in the united states district court - the washington...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF )APPLICATION FOR SEARCH )WARRANT FOR: )

) Criminal Number: ___________ )) UNDER SEAL

Residence of Causton Toney )XXXX )Washington, D.C. )

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

I, Patrick A. Westerhaus, being duly sworn, state the following:

I. Background and Experiences of Affiant.

1. As set forth herein, the affiant respectfully submits that there is probable cause to

believe that, at the locations enumerated below, there exists evidence and instrumentalities of

violations of federal criminal law, including, but not limited to, the following statutes: (i) Title 18,

United States Code, Section 201 (Bribery of a Public Official); (ii) Title 18, United States Code,

Sections 1343, 1346 (Honest Services Wire Fraud); (iii) Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349

(Attempt and Conspiracy to Commit Honest Service Wire Fraud); and (iv) Title 18, United States

Code, Section 371 (Conspiracy).

2. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and have been

so employed since March 2004. I am assigned to the Public Corruption Squad of the Washington,

D.C., FBI field office. I investigate public corruption matters in the Washington metropolitan area.

My duties include investigation of various criminal allegations, including those involving bribery

and corruption of public officials, bank fraud, mail and wire fraud, government fraud, and other

violations. I have training and experience in the enforcement of the laws of the United States,

Case 1:09-mj-00544-AK Document 1-2 Filed 10/01/2009 of 30

2

including the preparation and presentation of search warrant affidavits and in conducting search

warrants.

3. I make this affidavit based upon personal knowledge derived from my participation

in this investigation, upon my experience as an FBI agent, and upon information I believe to be

reliable from sources including, among others, the following: (i) oral and written reports about this

and other investigations that I have either written or received from other law enforcement officers;

(ii) physical surveillance in which I have personally participated or that has been reported to me; (iii)

public records; (iv) records obtained by grand jury subpoenas; (v) review of pen register and trap and

trace information, telephone toll records, and subscriber information; (vi) interviews of witnesses;

(vii) consensual recordings, performed both in person and over the telephone; (viii) court-ordered

wire interceptions; (ix) review of materials obtained from the execution of search warrants on e-mail

accounts; and (x) news media reports.

4. This affidavit is submitted in support of search warrants; it does not set forth each and

every fact known to me or the other investigators about this investigation. Rather, this affidavit sets

forth only those facts necessary to establish the requisite foundation for the requested warrants.

II. Locations to be Searched.

5. The FBI is seeking authority to conduct search warrants in the District of Maryland,

the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Columbia, for the locations listed below. Today,

I am submitting identical versions of this affidavit in all three affected districts.

6. XXXX, Silver Spring, Maryland, the residence of Yitbarek Syume (“Syume”), is

described as follows: a split-level, single family house; a reddish brick lower level and gray siding

on the upper level; a black front door, with the numbers "X." According to a review of the Maryland


3

Department of Assessments and Taxation records conducted on May 28, 2009, the location is owned

by Genet Gurmu. During the course of the investigation it has been established that Ms. Gurmu is

Syume’s wife. In July 2007, a source met with Syume at this location; in November 2007, Syume

was seen at this location numerous times; and in May 2009 vehicles associated with Syume were

seen parked at this location. On June 3, 2009, at approximately 8:00 a.m., Syume was seen leaving

this location.

7. 1999 Gold Mercedes Benz sedan, VIN #X with Maryland license plate X. This

vehicle is registered to Syume at 813 Northwest Drive, Silver Spring, Maryland. Syume has been

seen driving this vehicle throughout the investigation. The FBI most recently observed Syume

driving the vehicle on September 23, 2009, in relation to a meeting at a McDonald’s restaurant in

Silver Spring, Maryland with other individuals described further in this affidavit.

8. XXXX, Hyattsville, Maryland, the residence of Amanuel Ghirmazion

(“Ghirmazion”), is described as follows: A multi-story single family residence with both red and

light-colored brick on the bottom half of the structure and white siding covering the structure above

the brick layer. A car port is located on the right side of the structure, and the front door is centered

in the structure. The front door is dark in color, and the numbers X are in black on a light

background to the right side of the door. This address is listed on taxicab company licenses

connected with Syume, as noted below. This address is listed on those applications as belonging to

Ghirmazion. At approximately 6:40am on September 29, 2009, a gold taxicab with license plate

H96501 was parked in the driveway to this house. This taxicab has been parked outside of buildings

upon several occasions when Ghirmazion attended meetings.

9. X, Arlington, Virginia, the residence of Berhane Leghese (“Leghese”), is described


On or about June 4, 2009, the Court issued a search warrant for this property in this1

investigation based on an affidavit submitted by Metropolitan Police Detective Joseph Sopata. Foroperational reasons, this warrant was never executed. The Court excluded computer and electronicevidence from the search authorization based on its concerns regarding probable cause to believe thatsuch evidence would be located on the property. This affidavit contains additional informationregarding the use of email and a laptop computer. See, paras. 11, 32 and 33 below.

