IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF AMADOR ---oOo--- The People of the State of California) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 98-0767 ) ROBERT ROLAND WOMACK, DAVID STERLING ) MASON III and MARK SHERRILL, ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________) PROCEEDINGS HELD BEFORE THE GRAND JURY NOVEMBER 30, 1998 VOLUME IX APPEARANCES: For the People: DAVID J. IREY Deputy District Attorney Reported by: JAN BENEDETTI-WEISBERG, CSR No. 4643 ---oOo--- 2229 1 WITNESS INDEX Page 2 JOHN J. MILLER Examination by Mr. Irey 2234 3 WILLIAM A. WOLIN 4 Examination by Mr. Irey 2252 5 JIM WALSHAW Examination by Mr. Irey 2292 6 RUSS MOORE 7 Examination by Mr. Irey 2305 2383 8 RON HALL 9 Examination by Mr. Irey 2326 10 ---oOo--- 11 12 13 14 JURY INSTRUCTIONS READ 2396 15 ---oOo--- 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2230 1 E X H I B I T S 2 Exhibit No. Description Ref. 3 26 City Permit 2238 4 63 Copies of Bank Ledger 2317 5 121 Certification Non-License Status 2236 6 122 Certification re Workers' Comp. 2239 7 123 Pink Slips 2312 8 124 Oregon Title for Navigator 2306 9 126 DMV Printout 2314 10 127 Wolin Declaration 2299 11 128 DMV Printout - Oregon 2315 12 129 DMV Documents 2306 13 130 DMV Documents 2386 14 131 DMV Documents 2387 15 133 DMV Documents 2388 16 Exhibits 1 - 10 offered in evidence - Page 2330 17 Exhibits 11 - 20 offered in evidence - Page 2335 Exhibits 21 - 30 offered in evidence - Page 2339 18 Exhibits 31 - 50 offered in evidence - Page 2346 Exhibits 51 - 60 offered in evidence - Page 2350 19 Exhibits 61 - 70 offered in evidence - Page 2353 Exhibits 71 - 80 offered in evidence - Page 2358 20 Exhibits 81 - 84 offered in evidence - Page 2361 Exhibits 106-110 offered in evidence - Page 2361 21 Exhibits 111-129 offered in evidence - Page 2365 Exhibits 130-133 offered in evidence - Page 2395 22 23 ---oOo--- 24 25 2231 1 JACKSON, CALIF., MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1998, 9:00 A.M. 2 BEFORE THE GRAND JURY OF AMADOR COUNTY 3 ---oOo--- 4 THE FOREPERSON: Go on record and then take 5 roll. 6 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 7 GRAND JUROR XXXXXXX: Here. 8 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) Here. 9 (Redacted.) 10 GRAND JUROR XXXXXXXX: Here. 11 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 12 GRAND JUROR XXXXX: Here. 13 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 14 GRAND JUROR XXXXXX: Here. 15 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 16 GRAND JUROR XXXXX: Here. 17 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 18 GRAND JUROR XXXXXXXXXX: Here. 19 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 20 GRAND JUROR XXXXXXXX: Here. 21 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 22 GRAND JUROR XXXXXX: Here. 23 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 24 GRAND JUROR XXXXXXXX: Here. 25 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 2232 1 GRAND JUROR XXXXXX: Here. 2 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 3 GRAND JUROR XXXXXXX: Here. 4 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 5 GRAND JUROR XXXXXXX: Here. 6 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 7 GRAND JUROR XXXXX: Here. 8 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 9 GRAND JUROR XXXXX: Here. 10 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 11 GRAND JUROR XXXXXX: Here. 12 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 13 GRAND JUROR XXXXXXXX: Here. 14 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 15 GRAND JUROR XXXXXXXX: Here. 16 THE SECRETARY: (Redacted.) 17 THE FOREPERSON: Here. 18 MR. IREY: The timetable today will be something 19 along these lines. 20 Contractors Licensing Board investigator 21 right now, Billy Wolin, Jim Walshaw from the District 22 Attorney's Office, Workers' Comp. investigator, Russ 23 Moore, and then Ron Hall. I think we will be done with 24 testimony by 11:00 or 11:15. 25 And I have been telling you it would take 2233 1 two hours to read the jury instructions, because I really 2 only think it will take an hour and ten minutes. So we 3 might be able to read the jury instructions this morning 4 if everything works right, including the copy machine. 5 You will receive what is called an Amended 6 Proposed Indictment, which adds a couple counts and a 7 body or so. It's only slightly different than the one 8 you have had for the full two weeks. And then there are 9 a couple new jury instructions that we will add to your 10 packet. So essentially, it will be the same jury packet 11 and we will add eight, ten, twelve pages to the back of 12 it. So that is our timetable. 13 Jeff Miller. 14 THE FOREPERSON: Mr. Miller, first could you 15 remain standing, please, and raise your right hand. 16 You do solemnly swear that the evidence 17 you shall give in this investigation now pending before 18 this Grand Jury shall be the truth, the whole truth and 19 nothing but the truth, so help you God. 20 THE WITNESS: I do. 21 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. You may be seated. 22 23 (TIME NOTED: 9:06 A.M.) 24 ---oOo--- 25 2234 1 JOHN J. MILLER 2 Called as a witness herein by the People, 3 having been duly sworn to tell the truth, was examined 4 and testified as follows: 5 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. IREY: 8 Q Could you state your full legal name for 9 the record and spell your last name. 10 A John Jefferson Miller, M-I-L-L-E-R. 11 Q And for the Grand Jurors, Mr. Miller has 12 been added as a witness since we were last here. That's 13 why he doesn't appear on your proposed witness list. 14 Have a seat, Mr. Miller. 15 Mr. Miller, did you bring in some 16 documents today? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q May I have one copy? I will have it 19 marked. 20 Mr. Miller, who is your current employer? 21 A State of California Contractors State 22 License Board. 23 Q And in what capacity are you so employed? 24 A Senior investigator with Underground 25 Economy Enforcement Unit. 2235 1 Q What's is Underground Economy Enforcement 2 Unit? 3 A We are a special group of nine 4 investigators that target non-licensees, licensees 5 without Workmen's Comp., and underground economy, 6 basically. 7 Q Okay. And how long have you been employed 8 by the Contractors State Licensing Board? 9 A Eleven years. 10 Q And how much of that has been in this 11 enforcement position? 12 A For the last three years in this unit. 13 Q Okay. Were you contacted by Jim Walshaw 14 of the Amador County District Attorney's Office at any 15 point in the last month? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And could you go ahead and give a 18 narrative. These Grand Jurors seem to like the 19 narratives. 20 Basically, you were contacted. What steps 21 you have taken and if you located any information related 22 to people they might be concerned about today. 23 A Okay. I was contacted by Jim in regards 24 to the issue of a contractor's license for a particular 25 project, a gas station demolition tank removal type of 2236 1 thing. I was given specific information in regards to 2 applications for permit. And I was asked to search -- 3 well, I was called in to talk about it and certain things 4 took place, discussions. And eventually, I was asked to 5 determine whether a Robert Roland Womack was a licensed 6 contractor in the State of California. Apparently, it 7 appears he was in charge of the work that was taking 8 place at this gas station. 9 So what I did is, we ran his full name 10 with ID'ing information to see if he was, indeed, a 11 licensed contractor in this State. According to our 12 records, with his full name, his current residence 13 address that we have, last known address, date of birth, 14 Social Security Number and driver's license number, we 15 found no record of a license being issued to a Robert 16 Roland Womack in any capacity. 17 We didn't search through business names 18 that I was given, because the name search is the most 19 appropriate. If he is on any license, whether it's a 20 sole owner, partnership or an entity on a corporation 21 license, his name would appear in our records. 22 And the document that I just -- 23 Q Been marked Grand Jury Exhibit 121. 24 A Is that certificate of non-license 25 statuses. We show no record of him having a contractor's 2237 1 license in this state. 2 Q And why would you need a contractor's 3 license in the State of California? 4 A To perform remediation work that 5 apparently took place at gas station, a license is 6 required in the state. 7 Also, because it deals with, I believe, a 8 gasoline storage tank and the earth surrounding it, 9 that's considered hazardous materials. It has to be 10 disposed of properly. They have to have the proper 11 classification, which there are four that we that issue 12 can do this work. And they also have to be certified 13 with hazardous certification certificate. 14 Q So you have to have a contractor's 15 license, plus an additional certificate? 16 A Hazardous certification. 17 Q Okay. And what -- did you, for instance, 18 look at the City files? Or did you look at any permits 19 in determining -- let's see. I will withdraw that. 20 Did you go to the City with Jim Walshaw 21 and look at their file? 22 A Yes. I was given two copies of, I 23 believe, a City and a County permit. 24 Q Okay. 25 A And I think I have those with me. 2238 1 Q Skim through here. It's been a week. 2 So you were given a copy of a City permit, 3 correct? And then the County underground storage tank 4 permit? 5 And the City building permit marked Grand 6 Jury Exhibit 26. Is this the building permit and 7 building permit application from the City of Jackson? 8 A Yes, it is. 9 Q Okay. And so you looked at this and it 10 listed Roland Womack as the applicant. 11 A Correct. 12 Q But it didn't list Bob Womack as the 13 contractor anywhere? 14 A No. It lists Robert or Roland Womack as 15 the applicant. 16 Now, when you pull a building permit, you 17 can be -- anybody can pull a permit. You can be an owner 18 builder or you can be a contractor that pulls that 19 permit. 20 What didn't appear on either one of these 21 permits is, nobody completed page 2, which gives you 22 three ways of doing a project. You can be an owner 23 builder. You can own the property. You can hire 24 employees to perform the work with wages as their sole 25 compensation to get the work done. 2239 1 Q If you are the owner builder? 2 A If you are the owner of the property. 3 Q Okay. 4 A The permit is just called owner builder. 5 Or you can be an owner builder and check 6 the box here that says you are going to hire licensed 7 contractors to perform the work. Or you could be a 8 contractor and pull the permit. Then you must comply 9 with the Workers' Compensation information. 10 If you are owner of the property, hiring 11 your employees, paying them wages as their sole 12 compensation, those employees must be covered by 13 Workmen's Compensation. It doesn't matter if they are 14 family members or somebody coming from anywhere. You 15 have to have Workmen's Comp. 16 Q This has been marked Grand Jury Exhibit 17 122. This is the first time have you seen this 18 document. If you could take a moment to quickly review 19 it. 20 And you go by Jeff? Is that correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Okay. 23 Q Okay. Is Workers' Compensation Insurance 24 Rating Bureau of California one of the main Workers' 25 Compensation information holding systems? 2240 1 A For my purposes, when I am out in the 2 field, a little bit of what I do, I drive around and look 3 at work. I determine whether that person, the person in 4 charge of that job, is licensed or not licensed. If I 5 pull up on a job and I see a bunch of guys on the site, I 6 find out who is responsible. If there is a licensed 7 contractor on the job, I will ask him if he has Workmen's 8 Comp. Sometimes they have the Comp. and they don't 9 report it to us like they are supposed to so we can up 10 date the records. Sometimes they will say yes. 11 Sometimes they will say no. 12 Well, the only way I can be sure is, if 13 it's not on our records and he can't produce a copy right 14 there on the spot, then I will call this rating bureau. 15 If this guy has got Comp. within, I would say, a couple 16 of weeks prior to my stop, these people will know. If 17 these people say no, then he doesn't have it. He gets a 18 ticket from me right there. 19 Q That document is self-authenticating. But 20 for the Grand Jurors, it doesn't specifically mention 21 Robert Womack, correct? 22 A It says Roland Womack. 23 Q And KRL Partnership? 24 A Correct. 25 Q So this document as a stand alone, without 2241 1 any other evidence, does not show Robert Womack does not 2 have Workers' Comp. insurance. It shows Roland has it 3 for the dental building and KRL does not have it. 4 Correct? 5 A Correct. 6 Q Because we don't want to mislead the Grand 7 Jurors. 8 Robert Womack, it's your understanding, 9 filled out the City permit using somebody else's Workers' 10 Compensation number. Is that correct? 11 A It appears that he wrote down a licensed 12 contractor in this area as the person -- if I was in the 13 City Building Department and the applicant filled this 14 out, I would assume that a licensed contractor was going 15 to be on the job, based on the information on this. 16 Q Because there is -- 17 A Again, he never finished page 2. So page 18 2 of this document is real key. 19 Q Okay. 20 A But based on the information that sits 21 right here now, this guy pulled a permit and there's 22 going to be a licensed contractor on the project. 23 Q Is it your experience that, if you are a 24 licensed contractor and you have Workers' Comp. 25 insurance, that you go ahead and put a different 2242 1 contractor down and a different Workers' Comp. number 2 down? Let's see if I can ask that more clearly. 3 If you are a contractor and you have your 4 own Workers' Comp. insurance and you have your own 5 contractor's license, does it make any sense that you 6 would ever put down someone else's contractor license and 7 their insurance? 8 A No. That is -- no. You would use your 9 own. 10 Q Okay. 11 A And there is no policy on this document. 12 Just says State Fund. There should be a policy number on 13 there. If nobody has got anything to hide, the policy 14 number should be on there for anyone to check. 15 Q Okay. What was your background before you 16 came to the State? 17 A I worked in construction. 18 Q Okay. 19 A Wannabe contractor. Never made it. 20 Q So you applied for the job and you went 21 through courses or something along those lines? 22 A No. I was hired based on my experience in 23 construction. When I first started, I investigated 24 consumer complaints, a complaint that you might file 25 against a contractor who did a roof that leaked. We try 2243 1 to call them, get them out there to fix it, this kind of 2 thing, to resolve the case. It was like a mediator 3 investigator. 4 And then, as the non-license activity got 5 more prevalent and licensed contractors were losing work 6 to non-licensees via underground economy cash pay, this 7 kind of thing, they formed this little group. For me, 8 it's a little more down and dirty, meat and potatoes. 9 You get them right there on the spot kind of thing. 10 Q Along these lines, that particular 11 activity, is there a statutory number, work over X 12 dollars, that requires Workers' Comp. insurance and 13 contractor's license? 14 A Pursuant to Business and Professions Code 15 7048, $300 or more labor and material requires a 16 contractor's license if you are doing work that is 17 required of a license. 18 Q So just the $720 dump fee would surpass 19 that number? 20 A It doesn't matter how the labor, how the 21 materials gets there. I mean, I can tell you I can paint 22 your house for $250 labor, but if you pay $500 for paint, 23 total 750. 24 Q Okay. And then, is it against the rules 25 to use somebody else's contractor's license? 2244 1 A That would be Business and Professions 2 Code 7027.3. 3 Q Okay. And is that a more egregious 4 violation? Is that a felony? 5 A That could be charged as a felony. 6 Q Or a misdemeanor? 7 A Or a misdemeanor. 8 Q And the violation there is actually being 9 a person who uses someone else's contractor's license 10 number? 11 A Correct. You cannot use somebody else's 12 contractor's license number. Like I can't use any one of 13 your driver's licenses because I don't have one to go 14 down to the store and be legal to drive for that little 15 five-minute trip. That doesn't work. 16 Q What about your brother's? Can you use 17 your brother's? 18 A Can't use anybody's. It's issued to you, 19 issued to the partnership, issued to the corporation. 20 Only those people listed as entities on the license may 21 use that license. Nobody else can. 22 Q And if you had a contractor's license and 23 you had Workers' Comp. insurance, would you still need 24 additional certificate for working on underground storage 25 tanks? 2245 1 A You have to comply with -- like I said in 2 the beginning, you would have to also qualify for 3 hazardous materials certification. Then you would have 4 to -- that just takes care of the State. That's what you 5 have to have with us. 6 You also must comply with all the rules 7 and regulations of any City, County, State, Federal, 8 whatever. Any violation of those laws, we can also cite 9 under Business and Professions Code 7110. 10 Q Which says a contractor must comply with 11 all regulatory schemes? 12 A Whatever it is. 13 MR. IREY: At this time, Mr. Miller, I know you 14 have been through the Grand Jury before, any Member of 15 the Grand Jury can write down a question. I will read it 16 into the record. You can answer that. And it would be 17 very helpful. 18 THE WITNESS: Sure. 19 MR. IREY: I have no further questions of Mr. 20 Miller at this time. 21 Q Does the fact that the applicant (sic) 22 wasn't completed mean that -- this is if you know. It 23 kind of calls for a legal conclusion, but I can go ahead 24 and ask it. 25 Does the fact the application wasn't 2246 1 completed mean the applicant isn't responsible for 2 complying with rules and regulations? 3 A I will put it this way. If this case was 4 assigned to me personally, okay, and I was working this 5 case on this particular person, he filled out the 6 application as the applicant for the license. The back 7 sheet where he doesn't say whether he is the owner of the 8 property, whether he is a contractor, whether there is 9 compliance with Comp. -- the mere fact for me, 10 personally, he filled out as an applicant for the permit, 11 this tells me -- this would tell me in my jurisdiction 12 that he is pulling the permit for this job. 13 What I would do next after the fact is, 14 chase the money. The bottom line is, if he is -- and I 15 would chase records. If he is the owner of the property 16 and he is complying with everything, no harm, no foul. 17 Okay. We just investigate it, make a few calls, do a 18 little driving, get some docs, figure it out. Case 19 closed if everything is in order. 20 Based on what I have seen and what I 21 understand and the reason for me being here, from what I 22 understand, he pulled the permit to do the work on this 23 building, which it's believed that he is the owner of the 24 this project. Apparently, he is not. He doesn't own 25 this property. So and then he hired people other than 2247 1 this contractor he listed on the license to -- for what I 2 think -- 3 Q Other than Wolin and Sons? 4 A Right. He put those on there, I think, 5 just so it would go through so nobody would question 6 anything. 7 Then apparently, he had work done night 8 and weekends, whatever, kind of got rid of the stuff. 9 Q So it's the totality of the circumstances? 10 A Correct. I would chase the money. 11 He paid -- from what I understand, he paid 12 the workers there. So, as far as I am concerned, he 13 acted -- if he is not the owner of the property, can't 14 prove it, he has pulled the permit, he has hired the help 15 and paid the help, to me, he is acting in the capacity of 16 a contractor. That's what a contractor does. 17 Q He wrote the checks out? 18 A Exactly. 19 Q He called the people and said, Come to 20 work tomorrow. 21 A He is in direct control of this project. 22 Him, as far as I know, and him only, as far as the work 23 being done. And the fact that he did put down a licensed 24 contractor's name to kind of slip through, I would charge 25 the 7027.3. 2248 1 Q And that -- 2 A Fraudulent use of a license number. Uses 3 a guy's business name, his license number. Didn't use a 4 policy number; just said State Fund. But he has made it 5 believed that, you know, everything is under control. 6 Q Is this possibly a policy number here? 7 A Could be, yeah. 8 Q Okay. That's in the middle of the page on 9 Grand Jury Exhibit 26? 10 A Yeah, this is probably State Fund policy 11 number. It's for the licensee. 12 Q Again, it's for the totality of the 13 circumstances? 14 A Right. 15 Q Just because he omitted or chose not to 16 fill out part of an application, if he takes twenty 17 affirmative steps acting as a contractor and doesn't take 18 the 21st, that doesn't -- 19 A It's all or none. Three strikes and you 20 are out. You are not out until you get the third one. 21 MR. IREY: Any other questions from any of other 22 Grand Jurors? 23 THE FOREPERSON: Yes. 24 Q BY MR. IREY: Does a licensed contractor 25 on the job and the contractor who is responsible for the 2249 1 work being performed have to be on site at all times? Or 2 can he spend, say, an hour and leave for the rest of the 3 day? 4 A Hmmm... That's a tough one. 5 Contractor -- we would all like them to be there, but we 6 know that they are not. He should be supervising the job 7 or he should have someone in charge that works for him 8 that can take over those responsibilities and have -- but 9 it's not a requirement that he must be there. 10 Q If you are a contractor and you call in a 11 favor, for instance, your son, and make him work all 12 weekend, does that son have to be covered by a Workers' 13 Comp. policy? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Even if he is not paid? 16 A Yes. He is on the project working. 17 Q So if a son is down in a hole cutting 18 pipes and sweeping sidewalks and pulling the tank out of 19 the ground, then they would need to be covered also? 20 A It doesn't mean -- he can be raking up 21 debris and throwing it in the trash. The scope of the 22 work is meaningless. The mere fact that he is on the 23 site. 24 Q It's meaningless for the violations; but 25 it is important for the price you need to pay for 2250 1 Workers' Comp.? 2 A Correct. There is different degrees. 3 Q My guess is, hazardous materials is more 4 expensive than dental office? 5 A I am sure, yeah. 6 Q Okay. And the same, what about a barter 7 thing? I don't want to get into the legalities of 8 bartering work. 9 Let's say I work for you for a weekend and 10 I take a couple hoists and hydraulic lift. Would that 11 person have to be covered, person not compensated with 12 money, but compensated with equipment? 13 A It would, the value of the compensation. 14 Example. A painter that I caught in Tahoe 15 was working off a debt. He was painting a hotel. He 16 told me he was working for free. Just painting it. I 17 thought, okay. You are going to paint this giant hotel 18 for free. Well, it came out that he owed a $2,000 debt 19 to the hotel for times he stayed there when he had 20 problems with his wife. That was a year ago. I said, 21 Okay. So you are working off a $2,000 debt. That's 22 compensation. 23 Q Workers' Comp. and a contractor's license? 24 A Would be required on that project, as 25 well. If the hoist and the items that were bartering, if 2251 1 the value of that material is $300 or more, that's 2 compensation for the work. 3 MR. IREY: Okay. Any other questions by any 4 Member of the Grand Jury? 5 Mr. Miller, thanks for coming down on 6 short notice and getting us that certified record. At 7 this time, I have no further questions, nor do Members of 8 the Grand Jury, so the Grand Jury Foreman will read you 9 an admonition. Thank you. 10 THE FOREPERSON: You are admonished not to reveal 11 to any person, except as directed by the Court, what 12 questions were asked or what responses were given or any 13 other matters concerning the nature or subject of the 14 Grand Jury's investigation that you learned during your 15 appearance before the Grand Jury. 16 This admonition continues unless and until 17 such time as a transcript of this Grand Jury proceeding 18 is made public. Violation of this admonition is 19 punishable as contempt of court. 20 This does not prevent you from discussing 21 the matter with your attorney if you have an attorney 22 advising you with respect to your appearance before the 23 Grand Jury. 24 And if I can get you to date and sign this 25 same exact admonition I just read to you. 2252 1 Thank you up very much. 2 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 3 MR. IREY: Mr. Wolin is going to answer in 4 narratives today because his wife is sick at home and he 5 has to just tell us what happened. 6 THE FOREPERSON: If you remain standing, please, 7 and raise your right hand. 8 You do solemnly swear that the evidence 9 you shall give in this investigation now pending before 10 this Grand Jury shall be the truth, the whole truth and 11 nothing but the truth, so help you God. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. You may be seated. 14 (TIME NOTED: 9:28 A.M.) 15 ---oOo--- 16 WILLIAM A. WOLIN 17 Called as a witness herein by the People, 18 having been duly sworn to tell the truth, was examined 19 and testified as follows: 20 21 EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. IREY: 23 Q Mr. Wolin, if you could speak up today and 24 tell us the -- if you have remembered any additional 25 information. But I am going to also ask you specific 2253 1 questions, but I would hope that you can give us a 2 narrative answer. 3 First question is, you were nervous last 4 time, correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q But you believe that you answered 7 truthfully, but concisely, correct? 8 A Correct. 9 Q And I called your place of business a week 10 or so ago and said the possibility of you testifying and 11 clearing up some issues might be helpful to Members of 12 the Grand Jury. Correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And then you called me back and you said, 15 I was nervous, but yes, I would be happy to come in on 16 Monday. Correct? 17 A Correct. 18 Q Okay. So tell us the whole story. Give 19 us the narrative. Tell us who said what when, how many 20 times you told people to do stuff or not to do stuff, if 21 you got any extra money under the table after the fact, 22 that kind of stuff. 23 A Well, I was basically asked to operate the 24 equipment. If I couldn't operate it, that they would 25 find somebody else to do it. And I said that I had some 2254 1 family thing to get together, and I would ask my wife if 2 I could do so. Which I did. And so she said I could. 3 Which she wasn't real happy about. 4 That Saturday morning, we met, everybody 5 there met at Mel's and we had breakfast and just talked 6 about removing the building. And I don't think that 7 there was any word about removing the tank at that time. 8 Q You don't remember any discussion about it? 9 A I don't remember at that time, no. 10 I think, at lunchtime, Bob had mentioned 11 about how to remove a tank. But he never did explicitly 12 tell me he wanted to remove it until that evening. 13 Q We will stay at breakfast time. Okay. At 14 breakfast time, did he walk around the diner and ask 15 people if they wanted the underground storage tank? 16 A No. 17 Q Or did you see him do that? 18 A No. 19 Q Did you see him get up and walk around 20 table to table to table? 21 A No. 22 Q Okay. Go ahead. 23 A Then that morning after breakfast, we went 24 out there. I put up, I think, a road construction sign 25 and flags. Then we proceeded tearing down the station. 2255 1 And I loaded all the materials from the station into the 2 Sherrill dump trucks. And that basically went on until 3 probably about afternoon, lunchtime. 4 Q Tell us about lunch. Who went to lunch? 5 What was discussed? 6 A We all went to lunch. And I think -- the 7 only thing I can remember being discussed at lunch was, 8 Bob had mentioned about how to remove an underground 9 tank, because there was one there. 10 Q What do you remember about that 11 conversation? What was he discussing? Techniques and -- 12 A Yeah. Just, you know, how it could be 13 done. That's when my father had mentioned that he had -- 14 MR. IREY: Just a moment, please. You are being 15 too loud today, I guess. 16 THE WITNESS: The speaker is working. 17 THE SECRETARY: Can we take a real short break? 18 MR. IREY: We need a three-minute break. You 19 probably can stay there. If it's longer than three 20 minutes, I will kick you out. 21 THE FOREPERSON: Mr. Irey, would it be okay to 22 go off the record until she returns? 23 MR. IREY: Yes. 24 THE FOREPERSON: Let's go off the record then. 25 (Recess taken from 9:34 to 9:37 a.m.) 2256 1 THE FOREPERSON: We will go back on the record. 2 Q BY MR. IREY: At lunch time, you were 3 discussing how to remove a tank? 4 A Yes. And that's when my dad had mentioned 5 to 'em that he had seen a tank be removed by floating it, 6 I think putting water -- dumping water by the tank and 7 then it would float an empty tank out of the ground. 8 Q But do you remember discussing whether the 9 tank needed dry ice? 10 A No. 11 Q Do you remember discussing whether the 12 tank had been emptied? 13 A I remember Bob saying it was empty. 14 Q Do you remember whether or not Bob said 15 anything about he has taken tanks out of the ground in 16 the past? 17 A I don't believe so. 18 Q Do you remember whether Bob said, as soon 19 as we are done loading the stuff in the trucks, we will 20 go ahead and pull the tank? 21 A No. 22 Q So then you come back from lunch and you 23 continue to load trucks, correct? 24 A Correct. 25 Q At some point, did the trucks start making 2257 1 the round trips more quickly than they had made on 2 Saturday? Instead of taking an hour, maybe taking 15 3 minutes or less? Or do you remember? 4 A They seemed like they were shorter. 