunt. 2
I met Rawley Winsor in 1985, when I was just another Ramah Navajo at Cibola County 3
community college. I had always been a lousy student, but Rawley recognized that I was 4
actually just dyslexic, not stupid or lazy. Rawley took an interest in me, getting me nice clothes 5
and special tutoring. S/He also got me a job as an equipment inspector on the reservation, and 6
when my grades improved, CH4 gave me a scholarship to help pay my way through a degree in 7
mechanical engineering at the University of New Mexico. I later got a Masters in Geological 8
Sciences from New Mexico State. 9
After college, Rawley put me on a “Tiger Team,” an internal group of engineers and accountants 10
that audited troubled CH4 facilities. People resented that I was the youngest person on the 11
Tiger Teams by ten years, but Rawley wanted someone who s/he could trust on each team, sort 12
of like a spy. Rawley was a genius when it came to finding ways to cut costs or to limit risk. S/He 13
was ruthless: if you were a liability, you got fired. I loved every minute of it, and I was always at 14
Rawley’s side. People even started calling us “Wintierrez.” In 1996, I was promoted at Rawley’s 15
recommendation to Vice President of Plant Management. 16
When I was visiting the Standing Rock reservation plant one day in 1996 or 97, I saw that half 17
the wells were idle because one of the meters had broken. The site engineer explained that 18
because the meters were hard‐wired into the piping system to prevent someone from messing 19
with them, they took three days to change. That’s 72 hours of profits out the window, all 20
because some designer didn’t trust the workers? Within a week, a Tiger Team had designed a 21
modular meter that could be changed in an hour by someone with very little technical ability. 22
Compliance with BIA regulations would have been a huge issue, but that was Rawley’s problem. 23
Six months later, the BIA had waived those regulations for us. 24
Rawley came under a lot of criticism inside the company a couple years later when it came out 25
that the manager of our plant on the D’Baha Reservation was using the new meters to 26
manipulate things,. Like I said, Rawley wasn’t very well liked. But not once did Rawley mention 27
that the meters were my idea. S/He was always sticking up for me like that. Anyway, it was no 28
big deal: we paid back the extra money that the government could prove was due to the meter. 29
There might have been more, but whatever. Rawley convinced them it was a bad manager, and 30
they were impressed that CH4 promptly fired the head of the plant and the plant engineer. 31
Those guys complained they were being scapegoated, but what did they think was going to 32
happen? 33
32
Anyway, getting caught committing fraud the first time isn’t good, but if it happens twice, you 34
can get debarred, meaning you can’t work with any government programs. That’s a big deal 35
when 95% of your operations are on Indian land. Plus, the PR hit was terrible, especially in the 36
Native community. The D’Baha even took away Rawley’s honorary tribal membership. 37
After Rawley lost that first election in 2002 using some party hack as her/his campaign 38
manager, I took her/him aside and explained that s/he had been too soft. We had found a 39
photo of Phil Marlowe, Rawley’s opponent, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. 40
Rawley sat on it. Big mistake. I took over the next campaign and I even came up with a new 41
slogan – Rawley Winsor, Real American. At first, Rawley was really hesitant about it, and I 42
couldn’t figure out why. S/He kept saying things like “It was only that one time” and “Maybe he 43
isn’t that way anymore.” But there was no doubt in my mind that it was the only way to win. 44
And I was right. In the end, though, it was worth it: Wintierrez went to Washington in 2005. Of 45
course, $175,000 doesn’t go all that far when you have to maintain two residences and 46
Washington is quite expensive. Rawley continued her/his consulting relationship with CH4 47
under the radar. My salary was much less, and I wasn’t in the public eye, so I stayed fully 48
involved at the company as Senior Vice President for Compliance. 49
When I took over Compliance, Rawley taught me her/his greatest trick – we were one of the 50
first companies to really embrace corporate intelligence. We had hired an ex‐Secret Service guy 51
named Pat Webster, and Pat and his people would do things like calling hotels and airlines 52
pretending to be government inspectors “confirming” their reservations. They were good, and 53
we usually had three or four days warning before the BIA auditors arrived to make sure 54
everything was in order. That let us clean up any “issues” at the plants, and we always had 55
excellent inspection reports. 56
In Congress Rawley was a powerhouse from the start. S/He was appointed to the Intelligence 57
and Indian Affairs committees, and Rawley made sure to get a nice bump in the BIA budget, 58
although it wasn’t much bigger than the increase for other agencies. Doors kept opening for 59
CH4, and the BIA allowed us to keep the quick‐change meters, even though they had sent us a 60
warning letter after the D’Baha fiasco. Good thing, because we’d redone all the plants to put 61
them in, and replacing them would have been really expensive. 62
The darkest days, though, were Red Mountain. They were a contractor that got accused of 63
improprieties, and there was a huge investigation. At first, we all wanted it to blow over. I 64
mean, those guys were out there doing what needed to be done. But then Rawley got the visit 65
from some guy from the Intelligence Operations Division of the Department of Homeland 66
Security. I can’t remember the name exactly, something like Coldfeld. We all sat down for the 67
meeting, but he suggested that Rawley might not want me there…something about an Air Force 68
Base. 69
33
I was about to tell him to screw off when Rawley whispered that I was not needed. I looked, 70
and s/he was white as a sheet. Later, when the creepy guy left, Rawley told me that we were 71
changing our position on Red Mountain. I started to argue, but s/he cut me off and started 72
yelling at me. I stumbled back, and s/he apologized. I told her/him that s/he was acting crazy, 73
and that s/he still looked like s/he seen a ghost. S/He smiled for a second and said “You’re right. 74
I have. You can’t escape your past, Sydney.” And so we cut Budge DeBaca and Red Mountain off 75
at the knees. Hey, that’s politics. 76
Of course, that didn’t make it any easier to swallow when that IOD guy kept showing up every 77
five or six months. Rawley changed positions on a couple of other issues, even dropping an 78
earmark for a child learning center on the reservation, that I knew s/he really wanted, in favor 79
of funding for more drones or something. Whenever that IOD guy limped away, Rawley would 80
be in a nasty mood for days. The staff started calling him “Mr. Killjoy,” but Rawley heard it and 81
held a special meeting to tell us all that we could not afford to offend her/him. It was really 82
weird to see her/him back down from anyone. 83
We got re‐elected in 2008, but by 2009, the government was running out of cash. The two of us 84
sat down with the intelligence budget and a box of red pens. Pretty soon we’d slashed five or 85
ten billion dollars. A few days later, that guy showed up again. I got kicked out, as always, but I 86
tried to listen at the door. The only word I could make out was “Hanscom,” which was strange, 87
because that base is budgeted through the Air Force, not IOD. We wound up submitting only a 88
couple hundred million dollars or so worth of changes to the intelligence budget, and none at 89
all to the IOD’s Office of Inspector General, even though Rawley originally wanted to go hard at 90
that area. After that, Rawley seemed much more worried and depressed than usual, even 91
missing Intelligence Committee hearings, which had been her/his favorite. 92
On March 19, 2010, or so, I get a panicked call from Pat Webster, because there was a BIA 93
inspector snooping around the Jicarilla Apache plant complex. I immediately started making 94
some calls. I didn’t have much to go on besides a general description – male, 50s, with a funny 95
walk – but I did my best. I even made sure to bump into a deputy chief at a Wizards game. Only 96
no one had ever heard of this guy. 97
It was time to bring in the big guns. On March 21, I called the head of BIA’s inspections, Ramon 98
Vargas, and told him that Rawley had a lunch slot free up the next day at the Occidental. When 99
Rawley came back, we had our answer: no such person, no such investigation. Now we were 100
worried, because when you’re in Compliance, your stock‐in‐trade is knowing who you need to 101
comply with. So I started calling old friends. I have run political fundraisers and corporate 102
events for years, and I know the managers of all the local hotels. I called every one. I struck out, 103
until I remembered that D’Baha Lodge that just opened north of the city. Sure enough, there he 104
was – “Carl Mankin.” I dropped Rawley’s name, and I found out who was paying the bills: 105
34
Mulwray & Lampert, LLP, the top False Claims Act law firm in the Southwest. Now it was clear: 106
we were about to get sued, or maybe even already had been, since those cases are kept secret 107
for months, sometimes years, while the government investigates. 108
For a company with one strike against it, a False Claims Act suit is just about the worst news 109
possible, especially when the company has something to hide. You see, when the economy 110
slipped in the early 2000s, the meters we had installed became kind of a crutch. When we 111
needed the money to cover expenses, we could always underreport extraction a little and then 112
over‐report it later to make up the difference. Well, that worked at first, but in 2007 and 2008, 113
the bottom fell out of the economy completely. We got addicted to borrowing from our future. 114
We always meant to pay the money back, but at some point, it was survival mode. I don’t know 115
how much revenue we underreported. It was at least seven figures, maybe eight or even nine. 116
All the senior folks knew about it, and Rawley must have, too, since it went back to when s/he 117
was COO. 118
Anyway, back to the Mulwray & Lampert problem. I went into damage control mode. I called 119
Eve Kendall, our Manager of Well Operations, and told her to get the quick‐change meters out 120
of the field. Each of them had an auditable monitor. BIA had never double‐checked those, and 121
we might not have even told them they existed, but those would kill us if the plaintiff saw them. 122
I also told Rawley that CH4 was under investigation and explained that we were pulling in the 123
meters. S/He got this funny look and said that s/he didn’t work for CH4 anymore, so why was I 124
bothering her/him with it? Rawley told me to take care of whatever it was because it was my 125
responsibility. 126
Anyway, the next day, Rawley and I were going through the calls from constituents, and out of 127
nowhere, Rawley asks me what had become of Budge DeBaca. I asked why, but Rawley just said 128
something about my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Pat Webster was able to track down a phone 129
number. I gave it to Rawley and closed the door. I saw her/his line light up right away on the 130
switchboard. Rawley left for home that afternoon, March 29, but I stayed in DC. The next night, 131
I was awakened around 1 a.m. by a call that some space had opened up on the Today Show. 132
The producer needed an immediate answer whether Rawley would fill it. I called Rawley on our 133
special number, for emergencies only, but after only two rings, not the usual four, I went 134
through to voice mail. I sent a follow‐up text with the prefix “911,” but still, nothing. By the 135
time Rawley called back over an hour later, the spot had filled. I dropped it; that’s what aides 136
do. 137
A few weeks later, we headed home for a major fundraiser at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in 138
Albuquerque. Rawley was really nervous, but I don’t know why… s/he was a star. We raked in 139
the cash and the next morning, Rawley asked me to drop off a note s/he had left at the desk for 140
me at a box outside Albuquerque. I did. Less than two weeks later, one weekend in late April, 141
35
Rawley called me from the road to ask me to check one of our P.O. boxes. It wasn’t the usual 142
one at the House, or even the one at Rawley’s place. This one we rarely used. When I told 143
Rawley nothing was there, s/he was audibly upset and she demanded in that Rawley Voice that 144
I check it twice a day until s/he returned the following Friday. I did that, even though it was way 145
out of my way, and when I got there Wednesday, there was an envelope in it from 146
Albuquerque. No sooner had I signed for it than I got jumped by Jo/e Leaphorn, who I’ve known 147
forever. Jo/e told me that I needed to come clean, because I was caught up in a murder 148
investigation. 149
I laughed in her/his face. I thought it was some practical joke Rawley was playing a day early for 150
my birthday, which is April 29th. Then they tore open that envelope and there was a license 151
with a picture of that IOD guy except he had a beard and darker hair. The name on the license 152
was “Carl Mankin.” I figured out pretty quick that something serious was up and I did what any 153
sensible person would do. I asked for a lawyer. A couple days later, the House counsel invoked 154
legislative immunity. 155
Things fell apart quickly after that. In May, some photos came out with Rawley spitting on a 156
soldier’s coffin. They were 40 years old, but we both knew it didn’t matter. In days, New Mexico 157
was bursting at the seams with challengers wearing flag pins and yellow ribbons. They fought 158
for the chance to smoke Rawley, and the winner was elected by 17 points. At least we lost 159
quickly enough that Rawley didn’t go completely bankrupt trying to hold onto the job. 160
A couple weeks after we left office, I got a subpoena and an offer of immunity. I figured I owed 161
it to Rawley to try and avoid it, so I took a trip to Mexico for a couple of weeks to let the heat 162
die down. The morning after I got back, six U.S. Marshals took me out of my place in cuffs. 163
They’d made their point, and I didn’t fight it. I took the deal and I told them what I knew. Soon 164
they had all of our office’s emails and correspondence, so I helped them go through it. I even 165
saw the wire transfers. I guess Rawley must have hired DeBaca to shut that Mankin guy up. I 166
don’t get it, though. Rawley Winsor is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human 167
being I've ever known in my life, and I would not have believed that s/he could have done this. 168
Can I go now? 169
36
WITNESS ADDENDUM I have reviewed this statement, and I have nothing of significance to add. The material facts are true and correct. Signed, Sydney Gutierrez SIGNED AND SWORN to before me at 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 National High School Mock Trial Championship.
