IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART,

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS,

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

Defendants.

GOVERNMENT’S SUPPLEMENT TO GOVERNMENT’S PROFFER 

RELATING TO THE METHODOLOGY USED BY WITNESS 

DANA CHAMBERLIN AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW (Doc. 161)

The UnitedStates of America, by and through United States Attorney John F. Walsh

and Assistant United States Attorneys Linda Kaufman and Martha Paluch, hereby submits

to the Court its Supplement to Government’s Proffer Relating to the Methodology Used by

Witness Dana Chamberlin and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 161), (hereinafter, “the

Proffer”), and as grounds therefor, states as follows:

1. Defendants Waunita Weingart and John Gallegos, in the Parties’ Second

Amended Joint Motion Under Fed. R. Evid. 702, stated that their objections to Ms.

Chamberlin’s Opinions #C1-#C2073 were “1, 5 or 3, 4, 5, depending on which

methodology actually was employed by Ms. Chamberlin as to the itemized opinion in

question.” (Doc. 160 at 123).

2. In the Government’s Proffer, the government described the methodology Ms.

Chamberlin used and the manner in which she applied it in connection with Opinions #C1-

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 171 filed 11/16/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 5
#C2073 at pages 1-4 and 18-21.

3. To assist the defendants in determining with greater particularity which

objection(s) they wish to assert to which specific opinions, the government prepared a

chart which restates Opinions #C1-#C2073 and categorizes each of them by the type of

its supporting data. (Attachment 1.) These categories, set forth in Columns “A” through “F”

in the chart, correspond to the descriptions set forth in the Proffer (Doc. 161 at pages 19-

21), as to how Ms. Chamberlin tested her hypothesis, as follows: 

Columns “A” and “B”:

For those opinions designated in columns “A” and “B,” the lender had

provided a payment history, and the information on the payment history

corresponded to the information from the bank record relating to a particular

withdrawal. The payment histories referenced in column “A” bore the original

loan identification number; the payment histories in column “B” bore a

successor loan identification number.

Columns “C” and “D”:

For those opinions designated in columns “C” and “D,” the lender had not

provided a payment history, but the bank record relating to the particular

withdrawal bore the original loan identification number or a successor loan

identification number, respectively.

Column “E”:

For those opinions identified in column “E,” Ms. Chamberlin had no payment

history and no bank record bearing a loan identification number. She

therefore found information elsewhere to link the questioned withdrawal to

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 171 filed 11/16/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 5
a specific loan. In some instances, she compared the date and amount of

the withdrawal in the bank records to the initial monthly payment for the loan

and the first payment due date as set forth in the promissory note or other

initial payment documentation prepared for the loan closing. Where this

information linked the payment to the loan, she concluded that the

withdrawal was a payment for that loan. If she saw that the same amount

was withdrawn from a bank account the next month, she concluded that the

subsequent withdrawal was a payment on that loan. In other instances, she

compared the amount and timing of the withdrawal to a payment she had

previously linked to a particular loan. If the timing and the amount of the

questioned withdrawal fit the pattern of the payment(s) for a previously

identified loan, she concluded that the questioned withdrawal was also for

that loan.

Column “F”:

For each opinion designated in column “F,” Ms. Chamberlin also reviewed

records from Speedpay, which helped confirm her stated opinion. 

4. In order to enable the parties and the Court to better frame the issues for the

Rule 702 hearing scheduled for November 27, 2012, the government provided the

attached chart to counsel on November 8, 2012.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 171 filed 11/16/12 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 5
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of November, 2012.

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

By: s/ Linda Kaufman 

Linda Kaufman

Assistant United States Attorney

1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0100

Facsimile: (303) 454-0404

E-mail: Linda.Kaufman@usdoj.gov

By: s/ Martha Paluch 

Martha Paluch

Assistant United States Attorney

1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0100

Facsimile: (303) 454-0404

E-mail: Martha.Paluch@usdoj.gov

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 171 filed 11/16/12 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 16th day of November, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing 

GOVERNMENT’S SUPPLEMENT TO GOVERNMENT’S PROFFER RELATING TO THE

METHODOLOGY USED BY WITNESS DANA CHAMBERLIN AND MEMORANDUM OF

LAW (Doc. 161) with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send

notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses:

Martin Adam Stuart

E-mail: martinstuartlaw@solucian.com

William Lewis Taylor

E-mail: wltaylorpc@gmail.com

Darlene Ann Bagley

E-mail: bagley@ridleylaw.com

Paula M. Ray

E-mail: paulamray@earthlnk.net

 

By: s/ Solange Reigel 

SOLANGE REIGEL

Legal Assistant to AUSA Linda Kaufman

United States Attorney’s Office

1225 - 17 Street, Suite 700 th

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0244

Fax: (303) 454-0402

E-mail: solange.reigel@usdoj.gov

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 171 filed 11/16/12 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 5