Conference 7.286::dcu

       I'm still waiting for a report on the 1986 DEC security
    investigation!
                                           Denny

I can tell you that I have not yet personally seen the 1986 report. As I've
said before, DCU does not own or control this report. It's the property
of DEC.

Furthermore, we must be careful about what we say about anything to do with
the litigation and investigation status because we must assume that anything
posted here will get to Mangone and possibly help his defense.
It's not supposed to work that way, but
would you want to risk jeopardizing the case against Mangone if something
I should say here would make his defense easier? I can understand you
wanting to know what's going on. My evasive answer may sound like it's
contrary to "open communications" with members. But please understand that
in this case it's necessary to protect the legal process for now.

Please understand that I'm doing everything in my power to make sure that
the right stuff happens. If you wish to know more, the board elections
are right around the corner. As a board member member, you'd get to know
everything. :-)

>I can tell you that I have not yet personally seen the 1986 report. As I've
>said before, DCU does not own or control this report. It's the property
>of DEC.
    
      Seeing as how the report concerns the CU, wouldn't it make sense that
    the officers of the CU should be given access to it? 
                                       Denny

Yes, but it's not my decision to make.

       If I want access to this report through the DCU, who do I make a
    formal request to?
                                     Denny

Can't get it thru DCU because DCU doesn't own it. I'd assume you'd have
to get permission from the owner which as far as I know is the Digital
legal dept.

>       If I want access to this report through the DCU, who do I make a
>    formal request to?
 
	If DEC will not give it to the DCU BoD what makes you think
	they'll give it to the DCU on *your* behalf?

			Alfred

       What I mean is I would like DCU to request a copy and make it
    available to the membership. That is, as you say, if there is not
    sensitive information regarding the Mangone case. I feel the CU has an
    obligation to make the results of the report public if the membership
    wants to see them. 
       A retired DEC security employee was at the Special Meeting. He sat
    in front of me and some friends I attended the meeting with. He had
    several pages of information from the report that he wanted to make
    known to the members. He said however, "Mark (Steinkraus) knows who I
    am and there's no way he'll call on me." He was right, and I want to
    know why.
                                       Denny

    re: Alfred  
     I don't think anyone said they wouldn't give it to the BoD, did
    they? PAul said some of the former BoD saw it.
                                   Denny

	Has the current DEFCU BoD asked Digital for a copy of the report?

						Tom_K

>     I don't think anyone said they wouldn't give it to the BoD, did
>    they? PAul said some of the former BoD saw it.

	I think that *is* what both Paul and Phil have said. Ie Digital
	wouldn't give them or the BoD the document. Some of the former
	BoD were high mucky mucks in Digital and may have used their
	Digital clout to see the document.

			Alfred

    Remember, folks, the official line of the former BoD (aside from
    silence) was that they had no idea that there was a problem with 
    Mangone until, what was the story, fall of 1990?  I've yet to hear a
    change of story from the FORMER Board and I doubt it will be
    forthcoming.  We've seen the story about the 1986 report hit the press,
    so we can talk about that.  But, as far as I know there has still been no 
    "official" aknowledgement to the public from DEC or DCU about the 1986 
    report and its contents.  I may have missed something in the press report, 
    of course.  
    
    The report belongs to DEC, like Paul said.  It's no secret now that
    several people have made and continue to make efforts towards getting
    the information out.  Personally, I don't think it will come out until,
    as Paul said, the trials are held.  Mangone was picked up by the FBI,
    last I read.  I assume there will be a trial and that those involved
    will subpoena the report, since knowledge of its existance has already
    been confirmed by the press.  That's a pretty sure thing.  What's not
    sure is how Mangone's defense will try to have all evidence thrown out.
    But, we know that it can be thrown out if the folks involved mess up.
    And, who here believes that Mangone is going to cut corners on legal
    counsel?  Remember, this is the guy that spends so much in Las Vegas
    that he gets special treatment like deals on travel, lodging and so
    forth.  This is the guy that, according to the press, was having
    difficulty "limiting" his personal expenditures to $8K per month, if I 
    remember correctly.
    
    Steve

    
    Re .4:
    
    Paul, What decision are you talking about when you say "it's not my
    decision to make"? The decision by DEC to release the report to DEFCU?
    Or the decision by DEFCU to request the report?
    
    In other words, has the DEFCU Board of Directors officially asked DEC
    for a copy of the report?
    

    ...and if they haven't, I'd like to request that they do.
                                   Denny

    
    I'm with you, Denny, except that I'm going to send that request to all
    seven board members individually.
    
    It's safe to say that five of our seven directors have, at best,
    indirect interaction with this conference.

I don't know how much I can say in detail about this due to legal implications
etc., but yes, we asked for it long ago. To make a long story short, I'm
expecting to be able to see a copy in the near future. Given it's all
tangled up with legal implications, I doubt very much that DEC will allow
the contents to become public to members so I'd suggest that you not
bother asking DEC. My opinion is that asking for it would be a waste of
everybody's time.

