UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION United States of America, ) ) Plaintiff,

) ) vs. ) File No. 1:10-cr-041 ) Appeal No. 11-1462 Michael Howard Reed and ) Appeal No. 11-1463 Gregory Allen Davis, ) ) Defendants. ) TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL VOLUME I Pages 1-189 Taken at United States Courthouse Bismarck, North Dakota October 12, 2010 BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHARLES B. KORNMANN -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SENIOR JUDGE -Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 189 2 APPEARANCES MR. THOMAS J. WRIGHT U.S. Attorney's Office 325 S. First Avenue, Suite 300 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57104 FOR THE UNITED STATES ---------MR. JAMES D. HOVEY Pearson Christensen & Clapp, PLLP 24 North Fourth Street P.O. Box 5758 Grand Forks, North Dakota 58206-5758 STANDBY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT MICHAEL HOWARD REED ---------MR. JOEL L. LARSON Camrud, Maddock, Olson & Larson, Ltd P.O. Box 5849 Grand Forks, North Dakota 58206-5849 STANDBY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

GREGORY ALLEN DAVIS ---------Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 189 3 GOVERNMENT WITNESSES Page No. Christopher Myers Direct Examination by Mr. Wright 84 Cross-Examination by Mr. Reed 94 Redirect Examination by Mr. Wright 100 Ladonne Vik Direct Examination by Mr. Wright 102 Cross-Examination by Mr. Reed 109 Ronald J. Davies Direct Examination by Mr. Wright 112 Cross-Examination by Mr. Reed 115 Redirect Examination by Mr. Wright 116 Ryan O'Neil Direct Examination by Mr. Wright 117 Cross-Examination by Mr. Reed 129 Redirect Examination by Mr. Wright 140 David Hagler Direct Examination by Mr. Wright 143 Cross-Examination by Mr. Reed 154 Ida Williams Direct Examination by Mr. Wright 155 Cross-Examination by Mr. Reed 164 Aaron Kellerman Direct Examination by Mr. Wright 170 ---------Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 3 of 189 4 GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS No. Description Offered Received 1 Indictment in USA v Chavez, et al, filed 11/6/08 89 89 2 Docket Cover Sheet in USA v Allery 91 91 3 Telephone call from Mr. Reed to Judge Erickson 114 114 4 Cassette tape of telephone call from Mr. Reed to the FBI 126 126 4a DVD of telephone call from Mr. Reed to the FBI 126 126 5 Indictment in USA v Michael Howard Reed, Case 4:09-cr-76, filed 9/24/09 146 146 6 Docket Cover Sheet, Case 4:09-cr-76 148 148

7 Motion to Dismiss dated 11/25/09 in Case No. 4:09-cr-076 150 150 8 Order Denying Defendant's Motions to Dismiss dated 1/5/10 in Case No. 4:09-cr-076 151 151 9 UCC Financing Statement dated 1/6/10, Doc. No. 2010001134 162 162 10 VHS taped interview of Greg Davis dated January 20, 2010 178 178 Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 4 of 189 5 Government's Exhibits Continued No. Description Offered Received 10a DVD of interview of Greg Davis dated January 20, 2010 178 178 11 Notice of Default of Copyright and True Bill dated 4/29/10 184 186 12 Lodgement of Affidavit in Support for Notice for Default for Copyright and True Bill dated 4/30/10 184 186 13 Audio recording of jail call from Mr. Reed to Mr. Davis on 12/31/09 245 246 13a Written transcript of recorded jail call from Mr. Reed to Mr. Davis on 12/31/09 249 249 14 Audio recording of jail call from Mr. Reed to Mr. Davis on 1/5/10 245 246 14a Written transcript of recorded jail call from Mr. Reed to Mr. Davis on 1/5/10 249 249 -----------Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 5 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:27 09:27 09:27 09:27

6 (The above-entitled matter came before the Court, The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Court Senior Judge, presiding, commencing at 9:27 a.m., Tuesday, October 12, 2010, in the United States Courthouse, Bismarck, North Dakota; with counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties as hereinbefore indicated:) ----------(The following proceedings were had and made of record in open court with the defendants and counsel present, out of the presence of the jury panel.) THE COURT: Good morning to everyone. We have -- we have convened for a trial in the case of United States of America versus Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis. Both defendants are personally present with their standby attorneys. And also, Mr. Wright, why don't you state your appearance for the record, please. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Your Honor. Tom Wright, U.S. Attorney's Office, South Dakota, appearing for the U.S. Attorney's Office of North Dakota. THE COURT: And this is the case agent here? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, Your Honor, Agent Kellerman with the FBI. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Let's have the standby counsel, if you would state your names for the record, please. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 6 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:28 09:28 09:28 09:28 09:29

7 MR. HOVEY: Good morning, Your Honor. James Hovey, standby counsel for Mr. Reed. MR. LARSON: Good morning, Your Honor. Joel Larson as standby counsel for Greg Davis. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Now, let me ask the defense, do you want the standby attorneys to sit back there, or do you want them up on the bench here? They can certainly sit right behind you. MR. REED: It's -THE COURT: State your name first please, sir. MR. REED: My name is Boa-kaa-konan-na-ishkawaanden. I am Michael Howard Reed. I am the -- Boa-kaa-konan-naishkawaanden is the agent for Michael Howard Reed, Michael H. Reed, 572-39-1433. THE COURT: Do you want them up here in the bench there behind or back where they are? MR. REED: They instructed me earlier last week that they would not want to be present in the well of the court, so I'll respect their opinion. THE COURT: Well, I think it's a lot easier if you want to talk to them if you want them closer. Why don't you gentlemen take a seat up there on that bench, please. All right. Mr. Wright, you had filed a motion in limine, and that's a standard motion that I've seen a hundred times, I suppose. Do the defendants have any objections to Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 7 of 189
1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:29 09:30 09:30 09:30 09:30

8 this motion in limine? It's Docket 75. I assume you've seen that. MR. REED: I've seen that, Your Honor, and I do have some objections to it. THE COURT: State those objections, please. MR. REED: The specific objection is he's requesting that not be discussed, the felonies and that the years of terms of imprisonment. And also I have an objection to the whole -I haven't been able to have been afforded a pencil, pen or anything even to do a motion in limine for the last five days in jail, so I couldn't rebut his motion in limine. I wanted to do it, but I did not have -- afforded the chance to do it, so that barred me from the judicial process and doing a complete answer to his motion in limine. If you're going to put somebody in prison for 50 years and try him for triple jeopardy, you should be able to be afforded the process to be able to rebut it. THE COURT: Well, I'm allowing you to rebut it orally now, so -MR. REED: I'm trying -- Your Honor, I'm trying to find it right now. I just got put in this courtroom 3 minutes before you walked in, and I have not had time to rearrange nothing. THE COURT: I'll have you look at my copy here. Do you have an extra copy, Mr. Wright, by any chance?

Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 8 of 189

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:31 09:31 09:32 09:32 09:33

9 MR. WRIGHT: Yes, I do, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Give him -- give him that to look at, please. MR. REED: I need all my notes. If I don't have my notes, I can't get prepared for trial and do these things properly. You know, you've got to be able to get your stuff out. As in -- Number 1 references to the penalty or punishment. That would -- by removing -- by removing the penalty and punishment would actually be legislating from the bench and not being able to quote the charges, and that would actually be a rights violation. It would be Title 18, 243, where you would be violating my specific rights to letting the jury know of the consequences in this proceeding. You know, it's just absurd that the Court would let a manifest injustice happen in this instant action, to let the jury not know what they're prosecuting somebody for. They have to know what they're doing. THE COURT: Well, they will know that, of course, but the question -MR. REED: They have to know if it's a felony and how

many years punishable for every count, you know. That would -that would just be complete injustice if that was allowed in this instant action. Also, I request that they hear everything in the Indictment. I also request in a motion in limine for the jury to be able to ask questions at any given time in this Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 9 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:33 09:33 09:34 09:34 09:34

10 trial. THE COURT: Yes, I intend to allow that. I routinely allow that. MR. REED: Because there's so many different things going on in here with all this and with the -- with the alleged charges that there's -- there is -- everything was done feloniously and fictitiously and fraudulently. We got to make sure that the jury understands what a contract is. By definition I hereby invoke by motion of limine that we use the Pocket Edition or even the Black's Law, Eighth Edition, for all definition of all words in this instant action. In Number 2 -THE COURT: That motion is denied. I am the sole judge of the law, and the jury doesn't deal with issues of law, so I will instruct them on what the law is.

MR. REED: Okay. THE COURT: Let me ask the clerk something. Do you have notebooks and pencils to hand out? THE CLERK: Yes. MR. REED: In Number 2, in Tom Wright's motion, that what he's asking would be -- would be legislating over the acts of Congress and charges to Rule 801. When you let -- the only statements 801 -- under Federal Rules of Evidence, 801, statement of the defendant are not hearsay when they are offered by the Government. Well, the Government is an entity. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 10 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:35 09:35 09:35 09:36 09:36

11 It's a fiction. It's a persona. For evidence under Rule 701, they have no forensic evidence of anything. THE COURT: Well, of course, I have no idea what evidence they have. That's up to them. MR. REED: And here -- and here they don't want any statements by me or by the co-defendant, Zakiz-aanakwad. It's -- you know, it should be stricken. Sequestration of all witnesses -THE COURT: I'm going to order that -- I'm going to order that all witnesses on both sides be sequestered.

MR. REED: Okay. THE COURT: So that will cut both ways. MR. REED: I also wanted to -- in the Indictment I wanted to do a motion in limine on Counts 2 and 3 because they're a repeat of the same thing. That would be double and triple jeopardy because it's the exact same thing. It's Title 18, 1114, and then it's Title 28 -- or Title 18, 1521. And then Mr. Wright -- and then on Count 2 he says 1521 and 2. There is no 2, and 2 -- there's no 1522, Title 18. THE COURT: What's your response? Let me see what Mr. Wright's response is to that. What's your response to any of that, Mr. Wright? And again, please be seated so you can use the microphone. MR. WRIGHT: First of all, Your Honor, on the motions in limine, motion in limine Number 1 references to penalty or Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 11 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:36 09:37 09:37 09:37 09:37

12 punishment. It's a standard motion that we make in every case. Of the -- I don't know -- over a hundred jury trials I've had, it's never been denied. It's common law practice that the Court handles any punishment, if any, that the defendants get. That's not a function for the jury, and they should not be made

aware of what any possible penalty or punishment should be, so we would ask the Court to grant that motion. As far as Number 2, the hearsay statements offered by the defendant, again, that's a standard motion that we make in every case. The concern is the defendant calling witnesses, asking them, "Have you heard what I've said," where they can put in their defense without testifying. It denies us the right of cross-examination. Number 3 is the motion to use the blackboard in the opening statement, which again is a standard motion. Number 4 with Mr. Kellerman at the counsel table is standard motion. The Court has already ruled on sequestration. The last motion that we have is plea offers or negotiations. I'm concerned that one or both of the defendants might make some claim that the Government offered in a plea agreement to dismiss one or more counts of the Indictment prior to trial. The plea negotiations are common before any case ever goes to trial, and once they're rejected, basically all bets are off and all counts become live. So we would ask the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 12 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:38 09:38 09:38 09:38 09:39

13

Court to grant all of our motions in limine. Regarding the last couple things that Mr. Reed talked about, the difference between Counts 2 and 3, I think the Court knows this. Count 2 alleges that they attempted to file or did file a lien against Judge Hovland. Count 3 says they attempted to file a lien or did file a lien against Mr. Jordheim, the U.S. Attorney. There's two different victims in the case. The last one he talks about is 18 USC, Section 2. That's not supposed to be 1521 and 1522. It's supposed to be 18 USC, Section 2. THE COURT: Yeah, I think that is the correct citation. All right. MR. REED: That's supposed to be 18, Section 2? How come it doesn't say Title 18 U, Sec 2 -- USC Sec. 2 if it's an addition? And then also there's another issue that if he's going to charge something, everything was -- there's not a -it was done -- he's saying that the act was done all at one time. How can you do something three times, get charged three times for one single act? THE COURT: Well, the allegation is that there are different victims. That's Count 1 -MR. REED: It's all one act. It doesn't matter. It has to pertain to act, and the act of Congress specifically says that. In the creation of the courts and the laws, it says Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 13 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25
09:39 09:39 09:40 09:40 09:40

14 that if it's one act, it's one act. It's not one agency because there's 15 people under one act. Then if that's the case, Your Honor, then how come he didn't put everybody on that lien in here and name every act if that's the case? That's a manifest injustice. THE COURT: Okay. Well, the motions in limine, if you will, of the defendants are overruled. The motion of the Government in limine is sustained with qualification, as I said, that the sequestration thing applies to everyone. I guess the fact that it's a routine motion doesn't mean it should be granted, but I have seen that motion many times in other cases, and there's nothing controversial about that. It's not up to the jury as to what the penalties might be or what the guidelines are or something of that nature. The sentencing process, if the defendants are found guilty of anything, is entirely up to the Court. And, in fact, juries are rather routinely instructed that they are not to concern themselves with penalties or sentencing matters. That's entirely up to the Court. I may find that the verdict should be set aside for that matter, so those motions are all granted. Now, is there anything further that we need to take up here before we call the jury in? MR. WRIGHT: No, sir. MR. REED: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 14 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25
09:40 09:41 09:41 09:42 09:42

15 MR. REED: There was a -- there was some pleadings that were filed. What about my motion for jury instructions? THE COURT: Well, that's premature at this time. We'll take that up at the conclusion of the case, of course. MR. REED: Okay. And then there was a motion filed over a month ago that has not been answered yet at this point in time in this instant action. THE COURT: What is the nature of that motion? MR. REED: The nature of that motion is -- it was under Title 5, contempt of Constitution, administrative notice, nature and cause of writ of error coram nobis, demand for dismissal for lack of judicial -- for lack of jurisdiction. This Court is still -- ever since the beginning I have tried to use the rule book and go right by the rules, go through Rule 1, all the way through to move this case properly, and just ask for them to show jurisdiction over a sovereign native nation that is held by Congress and has a declaratory judgment against any and all states of the union by and through the session of union of states of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, declaratory judgment, Volume 203, against bringing any action against any Little Shell -- Little Shell Nation in any case, civil, criminal, anything. I have proven in my pleadings that that is so. You have legislated from the bench, Your Honor, and removed those pleadings and denied those, and you have Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 15 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
09:43 09:43 09:43 09:43 09:44

16 legislated and you have overruled the acts of Congress. And I would like to know why before we even bring in a jury and be in honor and superprotest of dishonor. That's all I'm asking for is honor here. I'm not trying to shortchange anything. I do not belong or prescribe to anything of a comme positatus (sic) group or any rights or patriots groups, and I denounce those groups. Here and in and on and for the record, I don't believe in that. Just because I'm Native, and you've seen -- you have personally seen -- everybody in this courtroom has personally seen my pedigree chart. I'm Native. I may look part White, but I'm Native through and through to the bone. I stand in honor, and I want to know why these aren't being answered and why they're not being answered in honor, and that's all. Why can't we be in honor in here? Why do we have to have these shifty little things and this unintelligible thing? Because, you know, Your Honor, just as I sit here and look you in the eye, I can tell that you can't be -- can't honestly sit there and say that those documents that I'm having to handwrite because they won't give me any way to defend myself, which would be -- if I was under your Constitution, would be my First Amendment right under the -- under the Fifth Article, right to the court, and you have denied that to me all the way. You put me in a jail. You don't give me law books. You don't give me a computer to look up a case. You don't give Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 16 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
09:44 09:44 09:45 09:45 09:45

17 me a pen. You don't give me pencils. You don't give me nothing, and then you sit here and say -- and then -- and then you appoint standby counsel. THE COURT: I didn't, but somebody did. MR. REED: Somebody did it that should have never even done it because she was on the very liens that was being brought in by the Court, so she was in void. She was devoid right there. The Court was devoid when they brought it because it was under Daniel L. Hovland. And then you had a Magistrate Alice Senechal that ruled on that and appointed standby counsel that was on the very liens that she was voiding on. You can't -- you can't sit there and rule on any motion that has -- that pertains to you. That makes the Court void instantly, and I've proven that in here. But here you appoint counsel, two really nice people. I asked them, I said, do you know anything about the authority of the United States when it comes to a sovereign native nation? Have no idea. They have never -- they have never been there through international law, so you see right now we're sitting here in a dilemma because I have honorably and honestly put forth proper pleadings, and nothing has been done, and I demand that the jury even knows about this. They have to. You can't let this stuff go in these actions. How can -- how can the United States bring a claim against a sovereign native nation under the Foreign Sovereign Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 17 of 189

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
09:46 09:46 09:46 09:46 09:46

18 Immunity Act? And how can this Court -- the Court can't, but how can you, as an honorable judge of the United States of America, appointed by a president to actually sit in the capacity of an Article III Court, if it was an Article III Court instead of a military court of the silent judicial notice you are giving me now, are -- are we under war right now? I need to know that question. Are we at war? Because I know war. You know, I've got a lot of, you know, honest questions. I'm not sitting here trying to throw anything off. If somebody's done something wrong and something is done illegal, then let's get down with it and pay for it, but what he's brought forth and what he's done and what the United States has done, it's all been done by contract and it's all been proven through the pleadings, and you've even seen it. And then I even get -- three days prior to trial you're supposed to put in the -- a grand jury and the grand jury Indictment and their concurrence form for how they concurred. I still haven't received those, so this Court is viatated (ph) right now. THE COURT: Okay. Well --

MR. REED: I want to know why this hasn't been answered. THE COURT: I ruled previously on all pretrial motions, and if I didn't, all such motions are denied. This Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 18 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:47 09:47 09:47 09:47 09:48

19 Court has jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the persons, the defendants, and we're going to go to trial. MR. REED: Your Honor, all due respect again, where's your proof? Prove it. THE COURT: I don't -- I don't furnish proof. I don't answer questions, and I don't give -MR. REED: You have to furnish proof. If you don't, the Supreme Court says that you can't move forward. And are you overruling the Supreme Court right now? Is that what you're doing? THE COURT: I don't answer questions of that nature. If I make an error, the Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Missouri -MR. REED: In and on and for the record, let it state that the Honorable Judge B. Kornmann is void. He is overruling

the acts of Congress because he will not answer it. He has violated my rights under Title 18, 243. Also, Title 18, Section 4, states that he cannot do it. He must be arrested. Marshal, arrest this man. MR. WRIGHT: Could I ask that he be cited for contempt of court, Your Honor? THE COURT: He's getting close to that. Keep your voice down, first of all. Don't be hollering at me. I'm not hollering at you and neither is Mr. Wright, so if you don't Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 19 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:48 09:48 09:48 09:48 09:49

20 proceed in an orderly manner here, I'll have you removed from the courtroom. MR. REED: I'm trying to proceed in a real orderly manner and just be honest and honorable in this thing. And you have once again viatated the Supreme Court rules. You have viatated all the laws that are even prescribed in the book, so this is considered a kangaroo court. THE COURT: I understand that's your opinion. MR. REED: That's not my opinion. It's proof because you will not -- you will not prove. He who alleges must prove, don't they?

THE COURT: You're entitled to your opinion. I'm not trying the case for the Government. I'm not the prosecutor, so I'm not -- I don't plan on proving anything. All right. MR. REED: How come Mr. Wright hasn't proved anything so he has -- I motion to dismiss right now, lack of jurisdiction. THE COURT: That motion again is denied. All right. I think we're ready to call the jury. MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: If I may, I don't know if Mr. -- if you've asked Mr. Davis if he has anything to add on this. Mr. Reed has kind of done all the talking, just for the record. THE COURT: Well, sure. Do you have anything to say, Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 20 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:49 09:49 09:50 09:50 09:50

21 sir? MR. WRIGHT: As far as the motions pretrial? THE COURT: Yes, as far as the pretrial motions. MR. DAVIS: Everybody else got to introduce themselves. May I? THE COURT: Yes. Certainly.

MR. DAVIS: I'm trying to be patient and polite. Okay. I'm Zakiz-aanakwad. I'm the spokesperson of my people. I'm a UCC lien right holder of my person, Gregory Allen Davis. I have all discharge and all instruments filed within this court. I may discharge anything I need to as who I am. We call ourselves the Esens people. That means we are Little Shell people. That's what it means. That means we -- we have -- and we know this. We have, like Mr. Reed has said, a declaratory judgment. We are the land owning entity here. We own the land this building sits on. That's it. We are the undispensable party. We have default jurisdiction as a tribe. Yes, we are not a recognized tribe. We will not sign underneath that act because then we waiver all our rights to our trustee, and I have -- we have never done that. How they can bring any action against us -- just like Mr. Reed said, but for more, how they can do that to me? I am the blood relative of all that. It's in my blood. Nobody -- nobody come made me it. I was born it. And I don't see how the government, my trustees, can Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 21 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:51 09:51 09:51 09:52 09:52

22 come against me, the trustor, and not expect me to give them a

one -- a warning, a warning, and I did on their contract. I told them of their debts, duties and liabilities, just like I told this Court and all the people in this court, acting in this court, for this court. That was in that affidavit of obligation. In there it says -- and I filed the same thing with his. I even done more than that. I even called and talked to people. I let them know firsthand, you come against us, you violate that, I will lien you up. Nobody came to me. Nobody come to my people diplomatically. A tribe is a government. That government is our trustee. They never came to us and asked us, can we settle this peacefully. Instead they sent their soldier with his gun. He threatened us. It would be different if he left his gun at home, came to us and said we want to talk. Mr. Hovland, I understand his concern. I would be very concerned somebody filed that on me too, just like I'm very concerned what this Court is doing here right now. Why didn't they go to my people? I'm the spokesman for them, just like the president is yours, the same thing. Sorry I hollered. I'm passionate, and, you know, this continues on here. I promise not to holler at anybody because I am pretty pissed. Why? I mean, put us in a room with all these people who are doing this, we'll probably walk out with a diplomatic solution. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 22 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

09:53 09:53 09:53 09:54 09:54

23 He can be their agent. We could get -- all go home because there is a solution here. It was never brought to us. And the tribe is coming. They're bringing some more papers. They're going to come sit in here. They're going to listen. They're going to take notes. They want to know why no diplomatic solution was offered to us. I mean, I'm just telling you and this Court that on and for the record we are peaceful. We don't go with guns and threaten them. We don't send our lawyers over there with a gun. Just having the gun on him when he was there threatening to arrest, once again -MR. REED: The land that he doesn't own. MR. DAVIS: Yeah. It's known in civil case 188, civil case 00122 in this same courtroom back in 1888, North Dakota filed, okay, against the United States for control of all this. United States, our trustee, came in and protected the Little Shell rights, told the Sioux they didn't own it, told the rest of the tribes they didn't own it. They held it in trust for Little Shell, who has yet to sign under that. We have one contract with them. It's called the 1863 treaty. That's our contract, and we are there by blood right. We are there. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. Let's call the jury. Now, we're not going to use an alternate juror. I don't think we need that. And so the Government will have strikes and the defendants, of course, will have strikes. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 23 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

10:04 10:05 10:05 10:05 10:06

24 (The jury panel is brought into the courtroom.) THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury panel. I am Charles Kornmann. I'm a United States district judge in Aberdeen, South Dakota. As you probably know, a federal judge can try a case anywhere in the United States. I volunteered to go to Puerto Rico, but they sent me to Bismarck. Just kidding. Bismarck's probably better than Aberdeen anyway, so I'm glad to be here. I'm on senior status, which means that I'm a volunteer, basically. If I maintain a caseload of about 60 percent of the normal active federal district judge, then I can keep my two lawyers and my secretary. What you are doing here today goes back to June of 1215 in England at the time of the Magna Carta, when the English noblemen forced King John to agree to a trial by jury. The Magna Carta, of course, did not guarantee a jury in the way that we have it in our country now. Only the so-called noblemen had the right to a jury trial. Apparently there weren't any noblewomen back then, so they didn't get a jury trial. The ordinary working people didn't get a jury trial. When our country was a colony, of course, before the Revolutionary War, the King was giving some jury trials, but they were in Nova Scotia, hardly a convenient place for a jury trial, and so we have improved greatly on the Magna Carta since then. The right to a jury trial, of course, was one of the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 24 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:06 10:06 10:07 10:07 10:07

25 principal reasons that our ancestors fought and won the Revolutionary War. President John Adams in 1774 stated that, quote, representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and housed, end quote. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1778 that he considered the right to a trial by jury as the only anchor yet ever imagined by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution. He once said that if he was forced to choose between the precious gifts of the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and all the other rights that we have as American citizens, that he would choose the Sixth -the Seventh Amendment right, which guarantees a trial by jury, and that if he were forced to choose, he would choose the right of a trial by jury. As you well know, we have three co-equal branches of government under our system. The federal judiciary is the only branch in which citizens participate directly. You, of course, can run for the legislature. You can run to be elected as a member of Congress. You can run for president. If you serve on a jury, which some of you will, you can tell the federal Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 25 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:08 10:08 10:09 10:09 10:09

26 government and anybody else what to do. You can't go to Congress and tell them what to do. You can't tell the president what to do, but in the federal judiciary you can tell anybody what to do if you're on the jury. You have to follow the law, of course, which I will tell you about, but you have a great deal of authority here. You are the direct representatives of the people of our country. You cannot volunteer for this duty. If you could, you probably wouldn't. This is the only mandatory duty of citizenship left, with the military draft having been abolished. The pay is poor. If you work for yourself, you'd certainly rather be on the job. If you work for somebody else, your boss would rather have you working than here. And, in fact, if you don't have a job outside the home, you would probably rather be home sorting socks than being here. The jury system in our country is, of course, unlike even what we see in the countries of Western Europe, where they have three judges who decide most cases. I was a trial lawyer for about 30 years before I became a judge in 1995, and I can tell you that any lawyer would rather have a jury trial any day than 15 judges because all of you people bring into this courtroom your common sense, your experiences in the ordinary affairs of life. And the system works, not always perhaps, perhaps not a hundred percent, but in most cases the system works. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 26 of 189
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:10 10:10 10:10 10:11 10:11

27 You will be in every sense judges if you're on this jury. You are the judges of the facts. I am the judge of the law. You and I are on the same team. We don't care who wins or loses, so to speak. Your job and my job is to see that justice is done here. I thank you again and congratulate you for being here today. Now we're going to -- I'm going to ask some questions of you. We'll start here with people up here in the box, so to speak. Those of you who are in the back of the courtroom, listen carefully to the questions that I ask of the people up here in the box so that if someone is excused up here and you are -- your name is called and you are asked to come forward, we don't have to go through the same questions again. We can simply ask you whether any of the questions that I asked previously would have caused you to give some answer. If any of the questions that I ask are matters that you would rather answer in private, just simply so indicate and we'll step off to the side here with the court reporter and the parties, and you can answer the question. We're not trying to pry into your personal affairs or to embarrass anyone. We are trying to do the best we can to make sure that both sides

receive a fair trial. This is a criminal case, and the Government is represented by Assistant United States Attorney Thomas Wright, if you would stand, Mr. Wright, and tell them who's at the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 27 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:11 10:12 10:12 10:12 10:12

28 table with you again from the FBI. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tom Wright, and with me at counsel table here is Aaron Kellerman, FBI agent. THE COURT: Now, he's with the U.S. Attorney's Office in South Dakota, not North Dakota. Do any of you folks know anyone who works for the U.S. Attorney's Office in North Dakota or South Dakota for that matter. That's the U.S. Attorney's Office, not the State's Attorney, the people that work for the State of North Dakota, or whatever. If you know anybody like that, please raise your hand. MR. WRIGHT: And, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: If I may, you told the jurors in the box to acknowledge. I think the jurors on the benches too are -have been drawn also, so are they supposed to acknowledge any

of your questions also? THE COURT: Yes. I guess that's right, yes. MR. WRIGHT: I think they're live too. THE COURT: Yes, that's correct. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Yeah, those of you who are on the front benches, this also applies to you, of course. Let's see. Is that Mr. Grimm? MR. GRIMM: That's correct. THE COURT: Who do you know, sir? MR. GRIMM: Shon Hastings of Fargo. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 28 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:13 10:13 10:13 10:13 10:14

29 THE COURT: Does he work for the U.S. Attorney's Office? MR. GRIMM: She does, yes. THE COURT: She does. I'm sorry. Okay. Is that correct, Mr. Wright? Do you know? MR. WRIGHT: I have never heard that name, sir. THE COURT: Okay. Would that fact in any way influence your decision here? MR. GRIMM: I don't believe so. THE COURT: If you -- let me ask you this. How do you know her?

