AFFIDAVIT

I, Robert R. Calvert, being duly sworn, depose and say:

          1.       I am a Special Agent of the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), assigned to the Tampa Bay Resident Agency.  I have been employed as a special Agent for twenty years and by DCIS for approximately eighteen years.  In this capacity I have participated in conducting criminal investigations and the execution of Federal search warrants, which have resulted in, among other things, the imaging or seizure of computers, material, and documentary evidence of criminal activity.    

          2.       In my capacity as a Special Agent with DCIS, I am presently conducting a joint investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, into possible criminal violations conducted by Thomas F. Spellissy (Colonel, U.S. Army, retired), who currently resides at 2213 Kent Place, Clearwater, FL  33764, as described in further detail in attachment “A”.               

          3.       The purpose of this affidavit is to set out facts sufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant based upon a finding that probable cause exists to believe that Spellissy, or an officer of the business entity described below, committed violations of the Title 18, U.S.C. 207 (a) and (b) or 208 (a).  These laws become effective upon retirement.  Spellissy retired on 31 Dec 04.  Even the Assistant US Attorney agrees with this. Here are three documented statements by him:  Mr. O’Neill states “In order to determine whether defendant Spellissy violated the terms of his employment, and thus violated §§ 207(a) and (b) and 208(a), it was material for the government to state the date that defendant Spellissy retired.  It is undisputed that defendant Spellissy retired from military service on December 31, 2004.  Consequently, the restrictions on post-employment activities embodied in 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) and (b) are measured from that date, as opposed to the date that he no longer was involved in the procurement process which is meaningless.”  (Doc 22, pages 5-6)

 

Mr. O’Neil states “Assuming arguendo that the statement was false, the inevitable question is why would the affiant make a misrepresentation concerning defendant's status as the PEO-SP.  For purposes of the affidavit, defendant's status as PEO-SP from July 31, 2004 through December 31, 2004, is simply immaterial. As Title 18, United States Code, Sections 207 and 208 are abundantly clear, those statutes are applicable to all employees of the executive branch of the United States. The provisions of the statutes affecting restrictions on said employees run from the date of the termination of government service. In defendant's case, the operative date is December 31, 2004. It does not matter at all what his position was on that date. Therefore, there simply would be no reason for the affiant falsely to state that defendant continued on as PEO-SP until his retirement date of December 31, 2004. “ (Doc 41, page 12)

 

Mr. O’Neil states “The government’s position is that it’s immaterial that he was no longer the PEO-SP because 207 and 208, which are the statues that they were looking for evidence to determine whether or not there had been a criminal violation implicates your year or two years, it wouldn’t be from the time he finished PEO-SP, but from the time of his retirement, which is unequivocally December 31st, 2004.  (Doc 121, page 120) 

Since the purpose of the affidavit is to demonstrate that there is probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, I have not included each and every fact known to me, or learned during the conduct of this investigation.  The affiant further states that on the premises described as:

Strategic Defense International, Incorporated

2213 Kent Place

Clearwater, FL  33764

and further described in “Attachment A”, which is also the residence of Spellissy, there is property that constitutes evidence of the commission of the aforementioned criminal offenses, and property designated or intended for use, or which is or has been used, in committing criminal  offenses. 

          4.       The items to be seized pursuant to this warrant are the business records of Strategic Defense International, Incorporated, which are maintained in the normal course of business, and Spellissy’s financial records which are further described in “Attachment B” to this warrant which is incorporated by reference.   

          5.       Strategic Defense International (SDI) is listed with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, and the above shown address as a State of Florida for profit of business.  These records identity a filing date of April 23, 2004, and identify Thomas F. Spellissy as the President and sole officer of SDI.  

