22
1 The Black Liberation Army and May 19th Communist Movement had organized theOctober 20, 1981, Brinks robbery in Nanuet, New York, in which $1.6 million was taken from aBrink's armored car. In a shootout shortly after the heist, two police officers were killed. A witnesstold a grand jury that Berkman had treated one of the holdup group's members for a gunshot wound.Indicted as an accessory after the fact, Berkman jumped bail and went underground. On the run,Berkman and Elizabeth Ann Duke were arrested on May 23, 1985, near Doylestown, Pennsylvania.Their car was found to have a pistol and shotgun, as well as the key to a storage site that held 100pounds of dynamite. During his years on the run in the 1980s, court papers alleged, he was involvedwith groups that had staged seven bombings of military and other government facilities, thoughcharges related to the bombings were later dismissed. Berkman was convicted for his participationin the supermarket robbery, the proceeds of which, prosecutors alleged, had been used to buy thedynamite. Berkman served eight years of a 10-year sentence.
Whitehorn, Evans and Buck plead guilty to conspiracy and destruction of Governmentproperty. Whitehorn also agreed to plead guilty to fraud in the possession of false identificationdocuments. Whitehorn was sentenced to 20 years in prison and Evans to an additional five years aftercompleting a 35-year sentence being served for illegally buying guns. Buck was already serving 17years on other convictions, and was later sentenced to a 50-year term for the Brinks holdup and otherarmed robberies during which two police officers were killed.
Susan Rosenberg and Timothy Blunk, plead guilty to eight counts each of possessingexplosives, weapons and fake identification cards. Rosenberg’s was pardoned by President Clintonin 2001 and Blunk was paroled in 1997.
2
co-conspirators set off a bomb at the Officer's Club in the Washington Navy Yard.
On May 24, 1985, Defendant Elizabeth Duke (“Duke”) was arraigned in Philadelphia upon
an indictment charging her with involvement in the aforementioned bombings. On July 24, 1985,
Duke was released on bail by U.S. District Court Judge Louis Heilprin Pollak. After failing to
appear in Court as ordered, on October 15, 1985, the government moved to revoke Duke’s bail and
a bench warrant for her arrest as a fugitive was issued the same day.
On May 11, 1988, Duke – along with her co-conspirators Laura Whitehorn, Linda Evans,
Marilyn Buck, Susan Rosenberg, Timothy Blunk, and Alan Berkman1 – was re-indicted for acts of
violence against the United States, including the aforementioned bombing of the United States
Capitol on November 7, 1983 and several other government buildings in Washington, D.C. See
2 “Article III vests the judicial power of the United States in judges who have lifetenure and protection from decreases in salary. Although a magistrate is not an Article III judge, thisCourt has held that a district court may refer dispositive motions to a magistrate for arecommendation so long as "the entire process takes place under the district court's total control andjurisdiction," United States v. Raddatz, 447 U. S. 667, 447 U. S. 681 (1980), and the judge"exercise[s] the ultimate authority to issue an appropriate order,'" id. at 447 U. S. 682, quoting SenateReport at 3.”
3
Press Release attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. On June 2, 1988, Judge Harold H. Greene of this
Court issued a bench warrant for Duke.
Some twenty-one (21) years later, on June 17, 2009, Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson
of this Court held a hearing at which the government made an Oral Motion to Dismiss Indictment
and Quash Arrest Warrant as to Duke which was granted by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson.
A copy of the Order Dismissing the Indictment is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. After much
trouble, a transcript of the Hearing was obtained by Sibley and is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.
Notably, that transcript reveals that no factual basis was presented to the Magistrate Judge Deborah
A. Robinson to justify dismissing the Indictment.
Curiously, as of July 26, 2013, neither the Federal Bureau of Investigation nor the U.S.
District Court in Philadelphia had been notified by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of
Columbia of the dismissal of the instant Indictment. See Duke Wanted Poster attached as Exhibit
“D” and Docket Sheet from 85-cr-222-MSG attached as Exhibit “E”.
II. THE DISMISSAL WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY
As an initial matter, any Article III judge of this Court retains the authority to review
Magistrate Judge Robinson’s June 17, 2009, Order. This discretionary review is in accord with the
Supreme Court’s decision in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985)2 and Matthews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270 –271 (1976).
4
A. THE DISMISSAL WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY
Magistrate Judge Robinson’s dismissal of the Indictment in this matter was unauthorized has
she lacked jurisdiction to dismiss an indictment and thus her Order is void ab initio and must be
vacated and set for reconsideration before an Article III judge.
A Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction is first described by 28 USC § 636(a) which does not grant
authority to dismiss indictments. Indeed, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 59, “Matters
Before a Magistrate Judge” specifically prohibits a Magistrate Judge from dismissing an indictment.
Second, a Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction is also described by 28 USC § 636(b)(2) which permits
certain matters to be delegated to the Article I Magistrate Judge. In particular, LCrR 57.17(b)(2)
permits a Magistrate Judge to: “Dismiss indictments on motion of the United States and with the
consent of the defendants.” Here, obviously, the fugitive Defendant Duke did not – nor could not
– consent to the dismissal of the instant indictment as she was a fugitive.
Hence, Magistrate Judge Robinson was without jurisdiction to dismiss the indictment in this
matter. Accordingly, her June 17, 2009, Order dismissing the Indictment is void ab initio and an
Article III judge must now proceed to vacate her Order and proceed according to law.
B. THE DISMISSAL WAS WITHOUT FACTUAL AUTHORITY
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 48(a) provides that “[t]he government may, with
leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint.” (Emphasis added). The principal
object of the: “‘leave of court’ requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial
harassment. . . But the Rule has also been held to permit the court to deny a Government dismissal
motion to which the defendant has consented if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly
contrary to the public interest.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29, n.15 (1977). Moreover,
3 Hence Sibley’s contemporaneous request to the Judges of this Court to removeMagistrate Judge Robinson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 631(i) due to her incompetency, misconduct,and/or neglect of duty. In particular, Magistrate Judge Robinson prevaricated when, in her June 17,2009, Order dismissing the Indictment, she represented that the dismissal was “for the reasons setforth in the government’s motion and for good cause shown”, when in fact there were no “reasonsset forth” by the government nor “good cause shown” to justify the granting of the government’smotion to dismiss the Indictment against Duke.