MR. GRIMM: She went to school with my wife. THE COURT: Okay. If you voted -- if you were on the jury here and voted to find the defendants not guilty and you saw her next week or next month, would that bother you at all? MR. GRIMM: No, it wouldn't. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir. Anybody else then who knows anybody who works for the U.S. Attorney's Office in North or South Dakota? (No audible response.) All right. Now, the defendants here, I should have -- I should have introduced them, and so I'm going to call you by your names as we find in the Indictment. That's Michael Howard Reed. Sir, if you would stand so they can take a look at you. What's your address originally, sir? MR. REED: I don't have an original address. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 29 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:14 10:14 10:15 10:15 10:15

30 THE COURT: Okay. MR. REED: I am -- I live on an Indian reservation, is where I live. I live on Native land, that we don't have addresses or streets or any of that. The closest thing that there is is some people have rural route. I don't know if you're experienced with rural route mailboxes, and I don't have

one, so -THE COURT: All right. MR. REED: I just don't have any of that. THE COURT: Mr. Reed is one of the defendants here in this action and is representing himself, as he has the right to do under our Constitution. Is there any one of you folks here again in the jury box or in the front rows there that knows Mr. Reed? If so, please raise your hand. (No audible response.) All right. Thank you, Mr. Reed. He has what's called a standby attorney. In case Mr. Reed wants to ask that attorney any questions, that attorney is here in the courtroom, and that's James Hovey. Would you stand, sir? And you're from Grand Forks, is that right? MR. HOVEY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Let's see. You're with, what, Pearson -MR. HOVEY: I'm with the Pearson Christensen & Clapp firm in Grand Forks. The lawyers in our firm are Garry Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 30 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:15 10:16 10:16 10:17 10:17

31 Pearson, Doug Christensen, Richard Clapp, Ron Fischer, Dan

Gaustad, Linda Bata, Jon Jensen, Marianne Knudson, Sarah Barron, Joe Quinn, Linda Bata, if I didn't say that name already. THE COURT: Any of you folks know either Mr. Hovey or any of those other people in his law firm from Grand Forks? (No audible response.) All right. Thank you, Mr. Hovey. Now, the other defendant is Gregory Allen Davis. That's Mr. Davis. Thank you, sir. And again, he is acting as his attorney, and he's also the defendant here. Is there any of you folks who know Mr. Davis? (No audible response.) All right. Thank you, sir. Now, his standby attorney is Joel Larson, who's also from Grand Forks. Tell us who's in your law firm. MR. LARSON: I work at the Camrud Maddock Olson & Larson law firm, and we have Patrick Maddock, Gordon Myerchin, Darrell Larson, Scott Jensen, Russ Melland, Tim Dittus, Randy Hanson, Donna Smith, Mike Loesevitz, and Meghan Compton. THE COURT: Any of you folks know any of those lawyers? (No audible response.) All right. Thank you. Now, the Indictment in this case -- and the Indictment doesn't mean anything. It just -- that's what the Government claims happened. It's not evidence of anything. It doesn't mean that the defendants are guilty of anything. It's what the Government claims happened here, and which they will Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 31 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:18 10:18 10:19 10:19 10:19

32 have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Count 1 charges that commencing on or about September 24, 2009, and continuing through the date of the Indictment, which is June 8, 2010, the defendants, Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis, knowingly conspired with each other and with others known and unknown to the grand jury to file in any public record and in any private record which is generally available to the public, a false lien, an encumbrance against the real and personal property of Judge Daniel Hovland and Lynn C. Jordheim, individuals described in 18 United States Code, Section 1114, on account of the official performance -excuse me, on account of the performance of official duties by Judge Hovland and Mr. Jordheim. Mr. Jordheim is the former U.S. Attorney for the District of South Dakota (sic). Judge Hovland, of course, is a U.S. District Judge in North Dakota. MR. WRIGHT: It's North Dakota for Mr. Jordheim, Your Honor. THE COURT: What did I say? MR. WRIGHT: You said South Dakota. THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. North Dakota, right. And then the Indictment goes on in Count 1, knowing and having reason to know that such lien and encumbrance was false and contained materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations, all in violation of 18 United States Code, Section 1521. Is there any one of you folks who's Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 32 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

10:19 10:20 10:20 10:20 10:21

33 heard anything at all about what the Government says happened as to this Count 1? (No audible response.) Count 2 charges that between on or about September 24, 2009, and the date of the Indictment, in the District of North Dakota, the defendants, Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis, did knowingly attempt to file and did file in a public record and in a private record which is generally available to the public, a false lien and encumbrance against the real and personal property of Judge Daniel Hovland, an individual described in 18 United States Code, Section 1114, on account of the performance of official duties by Judge Hovland, knowing and having reason to know that such lien and encumbrance was false and contained materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations, and did aid and abet each other in committing the offense, all in violation of 18 United States Code, Sections 1521 and 2. Again, is there any one of you folks who has heard anything at all about what the Government claimed happened here as to this Count 2? (No audible response.) Count 3, the Indictment charges that between on or about September 24, 2009, and the date of the Indictment, in the District of North Dakota, the defendants, Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis, did knowingly attempt to file and did file in a public record and in a private record which is generally available to the public, a false lien, an encumbrance Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 33 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:21 10:21 10:22 10:22 10:23

34 against the real and personal property of Lynn C. Jordheim, an individual described in 18 United States Code, Section 1114, on account of the performance of official duties by Mr. Jordheim, knowing and having reason to know that such lien and encumbrance was false and contained materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations, and did aid and abet each other in committing the offense, all in violation of 18 United States Code, Sections 1521 and 2. Again, is there any one of you folks who's heard anything at all about what the Government claimed happened as to that Count 3? Excuse me. Yes, Count 3. (No audible response.) Count 4 charges that between on or about May 1, 2009, and July 1, 2009, in the District of North Dakota, the defendant, Michael Howard Reed, did by threatening communication endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice; that is, the criminal case entitled United States of America versus Patrick Allery, then pending in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, by leaving a recorded phone message with Judge Ralph Erickson's chambers in Fargo, North Dakota, in violation of 18 United States Code, Section 1503(a). Has anyone heard anything at all about what the Government claims happened as to that case? (No audible response.) Judge Ralph Erickson is the United States District Judge who sits in Fargo. And in Count 5, the Indictment charges that between Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 34 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:23 10:23 10:24 10:24 10:25

35 on or about May 1, 2009, and July 1, 2009, in the District of North Dakota, the defendant, Michael Howard Reed, did by threatening communication endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice; that is, the criminal case entitled United States of America versus Patrick Allery, then pending in United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, by leaving a recorded phone message with the Federal Bureau of Investigation office in Minot, North Dakota, in violation of 18 United States Code, Section 1503(a). Is there any one of you folks who's heard anything at all about what the Government claims happened as I just read to you from Count 5? (No audible response.) All right. Now I want to tell you just something here. We sit in what's called the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit sits in St. Louis, Missouri. That encompasses North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Arkansas, so it's kind of up and down the middle of the country. There's a rule that the Eighth Circuit follows that -- and it's the only circuit in the country that does this. Why, I don't know, but this is the rule. The Indictment such as I just read to you has to charge in the conjunctive; that is, they use the word "and," whereas, the jury instructions and the law, the statutes read in the disjunctive. They read "or." I think one of the first cases I tried in Pierre, South Dakota, as a judge, at that time I was sending the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 35 of 189
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:25 10:25 10:26 10:26 10:26

36 Indictment in with the jury, and they sent back a question and said, "Why is the Indictment in the conjunctive, and the Court's jury instructions are in the disjunctive," which shows you how intelligent that many juries are, that they saw that. I was, frankly, somewhat surprised, but that's right. That was a very good question. And so I had to explain that to them, so usually I don't send back the Indictment with the jury anymore because then we just get into those kinds of questions. I don't understand why the Indictment doesn't charge in the disjunctive, did this or that or this or that, but it doesn't so that's the reason for that. Now, it's difficult to tell in any given case just how long the case is going to try. This is not going to be one of those cases like you read about in California, where it takes them six weeks to pick the jury, or something. I don't know what's going on in some of those courts. They only work a couple hours a day, I think, and then they take a break, but I think the best estimate here is that this case will take maybe two or three days. That's just a guess. The lawyers don't know. The parties don't know. I don't know, and I don't care because I get paid the same whether I work or not, so -- but

that's a pretty good estimate. We'll be done this week. The case will be in the hands of the jury this week. As I understand it, the clerk's office probably does a better job here than they do in South Dakota, and they have a Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 36 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:26 10:27 10:27 10:28 10:28

37 pretty good idea that when you show up here, you're ready to go to work and that you're available for jury duty. But is there any one of you that has an overwhelming personal or business problem to make it a terrible hardship for you to serve on this jury? We're not asking you to go to Afghanistan or Iraq, or something. It is inconvenient for everybody, but is there anybody that has an overwhelming problem to sitting on this jury, you folks up here in the front or here? (No audible response) All right. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Everyone who is accused of a crime, as these two gentlemen are, is presumed to be innocent or more correctly not guilty. This presumption of innocence remains with these people, with these defendants throughout the trial. And if the Government fails to offer sufficient evidence to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant or the defendant in question is guilty, this presumption of innocence alone

entitles that person to be found by you as not guilty. Do any of you folks believe you would have any difficulty giving each of these defendants the benefit of the presumption of innocence to which each of these gentlemen is entitled to under our Constitution? If you have any problem with that at all, please raise your hand. (No audible response.) All right. I thank you. During the course of this case and at the end of the case, it is my responsibility to explain to you the law that Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 37 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:28 10:29 10:29 10:29 10:30

38 will be applicable in this case. Do any of you -- is there any reason why any one of you would be unwilling to accept the law which I will give you during the course of this case and at the end of this case? If so, please raise your hand. (No audible response.) Do all of you agree then that you would accept the law that I give you and try to apply that law to the facts as you find them to the best of your abilities? If not, please raise your hand. (No audible response.) I realize that you know very little about this case. All you know at this point is what the Government claimed happened, but is there -- do you know of any reason at this

stage why any one of you could not be a fair and impartial juror in this case? If so, please raise your hand. (No audible response.) Now, we have two defendants here. Each of them is obviously a separate defendant. You should judge -- you must judge the case of each defendant separately. Well, Mr. Reed is charged with a couple more counts than Mr. Davis is charged with, so you can't hold that against the other defendant, but you have to -- you have to look at these cases individually, and if you find one guilty or one not guilty, that doesn't mean that you have to reach the same verdict for the other defendant. Do any of you have any problem with that? Do you all promise me that you will judge each of these defendants' cases separately and fairly? (No audible response.) Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 38 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:30 10:30 10:31 10:31 10:31

39 All right. Now, I allow you to bring water into the courtroom after the jury is selected here. Everybody else has water. There's no reason why you can't have it, so if you want to bring water into the courtroom, you're free to do that, of course. When you come back after a break, just file right on into the jury box. Nobody has an assigned seat. We don't want

people crawling over one other. And please -- the parties and I will be in the courtroom waiting for you, so please remain standing until I ask all of you to be seated. I allow jurors to take notes. The clerk will give you notebooks and pencils if you're on the jury, if you want to use them. If you don't want to take notes, that's fine. That's your business too. I also allow the members of the jury to ask questions. If you want to ask a question, raise your hand before the witness leaves the stand, get my attention, and then you can write out the question. The clerk will come over and take your question. I will look at it. I will read it. If it's okay, I'll ask the question. If it isn't okay under the Rules of Evidence, I won't ask the question. You can't just ask a question orally. You have to write it out because some questions can't be asked, and I have to pass on that. If I'm in doubt on that, I'll ask the parties to come up and look at the question. Don't -- in asking a question, don't step into the shoes of the prosecutor or of the defendants. And keep in Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 39 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:32 10:32 10:33 10:33 10:33

40 mind that once that person leaves the stand, it's too late to

ask a question, so if you have one, raise your hand right away. If I'm going too long, if you need a break, raise your hand. I sometimes run court too long. I'm not sure what I'm going to do here. At home I run until 6 o'clock at night, and so that can be a long day. The lawyers accuse me of running night court most of the time, but I'm not sure what the custom is here. I'll try to follow here what goes on in North Dakota more than what I do. If you're on this jury, be sure that you do not, during the course of the trial at any time, get on the internet. You don't do any research. You don't start looking on the internet for some information or do any research, or anything. Just listen to what you hear in this courtroom. Don't twitter to anyone or get on a blog, or something. It's getting out of control, frankly, in some of the courts. They have people from the jury sometimes who are sitting there and they'll send a text message to somebody and say, well, we're listening -- I'm listening -- I'm on the jury here, and this guy is really guilty of something. I'm not sure yet, all kinds of crazy stuff like that. That should not be going on, of course. Don't tell anybody else anything that you're doing here. Of course, if you're on the jury, you don't talk about the case until the end of the case, when you've heard all of Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 40 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:34 10:34 10:35 10:37 10:37

41 the evidence. And likewise, you don't go home at night or look in the encyclopedia or dictionary, or something, to try to find some question that you have in your mind. Just listen to what the witnesses say in this courtroom on the stand under oath. All right. Now, the attorneys have the right to strike a certain number of jurors. It's a mandatory strike-down system so that we get to the jury of 12 who will try this case. I'm not going to use an alternate juror. Sometimes we do if it's going to be a very long case, so we're taking a chance on that because we have to have 12 jurors. I don't want to tie up any more people than I absolutely have to, so we're not going to use an alternate here. All right. I don't have any voir dire questions, so -- any more questions, so the parties may now exercise their peremptory challenges. The Government will exercise first. Did you tell them how many strikes they have now? MR. REED: It's hard to do this when you're picking a jury. Sorry for the delay. You know, I like to hear -- Your Honor and the jury, I like to hear a little bit about each individual and what they do for work and stuff like that. I've picked many juries, and normally that's the procedure, and you obviously don't do that, so it's a little different for me to sequester (sic) a jury that I'm not used to knowing a little bit about each individual and who they are, what they -- you know, so it's going to take me just a little bit here. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 41 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

10:38 10:38 10:51 10:51 10:54

42 THE COURT: That's all right. MR. REED: I don't mean to -THE COURT: I just wanted to make sure that you understood how many strikes you have at this point. MR. REED: Oh, I completely understand, you know, and it's just -- this is for me -- you know, you like to get to know the person. You like to know either just by their voice and -- you know, and what they like and what they know and what they've done in their life and whatnot, and in this case I'm not able to be afforded that. (The 12-person jury was selected by the parties and counsel.) THE COURT: As I told you, this is a mandatory strike-down process, so -- which we force the parties to do to get to 12 jurors. There's no scientific method to selecting a jury. I can tell you that. I've tried a lot of cases as a lawyer in the 30 years before I became a judge, and never could figure out how to select a jury. It's just wild guesses, for the most part. And if you're not selected, there's no adverse implication, of course, of any kind. It just means that you're lucky and get to go home. Let's wait for those jury panel members to get back here before we read the names of the jury. The clerk will now read the 12 members of the jury who will stay and decide this case. THE CLERK: Kimberly Schlag, Elizabeth Pilgrim. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 42 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:54 10:55 10:56 10:58 10:58

43 THE COURT: That's scratched. I thought you were reading from the bottom, up. Oh, okay. Start again, please. THE CLERK: Kimberly Schlag, Elizabeth Pilgrim, Connie Barnick, Merrilee Bodvig, Ted Grimm, Elizabeth Swanson, Rhonda Vetter. THE COURT: Wait a minute. Did you skip Lillian Wangler? Oh, okay. Go ahead. THE CLERK: Brittany Feil, Kirk Lauer, Kenneth Paulson, Rick Schapp, and Anthony Welder. THE COURT: If your name was not called, you may be excused or stay as you like. And I thank all of you, ladies and gentlemen, for having come here this morning. Those of you who are on the back bench, so to speak, if you would take a seat in the jury box, please. Do you have notebooks and pencils to hand out now? Let's hand those out. If you think you might want to take notes, take a notebook and a pencil. If you think you might have a question, take a notebook and a pencil for sure. If you don't want either one, don't take it. If you would stand, please, raise your right hand, and the clerk will administer the oath to you as a jury to try this case. (The 12-person trial jury is sworn in by the clerk.) THE COURT: Please be seated. I'm going to now give you the Court's preliminary instructions on the law, just to tell you the way things are going to go here, matter of Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 43 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10:59 10:59 10:59 11:00 11:00

44 procedure, for example, and then we'll take a recess, about 15-minute recess. Members of the jury, I will take a few moments now to give you some initial instructions about this case and about your duties as jurors. At the end of the trial I will give you further instructions. I may also give you instructions during the trial. Unless I specifically tell you otherwise, all such instructions, both those I give you now and those I give you later, are equally binding on you and must be followed. This is a criminal case brought against the defendants, Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis, by the United States Government. The charges are set forth in what is called the Indictment. You should understand that an Indictment is simply an accusation. It is not evidence of anything. The Government charges in Count 1 of the Indictment that commencing on or about September 24, 2009, and continuing through the date of the Indictment, in the District of North Dakota, the defendants, Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis, knowingly conspired with each other and with others known and unknown to the grand jury to file in any public record or in any private record which is generally available to the public a false lien or encumbrance against the real or personal property of Judge Daniel Hovland or Lynn C. Jordheim, individuals described in 18, United States Code, Sections 1114, on account of the performance of official duties by Judge Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 44 of 189
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:00 11:01 11:01 11:02 11:02

45 Hovland or Mr. Jordheim, knowing or having reason to know that such lien or encumbrance was false or contained materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, all in violation of 18 United States Code, Section 1521. The Government charges in Count 2 of the Indictment that between on or about September 24, 2009, and the date of the Indictment, in the District of North Dakota, the defendants, Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis, did knowingly attempt to file or did file in a public record or in a private record which is generally available to the public a false lien or encumbrance against the real or personal property of Judge Daniel Hovland, an individual described in 18 United States Code, Section 1114, on account of a performance of official duties by Judge Hovland, knowing or having reason to know that such lien or encumbrance was false or contained materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or did aid or abet each other in committing this offense, all in violation of 18 United States Code, Sections 1521 and Section 2. The Government charges in Count 3 of the Indictment that between on or about September 24, 2009, and the date of

the Indictment, in the District of North Dakota, the defendants, Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis, did knowingly attempt to file or did file in a public record or in a private record which is generally available to the public a Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 45 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:02 11:03 11:03 11:04 11:04

46 false lien or encumbrance against the real or personal property of Lynn C. Jordheim, an individual described in 18 United States Code, Section 1114, on account of the performance of official duties by Mr. Jordheim, knowing or having reason to know that such lien or encumbrance was false, or contained materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or that he did aid or abet each other; that is, that they did aid or abet each other in committing the offense, all in violation of 18 United States Code, Sections 1521 and 2. The Government charges in Count 4 of the Indictment that between on or about May 1, 2009, and July 1, 2009, in the District of North Dakota, the defendant, Michael Howard Reed, did by threatening communication endeavor to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; that is, in the criminal case entitled United States of America versus

Patrick Allery, then pending in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, by leaving a recorded phone message with Judge Ralph Erickson's chambers in Fargo, North Dakota, and in doing that he violated 18 United States Code, Section 1503(a). The Government charges in Count 5 of the Indictment that between on or about May 1, 2009, and July 1, 2009, in the District of North Dakota, the defendant, Michael Howard Reed, did by threatening communication endeavor to influence, Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 46 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:04 11:05 11:05 11:05 11:06

47 obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; that is, the criminal case entitled United States of America versus Patrick Allery, then pending in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, by leaving a recorded phone message with the Federal Bureau of Investigation Office in Minot, North Dakota, in violation of 18 United States Code, Section 15039(a). The defendants have pleaded not guilty to these charges and are presumed to be not guilty unless and until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It will be your duty to decide from the evidence whether the defendants are guilty

or not guilty of the crimes charged. In ordinary lay usage, the term, quote, not guilty, end quote, is often considered to be synonymous with, quote, innocent, end quote. The news media often confuses these terms. The terms are not synonymous. Not guilty is a legal finding by the jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof. A not guilty verdict can result from either of two states of mind on the part of the jury. Number one, that you believe a defendant is factually innocent and did not commit the crime or crimes; or two, although you do not necessarily believe that a defendant is innocent and even tend to believe that he did commit the crime or crimes, the prosecution's case was not sufficiently strong to convince you of that defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 47 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:06 11:07 11:07 11:07 11:08

48 From the evidence you will decide what the facts are. You are entitled to consider that evidence in the light of your own observations and experiences in the affairs of life. You may use reason and common sense to draw deductions or conclusions from facts which have been established by the evidence. You will then apply those facts to the law which I

give you in these and in my other instructions, and in that way reach your verdicts. You are the sole judges of the facts, but you must follow the law stated in my instructions whether you agree with it or not. Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law demands of you just verdicts unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as given to you by the Court. You should not take anything I may say or do during the trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what I think your verdicts should be. Finally, please remember that only these defendants are on trial here, not anyone else. And that these defendants are on trial only for the crimes charged, not for anything else. I have mentioned the word "evidence." Evidence includes the testimony of witnesses, documents and other things received as exhibits, any facts that are stipulated; that is, formally agreed to by the parties, and any facts that are judicially noticed; that is, facts which I say you may, but are not required to accept as true even without evidence. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 48 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:08 11:08 11:09 11:09 11:09

49 Certain things are not evidence. I will list those

things for you now. One, statements, arguments, questions and comments by the people sitting at these two tables here are not evidence unless they're under oath and on the witness stand. Two, objections are not evidence. Parties have a right to object when they believe something is improper. You should not be influenced by any objection. If I sustain any objection to a question, you must ignore the question and must not try to guess what the answer might have been. Three, testimony and questions that I strike from the record or tell you to disregard are not evidence and must not be considered by you. Four, anything you see or hear about this case outside this courtroom is not evidence unless I specifically tell you otherwise during the trial. Furthermore, a particular item of evidence is sometimes received for a limited purpose only; that is, it can be used by you only for one particular purpose and not for any other purpose. I will tell you when and if that happens and instruct you on the purposes for which the item can and cannot be used. Finally, some of you may have heard the terms, quote, direct evidence, end quote, and, quote, circumstantial evidence, end quote. You are instructed that you should not be concerned with those terms. The law makes no distinction Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 49 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:10 11:10 11:10 11:11 11:11

50 between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. You should give all evidence the weight and value you believe it is entitled to receive. I think the best explanation that I've heard of the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence is you're standing outside looking up in the sky and you see a jet plane. That's direct evidence that that plane was there. If you look up but don't see a plane, you see contrails, that is circumstantial evidence that the plane was there. In deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide what testimony you believe and what testimony you do not believe. You may believe all of what a witness says or only part of it or none of it. In deciding what testimony of any witness to believe, consider the intelligence of the witness, the opportunity the witness had to see or hear the things testified about, the memory of a witness, any motives the witness may have for testifying a certain way, the manner of the witness while testifying, whether the witness said something different at an earlier time, the general reasonableness of the testimony, and the extent to which the testimony is consistent with other evidence that you believe. At the end of the trial you must make your decision on what you recall of the evidence. You will not have a written transcript to consult, and the court reporter will not be required to read back lengthy testimony. Therefore, you Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 50 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

11:11 11:12 11:12 11:12 11:13

51 must pay close attention to the testimony as it is given. If you wish, however, as I told you earlier, you may take notes to help you remember what witnesses said. If you do take notes, please keep them to yourself until you and the other jurors go back to the jury room to decide the case. Do not let note taking distract you so that you do not hear other answers by the witness. Your notes, if you take them, should be used only as memory aids. You should not give your notes precedence over your independent recollection of the evidence. If you do not take notes, you should rely on your own independent recollection of the proceedings, and you should not be influenced by the notes of other jurors. I emphasize that notes are not entitled to any greater weight than the recollection or impression of each juror as to what the testimony might have been. When you leave at night your notes will be secured and not read by anyone. At the end of the trial your notes will be shredded and not read by anyone. During the trial it may be necessary for me to talk with the parties out of the hearing of the jury either by having a bench conference with you present in the courtroom or by calling a recess. Please understand that while you are waiting, we are working. The purpose of these conferences is to decide how certain evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence and to avoid confusion and error. We will, of Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 51 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:13 11:13 11:14 11:14 11:14

52 course, do what we can to keep the number and length of those conferences to an absolute minimum. To ensure fairness there are certain rules that you need to follow as jurors. First, do not talk among yourselves about this case or about anyone involved with it until the end of the trial, when you go back to the jury room to decide on your verdicts. Second, do not talk with anyone else about this case or about anyone involved with it until the trial has ended and you have been discharged as jurors. Third, when you are outside this courtroom, do not let anyone tell you anything about this case or about anyone involved with it. If someone should try to talk to you about this case or about any person involved in the case, please report that to me immediately. Four, during the trial you should not talk with or even speak to the lawyers, parties, or witnesses involved in this case. You should not even pass the time of day with any of them. It is important not only that you and I do justice, but that we give the appearance of doing justice. If a person from one side sees you talking to a person from the other side, even if it is simply to pass the time of day, an unwarranted and unnecessary suspicion about your fairness might be aroused. Therefore, if any lawyer, party or witness does not speak to you when passing in the hall, riding on the elevator or the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 52 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:15 11:15 11:15 11:16 11:16

53 like, it is because they are not supposed to do that. Fifth, it may be necessary for you to tell your family, friends, teachers, co-workers or employer about your participation in this trial. You can explain when you are required to be in court and can warn them not to ask you about this case, tell you anything they know or think they know about the case, or even discuss the case in your presence. You need not -- excuse me. You must not communicate with anyone or post information about the parties, witnesses, participants, charges, evidence or anything else related to this case. You must not tell anyone anything about the jury's deliberations in this case until after I have accepted your verdicts or I give you specific permission to do so. If you discuss the case with someone other than the other jurors during deliberations at the end of the case -- at the end of the trial, it could create the perception that you have clearly decided the case or that you may be influenced in your verdict by their opinions. That would not be fair to the parties and it may result in the verdicts being thrown out and the case having to be retried. During the trial, while you are in the courthouse and after you have left for the day, do not provide any information to anyone by any means about this case. Thus, for example, do not talk face to face or use any electronic device or media such as the telephone, a cell phone, smartphone, BlackBerry, Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 53 of 189
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:17 11:17 11:17 11:18 11:18

54 PDA, computer, the internet, any internet service, any text or instant messaging service, any internet chat room, blog or website such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, or Twitter, or in any other way to communicate to anyone any information about this case until after I have accepted your verdicts. Six, do not do any research on the internet, in libraries, in the newspapers, or in any other way or make any investigation about this case on your own. Do not visit or view any place discussed in this case. Do not use internet programs or any other device to search for or to view any place discussed in the testimony. Do not research any information about this case, the law, or the people involved, including the parties, the witnesses, the lawyers, or even the judge. Seven, do not read any news stories about this case or go on the internet. Do not read any blogs or listen to any radio or television reports about the case or about anyone involved with it. I do not know whether there are going to be any news reports concerning this case. I doubt it. I don't see anybody from the media here in the courtroom, but if there are, make sure that you do not read anything at all or listen to any news reports as to this case.

