Billy N. Chadwick v. Edwin D. Hill
20. On April 8, 1981, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in the Chambers of the Honorable Donald E. Ziegler, District Judge, one Marie Bowers, former bookkeeper for IBEW Local Union No. 712 and former mistress of current IBEW International Secretary-Treasurer Edwin D. Hill, testified under oath as follows:
(a) Bowers testified that sometime during 1972, the current IBEW International Secretary-Treasurer Edwin D. Hill, then business manager and financial secretary of IBEW Local Union No. 712, had developed a scheme whereby incorrect accounting methods were used on dues and other monies coming into the local union's offices in the form of cash. Exhibit "F," Transcript. at p. 17
(b) Bowers testified that, on several occasions, she had delivered sums of embezzled cash to current IBEW International Secretary-Treasurer Edwin D. Hill, in amounts ranging from $1500 to $5,000 at a time. Exhibit "F," Transcript. at p. 20
(c) Bowers testified that when the embezzlement of the local union's funds came to light, current IBEW International Secretary-Treasurer Edwin D. Hill told her that [they would] "have to get -- You know, everything pointed at me, because I handled the money, which was natural." Exhibit "F," Transcript. at p. 21
(d) Bowers testified that she had an intimate personal relationship with current IBEW International Secretary Treasurer Edwin D. Hill For many years. Exhibit "F," Transcript. at p. 23
(e) Bowers testified that "When this all came to a great big head, Mr. Hill wanted to meet with Dick Rocereto, who was the man who did the audits for Snodgrass. And he asked me to go with him. So we had breakfast with him one morning at a little restaurant in Beaver, and Mr. Hill asked Mr. Rocereto not to do anything about this because it was a slush fund that he had set aside for union activities (emphasis added)." Exhibit "F," Transcript. at p. 27
(f) Bowers testified that, in her appearance before the federal grand jury, "They asked me if I ever gave Mr. Hill any money. They asked me that. ... I didn't tell the truth. I just said no." Exhibit "F," Transcript. at p. 33
(g) Bowers testified that she had, on several occasions, been instructed by current IBEW International Secretary-Treasurer Edwin D. Hill that she should never admit that he had received any of the money embezzled from IBEW Local Union No. 712, and that she had lied to the grand jury because Hill told her to lie. Exhibit "F," Transcript. at pp. 33, 34
(h) Bowers testified that, subsequent to her perjured testimony to the grand jury, she felt that current IBEW International Secretary-Treasurer Edwin D. Hill had betrayed her.
She said:
Well, this may be trivial to everybody, but to me it meant a lot. I found out from Ed later on that [attorney] Bowers had informed or had met with Mr. Hill the night before my arraignment and they had discussed about that he would not be my attorney and, you know, he didn't tell me. He told Ed or Ed told him or whatever, and I was really put out by that (explanatory term added).
Exhibit "F," Transcript. at p. 361
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
MARIE BOWERS,
Defendant
Criminal No. 78-222
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Government:
Michael Cauley,
Assistant United States Attorney
On behalf of the Defendant:
H. David Rothman, Esquire
Marilyn G. Brown
Official Reporter
(Proceedings began in chambers at 10:20 a.m. on April 8, 1981. Defendant present with counsel.)
THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the case of United States of America vs. Marie Bowers at Criminal Action No. 78-222, wherein
Miss Bowers is charged with alleged violations of 29 USC Sections 501(c), 439(c), and 18 USC Section 2.
Miss Bowers, would you come forward?
(Defendant stepped forward with counsel.)
THE COURT: Raise your right hand and be sworn. (Defendant was sworn.)
BY THE COURT:
Q. Your name is Marie Bowers?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And where do you reside?
A. 816 Bethany Drive, and that's in Mt. Lebanon.
Q. I see. How old are you?
A. I am 35.
Q. Now do you understand, Miss Bowers, that you have been placed under oath for this proceeding?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And if you make any material false statement of fact, you are subject to prosecution for the crime of perjury
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your educational background?
A. I graduated from Point Park College. I have an Associate's degree in Secretarial Science, with an Executive Secretarial major. I take courses working on my---Oh, I'm sorry,---Bachelor's degree at Pitt right now. Hopefully I will get an M.B.A. in three years. That's my goal.
Q. I see. Are you able to read and write the English language?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have any difficulty hearing or understanding what I am saying to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now if you have any questions or do not understand anything, tell me, and I will try to explain it to you. Do you understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now do you understand that you have a right to plead not guilty to these charges?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you understand that you have a right to persist in such a plea throughout the entire proceeding?
A. Yes.
Q. Now do you understand that you have a right to trial by jury on these charges?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And do you understand you have a right to sit with
Mr. Rothman and participate or help him select a jury?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you understand that a jury, if you decided to have one, would consist of twelve persons who would be selected from this District at large?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you understand that you are presumed to be innocent until the government establishes your guilt by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?
