Bullotta on redirect wants to know if it was the state that pulled out the 7,500 for Carlita or if VAn Guard just decided to pull it because it was controversial. Shoemaker didn't know.
Bullotta is done and so are we for the weekend. Court is adjourned and we'll be back Monday.
THomas was starting to pursue the same line of questioning as Van Dusen had earlier about the "checked" boxes on the original application but the judge shut him down saying that line had already been sufficiently covered.
Thomas is asking about the expenditure documents and whether government got that document and Shoemaker says she can't say they did.
Thomas is now showing an email between Mary Lannoye and PHillip Aldefer who was Shoemaker's predecessor.
The email addresses Aldefer's concerns about Van Guard and outlines dollar figures for expenditures. Thomas wants to know if there was a $37,500 deduction from the grant and shoemakers agrees that there was not.
Thomas wants to know if Shoemaker knew her predecessor had concerns about the real estate belonging to 3-D in the summer of 2001 and Shoemaker says she thinks she found out about later.
shoemaker agrees that contracting is up to grantee, that a provider can be paid if within scope of grant.
Thomas now wants to know if a contractor can be paid up front and Shoemaker says she doesn't know.
Thomas says is it correct that she never asked for money back from 3-D or Van Guard (the other non-profit that had a contract with Carlita Kilpatrick). Shoemaker says that correct.
Shoemaker agrees that conflict resolution was an appropriate use of the grant. INteresting that she added within the scope of the grant request.
Thomas wants to know if grant contracts are different than direct work contracts with the government. Shoemaker says that both contain deliverables.
Thomas would agree that 3-d delivered it's services and Shoemaker says she didn't know if they delivered any services or not.
Thomas asking how long she's worked in the budget office and Shoemaker replies 3 Administrations. Engler Granholm, and now Snyder. Thomas wants to know if there were changes when Granholm took office. Shoemaker says yes, austerity measures.
Court back in session. Everyone is waiting for the order to be seated. It looks like Kilpatrick's attorney Jim Thomas is going to be doing the questioning. Yep, the Judge is in and THomas is at the podium>
Still in the break
VAn Dusen asks if the State would have walked away if there was the thought that there was some wrongdoing involved but never got an answer because the Judge upheld the prosecutors objecting to the question.
Court is taking a 10 minute break.
VAn Dusen want to know if Shoemaker knows whether 3-D continued operating after grant and Shoemaker says she doesn't know.
Now Shoemaker is once again telling the court the reason's for not asking for the money back. She's saying her recommendation was that it would be a protracted endeavor and success would be minimal, the budget office was trying to bring this to a close.
VAn Dusen wants to know if the State didn't agree with the way 3-D was spending the money. Shoemaker says it was more because of concern that the documentation wasn't proper.
VAn Dusen brought up another letter explaining what 3-D was doing (providing training in trades). Now she's showing the letter from the State saying the second half of the award will not be granted.
The first reason for denial is for buying the senior center.
VAn Dusen wants to know if the second reason is because they didn't spend all the money from the first half. Shoemaker says it doesn't matter that not all the was spent, but that there was confusion over what it was spent on.
VAn Dusen is now asking about the Deed for the properties purchased by 3-D. she wants to know if Shoemaker now understands how and if she needed to ask for any more information. Shoemaker says she had to ask for the info 2 or three times but once it was received no more questions were asked.
van Dusen asks if Shoemaker brought up the fact that there were missing pages or asked for the missing pages. Shoemaker says she did not
VAn Dusen is bouncing back and for between documents, the guy running the projector deserves a medal for keeping up with all her requests and getting them on the screen so fast.
VAn Dusen is asking if Shoemaker now sees that some of the documentation shows money was spent on a different area. An Dusen is saying she can't draw the same conclusion and that every opportunity was offered for 3-D explain where the money was being spent.
VAn Dusen asks if the folks were trying to do the best they can. Bullotta objects and Van D has to rephrase her question.
Shoemaker says she doesn't know the size of 3-D's staff.
VAn Dusen agrees that 3-D was trying to do their best.
Shoemaker says she wasn't aware that Lannoye had discussed her concerns about MRs. Kilpatrick's connection with others in the State Budget office much earlier.