The parties, in short, have the right to have the case decided only on evidence that they know about, that has been introduced here in court. If you do some research or investigation or experiment that we don't know about, then your Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 54 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:18 11:19 11:19 11:19 11:20

55 verdict may be influenced by inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information that has not been tested by the trial process, including an oath to tell the truth and by cross-examination. All the parties are entitled to a fair trial rendered by an impartial jury, and you must conduct yourselves so as to maintain the integrity of the trial process. Failure to follow these instructions may result in the case having to be retried and could result in you being held in contempt. Eight, do not make up your mind during the trial about what the verdict should be. Keep an open mind until after you have gone back to the jury room to decide the case and you and the other jurors have talked about the evidence. You must leave your cell phone, PDA, BlackBerry, smartphone iPhone, and any other wireless communication devices in the jury room during the trial and may only use them during breaks.

However, you are not allowed to have cell phones in the jury room during your deliberations. You may give your cell phone to the deputy clerk for safekeeping just before you start to deliberate. It will be returned to you when your deliberations are complete. The trial will proceed in the following manner. First, the Government attorney makes an opening statement. Next, the defendant or the defendants may, but do not have to make an opening statement. An opening statement, remember, is Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 55 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:20 11:20 11:21 11:21 11:48

56 not evidence, but is simply a summary of what that party thinks the evidence is going to be. The Government will then present its evidence, and the defendants or their attorneys, standby attorneys, may cross-examine those witnesses. Following the Government's case, the defendants may, but do not have to, present evidence, testify, or call other witnesses. If a defendant calls a witness, the Government attorney, of course, may cross-examine those witnesses. After presentation of the evidence has been completed, the attorneys or the defendants will make their closing arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence for

you. As with opening statements, closing arguments are not evidence. I will then instruct you further on the law, and after that you will retire to deliberate on your verdicts. Okay. We're going to take a 15-minute recess now. We'll see how it goes here as to when we're going to quit for the noon hour. It may be a little bit after 12:00. Anybody have a problem with that? We'll see how it goes. All right. The jury is excused. Follow the clerk. All rise. (A recess was taken from 11:21 a.m. to 11:48 a.m., the same day.) THE COURT: We are at the stage of the trial now for opening statements. Mr. Wright, you may proceed. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Your Honor. And with the Court's permission, may I move the dry eraser board in front of Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 56 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:48 11:49 11:49 11:49 11:49

57 the jury? THE COURT: I'm sorry. Say again. MR. WRIGHT: May I move the blackboard in front of the jury? THE COURT: Yes, you may. If the defendants want to move over there so you can see that blackboard, you're free to

do that. MR. REED: Okay. Thank you. THE COURT: You can sit there on the bench over there. MR. REED: All right. MR. WRIGHT: May it please the Court, counsel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As the Judge said, my name is Tom Wright, and I'm an assistant United States attorney. This is the time of the trial called the opening statements. It's when I'll have an opportunity to forecast what I believe the evidence will show. Now, the opening statement is not evidence. It's a road map or a forecast of what we anticipate the evidence in this case will be. The case against these two defendants actually grew out of or arose from another case, so I need to give you some brief background on that case. In November of 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of North Dakota filed a narcotics Indictment against 17 defendants. All 17 defendants were charged with the same Indictment, one Indictment, 17 Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 57 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:50 11:50 11:50 11:51 11:51

58 different names on it. Two of the 17 defendants were named

John Lenoir and Patrick Allery, and they had some connection with an unrecognized Indian tribe here in North Dakota called the Little Shell Band. I've got Mr. Allery's name up here on the board. Now, the fact that these two men were associated with this Indian tribe had nothing to do with the reason why they were indicted. Fifteen other people on the same Indictment were also charged with narcotics offenses. Whenever the Government files an Indictment against an individual, that Indictment is assigned to a specific United States court judge. Once the case hits the district court, one particular judge presides over the balance of that case. And this 17-count Indictment -- 17-defendant Indictment was assigned to Judge Ralph Erickson, the judge from Fargo, North Dakota. Judge Erickson is hearing Allery's case, and he's also hearing the case involving the 16 other defendants all listed on the same Indictment. The federal judge, ladies and gentlemen, is appointed by the president of the United States, with Senate approval. They're appointed for life, and it's a very responsible and important job. Mr. Allery, who also goes by the name of Neegee, N-E-E-G-E-E, entered court and he pled not guilty, and this case started moving through the system. He was supposed to show up in March of 2009 for an intermediate hearing in the case, and he failed to show up, and so Judge Erickson did what Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 58 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:51 11:51 11:52 11:52 11:52

59 any other judge would do in the case. He issued a warrant for Mr. Allery's arrest. He wants him re-arrested. Allery had been to court once before. He pled not guilty, and now they couldn't find him. They issued a warrant. In his case it's essentially called a fugitive status, so the FBI starts looking for Mr. Allery. Mr. Allery and, again, Mr. Lenoir had some association with this Little Shell Band, and that takes us to the two defendants in this case, Mr. Reed and Mr. Davis. Mr. Reed and Mr. Davis both belong to or have some connection with the Little Shell Band. And the evidence will show both Mr. Reed and Mr. Davis believed incorrectly that the federal government has no jurisdiction over people that belong to this tribe. They basically believe that all of the members of that tribe are somehow immune from federal prosecution, including narcotics prosecution. And Mr. Reed is especially mad that the Government is prosecuting Mr. Allery, and he's especially mad at Judge Erickson because he has not dismissed the case and because he issued a warrant for Mr. Allery's arrest. So as Mr. Allery is on fugitive status, the FBI starts looking for him in the area where Mr. Reed and Mr. Allery live. Mr. Reed then sends an unsolicited fax to the FBI in March of 2009. He sends a fax to the FBI office, which essentially says you have no business prosecuting Allery. You have no business looking for him. Cease and desist your Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 59 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

11:53 11:53 11:53 11:53 11:54

60 efforts. The FBI gets the fax. Pursuant to the Judge's order, they're still looking to arrest Mr. Allery on this case. While Mr. Allery is on fugitive status, Mr. Reed decides to make an unsolicited telephone call to the chambers of Judge Ralph Erickson, the judge here -- the judge in North Dakota, Fargo judge. Now, Judge Erickson has not called Mr. Reed. He doesn't even know who Mr. Reed is. He's not expecting this call, but Mr. Reed gets on the phone and calls Judge Erickson's chambers after hours and leaves a very threatening, demanding voice mail. When Mr. Reed makes this telephone call -- and the evidence will show it's a very unusual call because that's not part of the federal judge's job, to be told by people what cases to dismiss or not. When Mr. Reed makes this call, it comes in at about 5:15 p.m. There's nobody there. It automatically kicks to the answering machine or the voice mail. Mr. Reed leaves this voice mail. That recording will say -and we will attempt to play that for you at this trial. Mr. Reed at this time calls himself the chief justice, tells the Judge during the telephone call that he needs to dismiss this case or else. And here's a part of what Mr. Reed tells Judge Erickson on this voice mail message that he leaves. Hello, Mr. Erickson. This is chief justice Michael Howard Reed. You have violated your oath. You have violated all the titles. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 60 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:54 11:54 11:55 11:55 11:55

61 You have threatened Mr. Allery. You have come in as a third-party intervenor, and I will -- and when you listen to this tape, please listen to how Mr. Reed says "I will." He says, I will file show cause against you. John Lenoir, Patrick Allery, they're Native, they're Little Shell. They own the land. You have no venue and jurisdiction. You will be showing cause, along with everyone in this case, unless you get rid of them, dismiss the case. If they are not in 24 hours, you will have to show cause in front of Congress and the whole state of North Dakota, and you will have to produce your right of claim that you own this land and you don't own the Court or that law. He tells him twice to judge himself, so Mr. Reed leaves this unsolicited and unexpected voice mail for a federal judge, basically telling him you better get rid of this case or else. That call came in about 5:15 p.m. The next day the Judge's law clerk is the first one in to work. He hits the voice mail or the answering machine and listens to the message. Now, ladies and gentlemen, a law clerk is an attorney. It's a lawyer that works for a federal judge, and ordinary law clerks, and especially federal law clerks, have done fairly well in law school. They're very good students, and as reward for doing well, one of their first jobs is they get to clerk for a federal judge. Some law clerks are temporary. They will work for a federal judge for a year or Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 61 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:55 11:56 11:56 11:56 11:56

62 two, and some are permanent. They can work for 10 or 20 years for the same federal judge. And the man who comes to work the next day and is Judge Erickson's law clerk is a man named Ladonne Vik, and he listens to this message, and he is a permanent law clerk. He's worked for Judge Erickson for ten years or more, and he knows what kind of calls come in. He's checked the voice mail about every day for the last ten years, and he knows what is a normal call and what is something that's very unusual. He punches the button and he listens to this call from Mr. Reed the day before, and he is very, very concerned because this is an unusual call coming in for the federal judge. Mr. Vik, the first thing he does after he listens to the call is he calls the U.S. Marshal Service. And, ladies and gentlemen, the U.S. Marshal Service is the agency responsible for the security of federal judges. The law clerk notifies the U.S. Marshal Service. The probation office is notified, so is the clerk's office, and eventually all 17 attorneys on the Allery case are not only notified, but they're given a copy of the voice mail. I told you there were 17 defendants on this case, so that means there's 17 attorneys, and they all get this voice mail. And the general message that goes out is somebody named Michael Reed is trying to shake down the judge on this case, so there's a lot of concern amongst people associated with this case. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 62 of 189
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:57 11:57 11:57 11:58 11:58

63 The FBI begins investigating this call that came in. They're trying to figure out what's going on here. And a few weeks after that, Mr. Reed, the defendant in this case, makes a second call, only this time he doesn't call the Judge's office. He calls the FBI in Minot, North Dakota, and like the first call, when he calls the FBI, it's after hours, and he leaves the second voice mail, which we also have a copy of. This voice mail is for the Minot office of the FBI. Mr. Reed leaves a message for the FBI, whose name is Ryan O'Neil. During the second call about a month after the call to the Judge, Mr. Reed's tone is friendlier. He's not as angry. You'll hear the two tapes. You'll see the difference in the tone of his voice, but when he leaves this second message for the FBI, Mr. Reed says something that really spooks the FBI. Mr. Reed says, you have a judge that's about ready to get the trigger pulled on him. This call is essentially something like this. This message is for Ryan O'Neil. This is Michael Howard Reed, attorney general of the Little Shell Nation. On the call to the Judge, he calls himself the chief justice. On this call he calls himself the attorney general. I have some problems with

Neegee, who's Patrick Allery. I'm getting the runaround when it comes to talking with the U.S. prosecuting attorney. I have some issues, and you have one of your judges that's about ready to get the trigger pulled on him, so call me back. Good-bye. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 63 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:58 11:58 11:59 11:59 11:59

64 When the FBI hears this call, they move very quickly, ladies and gentlemen. They have Mr. Allery in custody and Mr. Reed in custody in about a week. After they arrest Mr. Reed, they ask him, did you make that call to Judge Erickson's chambers? Mr. Reed says, yes, I did. Did you make the call to the FBI? Yes, I did. The FBI asks Mr. Reed, what's your problem with Judge Erickson? Why are you calling him, telling him to dismiss cases like this? And Mr. Reed tells the FBI, well, that judge does not follow the law, he's violated his oath of office, legislates from the bench, so he gives all these reasons why he doesn't like the judge and why he thinks he's entitled to tell this judge to dismiss the cases. They talk more about it, and Mr. Reed mentions to the FBI there's going to be a showdown at the O.K. Corral. The next day is June 16, 2009, and the FBI gets a

search warrant. They get a search warrant for the office of the Little Shell Band, where Mr. Reed has his office. A search warrant is an order signed by the judge giving law enforcement the permission to go ahead and do a search of a certain area. They do a search of Mr. Reed's office and they find a gun in a safe, and they find ammunition, and they find a fully loaded magazine. The next day they re-interview Mr. Reed and they say they found a gun, is it yours? And he says, yes, it is, and he Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 64 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11:59 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00

65 even refers to it as "my gun." So the first case you're going to hear about during this trial, ladies and gentlemen, primarily involves the defendant, Michael Howard Reed. And it will show that he's upset that the Government is prosecuting one of his friends. He has a problem with the Judge, the fact the Judge has not dismissed the case. He has a problem with the Judge's philosophy. He wants the case dismissed, and in an attempt to influence justice, he makes two calls, one to the federal judge's chambers and one to the FBI. The first call is a demanding call saying dismiss the case. The second one he says the judge is going to get the trigger pulled on him. This

is a man who has a gun and has ammunition. That takes us to the second case you're going to hear about that involves both Mr. Reed and Mr. Davis. When they find the gun in the safe in Mr. Reed's office, the U.S. Attorney's Office for North Dakota charges Mr. Reed with being a fugitive from justice in possession of a firearm. This is again a separate federal Indictment filed just against Mr. Reed. And, of course, when you file a new Indictment, it's always assigned to a specific judge. And when that firearm Indictment is filed against Mr. Reed, it's assigned to Judge Daniel Hovland. Judge Hovland is the other permanent federal judge that services North Dakota. The prosecutor listed on the Indictment -- the firearm Indictment against Mr. Reed is a man Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 65 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

12:01 12:01 12:01 12:02 12:02

66 named Lynn Jordheim, and he's the acting U.S. attorney or was at the time for the District of North Dakota. In fact, the Indictment was filed on September 24, 2009, and every time the Government files an Indictment, the clerk of court's office assigns a file number to each Indictment. And the file number assigned to Mr. Reed's firearm

Indictment -- it's kind of important in this case, and that number is right here, 09-0076-DLH, and if you're not getting all the names or numbers down, don't worry about it. You're going to hear about it during the trial, ladies and gentlemen. But the number may look long, but it's not very complicated. The 09 means the year the case was filed, 2009. The 76 means it was the 76th case filed that year. On January 1st, the first case will be case number 1, case number 2, and goes all the way through the year. Beginning of the next year you're back to case number one. And the DLH stands for the judge's initials, Daniel L. Hovland. The J. Hovland and J. Erickson, this is for Judge Hovland and Judge Erickson. So anyway, they file this Indictment against Mr. Reed with that number from the clerk's office being assigned the case. Now, Mr. Reed is now in jail at this time, and Mr. Davis, the co-defendant, is not in jail. And Mr. Reed and Mr. Davis, while Reed is in jail and Davis is not, they have a number of meetings. Mr. Davis comes down to the jail and he sees Mr. Reed a number of times. They talk on the telephone a Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 66 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

12:02 12:02 12:03 12:03 12:03

67 number of times. While Mr. Reed is in jail, he calls Mr. Davis

a number of times. And, ladies and gentlemen, every time an inmate calls someone from the jail, that call is recorded or monitored. The inmate is told upon arrival to the jail the calls here are going to be recorded. When an inmate picks up the phone, the first thing they hear is a recorded message saying this call is being recorded, so it's no secret that they're recording the calls. And Mr. Reed and Mr. Davis, while Reed is in jail, are talking about their plan to try and intimidate or interfere with this Judge Hovland and this Prosecutor Jordheim. What these two men decide to do, they make plans to file and eventually do file a $3-and-a-half million lien or Financing Statement against the federal judge assigned to Mr. Reed's case and the U.S. attorney who's listed on the Indictment, Lynn Jordheim. They file what's called a Financing Statement or a lien. It's under the Uniform Commercial Code. These two men get together and they talk about this, and they decide that's what they're going to do. When Mr. Reed is in jail, he talks about this with Mr. Davis on some of these recorded conversations. They don't come right out and discuss it in full. They talk in kind of a code, but they do mention filing the lien. They do mention filing it right after the holidays. They do mention the UCC Financing Statement, and a number of times they talk about the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 67 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

12:04 12:04 12:04 12:05 12:05

68 amount that they're going to ask for, that they've decided to ask for $2.4 million in cash and $1 million in silver. Where they it get the 2.4 million dollars cash and the 1 million dollars in silver, I have no idea, but that's the amount and the -- what they ask for. That's essentially what they want when they file this lien. And that takes us to the 2010, ladies and gentlemen. On January 5th of 2010, Judge Hovland, the judge presiding over Mr. Reed's firearm case, issues an order on Mr. Reed's case. Mr. Reed had made a motion to dismiss the firearm Indictment against him, and on January 5th Judge Hovland cuts a written order. He signs an order saying your motion is denied. You will stand trial on this case. The very day after Judge Hovland signs the order that the case is not going to be dismissed and Mr. Reed is going to have -- is going to stand trial, Mr. Davis, at Mr. Reed's urging, files the $3-and-a-half million lien against Judge Hovland and against Lynn Jordheim. The day after the motion to dismiss was denied, he files this at Mr. Reed's urging, and he files it with an agency in Washington, DC, called the Washington, DC, Recorder of Deeds Office. This is a lien that Mr. Davis files electronically. You can file it over your computer if you have internet access. The Washington, DC, Recorder of Deeds Office, ladies and gentlemen -- and there will be a person here from that Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 68 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

12:05 12:06 12:06 12:06 12:07

69 office to testify about this -- is an office of what we call default jurisdiction. Essentially just about anybody can file a lien, and it's just about anybody in the United States, if you go through this office. Mr. Davis files this lien at 10 o'clock at night, at 10:01 p.m., and he files it electronically. All you've got to do is pay the filing fee of $41, which you can pay with your credit card, and that lien is filed against the debtors you're trying to put a lien on. And when the agency in Washington, DC, dockets this lien or this Financing Statement against the judge and the prosecutor, they also have a separate number, a docket number, which is somewhat important in this case. And that number is way down there at the bottom, and it's 2010-1134. And again, the 2010 is the year, the year it was filed. The 1134 means this is the 1,134th lien filed during the year. That's the docket number the court assigns to the case. But this agency has a very unusual policy of pretty much filing liens against people as long as you go ahead and pay the filing fee and docket it. But Mr. Davis, at Mr. Reed's urging, files this lien. Mr. Davis files it under his own name, Gregory Davis. He sends the acknowledgment under Gregory Davis. He lists as debtors Judge Hovland, a federal district court judge as the debtor in the case, and he lists Lynn Jordheim, the acting U.S. attorney. Mr. Davis asks for $2.4 million and $1 million in silver, exactly as Mr. Reed and Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 69 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

12:07 12:07 12:07 12:08 12:08

70 he had talked about on the recorded phone conversation the previous day. And Mr. Davis writes in the lien the reason why he and Reed believe they're entitled to $3.4 million is for default of Court Case 00076-DLH. In other words, Mr. Davis writes in the Financing Statement that he files against the judge and the prosecutor because they're involved in this case against Mr. Reed. He believes that they owe them $3.4 million. And at this point, when Mr. Davis files this lien, Mr. Reed hasn't even gone to trial yet. This case isn't even -- hasn't even gone to trial yet, but yet they put this $3-and-a-half million lien on the judge and the assistant United States attorney. The law enforcement decides it's time to talk to Mr. Davis. They've already talked to Mr. Reed, so they decide it's time to talk to Mr. Davis. It's been a couple of weeks after Mr. Davis has filed this lien, and he is approached by Mr. Kellerman of the FBI. Mr. Kellerman calls Mr. Davis and says I'd like an interview about this. Mr. Davis comes in and he's interviewed at the sheriff's office. That interview of Mr. Davis at the sheriff's office is recorded on video. It's about a 45-minute videotape, and again, we will attempt to play that for you at this -- at this trial. And, ladies and gentlemen, when the defendant, Greg Davis, is asked if he filed this $3-and-a-half million lien Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 70 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

12:08 12:08 12:09 12:09 12:09

71 against the judge and against the prosecutor, he not only admits it, he's very proud of it. He says, yes, I filed that lien. They crossed the line, and I'm going to file more. I'm going to file more liens if you guys keep stepping out of line. He doesn't deny it at all. He's very proud of it and threatens to file more against law enforcement and more judges. Mr. Davis tells the FBI during the interview that any time you arrest someone from the Little Shell Band, that's going to be an instant lien. I'm going to put a lien on whoever is involved in that case. Mr. Davis during this interview goes on and on about the Queen of England and bankruptcy law and things like that. He calls Mr. Jordheim a legal lunatic, the prosecutor on the case. They discuss this $2.4 million figure and this $1 million in silver. And, ladies and gentlemen, when the FBI, Agent Kellerman, says to Mr. Davis, sir, don't you know it's against the law to put a lien on a federal judge and an assistant U.S. attorney, when the FBI says that to the Defendant Davis, Mr. Davis says to the FBI, and these are his words, not mine, I think your law is ass wipe. But he never denies during the course of that interview. He's very proud of the fact that he filed these liens. Okay. That takes us to April of 2010, and Mr. Reed's case and the firearms case is moving through the system. And Mr. Reed files some documents with the clerk of court's office Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 71 of 189
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

12:10 12:10 12:10 12:11 12:11

72 in his firearms case which further show the conspiracy between him and Mr. Davis. Mr. Reed files in the clerk's office two documents, which are basically pay-up documents, where is my $3-and-a-half million for that lien Mr. Davis and I put on you gentlemen? But he files two documents three months after the Financing Statement was filed. Mr. Reed puts in these documents that he is entitled to the $3.4 million. And in the documents filed by Mr. Reed, he mentions the docket number of the Financing Statement filed by Davis, the 2010-1134. So, ladies and gentlemen, the evidence will show in this case that both Mr. Reed and Mr. Davis, in separate documents filed by each of them, reference numbers from court cases of documents filed that they have no way of knowing unless they were talking with each other, unless they were involved with each other or had some association with each other. But they each in separate filings cite docket numbers from either court cases or Financing Statements. And I'm just about finished here, ladies and gentlemen. The last thing the evidence will show is that this lien filed by Mr. Davis and Mr. Reed against Judge Hovland and against Mr. Jordheim is basically still on the books. It's

still on record. These liens, the evidence will show, which are very easy to file on someone, are very difficult to remove. They can always be withdrawn by the person who filed them; that is, the creditor in this case, Mr. Reed or Mr. Davis, but if Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 72 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

12:11 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12

73 they're not withdrawn, it almost takes -- it takes a lawsuit to get those liens off record. And there has been a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office in an attempt to get those liens off the record of Judge Hovland and off Mr. Jordheim. But the evidence will show that the liens, so easy to place on someone, are a lot of work and very difficult to get off record. And so that's what the evidence will show in this case, ladies and gentlemen. You have two men that are under the mistaken belief that they or their friends cannot be prosecuted in federal court, and as a result they try to interfere with and do interfere with two federal judges and one acting U.S. attorney. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Wright. MR. WRIGHT: May I move this back, sir? THE COURT: Yes, you may. Mr. Reed and Mr. Davis, if you would take your place at the table again, please. Mr.

Reed, do you wish to make an opening statement at this time? MR. REED: At this time I move the Court for us to go to lunch. I would like to make opening statements right after lunch, and then Mr. Davis will make his opening statement right afterwards because I believe they should be made conjunctively. I have at least an hour of an opening statement, and I don't want to, you know, take up that long of a time past the lunch period. THE COURT: Well, that sounds reasonable. We'll take Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 73 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

12:13 01:21 01:22 01:22 01:22

74 a break. Let's start promptly at 1:15. Keep in mind that you're not to discuss this case among yourselves or with anyone else. And do not allow anyone to discuss the case or anyone involved in the case with you, and do not form or express any opinion on the case until it is finally submitted to you for your verdicts. We'll see you back promptly. We'll try to start at 1:15. The jury is excused. All rise. (A lunch recess was taken from 12:13 p.m. to 1:19 p.m., the same day.) THE COURT: Mr. Reed, you may make your opening statement if you wish.

