united states v. 2601 w. ball rd., hearing transcript, december 3, 2012 (sacv 12-01345 ag)

CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

---

HONORABLE ANDREW J. GUILFORD, JUDGE PRESIDING; COURTROOM 10D

---

United States of America,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

Real Property Located at2601 West Ball Road,Anaheim, California,

Defendant(s).

)))))))))))))))))))

No. SACV 12-1345-AG(MLGx)

___________________________________)

REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT OF PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGSSANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA

MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2012

DENISE PADDOCKCSR 10199, CMRS, RMR, [email protected]

U.S. DISTRICT COURT REPORTER

A P P E A R A N C E S

1 2 0 3 1 2 D C C D G U I L F O R D 1 0 D U S A R E A L P R O P E R T Y

S A C V 1 2 - 1 3 4 5 - A G ( M L G x )

IN BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

P Greg ParhamAUSA - Office of US AttorneyAsset Forfeiture Division312 North Spring Street, 14th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90012213-894-6528Fax: 213-894-7177Email: [email protected]

IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:

Matthew S PappasLee H DurstMatt Pappas Law22762 Aspan StreetSuite 202-107Lake Forest, CA 92630949-371-7881Fax: 949-242-2605Email: [email protected]

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

09:11

09:11

09:11

09:11

09:12


120312 DCCD GUILFORD 10D USA REAL PROPERTY SACV 12-1345-AG(MLGx)

1

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2012

THE COURT: Okay. Matter Item 3,

SACV 12-1345-AG(MLGx): United States of America versus

Real Property Located at 2601 West Ball Road, Anaheim.

MR. PARHAM: Good morning, Your Honor.

Greg Parham, Assistant United States Attorney,

for the government.

THE COURT: All right.

The motion to dismiss is scheduled for 10:00;

right?

MR. PARHAM: Right.

THE COURT: Do you think maybe they got confused?

MR. PARHAM: You know, there were dual times that

we've got.

We've got a scheduling conference obviously set for

9:00, motion at 10:00, maybe he got confused but he hasn't

told me one way or the other.

THE COURT: Well, I'm going to assume he's

confused.

MR. PARHAM: Okay.

THE COURT: So I commend you for being here early.

MR. PARHAM: Thank you.

THE COURT: I could have -- well, the motion to

dismiss is set for 10:00, so I can't have you argue that.

Let's just put everything over to 10:00.

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

09:12

10:00

10:00

10:00

10:01



2

MR. PARHAM: All right.

THE COURT: All right. That's what we'll do.

Thank you.

MR. PARHAM: Thank you, Your Honor.

(An unrelated matter was handled at this time.)

THE CLERK: Item 3, SACV 12-1345: United States of

America v Real Property Located at 2601 West Ball Road,

Anaheim.

MR. PAPPAS: Good morning, Judge.

Matthew Pappas for the claimants.

THE COURT: Welcome, Mr. Pappas.

MR. DURST: Good morning, Your Honor.

Lee Durst, also for the claimants.

THE COURT: Wait just one moment.

Let me catch up here.

(Pause in the proceedings.)

THE COURT: Okay.

I have Mr. Pappas, I have Mr. Durst, and --

MR. PARHAM: Good morning again, Your Honor.

Greg Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, for

the government.


Folks, why doesn't everyone have a seat.

We've got some work to do here.

(An unrelated matter was handled at this time.)

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

10:01

10:01

10:01

10:02

10:02



3

THE COURT: First, on an unrelated note -- well,

maybe now is not the right time to bring it up.

MR. PAPPAS: Is it on James, the --

THE COURT: No, no.

It's another case involving Mr. Durst.

Were you originally scheduled on a case where you

were the plaintiff today, Durst versus --

MR. DURST: First Southern?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DURST: Well, I don't think it's today.

My understanding is it was later in the month.

THE COURT: What's the status of that case?

MR. DURST: They have been served and -- but we've

had no responses or anything else.

We had to do the amended complaint you -- per your

instructions, we did the amended complaint.

We then served them.

They have not previously answered the first

complaint.

So that's where we're at now, we're just waiting

for them to answer.

