SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- v.- . . INDICTMENT
RONALD CAREY,
01 Cr. ( )
Defendant.
- - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
INTRODUCTION TO COUNTS ONE THROUGH SEVEN
The Relevant Individuals and Entities
At all times relevant to this Indictment:
1. The International
Brotherhood of
Teamsters ("IBT"), a labor union with approximately 1.4 million members, was one of
the largest trade unions in North America. RONALD CAREY, the defendant, was the
General President of the IBT in 1996. The IBT had a General Treasury Fund which
was comprised of, among other assets, the membership dues payments of IBT
members. With limited exceptions, no IBT union funds, including General Treasury funds, could be used to
promote the individual candidacies of persons running for office in IBT elections. The IBT also had a
political action committee, or "PAC", known as the Democratic
Republican Independent Voter Education committee ("DRIVE"). The source
of DRIVE funds was voluntary contributions by IBT members. The purpose of DRIVE
was to contribute money to, among other things, political candidates, political
parties, and voter education projects. In general, the use of General Treasury
funds in connection with a Federal election was limited by Federal election law
to nonpartisan voter education and get out-the-vote efforts.
2. William W. Hamilton, Jr., was employed by the IBT as Director of its Governmental Affairs Department. In that position, Hamilton was responsible for supervising and directing the IBT's legislative activity and its political contributions, including contributions made from either General Treasury funds or DRIVE funds. A political contribution by the IBT using General Treasury funds required Hamilton's approval, as well as the approval of defendant RONALD CAREY, the General President, or his authorized representative and the General Counsel or her authorized representative. Apolitical contribution by the IBT from DRIVE required Hamilton's approval, as well as the approval of RONALD CAREY, the General President or his authorized representative.
3. Jere Nash was hired by defendant RONALD CAREY in or about February 1996 to be the manager of the 1996 campaign of Ronald Carey for re-election as General President of the IBT (the "Carey campaign"). Nash had previously been hired by the IBT, following RONALD CAREY's election in 1991 as General President of the IBT, to perform various consulting work for the union.
4. Martin Davis was an officer and 41% owner of The November Group, Inc. ("The November Group"), a political
2
consulting firm based in Washington, D.C. that performed direct mail work for
organizations and political candidates. The November Group performed work for,
among others, the IBT and the Carey campaign.
5. Michael Ansara was the principal shareholder and chief executive officer of
The Share Group, Inc. ("Share Group"), a telemarketing firm based in
Somerville, Massachusetts. Martin Davis had a small ownership interest in Share
Group. Ansara performed consulting work as well in his individual capacity,
doing business as "Share Consulting."
6. The Teamsters for a Corruption Free Union ("TCFU") was a
fundraising committee established by the Carey campaign in order to receive
large, contributions to the Carey campaign from wealthy non-Teamsters.
7. Citizen Action was an organization that engaged in advocacy on consumer and
environmental issues. Among other activities, Citizen Action engaged in
grassroots lobbying on federal, state and local issues, as well as in related
electoral politics. In addition to its parent entity, Citizen Action had certain
issue-specific chapters, including one called "Campaign for a Responsible
Congress."
8. Project Vote was an organization that, among other activities, mobilized
low-income and minority voters.
9. The National Council of Senior Citizens ("NCSC")
3
was an organization that, among other activities, pursued issues of importance
to senior citizens.
10. The American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations
("AFL") was
Introduction and Background
A. The Government Brings Racketeering Charges Against The IBT, and Obtains a Decree Requiring Court Supervision Of IBT Elections
11. On or about June 28, 1988, the Government filed an action under the
civil remedies provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act against the IBT, its General Executive Board, the members
of the General Executive Board, the Commission of La Cosa Nostra and various
members and associates of La Cosa Nostra alleging, among other things, that
officials of the IBT had operated the IBT in an undemocratic manner and had been
corrupted by organized crime. United States v. International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, et al., 88 Cir. 4486 (DNE). On or about March 14, 1989,
the Honorable David N. Edelstein, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of New York (the "Court"), signed an Order settling the
Government's claims against the IBT defendants (the "Consent Decree").
4
12. The Consent Decree established a disciplinary mechanism to rid the union of corruption and organized crime, which has resulted in the sanction and removal of hundreds of corrupt IBT officials and members. In 1996, the-Independent Review Board ("IRB") constituted the independent disciplinary mechanism. The IRB was responsible for investigating allegations of corruption and organized crime influence and, when appropriate, imposing disciplinary sanctions. In a further effort to combat organized crime control of the IBT and to restore democracy to the union, the Consent Decree provided for direct, rank-and-file secret ballot elections by the IBT membership for the first time in the IBT's history. To ensure fair, honest and open elections, the Consent Decree further provided that the Court would appoint an Election officer to supervise the 1991 IBT election for IBT International officers and, upon the request of the Government, the 1996 IBT election for IBT International officers. The Government exercised its right to have the 1996 IBT election supervised pursuant to the Consent Decree. The Court retained exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over the implementation of the Consent Decree and the authority and activities of officers appointed pursuant to the Consent Decree.