5 Timewise, I don't know. I am not sure. 6 Q Investigator Hall somewhere wrote or told 7 me that you said the trucks were coming faster than you 8 could load them at one point? 9 A Yeah. Later on, they were. Because I 10 didn't have as much material to collect up. And they 11 were able to get there before I was ready for them. 12 Q I don't remember your answers because I 13 wasn't able to read the transcripts that were provided so 14 graciously to me. Did I ask -- I am not going to ask 15 that. 16 Last time, did you tell us whether or not 17 you were present when Mark Sherrill suggested to Bob 18 Womack, if he did, Why don't we stop going to the dump? 19 Why don't we just dump it on my property or Georgia 20 Pacific? 21 A Yeah, I remembered you asked me. I don't 22 know if that conversation took place. I wasn't involved 23 with it, if it did. 24 Q Okay. So then after you got rid of most 25 of the demolition debris, how did the tank come up? 2258 1 A Well, first we -- I demoed the concrete 2 slab, and I think there was a retaining wall in the east 3 end, and hauled that off. 4 Q Did you have any discussions regarding the 5 structural integrity of the retaining wall? 6 A Yeah, I did ask Bob about the -- that 7 retaining wall staying for structural integrity of the 8 upper retaining wall and the fence. And he said that was 9 designed or built to -- to retain the material above it, 10 and to just slope the excavation bank where the smaller 11 retaining wall was. 12 Q So you remember specifically mentioning to 13 him the retaining wall issue? 14 A Correct. 15 Q I think maybe the day after you testified, 16 you called me and gave me a short list of things that you 17 thought that you could have answered more completely or 18 something about OSHA training? 19 A Yeah. You had asked me if I had OSHA 20 training, and I said no. Now thinking about it, I have 21 had OSHA training on asbestos removal. 22 Q Okay. 23 A And another one on trench excavation. But 24 I don't believe that was an OSHA requirement, but it was 25 a class. 2259 1 Q So when you said no, it was no for 2 hazardous wastes? 3 A Correct. 4 Q But you had had OSHA training for asbestos? 5 A Correct. 6 Q What were the other things, if you 7 remember? 8 A Another one was about Womack paying me 9 timely. At least, I said he has always paid me timely. 10 But there was one instance where there was a confusion 11 between, I think, him and his nephew Mike and -- but it 12 got resolved. It took a while, but I did get paid for 13 it. 14 Q So you did some work at Mike Womack's? 15 A Correct. 16 Q And so then sometime that afternoon, after 17 you loaded trucks and after you took out the retaining 18 wall, what then happened? 19 A Mmmm... We cleaned up all the concrete 20 and hauled all the concrete away, removed a car lift. 21 And towards the end of the day, that's when Bob said he 22 wanted to dig out and remove the tank. 23 Q And he said that in your presence? Or in 24 a bunch of people's presence? Or how did that come up? 25 A Mmmm... It was probably between the group 2260 1 of us. 2 And I remember between just him and I, 3 telling him that, you know, I do not know all the rules 4 and regulations, but I am sure there would be a permit 5 process, paperwork; if nothing else, somebody to inspect 6 the operation. 7 He said that he had it all taken care of. 8 And the City had told him to -- that they wanted -- that 9 he had told them that he was removing a building to build 10 another structure and they knew that the building and 11 everything had to come out to build this new building, 12 and that they wanted it done on the weekend because -- I 13 believe because school would be out on the weekend. 14 Q Okay. And so who was present on the site 15 at that time you started scraping around the edge of the 16 tank? 17 A Mmmm... Bob and Mark Sherrill, Nick 18 Hernandez and Luke. And I am not sure if June was or 19 not. 20 Q Do you think your dad had left by that 21 time? Or was he still around? 22 A He had left prior to the tank being dug up. 23 Q Okay. So then you dug up one side of the 24 tank, the side away from 88/49, and tried to get the tank 25 out of the ground -- and it didn't come out, correct? 2261 1 A Correct. 2 Q And then what steps were taken or did you 3 have another sit-down and discuss how to get the tank out 4 of the ground or how to disconnect the piping or any of 5 those things? 6 A Yeah. They -- they disconnected the 7 piping. I don't know who had said to do what. I think 8 Bob had decided that. I told Bob that I would have to 9 relieve more of the material around the tank to try to 10 pull it out. And so he was anxious to get it out. But I 11 told him that, you know, the only way to get it out would 12 be to dig more material around the tank. 13 Q When you say "anxious to get it out," did 14 he make statements? How did that work? 15 A He -- well, he just kept wanting to try to 16 put a chain on it and wanting to lift it out. 17 Q At that time, was there a vehicle sitting 18 there ready to have the tank loaded onto it? 19 A I don't think so. I think it was after I 20 had pulled it up out of the ground is when the truck 21 arrived. 22 Q Okay. So you go and you excavate the 23 other side of the tank and people use shovels to remove 24 some of the pea gravel. Is that what you remember? 25 A Yes. 2262 1 Q Do you remember any smell of diesel or 2 contaminated soil or gasoline? 3 A Mmmm... I can remember a slight smell 4 of -- of not raw gas, but, you know. 5 Q Old gas? 6 A Dirt, you know. Gas that's been in dirt. 7 Q Okay. Did you discuss that with anybody? 8 Or you just -- 9 A Yeah, I did talk to Bob about it. And he 10 had told me that when Masons had put this new tank in, 11 like he said, two years ago, when they removed the old 12 tank, all the contaminated materials had been removed 13 and it was a clean bill of health. 14 Q Did it seem clean to you? 15 A Mmmm... No, not completely. 16 Q Did you say, Bob, I can smell gas here? 17 A Yeah, I did point out to him. 18 Q And he said, I can't or -- 19 A More or less. 20 Q So at that point, before the tank actually 21 came out of the ground, you had talked to Bob about that 22 the soil might be contaminated? 23 A Yes. 24 Q If that's true -- I am not trying to put 25 words in your mouth -- is that, in essence -- 2263 1 A It was either before or after. I did talk 2 to him about it. I am not sure at what point in time I 3 did. 4 Q When the tank came out of the ground, did 5 you actually set it on the surface of the ground until 6 the truck and trailer came? Or how did that work? 7 A I just lifted it up a foot or two until 8 the truck and trailer came. 9 Q So it just hung there? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Until the truck and trailer arrived? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Okay. Was there any discussion before the 14 tank came completely loose that you would just leave it 15 in the hole overnight and the next day come and remove 16 the tank and take it to the dump? 17 A Not with me, no. 18 Q Okay. So hypothetically, if Bob Womack, 19 at that meeting that you got to a little late on 20 September 2nd, told everybody at the meeting that: I was 21 going to leave the tank in the ground. Billy Wolin was 22 just cleaning up the dirt around the area, straightening 23 up for the night. And then the guy happened to show up 24 with the truck. So we made a decision to stop doing the 25 cleanup and start pulling the tank again. 2264 1 Is that how the sequence worked? Or did 2 you stay on the tank once you started on the tank? 3 A Stayed on it. 4 Q So you didn't take out half the tank and 5 then say, Forget it, we will do it tomorrow and take it 6 to the dump at any point. You, personally. 7 A Right. No. We stayed on it. 8 Q And after you got the tank partially 9 uncovered, you didn't go start loading Mark Sherrill's 10 trucks with the -- 11 A Debris. 12 Q -- debris? 13 A No. 14 Q So then if Bob told us at that meeting on 15 September 2nd that you were late -- and the Grand Jurors 16 have seen the tape -- then that would be inaccurate? 17 A Correct. 18 Q Because once you started on the tank, you 19 kept on the tank? 20 A Correct. 21 Q Then you lifted it a foot or two out of 22 the ground and it was hanging on the chain. And then a 23 truck showed up? 24 A Yeah. 25 Q Okay. Whose truck? 2265 1 A It was a Sherrill truck. In fact, I 2 believe it was Mark that had drove it up. I did not -- 3 after we loaded the tank, I didn't see Mark get back in 4 it, but I would assume that it would have been Mark. 5 Q Who was left on site? 6 A As soon as the tank was loaded, everybody 7 pretty much started leaving, because it was raining 8 pretty hard. But it was pretty much the group of people 9 that were there. 10 Q Do you know if Luke was still there? 11 A I believe Luke was still there. 12 Q Okay. So was Luke there absolutely until 13 the tank was pulled out of the ground and it was loose? 14 A I think so. 15 Q Pretty sure? 16 A Yeah. 17 Q Kind of sure? You don't know? 18 A Yeah, I am pretty sure he was. 19 Q So if he testified he wasn't there when 20 the tank came out of the ground, then that would be 21 inaccurate? 22 A Correct. 23 Q Okay. And so then you loaded it on the 24 truck. And you didn't get out of the excavator to tie it 25 down. Or did you? 2266 1 A No. 2 Q Who tied it down, if you recall? 3 A I believe it was Mark and probably be Bob 4 and Nick. 5 Q Okay. And then everybody left. And you 6 don't know for sure who got in the truck and drove it 7 off? 8 A No. I did not, you know, visually see who 9 drove away with it. 10 Q Were you ever told who drove away with it? 11 A Was I ever told? 12 Q Except by the District Attorney's Office. 13 A I don't know if I was ever told. I have 14 always assumed who it was. 15 Q And do you know where it went that night? 16 A No, I don't. 17 Q Did anybody come up alongside of the road 18 around 6:00 that night and say "I will take the tank" as 19 Mr. Womack's story was? 20 A Not that I know of. 21 Q Well, was it Sherrill's truck? 22 A That was there, yes. 23 Q So it absolutely wasn't some unknown guy 24 in some unknown truck? 25 A Correct. 2267 1 Q Okay. And then the next day, on Sunday, 2 we have learned a little more that might help refresh 3 your recollection. 4 Was Mike Womack on site on Sunday? 5 A Yes, towards the end. 6 Q Towards the end? 7 A Mm-hmm. 8 Q Late morning? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. Before that, I think your testimony 11 was that it was Nick, yourself, Robert and Mark. Is that 12 what you remember being Sunday morning? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Okay. And at some point, hypothetically, 15 we have heard a story that Mark left and, when he came 16 back, Bob Womack was gone. And hypothetically, Mark told 17 us that he -- that he was told by the person on site that 18 Bob left with the guy who wanted the tank. 19 And so if you were the guy on site at any 20 point, did you at any point tell Mark Sherrill Bob left 21 with the guy who wanted the underground storage tank and 22 he went up to your property to get it? 23 A No. 24 Q Did you tell him that Bob left with some 25 guy who wanted the tank and you didn't know where they 2268 1 went? 2 A No. 3 Q At any point, did Bob Womack tell you he 4 was leaving the site to give away the underground storage 5 tank that morning? 6 A No. 7 Q At any point, did you tell Mark Sherrill 8 that's where Bob was? 9 A I don't think so, no. 10 Q Is there any reason in the world you 11 would have told Mark Sherrill, Mark, Bob left to give the 12 tank away, that you can recall today? 13 A No. 14 Q Okay. And then at some point, Mike Womack 15 brings fence posts? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And that's the first time you put a fence 18 around the perimeter? 19 A Correct. 20 Q But the day before you actually had your 21 excavator over the top of the hole? 22 A Correct. 23 Q Do you remember if, when Mike Womack was 24 helping put the fence posts up, if Bob Womack was on 25 site? 2269 1 A Yes. 2 Q He was on site? 3 A Yes. 4 Q So Bob Womack would have had to have left, 5 it would -- to give the tank away, it would have had to 6 have been before Mike Womack got there? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you remember Bob leaving for an hour 9 any time that morning? Because that would have limited 10 it to just you and two truck drivers. 11 A I can remember him coming and going. I 12 don't know. I can't remember for how long of a period. 13 He was in and out. 14 Q Okay. You didn't haul the tank off, 15 correct? 16 A Correct. 17 Q You never had it on your property, as far 18 as you know, that you own or your father owns? 19 A No. 20 Q Okay. Then absolute best you can recall, 21 go ahead and give us the story when Bob contacted you on 22 a site when you were working and discussed the story you 23 were supposed to tell authorities. 24 A Well, he had just told me that people were 25 asking him where the tank had went to. And he had told 2270 1 me, if anybody asked me, that -- that don't remember. It 2 was, you know, an unmarked truck that had came and we, 3 you know, loaded it onto. And he felt that the whole 4 thing seemed kind of ridiculous. They are making a big 5 deal about it. And that he would take care of the 6 problem. 7 Q Did he give you specific examples on what 8 to tell people that came by? I mean, the story about the 9 rain or? 10 A Well, he had -- well, yeah. Point in 11 time, he did say that. You probably have a very, you 12 know, difficult time to -- for remembering. You have 13 loaded so many trucks. It was raining really hard. It 14 was getting dark. And him and Mark had told whoever the 15 same story. 16 Q At that time, he told you that Mark and 17 him were telling that same story? 18 A Yeah. 19 Q If you recall? 20 A Yeah. He had said that he -- well, I 21 think that he had told Mark that if anybody comes around 22 asking, that it was: Don't know whose truck and trailer 23 or who hauled it. And had asked me to say the same. 24 Q What about dark, rainy? Was that your 25 story? Or was that his story? 2271 1 A That was his story. 2 Q And that's the story you repeated to 3 Investigator Hall the first time he chatted with you in 4 late July of -- 5 A Right. 6 Q And the reason that you told Investigator 7 Hall that story? 8 "July 17th, 1998. This morning at 9 approximately 9:00 a.m. Bill Wolin called my office. 10 During that conversation, Bill said it was just about 11 dark and pouring down rain. Bill said he really did not 12 look at the truck and trailer that he loaded the tank 13 onto due to the lateness in the day, the dark and the 14 rain." 15 Are you just repeating Womack's story? 16 A Well, no. It was getting dark and it was 17 raining. But yeah, the truck was basically a repeat of 18 what Bob wanted me to say. 19 Q Okay. But again -- I think you have 20 answered it, but did he tell you to talk about it was 21 rainy or not? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Did he talk to you about, Make sure you 24 mention it's dark? Or not? 25 A Yes. 2272 1 Q And he absolutely mentioned that he had 2 talked to Mark about it and that that's the story Mark 3 was going to tell? 4 A Mm-hmm. 5 Q Is that a yes for the court reporter? 6 A That he had talked to Mark, and it was an 7 unmarked truck. Didn't know who took it. 8 Q Did he actually say it was not a marked 9 truck? 10 A No, he did not say that. 11 Q At any time, did he tell you, Yeah, I know 12 it was Mark's truck, and let's just forget about it. Or 13 everybody knows it's Mark's truck, but let's tell him we 14 don't know? 15 A No, he didn't say that. 16 Q How many trucks had you loaded between 17 Sunday and Tuesday or Wednesday when he came onto your 18 job site? 19 A Three, the ten-wheeler and the dump and 20 the smaller one. 21 Q Only Mark's trucks? 22 A Right. 23 Q So when you were on up on the project in 24 Pie Valley, you weren't loading trucks? 25 A No. 2273 1 Q What kind of job was Pie Valley? 2 A It was paving, patching the road. 3 Q So the last trucks that you loaded before 4 Bob came to see you was Mark Sherrill's truck? 5 A Correct. 6 Q And that was on Sunday, you were doing 7 some loads? 8 A Yes. 9 Q But on Saturday night, the last thing you 10 loaded was? 11 A Mark's smaller truck. 12 Q With? 13 A The tank. 14 Q And you are positive? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. And so did Bob -- I think you 17 testified before. Did he call you again months later and 18 talk to you about your testimony? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Okay. Go through that again. 21 A Mmmm... Well, I told him, if this goes to 22 court, I could not -- you know, under oath, to say I 23 don't -- can't remember what truck the tank went onto. 24 And he was a little upset and said that, 25 you know, you could easily forget which trucks you loaded 2274 1 or, you know, where the car lift went onto and which 2 trucks, all this and that. 3 Q Is this face to face or on the phone? 4 A It was over the phone. 5 Q Okay. 6 A And he basically said, you know, just tell 7 him you can't remember which truck it was that you loaded 8 the tank onto. 9 Q At that point, didn't you say, I know it's 10 Sherrill's truck? Or he said -- or was -- 11 A No, I didn't. I didn't say that. I just 12 told him I could not do it under oath in court. 13 And so he said, Well, the tank is -- you 14 know, they have it. And basically, the whole thing is 15 ridiculous. And he would take care of it. But more or 16 less, trying to ensure me that you could easily forget 17 about it. Which I haven't. 18 Q Okay. And then there was a piece of paper 19 he wanted you to sign that says we want to talk to the 20 Grand Jury. But you never saw that piece of paper? 21 A No. I think you had showed me that in 22 your office. 23 Q But you never actually saw that piece of 24 paper? 25 A No. 2275 1 Q But he had called a couple times or come 2 by your house? 3 A Yeah. He had called one time. I didn't 4 return his message. Then he came by, I think, probably a 5 week or two later, and talked to my wife. 6 Q Since your last testimony here, have you 7 talked to Womack or his kids or Sherrill? 8 A No. 9 Q Again related to Mark Sherrill, you 10 mentioned that he said, Don't worry. It will never be 11 found again. 12 How did that conversation come up? At 13 about what time was it? Right after the tank? 14 A I think it was probably the next morning 15 I had saw him. 16 Q The next morning? 17 A Sunday morning when we were loading the 18 rest of the -- 19 Q So it was the very next day Mark said, 20 Don't worry? 21 A I believe so. 22 Q So how did the tank come up that day? 23 A I think I asked him what he did with it or 24 where it went. And he just mentioned it went somewhere 25 it will never be found. 2276 1 Q So Sunday morning, May 3rd, Mark Sherrill 2 told you in a conversation -- after you asked him, What 3 happened to the tank? He said, Don't worry. It will 4 never be found. 5 A Yeah, I believe that was the next day. 6 Q Why would he say something like that if he 7 thought what he was doing was legal, if you know? 8 A I don't know. 9 Q Okay. That's good. 10 A I believe it was Mark. It was either him 11 or Bob. I think it was Mark that had told me that. 12 Q On site at 505 Sutter, the next day? 13 A I believe so. 14 Q But you are not 100 percent sure? 15 A No. 16 Q You are sure you had a conversation along 17 those lines? 18 A Right. 19 Q You smile when I ask 100 percent questions. 20 A Well, you know, it's been almost seven 21 months ago. I am trying to remember which day. 22 Q You could have told us the straight scoop 23 on July 17th. 24 A Yes. And I do regret that. 25 Q Okay. But go ahead. 2277 1 So when I asked you 100 percent, you 2 remember having a conversation, you are pretty sure it 3 was with Mark, but it was with somebody on site? 4 A Well, on -- well, it was either on site or 5 at Mel's, either one of the two. 6 Q Did you have breakfast at Mel's the next 7 day? 8 A Correct. 9 Q Oh, 63 witnesses in. 10 Who had breakfast at Mel's on Sunday, May 11 3rd? 12 A I think it was Mark and Nick, Bob. I 13 believe June. I am not sure if Luke was there. 14 Q So in front of that group, either -- 15 probably Mark, but maybe Bob, said, Don't worry. It will 16 never be found. 17 A I believe so. 18 Q Or at the site 505? 19 A Yeah. 20 Q But it wasn't months later? 21 A No. 22 Q Besides that time when Mark, to the best 23 of your recollection, says, Don't worry, it will never be 24 found, did you have any other conversations with Mark, 25 even in the parking lot after the September 2nd meeting, 2278 1 where Mark assured you that there weren't going to be any 2 further problems? Or was it that one time the next day? 3 A Well, Mark didn't assure me. It was Bob 4 that said that he would take care of this ordeal. 5 After that meeting on September, I did see 6 Mark and asked him what was going on when the tank had 7 been found. And he told me he didn't know what was going 8 on. And he did just mention that he didn't -- he would 9 have a tough time with a three-year probation and not -- 10 since he had several trucks, not knowing, you know, every 11 day where they are going and what they are being loaded 12 with. He was -- basically, didn't want -- didn't -- when 13 you had offered the tank to be found and paying a fine, 14 he didn't sound like he wanted the three-year probation. 15 Q Okay. I am going to leave that in. 16 Normally, I would strike that as non-responsive, but I 17 don't want to make it look like I am giving up 18 exculpatory evidence. 19 Did Mark Sherrill at any time other than 20 the day after the tank came out of the ground try to talk 21 you into or out of telling investigators the truth? 22 A No. 23 Q Okay. The September 2nd meeting, when 24 myself and Ron Hall and Lance Hayden left, were there 25 discussions that seemed to you whether or not that the 2279 1 tank would certainly be found and that the advertisement 2 that Mr. Womack was going to put in the paper was just a 3 sham? If you recall? 4 A No, no. Bob pretty much talked like he 5 didn't know where the tank was at. 6 Q Okay. And then the call that you had with 7 Bob Womack was after the Grand Jury proceeding had almost 8 started. Was it sometime in October or November of this 9 year, where he called you and -- 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. So if we bracket it 12 October/November, then that covers when the phone call 13 would have happened? 14 A Yes. 15 Q May have been real early November? 16 A Yeah, would have been early. 17 Q Or late October? 18 A October. 19 MR. IREY: I have no further questions of Mr. 20 Wolin. 21 Q Mr. Wolin, you testified truthfully here 22 today? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And you testified truthfully last time, 25 but just in short segments; is that correct? 2280 1 A Yes. Very nervous. Not like I am not 2 nervous now. 3 Q Did you ever ask Womack why he wanted you 4 to lie about who hauled the tank away? 5 A Yeah. I did ask him, when the County was 6 making a big deal about where the tank went, I had asked 7 him why -- if he didn't know not to remove the tank, and 8 just not -- or tell 'em where it went to. And his answer 9 to that is he didn't want to get anybody into a lot of 10 trouble or cost them a lot of money. 11 Q So at some point, he knew that there was a 12 penalty associated with what he had done? 13 A Yes. 14 Q So if he just talks to the newspapers and 15 talks to everybody at Mel's right now and says he doesn't 16 know what he did was wrong, then that is inconsistent 17 with what -- 18 A Well, this was -- this was several -- this 19 was probably the day -- Monday or Tuesday that following 20 week, right after we -- 21 Q But right after? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Not in September, October, November? 24 A No. 25 Q Monday or Tuesday, he knew he was in 2281 1 trouble? 2 A Yeah. 3 Q Or Wednesday? 4 A The beginning -- yeah, the next -- that 5 following week. 6 Q And he actually asked you to lie? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And the reason for it was because he 9 didn't want to get people in trouble? 10 A Correct. 11 Q Did you ask him where the tank went? 12 A Mmmm... No, I didn't ask him. Didn't 13 care to want to know. 14 Q You didn't want to know at that point? 15 A No. At that point, I just did not want to 16 even talk or be associated with the whole situation. 17 Q Hoped it would go away? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Did you give Mr. Womack or Mr. Mason 20 permission to use Wolin and Sons' Workers' Comp. numbers 21 and contractor's license numbers? 22 A No. 23 Q Not at any time? 24 A No. 25 MR. IREY: Any other questions of any Grand 2282 1 Jurors? 2 Q Do you feel relieved now you have been 3 able to tell the truth? 4 A Yes. Still not looking forward to having 5 to go to court, if it comes to that. 6 MR. IREY: And for the record, it's a separately 7 negotiated deal, but I think Bill A. Wolin knows, I 8 called Mr. Bill E. Wolin last week, and I am not going to 9 put Wolin -- I got rid of the injunctive provision. All 10 he is going to do now is train his employees. Bill will 11 go to 40-hour class and donate $2,000 in publications. 12 There won't be something out there hanging over Bill's 13 head. This might read peculiar in the record. I wanted 14 you guys to know that. 15 Q You are not coming in today to testify any 16 way differently than you would have because I called your 17 dad, correct? 18 A No. 19 Q It's just, it happened to be you needed to 20 come in because the Grand Jurors needed to hear 21 narrative, correct? 22 A Yeah, you had asked me to. 23 Q I told you and your dad, based on the 24 information I learned in the Grand Jury, it might have 25 seemed a little strict what I had done to his business, 2283 1 which is partially your business. Is that your 2 understanding? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Did Bob Womack offer you money not to 5 remember any details of the tank removal? 6 A No. 7 Q And you don't think that that thing with 8 the car had anything to do with him trying to treat you 9 wonderfully? 10 A Mmmm... I don't think so. He has offered 11 to help me out with purchasing vehicles in the past. 12 Q Buy any of those in Oregon? 13 A To buy any from Oregon? 14 Q Do you buy any of your cars from Oregon? 15 A Oh, no. 16 Q Why? 17 A I just -- I have no reason to. 18 Q Do you live in California? 19 A Yes. 20 Q So you buy from California? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Does Bob live in California? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Pretty much the whole time you have known 25 him? 2284 1 A Yes. 2 Q He doesn't leave for six months and go to 3 Oregon, if you know? 4 A No. 5 Q He is always around? 6 A Yeah. 7 Q Do you remember when you first saw the 8 Lincoln Navigator in California? If you remember? 9 A Mmmm... Yeah, it was -- 10 Q Before last Christmas is the key date. 11 Do you remember if you saw the Lincoln 12 Navigator in California before last Christmas? 13 A I think so. 14 Q That's based on? 15 A Well, the job that I was doing was right 16 close to his house. And so I would see him drive by. 17 Q Do you know when you were doing that job? 18 A Yes. It was last fall and winter. 19 Q So it was last fall before Christmas? 20 A Correct. 21 Q And you remember him driving by in the 22 Lincoln Navigator? 23 A I believe so, yes. 24 MR. IREY: Okay. Other questions of Mr. Womack? 25 Did I accidentally call you Mr. Womack at 2285 1 all today? If I did, of course, I apologize. 2 Q Did you remove the piping between the tank 3 and the pump island on Sunday or Saturday, if you know? 4 A I don't think so. 5 Q Might still be there? 6 A It might still be there. 7 Q Three feet underground. One nice scoop 8 with a excavator bucket, we could know? 9 A Yeah. 10 Q Two scoops? 11 A Yeah. I -- if it was more than a foot 12 deep, it's probably still there. 13 Q How were you covered by any insurance? 14 A Well, at the time, I thought I was working 15 for the company. And it wasn't until we finished that 16 Bob had asked me how much I wanted for doing the work. 17 And at that time, I told him he would be 18 getting a bill from the company for my time and 19 equipment. And he told me that he had already discussed 20 it with my dad, that he was going to pay me directly. So 21 then he asked me how much. And I just gave him a total 22 amount that more or less reflected what I would get per 23 hour. 24 Q For the two days? 25 A Yes. 2286 1 Q Was the equipment insured? 2 A Through the company. Through the company. 3 Q What's the -- have you heard who actually 4 hauled the tank ever? 5 A Well, rumors. It's always been Mark 6 through rumors. 7 Q Okay. What about where the tank was? 8 A Mmmm... 9 Q For those four plus months? 10 A No, I don't know. 11 Q Okay. Where did you have lunch on May 2nd 12 and who was there? 13 A I don't -- I don't -- I don't recall 14 having lunch. I think we worked straight through. 15 Q On May 2nd. Not on Sunday; on Saturday. 16 A Oh, on Saturday. At Mel's. 17 Q At Mel's? 18 A I believe so. 19 Q Mel's made a lot of money off you guys 20 that day. 21 A Off of Bob. 22 Q So Bob bought lunch, too? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And this is calling for -- it's called a 25 lay witness opinion. 2287 1 Do you at any time think that Mr. Robert 2 Womack did believe that he had a legal permit to do the 3 demolition and pulling of the tanks? Or do you think the 4 whole thing was a sham? 5 A Right now or back then? 6 Q Back then. 7 A Yes, I believe he did. 8 Q Because he told you? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. But do you, if you have any idea -- 11 okay. You answered the question. 12 Do you think that he knew that he needed a 13 County permit? 14 A No. 15 Q That's what you thought then. What do you 16 think now that you have heard other stories? 17 A Well, now, apparently he did need a County 18 permit. 19 Q Because he has been told by agencies that 20 he needed a County permit. 21 A Yes. 22 Q Here is one. If you were told by three 23 different people that you needed County permits, would 24 you just blow them off? 25 A But by just people or the County 2288 1 themselves? 2 Q By the County themselves. 3 A Yes, I would. 4 Q You would blow them off? 5 A No. I would get a permit. 