A. Yes.
Q. Further, do you understand that before you can be convicted of any crime, all twelve jurors must say that you are guilty? That means the verdict must be unanimous.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Further, do you understand that you cannot be compelled to testify in any criminal trial?
A. Yes.
Q. As a result, you can remain silent and put the government to its test of establishing your guilt by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you understand that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Further, do you understand that you have a right to confront your accusers? That is, you may cross examine through Mr. Rothman the witnesses whom the government may produce against you. You may challenge and object to
various evidence and, as I have stated, you may remain silent and put the government to its test of proving your guilt by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you understand that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Further, if the government would agree, you are entitled to a non-jury trial before me, in which I would decide the facts, and in such a case, you are presumed to be innocent until the government establishes your guilt again by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you understand that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now I am advised you want to waive your right to a jury trial and waive your right to a non-jury trial and give up the other rights which I have indicated and enter a plea of guilty to one count. Is that true?
A. That's true.
Q. Is that decision a voluntary one and is it done of your own free choice?
A. It is voluntary and it is my choice.
MR. ROTHMAN: Your Honor, it is subject -- If I may state for the record at this juncture, it is subject to a plea bargain of probation, and it is also subject to a separate motion to dismiss which the Court received under seal some time ago, which we will allude to in chambers at a later time.
So that in fact, we are entering the plea as a conditional plea, based on the motion I filed and the plea bargain which I have represented is a that the sentence would be a sentence of probation.
Other than that there have been no promises made.
Is that correct?
MISS BOWERS: Yes.
THE COURT: Now the motion and the basis of the conditional plea is that the indictment should be dismissed. Isn't that true?
MR. ROTHMAN: That's correct, ultimately.
THE COURT: All right. Now to what count is Miss Bowers entering this plea?
MR. ROTHMAN: She is entering a plea to the embezzlement count, Your Honor.
MR. CAULEY: Your Honor, that would be the -- For the record, my name is Mike Cauley, an Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plea bargain is correct as Mr. Rothman mentioned. She is pleading guilty to one count, and the government would recommend to the Court that Miss Bowers be placed on probation. She is entering a plea of guilty to the first count which is a violation of Title 29, USC, Section 501(c).
There is a two-count indictment. The second count charges her with a violation of Title 29, USC, Section 439(c) At the time of sentencing, the government would move to dismiss Count 2.
THE COURT: All right, sir.
BY MR. ROTHMAN:
Q. Miss Bowers, you are pleading guilty to a felony count, that of embezzlement. The allegation in the indict- ment is in fact that somewhere in the area of $100,000 of union funds were involved. Are you pleading guilty conditionally to that allegation in the indictment because you did in fact participate in the embezzlement of funds approaching that amount?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you in a position to particularize the precise amount for the Court, or is that subject to certain things that we will have to advise the Court about in chambers?
A. Yes. The second.
MR. ROTHMAN: The latter.
BY THE COURT:
Q. All right. Now the first count, to which you are entering this plea of guilty, provides as follows: The grand jury charges that, one, at all times pertinent, Local 712 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was a labor organization whose members
were employed in an industry affecting commerce, that is, the commercial installation of electrical wiring and equipment; two, at all times pertinent, Marie Bowers was an employee of Local 712 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers until on or about the 16th day of February, 1977; three, from on or about December 1974 and continuously there after, up to and including the month of March 1977, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, you, Marie Bowers, while an employee of Local 712 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a labor organization whose members are engaged in an industry affecting commerce, as defined by 29 USC Sections 402(i) and 402(j), did unlawfully steal and unlawfully and willfully embezzle, abstract, convert to her own use and to the use of others to the grand jury unknown the monies, funds, securities, property and other assets of such labor organization, in the amount of approximately $100,000, in violation of Title 29 USC Section 501(c) and Title 18 United States Code Section 2. Now do you understand the charges which are proffered by the grand jury?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. Now Congress has provided as follows,
Miss Bowers:
Any person who embezzles, steals or unlawfully and willfully abstracts or converts to his own use or the use of
So the penalty here according to law could be a period of imprisonment of up to five years and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Do you understand that?another any of the monies, funds, securities, property or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer or by which he is employed directly or indirectly, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years or both.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. So in order to convict you, the government must prove the following elements of this crime, each by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: one, that you acted knowingly and intentionally, that means that you acted willfully and consciously and without mistake or inadvertence; secondly, that there was a conversion or an embezzlement, thirdly, of monies, funds or property of a labor organization and lastly, by a person who was employed directly or indirectly by the labor organization.
Do you understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now do you understand that you have a right to the assistance of counsel throughout the entire trial of the case, and if you cannot afford a lawyer, one would be appointed to represent you free of charge? Do you understand that?
