I have spent all my life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Russian Author


PREMIUM LEGAL RESOURCES LEGAL FORMS ASK A LAWYER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
Billings Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) CR No. 95-117-BLG-JMB
Plaintiff, ) CR No. 95-51-BLG-JMB
) CR No. 96-47-BLG-JMB
vs. )
)
DALE M. JACOBI, RICHARD CLARK, )
JON NELSON, CASEY CLARK, )
JAMES HANCE, JOHN HANCE, )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________________)

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing in open court before the HONORABLE JAMES M. BURNS, Senior United States District Judge, on July 17, 1996, commencing at 2:10 p.m.

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

(Open court.)
(Defendants not present.)

* * * * *

Deleted... Since it's just a bunch of boring lawyers arguing about boring things in their usual boring manner. They should learn from the Freemen (or is it "Freemans"?) how to make legal stuff more lively and entertaining. -- Staff

* * * * *

Are we ready for round number two?

(Recess.)

(Open court.)
(Defendants present.)

THE COURT: The first order of business is that each of the persons who are here who are in custody on charges in this case, or these cases, and any of the lawyers involved either as accepted counsel or standby counsel, everyone has an automatic exception to the fact that I'm not wearing a robe, and if you have a particular objection to the rather dreadful looking bow tie I have, you have an automatic exception to that, and as well as to the shirt itself. I simply do not wear a robe as a matter of practice, and if anyone is really seriously upset by it, you can submit a statement in writing within ten days, elaborating on the reasons why you believe that you may be in difficulty as a result of that quaint habit, and the exception will be deemed timely.

I should like to start, first, by a conversation with the folks who are seated at the table at the right.

Mr. Richard Clark, good afternoon.

Mr. James Hance, good afternoon.

Mr. Dale Jacobi, good afternoon.

Mr. John Hance, good afternoon.

Mr. John Nelson, good afternoon.

And Mr. Casey Clark, good afternoon.

And I want to tell you, the other folks who are here, I think you've all heard this, I want to tell you a little bit about myself as a judge who has been assigned to conduct proceedings in this case, or these cases, on the theory that I have been fortunate enough to have had thoroughly polite conversations with others like yourself earlier this morning, and separately I have had a conversation of that sort with Mr. Stewart Waterhouse, and I simply want to have the opportunity that I believe is important when there is a conversation between a judge and parties and lawyers in the case, that it's useful to the parties and lawyers to see the whites of the judge's eyes, and vice versa, and I had a particularly polite question with Mr. Waterhouse four weeks ago before this morning, and it was a polite and useful conversation, and I have had two others with him since for reasons I don't need to bother you with, those were on the phone.

And I tell you just ever so quickly a little bit about myself, which is that I was brought up in a lumber camp about 40 miles east of Portland, and I went to a one-room school, and the first year I went, there wasn't anybody in the first grade, so they put me in the second grade. And the following year when I went into the third grade, there wasn't anybody in the third grade, and they put me in the fourth grade. So I had a magnificent scholastic career along the way, obviously, but that isn't what happened.

In any event, ultimately I went to law school, passed the bar, served as a prosecuting attorney in southeastern Oregon for about four years in a town called Burns. There is no truth to the rumor that they changed the name of the town after I arrived there. And in 1966 I was appointed to the state trial court in Oregon, and in 1972 to the federal court in Oregon. And I was designated to take part in processing these cases the chief judge of the circuit.

Now, we are gathered here today for some items that we should talk about talk about. I had met earlier today with the standby attorneys, with the government's attorneys, and with the appointed attorneys that have been accepted, and discussed matters relating to facilitating discovery so as to process these cases toward trial readiness, as promptly as circumstances allow. I did have a discussion before noon with the attorneys involved in the cases representing the defendants who were here this morning, and I think that the session was useful so as to facilitate discovery so that the attorneys, where they are acting, can receive copies of the material that has been accumulated over the past approximate year, leading up to the commencement of this case.

And in the instance of those situations where one or more of you have been offered standby counsel but have refused to recognize that fact, to mention to you the circumstances with respect to the ability that you will have to have legal materials available for you at the detention facility.

The other items I think I should mention are that there was mention made of the circumstances relating to the execution of a search warrant on the Ryder rental truck that took place in the latter half of June, and that was done under circumstances where there was an attorney, John Smith, from Missoula, who was appointed to look after the conduct of that search warrant and seizure of things in there, and the status of the materials, which are still in there.

Representative Carl Ohs also took part in that process, and each of you will receive a copy of the return of the search warrant of the contents in that rental truck. And it will have, along with it, a copy of the report furnished by Attorney Smith and by Representative Ohs to the court to report on the manner in which the seizure took place. Anything that was seized by the government under the search warrant, a copy was made immediately, and the document, or piece of paper, was replaced in the same spot where it had been before it was seized, and that was all done under supervision and observation, and there is a return of the items that were taken in that, and each of you who have rejected standby will be entitled to receive a copy of the return of the search warrant that was conducted with respect to that particular aspect of the case.

So I have spent some time, quite a bit yesterday, and earlier, in connection with the matter of discovery of the documents, which previously had been sealed by order of the court, and the biggest share of which have now been unsealed, and the transcripts of the session as to the discovery of these documents and how they are categorized will be furnished to you. That would be a transcript of the session we had this morning.

I believe that covers each of the items that should have been covered in this conversation, but I don't know if any one or more of you have any question or brief statement. I would be very glad to hear it. I will attempt to be very polite in any conversation I have with you, and I certainly express my belief that probably you will be polite with me. The folks who were here this morning were certainly -- I thought the entire thing was a thoroughly polite conversation.