6 Q Okay. After Mr. Womack went to check the 7 County office -- okay. 8 On Monday, when Mr. Womack went to check 9 the County office and he found out he was in trouble, is 10 this how you see it? Or do you believe that he framed 11 the business Wolin and Sons? 12 A Repeat that again, Dave. 13 Q On May 4th, after Mr. Womack went to check 14 the County office and found out that he was in trouble, 15 is that the first time you think Mr. Womack knew he was 16 in trouble? Or do you think he framed the business Wolin 17 and Sons? 18 A I think that's probably when he realized 19 that he probably got himself in some hot water with the 20 County. 21 Q Okay. But you don't think the whole thing 22 was a setup on Wolin and Sons? 23 A Uh... 24 Q Or do you? 25 A I don't -- as time goes on, I tend to want 2289 1 to believe it. But at that time, I think he was just 2 trying to save money to do it independently himself. 3 Q Have you ever gotten a $5,500 bid and 4 known you could do it for 200 bucks? 5 A No. 6 Q And gone ahead and done it that way? 7 A No. 8 Q Have you ever given away $1.2 million for 9 a hundred bucks? 10 A No. 11 Q Not even to your brother? 12 A Pardon? 13 Q Not even to a brother? 14 A Give away? No. 15 MR. IREY: Any other questions of the Grand 16 Jurors? Okay. 17 The Foreman has an admonition for you, 18 Bill. 19 I hope your wife feels better. 20 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Thank you. 21 THE FOREPERSON: You are admonished not to reveal 22 to any person, except as directed by the Court, what 23 questions were asked or what responses were given or any 24 other matters concerning the nature or subject of the 25 Grand Jury's investigation that you learned during your 2290 1 appearance before the Grand Jury. 2 This admonition continues unless and until 3 such time as a transcript of this Grand Jury proceeding 4 is made public. Violation of this admonition is 5 punishable as contempt of court. 6 This does not prevent you from discussing 7 the matter with your attorney, if you have an attorney 8 advising you with respect to your appearance before the 9 Grand Jury. 10 It is the 30th. 11 MR. IREY: You want to take five minutes? Then I 12 think the testimony will take 30, 35 minutes. And then 13 we will be ready for the instructions. 14 THE FOREPERSON: That fine for everybody? Get 15 your coffee out and everything. 16 MR. IREY: Water. 17 THE FOREPERSON: Hold on. Let me -- I mean, get 18 it out of their system. 19 Hold on. Let me read the first admonition 20 of the day. 21 The Grand Jurors are admonished they are 22 not to form or express any opinions about this case or 23 discuss it among themselves until the Grand Jury receives 24 the case for deliberation. In addition, no inspection of 25 evidence should be conducted without the permission of 2291 1 the Foreperson and on the advice of the prosecuting 2 attorney. 3 A violation of this rule could result in a 4 charge of contempt against a Grand Juror who would 5 investigate or view any matters with regard to this case 6 without the entire body of the Grand Jury. 7 We will take a recess until 10:30. Ten 8 minutes. Thank you. 9 We are off the record. 10 (Recess taken from 10:19 to 10:32 a.m.) 11 THE FOREPERSON: We are on the record. 12 MR. IREY: Jim Walshaw. 13 THE FOREPERSON: Mr. Walshaw, if you could remain 14 standing, please, and raise your right hand. 15 THE WITNESS: Sure. 16 THE FOREPERSON: You do solemnly swear that the 17 evidence you shall give in this investigation now pending 18 before this Grand Jury shall be the truth, the whole 19 truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. 20 THE WITNESS: I do. 21 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. You may be seated. 22 23 (TIME NOTED: 10:32 A.M.) 24 ---oOo--- 25 2292 1 JIM WALSHAW 2 Called as a witness herein by the People, 3 having been duly sworn to tell the truth, was examined 4 and testified as follows: 5 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. IREY: 8 Q Jim, if you can -- I mean, Mr. Walshaw, 9 sorry -- answer audibly for the Members of the Grand 10 Jury. And the guy in the back sits back there so he 11 grades you one to ten at the end. 12 A There you go. 13 Q Who is your current employer? 14 A Amador County District Attorney's Office. 15 Q And prior to that, who was your employer? 16 A Jackson Police Department. 17 Q And could you briefly describe your 18 background and training, especially if you have any POST 19 training, please. 20 A POST training. I have attended the POST 21 basic police academy, got -- well, I have got starting 20 22 years in law enforcement. I was a deputy sheriff for 23 County of Yolo from 1979 until '85. And then from '85, I 24 was a police officer with the Southern Pacific Railroad 25 police, and from 1985 to '88. 2293 1 And from 1988 until January of 1996, I was 2 with Jackson Police Department. And from -- I'm sorry. 3 From January of '97. From January of '97 until the 4 present, I have been with the Amador County District 5 Attorney's Office. 6 Q What is your current assignment? 7 A I am a criminal investigator in the Bureau 8 of Investigations. I do auto theft, fraud, Workers' 9 Comp. fraud. 10 Q Okay. And did you participate in any 11 search warrants in October 1998? 12 A I believe that was on October 30th of 13 1998. I assisted in the search warrants at two locations. 14 Q Okay. And one of the locations was a 15 house of KRL Partnership/Bob Womack? 16 A Yes. 17 Q On Ridge Road? 18 A That was at 156 -- if I can refer to the 19 note here? The address on that was xxxxx Ridge Road, 20 County of Amador. 21 Q About what time of day did you get to the 22 residence? 23 A I am recollecting it was right around 24 9:30, 10:00. It might have been a little bit later than 25 that. 2294 1 Q Because the goal that day was to try to 2 get it done by 10:00. And we didn't get started on time? 3 A Correct. 4 Q And you went there with how many people? 5 A I went there with two investigators with 6 our office, a member of the Highway Patrol. There was, I 7 believe, three members of the Highway Patrol, plus a 8 uniformed Highway Patrol officer. 9 Q For safety? 10 A For safety. 11 Q But who actually went into Womack's house? 12 A Into Womack's house? There was three 13 investigators, myself, and Highway Patrol members. 14 Q Okay. 15 A That were plain clothes. 16 Q So six of you? 17 A Correct. 18 Q At some point after the building was 19 secure, you guys went to do another search warrant? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q About how long were you at Bob 22 Womack's/KRL's house? 23 A I would say roughly three hours at the 24 most. 25 Q How long were you at Mark Sherrill's house 2295 1 on Smalley Drive -- Avenue? 2 A Approximately two hours, two and a half 3 hours. 4 Q And the people that went to Mark 5 Sherrill's house were whom? 6 A It was myself, a uniformed officer from 7 Jackson Police Department. It would be Officer 8 Campbell. My partner, Jerry Sims, with the Amador County 9 District Attorney's Office, and a member from the Highway 10 Patrol who was part of the first search warrant. 11 Q At the Sherrills' house, you actually 12 just asked Mr. and Mrs. Sherrill where the records were, 13 correct? 14 A When I arrived at the Sherrill residence, 15 there was nobody home. We made a phone call to Mrs. 16 Sherrill's place of employment. 17 Q So you didn't knock the door down? 18 A No. We had her respond to the location, 19 at which time she let us into the house. 20 I advised her of what we needed, gave her 21 a copy of the search warrant. And which she complied by 22 obtaining the documents which we needed from her file 23 cabinet in the living room. 24 Q So the total documents was a manila 25 envelope with just a couple dozen pieces of paper? 2296 1 A Correct. 2 Q And a little videotape of your entry? 3 A Correct. 4 Q Not videotape. Audio tape. 5 A We did have a videotape with us, but it 6 was not activated. It was an audio tape. 7 Q Okay. When you -- when you participated 8 with these warrants, did you begin to learn some 9 information related to Mr. Womack -- Mr. Robert 10 Womack/KRL's business activities? 11 A Yes, I did. 12 Q Anything related to Contractors Licensing 13 Board and Workers' Comp? 14 A To -- actually, to both. 15 During the course of the investigation 16 that was ongoing with the search warrants, it was brought 17 to my attention during that period of time that the 18 parties of KRL, Robert Womack and Roland Womack were 19 assumedly operating under the pretense of having a 20 contractor's license or being the owners of the property 21 on Sutter Street, which was the old Mason gas station 22 located in the City of Jackson. During research into 23 that, I had found that both KRL, Roland and Robert Womack 24 were non-licensees with the State of California, as far 25 as having a contractor's license. 2297 1 Q And Grand Jury Exhibit 121 is a certified 2 copy of that non-license status? 3 A Correct. 4 Q Okay. And did you learn anything about 5 Workers' Comp.? 6 A Also during that course of investigation, 7 I had contacted the Insurance Rating Bureau, which is 8 located in San Francisco, California, and made inquiries 9 to the effect of if Roland Womack, Robert Womack or KRL 10 Partnership had any Workers' Compensation insurance. 11 During that contact, I had learned that 12 Roland Womack does have Workers' Compensation insurance 13 with the business that he has that is located in the City 14 of Jackson that he is a dentist at, and which I believe, 15 to the best of my recollection, it was four employees 16 that were covered under Workers' Comp. 17 Q Was Billy Wolin covered? 18 A No. 19 Q Nick Hernandez? 20 A Not to my knowledge. 21 Q Luke Womack? 22 A Not to my knowledge. 23 Q Mike Womack? 24 A Not to my knowledge. 25 Q Mark Sherrill? 2298 1 A Not to my knowledge. 2 Q Okay. 3 A During that inquiry, what I had found, 4 that this would be related to the field of dentistry, 5 that these people would be covered under the Workers' 6 Comp. insurance. 7 Q Okay. Have you had an opportunity to 8 interview Mr. William E. Wolin? 9 A Yes, I did. 10 Q Did you bring a document with you today? 11 A Yes, I did. 12 Q We are going to put this in as what's 13 called a government record. 14 This is the original, correct, Mr. 15 Walshaw? 16 A Yes, it is. 17 Q And essentially, could you -- you can't 18 testify to what Mr. Wolin told you, because in a Grand 19 Jury we are not able to use hearsay. 20 But did Mr. Wolin -- is it your 21 understanding that Mr. Wolin did or did not give 22 permission to Mr. Womack to use his Workmen's Comp. and 23 contractor's status? 24 A During the course of my investigation, it 25 was found on my part that Mr. Wolin did not give 2299 1 permission to use his contractor's license number nor his 2 Workers' Comp. carrier insurance number to either Roland, 3 KRL or Robert Womack. 4 Q And you drafted up a basically statement 5 under penalty of perjury for Mr. Wolin, correct? 6 A Yes, I did. 7 Q Did Mr. Wolin sign this in your presence? 8 A Yes, he did. 9 Q And did you witness that signature? 10 A Yes. My signature is also on that 11 document. 12 Q Could you read the document into the 13 record, please. 14 This is Grand Jury Exhibit 127, correct? 15 A Correct. 16 "To whom it may concern. 17 "Please be advised that Roland 18 Womack, Robert Womack or KRL Partnership did not 19 have permission to use my contractor's license No. 20 23605 Class A to perform a contract" -- 21 correction -- "a contact at 505 Sutter Street, 22 Jackson, Amador County, California, 95642, on or 23 about May 1st, 1998, May 2nd, 1998 and May 3rd, 24 1998. 25 "Nor did Roland Womack, Robert 2300 1 Womack or KRL Partnership have permission to enter 2 into said contract in my behalf at the time or at 3 any other time. 4 "I certify under penalty of perjury 5 under the laws of the State of California that the 6 foregoing is true and correct. 7 "Executed November 19th, 1998 in 8 Amador County, California." 9 And it was signed by William E. Wolin. 10 His address is 50 Main Street, Sutter Creek, California. 11 And it was witnessed by myself, James L. Walshaw, 12 Investigator with Amador County District Attorney's 13 Office. 14 Q Okay. Grand Jury Exhibit 122, 15 certification of records you have obtained in this case. 16 That doesn't specifically mention Robert Womack, correct? 17 A Correct. 18 Q But it's your understanding that you did 19 check on Robert Womack, correct? 20 A When I did my initial contact by telephone 21 with the Insurance Rating Bureau, I had spoke with one of 22 the -- one of the employees at that place. And they had 23 told me over the phone that Robert Womack did not have 24 any type of Workers' Comp. coverage. They had no record 25 of him whatsoever. 2301 1 MR. IREY: Okay. I have no further questions of 2 Mr. Walshaw. If any Member of the Grand Jury at this 3 time has any questions of Mr. Walshaw, I would be happy 4 to ask them at this point. 5 Q And your investigation is ongoing, 6 correct? 7 A Yes, it is. 8 Q What does the word "demolition" mean to 9 you? 10 A Well, it would mean the tearing down of or 11 destroying of. 12 Q Did Mark Sherrill have a contractor's 13 license? 14 A Mark Sherrill that I had found through my 15 investigation does not have a contractor's license with 16 the State Contracting Licensing Board, no. 17 Q Did you actually call the Contracting 18 Licensing Board? 19 A Yes, I did. 20 Q Does Sherrill have Workers' Comp. with his 21 business, if you know? 22 A I do not know with his trucking business, 23 no. That has not been researched at this time. 24 MR. IREY: Any other questions of any of the 25 Grand Jurors? 2302 1 THE WITNESS: If I may point out one thing on 2 that issue with the Workers' Comp. -- 3 MR. IREY: Sure. 4 THE WITNESS: -- regarding Mr. Sherrill? 5 If he had Workers' Comp. insurance that 6 would cover his employees for his business, that would 7 not cover the employment that was done by KRL Partnership 8 or Roland or Robert Womack. 9 Q BY MR. IREY: So if they were working for 10 Mark Sherrill, for Mark Sherrill's business, and he had 11 it, then they would be covered? 12 A If they were working for him. If he was 13 the contractor that was working, say, the job. 14 Hypothetically, if he was the employer or contractor in 15 charge of that job, then he would have to have Workers' 16 Comp. insurance for all employees. 17 Q Withhold Social Security, all those types 18 of things? 19 A Correct. Then you are running into the 20 EDD issues. 21 Q You have not researched those yet, correct? 22 A Those are being researched now at this 23 time. 24 MR. IREY: Any other questions, except -- I 25 know, Mr. Grand Juror. 2303 1 Q What evidence do you have that leads you 2 to believe Dave Mason III knew about the station? Okay. 3 A The evidence which I have obtained on that 4 issue is that Mr. Mason had applied -- I believe, without 5 having the record with me -- I think it's one or two days 6 after the removal of the tank, he applied at the County 7 of Amador for removal of a storage tank, which was done 8 after the fact. 9 Q And used Mr. Wolin's numbers? 10 A He had placed Mr. Wolin's name as the 11 contractor. There was no license number on that 12 documentation which he had put in place on the 13 application for the removal. 14 Q Ron Hall is the lead investigator on this 15 case, correct? 16 A Correct. 17 Q And your issues have just now precipitated 18 into the Workers' Comp., EDD, Contractors Licensing 19 Board; is that correct? 20 A Correct. 21 Q So as far as going through these thousands 22 of pages of documents, you haven't sat down and gone 23 through them page by page by page? 24 A No. The only issues which I have brought 25 up so far is obtaining any permits through either the 2304 1 City of Jackson and/or with the County of Amador. At 2 that point, the permits that were obtained were the ones 3 that were under Roland Womack for the demolition. And 4 when I was at the County records, I had obtained the 5 application for removal of the storage tank which was 6 dated after the fact. 7 MR. IREY: Any other questions? 8 Mr. Walshaw, at this point, the Grand Jury 9 Foreman has an admonition for you. And I thank you for 10 your time. 11 THE FOREPERSON: You are admonished not to reveal 12 to any person except as directed by the Court what 13 questions were asked or what responses were given or any 14 other matters concerning the nature or subject of the 15 Grand Jury's investigation that you learned during your 16 appearance before the Grand Jury. 17 This admonition continues unless and until 18 such time as a transcript of this Grand Jury proceeding 19 is made public. Violation of this admonition is 20 punishable as contempt of court. 21 This does not prevent you from discussing 22 the matter with your attorney, if you have an attorney 23 advising you with respect to your appearance before the 24 Grand Jury. 25 And date and signature saying I read that 2305 1 to you. 2 Thank you very much. 3 MR. IREY: Thank you. 4 MR. IREY: Russ Moore will be next. 5 THE FOREPERSON: Mr. Moore, since it's been a 6 week, I will go ahead and reread the oath. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 THE FOREPERSON: You do solemnly swear that the 9 evidence you shall give in this investigation now pending 10 before this Grand Jury shall be the truth, the whole 11 and truth nothing but the truth, so help you God. 12 THE WITNESS: I do. 13 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. You may be seated. 14 (TIME NOTED: 10:49 A.M.) 15 ---oOo--- 16 RUSS MOORE 17 Called as a witness herein by the People, 18 having been duly sworn to tell the truth, was examined 19 and testified as follows: 20 21 EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. IREY: 23 Q Mr. Moore, you have begun investigating 24 other violations of the law in this case; is that 25 correct? 2306 1 A That's correct. 2 Q And I did that to you during your 3 Thanksgiving break; is that correct? 4 A That is also correct. 5 Q Did you learn anything in your 6 investigation over the last week, week and a half? 7 A On the 16th of November, I discovered this 8 last week, I think, on Monday, apparently Mr. Womack went 9 into DMV here in Jackson and made application for new 10 titles to the vehicles, the four that we have already 11 entered into evidence. 12 I am waiting for certified copies to 13 arrive. Naturally, with the Thanksgiving weekend, nobody 14 was working, so I haven't been able to get those yet. 15 Q Okay. But were you able to locate 16 information on one vehicle, the Lincoln Navigator, Grand 17 Jury Exhibit 124? 18 A That's correct. 19 Q And what is Grand Jury Exhibit 124, to the 20 best of your knowledge? 21 A That's a Oregon title for '98 Lincoln 22 Navigator. 23 Q Okay. And Grand Jury Exhibit 129? 24 A This is a certified copy of the 25 application process for new title on that vehicle. 2307 1 Q Okay. And on this certification process, 2 how did you actually obtain this document? 3 A I called an investigator at DMV Sacramento 4 and had her research the original application for title. 5 Q Okay. And then that's the certification 6 is on the front, on the first page, correct? 7 A That's correct. 8 Q And it's five attached pages? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q And on -- 11 A It's stapled. 12 Q I am going to unstaple it. 13 THE FOREPERSON: We have a remover here, Dave. 14 MR. IREY: The first two years of law school is 15 staple removing. 16 Q Did Mr. Womack state on the application 17 whether or not he was a resident of California? 18 A I believe he did. I would have to look at 19 it again. 20 Q On the third page, line 10. What's the 21 question asked on the application? 22 A Are you a resident? 23 Q Sorry. Application for Original 24 Registration. What's line 10? 25 A Are you a resident of California? 2308 1 Q And his answer? 2 A Yes. With dual Oregon and California. 3 Q Okay. And then date he became a resident? 4 A 11/23 of '36, which was his birth date. 5 Q And line 11. 6 A And No. 11? 7 Q Please. 8 A Are you employed or in business in 9 California? 10 Q And he checked what box? 11 A No. 12 Q Okay. Does Mr. Womack have anything to do 13 with KRL? 14 A I believe he is one and the same. 15 Q Is KRL a business? 16 A That's correct. 17 Q Have you heard information that his kids 18 testified that their dad manages or operates the business 19 for them? 20 A I have heard that. 21 Q But he checked the box that says he is not 22 in business in California? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q And that's under penalty of perjury on the 25 third page? 2309 1 A Yes. Where he signed. 2 Q Robert R. Womack? 3 A That's correct. 4 Q Additionally, did he state when the 5 vehicle, the Lincoln Navigator, first came to the State 6 of California? 7 A January 15th of 1998. 8 Q Okay. And that's the same date as the 9 date first operated in California? 10 A That's correct. That's what it says on 11 the form. 12 Q And then how many miles were on the 13 odometer the date it came into California? 14 A 13,895. 15 Q And the sales tax he saved was around 16 3,800 or $4,000, to your knowledge? 17 A That's about what I would figure on a 18 purchase price of 45,000. 19 Q Okay. And the -- there is a blank on page 20 4 under lien holders, is that correct? 21 A That's correct. He failed to indicate a 22 lien holder. 23 Q Okay. And what does it state in that 24 box? What information is supposed to be in that 25 position? 2310 1 A It should be the lien holder or holders. 2 And it says print full name. And if none, so print. 3 Q Is none printed? 4 A There is no notation of any kind. 5 Q Do you know if there was a lien holder on 6 that vehicle in January '98? 7 A That's correct. The Oregon title shows 8 Bank of Amador as the lien holder. And this particular 9 title shows the Bank of Amador signed off 10/6 of '98. 10 Q Just about two months ago? 11 A Mm-hmm. 12 Q Yes? 13 A That's correct. October 6th of '98. 14 Q So under penalty of perjury, car wasn't in 15 California, correct? 16 A That's what he reported. 17 Q Under penalty of perjury, it wasn't 18 operated in California? 19 A That's what he reported. 20 Q Under penalty of perjury, he said there 21 were 13,895 miles before he brought it into California? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q With the first date in California January 24 15th, 1998? 25 A That's correct. 2311 1 Q He said he didn't have -- he wasn't 2 employed in California? 3 A Correct. 4 Q He said he wasn't in business in 5 California? 6 A Correct. 7 Q Does have any other Oregon titles? 8 A Yes. He has a vehicle that I am not 9 really sure exactly what it is. It's a '93 Cedar and the 10 type is an HT. I am not sure what that is. 11 Q You are investigating that at this time? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q That's made out to not Robert Roland 14 Womack, but to somebody else, correct? 15 A KRL Partnership. 16 Q Is KRL Partnership an Oregon partnership, 17 as far as you know? 18 A I don't believe it is in Oregon. I think 19 it is in Nevada, however. 20 Q Okay. But the Ridge Road address, correct? 21 A That's correct. xxxxx Ridge Road. 22 Q At this time, you don't know if that shows 23 anything other than Robert Womack signs for KRL 24 Partnership? 25 A It says, By R. Womack. 2312 1 Q You don't know if the vehicle was bought 2 in Oregon or exists in Oregon or anything other than it 3 was at Bob Womack's house, correct? 4 A The title was. I don't know if the 5 vehicle ever was. 6 Q The title was at Bob Womack's -- 7 A That's correct. In his safe. 8 Q If possible, if I could finish a 9 question? She can't type both of us at the same time. 10 A I'm sorry. 11 Q That document was in the safe. The last 12 document, being 124, was in the safe? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q And the titles in Grand Jury Exhibit 123 15 were also in the safe? 16 A Yes, they were. 17 Q And who are those titles made out to? 18 A They are California titles to KRL 19 Partnership for '72 Chevy. 20 Q Okay. 21 A California title for a '57 Ford, KRL 22 Partnership, Ridge Road address. 23 Q Okay. 24 A And a California title for a '34 Ford with 25 Robert R. Womack as the registered owner, xxxxx Ridge 2313 1 Road. 2 Q Anything peculiar about that title? 3 A Yes. It's one that he had signed. It's 4 already signed or endorsed as an owner relinquishing it. 5 Q All you have to do is sign your name under 6 it and you own it? 7 A If you don't mind going to court, I 8 suppose. 9 The other piece of paper, that's not a 10 title. 11 Q So in this envelope, the white envelope 12 here, it says '95 Ford and '34 Ford. You see that 13 handwriting on the front of the envelope? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q August '95, correct? 16 A The date stamp is August 10th, '95. 17 Q What's the '95 Ford? 18 A I don't know. It wasn't in there. 19 Q Okay. And you were going to say there was 20 another document that you actually were the finder of at 21 the search warrant? 22 A That's correct. It was in the safe, as 23 well. It's Foremost Insurance Company policy. 24 Q Okay. For a mobile home? 25 A '93 Skyline, mobile home, showing an 2314 1 address of 16219 Lower Harbor Road, Brookings, Oregon. 2 Q At this time, you don't know whether that 3 is house or PO Box? 4 A I am not sure. 5 Q You think it might be a mobile home, 6 correct? 7 A I think it's a space in a mobile home 8 park. 9 Q It says it's a 1993 Skyline, correct? 10 A That's correct. 11 Q And the other document is 1993 Cedar? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q So at this point, there might be a mobile 14 home and a motor home, but we don't know? 15 A That's correct. 16 Q Okay. Mr. Moore, did you also look into 17 whether or not or how many driver's licenses Mr. Womack 18 had? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q Go ahead. Tell us what you know. 21 A I accessed the data base through DMV. And 22 this was on the 16th of November. 23 Q And you are looking at Grand Jury Exhibits 24 126 and 128? 25 A That's correct. 2315 1 Q No. 126 is a DMV printout for Robert 2 Roland Womack showing a date of birth of 11/23 of 1936. 3 It's a Class A commercial license with motorcycle 4 endorsement. Also, an endorsement for doubles and 5 triples, meaning it's a commercial license. However, the 6 medical exam has expired, so it's not valid for 7 commercial use. 8 Q Does that mean he can drive an underground 9 storage tank around town behind a tractor trailer? 10 A No. 11 Q He cannot? 12 A He is not licensed for it because the 13 medical certificate is expired, shows an issue date for 14 renewal of 9/13 of '96. Here in Jackson is where it was 15 issued. 16 Q September '96? 17 A September 13th, '96. 18 Okay. No. 128 is a DMV or DMV printout 19 from Oregon also to Robert Roland Womack, showing an 20 address of 16219 Lower Harbor Road in Brookings, Oregon. 21 Q Same address on the insurance certificate? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q And it's a California -- I mean, it's an 24 Oregon driver's license? 25 A That's correct. 2316 1 Q Where on there does it ask whether or not 2 California driver's license is required? 3 A It has notation CDL, colon. The answer is 4 no. 5 Q These are not certified records. This is 6 a Government record you are able, as a Highway Patrolman, 7 to obtain quickly to find out information? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q What are these documents called, if you 10 know? 11 A This is DMV printout on a driver's license. 12 Q That you did yourself? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q From your employment, place of employment? 15 A From my office. 16 Q Which is an investigator's office in 17 Stockton, California? 18 A That's correct. 19 Q Did you go through the check register at 20 all and/or the checks, and were there payments made from 21 KRL's account for the Lincoln Navigator? 22 A That's correct. Throughout '98. 23 Q Okay. And just a couple checks, if you 24 could. Check number? 25 A 3662. 2317 1 Q Made payable to? 2 A Bank of Amador with a notation '98 3 Navigator. 4 Q For how much? 5 A $1,010. 6 Q So Bob Womack was paying for Bob Womack's 7 car that he bought in Oregon with KRL money? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q But the car, as far as you know, was sold 10 to Bob Womack; not to KRL? 11 A That's also correct. 12 Check No. 3837 to Bank of Amador, 13 notation '98 Navigator, for 1,010. 14 Q And you are getting this information out 15 of Grand Jury Exhibit? 16 A No. 63. 17 Q Mr. Moore, you are continuing to look into 18 the other title transfers, correct? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q As well as the Oregon/California 21 connection? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q But at this time, because of the 24 Thanksgiving holiday and the time it takes to get the 25 investigation going, the only certified records you have 2318 1 is for the '98 Navigator, correct? 2 A That's correct. 3 MR. IREY: I have no further questions of Mr. 4 Moore. 5 I have one further questions. 6 Q Do you think -- what do you think KRL 7 is? Do you think it's Roland and Larry? 8 A Roland and Larry? No. 9 Q Who do you think KRL is? 10 A Robert Womack, when he chooses to be. 11 Q And you are still looking into that? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q How was -- off the record. 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 Q BY MR. IREY: Have you found any 16 additional info about the blank notarized deed you 17 observed in Womack's safe? 18 A I have wracked my brain and I still can't 19 recall exactly who it was. I have a good idea, but I 20 can't say with any certainty, so I won't say. 21 Q How was the Lou Rawles concert? 22 A Most excellent. Every bit as good as 23 Johnny Matthis. 24 Q Some vehicles noted the name Joe Callel. 25 Could Robert Womack also be known as Joe Callel? If you 2319 1 know? 2 A I have no idea. 3 Q Several checks were made out to Joe 4 Callell for large amounts, correct? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q Tens of thousands of dollars? 7 A It's a possibility. 8 Q But you don't know one way or the other? 9 A I don't know. 10 Q You haven't asked Ron Hall if Joe Callell 11 exists, rights? 12 A I may have. I don't recall that I have. 13 Q Did I understand you to say that you can 14 have dual licenses in Oregon or California? 15 A No. 16 Q It's your understanding that you cannot? 17 A You cannot. 18 Q You can't be a resident in both states? 