A. Yes,
Q. Why are you entering this plea of guilty? Are you guilty of this charge?
A. Yes.
BY MR. ROTHMAN:
Q. Miss Bowers, essentially you heard Judge Ziegler read the allegations of the indictment. Are you admitting to the truth of those accusations?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, and you did do the things that are charged in the count to which you are pleading guilty?
A. Yes, but -- Yeah.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Is your decision to enter this guilty plea a voluntary one, and is it done of your own free choice?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you had an opportunity to consult with your lawyer?
A. Yes, I have.
Q Are you satisfied with the representation by Mr. Rothman?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any complaints concerning his representation of you, and has he failed to do anything on your behalf which you have requested to this date?
A. No.
Q. Now it is my understanding that a plea bargain has been negotiated here between your lawyer and the government. Is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. You have heard the terms of the plea bargain?
A. Yes.
Q. And the government has represented that it will urge the Court or recommend to the Court that you be placed on a period of probation. Do you understand that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Does that comport with your understanding of this plea bargain?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. All right. Now do you understand that I have not participated in this plea bargain, and at Some point in the future, if I decide not to accept this plea bargain, I would permit you to withdraw your guilty plea and you could plead not guilty again and the case would proceed from the beginning? Do you understand that?
A. Okay.
Q. All right. Let me examine one further matter, because the Court of Appeals has been very precise in what they are requiring.
Did I ask you, have you consumed any alcoholic
beverages or used any drugs within the last 48 hours?
A. You didn't ask me. No, I haven't.
THE COURT: All right. Does anyone have any reason to believe that Miss Bowers is not competent to enter a plea of guilty?
MR. ROTHMAN: I have no reason, Your Honor.
MR. CAULEY: The government has no reason, Your Honor.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Do you understand that by entering this plea of guilty, there will be no further trial of any type, and that you have admitted your guilt in this case, and the Court will simply enter a judgment of guilty and impose sentence at some point in the future? Do you understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. That is, in the event that I turn down your motion to dismiss the indictment because of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Do you understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you entering this plea of guilty because of any pressure brought to bear upon you by Mr. Rothman or the government or the Court or anyone else?
A. No.
MR. ROTHMAN: Other than what has been stated here in open court, the plea bargain and the conditional plea
subject to the motion to dismiss.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. ROTHMAN: Is that correct?
MISS BOWERS: Yes.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Have you been instructed by anyone to respond untruthfully to the questions which I have put to you this morning?
A. No, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Have I overlooked anything?
MR. ROTHMAN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Now there was one other matter I wanted to put on the record.
This indictment was returned --
MISS BOWERS: September.
THE COURT: -- on September 27, 1978, and Mr. Rothman entered a timely -- Oh, you did not represent her early on.
MR. ROTHMAN: No, not initially, Your Honor, but I think to bring the matter up to date, Your Honor has many matters before him. You will recall that there was a waiver under seal of the Speedy Trial Rule, and I think the last one that I have a copy of -- I know one was entered on April 25th of '79, and there was a subsequent one, Your Honor and these waivers either are under seal or they are in the
file, but --
THE COURT: All right.
MR. ROTHMAN: There is no time factor here that would jeopardize this plea, inasmuch as Miss Bowers has signet those waivers of speedy trial and the right to -- or under the Speedy Trial Act, so to speak.
THE COURT: All right. Well, this --
MR. ROTHMAN: You recall that, Miss Bowers?
MISS BOWERS: Mm-hmm.
THE COURT: This case was filed prior to the date on which the dismissal sanctions of the Speedy Trial Act would apply, and it is my recollection that the case was continued at the request of Mr. Rothman and also certainly with the government's acquiescence and urging while an investigation of other matters was under way. Isn't that correct?
MR. ROTHMAN: That's correct, Your Honor.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Now do you understand, Miss Bowers? Do you understand why this case did not proceed to an immediate trial?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you join in these continuances of this case until this date?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. Do you have any questions?
A. No, sir.
THE COURT: What I will do is set a date for a hearing on the motion which Mr. Rothman has filed, that is, to dismiss the indictment for alleged ineffective assistance of counsel; and on that date, various persons may be subpoenaed or may appear voluntarily, and I will make a decision as to whether or not that relief is appropriate.
Anything else you want to put on the record here in open court?
MR. ROTHMAN: Not in open court. I would ask for leave to proceed to chambers to put matters on the record.
THE COURT: All right. We will set this in May, pursuant to the request of Mr. Rothman. I think Friday, May 15, at 1:30. Well, let's set it in the morning, Friday, May 15, at 10:00 o'clock. Is that agreeable to everyone?
MR. ROTHMAN: At this juncture it is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I will delay acceptance of the guilty plea until I hear the testimony that may be adduced at the hearing on the motion and make a decision at that time.