B. The Court Appoints an Election Officer and Approves Election Rules for the 1996 IBT Election
13. On or about February 7, 1995,
Judge Edelstein
5
signed an order applying certain of the provisions of the Consent Decree to the supervision of the 1996 IBT election (the. "1995 Order"). Pursuant to the 1995 Order, powers and obligations previously conferred upon an Election Officer and an Independent Administrator by the Consent Decree with respect to the 1991 election were conferred upon an Election Officer and an Election Appeals Master. Among other things, the 1995 Order provided: that the Election Officer was required to file reports with the Court on the progress of the 1996 IBT election; that the Election Officer and Election Appeals Master had the authority to make applications to the Court regarding the supervision of the 1996 IBT election; and that the Court retained exclusive jurisdiction to supervise the activities of the Election Officer and Election Appeals Master and to decide all issues relating to their actions and authority. Pursuant to this authority, the Court approved the "Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election" (the "Rules"), which were promulgated by the Election officer to govern the election, as well as supplemental rules concerning the July 1996 IBT Convention and the process for counting the ballots.
14. On or about May 30, 1995, the
Court appointed Barbara Zack Quindel to act as Election Officer for the 1996 IBT
elections. Pursuant to this appointment and the Rules, the Election Officer had
the authority and responsibility, among
6
other things, to oversee and investigate compliance with the Rules and to investigate and decide protests regarding the conduct of the 1996 IBT election, including alleged violations of the Rules.
15. Among other requirements, the Rules and federal labor law, including Title 29, United States Code, Section 481 (g) and applicable case law, prohibited, with limited exceptions, the use of IBT funds to promote the candidacy of any individual. The Rules also prohibited candidates for IBT office from accepting contributions from high-ranking non-IBT union officials.
C. The 1996 IBT Election
16. The two candidates running for
General President of the IBT in 1996 were RONALD CAREY;-the defendant, who
previously had been elected General President of the IBT in the 1991 election,
and James P. Hoffa.
17. The balloting for the 1996 IBT election took place via mail during the
period from on or about November 8, 1996, through on or about December 10, 1996.
On or about February 27, 1997, the Election Officer completed counting and
validating the ballots for the 1996 IBT election for General President,
including supplemental counts, and determined that 237,028 IBT members voted for
RONALD CAREY and 221,110 IBT members voted for James P. Hoffa.
7
The Scheme To Circumvent The Law And
The Election Rules To Raise Money For The Carey Campaign
18. Beginning in
or about late 1995 and continuing throughout 1996, Martin Davis participated in
the activities of the Carey campaign. Among other things, Davis performed direct
mail work for the Carey campaign, assisted in the campaign's fundraising
efforts, and recommended the hiring of a professional fundraiser.
19. In or about Summer and Fall 1996, Jere Nash worked with The November Group
on direct mailings for the Carey campaign. Nash determined that a direct mail
campaign near the time of the balloting in November 1996 was necessary because,
among other reasons, polling conducted by the Carey campaign showed that Carey's
lead over Hoffa was narrowing and he believed that Hoffa was raising
substantially more money than Carey. Nash and Martin Davis agreed that The
November Group would undertake a direct mail campaign costing approximately
$700,000. RONALD CAREY, the defendant, agreed to the direct mail campaign and
knew that it would require fundraising. Nash and Davis further agreed that the
Carey-campaign would be responsible for raising $300,000 to pay The November
Group for this work, and that Davis would be responsible for raising the
additional $400,000 for The November Group's charges.
8
A. The IBT Donates Money To Citizen Action and Project Vote
In Exchange For Contributions To The Carey Campaign
20. In or about September 1996, Martin Davis met with Michael Ansara, and told Ansara that he needed Ansara's help in raising money for the Carey campaign. Davis and Ansara developed a plan whereby wealthy non-employers who supported particular candidates and causes would donate money to the Carey campaign and, in exchange, the IBT would contribute money to get-out-the vote ("GOTV") efforts that would help those candidates and causes. '
21. Jere Nash agreed to assist in this plan to have the IBT contribute to various organizations in exchange for donations to the Carey campaign. Thereafter, Nash spoke with William W. Hamilton, Jr. and advised Hamilton of the plan. Hamilton agreed to make such contributions on the condition that they were sufficiently consistent with the IBT's objectives that they could be justified if scrutinized.
22. In or about early October 1996, Ansara met with a wealthy
individual named Charles Blitz who during 1996 was engaged in fundraising for
Citizen Action and Project Vote. Blitz agreed to solicit contributions for the
Carey campaign, in exchange for IBT contributions, in a multiplied amount, to
organizations chosen by Blitz
or donors solicited by him. To ensure that the IBT made the contributions
to these organizations,
which were the quid pro quo for the contributions
9
solicited by Blitz, Ansara agreed to hold the Carey campaign contribution checks until the IBT contributions were approved.