19 Or you can -- 20 A Not for the purposes of driver's licenses, 21 no. That changed because of truck drivers carrying more 22 than one driver's license and assigning violations 23 against that. I believe that changed sometime in the 24 '80s. 25 Q To clarify, what time did you guys 2320 1 actually get to Robert Womack's/KRL's house? 2 A Into the house? 3 Q Yeah. 4 A My best recollection is sometime around 5 11:00, 11:30. 6 Q So if Mr. Walshaw said 9:00 or 9:30, he 7 would have been a couple hours off minimum? 8 A That's correct. We hadn't even left the 9 D.A.'s Office at that time. 10 Q The warrant was signed 8:30 to 9:00 range, 11 if you know? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q Is it your understanding that Robert 14 Womack cannot legally drive trucks that require a Class A 15 license at that time? 16 A That is correct. Because his medical 17 exam -- he would have to have a doctor's exam. 18 Q Would that have been true in May of '88 19 from the information that you have? 20 A May of '88, yes. 21 Q May of '98. I'm sorry. 22 A May of '98? 23 Q Yes. 24 A That's correct. His medical exam expired 25 in '87 or -- I think it was '87. 2321 1 Q I can show it to you. 2 A '87 or '97. It was before the May date. 3 Q Show you 126 and 128 again. 4 A Okay. His medical certificate expired 5 12/8 of '97. 6 MR. IREY: Okay. Thank you. 7 Any other questions for Mr. Moore? Well, 8 thank you, Mr. Moore. I think they will have an 9 admonition. 10 Q Are there any other documents you brought 11 today I haven't asked about? Sorry. Okay. I will 12 rephrase that question. 13 Are there any other documents that we 14 chatted about that I said I was going to move into 15 evidence today? 16 A There are two items possibly that, prior 17 to arriving over here, I went to the Registrar of Voters 18 office and also to the Assessor's Office. 19 Q Okay. Without putting the documents in, 20 what did you learn? 21 A That there is no homeowners exemption at 22 xxxxx Ridge Road. 23 Q Because it's owned by? 24 A KRL Partnership. 25 Q Not by Robert and June? 2322 1 A That's correct. 2 Q Okay. 3 A At the Registrar of Voters Office, I 4 learned that -- excuse me -- Robert Womack is registered 5 to vote in this County and last so voted 11/3 of '98. 6 Q So he is registered to vote in 7 California. Can you vote in two states? 8 A No. Only once. 9 Q Just checking. 10 GRAND JUROR: I have one question. 11 Q BY MR. IREY: So he voted for the Governor? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q Or he could have? 14 A Could have. 15 Q If you know, what does it mean that he 16 has no homeowners exemption? 17 A Some of the requirements for establishing 18 whether or not someone has -- like the vehicle being 19 purchased in Oregon, if he is a resident here, he can't 20 lawfully do that because it's avoiding taxes that should 21 be paid to California. One of the ways to show that a 22 person is a California resident is, they are either 23 employed, they vote, and if you have a -- you can file 24 for a homeowners exemption which saves you off of your 25 assessed tax liability each and every year, but you can 2323 1 only do it one piece of property. But not in the name of 2 a corporation. 3 So that was just another way of 4 establishing his residency in this state. 5 Q Okay. The investigation is ongoing? 6 A That's correct. 7 MR. IREY: I have no further questions of Mr. 8 Moore. Any other Grand Jurors? 9 GRAND JUROR: Yes. Yes, you do. You have 10 another one. 11 MR. IREY: I threw it away. I am sorry. But now 12 I found it. 13 Q Tell us how, if you know -- you are not a 14 lawyer, correct? 15 A That's correct. 16 Q Some lawyers don't even know what 17 partnerships are, correct? 18 A I would assume so. 19 Q Tell us how partnerships are protected 20 from criminal suits under the law. 21 A Basically, you can't put a corporation or 22 partnership in jail. It's an entity. It's not something 23 that you can impact in that manner. 24 Q But partners, if you know, are 25 individually liable for criminal acts of a partnership? 2324 1 A As the officers of the partnership or 2 corporation, yes. 3 Q Or the partners? 4 A Or the partners. 5 Q Whereas, in a corporation, there is some 6 protection from criminal liability, correct? 7 A Another level, yes. 8 Q And that's what we call piercing the 9 corporate veil? 10 A That's correct. 11 Q So KRL used to be a corporation, correct? 12 A Prior to the lawsuit in the early '90s. 13 Q You have seen their name as a corporation, 14 correct? 15 A That's correct. 16 Q But you didn't seize those records, 17 correct? 18 A No. 19 Q The locations those records might be, for 20 instance, might be the accountant's office, correct? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q Could be still at Robert Womack/KRL's 23 house, correct? 24 A In a file cabinet, yes. 25 Q Or other places? 2325 1 A Or other places. 2 Q But you absolutely saw them at Robert 3 Womack's house October 30th? 4 A In his house above the garage. 5 Q Would it surprise you Nadine and Roland 6 weren't able to produce those records? 7 A It would surprise me quite a bit since 8 they were there. 9 MR. IREY: Any other questions? Thank you for 10 your time, Mr. Moore. 11 THE FOREPERSON: Mr. Moore, you are admonished 12 not to reveal to any person except as directed by the 13 Court what questions were asked or what responses were 14 given or any other matters concerning the nature or 15 subject of the Grand Jury's investigation that you 16 learned during your appearance before the Grand Jury. 17 This admonition continues unless and until 18 such time as a transcript of this Grand Jury proceeding 19 is made public. Violation of this admonition is 20 punishable as contempt of court. 21 This does not prevent you from discussing 22 the matter with your attorney if you have an attorney 23 advising you with respect to your appearance before the 24 Grand Jury. 25 I will have you sign this, too. It's the 2326 1 same thing I just read. 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. 3 THE FOREPERSON: That was my last one. 4 THE WITNESS: You want to make a copy before I 5 sign it? 6 MR. IREY: It's just Mr. Hall. If he starts 7 talking, we know where to find him. 8 THE FOREPERSON: Yeah. Thank you very much. 9 Mr. Hall, at this time, I will remind 10 you, you are still under oath from the numerous other 11 times you have testified. 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. 13 (TIME NOTED: 11:15 A.M.) 14 ---oOo--- 15 RON HALL 16 Recalled as a witness herein by the People, 17 having been previously duly sworn to tell the truth, 18 resumed the stand and was examined and testified as 19 follows: 20 21 EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. IREY: 23 Q First question the Grand Jurors would like 24 to know is why you have had two of the last days off when 25 they were here. 2327 1 A Boy, I take the Fifth on that. 2 Q Are you going to answer other questions 3 today, Mr. Hall? 4 A Sure. 5 Q When is the first time you remember seeing 6 Robert Womack's Lincoln Navigator in California? 7 A I believe the first time I saw that in -- 8 the only reason I remember this is because it was the 9 first one I had seen in person when they first came out. 10 To see one in this town is unusual. But I believe it was 11 in October or November of last year. Prior to 12 Christmas. I know that. 13 Q Before January 15th, 1998? 14 A Yes. 15 Q So if Mr. Womack signed something under 16 penalty of perjury that the first time that truck was in 17 California was January 15th, 1998, that might be a false 18 statement? 19 A That might be a false statement, yes. 20 Q Okay. And as far as you know, does Mr. 21 Womack live in Amador County? 22 A Yes, he did. 23 Q Does he live in Oregon? 24 A Actually, until this investigation, I 25 didn't know he lived in Oregon. 2328 1 Q Okay. Mr. Hall, what I am going to do now 2 is try to move exhibits into evidence. What I will do 3 is, I think, go 1 through 10, make sure we have all of 4 them. I will make a motion. If you could identify some 5 of those, exhibits, it will be quite helpful. 6 I will start with, were you the finder of 7 two tapes at Bob Womack's house? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Okay. The first tape was a videotape? 10 A Yes. It was 8 millimeter movie tape 11 marked Gas Station. 12 Q Okay. And it's been marked Grand Jury 13 Exhibit 3? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q Okay. And the other tape that you seized 16 was? 17 A A micro cassette tape. 18 Q And it's been marked Grand Jury Exhibit 4? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And did you bring to court a copy of -- or 21 did you bring to court the tape of the search warrant the 22 day you did it at Bob Womack's house? 23 A Yes. 24 Q That's been marked Grand Jury exhibit what? 25 A No. 2. 2329 1 Q Okay. Did you bring the original tape 2 that was given to you by Bob Womack in July, late July of 3 this year? 4 A Yes. And that is Exhibit No. 1. 5 Q Okay. This document that's been marked 6 Grand Jury Exhibit 5, is this a copy of a check that you 7 seized? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And what day did you seize this check? 10 A On October 30th, 1998. 11 Q And you seized that from whose house? 12 A Robert Womack's Ridge Road home. 13 Q Grand Jury Exhibit No. 6. Did you take 14 that photograph? 15 A Yes, I did. 16 Q Grand Jury Exhibit No. 7. Did you take 17 that photograph? 18 A Yes, I did. 19 Q Grand Jury Exhibit No. 8. Did you take 20 that photograph? 21 A Yes, I did. 22 Q At any time, did you look into whether or 23 not they were underground storage tanks pulled in the 24 late '80s at 505 Sutter? 25 A Yes. 2330 1 Q And was there a County permit taken out at 2 that time? 3 A Yes, there was. 4 Q Okay. And Grand Jury Exhibit No. 9 is a 5 copy of that permit? 6 A Yes, it is. 7 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 10. Do you recognize 8 that document? 9 A Yes. These are the minutes from the Land 10 Use Committee of May 14th. 11 Q That was part of the original referral 12 from the land use agency to the D.A.'s Office? 13 A Yes, that's correct. 14 MR. IREY: At this time, I would like to move 15 Grand Jury exhibits 1 through 10 into evidence, please. 16 THE FOREPERSON: You may do so. 17 Q BY MR. IREY: Okay. Grand Jury Exhibit 18 No. 11. Do you recognize that document? 19 A Yes. This is the bid obtained by Dave 20 Mason from Oil Equipment Service, Keith Tallia. 21 Q That was originally faxed to you or mailed 22 to you from Keith Tallia? 23 A It was actually mailed to me, yes. 24 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 12? 25 A Yes. These are the truck weight slips 2331 1 from the County landfill. 2 Q And the tag which was a calculation from a 3 person who works at the landfill? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q For 24.76 tons total? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q So 24.76 tons went to the dump, correct? 8 A Yes. 9 Q But one hundred plus tons came back to the 10 property, correct? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 13. Check number what? 13 A This is Check Number -- 3674 is crossed 14 off and 3698 is written in. 15 Q That's a copy of a check? 16 A That's a copy of a check. 17 Q For whom? 18 A It was written out to Amador Disposal for 19 $720. 20 Q And that matches what 24.76 tons would be? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q And it's your understanding through your 23 investigation that what time of day did loads stop going 24 to the dump? 25 A Just prior to noon. 2332 1 Q On Saturday, the 2nd? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 14, a November 12th 4 letter. Have you seen that letter before? 5 A Yes, I have. 6 Q And that was a letter from whom? 7 A This is a letter from Mr. Richard Thorpe 8 of Jim Thorpe Oil Company directed to Dave Mason. 9 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 15? 10 A These are the two brass labels which were 11 peeled from the gas tank at Jim Thorpe Oil Company. 12 Q In your presence? 13 A In my presence, handed directly to me by 14 Richard Thorpe. 15 Q And then behind it is? 16 A Then behind it is a form which Bob Fourt 17 gave to me, which is a read-out of the serial number of 18 the gas tank listing 505 as the address for that tank. 19 Q So the tank that was recovered in early 20 September '98 was the same tank that was placed into the 21 ground at 505? 22 A Yes, it was. 23 Q So you knew at that point that you had the 24 tank back? 25 A That's right. 2333 1 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 15? 2 A This is No. 16. Oh. 3 Q 16, correct. 4 A 16. This is the hazardous waste manifest 5 which was given to me by Richard Thorpe. And this is the 6 hauling of the tank from Lodi to its final destination. 7 Q Did you ever direct Richard Thorpe to 8 dispose of it as hazardous waste? 9 A No. 10 Q Did you tell him who to contact? 11 A Yes, I did. 12 Q Dave Mason? 13 A I asked him to get ahold of Dave Mason and 14 then for them to contact Bob Fourt. 15 Q That Amador County and Dave Mason were 16 going to make the decision? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q Not the Amador County District Attorney's 19 Office? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 17? 22 A No. 17 is check written to Jim Thorpe Oil 23 by Bob Womack. 24 Q Out of whose account? 25 A Out of KRL Partnership. 2334 1 Q So that for how much? 2 A $1,017.50. 3 Q So just that $1,017 pushes it past the 4 Contractors License Board number of $300, correct? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q Same with the check to Amador County 7 Disposal? 8 A Correct. 9 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 18. You probably don't 10 recognize that. It is the -- move it into evidence. 11 This was the escrow file from George Ryan. 12 Grand Jury Exhibit 19. You did not take 13 that photograph, if you know? 14 A No, I did not take this photograph. 15 Q How did you come to have this photograph? 16 A This photograph came to us. The woman at 17 the cleaning business across the street took this 18 photograph. She gave the negatives to Mary Nell Bryant, 19 who works at Swenson's, and Mary Nell Bryant gave me the 20 negatives, which we had developed. These are the 21 pictures from that. 22 Q And you recognize the picture? 23 A Yes. That's Bob Womack, Mark Sherrill. 24 And William A. Wolin is operating the equipment. 25 Q Same with Grand Jury Exhibit 20? 2335 1 A Yes. 2 Q Except for only Bill Wolin is in the 3 picture? 4 A I only see William A. Wolin. 5 Q Whose truck? 6 A That's Mark Sherrill's truck. 7 Q Grand Jury Exhibit -- oh, that's 11 8 through 20. 9 MR. IREY: At this time, I would request to move 10 exhibits 11 through 20 into evidence. 11 THE FOREPERSON: You may do so. 12 Q BY MR. IREY: Grand Jury Exhibit 21? 13 A This is a photograph taken by Lance Hayden 14 of Mark Sherrill's truck and low bed trailer. 15 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 22? 16 A 22 is a photograph of apparently two Mark 17 Sherrill trucks, the trailer from the back side, and you 18 see the back side of the dump truck. 19 Q You interviewed Mark Sherrill, correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And took the videotape, correct? 22 A That's correct. 23 MR. IREY: And I will give an instruction, but in 24 case I don't do it eloquently enough, Mark Sherrill chose 25 not to testify. Therefore, his statements against Bob 2336 1 Womack are hearsay and cannot be considered by the 2 members of the Grand Jury. So you can consider Mark 3 Sherrill's statements against Mark Sherrill, i.e., my 4 truck, my property, on this date. But you cannot 5 consider them against Bob Womack himself. 6 So, as a few of the Grand Jurors are going 7 to have to do with Mark Sherrill, the rest of you are 8 going to have to do with that one piece of evidence where 9 Mark Sherrill states what happened to the tank. The 10 stories about who went where the next day and all of 11 those things are perfectly legitimate to discuss. But I 12 wanted to let you know that you cannot consider Mark 13 Sherrill's statement against Bob Womack. That is 14 absolutely -- should probably be considered hearsay. 15 Q But Mark Sherrill told you it was this 16 truck and trailer, correct? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 23? 19 A 23 is a photograph of the actual 505 20 Sutter lot now minus the gas station. 21 Q And minus the retaining wall? 22 A That's correct. The retaining wall is 23 also gone. 24 Q The retaining wall was present in Grand 25 Jury Exhibit 20? 2337 1 A That's correct. 2 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 24? 3 A That's also another photograph of the lot 4 at 505 Sutter. 5 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 25? 6 A That is a photograph of William A. Wolin 7 operating an excavator. And Luke Womack is standing 8 there. Robert and Bill Wolin Senior are arriving in Bill 9 Wolin Senior's car. 10 Q And the Ford pickup is whose? 11 A That belongs to Luke at this time. 12 Q And Wolin and Sons truck? 13 A Wolin and Sons truck here. And back side 14 of Sherrill's dump truck. 15 Q In just a few seconds, you can see four 16 trucks? 17 A Yes. 18 Q One excavator? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Sherrill, Wolin, Wolin and Womack's, 21 correct? 22 A Correct. 23 Q Is it hard for you to believe Mr. Womack 24 couldn't remember what truck the tank went? 25 A That's a little hard to believe, yeah. 2338 1 Q 26. Do you recognize this as the Planning 2 Department file? 3 A Yes. This is City of Jackson Planning 4 Department file on 505 Sutter street. 5 Q Okay. Grand Jury Exhibit 27? 6 A Yeah, this is a copy of the -- I guess 7 they call it inspection record, which they are supposed 8 to post on a job site and have items checked off. 9 Q Is this your handwriting bottom right? If 10 you know? Or is it -- 11 A That is not my handwriting. I believe -- 12 Q Bill Wolin's? 13 A -- Bill Wolin wrote that and handed me a 14 copy of this. 15 Q Okay. And it says the owner is who? 16 A Roland Womack. 17 Q And the contractor is who? 18 A Owner builder. 19 Q To the best of your information, does 20 Roland Womack own 505 Sutter? 21 A No, he doesn't. 22 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 28. It's the -- 23 A This is a 505 Sutter street file also. 24 Q From the City of Jackson? 25 A From the City of Jackson, yes. 2339 1 Q 29? 2 A 29 must be the original inspection card. 3 Q Or could it possibly be a blank copy of 4 what an original inspection -- 5 A Yeah. Because there is nothing listed on 6 this one at all. This is just blank all the way. 7 Q And this has to actually be posted at site? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Do you have any information that the 10 inspection record was posted on site at any time? 11 A It was never posted at any time. 12 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 30. Do you recognize 13 that document? 14 A Yes. This is also a copy of a check 15 written to Bill Wolin by R. Womack and it says Station. 16 And then a different handwriting says Thank you. In the 17 amount of $600. 18 MR. IREY: Okay. At this time, I would like to 19 move Grand Jury Exhibits 21 through 30 into evidence, 20 please. 21 THE FOREPERSON: You may. 22 Q BY MR. IREY: Do you recognize Grand Jury 23 Exhibit 31, Mr. Hall? 24 A 31 is the actual Check No. 3695 paid to 25 Bill Wolin for $600 by R. Womack. 2340 1 Q On whose account? 2 A KRL Partnership. 3 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 32? 4 A That is an underground storage tank 5 removal permit. 6 Q From the County? 7 A Yeah. This is from the Environmental 8 Health Department. 9 Q Dated? 10 A Dated 5/4/98. Two days after the removal 11 of the tank. 12 Q And who does it list as the tank and 13 piping hauler? 14 A Wolin and Sons. 15 Q And the tank and piping disposal site? 16 A Same as above. 17 Q Contaminated hazardous waste hauler? 18 A Wolin and Sons. 19 Q Signed by whom? 20 A I believe that is Dave Mason's signature. 21 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 33? 22 A That is a shot of the cab and bed of Mark 23 Sherrill's Kenworth dump truck. 24 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 34? 25 A Okay. That is a work plan prepared by GRD 2341 1 of Sutter Creek. 2 Q Dated? 3 A June 1998. 4 Q And that was for the actual cleanup of the 5 the site? 6 A That's correct, yes. 7 Q Site cleanup and investigation? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 35. Who took that 10 picture? 11 A I took this picture. And that is a 12 photograph of the check register for KRL Partnership. 13 Q In KRL's office in Bob's house? 14 A Yes. This was in Bob Womack's office at 15 his home at Ridge Road. 16 Q Did you find any Bob Womack checking 17 accounts? 18 A Nothing to Robert Womack, no checking 19 account. 20 Q Okay. Did you take the photograph Grand 21 Jury Exhibit 36? 22 A Yes, I did. This is the bedroom. 23 Photograph is of a dresser where I located the 8 24 millimeter movie tape. 25 Q Inside a -- 2342 1 A It's a back bedroom at Robert Womack's 2 Ridge Road home. 3 Q And when you say the original, that would 4 be the videotape that was longer than the first videotape? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 37. Did you take that 7 photograph? 8 A Yes, I did. And that's a photograph of 9 the fuel tank, the gas tank, that was in Richard Thorpe's 10 Oil, his business there in Lodi. And this is how the 11 tank was when we got there. 12 Q Were you present at a meeting on 9/2/98 13 when we specifically told Bob Womack not to haul the tank 14 again? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And off of this tank in Grand Jury Exhibit 17 No. 37 came the metal tabs Grand Jury Exhibit 15; is that 18 correct? 19 A That is correct. They were on the upper 20 left side near the spigots. 21 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 38. Did you take the 22 photo for that? 23 A Yes, I did. 24 Q Same tank, different angle? 25 A Right. This is taking a photograph of the 2343 1 tank. It's laying on basically on its side. I am taking 2 a photo of the top portion where all the piping is 3 attached to it. 4 Q And it's less piping than was in the video 5 that you seized from Bob Womack's house? 6 A Yes, that's correct. 7 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 39. Do you recognize 8 that photo? 9 A Yes. This is the underside of the tank. 10 I took pictures of this because I was interested in the 11 scratches and dents on the tank, itself. 12 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 40? 13 A Yes. This is also a copy of the building 14 file jacket from the City of Jackson. 15 Q And who does it list as the owner? 16 A Roland Womack. 17 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 41? 18 A This is a photograph that was probably 19 taken by the cleaning lady also or the lady from the 20 cleaners. And that photo shows Robert Womack's Lincoln 21 Navigator. And it shows Bob Womack in the photo, William 22 A. Wolin operating the excavator. And it shows Billy 23 Wolin's truck behind the fence. 24 Q You are certain you saw this Navigator in 25 California last year, 1997? 2344 1 A Yes. 2 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 42? 3 A This is a photograph of the actual 8 4 millimeter video which I found at Robert Womack's house. 5 Q That videotape, when compared with the 6 copy that was given to you by Robert Womack -- are you 7 certain that it had been edited? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 43. Do you recognize 10 this document? 11 A Yes. This is a -- I have to back up on 12 that one. I don't believe I have seen this one before. 13 Q Okay. Grand Jury Exhibit 43 is the Keith 14 Tallia accounting sheet from when he pulled the tank in 15 1991. 16 Grand Jury Exhibit 44? 17 A That is the actual Check Number 3719 18 written to GRD for $500 by Robert Womack off of the KRL 19 Partnership. 20 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 45? 21 A And that is a California insurance card 22 with the insured as KRL Partnership for the 1998 Lincoln 23 Navigator. 24 Q And that is a copy of the card in Grand 25 Jury Exhibit 6, if you know? 2345 1 A Yes. Right behind the reward sign here. 2 Q Same with Grand Jury Exhibit 46? 3 A That's correct. 4 Q Who ensures the Lincoln Navigator? 5 A State Farm Insurance. 6 Q Under what name? 7 A KRL Partnership. 8 Q Who is it your understanding that owns the 9 Lincoln Navigator? 10 A Robert Womack. 11 Q And who insures the Lincoln town car? 12 A Also State Farm insurance. 13 Q By who is it insured? 14 A KRL Partnership. 15 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 47. Do you recognize 16 that copy? 17 A Yeah. That's a copy of the little reward 18 ad we found in his office at Ridge Road. 19 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 48? 20 A These are other business cards which we 21 also located in his office. 22 Q Do you have any information if there is an 23 open winery there? 24 A There is no winery there that I know of. 25 Q You were there? 2346 1 A Yeah, I was there. I didn't see any 2 winery. 3 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 49? 4 A That's the Bank of Amador customer receipt 5 in the name of KRL Partnership. 6 Q For the sale of what car? 7 A A '72 Jaguar. 8 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 50? 9 A That is a form that was found in his 10 office, I believe, that kind of listed his estimations of 11 his financial estimates. That was dated January 10th, 12 '97. 13 Q For what business? 14 A KRL Partnership. 15 Q But who do you believe KRL Partnership is? 16 A I believe it's Robert Womack. 17 MR. IREY: Okay. I would like to move Grand 18 Jury Exhibits 31 through 50 in at this time. 19 THE FOREPERSON: You may do so. 20 Q BY MR. IREY: Grand Jury Exhibit 51. Is 21 that a photo you took? 22 A Yes, it is. 23 Q On what date? 24 A On October 30th, 1998. 25 Q At what location? 2347 1 A At Robert Womack's home on Ridge Road. 2 That is a photograph of his office. 3 Q 52? 4 A Also a photograph of his office taken the 5 same day. 6 Q 53? 7 A Also a photograph of his office computer 8 area taken the same day. 9 Q 54? 10 A 54 is one of the photos given to me by 11 Mary Bryant taken by the cleaner business. 12 Q 55? 13 A And 55 is a photograph I took of a long 14 barn style building out at the Bossi Ranch which is owned 15 by Bob Womack. 16 Q In fact, 55 is how many photographs? 17 A 55 is actually five photographs. And they 18 are all pictures I have taken. 19 One photo shows the hoses and dispenser 20 nozzles. Another photograph shows the air compressor and 21 two dispensers from the Mason Oil gas station. Another 22 photograph shows the dispenser with the panel open 23 showing the works and the filter, gas filter. Another 24 photograph shows one of Mark Sherrill's boats. 25 Q Who owns the Bossi Ranch? 2348 1 A Robert Womack. 2 Q But is it registered to whom? 3 A It's actually registered as Luke Womack's 4 property. 5 Q Okay. Grand Jury Exhibit 56? 6 A That's a copy of the Air Touch cellular 7 phone bills. 8 Q For what month? 9 A For the month of June, I believe. Or is 10 that? 11 Q What dates does it cover? 12 A Phone records include April into May. 13 Q The day of the -- 14 A During the time of the underground 15 removal, yes. 16 Q Numerous calls to Van De Pol? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 57? 19 A There is a lot of writings on there which 20 I believe are Russ Moore's writings, but also, there is a 21 photocopy of Check No. 3887 under KRL Partnership in the 22 amount of $500. 23 Q To account number? 24 A It's written to Account No. 0148-200-5XX. 25 And that's, For Robert for tank removal -- or reward. 2349 1 Sorry. 2 Q I have a bigger copy. Grand Jury 3 Exhibit -- 4 A That's a tank -- "reward" is the word. 5 Q Whoops! We skipped here. Grand Jury 6 Exhibit 57. I would like to move Grand Jury Exhibits -- 7 here we go. 57. 8 Grand Jury Exhibit 58? 9 A That is what's titled a voluntary 10 withdrawal from partnership. It's signed Luke Womack and 11 Roland Womack. 12 Q Dated? 13 A That is dated 3/10 of '94. 14 Q And for $100 Roland received Luke's share 15 of KRL? 16 A That's correct. 17 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 59? 18 A Also, this looks like -- not sure if it's 19 a copy or not, but voluntary withdrawal from 20 partnership. Kimberly Womack. Or actually Kimberly 21 Moore and Roland Womack. And it appears that she is 22 relinquishing hers for $100 also. 23 Q To Roland? 24 A To Roland, yes. 25 Q At that point, Roland has three quarters, 2350 1 Larry has a quarter? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 60? 4 A 60 is voluntary withdrawal from 5 partnership. It appears to be original with signature of 6 Larry Womack, and that he apparently is giving his share 7 to Nadine Womack. 8 Q For what? 9 A For the consideration of love and 10 affection. 11 Q But that doesn't have -- that's not 12 certified? 13 A No, it is not. 14 MR. IREY: Okay. I would like to move Grand 15 Jury Exhibits 51 through 60 into evidence at that time. 16 THE FOREPERSON: You may. 17 Q BY MR. IREY: Do you recognize Grand Jury 18 Exhibit 61, Mr. Hall? 19 A This is also a County permit for the 20 underground storage tank. And it's dated -- it's a 21 permit to close in place, is what it is. That's dated 22 May 29th of '91. 23 Q For what address? 24 A 505 Sutter Street in Jackson. 25 Q So '88 permits, '91 permits, 2351 1 correct? 2 A Correct. 3 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 62? 4 A And this is also a County permit 5 application for tank closure. And that's dated July 6 19th, 1988. 7 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 63? 8 A This are -- these are photocopies of the 9 bank ledger from the KRL checkbook. 10 Q That covered the period of time during the 11 tank removal? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q Do you know who -- if Joe Callell is a 14 real person? 15 A I haven't -- I have never talked with Joe 16 Callell. I haven't verified he is genuine yet. 17 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 64? 18 A These are two checks under Jeff Taylor 19 Construction Company. Now, he apparently had purchased a 20 home from Robert Womack and was making payments to him. 21 Q But the money -- was it going back to KRL? 22 Or does it appear to go somewhere else? 23 A It appears to go into a separate account, 24 Wells Fargo account. 