MR. ROTHMAN: All right.
THE COURT: Very good.
MR. ROTHMAN: There is no need to sign anything then today?
THE COURT: Mr. Hayes, I think she does have to
sign the entry of the guilty plea, but I'm not going to accept it on the record until I hear all the facts in this matter.
MR. ROTHMAN: All right, and, Your Honor, with leave of Court, could I ask permission that the word "the conditional plea" be added or "conditional" be added to the signing of the plea at this time?
THE COURT: The entry of your guilty plea is certainly conditional, and if it is turned down, you would have a right then to appeal that denial to the Court of Appeals, if you desired to do so.
MR. ROTHMAN: Right. Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: All right. I will see counsel in chambers.
MR. ROTHMAN: I will make this brief, Your Honor, but I do want to give the Court some background as a basis for the conditional nature of the plea.
BY MR. ROTHMAN:
Q. Miss Bowers, you are still under oath, having been sworn in open court. Just relax and answer a couple of my preliminary questions.
When you were employed by this labor organization, you were initially employed as what?
A. I was the second woman in the office. There was an office manager, and they hired me as her backup type person.
Q. What was that woman's name?
A. Priscilla Holland.
Q. All right. Did it come to your attention that Miss Holland and Mr. Hill in the office had developed a scheme whereby incorrect accounting methods were used on dues and other monies coming in in the form of cash into the office?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. What year was that, if you can recall?
A. Oh, I know it was about two months after I went to work there, so it would have had to have been in '72.
Q. All right, and you have reported this information to Mr. Mariner and other government investigators?
A. Yes.
Q. Essentially, what was done to the audit statements that you knew about, that was being done by Priscilla Holland.
A. They -- You mean what was done?
Q. Yes. What was done in order to --
A. They were simply footed incorrectly, footed at the bottom, you know, when they totaled them.
Q. In other words, if the auditor wouldn't check anything other than the totals, --
A. Which is all they ever checked.
Q. Which is all they ever checked?
A. That's correct.
Q. Ultimately Priscilla Holland left the office. Is that correct?
A. Yeah, and I'm not sure whether it was '74 or '75,
but yes, she left.
Q. All right. Then you became -- you did her work?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you continue this practice of false footing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, and in the course of that, was cash able to be siphoned off and not deposited in the accounts?
A. Oh, yeah. There was cash everywhere.
Q. All right. Over the years, you personally deposited in your account, your private personal account substantial amounts of money. Is that correct?
A. That's right.
Q. Amounting to approximately what?
A. I would have to go back and look. I really don't know. They say -- Was the amount a hundred thousand dollars? I can't -- I just don't think it was that much, but I don't know.
Q. But it was substantial amounts of money?
A. It was a lot of money, but to come right down to it, I don't know
Q. Was this done with Mr. Hill's knowledge?
A. I don't think -- I think he knew but didn't want to accept it, because I bought him all kinds of things, and he never asked where it came from.
Q. What was your salary?
A. At that time it was 15,000.
Q. All right. Now
A. It was substantial.
Q. Did you ever give Mr. Hill any money outright?
A. Yes. Oh, yes. Lots of times
Q. What kinds of amounts of money are we talking about?
A. Oh, anywhere from 1500 to 5,000 at a time.
Q. On how many different occasions?
A. Oh, boy. Over the years, I don't know, seven, eight, ten. I don't really remember.
Q. All right. Now there came a time when the auditors discovered that the footing system, so to speak, was being used. Is that correct?
A. What happened was, I left the sheets in the book so that they would catch it, because I -- I had just had it. That's all.
Q. All right. So the auditors finally discovered that the totals were not --
A. Were not --
Q. -- accurate?
A. Did not match the bank deposit slips, yes.
Q. Okay, and that is when this investigation first started?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Now if I remember correctly, an amount of $16,800 or something in that neighborhood was picked up by the auditors.
Is that right?
A. Yeah, for the first half of the one year. Yeah,
mm-hmm.
Q. All right, and that resulted in your reporting this information to Hill, or whom?
A. Yes, I reported it directly to Ed Hill.
Q. All right. There was a meeting that resulted in your dismissal as an employee. Is that correct?
A. Yeah. Mike Namadan told me I didn't have a job any longer
Q. Mr. Mike Namadan was the President?
A. No. International Representative
Q. All right. Now something occurred to the sixteen eight that resulted in your need to consult with counsel. Is that right?
A. Yeah. They --
Q. Well, tell it in your own words.
A. Okay. As soon as the auditing firm of Shodgrass - I think that's the firm.
Q. That's in Beaver County?
A. Yeah. It is Shodgrass & Company or something like that.
-- decided that that was the amount, I went to Ed and I told him, and he said, Well, we'll have to get -- You know, everything pointed at me, because I handled the money, which was natural. So they decided to get me a lawyer
Q. Who is they?
A. They consulted with Mr. Good, who -- They is Mr. Hill and Deerbaum, who was the President, -- consulted with Mr. Jack Good, who is the union attorney, who could not
represent me.