MR. REED: Thank you, Your Honor. Members of the jury, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Boa-kaa-konannaishkawaanden, Michael Howard Reed. Prosecuting attorney in opening statement, he said that I made a phone call to Judge Erickson in North Dakota, Grand Forks, as the Grand National Council chief justice. I am a judge as myself, as Mr. Kornmann sits on this bench. We're all federal employees. My official title is I'm chief justice of the Grand National Council of Confederated Nations as the creation of the Constitution that we all live under. The Constitution -- when the Judge issued his opening statement for you and he made the statement that it was -- this court was under the Constitution, that would be a contract. We must understand what a contract is and what -- MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me. Your Honor, we're going to Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 74 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:22 01:23 01:23 01:23 01:24

75 object. It's arguing the case. THE COURT: It sounds like it is. Remember this is not the closing argument. This is the time for -MR. REED: Correct. THE COURT: -- statements that --

MR. REED: Correct. THE COURT: Don't interrupt when I'm talking. This is the time for you to state what the evidence is going to show, not to argue the case to the jury. Objection is thus sustained. You may proceed, sir. MR. REED: Also the prosecuting attorney has come forth that I called to disrupt a case in Patrick Allery. Can I bring forth the -- your board that you used on all of this, Your Honor, for what he used to instruct the jury? THE COURT: What do you wish to do? MR. REED: I would like to remind the jury of exactly how -- his flowchart and what he said in his opening statements. THE COURT: You're talking about what he had on the blackboard? MR. REED: Yeah, his blackboard. THE COURT: Yes, you may use that. MR. REED: Thank you. Can you see from here so we don't have to move? Thank you. The prosecuting attorney -- I was -- he has come forth -- and the defense will show in this Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 75 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:24 01:24 01:25 01:25 01:25

76

instant action that I represent native nations as a judge. That's what I do for my living, just he does his job for the United States. I do mine for the Grand National Council of Confederated Nations and all native nation and indigenous tribes on this land. That is my job. I was informed by the Little Shell Nation, not band, not a tribe. They are a nation. They're duly recognized under the acts of Congress. I will prove in this case that they have a contract to be upheld by the United States of America in this instant action. I was informed to call on the behalf of the Little Shell Nation for Patrick Allery in a case for Judge Erickson. That happens all of the time in judicial comity between judges of foreign nations. They call each other all the time. We discuss things all the time. It's not out of the ordinary for that to happen. The prosecuting attorney has said that I did it out of anger. No, there's no anger. There's law. We all have law that we have to live upon. The prosecuting attorney has pointed out that the Little Shell Band and the Little Shell people are a lawless society. MR. WRIGHT: I'm going to object to that. MR. REED: What he made in his opening statement. MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, excuse me. I'm going to -MR. REED: That is not correct. THE COURT: Mr. Reed, when he objects, you stop talking. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 76 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25
01:25 01:26 01:26 01:27 01:27

77 MR. WRIGHT: That's a misstatement of my opening statement. And again, he's arguing the case and not saying what the evidence will show. THE COURT: Sustained. The jury should disregard that. MR. REED: Okay. The evidence will show that the UCC liens that were filed were filed pursuant to a contract. They were not done fraudulently, as the plaintiff states. The plaintiff always -- I mean, has -- excuse me, has also stated in this case that -- official duties of the judge and judges and juratis of the United States that were violated, that I knowingly, willfully and intentionally violated those to swayed the outcome of this -- of the Patrick Allery case, which I would never do. The evidence will show that I worked with the FBI agents, Ryan O'Neil in this case, in the Patrick Allery case to turn him over to the United States as comity, not as a fugitive from justice of the United States because where we were at, we were on Little Shell Nation land. We were not in the United States of America. We were not in the state of North Dakota. The evidence will show this. The stuff that was -- he said that I was charged being a fugitive from justice with a firearm, and it was in a safe in an office that I owned. The office I did not own. That was a foreign sovereign nation. They owned. That's their Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 77 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25
01:27 01:28 01:28 01:28 01:29

78 safe. Was the firearm there? Yes, it was. It was there for over two years. Did I have ways or means to get into that safe to use the firearm? No, I did not. The evidence will prove this. He says that I filed fictitious liens, aiding and abetting liens. The evidence will prove that I'm liened in this same case, and I have to get my names removed off of the same liens that are all on -- for everybody that says that he's liened here. There's many judges. There's many attorneys. There's many FBI agents on these liens. You have to look at all names. I'm on there too. Why would I lien something there? The evidence will prove why would I put myself on a lien and have to pay it? This case and the evidence will prove that the United States is trying to run roughshod over a foreign sovereign nation. The evidence will prove that this nation of the Little Shell has foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of Congress. We don't have the right to overrule Congress. They're the one that prescribes all the laws for this land, for the United States of America. The evidence will prove the Little Shell Nation is of their own. They have a right for self-governance. They don't have a right -- they have a right to choose for whatever violations in their laws for their countries, just like the United States does. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 78 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
01:29 01:29 01:30 01:30 01:30

79 The evidence will also prove that I had nothing to do with it. I asked questions about it. When you will see from the prosecuting evidence that I asked questions. I didn't coerce or do anything in that instant action of filing any false or fictitious liens or even having -- having reason to know why these liens are even being, because it's a foreign sovereign nation. It's not about bringing mayhem or harm upon anybody. And the evidence will prove that you people sitting here, you 12 people right now are going to have a chance of a lifetime in history because the Little Shell Nation -- the evidence will prove that the Little Shell Nation is a nation of its own. It will prove that they have a right to selfgovernance. They'll have a right to take care of their own people. They have a right to do all of that. You're going to be deciding their fate in this -- in this action, if they have a right to do anything, and if there was a contract prior to all these liens being filed. The evidence will prove that there was. The evidence will prove that you just don't go out and fictitiously do anything of what the prosecution here alleges today. The evidence will prove for the Little Shell Nation, they have a right to do what they want to do as a nation-to-nation status. The evidence will prove in this case also that prior to this jury being sequestered and this date Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 79 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
01:31 01:31 01:31 01:32 01:32

80 coming forth, that the Court violated the laws prescribed for them. I don't think that's too good of a thing. THE COURT: Sir, don't argue law to the jury. I will tell the jury what the law is, not you or Mr. Wright. MR. REED: The evidence will also prove what everybody's duty is and what an official duty is supposed to be and how they're supposed to be upheld. The prosecution in his opening statement has made the Little Shell people, the Little Shell Nation look like they're a bunch of renegades. MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, I object to this. The Little Shell Nation is not on trial here, as you instruct -MR. REED: Yes, it is. THE COURT: Sir, don't interrupt when he's stating. Go ahead. State your objection, Mr. Wright. MR. WRIGHT: As you instructed the jury before we started, the only two people on trial here are the defendants, and they're on trial for what's charged in the Indictment. We object to him trying to put the Little Shell Band or Little Shell Nation on trial and attempting to intimidate the jury in something that's got nothing to do with the case. THE COURT: Sustained. The jury should not pay any attention to that. MR. REED: During -- through the course of this trial you will learn, the evidence will prove of how the rights of me and Zakiz-aanakwad, the chief of the Little Shell Nation, has Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 80 of 189

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
01:32 01:33 01:33 01:34 01:34

81 viatated (sic), not only viatated, but violated and is void. The evidence will also prove in this case, that I will present, that nothing has been done fraudulently. Nothing has been done fictitiously. Nothing has been done under threat, duress or coercion of any outcome of any official proceeding or pleading. I will produce the evidence, and the evidence will show by -- by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Ryan O'Neil. He will be in this case and he will be one of the witnesses, and he will also state that I worked with him to turn over somebody to get this case of Patrick Allery handled, the case that they brought after this happened. Then that's when they brought that other case against me, which was possession of a firearm while being a fugitive from justice. That's the very next case that happened from that. Then from that case of the outcome is the Little Shell Nation, of me being one of their employees. They protect their employees, just like the United States protects their FBI and their judges and their marshals. The Little Shell Nation doesn't have a big pocketbook. They don't have a pocketbook for somebody to run around and do all those things. The evidence will prove that, but the evidence will prove that the

Little Shells have a right to protect their people. And if the Little Shells and the chief, Gregory Davis, Zakiz-aanakwad, decides and the council of the Little Shell decide to do something, that is their God-given right. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 81 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:34 01:35 01:35 01:35 01:36

82 They don't -- they have a right to do what they have, to self-govern, to take care of their people. The evidence will also show that there is law for the Little Shells, a higher law and a higher standard of law than what the prosecuting will even admit to. They've been -- I won't make that statement. Sorry. There's so much evidence in this case, and I can only ask you for when all the evidence is brought forth, to look at it, to weigh it for what has been done, if it's been done as they allege it has been done. They have to prove that it was done falsely. They have to prove that it was done fraudulently. MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me. I object. Again, he's arguing the case. THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Reed, stick to what your evidence is going to show. Don't argue the case at this

juncture. MR. REED: That's what I say, the evidence is going to prove this, so without any -- the evidence will even prove that I had nothing to do with filing the $2.4 million. The evidence will prove that I didn't file any of that. My name -the evidence will prove that my name is on none of it. I've had nothing to do with it. The evidence will prove in this case that I was acting with judicial comity when I made the phone calls to the FBI, when I made the phone call to Judge Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 82 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:36 01:36 01:37 01:38 01:38

83 Erickson. I did it in an official capacity, official capacity only. I did not do it in any other way. I did it in complete honor. That's what the evidence will prove, and I rest. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. Davis, do you wish to make an opening statement at this time or reserve that? MR. DAVIS: I'll be brief. I'm not long-winded. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. DAVIS: They can argue that. I don't need this. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am Zakiz-aanakwad. I am chosen by my people to be their spokesperson. That's just like you guys say chief. My job is to protect anybody that we

claim, and I do so, and basically that's what brought us here. I protect everything we claim sovereign. I filed that lien. Nobody tells me how. Nobody tells me when. Nobody tells me where. I made that decision. So I got you here, not him. That's it. Now we go to trial and we will prove this. There's no -- I am the agent of my people, and that's it, nobody else, not him, not him, not her, not him, not him (indicating). Me, that's it. I will prove to you I have the right to do that. And I'll prove to you I even protected all of these officials on the U.S. side because there's a trustee and a trust position when dealing with Native Americans, and we will bring that out, and we will show where I did not violate that. And there are contracts there, existing contracts and duties that they must Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 83 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:39 01:39 01:39 01:40 01:40

84 follow as agents, fiduciary agents to us. We own the land, and I will prove that, and that's my innocence. That's my God-given right. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Mr. Wright, you may call your first witness. MR. WRIGHT: Chris Myers.

CHRISTOPHER MYERS, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, pursuant to your earlier directive, may I remain seated while I examine the witness? THE COURT: Yes, you may. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WRIGHT: Q. Sir, would you state your name, please? A. Chris Myers, M-Y-E-R-S. Q. What's your occupation? A. I'm an assistant United States attorney here in the District of North Dakota. Q. And how long have you been with the U.S. Attorney's Office in North Dakota? A. I've been with the office about eight-and-a-half years. Q. And what are your standard duties? A. I am what's termed the OCDETF prosecutor, which is organized crime, drug enforcement task force prosecutor. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 84 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:40 01:40 01:40 01:41 01:41

85 Essentially what that is is I prosecute large-scale federal

drug trafficking cases. Q. And prior to joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, did you have any other prosecution experience? A. I did. I was the chief assistant Clay County attorney in Moorhead, Minnesota, for approximately four years, and prior to that I was an assistant Cass County states attorney in Fargo. Q. And are you a full-time assistant United States attorney? A. I am. Q. Do you have any like private practice or anything on the side? A. No. Q. And is that typical of most assistant United States attorneys, that they're full-time? A. It is. Q. All right. Let's talk a little bit about narcotics or drug offenses, sir. Does a narcotics or drug offense sometimes violate more than one set of laws? A. It does. It can violate federal law, state law, and tribal law. Q. And how is it determined where an individual gets prosecuted, either in federal court or state court? A. Well, a lot of factors come into play when making those decisions. There's a lot of collaboration between federal, state, and local officials to determine which venue is best to Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 85 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:41 01:41 01:42 01:42 01:42

86 prosecute the particular drug offense, and so those factors weigh in. And the size of the organization, the type of drugs, the sophistication of the organization, all those things factor into those decisions. Q. And can one particular case have more than one player or a large number of defendants? A. Yes, they can, typically, especially the cases we prosecute in federal court, have a number of defendants involved in these -- in these conspiracies. Q. And typically on a large-scale conspiracy, is it common to have all the defendants listed on one Indictment? A. Yeah, it is common to have multiple defendants listed on one Indictment. Sometimes there's multiple indictments with multiple defendants. It just really depends on when the case is presented to the grand jury for indictment, the stage of the investigation, and those factors that make that determination. Q. And are most federal cases started by indictments, sir? A. They are. Q. All right. Let me ask you about November 6th of 2008. Did you ask for and secure a federal Indictment against a number of listed individuals? A. I did. Q. And were those for all violations of federal narcotics laws? A. They were. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 86 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

01:42 01:43 01:43 01:43 01:43

87 Q. In fact, 17 different individuals? A. That's correct. Q. Were they charged in the same Indictment? A. Yes. Q. And again, is that typical? A. That is typical. Q. All right. Do you know if one or more of those individuals were somehow connected with or members of the Little Shell Nation or Little Shell Band? A. I did learn that after the case was presented for indictment. Q. And do you know the names of those two individuals? A. Patrick Allery and John Lenoir. Q. Was the fact that either one of those individuals had some connection with Little Shell, did that go into your decision to bring charges against them? A. No. Q. In fact, did you even know about that when you prepared the Indictment? A. No. Q. All right. And in your work on that case, do you know if Mr. Patrick Allery goes by any different names? A. I came to learn that he went by the nickname Neegee, N-I-G-I (sic). MR. WRIGHT: May I approach, sir? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 87 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:43 01:44 01:44 01:44 01:44

88 THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: He also went by another nickname as well. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Mr. Myers, I placed at the bench what's been marked as Government's Exhibit Number 1 and Government's Exhibit Number 2. Can you look at Number 1, please, and hold that in your hand? Do you recognize that, sir? A. I do. Q. And what is that, please? A. This is -- Exhibit Number 1 is the Indictment that I prepared and presented to the grand jury in November of 2008. Q. And is that document a certified copy of the 17-defendant Indictment that you prepared? A. It is, yes. Q. And does that contain Mr. Allery and Mr. Lenoir's name on that document? A. Yes, it does. Q. Using this highlighter, please, could you please highlight Mr. Lenoir and Mr. Allery's name on Exhibit 1 on the first page, please? A. (Drawing.) MR. WRIGHT: At this point we would offer Exhibit Number 1, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any objection from the defense? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 88 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:44 01:45 01:45 01:45 01:46

89 MR. REED: No objection. MR. DAVIS: No. THE COURT: That exhibit may be admitted. MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, may I publish this to the jury while I continue? THE COURT: Yes, you may. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Okay. Mr. Myers, if you get an indictment on the defendant, what's the next step? How do you get them into court then? A. Well, after the grand jury considers the proposed Indictment and determines there's probable cause for those charges, typically what happens is the Indictment is processed through the Clerk of Court's Office. A warrant is issued for each defendant, and then the law enforcement agencies that are involved in the investigation, along with the U.S. marshals, seek to execute those arrest warrants and bring each of the defendants listed in the Indictment into custody. Once they're in custody, they make an initial appearance before a federal magistrate, at which time the federal magistrate advises each of the defendants of the nature of charges, their rights. And typically a detention hearing is held at the initial appearance, at least in this district. Q. And once they've gotten through that process, is their case eventually assigned to a specific United States District Court judge? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 89 of 189
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:46 01:46 01:46 01:46 01:47

90 A. Yes, usually at the time of the arraignment, a district judge is assigned to the Indictment. Q. And does the -- does your office -- does the U.S. Attorney's Office have any say on which particular judge gets assigned to which case? A. We do not. Q. All right. And does that judge that's assigned generally handle the balance of the case then? A. Yes. Q. Now let's talk a little bit about the Clerk of Court's role in this case. Do they prepare a clerk's file on every Indictment? A. They do. Q. Do they assign a file number to the Indictment? A. Yes, they do. Q. And do they also prepared what's called a docket sheet? A. Yes. Q. And can you explain what that is, please? A. A docket sheet is maintained, at least now, electronically, and each time there's an occurrence or an event that happens in court or a document is filed under that

particular file number, the clerk's office is charged with entering that into what's called the docket or the formal record of that particular proceeding. Q. And does the docket sheet generally reflect the name of Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 90 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:47 01:47 01:47 01:48 01:48

91 the defendant and the judge that it's assigned to? A. It does. Q. And I handed you earlier Government's Exhibit Number 2, which is in front of you, sir. Can you identify that? A. Yes, Exhibit Number 2 is a certified copy of the criminal docket sheet, at least the front cover of the docket sheet for a defendant, Patrick Lee Allery. Q. And can I assume each defendant would have a separate docket sheet on a multi-defendant indictment? A. Yes. Q. All right. And does the docket sheet marked Exhibit Number 2, does that reflect which judge was assigned to that case? A. That was assigned to Judge Ralph Erickson. Q. And is that contained on the docket sheet? A. It is.

Q. Would you please take the highlighter and highlight that part of it, sir? A. (Drawing.) MR. WRIGHT: At this point we would offer Exhibit 2, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. DAVIS: No objections. MR. REED: No objection. THE COURT: Exhibit 2 may be admitted. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 91 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:48 01:48 01:48 01:49 01:49

92 MR. WRIGHT: And, sir, may I publish while I continue? THE COURT: You may. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Mr. Myers, do you recall, was Mr. Allery, Patrick Allery, assigned an attorney -A. He was. Q. -- for his defense? A. Yes. Q. And again, that would be typical of -- every defendant would be assigned an attorney, is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know either of the defendants in this case, Mr. Reed or Mr. Davis? A. I don't know them. Q. Well, were either of them either Mr. Allery's attorney or Mr. Lenoir's attorney in your case that you had? A. No, they were not. Mr. Allery was represented by Jason Vendsel out of Minot, and I believe John Lenoir was represented by Troy Morley. I believe he's out of Grand Forks. Q. Now, in March of 2009, was there any significant event that happened in Mr. Allery's case that you can recall? A. Yeah, I believe it was about March 5th of 2009, Judge Erickson issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Allery. Q. And do you recall why? A. As I recall, it was issued at a status conference, an Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 92 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:49 01:49 01:50 01:50 01:50

93 in-chambers status conference. And coupled with that particular status conference was a motion to withdraw from Mr. Vendsel because he had had trouble maintaining contact with Mr. Allery. In any event, Judge Erickson issued what's called a bench warrant at that time. Q. So was there a warrant issued for Mr. Allery's arrest

then? A. Yes. Q. And to the best of your knowledge, was that warrant still active in May and June of 2009? A. Yes, I believe that Mr. Allery was arrested on or about June 10th of 2010. Q. 2009, actually? A. Excuse me. Yes, 2009. Q. So on May 5th would he still have been on fugitive status? A. Yes. Q. And on June 8th? A. Correct. Q. And, sir, did Mr. Allery's case eventually wind its way or end up through the system? A. Yes, ultimately Mr. Allery, not long after his appearance on the warrant, entered a guilty plea. Q. All right. And the fact that it took from November of 2008 through June of 2009, is that particularly unusual? A. No, it's not. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 93 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:50 01:51 01:51 01:51 01:52

94 Q. And did you become aware of a call allegedly made by

Mr. Reed to Judge Ralph Erickson involving this case? A. Yes, I became aware of that call. Q. In fact, do you know if all 17 attorneys on this particular case were sent a copy of that actual voice mail? A. I believe, as I recall, the day or the morning after Judge Erickson's chambers received this particular call, we, meaning myself and the assigned counsel to the other remaining defendants -- and I can't say it was all 17 because some of the 17 defendants may have pled out prior to, so I'm not sure exactly who all got the e-mail, but I recall getting a copy of the audio call the next day, or so. MR. WRIGHT: Very good. That's all the questions I have, sir. THE COURT: Any cross-examination of this witness? MR. REED: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. REED: Q. It's nice to meet you. A. Nice to meet you, sir. Q. I've got a question when it says when -- to get this -- a defendant into court, prior to anything, did you know that Neegee, Mr. Allery, was he Native? Did you realize that? A. I believed prior to Indictment I was aware that Mr. Allery Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 94 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:52 01:52 01:52 01:53 01:53

95 was involved in drug trafficking up on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation, and I don't know if I knew for sure whether he was Native American or not at that time. Q. Did you take the steps in going through foreign diplomatic relations, as you're supposed to do for extradition -- for foreign extradition at that time? MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me. I would object to the form of that question. THE COURT: Sustained. The jury should disregard that. That's not the law. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) Did you do any background checks or anything on Mr. Allery? A. I didn't personally. Typically what happens, and I believe it's what happened in this case, is the agents would run a criminal history check and also verify the identity of each of the people that we're presenting a case before a grand jury for indictment, and I believe that was done in this case for each of the defendants. Q. So there's an investigation, and they investigate whether or not he's a United States citizen or not? A. Well, I don't know that they necessarily investigate whether they're a United States citizen specifically, as this case is a -- was a drug trafficking case, so I don't know if they investigated his citizenship or not. Since it's a drug trafficking case, they may not have determined his citizenship. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 95 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

01:53 01:54 01:54 01:54 01:54

96 I'm not sure of that. Q. As a prosecuting attorney, what is the standard procedure, operating procedure for the comity between the United States and a tribe when -- you know, if there's any issues towards the foreign nation of a tribe? And on a reservation, isn't there an interstate compact agreement or anything like that for comity? A. Well -MR. WRIGHT: Object to the relevance of that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. There's no such requirement. All of us who are in this country are subject to federal laws. MR. REED: I object to that ruling. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) Is it the United States -- is it under your interpretation, that across all of the land for the -- for Turtle Mountain, you have jurisdiction over Turtle Mountain tribe? MR. WRIGHT: Same objection, Your Honor. The Court gives the law on that. MR. REED: That's completely admissible under Rule 802. THE COURT: It isn't admissible unless I say it is, but -MR. REED: It has to go with foundation. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 96 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:55 01:55 01:55 01:56 01:56

97 THE COURT: Is it his interpretation? I don't care what his interpretation is. Sustained. I'll tell the jury what the law is, not this witness or anybody else. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) At his arraignment, did Patrick Allery say anything that he was Native or -- and stand on any rights or anything? A. I don't recall. I don't even recall if I handled the arraignment or not. It's not uncommon for another assistant to handle various hearings, as you might expect, with the volume of defendants. Q. Who was the judge that appointed him counsel? A. It was, I believe, either Judge Senechal or Judge Klein, but I don't recall specifically who handled the initial appearance. I know Mr. Allery, on the warrant where he appeared in court in 2010, in June, he appeared in Bismarck, and so Judge Miller would have handled that, but it's one of the magistrate judges for this district that would have appointed counsel. Q. So at that time you were never informed that he was Native or anything like that. You just looked at a name and assumed that he was a citizen of the United States. A. I don't recall what I was informed. As I said, I don't know if I even handled the hearing. Q. No. No. Let me rephrase that question. When you brought forth the Indictment from -- in front of the grand jury, did Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 97 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:56 01:56 01:57 01:57 01:57

98 you assume that he was a citizen of the United States? A. I assumed he was a citizen of the United States. Q. Okay. Did you -- did you personally do your due diligence and to find out exactly who this person was? A. Yes. We consult with the investigators, review investigative reports prior to presenting cases to the grand jury for indictment. Q. Okay. And when doing your due diligence and requesting that report, investigation, who did your investigation and report? A. There was a number of agents assigned to this particular investigation. This was a very expansive drug trafficking organization that was involved in importing methamphetamine from Mexico, up to Washington State, and over to the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. And from Turtle Mountain, the large quantities of methamphetamine were distributed to the District of North Dakota, especially in the eastern side of the state, and so there was a number of agents from the DEA task force working on the investigation. FBI was assisting on the investigation, and so there wasn't one specific agent assigned. As you might expect when approaching these, the investigations of large-scale drug trafficking organizations, it's a team effort. Q. Okay. With that team effort, who is -- who do you personally contact when you do your first initial investigation Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 98 of 189
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:58 01:58 01:58 01:59 01:59

99 to do your due diligence? Who is that person? MR. WRIGHT: Object to the relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) Did you ever hear -- did you ever get a phone call from me, Michael Howard Reed, in your office? A. I don't believe so, no. Q. Did you ever get a phone call from the chief of the Little Shell Nation, Zakiz-aanakwad? A. Not that I recall. Q. What was the final outcome of this case? A. All of the defendants or just Mr. Allery? Q. Just Mr. Allery. Did he actually -- let me -- let me back up a second. Sorry. How did he come about getting into federal custody? A. Well, he was arrested by, I believe, a federal law enforcement agent and brought to Bismarck. I don't know which agency. It could have been the marshals. I'm not sure. Q. Do you know the circumstances under that arrest? A. I don't. Q. And what was the -- what was the final outcome for Patrick Lee Allery in this case?

A. Mr. Allery was -- ultimately pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with the United States in a subsequent prosecution of that particular Indictment. Q. What did he plead guilty to? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 99 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

01:59 01:59 02:00 02:00 02:00

100 A. Misprision of a felony. Q. That would be Title 18, Section 4, correct? A. I think that's right. MR. REED: Thank you. No further questions. THE COURT: Any questions that you have, Mr. Davis? MR. DAVIS: No, he answered them. THE COURT: All right. Any redirect? MR. WRIGHT: Just briefly, if I may. THE COURT: Go ahead. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WRIGHT: Q. Mr. Myers, you were asked a couple of questions about the race of Mr. Allery. When you're putting a case together and decide to pursue an indictment, is race ever a factor for you on a drug Indictment? A. It is not.

Q. And why is that? A. Race is irrelevant to whether somebody was involved in trafficking drugs. Q. Have you in your both state and federal career prosecuted a number of different races, people of different races for drug trafficking? A. Yes. Q. And Mr. Reed asked you about the scope of this case. You said Mr. Allery eventually pled guilty to a misprision charge? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 100 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:00 02:01 02:01 02:01 02:01

101 A. He did. Q. Is that a felony in and of itself? A. It is. Q. And regarding the scope of this investigation, was this a fairly large-scale methamphetamine operation? A. It was. In the investigation it was determined that the organization itself moved somewhere between 150 and 200 pounds of methamphetamine during the course of this particular conspiracy. There were a number of defendants, as we outlined earlier, and it was a large -- a large conspiracy. Q. In fact, did two of the defendants, not Mr. Allery or

Mr. Lenoir, but two other defendants, did they eventually get life sentences on this? A. Miguel Chavez ultimately was convicted after trial and received life in prison. Miguel Zamudio similarly had a trial and was convicted and received a life sentence. Those individuals were essentially the sources of supply centered out of Washington State that were involved in the conspiracy. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, sir. That's all. THE COURT: Any other questions for you? MR. REED: No, Your Honor, not at this time. THE COURT: Mr. Davis? MR. DAVIS: No. THE COURT: All right. You may step down, sir. THE WITNESS: Thank you. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 101 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:02 02:02 02:02 02:02 02:03

102 THE COURT: Call your next witness. MR. WRIGHT: Ladonne Vik. THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. LADONNE VIK, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WRIGHT: Q. Would you state your name, please? A. Ladonne Roland Vik, V-I-K. Q. What is your occupation? A. I'm a law clerk for Judge Ralph Erickson. He's the chief judge of this district. Q. And can you give us your education, please? A. Yes, I graduated from Moorhead State in Moorhead, Minnesota, with a BS, and I have a law degree from UND. Q. And does each federal judge have one or more law clerks that work for him or her? A. I believe that's true. Q. And how do you get to be a law clerk? A. Well, I was asked by Judge Erickson to be his law clerk when I was in private law practice. Q. And can I assume each judge gets to pick their own clerks? A. That's my understanding. Q. And what are your standard duties as a law clerk, sir? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 102 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:03 02:03 02:03 02:04 02:04

103 A. Well, I do a number of things. I administratively

schedule matters for the judge. I answer the telephone. I help him with legal research. We have discussions about pending cases. I supervise the other two lawyers that work in our office that are also law clerks. Q. And I don't know if I asked you, how long have you been working for Judge Erickson? A. I started with him in April of 2003. Q. And does he have other law clerks too? A. Yes, he does. We presently have three. Q. And so would you be the -- what's called the senior law clerk? A. I suppose that's true. I've heard my job described as administrative assistant also. Q. To get a job as a law clerk, typically do the federal law clerks have to do pretty well academically in law school? A. Yes, we could hire -- we have enough applicants every year that we could hire the number-one person in the class -- in a law school class if that was our hiring criteria. Q. And tell us a little bit about Judge Ralph Erickson, the judge that you work for. Where are his chambers, if you know how long he's been a judge, things like that? A. Judge Erickson's chambers are at 655 First Avenue North, Suite 410, in Fargo. He's been a federal judge since he was appointed by President Bush in March of 2003. Prior to that he Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 103 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:04 02:05 02:05 02:05 02:05

104 was a state district court judge in the state of North Dakota, and his chambers there, I believe, might technically have been in Traill County, North Dakota, but because it's in the same district as Cass County, he heard most of his cases and his office was actually in Fargo. Q. And is that a lifetime appointment? A. His federal appointment is a lifetime appointment. His state appointment was -- he actually ran for office. He was never appointed by the governor, and so that's an elected position. Q. Let's just talk about his federal position for now. A. Sure. Fair enough. Q. Is that a lifetime appointment for him? A. It's on good behavior, is my understanding. Q. And is each federal judge given access to chambers? A. Yes. Q. All right. And what do we mean when we say "chambers"? A. Well, it's a suite of offices in the federal courthouse in Fargo, is the chambers I'm familiar with. Q. And can I assume there's a telephone there? A. That's true. Q. And I assume there's voice mail on the telephone at the judge's chambers? A. That's correct. Q. Who normally answers the phone during business hours? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 104 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