5
“Although the burden of proof is not on the prosecutor to prove that dismissal is in the public
interest, the prosecutor is under an obligation to supply sufficient reasons – reasons that
constitute more than a mere conclusory interest.” United States v. Welborn, 849 F.2d 980, 983
(5th Cir. 1988)(Emphasis added).
Here, as the Transcript and Order reveal, the government failed to proffer – and Magistrate
Judge Deborah A. Robinson did not detail – any reasons to dismiss an indictment against the
fugitive, domestic terrorist, indicted-United-States-Capitol-bombing Defendant, Elizabeth Duke.
Indeed, though Magistrate Robinson pro forma signed the Order stating: “for the reasons set forth
in the government’s motion and for good cause shown”, clearly, there were no “reasons set forth”
nor “good cause shown” to justify the granting of the government’s motion to dismiss the
Indictment.3
Moreover, Sibley avers to this Court that there exists competent evidence that not only is the
dismissal of the Indictment not in the “public interest”, indeed the dismissal was part of a larger
conspiracy to defraud the public. Accordingly, lacking the requisite factual basis to dismiss the
Indictment, even if Magistrate Judge Robinson had jurisdictional authority to do so – which she
plainly did not – she lacked a factual basis as required by Rule 48(a) to do so.
III. MOTION TO INTERVENE OR TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE
Sibley concedes that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for third-party
4 First among those “peculiar circumstances” is the apparent disappearance of M.Jeffery Beatrice, AUSA, who moved for the dismissal of the Indictment. A thorough search ofpublic records failed to locate Mr. Beatrice who should be called to answer as to who gave the orderto him to appear in Court and move to dismiss the indictment. Second, why is Jay I. Bratt, DeputyChief, National Security Section, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia now assignedto this domestic criminal matter? Third, why were neither the F.B.I. nor the U.S. District Court inPhiladelphia notified of the dismissal of this Indictment? Other “peculiar circumstances” will berevealed once the Court grants Sibley’s motion to intervene or appear as Amicus Curiae so that hemay file documents under seal in this matter.
6
intervention in criminal cases.
Nonetheless, despite a lack of authority in the criminal rules, motions to intervene in criminal
proceedings have been granted in limited circumstances where “a third party’s constitutional or other
federal rights are implicated by the resolution of a particular motion, request, or other issue during
the course of a criminal case.” United States v. Carmichael, 342 F. Supp.2d 1070, 1072 (M.D. Ala.
2004). In United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2nd Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
noted that federal courts “have authority to formulate procedural rules not specifically required by
the Constitution or the Congress to implement a remedy for violation of recognized rights.” Accord:
United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983).
“[A] democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith
is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse
suspicions of malfeasance and corruption.” United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364
U.S. 520, 562 (1961). Here, the peculiar circumstances4 surrounding the dismissal of the Indictment
in this matter obligate this Court to permit Sibley to intervene or appear as Amicus Curiae in order
to permit the “suspicions of malfeasance and corruption” which now surround this case to be
dispelled. In particular, if permitted to appear, Sibley presently intends to present ex parte and under
seal evidence of “malfeasance and corruption” of high government officials.
7
IV. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Sibley respectfully requests that this Court: (i) vacate its June 17, 2009,
Order as void ab initio, (ii) direct the Clerk to reassign this case to an Article III judge, (iii)
recommend to the Article III judge that Sibley – due to his diligence in uncovering this Court’s
misfeasance – be permitted to intervene or proceed as amicus curiae.
Eldridge Cleaver apparently said: “If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the
problem.” Which will it be for this Court?
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served by Email upon: JayI. Bratt, Deputy Chief, National Security Section, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District ofColumbia, United States Attorney's Office, 555 Fourth Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC20530, (202) 252-7789), [email protected] this July 26, 2013.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY
INTERVENOR/AMICUS CURIAE
4000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., #1518Washington, D.C. 20016(202) 478-0371
By: Montgomery Blair Sibley
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
ELIZABETH DUKE,
DEFENDANT.___________________________________/
CRIMINAL CASE NO: 88-CR-00145 (DAR)
PROPOSED:
ORDER ON THIRD VERIFIED MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DISMISSING
INDICTMENT AND MOTION TO INTERVENE
OR TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE
On Montgomery Blair Sibley’s Third Verified Motion to Intervene or to Appear as Amicus
Curiae and for Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Indictment;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Court’s June 17, 2009, Order is vacated
as void ab initio. The Clerk is directed to reassign this case to an Article III judge. It is the
recommendation of this Court that Montgomery Blair Sibley – due to his diligence in uncovering
this Court’s misfeasance – be permitted to intervene or proceed as amicus curiae in this matter.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Washington, D.C. this ____ day of _____________,
2013.
By: ______________________________United States District Judge
Copies to:
Montgomery Blair SibleyJay I. Bratt, Deputy Chief, National Security Section
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of Columbia
Judiciury Cenrer 555 Fourrh St. N. W. Washington, DC 20001
PRESS RELEASE
J a y 8 . S t e p h e n s United S t a t e s A t t o r n e y
f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f C o l u ~ n b i - a
U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y J a y a . S t e p h e n s t o d a y a n n o u n c e d t h a t
a f e d e r a l g r a n d j u r y h a s r e t u r n e d a n i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g s e v e n
i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h acts o f v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t t n e g n i t e 5 S t a t e s ,
i n c l u d i - n j bombing t h e u n i t e d S t a t e s C a p i t o l o n Xovenber 7 , 1993
a n d s e v e r a l o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t b u i l d i n g s h e r e i n W a s h i n y t o n , D . C .