Q. All right. Mr. Jack Good, who was the union attorney, was also the former District Attorney of Beaver County?
A. That's right. That's Mr. Good. Okay.
Q. Go ahead.
A. So they recommended an attorney for me by the name of Charles Bowers, same name, no relation. I never even knew who he was. So I had seen Mr. Good. This all happened on a Friday. So Friday evening I went to see Mr. Good, and Ed while he was sitting in his office called Mr. Bowers and they set up an appointment for me for Saturday morning, the next day.
Q. All right.
A. And I went --
Q. All right. That was your first meeting with Mr. Bowers?
A. Yeah, first time I have met him.
Q. Did you know of any relationship at the time between Bowers and Hill, either a business or friendship relationship?
A. Yeah. He told me that he and Ed were friends they had gone to school together.
Q. Did he also tell you that he got any business
from that union, if you recall?
A. I don't remember.
Q. All right. Tell us about your discussion initially with Mr. Bowers, the attorney.
A. He seemed to want to know more about my personal relationship with Ed than anything else, and once I told him what that was, then he said that --
Q. All right. For the record, you did have an intimate personal relationship with Mr. Hill?
A. For many years.
Q. All right. Go ahead.
A. And after I explained what that was all about, then he said that he would be in touch with me, not to worry about anything.
Q. All right. What was the next contact you had?
A. Boy, this is going back.
Q. Well, let me
A. I think he called me and told me that the money was going to be delivered to my house.
Q. Who did?
A. Lucky. Mr. Bowers. They call him Lucky.
Q. All right. Mr. Charles -- Is it Charles?
A. Yes, it is Charles.
Q. Charles Lucky Bowers, Esquire, called you and said money would be delivered to your house, meaning what
money?
A. The sixteen eight, and then I would give it back
Q. Go ahead.
A. But I wasn't -- I was supposed to say that the money was in a drawer all the time.
Q. Who told you that?
A. Mr. Bowers told me that.
Q. Go ahead.
A. So I went to his office. It was cold. It must have been February. It was freezing cold, and I sat out -- It was strange. I sat in the office, and this man came in and he said to me, Are you Marie Bowers? And I said yes, and he handed me an envelope, and then
Q. All right.
A. He sat down. Yeah, he stayed, because then I went
in. Mr. Bowers was in another office.
Q. All right.
A. This is set up --
Q. Just for the record, this was in the outer reception area of Mr. Bowers' office?
A. Where the secretary is, yes.
Q. How many secretaries were present when this man handed you the envelope, if you can recall?
A. Two. Two, I think.
Q. Do you remember their names?
A. Oh, boy. I used to know.
Q. You have given the government their names?
A. Yeah. I used to know them. One was Donna, I think
Q. All right. You didn't know the man that gave you the money?
A. I never saw him before.
Q. Or the envelope.
A. No.
Q. And you had never seen him before or since?
A. No.
Q. All right. What did you do with the envelope?
A. I walked into Mr. Bowers' office and handed it to ------(ASK BILLY IF THERE IS MORE TO THIS SENTENCE)_
Q. Then what happened?
A. He and his secretary and I counted it.
Q. It was cash?
A. Yeah, it was all cash. It was big bills, hundreds and fifties.
Q. All right.
A. And then -- Oh, back -- He told me to go out and tell the guy that it was all there, so I did that, and the guy left.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then Mr. Bowers took the money to the bank and got a -- What do you get? Bank drafts or certified checks or something like that.
Q. All right.
A. Then he wrote a letter about returning this money, and I signed it, and he took the money and the letter over to the union office, I guess, or the attorney's office.
Q. All right. Did he give you any advice as to what to say, you know, where that money had come from or where it was?
A. Yeah, just to say it was in the drawer, I was -- I had it in my drawer because I hadn't deposited it yet, it was in my drawer.
Q. And who told you to say that?
A. Mr. Bowers told me to say that.
Q. Was that true?
A. Oh, no.
Q. All right. Was there some reference to a slush fund or something like that?
A. Yeah. What -- When this all came to a great big head, Mr. Hill wanted to meet with Dick Rocereto, who was the man who did the audits for Shodgrass.
Q. All right.
A. And he asked me to go with him. So we had breakfast with him one morning at a little restaurant in Beaver, and Mr. Hill asked Mr. Rocereto not to do anything about this because it was a slush fund that he had set aside for union activities.
Q. Mr. Hill told that to Rocereto?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Lucky Bowers, the attorney, was not there?