02:05 02:06 02:06 02:06 02:06

105 A. I'd say it's most commonly me. We have several lines that go to each individual person in chambers, so the judge has a line. I have a line. The other law clerks each have a line, and so if somebody calls in on that specific line, the call would go to that person. But if it comes in on the 7080 line, then it rings at my desk first, and if I don't get it in about the first three rings, or so, somebody else answers it. Q. All right. I'd like to talk to you about May 6 of 2009. Do you recall that day? A. I do. Q. Did you go to work that day? A. Yes, I did. Q. Do you know if you were the first one in the Fargo chambers of Judge Erickson? A. You know, I'm not certain about it on that particular day, but I would tell you that's usually the case. Q. And when you get to work, do you recall what's the first thing you normally do? A. I make coffee. Q. After that? You drink the coffee, right? A. No, I don't even do that. I just get it started. After I make coffee, then I check -- I fire up my computer to see if I have received e-mails or so on. I check the phone to see if there's any messages on the phone, and listen to the voice mails that we received. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 105 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:06 02:07 02:07 02:07 02:07

106 Q. And on May 6 of 2009, were there any messages you recall being on the voice mail? A. Yes, there were. Q. Do you recall if any of those messages got your specific attention more than any others? A. Well -MR. REED: Objection because he's leading the witness to determine somebody's state of mind. THE COURT: Overruled. He's simply trying to direct his attention to one particular area. Overruled. THE WITNESS: Most of the calls we get are common sort of calls. This one was different than the rest. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Do you recall if the person left his name on this particular one that we're talking about? A. Yes. Q. And what was the name that was left? A. Michael Howard Reed. Q. And what was the content of the message, if you recall? A. It was kind of a rambling message. I recall it as directing the judge to stop what he was doing in regard to a case. Q. After you listened to that message, what, if anything, did you do? A. Well, I made two telephone calls. We have a security protocol, and I called the chief security deputy, U.S. marshal. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 106 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:08 02:08 02:08 02:08 02:08

107 Q. Okay. Why? A. Just because I was concerned with the tone on the message. Q. Did you call anyone else? A. I called Todd Dudgeon. He's our chief deputy clerk in Fargo. Q. Did you end up forwarding this voice mail message to anyone, if you recall? A. No, I don't think -- I don't think I did. Q. All right. And the individuals that you talked to were with what agencies? A. The first gentleman would have been Jake Werner, but I didn't actually talk to him. And I can't recall which deputy I was directed to, but he just wasn't in the office, or I'm not sure exactly what the reason was. Q. And prior to testifying today, have you listened to another copy of that voice mail? A. Yes, I have. Q. And again, this was the voice mail that came in to Judge Erickson's chambers. A. That's correct. MR. WRIGHT: May I approach, sir? THE COURT: You may. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Mr. Vik, I've handed you what's been marked as Government's Exhibit Number 3. Is that, in fact, a true and correct CD of the voice mail message that you Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 107 of 189
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:09 02:09 02:09 02:09 02:09

108 listened to on June of 2009? A. I don't know. Q. Well, did you listen to one in your -A. I listened to one. Q. All right. And when I had you listen to it, that was after -- after June of 2009? A. Oh, yes. Q. It was about a month ago. A. Right. Q. And how long was it, do you recall? A. I don't really remember. Q. Half-hour, 45 minutes? A. No, just a couple -- a minute or two. Q. It's about a minute or two long. A. Right. Q. Now, you've worked for Judge Erickson for how long? A. Seven years. Q. And is it typical for him to get these kinds of messages? A. No. Q. In fact, are lawyers discouraged or precluded from even talking to a judge about a case without the other lawyer being

there? A. It's part of -- part of my job. I have to remind people from time to time that the conversation should be made in open court or in a meeting with all people that are concerned in Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 108 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:10 02:10 02:10 02:10 02:10

109 attendance. Q. That's what's called ex parteing the judge? A. That's correct. Q. The day that Mr. Reed called on May 5 of 2009, do you know if Judge Erickson was expecting a call from him? A. I don't know. Q. Did you ever make any calls at Judge Erickson's directive to Mr. Reed prior to that call? A. No. Q. To your knowledge, had Judge Erickson ever called Mr. Reed prior to that? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Do you have any reason to believe that he did? A. I think it would be highly unlikely. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. That's all. CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. REED: Q. You say you checked the voice mails on that particular day, and there was a voice mail left by me, Michael Howard Reed, correct? A. Well, I never met you until today, but I assume that's correct. Q. What exactly -- do you remember exactly what was said on that voice mail when it first started? When you first played it, what did it first say? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 109 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:10 02:11 02:11 02:11 02:11

110 A. I don't have any idea. Q. You don't have any idea? A. No, I don't remember. Q. You don't remember? A. I'd recognize it if I heard it. Q. Can a chief justice of the United States call another chief justice? MR. WRIGHT: We would object to that, Your Honor, trying to give a statement on the law. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know exactly what you're

asking me. There's only one chief justice of the United States, but I think it would be fairly common for one district court -- United States District Court judge to call another United States District Court judge. It would be common for that to happen. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) Is it -- have you ever had in your time of working there, received any calls from any judges foreign, from a foreign nation? A. No. Q. You've never even had that even happen? A. No. Q. Have you ever received any calls from any judges on an Indian tribe or on an Indian nation? A. Yes. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 110 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:11 02:12 02:12 02:12 02:12

111 Q. Is that a pretty common thing? A. I'd say it's pretty rare. I can -Q. Very rare? A. I can only think of maybe an occasion or two. Q. Like a handful of times? A. Yes, less than that even probably.

Q. Yeah, they don't usually interact very much, do they? A. Not very much. Q. Okay. So you instructed the Marshal Service about this phone call? A. That's correct. Q. Did you also instruct the newspaper and the TV stations about this phone call? A. No. Q. Do you know who did? A. I didn't even know they had been told about it. MR. REED: Oh, okay. I have no further questions. THE COURT: Mr. Davis, do you have any questions? MR. DAVIS: No. No, he did very good. THE COURT: Any other questions, Mr. Wright? MR. WRIGHT: No, sir. THE COURT: You may step down, sir. THE WITNESS: May I be excused? THE COURT: Any objection to him being excused? MR. WRIGHT: None. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 111 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:13 02:13 02:13 02:13 02:13

112 MR. REED: None.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: You may be excused. MR. WRIGHT: Ron Davies. THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. RONALD J. DAVIES, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WRIGHT: Q. Would you state your name, please? A. Ronald James Davies. Q. And what's your occupation? A. I'm the systems manager for the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Office. Q. And for how long? A. I've been with the probation office for about five years. Q. And just what is a systems manager? A. I take care of all the computer networks, computers on desktops, and the phone system for the district. Q. And can you give us your education, please? A. I have of a Bachelor of Science in computer science from the University of North Dakota. Q. And with your position, sir, would you be familiar with the setup of Judge Erickson's chambers in Fargo, North Dakota? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 112 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:14 02:14 02:14 02:14 02:15

113 A. Yes, I would. Q. And can you just tell us a little bit about the voice mail or the answering machine that's used there? A. Yeah, the voice mail system for the district, it's -there's one system for the entire district, so any time anybody leaves a message, it's basically stored on one central server that's located in Fargo. Q. And in May of 2009, were you asked to retrieve and save a voice mail message from Judge Erickson's chambers? A. I was. Q. And do you have any work experience in the area of doing that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Tell us about that. A. Yes, the system involved gives us multiple ways that we can go in and listen to a voice mail message, one being obviously through the phone that you would do normally with your phones at home. Another one allows us -- and what we used in this case is something called an IMAP connecter, and IMAP is just internet message access protocol. What it does is it lets us copy or take a copy of the message and save it to your hard drive or to a CD or a DVD. Q. And is the message then eventually stored in what's called a WAV file? A. That's correct. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 113 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

02:15 02:15 02:15 02:15 02:16

114 Q. On that particular date, May of 2009, do you recall how you were notified to do this? A. I received a call from chambers, and I don't recall exactly the individual that made the call, but they asked us to come up, that they had a message that they would like saved. Q. Did they say why they wanted this message saved? A. It was -- if I recall correctly, it was something to the effect of it was a threatening voice mail. Q. And technically every copy that's made of a WAV file, is that just as good as an original? A. Yes, essentially it is the original. Q. And, sir, I'm going to hand you what's been marked as Government's Exhibit Number 3. Have you listened to this prior to testifying at trial? A. Yes, I have. Q. And is that a true and accurate original of the WAV file voice mail that came to Judge Erickson's chambers in May of 2009? A. Yes, it is. MR. WRIGHT: We would offer Exhibit 3. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. REED: No objection. MR. DAVIS: No. THE COURT: Exhibit 3 may be admitted. MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, may we have the clerk Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 114 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:16 02:16 02:18 02:18 02:18

115 publish or play this for the jury at this time? THE COURT: Yes, you may play it for the jury. MR. WRIGHT: And I don't have any further questions of Mr. Davies. I don't know if you want to do the cross now or after it's played. THE COURT: Well, go ahead and play it. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you have a transcript of that or not? MR. WRIGHT: No, it's only like 45 seconds. THE COURT: All right. (Exhibit Number 3 is played in open court.) MR. WRIGHT: No further questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. REED: Q. Is that the WAV file that you recorded? A. It is. Q. Did you -- were you instructed to do a phone search from what phone it was sent to? A. No, I was not. Q. You were not asked. And do you normally do that on occasion for phone calls left in judges' chambers when they ask? A. That's the only time I've been asked to do it in judges' chambers. Q. Okay. Did you inadvertently or mistakenly leave a disk or Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 115 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:19 02:19 02:19 02:19 02:19

116 anything laying around so it could be published in the newspaper and on the news stations? A. No. Q. You did not? A. No. MR. REED: No more questions. MR. DAVIS: None, sir. THE COURT: All right. Any redirect? MR. WRIGHT: Just if I may clarify. THE COURT: Go ahead. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WRIGHT: Q. Sir, this is the only time you've ever been asked to make a WAV file on a call coming into the judge's office? A. Into the judge's office, correct. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. That's all. THE COURT: You may step down. Do counsel have any problem with this witness being excused? MR. WRIGHT: No, Your Honor. MR. REED: No. THE COURT: All right. You may be excused, sir. Call your next witness. MR. WRIGHT: Ryan O'Neil. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 116 of 189
1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:20 02:20 02:20 02:20 02:20

117 RYAN O'NEIL, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WRIGHT: Q. Would you state your name, please? A. Ryan O'Neil. Q. And what's your occupation? A. A special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Q. Give us your educational background. A. Bachelor's degree in criminal justice from the University of Wyoming. Q. And how long have you been an FBI agent? A. Approximately four-and-a-half years. Q. And does an FBI agent have to have a college degree? A. Yes. Q. And where are you currently stationed? A. Boston, Massachusetts. Q. And how long have you been stationed in Boston? A. Little less than a year. Q. Prior to going to Boston, where were you stationed? A. I was stationed in Minot, North Dakota. Q. And how long were you in Minot?

A. From the fall of 2006 to the fall of 2009. Q. And what were your standard duties there, sir? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 117 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:21 02:21 02:21 02:22 02:22

118 A. I primarily investigated violent crime and drug trafficking on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation in central -- northwest and central North Dakota. Q. And the fact that you moved from North Dakota to Boston, was that part of an FBI scheme on rotating agents? A. Yes, it's a standard transfer policy. Q. Can you explain that, please? A. Typically an FBI agent is assigned to a relatively small office, such as Minot, and you're there for three years. And at that point you're transferred to one of several different larger offices, which is what my transfer to Boston was. MR. WRIGHT: Could I see Exhibit 1, please? Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Mr. O'Neil, I'm going to show you what's been received as Government's Exhibit Number 1. Did you assist Mr. Myers in the investigation of that case? A. Yes, I did. Q. And the two highlighted defendants on there, Mr. Allery and Mr. Lenoir, do you know if Mr. Allery goes by another name?

A. He also goes by Neegee, N-E-E-G-E-E. Q. When you first started investigating that case or putting it together for the U.S. Attorney's Office, did you know that either one of those men were connected with the Little Shell Nation or Band? A. No, I did not. Q. Did the fact that they may have had some connection to Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 118 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:22 02:22 02:22 02:23 02:23

119 Little Shell, did that have anything to do with your decision to even pursue an indictment? A. No, it did not. Q. I want to talk to you about March of 2009. Do you generally recall that time period? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. Did the FBI receive an unsolicited fax at that time from a person named Michael Howard Reed? A. Yes, sir, we did. Q. And were you expecting that fax? A. No, sir. Q. Did you know who Mr. Reed was at that time? A. No, I didn't.

Q. What was the nature of that fax? A. It was in reference to the Indictment that we just discussed. It contained a series of statements that referenced Mr. Allery and Mr. Lenoir's Indictment, that the U.S. District Court didn't have jurisdiction to indict them. Mr. Allery at the time was a fugitive on that Indictment, and there were references to, they were aware of his fugitive status and there was an order or statements in there ordering us to cease and desist from trying to arrest Mr. Allery pursuant to that Indictment. Q. And based upon that fax that you received, did you stop looking for Mr. Allery? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 119 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:23 02:23 02:24 02:24 02:24

120 A. No, I didn't. Q. And why is that? A. I wasn't aware of any relevance that that fax would have had to me carrying out my duties. Q. And, in fact, did you have an arrest warrant from a federal district court judge for Mr. Allery's arrest? A. I did. Q. All right. Now, sir, were you made aware of a voice mail

that was left on Judge Erickson's chambers in Fargo, North Dakota? A. Yes, I was. Q. Did you do some brief investigation on that? A. Yes. Q. In the process of investigating that, did the FBI on June 8th of 2009 receive a voice mail at your Minot office? A. Yes, we did. Q. Were you working in the office at that time? A. Yes, I was. Q. Are you familiar with the voice mail setup that they have in that Minot office? A. Yes, I am. Q. Could you describe that, please? A. It's a commercially available voice recording, digital voice recording machine hooked to the office telephone, just records messages in a digital format. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 120 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:24 02:24 02:24 02:25 02:25

121 Q. On June 8 of 2009, did a message come in when you weren't there? A. Yes, it did.

Q. And did you eventually listen to that message? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did the caller identify himself or herself? A. Yes, he did. Q. And who was it? A. Michael Howard Reed. Q. Did the caller identify who the message was for? A. Yes. Q. And who did they say the message was for? A. Myself. Q. All right. Was there anything in that message specifically that got your attention, sir? A. The call -- the message was referencing Mr. Allery's situation pending in U.S. District Court, and the caller made the statement that if such and such didn't happen, the judge was going to, quote, get the trigger pulled on him. Q. Did that get your attention and concern? A. Yes, it did. Q. Why is that? A. I considered it a threatening statement made towards a federal judge. Q. And having received and listened to that message, what did Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 121 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:25 02:25 02:25

02:26 02:26

122 you do? A. Initially I notified the U.S. Marshal Service in Fargo and in Bismarck, made arrangements to get them a copy of the message. I notified my supervisors in the FBI, and notified the U.S. Attorney's Office here and in Fargo. Q. And why did you make all those notifications? A. The U.S. Marshal Service I notified because they are primarily responsible for the physical security of federal judges, so I thought they needed to know about the threat. Q. Did you have some concerns about the judge's safety? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you attempt to save the voice mail or message that came in? A. Yes, I did. Q. All right. Now, within a few days or a week, or so, after that message came in, did -- was there an arrest made of Mr. Reed? A. Yes, there was. Q. And is he one of the defendants in this case? A. Yes, he is. Q. Do you see him in the courtroom? A. I do. Q. And where is he at, please? A. Seated at defense counsel table in the tan shirt and eyeglasses. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 122 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

02:26 02:26 02:26 02:27 02:27

123 Q. And did you do an interview with Mr. Reed on June 15th of 2009? A. Yes, I did. Q. And where was that at, sir? A. It was at the -- at the time it was called the North Central Correctional and Rehabilitation Center in Rugby, North Dakota. Q. And did he agree to be interviewed? A. Yes, he did. Q. And this man to my immediate left, is that the man you know as Michael Howard Reed? A. Yes, it is. Q. All right. Now, before you interviewed Mr. Reed on that date, did you advise him of his rights? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you tell -- did you actually read them from a card? A. I did. Q. Can you tell us, please, what you advised him? A. Yes. I'll read them from a similar card. He was advised, quote, before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during the questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 123 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:27 02:27 02:27 02:28 02:28

124 appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time. And following that it states, I've read this statement of my rights and I understand what my rights are. At this time I'm willing to answer questions without a lawyer present. Q. And after you read all those to Mr. Reed, did he agree to be interviewed? A. Yes, he did. Q. Do you routinely have individuals sign a written waiver that they agree to be interviewed? A. Yes, we do. Q. Did Mr. Reed sign such a waiver? A. Yes, he did. Q. Did he make any comment that you recall about the legal system? A. He commented that he didn't recognize the legal system or the authority of the FBI in general. Q. All right. Now, Mr. O'Neil, did you specifically ask Mr. Reed, this man to my immediate left, if he's the individual that made the call to Judge Erickson's chambers on May 5 of 2009? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did he say? A. He admitted that he made the call. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 124 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:28 02:29 02:29 02:29 02:30

125 Q. Now, regarding the call that came into the FBI office, at your Minot office, did you ask Mr. Reed during this interview if he's the individual that made the call to Minot? A. Yes, I did. Q. About the judge, about getting the trigger pulled on him? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did he admit to making that call? A. Yes, he did. MR. WRIGHT: May I have this marked as Number 4? I thought it was marked. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Mr. O'Neil, I'm going to show you what's been marked as Government's Exhibit 4 and 4a, ask you to hold that in your hand and tell us if you know what that is. A. The first item is Exhibit 4, is an FD-340 envelope, is the technical name of it, filled out by myself dated June 8, 2009, and the writing on the envelope indicates it contains the voice mail left by Michael Howard Reed. Q. And inside the envelope, is that the cassette tape from your answering machine? A. Yes, it is. This is the original. Q. I think I put the exhibit tag on the cassette tape box. A. It's on the case, correct. Q. On the case. Okay. And what's 4a? A. 4a is a copy of 4 in compact disk or digital format. Q. So the FBI in Minot doesn't have the high tech. WAV file Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 125 of 189
1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:30 02:30 02:30 02:32 02:32

126 yet that the judge's office has in Fargo. Is that what I'm understanding? A. You're absolutely correct. Q. Okay. Is 4 and 4a essentially the same thing, a copy of the recording of Mr. Reed's call? A. Yes. MR. WRIGHT: We offer Exhibit 4 and 4a at this time. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. REED: No objection. MR. DAVIS: No. THE COURT: None? MR. DAVIS: None. THE COURT: Exhibit 4a and -- 4 and 4a may be admitted. MR. WRIGHT: And may I have the clerk play 4a at this time, sir? THE COURT: Yes, you may play it. (Exhibit 4a is played in open court.) Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Mr. O'Neil, continuing with your interview of Mr. Reed on June 5th of 2009, did Mr. Reed -- did you ask Mr. Reed what his problem was with Mr. Erickson? A. June 15th of 2009? Correction, you said the 5th. Q. Okay. June 15th of 2009. Thank you, sir.

A. Yes, sir. Yes, we discussed specifically what his problems were with Judge Erickson. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 126 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:33 02:33 02:33 02:33 02:34

127 Q. What did Mr. Reed tell you? A. He spoke at some length about, that Judge Erickson had a problem with making laws from the bench, that he had failed to and continued to fail -- or failed to follow his oath, and that he had some prior experience not recognizing the Little Shell Nation appropriately. Q. And did Mr. Reed talk about that at some length? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he make similar comments about your agency, the FBI? A. Yes, he said we also didn't follow our oaths and failed to properly administer justice. Q. Did Mr. Reed make some comments to you about the O.K. Corral? A. Yes, at some point in the interview he indicated this could all potentially be leading to an O.K. Corral type of situation. Q. And he mentioned showdown? A. Yes, the showdown at the O.K. Corral.

Q. Now, the day after your interview, on June 16th of 2009, did you do a search warrant at the headquarters of the Little Shell Nation? A. Yes, I did. Q. And just -- I know we know what this is, but just generally describe what a search warrant is. A. A search warrant is a -- myself or a law enforcement Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 127 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:34 02:34 02:34 02:34 02:35

128 officer applies to a judge federally through an assistant U.S. attorney and gets a -- physically gets a warrant, a document or permission to search a particular location for particular evidence of a crime, typically. THE COURT: And that's to a magistrate judge, is it, not to a U.S. district judge? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Thank you. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Did you get a search warrant in this particular case? A. Yes, we did. Q. And what area were you going to search? A. At a residence or a home in Rolette, North Dakota, which

we believed was the Little Shell Nation's offices or headquarters. Q. And did you find anything of significance? A. Yes. Q. What was that? A. We recovered one nine millimeter handgun, one 15-round magazine that was loaded, and several loose rounds of nine millimeter ammunition. Q. Where did you find that? A. It was in a safe that was inside that residence. Q. And was the magazine fully loaded? A. Yes, it was. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 128 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:35 02:35 02:35 02:35 02:36

129 Q. Now, the day after you did the search warrant, the next day now, June 17th of 2009, did you re-interview Mr. Reed? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you ask Mr. Reed about the gun that you found the day before on the search warrant? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did he admit or deny that that was his gun? A. He initially denied it was his, and then eventually

admitted it was his. Q. And did he refer to it as "my gun"? A. Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. That's all. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. REED: Q. When you went and -- went to retain (sic) a search warrant from the U.S. magistrate judge, Judge Charles Miller, what did you swear under oath that you were going to be searching when you initially came forth to get and obtain the search warrant? A. The search warrant that was executed on June 16th was a state search warrant, and I wasn't the affiant on that. I participated in the search, but I didn't obtain the search warrant, so I didn't swear to anything in that particular case. That wasn't from Magistrate Miller. Q. Okay. Then there's -- then you later searched the Little Shell Nation. You learned later on that it was actually not my Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 129 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:36 02:36 02:37 02:37 02:37

130 residence, and you learned that it was the Little Shell Nation's office, and you obtained a search warrant from Justice Miller?

A. No, I did not. Q. Who obtained the search warrant from Justice Miller? A. I believe Special Agent Cody Patterson. Q. Cody Patterson. THE COURT: You don't mean Justice Miller. You mean Judge Miller. MR. REED: Yes. THE COURT: You have to be on the Supreme Court to be justice. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) And the first time you've ever heard of me was when I left a phone message for a judge in Fargo because it was turned over to you then? A. No, it would have been when the faxes and the various documents started coming in to the U.S. Attorney's Office early 2009. Q. Early 2009. So when I left the message on your phone machine, I left it as an attorney general, correct? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'm going to object, Your Honor. That's going to be speculation on this witness's part. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) On the recording of the telephone call it states that it was Michael Howard Reed, attorney Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 130 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:37 02:38 02:38

02:38 02:39

131 general, correct? A. Do you mind if I check my notes? I don't recall specifically. Q. Go right ahead. A. I don't have those with me, but I think you're correct. That's how you identified yourself. Q. Okay. And what was the reason -- state why I called you? A. My understanding -MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me. I'm going to object to his restating the reason. It would be a matter for the jury ultimately to determine. THE COURT: Well, yeah, the witness would not know why the call was made, so in that -- the question is not -Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) On the phone message that was left in your office, what was the reason for the phone message being left? MR. WRIGHT: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah, sustained. He wouldn't know what's in the mind of the defendant. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) Did you have any knowledge of me being able to have access to that nine millimeter gun? Did I have -- did I have the combination to that safe? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. When you arrested -- had Patrick Allery, Neegee, arrested, when he was arrested, was it just a drive-by arrest Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 131 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

02:39 02:39 02:40 02:40 02:40

132 or was it arranged arrest? A. I don't recall specifically, but I think he surrendered, but I don't -- I didn't arrest him, so I don't know for sure. Q. Was it me specifically talking with you that arranged that arrest, to turn him in to the United States? A. I know I requested that you do so. I asked you to assist me in doing that, but I never was able to arrest him, so my answer to that would be no. Q. Did I assist you in arranging for his arrest? A. No. Q. No, I did not? A. I didn't arrest him, nor did I effect his arrest, so I didn't have any assistance in that process. We discussed it, but I wasn't -- I never arrested him. Q. So we never discussed a specific date for the Marshal Service to be there to pick him up at the nation's headquarters office? A. Yes, we did. Q. So that, in effect, is me and you were in contact with each other about turning Patrick in and/or Neegee in to the officials of the United States, is that correct? A. Yes, we had discussions to that effect. Q. So I did help turn him in, in effect, isn't that true? A. I don't think I can remember enough to say definitively, but I -- we certainly had discussions to that effect, and I Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 132 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:40 02:41 02:41 02:41 02:42

133 know that he surrendered. Q. Okay. Does the FBI have jurisdiction over the Little Shell Nation? MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me. Can I object? The Court will instruct on the law. THE COURT: Sustained. Let's not have the witness tell the jury what the law is. I'll tell you who has jurisdiction. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) You stated earlier that I had a problem with United States laws? A. I think I stated that you told me you didn't recognize United States laws. Q. I didn't recognize them? A. Correct. Q. Did you know the intent of the -- or any demeanor of anything at any point in time? MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me. I'm going to object to that. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. WRIGHT: I don't know what he's talking about. THE COURT: It's up to the witness whether he knows what he's talking about, not to the attorneys. THE WITNESS: Can you repeat that, sir? Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) We'll strike it. On June 17th you had an interview with me? A. Correct, I did. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 133 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:42 02:42 02:42 02:43 02:43

134 Q. And that was in Rugby? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what was the extent of that interview? What was -what was all covered in that interview? A. We discussed the search warrant that had occurred the day prior, the firearm. Mr. Davis was present and a couple other individuals were present. We discussed some of the other materials that had previously been identified at the Little Shell headquarters. Q. Okay. You also made a statement that I said that there's going to be a showdown at O.K. Corral? A. Yes. Q. What does that mean? A. Do you want my -Q. In your opinion? A. -- opinion of what that means? I would take that to mean that there's potentially going to be a violent confrontation of some type. Q. Really? Did we specifically discuss on June 17th about the specific words that were used like "trigger" and "showdown" and all of that? A. We discussed those words specifically, yes. Q. And what did you learn that was the original intent behind those words? A. Regarding when you -- your statement of pulling the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 134 of 189
1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:44 02:44 02:44 02:45 02:45

135 trigger on the judge, you told me at that point that you didn't intend to hurt anybody and you meant that legally, something to that effect. Q. How many phone calls did you receive from the Little Shell Nation and/or me, Michael Howard Reed, the attorney general for the Little Shell Nation? MR. WRIGHT: Object to the relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I probably had half a dozen to a dozen phone contacts with yourself or Mr. Davis. That's a rough estimate. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) At any point in time was there any verbiage or any dialogue where it would say that I or anybody of the Little Shell Nation would cause harm to anyone? MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, may we approach? THE COURT: Well, no, I don't think so. What's your objection? MR. WRIGHT: It would be something I need the Court to hear at the bench. MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, what he's asking is, we had dialogue back and forth, I and Ryan. I'm just waiting for him to finish up what they're talking about, so I'm going to ask him a few questions of mine. What -- what the co-defendant is

trying to get to here in these questions is very simple. Did we threaten anybody in those phone calls? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 135 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:45 02:46 02:47 02:47 02:47

136 THE COURT: Well, it isn't your turn yet, sir. MR. DAVIS: We had many phone calls. THE COURT: Well, it's up to the jury whether or not this language used was threatening. What this witness thinks doesn't really mean anything. You want to approach on the record? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, I do. THE COURT: All right. You may approach. If you want to stand up and stretch, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, feel free to do so. (At the Court bench, out of the hearing of the jury.) MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Reed keeps asking the witness about other parts of this conversation and whether any violence was discussed. And if this guy has to answer, he's going to say, yes, a long conversation with Mr. Reed, who made a threat to blow up the jail. And he also made comments that he wants to get some bullets and kill some cops with them. MR. REED: Which is all inadmissible under Rule 701.