4

as follows: a three-story, red brick apartment complex. Two levels are visible from the front, a third

garden level is visible from the back. The apartment building is located off a courtyard and does

not sit on a street. The building is a corner building between X and X. "X", in black, is affixed to

the brick exterior of the building on the right side of the main entrance. Apartment #1 is up five

stairs and is the first door on the left. Apartment #X is listed as such on the door knocker with a

peephole underneath the door knocker. The door has a deadbolt and a lock in the doorknob. This

address is listed on taxicab company licenses connected with Syume, as noted below. This address

is listed on those applications as belonging to Berhane Leghese. On September 29, 2009 and again

on September 30, 2009, a blue taxicab bearing D.C. license plate X with the cab company Barwood

displayed on the front passenger and driver's side doors was observed parked on George Mason

Drive. George Mason Drive is the nearest cross street to S. Taylor Street. This vehicle, on multiple

previous surveillance operations, has been observed as being operated by Leghese.

10. XXXX, Washington, D.C. , the residence of Causton Toney (“Toney”) is red brick1

two-story row house. The number “X" is posted on a white placard with black numbers on the front

door. According to a review of the District of Columbia Real Property Services records conducted

on May 8, 2009, Causton A. Toney (“Toney”) owns this location. Telephone number XXX-XXX-

XXXX, which, based on court-ordered interceptions, Mr. Causton Toney has been using since at

least November 2007, is subscribed to by Causton A. Toney, XXXX, Washington, D.C., 20001. On


5

May 14, 2009, at approximately 8:00 a.m., a blue Toyota Camry registered to Mr. Toney was seen

parked at this location; at approximately 9:00 a.m., Toney was seen inside this location; and at

approximately 10:15 a.m., Toney was seen exiting this location. On September 23, 2009, the blue

Toyota Camry was seen in a McDonald’s parking lot in Silver Spring, Maryland at the time of a

meeting attended by Toney and other individuals described further below. On September 29, 2009,

at approximately 10:00 a.m., the blue Toyota Camry was again seen parked in front of XXXX,

Washington, D.C. A records check conducted September 29, 2009 confirmed that this vehicle is

currently registered to Toney.

11. In my training and experience, I have learned that individuals who are involved in

long term schemes to provide bribes (as here) often maintain in their offices and residences

instrumentalities of the crime, and notes, receipts, records, and other papers, etc., related to these

activities. Moreover, given the nature of these documents, they are likely to be maintained and not

destroyed. Given the length of the criminal activity – over two years – and the nature of the

evidence – it is likely that individuals associated with the commission of these crimes maintain

evidence of the criminal activity in their offices and residences. Additionally, in this investigation,

Toney, Kamus and others have used email to make pertinent communications. It is likely that

evidence of the criminal activity would be located on computers and wireless email and mobile

telephone devices. I am aware that, given the nature of computer technology, files and other

information stored in electronic form may be accessed for years after creation, even, in many

instances, after individuals have attempted to delete such files or information.

III. Factual Summary

12. This summary is intended to give an overview of the investigation. The details of the


On June 4, 2009, Kamus agreed to cooperate in the hope of eventually receiving a2

lesser sentence; prior to that Kamus was a participant in the criminal activities. Although Kamushas not yet pleaded guilty, it is anticipated that Kamus will. Much of the information provided byKamus has been independently corroborated.

6

investigation, which support the accompanying applications for search warrants, are more fully set

forth below. On September 4, 2007, Leon J. Swain Jr., the newly appointed Chair of the District of

Columbia Taxicab Commission (“DCTC”), reported that an individual named Yitbarek Syume

(“Syume”) had offered him bribes in return for approving taxicab company licenses. It appears that

Syume, along with Abdul Kamus (“Kamus”) , Berhane Leghese (“Leghese”), Amanuel Ghirmazion2

(“Ghirmazion”), and others, have been involved in efforts to obtain illegal licensing for a large

number of taxicab companies in the District of Columbia. According to Kamus, Toney represents

Syume, Leghese and Ghirmazion in connection with DCTC issues.

13. To date, Syume, Leghese and Ghirmazion have paid at least $220,000 in bribes to Mr.

Swain. Syume has physically paid the bulk of the bribes. Prior to cooperating with the government,

Kamus physically paid one bribe and was directly involved with other bribe payments. Toney has

been involved in obtaining taxicab company licenses that are connected with the bribery scheme and

in making those licenses more valuable through efforts to limit the total number of licenses issued.

Moreover, Syume has stated that Toney has received one of the illegally obtained taxicab company

licenses.

IV. Background regarding the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission.

14. The DCTC regulates the operation of taxicabs in Washington, D.C. The DCTC,

among other things, establishes criteria, standards, and requirements for taxicab licensing, including

the licensing of owners, operators, companies, associations, and fleets. It also sets licensing fees.


Paragraphs 13-17 are based on information provided by Mr. Swain and corroborated by toll3

records.

7

The DCTC comprises seven commissioners and a chair.

15. On May 24, 2007, Mayor Fenty nominated Mr. Swain, a retired Metropolitan Police

Department officer, to be the chair of the DCTC. After hearings before the Council of the District

of Columbia, Mr. Swain was confirmed on July 7, 2007.

16. Historically, taxicab fares in Washington had been determined by a zone system, but,

pursuant to federal legislation, on October 17, 2007, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty adopted a meter system.

It was widely anticipated in the taxicab industry, based on the adoption of meter systems in other

cities, that the adoption of a meter system would lead to a more regulated taxicab industry, including

stringent limitations on the total number of taxicabs licensed to do business in the District of

Columbia. In fact, in July 2008, a moratorium on the issuance of multi-car taxicab company licenses

was enacted. Given this moratorium, the DCTC may not issue any new taxicab company licenses,

rendering taxicab company licenses a valuable commodity.