Molly Johnson Giger Molly Johnson Giger, Notary Public State of New Mexico My Commission Expires: November, 1, 2012
37
STATEMENT OF POPE VICTORIO
My name is Pope Victorio, and I am 37 years old. I have seen almost anything there is to see 1
here in Indian country over the years, and I guess that is why I am here today – because I saw 2
everything that happened on the night of April 23, 2010. 3
I am a 100% Mescalero Apache Indian, and I live on the Mescalero Reservation in south‐central 4
New Mexico, the very same place where I was born. I’m proud of my heritage and the lessons 5
that were handed down to me over the generations. I learned tracking from my grandmother, 6
who learned it from her father. I “cut for signs,” meaning I use small signals such as bent twigs, 7
faded foot prints and small snags of hair or clothing to track the location of a target, whether it 8
be a person, animal, place or thing. When I was only 18, my tracking skill got me recruited into 9
the Shadow Wolves, a law enforcement agency created by Congress to track drug smugglers. 10
I remained with the unit for eight years before a small mistake cost me my career. I was 11
tracking a gang of marijuana smugglers across Tohono land in Arizona. Instead of calling for 12
back‐up and bringing them in for processing, I decided to approach them myself. The leader of 13
the group turned out to be a classmate of mine, and I let her convince me to look the other 14
way. In exchange, I received about $30,000 in cash. The gang got caught a couple months later, 15
by one of my colleagues, Jo/e Leaphorn, and they told Jo/e the whole story. I offered to split 16
the cash with her/him, but s/he was way too much of a straight arrow. I had to take a probation 17
plea for theft and one for obstruction of justice to avoid jail. I also paid a big fine and forfeited 18
the cash. My record was sealed, and I was dishonorably discharged, so to speak. Losing my job 19
was a crushing blow, and I ended up back on the reservation with nothing to do and nothing to 20
care about. It was an awful time. If Jo/e just played ball, my life would’ve been totally different. 21
To make ends meet, I worked at the cultural center and gave lessons to tourists about tracking. 22
I also became an avid bird watcher and joined the South Central Audubon Society. Still, talking 23
to tourists was duller than watching a cactus sleep. One summer day in 2004, I left for lunch 24
and never came back. Through a friend of a friend, I learned that a company called CH4 was 25
looking for someone who knew the land. Once I found out all that the job entailed was going 26
out into the desert and switching some natural gas meters, I figured there were worse ways to 27
make a living than walking my people’s land every day with the sun on my brow. When I got my 28
first paycheck, it was for about ten times what I was making at the Center. I figured it was just 29
some sort of accounting error, but six years later the money hadn’t stopped. I also found it a bit 30
odd that I was always instructed to make the meter switch at night, but only a fool questions 31
the rain when the land is dry. 32
38
Around that time, I also met one of my best friends through the bird watching – Budge DeBaca. 33
At first, Budge was a hard person to figure out, deep in thought, mumbling to her/himself. It 34
wasn’t until we paired up to search for a painted redstart that I was able to break through. We 35
were on a long trek, when I asked how s/he ended up here in the middle of nowhere. Budge 36
explained that s/he had lost her/his company, Red Mountain, as a result of a government 37
sanction. As soon as I told her/him what happened to me with the Shadow Wolves, we realized 38
that we were kindred spirits– both Native American, both taken unjustly from the job we loved, 39
living on the outskirts of society. 40
After that first encounter, whenever we were in the field we talked all the time about the “man 41
that ruined” Budge’s life, some guy Budge called “Mr. Canfield.” Apparently he was one of the 42
government guys who took issue with Budge’s company. Budge never really went into too 43
much detail about it, but her/his level of resentment was intense. Every time we went bird 44
watching, s/he would start ranting about how if s/he could just figure out who Canfield really 45
was s/he would be able to even the score. One day in March 2008 when I went to her/his house 46
to pick her/him up, I even noticed a scrap book open on the dining room table that looked like 47
the pages were right out of some psycho horror film. The pages were all about Canfield, had a 48
photo of him, a couple of newspaper headlines referencing Red Mountain, and all sorts of lines 49
drawn around. There was also some note about how Canfield had a crippled leg. It didn’t really 50
change my opinion of Budge, though, at least at that time. You can’t trust anyone who sleeps 51
soundly at night. 52
I remember the first time I mentioned my work with CH4 to Budge. Out of nowhere, s/he 53
started screaming that CH4 was connected to our Representative, Rawley Winsor, and that 54
Rawley was a two‐faced traitor whose “rank betrayal” got Red Mountain shut down – called 55
her/him a modern‐day Benedict Arnold or something like that. Then s/he asked if I knew what 56
the only crime mentioned in the Constitution was. I didn’t, but Budge said it was treason, and 57
the penalty for treason was death. I didn’t mention CH4 after that. The weird thing was, Budge 58
kept pushing me to let her/him in on my job, but I think Budge was really looking to get 59
revenge. I wouldn’t have put it past her/him to have had another scrap book dedicated to 60
Rawley. I remember Budge saying once that an old friend of hers/his who worked for the FBI 61
had sent Budge some dirt on Rawley and that Budge was just waiting for the right moment to 62
use it. I asked Budge what the gossip was, but all Budge said was that it was just politics. I think 63
that was sometime in the spring of 2009, but time kind of runs together, you know? 64
Things started getting weird about a year later, when I got a call from Eve Kendall, my boss’s 65
boss at CH4. And I’m talking like “Hitchcock film” weird, not like ha‐ha weird. Getting a call from 66
Eve was not all that uncommon, but her request was certainly out of the ordinary. She wanted 67
me to meet with her at CH4 headquarters in Albuquerque, because what they wanted me to do 68
39
couldn’t be discussed over the phone. I should’ve made them come out to the Reservation, but 69
I hadn’t been in town for a while and since they were paying me hourly plus gas, I didn’t mind 70
making the effort. 71
I met Eve on Tuesday, March 30th. When I got there, I was immediately escorted to Eve’s office. 72
Right away, she told me that I had a huge job to do. I had to change 57 meters dotted 73
throughout the region over the next three weeks, on a schedule she had printed out. Normally, 74
I would do one or two meter changes a week, at most. When I asked her why CH4 didn’t just 75
have some of its own engineers do the job, she told me in a stern voice that I should just worry 76
about my job, not hers. Whatever. I got paid by the hour, so if they wanted me to cover an area 77
of over 1500 square miles in three weeks, fine. That’s a lot of reimbursement, even if I didn’t 78
pad my expenses. And if she wanted to be rude about it, well, there were ways to make them 79
pay for that, too. 80
As I was getting up to leave her office, Eve received a call from what I could tell was some high 81
up in the company. I remember her saying, “Don’t worry Ms./Mr. Gutierrez, I’ve got the 82
situation under control, we got some unknown taking care of it.” She then listened for a while 83
before exclaiming, “Yes, I know how important this is to you. It will all be taken care of before 84
the inspection. You have my word that none of this will make it back to you or to our friend in 85
Washington!” When Eve hung up the phone, she seemed surprised to still see me standing 86
there. S/He told me as I was leaving to simply forget what I had just heard. Sure. Whatever. 87
A couple weeks later – I think it was April 14th or 15th – there was a knock on my door. Standing 88
there in front of me was a fella who introduced himself as Carl Mankin. He was wearing a 89
denim jacket, and he had this huge Zia sun symbol around his neck. I thought I recognized him, 90
but he said he had just gotten back in the US after some extended work detail overseas and 91
that we had never met. He got right to the point – he needed a tracker for some back country 92
work, and he had heard I was good and knew how to keep my mouth shut. Mankin was a bit 93
older, and I figured he was another bucket‐lister looking for a New Mexico safari adventure that 94
didn’t stay within the precise contours of the reservation rules. I told him I was game. 95
Boy was I wrong. Inside, Mankin told me that he worked for a lawyer who wanted to bring 96
something called a “false claims act” against CH4 for ripping off the tribes in New Mexico. 97
Mankin said that CH4 had been under‐reporting the results of its gas extraction to the Bureau 98
of Indian Affairs. I’m a simple tracker, but I could do the math ‐ for the past six years, I may have 99
been helping con my own people. Mankin told me that if I helped him gather evidence, not only 100
would I stay out of legal trouble, I could also make a lot of money as a “relator,” which is like an 101
informant. Mankin showed me his business card and gave me the name of some lawyer in 102
Phoenix. I told him I would look into it and get back to him. He took off, his left foot dragging 103
slightly. 104
40
I couldn’t bring myself to go out that night, and I decided to take the next day off to clear my 105
thoughts. I called up Budge, and we went out into the desert in search of an aplomado falcon. I 106
decided to tell her/him about my meeting with Mankin. Budge was practically glowing by the 107
time I threw in the detail about Mankin’s necklace. Budge told me that it was my duty to help 108
Mankin root out the fraud, and s/he reminded me that I could get rich and give her/him the 109
perfect revenge by bringing Rawley down. It was kind of weirding me out, and when Budge 110
went into the bushes to use the bathroom, I saw that that crazy notebook was in her/his pack. I 111
grabbed it and took a quick photo of the last page that had stuff on it, because you never know 112
when you might need something like that. I didn’t even look at it, because I didn’t want to be 113
caught, and I slipped the notebook back into her/his pack. 114
Still, if I had learned anything from my departure from the Shadow Wolves, it was that no 115
amount of money was worth risking my freedom. I hesitated, and Budge suggested that if I 116
wasn’t comfortable, I should set up a meeting for her/him and Mankin, and that s/he could be 117
the relator. S/He would share some of the money with me. That made me feel a lot better, and 118
I thanked Budge for being such a good friend. That afternoon, I contacted Mankin, gave him the 119
coordinates for CH4 well # 112, latitude: 33.764071 and longitude: ‐105.534024. They were 120
going to meet on April 20. 121
The next day, I was still feeling queasy about my role in the CH4 fraud, and I needed to cut 122
loose a little. I hit one more well, then headed down to Albuquerque. As I was walking to my 123
favorite dive, I cut through the Hyatt Regency Hotel. I was stunned to see Budge sitting in the 124
bar, having a drink with someone who I didn’t know, but recognized from somewhere. I looked 125
at the hotel event board, and there was a Friends of Rawley fundraiser scheduled there that 126
evening. I put two and two together and realized that Budge was chatting up a U.S. Rep. I was 127
going to approach their table, but the last thing I would want to do would be to interfere with 128
Budge as s/he was taking care of business. Whatever the two of them were discussing, even 129
from a good 50 yards away, you could tell it was not a happy topic, and I didn’t want to be 130
Budge’s next scrap book subject. In fact, I saw Rawley storm off in a bit of a rage, even though 131
Budge had a big smile. 132
The next morning, I got a call from Budge, who wanted to reschedule the meeting with Mankin. 133
I wasn’t happy to be caught in the middle, but I had not given Budge Mankin’s number, so I 134
called Mankin and told him that I couldn’t make it but that a tracker friend of mine could. The 135
meeting was moved to the 23rd. Mankin was suspicious, but I played it cool, and he eventually 136
chilled out. 137
The day before the new meeting, Budge called me to set up a trip out to spot a rufous 138
hummingbird. I’m big into hummingbirds, but I can usually only get Budge to go out looking for 139
41
raptors, so I could tell this was kind of a thank‐you from her/him. We were going to meet up 140
early on the 24th and head to the far end of the reservation. 141
The next day was pretty uneventful, and I started pulling together my rufous materials. I packed 142
my car and went to sleep early. Sometime around 9:30 or 10:00, I woke up from a dream where 143
I was yelling at myself. I used to have those dreams in the Shadow Wolves, and they were 144
always important. I chewed some coffee beans to clear my mind, and it hit me: the rufous 145
hummingbird isn’t usually that far north in April. I checked the club website, and sure enough, 146
no one had seen the rufous yet. Now I was really confused, and I started thinking like a Wolf 147
again, working through the clues. I was going to dial Budge up on my phone when I saw the 148
“Photo” icon and, following a hunch, pulled up the photo I took of the notebook. There it was. 149
Mankin – Canfield – the same exact person. The hair, the age, the limp… even the Zia sun 150
symbol. I knew right away that the worst was about to happen. 151
I tried calling Budge, and Mankin or Canfield or whoever he was, but got no responses. I 152
couldn’t call the cops, because it would’ve taken more time to explain everything than to stop 153
it. All I could do was hope I was not too late. I arrived at the dirt road turn off around 11:15 p.m. 154
and noticed Mankin’s car. I followed his footprints, which were clear, and Budge’s, which were 155
very carefully concealed, almost invisible. At 11:25, I heard the unmistakable sound of a single 156
rifle shot. I am no fool; I hit the deck and hid. After 20 minutes, I saw Budge walk past, 157
searching for me, stock to her/his shoulder. But I stayed still, and when I’m still, I’m invisible. 158
Once Budge had passed, I slid over near Mankin, who had been playing dead. I saw the last bit 159
of life in his eyes and heard him whisper words over his dying breath ‐ “Don’t let DeBaca get 160
away with this. Rawley is a sinister pig.” 161
I left there as fast as I could and called Jo/e Leaphorn, even though I didn’t want her/him to 162
steal my thunder. I never really trusted Jo/e after s/he agreed to keep my Shadow Wolves 163
secret and then ratted me out to Internal Affairs, but this Mankin stuff was well beyond my 164
petty grudge. Too bad though, because if I had been a bit savvier I could’ve maybe used this 165
info to at least jump start my law enforcement career again and the right person would be on 166
trial here today. Leaphorn is totally wrong about who pulled the strings that pulled the trigger. 167
Say what you want about Rawley Winsor, but I have felt death breathing on my neck, and death 168
goes by the name “Budge DeBaca.” 169
42
WITNESS ADDENDUM I have reviewed this statement, and I have nothing of significance to add. The material facts are true and correct. Signed,
Pope Victorio SIGNED AND SWORN to before me at 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 National High School Mock Trial Championship.