MR. WRIGHT: If they want to go into that, if they want to talk about what was said, I'm certainly going to get the chance to say, "What did you talk about?" MR. REED: I'm sorry? MR. WRIGHT: I think under Rule 403 it would be prejudicial to the defendant, but if they want to walk into it, that's what they're doing right now. I'm trying to protect his Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 136 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:47 02:48 02:48 02:48 02:49

137 rights and not have him get into the cop-killing bullets and blowing up the jail. MR. REED: He's not protecting my rights, Your Honor. He's not protecting nothing. He's -- under Rule 701 he's not even -- he has no forensic evidence of even the evidence that he's submitting at this point in time. All I'm asking and trying to get from this witness is did I facilitate the delivery of somebody through foreign diplomatic channels properly, and he refuses to answer, so I would like to use him as a hostile witness because he's not answering. He is lying right now, and I can prove it, Your Honor, and if I have to do that, I will do that, but I don't want to prosecute an FBI agent. He's a good man. He deserves to be able to tell the

truth without being coerced by the prosecuting attorney. THE COURT: Well, I think Mr. Wright is correct that if you keep on that line of questioning, it opens really bad evidence. If I were you, I wouldn't do it, but I'm not giving you legal advice. You may want to talk to your standby counsel about that. I don't know. MR. REED: I'll wait until I question him as a witness, and I will just -- and I will just treat him as a hostile witness. I'll move for hostile witness on my redirect, when I bring forth my direct, because I have evidence and proof that he is lying right now on the stand under the penalties of perjury, and that is not correct. That is not right. There's Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 137 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:49 02:49 02:50 02:50 02:51

138 been very many -- there's been a lot of perjurers happen in this case before the jury is even sequestered. Mr. Wright has made statements and opened up that can of worms when they threatened me with this case on this exact charges. They threatened me if I didn't accept to plead guilty to something, they were going to charge me with something else, and I don't appreciate that. THE COURT: Do you have any comment, sir?

MR. DAVIS: No. He's got a point there, so -THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. (In open court with the defendants, counsel and the jury present.) THE COURT: Mr. Reed, I don't know if there was a question pending or not, but in any event, ask your next question. MR. REED: Okay. Thank you, Court and the jury, for letting us work something out. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) Initially I see you were -- were you -- let me ask this question. Were you initially an investigator on Neegee's Indictment? A. Yes, sir, I was. Q. And it's just come to my attention that he finally pled guilty to a misprison of felony or a misprison of felony, which is -- what did he misrepresent? MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me. I'm going to object as not Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 138 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:51 02:51 02:52 02:52 02:52

139 being relevant and beyond the scope of this witness's knowledge. THE COURT: Sustained. We're not going to try that

case here. That was tried by some other court. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) When was it that you learned that Neegee was a Little Shell? A. Probably when I -- when we, myself or the U.S. Attorney's Office, first started to receive the faxes and the documents that came in post-Indictment. Q. Okay, post-Indictment. What kind of faxes and documents that specifically did you learn that he was Little Shell? A. There were faxes to the U.S. Attorney's Office in federal court, as I previously stated, commanding us to cease and desist trying to effect his arrest. There were faxes to the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court with him stating he was Little Shell and he wanted to renounce his tribal membership. There were two or three different batches of documents that identified him as such and made different statements and things that identified him to me as he was Little Shell. Q. Did I ever send you any faxes? A. My office received faxes with your name on them, so I assume yes. Q. And what was the date of that? Do you have that in your notes? A. No, sir, I don't. Sorry. It was early, first few months Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 139 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:53 02:53 02:53

02:54 02:54

140 of 2009, I believe. Q. And what did the faxes pertain to from the Little Shell that said -- that had my name on it? What were the faxes? A. There were, again, documents regarding his Indictment, ordering us not to arrest him, different instructions on orders that should be taken regarding the prosecution of that case, things of that nature. Q. By any chance, can you -- do you have any of those? A. No, I don't. MR. REED: No further questions. MR. DAVIS: I got a few. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Davis. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVIS: Q. Can you hear me, Ryan? A. Yes, sir, I can. Q. How are you doing? A. Good. How are you? Q. I'm doing good. Okay. Me and you had some conversations and phone conversations, right? A. Yes, we did. Q. Okay. In those conversations I just want to clarify one thing. I was speaking to you as spokesperson of my people, right? A. Yes, sir. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 140 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

02:54 02:54 02:55 02:55 02:55

141 Q. You and me actually had a real good long conversation the first time in the office, right? A. Yes. Q. We sat knee to knee and we talked. A. Yes, we did. Q. Yeah, we did. And basically I -- what got us here, I said I would do it in protection of my people, right, and I explained how in that conversation? A. Can you -- can you clarify your last statement? Q. Okay. I said that we would protect our claim of sovereignty or claim of right as land owning entity here, and that we would like to have the tribal right to have judicial process over our own people, and we talked about something like that. And basically what I want to know from you, the conversations that we did have, I had those as spokesperson of my people with you, right? MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me. I'm going to object. That would be beyond the scope of this witness's knowledge -MR. DAVIS: No, it's not. MR. WRIGHT: -- who he's supposedly speaking for or by or through. MR. DAVIS: Well, that's why he came to the office, was to ask who I was speaking for. THE COURT: Sir, wait. Don't keep talking after he made an objection. Overruled. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 141 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:55 02:55 02:56 02:56 02:56

142 THE WITNESS: I know on at least one occasion you identified yourself to me as the spokesperson for the Little Shell Nation. Q. (MR. DAVIS CONTINUING) Okay. Namely, people don't go around doing that. Tribal people don't go around telling you that, do they? You deal with them quite a bit, don't you? A. You're the first one I met that identified himself as such. Q. Yeah, because tribes do not overstep those bounds, do they? Tribal people, they don't go around claiming to be leaders if they're not, right? A. Like I said, you're the first one who's ever identified himself as such to me. Q. All right. All right. A. I just -- I don't know if you're asking me if people go around in general doing that. I just don't know. I'm trying to answer the best I can in saying you're the first one that I've ever met that did. I'm not trying to not answer your question. I just don't know if others do or not. MR. DAVIS: Yeah. Okay, Ryan, that's basically it. THE COURT: Any other questions, sir? MR. DAVIS: No, we'll call him for defense later, just like we said. Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Wright, any redirect? MR. WRIGHT: No, sir. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 142 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:56 02:57 02:57 02:57 02:57

143 THE COURT: Mr. Reed, do you have any other questions of this witness? MR. REED: Not at this time. I'll save him for the -- for when I call him as a witness. THE COURT: All right. You may step down, sir. You may call your next witness. MR. WRIGHT: Dave Hagler. THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. DAVID HAGLER, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WRIGHT: Q. Would you state your name, please? A. David Hagler. Q. What's your occupation? A. I'm an attorney, an assistant U.S. attorney here in Bismarck. Q. For how long? A. I have been an assistant U.S. attorney since 2001. Q. And what is your education? A. I received undergraduate degree in communications from the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks in 1986, received my juris doctorate degree from UND Law School in 1989. Q. And what are your standard duties? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 143 of 189
1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:58 02:58 02:58 02:58 02:59

144 A. I do criminal prosecution here in the District of North Dakota, in particular the western part of the state. Q. And are you a full-time federal prosecutor? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, sir, in the fall of 2009 and early 2010, did you prosecute a man named Michael Howard Reed? A. Yes. Q. Do you see that individual in the courtroom? A. I do. Q. What were -- where's he at, please? A. He's seated at the counsel immediately to your -- counsel table immediately to your left. Q. And what were you prosecuting Mr. Reed for? A. Mr. Reed was prosecuted for defense of being a fugitive in possession of a firearm. Q. And did you secure the Indictment on that case? A. Yes. Q. And as such, are you familiar with the case and the pleadings? A. Yes. Q. And what do we mean when we say the word "pleadings"? A. Oh, basically the charging document and the other filings that would take place in a criminal case.

Q. Mr. Hagler, I'm going to show you what's been marked as Government's Exhibit Number 5. Can you hold that in your hand Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 144 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

02:59 02:59 02:59 02:59 03:00

145 please? Do you recognize that? A. Yes, I recognize that. Q. And what is it? A. That is a copy of the Indictment that was secured in the matter that I prosecuted. Q. And is that a certified copy of that Indictment, sir? A. Yes, it is. Q. And does it say at the top when it was filed? A. Filed on September 24, 2009. Q. And the second page of that Indictment, is it signed by a specific person from the U.S. Attorney's Office, or is a person's name on the end of the Indictment? A. Yes. Q. And who is that? A. It's Lynn C. Jordheim, who was acting United States attorney at that time. Q. And he being the acting U.S. attorney for the District of North Dakota.

A. He was at that time, yes. Q. And is it common to have the boss's name or the acting U.S. attorney on the end of every Indictment? A. That's our practice, yes. Q. And, Mr. Hagler, if you could take this highlighter, please, could you just highlight the date at the top, September 24, 2009? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 145 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:00 03:00 03:00 03:01 03:01

146 A. All right. I've done so. Q. Did the clerk's office assign a number to that Indictment, clerk's office number? A. Yes. Q. And what number was that? A. It's Case Number 4:09-cr-76. Q. And is the -- in your experience, does the 09 stand for 2009? A. Yes. Q. And the 76 would be the 76th case filed? A. Yes. Q. Can you highlight that number, please? A. Okay. I've done so.

Q. On the second page, can you highlight Mr. Jordheim's name? A. Okay. I've done so. Q. And is that a certified copy? A. Yes. MR. WRIGHT: And we would at this time offer Exhibit Number 5. THE COURT: Any objection to five? MR. REED: No. MR. DAVIS: No. THE COURT: Five may be admitted. MR. WRIGHT: Sir, may I publish while I continue? THE COURT: You may. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 146 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:01 03:01 03:01 03:02 03:02

147 Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Mr. Hagler, in your trial involving Mr. Reed, do you recall who the judge was assigned to that case? A. Yes. Q. And who was that? A. It was Judge Daniel Hovland. Q. How many active federal judges are there in North Dakota? A. There are two.

Q. And who are they? A. Judge Hovland and Judge Ralph Erickson. Q. Actually Ralph Erickson? A. Yes. Q. And are you familiar with the docket sheet on Mr. Reed's case? A. Yes. Q. And if I could show you Exhibit Number 6, do you recognize that? A. Yes, it appears -Q. What is that? A. It appears to be the first page of the docket sheet of the case we've been talking about. Q. And is that also a certified copy? A. Yes. Q. And does it show Judge Hovland's name as the judge on that case? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 147 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:02 03:02 03:02 03:03 03:03

148 A. Yes, it does. Q. Could you highlight that, please? A. All right. I've done so.

Q. Can you highlight the clerk's number on that sheet too, please? A. I've done so. MR. WRIGHT: At this time we would offer Exhibit 6. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. REED: No objection. MR. DAVIS: No. THE COURT: Six may be admitted. MR. WRIGHT: May I publish? THE COURT: You may. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Mr. Hagler, do you recall when Mr. Reed was awaiting trial on that firearm case, was he in custody? A. Yes, he was. Q. And as the prosecutor on the case, are you familiar with the document entitled Motion to Dismiss Indictment? A. Yes, I believe there was one such document filed. Q. And occasionally in cases you prosecute there are motions to dismiss indictments that are filed. A. Occasionally. Q. And the judge -- the judge will make a determination on whether or not to grant or deny that motion, is that correct? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 148 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:03 03:03 03:03

03:04 03:04

149 A. Correct. Q. And was such a motion made in your case? A. I do believe it was. Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit Number 7. Do you recognize that? A. Yes, it does appear to be a Motion to Dismiss that was filed in that case. Q. And that was filed by the defendant, Mr. Reed. A. Correct. Q. And that's -- is that a certified copy of a record in the clerk's file? A. Yes. Q. And by the way, does he have the wrong caption on that case? A. Actually, yes. He's got it listed as the State of Nevada as the plaintiff. Q. That's not actually correct, is it? A. No, it should be the United States of America as the plaintiff. The case number is the same as we've been referencing in this case. Q. Does the -- does the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, is that a true and correct copy of that document, a certified copy? A. You know, I've not reviewed the court file recently, but it appears to be a correct copy of one that I've previously Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 149 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

03:04 03:04 03:05 03:05 03:05

150 seen, yes. Q. The bottom right-hand corner, is it certified as such by the clerk? A. Yes. MR. WRIGHT: All right. At this time we would offer Exhibit 7. THE COURT: Any objection to seven? MR. REED: Oh, no. No, not at all. THE COURT: Mr. Davis, any objection to seven? MR. DAVIS: No. No. THE COURT: Exhibit 7 may be admitted. MR. WRIGHT: May I publish? THE COURT: You may. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) I'm going to hand you what's been marked as Exhibit Number 8. Do you recognize that? A. Yes, this is Judge Hovland's Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Q. All right. And typically when there's a motion to dismiss the Indictment, does the Judge deny that orally or in writing? A. Well, if it's -- if it's a pretrial matter, as this one was, it's very -- most commonly going to be a written order. Q. All right. And is Exhibit 8 Judge Hovland's written Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment, which is contained in Exhibit 7? A. Yes. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 150 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:05 03:06 03:06 03:06 03:07

151 Q. All right. What is the date of the Judge's denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment on the last page? A. It's dated and was filed on January 5, 2010. Q. Can you highlight that date, please? A. All right. I've done so. MR. WRIGHT: And at this time we would offer Exhibit Number 8. THE COURT: Any objection to that? MR. DAVIS: No. MR. REED: No objection. THE COURT: Exhibit 8 may be admitted. MR. WRIGHT: May I publish? THE COURT: You may. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Mr. Hagler, I'm going to show you what's marked as Exhibit Number 9. I'm going to have some more testimony on this later, but what does that appear to be? A. Well, there's a title on the top left. It says UCC Financing Statement. Q. And how many pages is that document? A. Five pages. Q. All right. And according to the document, who is listed as the filer? A. Gregory Davis. Q. And who is listed as the two debtors in the debtor column? A. Debtor one is listed as the U.S. District Court of North Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 151 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:07 03:07 03:07 03:08 03:08

152 Dakota/Daniel Hovland. And in Section 2, where it says additional debtor, it says Acting United States attorney, Lynn C. Jordheim. Q. And is that -- was that the judge in your case and your boss at the prosecutor's office? A. Yes. Q. Now I'd like you to go to page 3 of that document. Is there some language that starts on the bottom of page 3 that says, "This UCC lien"? Do you see where I'm referring to? A. Yes. Q. And does that go to the top of page 4, where it says, "Michael Howard Reed"? A. Yes. Q. Could you read that sentence out loud, please? A. "This UCC lien in this instant action is 2,400,100 USD for default of court case, 1 million in silver coinage for copyright violations of Michael Howard Reed," and then the letters "TM." Q. And where it says "default of court case," does it have an actual clerk's office file number on the UCC statement? A. Yes. Q. And do you recognize that number? A. Yes, it's the same number as was assigned to the fugitive in possession of a firearm case that I prosecuted. Q. So the Financing Statement has the same number as the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 152 of 189
1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:08 03:09 03:09 03:09 03:10

153 clerk's file that you're prosecuting against Mr. Reed, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Could you please highlight that language that we just discussed, please? A. All right. I've done so. Q. Do you know of any reason why, from your prosecution of this case, why Judge Hovland or Mr. Jordheim would owe the defendants $3.4 million? A. No. Q. Or 2.4 million in cash and 1 million in silver? A. No. Q. Do you know who Mr. Davis is, Greg Davis? A. Yes. Q. And do you see him in the courtroom? A. Yes, I do. Q. Where's he at? A. He's seated to the left of Mr. Reed. Q. And how do you know him? A. I became familiar with who Mr. Davis is during the prosecution of my case against Mr. Reed. Q. Did Mr. Davis testify for Mr. Reed in that particular trial?

A. He did. Q. Did he also show up at other hearings that Mr. Reed had on Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 153 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:10 03:10 03:11 03:11 03:11

154 that case? A. Yes, I believe so. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. That's all. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. REED: Q. In this Case 4:09-00076, were you ever given judicial notice of a copyright? A. Frankly, I don't know what that means, Mr. Reed. You filed multiple documents during that case, and one of them may have been what you just referred to. MR. REED: Okay. At this time I will end my questions, and I'll save all of my questions for when I recall you as a witness. I'm finished. THE COURT: Any questions that you have, Mr. Davis? MR. DAVIS: No, not right now, Your Honor. Save them all for later. THE COURT: Okay. Any redirect? MR. WRIGHT: No, sir.

THE COURT: You may step down, sir. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Let's take one more witness before we take a break. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir. Ida Williams. THE CLERK: Can I have you please raise your right hand? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 154 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:12 03:12 03:12 03:12 03:13

155 IDA WILLIAMS, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WRIGHT: Q. Would you state your name, please? A. Ida Williams. Q. And what is your occupation? A. I'm the Deputy Recorder of Deeds in Washington, DC. Q. And can you give us your education, please? A. I hold a BA in economics from the University of Toronto in Albania and also a law degree from Hamline University, School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Q. And how long have you been with the Recorder of Deeds Office? A. Almost two years. Q. Do you have any special training for this particular position? A. Yes, before I joined the Recorder of Deeds Office I was a claims attorney, a title claims attorney, worked with First American Title Insurance Company, so I had plenty of training in title examination, title searches and claims that came from what we call in the industry clouds in title. Q. And tell us a little bit about the Washington, DC, Recorder of Deeds Office. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 155 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:13 03:13 03:14 03:14 03:14

156 A. The Recorder of Deeds Office is responsible for recording all land records in the DC area. We record what we call like deeds, mortgages, and they are within the land records limits. But also we record what we call chattel documents, chattel documents like liens that don't encumber property, so they're not liens that are secured against properties, but as we call them general documents. And hospital liens are some of them, UCC's, judgments issued by the Superior Court, DC Superior

Court. Q. And does your office have default jurisdiction on liens and Financing Statements? A. Yes, DC is a default jurisdiction for filing Financing Statements or UCC's, so anyone in the United States, wherever they are, they can file this lien, the UCC Financing Statement with our office. Q. And is that a public or private record? A. It's public record. Q. All right. And when you accept for file a UCC Financing Statement, what do we mean when we say a Financing Statement? A. Can you repeat the question, please? Q. What do we mean when we say a UCC Financing Statement? A. As we classify it in our office, we have UCC's for land records and UCC's for general records, so some UCC's, they're just evidence of indebtedness. And in many cases they are secured by property, real property, and that's what we call UCC Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 156 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:14 03:15 03:15 03:15 03:16

157 land records. And some of the UCC's, they are just general. They're not encumbered or they don't encumber real property, and these fall under the classification of general records. So

UCC's in general for our office, from our point of view, they evidence some type of indebtedness, and whoever holds the UCC, they want to file it with our office so whenever a search is done, because it's public records, someone will see that there is a potential lien against the debtor named in the UCC. Q. Can a Financing Statement be filed electronically? A. Yes. Q. Can you explain that? A. Many documents in our office can be filed electronically, and UCC's are one of them. When UCC's are filed electronically so they can be done anywhere in the United States from everybody -- anyone that has a scanner in his office or at home or anywhere, at any time of the day, any time of the week, they can file it electronically. All they need is a password. They create an account with -- which is prompted into the website, and they can file the UCC electronically. Q. And I assume there's a filing fee for filing a Financing Statement? A. Yes. Q. And what is that, if you know? A. If the UCC -- that's why I made the classification of land records and general documents. There are two separate fees. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 157 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:16 03:16 03:16

03:17 03:17

158 The land records are $26.50 for the first two pages, and for general documents or general UCC's it's $46.50 for the first two pages. Q. Now, if a document is filed electronically after hours, what review, if any, is done by your office before it's actually filed? A. It doesn't get any reviews from our office. Any UCC that is filed electronically, it doesn't matter at what time of the day it's filed, it is not reviewed by our office. It goes straight to the public system. It becomes public record. Q. And if a document is filed electronically after hours, then it will be filed, is that correct? A. Correct. Yes. Q. And if you know, what's the rationale for allowing these liens to be automatically filed with no review by your office? A. This was a law that was passed. It's definitely not within the purview of our office, and just to streamline the process a little bit, create more time -- I mean, it allows us to focus our resources on documents that we receive in person over there. Q. And pursuant to law, does your office have any discretion whether or not to reject any of these that are filed electronically after hours? A. Since we don't review it, no, we don't have any discretion to reject documents that are filed electronically. We do have Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 158 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

03:17 03:17 03:18 03:18 03:18

159 the discretion for documents that are filed in person. Q. And so by law you have to accept filings that come late at night if filed electronically. A. Correct. Q. All right. And each Financing Statement that is ultimately filed, are they assigned a docket number by your office? A. Yes, they receive what we call an instrument number or document number. Q. And how is that number determined? A. DC is a res jurisdiction, so it's a ten-digit number. The first ten (sic) digits represent the year, so we are in the year 2010, so the first four digits will be the year 2010. And then the other six digits are numbers that are assigned automatically by the system based on the very last document that was recorded and it was assigned a number. Q. So hypothetically -- just hypothetically, if an individual files a lien after hours on a judge or something like that, your office would have to accept that, is that correct? A. Correct. Yes. Q. Now I'll show you what's been marked as Exhibit Number 9. Do you recognize this, ma'am? A. Yes, this is a UCC Financing Statement. It bears the stamp showing the document number and the information that normally is required by law in Washington, DC, to appear on a Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 159 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:19 03:19 03:19 03:19 03:19

160 document. Q. And is that a certified copy of a UCC Financing Statement on file with your office? A. Yes, this is a certified copy that bears our certification seal on the very last page. Q. And was that filed on January 6, 2010? A. Yes. Q. In fact at 10:01 p.m. A. That's correct, yes. Q. How many pages is that document? A. It's five pages. Q. And, ma'am, referring to that document now, if you could pick up that highlighter that I got in front of you, what is the docket number? You can just set it down. I guess I told you to pick it up. What's the docket number on the top right-hand side? A. The document number is 2010001134. Q. Can you highlight that, please? A. (Drawing.) Q. And is the date and time highlighted right below that? A. Yes. Q. Can you highlight that? A. (Drawing.) Q. And does it say on the top the Official Recorder (sic) of Washington, DC, Recorder of Deeds? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 160 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:20 03:20 03:20 03:20 03:20

161 A. Yes, it does. Q. Can you highlight that, please? A. (Drawing.) Q. Now, on Subsection A, does it mention the name of the filer? A. Yes, it does. Q. And can I have you just speak up nice and loud for me? A. Yes, it does. Q. And what's the name of the filer listed on there? A. Last name Davis, Gregory. Q. Could you highlight that, please? A. (Drawing.) Q. And does -- is his name also above that? Is it listed twice? A. Yes, it is. It's -Q. Can you highlight that whole -A. -- under Section A and B. Q. Now, is the debtor -- the debtors listed on that Financing Statement? A. Yes, it is. It's listed under Field 1, Section 1. Q. And who are the two debtors that are listed on your Financing Statement? A. The first one I see is U.S. District Court of North Dakota, Daniel Hovland. Q. Can you highlight that, please? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 161 of 189
1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:21 03:21 03:21 03:21 03:22

162 A. (Drawing.) Q. And who's the second one? A. It's the Acting United States Attorney, Lynn Jordheim. Q. Can you highlight that? A. (Drawing.) MR. WRIGHT: Okay. At this time we would offer Exhibit 9. THE COURT: Any objection to that? MR. DAVIS: No. MR. REED: No. THE COURT: Nine may be admitted. MR. WRIGHT: May I publish that on the Elmo, sir? THE COURT: You may. Ma'am, is your office the DC equivalent of the secretary of state's office or something of that nature where the UCC filings are made? THE WITNESS: No, it's not. THE COURT: Do you normally file UCC Financing Statements from all over the country? THE WITNESS: Yes, so we just accept the filings, so people from all over the United States, they can either mail UCC's to us, they can file them electronically, or they can just walk in in person and provide us with a UCC. THE COURT: All right.

Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Ma'am, referring to what's on the overhead now, way up there on the top, is that the docket Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 162 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:22 03:22 03:22 03:23 03:23

163 number that your office puts on a case? A. Yes, that's a ten-digit document number. Q. And I assume the 2010 is for year it was filed? A. Correct. Yes. Q. And the 1134, is the 1,134th -A. Correct. Q. -- Financing Statement filed. A. Yeah, that was the 1,134th document that was recorded up to the date, January 6, 2010. Q. Very good. And the name of the filer is listed as Gregory Davis in two places? A. Correct. Yes. Q. And the debtors listed are Judge Hovland and Lynn Jordheim, is that correct? A. Correct. Yes. Q. And then referring to page 3, is the language at the bottom, that this UCC lien involves $2.4 million USD? A. That's what it reads.

Q. And I assume USD stands for United States dollars? A. I would assume so. Q. And then it mentions default of a court case, and then there's a number there, is that correct? A. Correct. Yes. Q. And then it also mentions $1 million in silver. A. That's what it reads, yes. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 163 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:24 03:24 03:24 03:24 03:24

164 Q. It actually says "sliver" does it not, S-L-I-V-E-R? A. Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Thank you. That's all. THE COURT: Any questions of this witness? MR. REED: Yes. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. REED: Q. On the UCC Financing Statement and what you just said, it says that the default jurisdiction would be the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, correct? A. Yes, that is correct. Q. What is the original jurisdiction for the Uniform Commercial Code?