I n a n n o u n c i n g t h e i n d i c t m e n t s M r . S t e p h e n s s t a t e d , " L e t t h i s
be a w a r n i n g t o t h o s e who seek t o i n f l u e n c e . t h e p o l i c i e s o f t h s
u n i t s 3 S t a t e s G a v e r n i n e n t t i~rough v i o l e n c e a n d t e r r o c i s l n t h a t \lie
w i l l seek u n r e l e n t i n g l y t o b r i n g t h e n to j u s t i c e . T h o s e who
a t t a c k our s a c r e d i n s t i t ~ t i o n s of g o v e r n m e n t a n d seek t o d e s t r . 3 ~
t h e symbols of o u r d e m o c r a t i c s y s t e m u l t i m a t e l y w i l l h a v e to p a y
the p r i c e . "
The g r a n d j u r y r e t u r n e d a f i v e - c o u n t i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g
s e v e n i n d i v i d u a l s -- L a u r a W h i t e h o r n , ~ i n d a E v a n s , M a r i l y n B u c k ,
S u s a n R o s e n b e r g , T i m o t h y B l u n k , A l a n Ber kman a n d E l i z a b e t h Duke
- - w i t h p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a f a r - r e a c h i n g c o n s p i r a c y t o bomb
v a r i o u s g o v e r n x e n t a n d p r i v a t e b u i l d i n g s and w i t h i n v o l v e m e n t i n
t h e bo inb ings of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C a p i t o l and t h r e e W a s h i n y t o n
a r e a m i l i t a r y f a c i l i t i e s -- t h e N a t i o n a l War C o l l e g e a t F o r t
X c N a i r , t h e C o m p u t e r C e n t e r a t t h e W a s h i n g t o n Navy Y a r d , a n d t he
w a s h i n g t o n Navy Yard C f f i c e r ' s C l u b .
Tile i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s a n d t n e i r co-
c o n s p i r a t o r s w e r e p a r t o f a s e c r e t o r g a n i z a t i o n w h i c h d e s c r i b e d
i t s e l f a s a " c o m ; ~ ~ u n i s t p o l i t i c o / m i l i t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n " a n d w i l i c h
a g e r a t e d u n d e r t n e names R e v o l u t i o n a r y F i g h t i n g G r o u p ( 3 F G ) , Armed i i e s i s t a n c e U n i t (ARU) a n d t h e Xed G u e r r i l l a R e s i s t a n c e
( Z G R )
The i n d i c t m e n t c n a r j e s t h a t a s p a r t of t h e i r ; ? rogram o f
"a rmed p r o p a g a n d a " t h e d e f e n d a n t s a n d t h e i r G O - c o n s 2 i r a t o r s a l s o
p l a c e d a n d d e t o n a t e d e x p l o s i v e s a t f o u r l o c a t i o n s i n N e w York
C i t y -- t h e F B I ' s o f f i c e i n t h e F e d e r a l B u i l d i n g o n S k a t e n
I s l a n d , t h e I s r a e l i A i r c r a f t I n d u s t r i e s S u i l d i n g , t h e S o u t h
A f r i c a n C o n s u l a t e , a n d t h e P a t r o l m e n ' s B e n e v o l e n t A s s o c i a t i o n .
They a l s o a l l e g e d l y s u r v e i l l e d o t h e r bombing t a r g e t s , i n c l u d i n g
t h e O l d E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e B u i l d i n g i n W a s h i n g t o n a n d t h e u n i t e d
S t a t e s N a v a l Academy i n A n n a p o l i s .
A c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n d i c t m e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t s a n d t h e i r c o -
c o n s p i r a t o r s made e x t e n s i v e u s e o f a l i a s e s a n d f a l s e
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t o e v a d e s u r v e i l l a n c e a n d d e t e c t i o n by l a w
e n f o r c e m e n t a u t h o r i t i e s . The i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g e s t h a t t o s u p p o r t
t h e i r e f f o r t s , t h e d e f e n d a n t s o b t a i n e d r i f l e s , s h o t g u n s ,
h a n d g u n s , b u l l e t p r o o f armor, a n d c o m b i n e d t i m e - d e l a y f i r i n g
m e c h a n i s m s a n d e x p l o s i v e s i n t o o p e r a b l e bombs. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e
i n d i c t m e n t c h a r i j e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s f u n d e d t h e i r o p e r a t i o n ' s ,
i n p a r t , t h r o u g h t h e f t a n d a r m e d r o b b e r y .
M r . S t e p h e n s p r a i s e d t h e c o o p e r a t ' i v e e f f o r t s o f t h e ~ i s t r i c t
o f C o l u m b i a M e t r o p o l i t a n p o l i c e D e p a r t i n e n t , t h e B u r e a u or'
A l c o h o l , T o b a c c o a n d F i r e a r m s , a n d t h e F e d e r a l 3 u r e a u o f
~ n v e s t i g a t i o n , who i n D e c e m b e r , 1 9 8 3 f o r m e d t h e M e t r o p o l i t a n A r e 2
T e r r o r i s t T a s k F o r c e t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e s s r i e s of b o m b i n g s i n t h e
~ i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a . The T a s k F o r c e has c o o r d i n a t e d i t s e f f o r t s
w i t h t h e , J o i n t T e r r o r i s t T a s k F o r c e i n N e w York C i t y , and t h e F31
a n d ATF o f f i c e s i n ~ h i l a d e l p h i a and B a l t i m o r e . T h e c a s e is b e i n g -
h a n d l e d by ~ s s i s t a n t u n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y s Rhonda C . F i e l d s a n d
P l a r y a r e t Ellen.
Case 1:88cr00145 Document 2 Filed 06/17/09 Page 1 of 1
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELIZABETH DUKE,
Defendant.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CR No. 88-0145
Washington, D.C.Tuesday, June 17, 2009
TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCEBEFORE THE HONORABLE DEBORAH A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Government: M. JEFFREY BEATRICE, ESQ.U.S. Attorney's Office555 Fourth Street, NWRoom 4104Washington, DC 20530(202) 353-8831
Transcribed By: BRYAN A. WAYNE, RPR, CRROfficial Court ReporterU.S. Courthouse, Room 4704-A333 Constitution Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 354-3186
Proceedings electronically recorded and transcribed.
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
2
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Criminal case No. 88-145,
Elizabeth Duke. For the government, Mr. Beatrice.
THE COURT: Mr. Beatrice.
MR. BEATRICE: Thank you, Your Honor. We would orally
move to dismiss this case at this time, dismiss the indictment
and also to quash the warrant, and we will submit a proposed
order today, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. Thank you, Mr. Beatrice.
(Proceedings adjourned.)