Molly Johnson Giger Molly Johnson Giger, Notary Public State of New Mexico My Commission Expires: November, 1, 2012
43
DECLARATION OF RAWLEY WINSOR
My name is Rawley Winsor and for the last eight years, until this past January, I represented the 1
fine people of the New Mexico 5th Congressional District in the United States House of 2
Representatives. Now I stand falsely accused of a crime I did not commit by a convicted liar 3
seeking only to save her/his own skin. 4
I was born on the Jicarilla Apache reservation, where my grandmother was a Jicarilla fiddle‐5
maker. Even though I am only five‐sixteenths Native American, I feel an amazing connection to 6
my tribe, and to our land. I didn’t leave at all until 1968, when I turned 18 and headed for 7
Boston College, from which I received my degree in Communications four years later. I suffered 8
from a mild case of dyslexia, but I was still the first person in my family to go to college. I was a 9
junior in college in 1970, when the shootings at Kent State happened. The next day, a bunch of 10
us went up to Hanscom Air Force Base to protest. Things got out of hand, and I spit on the 11
coffin of a returning soldier. Later on, a group of my friends firebombed a recruiting station. We 12
didn’t think anyone was there, but some guy was working late and he wound up badly burned. 13
Of course, I distanced myself from the group after that. 14
After graduation, I started doing advertising work and lobbying. My Representative was the 15
remarkable Danny Escobedo, from the New Mexico 1st. When my brother was killed in Vietnam 16
in 1973, he even showed up at the funeral. A few months later, I joined his staff. After four or 17
five years on Escobedo’s staff, he wrote me a recommendation to Harvard’s Kennedy School of 18
Government. He also suggested I really play up my connection to the Tribe. That was great 19
advice; I went home for a week for the first time since college, and my essay was all about my 20
people. A month later, I was in. I graduated straight to a position as Ronald Reagan’s New 21
Mexico campaign director. 22
As soon as Reagan took office, I was offered a position as a Deputy Director of the Office of 23
Trust Services at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I didn’t know a thing about administering trusts or 24
geology or anything, but even I could tell that that office had way too many inspectors and 25
auditors. Cutting the waste at BIA did not make me popular, and a lot of people resigned in 26
protest of the changes I was making. That was fine with me; within two years, I had hand‐27
picked more than half of the inspectors and auditors and had personally designed the protocols 28
they were using. 29
My work was especially appreciated in private industry. In 1984, I was offered a job by James 30
Dale and Walt Chaplinsky with a firm they had started to explore mineral and natural gas 31
extraction from Indian lands. As poor as the Tribe was, there were billions of dollars right under 32
their feet in the form of clean, pure‐burning natural gas. The idea that we could help the tribes 33
44
and ease the energy crisis – without polluting the environment – seemed unbelievable to me, 34
but I asked the head of the Bureau what he thought, and I was stunned how supportive he was. 35
He let me go that very week. 36
So on March 13, 1984, I joined CH4 as its Vice President of Governmental Operations and 37
Compliance. I went with our CEO, Allan Bakke, on all of his site visits, and I helped open the 38
door for him to Rep. Escobedo’s office. Danny was Chairman of the House Natural Resources 39
Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs, and he also served on Ways and Means. 40
With his help, we were able to bypass the usual permitting process for extraction rights and 41
obtain an exclusive license to drill for gas on the Jicarilla Reservation. There was some 42
resistance from the Tribe, but they came around once the royalty checks started arriving. 43
By the mid‐90s, CH4 was one of the leading natural gas companies in the country, and I had 44
been promoted to Chief Operating Officer, responsible for every aspect of the company’s 45
operations. There were newer, cheaper ways to extract gas, but BIA blocked them, at least until 46
I met with my old deputy Lillie Ledbetter, who was now the BIA Director. Once the BIA gave us 47
exclusive permission to use the new process, our business exploded. Two years later we were 48
drilling on more than 15% of the reservations in America, and my bonus was twice what the 49
President made. 50
After I became COO, my chief aide, Sydney Gutierrez, and I worked with Engineering to pioneer 51
easily replaced meters to cut down on maintenance costs. But the manager of our D’Baha 52
Reservation plant abused this technology and changed out the real meters with ones that 53
systematically underreported the amount of gas being removed from the land. That’s a huge 54
problem, because CH4 was required to account to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for every cubic 55
meter removed. I always wondered how her plant consistently turned such a profit, but I just 56
figured she was good at her job. Plus, even at that point, I had begun to leave things like that to 57
Sydney. An engineer discovered the fraud late one night and reported it to me. I kept a tight lid 58
on it, and we fired the plant manager, and the engineer, who had no excuse for being on 59
company property off her shift. Nice severance packages kept them quiet, but the worst part – 60
other than the damage done to our relations with the Tribe from the alleged theft of millions of 61
dollars in natural gas – was that we now had a strike against us with BIA. A second offense 62
could end the company. 63
I remember waking up on September 11, 2001, and seeing the news. That changed everything 64
for me, and I knew I had to return to public service. In 2005, I joined Congress and soon I was 65
sitting on the two committees I wanted most – the House Intelligence Committee and Indian 66
and Native Alaskan Affairs. INAA was pretty dull, but the Intelligence Committee was anything 67
but. The nastiest issues had to do with Red Mountain, one of the contractors that the 68
Department of Defense had hired in Iraq. We had been briefed on most of it, but as the facts 69
45
became public, it was getting impossible to back them politically, even though I knew that they 70
were paying the price for our freedoms. In October 2007, we all voted to remove the 71
company’s license to operate on DoD contracts. We voted in reverse order, from most junior to 72
most senior, and I was the first one to cast a vote for debarment. When s/he realized what was 73
going on, the company’s CEO, Budge DeBaca, jumped up and started screaming at me, calling 74
me “Benedict Arnold” and claiming that we knew all along what happened, which was 75
ridiculous. DeBaca even tried to charge the committee dais, but the Sergeant at Arms hauled 76
her/him down. S/He was dragged out shouting something about leaving the wounded in the 77
field and how we would all suffer for what we had done. 78
Of course, I also had my own personal reasons for my vote. I thought that the Hanscom incident 79
was ancient history, but in the Intelligence business, people play for keeps. The person I knew 80
as Brian Cruikshank, who died as Carl Mankin, came to my office in July 2007. I routinely met 81
with IOD personnel, but I knew this time was different when he asked that Sydney leave. He 82
reached into his locked bag and pulled out a copy of what looked like an old file from the 83
intelligence community’s illegal surveillance of American anti‐war protestors during the 84
Vietnam War era. Cruikshank explained very quietly how he thought that a true patriot would 85
disavow the kinds of improper, illegal things that Red Mountain was doing in America’s name. I 86
tried to push back, but my heart wasn’t in it. I knew very well what he meant. As quickly as he 87
had come, he locked the file in his bag and limped away, leaving me to tell my office staff that 88
we were switching positions on the single most important issue before the Committee at that 89
time. I don’t know which made me feel more like a traitor, seeing the pictures from that awful 90
day at Hanscom or choosing my own hide over my moral convictions. I had never felt lower, 91
and I spent days cursing Cruikshank under my breath. 92
He came back in December 2007, just before our hearings on domestic wiretapping. He didn’t 93
have to bring the pictures; we both knew where we stood on that. He assured me that the IOD 94
had the matter under control. They filed a report a couple weeks later, and we cancelled the 95
hearing. I can only guess whether IOD gave us the real story. 96
I guess it was no surprise that he didn’t go away after that. Sometimes it was just a letter he 97
wanted signed or Redskins tickets, but I think those were just to remind me the power he had. 98
The worst, though, was 2009. Even with the budget cuts, I had managed to get a couple million 99
dollars set aside for a new school on the Navajo reservation. Cruikshank came by and explained 100
that he thought that the money could better be used for surveillance drones. I had reached my 101
breaking point, and I told him no. The next day, a private courier brought me a Washington Post 102
front page with me spitting on the coffin and an interview with the recruiter who got burned. 103
My heart almost stopped, even though it was pretty obviously a fake. I traded in my earmark 104
and made some speech about supporting the war being everyone’s duty, but I felt like a fraud. 105
46
Late in 2009, he came back, asking for funds for better early retirement packages for the 106
intelligence community. I probably would have supported it anyway, even though it was 107
expensive, but he seemed personally determined to make it happen. I don’t know whether I 108
voted for it because it was right, because I was afraid, or because I hoped it meant I would 109
never see him again, even though I knew better. Still, I promised myself silently that I would 110
never again give in to his blackmail. 111
By this point, I was pretty much an emotional wreck. Knowing that the sword of Damocles was 112
hanging over me just burned me to a nub. I had lived a lie to get elected, and now the karmic 113
bill had come due. The days kind of ran together. I could barely function on my committees, 114
and several colleagues approached me, concerned about my mental health. I shooed them 115
away, but they could see what was happening. I lost track of what was happening back in New 116
Mexico, and the weekly reports I received from CH4 just piled up on my desk, unread. By this 117
point, I was focused on representing the New Mexico 5th. My only connection to CH4 was the 118
consulting contract I had with them for $25,000 per year, the Congressional cap on private 119
income. Sydney remained in much more active contact with its operations, since I could not pay 120
her/him what s/he was worth. I let Sydney handle all CH4 matters and got back to doing the 121
people’s business. 122
In March 2010, Sydney got word that there was some BIA inspector looking around the Jicarilla 123
plant for CH4. As I said, it was no big deal to me personally, but CH4 is a significant business in 124
my area that employs many of my constituents, including more than half of my Congressional 125
staff. I had generally been given a courtesy warning when inspections were coming. It wasn’t – 126
strictly speaking – above board, but that’s Washington for you. Sydney tried to run down the 127
details, but it turned out that I had a lunch scheduled with Ramon Vargas that week, so I asked. 128
Their inspectors were still weeks away. 129
I thought Cruikshank had retired, so I was shocked when on April 10, 2010, I got a call on my 130
personal cell phone. I didn’t recognize the voice on the other end, which had one of those 131
scrambler things you see in movies, but the person threatened to expose me as a “modern day 132
Benedict Arnold” if I didn’t pay $250,000 to keep it quiet. I was going to hang up, but then s/he 133
mentioned they had “art” of me at Hanscom. My blood froze in its veins. My mind raced 134
through the possibilities, but those words kept echoing. Only one person had ever called me a 135
traitor: Budge DeBaca. And it fit, because the caller sounded totally unhinged. When I said 136
her/his name, all DeBaca did was laugh. I knew that lunatic would come after me some day. 137
I agreed to meet Budge the week after, when I came back to New Mexico, but in a public place. 138
I didn’t tell anyone, even Sydney, which was awful, like I was lying to my best friend. I did ask 139
Sydney to get me DeBaca’s contact information in case I needed to reschedule for some reason. 140
$250,000 is a lot of money, and you can’t exactly write a check for blackmail. I needed cash, and 141
47
I was able to pull together just under a hundred grand from some personal accounts and an old 142
campaign account. I knew enough about reporting requirements to keep my withdrawals under 143
$10,000. Yes, that was wrong, but I was in survival mode, you know? I’ve pled guilty to 144
structuring, and I’m prepared to pay the price for my crime. What more can I do? 145
I went to the Hyatt as arranged, and sure enough, there was DeBaca, smiling like a coyote. After 146
DeBaca burned a hole in my credit card ordering dinner, s/he slid me a manila envelope. Sure 147
enough, it was the same file Cruikshank had. I slid the cash I had collected under the table. I 148
begged her/him to just take it and go away, but s/he just growled “This is less than half of what 149
I told you to bring.” After some negotiating, we agreed that s/he would stay quiet if I could 150
come up with another fifty thousand dollars. 151
I had tapped out all of my accounts, and I couldn’t raid my retirement accounts without raising 152
some serious red flags. So I did the only thing I could do. I used the discretionary account that 153
CH4 had set up for me when I first entered Congress, which still had over eighty thousand 154
dollars. I logged in and sent the cash to the PayYal account DeBaca had given me, “IDont”. I 155
knew it was stupid to pay off a blackmailer, but I was doing what I had to do to save myself and 156
serve the hard‐working citizens of New Mexico. 157
In April, everything came undone. Sydney got arrested by Jo/e Leaphorn, which is crazy, since 158
Jo/e was always calling my office looking to try to get back into serious, big city prosecutions. I 159
did my best, but the Bureau wouldn’t let a possibly crooked cop back into those cases, and who 160
could blame them? 161
Then things started breaking down with CH4. I cannot believe that the fraud allegations were 162
true, or that anyone I knew was wrapped up in them. I bled true for that company, and to see it 163
hurt my people pains me more than I can say. Had I known of any wrongdoing, I would have 164
responded immediately and severed relationships with those involved permanently. I’m just 165
glad I followed my accountant’s advice and sold all my stock in 2008 and ‘09, or I would be in 166
pretty bad shape now. It’s not like anyone’s looking to hire a disgraced politician. 167
Look, the fact is that by the time any of this came to light, my only role at CH4 was as an 168
informal advisor. I followed every ethical guideline, and if CH4 began committing fraud, it was 169
sad for my constituents, but it was literally none of my business. I would not lie to protect 170
them, and I certainly wouldn’t help them kill to protect themselves. 171
And yes, I had a serious problem with Cruikshank. What he did was illegal and unethical, 172
borderline evil, really. But it was my penance for my sins, and I bore it with honor. When I voted 173
for the improved retirement benefits and those drones, I was also closing the book on that 174
chapter of my life, but I was also honoring our intelligence community heroes. I’m not going to 175
lie, though. I’m glad Cruikshank’s dead. But, if anyone had a motive to kill Cruikshank, or 176
48
Mankin, or whoever, it was Budge DeBaca. Cruikshank changed a couple of my votes, but he 177
flat out ruined DeBaca’s life. 178
And DeBaca saying that I hired her/him to kill someone? Me? Hire that psychopath? Never. 179
Some people are born liars, but DeBaca’s been convicted. There’s nothing s/he wouldn’t do to 180
save her/his own skin, even if it means dragging an innocent person away to prison. Hasn’t s/he 181
done enough already? I may not be perfect, but I’m a good person. I want my life back. 182
WITNESS ADDENDUM I have reviewed this statement, and I have nothing of significance to add. The material facts are true and correct. Signed,
Rawley Winsor
SIGNED AND SWORN to before me at 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 National High School Mock Trial Championship.