VAn Dusen is now asking if Sate kept documents in "secure condition." Shoemaker says they're kept in open office. VAn Dusen asks if it was already known that CArlita Kilpatrick was involved and Shoemaker says she didn't know and she wasn't advised by her boss Mary Lannoye.
VAn Dusen asks "would you like to go through the numbers?' and Shoemaker says, "no not really."
The Judge is now jumping in saying the government is not saying the numbers don't add up and tells Van Dusen to move on.
the battle here is over whether Shoemaker put all the documents submitted by 3-D in the correct categories when they were trying to determine how the money was being spent.
VAn Dusen asks Shoemaker to read a letter stating that Detroit 3-D provided a training area and that there's documentation provided for the training area. VAn Dusen is now asking if there's $290,000 worth of documentation. Shoemaker say it was hard to determine what the document ion was meant to support.
Bullotta objects to Van Dusen's editorializing and the Judge mildly instructs Van Dusen to tone it down.
VAn Dusen is now asking about the returned letters. She asks "Did you take a stab at (the address on) Wyoming, how did you come up with that?" Shoemaker says she wasn't looking for Detroit 3-D because she was only looking for UNITE. Shoemaker says she had no reason to doubt the legitimacy of Detroit 3-D.
VAn Dusen is again asking Shoemaker to remember the Economic Development box that was checked on the original application.
VAn Dusen is now quizzing Shoemaker about a missing attachment to one of the exhibit letters. One of the arguments being made by the State is that 3-D didn't provide enough documentation.
Van Dusen is now asking about language in the contract that say 3-D has sole responsibility for management of the project. Shoemaker agrees that language is in the contract. She also agreed that there's language in the contract that says the State can oversee the contract. So call me fuddled, it sound like Van Dusen is trying to say that since 3-d has sole responsibility that the State can't say boo about what they do with the money.
Van Dusen is now asking if Shoemaker agrees that the sole stipulation is that the money must be spent within three years and that State can ask for documents. Shoemaker says yes.
Van D now asks if buying a senior center is prohibited and Shoemaker says not.
VAn Dusen just kinda got hung on a question. She pointed out that Economic development box was checked on the grant app but Shoemaker pointed out that there was also a paragraph written on the grant app spelling out the specific requests of the grant and that buying senior center wasn't on it. Shoemaker is pretty unflappable.
Van Dusen is pointing out that economic development was listed on the original grant application.
The way evidence gets introduced is interesting. The defense lawyers can't just say, hey, econ dev was listed in the application. The have to ask. So Ms. Shoemaker, is the box for econ dev checked on the application? why yes that box was checked. So when I'm trying to keep my sentences short you can assume that a question was asked and then answered by the witness. you'll also see that witnesses do a lot of reading of letters and documents for the same reason.
Susan seems to be taking Shoemaker to task for not being able to find 3-D's information on the Internet.
Bobbie Ferguson's lawyer Susan Van Dusen is now questioning Shoemaker and asking her about her Internet search to find out about 3-D.
Court is back in session and Lisa Shoemaker from the State Budget Office is back on the stand.
It's interesting to note that in the Government's Indictment they claim Kilpatrick complained to a representative of the budget office that the State wanted too much detail from Detroit 3-D about how the grant money was spent. It also says that Derrick Miller, Kilpatrick's Chief of staff at the time tried to help 3-D get the second half of the grant.
3-D had claimed to be providing services for seniors and runaway youth.
Court is in recess. Witness Lisa Shoemaker from the Sate Budget Office will be back on the stand and this time it will be the defense lawyers taking their turn questioning her.
Shoemaker now testifying about letter she sent saying the second half of the grant would not be disbursed. Shoemaker says she did some "sleuthing" to find out "who" 3-D was and found connection with Kilpatrick and Mrs. Kilpatrick's company UNITE. Shoemaker says she didn't try to get money back was because it would be a long protracted process with little chance of success so they just didn't give them the second half of the grant.
Taking a break now.
Now introduced into evidence a letter from Ferguson's wife saying 3-D was concluding it's documentation. IT talks about services but doesn't address the requests for information by the state.
Shoemaker says she finally got a letter contain a deed for the senior center with Bobbie Ferguson's name on it and the name of his wife Marilyn. Shoemaker says it appeared the Deed was supposed to be evidence of purchase but she was still not satisfied.