THE COURT: Okay. Then let's move to this case.

We will pick up the scheduling conference at the

end of our discussions that we're about to have right now.

We did not issue a tentative in this case.

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

10:02

10:02

10:02

10:03

10:03



4

I have -- frankly, I have so many questions to ask.

I think it best that I let the defense start with

the presentation of their 12(b)(6) motion and I'll ask

questions as we go along.

You know --

MR. PAPPAS: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: -- I love reading your papers.

MR. PAPPAS: Thank you.

THE COURT: You had me on the plains of Runnymede.

I was wondering how that was going to help me with

this case.

I was wondering if King John was going to come out

and light one up.

(Laughter.)

THE COURT: I'm being a little facetious.

I like all of that, but this is a district court

and this is a 12(b)(6) motion and at times I thought in your

papers you were kind of rearguing James I and James II and,

you know, that's -- that's done.

I think each of the three cases -- the three major

cases have all presented, you know, very interesting

and unique theories.

I mean, I'm summing up, maybe too broadly or too

simply, but, you know, ADA, what goes on in DC stays in DC

and not in California and now this.

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

10:03

10:04

10:04

10:04

10:04



5

And, again, I had at times trouble parsing out from

your papers from Magna Carta today to, you know, arguments

that weren't raised previously that have direct relation to

this very interesting action taken by the government which

seems to be, you know, a huge step forward or step backward

in this whole situation.

So let me ask, for this situation, not revisiting

James I, James II or whatever, what do you think your

strongest argument is?

Because you and I may disagree about what your

strongest argument is, and I think you've got some strong

arguments.

What do you think your strongest argument is right

now?

MR. PAPPAS: That the complaint is based on a $37

marijuana transaction.

I think that's probably the strongest argument in

terms of the 12(b)(6), just looking at it technically.

THE COURT: Where is that argument made in your

papers?

MR. PAPPAS: It's in the reply, more than anything.

There is --

THE COURT: See, it's good to give me that.

The opening paragraph (reading) the plaintiffs --

opening paragraph (reading): Your clients might be losing

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

10:05



6

real property based on a $37 marijuana transaction that they

didn't participate in; is that correct?

MR. PAPPAS: That's correct.

THE COURT: That's a pretty strong opening argument

instead of Runnymede.

I think.

MR. PAPPAS: I think that is a strong argument.

I chose, of course, as I have previously,

Your Honor, to argue the more esoteric arguments in the

papers, so --

THE COURT: Okay. So if that's your No. 1

argument, what do you think your No. 2 argument is?

MR. PAPPAS: I think the No. 2 argument is that the

Jalalis have a right -- the claimants have a right to rely on

state law in this area and a fundamental right to do so

because --

THE COURT: You know, but, see, right there, that

was taken care of in Raich.

If I was on the Supreme Court in Raich, we might

have had a different result, but I'm not.

I mean, that was taken care of in Raich, isn't it?

MR. PAPPAS: I don't think it is.

Because I think after Raich comes Oregon and I

think in Oregon the Supreme Court makes clear that the CSA is

a law that targets recreational drug activities and not

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

10:06

10:06

10:06



7

medical drug activities.

The two dissents there, especially, from Justice

Thomas and Justice Scalia make clear that the court's

decision that day, in 2006, I think it was, limits the scope

of the CSA.

And so you've got that combined with a series of

actions by the article two branch, including the David Ogden

memorandum in 2009.

THE COURT: I think that is your best argument.

MR. PAPPAS: Which is -- I would agree with the

court, but that is -- I tie that argument to the federal lift

argument.

THE COURT: Let me dramatically state your

argument.

The Department of Justice tells the world that they

aren't going to be prosecuting medical marijuana

dispensaries.

They didn't say "exactly."

They said not economically efficient.

They tell the world that.

Your clients, modest property owners -- and what

were their professions? Pretty appealing.

MR. PAPPAS: A computer engineer and a dentist.

THE COURT: A computer engineer and a dentist.

What did they do?