23. In or about October 1996, Charles Blitz selected Citizen Action and Project Vote to receive donations from the IBT. Thereafter, Jere Nash, at Martin Davis' request, spoke with William W. Hamilton, Jr. and asked Hamilton to recommend contributions by the IBT to Citizen Action and Project Vote. Nash advised Hamilton that the Carey campaign would receive contributions in return. Hamilton agreed to Nash's request. Thus, in or about October 1996, Hamilton requested that General President RONALD CAREY, the defendant, approve a contribution by the IBT to Citizen Action. CAREY rejected Hamilton's request, and Hamilton notified Nash of CAREY's decision. Nash then personally spoke with CAREY and CAREY agreed to approve the contribution. By on or about October 24, 1996, CAREY authorized the IBT to donate a total of $475,000 in IBT General Treasury funds to Citizen Action's Campaign for a Responsible Congress and the contribution was made. On or about October 17 and 24, 1996, CAREY authorized the IBT to donate a total of $175,000 in IBT General Treasury funds to Project Vote and those contributions were made..
24. In total, pursuant to this
scheme, Charles Blitz raised approximately $185,000 in checks, payable to TCFU,
the committee created by the Carey campaign to receive contributions
10
from
non-Teamsters. Upon learning that each of the IBT contributions to Citizen
Action and Project Vote had been approved, Michael Ansara released checks
payable to TCFU to the Carey campaign's attorneys in New
B. The National Council of Senior Citizens Contribution
25. In or about October 1996, Davis
proposed to the NCSC that it retained the services of The November Group to
create and mail a voter guide on behalf of the NCSC for a Democratic Senate
candidate in Virginia. The NCSC agreed after Davis advised the NCSC that the IBT
would pay for the mailing. At the request of Martin Davis, Jere Nash asked
William W. Hamilton, Jr. to make a contribution to the NCSC, and informed him
that the Carey campaign would receive a contribution in return. Hamilton agreed
and requested that RONALD CAREY, the defendant, approve the contribution. On or
about October 17, 1996, CAREY authorized the IBT to donate $85,000 in IBT
General Treasury funds to the NCSC and the contribution was made.
26. The NCSC used those funds to pay $75,000 to The November Group for the
creation and mailing of a voter guide on behalf of the NCSC for-the Democratic
Senate candidate in Virginia. In connection with its consulting work for that
Virginia Democratic Senate candidate, The November Group charged
11
a $42,500 fee to the Virginia Senate candidate on whose behalf the NCSC
performed the mailing. Davis used this fee to help pay The November Group's
bills for the Carey campaign's direct mail program. .
C. The AFL Contribution
27. In or about the Fall of 1996, Martin Davis sought to raise an additional $100,000. to pay The November Group for work done for the Carey campaign. In or about late October 1996, Davis told Citizen fiction that he would raise additional money from the IBT for Citizen Action, if Citizen Action would give the November Group $100,000 of those funds. Davis intended to use this money for the benefit of the Carey campaign. Davis told Jere Nash that if the IBT made an additional $150,000 donation to Citizen Action the Carey campaign would receive a contribution in return, and Nash so advised William W. Hamilton, Jr. In addition, on or about October 31, 1996, the Executive Director of Citizen Action submitted to Hamilton a request for a $150,000 contribution by the IBT. Hamilton rejected the request, advising Nash that he could not justify any further contributions to Citizen Action.
28. In or about late October 1996, Martin Davis asked the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL if he would arrange for the AFL to give $150,000 to Citizen Action if the IBT agreed to give $150,000 to the AFL. The Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL agreed.
12
At Martin Davis'
request, Jere Nash asked William W. Hamilton, Jr. to contribute $150,000 to the
AFL, and informed him that the Carey campaign would receive a contribution in
return. Hamilton agreed to Nash's request and requested that RONALD CAREY, the
defendant, approve the request. On or about November 1, 1996, CAREY authorized
the IBT to give $150,000 in IBT General Treasury funds to the AFL and the
contribution was made. The AFL then sent $150,000 to Citizen Action. Upon the
receipt of the $150,000 from the AFL, Citizen Action sent $100,000 to The
November Group, which Davis applied to pay The November Group's fees for the
Carey campaign's direct mail program.
29. Following the balloting for the 1996 IBT election and after reviewing
campaign contribution and expenditure reports filed in December 1996, the
Election Officer initiated an investigation into possible Rules violations. As
part of that investigation, on or about July 17, 1997, representatives of the
Election Officer interviewed RONALD CAREY, the defendant, under oath at a
deposition. On or about August 21, 1997, having found widespread misuse of IBT
funds that benefited the Carey campaign, the Election officer ordered a rerun of
the 1996 IBT election. Shortly thereafter, the Election Officer reopened the
investigation to determine whether CAREY had knowledge of improper contributions
and should be disqualified from the rerun election. On November 10, 1997, the
Election Officer questioned
13
CAREY under oath in a deposition about his knowledge of improper campaign
contributions. The Election Officer subsequently disqualified CAREY from the
rerun election. In or-about March 1997, the United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York initiated a grand jury investigation into, among
other things, whether IBT funds had been used to promote the Carey campaign.
CAREY testified under oath before the grand jury on July 16, 1997, October 1,
1997, and November 21, 1997. In November 1997, the IRB brought
disciplinary charges against CAREY alleging (1) that CAREY breached his
fiduciary duties to IBT members by failing to disclose that he was receiving a
personal benefit in connection with his authorization of union contributions and
(2) that CAREY failed to exercise his fiduciary duty to inquire into the
circumstances surrounding the unusual contributions recommended for his approval
by William W. Hamilton, Jr. Prior to the filing of disciplinary charges, on
October 28, 1997, the IRB's Chief Investigator questioned Carey under oath.
