176 FILED Exhibits To Objection

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 115
EXHIBIT A
RULE 56(f) DECLARATION OF JAY ANTHONY DOBYNS

I, Jay Anthony Dobyns, under penalty of perjury, declare as follows:
1. I am a retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Special Agent. I
retired in January 2014 after 27 years of continuous service. I am the Plaintiff in
Dobyns v. USA and in this Special Master inquiry.
2. During my law enforcement career I was trained in and utilized multitudes of
investigative law enforcement techniques and tradecraft.
3. During my career I received numerous awards of honor from the Department of
Justice (DOJ) and ATF for investigative achievement.
4. My declaration is offered as both the Plaintiff and in the analysis of facts,
evidence, personal knowledge and review of DOJs discovery/disclosure
documents on behalf of my attorney for his final memorandum to the Special
Master in his inquiry.
5. This declaration details my personal and first-hand knowledge of the facts and
evidence related to:
a. A threat(s) made against ATF Special Agent Chris Trainor by retired
ATF Special Agent / Resident Agent in Charge Charles Higman;
b. The alleged fraudulent conduct of DOJ attorneys Bryan Snee, Jeanne
Davidson, Donald Kinner, David Harrington, Corrine Niosi, P. Davis
Oliver and Veronica Onyema as related to the Higman threats;
c. The personal/professional involvement of ATF Special Agents Daniel
Machonis and John Cooper as related to the Higman threats;
d. The personal/professional involvement of ATF attorney Rachael
Bouman as related to the Higman threats;
1
e. The personal/professional involvement of ATF Assistant Director

Michael Gleysteen as related to the Higman threats;
f. The alleged threats to the career of Trainor by Harrington.
As to Charles Higman:
6. Higman and I were peers of age, time of employment and training at ATF. I
know that he has proper knowledge of the mechanics of criminal investigation
and legal proceedings.
7. I believe that Higman fully understood the potential risks, exposures and
consequences he faced by his contacting an active trial witness.
8. I do not believe that Higman would place himself into the position of criminal risk
without outside encouragement or demand.
9. The questions of Higman can only be resolved through the through the taking of
his deposition.
As to Christopher Trainor:
10. Trainor and I were peers of age, time of employment and training at ATF. I know
Trainor to be a consummate investigator and honest assessor of facts,
comprehensive and methodical.
11. Trainors knowledge and actions in these matters have only been examined
through statements, interviews and emails.
12. The direct and specific examination of Trainor in this matter has not taken place.
The questions of Trainor can only be resolved through the through the taking of
his deposition.
As to the DOJ Attorneys Accused of Fraud, and Rachael Bouman:

13. My knowledge of the conduct of the accused DOJ attorneys in this inquiry is
limited to disclosure documents.
14. As to Onyema, she has not been heard from in any real investigative manner.
15. The questions for Harrington, Niosi, Bouman and Onyema can only be resolved
through the taking of their depositions.
As to Machonis, Cooper and Gleysteen:
16. Machonis, Cooper, Gleysteen and I were peers of age, time of employment and
training at ATF.
17. I know Machonis and Cooper to be consummate investigators and honest
assessor of facts.
18. Both Machonis and Cooper believed Higmans voicemail to Trainor to be a
threat. Both sought a full and complete ATF investigation to include the interview
of Higman.
19. Machonis and Cooper were overridden by Gleysteen and denied their
professional intent to have Higman interviewed.
20. Machonis and Cooper have not been heard from in this inquiry in any
investigative manner.
21. Gleysteens position has only been reported through a declaration that I have
learned was prepared for his signature by the very attorneys suspected of fraud
Harrington, Niosi and Bouman.
22. The questions for Machonis, Cooper and Gleysteen can only be resolved through
the taking of their depositions.
3
Fraud and Misconduct Allegations:

23. Following the conclusion of trial but before the issuance of a ruling or opinion I
had a telephone conversation with Trainor. Trainor told me that he had
documented inappropriate conduct by DOJs attorneys during the trial.
24. Trainor did not, and would not, tell me what that conduct was. I did not know at
that time who, what, when, where, why or how the issues concerning Trainor
occurred. Trainor told me that at some future point in time he would expose the
facts he documented.
25. Had I known the true and full details of what had taken place at that time I would
have immediately reported it to Judge Allegra. DOJ was correct in their
speculations of that.
26. My position on this matter was accurately predicted by DOJ as evidenced by my
review of disclosure documents. I believe that is why both ATF and DOJ were
tremendously concerned with a potential leak of this information to me.
27. Following the publishing of Judge Allegras trial opinion, Trainor contacted Judge
Allegra, as he told me he would.
28. I became aware that Judge Allegra then issued a request to DOJ for investigation
of what he believed to be alleged frauds that occurred by DOJs attorneys during
the trial.
My Activity in the Special Masters Fraud and Misconduct Inquiry:
29. I reviewed over one-thousand documents of DOJ disclosure.
30. I listened to two recorded telephone calls. The first was a recorded voice
message left on the phone of ATF Special Agent Chris Trainor by retired ATF
4
Special Agent / Resident Agent in Charge Charles Higman. The second was a
recorded conversation between Trainor and Higman.
31. I am aware that a construction cone / barrier was used to vandalize Trainors
government vehicle at the same of Higmans threat to Trainor.
32. I read the personal statement prepared by Trainor on this matter.
33. I listened to a recording of a witness/victim interview made of Trainor by Agents
from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
34. Based on my knowledge of the Trainor-Higman relationship (it is my
understanding that Trainor had no personal or professional overlap with Higman
other than this lawsuit) and considering all of the circumstances and evidence
available to me, in my professional law enforcement opinion the voice mail left for
Trainor by Higman was a serious threat / intimidation in July 2013, should have
been treated as such.
35. I believe Higmans voicemail to be a threat of intimidation and potential violence.
I believe the threat was extended to Trainor and his family, specifically his
children.
36. In evaluating the threat, Higmans word choices, tone and motivation should not
have been disregarded by investigators.
37. Higmans voicemail threat to Trainor constituted a potentially criminal act. It went
beyond a threshold of misconduct.
38. Higman threatened a trial witness (Trainor) still under oath for continued
testimony.
39. In his threatening voicemail and subsequent follow-up call Higman encouraged
Trainor to interview him regarding the arson of my home and then edit his official
and approved investigative report.
40. This constitutes both witness tampering and an attempt to manipulate trial
evidence. Judge Allegra absolutely should have been made aware.
41. Having come to know Higman, in my opinion Higmans animosity for Trainor is
based on Trainors investigation that condemned Higmans conduct, humiliated
his lack of leadership, highlighted his ethical shortcomings and damaged
Higmans reputation.
42. Whether Higman was successful or not the attempted intimidation, witness
tampering and manipulation of evidence is criminal and should have been
reported to Judge Allegra.
43. Snee, Davidson, Kinner, Harrington, Niosi and Bouman, in their representation of
the United States government made a calculated decision not to make Judge
Allegra aware of the facts in this matter.
a. The DOJ trial team was clearly aware that Judge Allegra would want to
be advised of the Higman threat.
b. In a July 20, 2013 email exchange Niosi wrote to Harrington, I dont
want to muddy it up but we need to consider Bryants [Snee] question
about whether Allegra would want to know about this against the
backdrop of the Valarie Bacon thing and Trainors horse trading
testimony.
c. Same day, Harrington replied, You mean that he takes a broad view
of what he ought to know about?
d. Same day, Niosi replied back, Exactly.
44. Knowing and concerned that the upcoming testimony from Trainor was
unpredictable, DOJ chose to take a wait and see approach to determine if
Trainors testimony was affected by the Higman threat.
45. I learned through disclosure that even if Trainors testimony had been altered
DOJ still intended not to report the Higman to threat to Judge Allegra but rather,
only if Trainor himself revealed the threats from Higman and potentially
Harringtons threat to Trainors career, and then only with a pre-prepared bench
memorandum designed to mitigate the situation.
46. In doing so DOJ made a calculated decision to gamble with the integrity of Judge
Allegras courtroom.
47. Because Trainor displayed the integrity and courage to not be intimidated by
Higman and Harrington does not dismiss their attempts to do so. Should the
Special Master rule otherwise a dangerous message and precedent will be set
as long as government threats to a witness are ineffective, no wrong doing has
taken place.
Real Time Investigation of the Higman Threat:
48. In July 2013, mid-trial, Higman left a threatening voicemail message for Trainor.
49. An unofficial transcript of the threat cited routinely in disclosure documents reads,
"Hey Chris, this is Chuck Higman. Uh, looking forward to talking to you. Uh, saw
your report. Uh, looking forward to talking to Ryan, too. And well talk about it
7
then. Hope your family is doing good, too. All right pal. See you soon...Iooking
forward to it."
50. As an investigator of dozens of threats and similar murder-for-hire cases during
my career, I know that rarely does the suspect blurt out words to the affect, I am
going to kill or injure you. It is routinely much more nuanced than that. An
experienced investigator in matters such as this would be aware of that.
51. Trainor was clearly aware of this when he sent a July 2, 2013 to ATF executive
Gregory Plott writing, The tone of this message was clearly confrontational and
antagonistic. I do not know Charles Higman and have never met him or spoken
to him. I am not his "pal," and he does not know my family or have any reason to
reference them other than a disguised threat. I expect ATF to handle this
situation promptly and appropriately. I will not tolerate threats against me or my
family resulting from the performance of my official duties.
52. Higmans threat also mentioned his desire to contact ATF executive John Ryan
with his complaint.
53. In Trainors effort to also protect his peer, Ryan, also on July 2, 2013, Trainor
advised Plott to alert Ryan, John Ryan should also be made aware of this
immediately.
54. I can find no reference in disclosure whether Ryan was ever contacted to
determine if Higman had also contacted or threatened Ryan, an obvious
shortcoming in ATFs investigation.
55. After reviewing DOJs disclosure documents I have come to learn that other
experienced and respected field investigators at ATF reached the same
conclusion as I, that Higmans voicemail message was a threat, namely Special

Agents Machonis and Cooper.
56. Machonis and Cooper wanted a full investigation of the threat and properly
moved forward towards that objective.
57. I have learned that ATF executive managers Michael Gleysteen and Ron Turk
took over the decision making process regarding ATFs investigation of the
Higman threat.
58. Gleysteen and Turk chose to disregard the recommendations of their field
investigators for a full and complete investigation and instead order the
investigation closed just before Higman was to be interviewed.
59. On July 3, 2013, Cooper emailed Trainor documenting his desire to have Higman
interviewed in Tucson, writing, Hey Chris- was hoping to have more info for u
tonight but unfortunately instead of moving fast to take this to Arizona, the DADs
and ADs have slowed it down and want to revisit in the morning- not a good idea
to me and I am still shaking trees but to no availreach out if necessary and
hopefully things will move faster in the morning- take care and stay safe Coop.
The DAD Cooper refers to is Gleysteen. The AD Cooper refers to is Turk.
60. In a typical DOJ analysis of events, on July 17, 2013 Harrington emailed Kinner
and Niosi stating, This appears to be another instance where Chris Trainor has
become personally and emotionally involved. I feel he has lost all semblance of
objectivity.
61. Trainor had been threatened, as well as his family. His personal and emotional
involvement was thrust upon him by Harringtons star witness. Harrington was
correct in that but, simply because Trainor adamantly demanded and

investigation of the threat and wanted it reported to Judge Allegra, Harrington
wrongly and self-servingly extrapolates that Trainor has lost his objectivity.
62. In fact Trainor was very objective. In his July 17, 2013 email to Bouman and
Machonis, Trainor clearly articulated his concerns writing, This does relate to my
testimony next week. If SA Dobyns has become aware of this issue I dont want
to be unprepared to answer questions about it. I also believe that ATF should
proactively get out in front of this matter so that it does not appear that we are
(again) withholding information in this case - I dont want to be a party to that.
63. The mere fact that I might have become aware of the Higman threat dominates
the discussion in disclosure.
a. In one example of multiple discussions, on July 20, 2013 Bouman
emailed ATF Chief Counsel Charles Gross, ATF Deputy Director Tom
Brandon, and Brandons advisor Joe Allen, writing, I also told David
that I wouldnt not hang my hat on Jay not knowing just because Reed
hasnt tipped us off. It is unusual, but this is a small agency. Cooper
was in SOD when the covert documents were recalled and is the
ASAC in the Washington Field Division who oversaw the alleged threat
investigation that Trainor raised. Cooper talks to Canino who is good
buddies with Jay. So, I think it is naive to believe that Jay doesnt know
or wont find out before Chris testifies. I also told David that the Judge
is already suspicious of us and we dont want to look that way again.
10
64. Based on disclosure I know that ATF conducted their field investigation
professionally up (minus the failure to interview Ryan) to the very most critical
event the interview of Higman only to then drop the ball and be shut down
by Gleysteen and Turk.
65. As an investigator, this decision is as confusing as it is unexplainable. There was
no valid reason not to properly complete the investigation, other than prevent the
risk of revealing facts that would damage their civil defense of my lawsuit.
66. Again on July 20, 2103, Bouman calculates a strategy with Gross, Brandon and
Allen to explain how the Higman threat could be talked-off to Judge Allegra,
writing, There is some risk, because Judge Allegra believes the worst in us and
will question why we didnt disclose it. Our answer would be that we looked into it
and there was nothing to disclose. The threat investigation was opened and
closed and there was no threat. Attorneys listened to it personally and
determined there was no threat.
67. Gleysteen and Turk held a clear motivation to make the Higman threat to Trainor
go away by prematurely closing the criminal investigation knowing a finding that
Higman threated Trainor mid-trial could have been devastating to the
governments defense of my civil allegations and raise the ire of Judge Allegra.
68. In Trainors statement he documents how Gleysteen prematurely closed the ATF
investigation for an improper reason that how an interview of Higman would
damage DOJs defense of my allegations. Trainor wrote, AD Gleysteen stated
AD Turk, Field Operations, or possibly simply "Field Operations," had decided
that Higman would not be interviewed any further. I reminded him that the
11
Washington FD SAs felt it was important to the case to conduct the further
interview of Higman, as did I. AD Gleysteen stated that this was not a normal
situation, because of the ongoing civil trial. I told AD Gleysteen that I believe that
absent of the civil trial, there is no question that ATF would instruct Phoenix FD
SAs to interview Higman immediately. AD Gleysteen agreed, but said that
because of the civil case, it was very complicated, and SA Dobyns may use the
information about this incident to his advantage in the civil case.
69. This reasoning for a veteran criminal investigator such as Gleysteen was
unethical in the extreme but again mirrored DOJs conduct during the Bacon
situation stopping before any more damage is done.
70. Based on disclosure I believe that Gleysteen and Turk were coerced into closing
the ATF investigation of the Higman threat by ATF attorney Rachael Bouman
and DOJ attorneys David Harrington and Corrine Niosi.
71. I learned through disclosure that when faced with a potential exposure of the
Higman threat by Trainor to Judge Allegra and by encouraging ATFs premature
closing of the threat investigation as a non-threat - Bouman, Harrington, and
Niosi then prepared Gleysteens declaration to fit their agendas and explain
Gleysteens actions to the Special Master.
72. In doing so, DOJs three of the primary suspects accused of misconduct by
Judge Allegra prepared their own version of the events, created their own
evidence and had Gleysteen sign off on it.
a. In fact, on July 19, 2013 ATFs Bouman wrote to Harrington, Niosi and
Veronica Onyema, I spoke with Michael this morning and am
12
prepared to prepare a draft declaration for him, but I can go up to his