V. The Bribery Scheme.

17. Toney, Syume, Leghese, Ghirmazion, Kamus (prior to cooperating), and others have

been involved in attempting to illegally obtain and subsequently legitimize taxicab company licenses

from Mr. Swain. In approximately early July 2007, Mr. Swain first met Syume, when Syume and3

several others came to the DCTC offices to discuss taxicab issues. Mr. Swain next encountered

Syume several days later at the DCTC offices, when Syume was there to present applications for

taxicab company licenses. Those applications were subsequently denied in the normal course given

Syume’s inability to meet the licensing requirements for taxicab companies.


8

18. On approximately July 27, 2007, Mr. Swain met with a large group of taxicab drivers

and others associated with the industry. After the meeting, Mr. Swain received a call from Syume,

who invited Mr. Swain to another meeting that evening. Mr. Swain accepted the invitation, and he

went to 813 Northwest Drive, Silver Spring, Maryland, as directed by Syume. According to toll

records, there was contact between Syume’s telephone and Mr. Swain’s cellular telephone during

the evening of July 27, 2007. When he arrived at his destination, Mr. Swain discovered that the

meeting was being held at Syume’s house. (When he reported this incident to law enforcement, Mr.

Swain was initially confused as to the address, but Syume’s address was confirmed in the following

ways: (1) an FBI interview of Syume on March 4, 2005, in an unrelated investigation, and (2)

surveillance of Syume.)

19. In addition to Syume, Kamus and Toney were present at Syume’s house. Toney had

formerly been the chair of the DCTC. During the July 27, 2007, meeting at Syume’s house, Mr.

Swain, Syume, Toney, and Kamus discussed the taxicab industry in general. Syume, Toney, and

Kamus emphasized the benefits that they would reap from the adoption of a meter system for District

of Columbia taxicabs. (Such a system was eventually adopted in the District of Columbia.)

20. In approximately early August 2007, Syume again went to Mr. Swain’s office at the

DCTC. Syume gave Mr. Swain application materials for five taxicab companies, but he was vague

about his intentions. Accordingly, Mr. Swain simply put the applications aside, and he did not take

any action on them.

21. On September 2, 2007, Syume called Mr. Swain several times. Syume stated that he

had something very important to discuss. Eventually, Mr. Swain told Syume that he could meet him

at a local grocery store. When Syume arrived at the store, he offered Mr. Swain $20,000 for vague


http://www.grahamwone.com/contacts.html)

The times used in this affidavit were obtained from several sources, including times noted4

by agents and officers, times obtained from pen register and trap and trace devices, and times in tollrecords. These different sources of time are not perfectly calibrated, so there may be slightdiscrepancies among them.

9

reasons: he alluded to Mr. Swain using the money to generate community support for himself.

Syume said that he would contact Mr. Swain on September 5, 2007, to deliver the money.

22. On September 4, 2007, Mr. Swain reported Syume’s overture to the District of

Columbia’s Mayor’s office. The complaint was subsequently forwarded to the Metropolitan Police

Department. Mr. Swain agreed to assist law enforcement with the investigation of the attempted

bribery, and he has continued to assist law enforcement through the present.

23. From September 2007 through May 2009, under the auspices of law enforcement,

Mr. Swain met with Syume, Kamus, and Toney numerous times. Over the course of approximately

nineteen occasions, Mr. Swain was paid at least $220,000 in cash. Syume and Kamus indicated

several times that these payments were being made in exchange for Mr. Swain providing taxicab

company licenses. Syume stated that one of the taxicab licenses was being obtained for Toney.

Syume also referred to the involvement of Kamus in the bribery scheme. Kamus, himself, paid Mr.

Swain once; he also was present on two occasions when payments were made; and he spoke to Mr.

Swain by telephone after one payment regarding the amount of the payment. (These meetings and

telephone calls were either audio or video taped, or both, by law enforcement, and Mr. Swain

reported what had transpired.)

24. On October 20, 2007, at approximately 9:45 p.m., Kamus called Mr. Swain. In the4

context of the adoption of taxicab meters, Kamus and Mr. Swain had the following conversation:

* * *


The transcripts of conversations used in this affidavit are substantially accurate. They are5

not, however, final, and they are subject to revision upon further review.

During the course of this investigation, the Hon. Richard W. Roberts, United States District6

Court for the District of Columbia, authorized wire interceptions for telephones used by Kamus,Syume and Toney. In addition, the Hon. Richard W. Roberts also authorized wire interceptions foran office used by Toney, Kamus and Syume located at XXXX Washington, D.C. [email protected], an email account belonging to Kamus.

10

Mr. Swain: How’s Toney doing?

Kamus: Toney’s good. He’s working hard. He went to – Ithink somewhere. He traveled out of the states. And,you know, he’s hired. He’s working for us now.

Mr. Swain: Yeah. Are we all going to get together on Wednesdaystill?

Kamus: Yes sir. Yes sir.

Mr. Swain: OK.

Kamus: I mean he’s working with us. I mean there’s no buts,ifs – no, no I mean he will not go nowhere —. 5

The Wednesday meeting was a reference to an October 24, 2007 consensually recorded meeting

between Toney, Kamus, Syume and Swain described below.