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

10:07

10:07

10:07

10:07

10:08



8

They trusted the president when he ran for

president in 2008 and trusted the Department of Justice when

they issued that letter, which they didn't have to issue

and now the government says someone acting in reliance on

that is going to lose their property?

It sounds to me like maybe a revenue generating

thing by the United States government, which, if perpetrated

by an individual would probably be actionable fraud.

MR. PAPPAS: I would --

THE COURT: Can you bring a class action against

the United States of America?

I mean it -- that strikes me as a strong argument.

So you're getting a little chance here to get ready

to respond, Counsel.

And, yet, you know, the Ogden letter, if I look at

your table of contents, you say it's presented on Page 17,

it's presented pretty briefly on Page 17, actually, it's

presented on Page 11 and 17, although your table of contents

only says Page 17.

And by the way, it's Ogden with an "S."

I think I misspoke.

And so that's a pretty good argument.

What about that argument?

MR. PAPPAS: Well, I think that's the argument that

I'm making.

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

10:08

10:09

10:09



9

I think the Ogden memorandum -- I'm trying to look

at a legal that that ties to the government not being able to

do this, and -- and so the way that I'm referencing it here

in the paper -- and I apologize, I probably didn't update the

table of contents before I printed this -- was to say that

the Jalalis have this substantive due process right to rely

on that statement, as well as the decision in Oregon saying

that this law targets recreational drug abuse, not medical

use of drugs -- and a slew of other things -- the state's

laws to -- to show that they have a right to look at the

state's sovereign's laws, in this area traditionally

belonging to the states, rather than to the remote central

power.

THE COURT: What -- it seems to me, as I went

through the rather voluminous papers, the government was

saying they gave notice, and you seem to be contesting that.

MR. PAPPAS: Well, they gave -- they allege that

they gave notice through a letter sent by the city of Anaheim

to the Jalalis.

Not from direct notice by the government to the

claimants, but from a letter by the city of Anaheim.

And I take issue --

THE COURT: Hold on.

So you're saying, one, that wasn't from the Feds?

MR. PAPPAS: There's no allegation in the complaint

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

10:09

10:09

10:09

10:10

10:10



10

that the federal government ever notified the Jalalis

directly.

THE COURT: So the Jalalis might say, well, that's

not from the feds, and I have a letter from Mr. Ogden from

the feds.

MR. PAPPAS: Indeed, when I met with Mr. Jalali, he

said, I didn't do anything wrong.

His belief was that he's in compliance with the

law.

THE COURT: So what else were you going to say on

notice?

MR. PAPPAS: Well, I've forgotten now, but --

THE COURT: Let me ask you this.

You also in your papers ask that I set forth

pleading rules or that I expand the pleading rules or that I

create the law that in pleading an action such as this the

government has -- has to say what that they haven't said?

MR. PAPPAS: That there is -- No. 1, that they

notified the claimants in this type of case.

THE COURT: So that should be --

MR. PAPPAS: A requirement of the pleading.

I'm saying that --

THE COURT: But you just said there is a notice

allegation, but not from the plaintiff, from the local

authorities?

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



11

MR. PAPPAS: From a third-party.

And that letter that was sent by Anaheim, Judge,

was sent to somebody else, and then a --

THE COURT: So what do you mean "somebody else"?

MR. PAPPAS: The claimants received, apparently, a

courtesy copy, according to the government, who -- it was

allegedly sent to them as a courtesy copy.

So --

THE COURT: Because it was also sent to the owners

of the shop?

MR. PAPPAS: Apparently, yes.

That's the allegation in the complaint.

THE COURT: Okay. So the complaint says it's sent

to the owners of the shop, and included as a courtesy are the

owners of the property?

MR. PAPPAS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. And you think that should be an

element of a claim for relief?

MR. PAPPAS: In this type of case, I believe it

should be.

THE COURT: And what's your authority for that?

MR. PAPPAS: I don't have any authority.

I'm --

THE COURT: You know, I -- that's a fair statement

that -- that this is a fairly new situation, and under these

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

10:11

10:11

10:12

10:12



12

circumstances maybe we need to create additional elements of

that claim for relief.

But what if they say, we allege notice?

You just don't think it's sufficient notice?

