Transcript of proceedings where McGuire & McNamara pled guilty

PDF Image File of Transcript of proceedings

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-against‑
THOMAS McNAMARA
ANTHONY QUARANTA 03-CR-0191
DANIEL MURPHY
THOMAS McGUIRE,

Defendants

United States Courthouse Brooklyn, New York
.
November 8, 2004 9:30 o'clock a.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF PLEAS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE STERLING JOHNSON, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: ROSALYN M. MAUSKOPF
United States Attorney BY: BRIDGET ROHDE
JOEY LIPTON,
DENNIS WALSH
Assistant United States Attorneys
225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201

FOR DEFENDANTS: WILLIAM FLEMMING, ESQ. For: Thomas G. McNamara

DAVID IRONMAN, ESQ. For: Anthony Quaranta

HAROLD PRICE FARRINGTON, ESQ For: Daniel J. Murphy

MICHAEL CONSADINE, ESQ. For: Thomas P. McGuire
2

Court Reporter:
Marsha Diamond
225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York TEL: (718) 260-2489 FAX: (718) 254-7242

Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript produced by CAT

THE CLERK: Criminal cause for pleading: United ,States versus Thomas G McNamara, Anthony Quaranta, Daniel Murphy, Thomas McGuire.

THE COURT: This is not waiver of indictment, is it? We have four defendants. Okay.
MR. ROHDE: Bridget Rohde, Joey Lipton and Dennis Walsh for the government.
THE COURT: Do you want to sit down?
MR. IRONMAN: I was leaning against the table. That is why I was there.
THE COURT: It is my understanding that the defendants wish to withdraw their previously entered pleas of not guilty and return a plea of guilty; is that correct?
MR. CONSADINE: Yes.
(Defendants duly sworn)
(Time noted: 9:50 a.m.)
THE COURT: Now, I will address myself to -- could I have the indictment -- specifically to Thomas McNamara, Daniel Murphy and Anthony Quaranta and Thomas McGuire; is that correct? Do you understand you are now under oath and if you answer any of my questions falsely your answers may later be used against you in another prosecution for perjury or making a false statement; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes.
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes.
4
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: I understand you wish to withdraw your previously entered plea of not guilty and enter a plea of
guilty. Before I can accept your plea I must be convinced that you understand the nature of the charges against you, and the consequences of your actions. Therefore, I will be asking you some questions.

Do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes.
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes.
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes.
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: Let me begin with Mr. McGuire. State your full name for the record?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Thomas P. McGuire.
THE COURT: How old are you?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: I'll be 60 the 25th of November.
THE COURT: How much education have you had?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: High school and graduated college.
THE COURT: What college?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Manhattan.
THE COURT: Now, have you been treated for any mental illness or addiction of narcotic drugs of any kind?
5
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: No.
THE COURT: Are you currently under the influence of any medication, drug, alcoholic beverage of any kind?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes, Your Honor. Nalapril (ph)
15 milligrams and Uroxadril (ph) for prostate problems, ten milligrams a day.
THE COURT: When is the last time you have taken
these medicines?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: I took the high blood pressure
medicine this morning and I take ten milligrams in the morning
and five at night with the Uroxadril.
THE COURT: Has this or will this influence any
decision that you are going to make? DEFENDANT McGUIRE: No.
THE COURT: You feel all right besides being
nervous?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you received a copy of the
indictment or the charges pending against you?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you discussed these charges with
your lawyer who is standing next to you?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you fully satisfied with the advice
and representation and counsel that he has given you with