          6.       Your affiant has learned from the documents as provided by SOCOM that Spellissy was assigned as the Program Executive Officer, Special Operations (PEO-SP) for the SOCOM from April, 2001 to his retirement on December 31, 2004. until July 30, 2004 when he stepped down and was replaced by Captain Rowland Huss.  After July 30, 2004, Colonel Spellissy had no procurement authority whatsoever.  Spellissy was responsible for providing acquisition and logistics at the national level for SOCOM forces/special mission units and for providing acquisition for ground warfare to all special operations forces.  This responsibility included total life cycle acquisition, management and planning, programming, budgeting resources for special operations programs, with a total budget of over $3 billion.  As the PEO-SP, Spellissy provided ground direction, oversight, funding and support to 21 program managers who support counter terrorism and counter proliferation missions.  Prior to this assignment, beginning in June, 1999, Spellissy was the Chief of Developmental Test/Foreign Comparative Testing for SOCOM.  As such, he coordinated testing and evaluation of foreign joint special operations equipment.  

          7.       On February 25, 2005, you affiant received a referral from Colonel Raymond Kruelskie, Inspector General, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), alleging that Spellissy, prior to his retirement, after he gave up his acquisition authority on 31 July, 2004, was involved with representing a foreign interest, through SDI, in order to influence the awarding of future government contracts.  According to Col. Kruelskie, his investigation to date has revealed that Spellissy was instrumental in having SOCOM Dr. Dale Uhler, Acquisition Executive, submitted a request through the Department of Defense to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, for approval of purchasing a 70mm rocket warhead under the Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT) program. from the Nordic Ammunition Company (NAMMO), Raufoss, Norway.  Col. Kruelskie provided a copy of a letter prepared by the PEO-SP, signed by Dr. Dale Uhler, dated May 12, 24, 2004, and submitted to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, listing the 70mm rocket warhead as the second highest priority of SOCOM’s for FCT approval.  The allegations also allege that subsequent to retirement, relinquishing his PEO-SP command, Spellissy continued to represent NAMMO’s interest to the U.S. Department of Defense which LtCol. Econom told him in her ethics letter was permissible and ethical depending on the scope of employment.  On January 12, 2005, after his retirement from the military on August 31, 2004 and after the conclusion of his terminal leave on December 31, 2004, Spellissy attended a meeting between representatives of the Government and NAMMO.  According to the list of attendees, Spellissy was identified as being a NAMMO (SDI) representative, of course he had already been cleared to work for NAMMO through SDI by his superior Dr. Dale Uhler to whom he had previously disclosed fully the nature of SDI’s prospective business.   Spellissy was also hired by USSOCOM to escort Don Jones, USSOCOM’s Program Manager for Ammunition to Sweden, Norway and Germany.  Spellissy had also disclosed to Don Jones and US Navy Captain Rowland Huss that he had a financial interest in Nammo’s Rocket program and both were satisfied with Spellissy’s disclosure on this interest.  Also, in Norway at Nammo Spellissy left the room before Nammo started briefing its 70mm program because of Spellissy’s financial interest and he was on terminal leave so that he couldn’t represent a contractor until 1 Jan 05.       

          8.       LtCol. Shelly Econom, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, prepared a letter dated May 10, 2004, in response to a request by Spellissy, regarding possible employment with Rooney Group International (RGI).  She added that at the time of the letter, Spellissy had claimed to have taken no action concerning future employment with RGI.  She advised that once a resume is sent to RGI or otherwise make or receive some contact concerning future employment; you are seeking employment.  LtCol. Econom adds that by law, 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) 208, Spellissy was disqualified from participating in any official matter having a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of any company you seek employment.  Any employment taken prior to retirement, 18 U.S.C. 205 prohibits your representing your new employer before any department, agency or employee of the federal government.  This restriction ends upon retirement.  LtCol. Econom also added that given Spellissy’s duties at SOCOM, the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 207 do not prevent Spellissy from seeking employment with RGI after retirement. 