25 Q Okay. Grand Jury Exhibit 65, I don't 2352 1 think you are going to recognize. This is the originals 2 brought in by Jeff Taylor regarding his sale or his 3 purchase of the property from Robert Womack, including 4 the one-page handwritten note, not notarized, that sold 5 the house to him from Robert Womack. 6 Grand Jury Exhibit 66? 7 A This is a KRL Partnership Check No. 8 3694 -- there is a copy of it -- presented to Nick 9 Hernandez for $225 by R. Womack. 10 Q From? 11 A KRL Partnership. 12 Q For? 13 A For the station. 14 Q 67? 15 A 67 is also a check written in Nick 16 Hernandez from KRL Partnership account for $90. And that 17 also is memoed Station by Robert Womack. 18 Q 68? 19 A 68 is a check from the KRL Partnership, a 20 copy, No. 3692, for $80 to the City of Jackson, dated May 21 1st, '98 for the station demolition permit. 22 Q Okay. 69 is the box full of records from 23 Keith Tallia? 24 A Okay. 25 MR. IREY: The originals from 505. What is 69 2353 1 listed as, please? 2 THE SECRETARY: Keith Tallia's records of all 3 work done and proposed for 505 Sutter. 69. 4 MR. IREY: And 68 was the check, correct? 5 THE SECRETARY: Yes. 6 MR. IREY: From City of Jackson. 7 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 70? 8 A 70 is the letter mailed to me by George 9 Ryan regarding the agreement of sale or the paperwork 10 that was done for the -- for the 505 Sutter Street 11 address between the Womacks, Roland and Nadine, and 12 Miriam and Dave Mason. 13 Q And you asked for this paperwork, correct? 14 A Yes, I did. 15 Q George Ryan told you he asked his client 16 and they were able to pass that on to you? 17 A That's right. He got permission from Bob 18 Womack to give this to me. 19 Q Originally, it lists KRL as a purchaser, 20 correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Line 3, first page? 23 A That's right. 24 Q Seller agrees to sell to KRL Partnership 25 and buyer agrees to purchase from seller? 2354 1 A That's correct. 2 MR. IREY: At this time, I would like to move 3 Grand Jury Exhibits 61 through 70 into evidence. 4 THE FOREPERSON: You may do so. 5 Q BY MR. IREY: 71, you have never seen 6 before. Grand Jury Exhibit 71 is the -- are the 7 documents Roland Womack brought with him to court the 8 first time, the originals. And then he said he had a 9 copy of all of these. 10 Grand Jury Exhibit 72? 11 A 72 is a notebook taken from Robert 12 Womack's office at Ridge Road. 13 Q That is the actual check register? 14 A Yeah, that's what it is. It's the check 15 register, the actual check register. It covers the dates 16 of the tank removal. 17 Q And the reward? I think. I am not sure. 18 Maybe not. No. 19 A No, I don't see that. 20 Q Okay. Grand Jury Exhibit 73? 21 A May I look inside? 22 Q Sure. 23 A Yes. This is a correspondence sent to me 24 by Bob Womack. 25 Q To you? Or is this something that was 2355 1 seized? 2 A Oh, yeah. This one is the one that was 3 seized at the office. He had addressed it to me, but 4 didn't actually get it to me. 5 Q This is Wayne Ron Brown or something? 6 A Yeah, that's true. 7 Q And Mr. Paul? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Okay. 10 A Okay. These are the ones that were 11 supposed to go to Mr. Brown or did go to Mr. Brown, one 12 or the other. 13 Q Okay. 74? 14 A 74. 15 Q You don't recognize that. That's -- 16 A I don't recognize that. 17 Q This is the 11/16/98 letter that Mr. 18 Ronald W. Brown Senior brought copies for almost all the 19 Grand Jurors and passed out prior to most of his 20 testimony. 21 75? 22 A 75 is a newspaper article from the Ledger 23 Dispatch. And this was dated September 9th, 1998. 24 Q 77? 25 A 77. 2356 1 Q You don't recognize? 2 A I don't recognize that. 3 Q 77 is the document that Bill A. Wolin -- 4 Bill E. Wolin brought in that indicated who were his 5 truck drivers and how much it was going to cost him to 6 put on the training for his employees. So that's from 7 Bill E. Wolin. 8 76? 9 A 76 is the videotape that I took of the 10 interview with Mark Sherrill, dated November 9th, '98. 11 Q And the date and time on here are correct? 12 A Yes. This is 78 here. 13 MR. IREY: What is 77, please? 14 THE SECRETARY: You want me to tell you what it 15 is? 16 MR. IREY: Please. 17 THE SECRETARY: Payroll costs for training and 18 employees. 19 MR. IREY: I already did that. That was 77. 20 78, please. 21 THE WITNESS: This was a hard copy of the owner 22 builder. 23 Q BY MR. IREY: Does it appear to be the 24 original? 25 A I don't believe it's an original. 2357 1 Q Is it hard to tell because of the black 2 ink? 3 A Yeah. 4 Q But attached to it, is there a receipt 5 from the City of Jackson? 6 A Yes, there is. 7 Q Dated? 8 A That's dated May 1st, 1998. 9 Q At what time? 10 A 2:08 p.m. 11 Q Okay. Thank you. 12 79? 13 A 79 is also a copy of the same -- this is 14 something that was handed to me, I believe, by Bob Womack 15 that showed the violations by Bill Admire. 16 79 is a micro cassette tape. This is of 17 the September 2nd, '98 meeting at the County 18 Administration Center. 19 Q And you and Lance Hayden were present 20 during that whole meeting? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q And that's pretty much just the tape 23 regarding Bob Womack's statement of events as they 24 occurred? 25 A Yes. The entire meeting was not taped. 2358 1 MR. IREY: 80 is the 1A-1A to 1A-21 that CHP 2 Officer Moore discussed about seizing at the search 3 warrant. 4 At this time, I would like to move Grand 5 Jury Exhibits 71 through 80 into evidence, please. 6 THE FOREPERSON: You may do so. 7 MR. IREY: Grand Jury Exhibit 81 are the check 8 registers, the KRL bank account, the deposit slips from 9 Robert and June Womack, partnership carbons, and a check 10 register for 1/2/98 to 8/4/98 which is already in 11 evidence. Officer Moore testified about being the finder 12 and where the location of those documents. 13 82 officer Moore testified to, about being 14 the finder. And that's -- these are documents regarding 15 grant deeds for KRL, deeds of trust, withdrawals of 16 partnerships, KRL's relationship with a business called 17 RROS. Xerox titles to '57 T-bird, '72 Jag, both of which 18 originals held by Joe Callell. Assignment to KRL by 19 Moseman. Withdrawal of partnership by Larry. Fourth 20 Amended Statement by KRL. Pink slips to Yamaha 21 motorcycles and VWs, and the pink slips that Officer 22 Moore just put into evidence 40 minutes ago. 23 83, again, Officer Moore testified to. 24 This is pretty much the file known as the 505 file that 25 was at Bob Womack's house. It includes everything from 2359 1 letters from Connie Sherrill to letters to the Grand 2 Jury, Civil Grand Jury. It had in it Ron Brown 3 information. It has responses to the Grand Jury. It has 4 copies of demolition permits and foreclosure letters and 5 faxes from Bob Womack to Judith Demming, some with 6 handwritten notes on them. And some of the newspaper 7 articles. 8 Grand Jury Exhibit 84. The canceled 9 checks for January '98 through September '98 for KRL. 10 Phone bills for 4 of '98 through 8 of '98. Additional 11 phone bills from 6 of '98 through 10 of '98 and a Ledger 12 Dispatch advertisement bill dated 9/30/98. 13 And at 84, we jump, correct? 14 THE SECRETARY: To 106. 15 MR. IREY: Grand Jury Exhibit 106 are the 16 documents seized from Connie and Mark Sherrill's house. 17 Officer Moore testified to that. Although he was not the 18 finder, these documents were found by District Attorney's 19 Office Amador County and handed over to Russ Moore for a 20 complete incorporation into the case. 21 Grand Jury Exhibit 107 is the KRL 22 Partnership financial statement, again, Officer Moore was 23 finder and testified. 24 Grand Jury Exhibit 108, business cards 25 from Ridge Road, ad for 2,000 gallon underground storage 2360 1 tank and insurance cards for Lincoln Navigator and the 2 Lincoln town car in the name of KRL. Again by Officer 3 Moore. 4 What is 109? 5 THE SECRETARY: List of evidence seized, the 6 entire list. 7 Q BY MR. IREY: Okay. Mr. Hall, are you 8 familiar with Grand Jury Exhibit 109? 9 A Yes. This is a list of evidence seized 10 prepared by Russ Moore. 11 Q In the days just after the search warrant? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q So he did a generic, This is what I found 14 at this location, correct? 15 A That's right. 16 Q And then he did a much more specific list? 17 A A more detailed list later, mm-hmm. 18 Q Just after the warrant? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 110 is the original of 21 Mr. Moore's -- 22 A Right. This is Russ Moore's original 23 handwriting on the form that includes Check No. 3887. 24 Q He is trying to find out what type of 25 information? 2361 1 A Monies that are placed into the Wells 2 Fargo Bank Account 0148-200-5XX. 3 MR. IREY: Okay. At this time, I would like to 4 move -- I do have to go from 91 to 110. 81 through 110, 5 with the notation that 84 through -- 6 THE SECRETARY: 85 through 105. 7 MR. IREY: Let me do that then. That doesn't 8 sound right. Is it really just 20? 9 THE SECRETARY: It's nine. 10 THE FOREPERSON: He is talking about the number 11 that was missed between. 12 THE SECRETARY: It's 20. 13 MR. IREY: I thought it should be 24. 14 84. And the next one was? 15 THE SECRETARY: 106. 16 MR. IREY: So there are no Grand Jury Exhibits 85 17 through 105, you are right. 18 Q Okay. 111. Do you recognize that? 19 A Yes. 111 is a copy of Check No. 3700 from 20 the KRL Partnership written to Sparger Technology on May 21 5th, '98 in the amount of $570 for the water test of the 22 station. 23 Q Okay. 112? 24 A 112 is a copy of Check No. 3714. It is 25 blank. Pay to the order of is blank. However Emmett 2362 1 Rettagliata's initials appear in the upper left-hand 2 corner dated May 7th for $450 for water -- I guess that's 3 sump, water sump or water pump, station. By Bob Womack. 4 KRL Partnership. 5 Q 113? 6 A 113 is also a copy of Check No. 3719, 7 dated May 6th, '98 from the KRL Partnership. Pay to the 8 order of GRD for $500 for soil test of the station. 9 Q 114? 10 A 114 is a subpoena duces tecum prepared by 11 our office. And that is dated November 16th, '98. 12 Q For KRL records? 13 A For KRL Partnership records. 14 Q Okay. 115. You don't recognize that 15 document. That is -- 16 A I do. Because I prepared it. 17 Q Okay. But -- 18 A It's a copy of what I prepared. 19 Q Okay. Go ahead. 20 A This is a copy of my property report. As 21 Officer Moore was collecting them, I wrote them down on 22 an Amador County form. This is a photocopy of that. 23 Q Pretty standard? 24 A It's pretty standard for our office, yeah. 25 Q You give some of the information, but you 2363 1 wait until you get back so you are not there for days -- 2 A When we are in the field collecting items, 3 we do a generic description of what we have collected. 4 And then later, we prepare a full. 5 Q Okay. 115 is a three-page document that 6 was handed to the Grand Jury by Nadine Womack. 7 A Okay. This would be page 1 and page 2 of 8 my -- photocopy of my property reports. And then 3 is 9 the -- something I probably haven't seen before. 10 Q That's the November 12th -- 11 A Oh, okay. That's the letter from -- to 12 Dave Mason from Jim Thorpe Oil. 13 MR. IREY: Okay. What is 116, please? 14 THE SECRETARY: Binder of environmental 15 documents, big, thick green one. 16 Q BY MR. IREY: Do you recognize this binder 17 as the binder given to us by Bob Fourt? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Okay. 117? 20 A 117 is -- appears to be an ad from the 21 Gold Mine. And that's including the reward, the upper 22 left side. This has got a date on it. This is dated 23 September 9th, 1998. 24 Q 118? 25 A 118 is the County permit application for 2364 1 underground storage tank closure. And that's dated July 2 19th, 1988. This appears to be the original. 3 Q 119? 4 A 119 also is an application for underground 5 storage tank closure dated December 30, 1987. Appears to 6 be the original. 7 Q 120, if it's next to you? 120 is not an 8 exhibit. It's a duplicate of the evidence seizure list 9 from Officer Moore. 10 So do we have a 121? 11 A Yes. 121 is the certification of 12 non-license status dated November 25th, 1998. It was an 13 inquisition into Robert Roland Womack's status as a 14 contractor. 15 Q 122? 16 A And 122 -- I don't believe I am familiar 17 with this document. 18 MR. IREY: Okay. That was testified to earlier 19 today. 122 is the certification of records that there is 20 no Workers' Comp. insurance for KRL. It doesn't have 21 information regarding Robert Womack; and it does have it 22 for Roland E. Womack as a dental business. 23 How many more do we need? 24 THE SECRETARY: Seven, I believe. 25 MR. IREY: What is 123, Ms. Secretary? 2365 1 THE SECRETARY: Large envelope, various pink 2 slips. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. Item 123 are the pink slips 4 seized from the office inside the safe at Bob Womack's 5 house on Ridge Road. 6 Q BY MR. IREY: Including signed '34 Ford? 7 A That's correct. 8 Q 124? 9 A 124 is also an Oregon title for a Lincoln 10 Navigator 1998, listed as Robert Roland Womack. 11 Q 125? 12 A 125 is an Oregon vehicle title for a 1993 13 Cedar house trailer for KRL Partnership. 14 MR. IREY: 126 and 128 Officer Moore testified 15 to. They are the documents that he got off of the DMV 16 printouts that described two licenses, one in California 17 and one in Oregon. 18 127 is the document that Jim Walshaw 19 testified to regarding his interview with William E. 20 Wolin. 21 And 129 is the document, certified 22 documents, from DMV related to the purchase of the 1998 23 Navigator and the transfer into California. 24 Are there any others? 25 At this time, I would like to move the 2366 1 remaining exhibits into evidence. 2 THE FOREPERSON: You may do so. 3 MR. IREY: If anybody has any additional 4 questions for Investigator Hall, I would be happy to ask 5 them at this time. 6 Q Have you ever been able to find out who 7 the mysterious 5XX account is attached to? 8 A No. 9 Q Not yet? 10 A Not yet. 11 Q I am not testifying for you. 12 You are going to look into that, correct? 13 A Yeah, that's correct. 14 Q Do you believe it belongs to Robert 15 Womack? 16 A Yes, I do. 17 Q Or one of his aliases? If you know? 18 A I don't know yet. 19 Q But the checks to Jeff Taylor are made out 20 to Bob Womack, correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And then went in that account? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q Has it been discovered yet where the tank 25 was hiding for those four or five months? 2367 1 A Not yet. 2 Q Do you believe it may have been buried 3 somewhere? 4 A No, I don't believe it was reburied. I 5 believe it was sitting out in the open. 6 Q Where do you think it was? 7 A I have a suspicion it was south of -- or 8 west of Jackson. 9 Q West of Jackson? 10 A West of Jackson. Actually, I think it was 11 sitting on Doug Mondani's ranch. 12 Q If Womack drove the truck which was 13 carrying the tank, did he violate both hazardous waste 14 regulations and California driver's license regulations, 15 if you know? 16 A Would you ask that one again. 17 Q If Robert Womack drove the truck which was 18 carrying the tank, did he violate both hazardous waste 19 regulations and California driver's license regulations? 20 A Yes. 21 Q How did the cleaners' photos become 22 involved? And when were they given to Mary Nell Bryant? 23 If you know? 24 A I believe that occurred about two weeks 25 ago. We asked -- Jim Walshaw had been out talking with 2368 1 an individual. And Mary Bryant, I believe, then told him 2 that the gal at the cleaners took photographs. And he 3 then asked her. And she said she had the negatives, she 4 would give them to Mary Nell Bryant. And Mary Nell 5 Bryant them delivered them to me. 6 Q Do you think the gas tank was stored at -- 7 if I said that wrong -- gas tank was stored at Mark 8 Sherrill's for four months until it showed up at Thorpe's 9 Oil on or about 9/12/98? 10 A No, I don't believe that. Because I had 11 flown in the air and examined that piece of property from 12 the air. And I didn't see that there. 13 Q Who was responsible for destroying the 14 tank after Thorpe had it? And if it was Amador County 15 D.A.'s Office, why wasn't it saved for evidence? 16 A I had photographed the tank. I had 17 removed the brass tags, which are basically the VIN 18 number or serial number of the tank. There is no real 19 safe place for the District Attorney to store an item 20 like that. And certainly, Mr. Thorpe didn't want it 21 hanging around in his office. 22 Q It's slightly bigger than the jury box? 23 A Yeah. It's six feet tall, ten feet long, 24 so it would fill that jury box. We simply don't have 25 facilities for it. And we didn't know how safe it would 2369 1 be to store it that long, anyway. 2 So we had Richard Thorpe, I believe, 3 contact Dave Mason and have it disposed of. We had the 4 seals and the photographs. That was good enough for us. 5 Q After the tank was returned, who gave the 6 orders or instructions to have it destroyed? And did 7 they have authority? What was the date it was destroyed? 8 A The day that we photographed it and I took 9 the seals was the day that I told him to contact Dave 10 Mason and Bob Fourt to arrange for its hauling as 11 hazardous waste. 12 Q Did you ever check with Environmental 13 Health to find out if Mark Sherrill ever worked on other 14 toxic waste sites? 15 A No. I did not. 16 Q Hopefully, they would have told you if 17 they knew? 18 A Yeah. I believe Bob Fourt looked into the 19 players involved, and he only brought us the one file on 20 Mark Sherrill where he had moved more dirt than the 21 permit he had. 22 Q Two-pronged. He had moved dirt before he 23 got a permit, correct? 24 A Right. 25 Q Then he moved more dirt than was allowed? 2370 1 A Than was permitted. 2 Q And that hasn't been inspected to this 3 date? 4 A To this date it hasn't been finaled or 5 inspected. 6 Q You were there when Mark told you he 7 thought it was for 5,000 yards instead of 1,000 yards? 8 A Right. He thought his permit was larger 9 than the one he obtained. 10 Q He thinks he probably hasn't moved more 11 than 5,000 yards? 12 A Right, correct. 13 Q Was the estimate or copy of the estimate 14 David Mason III received from Tallia found at Womack's 15 house during the search warrant? 16 A No. 17 Q What part do you believe David Mason III 18 had in this conspiracy to pull the tank illegally and 19 hide evidence? 20 A I believe Dave Mason needed money, needed 21 it fast, and just didn't reveal everything he probably 22 should have revealed. 23 Q Do you have specific information that he 24 hid evidence after the fact? Yet? 25 A I don't have specific evidence. I just 2371 1 have his statement. 2 Q What statement is that? 3 A Dave Mason said he never told Robert 4 Womack about the bid from Tallia. 5 Q And that he never told Robert Womack that 6 the property was contaminated? 7 A Yes. He never told him that either. 8 Q And there is a whole binder that shows 9 that Mason had information that the property was 10 contaminated, correct? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q Did your investigation show that Roland 13 and Nadine were in Las Vegas on the weekend of the tank 14 removal? 15 A They were out of town. I don't know 16 exactly where they went. 17 Q If you know, who did Sherrill tell that he 18 was pulling out of the -- just a second. Don't answer 19 that yet, please. 20 Did Mark Sherrill tell you that he was 21 pulling out of his deal with the D.A.'s Office? 22 A No. I believe his lawyer contacted our 23 office and made that statement. 24 Q The second question you can't answer, but 25 I will read it into the record. What reason did he 2372 1 give? So please don't answer that. 2 What is check kiting? And do you feel 3 Robert Womack does this? 4 A I am not real familiar with that term, 5 kiting. 6 Q At any time during your entire 7 investigation, has Robert Womack inquired as to what he 8 could do to resolve this entire issue? 9 A No, not to me. 10 Q Before this investigation of 505 tank 11 removal, was Robert Roland Womack, KRL or any other 12 Womack -- you can't answer this one -- under 13 investigation, civil or criminal? 14 I don't know what your office policy is. 15 I know what San Joaquin County's is. Do you comment on 16 pending civil or criminal investigations? 17 A I was not investigating Robert Womack 18 prior to this for any civil or criminal. 19 Q Okay. Which property of Mr. Mondani do 20 you believe the gas tank was located? 21 A I don't know the exact address. I do know 22 it's between Jackson and Ione. 23 Q Why do you believe this? 24 A Mmmm... Just statements from people who 25 don't want to be involved, basically. 2373 1 Q Don't tell these people that, Mr. Hall. 2 Was the subpoena of records for KRL 3 carried out last week, if you know? You can look at the 4 date on it. 5 A Yes. I was present when that was served 6 on November 16th, '98. 7 Q So that would have been almost two weeks 8 ago? 9 A Yes. 10 Q November 16th would be two weeks ago? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Are you currently working on decoding the 13 computer that was taken from Robert Womack's home? 14 A I am not currently. I am very illiterate 15 when it comes to computers. I will be telephoning 16 professionals to do that. 17 Q The next question: Are you asking for 18 outside assistance? 19 A Yes. 20 MR. IREY: Anybody else? 21 Q Was Mondani asked, specifically asked, if 22 he hauled the tank to Thorpe Oil? 23 A I did not ask him that. 24 Q You don't know what he was asked in here? 25 A No. 2374 1 MR. IREY: Last witness. Take your time. 2 Q Has Robert Womack lied to you in the past, 3 Mr. Hall? 4 A Yes. 5 Q More than once? 6 A More than once. 7 Q Your interviews with Nick Hernandez and 8 Bill Wolin, do you believe that he was trying to dissuade 9 witnesses from testifying truthfully? 10 A Yes, I do. 11 Q Do you believe he is a California resident 12 or an Oregon resident? 13 A Well, like I said, I have seen him 14 numerous times in California. I didn't even know that he 15 had a California residence or -- or an Oregon residence. 16 And I see him on a pretty regular basis. 17 Q At this time, do you think it was wise 18 destroying the evidence, the tank? 19 A It's pretty common practice with an item 20 that large. If a photograph and the actual serial 21 numbers will suffice as proof, there is no need to keep 22 the actual metal container around, especially if there is 23 a hazardous condition keeping it around. 24 Q Every day it's stored is another violation 25 of the law, correct? 2375 1 A That's correct. 2 Q So you were present when Mr. Dave Mason 3 was told to get rid of it as soon as possible? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q During the first interview, correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q The goal was to get the tank and handle it 8 pursuant to California law? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q If you find evidence that the tank was at 11 Mondani's, will he be charged with perjury when he told 12 us he didn't know where the tank went? If you can answer 13 that. 14 Or I will ask a second question: If your 15 investigation determines that Mondani both had the tank 16 and committed perjury, will you refer this case for 17 prosecution to prosecutors in your office? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Hypothetically, since all parties of the 20 partnership have testified to little or no involvement in 21 KRL, how does passive partnership, for instance, less 22 than 500 hours a year involvement, apply to KRL 23 Partnership in this case? If you know? 24 A I don't know. 25 Q If Dave Mason III only gave his approval 2376 1 in a sales contract, how is he involved in the removal? 2 A He is responsible for that tank, no matter 3 where it ends up. 4 Q Who owned it? 5 A Dave Mason. 6 Q Who pulled tanks legally at that site? 7 A Dave Mason. 8 Q Who got a bid to pull it legally? In 9 1998? 10 A Dave Mason. 11 Q Who cashed out for 60,000 three weeks 12 later? 13 A Dave Mason. 14 Q Do you believe that Connie Sherrill knew 15 anything about the tank? 16 A I would say it's undetermined at this 17 point. It's still being investigated. By statements of 18 her husband, he did not tell her. But I am not 19 convinced. 20 Q She probably knew about the 5,000 cubic 21 yards. She is a Planning Commissioner, correct? 22 A Correct. 23 Q One of her duties is to enforce the 24 regulations, as you understand them? 25 A That's correct. 2377 1 Q And they actually received notice that 2 they were doing work without permits at that site, 3 correct? 4 A Correct. 5 Q And then they got a permit which was only 6 one fifth to 1/20 of the permit they needed, correct? 7 A Correct. 8 Q They went ahead for the next two years and 9 did work, correct? 10 A Correct. 11 Q Nick Hernandez testified they took -- in 12 your interview with Nick Hernandez, they took stuff there 13 all the time? 14 A Correct. 15 Q Without approval? 16 A Without approval. 17 Q Including some of the stuff from the gas 18 station? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q If not, do you think she is being misled 21 by her husband? 22 A That still is a possibility. 23 Q Isn't she a Planning Commissioner? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Could Dave Mason III be a victim of Robert 2378 1 Womack misleading him after the removal of the tank? 2 A No, I don't think so. 3 Q For $5,500, this whole thing should never 4 have happened, correct? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q People that own other gas stations in 7 Amador County have done the right thing, correct? 8 A So far. 9 Q Campbells pulled tanks with permits? 10 A Correct. 11 Q Put in new tanks? 12 A Correct. 13 Q Spent the money? 14 A Yes. 15 Q People who do things legally get burned by 16 people who do things illegally, correct? 17 A That's correct. 18 MR. IREY: Any other questions? 19 THE SECRETARY: One more. 20 MR. IREY: We decided to wait until it started 21 raining really hard before you went to lunch. 22 Q If the tank was moved illegally again 23 after 1998, is there any evidence of exactly who is 24 responsible for moving it then? 25 A When are we talking about? 2379 1 Q After the 9/2 meeting before it showed up 2 on 9/7 or 9/8? 3 A Yes. Whoever hauled that tank to Lodi did 4 it illegally. 5 Q Unless they complied with the Fire Code 6 and Health and Safety Code? 7 A Correct. 8 Q You have no information that that was 9 complied with? 10 A No. We still haven't yet discovered who 11 hauled the tank to Lodi. 12 Q Except after four months, when you looked 13 at the tank, there wasn't a strong smell of gasoline in 14 there, was there? 15 A No. 16 Q Out in the sun for four months, black 17 tank? 18 A Yes. 19 Q So there is a chance that the gasoline had 20 pretty much dissipated? 21 A Yes. 22 Q However, the reason the statutory scheme 23 is set up, so that people go A through Z and you know for 24 a fact there is no gasoline, correct? 25 A Correct. 2380 1 Q Someone could have, on 5/2 or 5/3 or even 2 on 9/2, dumped the gas on the ground and rinsed it out 3 with water, correct? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q Because nobody is talking, correct? 6 A Correct. 7 Q So even if it was 20 or 30 gallons of 8 gasoline, they could have dumped it on the ground? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q Or in the water? 11 A Correct. 12 MR. IREY: There you go. Only six months of 13 work, Mr. Hall. Thanks. 14 Mr. Foreman. 15 THE FOREPERSON: Okay. Actually, I will remind 16 him at this time of the same admonition I read to him 17 numerous other times. And we still have a signed and 18 dated written -- signed and dated copy from you that I 19 have read this admonition. We still have one filed. 20 At this time, I will remind you of that. 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 22 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. 23 At this time, we will take a lunch 24 break. You want to let us know -- or you will let us 25 know what to expect when we come back from lunch. 2381 1 MR. IREY: I can do that for 20 seconds. 2 I presented a copy of the Amended Proposed 3 Indictment with a few additional jury instructions. I 4 will either borrow one of your jury packets -- I think I 5 have one here of the jury instructions, and I will read 6 this document into the record. 7 At that point, Jan and I will leave and 8 you will deliberate until you are done. This month, next 9 month. 10 THE FOREPERSON: So we do it right here in 11 this room? 12 MR. IREY: Sure. There won't be any chance to 13 chat, but we will talk about that at the end. 14 Once I have read the last jury 15 instruction, you are on your own to deliberate. You can 16 get rereads, if you need them. Remember, it's going to 17 be going through twelve, thirteen 1,400 pages of 18 testimony. I am sure Jan can find it. It won't be like 19 a one witness thing, where you look and say, when is 20 first time Mr. Smith said I never saw the tank? 21 And then at the end of that, it's up to 22 you. There are seventeen counts alleged. As I told you, 23 day one, they can go up, they can go down. You can 24 delete people. You can add people. I am probably going 25 to make a statement that some people were in the 2382 1 partnership were making money off somebody else's bad 2 acts. With that said, that will be how it will work. 3 I think it probably will probably take 4 around an hour or an hour ten minutes to read it. And 5 then you should probably pick a stopping time today and a 6 starting time tomorrow. And then Jan and I will leave. 7 And we will be plus or minus five minutes. Okay? Okay. 8 GRAND JUROR: I have a question on that passive 9 partnership, because that could make the partnership null 10 and void in all aspects. 11 MR. IREY: I can't answer that. 12 GRAND JUROR: As far as the instructions. 13 MR. IREY: There probably will not be any 14 instructions on a partnership, because under the 15 California law, each individual in the partnership is 16 liable or potentially liable for the criminal acts. I 17 will just give generic instructions. 18 If that helps? That's probably the best 19 answer. 20 THE FOREPERSON: Okay. Then at this time, I will 21 remind the jurors of the same admonition I read this 22 morning. We will take a lunch break until 1:30. 23 And we are off the record. 24 (Luncheon recess taken at 12:25 p.m.) 25 ---oOo--- 2383 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 ---oOo--- 3 THE FOREPERSON: We have 19 in the room, so we 4 are on the record. You may proceed. 