Molly Johnson Giger Molly Johnson Giger, Notary Public State of New Mexico My Commission Expires: November, 1, 2012
49
DECLARATION OF LESLIE GROVES
My name is Leslie Groves, and I am the sole living partner of Answers LLC, a corporate and 1
government intelligence consulting firm I co‐founded with a man whose name, as far as you 2
know, was Carl Mankin. Before that, I worked for myself, and before that, I spent three and a 3
half years in federal prison for hacking the toughest computer system in the world. Oh, and I 4
can make the Kessel Run in a lot fewer than twelve parsecs. 5
I’ve always loved computers, from the day I played my first bootleg copy of Bard’s Tale. I must 6
have been six or seven, and I thought it was the coolest thing ever. I guess you could say that 7
once I plugged in, I never unplugged. Or you would if you were a total dweeb. I graduated in 8
1996 and started studying CompSci at Carnegie Mellon. 9
1997 was a big year for computers. In May, Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov at chess. In August, 10
Steve Jobs came back to Apple. And, at 02:13:17 on November 23, I successfully hacked the 11
root password of the Intelligence Operations Division. 12
You have to understand what a big deal that is. IOD is responsible for the protection of our 13
telecommunications hubs. Their network had layers of ghost systems, unbreakable encryption, 14
and the best counter‐intrusion technology… the whole deal. I was drinking from the hacker holy 15
grail. I could pretend I did it for some virtuous, flag‐waving reason, or to save the whales or 16
something, but the fact is, I did it because I wanted to show I could. All I did was send the 17
password in an email to the IOD Chief Information Officer, with a request for a summer 18
internship. 19
Big mistake. Faster than you could connect on a 28k modem, I was in solitary, charged with 20
hacking and extortion – extortion! – because the prosecutor said I was trying to get a valuable 21
summer job. What a joke. I could have made twice as much at any company in Silicon Valley. 22
But the jury didn’t see it that way, and I was convicted of both and sentenced to three and a 23
half years in federal prison, no parole. I got out in 2001. 24
But at least one man in the government had a sense of perspective. I guess you would know 25
him as Brian Cruikshank, or Adam Canfield, or Carl Mankin, or a whole bunch of things that 26
aren’t really his name. Don’t feel bad: I met him as Alexander Dyle, and that’s not his real name 27
either. Mankin visited me in jail almost every month, and he brought me copies of books to 28
read, classics like de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, Ben Franklin’s Autobiography, David 29
McCullough’s 1776 and John Adams, and even The Federalist Papers. I know now that he was 30
basically just treating me as an asset: Carl wanted me to see that the government was more 31
than just a target to hack. What can I say? Carl was a pro. 32
50
When I got out, Carl was there to welcome me with a fresh set of clothes and a very special 33
offer. He got the judge to let me use a computer, which would otherwise have violated my 34
parole, to find someone else who had hacked IOD. I nailed the guy in two weeks flat. After that, 35
we started working together regularly. My record prevented me from getting regular 36
employment, but Carl convinced IOD that it could afford to clear me for a limited basis to help 37
with special projects. A half dozen times after that, I worked with him officially, twice testifying 38
as an expert in support of requests for warrants in front of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 39
Act court. He even helped me set up a company of my own, Groves Associates, so that I could 40
get paid, and I used the money to obtain certifications from Microsoft as a Systems Engineer, 41
Systems Administrator, and Certified Trainer. In between jobs for Carl, I did what I could to 42
make ends meet, consulting with local businesses, teaching computer security and counter‐43
intrusion classes, and writing articles for the Information Systems Security Association. 44
Carl and I formed Answers LLC together in 2009, although it was under my name until he 45
formally retired effective January 1, 2010. I did the background research, the systems analysis, 46
and I made sure that Carl’s identity was well‐concealed. 47
One of my major jobs was to maintain Carl’s Watch List. The List was people who wanted Carl 48
dead or worse. One of my major responsibilities was searching the internet and dozens of other 49
places where people store data. Most of the work I did was above‐board, using commercially 50
available technology. But my job was to be thorough, and if that meant checking government or 51
private databases to which I did not have legal access, so be it. 52
Of the people on the Watch List, the one who worried me the most was Budge DeBaca. DeBaca 53
ran an IOD contractor, Red Mountain, that went way off the reservation in Iraq. They were 54
implicated in some of the worst atrocities you ever read about in the paper. DeBaca was Red 55
Mountain’s founder, CEO, and dictator. Carl hated contractors. His job at IOD was like internal 56
affairs, the guy who watched the watchers, and he hated that they were accountable to no one. 57
He personally collected the evidence that shut down Red Mountain, and DeBaca knew “Adam 58
Canfield” was responsible. 59
Some of the worst bad guys in the world were on the Watch List, but Carl used to tell me, 60
“Don’t worry about those guys. They’re professionals, and they understand that it isn’t 61
personal.” But DeBaca was different. S/He lived off the grid in the desert someplace. More 62
importantly, s/he was very, very dedicated to trying to find Carl. S/He had set up searches on 63
Lexis‐Nexis, Google, and a couple of less savory websites for “Adam Canfield” and one of Carl’s 64
other aliases. I even found postings in chat rooms used by foreign intelligence services and 65
GOLGO‐13, a notorious Costa Gravan criminal syndicate, where DeBaca offered a reward for 66
anyone who “happened to discover that Mr. Canfield had died and show me evidence of 67
51
same.” Every time I mentioned DeBaca, Carl would get a grim look on his face. “Now there’s a 68
real threat, Les,” he would say. “There ain’t no defense against crazy.” 69
I first heard about CH4 in 2009, about six months before Carl retired. We were contacted by 70
Mulwray & Lampert, a law firm specializing in government fraud cases. They believed that CH4 71
had been underreporting millions of dollars of natural gas extracted from the reservation. They 72
offered us 25% of their recovery, 35% if we identified a whistleblower. We knew that DeBaca 73
was living in New Mexico, but nobody else knew Carl’s face out there, so we took the job. 74
Carl was still busy at IOD, but I started working immediately, gathering information. There were 75
a number of red flags. First, I discovered buried in the Federal Register that BIA had given CH4 76
an exemption from its usual metering standards. The new meters weren’t even hard‐wired into 77
the lines. With a day or two of warning, CH4 could change them before the inspectors arrived. 78
Second, it was clear that there was no one watching. CH4 might as well have owned BIA 79
enforcement, with Rawley Winsor controlling BIA’s budget, and the only federal law 80
enforcement officer up there was a Jo/e Leaphorn. Carl asked around, and the impression from 81
the Bureau and local police was, in Carl’s words, that “You’d be better off with a mall cop on a 82
Segway.” 83
So that was the unholy trinity: means, motive and opportunity galore. Carl was looking to retire 84
from IOD in December, so I started looking for weak points in the company’s security. The 85
largest vulnerability was Eve Kendall. She had a huge online presence – Facebook, Twitter, 86
Linked In, Google+… she was even the mayor of a half of Albuquerque on FourSquare. I created 87
a false persona and joined her circle of friends, using her history to make myself her “kindred 88
spirit.” If I had more time, I probably could have gotten everything I needed the slow way, but it 89
was a simple matter to guess her passwords, and once she was instant messaging me from her 90
desk at CH4, her computer might as well have been a library with every book open. 91
Kendall’s work emails confirmed our suspicions. CH4’s corporate intelligence unit was providing 92
advance warning of BIA inspections to Kendall’s boss, Sydney Gutierrez. They were also getting 93
information from someone close to the BIA, although that person was never identified. I 94
assumed it was Winsor, but I could not be sure, because Gutierrez’s emails frequently 95
expressed frustration about not being able to get Winsor’s attention for CH4 matters. I guess 96
Winsor enjoyed being in Congress more than s/he enjoyed making money for Gutierrez. They 97
could have been smart enough not to leave a paper trail, but Gutierrez didn’t strike me as all 98
that bright. I didn’t hack the House servers to check their internal correspondence, because Carl 99
said it was too risky. 100
Guitierrez would tell Kendall which meters to change and when. They never said who was doing 101
the work, but from the company’s accounting records, it was obvious that this individual was 102
52
Pope Victorio. Fortunately for us, Pope had once been a federal employee, so I was able to 103
develop a complete dossier for Carl – a personality inventory, credit reports, and a statistical 104
assessment of where s/he was likely to be and when, so that Carl could “run into” her/him at an 105
appropriate time. 106
Carl got actively involved in the case once he retired, and in early January we spent two weeks 107
planning the operation, especially analyzing Winsor and Gutierrez. Turns out it was the same 108
old Washington story – every first‐term Congressperson is his or her own boss, but pretty soon, 109
the burdens of legislating, fundraising, and running for re‐election mean that the staff ends up 110
running the office. Everybody we talked to on the Hill said the same thing – the way to Winsor 111
was through Gutierrez. Gutierrez was in charge, and if you got a message signed “Winsor,” 112
Gutierrez was probably holding the pen. 113
We were mildly surprised, because the meter switching scheme began when Winsor was the 114
real power at CH4 and Gutierrez was a low‐level engineer. There is no doubt in my mind that it 115
was Winsor’s scheme, not Gutierrez’s. But it seemed that the Representative just wasn’t that 116
into CH4 anymore, even though s/he was making the Congressional maximum for consulting 117
with them. Of course, Winsor also made $175,000 a year representing the New Mexico 5th. 118
Gutierrez was a different story. S/He was only making $65,000 a year. That’s less than the 119
Congressional average, and it is only $51,453 per year after taxes, although I of course never 120
looked at Gutierrez’s returns, which would be a felony. Judging from the average rent for a two‐121
bedroom apartment in the DuPont Circle area where Sydney lived, the average lease payment 122
for a new Lexus which s/he drove, and assuming average spending for a single person visiting 123
the clubs and restaurants s/he frequented, I project that s/he was losing approximately $16,229 124
per year. So maybe it was natural that Gutierrez spent so much time on her/his CH4 job and 125
Winsor did not. 126
The only thing that was strange was that Carl was very guarded when it came to Winsor 127
her/himself. S/He stayed on the Watch List, but whenever I tried to drill down hard on Winsor, 128
Carl told me to back off. That wasn’t like him, but when I pressed the point, Carl just smiled and 129
said that we had Winsor “whenever we wanted him.” I didn’t agree, but I knew what he meant. 130
A couple years before, when Carl was starting to put the screws to the Congressperson, he had 131
me mock up a Washington Post article from a file picture of Winsor spitting on a coffin and an 132
old intel report that he was involved with an arson. From that point on, Carl was able to go to 133