CAREY subsequently testified at the IRB hearing on January 21 and 22, 1998.
Following the hearing, the IRB expelled CAREY from the union and barred him from
ever holding union office or employment.
COUNT ONE: FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE ELECTION OFFICER
The Grand Jury charges:
30. In on or about early 1997, the
Court-appointed
14
31. RONALD CAREY, the defendant, was questioned under oath by representatives of
the Election Officer at a deposition on or about July 17, 1997, concerning
whether there was a connection between the IBT's contributions to various
organizations and contributions to the Carey campaign by certain non-Teamsters,
and CAREY's knowledge thereof.
32. On or about July 17, 1997, in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere, RONALD CAREY, the defendant, in a matter within the jurisdiction of
the executive and judicial branches of the Government of the United States, to
wit, the administration of the Consent Decree in United States v.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 88 Cir. 4486 (DNE), unlawfully,
willfully and knowingly, would and did falsify, conceal and cover up by trick,
scheme, and device material facts
15
and did make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and
representations, to wit, CAREY concealed material facts from, and made
materially false statements to, the Court appointed Election Officer, namely the
underlined testimony:
Q. Do you recall any requests regarding contributions
to Citizen Action during the 1996
political elections?
(a) A. No.
Q. Do you recall ever discussing
contributions to (b) A. I don't
remember discussing that at all with anyone.
Citizen Action or the Campaign for a Responsible
Congress with anyone else other than Bill Hamilton?
Q. Including Ms. Simpkins?
(c) A. That's
correct.
Q. Mr. Carey, $475,000 is a lot of money. I'm sure
you've had an opportunity to think about this. Don't
you think you would have recalled an expenditure of
that amount? My question is, do you think you would
have recalled an expenditure of that
much?
(d) A. No.
Q. Do you recall anything about your conversation with
Monie over this?
(e) A. I don't
recall this at all.
Q. Do you recall in this
conversation or any others
with Monie over political contributions her mentioning
Jere Nash to you?
(f) A. No. I don't
remember any conversation I've had
with Monie about these..
16
Q. Did Mr. Nash ever discuss Citizen
Action with you?. -
(g) A. No.
Q. Have you ever discussed these contributions to
Project Vote or the former ones we talked to regarding
Citizen Action with Ms. Simpkins?
(h) A. No.
Q. Do you recall your conversations,
do you recall if you had conversations with Ms. Simpkins regarding these
contributions?
(i) A. Well. I
didn't have any conversations. I don't
believe I had any conversations with Monie about these.
Q. Mr. Carey, do you have any knowledge that IBT - funds, given as political contributions in 1996, were being used to induce contributions to your campaign?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any knowledge of any other way these
contributions were used to help your
campaign?
(j) A. No. And if
I did, it would have been stopped dead
in its tracks.
Q. Did you know from the period August through December (1996), did you know whether. Martin Davis was involved in fund raising for you?
A. No, other than - no.
Q. Other than what?
(1) A. Other than
working on the campaign, he would not
have been involved in any fund raising.
17
Q. Monie Simpkins also told us that when she spoke to
you about the Citizen Action contribution, she made
reference to this being a contribution that she had
spoken to Jere Nash about. Do you recall Jere Nash's
name arising in connection with any of these
contributions?
(m) A. No.
(Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1001.)
COUNT TWO: FALSE STATEMENTS TO
THE ELECTION OFFICER
The Grand Jury further charges: 33. The allegations set forth in
paragraph 30 of Count one is repeated and realleged as if set forth fully
herein. 34. RONALD CAREY, the defendant, was questioned under oath for a second
time at a deposition by the Court-appointed Election Officer on November 10,
1997, concerning whether there was a connection between the IBT's contributions
to certain political organizations and contributions to the Carey campaign by
certain non-Teamsters, whether Carey participated in that exchange, whether
high-ranking non-IBT union officials made contributions to the Carey campaign,
and Carey's knowledge of these various contributions. 35. On or about November
10, 1997, in the Southern District of New York, RONALD CAREY, the defendant, in
a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive and judicial branches of the
Government of the United States, to wit, the administration
18
of the Consent Decree in United
States v. International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, 88 Cir. 4486 (DNE),;unlawfully, ..
willfully and knowingly, would and did falsify, conceal and cover
up by trick, scheme, and device material facts and did make
materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and
representations, to wit, CAREY concealed material facts from, and
made materially false statements to the Election Officer, namely
the underlined testimony:
Q. Did anyone inform you in 1996 that Mr. Trumka was
helping raise money for your
campaign?
(a) A. No.
Q. Based on your knowledge of the election rules,
would such help from Mr. Trumka been permissible?
A. No.
Q. If you had been told of some activity by Mr.
Trumka, do you think you would recall it?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Hamilton discuss the Citizen Action
contribution with you in October of
1996?
(b) A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Nash, in October of 1996, tell you that the
Citizen Action contribution would
help your campaign?
(c) A. No. And if
he did, we wouldn't be sitting here
today because that situation would have never taken
place.