25. On October 24, 2007 at approximately 12:00 p.m., Kamus, Toney, and Syume met

Mr. Swain in an apartment in southeast Washington, D.C. Among other things, Kamus discussed

their attempts to limit the number of taxicabs authorized in the District of Columbia. (This meeting

was captured on video tape and consensually recorded.)

26. On November 2, 2007, at approximately 7:16 p.m., Kamus called Syume. Kamus

told Syume that Toney needed the list. (This conversation, like many others that have been6

intercepted, was in Amharic.) Based on the context of the call and other intercepted conversations,


mailto:[email protected]

11

this seems to have been a reference to a list of names to be used on paperwork granting the illegally

obtained taxicab company licenses to individuals connected with the scheme. Approximately an

hour later, at 8:24 p.m., Syume called Toney. After they discussed Syume’s recent trip to Jamaica,

Syume suggested that they go there together “after we finish this job.” They then seemed to discuss

the list about which Kamus had asked Syume:

* * *

Syume: Also you need [UI] five people.

Toney: Ah – yes. Did Abdul [Kamus] talk to you aboutwhich shop we’re gonna use? Are we still using yourshop to —

Syume: Yeah. Yes. I have another place. If we have five wecan use five places, also. We don’t have any problemup to five. We have address; we have shop; we haveeverything.

Toney: OK. Very good.

Syume: So tomorrow. I don’t know how to spell their names.

Toney: OK.

Syume: Their name, address. Everything. When I get that inthe morning I’ll call you.

Toney: Call me.

Syume: About 10:00 – 11:00.

Toney: Great. Call me give it to me. That’s what I’ll use.

* * *

Syume: You search something about the credit union becauseI’m almost to get the money. You know?


12

Toney: Oh yeah, yeah. I would love that, if you could workout another payment [UI].

Syume: Yes, that’s the main thing. Maybe I could get half amillion in cash. It’s possible. Let me start.

* * *

Toney: I talked to — By the way, I talked to thecommissioner [Mr. Swain] the other day, and he sayshe wants us to keep pushing ahead.

Syume: Yeah.

Toney: To get this thing done so — I’m gonna do that.

* * *

Based on the context and other intercepted calls, Toney’s comment about getting “this thing done”

is a possible reference to completing their scheme to obtain taxicab company licenses through an

ongoing bribery scheme. The next day, November 3, 2007, Syume and Leghese had a monitored

telephone conversation during which they discussed their efforts to obtain the names of individuals

with the correct spellings to use on the underlying paperwork for the taxicab company licenses, as

Syume had discussed with Toney. According to information provided to the government by Kamus

after he started cooperating, Leghese’s principal role in the bribery scheme was to prepare documents

associated with the taxicab company licenses they were bribing Swain to get.

27. On November 3, 2007, Syume and Ghirmazion had a telephone conversation in which

Ghirmazion provided information for a document concerning the taxicab company licenses that

Syume was preparing for Swain.

28. On November 7, 2007, Toney had the following telephone conversation with Mr.


13

Swain:

* * *

Mr. Swain: Get my paperwork from that goddamned Yitbarek[Syume].

Toney: [Laughs] OK. I got it. I’ll get it to you.

Mr. Swain: Oh. The other thing. Will you tell that son-of-a-gun.You know this piecemeal payment and all of thisjunk – you know. Get the money straight. If you’renot going to get me the money, tell me. But don’ttell me you’re going to give me the money, thendon’t show up with it.

Toney: OK. I didn’t know that was going on. I didn’t evenknow that was going on at all. OK. I’ll just tell himto get his act together.

Mr. Swain: Get his act together.

Toney: OK.

Mr. Swain: OK. Bye.

[Emphasis added.]

(This conversation was captured from the consensual monitoring of Mr. Swain’s telephone.)

During this time period, Syume had been delinquent with bribe payments that he had promised to

pay to Mr. Swain.

29. On November 13, 2007, at approximately 9:29 a.m., Syume called Toney. They

discussed among other things Syume’s late payment to Swain:

* * *Toney: . . . I have no idea what kind of arrangement you have with

Swain. But he’s been complaining that he’s not getting what he’ssupposed to get when he’s supposed to get it. Just so you know.


14

Syume: Oh. He said —

Toney: Yes. And I’m not comfortable talking about this because I don’treally know what he’s talking about because I wasn’t aware ofwhat’s going on. But he just told me to let you know that heneeds to get whatever he’s supposed to get when he’s supposedto get it.

Syume: He’ll get it. No problem.

Toney: OK.

Syume: I’ll solve this problem today.

* * *[Emphasis added.]

30. On November 14, 2007, the day after Syume promised Toney that he would pay Mr.

Swain, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Syume met Mr. Swain at Anacostia Park. Syume removed a

shopping bag from the trunk of his car and gave it to Mr. Swain. The bag contained approximately

$60,000 in cash. This was a partial payment for ten taxicab company licenses. (The meeting was

captured on video tape, but the audio recording failed.) After the payment, Syume called Mr. Swain.

Syume asked Mr. Swain not to mention this payment to Kamus and Toney. He suggested that

Kamus and Toney were involved with five taxicab company licenses that had already been obtained

from Mr. Swain but not with this particular deal. (Their conversation was captured from the

consensual monitoring of Mr. Swain’s telephone.)

