Facebook Twitter Email
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2001

A transcript of the status conference U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth held on October 30 is available as a text file --> Transcript [79k] (10/30)

The following are selected text of a converation between Lamberth and Mark Nagle, chief of the civil division at the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C.

THE COURT: Mr. Nagle.
MR. NAGLE: Your Honor, the United States Attorney's Office, those of us here this morning from the United States Attorney's Office have, in a period of time measured in days, come to be involved in this matter for the purposes I articulated at the outset of this hearing this morning. In the course of our familiarizing ourselves with the history of this case --

THE COURT: And why was that? Nobody took all of these contempt motions seriously until a few days ago?
MR. NAGLE: Your Honor, these contempt motions cannot be taken in any way other than with the utmost gravity, and it is the recognition of those of us now charged with responding to the most recently filed motions for orders to show cause by the plaintiffs, it is our recognition that this court has and will continue to hold government officials and their attorneys accountable that gives rise to our request for additional time --

THE COURT: Is that some sudden revelation that I do that?
MR. NAGLE: No, Your Honor. No, it isn't.

THE COURT: Haven't I done that always, in all of my cases?
MR. NAGLE: Yes you have, Your Honor, and we have never doubted it.

. . .

THE COURT: Well, I take it you are not in the case long enough to even begin to address why I was not told that TAAMS was failing before I ruled in December of 1999 after the testimony was that everything was on track, and then they had a meeting over at the Department of the Interior and actually had an agenda item, as my court monitor pointed out to me for the first time.

I learned a few months ago they had an agenda item, do we tell Judge Lamberth about this? And the Chief of Staff to the Secretary decided no, we don't tell the Judge about this.

The court monitor did not talk to Secretary Babbitt, so he doesn't know whether Secretary Babbitt told the Chief of Staff, no, don't tell Judge Lamberth about it. But that fact alone is so contemptuous of this court that I don't understand what it is that you think you are going to do at this contempt trial?

The very idea that you have a meeting, you have an agenda, you discuss, do we tell the court something? That alone would be enough to tell any lawyer, yeah, you had better tell the court.

And yet they decide that we won't let Judge Lamberth know about this? We will let him issue his ruling, and then they can see in all the subsequent reports that TAAMS was consistently failing?

What facts do you need to be able to get to be able to argue that? I think you had better throw yourself on the mercy of the court and come down here and have your trial rather than to try to make up new facts, hadn't you?

MR. NAGLE: There will be absolutely no making up of facts in any respect, Your Honor, and I am not, as I think the court's predicate to your question to me just now anticipated, I am not standing here this morning on October 30th prepared to respond fully to all of the questions you have.

. . .

Relevant Links:
Office of the Special Trustee - http://www.ost.doi.gov
Trust Management Improvement Project - http://www.doi.gov/bia/trust/tmip.htm
Indian Trust: Cobell v. Norton - http://www.indiantrust.com

Related Stories:
Judge ready to hold Norton in contempt (10/31)
Interior promises trust fund defense (10/31)
Judge: Norton's actions 'contemptuous' (10/30)
Trust fund defense team scrapped (10/30)
Action on Norton urged 'on all fronts' (10/29)
Norton views broken trust fund system (10/29)