1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1117

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) No. 12 CR 124

Government, )

)

Vs. ) Chicago, Illinois

)

WILLIAM BEAVERS, ) March 21, 2013

)

Defendant. ) 9:14 o'clock a.m.

VOLUME 6

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES B. ZAGEL

AND A JURY

For the Government:

THE HONORABLE GARY S. SHAPIRO,

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

BY: Matthew Michael Getter

Carrie E. Hamilton

Debra Riggs Bonamici

Samuel B. Cole

Assistant United States Attorneys

219 South Dearborn Street

Suite 500

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-5300

For the Defendant:

KAPLAN & SOROSKY

BY: Sheldon M. Sorosky

158 West Erie

Chicago, Illinois 60610

(312) 640-1776

Court Reporter:

Blanca I. Lara, CSR, CP, RPR

219 South Dearborn Street

Room 2504

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 435-5895

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 1 of 143 PageID #:1776
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1118

Appearances (continued:)

For the defendant:

OFFICES OF AARON B. GOLDSTEIN

BY: Aaron Benjamin Goldstein

6133 South Ellis

Chicago, Illinois 60637

(773) 752-6950

OFFICES OF LAUREN FAUST KAESEBERG

BY: Lauren Faust Kaeseberg

2140 N. Lincoln Park West

Suite 307

Chicago, Illinois 60614

(773) 517-0622

LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL E. ADAM

BY: Samuel Forbes Adam

Samuel Adam, Jr.

6133 South Ellis Avenue

Suite 200

Chicago, Illinois 60637

(312) 726-2326

Henderson Adam, LLC

BY: Victor P. Henderson

The Insurance Center Building

330 South Wells, Suite 1401

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 262-2900

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 2 of 143 PageID #:1777
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1119

INDEX OF EXAMINATION

WITNESS PAGE

Opening Argument on Behalf of the Government By

Ms. Hamilton........................................

1149

Closing Argument on Behalf of the Defendant By

Mr. Adam, Jr........................................

1187

Closing Argument in Rebuttal By Mr. Getter..........1214

Jury Charge By the Court............................1231

Verdict.............................................1253

EXHIBITS

....................................................

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 3 of 143 PageID #:1778
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:18:10

09:18:37

09:19:12

09:19:34

09:20:17

1120

(Proceedings taken in open court:)

THE COURT: We have some instruction issues left?

MS. BONAMICI: Yes, we do, Judge.

Judge, I provided you and the defense this morning

with a modified set of instructions that includes instructions

responsive to 3 of the 4 outstanding matters --- or, rather, 5

of the 6 outstanding matters. One of the outstanding matters

not introduced in the instructions and that's number 21 that

you took under advisement. Otherwise, if you'd like, I can go

through the outstanding matters in order.

THE COURT: That's a great relief ....

MS. BONAMICI: Pardon me?

THE COURT: I found the pad on which I made my notes.

Actually, let's go back a little to make sure things

are in order, and that's the 13, which are the -- okay, 13, you

put that one in. Are we okay with 13?

MS. BONAMICI: Do you have a problem with it?

MR. GOLDSTEIN: No.

THE COURT: Okay.

Then the next one is 21.

MS. BONAMICI: Correct.

THE COURT: For the defense? This is the one where

Pansier appears to be maybe the case.

MS. BONAMICI: With respect to the statute, correct.

There are, of course, a lot of cases dealing with this issue in

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 4 of 143 PageID #:1779
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:20:31

09:20:43

09:20:57

09:21:13

09:21:28

1121

the context of the statute.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, I mean, our issue is still

the same as far as the government not having proved all of

these issues.

THE COURT: I'm overruling the objection. I'm giving

the instruction.

MS. BONAMICI: Okay.

THE COURT: The next thing I have on my list is 26 A.

MS. BONAMICI: Correct. This is one, Judge, where we

have submitted a substitute and we've also added to the

description of the cases.

THE COURT: Right.

MS. BONAMICI: We were discussing this before. What

we were talking about is the issue how to communicate the

concept of a bona fide or genuine loan.

THE COURT: Right. We had a lot of discussion with

the English word "genuine."

MS. BONAMICI: Yes, we did. We did. So what we've

done is, I believe, we removed the word "genuine" except -- in

fact, I think we might've removed it entirely.

THE COURT: You did.

MS. BONAMICI: The goal was to give the concept

without using --

THE COURT: I'll read the revised one into the record:

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 5 of 143 PageID #:1780
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:21:45

09:22:04

09:22:22

09:23:09

09:23:52

1122

"... when a taxpayer receives a loan, he incurs an

obligation to repay that loan. Because of that

obligation to repay, loan proceeds do not constitute

income. The transfer of money from one party to

another constitutes a loan only if at the time of the

transfer the parties to the transaction intend that

the person who receives the money actually will be

obligated to repay it. In determining whether the

defendant has received particular funds as a loan or

as income, you should consider all of the facts and

circumstances surrounding the defendant's receipt of

the funds."

MR. GOLDSTEIN: We agree with everything except the

word "actually" which is where we left off yesterday.

THE COURT: Exactly. But it's --

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Because, again, it's --

THE COURT: The problem is that within the existing

tax law, you can have an undocumented loan, and it's a loan,

and what we have here is an undocumented loan claim. So we

spent a fair amount of time trying to search what is it that

you tell the jury that if it's a loan, it's not income, but

there's no written evidence, one way or the other, on the

subject. So you're trying to communicate to the jury that if

it is a loan, if they find it is a loan, but we don't have a

lot of guidance because there's no written loan document.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 6 of 143 PageID #:1781
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:24:26

09:21:54

09:25:12

09:25:42

09:26:02

1123

So the government proposed something in which they

spoke of the loan as being genuine, an instruction one does not

ordinarily see in criminal cases except perhaps counterfeiting

and other things. And I don't think anybody who I see standing

before me today was terribly fond of the use of the word

"genuine," it's just what they had at the time. This is a

better solution, the government's proposed solution:

"... constitutes a loan only if at the time of the

transfer the parties to the transaction intend that

the person who receives the money actually will be

obligated to repay it ... "

this is their phrase. Speak to this.

MR. GOLDSTEIN: The word "obligated" is already in

there. The definition of "obligated" includes that you have an

actual need to repay this, you have an obligation. So what

we've done with this word "actually" "genuine," any words, is a

problem. It overemphasis, it almost sort of flags, "oh, you

need, you need certain proof." It emphasizes something that

already is in the word. So you're putting undue emphasis on

something that does not need to be emphasized.

We have the next paragraph which specifically says

that you're to consider all the facts and circumstances. So

that really does address the issue that the Court has been

talking about which is, "well, it's undocumented." And the

government put on an expert witness to say, well, here are the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 7 of 143 PageID #:1782
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:26:17

09:26:42

09:27:01

09:27:20

09:27:38

1124

factors that you look at or that he would look at, you know,

whether there's documentation, whether it's being paid back,

and all these types of things. So we have that in the last

paragraph.

"Obligated" says when someone has an obligation, they

actually have a requirement, a responsibility, to do whatever

it is they're obligated to do. So, actually, it just puts

undue emphasis when it is not needed. And, quite frankly,

grammatically, it doesn't even make sense.

THE COURT: Want to speak to this?

MS. BONAMICI: Well, Your Honor, another option would

be to take out "actually "and to go back to the concept of

using a word that demonstrates that it is a true or bona fide

or genuine loan. So in that case, we could add, in the first

line of the third sentence "the transfer of money from one

party to another constitutes a true loan."

The idea here is to--and I think this is completely

supported by the arguments of both the parties here--is to

distinguish between something that's merely called a loan by

one of the parties to the transaction and something that

actually is a loan. That's what this whole case is about.

There are cases that say -- many cases that say just

calling it a loan doesn't make it a loan. And, in fact, I

found one case where that sentence was actually included in the

jury instruction. This is our way of not being that heavy

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 8 of 143 PageID #:1783
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:27:55

09:28:12

09:28:32

09:29:04

09:29:24

1125

handed but still getting across the same concept.

MS. KAESEBERG: If I could just speak to that very

quickly? I think if you qualify the word "loan" and say

something is a true loan, or a genuine loan, or a bona fide

loan, it will be confusing and misleading to the jury because

there was testimony about things that are terms of art within

the income tax laws and then "loan" was used as a term that was

defined by witnesses or at least their understanding of what

that word meant was put into evidence. So I think to

characterize "loan" with anything in front of it is misleading

and would be confusing, frankly, to the jury.

THE COURT: In my view, it's a good instruction;

although, the way I get this is a little different. We're not

really talking about a loan here. It's not a definition of a

loan, it's a definition of a mental state. And the operative

phrase is not "actually will be obligated," the operative

phrase here is "the parties to the transaction intend that the

person who receives the money actually will be obligated to

repay it." That is, in the context of this case, a good and

valid description of the mental state. So I'm overruling the

objection.

What's next?

MS. BONAMICI: The next thing is good faith, Your

Honor. The defendant had proposed -- well, let's step back.

The government has proposed good faith instruction with respect

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 9 of 143 PageID #:1784
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:29:41

09:29:58

09:30:23

09:30:45

09:31:12

1126

to Counts 2, 3 and 4, the defendant proposed an additional good

faith instruction taken from the pattern to follow the elements

instruction for Count 1.

THE COURT: And that's defendant's number 1.

MS. BONAMICI: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. BONAMICI: What the government has done is

proposed a substitute good faith instruction which is present

in the new packet at 23 A. And what this instruction does is

attempt to be a compromise. It combines -- it's a combined

good faith instruction for all the counts. It deals with the

two mental states that are involved.

We would note we've also included citations to a

number of authorities, and this is just a small sampling, which

I'm sure you're aware. The authorities say that the defendant

is not actually entitled to do a good faith instruction if the

elements -- or if the other instructions convey all of the same

points, that's true in this case, but as a compromise we are

offering this proposal. This would take the place of

government instruction 23 and defense 1.

THE COURT: I'll read this into the record, too:

"If the defendant acted in good faith, then he lacked

the willfulness or corrupt intent required to prove

the charged offenses. For purposes of Count 1, the

defendant acted in good faith if he did not act for

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 10 of 143 PageID #:1785
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:31:30

09:31:46

09:32:04

09:32:31

09:32:49

1127

the purpose of obtaining an unlawful benefit for

himself. And for purposes of Counts 2, 3, and 4, if

at the time he filed or caused his tax returns to be

filed defendant honestly believed the truthfulness

and correctness of the statements that the government

has charged as being false. The defendant does not

have to prove his good faith; rather, the government

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to

Count 1 that the defendant acted with a purpose of

obtaining an unlawful benefit and with respect to

Counts 2, 3 and 4 that the defendant acted

willfully."

For the defense?

MS. KAESEBERG: Sorry, Your Honor. Looking at the

pattern.

THE COURT: Take your time. Take your time.

(Brief pause).

MS. KAESEBERG: What I'm looking at here is, and I

don't know if you're willing to entertain any argument on a

break potentially, but on the issue I'm looking at here, does

the new instruction offer -- sort of put an extra burden on the

defendant to prove good faith? I know the second paragraph

specifically says that the defendant does not have to prove his

good faith, but the way it's phrased in paragraph 1 is

different, it's sort of more than an active phrasing than the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 11 of 143 PageID #:1786
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:33:06

09:33:41

09:34:13

09:34:39

09:34:59

1128

phrasing in the pattern instruction, so I'm just worried that

it may put a little bit more of a burden on the defense to

prove that. So that's where my concern lies. I don't know if

you're willing to allow this to go -- if I could just have a

couple more minutes to look at it?

THE COURT: What I think you're seeing is the fact

that good faith is something that a defendant has to bring up,

it's a defense that can or cannot be made. So, basically,

you're going to tell the jury, based on what the defendant has

done or argued, that they have to consider whether he acted in

good faith, because they will not automatically have to

consider this. Somebody has to say "I did it in good faith."

And I guess you can say the defendant has the burden

of raising his hand and saying "I did it in good faith" or

introducing evidence to that effect. That's not the same thing

as saying he's got to prove good faith, and that's exactly what

the instruction says, he doesn't have to prove good faith, but

he raised it, and that's the only way it gets to the jury.

MS. KAESEBERG: I think what we can do is, we'd object

to the giving of this instruction over our offered instruction

but as modified over objection. Or we're better off with this

than not having the instruction.

THE COURT: That's fine. So 23 A will be given over

the objection as stated.

MS. KAESEBERG: Thank you.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 12 of 143 PageID #:1787
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:35:08

09:35:21

09:35:38

09:35:56

09:36:14

1129

MS. BONAMICI: Thank you.

THE COURT: What else is there?

MS. BONAMICI: Judge, according to my notes, the only

other thing that we have left on our plate is the special

instruction regarding striking the testimony.

THE COURT: Oh, this is the new one.

MS. BONAMICI: The new one, which isn't numbered in

any way. It's just a separate instruction.

THE COURT: We will --

MS. BONAMICI: Do you have your copy?

THE COURT: Yeah. You want to call it 33?

MS. BONAMICI: Sure.

THE COURT: Government 33. I'll read this one into

the record, as well:

"Yesterday you heard testimony from a defense witness

named Barry Gershinzon. On direct examination

Mr. Gershinzon testified about his opinion as to

whether certain checks were loans, advances, or

income. That testimony was not properly admitted.

I, therefore, strike and instruct you to disregard

Mr. Gershinzon's opinion regarding these checks. You

may not consider any aspect of that opinion in

deciding this case. You may, however, consider

Mr. Gershinzon's testimony, as well as the testimony

of the government's witness, David Weiner, regarding

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 13 of 143 PageID #:1788
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:36:31

09:36:48

09:37:02

09:37:19

09:37:38

1130

the facts and circumstances relevant in deciding

whether a particular check is a loan, advance, or

income."

MS. KAESEBERG: Well, we object to this entire

instruction on a number of grounds. The first issue we have is

that it's our request that any instruction to strike portions

of testimony would be given orally to the jury and not in the

form of a written instruction, which just calls extra attention

to it, in my opinion.

THE COURT: Well, yeah, that's something that I can

accommodate. Basically, it would be the kind of thing that I

would say before closing argument begins.

MS. KAESEBERG: Right.

THE COURT: That part of it is easy.

MS. KAESEBERG: So if you're willing or inclined to do

that, we would want to rework some of the language. You know,

what this instruction does is essentially says to the jury

we're striking Mr. Gershinzon's opinion and you may not

consider that, however, look to the government's witness and

listen to what he said. I mean, I know it's written well, but

what else it does is it tells the jury to do that.

There are instructions that the jury is already being

given to tell them what to consider with regard to witness

testimony and how to weigh witness testimony. So they're

already being told that. So, really, if the Court's ruling is

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 14 of 143 PageID #:1789
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:37:58

09:38:17

09:38:34

09:38:50

09:39:03

1131

just that that testimony should be stricken and that's the only

instruction that seems to be given.

THE COURT: But what you seem to be telling me is that

I shouldn't read the third paragraph and I don't know why you

would want me not to read it.

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Judge, what we are telling you is not

to read any these paragraphs.

THE COURT: I mean, but assuming that I do read the

first and second paragraph, I would think, although, you know,

I don't know where your argument is going to go, so I could be

wrong about this, but I would think that you would definitely

want the third paragraph read.

MS. KAESEBERG: What we object to, aside from the

whole thing, I mean, in the third paragraph, the second clause

-- or the third clause of the sentence "as well as the

testimony of the government's witness, David Weiner" is

unnecessary and improper. So without that phrase, that

paragraph could read:

"You may, however, consider Mr. Gershinzon's testimony

regarding the facts and circumstances relevant to

deciding whether a particular check is a loan,

advance, or income."

I mean, if the instruction is to strike the testimony

and telling the jury what they may not consider and then you

want to go further and tell them what they may consider, it's

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 15 of 143 PageID #:1790
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:39:24

09:39:42

09:39:54

09:40:14

09:40:36

1132

inappropriate to include a government witness in that portion.

MS. BONAMICI: Your Honor, having the need for this

instruction is adept to the government because, in our view,

without a reference to the other evidence on this topic and

unduly highlight the evidence they may consider on this

subject, in our view, we're definitely entitled to put this

into some sort of a perspective and not have the jury think

that the Court is instructing them that Mr. Gershinzon's

testimony is the only relevant testimony on that topic.

MS. KAESEBERG: I think the timing is critical here,

which is immediately after giving this instruction to the jury

the government gets to do their closing argument, and that's

their argument and they get to say that directly to the jury

themselves.

MR. GOLDSTEIN: And if there's concern, don't give the

instruction. I mean, there's a fundamental problem here. The

government could've cross-examined Mr. Gershinzon to every

issue that the Court had a problem with. I mean,

cross-examination is an excellent tool in getting to the truth.

And the issue is, I think I understand the Court's problem with

his testimony, that was somehow, A, he couldn't somehow remove

this issue that supposedly Mr. Beavers told him from his mind

and his opinion, and B, it was the issue of voluntariness, but

the government's witness gets up there and they have the same

problem with voluntariness. Mr. Henderson was cross-examining

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 16 of 143 PageID #:1791
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:40:56

09:41:16

09:41:32

09:42:05

09:43:05

1133

him over and over and over again about voluntariness and their

exact expert wasn't clear on it either, and it was

cross-examination that got it out, cross-examination.

So what the government says, basically, is, nah, we're

not going to cross him, instead we'll just have the Court do

the job. And if they got up here and just cross-examined him

on any issue they wanted to, which I'm sure the Court would've

allowed, they could have possibly got out the issues they

wanted. Instead, now they have the Court saying "here's what's

going on."

An expert in defense of this man right here, he is

discussing issues relevant to the case. I mean, the entire

case was gambling, we finally get a witness that's actually

talking about the issues at hand, and we're going to tell the

jury "disregard it." It just -- it's actually, to use a formal

word "it's crazy." It makes no sense whatsoever. This is just

fundamentally wrong, this instruction.

THE COURT: Well, leaving aside my expressed view on

the appropriateness of Gershinzon as an expert on anything, I'm

going to give this instruction, and I'm going to give the third

paragraph as well because it is the only way the jury can

understand that there are some aspects, reluctant as they may

be to permit it, there are some aspects of Mr. Gershinzon's

testimony that can be considered and there are two experts who

spoke on it and the jury should be reminded of that. And bear

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 17 of 143 PageID #:1792
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:43:35

09:43:48

09:44:08

09:44:28

09:44:49

1134

in mind, this is the oral instruction that would be given in

the course of a trial before we get to the formal instruction.

So I am giving it. I think in light of Gershinzon and the

testimony that the jury did hear, this is the only appropriate

way to deal with this. I'm doing this over objection stated by

the defense.

Anything left?

MS. KAESEBERG: We're just discussing one point. If

you would just give us a moment?

THE COURT: Sure. Go ahead.

(Brief pause).

MS. KAESEBERG: Okay. Same objection. Nothing new to

add.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. BONAMICI: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do I have a clean --

MS. BONAMICI: Now that we've got final rulings, we'll

make them right now.

THE COURT: I think six copies for the jury and one

for me.

MS. BONAMICI: Got it.

MR. GOLDSTEIN: So it's Your Honor's intention to read

government's 33 as opposed to providing a hardcopy?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 18 of 143 PageID #:1793
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:45:39

09:45:55

09:46:17

09:46:31

09:46:45

1135

MR. COLE: The government does want to make a couple

of issues known to the Court prior to closing. I'll just raise

a couple of concerns.

THE COURT: Before we get to that, one small matter.

When you give me the six copies for the jury, give me the

redacted indictment as well, a separate one.

Now.

MR. COLE: Okay. So, first of all, just in general,

the government wants to make a motion to exclude any defense

evidence and argument that the Court prohibited either before

trial or during trial from the defendant's closing.

And specifically, I know in the opening the defense

raised at the very end of the opening, in a cryptic manor, the

vindictive prosecution argument, saying "at the end of the

case, you'll know why the defendant is here and you're there

and it's got nothing to do with tax." That was, clearly, a

stab at vindictive prosecution and I want to make sure that

does not come up again in the closing.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: I can explain what I mean by that

and it's not vindictive prosecution.

THE COURT: What is it that you want to say in closing

argument?

MR. S. ADAM, JR: I'll say it again, Your Honor. I

shouldn't be forced to give the government my theory now. It

will not be vindictive prosecution. I agree, Your Honor says

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 19 of 143 PageID #:1794
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:46:57

09:47:12

09:47:42

09:47:55

09:48:14

1136

we're not to get into vindictive prosecution and I won't.

MR. COLE: Well, whatever it is, it's motive of the

government.

THE COURT: It is. So you got to tell me what you're

going to say. And if you don't tell me what you're going to

say, it creates, I think, significant problems. So why don't

you tell me.