office and call you from there if you want to speak with him directly.
b. Same day Niosi replied (re: now in possession of Gleysteens draft
declaration), I think this looks good and meets our needs. I have some
suggested edits, in redline.
c. Same day, Harrington replied, Corinnes revisions look good. I made a
few possible edits of my own.
73. The failure of the DOJ attorneys involved to treat the matter with the seriousness
it deserved is reflected in Niosis lackadaisical same day (07.19.13) and joking
reply related to the attorneys preparation of the Gleysteen declaration, David,
your failure to use the redline functions is clearly intended to make more work for
Rachel. I ask that you cease and desist that behavior.
74. No affidavits or declarations were provided by Machonis or Cooper DOJs
biggest adversaries to prematurely closing the investigation - only DOJs selfprepared explanation of the events disguised as a declaration from Gleysteen
have been offered. Evidence and fact control is clearly present.
75. The outside preparation of Gleysteens declaration led to a cross-up mistake on
the part of the attorneys.
a. In a July 20, 2013 email from Bouman to Harrington and Niosi
regarding the Gleysteen declaration Bouman writes, Michael is
concerned about a number of things relating to Chris, including that he
seems to be coming after everyone, including me. He will not be
speaking with Chris any further.
13
b. In his Bouman/Harrington/Niosi prepared declaration almost two years

later in April 2015, Gleysteen certifies, I spoke with SA Trainor and
asked how he was feeling about the situation. He told me that after
speaking with Mr. Higman he felt 100% better. I asked if there was
anything else that we needed to do for him, and he told me no. I told
him he could contact me personally if he ever needed anything from
me in regard to this issue.
c. The cross-up of Gleysteen not speaking to Trainor in 2013 then in his
2015 declaration certifying that he wanted Trainor to contact him is
only trumped by the declaration being an opposite recollection of
Trainors account misstating that Trainor felt 100% better after he
spoke to Higman a second time.
76. A deposition of Gleysteen is needed for this process to be fully complete and
clarified.
77. Based on my investigative experience, I believe that Higman should have been
formally interviewed, under oath, about his voice message to Trainor and the
follow-up conversation with Trainor. Did he leave the voicemail of his own
volition? If not, who solicited him to do so? How did he get Trainors telephone
number? Does he have any knowledge of the vandalism to Trainors vehicle?
Was he coached in any way by anyone prior to or during his second call to
Trainor?
14
78. The absence of any information that anyone from DOJ contacted Higman at any
time during these events, even to correct him, is peculiar. The one and only
person who told Higman to stop contacting Trainor was Trainor himself.
79. I know and proved that ATF failed to do so little as to even confront several
suspects who had issued both verified and credible violence and murder threats
against me. Another repeat of incompetence has taken place here.
80. Given that a federal agent was threatened in mid-performance of his official
duties, and enhanced by the fact that the threatened agent was an active trial
witness threatened by a witness from the opposing party the fact that Higman
was not interviewed is remarkable in its failure, albeit not surprising given the
nature of ATF and DOJ in these matters.
81. These events are a nearly exact repeat performance of the historical pattern and
practice at DOJ and ATF in matters affecting me.
82. When and if the results of an investigation appear to be headed in a damaging
direction or do not fit a pre-determined favorable conclusion, DOJ and ATF
simply shut them down to fall back on the claim that the investigation is not
warranted, pending, closed or Held in Abeyance.
83. Higman should have been offered the opportunity to explain himself to
investigators and possibly clear his name. Had he done nothing wrong or had he
been coerced, I believe he would have welcomed this opportunity. Our
deposition questions would establish this.
15
84. An investigation that intentionally omits critical facts, evidence and critical witness
statements, more so intentionally refusing to contact critical witnesses, is not a
professional investigation; it is a cover-up.
85. Once again, ATF and DOJs willingness to forfeit their investigative integrity on a
criminal investigation in order to deny me truthful evidence in a civil matter was
recycled.
After the Fact Investigation of the Higman Threat:
86. Approximately sixteen months after the Higman and Harrington threats to Trainor
occurred - after ATF shortstopped their investigation; after DOJ failed to report
the threat to Judge Allegra; and, after Harrington threatened the career of Trainor
(discussed below); - Trainor reported the situations to Judge Allegra.
87. Judge Allegras October 24, 2014 Order referring fraud allegations against seven
DOJ attorneys inspired a new investigation by OIG.
88. Trainor did not wait sixteen months to report his allegations. He reported them
immediately to ATF and DOJ as current and time-sensitive. He waited over a
year to report them to Judge Allegra based on the advice of his legal counsel.
89. The OIG investigation was led by Agent Greg Schossler. Schossler interviewed
Trainor and received a sworn statement from Trainor but, inexplicably Schossler
himself failed to prepare his own written report of investigation.
a. This is documented by OIG Attorney William Blier email message to
DOJ Office of Professional Review (OPR) attorneys Niel Hurley and
Mark Masling dated November 7, 2014, Neil, The agent that
interviewed Trainor was Greg Schossler (353-4056;
16
gregory.e.schossler@usdoj.gov). He did not write a summary of the

interview. We have let him know that QPR may reach out to him.
Thanks. Bill
b. No disclosure documents indicate that DOJs OPR spoke to Schossler
or even attempted to do so. They had gotten from him what they
wanted.
c. Instead, OPR took a shortcut and piggybacked OIGs conclusion when
each dismissed the Higman threat by hanging on a single statement
made by Trainor to Schossler.
90. On June 4, 2015, OIG Counsel Robin Ashton prepared a memorandum that
stated:
The OIG reported to PIN that we did not find sufficient evidence of
a threat being made against SSA Trainor or his family. In fact, SSA
Trainor stated" ... I was reasonably sure that Higman [former ATF
SA] posed no actual threat to me or my family .... ". Based on the
foregoing, PIN declined to pursue the allegation as a criminal
matter and deferred to the OIG as an administrative review.
91. This OIG conclusion disregards anything and everything Trainor reported, stated
or swore to at the time of the threat and thereafter. It further does not take into
account any information from Machonis or Cooper who believed that the Higman
threat was credible before ATFs investigation was shut down by Gleysteen and
Turk, or Trainors own words of being intimidated.
17
92. It further does not take into account that sixteen months after the actual threat
occurred and with no further contact with Higman, that Trainor likely at that time
concluded that, Higman posed no actual threat to me or my family. The
intimidation element is ignored.
93. ATF and the OIG provided OPR the permission slip that DOJ needed to
disregard the Higman threat in the face of Judge Allegras fraud allegations.
94. The closest DOJ got to respecting a potential threat to a federal trial witness was
during Snees liability speculation made in an email to Kinner, Harrington and
Niosi on July 20, 2013 writing, What the best case which could be made that we
should bring it to the Courts attention? That witness X in this case believes he
has been threatened about his testimony in this case by witness Y from this
case. Arguably, that may be relevant for the judge to know - for example, would it
be within his prerogative/power to issue an order directing these witnesses (or
even all witnesses) not to discuss their testimony with other witnesses during the
pendency of proceedings? (Has the rule on witnesses been invoked in this case?
- should it?)
Additionally, to what extent is our view of this matter informed by our assessment
that this is not a real threat? Is that a proper subject for us to evaluate? Stated
differently, if we thought it was a truly real threat, would we adopt the same
approach?
Another way to look at it is - if you were in the judges shoes, would you want to
know of the situation? What if (heavens forbid) Witness X actually harmed
witness Y or family, would we still say we had no duty to disclose to court?
18
95. When Snee wrote, witness X in this case believes he has been threatened
about his testimony he was correct, Trainor had been intimidated and
documented that. Further when Snee wrote, Arguably, that may be relevant for
the judge to know. Snees instincts were spot on correct as well.
Harrington Threats to Trainors Career / Harringtons Credibility:
96. There is no debate that Harrington and his legal team failed to report the Higman
threat to Judge Allegra.
a. Harrington wrote in his response to OPR questions, Ultimately, we
decided that there was no obligation to inform the court because the
message left for Mr. Trainor could not reasonably be construed as a
threat, there had been no attempt to influence future trial testimony
b. Harringtons statement is at best flawed, more likely intentionally and
knowingly false. Trainor, Machonis, Cooper and others - all seasoned
field investigators - believed Higmans voicemail to Trainor was a real
threat. Harrington knew that given Trainors situation that is not
unreasonable. The facts simply did not fit Harringtons explanation.
97. Further, Higmans threat was an intimidation of a witnesss future trial testimony
in the context that additional testimony was to be provided by Trainor and an illicit
contact had been made of him. Higman went so far as to ask Trainor to edit his
official conclusions and amend his official report an attempt to manipulate
evidence.
19
98. Intimidation does not mean that one has to be shaking in his boots. Trainor
makes clear throughout disclosure that Higmans threat caused him serious
concern for his family and terrified his teenage daughter.
99. Harrington made another known false statement to investigators in his response
to OPR questions:
The trial team was at all times professional and courteous in their
dealings with witnesses. See App. 87. Witnesses were specifically
told that their paramount obligation was to provide truthful
testimony. No witness complained to me about their treatment by
the trial team.
Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, no
witness was angered by their treatment by the trial team during

preparations for trial testimony.
However, as a result of Judge Allegras directive that the United
States look into conversations with Ms. Bacon, ATF instructed Mr.
Atteberry to return to Tucson (from Phoenix, Arizona) on the
evening of June 18, 2013. See App. 85. Mr. Atteberry was angry
that he had to return to Tucson to be interviewed and expressed his
displeasure in strong terms during a brief, heated exchange with
me. I explained why Mr. Atteberry had been instructed return to
Tucson. At the conclusion of our interview, Mr. Atteberry and I
shook hands and he departed on what I believed to be good terms.
100.
I know the truth to be that Atteberry was incensed behind Harringtons
attempts to mischaracterize the facts behind Bacons conversations with

20
Atteberry and ATF Assistant Special Agent in Charge Carlos Canino. Atteberry
would testify under oath to such.
101.
The exchange became so heated on the Bacon issue that Bouman had to
physically separate Harrington and Atteberry; hardly the reaction of a seasoned

law enforcement executive who was asked to travel ninety minutes from Phoenix
to Tucson.
102.
Based on discovery documents, OPR appears to pay very little attention to
a very important question Harringtons threat to Trainors career (repeated

twice in one conversation) stemming from Trainors documented intent to
independently reported the Higman threat to Judge Allegra.
103.
Simple and dismissive DOJ denials are all that are presented in the
disclosure documents as rebuttal.

104.
Harrington attempts to answer the question of his threat to Trainor with
basically a one sentence denial in his response to OPR, No attorney made any
threat to dissuade Mr. Trainor from contacting the court directly.
105.
This statement is too parsed; we must question on variations of
Harringtons conditions for the statement.

106.
The Special Master appears to readily accept the recollection of Niosi on
this issue - herself in a critical position for self-preservation based on her

involvement and exposure to the Harrington/ Trainor call during which Harrington
made his threats when he cites Niosis written response to OPR questions on
the subject in his June 26, 2015 Order, However, in Niosis response to the OPR
inquiry, she states that no such threat was made by Harrington that she heard,
21
and that she remembers Trainor himself stating during the conference call: I am
fully aware this is damaging [and could] hurt my career.
107.
that she heard is far from a personal commitment from Niosi and is a
safe fallback position to take once Trainor and Machonis are deposed and testify
that a threat was issued by Harrington, twice.
108.
Trainor and Machonis were also on that call and they disagree with Niosi.
They do recall the threat made against Trainor by Harrington more than once.
109.
Machonis has not been heard from in declaration or affidavit and the
Special Master was provided no information by DOJ to balance his conclusion.

110.
Onyema was on that call as well. She has not been heard from in
declaration or affidavit either.

111.
Trainor was fully aware of the repercussions he would face by
whistleblowing the threats he received from Higman and Harrington. It is logical

to believe that he did make the statement Niosi attributes to him. Further, Trainor
was a first-hand witness to what and how DOJ and ATF treat anyone who
speaks out against their orders when he investigated my allegations of nearly
identical treatment. He knew what was coming if he contacted Judge Allegra
retaliation - and thus he had been intimidated away from doing what he wanted
to do, report the threats.
112.
Only DOJs own attorneys have provided declarations. Gleysteens
declaration was prepared for him by the attorneys themselves under suspicion.
22
113.
No declaration or affidavit from anyone who would or might hold an
opposing viewpoint to DOJ in this matter has been offered me or the Special
Master. Nothing from Machonis. Nothing from Cooper. Nothing from Onyema.
114.
In sum, DOJ has provided the Special Master a one-sided interpretation of
the Higman threat to Trainor, the Harrington I Trainor conversation and threat,
denied the Special Master any opposing viewpoints to consider for balance and
in doing so has appeared to convince the Special Master that neither Higman or
Harrington threatened or intimidated Trainor, and thus, causing the Special
Master to reach a premature summary judgement conclusion that no government
fraud or misconduct has occurred.
115.
Based on facts, evidence and my eleven year effort to uncover corruption
at ATF and DOJ supported by the request of Judge Allegra and following the
Special Master's own ordered procedures, I respectfully believe that I have
earned the right to take the above cited depositions in the Special Master's
presence, each needed to fairly complete the Special Master's inquiry.
116.
I certify under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are
accurate and truthful.