Winsor whenever OID needed some budget relief or a black‐box program approved. Carl wasn’t 134
afraid to play rough when it came to protecting this country. 135
By March, everything was running smooth as silicon. Carl moved to New Mexico in early 136
February, and he began to work the streets, developing contacts with locals and ground‐137
53
truthing the intelligence I had developed. It all bore out, of course, and soon Carl began visiting 138
CH4 sites. I put together a set of fake credentials for him so that he could claim to be BIA if 139
anyone spotted him. That’s when I gave him the name “Carl Mankin” to use. They wouldn’t 140
pass a serious scan by a trained professional, but “Carl” was good enough that nobody ever 141
called him on it. 142
Still, things change quickly in this business. As I said, I am constantly on the watch for signs that 143
an operation is blown. In late March, they started to light up the entire motherboard. First, I 144
noticed a huge spike in Google searches for “Carl Mankin,” from the average of one every 145
couple weeks to dozens in a single day. Then someone at CH4 corporate intelligence started 146
running Lexis‐Nexis inquiries into Mankin. I immediately called one of Carl’s friends, who gave 147
me temporary access to BIA’s internal network, and sure enough, powerful people started 148
running searches for “Mankin” within a day or two. 149
I asked Carl to abort the operation, but he refused. We were very close to getting the first‐hand 150
evidence the lawyers needed for the False Claims suit. Carl had become convinced that Pope 151
was loyal to the paycheck and that if s/he was given a chance to make good money and serve 152
the Native American community, s/he would flip like an old cell phone. 153
On April 14, Carl made contact with Pope, and things went perfectly. I begged Carl to let me 154
hack the House system to make sure that Gutierrez had not gotten wind of their plan to visit a 155
CH4 plant together, but he was confident that everything was well. And I didn’t have much to 156
dispute that conclusion; DeBaca was still out there, plowing away, but the other searchers had 157
gone quiet. Still, when Pope postponed the meeting and wanted to substitute another tracker, I 158
got very nervous. That’s precisely the kind of anomaly that can kill a mission – someone out 159
there we don’t know, haven’t profiled, and can’t predict. I thought it was better to live to fight 160
another day, but Carl would not hear of it. He wanted the whistleblower bonus, and he just said 161
“Well, if it is Budge, I suppose that’s only right. I ruined her/his life and her/his company. The 162
least we can do is give her/him a shot at the champ.” 163
I’ll never forget April 24, 2010. It was a little after midnight, and I was still in the office, working 164
on the final level of Portal 2, when my automated search crawler dinged. No big deal. Then it 165
dinged again, then again. By the time I got to the screen, it had registered more than a dozen 166
results in five minutes. Someone was desperately calling 411, searching Google, 167
WhitePages.com, and anything else s/he could think of, trying to find Carl’s phone number. I 168
didn’t even need to run a reverse identification; I recognized the number as Pope Victorio’s. 169
Now, it’s impossible to do a search crawl in real time with civilian technology. The information I 170
was seeing was already 15 to 30 minutes old, and maybe even staler than that. 171
54
Following our protocol, I immediately sent Carl a text with a special prefix, then waited a few 172
minutes and tried the emergency number. No answer. Then I hacked into the cell tower nearest 173
to Pope’s phone, and I found out s/he was repeatedly dialing DeBaca’s cell phone. I called in an 174
anonymous tip to the reservation police, but they thought I was crazy. I tried to call one of 175
Carl’s old agency colleagues, but she just told me to relax, that Carl was a pro. I even tried to 176
see if there was a real‐time satellite image available. In the end, though, all that I could do was 177
sit and wait for the call that never came from the only real friend I’ve ever had. 178
Of course, after it all went south and I had confirmed that Carl was gone, I had one last job to 179
do. Carl had a series of “dead man’s switches,” packages of sensitive information that were to 180
be released to take vengeance on those who had a role in his death, or to be used as leverage if 181
he were ever kidnapped. It was my job, if I lived, to decide which of these packages would be 182
released. Budge DeBaca was a burnout case, a nothing, so her/his package just went to the 183
prosecutor, who probably threw it out. But Carl would still be alive if CH4 had just done its 184
business honestly, and Rawley Winsor was the reason it didn’t. So I sent Carl’s file on Winsor, 185
once piece at time, to the Albuquerque Journal. 186
I get the irony in me testifying here for Winsor, but whatever. I was subpoenaed, it’s my civic 187
duty to tell what I know, and if it should result in the world learning the power of Answers LLC, 188
well, a little padding for the cash operating accounts wouldn’t hurt, either. 189
WITNESS ADDENDUM I have reviewed this statement, and I have nothing of significance to add. The material facts are true and correct. Signed,
Leslie Groves SIGNED AND SWORN to before me at 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 National High School Mock Trial Championship.
Molly Johnson Giger Molly Johnson Giger, Notary Public State of New Mexico My Commission Expires: November, 1, 2012
55
EXHIBITS
(Balance of this page left blank intentionally)
56
Exhibit 1
BLASDELEZO “BUDGE” DEBACA NOTES RE: CARL MANKIN
57
Exhibit 2
ITEMS BELONGING TO MANKIN SENT TO RAWLEY WINSOR AND EXPRESS MAIL RECEIPT
58
Exhibit 2 continued
59
Exhibit 3
.308 CASING FROM BODY AND FIREARMS REPORT FROM FBI LABORATORY SERVICES
TECHNOLOGY Image Comparison INTEGRATED BALLISTIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
Reference Case Information Test Case InformationCase ID: 102902 Case ID: 2501‐19808 Law Case Ref. Num.: 1015‐077356 Law Case Ref. Num.: 1009‐031620 Site Name: US‐NPIS Site Name: US‐DOJTP Law Agency: US‐National Park Service Law Agency: USFBI Law Agency Num.: USNPS007 Law Agency Num.: USDOJFBI‐001 High Profile: High Profile: Yes Occurrence Date: 05/19/2008 Occurrence Date: 04/23/2010 Creation Date: 05/23/2008 Creation Date: 04/24/2010 Modification Date: None Modification Date: None Event: Other Event: Homicide Case Supervisor: Gebhart Case Supervisor: Leaphorn Modified By: Modified By: Comment: EN/GW/EXAMINERS Comment:
Reference Exhibit Information Test Exhibit InformationExhibit Num: USNPS‐1972 Exhibit Num: USDOJFBI‐001 Event: Other Event: Other Caliber: .308 Caliber: .308 Make: Homaday Match Make: Lapua GRC.: Circle GRC.: Circle Composition: Composition: Actual Status: Completed Actual Status: Completed Acquisition Date: 05/21/2008 Acquisition Date: 04/24/2010 Acq. Person: Ranger M. Freund Acq. Person: S/A Jo/e Leaphorn Creation Date: 05/23/2008 Creation Date: 04/24/2010 Modification Date: None Modification Date: None Analysis By: Examiner T. Neal Analysis By: Examiner T. Taylor Comment: EN/GW‐HIT#1609 VS#10269, FCC‐1, MW. Comment:
04/25/2010 For Official Use Only - Sensitive but Unclassified Pages 1/2 1
60
Exhibit 3 continued
GENERAL: 04/24/10 22:41:17 FROM NIBIN RECEIPT NO:1609. PAGE 2 OF 2.
TO: S/A J. LEAPHORN, U.S. F.B.I.
FROM: NATIONAL INTEGRATED BALLISTIC INFORMATION NETWORK (T. TAYLOR, F.B.I. FIREARMS-TOOLMARKS UNIT, EXAMINER)
SUBJECT: INTERGRATED BALLISTIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (IBIS) CONFIRMATION.
THE ITEM SUBMITTED AS PART OF CASE 2501-19808 RETURNS AN IBIS HIT (#1609) BY THE NATIONAL INTEGRATED BALLISTIC INFORMATION NETWORK. THE FULL REPORT IS AVAILABLE THROUGH YOUR COMPUTER TERMINAL. NIBINQ/XXXXXX/1234/PRINT (WHERE XXXXXX IS THE 6 DIGIT CASE NUMBER).
CASE#102902 1015-077356 USNPS-1972 CASE#2501-19808 1009-031602 USDOJFBI-001 THE FOLLOWING INCIDENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE INTEGRATED BALLISTIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM AND CONFIRMED BY MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION. THE SAME FIREARM WAS IDENTIFIED AS BEING USED IN THE ABOVE LISTED CASES.
PLEASE CONTACT NIBIN STAFF AT ext. 3102 IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. CASE 2501-19808 OCURRENCE DATE/TIME 042310/2300 (ESTIMATED) SUBMITTED BY S/A J. LEAPHORN DATE/TIME SUBMITTED 042410/0856 LOCATION OF RECOVERY: JICARILLA APACHE RESERVATION +34.235603, -105.534024 MFG. LAPUA
ARREST N BADGE / PAYROLL 1973 PROPERTY REC 1009-03602 (2) CEN/RIM FIRE C MARKED 1009-03162 (2)// USDOJFBI
DIST/UNIT FBI/ABQ CAL .308 WINCHESTER
REMARKS: ONE (1) FIRED CARTRIDGE CASE .308 WINCHESTER IBISL 1609 LAB FEE: $150.00 FIREARMS EXAMINER T. TAYLOR EXAM DATE SUPERVISOR: MICHAEL HYLE 042410 COMMENT: SAME GUN JO/E. YOU OWE ME ONE. I HAD A BETTER DATE THAN A .308 TONIGHT, AND FIVE OR TEN OTHER JOBS I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO BEFORE THIS ONE. YOUR POACHER MOVING ON TO BIGGER GAME? - TT
61
Exhibit 4
FIREARMS SALES RECEIPT
For $520 received, I, Margot Wendice (seller), have sold to J.J. Gittes (buyer) One (1) Winchester Model 70 (1995), Serial #G105455. Along with case, trigger lock, and all included OEM documents. I represent that this firearm is not stolen. I am the owner of the firearm listed above. If it can be shown now or in the future that this firearm was stolen prior to the date listed below, I will give the buyer a full refund for return of the firearm and all accessories listed above. Sold as is.
No warranty is expressed or implied by the Seller.
Seller assumes no responsibility after transfer of ownership has taken place.
Seller assumes no responsibility of any/all original equipment parts on the firearm.
Buyer assumes all responsibility when transfer of ownership has taken place.
Seller specifically disclaims any warranties of merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose of this firearm and disclaims all responsibility for consequential and/or incidental damages or any other losses arising from the use of said firearm.
Buyer agrees to the terms and conditions set forth and listed on this document, and acknowledges that s/he has received a true copy of this Bill of Sale/Transfer of Ownership and certifies that s/he is 21 years of age or older. Buyer acknowledges and understands that s/he will read the Owner’s Manual. Buyer agrees that it will be her/his responsibility when transfer of ownership has taken place to adjust, check, and follow all instructions as outlined in the Owner’s Manual. Buyer attests that s/he is able to legally buy and possess firearms.
Buyer: J.J. Gittes Seller: Margot Wendice
Date: 04/20/2010 Date: 04/20/2010
62
Exhibit 5
FORQUE KITCHEN AND BAR RECEIPT
63
Exhibit 6
PAYYAL RECEIPT
64
Exhibit 7
ACCOUNT RECORDS SUBMITTED AS EXHIBIT A TO PLEA AGREEMENT IN STRUCTURING CASE
Rawley Winsor First Washington Federal Savings 58 D St. NE 4532 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, D.C., 20510 Washington, D.C. 20016 Consolidated Bank Statement Statement Period: April 1, 2010 – April 30, 2010 Date Requested: June 1, 2010
GOLD CHECKING: 6994432512 Previous Statement Period Beginning Balance: $149,221.08 (March 1, 2010) Previous Statement Period Ending Balance: $87,336.24 (March 31, 2010) Current Balance: $42,093.41 (April 30, 2010)
Ref. No.
Date
Transaction Description
Ref. Code
Debit
Credit
Balance
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021
04.01.10 04.01.10 04.05.10 04.06.10 04.07.10 04.07.10 04.07.10 04.07.10 04.07.10 04.07.10 04.08.10 04.12.10 04.13.10 04.14.10 04.15.10 04.15.10 04.16.10 04.19.10 04.23.10 04.27.10 04.30.10
Balance Brought Down ATM Withdrawal Check Payroll CH4 Sched. bill trans Sched. bill trans Sched. bill trans Sched. bill trans Sched. bill trans Sched. bill trans ATM Withdrawal Cash Withdrawal Cash Withdrawal Cash Withdrawal Cash Withdrawal Payroll U.S. Gov. Cash Withdrawal Check ATM Withdrawal ATM Withdrawal Payroll U.S. Gov.