6
respect to these charges?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: Now, I will address myself to
Mr. McNamara. Will you state your name for the record?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Thomas G. McNamara.
THE COURT: How old are you?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Thirty-nine.
THE COURT: How much education have you had?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: College, Ohio, Wesley University.
THE COURT: Have you been treated recently for any mental illness?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: No.
THE COURT: Are you currently under the influence of any drugs, medication, alcoholic beverage?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: No.
THE COURT: Have you received a copy of the
indictment pending?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Have you discussed these charges with
your lawyer who is standing next to you?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: And are you fully satisfied with the advice, representation and counsel that he has given you with respect to these charges?
7
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Murphy.
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes.
THE COURT: State your full name for the record.
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Daniel J. Murphy.
THE COURT: How old are you?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Sixty-six.
THE COURT: How much education have you had?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: High school graduate.
THE COURT: What high school?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Thomas Edison.
THE COURT: Do you understand why you are here right now at this time?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you been treated recently for any mental illness or addiction of narcotic drugs of any kind?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: No.
THE COURT: Are you currently under the influence of any drug, medication, alcoholic beverage?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: I take Allopurinol for gout in
the morning and Flomax. Toprolxl in the evening for -‑
THE COURT: Spell that first medicine for the court
reporter.
DEFENDANT MURPHY: I can't do it.
MR. FARRINGTON: We will get that for you,
8
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you received a copy of the charges of the indictment against you?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you discussed those charges with your lawyer?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Are you fully satisfied with the advice, representation and counsel that your lawyer has given you with respect to these charges?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Quaranta.
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes.
THE COURT: State your full name for the record.
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Anthony Quaranta.
THE COURT: How old are you?
THE DEFENDANT: Forty-seven, sir.
THE COURT: How much education have you had?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Twelve years.
THE COURT: School?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: High school. I am sorry. High school education.
THE COURT: What school?
THE DEFENDANT: South Brunswick High School, New Jersey.

9
THE COURT: Do you understand why you are here now
at this time?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you been treated for mental illness or taken any narcotic drugs of any kind?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: No.
THE COURT: Are you or have you recently been under the influence of any drugs, medication, alcoholic beverages?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes.
THE COURT: What?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: I take Glucophage for my diabetes, two in the morning, 500 grams each one, two in the evening. I am on Zantac for the diabetes. I am on Foatales (ph) for blood pressure or the cholesterol, one of the two, and I am on Prozac.
THE COURT: Now, have any of these medications affected your ability or will they affect your ability to reason logically?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And you have no problem thinking rationally, making a rational decision?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, have you received a copy of the indictment or charges pending against you?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, sir.
10
THE COURT: Have you discussed those charges with your lawyer standing next to you?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you fully satisfied with the advice, representation and counsel that he's given you with respect to these charges?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, I ask the government is there a plea agreement in this case.
MR. ROHDE: Yes. Each of the defendants has a plea agreement.
THE COURT: Let me start with Mr. McGuire.
We will mark the plea agreement, Mr. McGuire's agreement, as Court Exhibit Number One with respect to him, and I show you page 11, which is the last page of Court Exhibit One, and ask you, Mr. McGuire, is this your signature?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Were there any promises other than the promises contained in Court Exhibit One that induced you to sign Court Exhibit One?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: No.
THE COURT: Have there been any threats made to induce you to sign Court Exhibit One?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, according to Court Exhibit One the