31. On January 12, 2008, Syume had a telephone conversation with Ghirmazion in which

they discussed plans to resell taxicab company licenses they had illegally obtained from Swain. They

discussed selling one such company to get funds prior to a “closing date” which in context appeared

to refer to seeking a moratorium on the issuance of new taxicab company licenses. In connection


15

with this issue Syume states “the expense is substantial. We are getting to the top, to the v-eeery

top!” Later in the call Ghirmazion asks Syume if there is a “Chase Bank around here? In D.C.”

According to information provided to the government by Kamus after he started cooperating,

Ghirmazion’s principal role in the bribery scheme was to provide funds to Syume for the bribes to

Swain.

32. On February 27, 2008, Toney sent an email message to Swain from his email account

[email protected]. The message containing the subject line Emergency Declaration Resolution- limit

companies, included an attached proposed resolution of the D.C. Council limiting the number of

taxicab companies authorized to do business in the District of Columbia. During the same time

frame this email was sent, the FBI was conducting court authorized electronic surveillance within

Toney’s office space at XXXX, Washington, D.C. Toney regularly used this office in early 2008,

and is seen on video recordings using a laptop computer. Toney vacated this office in the Fall of

2008. Subject surveillance indicates that Toney has been working from his home since that time.

33. On October 6, 2008, Kamus had the following telephone conversation with Toney:

Kamus: Hello.

Toney: Good morning.

Kamus: Good morning, sir.

Toney: How are you Mr. Kamus?

Kamus: Good, good. I am fine; I am fine.

Toney: Good, I was just calling to say hello. Ah, didn’t reallyhave much in terms of an agenda. Ah —

Kamus: OK.


16

Toney: Is there anything I owe you in terms of a document orsomething?

Kamus: Well, you know, ah, Leon [Swain (TaxicabCommission Chair, and cooperating witness)], hesuggested to have some type of document —

Toney: Ah —

Kamus: For the medallion.

Toney: That is what I thought. OK.

* * *

Kamus: And one, one, one other thing is ah —

Toney: Yeah.

Kamus: The, ah, the training p’piece, ah —

Toney: Oh! Yeah, yeah.

Kamus: We, we will have one of the last meeting —

Toney: Ah —

Kamus: The task, task force on, on the fourteenth.

Toney: OK.

Kamus: Ah, it is, it was supposed to be last week, you know.October first was the deadline for it.

Toney: Right.

Kamus: Because of the holidays, ah, it was postponed.

Toney: Right.

Kamus: Ah, that is the last time and I e-mailed the draft.

Toney: I have it; I remember now.


In June 2008, Mr. Swain introduced an undercover agent to Kamus. The agent has posed7

as the representative of rich investors who are seeking to invest in taxicab medallions in Washington,D.C. The undercover agent has met a number of times with Kamus and Toney.

17

* * *

(Emphasis added.)

This reference to using e-mail suggests that evidence of the Subject Offenses would be located on

Toney’s computers.

34. On March 23, 2009, at approximately 10:04 a.m., Kamus called Toney; they had the

following conversation:

* * *

Toney: And, um, I told him [Syume] that what I would is this:I said, you know what? Abdul and I have beentalking. I did not tell him about Pete [the undercoveragent]. I did not tell him about any money. You’re7

still broke. I’m still broke. OK?

Kamus: Um-um.

Toney: As far as he’s, he is concerned – I didn’t tell him wetalked about any money at all. I said, I talked toAbdul. I know he is working with [a public official].So we should be able to be OK with [the publicofficial]. Whatever [the public official], uh, whateverwe’re trying to do, [the public official] is verysupportive of this. OK? So —

Kamus: Um-um.

Toney: Uh, I think what – the way I want to do it is, he isgoing to call me back this afternoon. For somereason, he says he has to talk to Swain.

Kamus: Who?


18

Toney: Uh, uh, Abdul, uh, what’s his name —

Kamus: Yitbarek [Syume]?

Toney: Yitbarek [Syume] said he has to talk to Swain forsome reason. I said, “well, you know, I have alreadytalked to Swain, Swain.” And I wanna make sure Iunderstand the flow of the legislation. Myunderstanding is that the legislation that I am doingright now.

* * *

In this conversation, among other things, Toney referred to Syume’s desire to speak to Mr. Swain.

This issue has arisen in other monitored calls, and Syume has repeatedly attempted to see Mr. Swain.

As part of the investigation, Mr. Swain has given taxicab company certificates to Syume and Kamus,

but he has not activated the licenses. One step in activating the licenses would be to post them on

the DCTC website, which Syume has repeatedly requested Mr. Swain to do. Having paid at least

$220,000 in bribes to Mr. Swain, Syume appeared anxious about the status of the taxicab company

licenses that he has obtained.

35. On May 11, 2009, at approximately 11:00 a.m., Toney, Syume and others met with

Mr. Swain. During that meeting, Toney discussed with Mr. Swain the status of the taxicab company

licenses that had been illegally obtained. For example:

* * *Mr. Swain: I do know that one of the things that Yit’s [Syume]

been asking for is the posting of all the companynames on our web site.

Toney: Um-um.

Mr. Swain: And I’m gonna tell you we are in the middle of anaudit.


19

Toney: Um-um.