EXECUTED on this
gth
day of July, 2015.
23
EXHIBIT C
From:
Niosi, Corinne (CfV) <Corinne.A.Niosi@usdoj.gov>
Sent:
Friday, July 19, 2013 7:54 PM
To:
Subject:
Harrington, David (CfV); Bouman, Rachel A.
Attachments:
Declaration of Michael Gleysteen 7-19-13 (Dobyns).docx
I think this looks good and meets our needs. I have some suggested edits, in redline.
CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO ORDER OF APRIL 7, 2015
DOJ_ATF00000907
From:
Harrington, David (CIV) < David.Harrington@usdoj.gov>
Sent:
To:
Bouman, Rachel A.
Niosi, Corinne ((::iV); Veronica.N.Onyema@usdoj.gov
Cc:
Subject:
RE: We need to talk. When are you available?
Soundsgood.
From== Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF)

Sent== Friday, July 19, 2013 1:27 PM
To== Harrington, David (CIV)
Cc== Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Veronica.N.Onyema@usdoi,clov
Subject== RE: We need to talk. When are you available?
Hes available if I come up in the next little while. Shall we call you at your desk in 5 minutes?
Rachel A. Bouman
Chief, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE, Suite 3.E-320
Washington, DC 20226
Tel: 202.648.7004
WARNING: This electronic transmission is intended only for the person(s) named above. It may contain information that is
confidential and protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine or exempt from disclosure
under other applicable laws. Any use, distribution, copying or other disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. Do not
forward or re-transmit without the permission of sender or ATF Chief Counsels Office. If you have received this transmission in error,
please notify the sender at the number or e-mail above.
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
From: Harrington, David (CIV)
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 1:25 PM
To: Bouman, Rachel A.
Cc: Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Veronica.N.Onyema@usdoj.gov
Subject: RE: We need to talk. When are you available?
Please.
From: Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF)
To: Harrington, David (CIV)
Cc: Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Veronica.N.Onyema@usdqi,gov
I spoke with Michael this morning and am prepared to prepare a draft declaration for him, but I can go up to his office
and call you from there if you want to speak with him directly. Do you want me to see if hes available?
RachelA. Bouman
DOJ_ATF00000930

Tel: 202.648.7004
please notif~ the sender at the number or e-mail above.

Cc: Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Onyema, Veronica N. (CIV)
Yes. We are also going to need to talk directly to Chris Trainors AD, Michael Glysteen (sp?), today if possible.

I just returned from a meeting and have another one starting shortly. Shall we plan around 1:30?
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
please notif~ the sender at the number or e-mail above.

Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:57 AM
Subject: We need to talk. When are you available?
David A. Harrington
Senior Trial Counsel
DOJ_ATF00000931

Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
U.S. Deparm~ent of Justice
P.O. Box 480
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 616-0465
DOJ_ATF00000932
From:
Gross, Charles R. </O = M MS/OU = EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROU P
Sent:
(FYDIBOH F23SPDLT)/CN = RECIPIENTS/CN =GROSS, CHARLE6A029 B5A-8 BIE-4DFAA95C-3887EFAE6AEC5B5 >

Saturday, July 20, 2013 12:42 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bouman, Rachel A.
Brandon, Thomas E.; Allen, Joseph J.
Re: Chris Trainor Witness Issue in Dobyns
Rachel:
Ive read through this material quickly. Im not sure I understand or agree with the advice that has apparently been
provided to SA Trainor concerning a supposed duty to disclose. That said, my advice would be that our attorneys bring
this to the Courts attention on Monday. That is far preferable to having SA Trainor contact the court on his own. It is
also better than trying to persuade SA Trainor that this is irrelevant to the case (although it seems so to me), only to
have it come out later, which it very easily could. By taking a proactive role here we minimize any fallout and ensure that
our efforts to deal with this are seen in a favorable light.
Chuck
On Ju119, 2013, at 6:53 PM, "Bouman, Rachel A." <RacheI.Bouman~atf.~ov> wrote:
Hi Chuck-There is an issue that may need to be addressed with Chris Trainor on Monday. Unfortunately, I will be
in trial and unable to address it. Ive spent the bulk of today on this issue. Chris apparently spoke with
one outside attorney who said he has a duty to disclose. He also spoke with law professor and former
JAG Tim McDonnell who says he has an affirmative duty to tell the judge.
DOJ wants us to speak with Trainor about this, but Im not sure that is advisable given what is going
on. I will forward you all of the related documents. Ive worked extensively with Michael Gleysteen on
this today and prepared a declaration for him to sign. The hang up is that Michael believes he needs to
tell Chris that he is going to sign a declaration so that Chris isnt taken by surprise if he hears this in
court. This is not advised as there is no guarantee how that will be interpreted by Chris. I have notes of
my conversations with Michael, but they are handwritten and are here in my filing cabinet, so I wont be
sending them.
From the emails I send to you, it should be apparent what the status is with Chris...hes contacting
FLEOA and will get back to me. I will let you know what information I receive.
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
DOJ_ATF00000959

WARNING: This electronic transmission is intended only for the person(s) named above. It may contain
information that is confidential and protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product
doctrine or exempt from disclosure under other applicable laws. Any use, distribution, copying or other disclosure
by any other person is strictly prohibited. Do not forward or re-transmit without the permission of sender or ATF
Chief Counsels Office. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender at the number or email above.

DOJ_ATF00000960
From:
Sent:

Saturday, July 20, 2013 4:47 PM
To:
Bouman, Rachel A.
Allen, Joseph J.; Brandon, Thomas E.
Cc:
Subject:
Re: Higman Issue
If it were me, I would still alert the court. Not because we have to, but because its the least risky course of
action. Chuck
On Jul 20, 2013, at 12:32 PM, "Bouman, Rachel A." <RacheI.Bouman(~tf.gov> wrote:
Thank God for Larry Berger! Ive worked with him on many cases before and know that he is a good,
squared away attorney. Chuck, is your thought that we do not need to notify the judge in advance given
the below? Im thinking we will proceed as we had initially planned with DOJ...we have a package ready
to provide the judge to offer the other side of what Chris is submitting. Im talking to Gleysteen today
both about this and some Cefalu stuff that he needs to go over with me for his declaration in that
case. Please let me know if you agree and I will try to talk Gleysteen out of notifying Chris about his
declaration. If I am not successful, I may need assistance.
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Trainor, Christopher J." <Christopher.Trainor@atf.gov>
Date: July 20, 2013, 10:57:25 AM EDT
To: "Harrington, David (CIV)" <David.Harrin~ton@usdoj.~ov>, "Niosi, Corinne (CIV)"
<Corinne.A.Niosi@usdoi.~ov>, "Bouman, Rachel A." <RacheI.Bouman@atf.~ov>
Cc: "Machonis, Daniel J." <DanieI.Machonis@atf.~ov>, "Plott, Gregory D."
<Gre~orv.Plott@atf.~ov>, "Gleysteen, Michael" <Mike.P.Gleysteen@atf.~ov>
Subject: Higman Issue
To all,
After consulting with FLEOA Attorney Larry Berger regarding this issue, I have decided
that I will not independently contact Judge Allegra to report this matter for his
consideration.
DOJ_ATF00000963

I will execute a finalized version of the statement I prepared detailing this matter, and
will provide a signed copy to the DOJ attorneys prior to my testimony. I will have the
original in my possession when called to the stand. If I am questioned about whether I
have had contact with any party/witnesses during the break between my testimony, I
will answer "Yes" and produce the statement documenting this incident. If I am not
asked this question, or otherwise directly questioned about this matter, I will not
reference it.
Attorney Berger made me realize that my sense of justice has been fine tuned through
my experiences in criminal courts and my dealings with AUSAs over the last 23
years. Different rules apply in civil courts: Some of these I find distasteful. Regardless, I
will continue to strive to be as professional and fair as I can be.
Chris Trainor
DOJ_ATF00000964
From:
Sent:

To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bouman, Rachel A.
Re: Higman Issue
Ive known Jeanne Davidson for almost 20 years, and I trust her judgment. My sense is that if we had concluded this had
been a legitimate threat we would disclose, even though the legal analysis wouldnt be any different. Given the prior
blow up over the Valerie Bacon issue (which also involves a question of perception), I just wouldnt take the chance that
we may have to explain why we didnt bring it up.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 20, 2013, at 1:51 PM, "Bouman, Rachel A." <RacheI.Bouman@atf.~ov> wrote:
I talked to David and proposed that we be proactive. He said that they are still discussing all of this at
DOJ. Hes had conversations today with Don Kinner and Bryant Snee. Ultimately, the decision will be
made by Jeanne Davidson.
Here are Davids thoughts on the issue about why we dont raise this unless it comes up...What issue
would we raise? DOJ anticipates saying that nothing wrong has occurred. Chris has a couple of
concerns. Its awkward to bring it up, because we are saying Chris thinks there was a threat and we
dont think so, so we are disclosing that there was no threat. Or, we are presenting that Chris doesnt
like how ATF investigated the threat, but this isnt related to this case. If he brings the declaration to
court, he cant bring anything up to the stand. If he brings it and its on our table to use and he testifies,
theres some of a chance that it wont come up. If it does come up, the judge will ask for all information
and DOJ would have the opportunity at that time to explain that Chriss complaint about ATF can be
handled outside this litigation and we can explain that we believe there is no threat. DOJs goal is to
show that theres nothing here and Trainor has become personally invested in this and has no objectivity
any more in evaluating this. There is some risk, because Judge Allegra believes the worst in us and will
question why we didnt disclose it. OUr answer would be that we looked into it and there was nothing
to disclose. The threat investigation was opened and closed and there was no threat. Attorneys
listened to it personally and determined there was no threat. Nothing inconsistent with the statements
of Higmans testimony. He told Trainor that the report was shoddy and didnt get Higmans input and
wanted an opportunity to provide input because the report was wrong. It is true that raising it
ourselves, is something we can do? Yes. We did this with DAD Lennon and said it wasnt an issue. That
was the right approach and it worked out well. This is trickier, because judge can understand not
wanting conflict of interest. Judges response could be why are you telling me this if there is no
relevance to the litigation. It is curious and out of character for Reed not to alert us to it and require us
to produce it if he in fact knows about it. There is a real possibility that it doesnt come up at all.
My response back to David is that the relevance is with regard to the sequestration issue. Thats how
this will be raised by Trainor...is whether there was inappropriate contact by a witness with another
witness. So, thats the context in which we raise it to Judge Allegra. Just like with a potential conflict of
interest that didnt exist, we raise a potential sequestration issue that doesnt exist. I think David is
warming up to this idea. I also told David that I wouldnt not hang my hat on Jay not knowing just
DOJ_ATF00000965

because Reed hasnt tipped us off. It is unusual, but this is a small agency. Cooper was in SOD when the
covert documents were recalled and is the ASAC in the Washington Field Division who oversaw the
alleged threat investigation that Trainor raised. Cooper talks to Canino who is good buddies with
Jay. So, I think it is naive to believe that Jay doesnt know or wont find out before Chris testifies. I also
told David that the Judge is already suspicious of us and we dont want to look that way again.
David said they are still mulling it over what to do. If we want to submit something further for them to
consider, we can. I had a conversation with David and havent put anything in writing. If you want to
reduce my thoughts above into an email and send it to David, I can. I can include any further thoughts
you have as well. Please let me know.
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
On Jul 20, 2013, at 12:46 PM, "Gross, Charles R." <Charles.Gross@atf.F~ov> wrote:
If it were me, I would still alert the court. Not because we have to, but because its the
least risky course of action. Chuck
Thank God for Larry Berger! Ive worked with him on many cases before
and know that he is a good, squared away attorney. Chuck, is your
thought that we do not need to notify the judge in advance given the
below? Im thinking we will proceed as we had initially planned with
DOJ...we have a package ready to provide the judge to offer the other
side of what Chris is submitting. Im talking to Gleysteen today both
about this and some Cefalu stuff that he needs to go over with me for
his declaration in that case. Please let me know if you agree and I will
try to talk Gleysteen out of notifying Chris about his declaration. If I am
not successful, I may need assistance.
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004

From: "Trainor, Christopher J."
<Christopher.Trainor@atf.gov>
Date: July 20, 2013, 10:57:25 AM EDT
2
DOJ_ATF00000966

To: "Harrington, David (CIV)"
<David.Harrington@usdoj.gov>, "Niosi, Corinne (CIV)"
<Corinne.A.Niosi@usdoj.gov>, "Bouman, Rachel A."
<RacheI.Bouman@atf.gov>
Cc: "Machonis, Daniel J." <DanieI.Machonis@atf.gov>,
"Plott, Gregory D." <Gregorv.Plott@atf.gov>,
"Gleysteen, Michael" <Mike.P.Gleysteen@atf.gov>
To all,
After consulting with FLEOA Attorney Larry Berger
regarding this issue, I have decided that I will not
independently contact Judge Allegra to report this
matter for his consideration.
I will execute a finalized version of the statement I
prepared detailing this matter, and will provide a signed
copy to the DOJ attorneys prior to my testimony. I will
have the original in my possession when called to the
stand. If I am questioned about whether I have had
contact with any party/witnesses during the break
between my testimony, I will answer "Yes" and produce
the statement documenting this incident. If I am not
asked this question, or otherwise directly questioned
about this matter, I will not reference it.
Attorney Berger made me realize that my sense of
justice has been fine tuned through my experiences in
criminal courts and my dealings with AUSAs over the
last 23 years. Different rules apply in civil courts: Some
of these I find distasteful. Regardless, I will continue to
strive to be as professional and fair as I can be.
Chris Trainor
DOJ_ATF00000967
From:
Bouman, Rachel A. </O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMfNfSTRATfVE GROUP

(FYDfBOH F23SPDLT)/CN = RECfPfENTS/CN = BOU MAN, RACHEE8753B06BFOF-4DD3-8B9F-BIB625AAE552E27 >
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gleysteen delcaration
Attachments:
Harrington, David (CfV); Niosi, Corinne (CfV)
I havent run this by him yet, but does this serve our purpose? Also, Ive reached out to everyone in the WFD who had
contact with this case (SAC, ASAC, RAC, SA, Division counsel) and no one is answering. I contacted the Intel branch and
they said the case is closed in NForce. Im waiting for someone to contact me so I can see what documents were
actually generated in the case. Let me know what you think. Gleysteen is leaving at 4.
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004

DOJ_ATF00001019
From:
Bouman, Rachel A. </O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP

Sent:
To:
Gross, Charles R.
Brandon, Thomas E.; Allen, Joseph J.
Cc:
Subject:
Re: Chris Trainor Witness [ssue in Dobyns
Hi Chuck--
Youre read on this is accurate. My guess is that these two outside attorneys are only considering the presentation by
Chris of the information and they dont actually know what the voicemail and recorded conversations reflect. Chris has
used phrases like "this will cause a mistrial" and other things that lead DOJ to believe Chris may not have even conveyed
the accurate posture of this civil case to the outside attorneys. I will suggest that David file something this weekend,
even, or at least give me the affirmative that he will do so on Monday so I can let Chris know that we are going to handle
it. Ill let you know the response.
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
OnJul19,2013, at8:43 PM,"Gross, Charles R."<Charles.Gross@atf.gov> wrote:

Rachel:
Ive read through this material quickly. Im not sure I understand or agree with the advice that has
apparently been provided to SA Trainor concerning a supposed duty to disclose. That said, my advice
would be that our attorneys bring this to the Courts attention on Monday. That is far preferable to
having SA Trainor contact the court on his own. It is also better than trying to persuade SA Trainor that
this is irrelevant to the case (although it seems so to me), only to have it come out later, which it very
easily could. By taking a proactive role here we minimize any fallout and ensure that our efforts to deal
with this are seen in a favorable light.
Chuck
On Jul 19, 2013, at 6:53 PM, "Bouman, Rachel A." <RacheI.Bouman~atf.~ov> wrote:
Hi Chuck-There is an issue that may need to be addressed with Chris Trainor on
Monday. Unfortunately, I will be in trial and unable to address it. Ive spent the bulk of
today on this issue. Chris apparently spoke with one outside attorney who said he has a
duty to disclose. He also spoke with law professor and former JAG Tim McDonnell who
says he has an affirmative duty to tell the judge.
DOJ_ATF00001040

DOJ wants us to speak with Trainor about this, but lm not sure that is advisable given
what is going on. I will forward you all of the related documents, lve worked
extensively with Michael Gleysteen on this today and prepared a declaration for him to
sign. The hang up is that Michael believes he needs to tell Chris that he is going to sign a
declaration so that Chris isnt taken by surprise if he hears this in court. This is not
advised as there is no guarantee how that will be interpreted by Chris. I have notes of
my conversations with Michael, but they are handwritten and are here in my filing
cabinet, so I wont be sending them.
From the emails I send to you, it should be apparent what the status is with Chris...hes
contacting FLEOA and will get back to me. I will let you know what information I
receive.
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
WARNING: This electronic transmission is intended only for the person(s) named above. It may
contain information that is confidential and protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege and/or work product doctrine or exempt from disclosure under other applicable laws.
Any use, distribution, copying or other disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. Do not
forward or re-transmit without the permission of sender or ATF Chief Counsels Office. If you
have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender at the number or e-mail above.