Unlawful Possession of United States Identification; Conspiracy; Unlawful Storage of Explosives;Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Destructive Devices; Storage and Concealment of Stolen Explosives;
Unlawful Possession of Five or More False Identification Documents; Possession of CounterfeitSocial Security Cards; Aiding and Abetting; Unlawful Possession of Document-Making Implement
ELIZABETH ANNA DUKE
Photograph taken in 1985Aliases:Betty Ann Duke, Elizabeth Ann Duke, Betty Weir, "Betty Ann"
DESCRIPTIONDate(s) of Birth Used: November 25, 1940;
April 20, 1941Place of Birth: Beeville, TexasHeight: 5'6"Weight: 120 poundsNCIC: W502404799Occupation: Teacher, Philanthropist
Hair: Brown (May now be gray)Eyes: BlueSex: FemaleRace: WhiteNationality: American
Scars and Marks: Duke has pin holes on the front of her earlobes due to a genetic condition.Remarks: Duke is known to speak fluent Spanish. She has ties to Texas and is known to travel in the
northern United States near the Canadian border.
CAUTIONElizabeth Anna Duke is wanted for her alleged involvement in a series of criminal activities during the late 1970's andearly 1980's. She was allegedly a member of the radical group known as the May 19th Communist Organization whichadvocated communism and the violent overthrow of the United States Government. Duke was arrested in Bucks County,Pennsylvania, in May of 1985 for her alleged participation in this group, but was released on bail. She later fled thejurisdiction and has been a fugitive since October of 1985. A federal arrest warrant was issued for Duke in the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania on November 13, 1986, charging her with the aforementioned federal charges.
REWARDThe FBI is offering a reward of up to $50,000 for information leading directly to the arrest and conviction of ElizabethAnna Duke.
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ARMED AND DANGEROUS AND AN ESCAPE RISK
If you have any information concerning this person, please contact your local FBI office or the nearest American Embassyor Consulate.
CRIMINI\L U.S. O".\IC\ Court S I.t:a>e F,led c." -'----,--,--,--...-:cA,c-c"9c:cn.--:;-d--... L.J WRIT ·vs ILA$T,F1RST,MIDOLE) :Mo Day - --
PO 2_ l3J& _. .. DUKE, ELIZABE'IH 106:20 85 002221---' , D1sp 15entence i I . r ._--.-j L . ....) ALIAS I' No. of '- 1_
FeI" i i De!',· .. 85-0388-M-1 18: Unlawful possession of t leI\'-18:371 Conspiracy to possess destructive devices not registered c....J L-.J r' ,.
as required. Ct. 1 1. 1 L.J L-J ':---t-26: 5861(d) Unlawful possession of firearms & destructive devices LJl-.J if---+_
(Jl Cts. 2,3,4, 5 3 4 LJL-J f--i-w 18:842(j) Unlawful storage of explosives. Cts • -5-;6-;1- 3 3
1 1
Ct. -9- -1:0- 11 1 1 Ct. +2-15 1 1
'. 9 11 Ct. -1-1- 1
ONJ.
! 1'\ f: Y 0 AlE r After nOlo
6,7,8J 9518:842(h) Storage & concedment of stolen explosives. Ct. -8- -Y-IO 18:1028(a) (3)& Unlawful possession of 5 or more false identification (c) (1) docunents. 42: 408 (g) (3) Possession of counterfeit social security cards. 18:2 Aiding and abetting. Cts. 2 15.[: 18:1028(a)(5) Unlawful possession of docunent-making imp1anent.
I>,. ,W ,. j' .! cV10dv -, :':1 '
J aptx:J", on EA81= 0' l compl.) n!
O'lE M,D 01' BLGi'l TWO lOR RESTART PERIC),) TU TRIAl.! 1::;tappearson r'(,l_ 1,ll?d'unsealcd kEY
i : L____ J ReceIVe f'le R20 ;21
I . .J Inrorma, on 10/10/851" :.:xi.supsdgxilndulnf6/20/85 ,'.PPL ICAB, 'dony Wd"€' 117"1918'6. 0 ____ -L. ...- \ l .. ...1T".1 !'DIr d".i began
1 ';;:::=:--- .. .. f ';.arch ) Issued
II Warrant 1 Return r,f'-" - ) Issued
Summons Served
Arrest Warrant Issued
0 ATE
5/28/85 EEN/13AC C WAIVED D [fipONUmbe, .....- -"--I "----.......----15/ ] 3AC [] INTEA".ENING IN[)..'CTMENT ___________..__ .....L_ -....-- _ ..-- _____---I
')o;p'a2t6 tto 17or exp commerce;
=- = -.......----=- -='= III MAG 1ST RAT E =-;:. II\;ITIAL 1::./24/85INITIAL APPEARANCE DATE...... 0.1:/28/85 ]-EXAMINATION OR --..---..REMOVAL Date Held'" I
C HEARING -.J
Jf>;.lTlJlJ.,'/;ojj)RAJ=' I .L .jAB _ .- -.
last names and suffix numbers of other defendants on ')arne Indtctment/lnformatlOfL RULE c=J 20 21 40 In Out
ATTORNEYS .. •
II. o CI)
w a: o o « 011 CI) w
Z
Phila., Pa. 19107 Suite 315, 1420 Walnut St. Phi1a., Pa. 19102 (for Albert Vale, Kathleen Vale, Dr. Mary Heir -
PRE INDICTMENT Release Date
XX Bail 1::1 Denied
AMOUNT SET
! Date Set
II D e.,1 Not Made . I Date Bond Made I
U Fugitive U Pe". Ree.
L...c PSA Conditions
U 10%Oep.
U Surety Bnd LJ Collateral U 3,dPrty LJ Othe,
Fugitive
LJPers. Rec. LJpSA Conditions U 10%Oep.
...... .. U Surety Bnd
UColiateral LJ 3rd Prty
U Other
u. S Attorney Of Asst
KARL LUNKENHEIMER, AUSA
Defen,. 1 0 CJA 2 XI Ret 3 Waivec 40 Self. .Non! Other. 6 0 PO 7 0 CD
Susan V. Tipograph, Esquire(loca1 rules 11 and 13 Flood, Holmes & Tipograph sent 5-31-85) 120 Duane Street New York, New York 10007 (212) 608-6240
120 Duane St., #400 New York, NY 10007
Julie Esa. (12)Holly Magulgan, Alan Ellis, Esq. (56) 1200 Walnut St., Suite 400
IOUTCOME L...J DISMISSED I
I L..-l I
HELD FOR GJ OR OTHER PRO L.. I CEEDING IN DISTRICT BELOW
Case 2:85cr00222MSG Document 69 Filed 06/20/85 Page 1 of 7
16 Hearing of 7-16-85, filed. 17 Transcript of 5-28-85, filed (85-00222-01)
LfTTl VI EXCLUDABLE DELAY
O,f i!=.- I MASTER DOCKET· MULTIPU: DEFENDANT CASE DATE Fo, Id!:" =+ [I' TO(<ll02 'L..J PROCEEDINGS DOCKET FOR SINGLE DEFENDANT :ie'85 00222 Cod;, e ..y"NO l,'SC
"P-======
5/24/851
5/?k/85
5-30-85 5-30-85
5-30-85
5-30-85
5-30-85
5-31-85
6-3-85
1985 - Jm. 1 " 2 Jul.