Mr. Swain: And we are in the middle of a moratorium and, andthat’s what I’m working on now. And I’m goingthrough the entire system. I have to do a report, uh,to the powers that be on what the condition of thisindustry is. How many companies we have; howmany companies I think we ought to have; how manycompanies I think we shouldn’t; who’s in compliance;who’s not in compliance. And I’ll be right up frontwith you, we have one hundred and sixteen companiesand —

Toney: How many?

Mr. Swain: One hundred and sixteen.

* * *Mr. Swain: OK. Let me ask you one thing. I’m going to be

working with Causton [Toney] on this and we willcome up with some type of arrangement, some type ofplan on what we can do.

Syume: OK.

Mr. Swain: Does that mean I’m not going to see you every daynow?

(Laughter)

Syume: Boss, I no like to come here.

Mr. Swain: I know, I know alright, well – I’ll tell you what, ifthat’s it we can stop the meeting right there. If I don’thave to see Yit [Syume] every day —

(Laughter)

Mr. Swain: Listen to him every day crying on your guys’ behalfthen the meeting has been a success.

Toney: Well you should know that yeah – he’ll stop coming,but if I don’t show results he’ll start coming back.

Mr. Swain: No, no, no, no we’ll work on that.


20

Toney: Um, but one thing I did want to mention. And I thinkit hasn’t come through here, and I think you need, youdeserve a decent answer on this issue. And I don’tthink it’s because they don’t want to tell you; I thinkit’s because, uh, there’s a lot of issues swirlingaround. Uh, I think one of the reasons why these,these companies, some of them at least, need to get upon that web site is because what you are seeing hereis, is simply as microcosm of a larger communitythat has invested greatly —

Mr. Swain: OK.

Toney: In this whole concept of ultimately closing the system,of ultimately having companies that participateeffectively in the system. Um, there’s a lot morewealth than you see around this table, behind thesegentleman. And those folks, they, they don’t operateat the highest sophistication levels.

Mr. Swain: Um-um.

Toney: And if you just show them a piece of paper that, thatdoesn’t mean much to them. You know, they knowtechnology. They know new technology, and theyknow that if they go on the web site of the D.C.Taxicab Commission, and it says companies operatingunder the D.C. Taxicab Commission, and they clickon that button, if they don’t see something that theythought they were investing in they think they’ve beenrobbed.

Mr. Swain: OK.

Toney: Very simple, very simple. Right – wrong, in – out,good – bad, it doesn’t matter. That’s what they know.

Mr. Swain: Alright.

Toney: So in order for these folks to have some level oflegitimacy. Uh, they need to have that certificate ora couple of them or a few of them, uh, transformedinto an electronic record of the, of the, of the, uh,


21

existence of that company. Some electronicverification of the existence so that organization. Thecloser you can get to that even if it’s not with theentire number —

Mr. Swain: Um-um.

Toney: But some other — This is the best I understand it, theclosest you can get to that, giving them an electronicrecord of these companies that have been established.

UM: (UI)

Toney: The better they’ll feel. And the better the investorswill feel. And the more likely it is that, that, uh, Yit[Syume] won’t have to sit here.

* * *Toney: New ones. Cause you got to legitimize the new

ones or you got to, you know, make somejustification for the new ones coming in.

Mr. Swain: And it’s a whole lot easier once I reduce the numbersto add new companies than it is to sit up there and notreduce the numbers and then constantly adding moreto it.

Toney: Um-um.

Mr. Swain: Because the first thing they’re gonna do, they’ll takea closer look at all the companies. They gonna take avery, very close look at every new thing that I put onthere.

Toney: Yeah.

Mr. Swain: But if I reduce the numbers down to fifty — If I addfive, ten, fifteen more companies on there, after Ireduce it down to fifty, nobody cares. But if I do itright now and all of a sudden I go from one hundredand fifteen to, to, uh, a hundred and fort’ – a hundredand fifty —


22

Mr. Toney: Um-um.

Mr. Swain: Then I guarantee that every watch dog group,everybody, Spooner, and everybody else is gonna beup here trying to dissect everything.

Toney: Everything, sure.

* * *

Toney: Everybody wants this to just move very smoothly.From here to the point.

Mr. Swain: Because you got too much riding on this.

Toney: That’s right.

Mr. Swain: You, you know we’re, we’re sitting up here, andit’s been, what, almost two years in the making.

Toney: Yeah.

* * *[Emphasis added.]

During this conversation, Toney suggested posting some but not all of the taxicab companies

to avoid scrutiny; and Toney stated that they needed the companies posted to provide some level of

“legitimacy.” Since Toney was formerly the chair of the DCTC, he is fully aware of the legitimate

process for obtaining and utilizing taxicab company licenses. Toney is also, of course, aware of the

moratorium on the issuance of taxicab company licenses that was introduced by the D.C. City

Council in July of 2008. Accordingly, it would make no sense for Toney to suggest posting only a

few of the companies unless he knew that they had been illegally obtained. Toney also stated that

there was “more wealth” than was seated at the table, which seems to have been a reference to the

at least $220,000 that has been paid to Mr. Swain.