5 MR. IREY: Normally, I am not at a loss for 6 words. However, we received these four documents at 7 lunchtime. 8 THE SECRETARY: And I thought I was done. 9 MR. IREY: Russ Moore. 10 THE SECRETARY: Do you want these put in cases? 11 MR. IREY: No, they don't need to. You can just 12 mark them. 13 THE FOREPERSON: Mr. Moore, we welcome you back. 14 I will remind you, you are still under oath. 15 (TIME NOTED: 1:30 P.M.) 16 ---oOo--- 17 RUSS MOORE 18 Recalled as a witness herein by the 19 People, having been previously duly sworn to tell 20 the truth, resumed the stand and was examined and 21 testified as follows: 22 23 EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. IREY: 25 Q Mr. Moore, after you finished testifying 2384 1 this morning, did you receive some documentation? 2 A I received a phone call that led to 3 documentation being faxed to the D.A.'s Office, yes. 4 Q You received a phone call from whom? 5 A The investigator from DMV that furnished 6 the certified copy that was introduced this morning. 7 Q That was a certified copy on the '98 8 Navigator? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q Did they send you a fax? 11 A Yes, they did. 12 Q And the fax covered essentially what? 13 A Four transfers of ownership or -- excuse 14 me. Four documents submitted for reissuance of lost or 15 stolen titles. 16 Q For what cars? 17 A '72 Corvette, '34 Ford coupe, a Yamaha 18 motorcycle and -- is it in there? That's the '34 Ford. 19 '72 Chevy. '57 Ford T-bird. 20 Q Are those lost or stolen? 21 A I wouldn't say they are lost. 22 Q Please answer the question. 23 A They are right here. They aren't lost. 24 Q Did Mr. Roland Womack see you take those? 25 A Yes, he did. 2385 1 Q Did Mr. Womack sign under penalty of 2 perjury that the registrations had been lost or stolen? 3 A That's correct. 4 Q Did you first hear about this basically 5 from a newspaper article in the Amador Ledger Dispatch 6 that he was attempting to get duplicate paperwork? 7 A I believe that was the source of the 8 information. I verified by running it on the DMV system. 9 Q So you knew last week during the 10 Thanksgiving break that it was in the process? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q And at noon today, you received faxed 13 certified copies from DMV investigator? 14 A Yes, Vivian Figueroa. 15 Q And as the finder, do you remember where 16 the pink slip for the VW would be? 17 A It should be in the 1D envelopes from the 18 top drawer of the safe. 19 Q 1D? 20 A I believe it's 1D. 21 Q Oh, it's a Yamaha; it's not a VW, correct? 22 A That's correct. It was a Yamaha 23 motorcycle. And I believe it was included in that. 24 1D-24, it would be. 25 Q So Grand Jury Exhibit 82? 2386 1 A That's correct. 2 Q And Grand Jury Exhibit 123? 3 A That's correct. 4 Q This has been marked Grand Jury Exhibit 5 130. It's a fax copy to you, correct? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q What time of day was it faxed? 8 A 12:03. 9 Q Okay. What car is that for? 10 A 1957 Ford T-bird. 11 Q Okay. Do you have a pink slip for that 12 with you? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Okay. And is there a statement signed 15 under penalty of perjury? 16 A Yes. It's in Section 3. 17 Q Could you read that entire section into 18 the record, including the warning. 19 A "Missing title statement. Warning: 20 Issuance of a duplicate title cancels the original 21 title. The certificate of the title issued for this 22 vehicle vessel is:" 23 There is boxes for Lost and Stolen, 24 which is checked. A blank one, Not Received. 25 Another one, Illegible, Mutilated, and also for 2387 1 Paperless Title. 2 "I certify under penalty of perjury 3 under the laws of the State of California that 4 the information I have provided is true and 5 correct. I agree to indemnify and save harmless 6 the Director of Motor Vehicles for any loss 7 suffered resulting from the issuance of said 8 duplicate certificate of title." 9 And it is signed by R. Womack for 10 KRL Partnership. 11 Q And whose driver's license number? 12 A That is Robert Womack's driver's license 13 of D0534642. And date is 11/13/98. 14 Q Okay. Grand Jury Exhibit 131? 15 A That is for a '91 Yamaha motorcycle. 16 Yamaha motorcycle. License 12 Paul 1546. Which the 17 title is right here. 18 Q Out of Grand Jury Exhibit 82? 1D-24? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q Same, Paragraph 3? 21 A Is the same as previously read. 22 Q On the last one, I don't know if you said, 23 was one of the four boxes checked? 24 A Yes, I did. The Lost or Stolen box. 25 Q On this one, which box is checked? 2388 1 A Lost or Stolen. 2 Q Who signed it? 3 A R. Womack for KRL Partnership, same 4 driver's license, David 0534642, on 11/16/98. 5 Q 133? 6 A Is for a '72 Chevrolet Corvette, 652 Mary 7 Union Mary. Also, the Lost or Stolen box is checked. 8 KRL Partnership, by R. Womack, same driver's license 9 number, 11/16/98. 10 Q What's going on here? 11 A I think you grabbed the other one. 12 Q This is -- just a moment, please. 13 We are trying to rush too quickly. 14 So far, which cars have you done? 15 A I have done '72 Chevrolet just now. '57 16 T-bird. 17 Q You just opened this. Did you do -- Grand 18 Jury Exhibit 132 is what? The Chevy? 19 A '72 Corvette. 20 Q Okay. Grand Jury Exhibit 130? 21 A That's for the '57 T-bird. 22 Q Grand Jury Exhibit 131? 23 A That's for the motorcycle. 24 Q Section 3 filled out the same way? 25 A That's correct. 2389 1 Q And Grand Jury Exhibit 133, please. 2 A That's for a '34 Ford, license 1 Sam Henry 3 Frank 285. That's the title that was signed previously 4 by Robert Womack for the '34 Ford. Shows him as the 5 registered owner. On this particular form, he signed it 6 over to KRL Partnership, xxxxx Ridge Road. This is 7 Section 2, Sutter Creek, 95685. And missing title 8 statement. The Lost or Stolen box is checked. The 9 signature is KRL Partnership by R. Womack, his driver's 10 license, 11/13/98. 11 Q So it's stamped certified document on each 12 of these pages, correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q But the certified documents you are 15 informed are in the mail? 16 A In the mail to me. 17 Q But you received this fax at around noon 18 today? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q So four cars, four lost or stolen, all 21 seized in the search warrant? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q Roland saw these documents seized? 24 A Yes, he was standing right there. 25 Q Roland currently owns three quarters of 2390 1 KRL. Is that your understanding? 2 A That's my understanding. 3 Q Womack runs KRL? 4 A That's my belief. 5 Q Being Robert Roland Womack? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Best of your knowledge, were these 8 documents ever lost or stolen? 9 A No. 10 Q Is it a false statement to say they were 11 lost or stolen? 12 A Yes, it is. 13 Q Did you steal them? 14 A No. Lawfully took them in a search 15 warrant. 16 MR. IREY: No further questions of Officer 17 Moore. Any Members of the Grand Jury have any questions, 18 I would be happy to ask them at this time. 19 Q Do you believe that Womack is stating that 20 the pink slips were stolen by the search team? 21 A I believe that he is trying to get assets 22 out of his name, is what I believe he is trying to do. 23 Q That's what you believe happened with 24 giving the '34 Ford from Robert Womack to KRL? 25 A Yes. 2391 1 Q And that pretty much puts nothing that you 2 know of in Robert Womack's name in the State of 3 California? 4 A Nothing that I know of. 5 Q Other than maybe that checking account? 6 A The one in San Francisco, yes. 7 Q But up until ten days ago, the '34 Ford 8 was in Robert Womack's name? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q And now it's not? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q Or it's in the process of being taken out 13 of his name? 14 A They are supposed to put a stop on issuing 15 new title. Whether or not that occurred, because of the 16 holiday, I am not sure. 17 Q What date or dates did he reapply for the 18 pink slips? 19 A On the 13th of November of this year and 20 the 16th of November. 21 Q So the second and third day of this Grand 22 Jury? 23 A If you started on the 14th, that would be 24 correct. 25 Q The 12th, we started on. The 12th is a 2392 1 Thursday. 13th would be the second day. 2 A I wasn't here on the first day. 3 Q Have new registrations been issued or has 4 DMV put a hold on them? 5 A I am hopeful there's a hold. But because 6 of the holiday, they may have already been sent out. 7 Q Why do you think he is trying to get 8 assets out of his name? 9 A So he doesn't have to be responsible for 10 any financial dealings, would be my guess. 11 Q Penalties, lawsuits? 12 A Sure. But he is still, by my estimation, 13 the controlling factor in KRL Partnership. 14 Q Roland didn't sign any of these pink 15 slips, did he? 16 A No. I don't believe he signs any of the 17 checks either. 18 MR. IREY: Any other questions? Take your time. 19 Q Is there new stuff coming in every day? 20 A There's more and more we are learning 21 every day, yes. 22 Q If you know, if no assets are in Robert 23 Womack's name, is he still legally liable for illegal 24 acts committed by KRL? 25 A I would think so, yes. Since he is the 2393 1 one that took the actions. 2 Q Specifically, is he the one that signs on 3 the account? 4 A That as well. 5 Q Again, that's pretty much a legal 6 conclusion? 7 A That's not my purview. 8 Q But the person committing the crimes is? 9 A Sure. 10 Q Who? 11 A Robert Womack. 12 Q As well as others? 13 A As well as others, yes. 14 Q If you had a son and you committed a bunch 15 of crimes and gave him a million dollars, would that be 16 something that your son should be able to reap benefits 17 from? 18 A No, not in my opinion. 19 Q You stated that you read -- if you 20 stated -- did you state that you read about this in the 21 paper? Or did you hear about it from someone at the 22 District Attorney's Office? 23 A I heard about it. 24 Q But that it had been in the paper? 25 A Right. 2394 1 Q And then you looked it up? 2 A I called it up on the computer and saw, 3 yes, there had been further action on those four 4 vehicles. 5 Q Did that seem odd to you, that it was in 6 the paper? 7 A Frankly, the articles that I have heard 8 about in the paper here, nothing would surprise me. So 9 it didn't really, didn't surprise me at all. 10 MR. IREY: Any other questions for Mr. Moore? 11 Q Does Mr. Robert L. Womack have a Social 12 Security number? And do you know? Or is his name Robert 13 Roland Womack? 14 A His name is Robert Roland Womack, as far 15 as all the documentation I have seen. 16 Q Okay. Do you know if he pays any taxes? 17 At this time? 18 A I haven't seen any evidence of it. 19 Q Other than small sales tax or registration 20 fees, those types of? 21 A Those kind, yes. But income tax, no, I 22 didn't see any records. 23 Q But he pays them out of KRL, right? 24 A For certain individuals. But I didn't see 25 any paid out for him, that being Robert. 2395 1 Q But he pays car registration and car 2 insurance and car payments out of KRL? 3 A House payments. 4 Q Yes, instead of shaking your head? 5 A Yes. 6 MR. IREY: Okay. Mr. Moore, thank you. 7 THE FOREPERSON: Just remind you of the same 8 admonition earlier. 9 MR. IREY: At this time, I would request to move 10 Grand Jury Exhibits 130 through 133 -- are those the 11 right numbers? 12 THE SECRETARY: Yes. 13 MR. IREY: -- into evidence. 14 THE FOREPERSON: You may do so. 15 MR. IREY: When the Grand Jurors are done with 16 the pink slips, I need to put them back in the 17 envelopes. 18 Are you ready, Jan? 19 GRAND JUROR: If you go too fast, I am going to 20 do this or something for her. 21 MR. IREY: I am supposed to read word for word 22 what's on the Amended Proposed Indictment. 23 THE FOREPERSON: Before we start, can we adjust 24 the heat? Some people are... 25 MR. IREY: I hope so. 2396 1 Amended Proposed Indictment. 2 The Grand Jury of the County of Amador, 3 State of California, accuses the defendants of committing 4 in Amador County, State of California, before the finding 5 of this Indictment, the following crimes: 6 Count 1. Conspiracy to commit a crime, to 7 wit, hazardous waste disposal, hazardous waste 8 transportation, hazardous waste storage and/or water 9 pollution. 10 On or about April 30th, 1998 and 11 continuing until approximately November 11th, 1998, the 12 defendants Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason 13 III, Mark Taylor Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators did 14 commit a felony, namely, a violation of Section 182(a)(1) 15 of the Penal Code, conspiracy to commit a crime, who at 16 the time and place last aforesaid, did willfully and 17 unlawfully conspire together and with another person 18 and/or persons whose identity is unknown at this time, to 19 commit the crimes of hazardous waste disposal, hazardous 20 waste transportation, hazardous waste storage and/or 21 water pollution, violations of chapter 6.5 of the 22 California Health and Safety Code and of Section 23 5650(a)(1) of the Fish and Game Code. 24 Overt Act No. 1. On or about April 30th, 25 1998, and continuing until May 8th, 1998, Robert Roland 2397 1 Womack, David Sterling Mason III, Mark Taylor Sherrill 2 and unnamed co-conspirators did participate in and/or 3 allow via tacit approval the demolition of a gasoline 4 station at 505 Sutter Street, Jackson, California. 5 Overt Act No. 2. On or about April 30th, 6 1998, and continuing until approximately May 8th, 1998, 7 Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III, Mark 8 Taylor Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators failed to 9 follow the explicit instructions of the City of Jackson 10 Building Department personnel regarding their needs to 11 contact County of Amador Environmental Health regarding 12 the underground storage tanks located at 505 Sutter 13 Street, Jackson, California, prior to removal. 14 Overt Act No. 3. On or about May 2nd, 15 1998 and continuing until approximately May 3rd, 1998, 16 Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III, Mark 17 Taylor Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators transported, 18 stored and disposed of unknown quantities of hazardous 19 wastes, including but not limited to -- and the word "a" 20 should be there -- no. My mistake -- two 1,000 gallon 21 gasoline underground storage tanks, unknown contents of 22 the tanks, associated underground storage tank piping and 23 soil contaminated with gasoline and its toxic 24 constituents from 505 Sutter Street, Jackson California 25 to unknown locations. 2398 1 Overt Act No. 4. On or about May 4th, 2 1998 and continuing until approximately November 11th, 3 1998, Robert Roland Womack, Mark Taylor Sherrill and 4 unnamed co-conspirators provided false information to the 5 Board of Supervisors of Amador County and to Amador 6 County District Attorney investigator Ron Hall related to 7 the unlawful removal of a set of underground storage 8 tanks from 505 Sutter street, Jackson, California, and 9 associated piping/soil after Robert Roland Womack, Mark 10 Taylor Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators attempted -- 11 attempted to dissuade witnesses from attending or giving 12 testimony at any trial, proceeding or inquiry authorized 13 by law. 14 Overt Act No. 5. On or about September 15 2nd, 1998, Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason 16 III, Mark Taylor Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators 17 jointly told inaccurate, misleading and false information 18 to the Amador County District Attorney's office in the 19 presence of District Attorney Investigators Ron Hall and 20 Lance Hayden related to the unlawful removal of a set of 21 underground storage tanks from 505 Sutter Street, 22 Jackson, California. 23 Overt Act No. 6. On or about late June of 24 1998 and continuing until a search warrant was executed 25 on October 30th, 1998, Robert Roland Womack, David 2399 1 Sterling Mason III, Mark Taylor Sherrill and unnamed 2 co-conspirators provided an altered videotape as evidence 3 in this matter related to the unlawful removal of a set 4 of underground storage tanks and associated piping/soil 5 from 505 Sutter Street -- please add in -- Jackson, 6 California, on May 2nd and May 3rd, 1998. 7 Overt Act No. 7. On or about May 2nd, 8 1998, Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III, 9 Mark Taylor Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators pulled 10 two 1,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks 11 without appropriate permits and without appropriate 12 oversight. 13 Overt Act No. 8. On or about May 2nd, 14 1998, Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III, 15 Mark Taylor Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators pulled 16 two 1,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks 17 without appropriate permits. These activities were in 18 violation of the Fire Code and placed the workers and the 19 public and adjacent property owners at risk of an 20 explosion. 21 Overt Act No. 9. On or about May 2nd, 22 1998, Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III, 23 Mark Taylor Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators pulled 24 two 1,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks 25 without appropriate permits. These activities were in 2400 1 violation of the Water Code and the Fish and Game Code 2 and placed adjacent waterways at risk of contamination 3 with petroleum-tainted water. 4 Count 2. Disposal of hazardous waste. 5 On or about May 2nd, 1998 and continuing 6 until the date of this Indictment, the defendants Robert 7 Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III and Mark Taylor 8 Sherrill did commit a felony, namely, a violation of 9 Section 25189.5(b) of the Health and Safety Code, 10 disposal of hazardous waste, in that said defendants did 11 knowingly and unlawfully dispose or cause the disposal of 12 a hazardous waste or reasonably should have known that he 13 or they -- we are going to add that -- were disposing or 14 causing the disposal of hazardous waste, including but 15 not limited to: two 1,000 gallon underground storage 16 tanks, various waste piping, gasoline-contaminated soil 17 and gasoline-contaminated waste water at a facility or at 18 numerous unknown facilities which did not have a permit 19 from Department of Toxic Substances Control issued 20 pursuant to Chapter 6.5 of the Health and Safety Code or 21 at any point which is not authorized according to Chapter 22 6.5 of the Health and Safety Code. 23 Count 3. Transportation of hazardous 24 waste. 25 On or about May 2nd, 1998, the defendants 2401 1 Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III and Mark 2 Taylor Sherrill did commit a felony, namely, a violation 3 of Section 25189.5(c) of the Health and Safety Code, 4 transportation of hazardous waste, in that said 5 defendants did knowingly and unlawfully transport or 6 cause the transportation of hazardous waste or reasonably 7 should have known that they were causing the 8 transportation of a hazardous waste. These wastes 9 included, but were not limited to: two 1,000 gallon 10 gasoline underground storage tanks, unknown tank 11 contents, associated underground storage tank piping 12 and/or gasoline-contaminated soil originally from 505 13 Sutter Street, Jackson, California, to unknown locations. 14 Count 4. Transportation of hazardous 15 waste. 16 On or about May 3rd, 1998, the defendants 17 Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III and Mark 18 Taylor Sherrill did commit a felony, namely, a violation 19 of Section 25189.5(c) of the Health and Safety Code, 20 transportation of hazardous waste, in that the said 21 defendants did knowingly and unlawfully transport or 22 cause the transportation of hazardous waste or reasonably 23 should have known that they were causing the 24 transportation of a hazardous waste. These wastes 25 included, but were not limited to: two 1,000 gallon 2402 1 gasoline underground storage tanks, unknown tank 2 contents, associated underground storage tank piping 3 and/or gasoline-contaminated soil from 505 Sutter Street 4 to unknown locations. 5 Count 5. Transportation of hazardous 6 waste. 7 On or about September 8th, 1998, the 8 defendants Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III 9 and Mark Taylor Sherrill did commit a felony, namely, 10 violation of Section 25189.5(c) of the Health and Safety 11 Code, transportation of a hazardous waste, in that said 12 defendants did knowingly and unlawfully transport or 13 cause the transportation of a hazardous waste or 14 reasonably should have known that they were causing the 15 transportation of a hazardous waste. These wastes 16 included, but were not limited to: two 1,000 gallon 17 gasoline underground storage tanks, unknown tank 18 contents, associated underground storage tank piping 19 and/or gasoline-contaminated soil originally from 505 20 Sutter Street, Jackson, California, to unknown locations. 21 If we can change that to Jim Thorpe Oil in Lodi, 22 California. 23 Count 6. Treatment or storage of 24 hazardous waste. 25 On or about May 2nd, 1998, the defendants 2403 1 Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III and Mark 2 Taylor Sherrill did commit a felony, namely, a violation 3 of Section 25189.5(d) of the Health and Safety Code, 4 treatment or storage of hazardous waste, in that the said 5 defendants did knowingly and unlawfully treat or store a 6 hazardous waste or reasonably should have known that they 7 were causing the treatment or storage of a hazardous 8 waste. These wastes included, but were not limited to: 9 two 1,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks, 10 unknown tank contents, associated underground storage 11 tank piping and/or gasoline-contaminated soil at a 12 facility which does not have a permit at the property of 13 Mark -- insert Taylor -- Sherrill located at 14385 14 Highway 88, Jackson, California, from the Department of 15 Toxic Substances Control issued pursuant to Chapter 6.5 16 of the Health and Safety Code or at any point which is 17 not authorized according to Chapter 6.5 of the Health and 18 Safety Code. 19 Count 7. Treatment or storage of 20 hazardous waste. 21 On or about May 3rd, 1998, through 22 September 7th, 1998, the defendants Robert Roland Womack, 23 David Sterling Mason III, and Mark Taylor Sherrill did 24 commit a felony, namely, a violation of Section 25 25189.5(d) of the Health and Safety Code, treatment or 2404 1 storage of hazardous waste, in that said defendants did 2 knowingly and unlawfully treat or store a hazardous waste 3 or reasonably should have known that they were causing 4 the treatment or storage of a hazardous waste. These 5 wastes included, but were not limited to: two 1,000 6 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks, unknown tank 7 contents, associated underground storage tank piping 8 and/or gasoline-contaminated soil at a facility which 9 does not have a permit at unknown properties located 10 within California from the Department of Toxic Substances 11 Control, issued pursuant to Chapter 6.5 of the Health and 12 Safety Code or at any point which is not authorized 13 according to Chapter 6.5 of the Health and Safety Code. 14 Count 8. Dissuading a witness in 15 furtherance of a conspiracy. 16 During the first half of May 1998, the 17 defendant Robert Roland Womack did commit a felony, 18 namely, a violation of Section 136.1(c)(2) of the Penal 19 Code, dissuading a witness in furtherance of a 20 conspiracy, in that the said defendant did knowingly and 21 maliciously attempt to prevent or dissuade William A. 22 Wolin and unknown other witnesses or victims from 23 attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding or 24 inquiry, authorized by law. 25 Count 9. Dissuading a witness in 2405 1 furtherance of a conspiracy. 2 During August 1998, the defendant Robert 3 Roland Womack did commit a felony, namely, a violation of 4 Section 136.1(c)(2) of the Penal Code, dissuading a 5 witness in furtherance of a conspiracy, in that the said 6 defendant did knowingly and maliciously attempt to 7 prevent or dissuade William E. Wolin and unknown other 8 witnesses or victims from attending or giving testimony 9 at any trial, proceeding or inquiry authorized by law. 10 Count 10. Eavesdropping or recording 11 confidential communication. 12 On or about September 2nd, 1998, the 13 defendant Robert Roland Womack did commit a felony 14 namely, a violation of Section 632(a) of the Penal Code, 15 eavesdropping on or recording confidential 16 communications, in that the said defendant did 17 intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a 18 confidential communication record the confidential 19 communication in the presence of one another by means of 20 a tape recorder. 21 Count 11. Water pollution. 22 On or about May 2nd, 1998 through May 3rd, 23 1998, the defendants Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling 24 Mason III and Mark Sherrill did commit a misdemeanor, 25 namely, a violation of 5650(a)(1) of the Fish and Game 2406 1 Code, water pollution, in that the said defendants did 2 unlawfully deposit in, permit to pass into or place where 3 it can pass into waters of this State petroleum- 4 contaminated soil and petroleum-contaminated waste water. 5 Count 12. Dissuading a witness in 6 furtherance of a conspiracy. 7 During -- delete the word "the" please -- 8 July 1998, the defendant Mark -- add the word "Taylor" 9 please -- Taylor Sherrill did commit a felony, namely, a 10 violation of Section 136.1(c)(2) of the Penal Code, 11 dissuading a witness in furtherance of a conspiracy, in 12 that the said defendant did knowingly and maliciously 13 attempt to prevent or dissuade Nick Hernandez and unknown 14 other witnesses or victims from attending or giving 15 testimony at any trial, proceeding or inquiry authorized 16 by law. 17 Count 13. Dissuading a witness in 18 furtherance of a conspiracy. 19 During late October or early November, 20 1998, the defendant Mark Taylor -- again, please add -- 21 Taylor Sherrill did commit a felony, namely, a violation 22 of Section 136.1(c)(2) of the Penal Code, dissuading a 23 witness in furtherance of a conspiracy, in that said 24 defendant did knowingly and maliciously attempt to 25 prevent or dissuade Nick Hernandez and unknown other 2407 1 victims or witnesses from attending or giving testimony 2 at any trial, proceeding or inquiry authorized by law. 3 Count 14. Failure to secure payment of 4 compensation. 5 During May 1998, the defendant, Robert 6 Roland Womack, a manager of KRL Partnership, did commit a 7 misdemeanor, namely, a violation of Section 3700.5 of the 8 Labor Code, failure to secure payment of compensation, in 9 that said defendant -- in that the said defendant did 10 knowingly fail to secure payment of compensation as 11 required. 12 Count 15. Fraudulent use of license 13 number. 14 During May 1998, the defendant Robert 15 Roland Womack did commit a felony, namely, a violation of 16 Section 7027.3 of the Business and Professions Code, 17 fraudulent use of a license number, in that the said 18 defendant did willfully, intentionally and with the 19 intent to defraud, use a contractor's license which did 20 not correspond to the number currently -- I am going to 21 start again, please. Not from the beginning. 22 During May of 1998, the defendant Robert 23 Roland Womack did commit a felony, namely, a violation of 24 Section 7027.3 of the Business and Professions Code, 25 fraudulent use of a license number, in that the said 2408 1 defendant did willfully, intentionally and with intent to 2 defraud, use a contractor's license which did not 3 correspond to the number on a currently valid 4 contractor's license held by the defendant. 5 Count 16. Contracting without a license. 6 During May of 1998, the defendant, Robert 7 Roland Womack, did commit a misdemeanor, namely, a 8 violation of Section 7028(a) of the Business and 9 Professions Code, contracting without a license, in that 10 said defendant did unlawfully engage in the business of 11 or act in the capacity of a contractor, without having a 12 license. 13 Count 17. 14 During January 1998, the defendant, Robert 15 Roland Womack did commit a felony, namely, a violation of 16 Section 118 of the Penal Code, perjury, in that the said 17 defendant certified under penalty of perjury in a case 18 for which certification is permitted by law under penalty 19 of perjury, to wit, application for original 20 registration, did state as true a material matter which 21 he knew to be false, to wit, false personal information 22 on the application for original registration for a 1998 23 Lincoln Navigator originally purchased in Oregon. 24 Now, I am going to try to do this just 25 by -- 2409 1 Count 18. 2 During -- on or about November 13th, 1998, 3 the defendant Robert Roland Womack did commit a felony, 4 namely, a violation of Section 118 of the Penal Code, 5 perjury, in that the said defendant certified under 6 penalty of perjury, in a case in which such certification 7 is permitted by law, under penalty of perjury, to wit, 8 false information on a missing title statement claiming 9 lost or stolen for a 1934 Ford license Number 1SHF285. 10 Count 19. Perjury. 11 During -- on or about November 13th, 1998, 12 the defendant Robert Roland Womack did commit a felony, 13 namely, a violation of Section 118 of the Penal Code, 14 perjury, in that the said defendant -- in that the said 15 defendant certified under penalty of perjury in a case in 16 which such certification is permitted by law under 17 penalty of perjury, to wit, false information on the 18 missing title statement marking lost or stolen for a 1957 19 Ford, license number RTB 1957, certifying that the title 20 had been lost or stolen. 21 Count No. 20. 22 On or about November 16th, 1998, the 23 defendant Robert Roland Womack did commit a felony, 24 namely, a violation of Section 118 of the Penal Code, 25 perjury, in that the said defendant certified under 2410 1 penalty of perjury, in a case which such certification is 2 permitted by law, under penalty of perjury, to wit, false 3 information regarding a missing title statement, marking 4 lost or stolen, and signing R. Womack for a 1972 5 Chevrolet, license plate 652 MUM. 6 Count 21. Perjury. 