11
maximum amount of time that you are exposed to prison is five years; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: And following any term of imprisonment you will be placed on supervised release, the maximum amount of time being three years; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: If you violate the term of your supervision you can be sent back to prison for an additional two years, notwithstanding the fact that you've already served a prison term; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: There's a possibility of $250,000 fine or twice the gross gain or loss; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: Restitution can be ordered and the amount being approximately $36,000; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: There is $100 special assessment; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: Now, there are two counts?
MS. ROHDE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: This case falls into what they call a sentencing guideline. Assuming there is no upward departure
12
and no surprises in the presentence report, the guideline range for these two offenses are between ten and 16 months; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: And you agree with what is in this paragraph four, paragraph five, that you will not file an appeal or otherwise challenge your conviction or sentence in the event this Court imposes a term of imprisonment of 60 months or below; do you understand?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: You do not have to plead guilty, you can plead not guilty, and if you plead not guilty you would be entitled to a speedy and public trial; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And if there is a trial the government would bring witnesses in to testify against you; do you understand?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And you'd have a right to cross-examine
those witnesses; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And if you wanted to you, yourself,
could bring witnesses in to testify in your behalf; do you understand?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
13
THE COURT: And you could also testify yourself; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: However, if your plea is accepted there will be no trial, and all of these rights that I have just explained to you will have been waived; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes.
THE COURT: I ask the government with respect to Mr. McGuire, what would be the government's proof if you went to trial.
MR. ROHDE: Both of the counts to which Mr. McGuire is pleading guilty are unlawful labor payment counts. The government would prove that at the time that he was a business manager Local 15 International Union of Operating Engineers, that he accepted unlawful labor payments, specifically that he accepted monies from E.G. Clemente Contracting and from Lavcola Contracting and that was inappropriate and in violation of the law.
THE COURT: When did this occur and where did this occur?
MR. ROHDE: The union hall was located in Flushing Queens. E.G. Clemente is a contracting company that is on Staten Island, so that the Eastern District venue is covered. With respect to the timing of these offenses, between 1989 and
14
December of 2001.
THE COURT: Now, I ask Mr. McGuire, tell me in your own words what is it that you say you did wrong? What are you attempting to plead guilty to?
MR. CONSADINE: We have broken it down to two separate counts and Mr. McGuire has a statement he would like to read to Your Honor.
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Between 1989 and 2001 while I was the business manager of Local 15 I accepted more than $1,000 in Christmas gifts. I understood these gifts were from a representative of E.G. Clemente Contracting Corporation and this occurred in between 1989 to 2001.
MR. CONSADINE: Count 38.
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Between 1993 and 2001 while I was the business manager of Local 15 I accepted more than $1,000 in Christmas gifts. I understood that these gifts were from a representative of the Lavacola Construction Corporation and this occurred in Queens, New York.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MS. ROHDE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: With respect to Count 37 of indictment 03-191 I ask the defendant how do you plead, guilty or not guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.
THE COURT: With respect to Count 38, how do you
15
plead, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Guilty, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty voluntarily of your own free will?
DEFENDANT McGUIRE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It is the finding of the Court in the case United States versus Thomas McGuire, that the defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed of plea. The defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea. His plea of guilty is knowing, it is voluntary, and is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. The plea is, therefore, accepted and the defendant is now adjudged guilty of that offense.
Can we have a date, Augie.
THE CLERK: February 11th.
THE COURT: Or some day thereafter.
Now, with respect to Mr. McNamara there is a plea agreement?
MR. ROHDE: There is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let it be marked Court Exhibit Number One with respect to Mr. McNamara.
Now, I show you the last page, page 11, Mr. McNamara and ask you if this is your signature.
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, it is, Your Honor.
16
THE COURT: Were there any promises other than the promises contained in Court Exhibit Number One that induced you to sign it?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Were there any threats made to induce you to sign Court Exhibit Number One?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, Court Exhibit Number One states the maximum amount of time that you can be sentenced to prison is 20 years; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And following any term of imprisonment you will be placed on supervised release, the maximum of time being three years; do you understand?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And if you violate the terms of your imprisonment you can be sent back to prison for an additional two years, notwithstanding with the fact that you have already served a prison term; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes.
THE COURT: There is a possibility of $250,000 fine or twice the gross gain or loss; do you understand?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And there is restitution in the amount of approximately $54,000; do you understand?
17
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: There is $100 special assessment; do you understand that.
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And there is a possibility of
forfeiture; do you understand?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, there are two counts: Racketeering Act 4b And Racketeering Act 9 and this case falls into what is called a sentencing guideline. And according to the guideline, assuming there is no upward departure and there are no surprises in the presentence report, the guideline range for these two offenses are 57 to 71 months; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, you also agree in paragraph five that you will not file an appeal or otherwise challenge your conviction or sentence in the event that the Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of 71 months or below; do you understand?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, you do not have to plead guilty, you can plead not guilty and if you plead not guilty you would be entitled to a speedy and public trial; do you understand that?
18
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And at your trial you would not have to
do anything at all because the government bears the burden of proving you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes.
THE COURT: They will bring witnesses in to testify against you and you could cross-examine those witnesses; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes.
THE COURT: You could bring your own witnesses to testify in your behalf; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And you yourself could testify in your
own behalf; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: However, if your plea is accepted there will be no trial; do you understand?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And all of these rights that I have just explained to you will have been waived; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes.
THE COURT: Now, I ask the government if you had to
go to trial with this defendant on these charges what would