23

36. On July 31, 2009, Syume, Toney and Mr. Swain met at Heidi’s restaurant located at 1302

2 Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. During this meeting, Syume and Toney again requested that Mr.nd

Swain post some taxicab companies on the DCTC website to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the

companies purchased by Syume and others from Mr. Swain. Mr. Swain agreed but needed specifics

about which companies to post online. Syume left the restaurant and walked to a gold Mercedes

Benz sedan with Maryland license plate XXXX. Syume had driven this car to this meeting and has

been seen operating this car on numerous occasions during the course of this investigation. Syume

opened the trunk of the car and retrieved six taxicab company certificates from a briefcase located

therein. Syume then walked back into the restaurant, and the discussion continued regarding posting

these specific company names on the DCTC website. As part of this discussion, it was agreed that

Syume would retain ownership for two of the six companies, Mr. Swain would be given ownership

for two of the six companies, and Toney would be given ownership for the remaining two of the six

companies to be posted on the DCTC website. The taxicab company certificates retrieved from the

trunk of Syume’s Gold 1999 Mercedes (described above) and provided by Syume during this

discussion matched the names of the taxicab companies which Mr. Swain was to post on the DCTC

website. During the course of this meeting, Syume told Swain that he keeps in the 1999 Gold

Mercedes a list of people who have given him money in connection with the taxicab company

certificates.

37. On September 23, 2009, Toney met with Kamus, Syume, Leghese, Ghirmazion and

others at a McDonald’s restaurant in Silver Spring, Maryland. During this meeting, Kamus asked

the group how many companies had been purchased from Swain. Leghese advised that it was 55

companies total. Kamus then referred to these companies as fake companies for which they had paid


24

$250,000 to Swain. Kamus stated that they needed to pay Swain an additional $10,000 to have the

company names posted on the DCTC website to help legitimize the companies. Toney asked what

the benefits were for posting the companies online. Kamus noted that this would make the

companies more real. Toney mentioned the pending legislation as it pertains to company owners and

efforts to insure that the legislation would guarantee company owners would receive medallions.

Toney asked Kamus if he was talking to Swain on the phone or in person. Kamus said on the phone.

Toney advised Kamus to be very careful.

VI. Potential Privileged Documents- Procedures to be used in the search of XXXX,Washington, D.C.

38. Toney is a member of the District of Columbia bar. Privileged documents, therefore,

may be present at the location to be searched. Based on Toney’s conspiratorial relationship with

Syume and Kamus and his role in the commission of the Subject Offenses, the items to be seized

will not be privileged. The following steps will be taken to avoid the disclosure of other legitimately

privileged information:

A) The searching agents will be comprised of a “taint” team of agents from the FBI

working under the direction of a “Team Leader.” The searching agents will have no further role in

the investigation of this matter and the case agents involved in this investigation will not participate

in the search. In addition to the search team, there will be a Privilege Attorney and a Privilege

Special Agent. The Privilege Attorney will be available to answer questions during the search, and

the Privilege Agent will take custody of the evidence obtained from the search. The Privilege

Attorney will be from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and will have no role

in the further investigation and prosecution of this case other than to serve as a Privilege Attorney


25

on other aspects of this case should the occasion present itself. The Privilege Agent will be from the

FBI and will have no role in the further investigation and prosecution of this case other than to serve

as a Privilege Agent on other aspects of this case should the occasion present itself. Although I will

be available to answer questions from the searching agents, neither I nor the FBI case agents assigned

to this investigation will actively partake in the actual search activity.

B) The searching agents will only search for the items identified in Attachment A to the

Warrant. Once searching agents find items falling within the scope of the Warrant, the searching

agents will notify the “Privilege Special Agent” assigned to the location where the items are found,

and the “Privilege Special Agent” will seize the items. An inventory of everything seized will be

kept by one of the assigned agents at the search location.

C) The evidence shall be secured in cartons and sealed. The Privilege Special Agent shall

then deliver the evidence to the Privilege Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the

District of Columbia, who shall then conduct a review of all items taken during the search. If the

Privilege Attorney determines that the items seized are within the scope of the warrant and not

privileged, the Privilege Attorney will release the materials to the prosecution team. If the Privilege

Attorney determines that the material is either privileged or outside the scope of the warrant, the

material will be resealed and returned to the search location. This determination may include a

determination as to whether the crime -fraud or other exception to the privileges applies to an item.

If the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege may apply to any item, the Privilege

Attorney (who will have no contact with the prosecution team) will prepare an in camera, ex parte

motion to a Court with jurisdiction over the Specified Federal Offenses to determine whether the

exception applies. If a privilege issue should arise on or about the day of the search that requires


Computer and electronic evidence is being sought only for the warrant in the District of8

Columbia for the residence of Causton Toney at XXXX, Washington, D.C.

26

judicial intervention, the Privilege Attorney will respond to these matters in that Court.

D) With respect to the computer data, the searching agents that are trained in the searching

and seizing computer data will first attempt to determine whether the computer equipment can be

searched on-site within a reasonable amount of time. If they are unable to search the computers on-

site within a reasonable amount of time, they will determine if it is practical to copy the computer

data during the execution of the search warrant. If they are unable to copy the data on-site, the data

will be seized and reviewed by the computer personnel. If the computer personnel determine that

the data does not fall within the scope of the Warrant, the government will return these items within

a reasonable period of time not to exceed one hundred and eighty days. All items determined to be

within the scope of the warrant will be delivered to the Privilege Attorney, who will conduct a

review of the items. If the Privilege Attorney determines that the items seized are within the scope

of the warrant and not privileged, the Privilege Attorney will release the materials to the prosecution

team. If the Privilege Attorney determines that material is either privileged or outside the scope of

the warrant, the material will be resealed and returned to the search location. This determination may

include a determination as to whether the crime-fraud or other exception to the privilege applies to

an item. If the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege may apply to any item, the

Privilege Attorney (who will have no contact with the prosecution team) will prepare an in camera,

ex parte motion to the Court to determine whether the exception applies.