MR. PAPPAS: I mean, they allege the notice, they

have a verification by a DEA officer, there's no verification

that notice went out other than to say the city of Anaheim

sent this notice to somebody and then they were sent a

courtesy copy.

And I think, in terms of Rule G(5) there is a

specific factual pleading requirement, and part of that

should be, in this type of case, that the government give

notice to the claimants.

THE COURT: Okay. On the issue of what pleading

requirements we have is the related issue about whether this

should be resolved at a 12(b)(6) hearing or at a summary

judgment hearing, and it seems to me there are layers of

facts that you would best present at a summary judgment

rather than a 12(b)(6) hearing.

MR. PAPPAS: Right.

THE COURT: What about that?

Let me phrase it more directly.

Can you name for me cases where Constitutional

issues are resolved at 12(b)(6) rather than summary judgment?

MR. PAPPAS: No, not off the top of my head.

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

10:12

10:12

10:13

10:13

10:13



13

THE COURT: But your response would be, but, Judge

if it's just purely law you can resolve it at a 12(b)(6).

MR. PAPPAS: And -- and I think that this is purely

law and I think --

THE COURT: Well, but I'm not -- I'm going to push

back there -- I'm sorry to keep interrupting you -- but you

know these facts, the notice, what was the nature of the

notice, who did it come from?

Did your client know that it really was coming from

the government?

Of course your papers say this was all a ruse

and it was coming -- the locals were using the Feds to do

their dirty work.

Doesn't that all create factual issues that you

would like best to create a record on appeal through a

summary judgment process rather than a 12(b)(6) process?

MR. PAPPAS: The pleading itself has to be

sufficiently factually pled in detail to show that the

government will meet its burden at the time of trial.

And it has included in the complaint these

allegations that are essentially a -- a printout of an

Internet Website, weedmaps.com.

If we're looking at the admissibility of that, the

substantive value that has in terms of meeting their burden

at trial, I think there's a problem there.

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

10:14

10:14

10:15



14

The -- the -- the statements they include are

anonymous, they're from this Website.

The only other facts in the complaint that would

be -- that have to be detailed are the $37 marijuana

transaction and then the fact that the -- an Anaheim officer

went to the facility, saw that it was a closed marijuana

collective at one point, and then somebody else from Anaheim

went there and apparently smelled marijuana.

Those are the -- that's the substance of the

substantial detailed facts that are supposed to be pled in

the complaint.

And -- and so I -- I -- I don't think those are

substantially substantial enough.

THE COURT: What do you think the purpose of the

Webpage printout was in the complaint?

What did that establish?

MR. PAPPAS: I think it created ire with the court

to show that, perhaps, patience --

THE COURT: Have I been ired?

MR. PAPPAS: I don't -- but I think the purpose was

that, that's my opinion, because I don't think those are

admissible statements and I think the -- the statement by

these anonymous individuals doesn't go to anything that is

directly tie-able, at least legally, to this facility.

Anyone could go on the Internet and put these

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

10:15

10:15

10:16

10:16



15

things out there.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm still wondering why that

printout is relevant and it goes specifically to my wonder

about whether the government is claiming this is

nonmedicinal.

Would that printout if it were authentic, suggest

that it was nonmedicinal?

MR. PAPPAS: If you read the statements it -- it

may; yes.

THE COURT: Okay. And so I'm just wondering if the

government is claiming nonmedicinal?

I must say, when I look at the last five pages of

the Orange County Weekly, it kind of jumps out to me that

some of this is nonmedicinal.

You can't put a stethoscope on a sexy nurse and all

of a sudden claim it's "medicinal."

And you know, the quote here (reading), Happy New

Years, my fellow potheads. Man, Remedy Tree gots it going

on. I picked up some Platinum, some Blackberry, and then

hooked me up with some Plane Wreck.

It doesn't look like he's concerned about his

arthritis.

MR. PAPPAS: Well, we don't know that because we

don't know who that is.

THE COURT: We don't.

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

10:16

10:16

10:16

10:17

10:17



16

MR. PAPPAS: And the point is, we -- we can look at

the CSA and it hasn't been effective at stopping the

recreational use of OxyContin that's obtained through a

doctor's prescription.