MR. WRIGHT: Again, I would object to that, Your Honor. This Court will provide the law for the jury. THE COURT: Overruled. She may answer it if she knows. THE WITNESS: I don't know the original jurisdiction for the particular document. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) Okay. And anyone can file -- any person anywhere in the world can file this on the internet at any time? A. That's correct, yes. Q. Pursuant to what law is the Uniform Commercial Code under? A. I can't think of the law right now. It's just that I've Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 164 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:25 03:25 03:25 03:26 03:26

165 been in this office for two years. We just know it's a default jurisdiction. I'm sure that if I did some research, I could come up with the reference -- the legal reference to what made the District of Columbia default jurisdiction, but I don't have that information with me now. Q. Okay. I'd appreciate it if you would find that for the redirect, when I call you as a defense -- on the defense part. Also, the Uniform Commercial Code is -- who actually files in

the Uniform Commercial Code in Washington, DC? Who -- what's the standard? A. Anyone can file it. Q. Anybody just files all the time, or is it just specifically states that file with your office in Washington, DC, or foreign countries or -- I need to understand this a little better. A. Anyone can file a UCC Financing Statement with our office. Many times -- oftentimes there are law firms that submit them. However, if your question is who can bring them physically to our office and file them, there is no restrictions, so normally they have what we call runners or abstractors to bring the filings over there. We never looked at the -- who is bringing them or who is filing the documents. Anyone can bring and file the documents. Q. And where else can you file a UCC? Can you file one, let's say, in the state of North Dakota? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 165 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:26 03:26 03:27 03:27 03:28

166 A. That, I would not know. I mean, I just get -- I can only make reference to Washington, DC. In Washington, DC, the only place where you can file a Financing Statement is my office,

the Recorder of Deeds Office. Q. So you don't know if the state of North Dakota or the state of South Dakota or any other state offers the service of filing UCC Financing Statements? A. I would be surprised if they don't. I'm sure that they have an office where you can file these Financing Statements. Q. Okay. Now, where would that be, do you know? A. No, I would not know that. Q. Okay. You testified earlier on the UCC Financing Statement, that Gregory Davis was the filer? A. According to the document, Section A, that's what it shows. Normally that's where the name of the filer goes. Q. Okay. So that would be the contact, contact, that filer. Okay. What does -- Section 3, secured party, what is that section? Is that who the secured party of the lien is? A. I need to look at the form because -MR. REED: May I approach? THE WITNESS: -- each field has a title in there, so I can't recall the form off the top of my head, what Section 3 is about. If it says "secured party," then it means that you have to fill in the name of the secured party. Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) Okay. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 166 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:28 03:28 03:28

03:29 03:29

167 THE COURT: Where's the original document? Q. (MR. REED CONTINUING) Does that have to be done -- before you can accept the filing, does that have to be done? A. Correct. The way the system is designed is that you cannot -- it will not accept the filing if you don't have information inserted in certain fields. The debtor's field is one. The secured party is one. Otherwise, if you don't fill in those fields, the system will not accept it. It'll reject the document. Q. So it will automatically reject it. A. Exactly, the system will reject the document. Q. Okay. So it's -- there's somebody that files it, and it's -- and then earlier you said that chattel -- chattel documents, I don't understand exactly what a chattel -- I don't understand the term of that word. What is that? A. It's -- it means general documents. It's anything but land records because many documents are liens or they -- they are in reference to property, real property, and some documents don't encumber real property. And some of the UCC's, for example, if you see them, you'll see that they are secured on stoves, refrigerators or other items that are not land or real property, so that's why we have this classification. Q. Okay. So that would be -- so anything other than land is chattel documents. A. Yes. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 167 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

03:29 03:30 03:30 03:30 03:31

168 Q. Okay. Is the -- that must be -- UCC must be an abbreviation for something, is it not? A. Uniform Commercial Code. Q. Uniform Commercial Code. Is that an international terminology, Uniform Commercial Code? A. I don't know how they would say it in French. MR. REED: At this time I have no further questions. THE COURT: Any questions that you have, Mr. Davis? MR. DAVIS: No, sir. I'll wait to redirect later. THE COURT: All right. Redirect, Mr. Wright? MR. WRIGHT: No redirect, Your Honor. May counsel approach the bench? THE COURT: No. MR. WRIGHT: No redirect of this witness. THE COURT: All right. You may step down. Would this be a good time to take a recess before the court reporter collapses? Keep in mind that I'm required to tell you each time as though you were stupid and can't remember anything, that you're not to discuss this case among yourselves or with anyone else. You are not to allow anyone to discuss the case with you. You are not to form or express any opinion on the case until it is finally submitted to you. And for heavens sake, don't go on the internet during the break, or something, and start checking out something. Okay. We'll be -- let me ask this. Is this -- is it hardship if we go later than Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 168 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:31 03:32 03:32 03:32 03:32

169 5 o'clock for you folks? THE JUROR: Sort of. THE COURT: Sort of? Well, tell me what you think. Do you have something going on tonight? THE JUROR: Yeah, I do. Yeah, but, I mean, it's up to you. If we can get out at 5:00, that would be nice. THE COURT: All right. Let's see how it goes then. Okay. The jury is excused. All rise. (The jury exits the courtroom.) THE COURT: You have something you want to bring to my attention, Mr. Wright? MR. WRIGHT: Well, Your Honor, the last three or four witnesses the defendants are saying, well, we're going to save our cross-examination when we call these witnesses later. Some of these witnesses, especially the last witness from Washington, DC, does have a plane to catch tomorrow, and we object to them passing on cross-examination and trying to recall the witnesses later. I mean, certainly once in a while you need to recall a witness, but they're making this a general practice with every witness. And if there is crossexamination, we think they should do it at the time assigned and not just have everybody wait until the trial is ended tomorrow, then bring all these people back, so we object to that on principle, especially these out-of-town witnesses that have planes to catch. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 169 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:33 03:58 03:58 03:58 03:58

170 THE COURT: Why don't you ask -- it's not convenient, but they have a right to do that. MR. WRIGHT: I just wanted to make a record on that. THE COURT: Understand. Okay. The court is in recess. (A recess was taken from 3:33 p.m. to 3:58 p.m., the same day.) THE COURT: You may call your next witness, Mr. Wright. MR. WRIGHT: Aaron Kellerman. AARON KELLERMAN, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WRIGHT: Q. Would you state your name, please? A. My name is Aaron Kellerman. Q. What is your occupation? A. I'm a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Q. For how long? A. A little over seven years. Q. Give us your educational background. A. In 1998 I got a Bachelor of Science degree from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. In 2001 I Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 170 of 189
1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:59 03:59 03:59 03:59 03:59

171 received my law degree from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Q. So you're a lawyer, FBI agent? A. I guess technically, yes. Q. Is that common for FBI agents, some FBI agents to also be attorneys? A. Yes. Q. And what are your standard duties? A. I'm stationed in the Grand Forks, North Dakota, resident agency. It's a small office, so I investigate all types of crimes, but most of my caseload comes from violent crimes on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. Q. Now, are you the lead agent in this alleged false lien case against Mr. Davis and Mr. Reed? A. Yes. Q. As part of your duties, you interviewed Mr. Davis on this case. A. Yes. Q. Do you see him in the courtroom? A. Yes, I do. Q. Where's he at? A. He is the second one on my right at the defense table. He's wearing a white button-down shirt.

Q. You also interviewed Mr. Reed in this case. A. Yes. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 171 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

03:59 03:59 04:00 04:00 04:00

172 Q. Do you see him in the courtroom? A. Yes. Q. Where is he at? A. He's the first one at the defense table. He's wearing a button-down brown shirt. Q. Thank you. Can I see Exhibit 9, please? Mr. Kellerman, as part of your duties on this case, did you have an opportunity to review what's now been received as Exhibit Number 9 in this case? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what is that? A. It's a UCC Financing Statement. Q. Can I have that back, please? A. Yes. Q. And after you received and reviewed this Financing Statement, after you received and reviewed this, did you attempt to interview Mr. Davis? A. Yes.

Q. Is that because his name was on the Financing Statement as the filer? A. Yes. Q. Did you do an interview with him? A. Yes, I did. Q. And when was that, sir? A. It was January 20th of 2010. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 172 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

04:00 04:01 04:01 04:01 04:01

173 Q. Where was that interview at? A. It occurred at the Rolette County Sheriff's Office. Q. How was it set up? A. I telephoned Mr. Davis on that date. I informed him of who I was, why I wanted to talk to him. It was a voluntary interview, that he wasn't going to be arrested. I asked him to select a location where he would be most comfortable, and he selected that location, is where he would like to be interviewed. Q. And did Mr. Davis come in for that interview -A. Yes. Q. -- on the 20th of January 2010? A. Yes.

Q. Was he alone when he showed up? A. No, he showed up with two other individuals. Q. And where in the sheriff's office was the interview done? A. It was done in the sheriff's office, his actual physical -- the sheriff. Q. The sheriff's office. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And is there a videocamera in that office? A. Yes. Q. Was this interview videotaped? A. Yes. Q. And that particular day, did you initially meet Mr. Davis Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 173 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

04:01 04:01 04:02 04:02 04:02

174 someplace outside the sheriff's office? A. Yes, it was at the front entrance to the building. Q. And did you escort him and the two men into the sheriff's office then? A. Yes, we walked back to the room. Q. Was there anyone else in law enforcement in the interview room? A. Yes, Special Agent Andrew Eilerman, who's also in the

Grand Forks office. Q. What did you tell Mr. Davis before the interview started? A. I just gave him the standard warnings, that it was a voluntary interview. He wasn't under arrest. He could stop the interview at any time. Q. And you were in court, weren't you, when Mr. O'Neil testified about his interview with Mr. Reed? A. Yes. Q. And it seemed like the rights for Mr. Reed were more detailed. Is there a reason for that? A. Mr. Reed was in custody. He was under arrest when he was interviewed by Mr. O'Neil, so based on that he has to be read his Miranda warning. Mr. Davis wasn't under arrest, so he didn't get any Miranda warnings. Q. And is that, as you understand it, what you're supposed to do? A. Yes, in a noncustodial interview you don't have to give Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 174 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

04:02 04:02 04:02 04:03 04:03

175 Miranda warnings. Q. Now, did you have a copy of Exhibit 9, that Financing Statement with you when you interviewed Mr. Davis?

A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you come out and ask Mr. Davis if he's the individual that filed the Financing Statement against Judge Hovland and against Lynn Jordheim? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did he say? A. He said that he filed it. Q. What did he -- did he say he was sorry or remorseful about it? A. No. Q. What did he say regarding that? A. He just stated generally that any time anyone from his tribe was arrested, they could do it, and they would continue doing it. Q. Did he threaten to file more liens? A. Yes. Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Davis how he filed the lien? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did he say? A. He said he filed it over the internet. Q. Did you discuss the $2.4 million and the $1 million in silver? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 175 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

04:03 04:03 04:03

04:04 04:04

176 A. Yes, I did. Q. During this interview, did Mr. Davis talk a great deal about the Queen of England and bankruptcy law and things like that? A. Yes, he went on a few discussions like that where he talked about various things, about gold bullion and the Queen of England and money being held in trust, stuff like that that I didn't really understand. Q. Did you talk with Mr. Davis about the two debtors listed on the Financing Statement, Judge Hovland and Mr. Jordheim? A. Yes. Q. And how did he refer to Mr. Jordheim as? A. At some point in the interview he referred to him and all lawyers as legal lunatics. Q. And, Mr. Kellerman, did you advise Mr. Davis specifically that filing false liens against public officials could be against federal law? A. Yes. Q. And what did Mr. Davis say in that regard? A. He stated that didn't apply to him, he could file liens whenever he wanted. At one point he referred to the statute as ass wipe. Q. And those are his words? A. Yes. Q. Now, you said this interview was videotaped? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 176 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

04:04 04:04 04:04 04:05 04:05

177 A. Yes. Q. And what kind of machine was that on? A. It was recorded to a VHS tape. Q. Do you know approximately how long the videotaped interview is? A. It takes about 45 minutes. Q. And have you reviewed the tape prior to this trial, sir? A. Yes. Q. Are you convinced it was accurately recorded? A. Yes. Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked Government's Exhibit 10 and 10a. Do you recognize those, sir? A. Yes. Q. And what are they? A. Ten is an Elsur envelope. That's where we store electronic evidence. This contains the VHS tape, and 10a is a DVD recording I made from the VHS tape. Q. Okay. Is Exhibit 10 the VHS tape, the actual tape that was made during the interview? A. Yes. Q. And Exhibit 10a, is that a CD or DVD that you burned yourself from the VHS tape? A. Yes, I burned it two days later. Q. And again, are both of those true and accurate videos of your interview with Mr. Davis -Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 177 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

04:05 04:05 04:05 04:05 04:54

178 A. Yes. Q. -- in January of 2010? A. Yes. MR. WRIGHT: We would offer 10 and 10a at this time. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. REED: No objection. MR. DAVIS: No. No. THE COURT: Those exhibits may be admitted. MR. WRIGHT: May I have the clerk play Exhibit 10a, sir? THE COURT: The FBI did this? MR. WRIGHT: The recording? THE COURT: Yeah. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. May I have her play this tape? THE COURT: You may. MR. WRIGHT: If I may, Your Honor, is this about 45 minutes? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. (Exhibit 10a is played in open court.) THE COURT: Call your next witness. MR. WRIGHT: I have some more questions of this witness, Your Honor. THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. WRIGHT: But I'm just about done. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 178 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

04:54 04:54 04:54 04:54 04:54

179 THE COURT: Go ahead. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Mr. Kellerman, during the video that we saw with your interview of Mr. Davis, he mentioned a couple of times the administrative process. Do you know what he was talking about? A. Not really, no. Q. He mentioned a number of times about the bankruptcy of North America. Did you know what he was talking about? A. No. Q. At one point in the interview Mr. Davis took out a pen and wrote a bunch of stuff on your documents. Do you recall specifically what he was writing? A. No, but I have that document with me. Q. And he pulled out a stamp and put his stamp on the document. Do you know what that stamp was? A. I think it was his fingerprint, actually. Q. All right. And when you called him up for the interview, to come in, did you tell him to bring a fingerprint stamp or anything like that? A. No, he brought all that with him. Q. Now, about three months after your interview with Mr. Davis, did you interview Mr. Reed regarding some documents that he filed with the clerk's office? A. Yes. Q. I'd like to show you what's been marked as Exhibits 11 and Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 179 of 189
1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

04:55 04:55 04:55 04:56 04:56

180 12. Do you recognize those, sir? A. Yes. Q. And what are they? A. They're some filings made by Michael Howard Reed. Q. And are they handwritten? A. Yes. Q. And are they signed at the bottom of each document? THE COURT: Mr. Wright, did you say Exhibits 1 and 12, or did you say 11 and 12? MR. WRIGHT: I thought I said 11 and 12. If I misspoke, I apologize. THE WITNESS: Yes, they're both signed. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Who are they signed by? A. One is signed by Michael Howard Reed, and the other one is signed Boa-kaa-konan-na-ishkawaanden. I apologize if I said that incorrectly. Q. And is -- which document is signed Michael Howard Reed? A. That would be Exhibit 12. Q. And where he signs Exhibit 12, does he also sign the Boa name on that? A. It's written underneath the signature line, yes. Q. In addition to Michael Howard Reed -A. Yes.

Q. -- is that correct? And are each of those documents certified copies? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 180 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

04:56 04:56 04:56 04:57 04:57

181 A. Yes, they are. Q. And did you interview Mr. Reed on May 18 regarding those documents, sir? A. Yes. Q. And prior to that interview, did you advise him of his rights? MR. REED: Objection, Your Honor. You can't testify for something that has not been offered or received into evidence. THE COURT: That would be ordinarily correct. I think he's just laying a foundation, however. Overruled. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) Did you advise him of his rights again prior to that interview? A. Mr. Reed, yes. Q. Did Mr. Reed agree to talk to you? A. Yes. Q. And did you show Mr. Reed what's been marked as Exhibits 11 and 12?

A. A copy of them, yes. Q. Did you ask Mr. Reed if he had authored those documents? A. Yes. Q. And what did he say? A. He said he had written them. Q. Did you ask Mr. Reed if he had filed those documents? A. Yes. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 181 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

04:57 04:57 04:57 04:57 04:58

182 Q. What did he say? A. He said he filed them. Q. That he had? A. Yes. Q. And, sir, can I ask you to take this highlighter? Let's go to Exhibit 11 first. Can you highlight the docket number at the top of the page, please? A. (Drawing.) Q. And is that also highlighted on the body part, the same docket number? A. Yes. Q. And what is the caption on that pleading? A. The caption, "Notice of Default of Copy Right and True

Bill." Q. All right. And the name of the lawsuit is what? A. United States of America versus Michael Howard Reed. Q. And can you highlight "Michael Howard Reed"? A. (Drawing.) Q. Now, on that document on page 2, does Mr. Reed also list a specific Financing Statement and Financing Statement number? A. Yes. Q. And where is that at? A. Here (indicating). Q. Middle of the page? A. Yes, middle of the paragraph. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 182 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

04:58 04:58 04:58 04:58 04:59

183 Q. Can you highlight that, please? A. Yes. Q. And can you highlight the two names where he signed it, please? A. (Drawing.) Q. Now let's go to Exhibit 12. Can you again highlight the court's number on the top part of the page? A. (Drawing.)

Q. And can you highlight the court's number again where he wrote it? A. (Drawing.) Q. And highlight his name again, "Michael Howard Reed." A. (Drawing.) Q. On page 2 does he mention a variety of names in there? A. Yes. Q. And is one of them Lynn C. Jordheim? A. Yes. Q. Can you highlight that? A. (Drawing.) Q. And in there he also mentioned Judge Hovland amongst the many names? A. Yes. Q. Can you highlight that? A. (Drawing.) Q. And going to page 4, paragraph 2, does he mention the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 183 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

04:59 04:59 04:59 05:00 05:00

184 $2.4 million in there? A. Yes. Q. Can you highlight that, please?

A. (Drawing.) Q. Page 5, is there something highlighted in there about $1 million in silver coinage? A. Yes, it's mentioned. Q. Can you highlight that? A. (Drawing.) Q. And on paragraph 6, is there a reference to the ten-digit Financing Statement docket number? A. Yes. Q. Can you highlight that? A. Yes. Q. On the conclusion part of it, does he mention us being in -- somebody being in default, the words "in default"? A. Yes. Q. Can you highlight that? A. (Drawing.) Q. And can you also highlight the part where it mentions the ten-digit financing number? A. Yes. MR. WRIGHT: And if I haven't done so already, Your Honor, we move to admit Exhibits 11 and 12 at this time. THE COURT: Any objection? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 184 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

05:00 05:00 05:01

05:01 05:01

185 MR. REED: I object. THE COURT: On what grounds? MR. REED: Rule 701 -- or, excuse me, Rule 404. That's -THE COURT: 404 or 403? MR. REED: 403. THE COURT: All right. MR. REED: The documents that he has produced for evidence is international documents. THE COURT: International? MR. REED: Yeah, international, international documents that are only supposed to be for the UCC. They still haven't proven jurisdiction for the UCC and the Uniform Commercial Code. THE COURT: Well, the UCC or the Uniform Commercial Code has nothing to do with this action. MR. REED: Well, it does because -THE COURT: UCC has nothing to do with a criminal prosecution, nor does a copyright law. MR. REED: Under Title 27, Section 27(e) states it does, so it does. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. REED: Commercial act. THE COURT: Overruled. I find that there's no violation of Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 185 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

05:01 05:02 05:02 05:02 05:03

186 documents are more probative than prejudicial, and they are relevant and they should be admitted, and Exhibits 11 and 12 are admitted. MR. WRIGHT: May I publish using the Elmo? THE COURT: Yes, you may. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) And, Mr. Kellerman, you talked earlier about the Financing Statement filed by Mr. Davis. Is this again a copy of the Financing Statement that you asked Mr. Davis about? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Davis had told you that he had filed that? A. Yes. Q. And top of that Financing Statement, is there that ten digit number, 20101134? A. Yes. Q. And again, on that Financing Statement is there a reference to the court case, 0076-DLH? A. Yes. Q. And again, that's the document filed by Mr. Davis that he admitted to you that he filed -A. Yes. Q. -- with Washington, DC? A. Yes. Q. Now, when you interviewed Mr. Reed three months later -on Exhibit Number 11, is that number, 00076, is that the court Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 186 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

05:03 05:03 05:03 05:04 05:04

187 case number of Mr. Reed's file? A. Yes. THE COURT: Now, by the court case number, you're talking about the federal prosecution for -MR. WRIGHT: The firearms charge. THE COURT: -- for a fugitive in possession of a firearm. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: The clerk's office number. THE COURT: Right. That's 09-cr-076. Q. (MR. WRIGHT CONTINUING) So, sir, that document showed up in both documents filed by Mr. Reed and Mr. Davis, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And on page 2 of Exhibit 11, does Mr. Reed also cite the document number from Mr. Davis' Financing Statement? A. Yes. Q. And this document was filed three months after the Financing Statement, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And Exhibit 12, Mr. Reed's Lodgement of Affidavit, that also contained, as the Judge said, the clerk's office number in the possession of firearm by a fugitive from justice case. A. Yes. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 187 of 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

05:04 05:05 05:05 05:06 05:06

188 Q. And does page 4 of Mr. Reed's handwritten, filed document also reference 2.4 million USD? A. Yes. Q. The same as Mr. Davis references in the Financing Statement filed against the Judge and U.S. attorney. A. Yes. Q. And on page 5, does Mr. Reed mention the $1 million in silver coinage? A. Yes. Q. The same as Mr. Davis mentions in the Financing Statement. A. Yes. Q. Except Mr. Davis called it sliver, but pretty much the same, right? A. Correct. Q. All right. And again on page 6, does Mr. Reed again reference the ten-digit filing number from Mr. Davis' filing with the Washington, DC, Recorder of Deeds Office? A. Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. That's all I have, Your Honor. THE COURT: Cross-examination? MR. REED: Yes. Within respect to earlier with -when you asked the jury if somebody had a prior engagement around 5 o'clock, I move this Court to convene for the evening and pick this up tomorrow. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 188 of 189
1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

05:06 05:06 05:07 05:07 05:08

189 MR. WRIGHT: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. We can quit somewhat early tonight. I'll just give the jury half pay today because they didn't work a full day. MR. REED: Now, now, now. THE COURT: That wouldn't amount to anything anyway, so, okay. So now if you go home tonight or wherever you go and your spouse says where have you been or what's going on in court, don't tell them anything. Just tell them you can tell them all about it when the case is over. So you can step down. I thank you. As I have told other people, you can write a -- you can write a book if you want to when the case is over with, but for now don't tell anybody anything because it's just a recipe for trouble and your spouse, or whatever, will start asking you questions, and so we don't want any of that. Just go home and have a nice evening. And again, don't go on the internet. Don't do any research. Don't read any news reports concerning this case. And, of course, do not form or express any opinion on the case until it is finally submitted to you for your verdict. All right. The jury is excused. We'll start promptly at 9 o'clock. All rise. (Recessed from 5:08 p.m., Tuesday, October 12, 2010,

to 9:07 a.m., Wednesday, October 13, 2010.) --------Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 175 Filed 04/04/11 Page 189 of 189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION United States of America, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) File No. 1:10-cr-041-2 ) Appeal No. 11-1463 Gregory Allen Davis, ) ) Defendant. ) TRANSCRIPT OF DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING OF INITIAL APPEARANCE, ARRAIGNMENT AND DETENTION HEARING Taken at United States Courthouse Grand Forks, North Dakota June 15, 2010 BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALICE R. SENECHAL -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE -Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 34 APPEARANCES MR. THOMAS J. WRIGHT U.S. Attorney's Office 325 S. First Avenue, Suite 300 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57104 FOR THE UNITED STATES ---------MR. JOEL L. LARSON Camrud, Maddock, Olson & Larson, Ltd P.O. Box 5849 Grand Forks, North Dakota 58206-5849 STANDBY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT GREGORY ALLEN DAVIS ---------GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT No. Description Offered Received 1 CD of interview of Mr. Davis held on January 20, 2010 24 25 ---------Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

3 (The above-entitled matter came before the Court, The Honorable Alice R. Senechal, United States District Court Magistrate Judge, presiding, commencing at 11:27 a.m., Tuesday, June 15, 2010, in the United States Courthouse, Grand Forks, North Dakota; with counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties as hereinbefore indicated:) ----------(The following proceedings were had and made of record in open court and recorded by digital means. The defendant did not speak clearly into the microphone and also spoke in a Native language at times. Therefore, there are some inaudible text delineated for the defendant.) THE COURT: We're here for Case Number 1:10-cr-41. The case is captioned United States of America versus Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis. Today is June 15, 2010. It is shortly before 11:30 a.m. Thomas Wright is here appearing on behalf of the United States. Gregory Allen Davis is present. He is not represented by counsel this morning. Mr. Davis, there has been an Indictment filed. It charges you with three different crimes. This hearing today is called an initial appearance and arraignment. The purpose of this hearing is to explain the charges that have been brought against you, to explain your rights. I will ask you to enter pleas to the charges if you are ready to do that, and then we

will address the question of your status between now and the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 3 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

4 time of trial. You do, of course, have the right to remain silent. That means that you are not required to answer any questions of any kind, and you are not required to make any statements of any kind. If you choose to give up your right to remain silent, anything you do say can be used against you here in court. If you choose to give up your right to remain silent, you have the right to have your attorney present with you any time you speak with any law enforcement agents. Do you understand your right to remain silent, sir? THE DEFENDANT: (Inaudible.) THE COURT: I'm sorry. I wasn't able to hear what you said. THE DEFENDANT: (Inaudible.) THE COURT: Yes? THE DEFENDANT: (Inaudible.) THE COURT: Good. I would like to ask you a few questions. I am not going to ask anything at all about these charges. I do not want you to tell me anything at all about these charges. THE DEFENDANT: I just received them. I never seen this before.

THE COURT: I'm going to go over them with you in just a minute, so I would like to ask you a few questions. As I said, you are not, of course, required to answer any Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 4 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

5 questions or make any statements. The reason that I want to ask these questions is because I need to be sure that you're able to understand the charges and that you're able to understand your rights, so I will ask that you stand, raise your right hand and take an oath to answer my questions. THE DEFENDANT: I don't want to swear an oath. I will only do so if (inaudible.) THE COURT: Do you swear -THE DEFENDANT: (Inaudible.) I'm Anishinabe. I'm in the tradition and culture of Anishinabe. I'm Zakiz-aanakwad. On and for the record I accept your oath of office. Do you give your oath of office clearly with the record? Is this -THE COURT: Would you -THE DEFENDANT: Is this a court of record? THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. Would you -THE DEFENDANT: Zakiz-aanakwad of the Anishinabe of the Esens is asking you is this a court of record? THE COURT: Sir, would you move that microphone a bit closer to you, please? THE DEFENDANT: Is this a court of record?

THE COURT: Yes, this is a court of record. THE DEFENDANT: Everything is on and for the record, is it not? THE COURT: It is being recorded. THE DEFENDANT: I ask for your oath of office on and Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 5 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

6 for the record. THE COURT: Here's what's going to happen next, sir. I would like to ask you some questions -THE DEFENDANT: No, I -THE COURT: -- to be sure that you're able to understand your rights. THE DEFENDANT: As trustee here (inaudible). I need your oath of office. THE COURT: Here's what's going to happen next. THE DEFENDANT: I need your oath of office. THE COURT: I'm speaking right now, sir. THE DEFENDANT: So was I. I am not -- I am (inaudible). I am Anishinabe. I do not release any rights to you at all under anything of jurisdiction. I do not, and I'm going to discharge this eventually. You're not playing with Boa-kaa-konan-na-ishkawaanden. You're playing with Zakiz-aanakwad. I know my rights. I helped other natives do this all over North America. I'm going to do it here. Whether

you like it or not isn't the issue. THE COURT: Here's what's going to happen next. I'm going to ask you a number of questions. My reason for asking the questions is to be sure that you're able to understand the charges and that you're able to understand your rights. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give will be the truth? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 6 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

7 THE DEFENDANT: I only speak the truth. Anishinabe only speak the truth. THE COURT: I respect that. What is your name, sir? THE DEFENDANT: My name is Zakiz-aanakwad. THE COURT: Would you -- would you spell that for me, please? THE DEFENDANT: Our names are said. They're not really spelled, but in this matter I will, but it doesn't give you any hold on that name. My name is mine given by my birth. THE COURT: And how is it spelled, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Z-A-K-I-Z, A-A-N-A-K-W-A-Z, copyright, trademark. THE COURT: What is your age, sir? THE DEFENDANT: I am 43. THE COURT: How many years of school have you completed?