          9.       Your affiant received another letter prepared by LtCol. Econom, dated May 14, 2004, and addressed to Spellissy in response to his request for advice regarding possible post-government employment with NAMMO, a Department of Defense contractor.  LtCol. Econom indicated that her opinion was based on the information provided to her by Spellissy.  She added that at the time of the letter, Spellissy had claimed not to have taken any action concerning future employment with NAMMO.  She advised that once a resume is sent to NAMMO or otherwise make or receive some contact concerning future employment; you are seeking employment.  LtCol. Econom adds that by law, 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) 208, Spellissy was disqualified from participating in any official matter having a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of any company you seek employment.  Any employment taken prior to retirement, 18 U.S.C. 205 prohibits your representing your new employer before any department, agency, or employee of the federal government.  This restriction ends upon retirement.  LtCol. Econom also added that 18 U.S.C. 207 prevents Spellissy from representing NAMMO before the federal government for two years after retirement and applies only to those matters in which you did not participate personally and substantially, but which were pending under your official responsibility during the one-year period before terminating government employment.  LtCol. Econom adds that Colonel Spellissy should be aware that he may begin new employment with NAMMO prior to his retirement once he obtains the approval of Dr. Uhler and depending on the nature of your job with a new employer and the nature of your involvement while on active duty with those same matters, you may he prohibited from representing back to the government on these same matters.  This prohibition does not preclude behind-the-scenes assistance nor does it operate as a bar to your accepting employment with the contractors involved.  It may, however, affect the scope of your duties.          

          10.     Your affiant has learned that Spellissy traveled during the period of November 27 to December 4, 2004 on behalf of SOCOM to Karlskoga, Sweden, and Raufoss, Norway to attended meetings concerning the 70mm rocket warhead and other programs.  Spellissy made this trip as a government contractual employee and submitted an SDI invoice to SOCOM for the work performed.  His superior at that time, Captain Roland Huss, PEO-SP, was fully apprised that Colonel Spellissy had personal business in Norway with NAMMO and that fact raised no “red flags” in his mind since Colonel Spellissy would not bill the government for any part of the trip in which he had private business.  Spellissy was paid personally by SOCOM rather than a payment being made to SDI.  Spellissy failed to bill any time to SOCOM for the period November 31 to December 3, 2004.  According to Maj. Shannon Jackson, Special Projects, U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal, and a co-attendee of the meetings, Spellissy attended the meetings in Sweden as the SOCOM representative, but in Norway he represented NAMMO.  Major Shannon Jackson corrected his statement that Spellissy represented Nammo, however, the USSOCOM IG failed to tell that to Special Agent Calvert or this is another fact that Special Agent Calvert omitted in this affidavit.

          11.     Your affiant learned form a taped interview conducted on March 2, 2005, between Col. Robert Rupp, Deputy Inspector General, SOCOM, and Don Jones, Program Manager, PEO-SP, Jones stated that approximately one or two weeks before their departure in November, 2004, for the meeting in Norway, Spellissy made the following comment to him:  “I’m there not as a consultant, I’m there as a NAMMO rep.”  Jones went on to state that Spellissy billed SOCOM for 40 hours of consulting on the trip, but not during the time he was representing NAMMO which was consistent with Colonel Spellissy’s ethical duty not to double bill for the same time and consistent with his agreement with Captain Huss

          12.     Your affiant reviewed an email as provided by Col. Kruelskie, dated December 8, 2004, sent from Jerry Kaffka, Director of Business Operations, NAMMO, Inc., to Owen Saucyn, Project Manager, U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal, indicating that, “Tom Spellissy, SDI, who manages all 70mm programs for NAMMO, Inc.  All inquiries regarding 70mm programs should be directed to him.  This will shorten the response cycle and ensure that “fringe players,” such as I, do not muddle the process.”  Kaffka also states, “Tom just returned from a visit to NAMMO, coordinating 70mm FCT-related events for next year and can provide you with current information regarding those matters”.  The email also identifies SDI’s email address as StratDefenseIntl@aol.com.

This email appears to indicate that Spellissy was employed by NAMMO prior to his retirement date of December 31, 2004,, but before his conclusion of terminal leave which was December 31, 2004.  The employment by NAMMO is completely consistent with his prior permission to work before December 31, 2004 and the ethical opinion he asked for and received from LtCol. Econom. 

 

Note: Paragraphs 13 through 19 and attachments A and B remain unchanged from the original format.