A. No. It was just the three of us.
Q. All right. Was this meeting before or after the money had in fact been delivered to his office?
A. I think it was before, Mr. Rothman, but I can't be sure.
Q. All right. At that point, the only amount that had been discovered missing was the sixteen eight?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. All right. Then there was a period -- You had been suspended, and there was a period of time that resulted in your going to grand juries, a grand jury investigation,
with Mr. Bowers as your attorney?
A. Yeah, that's correct. That must have been -- I was working in the city at the time, so it must have been some time in '78 that this happened.
Q. All right. Now did you testify before the grand jury?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right, and who was your attorney at that time?
A. Mr. Bowers.
Q. All right. Ultimately you were indicted on the matter that you just pled guilty to before Judge Ziegler. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Conditionally.
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Did Mr. Bowers indicate to you what your defense would be in the trial of this case?
A. I'm trying to remember. He told me he wouldn't be my attorney any more.
Q. Well, before this.
A. Yeah, I'm trying to -- Yeah. My defense would be that the money was never missing.
Q. All right.
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. Did he give you any instructions about his
role, if any, relative to the delivery of the money to his office? Did he ask you to say anything about it, or not to say anything about it, or it was just understood?
A. I -- He didn't come out and say, Marie, never say this. I just -- No, he never said anything about that.
Q. Okay. Now ultimately -- I believe it was on the 5th or the 11th of December, and my memorandum will reflect it, -- you came down and entered a plea of not guilty before the Court. That was the date of your arraignment.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you remember that?
A. Yeah. It was in December. Yeah, I remember that.
Q. And you had lunch with Lucky Bowers at the Carlton House?
A. That's exactly right.
Q. And what did he advise you at that time?
A. He told me that he couldn't be my attorney.
Q. Why?
A. Because he would probably be called to testify.
Q. Relative to?
A. The money.
Q. Okay.
A. Okay. Yeah. He said he would be -- he would probably be called to testify about the money, and therefore it would be a conflict and he couldn't defend me.
Q. All right, and at that point did he make any suggestion about a lawyer?
A. Yeah. He told me -- He said, Do you know any attorneys? And I said no. You know, it hit me. I didn't know he wasn't going to be with me. And he said, well, there was a Mr. Livingston that was very good, and I said, Well, I have heard of you, and I would prefer that it would be you, because I don't know anything about a Mr. Livingston.
Q. Well, had you talked to anybody about me prior to this luncheon?
A. My sister and I had had discussions. She is very alert on these kinds of things, and she didn't think that I was being represented fairly; and her neighbor was going to law school, and he was a teacher and that kind of thing.
Q. So you mentioned my name to Mr. Bowers?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Was there any reaction when you mentioned my name?
A. He said, How do you know him?
Q. Yes.
A. That's what he said, and I said, Well, my sister had done a little bit of investigating and that kind of thing.
Q. Did he show any concern about your going to me?
A. I don't think so. At that point in time, I don't
think I would have picked it up. I was too upset. He was leaving me, too. Everybody left me.
Q. Well, you had not in fact talked with me at that point?
A. No. I had never --
Q. Did he indicate that he would call me, or you should call?
A. He said, Well, give him a call. And I said, Why don't you call him first? And then he said he would.
Q. All right. Now did you and I then have a meeting?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. And did you tell me about everything you have told Judge Ziegler this morning here in chambers in terms of the false explanation for the missing money?
A. Yeah. Yes.
Q. All right, and I indicated to you that you could not so testify in Court?
A. Yeah, you did.
Q. And I indicated that in all probability, because it was a bookkeeping type of case, that the government was going to be able to prove that you were the guilty person?
A. And that I would go to jail.
Q. Well, that you might?
A. Yes, that's what you said.
Q All right, but that in any event, you could not testify as to what Mr. Bowers had advised you to testify?
A. That's what you said.
Q. At that point, up until that point, had Mr. Bowers ever discussed with you the possibility of your obtaining immunity and not being indicted at all, prior to the indictment?
A. No.
Q. Did he ever make any statement about immunity, that you could or couldn't get immunity, if you remember now?
A. It was never brought up.
Q. All right. Do you remember his ever saying to you that he had discussions with Mr. Crawford, who was then handling the case?
A. I think he said that Mr. Crawford had called him, but I don't know about what.
Q. All right.
A. You know, I don't remember. All I know is, Mr. Crawford's name was just bad news around there.
Q. Ultimately I advised you to cooperate with the government?
A. Yes.
Q. And that I would talk with Mr. Crawford about this case?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. And you have in fact over an extended period met with Mr. Hill, wired for sound, so to speak, in an attempt to develop this case and corroborate --
A. Yes.
Q. -- the case for the government, --
A. Yes.
Q. -- among other things? All right. Did Mr. Bowers ever give you any instructions about saying anything about Mr. Hill, either at the grand jury or to anyone else?