THE DEFENDANT: Fourteen. THE COURT: Do you have any physical illnesses or physical disabilities? THE DEFENDANT: Never have. THE COURT: Do you have any mental illnesses or mental disabilities? THE DEFENDANT: Never had anything. THE COURT: Have you had any alcohol at all in the past 24 hours? Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 7 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

8 THE DEFENDANT: No. THE COURT: Have you had -THE DEFENDANT: (Inaudible.) THE COURT: Have you had any drugs or prescription medications of any kind within the past 24 hours? THE DEFENDANT: No, I haven't. THE COURT: Are you able to read, write and understand the English language? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am. THE COURT: You, of course, have the right to be represented by an attorney throughout all stages of the case. THE DEFENDANT: No, not unless they have (inaudible) seven bar digits and are sovereign, between that and (inaudible) the only two I would accept, they have to have

seven bar digit. Six bar digit -- bar number lawyer can also do it, but I would need to question him first. THE COURT: If you cannot afford to hire an attorney, you have the right to have a court-appointed attorney. THE DEFENDANT: No. THE COURT: Do you wish -THE DEFENDANT: They are not in my venue and jurisdiction. They are foreign to me. They are there to only protect (inaudible) policies, but they don't do that. They only protect the bankruptcies. THE COURT: Are you telling me that you do not wish Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 8 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

9 to apply to have a court-appointed attorney? THE DEFENDANT: I don't want to see a lawyer. If you do, I'm going to lien him down fast. THE COURT: There will be someone who will be available to serve as standby counsel to you. Joel Larson has agreed to act in that capacity. Mr. Larson, thank you for agreeing to act in that capacity. And, sir, I think you told me that you do have the Indictment there in front of you, is that correct? Okay. We're going to go through each of the charges that concerns you. It is just Counts 1, 2 and 3 that concern you, so those are the ones that we will address.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, I'm not on there. Gregory Allen Davis is. That's my person. THE COURT: In Count 1 the grand jury charges commencing on or about September 24, 2009, and continuing through the date of this Indictment, in the District of North Dakota, the defendants, Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis, knowingly conspired with each other and with others known and unknown to the grand jury to file in any public record and in any private record which is generally available to the public a false lean and encumbrance against the real and personal property of Judge Daniel Hovland and Lynn C. Jordheim, individuals described in 18 USC, Section 1114, on account of the performance of official duties by Judge Hovland Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 9 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10 and Mr. Jordheim, knowing and having reason to know that such lien and encumbrance was false and contained materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations, all in violation of 18 USC, Section 1521. Count 1 charges the crime of conspiracy to file false liens. A person who is found guilty of that charge faces a maximum prison term of 10 years. Any prison term can be followed by a period of supervised release of up to 3 years. The maximum fine that applies on this charge is $250,000. There could be -- there could also be an order to pay financial

restitution to any victim of the crime, and there would be a required payment of a special assessment of $100. In Count 2 the grand jury charges, between on or about September 24, 2009, and the date of this Indictment, in the District of North Dakota, the defendants, Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis, did knowingly attempt to file and did file in a public record and in a private record which is generally available to the public, a false lien and encumbrance against the real and personal property of Judge Daniel Hovland, an individual described in 18 USC, Section 1114, on account of the performance of official duties by Judge Hovland, knowing and having reason to know that such lien and encumbrance was false and contained materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations, and did aid and abet each other in committing the offense, all in violation of 18 USC, Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 10 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11 Sections 1521 and 2. Count 2 charges the crime of attempting to file false liens. A person found guilty of that charge faces a maximum prison term of 10 years. That could be followed by a term of supervised release of up to 3 years. The maximum fine once again is $250,000, and the same provisions for payment of financial restitution to any victim and for payment of a $100 special assessment apply.

The third charge against you is contained in Count 3. That reads as follows: Between on or about September 24, 2009, and the date of this Indictment, in the District of North Dakota, the defendants, Michael Howard Reed and Gregory Allen Davis, did knowingly attempt to file and did file in a public record and in a private record which is generally available to the public a false lien and encumbrance against the real and personal property of Lynn C. Jordheim, an individual described in 18 USC, Section 1114, on account of the performance of official duties by Mr. Jordheim, knowing and having reason to know that such lien and encumbrance was false and contained materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations, and did aid and abet each other in committing the offense, all in violation of 18 USC, Sections 1521 and 2. Count 3 is another charge of attempting to file false liens. Again, the maximum prison term is 10 years, maximum supervised release term is 3 years, maximum fine is $250,000, Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 11 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

12 and the same provisions for payment of financial restitution to any victim and for payment of the $100 special assessment apply. Mr. Wright, is my interpretation of the maximum penalties consistent with yours? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: In the event you are found guilty of any of these charges, a district judge would decide your actual sentence. A district judge would consider sentencing guidelines that apply in federal courts. Those sentencing guidelines focus on two factors. One factor is the seriousness of the crime, and the other factor is any criminal history that a person may have. I do not have enough information about your case to know what the sentencing guideline range might be. THE DEFENDANT: It doesn't matter. THE COURT: That is -THE DEFENDANT: Are you done? THE COURT: -- a matter that requires some factual analysis, and I simply don't have all the factual information available to me at this time. THE DEFENDANT: Are you done? THE COURT: Do you understand the charges that have been brought against you, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. THE COURT: Good. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 12 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

13 THE DEFENDANT: Dischargeable. THE COURT: I want to explain some of your rights to you. You do, of course, have the right to be represented by an attorney, and you have the right to court-appointed counsel if

you're not able to afford hiring an attorney. You have indicated that it is not your desire to be represented by an attorney, and I want to explain to you some matters that you may wish to consider in determining whether you wish to be represented. You've told me that you understand that you're charged with three different crimes. Do you understand that each of those crimes carries a maximum prison term of 10 years? Do you understand that, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. THE COURT: And do you understand that there are sentencing guidelines that would affect your sentence in the event -- in the event you were found guilty? THE DEFENDANT: You have no right to sentence me. THE COURT: Do you understand that sentencing guidelines exist? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Good. Are you familiar with those sentencing guidelines at all? THE DEFENDANT: No, I could care less. THE COURT: Do you understand that if you choose to represent yourself, the Court cannot give you legal advice Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 13 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

14 during the course of the trial? THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, I'm just going to come in and

lien it all down like I did before, so this -- let's get it on. THE COURT: Are you familiar with the Federal Rules of Evidence? THE DEFENDANT: No, I just accept it for value, return it for value, bullshit. It's bankruptcy under the status Indian trust. I accept it for value right now. On and for the record I return it for value, the same as you refuse to give me your oath of office in this court. I don't even know what this court is. Is this a Constitutional court or admiralty court? What are you running under? THE COURT: Are you familiar with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? THE DEFENDANT: No, I accept them for value, return them for value. That's all I do here, bunch of horse shit, and that's all I do. THE COURT: Do you understand that the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Criminal Procedure govern the conduct of a trial? THE DEFENDANT: Yep, and I accept them for value, return them for value. As they are horse shit, they are bankruptcy, and they're all dischargeable. THE COURT: I must advise you that a trained lawyer would -Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 14 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

15

THE DEFENDANT: No, all he's going to do is contracting me out. I'm not contracting you in any way here. I'm telling you who I am and what I am. I'm going to come forth as that, as with tribal. They will be here at the right time, as will be other tribal factions, and we will deal with that at that time. THE COURT: Sir, I've given you a chance to speak. I am going to speak next. THE DEFENDANT: Oh, okay. I'll let you speak. Tell me when you're done. THE COURT: I wish to advise you that in my opinion a trained lawyer would defend you far better than you could defend yourself. THE DEFENDANT: I'm not going to argue. THE COURT: Sir? THE DEFENDANT: I'm just going to accept the true value, return the -THE COURT: Sir, I'm not done speaking. THE DEFENDANT: All right. Tell me when you're done. THE COURT: I think it is unwise for you to try to represent yourself since you are not familiar with the law, the Rules of Evidence, or the Rules of Criminal Procedure. I strongly urge you to not try to represent yourself. Despite that, is it your decision to represent yourself? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, or I'll have to try get somebody Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 15 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25

16 to represent me. They will come in. I've yet to see who's going to come in and put the lien on this. As soon as they are, it will be (inaudible). Someone will come in. There's going to be a lien on this. They will come represent me and they will speak from the tribal side. That's what's going to happen whether you like it or not. THE COURT: You've told me that you understand the charges and that you understand the maximum penalties. THE DEFENDANT: Yes, and I also want to do a show cause hearing right now, right here, as soon as you're done because you won't give me your oath of office, show cause, show hearing as soon as you're done. Tell me when you're done. THE COURT: Here's what's going to happen next. I'm going to explain some of your other rights to you. The Indictment brings three charges against you. You are presumed to be innocent of each of those three charges. You have the right to the presumption of innocence. THE DEFENDANT: Presumed? THE COURT: You have the right to plead not guilty to each of the three charges. You have the right to persist in not guilty pleas through trial. You have the right to have a speedy and public trial. You have the right to trial by jury. At trial you could not be found guilty unless a jury returned a unanimous verdict against you. That means all 12 jurors would have to agree; otherwise, you could not be found guilty at Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 16 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25

17 trial. At trial the Government has the burden of proof. The Government has the burden to prove each almost of each charge by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government must convince all 12 jurors that it has met that burden; otherwise, you could not be found guilty at trial. At trial you have the right to confront and to cross-examine each of the Government's witnesses. You also have the right to call witnesses to testify on your behalf. And you have the right to use the Court's subpoena power so that witnesses are ordered to appear and testify at trial. When we began here this morning, I explained that you have the right to remain silent. A right to remain silent continues throughout trial. That means that you could not be forced to testify at trial. And, of course, your right to be represented by an attorney continues throughout the trial and throughout all stages of the case. Do you understand the rights that I have explained to you, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Yep, I understand them. THE COURT: Good. Do you wish to enter pleas to the charges? THE DEFENDANT: No, I want to know if you're done talking so I can talk, show cause hearing right now. THE COURT: Do you wish to enter pleas? THE DEFENDANT: Venue and jurisdiction has not been proven here. I have not released venue and jurisdiction, as I Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 17 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25

18 have, Gregory Allen Davis under UCC lien, I've liened down. I have the superior lien right from the tribal side through the clan mothers and through the Ogichi (inaudible) tribal elders. Now, how do you supersede that tradition and culture? That's how we filed these liens. Order to show cause right now. I want you to produce your claim of right. You will not produce your oath of your office, so I want you to produce your claim of right over the Little Shell people, Zakiz-aanakwad, Anishinabe Esens. How -right now for the first time on and for the record, I'm going to ask you three times. You haven't answered. Second time, where is your claim of right over Anishinabe people of the Little Shell here and now for the second time? On and for the record you refuse to give your oath of office here, so, therefore, I will ask you again for the third and final time. Where is your claim of right over them to move them through a foreign venue and juris. I release none of that to you right now and I hereby fire you. Is that clear? THE COURT: Do you wish to enter pleas to those charges, sir? THE DEFENDANT: I can't enter pleas because something I don't -- it has no venue and jurisdiction. THE COURT: Not guilty pleas are entered into the record as to Counts 1, 2 and 3 -THE DEFENDANT: Under protest -Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 18 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

19 THE COURT: -- as to Mr. Davis. THE DEFENDANT: -- Zakiz-aanakwad, please, Anishinabe Esens. THE COURT: Mr. Wright, what is your estimate of the length of this trial, and what discovery policy would your office intend to follow? MR. WRIGHT: As with the co-defendant, Your Honor, we estimate the trial to take two to three days. We will provide all discovery to standby counsel, all discovery of the defendant in approximately a week or two. Most of the discovery is on a CD, on a written -- on a -- all the written discovery has been downloaded to a CD to make it easier, so all these CDs will be provided within the next week, or so, to standby counsel. THE COURT: Okay. I do not yet have a trial date or information about a presiding judge or motion deadline. I will certainly get that to you as soon as possible. Mr. Wright, what is the Government's position on release pending trial? MR. WRIGHT: We are asking that the defendant be detained pending trial. We are prepared to do a detention hearing today. If the defendant needs a continuance or needs more time to prepare for the detention hearing, we have no objection to that continuance as long as the defendant stays in custody in the interim. We would ask that if they want a Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 19 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

20 continuance, they get the whole five days and the detention hearing be held next week, but we are -- we are prepared to proceed today if the Court and the defendant want it. THE COURT: The Government is asking that I order that you be held in custody until trial. THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I never harmed anyone, okay? THE COURT: Any time the Government makes that motion, there's a right to a hearing on that motion called a detention hearing. At the detention hearing the Government has the burden to prove one of two things. The Government must prove either that there's a serious risk that you would not appear for trial, or else the Government must prove that you impose a danger if you were released. You have a right to have that detention hearing within three business days of today. With certain findings that three days could be extended to five business days. Prior to any detention hearing, Mr. Corbid or someone else from the pretrial services office would ask to meet with you. The function of the pretrial services office is to get some background information about you and to make a recommendation to me at the time of the detention hearing. If you choose to meet with the pretrial services officer for that purpose, you have the right to have your attorney present with you during that meeting. Do you wish to proceed to the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 20 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

21 detention hearing now, or do you wish to have it held within the time that I have described? THE DEFENDANT: Let's do it now. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Wright, ready to go ahead? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. You may do so. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. Initially I'd like to have a CD marked, if I may. THE COURT: Sure. THE DEFENDANT: Could I get a pen, Your Honor? I have to discharge this. I need a pen. Also, I need to take notes on what he's saying. THE COURT: Okay. You have a pen and paper now? THE DEFENDANT: Go ahead. THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Wright. MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, first of all, the Government would like to make an evidentiary proffer regarding this case. May I do so? THE COURT: Go ahead. You may. MR. WRIGHT: The proffer that the Government seeks to make in this case is as follows, Your Honor. The co-defendant, Mr. Reed, was indicted on firearm charges on September 24th of 2009. He was held in custody -- Mr. Reed was -- and the case was assigned to Judge Hovland. During the time that Mr. Read Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 21 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

22 was in custody, the Government's evidentiary proffer is that Mr. Davis and Mr. Reed conspired a number of times to file false liens against U.S. Attorney Jordheim and District Judge Hovland. Mr. Reed was in custody at the time, and he made a number of important phone calls with Mr. Davis and other people, conspiring to file these liens against Judge Hovland and against Mr. Jordheim. The inmates sent to jail are told for every conversation the calls are being monitored, so we have a series of monitored telephone calls in which Mr. Davis and Mr. Reed repeatedly talk about this scheme to file these false liens against the Judge and the main attorney for North Dakota. During these recorded phone calls, they repeatedly discussed a figure of $2.4 million. They discuss that throughout the recorded phone calls. On January 6th of 2010, this defendant, Mr. Davis, electronically filed a false lien with the Washington, DC, Recorder of Deeds, and named Daniel Hovland -- Judge Daniel Hovland and Acting U.S. Attorney Lynn Jordheim as the debtors or the persons that owed him $2.4 million for some kind of violation of rights, and an additional million dollars in silver for copyright violations. The $2.4 million figure, as delineated in the Financing Statement filed by the defendant, corresponds with the $2.4 million figure that they discuss a number of times in these recorded telephone calls. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 22 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

23 Mr. Davis was interviewed in this case on January 20th of 2010. That is Government's Exhibit Number 1 in this case, which I'm going to move to admit at the conclusion of this proffer. But during the recorded interview with Mr. Davis, he admits a number of times and he's very proud of the fact that he filed this false lien against Judge Hovland and against Mr. Jordheim. He has not denied filing the lien. He's very proud of it, and he says he intends on filing many more liens against federal officials. Mr. Davis is told by Mr. Kellerman of the FBI that it's against the law to file liens against judges and prosecutors, and Mr. Davis says, "I think your law is" -- to use the term that he used, he said, "that's ass wipe. I think the federal law is ass wipe." And that's right on the videotape he's told. Mr. Davis mentions to the FBI a number of times that he does not recognize the authority of judges, the federal laws, and he calls basically all the federal lawyers legal lunatics. He insists a number of times in the videotape that our laws do not apply to him. He even says there's no jurisdiction to prosecute anyone for murder. He admits that they filed the liens, and he says they filed them to get Mr. Reed out of jail. And when we let Mr. Reed out of jail, he's going to extinguish the liens that he filed against the Judge and the prosecuting attorney. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 23 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

24 Continuing on the proffer, agent -- the agents also did an interview with U.S. District Court Judge Hovland, who told the FBI that Judge Hovland and his wife applied for a credit card in March of 2010 and they were denied. He said -Judge Hovland told the FBI it's the first time he's ever been denied a credit card. We don't know for sure that it's because the defendant filed a lien against him in January, but he thought that was very unusual. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Dakota has filed a lawsuit to try and vacate the liens filed by Mr. Davis and Mr. Reed against Judge Hovland and Mr. Jordheim. This instant lien that's the result of this prosecution is not the first lien that's been filed by Mr. Davis. He has filed a number of other liens against other judges, and Magistrate Judge Miller from North Dakota was named on another one of his earlier liens, and that's why he recused himself from handling the arraignment of this case. The defendant has also exhibited some unwillingness to be fingerprinted by the FBI and the U.S. Marshal Service, and he's been fairly uncooperative with them. That would conclude the evidentiary proffer at this time, Your Honor. We would at this time offer Government's Exhibit Number 1. I have a copy for the defendant or his standby attorney, either one. We're not asking the Court to watch the 45-minute videotape at this time. We would ask the Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 24 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

25 Court to watch the videotape before the Court makes the issue of -- decides the issue of detention, so we move to admit that at this time. THE COURT: Any objection to what's been marked as Exhibit 1? THE DEFENDANT: Nope. THE COURT: Exhibit 1 is received, and I do not have equipment to watch it now, but will watch it before I decide the motion. MR. WRIGHT: And, Your Honor, I have no other evidentiary proffer. At the appropriate time, either now or at a later time, I'd like to make a brief argument in support of detention. THE COURT: Mr. Davis, do you wish to offer any evidence on the question of detention pending trial? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I'm just exercising my superior right and protection of people and anything we claim. It is a right. It is right. We do it all over North America. Like I said, we do it. We do it peacefully. We've never harmed any public official in doing it. No assets have ever been loaned. Everything that has been done is indemnified also. There's an indemnifying bond behind everything of Michael Howard Reed's. It's filed with Timothy Geithner. Each one of these public officials are indemnified by us. Our job is not to harm you. It's to inform you that we are still here Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 25 of 34
1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 in our tribal factions, which isn't under your venue and jurisdiction by Queen Anne's Order of 1704, King George's Proclamation that backs that up by 1763, and also by 7 Stat. 13, that we are the funding instruments behind all that. We are real Indians. We're not the BIA Indians you're used to or are persons which you keep naming as Gregory Allen Davis. Gregory Allen Davis was an event that the White man do to the Indian at the time of birth in the North Dakota Bud (ph) statistics. You can write them a letter. They don't register people. They register events. They will not register an event in an Indian name at that time, when we were born back then. It was against the law. That wasn't allowed until 1979. That's when we finally won our moment of relief, freedom of rights, and that proof is in itself the tyranny we live under, and that's what I'm fighting for here. I mean no harm to anybody. I've even told Craig -Craig Zachmeier called me. If Judge Hovland would have called me or found out why -- he's making accusations. He says he don't know why. He thinks why. Again, an assumination (sic). Where is the fact? The facts why are right here. We came in and we will continue to keep coming in like this. The other tribes will probably come in for me. I do a lot for them. I help their people through a lot. They're probably going to come in on like this. Now, I already have the indemnifying bond on you. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 26 of 34
1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

27 That's why I ask for your oath of office. I will protect you just as much as they will, if not more. I have you indemnified for $300 billion with Timothy Geithner. Anything can be offset to that as a debt, as there is no money in the system. Native Americans have no need of money. They have a status Indian trust system that allows the discharge, and I know the exemptions to those, and I'm going to place it on this one when I'm done here, and basically that's what it's all about. There is no money. There's only what you have in credit. And there's only what you have, so how can anybody say I'm causing any harm when I'm putting $300 billion behind your oath of office as public officials? I'm trying to protect you from here. Now, if Michael, Boa-kaa-konan-na-ishkawaanden, is doing something that I don't know about or filed some papers someplace to take some asset without first notifying the tribes, utilizing that, he has violated that and we don't have to go to you to punish him. We will punish him. We'll give you to him, but as far as I've seen, nothing. There's no reason to hold me. I may be above that criminal law there, that civil law, which I accept for value, return for value at all times as who I am, Zakiz-aanakwad with my sovereign right, sovereign as her majesty is. And I can take you back through that. Besides Little Shell -- the name Little Shell by the Esens people, that's us. Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 27 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

28 We've held that all this time. In your court of claims in 1974 we have declaratory judgment, et al, over North Dakota, declaratory judgment, UCC, 28 UCC (inaudible) 203. I don't have declaratory judgment. I am my birth right. That goes in my veins. I'm Zakiz-aanakwad, my birth name. I was first named (inaudible). Now in adult stage I am Zakiz-aanakwad with the Esens. With the Squamish I have another name. With the Sukanawa (ph), the Okinawa I have another name. With the Inuwa (ph) of three different clans, they have adopted me. I do a lot for them, and I do this right here. We mean no harm, but this is our right. We are not under UCC or UPU, but we are -- we are allowed to use it as sovereigns. We are not under that. The status Indian trust right here that is set up, that pays for everything in North America, that I so boldly go in on it, how it works. I do so boldly and I will do so boldly in this court. I am sovereign to this court. I am not under its venue and jurisdiction. I will maintain that way in or outside of it. But I mean you no harm. You are our public officials. Under that status Indian trust we must protect you with bond. That's all this is is bonding. Without it you can't move nothing. The birth certificate is a bond. Everything is a bond. Your car license is a bond. We only back that up with the -- with the superior lien right. So how

can you detain me for doing something I have the blood in my Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 28 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

29 veins to do. And I'm still protecting you. We have the indemnifying bonds. In other words, we wouldn't have commenced it -- without the indemnifying bonds, I am now, but you are indemnified, Your Honor -- trust me -- of the bankruptcy. You're allowed to do that on persons, but Zakiz-aanakwad in the flesh and blood right here, and I stand, is allowed to peacefully have possession of the paper of all that was created from his own birth, so that I, the flesh and blood, is not supposed to be bonded under your own laws. We do criminal. We do the civil. The whole thing in back of it will be a bond. I know. I know what this is on. I know about everything else. The Native Americans I help know them inside and out. I am still their student, and they will come in for me. One of them will come and they do it all the time up there. If you don't believe me, you call them judges up there in British Columbia, Vancouver, and start asking how they do the sovereign discharge. That's what I'm trying to accomplish here with peace and honor. They are highly honored up there for what they do, they do it so well. I am still the student. I'm still learning. Maybe I may have messed up here and there, but in doing so to detain me would be totally wrong.

And I make no contract with you here, okay? I'm only telling you who and what I am. I won't blame you for this. That's why -- you know, Mr. Larson, I thank him, but please Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 29 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

30 stay back and watch. We do this. Please, and I will move this through and I am (inaudible) as you will soon see. I tried to be. I wish I could be, but there are times I can't, and this is one of them because, see, I'm not only fighting for Zakiz-aanakwad's right here, I have a whole tribe behind me, which you will see. And they asked me to do these in protection of Boa-kaa-konan-na-ishkawaanden, known as Michael Howard Reed. We're just as mad at him as probably you guys are, if not more, but we agreed to protect him. That part we stand on, and I will, and they've agreed to protect me, so when you look that way to him, you will face with me, but with me you're going to bring in the other tribe. And basically -THE COURT: Thank you. THE DEFENDANT: And basically, like I said, we have peaceful position of our superior UCC lien right (inaudible), and we utilize that, and I will continue to utilize it and so will the tribes. And with that, keep in mind I keep saying peaceful possession. And I do get aggressive, and when somebody is in

there like Michael to explain one part of that, he said he would do it. We let them make the decision. Right now they're going to let me make the decision, just like we let him make the decision to put it on there. We joke around a bit about it. Maybe it's not a joking matter, but in the end you public Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 30 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

31 officials are all protected by what I do (inaudible) better or worse. I'm not allowed to harm anyone. In my position as spokesperson I cannot harm either side. That's why I sign and then I file and then I do it, but I do it in rights of my people. I will not dishonor them. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Wright. MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, we are asking for the Court's order of detention in this case. I don't know if the Court wants to rule today or view the videotape and rule at a different time, give us a written decision. That's fine. We strongly urge the Court to detain the defendant in this case. The main reason for asking that the defendant be detained is a simple one. This defendant is not amenable to supervision. If you release the defendant pending trial, I assume there has to be some kind of conditions put on the defendant. And this man does not recognize the authority of this Court and would not recognize the authority of this Court to put him on judicial conditions. He didn't stand up for the

Court when the Court walked into court today. He's answered a number of your questions, "I couldn't care less." He has internally justified what he's done, but he hasn't even seen that it's against the law. And when he was told it was against the law, he called the federal law ass wipe, but you can't expect this man released to obey judicial conditions, to timely notify probation of his whereabouts, and Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 31 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

32 to be amenable to supervision. In fact, I would submit you probably wouldn't have two defendants less -- more less -- I don't think there's a defendant that's probably going to be harder to supervise than this defendant, unless it's the co-defendant, Mr. Reed in this case, if they were released. That's because they so believe that they have the right to file these liens. And he's even said in court today that's his intention, to go further with these kind of things. But the fact that he's not amenable to supervision is a good reason to keep him in custody because that makes him a danger to the community and a risk of flight. And the second reason we're asking for your order of detention is the nature of the victims in this case. You have U.S. District Judge Hovland, who a lien has been filed against. You have the acting U.S. attorney for the District of North Dakota, Lynn Jordheim. You have two federal officials, two

high-ranking officials that the defendant has already filed liens on, and on the videotape he's very proud of that and threatens to file more. These men doing their job should not have liens filed against them improperly just because they're doing their job. So the nature of the victims and the nature of the defendant being not supervisable are good reasons that we believe the defendant would be a risk failing -- to fail to appear and a danger to the community, and we strongly ask for Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 32 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

33 this Court's order of detention. THE COURT: All right. I will review Exhibit 1 before making a decision and we'll enter a written decision. Anything else? MR. WRIGHT: No, ma'am. THE DEFENDANT: (Inaudible.) THE COURT: All right. Thank you. THE DEFENDANT: You know where I stand, Your Honor? THE COURT: I'm sorry? THE DEFENDANT: You know where I stand. THE COURT: I do. THE DEFENDANT: Okay. THE COURT: I will issue a written decision on the Government's motion for detention.

THE DEFENDANT: Just so you know, on and for the record, you refuse to give me your oath of office. THE COURT: Is there anything else? MR. WRIGHT: No, ma'am. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. We're adjourned. (Concluded at 12:05 p.m., the same day.) ---------Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 33 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

34 CERTIFICATE State of North Dakota ) ) ss County of Burleigh ) I, Sandra E. Ehrmantraut, do hereby certify that the proceedings herein were digitally recorded and that the foregoing and attached typewritten pages contain a transcript of said digital recording made at the date and place herein specified, and that I have transcribed the same to the best of my ability. Dated at Bismarck, North Dakota, this 4th day of April, 2011. /s/ Sandra E. Ehrmantraut Case 1:10-cr-00041-CBK Document 174 Filed 04/04/11 Page 34 of 34