And the purpose of California's medical marijuana

law is to provide for seriously ill and disabled

Californians.

As much as there's late-night television jokes

and we joke about marijuana there are serious patients.

And that Orange County Weekly article

demonstrates --

THE COURT: There's a serious patient who sometimes

sits right there in a wheelchair named Marla James.

MR. PAPPAS: And that's who I'm here for.

Not specifically today.

But, overall, her, my daughter, and the others who

have been before this court and others throughout southern

California in respect to these issues and I think the

government has more of a responsibility to be involved

directly in what it's alleging than to take evidence provided

by Anaheim, have a DEA agent verify that, who probably

doesn't have personal information or knowledge of the

statements that are alleged in the complaint and patch in a

number of relatively prejudicial, highly prejudicial -- the

court just read them -- statements from an anonymous source

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

10:17

10:17

10:18

10:18

10:18



17

on a Website.

THE COURT: That's -- well, you know, so, again, is

that to incur the court's ire or to establish that these are

nonmedicinal.

I'm curious about that.

MR. PAPPAS: The allegation in the complaint in

regard to whether or not the collectives are operating

pursuant to California law.

That allegation in the complaint, I don't know the

exact paragraph, is made on information and belief.

So if, in fact, those are included for that reason,

perhaps they're saying on information or belief because

that's anonymous.

THE COURT: All right. So you really have your

finger on the pulse here.

Do you think that in his second term, not needing

to curry favor with whomever he thought he was currying favor

with, the president might return to the Ogden approach?

Has there been -- actually, just pretend you and I

are at a bar talking -- is there evidence that that's

happening?

MR. PAPPAS: Well, yeah --

THE COURT: Does that make all this moot?

MR. PAPPAS: When we look at what -- what he said

to Medvedev, the Russian president --

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

10:19

10:19

10:19

10:19



18

THE COURT: Yes; right.

MR. PAPPAS: -- he was caught on audio telling him,

well, once I get reelected then I can -- I can deal -- I can

deal with this missile shield issue.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. PAPPAS: And I think, probably, there is --

and -- and I'm not saying it's wrong. Politicians want to

get reelected, but now that he has been and this is his last

term, I think probably his position is -- will change.

THE COURT: Will change back again to --

MR. PAPPAS: Back --

THE COURT: -- back to Ogden.

MR. PAPPAS: -- to Ogden.

THE COURT: Is that going to have to come after the

mid-term elections?

MR. PAPPAS: I think it has to come after he gets

through the fiscal cliff, and -- and it could be after the

mid-term elections, but I think more than anything --

THE COURT: Let me ask the relevant question.

Is that going to occur after the government seizes

this real property?

MR. PAPPAS: That -- that would be a problem,

and it could, given the probable trial schedule in next year

that we've talked about.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

10:20



19

Continue with your argument.

MR. PAPPAS: And then we have, of course, the last

argument -- which is the most probably esoteric or the more

unique, which is the Raich II argument on fundamental rights.

And we've seen market changes since Raich II.

The government cites Raich II, but back to the

date, and then it cites some district court case decisions

that other people have brought, in terms of emerging

awareness and substantive due process.

But as Your Honor mentioned, Marla James has been

in here. She suffers from excruciating pain, and -- and this

medication works for her.

It's effective for her.

The state has provided for it.

As Justice Thomas said in the Raich I dissent, his

dissent there, the argument by the government that there

aren't controls and systems in place is -- is simply without

basis.

And the -- the law's developed.

We had another state pass medical marijuana, to --

to bring it to --

THE COURT: Wait.

Colorado was recreational, wasn't it?

MR. PAPPAS: But we had Massachusetts pass it.

THE COURT: Well, Colorado's recreational,

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

10:21

10:21

10:22



20

for heaven's sakes, and -- and --

MR. PAPPAS: But I'm not arguing recreational use

here, because I feel that -- that violates the CSA.

THE COURT: Right. I agree.

MR. PAPPAS: Just like recreational use of

amphetamines would violate it.