I hope that you understand that I'd like to make
it public but again, it's not my decision to make and certainly I think
the prosecution of Mangone is more important than making that report
public if there's some relation beween the two. I don't like to do it
this way, but I'm going to have to ask you folks to trust me that I'll do the
right thing with the contents, assuming that I do gain access to it.

This also applies to the entire legal process related to
Mangone and whoever else might be implicated in the fraud at least until
the trial starts (I have no idea when it will). I have to assume that
any information that I should make public would make it to Mangone and
aid in his defense. I hope you understand that my goal is to make sure
the right thing is done with respect to Mangone. I'm sorry, but I see no
alternative for you other than to trust us because we just can't make public
details about our internal board legal discussions.

I'm certainly going to push to make public everything that we can possibly
make public without damaging the case against Mangone.

>I'm certainly going to push to make public everything that we can possibly
>make public without damaging the case against Mangone.

	This is all *I* ask. And for myself I trust you to handle this
	well and fairly. I'd rather not see the legal process screwed
	up to satisfy my desire to see this report. When it's all over
	I expect to hear all about it. The difference between now and
	a year ago is that I would have still had the desire  but not
	the expectation.

			Alfred

After it's all over, we (DCU board) still might not be able to make the
1986 report public, because again, we don't own it. It's DEC that would
have to make that decision.

	I understand that DEC owns the report. I also trust you, Paul,
	to "do the right thing" once you see it. Thanks for letting
	us know that you do expect to see it in the not too distant
	future. Would appreciate a quick note here when you do see
	it, simply to let us know that you've seen it...


					Tom_K

    Re making the report public.
    
    This is really a question for Paul since he's replied here.
    
    The existence of this 1986 report is public knowledge. This means
    Mangone can subpoena it if he so wishes. Given that I can't understand
    how making its contents available to the DCU membership could possibly
    negatively affect any legal case against Mangone.
    
    Paul, or any other board member who cares to comment I'd like to
    see the above commented on.
    
    Dave

Re: .20
I have to say that it's a mystery to me why it's such a big deal,
but then I haven't seen it yet.

    Have stepped around the fringes of a civil lawsuit a couple of years
    ago (thankfully, I never actually got into one), I have *great*
    appreciation for the need not to say anything out of turn.  One
    simply has NO idea of what might develop, and a seemingly totally
    innocent remark may come back to haunt you in ways that one cannot
    possibly forsee.
    Leave it to the lawyers - they get paid to worry about that stuff.
    They may screw it up too, but at least then it's their fault.  

    
    RE: lawsuits
    
    While we appreciate the desire of the membership to know what is going
    on, you must also appreciate the extreme complexity of this issue. 
    There are *many* lawsuits, now criminal indictments, involving several
    people and it all gets very messy and involved.  No surprise there.  In
    all honesty, it could be years before anything of substance is able to
    be said to the membership.  But we can and will keep people informed as
    best we can.
    
    If you wish, I can point you to law suits, indictments, etc.
    (public-domain) have been filed.  Do people want that type of document 
    posted here?

    
    re -.1
    
    Well, a summary of what's been filed and by whom, etc. would be
    helpful, if the information can be condensed to, say, 150 lines or
    less.
    
    If you can post the actual text of some of the stuff if it's less
    than about 8-10 pages, that might also be interesting. Otherwise, a
    pointer to where it can be obtained by $SPOOL COPY or anonymous
    ftp would be sufficient.
    
    The delicacy of the situation should be obvious. On the other hand,
    if Grand Jury indictments have been handed down, and they're for-real,
    officially filed documents in a court somewhere and considered to be
    in the public domain, then there should be no reason why we can't
    see them here or in any other medium. I should think that the same
    rationale would apply to any other motions, etc. that have been filed.
    (On the other hand, I don't expect anyone to spend an inordinate
    amount of time typing them into this conference by hand if they're
    really long documents).
    
    Thanks in advance for the consideration.
    
    

For the really inquisitive, a trip to the federal courthouse
in downtown Boston is really educational.  I spent time there
last year pulling the NCUA and Mangone filings.  

To say the legal "goings on" are intricate is an understatement.
It's incredibly complex...and the magnitude of the alleged
fraud is amazing.

./chris

    Anything that is in the public domain should be posted here (if someone
    has the time to input). All readers would probly appreciate this kind
    of info. The local papers realy don't say much.
    
    thanks,
    garry
    

re:  .26

I'd love to post all that stuff that's in the
PD...unfortunately, it's several hundred pages
(the NCUA v Mangone et al amended complaint alone
is something like 150 pages).  When I pulled the
case earlier it was 6 INCHES of documents...and
they were no where near ready for trial.

Lots 'o paper...

./chris