DOJ_ATF00001041
From:

Sent:
To:
Harrington, David (CfV)
Cc:
Subject:
Niosi, Corinne (CfV)

Trainor
Hi David-Our Chief Counsel would like us to file something with the court on Monday so that we take the proactive approach with
this and control how this is presented to the court, instead of allowing Chris to do it. If you can confirm that you will do
this on Monday, I will notify Chris so that he doesnt take actions on his own. Please let me know.
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Chief, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives
Tel: 202.648.7004
DOJ_ATF00001042
From:

Sent:
To:
Gross, Charles R.
Cc:
Subject:
Re: Higman [ssue
I re-read my prior email and there were some typos. I didnt intend for you to reduce my thoughts to writing. Sorry
thats how it reads. I will let David know that I think weve had a good discussion on this and we will wait for DOJ to
make the decision.
I talked with Michael. I sent him Chriss statement last night and he reviewed that. He also has spoken with Dan
Machonis who was on one of the calls Chris had with DOJ yesterday. Michael is concerned about Chriss neutrality right
now and what seems like a willingness to go after anyone and everyone, including me. Michael will not be having any
further discussions with him. Michael is going to review the declaration and we will work out how I will get it from him
this weekend as he is out of town this coming week.
Hopefully, this is all the further dialogue this weekend with all of you on this. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
On Jul 20, 2013, at 2:25 PM, "Gross, Charles R." <Charles.Gross@atf.gov> wrote:
Ive known Jeanne Davidson for almost 20 years, and I trust her judgment. My sense is that if we had
concluded this had been a legitimate threat we would disclose, even though the legal analysis wouldnt
be any different. Given the prior blow up over the Valerie Bacon issue (which also involves a question of
perception), I just wouldnt take the chance that we may have to explain why we didnt bring it up.
Sent from my iPhone
I talked to David and proposed that we be proactive. He said that they are still
discussing all of this at DOJ. Hes had conversations today with Don Kinner and Bryant
Snee. Ultimately, the decision will be made by Jeanne Davidson.
Here are Davids thoughts on the issue about why we dont raise this unless it comes
up...What issue would we raise? DOJ anticipates saying that nothing wrong has
occurred. Chris has a couple of concerns. Its awkward to bring it up, because we are
saying Chris thinks there was a threat and we dont think so, so we are disclosing that
DOJ_ATF00001052

there was no threat. Or, we are presenting that Chris doesnt like how ATF investigated
the threat, but this isnt related to this case. If he brings the declaration to court, he
cant bring anything up to the stand. If he brings it and its on our table to use and he
testifies, theres some of a chance that it wont come up. If it does come up, the judge
will ask for all information and DOJ would have the opportunity at that time to explain
that Chriss complaint about ATF can be handled outside this litigation and we can
explain that we believe there is no threat. DOJs goal is to show that theres nothing
here and Trainor has become personally invested in this and has no objectivity any more
in evaluating this. There is some risk, because Judge Allegra believes the worst in us and
will question why we didnt disclose it. OUr answer would be that we looked into it and
there was nothing to disclose. The threat investigation was opened and closed and
there was no threat. Attorneys listened to it personally and determined there was no
threat. Nothing inconsistent with the statements of Higmans testimony. He told
Trainor that the report was shoddy and didnt get Higmans input and wanted an
opportunity to provide input because the report was wrong. It is true that raising it
ourselves, is something we can do? Yes. We did this with DAD Lennon and said it
wasnt an issue. That was the right approach and it worked out well. This is trickier,
because judge can understand not wanting conflict of interest. Judges response could
be why are you telling me this if there is no relevance to the litigation. It is curious and
out of character for Reed not to alert us to it and require us to produce it if he in fact
knows about it. There is a real possibility that it doesnt come up at all.
My response back to David is that the relevance is with regard to the sequestration
issue. Thats how this will be raised by Trainor...is whether there was inappropriate
contact by a witness with another witness. So, thats the context in which we raise it to
Judge Allegra. Just like with a potential conflict of interest that didnt exist, we raise a
potential sequestration issue that doesnt exist. I think David is warming up to this
idea. I also told David that I wouldnt not hang my hat on Jay not knowing just because
Reed hasnt tipped us off. It is unusual, but this is a small agency. Cooper was in SOD
when the covert documents were recalled and is the ASAC in the Washington Field
Division who oversaw the alleged threat investigation that Trainor raised. Cooper talks
to Canino who is good buddies with Jay. So, I think it is naive to believe that Jay doesnt
know or wont find out before Chris testifies. I also told David that the Judge is already
suspicious of us and we dont want to look that way again.
David said they are still mulling it over what to do. If we want to submit something
further for them to consider, we can. I had a conversation with David and havent put
anything in writing. If you want to reduce my thoughts above into an email and send it
to David, I can. I can include any further thoughts you have as well. Please let me know.
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
On Jul 20, 2013, at 12:46 PM, "Gross, Charles R." <Charles.Gross@atf.gov> wrote:
DOJ_ATF00001053

If it were me, I would still alert the court. Not because we have to, but
because its the least risky course of action. Chuck
On Jul 20, 2013, at 12:32 PM, "Bouman, Rachel A."
<RacheI.Bouman@atf.gov> wrote:
Thank God for Larry Berger! Ive worked with him on
many cases before and know that he is a good, squared
away attorney. Chuck, is your thought that we do not
need to notify the judge in advance given the
below? Im thinking we will proceed as we had initially
planned with DOJ...we have a package ready to provide
the judge to offer the other side of what Chris is
submitting. Im talking to Gleysteen today both about
this and some Cefalu stuff that he needs to go over with
me for his declaration in that case. Please let me know
if you agree and I will try to talk Gleysteen out of
notifying Chris about his declaration. If l am not
successful, I may need assistance.
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
From: "Trainor, Christopher J."

<Christopher.Trainor(~atf:gov>
Date: July 20, 2013, 10:57:25 AM EDT
To: "Harrington, David (CIV)"
<David.H a rrington (~usdoi.gov>, "Niosi,
Corinne (CIV)"
<Corinne.A.Niosi~usdoj.gov>,
"Bouman, Rachel A."
<RacheI.Bouman@atf.~ov>
C:c: "Machonis, Daniel J."
<Daniel. Machonis(~atfigov>, "Plott,
Gregory D." <Gre~orv~Plott@atf!~ov>,
"Gleysteen, Michael"
<Mike_P. GI eysteen (~atf#,ov>
To all,
After consulting with FLEOA Attorney
Larry Berger regarding this issue, I have
decided that I will not independently
3
DOJ_ATF00001054

contact Judge Allegra to report this
matter for his consideration.
I will execute a finalized version of the
statement I prepared detailing this
matter, and will provide a signed copy
to the DOJ attorneys prior to my
testimony. I will have the original in my
possession when called to the stand. If
I am questioned about whether I have
had contact with any party/witnesses
during the break between my
testimony, I will answer "Yes" and
produce the statement documenting
this incident. If I am not asked this
question, or otherwise directly
questioned about this matter, I will not
reference it.
Attorney Berger made me realize that
my sense of justice has been fine tuned
through my experiences in criminal
courts and my dealings with AUSAs
over the last 23 years. Different rules
apply in civil courts: Some of these I
find distasteful. Regardless, I will
continue to strive to be as professional
and fair as I can be.
Chris Trainor
DOJ_ATF00001055
From:

(FYDIBOH F23SPDLT)/CN = REC[P[ENTS/CN = BOU MAN, RACHEE8753B06BFOF-4DD3-8B9F-BIB625AAE552E27 >
Sent:
Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:12 AM
To:
Subject:
attyrab@gmail.com
Attachments:
Fwd: Additional Documents re Trainor

Declaration of Michael Gleysteen 7-19-13 (Dobyns).docx; ATT00001.htm; Gleysteen
docs provided 7-19-13.pdf; ATT00002.htm; Gleysteen Meeting notes 7-19-13.pdf;
ATT00003.htm; Gleysteen provided NForce entry 7-19-13.pdf; ATT00004.htm
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004

From: "Bouman, Rachel A." <RacheI.Bouman@atf.Rov>
To." "Gross, Charles R." <Charles.Gross@atf.Rov>
Cc." "Brandon, Thomas E." <Thomas.Brandon~atf.Rov>, "Allen, Joseph J." <Joseph.Allen~atf.Rov>
Subject: Additional Documents re Trainor
Here are additional documents. I scanned in the notes I took at the meetings today. Im not sure how
helpful they will be. Chris had a number of conversations with DOJ today as well. I was not on those
calls. Dan Machonis, the ASAC of IA was on at least one of the calls. I understand there were a lot of
accusations made about DOJ and ATF on those calls.
I am heading home now and will bring my computer with me if there is anything else you would like me
to send that I didnt yet provide.
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
WARNING: This electronic transmission is intended only for the person(s) named above. It may contain
information that is confidential and protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product
doctrine or exempt from disclosure under other applicable laws. Any use, distribution, copying or other disclosure
by any other person is strictly prohibited. Do not forward or re-transmit without the permission of sender or ATF
Chief Counsels Office. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender at the number or email above.
DOJ_ATF00001079

DOJ_ATF00001080
From:
Sent:
Snee, Bryant (CIV)

To:
Harrington, David (CIV); Kinner, Donald (C~V)
Cc:
Subject:
Niosi, Corinne (C~V)

Re: Trainor
2 issues to consider: (1) this is obviously going to come out so we have figure out whether it is better that we raise it or
respond to it? and (2) once we figure out the best approach, well have to let Jeanne know.
What are the possible/likely ways it will come up by them? Reed will raise it? Trainor will stalk Allegra over the weekend
and contact him directly? Or Trainor will blurt it out when he is on the stand?
What is our response? Probably the same in each case (?) - internal matter which agency has examined and closed; if
Trainor dissatisified can grieve; has no relevance to Dobyns claims against US? Anything else? Assuming this comes up
before Trainor testifies on Tuesday - could we/should we more aggressively cross-examine him to highlight inadequate
nature of his work; that he has personal interest because his professional abilities/judgment/competence are at issue;
personal bias in favor of Dobyns?
Alternatively, we could raise it (orally or short filing) and say same thing?
Which is better approach from an "optics" perspective? Bryant
..... Original Message .....

To: Kinner, Donald (CIV); Snee, Bryant (CIV)
Cc: Niosi, Corinne (CIV)
Subject: Fw: Trainor
I received this e-mail from Rachel Bouman this evening. I respectfully disagree with ATF about a "proactive" filing. A
final decision needs to be made promptly, however, because we are back in court Monday morning.
ATF has concluded that there was no threat from Higman to Trainor. I have listened to the phone calls myself and have
likewise concluded that no reasonable person would construe the calls as a threat. It hardly makes sense to inform
Judge Allegra that Chuck Higman did not threaten Chris Trainor. Nor is there any reason that Higmans putative threat
would be relevant to issues about the alleged breach of the Dobyns-ATF settlement agreement in any event.
There has been no violation of the Rule 615 sequestration order or the courts protective order. So this is not a basis for
a filing with the court.
Chris Trainor is apparently dissatisfied with the vigor of ATFs response to the purported threat against him. However,
this would be an internal ATF matter - not a matter for the court to address in the Dobyns action.
The call between Higman and Trainor did contained some discussion about the fire investigation ROI, most notably, that
Higman believed that Trainor did a shoddy, unprofessional job on the report. But this occurred after both Higman and
Trainor had completed their testimony about the fire investigation. (Trainor will be testifying this week, but his
testimony is about a second ROI, concerns completely different issues, and has nothing to do with Chuck Higman.) In
addition, Higmans statements are consistent with his testimony at trial and thus would not serve to impeach Higman
even if Higman could be recalled.
DOJ_CIVIL00000002

The bottom line is that we have nothing to bring to the courts attention. Chris Trainor, of course, has no ground to
appear before the court or submit something to the judge. He is not a party and his ill-founded belief that we are not
handling the case appropriately does not change the fact that the Justice Department represents the United States.
Naturally, we should be prepared to respond to his contentions if they are entertained by Judge Allegra.
As for ATF, my view is that they should explain to Chris Trainor that he is a witness for plaintiff and nothing more.
Accordingly, he should be instructed by an appropriate superior not to contact the judge or make any submission to the
court in the Dobyns case. Naturally, if he wants to file a grievance with ATF about its handling of the supposed threat
from Higman, or file a complaint with OPR about our handling of the case, those administrative avenues are open to
him.

Subject: Trainor
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
DOJ_CIVIL00000003
From:
Harrington, David (CIV)
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Niosi, Corinne (CIV)

Re: Trainor
I think that is the more likely scenario and then we tell the Court that Trainor has his own personal complaint about ATF
handling of a supposed threat against him, that we have looked at it, that he needs to address it internally at ATF, that
we have told Trainor this, and that his complaint has no bearing on this case.