3042 501 WT WT WT WT WT WT WT 3043 CW CW CW CW WT CW 502 3044 3045 WT
500.004,600.00
231.26685.45167.21502.98178.61369.07500.00
9,500.008,750.009,250.008,500.00
9,750.001,600.00500.00500.00
1,416.67
4,712.54
4,712.54
87,336.2486,836.2482,236.2483,652.9183,421.6582,736.20 82,568.9982,066.0181,887.4081,518.3381,018.3371,518.3362,768.3353,518.3345,018.3349,730.8739,980.8738,380.8737,880.8737,380.8742,093.41
Definition of Codes Withdrawals
Deposits
Balance
CW Cash Withdrawal INT Interest WT Wire Transfer
56,084.58
10,841.75 42,093.41
Additional accounts continued on next page 1/2
FWFS
65
MONEY MARKET ACCOUNT CASH TRANSACTIONS: 8483450080 Current Value: $194,108.37 (April 30, 2010) Current Cash Value: $22,715.72 (April 30, 2010) Total Asset Value: $171,392.65 (April 30, 2010)
Ref. No.
Date
Transaction Description
Ref. Code
Debit
Credit
Balance
001 002 003 004 005 006
04.01.10 04.05.10 04.12.10 04.14.10 04.15.10 04.30.10
Balance Brought Down Dividend Payment MF Cash Withdrawal Cash Withdrawal Cash Withdrawal Monthly Service Fee
DP CW CW CW SF
7,600.009,150.007,750.00
23.54
1,436.81
45,802.4547,239.2639,639.2630,489.2622,739.2622,715.72
Definition of Codes Withdrawals
Deposits
Balance
CW Cash Withdrawal PD Dividend Payment WT Wire Transfer SF Service Fee
24,523.54
1,436.81 22,715.72
SAVINGS ACCOUNT: 3400769411 Current Balance: $15,290.62 (April 30, 2010)
Ref. No.
Date
Transaction Description
Ref. Code
Debit
Credit
Balance
001 002 003 004 005 006
04.01.10 04.12.10 04.13.10 04.14.10 04.15.10 04.30.10
Balance Brought Down Cash Withdrawal Cash Withdrawal Cash Withdrawal Cash Withdrawal Interest
CW CW CW CW INT
9,500.00 8,900.009,250.009,000.00
151.39
51,789.2342,289.2333,389.2324,139.2315,139.2315,290.62
Definition of Codes Withdrawals
Deposits
Balance
CW Cash Withdrawal INT Interest WT Wire Transfer
36,650.00
151.39 15,290.62
page 2/2
66
Exhibit 8
RUBBING MADE BY JO/E LEAPHORN FROM PAD IN RAWLEY WINSOR’S HYATT REGENCY HOTEL ROOM
67
Exhibit 9
MESSAGES RETRIEVED BY LESLIE GROVES FROM EVE KENDALL’S E‐MAIL ACCOUNT
EVE KENDALL <[email protected]>
EMAIL‐ PRINT VIEW
Happy Valentine’s Day 7 Messages
Sydney Gutierrez <[email protected]> Feb. 14, 2009 | 06:12:25
To: Eve Kendall <[email protected]>
Cupid, draw back your bow, and let your arrow go… straight to the gas fields. I am told you’re
expecting visitors soon, like Caesar, around the Ides of March. I trust that plans are in place to
welcome them properly?
SG ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sydney Gutierrez Administrative Aide REPRESENTATIVE RAWLEY WINSOR NEW MEXICO 5th DISTRICT UNITED STATES CONGRESS WASHINGTON, D.C. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eve Kendall <[email protected]> Feb. 23, 2009 | 13:25:10
To: Sydney Gutierrez <[email protected]>
You’re so silly! I just got back from a few days away with Roger. We got the message from Pat &
Co. before I left, though, and we have things well in hand. Over 50% of the “flowers” have been
“re‐potted” (two can play at this game!), and we should have the whole “bed” ready by the
time that the “florists” arrive… wait… this code stopped making sense! But you know what I
mean. Our inspection will be clean, just as it always is.
68
One question, though: who’s going to pay for the work? We always buried it in Klaus’s budget,
but since Brigid took over, that department’s gone. I don’t have funds for that kind of work, and
you know that Audit & Compliance is always riding me. How do we pay for this?
Eve
Eve Kendall Well Operations Manager
www.ch4.com
505.555.4500 ex. 2389
505.555.4532 (fax)
Sydney Gutierrez <[email protected]> Feb. 24, 2009 | 09:00:05
To: Eve Kendall <[email protected]>
I’ll ask The Boss.
SG
Eve Kendall <[email protected]> Apr. 10, 2009 | 15:56:13
To: Sydney Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Syd, what gives? We’re overdue, and the person who’s been doing the work on the meters is
not the kind of person we want on the streets looking for money… Help, please!
Eve
Sydney Gutierrez <[email protected]> Apr. 10, 2009 | 22:56:16
To: Eve Kendall <[email protected]>
Eve ‐
I’d apologize for the delay, but it’s not my fault! I’ve tried to raise this topic three times with
Rawley, but I can’t get the Honorable Congressperson to focus on the question… or on anything
else company‐related. Did you know that Hank Quinlan’s message has been on Rawley’s desk
for over a week? I mean, it’s one thing to ignore me, but ignoring the Chairman of the Board?
It’s just not like Rawley, or at least not like Rawley was. Most of the time, I just have to make
the decisions in Rawley’s name. Nobody’s called me on it, because we’ve been together so long,
but I worry….
69
The total labor bill is less than twenty thousand, right? That should be small enough to hide
inside the budget for amortization and equipment depreciation. Put together a bill showing
that one of the well heads had to be replaced, then list your Special Friend as the consulting
engineer. Those things are a mess, so no one will be surprised if it took two engineers to get it
done.
And if someone in Audit or Engineering raises a stink, you’re acting on Rawley’s personal
instructions. Heck, if they call here, it might actually get some attention paid to the company
again!
SG
Eve Kendall <[email protected]> Apr. 11, 2009 | 07:23:19
To: Sydney Gutierrez <[email protected]>
You’re the best, Syd! Wintierrez strikes again!
Eve
Sydney Gutierrez <[email protected]> Mar. 23, 2010 | 05:20:38
To: Eve Kendall <[email protected]>
HIGH IMPORTANCE
Eve –
We have HUGE problems, and I don’t mean the BIA. Get the meters out of the field NOW,
ASAP. It doesn’t matter what it costs. Have them warehoused as junk and burn the paperwork.
Then delete this email and ask Pat to scrub the system. Things should be safe on my end,
because even federal prosecutors can’t get Congressional emails, but you don’t have that
protection. Get it done FAST, before we get a subpoena, or both of us will do time for
obstruction of justice.
No more emails. Call me directly with any questions, and if you can't find me, get Rawley
directly. The Congressperson's slumber has to end, and if prodded, I am sure the master of the
Tiger Team will be back on the prowl, just like old times. I will be working on him from my end.
Remember – we need to hang together or we will most assuredly hang separately.
SG
70
Exhibit 10
LETTER FROM RAWLEY WINSOR TO JO/E LEAPHORN
Photo taken June 7, 2010 – Office of Jo/e Leaphorn
71
Exhibit 10 continued
72
Exhibit 11
IOD LETTER CONFIRMING MANKIN’S ALIASES
Roger Thornhill, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Intelligence Operations Division U.S. Department of Homeland Security George Bush Center for Intelligence Washington, D.C. 20505 February 1, 2012 Hon. Gregory Lee Johnson, Clerk of Court United States District Court for the District of New Mexico Pete V. Domenici United States Courthouse 333 Lomas N.W. Ste. 270 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Re: United States v. Rawley Winsor, No. NHSMTC-12 Dear Mr. Johnson: I write in connection with the criminal discovery request recently served upon my agency by the defendant in the above-captioned matter. Pursuant to the National Security Act of 1947, I am not at liberty to divulge the majority of the information requested. At the urging of the Court, however, I can make the following statement regarding a former employee of this agency.
The employee “P.J.,” whose real name I am not permitted to divulge, was employed by this agency or other agencies within the purview of the Director of National Intelligence from September 18, 1972, until his retirement on December 31, 2009. After that time, he was no longer an employee or contractor of the United States government or its intelligence agencies in any capacity. During his time employed by the United States government, he held a variety of positions, including a term in the Office of Inspector General of the Intelligence Operations Division of the Department of Homeland Security, from February 8, 2003, until his retirement.
73
During his career, he was issued documents identifying him by several aliases, including several on the list that you provided: Brian Cruikshank, Alexander Dyle, Adam Canfield, and Carl Mankin.
Upon his retirement, for reasons that are subject to a classified internal and criminal investigation that has not yet concluded, the documents identifying him as “Carl Mankin” were not collected from him. The documents which you have identified as Exhibit 2 in the above-captioned matter are among those documents created for purposes of establishing this identity. They are therefore the legal property of the IOD and/or the Director of National Intelligence.
Pursuant to the National Security Act, I hereby direct that you are to preserve the items
identified as Exhibit 2 in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) pending trial. Upon the conclusion of the trial and any appeals in this action, you are directed to contact me immediately, so that I may arrange for a secure courier to retrieve them from you.
In addition, I remind you that no forensic examination of these documents is to be
permitted, as such examination could reveal classified intelligence sources and methods. Respectfully,
Roger Thornhill Roger Thornhill, Esq.
74
Exhibit 12
BLASDELEZO “BUDGE” DEBACA PLEA AGREEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO. NHSMTC‐12 (2) ) BLASDELEZO DEBACA )
Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the government, the
defendant, and the defendant’s counsel enter into the following guilty plea agreement. Any
reference to the United States or the government in this agreement shall mean the Office of
the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico.
1. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Counts One to Three of the Information, waiving
prosecution by indictment, charging her/him with:
a. Murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (Count One), arising from Defendant’s
killing of a human being, P.J., a/k/a “Carl Mankin,” on or about April 23, 2010, on
the reservation of the Jicarilla Apache, which is within Indian Country, as that
term is defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151‐52;
b. Attempted Murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1113 (Count Two), arising from
Defendant’s attempt to murder a second individual, known as Pope Victorio, in
lands within Indian Country and the State of New Mexico; and
c. False Statements in Connection with the Acquisition of a Firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) (Count Three), arising from Defendant’s acquisition of a
firearm, to wit, a Winchester Model 70 rifle, by using a false or fake identification
and making false statements about her/his identity.
2. The defendant agrees to cooperate fully and truthfully with the government as follows:
a. The defendant agrees to provide truthful, complete, and accurate information
and testimony. The defendant understands that if s/he testifies untruthfully in
any material way s/he can be prosecuted for perjury.
75
b. The defendant agrees to provide all information concerning her/his knowledge
of, and participation in, the purchase of the Winchester Model 70, the murder of
P.J., a/k/a “Carl Mankin” and attempted murder of Pope Victorio, and any other
crimes about which s/he has knowledge.
c. The defendant agrees that s/he will not falsely implicate any person or entity and
s/he will not protect any person or entity through false information or omission.
d. The defendant agrees to testify truthfully as a witness before any grand jury,
hearing, or trial when called upon to do so by the government.
e. The defendant agrees to provide all documents or other items under her/his
control or which may come under her/his control which may pertain to any
crime.
f. The defendant understands that her/his cooperation shall be provided to any
federal or other law enforcement agency as requested by the government.
g. To enable the Court to have the benefit of all relevant sentencing information,
the defendant waives any rights to a prompt sentencing, and will join any
request by the government to postpone sentencing until after her/his
cooperation is complete.
h. The defendant agrees that if the government determines that the defendant has
not provided full and truthful cooperation, or has otherwise violated any other
provision of this agreement, then the government may at its option:
1) prosecute the defendant for any federal crime including, but not limited
to, perjury, obstruction of justice, and the substantive offenses arising
from this investigation, based on and using any information provided by
the defendant during the course of cooperation;
2) reinstate and try the defendant on any counts which were to be, or which
had been, dismissed, based on and using any information provided by the
defendant during the course of cooperation; and
3) be relieved of any obligations under this agreement regarding
recommendations as to sentence.
3. If the government in its sole discretion determines that the defendant has fulfilled all of
her/his obligations of cooperation as set forth above, at the time of sentencing, the
government
76
a. will make the nature and extent of the defendant’s cooperation known to the
Court.
b. The parties agree that this plea agreement is made pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) and that the following specific sentence is the
appropriate disposition of this case: 240 months imprisonment, 5 years
supervised release, a $300 special assessment, and forfeiture of the proceeds of
wrongdoing. If the Court does not accept this plea agreement, then either the
defendant or the government will have the right to withdraw from the plea
agreement and insist that the case proceed to trial.
c. The parties agree that in the absence of this agreement, the applicable sentence
pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a) charge would have been a mandatory
minimum of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole pursuant to the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, and that the sentences for the other crimes
would have run concurrent to that sentence.
4. The defendant waives all right in and agrees to forfeit all proceeds of the wrongdoing,
including but not limited to a Winchester Model 70 rifle and $100,000 in United States
currency or other, identically valued instrument.
5. The United States agrees not to extradite the defendant, who is an American citizen, to
face charges outside the United States.