This whole series of letters was from 2000.
Shoemaker says this is the only grant she had this level of correspondence with or this level of difficulty with.
No purchase agreement, no numbers of seniors being served in this supposed senior development. Shoemaker has a whole list of things missing from the Detroit 3-D reports. Shoemaker says she sent 3-D a list of what she wanted to see, purchase agreement, financing (if other money was being mixed with grant) services to seniors. She also wanted invoices for the $290,000 already spent.
Shoemaker says before the State released the second half of the grant they wanted to know how the money was gong to be spent.
Shoemaker is now taking about yet another invoice which she says she had trouble understanding what made it relevant to the grant. The Judge just gave another "law 101" lesson on what she considered a leading question. Jim Thomas has now had a string of objections over-ruled. He doesn't seem to be concerned though. He just goes back to reviewing documents.
Shoemaker testifies she sent a letter to 3-D saying if they didn't provide more information the State would try to get back it's money. It's interesting that on several of the letters received by the state from 3-D there are wrong dates. The prosecutor has pointed out these discrepancies in every case.
Shoemaker is a middle aged woman with short dark hair, wearing a dark suit. She occasionally gestures with one hand to make her point but otherwise sits very still with her hand on the desk around on either side of there paperwork. The's very calm, very professional, answers promptly and with confidence.
Shoemaker is now explaining that she sent another letter saying the information from 3-D was incomplete. 3-D didn't explain or provide documentation about buying the building.
Kilpatrick is exchanging occasional quiet remarks with Thomas. He is sitting back in his chair, hands together, slowly and rhythmically rubbing them back and forth. Thomas is sitting back with one hand raised to his face, and single finger pressed against his cheek.
Now Assistant Federal Prosecutor Mike Bullotta is asking Shoemaker about an from a company called AirTech outlining thousands of dollars of services done for Detroit 3-D that were for upgrades to a building. The government claim here is that, "the renovations were made at Ferguson Enterprises's facility."
Shoemaker is now explaining that she sent a second letter to an alternate address and this time got a response from Detroit 3-D. The response explained how the money was allegedly spent but was missing the last page. It also contained a statement that 3-D had a contract with Carlita Kilpatrick's company, UNITE.
The witness is Lisa Shoemaker from the State Budget Department. She's testifying that the grants to 3-D was for services and buying building's was a surprise. She testifies that she sent a letter certified mail and the letter came back, "moved, left no address."
Kilpatrick's attorney Jim Thomas is objecting on grounds that the witness testimony about what her predecessor told her is hearsay. The judge overruled because the witness is just telling the court how she transitioned into her new job. A little law 101 for the gallery.
The letter also says that more than $200,000 was spent and not properly accounted for.
The witness is a state officials who oversaw the grants. He's testifying abut letters sent from the State to 2-D expressing concern about the way the grant money is being spent. The State is asking for more money because it was believed money was being spent outside the scope of the grant. The witness is now reading the letter in open court.
"your organization has purchased a multi-unit dwelling to rehabilitate for community housing."
We're hearing more testimony about the grants to Bobbie Ferguson's company and Bishops Vann's non-profit. The witness is talking about how the State oversees grants. He's testifying about a letter from Detroit 3-D requesting more funds.
The screens are up and court is in session. Small problem here because court started before the screens came up. There's a witness on the stand but we don't know who it is.
Still no pictures in he overflow room. Court not in session yet. The Court House is pretty quiet today compared to yesterday. It was new citizens day. A hundred or more people from all walks of life lined the halls wearing colorful saris, burhkas, sport coats, and jeans. The walked out smiling freshly minted US Citizens. It was pretty inspiring. Makes one think about the stuff we sometimes take for granted.
Right now we're waiting for the Judge to flip the video switch to turn on the pictures in the overflow room.
We're waiting for the screens to fire up in the overflow room so we can see the court room. Right now there is the quiet bustle of Reporters hooking up gear or typing on computers. Very quiet.
Good morning from the Theodore Levin Federal Court House. This is day 4 of the Kwame Kilpatrick trial.
Ken Martinek is a Senior Producer-Investigations for WJBK-TV Fox 2 News Detroit. He will be writing live updates from the courthouse through the duration of the Kilpatrick corruption trial.