4,
3 II
5
4 " II
7 " 8 " 9 If
10 II
"
I
•MJI'Irn AND ORDER THAT TIlE FBI TAKE AND PRESERVE SAHPLES OF AIl..
20bo 11
3
10
10 Deft's index to exhibit A sul:mitted with rootion for revocation of detention order, filed.
ill ORDER DATED 7/10/85 'IHAT THE U.S. MARSHAL AJ...:I..[MJ CONFERENCES BE-TWEEN THE DEFT. AND DEFENSE WITNESSES IN THE PRESENCE OF DEFENSE
i
mUNSEL WI'lH CONDITIONS, ETC., I 7/11/85 entered &copies mailed.
FILED. LP
III Transcript of 7/1/85 re: Arraigmtent, filed. (85-222-01) Govt's response in opposition to Deft I s motion for revocation
• : of detention Order, Meroorandum, Cert. of Service, filed. 112 iBail Hearing, filed. 15 ·(JNf'S MJrIrn TO HEQUIRE DEFTS TO FtJRNISH 11A"ID'JHITING m(E}1PLAPS, ! J.v1I:1iORANDlM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, FIlED. 16 IBail Hearing of 7-15-85, filed.
V. PROCEEDINGS
INITIAL APPEARANCE: Counsel, Susan V. Tipograph, Esquire, retained, not present. Defendant held without bail pending a detention hearing to be helc. before Jud0e Naythons on 5/28/85 at 1:30 P.M. Magistrate's tape of hearing of 5/24/85, RAP-G5-19, FILED.
PRETRIAL DETENTION HEARING: Atty, S. Tipograph, Esq. retained & present; Probable cause found; defendant held for pre trial detention wlo bail; Tape No. EEN-85-43 filed; EEN Appearance of Susan V. Tipograph, Esq. for deft, filed. Bail status sheet dtd. 5-24-85 re: deft held without bail, filed. RAP
rovr's MJrICN FOR A DETENTION HEARING, CERI'IFIC'ATE OF SERVICE, FIlED. 'I.EMPOFARY PRETRIAL IETENI'ICN ORDER l'CMERS, MAG. THAT 'mE ON DE'I'ElITIrn IS CONTINUED UNTIL 5-28-85 AT 1: 30 PM: BEFORE 'mE IJ.:NORABLE EDWIN E. EACH DEFT IS REMANDED TO CUSTODY OF U. S. MARSHAL, ErC., FIlED. P.AP
5-31-85 entered 5-30-85 copies mailed. FINDINGS OF FAer l'fAG. AND ORDER THAT DEFrS ARE CXJMMIT TED TO CUSTODY OF TIlE ATIDRNEY GENERAL OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRE-SENTATIVE FOR CONFIN.El1ENT, ETC., FIlED. EEN
5-31-85 entered & copies mailed .
EXPLOSIVES, ETC. FIlED. EEN 6-3-85 entered 5-31-85 copies mailed.
Warrant returned "an 5-28-85 executed" with affidavit of Gregory J. Auld, S/A-FBI, filed.
True Bill. Records transferred from "Mag. 85-0388-H-l to this case, filed. Bail Status Sheet dated 7/1/85 re: Deft. is detained; PLEA: IDI' GUIL'IY AS TO ers. 1 thru 10, filed. RAP letter dated 7/2/85 from Karl k Lunkenhe:i.mer, AUSA re: request f transcript of arraignments of Deft an 7/1/85, etc, filed. (85-22 -1) DEFI"S MJI'ION FOR REVOCATION OF DEl'ENTION ORDER, MEM:>RA..TIDU1, CER OF SERVICE, FIlED.
r
'0 11 R
1111'
1 ijH
I P 0\(,'
v
() 1'''11>' 'i,ml'<
""'111'
K I), I
0' "1
I,.">,,.;
Case 2:85cr00222MSG Document 69 Filed 06/20/85 Page 2 of 7
v. EXCLUDABLE DELA No.)
AO 256A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL DOCKET U. S. '" DUKE, ELIZABETII ANN
DATE PROCEEDINGS (continued)
00222 (85 Docket No. " Yr. I IDE
(a) (b) (c) (c
11 Jul. 19 12 " 19
- - 22I I
13 " 23
14 24I I
15 " 24
- " 24 16 " 25
17 " 25
- " 26
18 " 30
19 31II
- " 31
- Aug. 7 20 9II
21 " 9
Bail hearing of 7/18/85 re: Witnesses sworn, filed. DEFT I S OMNIBUS PRE-TRIAL MJI'ION, MEMJRANDUM, CERT. OF SERVICE FILED. ORDER TIIAT EXCLUDABlE TIME BE COMPUI'ED FROM THE DATE OF FILIN OF DEFTS I MJI'ION FOR OMNIBUS PRErRIAL RELIEF, AND oovr I S MJI'ION FOR ELIZABEl'H ANN DUKE I S HANrnRITING EXEMPlARS, FilED.
7/23/85 entered &copies mailed. (85-222-01) LP/CLK Bail Hearing of 7/22/85 re: Cotmsel argurrent to the Court -C.A.V., filed. Bail Hearing re: Courts Bench Opinion, Court grants bail but tmder specific conditions, filed. RELEASE ORDER POILAK, J., THAT DEFT. ELIZABEl'H ANN DUKE IS RELEASE FROM PRETRIAL DETENI'ION WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS, ETC., FILED. LP
7/24/85 entered &copies mailed. Tape of Hearing of 7/1/85, filed. (M.T. 85-20) RAP ORIER IWIED 7-24-85 lliAT lEFTS I MJI'ICNS FOR EXTENSICN OF TlliE IN mICE TO FIlE PREI'RIAL MJI'ICNS ARE GRANTED. DEFTS SHAIL FILE ALL PRETRIAL MJI'IONS CN OR BEFORE 9-4-85. (85-222-1) LP Deft I s answer to Govt I S rootion to require deft. to furnish hmdwriting exemplars, Maoorandum, Cert. of Service, filed.