19
the government's proof be?
MR. ROHDE: The government would prove Count One, racketeering by a number of types of evidence, including testimonial evidence, electronic surveillance, and documents.
The government would specifically prove 4B, which is mail fraud scheme with respect to the Staten Island Yankee Stadium. We would prove Mr. McNamara was involved in a scheme whereby individuals held no-shows or partial show jobs and that the mails were utilized in furtherance of that scheme.
The government would also prove Racketeering Act Nine, which is an unlawful labor count -- payments count, essentially, that is, the contract of this specifically made the unlawful labor payments there.
Now, the time that Mr. McNamara was committing these crimes he was a business agent for Local 15 of the
International Union of Operating Engineers. Local 15 is the enterprise which is charged in this racketeering count.
The interstate commerce connection, Your Honor, would be proof by the fact that the International Union of Operating Engineers is headquartered in Washington D.C. ,and additionally contractors in this case had an interstate commerce connection.
THE COURT: Where did this happen and when?
MR. ROHDE: Your Honor, it happened between 1989 and December 2001. It happened throughout the Eastern District.
20
There are job sites in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, and the union hall, by the way, was in Flushing as mentioned previously.
THE COURT: Now, I ask the defendant, tell me in your own words what it is that you say you did wrong? What are you attempting to plead guilty to?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Your Honor, with respect to Racketeering Act 4B, between March 2000 and June 2001, within the Eastern District of New York, I was employed as a business agent Local 15, International Union of Operating Engineers, the defined racketeering enterprise in the indictment. During that time I was involved in the scheme, whereby individuals obtained and held jobs in Brooklyn and Staten Island which they did not fully work and whereby the mails were used. This activity affected interstate commerce.
With respect to Racketeering Act Nine, also within the Eastern District of New York, I accepted Christmas gifts from a contractor. This activity also affected the interstate commerce.
THE COURT: Is there anything else?
MS. ROHDE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: With respect to Racketeering Act 4B, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Guilty.
THE COURT: With respect to Count Nine --

21
Racketeering Act Nine?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Guilty.
THE COURT: Are you pleading voluntarily of your own free will to both counts?
DEFENDANT McNAMARA: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: It is the finding of the Court in the case of United States versus Thomas McNamara that the defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea. The defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea. The plea of guilty is knowing, voluntary and supported by an independent basis in fact, containing each of the essential elements of the offense. The plea is, therefore, accepted and the defendant is now adjudged guilty of that offense.
Give us a date, Augie.
THE CLERK: February 11th, 2005 at 9:30.
THE COURT: I will now address Mr. Murphy. Is there a plea agreement for Mr. Murphy?
MR. ROHDE: Yes, we are completing, its execution.
THE COURT: I show you page 11, last page of Court Exhibit Number One, with respect to your case.
Is that your signature?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Was there any promise, other than the promise contained in Court Exhibit One, that has induced you

22
to sign Court Exhibit One?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have there been any threats made to induce you to sign Court Exhibit One?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: According to Court Exhibit One, the maximum amount of time that you are exposed to prison is 20 years; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Following any term of imprisonment you will be placed on supervised release, the maximum amount of time being three years; do you understand?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If you violate the terms of your supervision you can be sent back to prison for an additional two years notwithstanding the fact that you have already served a prison sentence; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, there is a possibility of a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss; do you understand?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And there's restitution in the
approximate amount being $300,000; do you understand?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: There's a $100 special assessment; do you

23
understand that?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: There is also the possibility of criminal forfeiture; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, this case falls into what they call the sentencing guidelines, and according to the guidelines, assuming that there is no upward departure and no surprises in the presentence report, the guideline range for these offenses for Racketeering Act One and Racketeering Act Six is between 33 and 41 months; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes.
THE COURT: You also agreed in paragraph five that you will not file an appeal or otherwise challenge the conviction or sentence in the event that this Court imposes a sentence of 41 months or below; do you understand?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, you do not have to plead guilty, you can plead not guilty. If you plead not guilty you would be entitled to a speedy and public trial; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And at trial you don't have to do anything at all because the government bears the burden of proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; do you
24
understand that?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes.
THE COURT: The government would have to call witnesses in to testify against you and you could
cross-examine those witnesses; do you understand that? DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You could bring your own witnesses to testify in your behalf; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes.
THE COURT: You, yourself, could testify in your own behalf; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, if your plea is accepted there will be no trial; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes.
THE COURT: And all of these rights that I have just explained to you will have been waived; do you understand?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I ask the government if you had to go to trial with this defendant on these charges what would the government's proof be.
MR. ROHDE: The government would prove Count One, racketeering charges, through testimonial evidence and documentary evidence. The government would prove the Racketeering Act One, which is a mail fraud scheme,