From: Niosi, Corinne (ClV)
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 06:59 AM
Subject: RE: Trainor
Thats what I was thinking too actually. If he calls the court, we will have a discussion on the first day of trial, and we can
control the content of the discussion, right? But, what happens Trainor decides not to call the Court before Monday
morning -- and he might not because Rachel sent him an email asking him to hold off on doing anything until Monday
when someone from Chief Counsels office can speak to him -- and instead shows up with a declaration on Tuesday. Im
trying think about how this would play out? Would he take the stand and turn to the Court and say I have a declaration
that I want to submit about an issue that I think needs to be brought to the Courts attention? What would Allegra do in
response? Look at us and say what is this about? At that point, do we essentially have to disclose everything, albeit in
our own words, and he (Trainor) essentially gets what he wants?
Corinne A. Niosi
Trial Attorney
(202) 616-0391

To: Niosi, Corinne (CIV)
Subject: Re: Trainor
Plus, frankly, ATF forgets that there is no mechanism for Trainor to submit anything to the Court. As soon as Trainor
calls the Court, Judge Allegra will be asking us what is going on.

DOJ_CIVIL00000061

I do think we need to wait to hear from them. Bryant and Don have been adamant that there is no reason to bring this
to the Courts attention. I dont think we can agree to do a filing unless they say it is ok, particularly because I dont
agree that we should file something.
Corinne A. Niosi
Trial Attorney
(202) 616-0391

To: Niosi, Corinne (ClV)
Thanks, Corinne. I want to gey back to Rachel. But I guess for the moment we wait to see what Bryant and Don say.

I agree with you. Im not even sure how we "proactively" address this without implicitly acknowledging that we think
theres a problem or without suggesting that we are seeking the Courts assistance in controlling an ATF employee.
I will be in the office until about 8:15 am, then back in the office around 1 pm. Ill be available by phone in between.
When I get back to the office, I should have a draft of the document that we discussed yesterday.
Corinne A. Niosi
Trial Attorney
(202) 616-0391

DOJ_CIVIL00000062

him.

Subject: Trainor
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
DOJ_CIVIL00000063
From:
Sent:
To:
Snee, Bryant (ClV); Kinner, Donald (CfV)
Cc:
Subject:

Re: Trainor
Corinne an I had a back and forth addressing many of the considerations you raise.
I see the two overarching goals: first, explain that Trainors issues have nothing to do with the pending dispute; second,
show that Trainor has lost his objectivity, which he clearly has.
It is unlkely that Reed will bring this up as he has made no mention of it to date and he is rarely reticent. Trainor has
been adamant that he will bring it up, however. I think it likely that either he will contact the court or raise it unilaterally
before he testifies. Either way we are likely to have Judge Allegra then ask us what this is all about. This is the way I
would prefer the issue to arise. We then give Judge Allegra our prepared oral response.
In a nutshell, our response is that Trainor has his own personal complaint about ATF handling of a supposed threat
against him, that we have looked at it, that he needs to address it internally at ATF as a grievance, that we have told
Trainor this, and that his complaint has no bearing on the claims in this case.
Bringing the matter up affirmatively does not seem consistent with our view that Trainors complaints are rightly a nonissue. Additionally, it will make it less apparent to the court how personally invested and biased Trainor has become.

From: Snee, Bryant (CIV)
To: Harrington, David (ClV); Kinner, Donald (ClV)
Cc: Niosi, Corinne (ClV)
2 issues to consider: (1) this is obviously going to come out so we have figure out whether it is better that we raise it or
respond to it? and (2) once we figure out the best approach, well have to let Jeanne know.
What are the possible/likely ways it will come up by them? Reed will raise it? Trainor will stalk Allegra over the weekend
and contact him directly? Or Trainor will blurt it out when he is on the stand?
What is our response? Probably the same in each case (?) - internal matter which agency has examined and closed; if
Trainor dissatisified can grieve; has no relevance to Dobyns claims against US? Anything else? Assuming this comes up
before Trainor testifies on Tuesday - could we/should we more aggressively cross-examine him to highlight inadequate
nature of his work; that he has personal interest because his professional abilities/judgment/competence are at issue;
personal bias in favor of Dobyns?
Alternatively, we could raise it (orally or short filing) and say same thing?
Which is better approach from an "optics" perspective? Bryant

DOJ_CIVIL00000068

him.

Subject: Trainor
Thanks,
DOJ_CIVIL00000069

Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
DOJ_CIVIL00000070
From:
Sent:
To:
Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF)
Cc:
Subject:
Niosi, Corinne (ClV)

RE: Higman [ssue
Feel free to give me a call at 703-560-9503 if you would like to talk.
From= Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF)

Sent= Saturday, July 20, 2013 12:33 PM
To= Harrington, David (CIV)
Cc= Niosi, Corinne (CIV)
Subject= Re: Higman Issue
Thank God for Larry Berger! Ive worked with him on a number of cases. He knows me well and knows I dont take
things lightly. I am waiting for a response from the Chief Counsel. Ill let you know when I receive a response.
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
OnJul20,2013, at 12:21 PM,"Harrington, David(CIV)"<Dav!d_Harrington@usdoj~gov> wrote:

RachelIn light of this e-mail, does ATF still believe that it makes sense to affirmatively raise with Judge Allegra
the issue of the alleged threat to Chris Trainor by Chuck Higman? Thanks.
David
From= Trainor, Christopher J. (ATF)

Sent= Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:57 AM
To= Harrington, David (CIV); Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF)
Cc= Machonis, Daniel J. (ATF); Plott, Gregory D. (ATF); Gleysteen, Michael (ATF)
Subject= Higman Issue
To all,
After consulting with FLEOA Attorney Larry Berger regarding this issue, I have decided that I will not
independently contact Judge Allegra to report this matter for his consideration.
DOJ_CIVIL00000081

I will execute a finalized version of the statement I prepared detailing this matter, and will provide a
signed copy to the DOJ attorneys prior to my testimony. I will have the original in my possession when
called to the stand. If I am questioned about whether I have had contact with any party/witnesses
during the break between my testimony, I will answer "Yes" and produce the statement documenting
this incident. If I am not asked this question, or otherwise directly questioned about this matter, I will
not reference it.
Attorney Berger made me realize that my sense of justice has been fine tuned through my experiences
in criminal courts and my dealings with AUSAs over the last 23 years. Different rules apply in civil
courts: Some of these I find distasteful. Regardless, I will continue to strive to be as professional and
fair as I can be.
Chris Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000082
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

RE: Higman [ssue
I am reconsidering whether we should perhaps say that there were contacts between Trainor and Higman, that there
was a discussion about the fire investigation ROI (but not their testimony), and that we have concluded that there was
no violation of FRE 615.
We could steer clear of the "threat" and issues about the adequacy of ATFs response, which really have nothing to do
with our case.
From= Niosi, Corinne (CIV)

Exactly.
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 01:26 PM
Subject: RE: Higman Issue
You mean that he takes a broad view of what he ought to know about?

Subject= Fw: Higman Issue
I dont want to muddy it up but we need to consider Bryants question about whether Allegra would want to know about
this against the backdrop of the Valarie Bacon thing and Trainors horse trading testimony.
To: Harrington, David (CIV); Kinner, Donald (CIV)
Subject: Re: Higman Issue
What the best case which could be made that we should bring it to the Courts attention? That witness X in this case
believes he has been threatened about his testimony in this case by witness Y from this case. Arguably, that may be
relevant for the judge to know - for example, would it be within his prerogative/power to issue an order directing these
witnesses (or even all witnesses) not to discuss their testimony with other witnesses during the pendency of
proceedings? (Has the rule on witnesses been invoked in this case? - should it?)
Additionally, to what extent is our view of this matter informed by our assessment that this is not a real threat? Is that a
proper subject for us to evaluate? Stated differently, if we thought it was a truly real threat, would we adopt the same
DOJ_CIVIL00000085

approach?
Another way to look at it is - if you were in the judges shoes, would you want to know of the situation? What if (heavens
forbid) Witness X actually harmed witness or family, would we still say we had no duty to disclose to court?
We will have to flag this issue for Jeanne, but before we do so you should ask Rachel whether in light of Trainors e-mail,
the agency still recommends "pro-actively" bringing the matter to the Courts attention. Bryant

To: Snee, Bryant (CIV); Kinner, Donald (CIV)
Subject: Fw: Higman Issue
I just received this from Chris Trainor. He now says he will not be contacting the court directly. Instead, it looks as if he
will be tacitly inviting questions.
I see a small chance that the issue will not come up if he sticks to this approach. Regardless, I continue to believe that a
"proactive" filing would be unwise.
From: Trainor, Christopher J. (ATF)

To: Harrington, David (CIV); Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF)
Cc: Machonis, Daniel J. (ATF); Plott, Gregory D. (ATF); Gleysteen, Michael (ATF)
To all,
After consulting with FLEOA Attorney Larry Berger regarding this issue, I have decided that I will not independently
contact Judge Allegra to report this matter for his consideration.
I will execute a finalized version of the statement I prepared detailing this matter, and will provide a signed copy to the
DOJ attorneys prior to my testimony. I will have the original in my possession when called to the stand. If I am
questioned about whether I have had contact with any party/witnesses during the break between my testimony, I will
answer "Yes" and produce the statement documenting this incident. If I am not asked this question, or otherwise
directly questioned about this matter, I will not reference it.
Attorney Berger made me realize that my sense of justice has been fine tuned through my experiences in criminal courts
and my dealings with AUSAs over the last 23 years. Different rules apply in civil courts: Some of these I find
distasteful. Regardless, I will continue to strive to be as professional and fair as I can be.
Chris Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000086
From:
Sent:
To:
Snee, Bryant (ClV); Kinner, Donald (CfV)
Cc:
Subject:

RE: Higman [ssue
The strongest argument for disclosure is probably the fact that Judge Allegra takes a broad view of what relates to the
case and what he should hear about.
A related question is what exactly we would be disclosing to the Court. Chris Trainors most recent e-mail concerns
whether he "had contact with any party/witnesses during the break." The best case for some disclosure - and indeed
perhaps a disclosure worth making - is that there were such contacts between witnesses, but no violation of FRE 615.
FRE 615 has been invoked in the case. This means that trial witnesses cannot disclose their testimony to witnesses who
have not yet taken the stand. There was no violation of FRE 615 because (1) Higman did not discuss his trial testimony
to Trainor, and (2) both Higman and Trainor had finished testifying about the fire investigation ROI before their
discussion occurred. Trainor, however, is going to be back on the stand this week to testify about other matters. This is
a sufficiently complex issue, and a sufficiently close call, that a mention at the outset of trial on Monday may well be
warranted.
There is a much less compelling case for raising other matters affirmatively. A threat by Higman (if here had been one)
would be a criminal matter - not a matter to be addressed by the COFC. If there were some threat that was an attempt
to influence trial testimony, this would be a matter to raise with the Court. However, there has been no such allegation.
Likewise, there is no reason to raise Trainors unhappiness with ATFs response to the purported threat. That is a
dispute between Trainor and ATF that has no bearing on issues in this action.
From= Snee, Bryant (CIV)

Sent= Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:51 AM
To= Harrington, David (CIV); Kinner, Donald (CIV)
approach?
forbid) Witness X actually harmed witness Y or family, would we still say we had no duty to disclose to court?
DOJ_CIVIL00000087


To all,
Chris Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000088
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Snee, Bryant (ClV); Niosi, Corinne (CfV); Kinner, Donald (CfV)

RE: Higman [ssue
Rachel said that ATF thinks the "safer" course is to raise matters affirmatively. ATF is still vague about what exactly they
think should be raised with the court.
We also need to consider how far we go if we mention FRE 615 affirmatively. Do we give the judge details about the
voicemail and subsequent call that occurred between Higman and Trainor? That Trainor considered the initial message
to be a treat? That ATF then investigated the threat allegation? That Trainor thinks ATF did not do so vigorously
enough? And if we go only part way, do we run the risk that Judge Allegra thinks we have not told him something that
he considers to be important?

To= Harrington, David (CIV); Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Kinner, Donald (CIV)
Did you send an e-mail to Rachel about the agencys views given Trainors latest? I think we should find that out.
We should explain situation to Jeanne but we can wait until later tonight to see if we get a response from the agency.
Bryant
warranted.
DOJ_CIVIL00000089


approach?

To all,
2
DOJ_CIVIL00000090

Chris Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000091
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Snee, Bryant (ClV); Niosi, Corinne (CfV); Kinner, Donald (CfV)

RE: Higman [ssue
I may have been unclear. This is ATFs view after seeing this mornings e-mail from Chris Trainor.
From= Harrington, David (CIV)

To= Snee, Bryant (CIV); Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Kinner, Donald (CIV)
Subject= RE: Higman Issue
Rachel said that ATF thinks the "safer" course is to raise matters affirmatively. ATF is still vague about what exactly they
think should be raised with the court.
We also need to consider how far we go if we mention FRE 615 affirmatively. Do we give the judge details about the
voicemail and subsequent call that occurred between Higman and Trainor? That Trainor considered the initial message
to be a treat? That ATF then investigated the threat allegation? That Trainor thinks ATF did not do so vigorously
enough? And if we go only part way, do we run the risk that Judge Allegra thinks we have not told him something that
he considers to be important?

To= Harrington, David (CIV); Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Kinner, Donald (CIV)
Did you send an e-mail to Rachel about the agencys views given Trainors latest? I think we should find that out.
We should explain situation to Jeanne but we can wait until later tonight to see if we get a response from the agency.
Bryant
DOJ_CIVIL00000092

warranted.

approach?