Letter dated 7/23/85 fran K. Lunkenhe:i.mer, AUSA TO Mag. Powen re: request testimony of the hearing of 5/24/85 to be transcribed at the Govt's expense, filed. (85-222-01) ORDER DATED 7/29/85 THAT AS A PREDICATE TO THE TAKING EFFECT OF THE RELEASE ORDER DATED 7/24/85, MS. VALE AND DR. WEIR SIGNIFY THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF AN ADHERENCE TO THE RELEASE ORDER THROUGH SIGNED, SVK>RN SUBSCRIPTIONS, IT IS ORDERED TIIAT THE SAME SUBSCRIPTION BE REQUIRED OF MR. VALE SINCE HE ALSO IS ASSIGNED CERTAIN DUTIES BY AND UNDER THE RELEASE ORDER, FILED. LP
7/30/85 entered &copies mailed. ORDER DATED 7/29/85 TIIAT WK CLERK ACCEPT NOTARIZED AFFIDAVITE OF SURETY IN LIEU OF REQUIRING THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN THIE DISTRICT OF EACH PERSON NAMED ON THE DEED OF EACH PROPERTY POSTED AS SECURITY FOR THE RELEASE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 7/24/85, FIlED. LP
7/31/85 entered &copies mailed. Bond in the sum of $300,000 - surety Real Estate with attachec agreement of bail, filed. Transcript of 5/24/85, filed. (85-222-01) ORDER THAT PARAGRAPH 6a OF THE ORDER OF 7/26/85 IS AMENDED TO READ: ''WHEN M>. DUKE ENTERS THE MARSHAL I S AREA, AND BEFDRE SHJ IS PERMITTED INI'O THE CEI..LBLOCK, THE MARSHAL IS PERMITTED TO SEARCH ANYTHING WHICH SHE IS CARRYIN; AND TO PAT HER OOWN, AN) IS SUBJECT TO A STRIP SEARCH, MS. DUKE WILL NOT BE SUBJECTED TO A BODY CAVI'lY SEARCH, THIS ORDER REMAINS IN EFFECT UNI'TI.. FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT, FILED. JK
8/9/85 entered &copies mailed. Hearing re: Paragraph 6a of the order of 7/26/85 is amended, filed.
Interval Start Date ltr. Tota (per Section II) End Date Code DaYl
Case 2:85cr00222MSG Document 69 Filed 06/20/85 Page 3 of 7
,,>f)A
UNI fED STATES DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL DOCKET ,
DATE _ .........
1985 - Aug. 19 22 II 21
23 II 21 - II 21
24 " 22 25 " 22 26 " 22
27 " 26
28 " 26
29 " 26 30 " 26 31 " 26
32 " 29 -- " 29
33 " 29
34 " 29
35 " 30
36 " 30 37 Sept. 4
38 I' 18
V. EXCLUDABLE DELAYPROCEEDINGS (continued) la) Ib) (c) (d)
IDocument No.) ----------------------;------t-------t---'-t--
Appearance of Judith Holmes, Esq., filed. (85-222-01) Govt 's Notice of Appeal, Cert. of Service, filed. (copies to: USCA, H. Maguigan, Esq., J. StanieIs , Judge Polla!<, pre-trial, D. Spitz)
Copy of Clerk I s Notice to USCA, filed. DEFTS I JOINr MJI'ION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AND FOR CONI'TNrTAN OF HEARING ON PRE-TRIAL MJITONS, CERT. OF SERVICE, FILED. Transcript of'l/12/85, filed. Transcript of 7/24/85, filed. ORDER 'mAT EXCLUDABLE TIME BE COMPTJrED FRrl1 THE DATE OF Fll.IN OF rovr IS NOrICE OF APPEAL FROM THE COURT ORDER ENTERED ON 7/24/85, RELEASING THE DEFI'. FROM CUS'IDDY UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, FILED. LP/ CU
8/22/85 entered &copiesnliled.
r.R
ORDER DATED 8/23/85 THAT THE lEITER. OF 8/20/85, WI'lH ITS SUPPOFp?- ING BE FILED BY THE CLERK AS A PART OF THE RECORD; IT IS FURI'HER DIRECl'ED THAT THE CLERK'S OFFICE DISGREGARD DOCKE r ENTRY 12, WHICH PURPORTS TO BE AN ENTRY OF APPEARANCE BY MS. HOll1ES, FTI.ED. LP
8/26/85 entered &copies mailed. Letter dated 8/20/85 frem Judith L. Holmes, Esq., with supporting affidavits re: request modifications of conditions of release, filed. Transcript of 7/15/85, filed. Transcript of 7/16/85, filed. DEFT I S MJrION FOR APPOINIMENr OF COUNSEL, :MEMJRANDUM, CERT. OF SERVICE, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, FILED. Transcript of 7/18/85, filed. Govt I S response to Defts I j oint motion for additional and for continuance of hearing on pre-trial motions, Cert. of Service, filed. (85-222-01) Govt 's j oint response and mem::>randum re: deft I s motion for appointment of counsel, Cert. of Service, filed. Govt I S rebuttal to Deft I s answer to Govt I S motion to require deft to furnish handwriting exeIq)lars, Merrorandum, Cert. of Service, filed. Govt's answer to Deft's orrnibus pre-trial motion, Cert. of Service, filed. Copy of Transcript Purchase Order, filed. REPORT OF SPEEDY TRIAL Ac:r DElAY, 'mAT THE APPEAL BY THE rovr. RE: ORDER BY THE COURT ENTERED ON 7/24/85, RELEASING THE DEFI'. FROM CUSTODY WAS REASON FOR DElAY, ETC., FILED. LP/C LK
0/4/85 entered &copies mailed. DEFI" S APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE RELEASE ORDER SHOUlD NOr BE M)DIFIED, MEM.)RANDlM, CERT. OF SERVICE, FUm.