Computers, Electronic Storage and Forensic Analysis8

39. Based on my knowledge and training and the experience of other agents with whom


27

I have discussed this investigation, I know that to completely and accurately retrieve data maintained

in computer hardware or on computer software, to ensure accuracy and completeness of such data,

and to prevent the loss of the data either from accidental or programmed destruction, it is often

necessary that some computer equipment, peripherals, related instructions in the form of manuals

and notes, as well as the software utilized to operate such a computer, be seized and subsequently

processed by a qualified computer specialist in a laboratory setting. This is true because of the

following:

a. The volume of evidence. Computer storage devices (such as hard disks, diskettes,

tapes, laser disks, etc.) can store the equivalent of thousands of pages of information. Additionally,

a user may seek to conceal criminal evidence by storing it in random order with deceptive file names.

Searching authorities are required to examine all the stored data to determine which particular files

are evidence or instrumentalities of criminal activity. This sorting process can take weeks or months,

depending on the volume of data stored, and it would be impractical to attempt this kind of data

analysis on-site.

b. Technical requirements. Searching computer systems for criminal evidence can be

a highly technical process that can require expert skills and a properly controlled environment. It

is often difficult to determine the hardware and software used on a system to be searched before the

search is executed, and the vast array of computer hardware and software available requires even

computer experts to specialize in some systems and applications. As a result, it is difficult to know

prior to a search: (1) whether a specific expert or search protocol may be required; (2) if so, which

expert may be qualified to analyze the system and its data; and (3) whether and what type of

controlled environment may be required. Data search protocols are exacting scientific procedures


28

designed to protect the integrity of the evidence and to recover even “hidden,” erased, compressed,

password-protected, or encrypted files. Because computer evidence can be vulnerable to inadvertent

or intentional modification or destruction (both from external sources or from destructive code

imbedded in the system as a “booby trap”), a controlled environment may be necessary to complete

an accurate analysis. Further, such searches often require the seizure of most or all of a computer

system's input/output peripheral devices, related software, documentation, and data security devices

(including passwords) so that, if necessary, a qualified computer expert can accurately retrieve the

system's data in a laboratory or other controlled environment.

40. Due to the volume of the data at issue and the technical requirements set for above,

it may be necessary that the above referenced equipment, software, data, and related instruction be

seized and subsequently processed by a qualified computer specialist in a laboratory setting. Under

appropriate circumstances, some types of computer equipment can be more readily analyzed and

pertinent data seized on-site, thus eliminating the need for its removal from the premises. One factor

used in determining whether to analyze a computer on-site or to remove it from the premises is

whether the computer constitutes an instrumentality of an offense and is thus subject to immediate

seizure as such – or whether it serves as a mere repository for evidence, a particular device can be

more readily, quickly, and thus less intrusively, analyzed off site, with due considerations given to

preserving the integrity of the evidence. This, in turn, is often dependent upon the amount of data

and number of discrete files or file areas that must be analyzed, and this is frequently dependent upon

the particular type of computer hardware involved. As a result, it is ordinarily impossible to

appropriately analyze such material without removing it from the location where it is seized.

40. Based upon my knowledge, training, and the experience of other law enforcement


29

personnel with whom I have spoken, I am aware that searches and seizures of evidence from

computers taken from the premises commonly require agents to seize most or all of a computer

system's input/output peripheral devices, for a qualified computer expert to accurately retrieve the

system's data in a laboratory or other controlled environment. Therefore, in those instances where

computers are removed from the premises, to fully retrieve data from a computer system,

investigators must seize all the magnetic storage devices as well as the central processing units

(CPUs) and applicable keyboards and monitors which are an integral part of the processing unit. If,

after it becomes apparent that these items are no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data

evidence, such materials and/or equipment will be returned within a reasonable time.

The analysis of electronically stored data, whether preformed on-site or in a laboratory or other

controlled environment, may entail any or all of several different techniques. Such techniques may

include, but shall not be limited to, surveying various file “directories” and the individual files they

contain (analogous to looking at the outside of a file cabinet for the markings it contains and opening

a drawer capable to containing pertinent files, to locate to evidence and instrumentalities authorized

for seizure by the warrant); “opening” or reading the first few “pages” of such files to determine their

precise contents; “scanning” storage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted data;

scanning storage areas for deliberately hidden files; and performing electronic “key-word” searches

through all electronic storage areas to determine occurrences of language contained in such storage

areas exist that are intimately related to the subject matter of the investigation.

VII. Conclusion.

42. Based on the information provided in this affidavit, I respectfully submit that there

is probable cause to search the above listed locations for evidence of, fruits of, and instrumentalities


30

of violations of the following: (i) 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery of Public Official); (ii) 18 U.S.C. §§

1343, 1346 (Honest Services Fraud); (iii) 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Attempt and Conspiracy to Commit

Fraud Offenses); (iv) 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (Travel Act); and (v) 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy).

________________ Patrick A. Westerhaus Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Subscribed and sworn

before me this _ of October 2009

_____________________________

United States Magistrate Judge