.Q Did Monie Simpkins tell you in October of 1996 that
she had spoken to Mr. Nash about certain political
contributions?
*d) A. There is
some allegations that she did and there
19
are some signatures on these documents. And if Monie put these signatures on those documents, she probably told me of it,. Did she tell me anything with respect to Jere Nash, the answer is absolutely not..
Q. Did Monie Simpkins, in October of 1996,-ever raise
with you Mr. Nash's name in connection with any
political contribution?
(e) A. Not that I
recall. Not that I can - - no.
(Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1001.)
COUNT THREE: PERJURY BEFORE
THE GRAND JURY
The Grand
Jury further charges: 36. In or about March 1997, the United States Attorney for
the Southern District of New York initiated
20
other things,
whether IBT funds were used to promote Carey's campaign and whether high-ranking
non-IBT union officials contributed funds to the Carey campaign. 38. On or about
July 16, 1'997, in the Southern District of New York, RONALD CAREY, the
defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a
Grand Jury sitting in the Southern District of New York, unlawfully, willfully,
knowingly, and contrary to such oath, did make false material declaratigns, to
wit, he gave the following underlined testimony:
Q. Other than that meeting (in which Martin
Davis, Hal Malchow, and Ronald Carey discussed the
hiring of a fund raiser), did Mr. Davis or Mr.
Malchow have any role in fundraising, to your .
knowledge, for the Carey campaign? `
A. Prior to that?
Q. Other than that one meeting.
(a) A. No.
Q. Do you know if they participated in any fundraising
activity for you?
A. After that meeting, Mr. Horowitz?
Q. After that meeting.
(b) A. I don't
believe so. I mean, I think there was a
sense that everybody would try to help out as much as
possible.
Q. Did they have any
responsibilities in terms of raising funds for the campaign in 1996?
(c) A. Not that I
was aware. It was my understanding that
they would do some of the PR work,
do some of the
21
writing, some of that kind of work.
Q. In terms of the dollar amount of that contribution,
the memorandum indicates a $475,000 contribution to
Citizen Action. How did that dollar amount compare to
other contributions that the IBT was making to
organizations?
(d) A. Well, we
have, obviously we had a partnership,
which I told you about. They were out there on issues
that were important to us, Medicare, get out the vote,
get people educated about the issues that would
confront them. They participated with us up on Capitol
Hill on NAFTA. So it seems to me that if you can get a
group that would be out there on issues that are
important, it certainly is a good - - it is a good
donation and it would not have raised any flags for me
It is something I would do tomorrow.
Q. Mr. Carey, do you recall whether you rejected any
contributions to Citizen Action in
the fall of 1996?
(e) A. I don't
think I have ever rejected any
contributions for any organization if it was an
organization that in my view was effective and made
sense to do so.
Q. So you don't recall rejecting any Citizen Action
group contributions?
(f) A. No.
Q. Do you recall having
conversations with Mr. Nash about any contributions to Citizen Action in the
fall of 1996?
(g) A. No, and
there would be no reason why this would
ever be discussed with him.
Q. Why do you say that?
(h) A. He had
nothing to do with this.
22
Q. Do you know whether - - focusing your attention in 1996, do you know whether Mr. Nash spoke with Monie Simpkins, do you know at that time whether Mr. Nash had spoken to Monie Simpkins about any contributions by the IBT in the fall of 1996? (i) A. In 1996, no.
Q. Did Jere Nash have any role in
deciding how the IBT made its contributions?
(j) A. Absolutely
not.
0
Q. Mr. Carey, did anyone tell you,
indicate to you in 1996 that a
contribution by the IBT to Citizen Action would help with the fundraising for
the Carey campaign?
(k) A. No. And if
they did, obviously I would have
stopped that dead in its tracks. We did not work as
hard as we did getting rid of the corruption in this
union to have made any, do anything that would cause
any embarrassment. So if that was ever raised to me, I
would have . . .
Q. Would it have been proper for the IBT to have contributed money to an organization such as Citizen Action with the understanding that that would help with fundraising for the Carey campaign?
A. It would have been improper.
Q. That could not be a consideration under any
circumstances?
A. That's correct.
Q. I think you mentioned this.' If you had known that
here was some link between the IBT making a
contribution to Citizen Action and
help with
23
fundraising for the Carey campaign,
would you have approved such a contribution?
(1) A. No.
Q. Did you have any conversations in 1996 with Mr.
Hamilton concerning contributions to
Project Vote?
A. I don't recall that I did.
Q. Again, did anyone tell you in
1996 that a contribution by the IBT to Project Vote might be helpful to the
fundraising efforts of the Carey campaign?
(m) A. No.
Q. Anyone ever indicate to you there
might be some link between contributions by the Teamsters organization to
Project Vote and efforts on behalf of the Carey campaign?
(n) A. No. I mean,
after the fact, after some of these
things started coming out, maybe in March or something
like that.
Q. I am actually focusing on 1996.
(o) A. The answer
is no.
Q. Let me ask you the same question with regard to the
Project Vote requests and contributions. Would you
have approved such a contribution if you had been told
that that contribution might be of some assistance to
the Carey campaign, might result in some additional
contributions to the fundraising
efforts?
(p) A. No.