A. No.
Q. Well, do you recall whether or not you were asked questions at the grand jury about Mr. Hill?
A. Oh, boy. Yeah. They asked me if I ever gave Mr. Hill any money. They asked me that
Q. And did you tell the truth or not?
A. I didn't tell the truth. I just said no.
Q. All right. Now why did you say it? Did anybody give you any direction to say no?
A. Yeah. That was all they ever said to me.
"Remember, you didn't give me any money and I didn't give you any money.
Q. Well, who said that?
A. Oh, gee.
Q. That's the point.
A. Yeah, I know.
Q. Who said it?
A. Well, Ed said it to me, and to sit here right now and say yes, Mr. Bowers told me to say that, I can't remember if he ever did.
Q. All right. Ed Hill said --
A. Many, many times. It was pounded in my head.
Q. So that when you went to the grand jury, you at least lied because Ed Hill asked you to lie? At least at this juncture, you are saying that?
A. Yes. Oh, yeah.
Q. You are not saying at this stage that Bowers asked you to lie at the grand jury level?
A. No. I can't be sure.
Q. But Bowers was the one who was responsible for the fabricated story about the money being in the desk drawer?
A. That's right. Yes.
Q. Now whether he got that story from anyone else,
you do not know?
A. No, I don't know that.
Q. All right. Were there any discussions between you
and Attorney Bowers about whether or not you would be indicted for this crime and whether or not there was any way to avoid that indictment?
A. I don't think he thought I would be indicted,
because the day that it happened, I called him and I said what -- It was in the paper. I had no idea anything was going to happen to me, and I called him, and he said it was a total surprise to him, also. But between now and then -- or between that time and the time I was indicted, it was like a fairy tale. Like everyone was just ignoring it.
Q. But after the indictment, which I believe came down in September, Lucky Bowers had this discussion with you about what your defense would be as to the sixteen eight. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. He told you that you would testify that the money was sitting in the drawer all the time. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Now he knew that wasn't true and you knew that wasn't true?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Did he indicate to you any probability of success if you took that position at trial?
A. He thought that I would win the case.
Q. Did he say that to you?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay, and that was before, and did you relate that to me when we first met?
A. Sure.
Q. At any time did you learn that Mr. Bowers, the attorney, had ever represented Mr. Hill, or did you feel that he was representing Mr. Hill, Mr. Hill's interests?
A. Yeah. At some point -- Well, this may be trivial to everybody, but to me it meant a lot. I found out from Ed later on that Mr. Bowers had informed or had met with Mr. Hill the night before my arraignment and they had discussed about that he would not be my attorney and, you know, he didn't tell me. He told Ed or Ed told him or whatever, and I was really put out by that.
Q. Well, when did you find out that --
A. It was -- Ed told me. He didn't come out and tell me like he wanted to. It was more or less a slip, and once he said it, it just -- I asked a -- questioned him more on it, and then he told me.
Q. All right. Now you were never a party to any conversation between Mr. Charles Bowers, Esquire, and Mr. Crawford relative to the possibility of your securing immunity?
A. Never.
Q. And Mr. Bowers never indicated that he would attempt to get immunity for you?
A. No.
Q. Okay. When there was this change in circumstance
that the money was not to be delivered to your house but instead to -- through Mr. Bowers' office, is there any doubt in your mind that it was Mr. Bowers who called you about the change in plans?
A. No. He said who it was when he called.
Q. And you knew his voice on the phone?
A. Oh, sure.
Q. Now since your role in this investigation, which has been over a protracted period, you have not related to Mr. Hill or Mr. Namadan or anyone else, or Mr. Good or Lucky Bowers, that you have been cooperating with the government?
A. No. The only thing I have done is the papers that they gave me to read, you know, those -- my script or whatever That was the only thing I have said.
Q. All right, and at one point in time, -- Well, we'll get into that later on. I have no questions at this time.
MR. ROTHMAN: I think Your Honor has a copy of this. I have, for the record a copy of my motion to dismiss, which Your Honor initialed as far back as October 4th, '79, --
THE COURT: All right.
MR. ROTHMAN: -- which has been under seal.
THE COURT: All right. Well, if there is an original of record, I don't need a copy.
MR. ROTHMAN: You may inquire, Mr. Cauley.
BY MR. CAULEY:
Q. Miss Bowers, when you had this discussion with Lucky Bowers about this money being in the drawer, that that was supposedly the story you were to relate, who were you to relate that to?
A. I really don't know. He said --
Q. There was no indictment at that point, was there?
A. There was nothing at that point. It must have been after the indictment. All I know is that t was supposed to say the money was in the drawer.
Q. In other words, this money that was in the drawer, this discussion with Lucky Bowers took place after you were indicted?