MR. S. ADAM, JR.: I don't --

THE COURT: Listen, if you think that you got this

absolutely fabulous thing you want to say and you're afraid

that if you tell the government they'll have a really good

answer to you where if it's revealed for the first time at the

end of your close they may not figure out the correct answer

and you want the advantage of the secrecy, you can write it out

for me, hand it to me, and I'll tell you whether you can do it.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Your Honor, I don't know if I'm

going to say anything. What I'd like to do is hear the

government's opening statement before the jury is here and then

I'll tell you if I'm going to reply to it in that manner. So

if the government wants to give me theirs first ....

THE COURT: Okay, that's fine.

MR. S. ADAM, JR.: Okay.

MR. COLE: So another specific issue are the concepts

that the W-2 forms, the 1099 forms, were not properly completed

by whoever, the City of Chicago, Cook County or the pension

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 20 of 143 PageID #:1795
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:48:24

09:48:42

09:48:54

09:49:06

09:49:20

1137

fund. Again, that's something that this Court kept out and I

think it is something that is not fair game for the defense

closing.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: I don't agree with that, Your Honor.

There are certain things I can talk about that were not on the

W-2's. And I understand Your Honor kept out and we disagree

with it, but we understand Your Honor kept out that I cannot go

into the $68,000 being on the pension in the 1099's, Your

Honor, kept that out and I understand that, but to say that

something was not on the W-2, as long as I'm not lying blame on

anything, I can get into that.

THE COURT: And tell me what it is you're going to

say.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Well, I mean, this one I can tell

you, it's very simple, Your Honor, that the W-2 did not contain

the contingency checks, it was just not on the W-2. Now, that

came out in four or five different witnesses and --

THE COURT: Wait. Wait. And is that what you want to

say?

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Yes, sir.

MR. COLE: We would have a problem with that because

they're trying to raise the inference that the defendant

understood it wasn't on the W-2, that should've been and was

not there, and there's no evidence of that. They presented no

evidence of that and that will be improper argument.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 21 of 143 PageID #:1796
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:49:35

09:49:56

09:50:10

09:50:19

09:50:40

1138

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Your Honor, the government has to

prove that he did know that they weren't there, and I can

certainly draw an inference that they weren't there and the

government didn't prove he knew that they weren't there. Now,

that's a proper argument, Your Honor. We seem to have this

thing flipped that we have to prove --

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. You're not going to say

that he didn't know he was getting 1200 a month.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Correct.

THE COURT: So he knew he's got 1200 a month in his

pocket.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And then you're going to say that the 1200

wasn't on the W-2.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Which is in evidence, yes, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. And from that you're going to draw

the inference that?

MR. S. ADAM, JR: We don't know whether he knew it or

not. Now, that's a proper argument, Your Honor. I agree with

you. I don't agree that we shouldn't be allowed to do this,

but I understand Your Honor's argument. I cannot get up there

since he did not testify and say he did not know, I understand

that, and I won't violate, but the government has to prove, in

my opinion here, that he didn't know beyond a reasonable doubt.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 22 of 143 PageID #:1797
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:50:52

09:51:17

09:51:39

09:52:06

09:52:25

1139

Now, I can point to the evidence here just like they want to

point what is loan and not a loan and those type of things, I

can point to the evidence that's in the record here that the

W-2 didn't show it.

THE COURT: You can say that the W-2 didn't show it.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: But you have to be extremely careful --

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: -- in making an assertion that he did not

know.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Your assertion can only be that the

government has not proved that he did know. The government has

some things they could say in rebuttal that might possibly

persuade the jury that he knew and knew well, but you're

entitled to say that it wasn't on the W-2.

MR. COLE: Okay. Another issue has to do with the

amended returns. So they made some argument -- or asked some

questions of the government's IRS expert, Paul Ponzo, about?

Mr. Ponzo cutting off his analysis too soon and should've

looked further into 2009 repayment. This really is directly to

the issue the Court has addressed in terms of the amended

returns and the payments that Mr. Beavers made to the IRS after

he was approached by the government about this tax case.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Well, I'm loath that I'm at this

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 23 of 143 PageID #:1798
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:52:37

09:53:06

09:53:31

09:53:51

09:54:09

1140

issue. I would never mention any amended returns. It's not in

evidence. I hadn't planned on mentioning amended returns, Your

Honor.

MR. COLE: It's not just the amended returns, though,

it's the issue of Mr. Ponzo -- the questioning of Mr. Ponzo

about when he cut off his analysis. It's the exact same issue.

THE COURT: You are not going to argue, make any

argument with respect to when the government stopped looking,

because if you raise an issue about he stopped looking at a

certain date, you are implying to the jury or you want the jury

to infer that there was some act of redemption after a

specified date and it doesn't count here.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Well, if I may, Your Honor. This is

evidence that it's in through their witnesses. Not somebody we

called. Their witness, Mr. Ponzo, testified he chose, and

that's all I plan on getting into, the dates were chosen by

him, he chose January 1st of '06 through April of '09.

THE COURT: There are certain things that were charged

in this case, that's what's relevant. What he picked where to

stop, where the government picked whore to stop, is not an

argument that could be made to the jury. An argument that

could conceivably be made to me, but not to the jury.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: I'm not allowed to mention 2009?

THE COURT: No.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: At all?

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 24 of 143 PageID #:1799
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:54:21

09:54:34

09:54:50

09:55:01

09:55:11

1141

THE COURT: What possible way would you mention 2009

that you think might be okay?

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Well, Your Honor, during the cross

they brought out that he was given credit in 2008 for checks in

the beginning of 2009. That's in evidence, Your Honor. He was

crossed on that. There were checks in January of 2009, they

gave him credit for 2008.

THE COURT: No, it was not done for that purpose. You

are going to use it completely out of context. The answer is

no, you can't.

MR. COLE: The fourth point, Your Honor, is, they made

some arguments both in their opening and asked questions about

things the IRS could have done. They could've audited

Mr. Beavers, they never audited him, they never knocked on his

door, the Illinois State Board of Elections never knocked on

his door, they never audited him, again, I think those

questions -- or any argument based on things that they could've

done --

THE COURT: You are going to say that?

MR. S. ADAM, JR: I wasn't planning on using the

audit, no, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Would you say anything about what the

government could have done?

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Of course; yes.

THE COURT: And from that you're going to draw the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 25 of 143 PageID #:1800
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:55:26

09:55:50

09:56:12

09:56:33

09:57:06

1142

inferences that?

MR. S. ADAM, JR: On a couple of things that weren't

done in 2006 and now, I guess up to December 31st of 2008.

THE COURT: And what are you going to say wasn't done?

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Anything by the government other

than what was shown here.

THE COURT: Okay. No, you can't do it, and the reason

you can't do it is, the person who is on trial in this case is

the defendant. You don't get to argue that -- well, first of

all, there's a certain level of ineffectiveness in this

argument because implicit in it, and I've seen rebuttal

arguments, you get the prosecutor that stands up and says:

Defense has made this argument that the government didn't do

this, the government didn't do that, this amounts to an

argument that they didn't catch him soon enough, and that's

basically what the defense counsel is saying to you, members of

the jury. Not that his client wasn't proven guilty, but the

government should've caught him sooner, that's basically what

that is.

Now, if we get an exchange like this, it invites the

jury to consider things other than the evidence which is before

them. It says to the jury consider these counterfactual

circumstances. It puts the government on trial in a way in

terms of did they follow proper enforcement procedures. None

of that is in the indictment. The indictment says in certain

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 26 of 143 PageID #:1801
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:57:32

09:57:53

09:58:21

09:58:40

09:59:10

1143

times, places, and dates this is what the defendant did. If he

did it, if we have proved this, then they can ask the jury to

return a guilty verdict. You can say they didn't prove it

therefore the verdict should be not guilty. That something

else might have happened, I think, is just a distraction from

the issue that is before the jury.

We're not asking the jury to decide global issues.

And on top of it, the particular thing you want to do opens the

door to a response that I don't think you want to hear. And

even if you did want to hear, it's an invitation to the jury to

decide cases on grounds other than whether the government has

proved beyond a reasonable doubt the specific charges alleged

against this defendant. Don't go there, this is my order.

Anything else?

MR. COLE: No other points, Your Honor.

THE COURT: How long do you want?

MR. COLE: I think about an hour and 15 minutes.

THE COURT: An hour and 15 minutes for both? Opening

and rebuttal? What's the total time you want?

MR. COLE: About an hour and 45 minutes.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: An hour and a half, if needed.

THE COURT: That's fine. We'll break.

So, basically, we're ready?

MR. COLE: I think we're ready, Your Honor.

MS. KAESEBERG: Can I just make the record on this

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 27 of 143 PageID #:1802
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:59:22

09:59:39

09:59:52

10:00:07

10:00:22

1144

issue regarding what the defense can get into on closing

argument with Mr. Ponzo?

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. KAESEBERG: In order for the jury to find

Mr. Beavers guilty they have to believe Agent Ponzo because he

is the fundamental witness, he is the one who went through all

the records from the IRS, he is the creator of this Summary

Chart, we have a right to get into the credibility, the

competency, the trustworthiness of him as a witness --

THE COURT: Just tell me what it is specifically that

you want to get at.

MS. KAESEBERG: Well, taking the question you asked

the jury, you're going to get into things he didn't do, things

he didn't look at, that's relevant. And I would like to remind

the Court that the indictment charges that the scheme went

through 2011. So Agent Ponzo's testimony is he stopped the

investigation at a particular time or that he didn't look at

records at a particular time that, apart from the indictment

the jury is going to get in the jury room, that's absolutely

relevant in testimony.

It also goes to his credibility as a witness and

competency to testify in this case. I mean, they have to

believe him to find the defendant guilty. It's a critical

point that we should be allowed to make and it's a

constitutional right of the defendant to have that argument in

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 28 of 143 PageID #:1803
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:00:31

10:00:44

10:01:07

10:01:28

10:01:47

1145

closing argument.

THE COURT: And that's all you're saying to me now?

MS. KAESEBERG: At this time, yes.

THE COURT: I'm adhering to my ruling.

MR. SOROSKY: Your Honor, at the close of all the

evidence the defendant would make a motion for a request for a

finding of acquittal by the Court.

THE COURT: That motion is entered and continued.

MR. SOROSKY: Entered and continued?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. SOROSKY: Okay.

There's another motion that the defense would make.

Number one, substantively we, of course, disagree with Your

Honor's ruling on what the defense can and cannot say on

closing argument and we would say it deprives the defendant of

a fair trial. And procedurally, procedurally, the whole

process of the government of coming before the Court and saying

the defense can't do this, what is the defense going to do, and

we have to answer these questions, it clearly deprives the

defendant of a fair trial because it forces the defense to,

frankly, just show its hands to the government, and, therefore,

we say that also is improper because it deprives the defendant

of a fair trial.

THE COURT: I believe that the days of the claimed

right of lawyers to ambush the other side are gone. When you

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 29 of 143 PageID #:1804
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:02:16

10:02:43

10:03:05

10:03:20

10:03:37

1146

make an offer, you don't want to put yourself in the position,

and it's not good for the interest of justice, in general, to

say, "we can say whatever we want to say and, Your Honor, you

can fix this by instructing the jury to disregard something."

This is generally a bad practice. We're not talking about

something that's happened before trial has started. We are

talking about evidence that was introduced, evidence that was

offered, we are talking about specific things that are now

matters of record and I made my ruling on that basis and I'm

entitled to do so.

The defense has the right to choose to make a motion

of one kind or another and to give as many or as few details as

it chooses to do. I rule on the basis of the details that are

given.

You want to say something?

MS. HAMILTON: The only thing that I would add is

that, throughout this entire trial, all the defense counsel

have asked questions that Your Honor specifically ruled before

trial were improper to bring before the jury. That is the

biggest reason why the government made the motions that they

made this morning about improper arguments in closing argument.

It's because of what defense counsel has already done in this

case.

MR. SOROSKY: If I may respond? I don't know of any

questions that I personally asked my witnesses that I was

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 30 of 143 PageID #:1805
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:03:55

10:04:21

10:04:44

10:05:10

10:05:22

1147

prohibited from asking because I don't think I was ever asked

what are we going to ask. So that is inaccurate as to myself,

I'll talk to my colleagues --

THE COURT: No, no, you don't have to talk to anybody.

The truth is that if you -- and I'm not talking about a fine

tooth comb here. I'm talking to a comb missing a lot of teeth.

If you combed through this record with that, you would find

several instances in which I was specifically asked to rule on

something on a question that could or could not be asked. I

made an unambiguous ruling, and at least in one situation the

very first question from the mouth of defense counsel was a

question that any reasonable lawyer would have believed that I

had forbidden the question to be asked.

It's one of those things where the lawyer says "I can

say absolutely anything and that there's some remedy, the only

remedy is a mistrial," which is pointless, a waste of time, and

against the interest of justice.

I made these rulings for a reason. If the worst

happens with respect to your client, then you can raise it in

another court. I adhere to my rulings.

MR. SOROSKY: Thank you.

MR. COLE: Just to clarify, after the jury comes out

we'll read instruction 33 before closing argument?

THE COURT: Right.

MR. GOLDSTEIN: When you say "we" you mean --

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 31 of 143 PageID #:1806
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:05:52

10:07:36

10:08:08

10:08:29

10:08:52

1148

MR. COLE: The Court.

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay. You're not the Court.

MR. COLE: No.

(Brief pause).

THE COURT: We'll take a short break. Please remain

seated in the courtroom.

All rise.

(The following proceedings were had in the presence of

the jury in open court:)

THE COURT: Before we begin, I have one last thing

that has to do with some of the evidence you've heard and then

I'll give you an idea of what comes next.

Yesterday, toward the very end of the case, you heard

the testimony from a defense witness named Barry Gershinzon.

On direct examination Mr. Gershinzon testified about his

opinion as to whether certain checks were loans, advances, or

income. That testimony was not properly admitted. I,

therefore, strike that testimony and instruct you to disregard

Mr. Gershinzon' opinion regarding those checks. You may not

consider any aspect of that opinion in deciding this case. You

may, however, consider Mr. Gershinzon's testimony, as well as

the testimony of the government's witness, David Weiner,

regarding facts and circumstances relevant in deciding whether

a particular check is a loan, advance, or income.

You are now going to hear closing argument. We will

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 32 of 143 PageID #:1807
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:09:22

10:09:49

10:10:23

10:10:39

10:11:07

opening argument - by Hamilton

1149

begin with the government which bears the burden of proof.

There will be a break after that argument has ended, then you

will hear the defense argument, and after that there will be a

short break, and then finally you will hear the rebuttal

argument of the government. After that is done, I will read

you the instructions of the law.

I advise you now that you don't have to take notes on

those instructions because there will be at least six copies of

the instructions in writing given to you to have in the jury

room during that period of time. I say this because it's

probably a good idea to listen with your ears as I'm reading

them and then you'll have a chance to read them later if you

need to do so. There are time limits, which is why I'm marking

the time now.

The government may begin.

OPENING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT

BY MS. HAMILTON: Thank you, Your Honor.

The defendant, William Beavers, has been an elected

public official for the last 30 years. He understands and he

knows the importance of paying taxes.

In 2005 the defendant admitted that he had used

campaign funds personally, he reported that personal use on his

income tax return, and as a result he owed a lot of money. It

took him a long time to pay off that bill.

From 2006 to 2008 the defendant continued to use

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 33 of 143 PageID #:1808
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:11:36

10:12:05

10:12:40

10:13:04

10:13:38

opening argument - by Hamilton

1150

campaign funds personally. He took almost $300,000 over those

3 years from his campaign funds and used them personally. But

because of what had happened in 2005 on his tax returns, the

defendant made a decision. He decided he wasn't going to

report his personal use of his campaign funds in 2006, 2007, or

2008. When it benefited him, he wanted that money as his own,

but he did not want to claim it as his own on his income tax

returns.

In 2006 he wrote a $68,000 check from a campaign fund

to his personal pension fund. That resulted in bumping up his

pension to over $6,000 a month. From 2006 to 2008, he wrote

himself a hundred checks from the campaign funds totaling over

$226,000, and he also received $1200 a month from Cook County

to cover expenses, above and beyond his salary, and he just

took that money for himself.

Now, once the defendant took that money and used it as

his own, it became income to him, but he didn't put that money

on his tax returns. He intentionally had that money off his

tax returns and he was able to do so, in part, because of the

way that he kept his books and records. He kept his books and

records in a way that no one knew what he was doing with that

campaign money he was taking. Because of this, the defendant

has been charged in a four-count indictment.

Now, there are two types of charges here, filing false

tax returns and impeding the IRS. I'm actually going to first

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 34 of 143 PageID #:1809
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:14:01

10:14:25

10:14:49

10:15:11

10:15:30

opening argument - by Hamilton

1151

start with the filing of false tax returns, which are Counts 2,

3 and 4, and then I'm going to go back to impeding the IRS

which is Count 1.

Counts 2, 3 and 4 charge the defendant with willfully

underreporting his income. Count 2 is the 2006 tax return,

Count 3 is the 2007 tax return, and Count 4 is the 2008 tax

return.

These are the elements the government needs to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt for you to find the defendant guilty

of these charges: First, that he prepared or caused to be

prepared an income tax return. Second, that that income tax

return was false about a material matter. Third, that it was

signed under the penalty of perjury. Next, that he acted

willfully, and last that those tax returns were actually filed

with the IRS.

Now, for each of these charges, 2, 3 and 4, the first

third and fifth element are really not in question. You heard

the testimony from the defendant's accountant, Philip Achusim.

He testified that the defendant did cause him to prepare the

defendant's income tax return. He testified the defendant

signed those returns and that they were under penalties of

perjuries and that they were filed with the IRS.

Here is the signature under the penalty of perjury for

the 2006 tax return signed by the defendant (indicating). It

says:

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 35 of 143 PageID #:1810
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:15:42

10:16:08

10:16:37

10:17:00

10:17:19

opening argument - by Hamilton

1152

"Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have

examined this return and accompanied schedules and

statements and to the best of my knowledge and belief

they are true, correct, and complete."

This is 2007 and this is 2008 (indicating). So for

each one of those years, for Counts 2, 3 and 4, these three

elements are not in question and have been proven beyond a

reasonable doubt. So the issues for these three counts really

come down to those other two elements, were these returns false

about a material matter and did the defendant act willfully.

You are going to get an instruction that the law

defines a matter as material if it was capable of influencing

the IRS. In this case, the material matter is the

underreporting of income. And you heard from IRS revenue Paul

Ponzo that the amount of income a person claims on his tax

return directly affects the calculation of tax owed to the IRS.

And common sense tells you that how much the defendant claimed

as income on his personal tax return was capable of influencing

the IRS because it directly affected how much income tax he

owed. So the evidence shows that underreporting of income is

material.

So then how do you know that the income tax returns

for the years in question were false and that the defendant

acted willfully when he filed those false returns? As to

willfulness, you're going to get an instruction that

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 36 of 143 PageID #:1811
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:17:37

10:17:58

10:18:24

10:18:48

10:19:13

opening argument - by Hamilton

1153

"willfulness" means that the defendant knew he had a legal duty

to file truthful tax return and that when he signed that return

he did not believe it was truthful as to a material matter.

Again, in this case the material matter is the underreporting

of income.

So what this comes down to is, did the defendant

intentionally fail to report all of the income that he had

received for 2006, 2007, and 2008. And the answer to all of

that, based on the evidence, is yes, he did intentionally fail

to report all of his income.

First, you know that he never reported the $68,000

pension check that he wrote from a campaign fund. Second, you

know that he never reported any of the hundred checks that he

wrote to himself from the campaign funds. And third, you know

that he did not claim the money he received in what was called

Cook County Contingency Funds to cover expenses.

Now, for the money that the defendant personally

received from the campaign funds, the evidence has shown that

he knew he was supposed to report that money on his income tax,

and the best evidence you have of this is what happened in

2005. In 2005, the defendant admitted to both the Illinois

State Board of Elections on his D-2's and then to the IRS on

his tax returns that he had personally used the last of what is

called grandfathered money from one of his campaign funds.

Andy Nauman from the Illinois State Board of Elections

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 37 of 143 PageID #:1812
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:19:32

10:19:51

10:20:10

10:20:27

10:20:50

opening argument - by Hamilton

1154

testified that before June of 2008 politicians were able to use

money in campaign funds for personal uses. In June -- I'm

sorry, June 1998, I think I said "2008," June 1998 the law in

Illinois changed, but it did allow politicians to continue to

use what's known as grandfathered money or money they already

had in their campaign funds as of the time the law changed for

personal use.

So, in 2005, the defendant admitted that he had used

the rest of his grandfathered money in the Citizens For Beavers

account. He put that on his D-2 and he reported it as income

on his tax return.