7 During January -- no. During November -- 8 last one. 9 Count No. 21. Perjury. 10 On or about November 16th, 1998, the 11 defendant Robert Roland Womack did commit a felony, 12 namely, a violation of Section 118 of the Penal Code, 13 perjury, in that the said defendant certified under 14 penalty of perjury in a case in which such certification 15 is permitted by law under penalty of perjury, to wit, 16 false information in Section 3 of the missing title 17 statement, that the original pink slip was lost or 18 stolen, was signed by R. Womack for 1991 Yamaha, license 19 plate 12P1546. 20 Names of witnesses examined before the 21 foregoing Indictment. I am going to add Jim Walshaw to 22 the top of this in case I forget him at the bottom. He 23 is first. 24 Jim Walshaw. Bill Admire, Tom Bamert, Lou 25 Broline, Steven Buckley, John Carstensen, Thorton 2411 1 Consolo, Randy Cunha, Richard Escamilla, Brian Drake, 2 Robert Fourt, Bart Gillman, Fred Graves, Ron Hall, Nick 3 Hernandez, Rick Hilderman, Michael Israel, Phil Joses, 4 David Mason, Doug Mondani, Louie Podesta, Gary Poggio, 5 E. Michael Quinn, Emmett Rettagliata, Gary Rouse, George 6 Ryan, Keith Tallia, Richard Thorpe, Roy Toms, Nick Toms, 7 Linda Van Vleck, Richard Vinson, Larry White, Elaine 8 Williams, William E. Wolin, William A. Wolin, Damian 9 Wolin, Roland Womack, Nadine Womack, Luke Womack, 10 Kimberly Moore, Jeff Taylor, John Henney, Russell Moore, 11 Gary Urzik, Jake Strom, Gary Sherrill, Sherry Martin, 12 Tina Wolin, Mike Womack, Lance Hayden, Gary Clark, Robert 13 Van De Pol, Mary Nell Bryant, Pat Van De Pol, Michael E. 14 Sweeney, Joyce Cain, Jenny Hartnett, Richard Louis Paul, 15 Ronald Wayne Brown Senior, Billy Leray Skidmore, Jeff 16 Miller. 17 Now I am going to skip back to the 18 original Grand Jury instructions that I gave you. 19 If I was the Judge, I would say this is 20 the most important thing, this is your guide book. 21 Please listen carefully to the next 20 or 25 minutes. 22 And this should be able to help you bracket all of the 23 issues that you need in order to deliberate. 24 Manner or recording instruction of no 25 significance. Content only governs. 2412 1 The instructions which I am now giving to 2 you will be made available in written form for your 3 deliberations. They must not be defaced in any way. 4 You will find that the instructions may be 5 typed, printed or handwritten. Portions may have been 6 added or deleted. You must disregard any deleted part of 7 the instructions and not speculate as to what it was or 8 as to the reason for its deletion. You are not to be 9 concerned about the reasons for any modifications. 10 Every part of the text of an instruction, 11 whether typed, printed or handwritten, is of equal 12 importance. You are to be governed only by the 13 instructions in its final wording. 14 Instructions to be considered as a whole. 15 If any rule, direction or idea is repeated 16 or stated in different ways in these instructions, no 17 emphasis is intended and you must not draw any inference 18 because of its repetition. Do not single out any 19 particular sentence or any individual point or 20 instruction and ignore the others. Consider the 21 instructions as a whole and each in light of all the 22 others. 23 The order in which the instructions are 24 given -- the order in which the instructions are given 25 has no significance as to their relative importance. 2413 1 All instructions not necessarily 2 applicable. 3 The purpose of the instructions is to 4 provide you with the applicable law so that you may 5 arrive at a just and lawful decision. Whether some 6 instructions apply will depend on what you find to be the 7 facts. Disregard any instruction which applies to facts 8 determined by you not to exist. 9 Direct and circumstantial evidence -- 10 inferences. 11 Evidence consists of testimony of 12 witnesses, writings, material objects or anything 13 presented to the senses and offered to prove the 14 existence of -- to prove the existence or non-existence 15 of a fact. 16 Evidence is either direct or 17 circumstantial. 18 Direct evidence is evidence that directly 19 proves a fact without the necessity of an inference. It 20 is evidence which, by itself, if found to be true, 21 establishes that fact. 22 Circumstantial evidence is evidence that, 23 if found to be true, proves a fact from which an 24 inference or the existence of another fact may be drown. 25 An inference is a deduction of fact that 2414 1 may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact 2 or group of facts established by the evidence. 3 It is not necessary that the facts be 4 proved by direct evidence. They may be proved also by 5 circumstantial evidence or a combination of direct 6 evidence and circumstantial evidence. Both direct 7 evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a 8 means of proof. Neither is entitled to any greater 9 weight than the other. 10 Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence -- 11 generally. 12 However, a finding to indict the accused 13 as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial 14 evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, 15 one, consistent with the theory that the accused 16 committed the crime, but two, cannot be reconciled with 17 any other rational conclusion. 18 Further, each fact which is essential to 19 complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish 20 the accused committed the crimes alleged must be proved 21 with probable cause. In other words, before an inference 22 essential to establish the accused committed the crimes 23 may be found to have been proved with probable cause, 24 each fact or circumstance upon which such inference 25 necessarily rests must be proved with probable cause. 2415 1 Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to 2 any particular charge is susceptible of two reasonable 3 interpretations, one of which points to indicting the 4 accused and the other to his innocence, you must adopt 5 the interpretation which points to the accused's 6 innocence and reject the interpretation which points to 7 his guilt. 8 If, on the other hand, one interpretation 9 of such evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the 10 other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept 11 the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable. 12 Discrepancies in testimony. 13 Discrepancies in a witness's testimony or 14 between his or her testimony and that of others, if there 15 were any, do not necessarily mean that the witness should 16 be discredited. Failure of recollection is a common 17 experience and innocent misrecollection is not uncommon. 18 It is a fact also that two persons witnessing an incident 19 or a transaction often will see or hear it differently. 20 Whether a discrepancy pertains to a fact of importance or 21 only to a trivial detail should be considered in weighing 22 its significance. 23 Ignorance or mistake of law. 24 When the evidence shows that a person 25 voluntarily did that which the law declares to be a 2416 1 crime, it is no defense that he did not know that the act 2 was unlawful or that he believed it to be lawful. 3 CALJIC 2.60. Defendant not testifying -- 4 no inference of guilt may be drawn. 5 2.60. A defendant in a criminal trial has 6 a constitutional right not to be compelled to testify. 7 You must not draw any inference from the fact that a 8 defendant does not testify. Further, you must neither 9 discuss this matter nor permit it to enter into your 10 deliberations in any way. 11 Production of all available evidence not 12 required. 13 The District Attorney is required to call 14 as witnesses all persons who may have been present at any 15 events disclosed by the evidence or who may appear to 16 have some knowledge of these events. The District 17 Attorney is not required to produce all objects or 18 documents mentioned or suggested by the evidence. 19 Expert testimony. 20 A person is qualified to testify as an 21 expert if he or she has special knowledge, skill, 22 experience, training or education sufficient to qualify 23 him or her as an expert on the subject to which his or 24 her testimony relates. 25 A duly qualified expert may give an 2417 1 opinion on questions in controversy. To assist you in 2 deciding such questions, you may consider the opinion 3 with the reasons given for it, if any, by the expert who 4 gives the opinion. You may also consider the 5 qualifications and credibility of the expert. 6 You are not bound to accept an expert 7 opinion as conclusive, but should give it to -- but 8 should give to it the weight to which you find it to be 9 entitled. You may disregard any such opinion if you find 10 it to -- sorry. You may disregard any such opinion if 11 you find it to be entitled. You may disregard any such 12 opinion if you find it to be unreasonable. 13 Opinion testimony of lay witness. 14 In determining the weight to be given to 15 an opinion expressed by any witness who did not testify 16 as an expert witness, you should consider his or her 17 credibility, the extent of his or her opportunity to 18 perceive the matters upon which his/her opinion is based 19 and the reasons, if any, given for it. You are not 20 required to accept such opinion, but should give it the 21 weight, if any, to which you find it entitled. 22 Sufficiency of testimony of one witness. 23 This might not be applicable. 24 You should give the testimony of a single 25 witness whatever weight you think it deserves. However, 2418 1 testimony by one witness which you believe concerning any 2 fact is sufficient for proof of that fact. 3 You should carefully review all evidence upon which the 4 proof of such facts depends. 5 Credibility of witness. 6 Every person who testifies under oath or 7 affirmation is a witness. You are the sole judges of the 8 believability of a witness and the weight to be given the 9 testimony of each witness. 10 In determining the believability of a 11 witness, you may consider anything that has a tendency in 12 reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the 13 testimony of the witness, including but not limited to 14 any of the following: 15 The extent of the opportunity or the 16 ability of the witness to see or hear or otherwise become 17 aware of any matter about which the witness has 18 testified; 19 The ability of the witness to remember or 20 communicate any matter about which the witness has 21 testified; 22 The character and quality of the 23 testimony; 24 The demeanor and manner of the witness 25 while testifying; 2419 1 The existence or non-existence of a bias, 2 interest or other motive; 3 Evidence of the existence or non-existence 4 of any fact testified to by the witness; 5 The attitude of the witness toward this 6 action or toward the giving of testimony; 7 A statement previously made by the witness 8 that is consistent or inconsistent with the testimony of 9 the witness; 10 An admission by the witness of 11 untruthfulness; 12 The witness's prior conviction of a 13 felony. 14 Standard of proof for indictment. 15 An indictment should be found when all of 16 the evidence before you, taken together, if unexplained 17 or uncontradicted, would in your judgment, provide 18 sufficient cause to believe that a public offense was 19 committed and that the person accused is guilty of it. 20 For sufficient cause, there must be enough 21 evidence to support a strong suspicion or probability of, 22 one, the commission of the crime or crimes in question, 23 and two, the accused's guilt thereof. 24 How jurors should approach their task. 25 The attitude and conduct of jurors at all 2420 1 times are very important. It is rarely helpful for a 2 juror at the beginning of deliberations to express an 3 emphatic opinion on the case or to announce a 4 determination to stand for a certain decision. When one 5 does that at the outset, a sense of pride may be aroused 6 and one may hesitate to change a position, even if shown 7 it is wrong. Remember that you are not partisans or 8 advocates in this matter. You are impartial judges of 9 the facts. 10 Individual opinion required -- Duty to 11 deliberate. 12 The People and the defendant are entitled 13 to the individual opinion of each juror. Each of you 14 must consider the evidence for the purpose of arriving at 15 a decision if you can do so. Each of you must decide the 16 case for yourself, but should do so only after discussing 17 the evidence and instructions with other jurors. 18 Do not hesitate to change an opinion if 19 you are convinced it is wrong. However, do not decide 20 any question in a particular way because a majority of 21 the jurors or any of them favor such a decision. 22 Do not decide any issue in this case by 23 chance, such as the drawing of lots or by any other 24 chance determination. 25 Statements of District Attorney. 2421 1 Statements made by the District Attorney 2 during presentation to the Grand Jury are not evidence. 3 You are not to consider those statements 4 in your deliberations or decision. You must base your 5 final decision in this case solely on the evidence 6 presented to you at the hearing through witnesses and/or 7 exhibits. If. 8 Anything the District Attorney says is 9 inconsistent with these instructions, you are to follow 10 the instructions, not the District Attorney's statements, 11 in making -- that should say -- your decision. 12 The Jury must not consider penalty. 13 In your deliberations, do not discuss or 14 consider the subject of penalty or punishment. The 15 subject must not in any way affect your decision. 16 Jurors use of notes. 17 A word of caution. You may have taken 18 notes. However, notes are only an aid to memory and 19 should not take precedence over independent 20 recollection. A juror who did not take notes should rely 21 on his or her independent recollection of the evidence 22 and not be influenced by the fact that other jurors did 23 take notes. Nose are for the note-taker's own personal 24 use in refreshing his or her recollection of the 25 evidence. 2422 1 Finally, should any discrepancy exist 2 between a juror's recollection of the evidence and his or 3 her notes, he or she may request that the reporter read 4 back the relevant proceedings and the Grand Jury 5 transcript must prevail over the notes. 6 Concurrence of act and general criminal 7 intent. 8 Generally, in the crimes charged, there 9 must exist a union or joint operation of act or conduct 10 and general criminal intent. To constitute general 11 criminal intent, it is not necessary that there should 12 exist an intent to violate the law. When a person 13 intentionally does that which the law declares to be a 14 crime, he or she is acting with general criminal intent, 15 even though he or she may the not know that his or her 16 act or conduct is unlawful. 17 Consciousness of guilt -- Falsehood. 18 If you find that before this Grand Jury 19 presentation, the accused made a willfully false or 20 deliberately misleading statement concerning the crimes 21 which are involved in this Grand Jury presentation, you 22 may consider such a statement as circumstance tending to 23 prove a consciousness of guilt. However, such conduct is 24 not sufficient by itself to prove guilt and its weight 25 and significance, if any, are matters for your 2423 1 determination. 2 Negligence and ordinary care -- 3 Definitions. 4 Negligence is the doing of something which 5 a reasonably prudent person -- it says a reasonable 6 prudent person would not do or the failure to do 7 something which a reasonable prudent person would do 8 under circumstances similar to those shown by the 9 evidence. 10 It is the failure to use ordinary or 11 reasonable care. Ordinary or reasonable care is that 12 care which persons of ordinary prudence would use in 13 order to avoid injury to themselves or others under 14 circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. 15 You will note that the person whose 16 conduct we set up as a standard is not the 17 extraordinarily cautious individual nor the exceptionally 18 skillful one, but a person of reasonable and ordinary 19 prudence. 20 "Willfully" defined. 21 The word "willfully" when applied to the 22 intent with which an act is done or omitted means with a 23 purpose or willingness to commit the act or to make the 24 omission in question. The word "willfully" does not 25 require any intent to violate the law or to injure 2424 1 another or to acquire any advantage. 2 CALJIC 2.70. Confession and admission -- 3 Defined. 4 2.70. A confession is a statement made by 5 a defendant in which he has acknowledged his guilt of the 6 crimes for which he is on trial. In order to constitute 7 a confession, the statement must acknowledge 8 participation in the crimes, as well as the required 9 criminal intent. 10 An admission is a statement made by a 11 defendant which does not, by itself, acknowledge his 12 guilt of the crimes for which the defendant is on trial, 13 but which statement tends to prove his guilt when 14 considered with the rest of the evidence. 15 You are the exclusive judges as to whether 16 a defendant made a confession or an admission and, if so, 17 whether that statement is true in whole or in part. 18 Evidence of an oral confession or an oral 19 admission of the defendant not made in court should be 20 viewed with caution. 21 Admission -- Defined. CALJIC 2.71. 22 An admission is a statement made by a 23 defendant which does not, by itself, acknowledge his 24 guilt of the crimes for which the defendant is on trial, 25 but which statement tends to prove his guilt when 2425 1 considered with the rest of the evidence. 2 You are the exclusive judges as to whether 3 the defendant made an admission and, if so, whether that 4 statement is true in whole or in part. 5 Evidence of an oral admission of a 6 defendant not made in court should be viewed with caution. 7 CALJIC 2.71.5. Adoptive admission -- 8 silence, false or evasive reply to accusation. 9 If you should find from the evidence that 10 there was an occasion when the defendants under 11 conditions which reasonably afforded them an opportunity 12 to reply, failed to make a denial or made false, evasive 13 or contradictory statements in the face of an accusation 14 expressed directly to him/her/them, or in his/her/their 15 presence, charging them with a crime for which such 16 defendants now are on trial or tending to connect 17 defendants with their commission and that defendants 18 heard the accusation and understood its nature, then the 19 circumstance of defendants' silence and conduct on that 20 occasion may be considered against defendants as 21 indicating an admission that the accusation thus made was 22 true. Evidence of such accusatory statement is not 23 received for the purpose of proving its truth, but only 24 as it supplies meaning to the silence and conduct of the 25 accused in the face of it. Unless you find that the 2426 1 defendants' silence and conduct at the time indicated an 2 admission that the accusatory statement was true, you 3 must entirely disregard the statement. 4 And, for the record, I inserted 5 "defendants" and "them" as opposed to he or she through 6 the instruction. 7 Concurrence of act and specific intent. 8 In some of the crimes charged, however, 9 there must exist a union or joint operation of act or 10 conduct and a certain specific intent in the mind of the 11 perpetrator. Unless specific intent exists, the crime or 12 allegation to which it relates is not committed. 13 The specific intent required in those 14 crimes is included in the definition and elements of the 15 crime and is set forth elsewhere in these instructions. 16 The CALJIC instruction that's 6.23, that's 17 the old one. If you could throw away those two pages, 18 please. The new document that I gave you today has a 19 better instruction. 20 CALJIC 6.10. Conspiracy and overt act -- 21 Defined. 22 6.10. A conspiracy is an agreement 23 entered into between two or more persons with the 24 specific intent to agree to commit the crime -- that 25 should say "a crime" -- and with the further specific 2427 1 intent to commit that crime followed by an overt act 2 committed in this state by one or more of the parties for 3 which -- for the purposes of accomplishing the object of 4 the agreement. Conspiracy is a crime. 5 In order to find a defendant guilty of 6 conspiracy, in addition to proof of the unlawful 7 agreement and specific intent, there must be proof of the 8 commission of at least one of the acts alleged in this -- 9 in the indictment to be overt acts, and that the act 10 committed was a overt act. It is not necessary to the 11 guilt of any particular defendant that the defendant 12 personally committed the overt act. 13 The term "overt act" means any step taken 14 or act committed by one or more of the conspirators which 15 goes beyond mere planning or agreement to commit a crime 16 and which step or act is done in furtherance of the 17 accomplishment of the object of the conspiracy. 18 To be an "overt act", the step taken or 19 act committed need not, in and of itself, constitute the 20 crime or even an attempt to commit the crime which is the 21 ultimate object of the conspiracy. Nor is it required 22 that the step or act, in and of itself, be criminal or an 23 unlawful act. 24 CALJIC 6.11. Conspiracy -- Joint 25 responsibility. 2428 1 Each member of a criminal conspiracy is 2 liable for each act and bound by each declaration of 3 every other member of the conspiracy if that act or 4 declaration is in furtherance of the object of the 5 conspiracy. 6 The act of one conspirator pursuant to or 7 in furtherance of the common design of the conspiracy is 8 the act of all conspirators. 9 A member of a conspiracy is not only 10 guilty of the particular crime that, to his knowledge, 11 his confederates agreed to and did commit, but is also 12 liable for the natural and probable consequences of any 13 act of a co-conspirator to further the object of the 14 conspiracy, even though that act was not intended as part 15 of the agreed-upon objective and even though he was not 16 present at the time of the commission of the act. 17 You must determine whether the defendant 18 is guilty as a member of a conspiracy to commit the 19 originally agreed-upon crime or crimes, and, if so, 20 whether the crime alleged in the indictment were 21 perpetrated by a co-conspirator in furtherance of that 22 conspiracy and was a natural and probable consequence of 23 the agreed-upon criminal objective of that conspiracy. 24 CALJIC 6.12. Conspiracy -- Proof of 25 express agreement not necessary. 2429 1 The formation and existence of a 2 conspiracy may be inferred in all circumstances tending 3 to show the common intent and may be proved in the same 4 way as any other fact may be proved, either by direct 5 testimony of the fact or by circumstantial evidence 6 Or by both direct and circumstancial evidence. It is not 7 necessary to show a meeting of the alleged conspirators 8 or the making of a express or formal agreement. 9 CALJIC 6.13. Association alone does not 10 prove membership in the conspiracy. 11 Evidence that a person was in the company 12 of or associated with one or more other persons alleged 13 or proved to have been members of a conspiracy is not, in 14 itself, sufficient to prove that the person was a member 15 of the alleged conspiracy. 16 CALJIC 6.16. When conspirators not liable 17 for act or declaration of co-conspirator. 18 6.16. Where a conspirator commits an act 19 or makes declaration -- a declaration which is neither in 20 furtherance of the object of the conspiracy nor the 21 natural and probable consequence of an attempt to attain 22 that object, he alone is responsible for and is bound by 23 the act or declaration and no criminal responsibility 24 therefore attaches to any of his confederates 25 CALJIC 6.17. Conspirators not bound by 2430 1 act or declaration of non-conspirator. 2 The act or declaration of a person who is 3 not a member of a conspiracy is not binding upon the 4 members of the conspiracy, even if the act or declaration 5 tended to promote the object of the conspiracy. 6 CALJIC 6.18. Commission of act in 7 furtherance of a conspiracy does not itself prove 8 membership in conspiracy. 9 6.18. Evidence of the commission of an 10 act which furthered the purpose of an alleged conspiracy 11 is not, in itself, sufficient to prove that the person 12 committing the act was a member of the alleged 13 conspiracy. 14 CALJIC 6.22. Conspiracy -- Case must be 15 considered as to each defendant. 16 6.22. Each defendant in this case is 17 individually entitled to and must receive your 18 determination whether he was a member of the alleged 19 conspiracy. As to each defendant, you must determine 20 whether he was a conspirator by deciding whether he was 21 willfully, intentionally and knowingly joined with any 22 other or others in the alleged conspiracy. 23 People's Requested Instruction No. -- I 24 will put 1. Exhibits not in courtroom. Penal Code 25 Section 1417.3(b). 2431 1 Exhibits toxic by their natural -- 2 GRAND JUROR: Nature. 3 MR. IREY: That's right. It should be 4 nature. 5 Exhibits toxic by their nature that pose a 6 health hazard to human beings may not be presented in 7 open court. Accordingly, you will be presented as 8 evidence photographs and chemical analysis of such 9 evidence instead. You are not to infer anything one way 10 or the other by virtue of the fact that such physical 11 evidence is not presented physically before you in this 12 court. 13 People's Requested Instruction No. 2. 14 Waste -- Defined. California Health and Safety Code 15 25124, 26 California Code of Regulations, 66260.10 and 16 66261.2. Page 1 of 2. 17 "Waste" means: 18 Any solid, liquid, semisolid or contained 19 gaseous discarded material that is not excluded by this 20 chapter or by regulations promulgated -- regulations 21 adopted pursuant to this chapter. 22 B. Discarded material is any material 23 which is any of the following. 24 1. Relinquished, as specified in 25 Subdivision C. 2432 1 2. Recycled as specified in Subdivision 2 D. 3 3. Considered inherently wastelike, as 4 specified in regulations adopted by the Department. 5 C. A material is a waste if it is 6 relinquished by being any of the following. 7 1. Disposed of. 8 2. Burned or incinerated. 9 3. Accumulated, stored or treated, but 10 not recycled, before or in lieu of being relinquished by 11 being disposed of, burned or incinerated. 12 D. A material is waste if it is recycled 13 or accumulated, stored or treated before recycling, 14 except as provided in Section 25143.2. 15 E. A material is a waste if it poses a 16 threat to public health or the environment and meets 17 either or both of the following conditions: 18 Page 2 of 2. 19 It is mislabeled or not adequately 20 labeled, unless the material is correctly labeled or 21 adequately labeled within ten days after the material is 22 discovered to be mislabeled or inadequately labeled. 23 2. It is packaged in deteriorated or 24 damaged containers, unless the material is contained in 25 sound or undamaged containers within 96 hours after the 2433 1 containers are discovered to be deteriorated or damaged. 2 People's Requested Instruction 3. 3 Hazardous waste -- Defined. California Health and Safety 4 Code Section 25117. 5 A. Hazardous waste means a waste that 6 meets any of the criteria for identification of a 7 hazardous waste adopted by the Department pursuant to 8 Section 25141. 9 B. "Hazardous waste" includes, but is not 10 limited to RCRA hazardous waste. 11 C. Unless expressly provided otherwise, 12 the term "hazardous waste" shall be understood to also 13 include extremely hazardous waste and acutely hazardous 14 waste. 15 D. Notwithstanding Subdivision A, in any 16 criminal or civil prosecution brought by a City or 17 District Attorney or the Attorney General for violation 18 of this chapter, when it is an element of proof that the 19 person know or reasonably should have known of the 20 violation or violated the chapter willfully or with 21 reckless disregard for the risk or acted intentionally or 22 negligently, the element or proof that the waste is 23 hazardous waste may be satisfied by demonstrating that 24 the waste exhibited characteristics set forth in 25 Subdivision B of Section 25141. 2434 1 People's Requested instruction No. 4. 2 Hazardous waste -- Criteria. California Health and 3 Safety Code 25141. 4 A. The Department shall develop and adopt 5 by regulations criteria and guidelines for the 6 identification of hazardous wastes and extremely 7 hazardous wastes. 8 B. The criteria and guidelines adopted by 9 the Department pursuant to the subdivision (a) shall 10 identify wastes or combinations of wastes that may do 11 either of the following as hazardous waste because of its 12 quantity, concentration or physical, chemical or 13 infectious characteristics; 14 1. Cause, or significantly contribute to 15 an increase in mortality or increase in serious 16 irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness. 17 2. Pose a substantial present or 18 potential hazard to human health or the environment due 19 to factors including, but not limited to, 20 carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, 21 bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the 22 environment, when improperly treated, stored, transported 23 or disposed of or otherwise managed. 24 People's Requested Instruction No. 5. 25 Classification of hazardous waste. California Health and 2435 1 Safety Code Section 25141. Title 22, California Code of 2 Regulations, Section 66260.200(a). 3 A waste shall be classified as hazardous 4 waste if it meets the definition of hazardous waste in 5 Section 66261.3. 6 People's Requested Instruction 6. 7 Hazardous Waste -- Definition. California Health and 8 Safety Code Section 25141. Title 22, California Code of 9 Regulations, Section 66261.3(a)(1)(A). 10 A waste, as defined in Section 66261.2, is 11 a hazardous waste if it exhibits any of the 12 characteristics of hazardous waste identified in Article 13 3 of this chapter. 14 People's Requested Instruction No. 7. 15 Hazardous Waste -- Definition. California Health and 16 Safety Code 25141. Title 22, California Code of 17 Regulations, Section 662 61.3(a)(1)(C). 18 A waste, as defined by -- a waste, as 19 defined in Section 66261.2, is a hazardous waste if it is 20 listed in or contains a constituent listed in Appendix A 21 to this chapter. 