Q. You would not have approved that?
(q) A. Not.
Absolutely not.
24
Q. Let me ask you the questions with regard to the National - with this contribution. Were you aware of any connection or link between this contribution by the Teamsters to the National Council of Senior Citizens, National Council of Senior Citizens, and efforts on behalf of your campaign, any fundraising activity on behalf of your campaign?
A. No.
Q. And had you known there was such a link between this contribution and efforts to raise money on behalf of the Ron Carey campaign, would you have approved this contribution?
A. No.
Q. Let me ask you briefly about a
couple of other areas. Were any other unions involved in raising money on behalf
of your campaign?
(t) A. I don't
believe so.
Q. Let me ask you a particular about a few unions.
The AF of L. Do you know if any high-ranking members -
of the AF of L had any involvement
in raising funds on
your behalf?
(u) A'. No. Any
conversations I have ever had with them,
it was always pretty much, good luck, how's things
going, but here was never any indication - they would
be supportive. If they saw a UPS driver that may have
delivered to their home and say, don't forget to vote
for Ron. But in terms of any contributions. I don't
recall that there was anyone who ever offered up any
help in that matter.
Q. Do you know if anyone at the Teamsters organization had any conversations with anybody at the AF of L, the SEIU or AFSCME concerning the Ron Carey campaign?
A. No one has ever told me that.
Q. And the same question with regard
to the staff at your campaign, either Mr. Nash or others employed by the Ron
Carey campaign, do you know whether they had any conversations with anyone at
any of those three
25
unions regarding campaign contributions to the Carey
campaign?.
(v) A. I have
never been told of it and have never heard
of it.
Q. Let me, in concluding, Mr. Carey, let me ask you a
couple of summary questions.
A. Sure.
Q. At any point in time in 1996 were you told either
by someone in the Teamsters organization or at the
Carey campaign, were you ever told that there was any
link between contributions that the IBT was making to
any organization, whether it was a political action
committee, Citizen Action, or other unions, and help
hat your campaign, that the Carey campaign was
receiving in its fundraising
efforts?
(w) A. No. And if
I had, I would have got to the bottom
of that and heads would have
rolled.
Q. You would have stopped it in its
tracks?
(x) A. Absolutely.
(Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1623.)
COUNT FOUR: PERJURY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY
39. The allegations set forth in
paragraph 36 of
Count Three are
repeated and realleged as if set forth fully herein.
40. RONALD CAREY, the defendant,
appeared before a
Grand Jury sitting
in the Southern District of New York on or about October 1, 1997, which was
investigating the fundraising
26
practices of the
Carey campaign and was questioned about, among other things, whether IBT funds
were used to promote Carey's campaign, whether non-IBT union officials
contributed funds to the Carey campaign, and Carey's knowledge of these various
contributions.
Q. So, just so I am clear, you are saying that you had
general communications with (the IBT's Government
Affairs Department), but you did not specifically
communicate about any of the contributions [for Citizen
Action, Project Vote, or the National Council of Senior
Citizens] that I have placed before
you?
(a) A. No, I don't
believe I did.
Q. With respect to the Citizen
Action contribution for $475,000 that I have placed before you, did you ask Bill
Hamilton why such a large contribution was necessary?
(b) A. I didn't
have any conversations with Bill Hamilton.
Q. The body of the memo itself indicates that Mr.
Hamilton sent you a prior request for $225,000. He was
increasing it to $475,000. Did you initially reject
the $225,000 contribution?
27 (c) A. I don't have the answer. I don't recall itI
Q. Did you speak to Jere Nash regarding the $475,000 contribution to
Citizen Action?
(d) A. No.
Q. Did Jere Nash tell you in
substance that if the Citizen Action contribution were made, it would benefit
your campaign?
(e) A. No.
Q. Did Jere Nash tell you in
substance that if the Citizen Action contribution were made, it would help
Martin Davis raise money for your campaign?
(f) A. No.
Q. Did Monie Simpkins tell you in substance when
informing you of the request for the Citizen Action
contribution, that this was a contribution that Jere
Nash had called about?
(g) A. First of
all, I don't recall the conversation but
had she shown the slightest hint or the slightest
indication that this was for something other than what
it should have been or that it was improper or wrong
it would have sent off all sorts of bells and whistles,
and as a result we wouldn't be talking about that today
because it would have never happened.
Q. So you are saying that the mere mention of Jere
Nash's name would have raised a red flag for you
because he should not have been involved in directing
any contribution from the IBT; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And - -
(h) A. And it
would not have been lust Jere Nash. I mean
first of all if there is an indication it would have
benefited my campaign, that would have never happened
Q. Is it correct that if anyone had mentioned to you
that this would help Martin Davis to raise money for
your campaign; that is, make the
Citizen Action
28
contribution, you also would have
rejected that out of hand?
(i) A. I would
have rejected it and I would have
investigated it and I would have been concerned that
if, in fact, that kind of statement was made, what else
has been done.
Q. Now, just so I am completely
clear on your testimony, Mr. Carey, are you certain that you have absolutely no
recollection of why you approved that $475,000 contribution?
(j) A. I don't
know how I can tell you in any other way, I
do not recall this contribution.