Mr. Richard Clark, do you have any comment? If you are uncomfortable standing, you are certainly privileged to sit down.

MR. RICHARD CLARK: For the record, I would like to state I do not waive extradition in the U. S. government corporation's jurisdiction or venue. Therefore, I'm not. And I would like to refuse standby counsel again at this time.

And, also, that I understand this is a grand jury hearing of our common law, and I will stand on the testimony of Chief Justice Schweitzer in the record of the court transcript.

THE COURT: And, furthermore, I had several back and forth comments with Mr. Schweitzer, and he mentioned certain written materials that he was working on and so on. And if you have any written materials over and above what you have just said, you are welcome to prepare them and send them in within ten days, they will be deemed timely, and I would treat you as joining in the comments that he has made and in the written comments and observations that he is going to send in.

DEFENDANT RICHARD CLARK: Thank you. I understand that he writes all the paperwork et al., so that includes all of us, and he has been corresponding with us all along as to what he has been filing. And we are in total agreement with that.

THE COURT: Yes. Okay.

DEFENDANT RICHARD CLARK: Thank you.

TEE COURT: Thank you very much, Mr. Clark.

Mr. Hance. do you have any statement, brief but cogent, I hope.

DEFENDANT JAMES HANCE: I also stand on Chief Justice Schweitzer's transcript.

TEE COURT: You join in the positions asserted orally and in writing by Mr. Schweitzer?

DEFENDANT JAMES HANCE: Correct

THE COURT: All right.

DEFENDANT JAMES HANCE: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: And you, also, have, if you care to do so, if you want to write out written comments or objections or statements, you have ten days within which to do so, and it will be deemed timely, and they will be received and considered.

Mr. Jacobi?

DEFENDANT DALE JACOBI: I object to be being called a person, first of all.

THE COURT: Beg your pardon?

DEFENDANT DALE JACOBI: I object to being called a person, as you started out your short speech this morning. I'm not a person. I'm not a United States citizen. I do not grant venue to the United States. I do not waive jurisdiction to the United States. And I stand on the Schweitzer's comments this morning.

THE COURT: All right. And if you care to do so , you are entitled to ten days within which to add written comments and observations and so forth. And it will be deemed timely. Okay?

DEFENDANT DALE JACOBI: Fine.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. John Hance.

DEFENDANT JOHN DANCE: First of all, I object to being called a U.S. citizen or to being called a person because I'm not any person, I'm not a U.S. citizen. I am an American national, and so, for the record, I object to that.

And I stand on what Chief Justice Schweitzer says this morning.

THE COURT: Did I call you a U.S. citizen?

DEFENDANT JOHN HANCE: No, sir, I corrected the record.

THE COURT: Did I call you a person?

DEFENDANT JOHN DANCE: Yes. You called everyone of us a person.

THE COURT: Well, if you took that as a degrading word, I apologize for it. I'd get myself in a lot more trouble if I called you a non-person. I wouldn't want to have somebody call me a non-person. That's just a personal observation. Sorry about that.

Mr. Nelson.

DEFENDANT JON NELSON: I concur with my fellow men here, and I stand on chief justice's comments made earlier.

THE COURT: Okay. And, Mr. Dance, you are deemed to join in those as well. Yes, of course, and you are as well, Mr. Nelson

DEFENDANT JON NELSON: Yes. And I do not waive venue.

THE COURT: Yes.

DEFENDANT JON NELSON: Nor jurisdiction.

THE COURT: All right.

DEFENDANT JON NELSON: And I do not waive any of my rights ever.

THE COURT: Yes, sir. And if you want to add comments along those lines in written fashion, and do it in ten days, they will be considered. Okay.

DEFENDANT JON NELSON: So noted. I accept your apology.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Clark.

DEFENDANT CASEY CLARK: I also stand on Chief Justice Schweitzer's comments this morning. And I'm not - -

THE COURT: You join in his position?

DEFENDANT CASEY CLARK: Excuse me?

THE COURT: Excuse me. I'm sorry. You join in Mr. Schweitzer, Chief Justice Schweitzer's position?

DEFENDANT CASEY CLARK: Yes.

TEE COURT: Yes, you are treated as doing that. And you are entitled to submit written comments along the same line, and if they are within ten days, they will be considered.

DEFENDANT CASEY CLARK; I'm not waiving venue or jurisdiction.

THE COURT: With respect to discovery, with respect to the materials that are being unsealed, those materials will be made available for you in an appropriate form, and the standby counsel, even though you rejected them, will advise you will respect to that. You're not required to open their mail. You don't have to if you don't want to, but I would think you wouldn't be waiving any of the rights that you asserted by opening their mail, but I would certainly request that they would attempt to be of service in that regard.

And, of course, if you choose to ignore it, why that's up to you.

The matter of discovery situation with respect to all of the documents that have to be unsealed that have been the source of interception of conservation's over the past year, approximately, form about the latter part of July, that material will be made available to you, and in each instance there will be appropriate notification to you that it's available for you to look at.

So I believe that covers the matters that we covered this morning.

So I think that this particular session is now concluded, unless any of the attorneys have any wish to have me canvass any other subject matter, or any of the attorneys on either side of the ledger? I don't see any indications.

So I will declare that this session is in recess. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you.

(court adjourned.)

-----
Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
http://www.lectlaw.com

Google+