To all,
DOJ_CIVIL00000093

Chris Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000094
Statement of Christopher J. Trainor
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013, I received a threatening voicemail on my government issued cell

phone (240-882-7712) from Chuck Higman. Higman called me from telephone number (661)
748-0240. The content of the voicemail is as follows:
"Hey Chris, this is Chuck Higman. Uh, looking forward to talking to you. Uh, saw your
report. Uh, looking forward to talking to Ryan, too. And well talk about it then. Hope
your family is doing good, too. All right pal. See you soon.., looking forward to it."
The tone of this message was clearly confrontational and antagonistic. I do not know Chuck
Higman and have never met him or spoken to him. I am not his "pal," and he does not know my
family or have any reason to reference them other than a disguised/veiled threat. I played that
voicemail for several other ATF SAs, and all agreed that the message was
threatening/intimidating in nature.
Higman was a named subject of the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) report I completed under
number 20120079, dealing with the response to and investigation of a fire that occurred at the
residence ofATF SA Jay Dobyns. Higman was called as a witness in the Dobyns civil trial. I
was also called as a witness in the trial, and am to be called again during the week of July 22,
2013 for additional testimony. I was advised by the DOJ attorneys assigned to the civil trial that
I was considered to be still on the stand and that I should have no contact with any parties
involved in the trial.
I immediately reported the threatening voicemail to my supervisor, Acting Special Agent in
Charge Gregg Plott, per ATF protocol. I forwarded several e-mails to SAC Plott at around 11:00
a.m. I also notified OPSEC Branch Chief Bernard Conley, at SAC Plotts direction. I provided
several e-mails to Conley, one of which included a recording of the voicemail in question.
At approximately 1:45 p.m., I participated in a conference call between AD Michael Gleysteen,
SAC Plott, and myself. I explained the situation to AD Gleysteen. I stated that I expected a
vigorous investigation to be conducted by ATF. AD Gleysteen mentioned that he knew Higman
to be a fool and suggested that the voicemail might be "innocuous." I took exception to the use
of that word, and explained that my 18 year old daughter was at my home terrified because I had
called to warn her not to answer the doorbell until this situation had been sorted out. I explained
that this fact alone meant the voicemail was not innocuous, and that Higman had in fact
succeeded in intimidating/threatening my family. I again stated I wanted a vigorous response
from ATF. I advised that I had already requested assistance from Washington FD ASAC John
Cooper in investigating the case. AD Gleysteen agreed that a vigorous investigation would
occur, and advised that he would follow up through AD Field Operations to ensure that any
investigative assistance needed was provided by Washington FD. AD Gleysteen later sent me an
e-mail advising that he had followed up our conversation by speaking to the SAC Washington
FD and that they would provide any and all assistance needed.
At approximately 2:18 p.m. I received the following response from OPSEC Chief Bernard
Conley:
CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO ORDER OF APRIL 7, 2015,

AND FEBRUARY 7, 2011 AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER
DOJ CIVIL00000125
"Those are all good and valid questions. What we have to do when a threat comes in is
verify and confirm via investigation. The investigation in this case will probably be
assigned to someone in IAD that will most likely do what you have suggested below, and
provide verification to OPSEC-TAB whether it is a valid threat. Now, I know that may
sound like I didnt read and hear what you sent me on the individual, but this is done for
legal purposes should our findings be challenged in the future.
I have copied Amy your DOO, down on this email so that information will be provided to
your ASAC and incoming SAC. In the mean time, whoever is assigned to investigate
will contact me so that OSPEC-TAB will be in the loop and ready to provide a Risk
Assessment if the results deem necessary. I recommend that you continue to be vigilant
about your surroundings, take note of all the strange things that are taking place around
you and vary your routine going to and from work and home. If you have any questions
please give me a call, my cell number is also below for after hours."
I considered this response from ATF OPSEC to be pathetic. OPSEC Chief Conley cced IAD
DOO Amy Walck on this e-mail, however Walck was on leave for the rest of the week. IfI had
not taken action myself on this threat, it would have remained in her Inbox unopened and unacted upon until she returned. I find that to be unacceptable. Furthermore, IAD is not equipped
to conduct an investigation such as this. We do not have a relationship with the USAO for the
Eastern District of Virginia in order to obtain concurrence on the use of electronic surveillance. I
wrote the following e-mail to AD Gleysteen, SAC Plott, and ASAC Dan Machonis:
"Not sure what to make of this e-mail. Seems like maybe we havent learned from
painful lessons of the past regarding delays in investigating threats. We are not equipped
here in IAD to handle this type of investigation. I am going over to the Falls Church FO
to make the recorded phone call to Higman - Washington FD has been very helpful.
Hopefully it is a good number and he answers. If not, this threat needs to be investigated
aggressively with subpoenas for subscriber info, locating Higman and conducting a
thorough interview, etc."
I received a phone call from ASAC John Cooper advising that Acting RAC Don Dockendorff,
Falls Church FO, had been assigned to handle this investigation. I contacted RAC Dockendorff
and made arrangements to meet at the Falls Church FO later in the afternoon to attempt a
recorded phone call to Higman. RAC Dockendorff advised that an NForce case would be
opened, and that one of his agents would make notification to the USAO that we planned to use
electronic surveillance in accordance with ATF orders.
I contacted Dean Baynes, ATF IT Services Management Division, to determine if a method
existed to download the voicemail off of my phone. He advised that we would contact Verizon,
the service provider for my phone, to discuss. Baynes also advised that he had checked
Higmans phone number (661) 748-0240 and found that it was a trunked Skype account, and that
we would likely not have any luck in calling the number. We spoke to Verizons Law
Enforcement desk and found that the voicemail exists only on my phone, not on their servers,
and therefore could not be downloaded by Verizon.

DOJ CIVIL00000126
I went to the Falls Church FO and met with the investigators assigned to the case: RAC
Dockendorff, SA Victor Castro, and SA Justin Masuhr. We placed recorded phone calls to the
Skype number and found it was not a connectable number. We called another number, and I
spoke to a female who I believe to be Higmans ex-wife. She agreed to provide my name and
phone number to her son, who could then provide the info to Higman if he so chose. I also sent
an e-mail to an address I had used last summer in an attempt to contact Higman. The address is
cehigman@yahoo.com. I advised Higman that I had received his voicemail and requested he
call me back.
The Falls Church SAs decided to go to an address in Vienna, VA that was generated from a
LexisiNexis Search on Higman. It was believed that Higmans son might reside there. The SAs
would determine if Higman was living there, and if not, how to contact him. The SAs met with
the landlord of the residence, who provided a cell number for the son. The SAs contacted the
son, who stated that he did not have his fathers contact numbers with him, but would meet the
SAs at his residence at 7:30 p.m.
At approximately 6:00 p.m. I received a call from Higman, which I recorded. Higman stated that
his voicemail the previous Friday was essentially a business call. He did not intend to threaten
me or my family. He merely wanted to be courteous by passing on his regards to my family. I
advised him that that made no sense. He then stated that he had read my report on the fire, found
it to be unprofessional and incorrect, and wanted me to interview him and subsequently amend
the report. I told him that would not happen. He also stated that he felt that ATF had no
jurisdiction to investigate a house fire. I advised Higman to attempt no further contact with me,
and that if he did, he may face arrest for threatening a federal officer. (Refer to audio recording
for complete details)
After speaking with Higman, I called the Falls Church FO SAs to advise them of the
conversation. We all agreed that Higman should be interviewed at his home in Tucson, AZ by
ATF agents, to ask him questions that I failed to ask during our conversation, and to put him on
notice, through ATF SAs other than myself, that ATF took the matter seriously and would seek
charges against him if he continued to threaten!intimidate me.
I called AD Gleysteen to advise him of the conversation I had with Higman. I advised that the
investigating agents were requesting that Higman be interviewed in Tucson, AZ. AD Gleysteen
said that would be a problem because if any investigative activity were to occur in Tucson, AZ,
SA Dobyns would be immediately made aware of the situation. I advised that I didnt see a
problem with that at all, and that perhaps he should be made aware regardless because this was a
threat situation, and ifHigman was willing to threaten me for investigating him, it is not too far a
leap to conclude he may be a threat to SA Dobyns who was the original complainant. AD
Gleysteen said that SA Dobyns is already under a heightened state of awareness due to more
serious threats, and he did not feel that he needed to be advised of this situation. I stated to AD
Gleysteen that the entire matter likely was discoverable in the Dobyns civil trial, as one witness
had threatened another, Higman stated that ATF had no jurisdiction to investigate the fire (this
information is germane to the civil case), and Higman wanted me to interview him and amend
my fire report. AD Gleysteen requested that we wait until the next day to make any decisions
about interviewing Higman.

DOJ CIVIL00000127
At approximately 10:17 p.m., I received the following e-mail from Washington FD ASAC John
Cooper:
"Hey Chris- was hoping to have more info for u tonight but unfortunately instead of
moving fast to take this to Arizona, the DADs and ADs have slowed it down and want to
revisit in the morning- not a good idea to me and I am still shaking trees but to no availreach out if necessary and hopefully things will move faster in the morning-"
On Wednesday, July 3, 2013, I went to the Falls Church FO where the digital recording I made
was downloaded from the recording device. The original was retained as evidence per ATF
orders. I received a copy of the recording.
I forwarded a copy of the Higman recording to AD Gleysteen at 11:13 a.m. AD Gleysteen
advised that he had shared the recording with ATF Chief Counsels Office.
At approximately 6:01 p.m., I called AD Gleysteen because I had not heard from him regarding
the interview ofHigman. AD Gleysteen stated AD Turk, Field Operations, or possibly simply
"Field Operations," had decided that Higman would not be interviewed any further. I reminded
him that the Washington FD SAs felt it was important to the case to conduct the further
interview of Higman, as did I. AD Gleysteen stated that this was not a normal situation, because
of the ongoing civil trial. I told AD Gleysteen that I believe that absent of the civil trial, there is
no question that ATF would instruct Phoenix FD SAs to interview Higman immediately. AD
Gleysteen agreed, but said that because of the civil case, it was very complicated, and SA
Dobyns may use the information about this incident to his advantage in the civil case. I told AD
Gleysteen that I completely disagreed with the reasoning behind the decision to not interview
Higman. I advised that a negative impact on DOJs defense of the civil case was not a good
reason to forgo an interview that everyone agreed needed to be done. I stated to AD Gleysteen
that I was reasonably sure that Higman posed no actual threat to me or my family, but he should
be made aware that such intimidation is unacceptable, and a visit from ATF agents at his home
would send that message far more clearly than my warnings over the phone. I also restated to
AD Gleysteen that I believed that this incident was discoverable in the civil trial for multiple
reasons, and that at a minimum, the DOJ attorneys should present this information to Judge
Allegra and allow him to decide if it should be released to SA Dobyns as discovery. AD
Gleysteen stated that he had provided all of the information to Rachel Bouman, ATF Counsel on
the Dobyns civil trial, and she would handle the issue from that point forward.
From July 4 to July 14, 2013 I was on annual leave and out of the area.
On July 16, 2013, I received an e-mail from Rachel Bouman providing reporting details for my
upcoming testimony in the Dobyns civil trial. I responded to Bouman as follows:
"I will be flexible.
I dont want to overstep my boundaries, but can you tell me if the UC/ID report and PRB
decision have been provided to SA Dobyns? Also, how was the situation with Chuck
Higman handled?
I just want to know what I may be questioned about."

DOJ CIVIL00000128
On July 17, 2013, Bouman responded:

"I saw that you sent an email yesterday and received it on my iphone, but for some reason
I cant find it again. Anyway, I wanted to respond and let you know that the ROI has
been produced and I expect you will be questioned about it. You also asked about a
Higman issue and Im not aware of any pending Higman issue relating to your
testimony."
After asking her if she was aware of the threatening phone call I had received from Higman, she
responded:
"I am aware of the voicemail and the call you had with him. I thought your original
email asked me about your testimony next week and I wasnt aware that the Higman
voicemail and call related to your testimony next week. Perhaps I misunderstood. Is that
information that you have relayed to Agent Dobyns or his attorney?"
I replied on July 17, 2013 as follows:

"I have not relayed any information to SA Dobyns or his attorney, or any other person
outside ofAD Gleysteen, IAD SAs, the Washington FD SAs who investigated the threat,
and OPSEC. That would be inappropriate.
My question!concern is this: One witness in this civil trial (Higman) contacted another
witness (me) in a threatening manner regarding issues I testified about in court (the IAD
fire investigation report I wrote). Higman also spoke about his beliefs regarding ATF
jurisdiction to investigate a house fire, an issue germane to the civil trial. Audio
recordings and ROIs were generated regarding this matter. Is this matter discoverable? I
was under the impression from AD Gleysteen that DOJ would present the matter to Judge
Allegra for a determination as to whether it is pertinent to SA Dobyns case in any way
such as impeachment of Higmans testimony.
This does relate to my testimony next week. If SA Dobyns has become aware of this
issue I dont want to be unprepared to answer questions about it. I also believe that ATF
should proactively get out in front of this matter so that it does not appear that we are
(again) withholding information in this case - I dont want to be a party to that.
Please let me know your thoughts about my concerns."

I sent a follow-up e-mail on July 18, 2013 that read:
"I would like to receive a response to my question below, as I am feeling very conflicted
about this matter. Have you forwarded the information about Higman to the DOJ
attorneys handling the Dobyns civil suit? Are they aware of this issue and my concerns?"

DOJ CIVIL00000129
Bouman replied:
"This matter has been referred to the DOJ attorneys for handling. If you have any
questions about it, please feel free to contact David Harrington."
I was beginning to feel very uncomfortable about the manner in which this issue was being
handled by ATF and DOJ. I decided to call two experienced attorneys who are completely
unconnected to this case to receive their advice on how I should proceed. One stated that this
incident is absolutely discoverable and it wasnt even close. Not only had one witness threatened
intimidated another, but Higmans comments constitute impeachment material, and Higman was
requesting that I amend a report that has already been entered into evidence as a business record.
This attorney recommended I draft a memorandum and provide it to lead counsel Harrington and
his immediate supervisor.
I contacted David Harrington and had a conference call with him and Corrine Niosi and another
DOJ attorney. I explained the entirety of this situation to him, as detailed above. I explained
that I believed this incident was discoverable and needed to be provided to Judge Allegra for his
determination as to whether is needed to be provided to SA Dobyns. Harrington advised that he
was an expert in civil discovery: He would make some calls to ATF to gather more info, then
decide if the information should be released to SA Dobyns.
I received a call from the second attorney I consulted, who agreed that the incident was
discoverable. This attorney stated that I had an affirmative duty to contact Judge Allegra myself
and ensure that he was made aware of this incident and it ramifications for the civil trial.
I am not comfortable with the situation I have been put it. I believe that ATF and DOJ should err
on the side of caution in this case, and at a minimum, allow Judge Allegra to decide this matter.

DOJ CIVIL00000130

DOJ CIVIL00000131
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pettaway, Dawn (CTV)

Friday, July 19, 2013 11:35 AM
Harrington, David (CTV)
RE: Here is the recording of the threat
Ok working on it
Sent= Thursday, July 18, 2013 5:08 PM
To= Pettaway, Dawn (CIV)
Subject= FW: Here is the recording of the threat
This is the other recording we need on CDs. Please call it "Higman Message." Thanks.

To= Harrington, David (CIV); Niosi, Corinne (CIV)
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004

From= Gleysteen, Michael
To= Bouman, Rachel A.
Per your request.