25
essentially by showing through testimonial evidence and otherwise that Mr. Murphy was involved in a scheme, whereby a Local 15 member obtained numerous no show jobs throughout the Eastern District of New York and that the mails were utilized in furtherance of that scheme.
The government would also prove primarily through testimonial evidence that the unlawful labor payment charge which involved Solutions, that the government would show that Mr. Murphy was the recipient of various services that were paid for by Solutions at the time when he was a business agent of Local 15. All of this happened, Your Honor, between 1989 and 2001 -- and December 2001 and it happened throughout the Eastern District of New York in furtherance of the RICO enterprise.
THE COURT: Now, with respect to Racketeering Act One, I ask the defendant how do you plead, guilty or not guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.
THE COURT: With respect to Racketeering Act Nine, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty?
MR. FARRINGTON: I think it is Six.
THE COURT: Sorry, Six.
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Guilty, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty voluntarily, of your own free will?
26
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It is the finding of the Court in the case of United States versus Daniel Murphy, that the defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, the defendant is aware of the nature of the charges, and the consequences of his plea. The plea of guilty is knowing, voluntary and supported by an independent basis in fact, and containing each of the essential elements of the offense. The plea is, therefore, accepted and the defendant is now adjudged guilty of that offense.
Date?
MR. ROHDE: I believe Mr. Murphy needs to make his statement as to the nature of his involvement.
THE COURT: I am sorry.
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Racketeering Act One, between November 1998 and November of 2002, within the Eastern District of New York, I caused and influenced the submission of contracts concerning hours of work by a member of Local 15 who had not, in fact, worked all these hours recorded to obtain benefits to the Local 15 plans. This member through --sorry, Your Honor, I'm a little nervous. This Local 15 member, the plan was to be executed through the U.S. Mail.
THE COURT: Is there anything else you wish me to ask?
MR. ROHDE: That is the first.
27
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Six. Between 2002 and -- November 2001 and November of 2002 in the Eastern District of New York I received unlawful payments from a company known as Soil Solutions in excess of $1,000.
MR. ROHDE: I would just ask that Mr. Murphy be asked when he was a business agent of Local 15.
THE COURT: Were you a business agent at the time? He's allocuting to Racketeering Act One? Is it One and Six?
MR. ROHDE: Yes.
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes.
THE COURT: Was this in furtherance of the named racketeering act and enterprise?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you see any reason why this plea should not bed accepted?
MR. FARRINGTON: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: With respect to One and Six, we will do it again, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Guilty for One.
THE COURT: For Six?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Guilty.
THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty voluntarily of your own free will?
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It is the finding of the Court in the
28
case of United States Daniel Murphy, that the defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea. The defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea. The plea of guilty is knowing, voluntary and is supported by an independent basis in fact, containing each of the essential elements of the offense. The plea is, therefore, accepted and the defendant is now adjudged guilty of that offense.
Same date, Augie?
THE CLERK: Yes, February 11th.
THE COURT: You will be sentenced February 11th or someday thereafter.
DEFENDANT MURPHY: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Quaranta.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you want to sit down, counsel? MR. IRONMAN: Yes, thank you.
THE COURT: Do we have a plea agreement?
MR. ROHDE: Just a second.
THE COURT: We will mark the plea agreement Court Exhibit Number One for Mr. Quaranta, and I show you page 11; is this your signature?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any promise other than the promise contained in Court Exhibit Number One that would induce you to
29
sign Court Exhibit One?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any threats made to induce you to sign Court Exhibit One.
MR. QUARANTA: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, according to Court Exhibit One, the maximum amount of time that you are exposed to prison is five years; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And following any term of imprisonment you will be placed on supervised release, maximum term being three years; do you understand?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes.
THE COURT: If you violate the terms of your supervision you can be sent back to prison for an additional
two years, notwithstanding the fact that you've already served
a prison sentence; do you understand?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And there's a maximum fine possible of $250,000 or twice the gross amount -- twice the gross gain or loss; do you understand?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Restitution in the amount of approximately $18,000; do you understand?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.