A. It must have. You see, it's so hard for me to remember all of that. I really wanted to block it out of my mind, to be frank with you, but --
Q. Okay. When all this occurred, when the accounting firm discovered the deficiencies in IBEW's accounts, at that point in time you were still having an affair with Edwin Hill. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you mentioned in your testimony that you were just fed up at that point and that's why you failed to pull the records?
(Miss Bowers indicated affirmatively.)
Q. What were you fed up with? Withdrawing the money, or your relationship with Ed Hill?
A. My relationship with him.
Q. Was Ed Hill still married at that point?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you and he been having discussions concerning his potential divorce from his wife and his marriage to you?
A. That's right.
Q. Now you mentioned that it was Lucky Bowers' advice to you that you were to tell the grand jurors or tell any eventual jury that this money was kept in the drawer?
A. Yeah. It was for the grand jury thing. That's --
MR. ROTHMAN: Wait. Wait. Now let's be -- It was a double-edge question, Mr. Cauley, and she -- Could you put it into two questions, please?
MR. CAULEY: Okay.
MR. ROTHMAN: Because I think -- If I may interject didn't you give a statement to the accountants that the money was in the drawer? Didn't you give some explanation at a very early stage?
MISS BOWERS: Yeah. Yeah, I must have.
MR. ROTHMAN: Go ahead.
MISS BOWERS: Yeah. It was for the accountants. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
BY MR. CAULEY:
Q. After you were indicted and you had a discussion With Lucky Bowers about what your potential defense was going to be, did he tell you that your defense was that the money was never missing, that it was in the drawer?
A. Yes.
Q. And we are talking about the $16,8007
A. That's right.
Q. Didn't the indictment allege that you had taken a hundred thousand dollars?
A. So it had to be before the indictment. Yes. All I When it first came out, there was $16,800 That was an audit for six months. It must have been from December back to July. Okay? Eventually they audited from July until back to January and came up with another fifteen or sixteen thousand that they put in the vault. But you're talking primarily about the sixteen eight that was missing. What I was supposed to say was -- at that time that was all they thought was missing was that that money was not missing, it was simply not deposited, it was in my desk drawer.
Q. Okay. Now at that point, who were you to tell that to?
A. The auditors.
Q. There was no investigation at that point, was there
A. No. Okay. It goes all the way back.
Q. Now concerning a time period after you were indicted, did Mr. Lucky Bowers ever discuss with you what your defense was going to be?
A. Yeah. That the sixteen eight was never missing, the other 16,000 was in the vault, and that the government would have a terrible time proving anything else was ever missing.
Q. Okay. Other than the 32,000?
A. Exactly, which was there.
Q. And did he also advise you that you were to stick to that story?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall having conversations with Lucky Bowers after you began to cooperate with the government' where those conversations were recorded?
A. Where he and I talked?
Q. Yes.
A. Basically in his office, other than the lunch we had over here.
Q. No. I am asking you, do you recall having conversations of yours with Lucky Bowers recorded by the government?
A. Oh, no.
MR. ROTHMAN: Wait a minute.
BY MR. CAULEY:
Q. You don't recall that?
MR. ROTHMAN: I don't think she understands the question.
MISS BOWERS: I don't know what you mean.
BY MR. CAULEY:
Q. Do you recall having telephone conversations with Lucky Bowers?
A. Oh yeah, I recall.
Q. Do you recall the government ever taping those telephone conversations?
A. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry.
Q. Was that done with your consent?
A. Oh, sure.
Q. What was Lucky Bowers telling you on those tapes, what you were to do?
A. I --
MR. ROTHMAN: Well, I think the best evidence would be the tapes.
MR. CAULEY: If she recalls.
MISS BOWERS: Stay with the story, I guess. I don't ever remember him telling me to change anything.
MR. CAULEY: Okay. That's all I have for you now,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. ROTHMAN: Your Honor, the ultimate hearing will probably involve my testimony, because I spoke with Lucky Bowers on the telephone, as well as with Mr. Crawford. Potentially I would have been a witness in any obstruction case, because Mr. Bowers spoke with me personally.
If the Court wants to hear that now, I am prepared to recite it.
THE COURT: No. We will hear that on the date I have indicated. You are also going to call Mr. Crawford as a witness?
MR. ROTHMAN: Yes.
THE COURT: I think he should be the first witness.
MR. ROTHMAN: Yes, Sir.
THE COURT: And then we will decide what evidence, if any, is necessary after that.
MR. ROTHMAN: Correct.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. ROTHMAN: I think that's a fair way to proceed.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. ROTHMAN: Your Honor, I would move that this hearing be sealed.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. CAULEY: No, sir.
THE COURT: That motion will be granted. Anything further? Thank you very much. We will see you on the 15th.
(Proceedings recessed at 11:15 a.m.)
- - -
Certified a true and correct transcript of the April 8, 1981 proceedings before Honorable Donald E. Ziegler, District Judge.
Official Reporter