From= Plott, Gregory D.
Sent= Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:04 PM
To= Gleysteen, Michael
l:c= Trainor, Christopher J.
DOJ_CIVIL00000137

Michael Here is the recording. I did speak with John Ryan. He hasnt received any calls.
Greg
Greg Plott
Office: 202-648-5989
Mobile: 202-510-3325
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attached files are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above in connection with official business. This
communication may contain Sensitive But Unclassified information that may be statutorily or otherwise prohibited from being released without appropriate
approval. Any review, use, or dissemination of this e-mail message and any attached file(s) in any form outside of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms &
Explosives or the Department of Justice without express authorization is strictly prohibited.
From: Trainor, Christopher J.

Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:59 AM
To: PIott, Gregory D.
Subject: FW: Here is the recording of the threat
SAC Plott,
Here is the recording of the threat. It will play through iTunes.

Chris Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000138
From:
Sent:

To:
Subject:
Harrington, David (CIV); Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF)
Attachments:
DOJ_CIVIL00000212
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Harrington, David (CIV); Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF)
RE: Declaration of Michael Gleysteen 7-19-13 (Dobyns).docx
David, your failure to use the redline functions is clearly intended to make more work for Rachel. I ask that you cease
and desist that behavior.
Corinne A. Niosi
Trial Attorney
(202) 616-0391
To= Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF)
Subject= RE: Declaration of Michael Gleysteen 7-19-13 (Dobyns).docx
Corinnes revisions look good. I made a few possible edits of my own - unfortunately not to Corrines draft and no in
redline - in the attachment.
From: Niosi, Corinne (CIV)

To= Harrington, David (CIV); Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF)
Subject= Declaration of Michael Gleysteen 7-19-13 (Dobyns).docx
DOJ_CIVIL00000215
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

RE: Trainor
So, perhaps we can tell Rachel that we see it most likely playing out in one of the two ways discussed below, and we
think that it will be difficult for Trainor to get his views out ahead of us? (Not saying it cant happen, but we think its
more likely that we will be able to get out our position -- which you stated below -- before he can tell the Court about
his disagreement with DO J).
Corinne A. Niosi
Trial Attorney
(202) 616-0391

I think that is the more likely scenario and then we tell the Court that Trainor has his own personal complaint about ATF
handling of a supposed threat against him, that we have looked at it, that he needs to address it internally at ATF, that
we have told Trainor this, and that his complaint has no bearing on this case.

Thats what I was thinking too actually. If he calls the court, we will have a discussion on the first day of trial, and we can
control the content of the discussion, right? But, what happens Trainor decides not to call the Court before Monday
morning -- and he might not because Rachel sent him an email asking him to hold off on doing anything until Monday
when someone from Chief Counsels office can speak to him -- and instead shows up with a declaration on Tuesday. Im
trying think about how this would play out? Would he take the stand and turn to the Court and say I have a declaration
that I want to submit about an issue that I think needs to be brought to the Courts attention? What would Allegra do in
response? Look at us and say what is this about? At that point, do we essentially have to disclose everything, albeit in
our own words, and he (Trainor) essentially gets what he wants?
Corinne A. Niosi
Trial Attorney
(202) 616-0391

DOJ_CIVIL00000232

Plus, frankly, ATF forgets that there is no mechanism for Trainor to submit anything to the Court. As soon as Trainor
calls the Court, Judge Allegra will be asking us what is going on.

I do think we need to wait to hear from them. Bryant and Don have been adamant that there is no reason to bring this
to the Courts attention. I dont think we can agree to do a filing unless they say it is ok, particularly because I dont
agree that we should file something.
Corinne A. Niosi
Trial Attorney
(202) 616-0391

Thanks, Corinne. I want to gey back to Rachel. But I guess for the moment we wait to see what Bryant and Don say.

I agree with you. Im not even sure how we "proactively" address this without implicitly acknowledging that we think
theres a problem or without suggesting that we are seeking the Courts assistance in controlling an ATF employee.
I will be in the office until about 8:15 am, then back in the office around 1 pm. Ill be available by phone in between.
When I get back to the office, I should have a draft of the document that we discussed yesterday.
Corinne A. Niosi
Trial Attorney
(202) 616-0391
DOJ_CIVIL00000233

him.

Subject: Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000234

Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Washinl~ton, DC 20226
Tel: 202.648.7004
DOJ_CIVIL00000235
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Re: Higman ~ssue
But if he tries to carry it to the stand the judge will ask what it is and that gets the issue out in front of the Judge. What
makes us think he will listen to us and leave it with us?

Yes and the judge will not allow him to carry it to the stand in any event. We will have to arrange it so that he leaves the
original and copies at the table with us - however "distasteful" he may find that.

If he walks into the courtroom with a document in his hand, then that will be a red flag.


To all,
DOJ_CIVIL00000241

Chris Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000242
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Fw: Higman ~ssue
I dont want to muddy it up but we need to consider Bryants question about whether Allegra would want to know about
this against the backdrop of the Valarie Bacon thing and Trainors horse trading testimony.

approach?


DOJ_CIVIL00000243

To all,
Chris Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000244
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

JAY ANTHONY DOBYNS,
Plaintiff,
V.
THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 08-700C
(Judge Allegra)
GOVERNMENTS NOTICE CONCERNING WITNESS COMMUNICATIONS

The Government files this notice to advise the Court that there has been a communication
between two trial witnesses, Mr. Chuck Higman and Special Agent (SA) Chris Trainor.
SA Trainor prepared an Internal Affairs Report of Investigation regarding ATFs
response to the August 10,2008 fire at Agent Dobyns house (fire ROI). The fire ROI was
admitted into evidence as PX 272 on or about June 10 or June 11, 2012. The fire ROI examines
the actions of Chuck Higman, a former ATF Resident Agent in Charge (RAC), as well as of
other individuals. Mr. Higman testified at trial in Tucson on June 12, 2013, about his
involvement in ATFs response to the fire at Agent Dobyns house. Later in the day on June 12,
plaintiff called Chris Trainor as a trial witness. SA Trainors testimony continued on June 13.
The topic of SA Trainors testimony was his preparation of the fire ROI. His testimony about
the fire ROI concluded on June 13, 2013. Plaintiff has listed SA Trainor as a witness for the DC
portion of the trial to testify regarding a wholly separate IA report of investigation relating to the
recall of Agent Dobyns covert identification in November 2007 (covert identification ROI),
which SA Trainor also prepared. Although Agent Trainor is expected to testify regarding the
covert identification ROI, his testimony about the fire ROI is closed. Thus, at this point, the trial
DOJ_CIVIL00000251
record of the testimony of Higman and Trainor is closed. Trial adjourned in Tucson on June 21,
2013.
Mr. Higman left a voicemail for SA Trainor on June 28, 2013, after the trial in Tucson
concluded, and thus after both Higman and Trainor had testified on June 12-13. Agent Trainor
apparently perceived the voicemail as potentially threatening. Based upon a follow-up telephone
conversation between Agent Trainor and Mr. Higman that they had on July 2, 2013, and an
investigation conducted by ATFs Washington Field Division, ATF determined that the
voicemail was not a threat against SA Trainor and closed its investigation. SA Trainor agrees
with the conclusion that the voicemail was not a threat.
In the July 2, 2013 telephone call (which SA Trainor audio recorded), Mr. Higman
informed SA Trainor that he had contacted SA Trainor because he was upset that SA Trainor
been critical of Mr. Higman in the fire ROI without having first interviewed him, and that he
wanted SA Trainor to interview him and amend his ROI to include that interview. Agent Trainor
said that he would not do so.
Evidence of the telephone call is not admissible at trial. This telephone call is a dispute
between two people who have already given trial testimony about the fire ROI. Although the
subject of their discussion relates to issues in the trial, their out-of-court dispute does not affect
this litigation or have anything to do with this case. Therefore, the contents of their discussion
are not relevant to this litigation.
Indeed, neither Mr. Higman nor SA Trainor have any right or ability for that matter to
add their additional views about the fire ROI to the trial record. (Notably, however, Mr.
Higmans call made no reference to such a desire.) Neither party has a right to recall a witness
merely because the witnesses have additional views about trial matters.
DOJ_CIVIL00000252
Nor could plaintiff use the call as impeachment evidence. The call demonstrates that Mr.
Higman is upset that SA Trainor issued a report that criticized Mr. Higman. Mr. Higmans anger
towards SA Trainor is not evidence that could be used to impeach Mr. Higman s prior testimony
because it is not a prior inconsistent statement. Mr. Higmans comments about the fire ROIs
statements are not inconsistent with his trial testimony; indeed, the call simply reiterates -perhaps in more colorful language -- his position stated at trial that he disagreed with the ROIs
statements. Mr. Higmans displeasure at SA Trainor is not admissible evidence of Mr. Higmans
character or is not admissible to impeach Mr. Higmans credibility. See Fed. R. Evid. 404, 405,
& 608.
Furthermore, Federal Rule of Evidence 615 is not implicated by the contact because
neither witness discussed his trial testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 615 ("At a partys request, the
court must order witnesses excluded so that they can hear other witnesses testimony.").
Additionally, Rule 615 is not at issue because both Mr. Higman and SA Trainor already testified
on this subject.
Finally, we note that the contact between Mr. Higman and SA Trainor has been addressed
through appropriate internal ATF investigative channels. ATF has concluded that it was not a
threat against SA Trainor. Similarly, during the call, Mr. Higman did not attempt to influence
SA Trainors trial testimony. Mr. Higman merely requested that he be interviewed; SA Trainor
said that request would not be granted.
DOJ_CIVIL00000253
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kinner, Donald (CIV)

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 5:47 PM
Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Harrington, David (CIV)
RE: Dobyns Trial
Im in a meeting, I will be in reviewer meeting tomorrow as well. Hopefully free after 4 and maybe in the afternoon
tomorrow. Well find time to discuss this.
Sent= Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:09 PM
To= Harrington, David (CIV); Kinner, Donald (CIV)
Subject= RE: Dobyns Trial
To clarify, when Trainor says:
Audio recordings and ROIs were generated regarding this matter.
I believe that Trainor is saying that based upon Higmans call to Trainor, which Trainor considered to be a threatening
call, ATF commenced an internal investigation about a potential threat to Trainor. In turn, that generated Report of
Investigations (ROIs).
Corinne A. Niosi
Trial Attorney
(202) 616-0391

To= Kinner, Donald (CIV)
Subject= Fw: Dobyns Trial
Don We have another issue to discuss in the Dobyns case. See the e-mails below.
I am out this afternoon interviewing one of our trial witnesses and have additional witness interviews tomorrow
afternoon. Would tomorrow morning work for you to meet with Corinne and me?
As to the substance of Trainors e-mail, below, he is probably referring to the fire investigation ROI. There is absolutely
nothing to his suggestion that we have improperly withheld that or anything else. Nor is his post-trial testimony
disagreement with Higman relevant or admissible as best I can tell.
This appears to be another instance where Chris Trainor has become personally and emotionally involved. I feel he has
lost all semblance of objectivity. We can discuss this further when we get together.
David
DOJ_CIVIL00000265

Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:10 PM
To: Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF); Harrington, David (CIV)
Subject: RE: Dobyns Trial
I dont think that I realized that there was a ROI prepared about Higmans call to Trainor. In any event,
though:
Why does Trainor think that Higman had any reason to know that Trainor testified? It sounds like
Higman was calling to complain about the fire ROI; in fact, he asked (I think) that Trainor interview
Higman. He did not ask for Trainor to change his testimony; nor would there be any way for that to
happen because Trainors testimony on this is over.
Higman is allowed to have his opinions about ATF jurisdiction; that does not mean that his opinion gets
introduced at court simply because it does not square with Trainors own views. If it was not presented
at trial that is because neither party thought it was relevant -- thats the adversarial system. But, in any
event, I think Higman did testify about his position on ATF jurisdiction. So Higman s restating his
opinion out of court does not affect the litigation at all.
Audio recordings and ROIs about an issue that does not affect the litigation is not relevant and not
discoverable; so he is wrong that "This does relate to my testimony next week."
We already know that Trainors impressions of what Glysteen says are often skewed and inaccurate, but
did Glysteen suggest that the issue would be raised with Judge Allegra?
"I dont want to be unprepared to answer questions about it." I dont see what there is to discuss with
him.
"I also believe that ATF should proactively get out in front of this matter so that it does not appear that
we are (again) withholding information in this case - I dont want to be a party to that." Who is the "we"
and what does the "again" refer to? I certainly have not withheld anything and take serious offense if
that is what hes suggesting.
Corinne A. Niosi
Trial Attorney
(202) 616-0391
From." Bouman, Rachel A. (ATF)

Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:44 AM
To." Harrington, David (CIV); Niosi, Corinne (CIV)
Subject." Fwd: Dobyns Trial
Im not sure how to respond to this. David, lets discuss after our meeting with Billy today.
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
DOJ_CIVIL00000266

From: "Trainor, Christopher J." <Christopher.Trainor@atf.gov>
Date: July 17, 2013, 11:41:57 AMEDT
To: "Bouman, Rachel A." <Rachel.Bouman@atf.gov>
Cc: "Machonis, Daniel J." <Daniel.Machonis@atf.gov>
Subject: RE: Dobyns Trial
I have not relayed any inTormation to SA Dobyns or his attorney, or any other
person outside oT AD Gleysteen, IAD SAs, the Washington FD SAs who investigated
the threat, and OPSEC.
That would be inappropriate.
My question/concern is this:
One witness in this civil trial (Higman) contacted
another witness (me) in a threatening manner regarding issues I testiTied about
in court (the IAD TiPe investigation PepoPt I wrote).
Higman also spoke about
his belieTs regarding ATF jurisdiction to investigate a house Tire, an issue
germane to the civil trial.
Audio recordings and ROIs were generated regarding
this matter.
Is this matter discoverable?
I was under the impression TPom AD
Gleysteen that DO] would present the matter to ]udge A11egra Tot a determination
as to whether it is pertinent to SA Dobyns case in any way such as impeachment oT
Higmans testimony.
This does relate to my testimony next week.
IT SA Dobyns has become aware oT
this issue I dont want to be unprepared to answer questions about it.
I also
believe that ATF should proactively get out in Tront oT this matter so that it
does not appear that we are (again) withholding inTormation in this case - I
dont want to be a party to that.
Please let me know your thoughts about my concerns.
Chris Trainor
From:
Sent:
To:
Bouman, Rachel A.
Wednesday, ]uly 17,
Trainor,
Subject:
Re:
2013 11:01 AM
Christopher 3.
Dobyns Trial
Hi Chris-I am aware oT the voicemail and the call you had with him.
I thought your
original email asked me about your testimony next week and I wasnt aware that
the Higman voicemail and call related to your testimony next week.
Perhaps I
misunderstood.
Is that inTormation that you have relayed to Agent Dobyns or his
attorney?
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
ChieT, OTTice oT Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau oT Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms & Explosives
Tel: 202.648.7004
On 3ul 17, 2013, at 10:53 AM, "Trainor, Christopher 3."
<Christopher.Trainor@~=gov> wrote:
> Are you not aware oT the threatening phone call I got Trom Higman?
3
DOJ_CIVIL00000267

From: Boumanj Rachel A.
Sent:
To:
Wednesdayj
Trainor~
Subject:
3uly 17~
2013 10:45 AM
Christopher 3.
Dobyns Trial
Hi Chris-> I saw that you sent an email yesterday and received it on my iphone~ but ~or
some reason I cant gind it again.
Anyway~ I wanted to respond and let you know
that the ROI has been produced and I expect you will be questioned about it.
You
also asked about a Higman issue and Im not aware og any pending Higman issue
relating to your testimony.
>
> I will plan to touch base with youj most likely via text~ on Monday around
lunch time to advise you on when you need to make your way to the courthouse.
Thanks~
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Chie~ O~ice o~ Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau o~ Alcohol~
Tobaccoj Firearms & Explosives
99 New York Avenue~ NE~ Suite 3.E-320
Washington~ DC 20226
Tel: 202.648.7004
DOJ_CIVIL00000268
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:14 PM
Harrington, David (CIV); Niosi, Corinne (CIV)
RE: HIGMAN Call
Youre welcome. Never a dull day around here...

Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004

From: Harrington, David (CIV) [mailto:David.Harrington@usdoj.gov]
To= Bouman, Rachel A.; Niosi, Corinne (CIV)
Subject= RE: HIGMAN Call
Thanks for keeping us informed, Rachel.

To: Harrington, David (CIV); Niosi, Corinne (CIV)
Subject: FW: HIGMAN Call
Chris surreptitiously recorded Higman last night. Please do not disseminate, but I share this in case it becomes an issue
with Chriss testimony during the next phase of trial.
Rachel
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
DOJ_CIVIL00000514

From: Gleysteen, Michael
Subject: FW: HIGMAN Call
For your records.

Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:13 AM
To: Gleysteen, Michael
Cc: PIott, Gregory D.; Machonis, Daniel J.
Subject: HIGMAN Call
Mike,
Here is the HIGMAN call.
Chris Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000515
From:
Sent:

Thursday, July 18, 2013 6:16 PM
To:
Subject:
Harrington, David (CIV); Niosi, Corinne (CIV)
Attachments:
HIGMAN Threat.m4a
FW: Here is the recording of the threat
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004

From: Gleysteen, Michael
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:41 PM
Per your request.

From: Plott, Gregory D.
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:04 PM
To: Gleysteen, Michael
l::c: Trainor, Christopher J.
Michael Here is the recording. I did speak with John Ryan. He hasnt received any calls.
Greg
Greg Plott
Office: 202-648-5989
Mobile: 202-510-3325
DOJ_CIVIL00000521

Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:59 AM
To: PIott, Gregory D.
SAC Plott,
Here is the recording of the threat. It will play through iTunes.

Chris Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000522
From:
Sent:

To:
Cc:
Subject:
Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Veronica.N.Onyema@usdoj.gov

RE: We need to talk. When are you available?
Hes available if I come up in the next little while. Shall we call you at your desk in 5 minutes?
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004

Sent= Friday, July 19, 2013 1:25 PM
To= Bouman, Rachel A.
Cc= Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Veronica.N.Onyema@usdoj,gov
Subject= RE: We need to talk. When are you available?
Please.
Sent= Friday, July 19, 2013 1:20 PM
Cc= Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Veronica.N.Onyema@usdoj.gov
Subject= RE: We need to talk. When are you available?
I spoke with Michael this morning and am prepared to prepare a draft declaration for him, but I can go up to his office
and call you from there if you want to speak with him directly. Do you want me to see if hes available?
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
DOJ_CIVIL00000527

Cc: Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Onyema, Veronica N. (CIV)
Yes. We are also going to need to talk directly to Chris Trainors AD, Michael Glysteen (sp?), today if possible.

I just returned from a meeting and have another one starting shortly. Shall we plan around 1:30?
Rachel A. Bouman
Tel: 202.648.7004
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:57 AM
Subject: We need to talk. When are you available?
David A. Harrington
Senior Trial Counsel
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 480
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 616-0465
DOJ_CIVIL00000528
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

JAY ANTHONY DOBYNS
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
THE UNITED STATES,
)
)
)
No. 08-700C
(Judge Allegra)
)
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL GLEYSTEEN

I, Michael Gleysteen, having personal knowledge of the matters set out in this
declaration, hereby declare:
1.
I have been the Assistant Director (AD) of the Office of Professional
Responsibility and Security Operations (OPRSO) at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms & Explosives (ATF) since November 2012. As AD of OPRSO, I oversee a
number of divisions, including the Internal Affairs Division (IAD). Special Agent Chris
Trainor is a SA in the IAD. I am the fourth-level supervisor in Special Agent (SA) Chris
Trainor s chain of command.
2.
On July 2, 2013, SA Trainor notified me that he received a voicemail on
his work iPhone from retired Resident Agent in Charge (RAC) Chuck Higman that SA
Trainor perceived as a threat. The voicemail apparently was left for SA Trainor on
Friday, June 28, 2013, but Agent Trainor did not receive the voicemail until Tuesday,
July 2, 2013. I listened to the voicemail. I then received a transcript of the voicemail and
re-listened to the voicemail. Given SA Trainors concerns about his safety and his
perception that this was a threat, I wanted the issue run to ground. Because SA Trainor
works in Virginia and IAD does not investigate involving one of their own, I contacted

DOJ CIVIL00000534
Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the Washington Field Division (WFD), Carl Vasilko,
and requested his assistance in having agents in the WFD investigate a potential threat to
a Federal agent.
3.
SA Trainor worked with WFD agents to tape-record a July 3, 2013
telephone conversation between SA Trainor and Mr. Higman. I listened to the recorded
conversation and, in light of that discussion, concluded that Mr. Higman did not make
any threat against SA Trainor. I contacted AD of Field Operations, Ron Turk, and we
determined that a criminal case against Mr. Higman for threatening a Federal law
enforcement officer could not be made based on what had transpired in the June 28
voicemail, particularly in light of the subsequent July 3, 2013 telephone call between SA
Trainor and Mr. Higman. Therefore, we concluded that the perceived threat had been run
to ground and the case would be closed.
4.
I contacted SA Trainor and asked how he was feeling about the situation.
He told me that after speaking with Mr. Higman he felt 100% better. I asked if there was
anything else that we needed to do for him and he said no. I told him he could contact
me directly if he ever needed anything from me with regard to this issue.
I declare under penalty of the perjury that the foregoing is true and accurate to the
best of my knowledge.
Dated this
Michael Gleysteen

DOJ CIVIL00000535
From:
Sent:
Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:30 AM
To:
Subject:
Niosi, Corinne (CIV); Oliver, P. Davis (C[V); Onyema, Veronica N. (C[V)

FW: How was trial today?
FYI
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:25 AM
To: Davidson, Jeanne (CIV)
Cc: Snee, Bryant (CIV); Kinner, Donald (CIV)
Subject: RE: How was trial today?
Jeanne-
The trial today went well. Chris Trainor, the agent who wrote the two internal Reports of Investigation we are dealing
with, wrapped up. Once again, he was not a favorable witness. However, Corinne did a nice job establishing
shortcomings in his second report during her cross-examination. The word from ATF is that Trainor is very unhappy that
he was subjected to real cross examination. On the other hand, I am told that ATF is very pleased with our approach.
Plaintiff did a decent job rehabilitating him by pointing out that his ATF supervisors signed off on the ROI. Nothing we
could do about that.
The other witness to testify was William Hoover. Mr. Hoover was the Assistant Director for Field Operations at the time
of the fire and was involved in negotiating the settlement agreement. He provided his own view of what settlement
agreement terms meant (supportive of our interpretation), described his involvement with the investigation fire (limited
because he was in DC), explained why ATF transferred the investigation to the FBI (ATFs continued involvement was a
"no-win" situation), and testified that ATF and Jay Dobyns himself were of the view there were no extant threats in 2007
when Dobyns fictitious IDs were withdrawn. All in all, he was a very effective witness.
With Mr. Hoover, Judge Allegra once again inquired about the basis for the $373,000 settlement payment. I asked some
follow up questions to show that it was not really clear what that sum reflected. We think that Judge Allegra is still
thinking about ruling that if there was a pain and suffering component to the settlement, emotional distress damages
for breach of the agreement are recoverable. Such damages remain the only damages potentially recoverable in this
case.
There are a few other noteworthy points. First, George Gillett, the Phoenix Assistant Special Agent in Charge, who we
were concerned about, did a good job on the stand Tuesday explaining that ATF was playing a supporting role in the fire
investigation, and that the Pima County Sherriffs Office was the first to respond and was the lead agency. Davis did a
nice job prepping him in difficult circumstances. Second, as I explained last weekend, we thought that Chris Trainor
might volunteer information about a supposed threat that he says he received from another witness. That did not
happen and nothing about the incident has been raised with the court. Third, yesterday, ATF issued letters clearing the
three individuals who were the subjects of the second Trainor Report of Investigation on the recall of fictitious
identification documents from Agent Dobyns. We will be adding exhibit numbers and moving to admit those letters
today.
David
DOJ_CIVIL00000578

From: Davidson, Jeanne (CIV)
Subject: How was trial today?
DOJ_CIVIL00000579
From:
Snee, Bryan~ (CIV)
To:
Harrinaton.
(CIr.:
David
(CIV~
Kinner. Donald
Cc:
(CIV~
Niosi. Corinne
Re: Higman Issue
Saturday, .July 20, 2013 4-:59:39 PM
Subject:
Date:
OK - we write a reasonably concise e-mail to Jeanne explaining the situation generally, that ATF
defers to us, that anything can go wrong with Allegra but given that Trainor has withdrawn his
request that we apprise the judge, we see no reason to raise it affirmatively, but will have our
prepared response ready (explain what that is) and will have materials handy. You should expect
that she will pass to Joyce who will pass the Jon Olin - there is no lack of interest in this case in
Main. If you want, I can take a look at it first. Bryant
Co: Niosi, Corinne (CIV)
Subject: FW: Higman Issue
l just received this e-mail saying that ATF is comfortable deferring to our judgment on what to raise
with the Court and when to raise it.

Hi David-I think we had a good discussion about this issue. ATF doesnt have anything further to add. We
trust DOJs judgment about how to proceed and will defer to DOJ to make the call about whether
to raise this and when.
I spoke with Michael Gleysteen. He reviewed Chriss statement last night and talked with Dan
Machonis. Michael is concerned about a number of things relating to Chris, including that he
seems to be coming after everyone, including me. He will not be speaking with Chris any further.
Hes going to review his declaration and then he and I will figure out how to get it from him this
weekend as he will be on travel this coming week.
If you want to discuss anything further on this, please let me know. I need to run some errands
over the next little while and I plan to float in the pool at some point. But, will return a call if
necessa ry.
Rachel
RachelA. Bouman
Chief, Office of EqualEmployment Opportunity
DOJ_CIVIL00000939

Tel: 202.648.7004
On Jul 20, 2013, at 12:21 PM, "Harrington, David (CIV)" <David.Harrington@usdoj.gov> wrote:
Rachel In light of this e-mail, does ATF still believe that it makes sense to affirmatively raise
with Judge Allegra the issue of the alleged threat to Chris Trainor by Chuck Higman?
Thanks.
David

Cc: Machonis, Daniel J. (ATF); PIott, Gregory D. (ATF); Gleysteen, Michael (ATF)
To all,
After consulting with FLEOA Attorney Larry Berger regarding this issue, I have decided
that I will not independently contact Judge Allegra to report this matter for his
consideration.
I will execute a finalized version of the statement I prepared detailing this matter, and
will provide a signed copy to the DOJ attorneys prior to my testimony. I will have the
original in my possession when called to the stand. If I am questioned about whether
I have had contact with any party/witnesses during the break between my testimony,
I will answer "Yes" and produce the statement documenting this incident. If I am not
asked this question, or otherwise directly questioned about this matter, I will not
reference it.
Attorney Berger made me realize that my sense of justice has been fine tuned through
my experiences in criminal courts and my dealings with AUSAs over the last 23 years.
Different rules apply in civil courts: Some of these I find distasteful. Regardless, I will
continue to strive to be as professional and fair as I can be.
Chris Trainor
DOJ_CIVIL00000940

176 FILED Exhibits To Objection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

176 FILED Exhibits To Objection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 2 of 115

RULE 56(f) DECLARATION OF JAY ANTHONY DOBYNS

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 3 of 115

e. The personal/professional involvement of ATF Assistant Director

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 4 of 115

As to the DOJ Attorneys Accused of Fraud, and Rachael Bouman:

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 5 of 115

Fraud and Misconduct Allegations:

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 6 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 7 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 8 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 9 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 10 of 115

conclusion as I, that Higmans voicemail message was a threat, namely Special

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 11 of 115

correct in that but, simply because Trainor adamantly demanded and

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 12 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 13 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 14 of 115

prepared to prepare a draft declaration for him, but I can go up to his

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 15 of 115

b. In his Bouman/Harrington/Niosi prepared declaration almost two years

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 16 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 17 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 18 of 115

gregory.e.schossler@usdoj.gov). He did not write a summary of the

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 19 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 20 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 21 of 115

Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, no

witness was angered by their treatment by the trial team during

I know the truth to be that Atteberry was incensed behind Harringtons

attempts to mischaracterize the facts behind Bacons conversations with

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 22 of 115

physically separate Harrington and Atteberry; hardly the reaction of a seasoned

Based on discovery documents, OPR appears to pay very little attention to

a very important question Harringtons threat to Trainors career (repeated

disclosure documents as rebuttal.

Harrington attempts to answer the question of his threat to Trainor with

This statement is too parsed; we must question on variations of

Harringtons conditions for the statement.

The Special Master appears to readily accept the recollection of Niosi on

this issue - herself in a critical position for self-preservation based on her

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 23 of 115

Special Master was provided no information by DOJ to balance his conclusion.

declaration or affidavit either.

Trainor was fully aware of the repercussions he would face by

whistleblowing the threats he received from Higman and Harrington. It is logical

Only DOJs own attorneys have provided declarations. Gleysteens

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 24 of 115

No declaration or affidavit from anyone who would or might hold an

In sum, DOJ has provided the Special Master a one-sided interpretation of

Based on facts, evidence and my eleven year effort to uncover corruption

accurate and truthful.

day of July, 2015.

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 25 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 26 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 27 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 28 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 29 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 30 of 115

Case 1:08-cv-00700-PEC Document 447-1 Filed 08/27/15 Page 31 of 115