30
THE COURT: There is $100 special assessment; do you understand?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: There is a possibility of criminal forfeiture; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes.
THE COURT: This case falls within what they call sentencing guidelines and according to the guidelines, assuming that there's no surprises in the presentence report and there is no upward departure, the guideline range for this offense is 15 to 21 months; do you understand?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. IRONMAN: I would note in the plea agreement it indicates that if the Court accepts -- I understand my client is now the last person entering the plea -- that the government has indicated that they will ask for a one count reduction in the plea if the Court accepts the global plea, which would take it down to Category 13.
THE COURT: I assume that this would be applicable to all the defendants?
MR. ROHDE: That's correct. With the full plea of four defendants here the government is in agreement that one level global reduction is warranted.
MR. IRONMAN: I figured since he is the last, and since everyone else has already pled, I would bring it up,
31
Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. This is just one count?
MS. ROHDE: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, in Count Five you agree not to file
an appeal or otherwise challenge your conviction or sentence
in the event that this Court imposes a term of imprisonment of
21 months or below; do you understand?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, you do not have to plead guilty.You can plead not guilty, and if you plead not guilty you would be entitled to a speedy and public trial; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: At a trial the government would bring witnesses in to testify against you; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And you could cross-examine those witnesses; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And you could also bring your witnesses
in to testify in your behalf; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And you could testify in your own behalf; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
32
THE COURT: Now, however, if your plea is accepted there will be no trial; do you understand?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And all of the rights I have just explained to you will have been waived; do you understand?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I ask the government if you had to go to trial with this defendant on those charges what would be the government's proof.
MS. ROHDES: Your Honor, the government would prove through testimonial electronic surveillance and documentary evidence Mr. Quaranta's participation in the mail fraud scheme. Specifically, during the conversation this scheme which involves the Coney Island Met Stadium job site in Brooklyn, Mr. Quaranta at one point held two jobs at the same time. He also facilitated the receipt of benefits by Judge O'Case (ph) and the receipt of a paycheck for a no-show job by Ralph Garjiula (ph). This happened within the Eastern District of New York and at this time happened in the time period of approximately December 4, 2000 through -- I am sorry --August 1, 2000 through March 9, 2001.
THE COURT: I ask the defendant tell me in your own words what it is that you say did you wrong. What are you attempting to plead guilty to?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
33
While I was at Coney Island Stadium Project in Brooklyn, New York -‑
THE COURT: Is that the Mets Stadium?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, sir. Between August 2000 and January 2001 I provided false information to Turner Construction with regard to workers who were members of Local 14. I supplied Turner Construction with hours work when, in fact, the workers did not work those hours.
THE COURT: Now, when did this occur?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: August. On or about
August 2000 to January -- the beginning of January 2001.
THE COURT: Did you say where it occurred?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Met Stadium Coney Island, sir.
MR. ROHDE: I would ask whether the mails were utilized in the furtherance of the scheme.
THE COURT: Did you use the mails?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there anything else?
MR. ROHDE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: With respect to count -- what is it, One?
MS. ROHDE: Twenty-five.
THE COURT: Twenty-five of the indictment
CR-03-0191, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Guilty, Your Honor.
34
THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty voluntarily and of your own free will?
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It is the finding of the Court in the case of United States versus Anthony Quaranta, that the defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that the defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and consequence of his plea; the plea of guilty is knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. The plea is, therefore, accepted and the defendant is now adjudged guilty of that offense.
Same date, Augie?
THE CLERK: February 11th.
THE COURT: Okay.
DEFENDANT QUARANTA: Thank you.
MR. ROHDE: Thank you.
MR. IRONMAN: Since all the pleas have been entered, will the Court accept this as a global plea and one point reduction?
THE COURT: What will happen is that we will do that at sentencing. You just remind me or have the government remind me.
MR. IRONMAN: Okay, Judge.
MR. ROHDE: Thank you.
35
THE COURT: Here are these documents. MR. ROHDE: Oh, thank you.
(Proceedings adjourned as above set forth) * * * * * * * *

Laborers for JUSTICE© 1997-2005 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)
laborers@comcast.net