:r
Q. Is it your testimony, then, that you do not recall
the substance of any conversation that led you to
authorize a total of close to three-quarters of a
million dollars in Treasury funds for contributions
between October 17th and October 31°t?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is it your testimony that Jere Nash never told you
with respect to any of these four contributions [to
Citizen Action, Project Vote, the National Council of
Senior Citizens, and the AFL-CIO] that it would somehow
benefit your campaign if the contributions were
authorized?
(k) A. Absolutely
not.
Q. Did you ever learn that others were asking Richard
Trumka to raise cash for your campaign?
A. I have heard that.
Q. And when did you first hear it?
A. March of this year.
Q. Did you ever hear it in 1996?
29
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss with Jere Nash the subject of
Richard Trumka raising cash for your
campaign?
(1) A. No.
Q. I have limited my questions to cash. I am going to
broaden them and ask you if you ever discussed with
Richard Trumka his raising money in any form for your
campaign.
A. No.
Q. Did you ever learn that others were asking him to
raise money for your campaign?
(m) A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss with Jere Nash the subject of
Richard Trumka raising money for
your campaign?
(n) A. No.
Q. Did you ever inquire of Jere Nash about the status
of Trumka's fundraising for your
campaign?
(o) A. No.
(Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1623.)
COUNT FIVE: FALSE STATEMENTS TO
THE IRB CHIEF INVESTIGATOR
The Grand Jury further charges:
42. In or about 1997, the IRB began
an investigation
into, among other
things, whether RONALD CAREY, the defendant,
had knowledge of any connection between the IBT's contribution of
union funds to certain organizations and fundraising for the
Carey campaign, whether CAREY participated in making those
30
J
contributions, and whether CAREY had
knowledge of contributions made by high-ranking non-IBT union officials to the
Carey campaign.
43. RONALD CAREY, the defendant, was questioned under oath in a deposition by
the Chief Investigator to the Independent Review Board on or about October 28,
1997, concerning a number of subjects, including Carey's knowledge of the IBT's
contributions to certain organizations in exchange for contributions to the
Carey campaign and Carey's knowledge of contributions made by high-ranking
non-IBT union officials to the Carey campaign.
44. On or about October 28, 1997, in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere, RONALD CAREY, the defendant, in a matter within the jurisdiction of
the executive and judicial branches of the Government of the United States, to
wit, the administration of the Consent Decree in United States v.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 88 Cir. 4486 (DNE), unlawfully,
willfully and knowingly, would and did falsify, conceal and cover up by trick,
scheme, and device material facts and did make materially false, fictitious, and
fraudulent statements and representations, to wit, CAREY concealed material
facts from, and made materially false statements to the Chief Investigator for
the Independent Review Board, namely the underlined testimony:
Q. And do you recall any requests
for $225,000 to
Citizen Action?
31
(a) A. No, I
don't.
Q. Do you ever recall telling Mr. Hamilton that you
wouldn't make such a request?
A. No.
Q. In October of 1996, do you recall rejecting any
request at any time by Mr. Hamilton for money?
A. There may have been some rejections with respect to
salary increases that he was proposing that some people
within his department get an increase, and I know I
rejected some of that.
Q. Okay. Hut in terms of proposed
contributions that he made for monies to come out of the general treasury, do
you know if you rejected any?
(b) A. No. ,
Q. Now, do you recall if you had any conversations
with Mr. Nash concerning the need to make contributions
to Citizen Action?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever have any conversations at all with Mr.
Nash where he indicated that certain Teamster
contributions might assist Martin Davis in gathering
money for the reelection campaign?
(d) A. No.
Q. Do you recall any discussions with Mr. Hamilton
concerning the $475,000 contribution
to Citizen Action?
(e) A. No.
Q. Do you recall any conversations with Monie Simpkins
about that?
(f) A. No.
Q. Do you recall any conversations with Jere Nash
about that?
32
A. No.
Q. Do you recall approving that
contribution?
(g) A. No.
Q. What is COPE?
A. It is the AFL-CIO's political action. We call the
Teamsters DRIVE and the AFL calls theirs COPE, I
believe.
Q. So it's their PAC?
A. Yes. ;
Q. And have the Teamsters been making contributions to
the AFL-CIO's PAC? ,·
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you recall this request from
Hamilton to move $150,000 from the general treasury to COPE being made back in
October, 1996?
(h) A. No, I
don't.
Q. As a candidate, is it fair to say that both in 1991 and 1996, you knew that the elections offices rules prohibited contributions from employers?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you know that under certain circumstances union officials in non-IBT unions could be considered employers?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you aware of any contributions in 1996 form any union official, from an IBT, non-IBT union made to your campaign?
A. I was not aware, but I heard that there was some,
and that they were returned.
Q. I'll follow up on that in just a
second. And did you know of any contributions from an official of the AFL-CIO to
your campaign in 1996?
(i) A. No.
Q. Okay. What contributions did you hear about that
were returned?
(j) A. That there
may have been a check with a business
name on it or a business, and that, of course, in my
view is an employer. This all came out as a result of
what we're discussing today. I mean, at the time no
one discussed this with me.
:y
Q. Okay. Did anyone discuss with you whether Richard
Trumka was going to make donations
to your campaign?