39 " 20 DEFI" S MJrION FOR A CONI'INUANCE, MF.M)RANDUM, CERT. OF SERVICE, FILED.
40 " 20 Deft I s supplemental mem::>randun in support of Deft I S request for discovery, Cert. of Service, filed.
CONTINUED
Interval Start Date Ltc Total (per Section III End Date Code
Case 2:85cr00222MSG Document 69 Filed 06/20/85 Page 4 of 7
AD 256A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DUKE, ELIZABEl'H ANN 00222 0CRIMINAL DOCKET U. S. " 85
Yr. Docket No. I IDe I' DATE
1985 41 Sep. 25
-- " 25
-- " 30
-- " 30
42 Oct. 2
43 " 2
(42) " 3
(43) " 3
" 3
45 I' 3
46 " 3
47 " 7
48 " 7
49 " 7
50 " 8 -- " 9 -- " 10
V. EXCLUDABLE DELAPROCEEDINGS (continued) (a) (b) (el (d
(Document No.1 ----------------------t--+-----"----t---t-
Govt's response to Deft's application for order to show cause why the release order shoUld not be nndified, Cert. of Service , filed. Govt's supplemental mem:>randum in opposition to Defts' dis- covery requests, Cert. of Service, filed. Hearing of 9/26/85 re: Defts' nntion for hearing pretrial nntions continued to 10/15/85, nntion for additional diSCOVer) denied as nnot, Deft's order to show cause - Denied, filed. 2-01) ORDER DATED 9/27/85 TIfAT DEFfS' MJI'ION FOR A CONI'INUANCE OF HEARINGS ON PRE-TRIAL MJI'IONS IS GRANIED, HEARINGS SHALL KI'll<t:I':lll:':'IT,I'" '0 "t
ON 10/15/85, nEFfS' MJI'ION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY IS DENIED AS MXJI', AND DUKE'S MJI'ION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 'WHY THE RELEASE ORDER SHOULD J:UI' BE M.)DIFIED IS DENIED, FILED. LP
10/1/85 entered &copies mailed. (85-222-01) Signed Statements of Leslie Love Engle, Esq., Edmond A. Tirya , Esq. Judith Brown Chansky, Esq. and Theodore M. Lievennan, Esq. accepting reaponsibi1ities delegated by the release order of 7/24/85, filed. DEFT'S MJI'ION FOR M.)DIFICATION, FOR ocroBER 4 -6, 1985 OF RELEASE ORDER, CERI'. OF SERVICE, FILED. ORDER DATED 10/2/85 THAT TIlE RELEASE ORDER OF 7/24/85 IS M.)DIFIED IN TIfAT TIlE PORl'ION OF PARAGRAPH 16 PERTAINING TO "COMPANY OF HER ATI'ORNEY" IS AMENDED, ETC., FILED. LP
10/3/85 entered &copies mailed. ORDER DATED 10/2/85 TIfAT TIlE RELEASE ORDER OF 7/24/85 IS M.)DIFIED IN THAT, FOR TIlE 'WEEKEND OF OGl'OBER 4-6, 1985, PARAGRAPH 16 IS AMENDED, ETC., FILED. LP
10/3/85 entered &copies mailed. ORDER TIfAT THE ORDER OF 7/26/85 PROVIDING FOR JOINT MEETINGS OF DEFTS AND ATIDRNEY IS M.)DIFIED IN TIfAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 6(b) ARE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT ON 10/3/85 MS. DUKE WIlL BE ACCOMPANIED BY ONLY ONE OF HER IAWYERS, HOLLY MAGUIGAN, ESQ., FILED. LP
10/3/85 entered &copies mailed. ORDER TIfAT THE RELEASE ORDER OF 7/24/85 IS M.)DIFIED IN 'IHAT PARAGRAPH 17 IS AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT HOLLY MAGUIGAN, ESQ. ET AI.. MAY SATISFY THE REPORl'ING REQUIREMENr IMPOSED THEREIN BY TEI.EPfl)NE CALL TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY DURING THE SPECI-FIED TJl.1E PERIODS, FILED. LP
10/3/85 entered &copies mailed. Copy of appointment of and authority to pay court appointed counsel pursuant to CJA 20, filed. DEFT'S MJI'ION FOR M.)DIFICATION OF RElEASE ORDER, CERl'. OF SERVICE, FILED. DEFf'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO HIRE A EXPERT, FILED. nEFf'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO HIRE AN INVESTIGATOR, FILED. Transcript of 7/22/85, filed. RECORD CXl1PLETE FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL. Pretrial conference of 10/9/85 re: hearing on nntions set for 10/28/85, filed. (85-222-01)
Interval Start Date, Ltr. Tota 10 End Date Code DaVI
Case 2:85cr00222MSG Document 69 Filed 06/20/85 Page 5 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL DOCKET
V. EXCLUDABLE DELAYPROCEEDINGS {continued)DATE la) (b) Ie) Id)1--1""9=8=5--+IDoeument No.1 -------------------..
-- Oct. 10 (47) 11II
51 " 15
52 tI 15
53 " 15
54 tI 15
55 " 15
(48)" 16
(49) " 16
56 " 25 57 " 25
58 " 25
59 " 25 " 28
60 " 28
-- " 29
61 " 30
-- Nov. 4 (60)" 5
" 7
Superseding Indictment, filed. ORDER DATED 10/10/85 TIJAT THE RELEASE ORDER OF 7/24/85 IS M)DIFIED IN TIJAT PARAGRAPH 16 IS AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT THE PORTION OF PARAGRAPH 16 PERTAINING TO "CDMPANY OF HER ATIORNEY IS AMENDED, ETC., FILED. LP
10/11/85 entered &copies mailed.