Here is the D-2 (indicating). Andy Nauman testified

about this. The statute that is highlighted is the statute

allowing for the use of the grandfathered money, and this is

claim to the Illinois Board of Elections he's taking the last

of the grandfathered money.

Here is the letter that is part of the 2005 tax return

that you will have (indicating). Philip Achusim testified he

did not draft this letter, he did not ask for this letter, that

the defendant included it in the tax materials that he provided

to Mr. Achusim. The letter is written by the defendant and it

reads, it is telling the IRS that he received $43,000 in

campaign funds that year. He personally used it, he put that

on his tax return.

What this shows you is that the defendant knew that

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 38 of 143 PageID #:1813
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:21:21

10:21:45

10:22:11

10:22:33

10:22:57

opening argument - by Hamilton

1155

when he used campaign funds personally, he had to report it as

income on his income tax return. So when he uses campaign

money in 2006, 2007, and 2008, and doesn't include that money,

you know it was not a mistake, it was not inadvertent, it was

intentional. He knew he needed to claim that money and he did

not.

Now, the 2005 tax return also tells you why he decides

not to report any of this money in the later years. Look at

how much tax he ended up owing in 2005 (indicating).

Now, you also heard from Shirley Ball, not only did he

owe this large amount of money, it took him a long time to pay

it back. He was paying it back in 2006, he was paying it back

in 2007, he was paying it back in 2008, and in years beyond

that. What that tells you is why he decides in 2006, when he

looks at that income tax return, he knows those campaign funds

he used are not on there, and the reason he doesn't include

them, he doesn't want to get hit with another tax bill like he

had in 2005. He does the same thing in '07 and the same thing

in '08. He's still paying off what he owes the IRS in 2005 and

he has no intention on paying them anything more.

So let's focus on how you know when he took those

campaign funds in '06, '07 and '08 that it was personal use to

him that should've been reported.

First we're going to start with the pension check.

What you know is that the defendant was an alderman in Chicago

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 39 of 143 PageID #:1814
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:23:20

10:23:42

10:24:10

10:24:33

10:24:56

opening argument - by Hamilton

1156

from 1983 until the end of November 2006. In November of 2006

he was elected as a Cook County Commissioner and he began that

position in December of 2006. Before he officially stepped

down as an alderman and became a Commissioner, he was given the

option of substantially increasing the pension he would receive

from having been an alderman.

You saw this letter and you heard the testimony

(indicating). He was able to increase his monthly pension up

to $6,541 a month for life. The catch was, he needed to be

able to come up with the amount that is circled, $68,763.07 in

a short period of time. He had about two weeks to do it.

So defendant found the money. He took the money from

Citizens For Beavers. He wrote this check from Citizens For

Beavers to his pension fund. He wrote that check so that he

personally could start to receive a substantially increased

pension. There are no documents to support that this was a

campaign expense. No witness says it was a campaign expense.

The payout from his pension went into his personal account.

Common sense tells you this was not a campaign expense. This

was personal for the defendant.

Now, what you also know is that this was never

included on his 2006 tax return. Because he wrote that check

from his campaign account for his own personal benefit, that

was income to him that should have been included on his 2006

tax return and was not. That is proof beyond a reasonable

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 40 of 143 PageID #:1815
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:25:23

10:25:47

10:26:07

10:26:30

10:27:02

opening argument - by Hamilton

1157

doubt that the defendant intentionally did not report that

$68,000 check from Citizens For Beavers and that's the first

way you know that the 2006 tax return was willfully false.

So now we're going to go to the 100 checks. This is

the check way you know that the tax returns were willfully

false. What you know from the bank records and from the

testimony is that the defendant controlled those accounts. He

had the sole signature authority on those accounts. He wrote,

signed, and cashed those 100 checks.

Now, you also heard testimony from the treasurers that

they relied on the defendant to give them an explanation of

what the checks were for. They would regularly provide him

with lists of the checks he had written to himself that he had

not explained to them. And what you know is that the defendant

was keeping everyone in the dark about what he was really doing

with those campaign checks. They were not being used on

campaign expenses.

You now know from the testimony that they were being

cashed and used so that the defendant could go to the slot

machines. That is a personal use. That is not a campaign

expense. Agent Ponzo summarized for you his comparison between

the cashing of those 100 checks and the defendant's gambling

activities. And what he saw was that 73 of those checks were

cashed on the very same day that the defendant was gambling.

93 of the checks were cashed within a day. So 73 on the day,

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 41 of 143 PageID #:1816
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:27:30

10:27:51

10:28:14

10:28:35

10:29:04

opening argument - by Hamilton

1158

20 more either the day before or the day after.

Now, Agent Ponzo also didn't just look at the dates,

he looked at the times. And you'll have all this back in the

jury room. You have the gambling records. You'll be able to

see when the defendant's player card went in and out of slot

machines. Agent Ponzo did a comparison based on time, and you

will see in the summary records, you saw in his testimony,

there were a number of times that not only were checks cashed

right before the defendant starts gambling, there were checks

cashed during breaks on gambling.

Now, you heard about these three checks from

April 9th, 2007. This is just an example of one of the days

when a check is cashed before gambling and then there are two

more cashed during gambling breaks. It's summary chart 4. I'm

not going to go through the whole thing with you. You heard it

before a couple of times. It's these three checks you were

shown how they figured out the time it was cashed and how they

figured out when the card player -- sorry, the player's card

went into the slot machine. And again, what all of this

evidence tells you is what the defendant was doing with the

campaign checks. He wasn't using them for campaign expenses,

he was using them to gamble.

And what you also heard testimony about was how much

he lost. These are the figures for 2006, 2007, and 2008

(indicating). What the records -- I talked about April 9th, I

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 42 of 143 PageID #:1817
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:29:27

10:29:49

10:30:11

10:30:31

10:30:51

opening argument - by Hamilton

1159

want to talk about putting April 9th in the context of what

else happening of the other checks the defendant wrote in March

and April of 2007 so can you see it's not just April 9th.

And Agent Ponzo went through a lot of these checks,

but he wrote them down into different Summary Charts. So two

of the other checks from March and April of 2007 are in Summary

Chart 7. And what you can see from these is that these checks

were also cashed right before the defendant starts gambling.

Now, the check stubs on these say that this money was

used to pay Breaker Press. I'm going to talk more about that

later when I talk about Count 1, impeding the IRS, but what you

know from the evidence that's before you these checks were not

used to pay Breaker Press. These checks were cashed by the

defendant right before he went to gamble. The Breaker Press

invoices came 8 and 10 months later.

Now, some of the other checks that the defendant

cashed in March and April of 2007 are contained in Summary

Exhibit 8. And these were also checks that were cashed on days

when the defendant gambled. Two of them, the ones that I've

highlighted, were actually cashed during gambling breaks

similar to what we saw on April 9th of 2007, and the others

were cashed right before gambling.

Now, if you put all of these checks on a calendar for

2007 -- March 2007 and April 2007, here's what you see: The

slot machines are days that the gambling records show the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 43 of 143 PageID #:1818
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:31:16

10:31:41

10:32:05

10:32:27

10:32:44

opening argument - by Hamilton

1160

defendant was gambling at the Horseshoe Casino. The check

marks are days when the defendant cashes campaign checks. So

there are four in March of 2007 on the day he is gambling.

April of 2007, you see three checks from April 9th that we've

already talked about and then you see one, two, three, four,

five, six more, all but one cashed on the day he was gambling.

And, of course, you heard the testimony about the difference

between checks cashed on the weekend, whether they're processed

on a weekend or processed on Monday. The one check not on the

same day as gambling was processed on a Monday.

Now, what you also know about these checks is that the

defendant lied to the Illinois State Board of Elections about

how he had used these checks. Andy Nauman testified that the

D-2 report for the 7th Ward Organization showed this, that the

defendant had reimbursed unused funds with a list of checks.

And what he said is, he didn't see the money initially going

out to the defendant, he only saw all this money coming back

in. And that didn't make any sense to him. If he's

reimbursing funds, why didn't the D-2's show the money going

out in the first place. So he wrote a letter and he said:

"The committee reflects 18,000 in contribution from

William Beavers for reimbursement of funds. What is

this for?"

In response, what Andy Nauman said is, he spoke

directly to the defendant and he also received a letter signed

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 44 of 143 PageID #:1819
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:33:06

10:33:25

10:33:46

10:34:11

10:34:34

opening argument - by Hamilton

1161

by the defendant giving the Illinois State Board of Election a

false explanation about what had happened. The defendant wrote

back to Mr. Nauman, "in response to those checks we looked at

from March and April 2007" and he said:

"... this money was taken out of the campaign fund for

election expenses, which was not used but was

returned to the campaign committee in the form of

checks from William Beavers."

What you know is this was a lie. That money was

cashed by the defendant and put into a slot machine. It was

not taken out as election expenses and then somehow unused and

magically returned. This is a lie to the Illinois State Board

of Elections.

And the fact that he's lying to the Illinois State

Board of Elections about what he's doing with that money tells

you so much. He is lying because he doesn't want anyone to

know the truth, which is that he is taking that money

personally and using it, put aside that he's gambling with it,

he doesn't want them to know he's personally using the money.

And he knows, based on what happened in 2005, if he tells the

Illinois State Board of Elections he has taken that money

personally, guess what he has to do then? He's got to tell the

IRS. He's got to report it on his tax returns as income. Once

he tells the Illinois State Board of Elections, he's stuck with

respect to the IRS. So he lies. He lies and says it was taken

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 45 of 143 PageID #:1820
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:34:55

10:35:24

10:35:52

10:36:12

10:36:32

opening argument - by Hamilton

1162

out and unused for election expenses.

This also shows you, this is willfulness. It's shows

you he's not mistaken when he fails to include those campaign

checks on his tax returns. He didn't make a mistake and think

he had taken that money out for election expenses and not used

it, he knew exactly what he had used that money for and he lied

about it. And, of course, it's not just March and April, it's

throughout 2006, 2007, 2008. Let's look at August of 2008.

When you look at the checks the defendant wrote to

himself and cashed in August of 2008, here's what you're going

to see: 12 checks, just in August of 2008, taken from all

three of the campaign funds totaling $24,000, just for August

of 2008. No explanation given. The check stub either says

void or blank. 8 of those checks cashed on days he's gambling

and the other four within a day of gambling.

Here's what it looks like on the calendar

(indicating). The red checks are where the check stub says

blank, the blue checks are where the check stub says void.

Now, Patrice Coleman testified that she wrote -- she

was the one who wrote "void" on the check stub. Now, you know

from the bank records and from the checks and from her

testimony that these checks weren't voided in the way that a

bank thinks about voiding the check. They were cashed and

cleared the bank. She said that she wrote "void" because she

believed that the defendant had actually reimbursed those

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 46 of 143 PageID #:1821
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:36:58

10:37:20

10:37:49

10:37:58

10:38:20

opening argument - by Hamilton

1163

funds. Well, what you know from Agent Ponzo's testimony is

Ms. Coleman is mistaken about that, because when you look at

what money goes back in to the campaign fund from the defendant

in 2008, that's not otherwise accounted for, it's $11,000.

Those voided checks totaled $17,000. He did not reimburse that

money.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: There will be occasional objections from

one side or the other. I don't pause to rule on each and every

one of them. If you believe that one of the lawyers or the

lawyer making the statement is mistaken based on your memory of

the evidence, then you should treat it as a misstatement and

disregard it. And, basically, the objection signals to you

that this is something that you ought to pay attention to.

With that, without ruling, you may proceed with the

argument.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: May we have a short sidebar?

THE COURT: No, you may not.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Yes, Your Honor.

MS. HAMILTON: Go back and look at the Summary Charts

for 2008. And you know from Agent Ponzo's testimony, he gave

the defendant every credit he possibly could. You go back and

see whether he reimbursed those voided checks --

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Objection, Your Honor. Here.

THE COURT: Proceed.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 47 of 143 PageID #:1822
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:38:36

10:39:01

10:39:22

10:39:50

10:40:11

opening argument - by Hamilton

1164

MS. HAMILTON: You will find he did not. Now, beyond

that, what Ms. Coleman testified is that she would wait for the

defendant to give her an explanation before she would put it in

a check stub or put it on a D-2.

What that tells you is if he had given her any

explanation for those voided checks, she would've written it

down. If it had been a valid campaign expense, she would have

written it down. But he gave her no explanation.

Now, for the other 8 checks, the stub is totally

blank, totally blank. And it's these checks that we went

through with Ms. Coleman, pages of them. You'll have all of

them, the original checks, the original check stubs; nothing,

nothing. Remember, Ms. Coleman testified looking at the checks

from the check stubs, no idea what that money was used for. No

idea. It's completely blank.

And, of course, you know, again it's not just August

of 2008, it's not just these 12 checks, the defendant used 93

out of 100 checks for gambling and never told anyone.

So how do you know that the defendant intentionally

left these checks off his income tax returns. Well, you know

he's the one who cashed the checks, he's the one who used the

money, he's the one who gave no explanation, he's the one

controlling all the information about the money. He knows what

he spent that money on.

Now, treasurers, sure, they knew he had written the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 48 of 143 PageID #:1823
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:40:33

10:40:53

10:41:22

10:41:44

10:42:03

opening argument - by Hamilton

1165

checks to himself, but if it's all so transparent, why doesn't

anyone know what he's actually doing with the money? Why not

just tell the treasurer "I'm taking the money and gambling with

it." Or if you don't want to talk about gambling, fine, just

say "I'm taking the money and I'm personally using it." He

never even says that. And, again, it's because he knows, he

learned his listen from 2005, once he admits he's taking that

money personally, it's got to go on his tax return. So he

keeps everyone in dark about what he is doing with the money.

He doesn't want to have to pay income tax on it.

So what does the defense say to all of this? They're

loans, he loaned himself the money, he advanced himself the

money. Well, how do you know that is just not true? Well, all

of the checks, there is absolutely no notation whatsoever on

the check that it is a loan. He wrote the checks, he cashed

the checks, he could've easily put in the memo line "loan."

Not there, not on one of them.

There is no documentation that these are loans. No

loan agreement, no promissory note, not even a handwritten IOU.

No document about when he's planning on repaying any of these

loans. Nothing about whether there's interest due, he

certainly didn't pay any interest, or whether these are all

just interest free loans he's giving himself.

And, of course, he never tells the treasurers they're

loans. Patrice Coleman said he never told her these were

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 49 of 143 PageID #:1824
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:42:31

10:42:59

10:43:21

10:43:37

10:44:00

opening argument - by Hamilton

1166

loans. He also didn't list these loans on any of his personal

financial statements he signed and gave to the bank. You will

have both of these, this is the first one, filled out and

signed by the defendant June 13th, 2007 (indicating). And just

to put that date into context, that's 7 months after he writes

the $68,000 check to his pension and after he's been receiving

the increased pension payments, he's fully aware that he has

taken that money, and June 2007 is right in the middle of him

taking all of these campaign checks. He lists none of that on

a personal financial statements he fills out and signs with the

bank. And Michael Debre took you through this and why it was

important and where it should've been listed. He writes

nothing under amounts paying to others, either secured or

unsecured. We know they're not secured, but he doesn't put

them under either.

Look at what he does include, unpaid income tax

return, that winds up on the financial statement because he

knows that's an obligation he has, he's got to pay back.

Remember the experts talked about one of things that they look

at is documentation showing whether or not the borrower really

thinks he's obligated to pay it back. Sure looks like, from

these personal financial statements, he does not view this as

an obligation he needs to pay back at all, any amounts. He

includes $20,000 in unpaid income taxes. He wrote a $68,000

check that went to personal use for him and that doesn't get

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 50 of 143 PageID #:1825
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:44:25

10:44:51

10:45:16

10:45:41

10:46:01

opening argument - by Hamilton

1167

included on here? And it's not just once, he does it again in

2008. Again, he's still getting his bumped out pension

pay-outs every month. He knows why he's getting $6,000 rather

than the lower amount he was originally going to get, because

he took the money from the campaign fund. It doesn't end up on

here at all. And again, look what does, unpaid income tax. He

knows that's an obligation he has to repay, but, in his mind,

he does not believe he owes that campaign fund anything,

because it wasn't a loan, he took that money.

Now, you also know he doesn't list any loans with the

Illinois State Board of Elections. You have the D-2, the D-2's

from 2005, he shows having taken personal loans. It's in there

in 2005. 2006, 2007, 2008, you will have all the D-2's, and

you heard the testimony from numerous witnesses, not one, not

one of those D-2's lists a loan he has taken from any one of

the campaign funds.

Now, does the fact that the defendant sporadically

puts his own money into the campaign fund and calls some of

these deposits reimbursements for really just a small portion

of the checks support the fact that they were loans?

Under what you know about this case, it does not, and here's

the reason why: There is no evidence that the defendant was

somehow tracking these loans himself. There's no evidence that

he was regularly attempting to repay this money at any point in

'06, '07, and '08. The whole time he now claims he was paying

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 51 of 143 PageID #:1826
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:46:31

10:46:50

10:47:12

10:47:44

10:48:02

opening argument - by Hamilton

1168

back that money, he just keeps taking more and more and more.

He's not even making a dent in what he owes the campaign fund.

What the reimbursed check tell you is that he knew that money

was not his to take in the first place, and he knew he had to

do something to make sure things weren't totally out of whack

so he still has access to all of that money in over this entire

period of time.

And what you heard from the experts and what you know

based on your own common sense is what matters at the time the

money was taken. Focus on the time that the defendant cashed

those checks. And when you focus on them, you know they were

not loans. Again, nothing in any of the notations at all about

loans.

And, of course, he doesn't have to have a formal

agreement. He could have just written on a napkin "IOU." Take

a look in Summary Chart 10 at the expenses this defendant keeps

track of. There is a receipt for McDonald's for a $1.09 in the

campaign records. He keeps track of things. When the campaign

owes him something, the records are there, but when he now

wants to say he actually was obligated to pay a campaign, no

record.

Now, of course, he could have just told Patrice

Coleman. She said there were times when he told her things and

didn't have a receipt and she obviously took his word and she

kept track of that. And you have an example of this,

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 52 of 143 PageID #:1827
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:48:24

10:48:46

10:49:11

10:49:38

10:50:04

opening argument - by Hamilton

1169

Ms. Coleman testified about it, it's check 2126. She said the

defendant told her he needed to be reimbursed for having bought

a refrigerator. So she typed out a check to him in the amount

that he told her and put on the memo line "reimbursed for a

refrigerator" and then she put in the check stub. There is

total transparency, everybody now knows this check was used to

reimburse the defendant for a campaign expense. They know how

to do it, that's the way they did it. These were not campaign

expenses and he was not reimbursing the campaign. This shows

you he knows how to track it when he's doing it.

You know when he took that money they were not loans.

He was not intending on paying it back. When he took that

money, he didn't feel an obligation to pay back the campaign

fund. He just wanted to go gamble. His focus was not on what

was going to happen later, it was what was going to happen

right then, and he took that money to use for himself.

And as for the $68,000 check, just to be very clear,

by the time the defendant files his taxes for 2008, which is

about 2 and a half years after he took this money, he had made

no attempt whatsoever to pay the campaign back. If it truly

had been a loan, he could've used the increase bump up that he

got in his monthly checks from the pension to start paying the

campaign back. If he had done just that, just that amount,

just the bump up, the increase based on the money he took from

the campaign, he would've paid it back in about 2 years. He

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 53 of 143 PageID #:1828
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:50:34

10:50:54

10:51:17

10:51:45

10:52:14

opening argument - by Hamilton

1170

didn't put one cent back in the campaign for that $68,000 that

he took and then got the personal benefit for.

What the evidence shows is that the defendant took

this money from the campaign and used it when it benefited him,

but when it was time for him to admit that he used it as his

own to benefit him he did not include it on his income tax

returns. It is that failure, the willful failure to report

those monies that prove the defendant guilty of Counts 2, 3 and

4.

But, of course, there's more than just the campaign

funds, there's the Cook County Contingency Fund. Those were

also not included on the defendant's 2006, 2007, and 2008 tax

returns.

Now, you heard that because he was a Cook County

Commissioner he received a salary of $85,000 a year. And the

County also allowed for him to request and receive $1200 a

month to cover expenses. The evidence shows that from the

moment he started in December of 2006 through November of 2008,

which is the end of the fiscal year for the County, it doesn't

include December of 2008, the defendant put in vouchers

requesting to receive the $1200 and he received $1200 each and

every month. Here is one of the vouchers (indicating). You

saw this already. Signed by him. The "MY," you heard, was for

Mersaydes Young which was his assistant. And then you got the

checks. And what you know is that these checks were different

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 54 of 143 PageID #:1829
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:52:38

10:53:02

10:53:27

10:53:59

10:54:22

opening argument - by Hamilton

1171

separate and apart from his salary. They were hardcopy checks

that he received, there were no deductions taken out, and the

defendant either cashed or deposited those checks personally.