6. The defendant is satisfied with the legal representation provided by the defendant’s
lawyer; the defendant and this lawyer have fully discussed this plea agreement; and the
defendant is agreeing to plead guilty because the defendant admits that s/he is guilty.
L.B. Jeffries L.B. JEFFRIES
United States Attorney
Judy Barton
BLASDELEZO DEBACA JUDY BARTON Defendant Chief, Criminal Division Assistant United States Attorney
Hank Quinlan John S. Ferguson HENRY R. QUINLAN, Esquire JOHN S. FERGUSON Counsel for Defendant Assistant United States Attorney
77
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RIGHTS
1. I understand that I do not have to plead guilty. I may plead not guilty and insist upon a
trial.
2. At that trial, I understand
a. that I would have the right to be tried by a jury that would be selected from the
District of New Mexico and that along with my attorney, I would have the right
to participate in the selection of that jury;
b. that the jury could only convict me if all 12 jurors agreed that they were
convinced of my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;
c. that the government would have the burden of proving my guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt and that I would not have to prove anything;
d. that I would be presumed innocent unless and until such time as the jury was
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the government had proven that I
was guilty;
e. that I would have the right to be represented by a lawyer at this trial, and that if I
could not afford a lawyer, the court would appoint one for me;
f. that through my lawyer I would have the right to confront and cross‐examine the
witnesses against me;
g. that I could testify in my own defense if I wanted to and I could subpoena
witnesses to testify in my defense if I wanted to; and
h. that I would not have to testify or otherwise present any defense if I did not
want to, and that if I did not do so, the jury could not hold that against me.
3. I understand that if I plead guilty, there will be no trial and I would be giving up all of the
rights listed above.
4. I understand that if I decide to enter a plea of guilty, the judge will ask me questions
under oath and that if I lie in answering those questions, I could be prosecuted for the
crime of perjury, that is, for lying under oath.
78
5. Understanding that I have all these rights and that by pleading guilty I am giving them
up, I still wish to plead guilty.
Hank Quinlan
BLASDELEZO DEBACA HENRY R. QUINLAN, Esquire Defendant Counsel for Defendant
Dated: January 6, 2012
79
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) )
Plaintiff, ) ) vs. )
) )
CRIMINAL NO. NHSMTC‐12
RAWLEY WINSOR,
Defendant.
) ) )
PRE‐TRIAL ORDER
The defendant in the above‐captioned action moves to dismiss the indictment for
various reasons. None are availing.
First, the defendant claims that the Indictment insufficiently alleges that s/he used an
interstate commerce facility and thus that the federal government lacks jurisdiction to
prosecute the alleged crime. The indictment alleges that the defendant traveled in interstate
commerce from Washington, DC to Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the purpose of meeting a
co‐conspirator, Budge DeBaca, and convincing DeBaca to kill another person. Needless to say,
an interstate, commercial airplane flight is a form of interstate commerce, and murder is
against the laws of New Mexico, see N.M. Code § 30‐2‐1, and the United States, see 18 U.S.C. §
1111. If true, then, this allegation suffices to demonstrate an interstate nexus.
Nor is the Court convinced by the defendant’s claim that the telephones are not
facilities of interstate commerce. “Both intrastate and interstate telephone communications
are part of an aggregate telephonic system as a whole. And … the instrumentality itself is an
integral part of an interstate system…” Kerbs v. Fall River Industries, Inc., 502 F.2d 731, 738
(10th Cir. 1974). Cellular telephones, like land lines, are also instrumentalities of interstate
commerce. United States v. Means, 297 Fed. Appx. 755, 759 n. 5 (10th Cir.2008).
Likewise, the Indictment alleges that PayYal, an internet commercial enterprise, was
used to transmit funds. Defendant claims that these funds never crossed state lines, because
they were wired from Bank of Albuquerque, a New Mexico bank, to an account owned by a
resident of New Mexico. This is irrelevant. The constitutionality rests on the instrumentality,
not its particular use. The internet is generally an instrumentality of interstate commerce. See
80
Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, 527 F.3d 1045,
1054 (10th Cir. 2008)
Moreover, the Indictment alleges that the victim died on the Jicarilla Apache
reservation. That reservation is part of what federal law calls “Indian Country,” 18 U.S.C. §
1151(a), and the United States may prosecute crimes in Indian Country. It would be
aberrational not to extend to the United States the authority to prosecute those who, through
conspiracy, are liable as principals for these acts. See 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Finally, the defendant’s claim that the Indictment does not allege sufficient overt acts is
easily denied. Either co‐conspirator can commit the overt act, and Budge DeBaca has admitted
to more than one act that would qualify, if the jury were to credit her/his testimony that the
acts were in furtherance of a conspiracy. Moreover, if the defendant made payment, as alleged,
in order that DeBaca would kill P.J. or Pope Victorio, the overt act requirement is met.
Nor does the Court believe that any purpose would be served by forcing the
government to bring separate Counts for conspiracy to commit homicide and murder‐for‐hire,
when the allegations supporting those claims are identical and the sentence would be identical.
The Court concurs with the government that the jury is less likely to be confused when
presented with a pair of Counts, one for each alleged victim or intended victim.
Accordingly, the government may prove its case with respect to the alleged conspiracy
to murder P.J. (Count 1) either by proving conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2) to commit homicide (18
U.S.C. § 1111) or by proving murder‐for‐hire (18 U.S.C. § 1958).
It is axiomatic that conspiracy is a separate crime from the act to which it is directed,
and that a criminal conspiracy may be punished even if it is unsuccessful. Likewise, then, the
government may prove its case with respect to the alleged conspiracy to murder Pope Victorio
(Count 1), even though Victorio was never killed, either by proving conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2) to
commit homicide (18 U.S.C. § 1111) or by proving murder‐for‐hire (18 U.S.C. § 1958).
The defendant further objects that the payments in the Indictment were not for the
purposes of inducing DeBaca to commit homicide but were, rather, to pay off blackmail.
Obviously, this is a question of fact, not of law, and it therefore is the exclusive province of the
jury, not this Court.
BY THE COURT:
Samuel Spade SAMUEL SPADE, District Judge
81
APPLICABLE LAW‐ MOCK TRIAL VERSION
18 U.S.C. § 1958 – Murder‐for‐Hire
(a) Whoever travels in interstate commerce or uses the mail or any facility of interstate
commerce with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of any State or the
United States as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or
agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value, or who conspires to do so, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and if personal injury results, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than twenty years, or both; and if death
results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment, or shall be fined not more than
$250,000, or both.
(b) As used in this section and section 1959—
(1) “anything of pecuniary value” means anything of value in the form of money, a
negotiable instrument, a commercial interest, or anything else the primary
significance of which is economic advantage;
(2) “facility of interstate or foreign commerce” includes means of transportation and
communication; and
(3) “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any
United States, territory, or possession of the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 1111 – Murder
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder
perpetrated by… premeditated killing… is murder in the first degree.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by
imprisonment for life;
18 U.S.C. § 1113 – Attempted Murder
[W]hoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
attempts to commit murder or manslaughter, shall, for an attempt to commit murder be
imprisoned not more than twenty years or fined under this title, or both....
82
18 U.S.C. § 2 – Conspiracy, Solicitation, Aiding and Abetting
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands,
induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by her or him or
another would be an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal.
18 U.S.C. § 1151 – Indian Country
Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term “Indian country”,
as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and,
including rights‐of‐way running through the reservation…
18 U.S.C. § 1152 – Laws Governing Indian Country
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the general laws of the United States as to the
punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the
United States, except the District of Columbia, shall extend to Indian country.
New Mexico Code 30‐2‐1 – Murder
A. Murder in the first degree is the killing of one human being by another without lawful
justification or excuse, by any of the means with which death may be caused:
(1) by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing…
Whoever commits murder in the first degree is guilty of a capital felony….
83
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) )
Plaintiff, ) ) vs. )
) )
CRIMINAL NO. NHSMTC‐12
RAWLEY WINSOR,
Defendant.
) ) )
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
PRESIDING JUDGES: Do not read these Instructions
in Open Court During the Mock Trial Competition
[At the conclusion of a jury trial, the judge will instruct the jury how to apply the law to the
evidence. Hypothetically, if the judge in your mock trial case were to provide instructions to the
jury, they would look something like the following. A copy of these instructions may not be used
as an exhibit during the mock trial competition. Students may, however, use these concepts in
fashioning their case and making arguments to the jury.]
1. Role of Jury
Members of the jury, you have seen and heard all the evidence and the arguments of
the lawyers. Now I will instruct you on the law.
You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence
that you have heard and seen during this trial. That is your job and yours alone. I play no
part in finding the facts. You should not take anything that I may have said or done
during the trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what I think about what
your verdict should be.
Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. My role now is to
explain to you the legal principles that must guide you in your decisions. You must apply
84
my instructions carefully. Each of the instructions is important, and you must apply all of
them. You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion about what the law
is or ought to be. You must apply the law that I give to you, whether you agree with it or
not.
2. Jury sole judge of facts; sympathy or prejudice not to influence verdict
You are the sole judges of the facts in this case. It is your duty to determine the facts
from the evidence produced here in court. Your verdict should not be based on
speculation, guess or conjecture. Neither sympathy nor prejudice should influence your
verdict. You should also not be influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national
ancestry, or gender. Do not allow public opinion to influence you. You are to apply the
law as stated in these instructions to the facts as you find them, and in this way decide
the case.
3. Credibility of witnesses
In deciding what the facts are you must decide what testimony you believe and what
testimony you do not believe. You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses.
Credibility refers to whether a witness is worthy of belief: Was the witness truthful?
Was the witness’ testimony accurate? You may believe everything a witness says, or
only part of it, or none of it.
You may decide whether to believe a witness based on her or his behavior and manner
of testifying, the explanations the witness gave, and all the other evidence in the case,
just as you would in any important matter where you are trying to decide if a person is
truthful, straightforward, and accurate in her or his recollection. In deciding the
question of credibility, remember to use your common sense, your good judgment, and
your experience.
In deciding what to believe, you may consider a number of factors:
(1) The opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the
things about which the witness testified;
(2) The quality of the witness’ knowledge, understanding, and memory;
(3) The witness’ appearance, behavior, and manner while testifying;
(4) Whether the witness has an interest in the outcome of the case or any
motive, bias, or prejudice;
85
(5) Any relation the witness may have with a party in the case and any effect
the verdict may have on the witness;
(6) Whether the witness said or wrote anything before trial that was
different from the witness’ testimony in court;
(7) Whether the witness’ testimony was consistent or inconsistent with
other evidence that you believe; and
(8) Any other factors that bear on whether the witness should be believed.
Inconsistencies or discrepancies in a witness’ testimony or between the testimonies of
different witnesses may or may not cause you to disbelieve a witness’ testimony. Two or
more persons witnessing an event may simply see or hear it differently. Mistaken
recollection, like failure to recall, is a common human experience. In weighing the effect
of an inconsistency, you should also consider whether it was about a matter of
importance or an insignificant detail. You should also consider whether the
inconsistency was innocent or intentional.
You are not required to accept testimony even if the testimony was not contradicted
and the witness was not impeached. You may decide that the witness is not worthy of
belief because of the witness’ bearing and demeanor, or because of the inherent
improbability of the testimony, or for other reasons that are sufficient to you.
After you make your own judgment about the believability of a witness, you can then
attach to that witness’ testimony the importance or weight that you think it deserves.
The weight of the evidence to prove a fact does not necessarily depend on the number
of witnesses who testified or the quantity of evidence that was presented. What is more
important than numbers or quantity is how believable the witnesses were, and how
much weight you think their testimony deserves.
4. Expert Testimony—Basic Instruction
[This instruction applies only if a witness was qualified as an expert witness during trial.]
I permitted [name of witness] to testify as an expert witness. An expert witness is a
person who has special knowledge or skill in some science, art, profession, occupation,
or subject that the witness acquired by training, education, or experience. Because an
expert has “special”—that is, “out of the ordinary”—knowledge or skill, he or she may
be able to supply you with specialized information, explanations, and opinions that will
help them decide a case.
86
Regular witnesses are bound by two limitations that do not apply to an expert. First,
regular witnesses generally can testify only about things that they personally
perceived—things that they saw and heard themselves. And second, regular witnesses
are not allowed to express opinions about matters that require special knowledge or
skill. By contrast, an expert is allowed to express an opinion about a matter that is within
the area of her or his expertise. Furthermore, while an expert may base an opinion on
things personally perceived, he or she may also base an opinion on factual information
learned from other sources.
Remember, you are the sole judges of the credibility and weight of all testimony. The
fact that the lawyers and I may have referred to certain witnesses as “experts,” and that
the witnesses may have special knowledge or skill, does not mean that their testimony
and opinions are correct. When determining the credibility and weight of an expert’s
testimony and opinions, consider all the factors that I described earlier that are relevant
when evaluating the testimony of any witness. You should also consider all other things
bearing on credibility and weight, including the training, education, experience, and
ability of each expert, the factual information on which he or she based an opinion, the
source and reliability of that information, and the reasonableness of any explanation he
or she gave to support the opinion.