22 People's Requested Instruction No. 8. 23 Hazardous Waste -- characteristics. Title 22, 24 California Code of Regulations Section 66261.20(a). 25 A waste, as defined in Section 66261.2, 2436 1 which is not excluded from regulation as a hazardous 2 waste pursuant to 66261.4(b), is a hazardous waste if it 3 exhibits any of the characteristics identified in this 4 article. These characteristics include ignitability, 5 corrosivity, reactivity and toxicity. 6 People's Requested Instruction No. 9. 7 Ignitability. Title 22, California Code of Regulations 8 Section 66261.21. 9 A waste exhibits the characteristics of 10 ignitability if representative samples of the waste have 11 any of the following properties: 12 1. It is a liquid, other than an aqueous 13 solution, containing less than 24 percent alcohol by 14 volume and has a flash point of less than 140 degrees -- 15 60 degrees Celsius, 140 degrees Fahrenheit. 16 2. It is not a liquid and is capable, 17 under standard temperature and pressure, of causing fire 18 through friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous 19 chemical changes and, when ignited, burns so vigorously 20 and persistently that it creates a hazard. 21 3. It is ignitable compressed gas as 22 defined in 49 CFR Section 173.300 and as determined by 23 the test methods approved by the Department pursuant to 24 Section 66260.21. 25 4. It is an oxidizer as defined in 49 CFR 2437 1 Section 173.151. 2 People's Requested Instruction No. 10. 3 Toxicity characteristics. Title 22, California Code of 4 Regulations Section 66261.24. Page 1 of 2. 5 A waste exhibits the characteristics of 6 toxicity if representative samples of the waste have any 7 of the following properties. 8 1. When the extracts from the 9 representative samples of the waste contain any of the 10 contaminants listed in Table 1 of this section at a 11 concentration equal or greater than the respective value 12 given in that table unless the waste is excluded from 13 classification as a solid waste of hazardous waste or is 14 exempted from regulation pursuant to 40 CFR Section 15 261.4. Where the waste contains less than .5 percent 16 filterable solids, the waste itself, after filtering, is 17 considered to be the extract for the purpose of this 18 section. 19 2. It contains a substance listed in 20 Subsections (a)(2)(A) (a)(2)(B) of this section at a 21 concentration in milligrams per liter of waste extract 22 which equals or exceeds its listed soluble threshold 23 limit concentration or at a concentration in milligrams 24 per kilogram in the waste which equals or exceeds its 25 listed total threshold limit concentration. 2438 1 3. It has acute oral LD50 less than 5,000 2 milligrams per kilogram. 3 4. It has acute dermal LD50 less than 4 4,300 milligrams per kilogram. 5 5. It has acute inhalation LC50 less than 6 10,000 parts per million as a gas or vapor. 7 6. It has an acute aquatic 96-hour LD50 8 less than 500 milligrams per liter when measured in soft 9 water with fathead minnows or golden shiners. 10 People's Requested Instruction No. 11. 11 Toxicity. Title 22, California Code of Regulations 12 66261.24. Page 2 of 2. 13 It contains any of the substances listed 14 in (a)(7)(A)-(P) at a single or combined concentration 15 equal to or exceeding .001 percent by weight. 16 GRAND JUROR: Did you say 11? 17 MR. IREY: I did say 11. It really was a 18 continuation of No. 10. Thank you, Ms. Grand Juror. 19 It has been shown through experience to 20 pose hazard to human health or -- hard to believe I have 21 a degree in toxicology, huh? -- carcinogenicity, acute 22 toxicity, bioaccumulative properties or persistence in 23 the environment. 24 People's Requested Instruction No. 11. 25 Concentration Limit -- Definition. Title 22, California 2439 1 Code of Regulations, Section 66260.10. 2 "Concentration limit" means the value for 3 constituents specified in the water quality protection 4 standard or environmental protection standard including, 5 but not limited to, values for concentration, temperature 6 pH, conductivity, resistivity. 7 GRAND JUROR: Resistivity. 8 MR. IREY: Thank you. I cannot speak anymore. 9 People's Requested Instruction No. 12. 10 Ignitability. Title 22, California Code of Regulations 11 Section 66260.10. 12 "Ignitable" means capable of being set 13 afire or bursting into flames spontaneously or by 14 interaction with another substance or material. 15 People's Requested instruction No. 13. 16 Disposal -- Definition. California Health and Safety 17 Code 25113. Title 22, California Code of Regulations 18 Section 66260.10. 19 "Disposal" means: 20 A. The discharge, deposit, ejection, 21 dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any waste or 22 hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such 23 waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may 24 enter the environment or be emitted into the air or 25 discharged into any waters, including ground waters; 2440 1 B. The abandonment of any waste. 2 People's Requested Instruction 14. 3 Abandonment -- Defined. Black's Law Dictionary. 4 An abandonment occurs where there exists 5 both the intention to abandon and the act by which the 6 intention is carried into effect. 7 Time is not an essential element of 8 abandonment, although the length of time may be evidence 9 of an intent to abandon, and where it is accompanied by 10 acts manifesting such an intention, it may be considered 11 in determining whether there has been abandonment. 12 If you find that abandonment occurs, 13 subsequent attempt or acts to regain possession and 14 control cannot undo the abandonment. 15 People's Requested Instruction No. 15. 16 Storage. California Health and Safety Code 25123. Title 17 22, California Code of Regulations 66260.10. 18 "Storage" means the holding of hazardous 19 wastes for a temporary period, at the end of which the 20 hazardous waste is treated, disposed of or stored 21 elsewhere. 22 People's Requested Instruction 16. 23 Transportation -- Definition. Title 22, California Code 24 of Regulations Section 66260.10. 25 Transportation means the movement of 2441 1 hazardous waste by air, rail, highway or water. 2 People's Requested Jury Instruction No. 3 17. Disposal Facility -- Definition. Disposal Site -- 4 Definition. 5 California Health and Safety Code 25124. 6 26 California Code of Regulations, 66260.10 and 66261.2. 7 "Disposal facility" means a facility or 8 part of a facility at which hazardous waste is 9 intentionally placed into or on any land or water and at 10 which wastes will remain after closure. 11 "Disposal site" means the location where 12 any final deposition of hazardous waste occurs. 13 People's Requested Instruction No. 18. 14 Permitted Facility -- Defined. California Health and 15 Safety Code Section -- I should say Sections 25200 and 16 25201. 26 California Code of Regulations Sections -- and 17 that should say Section -- 66260.10. 18 A "permitted facility" means a facility 19 that has received a hazardous waste facility permit from 20 the California Department of Health Services and is 21 authorized by the Department to accept, treat, store 22 and -- it should say -- dispose of hazardous waste. 23 It is unlawful to dispose of hazardous 24 waste at a facility or location which does not have a 25 permit issued by the Department of -- it should say -- by 2442 1 the Department of Health Services at a location which is 2 not authorized by the Department of Health Services to 3 dispose of hazardous wastes. 4 Okay. We are getting close. 5 CALJIC 7.15, 1998 New. Intimidation of 6 witnesses in furtherance of conspiracy. Penal Code 7 136.1(c)(2). 8 Defendant is accused -- Defendant Robert 9 Roland Womack is accused in Counts 8 and 9 of having 10 violated Section 136.1(c)(2) of the Penal Code, a crime. 11 Every person who knowingly and maliciously 12 prevents or dissuades or attempts to prevent or dissuade 13 any witness or victim from 14 A. Attending or giving testimony at any 15 trial, proceeding or inquiry authorized by law, 16 C. Causing a complaint, indictment, 17 information, probation or parole violation to be sought 18 and prosecuted, and from assisting in the prosecution 19 thereof 20 In furtherance of a conspiracy is guilty 21 of a violation of Penal Code Section 136.1(c)(2), a 22 crime. 23 It is immaterial whether an attempt to 24 prevent or dissuade was successful. The fact, if it be 25 the fact that, no person was injured physically or 2443 1 intimidated, is not a defense. In order to prove this 2 crime, each of the following elements must be proved. 3 As to Count 8 only, William A. Wolin was a 4 witness. That's 1. 5 2. Defendant, with specific intent to do 6 so, dissuaded or attempted to dissuade William A. Wolin 7 from causing a complaint to be sought and prosecuted and 8 from assisting in the prosecution thereof. 9 3. The defendant acted knowingly and 10 maliciously. 11 4. The act of preventing, dissuading or 12 attempt thereto was in furtherance of a conspiracy. 13 It is immaterial whether an attempt to 14 prevent or dissuade was successful. The fact, if it be a 15 fact, that no person was injured physically or 16 intimidated is not a defense. In order to prove this 17 crime, each of the following elements must be proved. 18 As to Count 9 only, William E. Wolin was a 19 witness. 20 Defendant, with the specific intent to do 21 so, dissuaded or attempted to dissuade William E. Wolin 22 from causing a complaint to be sought and prosecuted and 23 from assisting in the prosecution thereof. 24 3. That defendant acted knowingly and 25 maliciously. 2444 1 4. The act of preventing, dissuading or 2 attempting thereto was in furtherance of a conspiracy. 3 Before we move on, defendant Mark Sherrill 4 is accused in Counts 12 and 13 of having violated Section 5 136.1(c)(2) of the Penal Code, a crime. 6 Every person who knowingly and maliciously 7 prevents or dissuades or attempts to prevent or dissuade 8 any witness or victim from 9 A. Attending or giving testimony at any 10 trial, proceeding or inquiry an authorized by law; 11 C. Causing a complaint, indictment, 12 information, probation or parole violation to be sought 13 and prosecuted and from assisting in the prosecution 14 thereof; 15 In the furtherance of a conspiracy is 16 guilty of a violation of Penal Code Section 136(c)(2), a 17 crime. It is immaterial whether an attempt to prevent or 18 dissuade was successful. The fact, if it be the fact, 19 that no person was injured physically or intimidated is 20 not a defense. In order to prove this crime, each of the 21 following elements must be proved: 22 1. As to Count 12, Nick Hernandez was a 23 witness. 24 Defendant with specific intent to do so 25 dissuaded or attempted to dissuade Nick Hernandez from 2445 1 causing a complaint to be sought and prosecuted and from 2 assisting in the prosecution thereof. 3 3. The defendant acted knowingly and 4 maliciously. 5 4. The act of preventing, dissuading or 6 the attempt thereto was in furtherance of a conspiracy. 7 It is immaterial whether the attempt to 8 prevent or dissuade was successful. The fact, if it be 9 the fact, that no person was injured physically or 10 intimidated is not a defense. In order to prove this 11 crime, each of the following elements must be proved: 12 1. As to Count 13 only, Nick Hernandez 13 was a witness. 14 2. Defendant, with specific intent to do 15 so, dissuaded or attempted to dissuade Nick Hernandez 16 from causing a complaint to be sought, prosecuted and 17 from assisting in the prosecution thereof. 18 3. The defendant acted knowingly and 19 maliciously. 20 4. The act of preventing, dissuading or 21 the attempt thereto was in furtherance of conspiracy. 22 CALJIC 7.17. Intimidation of Witness -- 23 Definitions. Penal Code 136. 24 As used -- 25 GRAND JUROR: 7.16 or 7.17? 2446 1 MR. IREY: Did I say 7.17? Just checking to see 2 if everybody is awake. 3 CALJIC 7.16. Intimidation of Witness -- 4 Definitions. Penal Code 136. 5 As used in these instructions. 6 1. "Malice" means an intent to vex, annoy 7 harm, or injure in any way another person or to thwart or 8 interfere in any manner with the orderly administration 9 of justice. 10 2. "Witness" means any natural person, 11 one having knowledge of the existence or non-existence of 12 facts relating to any crime; or two, whose declaration 13 under oath is received or has been received as evidence 14 for any purpose; or three, who has reported any crime to 15 any peace officer, prosecutor, probation or parole 16 officer, correctional officer or judicial officer; or 17 four, who has been served with a subpoena issued under 18 the authority in the State or of any other state or of 19 the United States; or five, who would be believed to -- 20 by any reasonable person to be an individual described in 21 subparagraphs 1 through 4 inclusive. 22 "Victim" means any natural person with 23 respect to whom there is reason to believe that any crime 24 as defined under the laws of this State or any other 25 state or of the United States is being or has been 2447 1 perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated. 2 Now we are back to the new package. 3 CALJIC 6.23. Conspiracies and substantive 4 crimes charged and overt acts alleged. 5 6.23. In this case, the defendants are 6 charged with conspiracy to commit the following public 7 crimes. 8 1. Health and Safety Code 25189.5(b), 9 Hazardous Waste Disposal. 10 2. Health and Safety Code 25189.5(c), 11 Hazardous Waste Transportation. 12 3. Health and Safety Code 25189.5(d), 13 Hazardous Waste Treatment or Storage. 14 4. Fish and Game Code Section 5650(a)(1), 15 water pollution. 16 It is alleged that the following acts were 17 committed in this State by one or more of the defendants 18 and/or witnesses and were overt acts and committed for 19 the purpose of furthering the object of the conspiracy. 20 Overt Act No. 1. 21 On or about April 30th, 1998 and 22 continuing until May 8th, 1998, Robert Roland Womack and 23 David Sterling Mason -- whoops! -- Robert Roland Womack, 24 David Sterling Mason III, Mark Taylor Sherrill and 25 unnamed co-conspirators did participate in and/or allowed 2448 1 via tacit approval the demolition of a gasoline station 2 at 505 Sutter Street, Jackson, California. 3 Overt Act No. 2. 4 On or about April 30th, 1998 and 5 continuing until approximately May 8th, 1998, Robert 6 Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III, Mark Taylor 7 Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators failed to follow the 8 explicit instructions of the City of Jackson Building 9 Department personnel regarding their need to contact 10 County of Amador Environmental Health Department 11 regarding the underground storage tanks located at 505 12 Sutter Street, Jackson, California, prior to removal. 13 Overt Act No. 3. 14 On or about May 2nd, 1998 and continuing 15 until approximately May 3rd, 1998, Robert Roland Womack, 16 David Sterling Mason III, Mark Taylor Sherrill and 17 unnamed co-conspirators transported, stored and disposed 18 of unknown quantities of hazardous waste, including but 19 not limited to: two 1,000 gallon gasoline underground 20 storage tanks, unknown contents of the tanks, associated 21 underground storage tank piping and soil contaminated 22 with gasoline and its toxic constituents from 505 Sutter 23 Street Jackson California to unknown locations. 24 Overt Act No. 4. 25 On or about May 4th, 1998 and continuing 2449 1 until approximately November 11, 1998, Robert Roland 2 Womack, Mark Taylor Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators 3 provided false information to the Board of Supervisors 4 and Amador County -- of Amador County and to Amador 5 County District Attorney Investigator Ron Hall, related 6 to the unlawful removal of a set of underground storage 7 tanks from 505 Sutter Street, Jackson, California, and 8 associated piping/soil after Robert Roland Womack, Mark 9 Taylor Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators attempted to 10 dissuade witnesses from attending or giving testimony at 11 any trial, proceeding or inquiry authorized by law. 12 Overt Act No. 5. 13 On or about September 2nd, 1998, Robert 14 Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III, Mark Taylor 15 Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators jointly told 16 inaccurate, misleading and false information to the 17 Amador County District Attorney's Office in the presence 18 of District Attorney Investigators Ron Hall and Lance 19 Hayden related to the unlawful removal of a set of 20 underground storage tanks from 505 Sutter Street, 21 Jackson, California. 22 Overt Act No. 6. 23 On or about late June 1998 and continuing 24 until a search warrant as executed on October 30th, 1998, 25 Robert Roland Womack, David Sterling Mason III, Mark 2450 1 Taylor Sherrill and unnamed co-conspirators provided a 2 altered videotape as evidence in this matter related to 3 the unlawful removal of a set of underground storage 4 tanks and associated piping from 505 Sutter Street -- 5 insert Jackson, California, please -- on May 2nd and May 6 3rd, 1998. 7 Overt Act No. 7. 8 On or about May 2nd, 1998, Robert Roland 9 Womack, David Sterling Mason III, Mark Taylor Sherrill 10 and unnamed co-conspirators pulled two 1,000 gallon 11 gasoline underground storage tanks without appropriate 12 permits and without appropriate oversight. 13 Overt Act No. 8. 14 On or about May 2nd, 1998, Robert Roland 15 Womack, David Sterling Mason III, Mark Taylor Sherrill 16 and unnamed co-conspirators pulled two 1,000 gallon 17 gasoline underground storage tanks without appropriate 18 permits. These activities were in violation of the Fire 19 Code and placed workers and the public and adjacent 20 property owners at risk of an explosion at 505 Sutter 21 Street, Jackson, California. 22 Overt Act No. 9. 23 On or about May 2nd, 1998, Robert Roland 24 Womack, David Sterling Mason III, Mark Taylor Sherrill 25 and unnamed co-conspirators pulled two 1,000 gallon 2451 1 gasoline underground storage tanks without appropriate 2 permits. These activities were in violation of the Water 3 Code and the Fish and Game Code and placed adjacent 4 waterways at risk of contamination with petroleum tainted 5 water at 505 Sutter Street, Jackson, California and at 6 other unknown locations within California. 7 Eavesdropping or recording confidential 8 communications. Penal Code Section 632(a). 9 Defendant is accused -- Defendant Robert 10 Roland Womack is accused of having violated Section 11 632(a) of the Penal Code. 12 Every person who intentionally and without 13 the consent of all parties to the confidential 14 communication eavesdrops on or records the confidential 15 communication by means of any electronic amplifying or 16 recording device is guilty of a violation of Penal Code 17 Section 632(a). 18 In order to prove this crime, each of the 19 following elements must be proved. 20 1. A person intentionally eavesdropped on 21 or recorded a confidential communication; 22 2. That the person used an electronic 23 amplifying or recording device; and 24 3. That person did not have the consent 25 of all parties to the confidential communication. 2452 1 Confidential communication includes any 2 communication carried on in circumstances as may 3 reasonably indicate that any party to the communication 4 desires to it be confined to the parties thereto. 5 However -- you are supposed to be slowing me down. 6 However, it excludes any communication mailed in a public 7 gathering or any other circumstance in which parties to 8 the communication may reasonably expect the communication 9 may be overheard or recorded. 10 You want to stop here? Need a break? 11 Nine pages. 12 GRAND JUROR: What page are you on? 13 MR. IREY: I think there is one long page and six 14 or seven short pages. 15 GRAND JUROR: Let's go for it. Finish up. 16 GRAND JUROR: No. We want a break. 17 THE FOREPERSON: Five minutes. 18 MR. IREY: Take five-minute break. 19 THE FOREPERSON: At this time, we will take a 20 five-minute recess. Remind you of the admonition I read 21 this morning. 22 And we are off the record. 23 (Recess taken from 3:25 to 3:35 p.m.) 24 THE FOREPERSON: Back on the record. Let's make 25 sure everybody is here. 2453 1 THE SECRETARY: Yes. 2 THE FOREPERSON: All present. 3 MR. IREY: CALJIC 7.21. Perjury under penalty of 4 perjury -- Defined. 5 7.21. Defendant is accused of having 6 committed the crime of perjury, a violation of Section 7 118 of the Penal Code. 8 Every person who certifies under penalty 9 of perjury where a certification under penalty of perjury 10 is permitted by law, willfully states as true any 11 material matter which he or she knows to be false, is 12 guilty of the crime of perjury, in violation of Penal 13 Code Section 118. 14 A false statement is material if it could 15 probably have been -- have influenced the outcome of the 16 application in which it was uttered. Whether it actually 17 had that effect is irrelevant. 18 It is alleged the defendant made the 19 following false statements: 20 False information on Department of Motor 21 Vehicle paperwork for five vehicles: a 1934 Ford, a 1957 22 Ford, a 1972 Chevy, a 1991 Yamaha, and a 1998 Lincoln 23 Navigator. 24 In order to prove these crimes, each of 25 the following elements must be proved: 2454 1 A person certified under penalty of 2 perjury and willfully stated as true a matter which was 3 false; 4 The certified under penalty of perjury was 5 made under circumstances permitted by law; 6 The person knew the statement was false 7 and was being made under penalty of perjury; 8 The false statement was material; 9 The person had the specific intent to 10 certify falsely under penalty of perjury. 11 CALJIC 7.23. Perjury -- Proof necessary. 12 7.23. The falsity of the defendant's 13 statement may be established by direct or circumstantial 14 evidence. However, the defendant may not be convicted of 15 perjury where the only proof of the falsity of the 16 statement is the testimony of one witness which 17 contradicts defendant's statement. 18 CALJIC 7.24. Perjury -- Willfulness and 19 knowledge required. 20 7.24. Perjury requires that the statement 21 be made willfully by a person who knows that the 22 statement is being made under penalty of perjury, and who 23 knows or believes that the statement is false. A 24 statement made under an actual mistake and in a belief 25 that it is true is not perjury, even though the statement 2455 1 is false. 2 The word "willfully" simply means a 3 purpose or willingness to commit the act or make the 4 omission referred to. 5 Security for payment of Compensation. 6 Labor Code 3700(a) and (b). 7 Every employer except the State shall 8 secure payment of compensation in one or more of the 9 following ways: 10 (a) By being insured against liability to 11 pay compensation in one or more insurers duly authorized 12 to write compensation insurance in the State. 13 (b) By securing from the Director of 14 Industrial Relations a certificate of consent to 15 self-insure, which may be given upon furnishing proof 16 satisfactory to the Director of Industrial Relations of 17 the ability to self-insure and to pay any compensation 18 that may become due his employees. 19 Failure to secure payment of Compensation. 20 Labor Code Section 3700.5. 21 Defendant is accused of having violated 22 Section 3700.5 of the Labor Code. 23 Every person who knew or because of his 24 knowledge or experience is reasonably expected to have 25 known of the obligation to secure payment of 2456 1 compensation, fails to secure payment of compensation as 2 required by Section 3700, is guilty of the crime of 3 failing to secure payment of compensation in violation of 4 Labor Code Section 3700.5. 5 In order to prove this crime, each of the 6 following elements must be proved: 7 1. A person failed to secure payment of 8 compensation as required by Labor Code Section 3700; and 9 2. That person knew or because of his 10 knowledge or experience is reasonably expected to have 11 known of the obligation to secure payment of 12 compensation. 13 Fraudulent use of license number. 14 Business and Professions Code 7027.3. 15 Defendant is accused of having violated 16 7027.3 of the Business and Professions Code. 17 Any person, licensed or unlicensed, who 18 willfully and intentionally uses, with the intent to 19 defraud, a contractor's license number which does not 20 correspond to the number on a currently valid 21 contractor's license held by that person is guilty of the 22 crime of fraudulent use of a license number, in violation 23 of Business and Professions Code Section 7027.3. 24 In order to prove this crime, each of the 25 following elements must be proved: 2457 1 1. Any licensed or unlicensed person; 2 2. Willfully, intentionally and with an 3 intent to defraud; 4 3. Used a contractor's license number; 5 and 6 4. Which number did not correspond to the 7 number on a currently valid contractor's license held by 8 such person. 9 Contractor Defined. Business and 10 Professions Code Section 7026. 11 The term "contractor" is synonymous with 12 the term "builder" and a contractor is any person who 13 undertakes to or offers to undertake to or purports to 14 have the capacity to undertake to or submits a bid to or 15 does himself or by or through others construct, alter 16 repair, add to subtract from, improve, move, wreck or 17 demolish any building, highway, road, parking facility, 18 railroad, excavation or other structure, project, 19 development or improvement, or to do any part thereof, 20 including the erection of scaffolding or other structures 21 or works in connection therewith, and whether or not the 22 performance of the work herein described involves the 23 addition to or fabrication into any structure, project, 24 development or improvement herein described of any 25 material or article of merchandise. The term contractor 2458 1 includes subcontractor and specialty contractor. 2 Persons exempt from license requirement. 3 Business and Professions Code 7040(a) and(b). 4 The license requirement does not apply to 5 an authorized representative of the United States 6 Government, State of California or any incorporated town, 7 city, county, irrigation district, reclamation district 8 or other municipal or political corporation or 9 subdivision of the State when the entity or 10 representative is acting within the scope of the entity's 11 or representative's official capacity. 12 The entity or its authorized 13 representative thereof is not authorized to either enter 14 into or authorize a contract with an unlicensed 15 contractor for work which is required to be performed by 16 a licensed contractor. 17 Contracting without a license. Business 18 and Professions Code 7028(a). 19 Defendant is accused of having committed 20 the crime of contracting without a license, a violation 21 of 7028 of the Business and Professions Code. 22 Every person who engages in the business 23 of or acts in the capacity of a contractor within this 24 state without having a license and who is not exempt from 25 the requirement of having a license is guilty of the 2459 1 crime of contracting without a license, in violation of 2 Business and Professions Code 7028. 3 In order to prove this crime, each of the 4 following elements must be proved: 5 1. A person engaged in the business of or 6 acted in the capacity of a contractor; 7 2. Within California; 8 3. Without having a license; and 9 4. Such person is not exempt from the 10 requirement of having a license. 11 People's Requested Jury Instruction No. -- 12 what? 13 GRAND JUROR: 12, I think. 18? 19? 14 MR. IREY: 19. Water Pollution. From California 15 Fish and Game Code Section 5650(a)(1). 16 It is unlawful to deposit in, permit to 17 pass into or place where it may pass into the waters of 18 this State any of the following: 19 1. Any petroleum, acid, coal or oil tar, 20 lampblack aniline asphalt, bitumen or residuary product 21 of petroleum or carbonaceous material or substance. 22 We need to know what time you going to 23 stop today and what time you are going to start tomorrow 24 so that we can be present in or near the building. 25 THE FOREPERSON: Okay. Do you want to -- can we 2460 1 go ahead and make our vote with you in the room now? 2 MR. IREY: Sure. 3 THE FOREPERSON: The normal 5:00 for today, for 4 this afternoon? Can I see a show of hands for everybody 5 for 5:00? And it looks unanimous -- unanimous. Okay. 6 Okay. So 5:00 p.m. 7 MR. IREY: I think I gave you -- I read a 632 8 instruction, right, on eavesdropping? Okay. 9 THE FOREPERSON: Okay. At this time, we will go 10 off the record. 11 GRAND JUROR: Tomorrow morning? 12 THE FOREPERSON: For tomorrow morning. I am 13 sorry. 14 GRAND JUROR: That's what the D.A. wants. 15 THE FOREPERSON: The same schedule we have been 16 on. 9:00 a.m. for tomorrow for everybody? Is that 17 fine? 9:00 a.m. Okay. 18 MR. IREY: I think I wanted to put something on 19 the record. 20 Normally, at the end of a trial or even a 21 preliminary hearing, a D.A. would make a statement. My 22 highlighted section here says, Strongly recommend 23 avoiding argument. I have made it a practice I don't go 24 over all the evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. 25 I could have gone and said A, B, C, D, E, F and G. 2461 1 I think everybody has been wonderful and 2 paying close attention. I wanted to avoid being an 3 advocate, because I am supposed to be the judge. And so, 4 sorry, I wasn't able to sit here and say all this stuff. 5 But that's pretty much just an extra cautious method that 6 I am going to use in this matter. Thanks. 7 (Whereupon, the Grand Jury recessed for deliberations at 3:45 p.m.) 8 9 ---oOo--- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2462 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 4 COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE ) 5 6 I, JAN L. BENEDETTI, CSR, hereby certify that I 7 was duly appointed and qualified to take the foregoing 8 matter; 9 That acting as such reporter, I took down in 10 stenotype notes the testimony given and proceedings 11 had; 12 That I thereafter transcribed said shorthand 13 notes into typewritten longhand, the above and 14 foregoing pages being a full, true and correct 15 transcription of the testimony given and proceedings 16 had. 17 18 19 20 21 22 _____________________________ 23 JAN BENEDETTI-WEISBERG 24 25