Now, what you also know is that on the expense forms

that the County required the defendant to fill out, he admitted

that he didn't actually use this money on expenses, that he

used it personally.

In 2007, he said "Commissioner Beavers will claim his

fiscal year 2007 contingency as income" signed by William

Beavers. 2008, contingency funds were taken as income for

fiscal year 2008. It turns out both of those things were lies.

He did take the money and used it personally but he didn't

report it on his income taxes. For 2007, this is an additional

$14,400 that he received from the County on which he paid no

taxes. Here is his W-2 for 2007. It's for the $85,000 a year

salary, it does not include the contingency funds. If it did,

this would've been close to $100,000. Here's the W-2 for 2008,

again it doesn't include the money which, because the fiscal

year ends in November of 2008, it's slightly less than that,

$13,200, and if that had been included, again it would have

been close $200,000. But the defendant didn't claim this money

on his income tax returns.

So how do you know that this was willful and not just

a mistake? Well, you heard the testimony of the defendant's

accountant, Philip Achusim. He said a number of things, but

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 55 of 143 PageID #:1830
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:54:46

10:55:15

10:55:31

10:56:02

10:56:35

opening argument - by Hamilton

1172

one of this things that he testified about was after he

completed the 2008 tax return, he got a call from the defendant

telling him he had made a mistake. The defendant told him he

had actually not picked up all of the federal withholding on

the W-2G forms and he needed to fix the tax return.

And let me explain to you what that tells you. You're

going to have the originals of this in the jury room with you.

This is just one of the W-2G forms that was attached to the

income tax return for 2008. Here's the original (indicating).

What Philip Achusim was saying is that the defendant looked

through the attachments. These attachments are --

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Objection.

THE COURT: Objection is overruled.

MS. HAMILTON: And he noticed that Philip Achusim had

missed something on that little line on the attachments to this

tax return. And let me just put in perspective, the W-2G for

the County is attached here (indicating). The first W-2G that

he notices, you'll see there's a little mark here, is there.

But before that, there is a whole bunch of other W-2Gs. He

would've had to have gone through all of these to know that

Philip Achusim had missed what was on this line, and then two

later he marks another one, and then two later he marks another

one, and again, later another one. He had to have gone through

all of these documents attached to this income tax return to

catch that error. He caught that error. And what that tells

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 56 of 143 PageID #:1831
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:56:56

10:57:21

10:57:54

10:58:20

10:58:43

opening argument - by Hamilton

1173

you is this is not someone who is blindly following what his

accountant does and just signs his return and moves on. What

that testimony tells you is this is someone who is careful and

notices things. He noticed that small line on the documents

and he called his accountant out on it. He knew that money was

not on his W-2 and he knew he had used that money personally as

income.

Now, the defense also tried to make an argument that

somehow the Cook County expense reports were his way of telling

the County "put it on my W-2." Well, what the defense fails to

point out is that the expense reports were completed after Cook

County issued the W-2. And here's how you know that happened:

First, the defendant's own expert said that employers provide

W-2's by January 31st. Paula Matela, she was the woman who

came in here from Cook County, she was the assistant to Matt

DeLeon, she testified that she was the one who provided the

blank forms to the Commissioners and they were usually provided

in January and due back at the end of March. She also

testified that for the 2007 fiscal year expense report, she

wrote that. And what she said is that about a week before

these reports were due, which was the end of March 2008, she

hadn't received anything from Commissioner Beavers. So she

called his office and was told this, she herself wrote that,

then at some later date she sent it back to the defendant's

office to get him to sign that and then it was returned to her.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 57 of 143 PageID #:1832
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:59:14

10:59:33

10:59:59

11:00:24

11:00:48

opening argument - by Hamilton

1174

All of that is happening, at the earliest, in very late March

of 2008. Look at the tax return. Philip Achusim prepared the

defendant's 2007 tax return, had it completed on March 11th,

2008.

What that means is that the defendant had already

received his W-2, had already provided Achusim the W-2, and

Achusim had already completed the entire tax return before

Paula Matela ever called his office and asked for the expense

form.

And 2008 is just a start. You've got the memo from

Matt DeLeon to the defendant. It is dated March 25th, 2009.

You will have it. You can go back and read it. Matt DeLeon

told you that the reason this was sent was attaching the blank

expense form and giving the defendant until the end of April to

complete this one. So what you know is the defendant's office

didn't even receive the blank expense form and certainly hadn't

filled anything out before March 25th, 2009.

Philip Achusim had already completed the defendant's

tax return the day before DeLeon's memo. Again, what that

tells you is the County had already issued the W-2, the

defendant had already received the W-2 and had already given it

to his tax preparer before that form even comes up in his

office. The earliest he got the blank form was a day after his

tax return was complete. What that means is that he knows that

expense form has no bearing on the company issuing the W-2.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 58 of 143 PageID #:1833
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:01:16

11:01:39

11:02:06

11:02:29

11:02:52

opening argument - by Hamilton

1175

This was not a mistake. What the evidence shows you

beyond a reasonable doubt is that just like with the campaign

funds, the defendant used these contingency funds as his own

when it benefited him but he did not claim it as his own on his

tax returns, and that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt on

Counts 2, 3, and 4.

Now, before I move on to Count 1, I should explain

that Counts 2, 3 and 4 charge the defendant willfully

underreported his total income on his tax returns. For

Count 2, which is 2006, you can find the defendant guilty based

on any one of these three ways. You do not need to find all

three. Failing to report any one of these reduced the amount

of total income and therefore made that number false. So you

can find it on the pension check, the hundred check, or the

Cook County check. You can find all three, can find two, you

can find one, but you do not have to find all three.

For Count 2 and count -- I'm sorry, for 2007 and 2008,

which are Counts 3 and 4, the pension fund check is not an

issue. It's the last two pots of money. And again, you don't

need to find both. You can find one, you can find both, but

you don't have to find both in order to find the defendant

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on those counts.

So let's move on to Count 1. All of the evidence that

I just went through proves the defendant guilty of Counts 2, 3

and 4 and also proves him guilty of count 1. This is another

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 59 of 143 PageID #:1834
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:03:10

11:03:32

11:04:00

11:04:24

11:04:43

opening argument - by Hamilton

1176

violation of federal tax laws which is basically trying to

impede the IRS.

In order to prove this count, the government needs to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt these things: That the

defendant made an effort to impede the IRS, that his effort had

a reasonable tendency to do so, that he acted knowingly and

acted corruptly with the purpose to obtain an unlawful benefit.

Now, in the instructions you're going to see that

there's a phrase that he was going to try to impede the due

administration of the Internal Revenue laws. What that

includes is the IRS's ability to compute taxes, collect taxes,

and investigate possible criminal violations. And you saw that

last element had the word "corruptly." In this context what it

means is he was trying not to pay taxes on all of his income.

So it's fair to say what this charge really boils down

to is, did the defendant take steps to keep the IRS from

knowing that he had received more income than he reported so

that he didn't have to pay additional income tax. And the

answer, based on all the evidence is, yes, he did.

So let's go through the various ways. First and

foremost, he filed false income taxes, and those, clearly,

didn't include all of the income that he had received, but he

gave much more than that. The defendant made it virtually

impossible for anyone to be able to tell what he was really

doing with large portions of his campaign funds. This meant

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 60 of 143 PageID #:1835
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:05:04

11:05:21

11:05:44

11:06:08

11:06:30

opening argument - by Hamilton

1177

that not only were the treasurers and the State Board of

Elections in the dark about what he was doing, but the IRS was

obviously in the dark as well. Even though he was using those

campaign funds for personal use, he intentionally kept that

money off his tax returns so that he wouldn't have to pay taxes

on it and the way that he did it, he kept the IRS from figuring

it out.

So $68,000 check, he never tells the treasurers what

the purpose of this check is. There's no explanation on the

check stub, he never reports it on the D-2, and, of course,

then it never gets reported on the tax return. By keeping

everyone in the dark about this money, he is impeding the IRS's

ability to calculate taxes based on that money, to collect

taxes based on that money, and also to investigate him based on

his use of that money. He's got the 100 checks.

Now, on the 100 checks, you heard testimony from IRS

revenue Agent Paul Ponzo. He explained his review and analysis

on the 3 campaign funds and specifically on the 100 checks the

defendant wrote to himself from 2006 to 2008. What you know is

that Agent Ponzo took these records at face value in his

analysis, in trying to determine what happened to that money he

took it all at face value. But what you know is that for some

of the things that Agent Ponzo gave the defendant credit for,

the books and records are actually based on lies told by the

defendant. And they were told by the defendant in an effort to

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 61 of 143 PageID #:1836
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:06:49

11:07:10

11:07:31

11:07:53

11:08:16

opening argument - by Hamilton

1178

keep his real use of the campaign funds off the books and

records to impede the IRS in determining and collecting income

tax on those funds. I'm going to walk through some of the

after-the-fact explanations for the campaign money the

defendant took for himself.

For each one of these the defendant took the cash with

no explanation whatsoever, then months and months later he

claimed that the cash had been used on campaign expenses. What

you know from the cashed checks is that he did not use the

money on campaign expenses. He kept the money for himself and

he used it to gamble, and then 10, 8 months later he claimed

that he'd used the money on a campaign expense.

Now, these amounts that I'm about to go through were

subtracted out and given to defendant as credit by Agent Ponzo.

Agent Ponzo told you he subtracted out those amounts because he

was taking the records at face value. In his analysis, his job

wasn't to determine the truth of what was written, how a check

was classified, how it was put on a D-2 report. And even

taking everything that he saw at face value, some of which you

know is based on lies told by the defendant, there were still

$30,000 for which Agent Ponzo couldn't find absolutely no

campaign explanation whatsoever.

But your job, when you look at this evidence, is

different than Agent Ponzo's job. You can and you should

question the explanations in those documents. You can look at

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 62 of 143 PageID #:1837
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:08:41

11:09:04

11:09:23

11:09:48

11:10:05

opening argument - by Hamilton

1179

the timing of invoices and checks and figure out what that

means. You can and should think about who was controlling all

of the information in those records. It was the defendant.

And his motivation was not to be transparent and upright,

upfront and forthright about what he was doing with the

campaign funds. He, his motivation was exactly the opposite.

It was to keep the truth from everyone, because if he said I'm

using this money personally, he was going to have to pay income

taxes on it. He was taking the money, using it as he saw fit,

and decided later what he was going to say happened to that

money. And that's really the essence of Count 1, it's the

efforts that he is making to hide what he is doing so that he

doesn't actually have to pay taxes on it. So let's go through

some of the examples that will tell you that you know that the

defendant made efforts to keep this information off his books

and records so no one would know that he was actually doing it.

So as I said, for some of the checks he wrote to

himself he later claimed, almost a year later, that they had

been used for campaign expenses. So what that means is on the

face of the record, it looks like the money was used for

legitimate campaign expense. It's only after digging through

lots and lots of records that you can tell that the money was

actually cashed by the defendant, used for gambling, and then a

year later claimed as a campaign expense.

Now, you have these in Summary Chart 7 and I'm going

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 63 of 143 PageID #:1838
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:10:30

11:10:52

11:11:12

11:11:28

11:11:50

opening argument - by Hamilton

1180

to go through an example. I'm going to go through check number

2101. It's written and cashed on March 2nd, 2007, for $4,000.

You can see the time and the date that it's cashed on the back

of the check. Gambling records show that the defendant put his

card into the slots at 10:55, about 15 minutes after the check

was cashed.

Now, the check stub now shows Breaker Press, but

initially it said "William Beavers." That was correct, of

course, because he did cash the check and use it but it's later

crossed out, but that's what the check stub would have looked

like at the time the check was written and cashed.

Now, the $4,000 check that we just looked at, 2101,

that the defendant cashed on March 2nd, 2007, should've been

included in the D-2 for that campaign fund for that period of

time, it was not. Here is the D-2, it doesn't show anything to

the defendant (indicating). So at this point what this means

is there is no record with the Illinois State Board of

Elections that the defendant has used this money personally.

Andy Nauman told you they didn't get bank records, they didn't

get the backup, they just got the D-2. So as far as the

Illinois State Board of Elections is concerned, this $4,000 has

not been used by the defendant.

Then on January 18th, 2008, which is 10 months after

the defendant cashed that check, Citizens For Beavers gets this

invoice from Breaker Press for work that it was doing on the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 64 of 143 PageID #:1839
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:12:18

11:12:43

11:13:06

11:13:34

11:13:55

opening argument - by Hamilton

1181

campaign. Here is where the games begin. Now, the $4,000

check, 2101, that was cashed by the defendant in March of 2007

and used to gamble is now magically paying for a portion of the

January 2008 invoice. That money is long since gone. That

check has been out of the campaign funds since March of 2007

and now in January of 2008 the records make it look like it's

being used to pay part of this invoice. And to complete the

picture, the check stub is now changed to show that this check

was written to Breaker Press replacing the real payee, William

Beavers, with now Breaker Press. And since, of course, this

check, 2101, has long been spent by the defendant in his

gambling and, therefore, can't actually be sent to Breaker

Press to pay the invoice, the defendant has to write a check

himself. He writes a personal check to cover the $4,000 he had

taken 10 months earlier and never explained to anyone.

But, of course, none of this is remotely apparent on

the face of the campaign books. Looking just at the check stub

and his receipt, it appears as 2101 was used for a legitimate

campaign expense. There's absolutely no record that the

defendant used this personally for gambling. And that's the

point, this is all a fiction to keep everyone from knowing

what's actually happening with the campaign records.

When you look at the face of the records, nobody knows

what he did with that money. It looks like it went to Breaker

Press and that is false, but that's the whole point, he doesn't

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 65 of 143 PageID #:1840
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:14:15

11:14:34

11:15:00

11:15:16

11:15:39

opening argument - by Hamilton

1182

want the Illinois State Board of Elections to know he used that

money, and he certainly doesn't want the IRS to know that he

used the money.

And then it happens again, check number 335, on

Friends For William Beavers. The check was written in cash on

April 18th, 2007. From the back of the check you can see the

time, it's 2:19. Gambling records show the defendant's

player's card going in at 3:03, just under an hour after the

check is cashed. You see the exact same business with the

check stub. Originally, it says "William Beavers," and then at

some point it's crossed out. Then comes the Breaker Press

invoice, this one 8 months later in December of 2007, 8 months

after the defendant has cashed that check and used it

personally. And then, all of a sudden, now that money, 335

from Friends For William Beavers, is somehow magically being

used to pay Breaker Press when, in fact, you know from the

records that's false. That money was put into a slot machine.

It was used by the defendant, but you would never know that

based on these records.

The check stub now is changed. It's crossed out

"William Beavers" and "Breaker Press" is put in. And, again,

because this money has long since gone and check number 335

can't actually be sent to Breaker Press, the defendant

completes the fiction by writing a personal check to cover the

rest of the invoice.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 66 of 143 PageID #:1841
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:15:59

11:16:22

11:16:49

11:17:08

11:17:29

opening argument - by Hamilton

1183

And again, the D-2 is false. If you look at the D-2,

it looks as if Breaker Press was paid directly by the campaign

fund that $4,000, and that is the necessary part of the whole

fiction. The Illinois State Board of Elections now has no idea

that the defendant actually had that money for 8 months before

any money was sent to Breaker Press. On the face of the books

and records, the check stub, the D-2, the invoices, it looks

like this money was used to pay Breaker Press when you know it

was not. The defendant personally used it. And what you heard

from the treasurers is they relied on the defendant to tell

them how checks were used and what expenses to put down. He

was directing them to do this.

This is not sloppy bookkeeping by the treasurers.

These are very intentional efforts by the defendant to keep

everybody, the treasurers, the State Board of Elections, and

the IRS in the dark about what he's really doing with that

money. And, of course, it's not just these checks, he

reimbursed certain checks whatever ever explaining what he did

with the money in the first place.

Now, we went through the earlier checks that showed he

used the money to gamble and then later claimed he had

reimbursed money as unused campaign funds. He lied to the

Illinois State Board of Elections about the quote/unquote

reimbursements. You got these at Summary Chart 8. We went

through this lie. This money was not taken out for election

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 67 of 143 PageID #:1842
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:17:53

11:18:15

11:18:39

11:19:06

11:19:30

opening argument - by Hamilton

1184

expenses and then returned. That's not what happened. But on

the face of the records, that's what it looks like, and that is

the essence of Count 1, is that he's taking steps, he's making

efforts to make sure that the IRS doesn't know that he's

actually the one using this money personally.

We talked about all of the blank stubs and we went

through these. You can look through all the pages and pages

with absolutely no explanation. And again, this is done

keeping everybody in the dark. He doesn't tell anybody what he

is using the money for. And what does that allow? It allows

him to then claim whatever he wants after the fact. He doesn't

tell anybody at the time, he leaves his options open. Maybe

later it was taken out of for election expenses and then

magically reimbursed, maybe later it was used for Breaker

Press. The blank stubs are part of this Count 1, impeding the

IRS. The books and records don't show what's really happening

with this money. You've got all these on Summary Chart 6. So

that's the evidence, just some of the evidence that proves the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on Count 1, impeding

the IRS.

Now, I want to say one more thing about how the

defendant was keeping these books and records and what that

shows you. What that shows you is that he knew that what he

was doing was wrong. He knew he wasn't supposed to be taking

those checks, cashing them, and using them for whatever he

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 68 of 143 PageID #:1843
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:19:49

11:20:13

11:20:36

11:21:01

11:21:25

opening argument - by Hamilton

1185

wanted. He certainly wasn't supposed to be cashing checks to

replenish his losses from gambling. And you know this because

at the time he takes the money, he doesn't tell anyone what

he's doing with it. He never puts it on the checks, never says

anything about check stubs, never tells anybody to put it on

the D-2. He says nothing about what he's actually done with

this money. Treasurers have to keep a running list of the

unexplained checks. He never says to them, "oh, that check?

Yeah, I cashed it and then I lost it at the boats" or "that

check, you know, cashed that check, I used it for something, I

don't really remember." Instead, he uses invoices 8 and

10 months later after, almost a user after he took that money,

and used it as his own and then claims it as campaign expenses.

And to be clear, the defendant is not on trial because

he uses campaign funds as a personal slush fund. He is on

trial because he used his campaign funds as a personal slush

fund and did not report it on his income tax returns. He isn't

on trial because he cashed campaign checks and put the money

into a slot machine. He is on trial because he cashed campaign

checks, put the money into a slot machine, and then didn't

report it on his tax returns. He isn't on trial because he

took money and then later paid a vendor himself. He's on trial

because he took campaign money for almost a year, totally

unexplained, and then made up a fiction about what had happened

to that money and never reported it on his tax returns.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 69 of 143 PageID #:1844
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:21:46

11:22:17

11:22:44

11:23:10

11:23:32

opening argument - by Hamilton

1186

Now, we heard a lot from defense counsel in opening

statement about the defendant's long history as a public

servant and I anticipate we may hear more about that in the

defense counsel's closing argument. There is no doubt that the

defendant has spent the last 30 years as an elected public

official. As an alderman and as a Commissioner, this defendant

oversaw numerous things that taxes are used for each and every

day. And this defendant spent most of his adult life being

paid his salary by the taxpayers. He understands and he knows

first hand the importance of paying taxes. He knew he was

required to report his personal use of the campaign funds. In

2005, when he did report it, he got smacked with a substantial

tax bill that took him years to pay off and he decided he

wasn't going to let that happen again. He decided the rules

shouldn't apply to him, so he kept using the campaign funds.

He personally took almost $300,000 from those campaign funds

over 3 years, most of which he put into a slot machine and a

big chunk of it he used to more than double his own pension.

That was personal use and he knew it should've been on his tax

return. And he also personally used $30,000 from Cook County

above and beyond the salary he already received. He made an

intentional decision on all of that money to keep it off his

tax returns. That's what this case is about, that's what the

evidence has shown you. The government asks you to return the

only verdict consistent with the evidence you have in this case

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 70 of 143 PageID #:1845
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:24:15

11:24:33

11:44:00

11:44:15

11:44:36

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1187

and it is guilty as charged.

THE COURT: We will recess.

THE MARSHAL: All rise.

(The following proceedings were had out of the

presence of the jury in open court:)

THE COURT: Somewhere between 10 and 15 minutes.

You can be seated in the courtroom.

Counsel will approach. Go to the side. Off the

record.

(Sidebar conference had off the record).

(Recess.)

THE MARSHAL: All rise.

(The following proceedings were had in the presence of

the jury in open court:)

THE COURT: Please be seated.

You may proceed.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Thank you, Your Honor.

CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

BY MR. ADAM, JR: Commissioner, counsels, government,

Your Honor.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I know you all know

this is the last time I get to talk to you. In a lot of these

cases, the drive, no personality to 'em, there's no -- there's

no feel for them, but that's not this case. Many people think,

ah, you're sitting on a jury for a tax case, wake me up when

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 71 of 143 PageID #:1846
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:44:58

11:45:23

11:46:00

11:46:28

11:46:48

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1188

we're done. That hasn't been this case. And I'm not going to

talk to you like that is this kind of case. I'm not going to

stand here and put up a PowerPoint that 17 or 18 agents worked

on for 3 and a half years since they had this case. I'm not

going to sit here and push buttons and so that they can come up

and blow up big things on here, because that's not this case.

And you guys, you're honest yourselves, know this, this case is

simple. It's not hard, it's simple.

And yesterday, the very last question from the very

last witness, the very last day of testimony, broke this case

down to what it is. Vic, my partner, stood right here, a

little bit of New York swag, and he asked that witness--their

expert, their man from the IRS, who had more degrees than you

could count. He was a lawyer, tax, CPA, IRS judge, IRS

appellate judge--and he broke this case down to where we're at

today with one simple question and one simple answer, "does a

loan really depend upon the intent of the parties?" And he

said, right there (indicating), what this case is about, "it

comes down to the intent of the parties," and that is this

case, period, bar none, nothing else.

You don't have to worry about anything else, because

if I'm standing here and at the end of when I'm done talking

you guys say, "Sam, you're full of it," who are you kidding?"

there's nothing more I can say. But at the end of this case if

you say to yourselves the government never proved to me beyond

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 72 of 143 PageID #:1847
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:47:12

11:47:37

11:47:57

11:48:14

11:48:38

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1189

a reasonable doubt that when Commissioner Beavers wrote every

single one of those checks, every single one to himself, every

single one of those checks made out at his bank, every single

one of those checks paid back!

Think about that. The government just said that in

her opening statement about Breaker Press, when he got the

receipt, it was paid back later. They're using the term "paid

back." If that's the case -- and we all know that he didn't

try to hide any check, that every check was made to him. The

intent of the parties when we're talking about criminal action,

that's what we're talking about here. She just told you.

We're not on trial here because he took money out of the

campaign fund, we know that because it's legal. We're not on

trial here, as she just told you, because he gambled the money.

You know why? Because it's legal.

Andy Nauman told us right from that stand we're not on

trial here because the Illinois State Board of Elections,

because you can borrow money from your campaign funds. You can

borrow money. And she just told you we're not here because he

borrowed money.

This case is, and I stood right here in opening

statement and told you, it ain't about taxes, it ain't about

gambling. This case is about whether or not Commissioner

Beavers broke a single, solitary law when he borrowed money and

paid it back and intended to pay it back.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 73 of 143 PageID #:1848
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:48:58

11:49:17

11:49:37

11:50:03

11:50:32

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1190

I have one question, just one question, if I am wrong

in this proposition, if I'm not being honest with you in this

proposition, you name one person that you know when you're

going back there and deliberate, one person that you know that

takes income and pays it back. Name one time it ever happened

in your life. You got a paycheck from your employer but you

gave it to back to him. You name one time in your life where

someone came over to you and said keep this, this is income to

you and you pay it back. You name one time where you filled

out a deposit slip and put the money into your account, one

time, and you said, you know what, I'm going to given this back

to the person who hired me. You don't give back income, you

keep it.

Yet everything in this case from day one to as I stand

here right now and as Matt Getter will get up here in a second

in his closing, everything in this case tells each and every

one of you when he wrote those checks he intended to pay them

back, and you know that from their evidence, from their checks.

I'll show you what I'm talking about. I'll give you

an example on the hundred checks that we're talking about.

They want to focus on April 9th, April 9th, April 9th. Let's

take a look here.

If you look at the top check here (indicating), that's

check number 1862. March 8th of 2007, $2,000 written out to

who? William Beavers. Then you go to the next one, 1863,

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 74 of 143 PageID #:1849
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:51:02

11:51:23

11:51:46

11:52:08

11:52:28

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1191

March 31st, 2007, $2,000. Who's it made out to? William

Beavers. 1866, April 5th, 2007, William Beavers, $2,000. The

next one, 1867, William Beavers. April 9th, $2,000. The next

one, April 9th, $2,000. The next one, April 18th, $2,000. The

next one, April 19th, $4,000. Now, look at that, look at those

checks right there (indicating). Every single one of those

checks borrowed by William Beavers. Every single one.

And how do we know it, ladies and gentlemen? How do

you know what I'm telling you is true? By their evidence. In

the longest period of time, 2 and a half months he paid back

the campaign $16,000 on May 31st, 2007. 16 grand out of his

own pocket he puts back in and they tell you it was to pay off

these checks, to reimburse those checks.

Now, I beg -- which begs the question, if I'm wrong,

if I'm wrong, what evidence do you have that he was doing this

for a secret purpose? We know when the IRS got involved in it.

And Ponzo told you that, Ponzo told you when he came in on this

and it was after December 31st, 2008. So when she just stood

up here and told you a second ago that he did this to hide from

the IRS, he was trying to impede the IRS, Ponzo told you he

wasn't involved in this as of December 31st, 2008.

So what's he putting the 16 grand back for if it's not

a loan? You make Matt Getter get up here and tell you why he's

putting the money back if it's not a loan, if he's not

borrowing that money. There's only one answer in a criminal

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 75 of 143 PageID #:1850
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:52:46

11:53:03

11:53:32

11:53:54

11:54:15

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1192

trial. You gotta remember where we're at here. Somehow this

whole thing got flipped out where we're supposed to prove to

you they are loans, which we have. We got to remember where

we're at. They have to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt.

They're not. This whole thing has got flipped around here.

This whole thing is backwards. When you look at what the IRS

and what these United States Attorneys have done in this case

with whom they called, this whole thing is flipped around.

Think about where you're sitting right now.

Seriously! I'm not joking. We're sitting in the United States

Federal District Court. We're talking about the United States

of America. The best darn country there is in this world. The

toughest country there is in this world. And who does the IRS

bring in here and where their case rises and falls, sink or

swim? That's here, rise or fall, sink or swim, but we do it

together. And that's what the United States of America has

said with Agent Ponzo, this case will rise and fall, sink or

swim on Agent Ponzo.

They can get the best expert in the world from U. Penn

or Morgan School of Business and who do they bring in here?

Ponzo who can't even pass the accountant's exam. The United

States, the best thing they can do is get a guy who can't be an

accountant to do their accounting. The best thing they can do

is get a man in here who can't be an accountant, who can't pass

the test to be an accountant, to tell other accountants what

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 76 of 143 PageID #:1851
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:54:36

11:54:56

11:55:16

11:55:59

11:56:11

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1193

they're supposed to do. That's as backwards as it gets.

That's like Lindsay Lohan telling Betty Ford on how to tell

people get off drugs. We talk about football and sports,

honestly, that's like Willie Smith telling Phil Jackson how to

win championships. They got a guy here who can't even pass the

exam.

And if I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, remember their paper.

This is a paper case, a paper case, remember their paper. You

have to know, each and every single one of you, that Agent

Ponzo told you the truth, that Agent Ponzo filled it in, that

Agent Ponzo had 3 and a half years, he told you that, to go

through the records. He looked at the personal records, that

he looked at the banking records, he looked at the D-2's, that

he looked at the campaign records, all right. So in 3 and a

half years, their guy, their man, should have it right on a

date they picked --

MS. HAMILTON: Objection.

THE COURT: I'm sustaining the objection and I'm

sustaining the objection because you're not talking about the

evidence, you're talking about what lawyers did and lawyers are

not witnesses.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Yes, Your Honor.

May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: On a date Agent Ponzo picked,

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 77 of 143 PageID #:1852
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:56:43

11:57:02

11:57:17

11:57:35

11:57:52

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1194

April 9th. You guys have your books, I think. If you guys

have your books, if you could turn to Chart 4.

I'm not sure it's clear up here (indicating). What

this is about is whether or not you can trust beyond a

reasonable doubt Agent Ponzo and his paper. After all, he is

the IRS agent who did this.

Now, take a look at the very beginning of Chart 4 that

they gave. If you look here (indicating), and this is why it's

highlighted, right here it'll show you the level for cash

(indicating).

Now, Agent Ponzo was up on that stand and told us that

on April 9th 3 checks were written by William Beavers and then

he went to the casino right after that and gambled and lost,

then he went back and got more checks and lost, and that he

went back and got more checks and then eventually ended up

winning, that's what Agent Ponzo told you here.

But the question is here, what they're trying to show

you is, the reason he had to get money was because he was

losing all day long, continued to lose. And he told you these

were the complete set. He went through this and showed you it

was the complete set of records. So let's find out if he's

telling the truth or not. Let's see if he's right.

What the accountants told you here, all of them, is

that when you go gambling and you win a jackpot of $1200 or

more, you get a W-2G; it's a jackpot. And so if you look here,

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 78 of 143 PageID #:1853
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:58:13

11:58:58

11:59:58

12:00:42

12:01:25

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1195

on the third line down here, where the very first one says

"cash jackpot," isn't that right? Well, here's the W-2G

(indicating). You're going to have these in evidence, "cash

jackpot." Look in your book at 2:46 p.m., it should say

1738.80, here it is right here (indicating). Let's go to cash

jackpot, 3:26, it should be for 1449, W-2G. Go to 5:10, 1449,

should be on the next page, here is the W-2G. 5:31, $3,477,

right here, here's the W-2G. I want you to look at 6:07,

$3477.60, W-2G. Go to the next one, these are winnings, 6:54,

$3,477.60, there is the W-2G. 7:00 o'clock, $1,738.80, here is

the W-2G. 7:10, $2,318.40, here is the W-2G. 9:15, $2,318.40,

here is the W-2G. And lastly, 10:38, $2,889, here's the W-2G.

Now, what I want you to do, for April 9th of 2007, go

to 7:38. Look for 7:38, and it's not on there. April 9th,

2007, $1,738, here's the W-2G. Why don't you guys look for

8:23, it ain't on there. Here's the W-2G, $1,738.80, Ponzo

missed it. Why don't you guys turn right now to 8:29. Look

for 8:29, it ain't on there, Ponzo missed it, $1,738.80,

there's the W-2G. April 9th, 2007, why don't you turn to 9:32,

it ain't on there, Ponzo missed it, $1,449. Why don't you turn

to -- oh, 9:29, a second one, 4/29/07, Ponzo missed it, $1,449.

Next one, 9:46, another jackpot, $1,449, Ponzo missed it. Next

one, 10:05, $5,796, Ponzo missed it. And lastly -- oh, no, no,

I almost made a mistake there, I'm not going to do that to you.

Ponzo missed all the ones I already told you about.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 79 of 143 PageID #:1854
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:01:42

12:02:07

12:02:23

12:02:44

12:03:04

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1196

Now, how can you trust a thing he tells you about

gambling? How can you trust a thing? They didn't pick that

date, Ponzo did. He picked April 9th and they're hiding that

from you. They're hiding the fact from you that he didn't need

campaign funds, that's $15,900 he didn't account for on the

very day he picked, 15 grand. You know what you can do with 15

grand? You know how much gambling you could do with 15 grand?

You certainly don't need 3 checks of 6,000 to do it. He had

$15,900 that they purposely -- strike that. Sorry, Your Honor.

That Ponzo purposely didn't put down. And if I'm wrong about

that, you got those records, they're those W-2Gs, you look for

'em, and then make Matt Getter get up here and tell you why

those jackpots aren't on there if I'm wrong.

How can you trust a thing with Ponzo, the whole thing?

And I don't mean to be coy about it, I'll just say, it's a

Ponzo scheme, that's what this is! And if I'm wrong, and --

well, if the government has the burden beyond a reasonable

doubt, how can you trust him?

They sat here and put in all of these gambling records

and it's you, they want to make you a part of it --

MS. HAMILTON: Objection.

THE COURT: It's really important that you stick to

the evidence instead of personal attacks on your opposing

lawyers, and I don't want to start that war.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: I understand, Your Honor.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 80 of 143 PageID #:1855
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:03:29

12:03:52

12:04:15

12:04:33

12:04:50

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1197

Ponzo. Now, you look at all those charts. And if I'm

wrong, I'm wrong, but I gave it the best shot we got. Can you

trust any of them now? Any of them? And if you can't trust a

single one of 'em, can you convict him beyond a reasonable

doubt?

Can you say, we know, Sam, that the government doesn't

even claim he took a dime of taxpayer money, we know that. We

know the government doesn't even claim taking money out of the

campaign fund is illegal, she just told you that. I know that

they called up Agent Ponzo and vouched for him and now you

can't believe any of that. Can you really find him guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt after that?

And we know one thing, and I told you when I started

this, the one person, the one person who comes from their camp,

who works for the IRS, who has those degrees, they put up

yesterday, right there, put him up. And what did he tell you?

"They didn't show me any records." The one guy who's qualified

to do it, the one guy who has the degrees to do it is the one

guy who was never shown a document --

MS. HAMILTON: Objection.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: He said that.

THE COURT: Look, I've sat through lots of trials and

when you go down this path, they're going to stand up and there

are probably some things they can say about you and some things

they can say about the trial tactics in this case and they have

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 81 of 143 PageID #:1856
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:05:14

12:05:24

12:05:37

12:05:57

12:06:15

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1198

the last word. Just confine yourself to the evidence that was

presented and not what somebody's motive was in presenting one

piece of evidence or another piece of evidence. The important

thing for this jury to do is focus on what the evidence is and

what may be missing.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And you're getting very close to personal

attacks and that's not the way to go.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So I'm ordering you not to do it anymore.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Yes, Your Honor.

If I said something to you that's not in the evidence,

disregard it, please. Let's stick to it.

The expert yesterday took the stand and said he didn't

see any of the documents, that's in evidence. He sat there and

said "they called me Friday," that's in the evidence. He said

when he sat up that "I talked to them, I don't know if Agent

Ponzo was on the phone or not, but I talked to all the

lawyers," they still didn't show him anything.

MS. HAMILTON: Objection.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: That's in the evidence.

THE COURT: Look, they offered evidence and you have

to argue on the evidence they offered, and that's all. Lawyers

are entitled to make judgments about what evidence they

introduced, you are entitled to make decisions about evidence

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 82 of 143 PageID #:1857
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:06:40

12:06:50

12:07:03

12:07:20

12:07:39

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1199

they introduced, then the jury decides whether the evidence

that the lawyers have chosen to produce proves or does not

prove something. What you're trying to do is to draw

implications from evidence that nobody has introduced; don't do

it.

Do you want to take a short break, maybe consider what

you --

MR. S. ADAM, JR: No, no, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No, no, I just -- I don't want to

interrupt your momentum with respect to an argument. If you

want to take a few minutes, I'll give you a few minutes, and

you may want to change your outline, it's up to you. Answer

yes or no.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead and proceed.

MR. S. ADAM, JR.: I'll try to stick to the evidence.

The evidence in this case -- you know what? I take it

back. His Honor is right. You stick to the evidence. You

stick to it. You stick to see if I'm wrong about Agent Ponzo

and what he presented here in court. You stick to see if the

guy that came in here yesterday, the expert that the government

put on, since there's no personal attacks, the government put

on, you stick to see what you recall of how many documents he

looked at and then decide whether or not I'm sticking to the

evidence.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 83 of 143 PageID #:1858
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:07:59

12:08:18

12:08:52

12:09:21

12:09:48

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1200

The evidence in this case is clear, those hundred

checks, as plainly spoken as can possibly be, was borrowed

money. And you know that because, according to the opening

statements by the government, was paid back.

Now, I remember standing here and telling you, in

opening statement, percentages. Think about what Agent Ponzo

testified in this case about percentages. "Oh, I didn't do

it"! Think about what he said about whether or not when he

went to Mr. Beavers' personal accounts how much personal money

he took out at the casino. Well, I really didn't do an

analysis until Aaron pinned him down: Isn't it possible it was

111,530 bucks, $111,530 taken out at the casino, at the ATM, by

Commissioner Beavers. And do you know how much money of that

came from the campaign fund? Not one dollar. What did Agent

Ponzo tell you about past checks? "Well, I really didn't do an

analysis on it, but yes, 250,000 taken out in cash by

Commissioner Beavers in those 3 years." That's his gambling

money. That is his gambling money.

And if I'm wrong, let's suppose I'm wrong, let's say

that this 71 at the time in 2006, 72 in 2007, 73 in 2008, that

this 73-year old man was taking those checks and gambling with

them. First and foremost, we're talking law, and everybody

agrees in this case that you can take a loan out, and every

check that they came in here with was written out to him. So

it was borrowed money, every single one of them. But think

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 84 of 143 PageID #:1859
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:10:13

12:10:29

12:10:55

12:11:16

12:11:32

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1201

about April 9th, if it's to be believed, 71 year old man heads

over to the casino and starts to gamble and runs out of money,

according to this theory, and what does he do? Does he run

over to the cage where he knows Jack Guerrero who came in here

and said "I know him, I worked in the cage, and cashed a check

from the campaign"? No. Does he go over to one of the 32?

Remember she said, "32 ATM" and runs the card to take money out

of the cash machine from the campaign? No.

What do they tell you he does? A 71 through 73 year

old man gets up, leaves the casino, leaves Indiana, goes over

to Illinois, and cashes a check from the campaign fund made out

to him and he goes back to the casino to continue to gamble, if

you believe their theory.

But that's not enough. As he gambles some more, he's

got to get up, leave the casino, leave Indiana, go back over to

Illinois, get a campaign check, write it out to himself, cash

it in his bank, and he goes back to the Horseshoe! Now, why

would anybody do that? Why? If according to what the

government's theory is, what they just told you, he's not going

to report the money anyway. According to the theory that they

just told you, he's not going to put it on the D-2's.

According to the theory that you just heard, he's not going to

let the Illinois State Board of Elections know any of this. So

why would a man who's not reporting it, who's not showing

anybody this stub, who, according to them, is not telling

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 85 of 143 PageID #:1860
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:11:58

12:12:21

12:12:37

12:13:00

12:13:19

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1202

anybody, get up at age 71, 72, and 73, leave the casino and do

these things? It's simple! He wasn't gambling with the money.

His office, as they put up a hundred times, is right on 79th

Street, and this is during election time on April 9th of 2007.

He's getting the money around the election area. That's what

politicians do. And if I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, how can Agent

Ponzo, how can every witness come in here and tell you "I don't

know if that money went in the casino or not" "I don't know if

that money went into a slot machine or not."

Remember, I don't have to prove a thing to you. I

really, truly don't. Commissioner Beavers doesn't have to

prove a thing to you. He really, truly doesn't. In fact,

you're going to see that in an instruction. They have to prove

to you beyond a reasonable doubt that that money went into the

casino and that that money went into the slot machines, and

they told you they can't.

And you want to know the truth? The absolute truth?

Is even if it did, that's not a crime. Even if it did, even if

what he did was go write a check to himself so that it's made

out to him so that he could take a loan, so that he could go

gamble, as long as it was in his mind to pay it back, that's

not a crime.

Remember, I love him and I hope I don't offend anybody

about this, but he had that beautiful, gorgeous, thick African

accent, and remember the one who does his taxes, and one of the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 86 of 143 PageID #:1861
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:13:39

12:13:56

12:14:12

12:14:51

12:15:25

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1203

questions he was asked was "is there any line there in the

forms for loans" and he said, "no, no, it's not taxable."

Remember, it was a beautiful, thick African accent, "no, it's

not taxable." And that's this case. When you go back into

that jury room and you begin to deliberate, start with that,

"no, it's not taxable."

I mean, I don't mean to make fun here, but we're

talking about a Commissioner in Cook County charged by the

United States of America. And if loans are not taxable, they

can't show you that one dime went into the casino that they

spent four days proving up? And that's proof beyond a

reasonable doubt? And every single one of those checks written

out to him?

But one of the things I did tell you in opening

statement was, I was going to be able to show you that

according to their calculations, according to what they say, in

2006, 98 percent was either in receipts or paid back. In 2007,

80 percent was either in receipts or paid back. In 2008, 76

percent either used as campaign funds or paid back.

Remember Agent Ponzo? "I don't do percentages." They

got the one, the one IRS agent that can't even add and

subtract. He couldn't even do a subtraction sitting in the

seat of $1400 from 96,000. But I did it.

We'll go year by year. 2006, this is their evidence,

$96,000. They say he left in his pocket $1,482.67, which

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 87 of 143 PageID #:1862
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:16:02

12:16:30

12:17:01

12:17:28

12:17:54

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1204

leaves 94,517.33. All you have to do is divide $94,517.33 by

96,000 and you get 98 percent paid back or used for campaign

funds.