(k) A. No.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.)
COUNT SIX: FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE IRB
The Grand Jury further charges:
45. RONALD CAREY, the defendant, testified at a hearing before the Independent Review Board on or about January 21, 1998, in response to charges (1) that he had breached his fiduciary duties to IBT members by failing to disclose that he was receiving a personal benefit in connection with his authorization of union contributions and (2) that he failed to exercise his fiduciary duty to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the unusual contributions recommended for his approval by William W. Hamilton, Jr.
46. On or about January 21, 1998, in
the Southern
34
District of New
York and elsewhere, RONALD CAREY, the defendant, in a matter within the
jurisdiction of the executive and judicial branches of the Government of the
United States, to wit, the administration of the Consent Decree in United
States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 88 Cir. 4486 (DNE),
unlawfully, willfully and knowingly, would and did falsify, conceal and cover up
by trick, scheme, and device material facts and did make materially false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations, to wit, CAREY
concealed material facts from, and made materially false statements to the
Independent Review Board, namely the underlined testimony:
Q. Did Mr. Nash ever call you on October 16 and 17 and
say that you need to approve a Citizen Action
contribution to help Martin Davis raise money for your
campaign?
(a) A. No, and if
he did, I would have known that there
was something absolutely wrong.
Q. Did he ever have a conversation with you where he
used words to that effect?
(b) A. No.
Q. Did you ever have any indication in 1996 that Nash
was involved in a scheme to divert money from the
Teamsters to your campaign?
A. No.
Q. Would you expand on the answer you gave with
respect to your knowing --- you would have know
something was wrong if he asked you about Citizen
Action.
A. If Jere Nash said to me, "Look, if we massage
someone's back, they will rub our
back," I would have
35
known something was wrong.
Q. The question is did he ask you anything about a
contribution to Citizen Action?
(c) A. No.
Q. Did Monie Simpkins ever speak to you about four
contributions (to Citizen Action, Project Vote,
National Council of Senior Citizens, and the AFL-CIO)
and say these are the contributions that Mr. Nash
wanted, and urged you to approve
them?.
(d) A. No.
Q. Did she ever have conversations with you where she
used words to that effect?
(e) A. No. Now - -
Q. Let me ask the question. We will get to your
explanation. There has been evidence in the record and
allegations made concerning four contributions from the
Teamsters to certain grassroots organizations. Did you
know specifically about these four contributions when
they were made?
(f) A. No.
(Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1001.)-
COUNT SEVEN: FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE IRB
The Grand Jury further charges: 47. RONALD CAREY, the defendant, testified at a hearing before the Independent Review Board on or about January 22, 1998, in response to charges (1) that he had breached his fiduciary duties to IBT members by failing to disclose that he was receiving a personal benefit in connection with his
36
authorization of union contributions and (2) that he failed to exercise his fiduciary duty to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the unusual contributions recommended for his approval by William W. Hamilton, Jr. 48. On or about January 22, 1998, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, RONALD CAREY, the defendant, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive and judicial branches of the Government of the United States, to wit, the administration of the Consent Decree in United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 88 Cir. 4486 (DNE), unlawfully, willfully and knowingly, would and did falsify, conceal and cover up by trick, scheme, and device material facts and did make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations, to wit, CAREY concealed material facts from, and made materially false statements to the Independent Review Board, namely the underlined testimony:
Q. Let's take this one step at a
time. You are under
oath. Are you denying or affirming or saying that you
can't do either? That is really what we are looking
for - -
A. Denying that I saw this - -
Q. Denying that Simpkins called you. Or are you
saying you don't remember?
(a) A. I don't
recall ever discussing this with Monie.
Q. (Reading from an affidavit of Monian Simpkins dated
November 14, 1997) Then the last
paragraph says: "I
37
discussed each of these four memoranda (to Ronald Carey from William Hamilton concerning the contributions-to Citizen Action, Project Vote, the National Council of Senior Citizens, and AFL-CIO) with Carey" - - each of the four, she says. "To the best of my recollection, these conversations were over the telephone. I indicated to Carey, in substance, that each contribution request was one that Jere Nash had called about. I also told Carey the substance of the memoranda, including, without limitation, the name of the organization for which the contribution had been requested and the amount of the requested contribution. Ron Carey approved each of the contributions." End of paragraph 5. What do you say?
(b) A. That is not true. If she told me she had a
conversation with Jere Nash, that would have told me
that something was wrong.
Q. You have been asked about whether you recall the
$225,000 request with regard to Citizen Action and I
take it that your testimony is you do not recall that
specific request?
(c) A. I do not.
Q. I understand it is your testimony that Ms. Simpkins
never told you that she had signed - - approved a
request for contribution in this area by putting your
initials down on the paper?
A. That is correct.
38
Q. And that you did not know that she had done this?
(d) A. I knew only after it was brought to my attention
sometime in March.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.)
FOREPERSON MARY J W HITE
United States Attorney
39
Laborers for
JUSTICE© 1997-2001 All Rights reserved. Not for republication on the
internet without permission.
Jim McGough, Director
6304 N Francisco Av.
Chicago, Il 60659
773-878-1002 (tel)
773-409-1503(eFax number)