5. On or About
You will note that the indictment charges that the offenses were committed “on or
about” a certain date. The government does not have to prove with certainty the exact
date of the alleged offenses. It is sufficient if the Government proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that the offenses were committed on a date reasonably near the date
alleged.
6. Motive and Intent
Intent and motive are different concepts and should never be confused.
Motive is what prompts a person to act or fail to act. Intent refers only to the state of
mind with which the act is done or omitted.
Personal advancement and financial gain, for example, are two well‐recognized motives
for much of human conduct. These praiseworthy motives, however, may prompt one
person to voluntary acts of good while prompting another person to voluntary acts of
crime.
87
Good motive alone is never a defense where the act done or omitted is a crime. The
motive of the defendant is, therefore, immaterial except insofar as evidence of motive
may aid in the determination of state of mind or the intent of the defendant.
7. Accomplice Testimony
In this case, the United States offered the testimony of Budge DeBaca. Since DeBaca was
previously charged as an accomplice with the Defendant, special precautionary rules
apply to her/his testimony. I will explain later what it means to be an accomplice.
Experience shows that an accomplice, when caught, may often try to place the blame
falsely on someone else. On the other hand, an accomplice may be a perfectly truthful
witness. The special rules that I will give you are meant to help you distinguish between
truthful and false accomplice testimony.
The special rules that apply to accomplice testimony are:
First, you should view the testimony of an accomplice with disfavor
because it comes from a corrupt and polluted source.
Second, you should examine the testimony of an accomplice closely
and accept it only with care and caution.
Third, you should consider whether the testimony of an accomplice
is supported, in whole or in part, by other evidence. Accomplice
testimony is more dependable if supported by independent
evidence.
8. Presumption of innocence; reasonable doubt; burden of proof
The Defendant, Rawley Winsor, has pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. The
Defendant is presumed to be innocent. S/He started the trial with a clean slate, with no
evidence against her/him. The presumption of innocence stays with Rawley Winsor
unless and until the government has presented evidence that overcomes that
presumption by convincing you that Rawley Winsor is guilty of the offenses charged
beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence requires that you find
her/him not guilty unless you are satisfied that the United States has proved guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence means that Rawley Winsor has no burden or obligation
to present any evidence at all or to prove that s/he is not guilty. The burden or
88
obligation of proof is on the United States to prove that Rawley Winsor is guilty and this
burden stays with the United States throughout the trial.
For you to find Rawley Winsor guilty of the offenses charged, the United States must
convince you that Rawley Winsor is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that
the United States must prove each and every element of the offenses charged beyond a
reasonable doubt. A Defendant may not be convicted based on suspicion or conjecture,
but only on evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt or to a
mathematical certainty. Possible doubts or doubts based on conjecture, speculation, or
hunch are not reasonable doubts. A reasonable doubt is a fair doubt based on reason,
logic, common sense, or experience. It is a doubt that an ordinary reasonable person
has after carefully weighing all of the evidence, and is a doubt of the sort that would
cause her or him to hesitate to act in matters of importance in her or his own life. It may
arise from the evidence, or from the lack of evidence, or from the nature of the
evidence.
If, having now heard all the evidence, you are convinced that the United States proved
each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should
return a verdict of guilty for that offense. However, if you have a reasonable doubt
about one or more of the elements of the offense charged, then you must return a
verdict of not guilty of that offense.
9. Overview of Crimes Charged
Rawley Winsor has been charged with two crimes. First, s/he is charged with conspiring
to have the individual referred to at different times in this trial as P.J., Carl Mankin,
Adam Canfield, and Brian Cruikshank killed. Second, s/he is charged with conspiring to
have Pope Victorio killed. These are separate crimes and I will explain the elements of
these crimes to you now.
9a. Conspiracy
(1) A defendant need not be present when a crime is committed to be criminally
responsible for that crime. A defendant may be criminally responsible if s/he conspires
to commit a crime or hires another to commit that crime. Let’s talk first about
conspiracy.
89
(2) A defendant is criminally responsible for a crime if the defendant is a member of a
conspiracy to commit that crime. In the United States, joining in a conspiracy, or
creating a conspiracy, is itself a crime.
(3) In general terms, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to
commit a crime. A conspiracy exists once two conditions are met – there is an
agreement, and one of the members then commits some act to help achieve the goal of
the conspiracy. I will now explain each of those elements in greater detail.
(4) The first element of conspiracy is an agreement. It can be stated in words, or
unspoken but acknowledged. But it must be an agreement in the sense that two or
more people have come to an understanding that they agree to act together to commit
a crime or crimes. Their agreement does not have to cover the details of how the crime
will be committed.
Nor does it have to call for all of them to participate in actually committing the crime.
They can agree that one of them will do the job. What is necessary is that the parties do
agree – in other words, do come to a firm, common understanding – that a crime will be
committed.
(5) Although the agreement itself is the essence of the conspiracy, a defendant cannot
be convicted of conspiracy unless s/he or a fellow conspirator does something more‐‐an
overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The overt act is an act by any member of the
conspiracy that would serve to further the goal of the conspiracy. The overt act can be
criminal or noncriminal in itself, as long as it is designed to put the conspiratorial
agreement into effect. This is to show that the parties have a firm agreement and are
not just thinking or talking about committing a crime. The overt act shows that the
conspiracy has reached the action stage. If a conspirator actually commits or attempts
to commit the agreed crime, that obviously would be an overt act in furtherance of the
conspiracy. But a small act or step that is much more preliminary, and a lot less
significant, can satisfy the overt act requirement.
(6) The United States may prove a conspiracy by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence. [People who conspire often do their conspiring secretly and try to cover up
afterwards.] In many conspiracy trials, circumstantial evidence is the best or only
evidence on the questions of whether there was an agreement, that is, a common
understanding, and whether the conspirators shared the intent to promote or facilitate
committing the object crime. Thus, you may, if you think it proper, infer that there was a
conspiracy from the relationship, conduct, and acts of the defendant and her or his
90
alleged co‐conspirators and the circumstance surrounding their activities. However, the
evidence of this must support your conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.
(7) A defendant cannot be convicted because s/he was present with others, or even
because s/he knew what the other or others planned or were doing; there must be
proof of an agreement between the defendant and another person or persons to form
or continue a conspiracy. To be proved guilty of being a conspirator, the defendant must
have intended to act jointly with the other[s] charged and must have intended that the
crime[s] alleged to be the goal of the conspiracy would be committed.
(8) The government is not required to prove that any of the members of the conspiracy
were successful in achieving all, or even some, of the objectives of the conspiracy. You
may find the defendant guilty of conspiracy if you find that the government proved
beyond a reasonable doubt the elements I have explained, whether or not any of the
conspirators actually committed any other offense against the United States. Conspiracy
is a criminal offense separate from the offense that was the object of the conspiracy;
conspiracy is complete without the commission of that offense.
9b. Murder
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1111, makes it a crime for anyone to murder
another human being with premeditation.
New Mexico Code Sec. 30‐2‐1 makes the willful, deliberate, or premeditated killing of
one human being by another without lawful justification or excuse a crime.
A killing is "premeditated" for purposes of these laws when it is the result of planning or
deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the
person and the circumstances. It must be long enough for the killer, after forming the
intent to kill, to be fully conscious of that intent. It does not need to be longer than that.
Premeditation can be formed over the period of weeks or months, or it can be formed
in the fraction of a second. The only question for purposes of this issue is whether the
defendant has formed a conscious intent to bring about the death of the victim.
In short, premeditated murder is against the laws of the United States and against the
laws of New Mexico.
91
9c. Murder for Hire
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958 provides that:
Whoever travels in interstate commerce, or uses to use the mail or any facility of
interstate commerce, with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of
any State or the United States as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for
a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value, or who conspires to do so,
commits a crime against the United States.
The term “anything of pecuniary value” means anything of value in the form of money, a
negotiable instrument, a commercial instrument, or anything else the primary
significance of which is economic advantage.
The term “facility of interstate or foreign commerce” includes both a means of
transportation, such as a car or commercial aircraft, and a means of communication,
such as a telephone or the internet.
The term “state” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any
commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States. It also includes lands
owned by Native American nations that are within the borders of the United States.
9d. The Charges Against the Defendant
The defendant, Rawley Winsor, is charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit
homicide by or through the use of facilities of interstate commerce. These counts relate
to alleged conspiracies to kill two individuals: P.J., also known as “Carl Mankin”, and
Pope Victorio. Count 1 relates to the alleged conspiracy to kill P.J. Count 2 relates to the
alleged conspiracy to kill Pope Victorio. For purposes of this case, it does not matter
whether the conspiracy alleged in Count 2 is a continuation of the conspiracy alleged in
Count 1 or a separate conspiracy. You are to judge the Counts independently.
Count 1
The defendant, Rawley Winsor, is guilty of Count 1 if s/he conspired with Budge DeBaca to kill
P.J., a/k/a Carl Mankin, or if s/he hired Budge DeBaca to kill Budge DeBaca.
The parties have agreed, and I therefore instruct you, to treat as a fact proven beyond a
reasonable doubt, that P.J. was a living human being who was killed by a gunshot wound to the
chest on or about April 23, 2010.
You must find the defendant, Rawley Winsor, guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in Count 1
if you find that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant
92
conspired with another individual, here, Budge DeBaca, to kill P.J., a/k/a “Carl Mankin”; (2) that
either Rawley Winsor or Budge DeBaca, or both, took an overt act to complete the objective of
the conspiracy; and that (3) either Rawley Winsor or Budge DeBaca traveled in interstate
commerce, used the United States mails, or used an instrumentality of interstate commerce,
such as a telephone or the internet, in order to form the conspiracy or in furtherance of the
conspiracy’s ends.
Alternatively, you must find the defendant guilty of Count 1 if you find s/he has committed
murder‐for‐hire or conspiracy to commit murder‐for‐hire. You must find the defendant, Rawley
Winsor, guilty of murder‐for‐hire in Count 1 if you find that the government has proven beyond
a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant promised to pay something of pecuniary value to
Budge DeBaca; (2) with the intent that a murder be committed; and (3) that either Rawley
Winsor or Budge DeBaca either traveled in interstate commerce, used the United States mails,
or used an instrumentality of interstate commerce, such as a telephone or the internet, with
the intent that the murder be committed.
The United States need not prove every allegation in the Indictment. However, it must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt sufficient facts for you to conclude that one or both of the
foregoing crimes was committed for you to find the defendant guilty on Count 1.
Count 2
The defendant, Rawley Winsor, is guilty of Count 2 if s/he conspired with Budge DeBaca to kill
Pope Victorio or if s/he hired Budge DeBaca to kill Pope Victorio.
You must find the defendant, Rawley Winsor, guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in Count 2
if you find that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant
conspired with another individual, here, Budge DeBaca, to kill Pope Victorio; (2) that either
Rawley Winsor or Budge DeBaca, or both, took an overt act to complete the objective of the
conspiracy; and that (3) either Rawley Winsor or Budge DeBaca traveled in interstate
commerce, used the United States mails, or used an instrumentality of interstate commerce,
such as a telephone or the internet, in order to form the conspiracy or in furtherance of the
conspiracy’s ends.
Alternatively, you must find the defendant guilty of Count 2 if you find s/he has committed
murder‐for‐hire. You must find the defendant, Rawley Winsor, guilty of murder for hire in
Count 2 if you find that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the
defendant promised to pay something of pecuniary value to Budge DeBaca; (2) with the intent
that a murder be committed; and (3) that either Rawley Winsor or Budge DeBaca traveled in
93
interstate commerce, used the United States mails, or used an instrumentality of interstate
commerce, such as a telephone or the internet, with the intent that the murder be committed.
The United States need not prove every allegation in the Indictment. However, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt sufficient facts for you to conclude that one or both of the foregoing crimes was committed for you to find the defendant guilty on Count 2.
10. Concluding Instructions
Your decision in this case is a matter of considerable importance. Remember that it is
your responsibility as jurors to perform your duties and reach a verdict based on the
evidence as it was presented during the trial. In arriving at a verdict, you should not
concern yourselves with any possible future consequences of your verdict, including
what the penalty might be if you should find the Defendant guilty.
Upon retiring to deliberate, you should select one of you to be the foreperson. S/He is
the person who will announce your verdict. Your verdict must be unanimous. This
means that in order to return a verdict, each of you must agree to it. Each of you must
decide the case for yourself, but only after there has been impartial consideration with
your fellow jurors. In the course of deliberations, each of you as jurors should not
hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is
erroneous. However, no juror should surrender an honest conviction solely because of
the opinion of your fellow jurors. In closing, I would also like to suggest that you will be
able to deliberate more easily and in a way that will be better for all concerned if each
of you treats your fellow jurors and their views with the same courtesy and respect as
you would other persons in your everyday life.