2007, $69,300.84, the evidence in this case says he

was left with $14,150.62, which leaves $55,150.22. All you

have to do is divide $55,150.62 by 69,300.84, 80 percent --

really? Okay, that's not true. It's 79.70 percent, I rounded

it off to 80.

2008, $61,000, left in his pocket $14,552.11 which

leaves $46,447.89, 76 percent.

And when you do the math on all of it, $226,300.84,

and they say he left in his pocket $30,185.40, that leaves

$196,115.44, and when you do the calculation that's 86.6

percent.

Now, I went over that with you in opening. If I'm

wrong, then there's nothing I can do about it. But what do you

call it when someone writes out checks to themselves and pays

back or legitimately uses 86.6 percent of the money? Is that

income?

If you listen to the opening statement here today, the

theory is he should've reported that 86.6 percent. Do any of

you believe that? Is that what the law is? And if not, if we

use those calculations, and we all agree because they were

either paid back which would make them legitimate loans or used

for campaign funds, they're not income. That means he had the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 88 of 143 PageID #:1863
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:18:17

12:18:42

12:19:08

12:19:32

12:19:50

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1205

intent at the time he wrote the checks to pay it back.

And if he had the intent at the time of writing the

check, what did the very last expert say yesterday? It's the

intent of the parties that determines whether it's a loan.

Now, that's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt except for one

thing, it does prove one thing beyond a reasonable doubt, is he

borrowed the money and intended to pay it back. And this whole

thing comes down to, because by December 31st of 2008, it

hadn't all been paid back, but you know from the calculations

he got credit in 2006 for things that were written in 2007 and

it gave him credit for things in 2007 that were paid back in

2008. So in 2008 what does he get credit for? We don't know.

MS. HAMILTON: Objection.

THE COURT: The objection to that is sustained.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: And I ask you, is that proof beyond

a reasonable doubt? Are you guys looking at me and saying,

"Sam, dude, what are you talking about? That's just not

reasonable"? You know it is --

MS. HAMILTON: Objection.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: You will have to make that

determination.

Well, let's talk about the contingency fund. $1200 a

month, every month, that went out. Every month Cook County

knew it went out because they sent the check. Every month the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 89 of 143 PageID #:1864
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:20:16

12:20:40

12:21:02

12:21:26

12:21:45

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1206

treasurer knew it came in. So this idea that Commissioner

Beavers is hiding somehow that he's getting $1200 a month is

ridiculous.

Cook County sent him the form to fill out. So to say

he's hiding this from the government is ridiculous. Not only

did they send him the form, they sent it with a County employee

to get his answer. So this idea that he somehow is hiding the

fact he's getting this money is ridiculous. The young lady sat

right there and told you she put down "William Beavers will

take this as income" and went back and gave him the form to

sign and he signed it.

Now, at one point during the opening argument here is

that he's doing all these things and he's a Commissioner and he

knows better, yet when it comes time for the checks that he's

getting, he's somehow absolutely oblivious to the fact County

knows it. Now, which Commissioner Beavers is it? The one that

knows everything there is to know about taxes or the one who

hasn't figured out yet that when the woman came in with a

contingency slip she's not going to realize he put down he was

taking it for income. That's ridiculous.

What's further ridiculous is, all Commissioner Beavers

had to do to keep the money, all he had to do to keep the money

is one thing, fill it out --

MS. HAMILTON: Objection.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 90 of 143 PageID #:1865
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:22:02

12:22:27

12:22:52

12:23:11

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1207

MR. S. ADAM, JR: This is the form (indicating). In

evidence is this form (indicating). In evidence is that the

form says "gasoline, oil, et cetera," "expense basis," in

evidence is on there "mileage rate," "basis" in evidence is,

nothing is written there. In evidence is that there's parking

fees/tolls, "expense basis," nothing written there. "Mileage

base rates," nothing written there. Other, "other expenses,"

no specialization, just "other expenses," nothing written

there. The one thing that's on the form that this man who

knows everything about taxes and knows how to hide the fact

he's taking taxes is the one statement that says he's taking it

as taxes.

But more than that, do you know what the opening

argument in this case just told you? It was that he signed it

after he had done his taxes. He had gotten away with it if

that was his purpose. Even after his taxes are done, he's

informing the County he wants to pay taxes on it.

MS. HAMILTON: Objection.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Well, maybe I need a sidebar so I

can find out what I can say.

THE COURT: Sure.

(Proceedings heard at sidebar on the record.)

THE COURT: Where did he say he wanted to pay taxes?

MR. S. ADAM, JR.: She said --

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 91 of 143 PageID #:1866
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:23:46

12:23:57

12:24:34

12:24:55

12:25:23

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1208

THE COURT: Where did he say he wanted to pay taxes?

MR. S. ADAM, JR.: Write down, taking it as income.

THE COURT: Oh, no, that's not the same thing as

saying you want to pay taxes. What you're doing, what you are

doing is not reciting, you are not reciting what he said, you

are changing the words that came into evidence and I don't want

you to do it. So I sustain the objection.

MR. S. ADAM, JR.: Your Honor --

THE COURT: We are done.

MR. S. ADAM, JR.: Yes, Your Honor.

(Proceedings resumed within the hearing of the jury.)

MR. S. ADAM, JR.: I will read verbatim what is in,

"Commissioner Beavers will claim his fiscal year 2007

contingency as income" signed "William Beavers," that's what's

in evidence. You can take from that what you will. You can

take from that whether if it's signed even after his taxes have

been done by Achusim, what that means.

You can take from that what you know that he could've

gotten away with it and he still does it, what that means.

That's this case, plain and simple. And for you to have this

(indicating) and still say that it's proof beyond a reasonable

doubt as to what was in his mind when he got those checks can't

be done.

He never -- strike that. The evidence in this case

suggests that when he gave this form to his employer and those

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 92 of 143 PageID #:1867
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:25:59

12:26:42

12:26:59

12:27:23

12:27:48

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1209

funds didn't show up on the W-2, he doesn't know it. How do we

get to that?

I told you in opening statement that in 2006 he had 50

plus W-2's and W-2Gs, in 2007 he had 50 plus -- or 50 plus

W-2's and W-2Gs. He had 50 plus in 2008 W-2's and W-2Gs. This

right here (indicating), as I am showing you, this right here

are the W-2Gs for 2007 alone, just alone 2007, the W-2 that

came in is mixed in with everything else. As Achushy told you,

"oh, we just went downstairs and got it from him." Remember?

Remember how he got his taxes? Remember how he went over his

taxes? The Commissioner would drive by, he would run down,

hand him an envelope, and go, and then when he came back he did

it, signed and sent it out with this in here (indicating).

Now, what the government this morning told you is not

how I recall his testimony. And I want you to recall the

testimony as to what Achushy -- I call him Achushy, Achusim --

I can't say it, Achusim, what he told you regarding the one

time in those 3 years he got a call from Commissioner Beavers

regarding the withholding. My recollection and you have to

have your own is, he said he got a call from Commissioner

Beavers and had to go over and pick up two W-2Gs. He got the

call to go pick them up. And what does that mean? How does

that differ from what the government told you? He didn't go

through tax forms and see that he was missing some

withholdings. I'll put it over here (indicating). He had the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 93 of 143 PageID #:1868
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:28:20

12:28:47

12:29:07

12:29:41

12:30:06

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1210

two W-2s in his hand and the W-2s show, if you look right here,

"state income tax withheld." So as he's seeing the W-2G he

says, according to Achushy, "oh, did you take out enough on

taxes?" Remember that? He's got the W-2Gs in his hand. It's

not that he withdrew and saw his taxes. That's not what he

said. He had to go pick up the W-2Gs. So the evidence in this

case does not suggest Commissioner Beavers is going through his

taxes. Commissioner Beavers forgot extra W-2 winnings he has

to pay taxes on. That's him giving them to Achushy for more

taxes. Is this a corrupt endeavor for him to not pay more

taxes?

When you look at these W-2Gs, look right on them,

"gross winning" you have to pay federal income tax on it.

"Gross winnings, $2,000," you have to pay federal income tax on

that. By pointing out the withholding, he had to pay more on

his taxes. But this is a corrupt endeavor!

Those contingency checks, in plain view, he was taking

it as income, which begs the question, did he have the intent,

did he have the intent to file false tax returns? Did he have

that intent? That's what this case -- I told you when I

started, did he have the intent to not pay taxes. And the

answer is clearly no. And you'll have to be satisfied beyond a

reasonable doubt not that I tell you this, you have to be

convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they proved to you he

did, and that's not this case.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 94 of 143 PageID #:1869
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:30:42

12:31:13

12:31:34

12:32:09

12:32:30

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1211

$68,763.07 check is borrowed money. I can't say it

any simpler than that. It comes from his campaign fund

directly to the pension fund, directly to it. Now, that is

borrowed money. And how do we know that? Because as Aaron

Goldstein brought out, there's $19,500 paid back into the

campaign fund that's attributable to the $68,763.07. If you

recall, Aaron, beautiful cross-examination, put it right up

here and went through with Agent IRS Ponzo and went through it,

there was "$8500, not attributed," there was "11,000, not

attributed," but yet all paid back by Commissioner Beavers by

2000 -- -- strike that, by December 31st of 2008. That's him

paying back on the $68,000 loan.

Now, did he borrow a significant amount of money?

Sure. But he's repaying it, and he's repaying it on the

68,000. And if I'm wrong, did they prove to you beyond a

reasonable doubt that he wasn't? All of the checks, you see

them, I don't have to go through them with you, all the checks

going from here to here, him reimbursing go to the $68,000 loan

that he took. That's this case.

I very rarely use notes. So if this distracts you, I

apologize. I very rarely use them, but I don't want to miss a

point.

What else do we know? Because I did, I missed one.

What else do we know? We know what payments are on the 68,000.

And you know what that is? Void checks. Remember who came in

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 95 of 143 PageID #:1870
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:32:53

12:33:12

12:33:32

12:33:55

12:34:17

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1212

here and testified? Vetrice Coleman, the treasurer. Remember

what she said? And this goes across-the-board on the corrupt

endeavor to the $68,000 check to the hundred checks. Remember

what she told you? Remember whose system the bookkeeping was

in this case? It was not the Commissioner. Remember how many

times Floyd Young and Vetrice Coleman told you the Commissioner

sat down at 70-plus years old and sat at the computer doing

D-2's? Never; not once. Do you remember how many times they

told you Commissioner Beavers came up with a plan on how to do

bookkeeping? Never; not once.

Vetrice Coleman told you on direct examination that it

was her system. She came up with void checks. And what do

void checks mean? It means money paid back by Commissioner

Beavers that she voided out. I specifically asked her, "did he

tell you to do it that way?" "No, that was my system."

And so if you look at what Aaron had done, that's

another 15 or 16, 17,000 dollars paid back, according to a

witness who came in, and I had to cross-examine, that was paid

back to the campaign fund. That's all paying back on the

loans.

You know, what happened here in this case, ladies and

gentlemen, is, somehow we got to break these things down by

areas. But at 73 years old, this was payment he had to make

back on the loans he took. And so some of them would go to the

hundred that he took, some of them would go to the 68,000, some

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 96 of 143 PageID #:1871
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:34:32

12:34:48

12:35:13

12:35:42

12:36:11

closing argument on behalf of defendant

1213

of them would go to Breaker Press. He said, all right, I

borrowed this money, how do I pay that back? Well, I can take

the money I owed here, I borrowed 4,000 here, I'll pay Breaker

Press $4,000 out of my own pocket. We do that every day. Just

yesterday my brother borrowed a hundred dollars from me.

There's no doubt I'm not getting that back, so we won't even

talk about that. But it was an agreement between he and I.

Now, if he takes me to dinner and for a hundred dollars, we're

square; that's Breaker Press. I borrowed 4,000, I paid Breaker

Press out of my own pocket, we're square. This isn't a Fortune

500 Dollar company. This is now a 78-year old Commissioner

who's not doing the bookkeeping.

Which begs the final question, after this is that

proof beyond a reasonable doubt that that man sitting right

there, right there (indicating), Commissioner, alderman, trying

to intentionally have some endeavor not to pay it back? Was

this a man who got some loans, paying them back when he could,

paying back the IRS when he could, was paying back the money he

borrowed when he could?

You know, everything today in the opening statement

and in the opening argument, it really was, it was good, it was

great. It was a very good opening argument except for one

thing, that completely works if he's not paying it back. For

once you see he's trying to pay it back and may--and I told

you, we'd be honest about it--may have a problem, may, may have

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 97 of 143 PageID #:1872
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:36:44

12:37:11

12:38:12

12:38:27

12:38:50

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1214

a gambling problem, but he's trying to pay it back, and in a

criminal trial it's the intent. Remember, a loan is not

taxable. If he's trying to pay it back, he's not a criminal.

If he's trying to pay it back, he's not guilty.

Commissioner Beavers may have gotten over his head,

but it had nothing to do with the IRS. It had everything to do

with a problem. And that's not criminal. Send that 78-year

old man off. They didn't prove anything to you beyond a

reasonable doubt. Thank you.

CLOSING ARGUMENT IN REBUTTAL

BY MR. GETTER: Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant

knew the rules. He was an experienced politician who had been

an elected official for more than 20 years. He had raised a

lot of money for his campaigns and he had spent a lot of money

for his campaigns, and he knew the difference between spending

the money -- spending money on your personal campaign -- excuse

me, between spending money on your campaign and spending money

on yourself.

But in 2005, everything changed. In that year he

reported $43,000 in campaign money that he took and he used for

himself, and he took a $27,000 hit from money he had to pay

back, and he vowed that wasn't going to happen again. He

continued having to pay that money off well after December 2008

and he learned his lesson, it wasn't going to happen again.

Those monthly installment payments, they were on his mind every

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 98 of 143 PageID #:1873
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:39:14

12:39:37

12:39:53

12:40:17

12:40:37

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1215

single month. 5, 600 dollars a month. He wasn't going to let

this happen again. That tax bill changed everything.

So starting in 2006 he was left with two options:

Option one, continue to use his campaign money but pay taxes on

it. Option two, stop using his campaign money for himself.

But neither of those two options was acceptable to the

defendant. So he chose a third path, option three, in this

context as opposed to a letter from MEA&BF, was to keep using

his campaign money but hide the fact that he was using his

campaign money so he didn't get hit with another tax bill, and

that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we're here today.

Now, Mr. Adam spent a lot of time in his argument

arguing that these were not loans. Make no mistake -- excuse

me, arguing that they were loans. Make no mistake, these were

not loans. For money to be a loan, there has to be an actual

obligation to pay the money back. If you get a mortgage from

your bank to buy a house, you get a mortgage agreement. It

says how much you're borrowing, it says what the rate of

interest is going to be, it says how long you have to pay it

back, it sets out what happens if you don't pay the money back,

you lose your collateral or you pay a penalty, and you can get

sued if you default. Even if you borrow less formally,

Mr. Adam borrowing from his brother, or anyone borrowing from

his neighbor. If you tell your neighbor you need 1,000 bucks

to fix your car, you'll pay him back next month, you make that

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 99 of 143 PageID #:1874
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:40:54

12:41:15

12:41:35

12:41:53

12:42:09

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1216

promise upfront. You tell the neighbor can I borrow the 1,000

bucks from you, I will pay it back, I will pay it back next

month. Even those less formal loans have an up-front agreement

with an intention and an obligation to pay the money back.

That's not what happened here. The defendant did not

get loans in this case. The defendant simply took the money

with no actual commitment to pay it back. Sometimes he put

money back in, sometimes he didn't. It was all up to him. It

was his choice whether he was going to put money back in or

not. There was no one else who was going to enforce that

promise because there wasn't a promise to enforce and there was

no one else to enforce it, it was all up to him. That's not a

loan. That is taking money that is income.

How do you know that these weren't loans? Well, first

and foremost, he didn't tell anybody they were loans. He

didn't tell his campaign treasurers they were loans. The

campaign treasurers asked him what were these checks for. They

prepared lists for him of these checks that he wrote to

himself. They asked for an explanation. They had to put a

reason down on the disclosure form for the campaign, they had

to explain why Mr. Beavers was taking the money. But he didn't

give them explanations, and when he occasionally did it wasn't

true. As treasurers, they needed to know the reasons for the

checks and he didn't tell them.

You remember the last question we asked Vetrice

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 100 of 143 PageID #:1875
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:42:30

12:42:51

12:43:12

12:43:35

12:43:58

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1217

Coleman was "did the defendant ever tell you that any of these

checks were a loan" and she said no. She was the treasurer.

If anyone had to know that he was borrowing $226,000 from the

campaign, it would be the treasurer who had to know. But he

never told her.

For all of those 100 checks, plus the 101, the check

that he to the pension fund from his campaign fund, not one

single time did he write the word "loan" on a check or

evidenced any other sort of obligation to repay it. For all

101 of those check stubs, nothing, no evidence of a loan. No

indication he had to pay it back.

There wasn't a single loan document in the campaign

records. You heard Agent Ponzo testify, he pored through those

documents, nothing. Not a single loan document, not even an

IOU. There was nothing showing any intent to pay the money

back at the time he took it. He didn't tell the Board of

Elections that he had any loans.

Now, we pointed out that in 2005 he did tell the Board

of Elections that he took out loans, and you'll have that 2005

D-2. It says personal loan, personal loan, personal loan, but

he didn't do that in 2006 to 2008, not one time. Why? Why

Department he do that? He didn't do it because they weren't

loans. He didn't do it because he didn't want to be obligated

to pay the money back.

You heard from Andy Nauman, he was tracking what the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 101 of 143 PageID #:1876
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:44:15

12:44:31

12:44:50

12:45:09

12:45:27

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1218

defendant was doing. He was writing letters to the defendant.

He was calling the defendant. He wanted explanations for this

money that was reimbursed because he didn't see any indication

of what the money had been for in the first place. The last

thing the defendant wanted was to put loans down for 2006 to

2008 so that Andy Nauman would be calling him up and asking

when are you going to be repaying these loans. If he doesn't

put it down as a loan, Nauman is not going to be asking him to

pay it back.

And here's a really important question, Mr. Adam

pointed out several points in his closing argument that there

was nothing improper about taking a loan from your campaign

fund, and that's exactly what Mr. Nauman said. Mr. Nauman said

there was no prohibition on loaning yourself money from the

campaign fund. Well, if that's the case, if there was nothing

wrong with it, why didn't he say it? Why didn't he put it down

in his D-2's that these were loans? There's nothing improper

about it, nothing illegal about it. But the problem is then he

might have to pay the money back. Someone might come to him

and say where's the money, when are you going to put it back,

and that's the last thing he wanted when he was still paying

off the $27,000 tax bill. He wanted the flexibility to do

whatever he wanted with this money without anyone looking over

his shoulder and asking when, why, and how.

You need more proof that these weren't loans? Look at

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 102 of 143 PageID #:1877
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:45:48

12:46:08

12:46:29

12:46:48

12:47:05

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1219

the personal financial statements he submitted to New Citibank

in 2007 and 2008 when he was applying for equity lines of

credit from the bank. They had a whole section on there for

liabilities. He put down the taxes he was owed, he put down

credit card debts that he had. He was perfectly honest in

those personal financial statements. He was a director of the

bank, he was a director of that bank, he had to be honest with

them. Nothing about a loan, nothing about $68,000 loan for his

pension and nothing about the number of 100 checks that he had

taken out so far at that point, nothing, that's because they

weren't loans. That's the best evidence that this man was

taking the money, he wasn't borrowing it.

To call them loans now is nothing more than an

afterthought. It's a way of characterizing to argue that it

wasn't income. If they had been loans, he could've called it

loans at the time and he didn't.

Now, Mr. Adam spent a lot of time arguing that the

defendant paid the money back. If he paid the money back,

well, obviously it's a loan, that's his argument. Well, why

did the defendant put money back into his campaign funds?

Well, for one thing, he knew he wasn't supposed to be taking it

and using it on himself without paying taxes in the first

place, so he had to put some money back in --

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Objection.

MR. GETTER: He put the money --

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 103 of 143 PageID #:1878
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:47:22

12:47:41

12:48:04

12:48:14

12:48:33

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1220

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GETTER: He put the money back in so the

treasurers would stop asking questions, he put the money back

in so the Board of Elections wouldn't ask questions and no one

would be any wiser. He was afraid of getting caught doing what

he was doing, that's why he put some of the money back into the

campaign funds. He struck a balance between using the money

for himself and reporting it in a way that didn't shed any

light on how he was using the money. He couldn't deplete his

entire campaign fund because then he wouldn't be a viable

politician anymore. If he had nothing left in his campaign

fund, what was he going to do to buy the lawn signs, what was

he going to do to pay the campaign workers, he'd have nothing

left so he had to put some money back in, that doesn't make it

a loan.