,"
f':£NT 1 S MJI'ION & ORDER THAT A BENCH WARRANT BE ISSUED FOR ARRES r OF DEFl'; BAIL TO BE ::EN'I'ERED IN PREIT'RIAL DEriNl'ION, Fn..ED. Wd. ..L.CU'\.. exit
10-15-85 entered and copies mailed rovr I S MJI'ION TO REVOKE RELEASE ORDER AND ITS M)DIFICATIONS, MEMJRANDUM, CERT. OF SERVICE, FIlED. ORDER TIJAT THE RELEASE ORDER OF 7/24/85 AND THE SUBSEQUENr M)DIFICATIONS TO TIJAT ORIER ARE REVOKED AND DEFI'. IS ORDERED HELD IN PREI'RIAL DETENI'ION, FILED. LP
10/15/85 entered &copies mailed. Hearing re: Govt I S motion to revoke bail, Deft. failed to re-port to P.T . S. or the U. S. M9rsha1 aver the week end, Court Grants lOOtion , filed.'. rovr's MJI'ION TO FORFEIT BAIL, MEM)RANDUM, CERT. OF SERVICE, FILED. ORDER DATED 10/10/85 THAT DEFENSE CDUNSEL IS AUTHORIZED TO RE-TAIN A HANJl.7RITL,,{; EXPERI, DEFENSE IS AUlHORIZED TO EXPEND THE SUM OF $1500.00 WITHOur FURTHER ORDER OF THE CDURT, FnED.
10/16/85 entered &copies mailed. ORDER DATED 10/10/85 THAT THE DEFENSE CDUNSEL IS AUTHORIZED TO REI'AIN AN llNESTIGATOR, DEFENSE IS AurHORIZED TO EXPEND THE SUM OF $1500.00 WITHOur FURTHER ORDER OF THE CDURT, FnED.
10/16/85 entered &copies mailed. Appearance of Alan Ellis, Esq. for SUreties, filed. Sureties' response to lOOtion to forfeit bail, Cert. of Service, filed. Govt 's meroorandun in opposition to Defts I pretrial suppression lOOtions , Cert. of Service, filed. Transcript of 10/15/85, filed. Transcript of 9/26/85, filed. (85-222-01)
LP
LP
oovr's r-DrION FOR ENTRY OF III.;MI'(N OF DEFAULT UNDER 46(e) 3),MEMJRANDUM, CERT. OF SERVICE, r J..Lr..lJ • Hearing of 10/28/85 re: Deft. not appearing bail to be forfeitep., counsel to file submissions within 10 days and a hearing will be set on 11/15/85, filed. (85-222-01) REPORI' OF SPEEDY TRIAL ACf DEIAY DATED 10/28/85 THAT DEFl'. FAD [ill TO APPEAR FOR A HEARING ON 10/28/85, FILED. LP/ClK
10/30/85 entered &copies mailed. Transcript of 10/4/85, filed. (85-222-01) ORDER THAT THE PRINCIPAL AND DEFI'. AND. THE SURETIES, HARY A. WEIR AND KATHlEEN WEIR VAlE, APPEAR ON '11/19/85 AT 9:30 A.M. IN CDURTROOM l3B, TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ENTRY OF JlJIXl1ENI' OF ON THE BAIL BOND SHOULD NCYI' BE ORDERED, FIT..ED. LP
11/6/85 entered &copies mailed. Transcript of 11/4/85, filed. (85-222-01)
CDNrINUED
Interval Start Date
LP
Ltr. Total (per Section II) End Date CodE Days
Case 2:85cr00222MSG Document 69 Filed 06/20/85 Page 6 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL DOCKET t\ u. s. " IXJKE. ELIZABIillI ANN 85 00222 02
V '- Yr. I Docket No. IDet. r DATE PROCEEDINGS (continued) V. EXCLUDABLE DELAY
(al (b) (e) (d)No.)
1985 (55) Nov.12
62 " 20
63 Dec. 2
64 " 9 65 " 18
66 " 19
1986
67 Jan. 9 -- Nov. 13
" 13 68 " 13
1988
-- Feb. 23
-- " 24
2012 69 MAY 15
ORDER DA.TED 11/11/85 THAT THE rovr's IDI'ION TO FURFEIT BAIL IS GRANI'ED, FILED. LP
11/13/85 entered &copies mailed. Govt I S reply brief in support of m:>tion to enter Judgment of Default pursuant to Rule 46 (e) (3), Cert. of Service, filed. Certified copy of Order from USCA, that Appellant I s m:>tion to Dismiss appeal as rroot is Granted, filed. (85-1521) Hearing re: Medical condition of Deft., filed. Bail Irearing re: Govt' s IIDtion to forfeit bail by sureties, Mr. Ellis rooves for the admission of Gerald Goldstein and Van G. Hilley, for the purpose of representation of the sureties, Courts Bench Opinion - Bail shall be forfeited Judgment of Default, filed. ORDER DAlED 12/18/85 THAT THE GOvr""S MJI'ION FUR ENTRY OF' ..ru:rx; MENT OF DEFAULT IS GRANTED, AND JllIX}£NT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE U. S. AND 1\GAINST THE PRINCIPAL, ELIZABEtH ANN DUKE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000, AND AGAINST, XHE. SURETIES, MARY A. 'WEIR, KATHLEEN 'WEIR VAIE, AND ALBER!' viu.E, JOINl'LY AND SEVER-AILY UP TO THE AMOUNT OF $300,000, TO THE EXTENI' !HAT SUCH SUM IS RECOVERABlE :FR(M THE EQUI'lY POSSESSED BY EACH SUCH SURE'lY IN HER OR HIS HCME IN SAN ANl'ONIO, FIIED. LP
12/19/85 entered &copies mailed. Transcript of 12/18/85, filed. J:.[)TION & ORDER THAT THE SUPERSEDING INDICIMENT BE DISMISSED, FILED. PBS
11/13/86 entered &copies mailed. Second Superseding Indictment, filed. J:.[)TION & ORDER FOR BENCH WARRANT, FILED. Warrant Exit. Preventive Detention. PBS OOVI"S EX PARl'E MJI'IOO 'lD TRANSFER EVIDENCE 'lD THE JOrnr CUS-'lDDY OF THE U. S. ATroRNEY FOR DISTRIcr OF OOLUMBIA AND THE F .B.lo, FILED. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (85-222-01)
ORDER DATED 2/24/88, FILED. (SEALED & IMPOUNDED) (85-222-01) 2/24/88 entered & copies mailed.
ORDER AS 'lD ELIZABETH ANN DUKE REASSIGNING CASE 'lD THE HOOORABLE MI'ICHELL S. GOIDBERG. Signed by the Honorable J. Curtis Joyner on 5/15/2912. 5/15/2012 Entered and copies forwarded to AUSA. (ap) .,
Interval Start Date Ltr. Total (per Section III End Date Code Dav.
Case 2:85cr00222MSG Document 69 Filed 06/20/85 Page 7 of 7