Mr. Adam wants you to focus on the back end of these

transactions. He wants you to focus only on the payback that

happened afterwards and not on what happened at the time he

took the loan. In deciding whether it was a loan or not you

should look at the front end. You should look at what was the

intent at the time the money was taken. That's where you look

to see if it was a loan and to see if the defendant was

obligated to pay the money back, actually obligated to pay it

back. And there was no evidence, none, of an upfront

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 104 of 143 PageID #:1879
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:48:51

12:49:16

12:49:34

12:49:57

12:50:14

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1221

commitment.

Even the evidence of him putting money back into the

campaign fund is weak. First of all, it was 100 checks we're

talking about. Now, was this 100 loans? Was it one loan? Was

it an equity line of credit? What was this? Did each of the

100 checks have its own interest rate? Its own payment period?

Its own collateral? Mr. Adam didn't explain that to you, he

just wants you to say it was all loans.

He was the only one involved in these transactions.

He was the one writing the checks, he was the one cashing the

checks, he was the one using the money, and he was the one who

was explaining to the treasurers what they should put down on

the stubs as the purpose of those checks. This was not an

arm's length transaction. And you heard from the expert that

if that's not an arm's length transaction, you apply even more

scrutiny to see whether or not it was a loan. And that's the

problem, if he's on both sides of the transaction, where is the

obligation to pay this money back? What happens if he falls

behind? Is he going to send someone a frightening letter,

"dear Mr. Beavers, pay the money by next week" signed,

Mr. Beavers. If that doesn't work, is he going to sue himself?

Beavers versus Beavers? There's no enforcement mechanism here,

it was entirely up to him. That's not an actual obligation to

pay the money back. And he wasn't repaying a debt in the way

you normally repay a debt. Every time he put money back into

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 105 of 143 PageID #:1880
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:50:37

12:51:00

12:51:22

12:51:43

12:52:00

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1222

the campaign, he took more money out and he kept sinking and

sinking and sinking.

Mr. Adam poked fun at Agent Ponzo and his numbers,

there was only 12 or 1400 dollar difference in his analysis in

2006, and 14,000 in 2007, and about 14,000 in 2008. Put that

altogether, you got $30,000. It was continuing to grow. He

was not paying back this money. He had no intention of paying

it all back. He put back what he needed to put back to cover

his trail.

Mr. Adam also spent a lot of time talking about

percentages. He said 98 percent in one year was paid back, 86

percent overall. And, actually, that's not true. When you

break down the numbers, let's talk about why Paul Ponzo did the

analysis he did.

Agent Ponzo was asked to figure out what happened with

this money. He was asked to determine what could've been

campaign use versus what could have been personal use. It was

difficult to do that. It wasn't difficult because he wasn't a

real accountant that Mr. Adam says, it was difficult because of

what the defendant did. It was difficult because of the way he

kept his records. It was difficult because of the fictions

that he created, that's why it was so hard for Agent Ponzo to

do what he did.

Agent Ponzo said it's difficult to trace cash, and

that's how he took all this money, wrote the checks and cashed

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 106 of 143 PageID #:1881
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:52:19

12:52:41

12:53:03

12:53:21

12:53:43

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1223

them. Agent Ponzo wasn't there to see it happen, so he had to

do the kind of analysis where he gives the benefit of the doubt

to every single thing in the defendant's campaign records.

He looked at the checks, the check stubs, the bank

records, the expenses, the invoices. My gosh, he even looked

at handwritten notes and gave him credit for that, because he

wanted to be able to testify as to whether giving the defendant

every single benefit of the doubt in his campaign funds, there

was still money left over. And that's what he found. He bent

over backwards in his generosity to the defendant and still

found $30,000 that could not be explained, and that's just

among the hundred checks, that doesn't include the $68,000 and

it doesn't include the Cook County contingency checks.

And he even gave him credit for invoices for

cigarettes, for alcohol, stuff that there's no way that's

campaign related, got credit for it, and still $30,000 that

couldn't be explained by any possible campaign-related expense,

so it had to be personal use. And he made it very clear up

there on the stand that that's the absolute minimum that

could've been for personal use.

His analysis isn't based on his interpretation of the

records, his analysis is based on what the defendant's records

were. The defendant's records were false and he had to rely on

those records and he was still able to come up with $30,000

that weren't explained. For Mr. Adam to now use those numbers

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 107 of 143 PageID #:1882
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:54:30

12:54:46

12:55:04

12:55:29

12:55:43

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1224

in argument is misleading. To use that argument is about as

bogus --

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Objection.

THE COURT: Let me look at one thing.

(Reading realtime transcript:)

THE COURT: I'm striking the word "bogus."

MR. GETTER: I apologize, Judge.

To use that argument is as empty as to say that when

Mr. Beavers cashed a $4,000 campaign check and went to the

casino that that was used actually used for a printing bill

that didn't come in until 10 months later. That argument, just

like the nonsense about the printer bill and the campaign

records, relies on the hope that no one is looking closely, but

Agent Ponzo did and now you can and you can see that that

argument fails.

Let's go on to the $68,000 check. The defendant went

to Citizens For Beavers campaign fund because he needed $68,000

to more than double his pension. That check went straight to

his pension fund for the sole purpose of doubling his monthly

annuity for the rest of his life. It served no legitimate

campaign expense and it was entirely for his personal benefit,

as a result it was income.

Now, Mr. Adam argues there was no evidence that this

was a loan. Well, again, nothing on the check about a loan,

nothing on the check stub about a loan, no loan agreement, and

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 108 of 143 PageID #:1883
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:56:03

12:56:31

12:56:48

12:57:07

12:57:22

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1225

he didn't tell his campaign treasurers it was a loan, he didn't

even tell them what it was for. And for the time he filed his

2008 tax returns, he had not paid a single cent on that money.

Now, Mr. Adam says, well, Mr. Goldstein pointed out

that $19,500 in unexplained checks came back into the campaign

so that was repayment of the loan. Which is it? Was a $19,500

to pay for the $68,000 check? Was it $19,500 to pay for the

100 checks? It's double counting. Which one is it?

This is all made up after the fact attributions that

are merely a continuation of what the defendant himself did

with his campaign records. He made stuff up after the fact,

created fictions to try and make it seem like he wasn't using

his money for himself.

As far as the Cook County contingency expense funds

are concerned, Mr. Adam suggested that the defendant was

telling the world that he would declare it as income. Well,

the fact is, he didn't think anyone would look that closely.

The only thing he was doing on an expense report when he said

"Commissioner Beavers will declare this money as fiscal year

2007 or 2008 income" was he was telling the County, he didn't

expect the IRS would be looking at it as well.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GETTER: The defendant checks his tax returns

closely. You heard from Philip Achusim that it was the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 109 of 143 PageID #:1884
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:57:44

12:58:03

12:58:37

12:58:58

12:59:20

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1226

defendant who called Mr. Achusim to tell him that he had made a

mistake in the W-2Gs by not picking up enough withholding.

Mr. Adam and I have a different interpretation of what "pick

up" means. Mr. Adam seems to believe that it meant physically

picking up the W-2Gs. I interpret it differently. I think

what Mr. Achusim was saying was that he, Mr. Achusim, hadn't

realized that there was federal withholding on some of these

W-2Gs, he hadn't picked it up on the return because he hadn't

noticed it. He even acknowledged "I made a mistake. We all

make mistakes." It had nothing to do with Mr. Beavers not

giving him the W-2G, it was because Mr. Achusim didn't pick up

on the W-2Gs that he was given that there had been federal

withholding.

The defendant didn't want anyone to know what he was

doing with his money, with the campaign money, that he treated

as his own personal ATM. So he kept the records in a way to

make it as difficult as possible for anyone to figure it out.

He made no record of the purpose of the checks. He said that

later invoices were, well, he was actually using the money to

pay for it even though he took out the money 8 to 10 months

earlier. And as far as the reimbursed and void check stubs are

concerned, consider this, with the reimbursed check stubs, I

want to say reimbursed by check 3664, whatever it was, those

check stubs were blank at the time Mr. Beavers wrote the checks

to himself and they remained blank afterwards because he didn't

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 110 of 143 PageID #:1885
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:59:44

01:00:04

01:00:29

01:00:53

01:01:13

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1227

want to put down the real purpose of the check. And you know

that that stub was left blank because the reason it gets

written in there is reimbursed per check 3664 which didn't

happen until months later. It hadn't happened yet, he was

leaving the stuff blank when he took the money out because he

hadn't decided yet how he was going to characterize the money

that he took out. He hadn't yet come up with a way to explain

it, so he left himself options. He could either say it was

reimbursed, he could say it was for an invoice that hadn't

happen yet, that he would wait for it to come up, or he would

let Vetrice Coleman struggle and put "void" because she finally

gave up.

Mr. Adam spent a great deal of time poking fun at

Agent Ponzo. You'll have the records yourselves. Look

carefully at them. You'll see that his analysis, his Summary

Charts jive with what the records say. You are the ultimate

deciders of fact in this case. Agent Ponzo's Summary Charts

were created to help you figure out what happened.

Double-check them, you'll see that they're right. When you

consider his analysis, the kind of analysis that he did here,

being as generous as possible to the defendant, you'll see that

Agent Ponzo actually understated the amount of money that he

took because the moment Mr. Beavers took those campaign checks

and used them for himself, there was no actual obligation to

pay, that was all income, all of it.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 111 of 143 PageID #:1886
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:01:45

01:01:59

01:02:26

01:02:50

01:03:04

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1228

Agent Ponzo said I'm going to conservatively say it

was only $30,000 on those 100 checks, but the moment he takes a

check and uses it for himself with no obligation to pay it

back, that's income, not a loan.

As my partner, Ms. Hamilton, pointed out in her

closing, the defendant is not accused of gambling, he's not

accused of taking money from his campaign fund, neither one of

those is illegal, neither one of those is improper. This case

isn't of who done it. You know who did it. The question is

why, the question is how. And the evidence we presented to you

shows the answers to those questions clearly.

Mr. Beavers didn't want the IRS to know what he was

doing with the money, so he kept everything in the dark. But

now Agent Ponzo has looked through the records and now you have

the opportunity to look through the records as well and shed

some light on what exactly it was that the Commissioner was

doing. When you do that, you will conclude, based on the

evidence presented to you, that the only verdict consistent

with the evidence is that the defendant is guilty on all counts

charged. Thank you for your time.

THE COURT: Members of the jury, you have been sitting

for quite a while. We're going to take a very short break so

you can stand up, walk around, then I will instruct you on the

law.

THE MARSHAL: All rise.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 112 of 143 PageID #:1887
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:04:02

01:08:17

01:09:05

01:09:32

01:09:52

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1229

(The following proceedings were had out of the

presence of the jury in open court:)

THE COURT: Ten minutes, at most.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were had out of the

presence of the jury in open court:)

THE COURT: Two things. I'm going over the jurors

with you. Unless somebody gets killed, the jurors are 1, 2, 4,

13 --

MR. SOROSKY: Could we start again from the beginning?

THE COURT: Sure. 1, 2, 4, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 25,

27, 29, and 41. The alternates are 43, 44, 45, and listed as

an alternate is 24 but he's not a real alternate. 24 is the

one who was not fully candid and by agreement he is not going

to sit on the jury but he's on the list as the alternate. So

you can check and see if there's something wrong.

The second issue is, lunch will probably arrive before

I finish reading the instructions. There are two things I can

do, I can send all 14 of them back to the jury room to eat

lunch, instruct them they can't deliberate, and have the

marshal sit with them to make sure that they don't discuss

this. I think I would prefer that and then pull out the four.

Is everybody okay with it?

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes.

MR. GETTER: Yes.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 113 of 143 PageID #:1888
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:10:09

01:10:20

01:10:38

01:10:49

01:11:14

closing argument in rebuttal - by Getter

1230

THE COURT: Okay. Then that's basically how we'll do

it, and it's just as well. My main reason is not only for the

four but, generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of having them

deliberate while they start eating. They're looking at

something else, their sandwiches, and I'd rather not have them

deliberate, so that's where we are.

MR. SOROSKY: Are you going to have them begin

deliberations this afternoon?

THE COURT: Yeah. But bear in mind, my rule is once

the case is given to them, the schedule is theirs to choose.

If they all want to go home and go to polka lessons and come

back tomorrow morning, if that's the majority, that's what they

do.

MR. SOROSKY: So there's a possibility they may not

deliberate today.

THE COURT: Yes, it's a possibility they may not

deliberate today, although I think they will, because, I

Figure, 2:30 is absolutely the latest time that they would

start deliberations.

MS. HAMILTON: Would you consider having your

courtroom deputy just contact one side from -- or one person

from each side to let us know when they go home for the day?

THE COURT: I cannot tell you how tempting it is for

me to say no, but I can't. So yes.

MS. HAMILTON: Thank you, Judge.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 114 of 143 PageID #:1889
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:18:32

01:19:18

01:19:34

01:19:50

01:20:11

Jury Charge

1231

THE COURT: I expect a volunteer from each side.

MS. KAESEBERG: My baby thanks you, too.

(Proceedings resumed within the hearing of the jury:)

(Recess.)

THE MARSHAL: All rise.

(The following proceedings were had in the presence of

the jury in open court:)

THE COURT: Please be seated.

I'm about to instruct you. I remind you again, you'll

have copies of these so you don't have to take notes.

JURY CHARGE

BY THE COURT: Members of the jury, I'm now going to

instruct you on the law that you must follow in deciding this

case. I will provide copies of these instructions for your use

in the jury room.

You must follow all of my instructions about the law

even if you disagree with them. This includes instructions I

gave you before trial, any instructions I gave you during

trial, and instructions I'm giving you now.

As jurors, you have two duties. Your first duty is to

decide the facts from the evidence you saw and heard here in

court. This is your job, not my job, or anyone else's job.

Your second duty is to take the law as I give it to

you, apply it to the facts, and decide if the government has

proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 115 of 143 PageID #:1890
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:20:28

01:20:43

01:21:09

01:21:23

01:21:44

Jury Charge

1232

You must perform these duties fairly and impartially.

Do not let sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion

influence you.

You must not take anything I said or did during the

trial as indicating that I have an opinion about the evidence

or about what I think your verdict should be.

The charges against the defendant are in a document

called "an indictment." You will have a copy of the indictment

during your deliberations.

The indictment in this case charges that the defendant

committed the crimes of, first, corruptly endeavoring to

obstruct and impede the Internal Revenue Service, that's

Count 1, and 2, filing false tax returns for the calendar years

2006, 2007, and 2008. Counts 2, 3 and 4 the defendant has pled

not guilty to the charges.

The indictment is simply the formal way of telling the

defendant what crimes he's accused of committing. It is not

evidence that the defendant is guilty. It does not even raise

a suspicion of guilt.

The defendant is presumed innocent of each and every

one of the charges. This presumption continues throughout the

case including during your deliberations. It is not overcome

unless, from all the evidence in the case, you are convinced

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as

charged.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 116 of 143 PageID #:1891
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:21:56

01:22:16

01:22:34

01:22:53

01:23:09

Jury Charge

1233

The government has the burden of proving the

defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden of

proof stays with the government throughout the case.

The defendant is never required to prove his

innocence. He is not required to provide any evidence at all.

You must make your decision based only on the evidence

that you saw and heard here in court.

Do not consider anything you may have seen or heard

outside of court, including anything from the newspaper,

television, radio, the Internet, or any other source.

The evidence includes only what the witnesses said

when they were testifying under oath, the exhibits that I

allowed into evidence, and the stipulations that the lawyers

agreed to. A stipulation is an agreement that certain facts

are true. Nothing else is evidence.

The lawyers' statements and arguments are not

evidence. If what a lawyer said is different from the evidence

as you remember it, the evidence is what counts. The lawyers'

questions and objections likewise are not evidence. A lawyer

has a duty to object if he thinks a question was improper.

If I sustain objections to questions the lawyers

asked, you must not speculate on what the answers might have

been.

If during the trial I struck testimony or exhibits

from the record or told you to disregard something, you must

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 117 of 143 PageID #:1892
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:23:30

01:23:46

01:24:04

01:24:24

01:24:43

Jury Charge

1234

not consider it.

Give the evidence whatever weight you decide it

deserves. You should use common sense in weighing the evidence

and consider the evidence in light of your own observations in

life. People sometimes look at one fact and conclude from it

that another fact exists, this is called an inference. You are

allowed to make reasonable inferences so long as they are based

on the evidence.

You may have heard, and certainly have probably, heard

the terms "direct evidence" and "circumstantial evidence."

Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact,

circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly proves a

fact. You are to consider both direct and circumstantial

evidence. The law does not say that one is better than the

other. It is up to you to decide how much weight to give to

any evidence, whether it is direct or circumstantial.

Do not make any decisions simply by counting the

number of witnesses who testified about a certain point. You

may find the testimony of one witness or a few witnesses more

persuasive than the testimony of a larger number. You need not

accept the testimony of the larger number of witnesses, what is

important is how truthful and accurate the witnesses were and

how much weight you think their testimony deserves.

A defendant has an absolute right not to testify. You

may not consider in any way the fact that the defendant did not

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 118 of 143 PageID #:1893
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:25:19

01:25:40

01:25:57

01:26:19

01:26:34

Jury Charge

1235

testify. You should not even discuss it in your deliberations.

Part of your job as jurors is to decide how believable

each witness was and how much weight to give each witness'

testimony. You may accept all of what a witness says, or part

of it, or none of it. Some factors you may consider include

the age of the witness, the intelligence of the witness, the

witness' ability and opportunity to see, hear, or know the

things the witness testified about, the witness' memory, the

witness' demeanor, whether the witness had any bias, prejudice,

or any other reason to lie or slant the testimony, the

truthfulness and accuracy of the witness' testimony in light of

the other evidence presented.

It is proper for an attorney to interview any witness

in preparation for trial.

You have heard witnesses, namely Barry Gershinzon and

David Weiner, who gave testimony about taxation. You do not

have to accept these witnesses' testimony. You should judge

their testimony the same way you judge the testimony of any

other witness. In deciding how many weight to give the

testimony of these witnesses, you should consider the witness'

qualifications and the factors I have described for determining

the believability of testimony.

Certain summaries were admitted into evidence. You

may use those summaries as evidence.

The indictment charges that the crimes happened "on or

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 119 of 143 PageID #:1894
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:26:51

01:27:18

01:27:39

01:27:55

01:28:17

Jury Charge

1236

about" certain dates. The government must prove that the

crimes happened reasonably close to the dates alleged. The

government is not required to prove that the crimes happened on

those exact dates.

The defendant has been accused of more than one

offense. The number of charges is not evidence of guilt and

should not influence your decision. You must consider each

charge separately. Your decision on one charge, whether it is

guilty or not guilty, should not influence your decision on any

other charge.

If a defendant knowingly causes the acts of another,

then the defendant is responsible for those acts as though he

personally committed them.

Count 1 of the indictment charges defendant with

corruptly endeavoring to obstruct or impede the due

administration of the Internal Revenue laws. In order for you

to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the government

must prove each of the following four elements beyond a

reasonable doubt:

One, the defendant made an effort to obstruct or

impede the due administration of the interval receive laws.

The phrase "due administration of the Internal Revenue laws"

includes the Internal Revenue Service's lawful functions which

include the ascertainment, computation, assessment, and

collection of income taxes and the investigation of possible

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 120 of 143 PageID #:1895
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:28:40

01:28:59

01:29:14

01:29:32

01:29:53

Jury Charge

1237

criminal violations of the Internal Revenue laws, such as the

filing of false or fraudulent individual income tax returns.

Two, the defendant's effort had a reasonable tendency

to obstruct or impede the due administration of the Internal

Revenue laws. The effort need not be successful.

Three, the defendant acted knowingly.

Four, the defendant acted corruptly, that is, with a

purpose to obtain an unlawful benefit for himself.

If you find from your consideration of all the

evidence that the government has proved each of these elements

beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant

guilty of Count 1.

If, on the other hand, you find from your

consideration of all the evidence that the government has

failed to prove any one of these elements beyond a reasonable

doubt, then you should find the defendant not guilty of

Count 1.

A person acts knowingly if he realizes what he is

doing and is aware of the nature of his conduct and does not

act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. In deciding

whether the defendant acted knowingly you may consider all of

the evidence, including what the defendant did or said.

In considering whether the government has proven that

the defendant corruptly endeavored to impede the due

administration of the Internal Revenue laws, it is essential

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 121 of 143 PageID #:1896
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:30:15

01:30:33

01:30:50

01:31:11

01:31:28

Jury Charge

1238

that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt one or more

of the acts alleged in paragraphs 3 through 11 of Count 1 as

acts which were part of the corrupt endeavor and that such act

or acts was a corrupt endeavor to impede the due administration

of the Internal Revenue laws. The government, however, is not

required to prove all of them.

Counts 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment charge the

defendant with filing a false tax return. In order for you to

find the defendant guilty of this charge the government must

prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

One, the defendant prepared or caused someone to

prepare an income tax return.

Two, the income tax return was false as to a material

matter as charged in the count.

Three, the defendant signed the income tax return

which contained a written declaration that it was made under

penalties of perjury.

Four, the defendant acted willfully, that is, he knew

he had a legal duty to file a truthful and correct tax return,

but when he signed a return he did not believe it was truthful

or correct as a material matter.

Five, the defendant filed or caused someone to file

the incorrect return with the Internal Revenue Service.

Again, if you find from your consideration that all

the evidence that the government has proved each of these

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 122 of 143 PageID #:1897
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:31:44

01:32:02

01:32:23

01:32:42

01:33:02

Jury Charge

1239

elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the count you are

considering, then you should find the defendant guilty of that

count.

If, on the other hand, you find from your

consideration of all the evidence that the government has

failed to prove any one of these elements beyond a reasonable

doubt as to the count you are considering, then you should find

the defendant not guilty of that count.

If the defendant acted in good faith, then he lacked

the willfulness or corrupt intent required to prove the charged

offenses. For the purpose of Count 1, the defendant acted in

good faith if he did not act for the purpose of obtaining an

unlawful benefit for himself.

And for the purposes of Counts 2, 3 and 4, if at the

time he filed or caused his tax returns to be filed defendant

honestly believed the truthfulness and correctness of the

statements that the government has charged as being false the

defendant does not have to prove his good faith; rather, the

government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to

Count 1 that the defendant acted with the purpose of obtaining

an unlawful benefit and with respect to Counts 2, 3 and 4 that

the defendant acted willfully.

A false matter is material if the matter was capable

of influencing the Internal Revenue Service.

"Income" is broadly defined and includes such items as

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 123 of 143 PageID #:1898
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:33:27

01:33:46

01:34:05

01:34:33

01:34:49

Jury Charge

1240

wages, profits from business, and other financial gains.

When a taxpayer receives a loan, he incurs an

obligation to repay that loan. Because of that obligation to

repay, loan proceeds do not constitute income.

The transfer of money from one party to another

constitutes a loan only if, at the time of transfers, the

parties to the transaction intend that the person who receives

the money actually will be obligated to repay it.

In determining whether the defendant has received

particular funds as a loan or as income, you should consider

all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant's

receipt of the funds.

In order to prove a charge of filing a false tax

return, the government does not need to prove the existence of

a tax deficiency or a loss to the government.

If you have taken notes during the trial, you may use

them during deliberations to help you remember what happened

during the trial. You should use your notes only as aids to

your memory. The notes are not evidence. All of you should

rely on your independent recollection of the evidence and you

should not be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors.

Notes are not entitled to anymore weight than the memory or

impressions of each juror.

In deciding your verdict, you should not consider the

possible punishment for the defendant. If you decide that the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 124 of 143 PageID #:1899
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:35:22

01:35:52

01:36:12

01:36:37

01:36:56

Jury Charge

1241

government has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt, then it will be my job to decide on the appropriate

punishment.

Once you are all in the jury room, and in this case I

should inform you that before you begin anything, you will be

having your lunch and during your lunch period you should not

start your deliberation or discuss the case in any way. The

marshal will be with you in the room. But after lunch and your

duties begin, once you're all in the jury room the first thing

you should do is choose a foreperson. The foreperson should

see to it that your discussions are carried on in an organized

way and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard. You may

discuss the case only when all jurors are present.

Once you start deliberating, do not communicate about

the case or your deliberations with anyone except other members

of your jury. You may not communicate with others about the

case or your deliberations by any means. This includes oral or

written communications, as well as any electronic method of

communication. And, basically, this involves all current

technology or services likely to be used: Telephone, cell

phones, smart phones, iPhones, Blackberrys, computers, text

messaging, instant messaging, the Internet chat rooms, blogs,

websites, or services like Facebook, MySpace, Linkedin, U-Tube

and Twitter, and I think you understand what I'm getting at, or

any other method of communication.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 125 of 143 PageID #:1900
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:37:12

01:37:33

01:37:50

01:38:15

01:38:33

Jury Charge

1242

If you need to communicate with me while you are

deliberating, you send a note to the court security officer.

The note should be signed by the foreperson or by one or more

members of the jury. To have a complete record of the trial,

it is important that you do not communicate with me except by a

written note. I may have to talk to lawyers about your

message, so it may take some time to get back to you. You may

continue for your deliberations while you wait for my answer.

Please believe the transcripts of trial testimony are not

available to you. You must rely on your collective memory of

the testimony.

If you do send me an message, do not include any

breakdown of any votes you may have conducted; in other words,

don't tell me you are split 6 to 6 or 8 to 4, or whatever your

vote happens to be.

A verdict form has been prepared for you. You will

take this form to the jury room. The verdict form is simple.

It's got a line for Count 1, Count 2, Count 3 and Count 4. Two

boxes, one says "guilty" the other says "not guilty," and then

there's a place for the signature of each of the jurors and a

date.

When you have reached unanimous agreement on a

verdict, your foreperson should fill in and date the verdict

form, each of you will then sign the verdict form. You should

advise the court security officer once you have reached a

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 126 of 143 PageID #:1901
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:38:55

01:39:27

01:39:49

01:40:08

01:40:31

Jury Charge

1243

verdict. When you come back to the courtroom, the clerk will

read the verdicts out loud.

Marshal, please stand and raise your right hand.

(Marshal sworn).

THE COURT: I have one final instruction for you.

The verdict must represent the considered judgment of

each juror. Your verdict, whether it is guilty or not guilty,

must be unanimous.

You should make every reasonable effort to reach a

verdict. In doing so, you should consult with each other,

express your own views, and listen to your fellow jurors'

opinions. Discuss your differences, if you have them, with an

open mind. Do not hesitate to reexamine your own view and

change your opinion if you come to believe it is wrong, but you

should not surrender your honest beliefs about the weight or

effect of evidence just because of the opinions of your fellow

jurors or just so there can be a unanimous verdict.

Each of you should give fair and equal consideration

to all the evidence. You should deliberate with the goal of

reaching an agreement that is consistent with the individual

judgment of each juror. You are impartial judges of the facts.

Your sole interest is to determine whether the government has

proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Marshal, please escort the jurors.

THE MARSHAL: All rise.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 127 of 143 PageID #:1902
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:41:12

01:41:23

01:41:42

01:42:00

01:42:23

Jury Charge

1244

(The following proceedings were had out of the

presence of the jury in open court:)

THE COURT: People may be seated in the courtroom.

Counsel come to the lectern.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: I have typos.

MS. BONAMICI: I noticed 3, Judge.

THE COURT: What?

MS. BONAMICI: I noticed 3.

THE COURT: I have 9 and 13. 13 is how much weight to

give each witness' testimony, including that of the defendant.

MS. BONAMICI: Right.

THE COURT: You have another one?

MS. BONAMICI: On 2 we had a plural "defendants."

THE COURT: Yeah.

MS. BONAMICI: On 29, the technology, I don't know

why, it just needs to have the brackets removed.

THE COURT: Right. That has to be done soon.

MS. BONAMICI: I just made a request. Should be up in

a minute.

THE COURT: And then Ms. Perez will give you the

packages and you can jointly put them together. The jurors'

lunch has arrived. They are eating together. The marshal is

with them. They have been instructed that they do not

deliberative until lunch is over and then I will pull the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 128 of 143 PageID #:1903
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:42:33

01:42:43

01:43:02

01:43:22

01:43:32

Jury Charge

1245

alternates.

MS. KAESEBERG: Just for the record, we object the

indictment going back to the jury.

THE COURT: You object to what?

MS. KAESEBERG: To the indictment going back to the

jury.

THE COURT: Ah --

MS. KAESEBERG: And our position is that --

THE COURT: Yeah, I know that.

You want the indictment back?

MS. HAMILTON: Yes, we do.

THE COURT: I did this once, not give the indictment

to the jury; they asked for the indictment. So I think I'm

going to give them the indictment. I would give them only one

verdict form. So as soon as possible, I want --

MS. BONAMICI: I made the request. I'm confused a

little bit because the language that you mentioned I found page

on page 9 and not on page 13 --

THE COURT: Page 9 it says --

MS. BONAMICI: Oh, okay. I got it.

It will be up in just a few minutes, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Exhibits, Your Honor? How do you want

that?

THE COURT: The exhibits, issue of exhibits?

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 129 of 143 PageID #:1904
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:43:45

01:43:55

01:44:05

01:44:18

01:44:52

Jury Charge

1246

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Not necessarily an issue, it's just

how you want it.

THE COURT: Do we have a list of exhibits that people

want to go back? Yes? No?

MR. GOLDSTEIN: We have our folder of exhibits.

THE COURT: Is there any objections sending the

exhibits back?

MR. GETTER: No.

MS. HAMILTON: No.

THE COURT: You?

MR. GOLDSTEIN: No.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Any objections we had to evidence

being admitted, obviously we renew our objection, but other

than that ....

THE COURT: Right. Then you can put a cart or two

together with the defense exhibits and we'll send them back.

MS. HAMILTON: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay?

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Thanks.

(Jury retired to deliberate at 1:45 p.m.)

(Recess.)

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 130 of 143 PageID #:1905
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:03:07

02:03:31

02:03:41

02:03:48

02:04:05

1247

(The following proceedings were had out of the

presence of the jury in open court:)

MR. HENDERSON: Your Honor, I was -- my daughter fell

ill last night so I did not have an opportunity to participate

in certain aspects -- going over the instructions for the jury

and we would like to renew one objection and that's to -- I

don't know what number this is.

THE COURT: I no longer have my copy, for a variety of

reasons, but you can tell me what it is.

MS. BONAMICI: This is a loan definition, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's the definition of a loan?

MS. BONAMICI: Yes.

THE COURT: You did not object to it before?

MR. HENDERSON: I believe we did, but I would just

like to renew that objection.

MS. KAESEBERG: We objected to it.

THE COURT: Are you going to change the objection?

You're going to add something to it?

MS. BONAMICI: Yes, they're making a new objection.

THE COURT: Okay, I believe it's too late to do a new

objection but I'll hear it, at least.

(Document tendered.)

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HENDERSON: Judge, the way the instruction reads

now is "when a tax payer receives a loan he incurs an

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 131 of 143 PageID #:1906
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:33:33

02:04:37

02:04:55

02:05:12

02:05:30

1248

obligation to pay that loan because the obligation to repay

loan proceeds do not constitute income," and it's the next

sentence that's problematic, "the transfer of money from one

party to another constitutes a loan only if at the time of the

transfer the parties to the transaction intend that the person

who receives the money" and then, of course, there's the words

"actually will be obligated to repay it." That can't be the

law for any number of reasons, because, number one, what that

will do -- and the objectionable phrase is "only if at the time

of transfer." So, for example, if I transfer some money to

someone today and they asked me, which has happened in real

life, is this a gift or a loan, I can reserve my determination

about what it's going to be, I'll tell you tomorrow or I'll

tell you in a week. So at the time of the transfer, if I give

my son, for example, $20, I haven't told him whether it's going

to be a gift or a loan, I'll figure that out later. And so it

would, by definition, prohibit someone from reserving their

right to determine the nature of the transaction.

THE COURT: But what you argued in this case was, it

was a loan from the very first. To say this is not consistent

with the argument you made.

MR. HENDERSON: Well, no, but what the government

wants to do is they want to tie -- what they've attempted to do

with this language is trying to tie the Commissioner to a

decision at that point in time. And that may have been the

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 132 of 143 PageID #:1907
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:05:48

02:06:09

02:06:31

02:06:49

02:07:02

1249

case at that point in time, however, this particular language

does not need to be in an instruction to make it true.

THE COURT: In the context of this case, this

instruction is valid. The tone of the entire argument is "at

the very beginning he intended to pay it back and his whole

course of action is to pay it back," from the very beginning.

There's nothing on which some juror can say, well, wait a

second, maybe he didn't do it in the beginning, he did it

later. There's no factual support for that. His argument is,

"this was my practice, this is what I intended to do from the

very beginning, this is what the evidence shows." Or to put it

more precisely, "the government can't really show that there

was no obligation." Timing was not an issue in this case, it's

not presented by the facts.

MR. HENDERSON: And, Your Honor, I would accept that

in terms of from a factual presentation, but from a legal

presentation the juror instruction has an independent

obligation to be correct, and this conflicts with the

definition of a loan, you know, from a U.S. Supreme Court case

which does not tie -- I don't know if we cited this into the

record or not.

MS. KAESEBERG: It is, Tufts.

MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Tufts, a Supreme Court case, it

conflicts with this instruction. It conflicts at least our

reading of it, it directly conflicts what what's in Tufts.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 133 of 143 PageID #:1908
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:07:12

02:07:31

02:08:02

08:22:18

1250

THE COURT: You want to say something?

MS. BONAMICI: Your Honor, we agree that this is not a

question presented by the facts and the evidence -- or the

evidence raised in the arguments in this case, and, in

addition, we think it's an accurate statement of the law.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled on the grounds

that, one, it comes too late; two, it's not appropriate to the

facts of this case; and three, it's not inconsistent with the

law. Now you have your record.

MR. HENDERSON: Okay. With respect to it's too late,

have the instructions actually gone to the jury yet?

THE COURT: They've been read to the jury.

MS. HAMILTON: Judge, we just noticed that the Summary

Chart binders are still on the chairs. Do you want us to

remove them and put them on the cart or --

THE COURT: Put them on the cart.

(Recess.)

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 134 of 143 PageID #:1909
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1251

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) No. 12 CR 124

Government, )

)

Vs. ) Chicago, Illinois

)

WILLIAM BEAVERS, ) March 21, 2013

)

Defendant. ) 4:06 o'clock p.m.

VOLUME 6 - VERDICT

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES B. ZAGEL

AND A JURY

For the Government:

THE HONORABLE GARY S. SHAPIRO,

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

BY: Matthew Michael Getter

Carrie E. Hamilton

Debra Riggs Bonamici

Samuel B. Cole

Assistant United States Attorneys

219 South Dearborn Street

Suite 500

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-5300

For the Defendant:

KAPLAN & SOROSKY

BY: Sheldon M. Sorosky

158 West Erie

Chicago, Illinois 60610

(312) 640-1776

Court Reporter:

Blanca I. Lara, CSR, CP, RPR

219 South Dearborn Street

Room 2504

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 435-5895

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 135 of 143 PageID #:1910
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1252

Appearances (continued:)

For the defendant:

OFFICES OF AARON B. GOLDSTEIN

BY: Aaron Benjamin Goldstein

6133 South Ellis

Chicago, Illinois 60637

(773) 752-6950

OFFICES OF LAUREN FAUST KAESEBERG

BY: Lauren Faust Kaeseberg

2140 N. Lincoln Park West

Suite 307

Chicago, Illinois 60614

(773) 517-0622

LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL E. ADAM

BY: Samuel Forbes Adam

Samuel Adam, Jr.

6133 South Ellis Avenue

Suite 200

Chicago, Illinois 60637

(312) 726-2326

Henderson Adam, LLC

BY: Victor P. Henderson

The Insurance Center Building

330 South Wells, Suite 1401

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 262-2900

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 136 of 143 PageID #:1911
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

04:06:26

04:06:57

04:07:13

04:07:30

04:07:52

VERDICT

1253

(The following proceedings were had in the presence of

the jury in open court:)

THE COURT: Has the jury reach a verdict?

Everyone may be seated.

THE FOREPERSON: Yes, we have.

THE COURT: Please hand up the verdict.

(Verdict tendered.)

VERDICT

THE COURT: Read the verdict, please.

THE CLERK: (Reading:)

With respect to Count 1 of the indictment in which

defendant William Beavers is charged with corruptly

endeavoring to obstruct and impede the Internation

Revenue Service, we, the jury, find the defendant

guilty.

With respect to Count 2 of the indictment in

which defendant William Beavers is charged with

filing a false tax return for calendar year 2006, we,

the jury, find the defendant guilty.

With respect to Count 3 of the indictment in

which defendant William Beavers is charged with

filing a false tax return for calendar year 2007, we,

the jury, find the defendant guilty.

With respect to Count 4 of the indictment in

which defendant William Beavers is charged with

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 137 of 143 PageID #:1912
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

04:08:09

04:08:28

04:08:42

04:08:55

04:09:07

VERDICT

1254

filing a false tax return for calendar year 2008, we,

the jury, find the defendant guilty."

And it has been signed by the foreperson and all

jurors.

THE COURT: Anyone want the jury polled?

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'll poll the jury.

Juror number 1, was this your verdict when you signed

it and is it now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 1: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Juror number 2, was this your verdict when

you signed it and is it now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 2: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Juror number 4, was this your verdict when

you signed it and is it now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 4: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Juror number 13, was this your verdict

when you signed it and is it now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 13: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Juror number 16, was this your verdict

when you signed it and is this now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 16: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Juror 19 --

JUROR NUMBER 19: Here.

THE COURT: Was this your verdict when you signed it

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 138 of 143 PageID #:1913
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

04:09:17

04:09:26

04:09:35

04:09:44

04:09:49

VERDICT

1255

and is it now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 19: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Juror 21, was this your verdict when you

signed it and is it now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 21: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Juror 22?

JUROR NUMBER 22: (Raising hand.)

THE COURT: Was this your verdict when you signed it

and is it now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 22: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Juror 25?

JUROR NUMBER 25: (Raising hand.)

THE COURT: Was this verdict when you signed it and is

it now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 25: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Juror 27?

JUROR NUMBER 27: (Raising hand).

THE COURT: Was this your verdict when you signed it

and is it now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 27: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Juror 29?

JUROR NUMBER 29: (Raising hand).

THE COURT: Was this your verdict when you signed it

and is it now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 29: Yes, sir.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 139 of 143 PageID #:1914
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

04:09:59

04:10:11

04:10:35

04:11:02

04:11:23

VERDICT

1256

THE COURT: Juror 41?

JUROR NUMBER 41: (Raising hand).

THE COURT: Was this your verdict when you signed it

and is it now your verdict?

JUROR NUMBER 41: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Anything further with respect to the jury?

MR. S. ADAM, JR: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: From the government?

MR. GETTER: No.

THE COURT: Members of the jury, I want to thank you

very much for your service. I want to tell you that you are

now excused and you're free to leave or go anywhere you wish,

but I would request that you go back with the marshal to the

jury room because I would like to speak with you briefly, and

after that there are a couple other things that I have to tell

you about.

With that, all rise.

(The following proceedings were had out of the

presence of the jury in open court:)

THE COURT: Counsel, approach the lectern.

(Brief pause).

THE COURT: Motions with respect to time?

MS. KAESEBERG: Well, first we'd ask that the Court

enter a judgment outstanding the verdicts based on the

arguments we previously made in court. I believe you continued

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 140 of 143 PageID #:1915
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

04:11:34

04:11:46

04:12:03

04:12:30

04:12:50

VERDICT

1257

our motion for directed verdicts and that needs to be resolved.

THE COURT: That motion is denied.

MS. KAESEBERG: And an extension of time for the

filing of the post-trial motions.

THE COURT: To?

MS. KAESEBERG: To 30 days?

THE COURT: 35 days.

MS. KAESEBERG: 35 days.

THE COURT: What's 35 days?

THE CLERK: It's --

MS. KAESEBERG: Can it be potentially be 35 beyond the

initial filing date? So that would make it more around

45 days. I was thinking 30 additional days beyond the 14 days.

THE COURT: So you want 6 weeks?

MS. KAESEBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: 6 weeks.

THE CLERK: May 6th.

THE COURT: Let me see you, then, after that on May --

toward the end of May.

THE CLERK: Thursday, May 30th.

THE COURT: I would give the government 4 weeks to

answer. If that's a difficult for you, you can raise that.

MR. GETTER: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MR. GETTER: Not that I can think of, Judge.

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 141 of 143 PageID #:1916
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

04:12:59

04:13:19

VERDICT

1258

MR. S. ADAM, JR: No.

THE COURT: Current bond will stand.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MS. HAMILTON: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. S. ADAM, JR: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. GETTER: Oh, Judge, I apologize. The gag order,

is that now lifted since the verdict has been reached?

THE COURT: Yeah, the gag order is lifted. I will see

counsel, one from each side, at the side for a moment.

(Proceedings heard at sidebar off the record.)

THE COURT: All right. We are adjourned.

(Which concluded the proceedings had on this date in

the above entitled cause.)

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 142 of 143 PageID #:1917
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

VERDICT

* * * * * * * *

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER

/s/Blanca I. Lara date

Case: 1:12-cr-00124 Document #: 125 Filed: 04/03/14 Page 143 of 143 PageID #:1918