And so it -- it comes to the idea that you have

millions of patients --

THE COURT: I'm just saying a fortiori.

The people of the state of Colorado are approving

it for recreational, then perhaps those conservative states

that approve it only for medicinal should be more respected

by the feds.

MR. PAPPAS: I think that holds true, and I think

the number of states that have approved it -- this isn't --

this isn't the same as the sodomy cases.

These are people who are suffering from --

THE COURT: Well, you see, that confused me too.

I mean, when you're throwing Bowers and Lawrence at

me, I'm going from Runnymede to Texas sodomy and trying to

apply it to here.

What -- why did you cite Lawrence?

MR. PAPPAS: Well, Lawrence is cited by the

Ninth Circuit in Raich II.

That is the case that Justice Pregerson goes

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

10:22

10:22

10:22

10:23

10:23



21

through in Raich II, the 2007 opinion, when it came back from

the Supreme Court, after he determined that we hadn't reached

the day yet where there had been enough traction in the law.

And so his -- his -- his opinion there was that we

hadn't reached that point, but the day would soon dawn where

we would.

And -- and since that case came down, we have a

number of additional states that have been added into the

medical marijuana fold.

We have the National Cancer Institute, part of the

federal government, putting on its Website the benefits of

Cannibis for doctors.

We have the Veterans Administration, and we have,

which I think gives it more traction in the law -- I'm not

citing Washington D.C. for equal protection the same way that

I did in James I and II.

I'm citing it to support the idea that Congress

itself has said, let's let DC be more like the states

and take out this block, and that's legal traction to show

that perhaps we've reached that day.

THE COURT: Well, then you know what a district

judge in Santa Ana is maybe thinking, boy, get your traction

and get legislative relief which -- which maybe you're

getting.

If it's happening in Colorado and happening in

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

10:24



22

Massachusetts and happening elsewhere, it might just happen

in the United States Congress.

MR. PAPPAS: Well, I -- if we're back at that "bar"

talking, my position would be that the Congress is unable to

do virtually anything.

Its approval rating is very low and I think it is

a -- a day long in the future that we'll get back to

Tip O'Neill and Howard Baker being able to have a beer

outside in a bar by themselves and get along.

These politicians at Congress, the remote central

power that Justice Kennedy refers to in Bond, are in a state

that is not going to be concerned about, I think the

well-being, the fundamental right I think that these patients

have to be free from excruciating pain because of a plant, a

natural plant that works effectively for them. It's never

killed anybody.

THE COURT: It's only been a few years ago that the

Congress passed the first national healthcare bill that the

United States has ever seen so don't give up hope.

MR. PAPPAS: With not one Republican vote.

THE COURT: Don't give up hope.

(Laughter.)

THE COURT: Touché, though.

That's a good answer.

MR. PAPPAS: They don't have -- you've

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

10:24

10:25

10:25

10:25

10:25



23

got two houses.

You have the House of Representatives controlled by

the Republicans, the Senate controlled by the Democrats.

You have more conflagration than I've seen

previously in my life in terms of those institutions.

And I think their ability to pass legislation in

this area is minimal.

They should, but I doubt they'll do it.

THE COURT: And the presidential candidates

espousing the legalization of marijuana got less than

2 percent.

MR. PAPPAS: (Nodded head.)


What do you think the prospects are that the

government will ultimately pursue this case and seize your

client's property if the court doesn't intervene?

MR. PAPPAS: It is my understanding --

and Mr. Parham would have to address it on behalf of

Mr. Birotte -- that the US Attorney's Office or the Central

District's focus here is when a -- and I sent to the court a

request for judicial notice.

It includes a letter from my -- the counsel that

opposes me in the James cases, to the US attorney asking for

help because they want to completely ban collectives in

their -- in their cities.

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

10:26

10:26

10:26

10:27



24

THE COURT: All right. And then doesn't -- you

know, I'm not a big fan for requests for judicial notice in

12(b)(6) motions.

I think that becomes a summary judgment.

MR. PAPPAS: Well, it's presented more from a legal

perspective, and that particular letter is not, so I would

agree with the court that that is more evidentiary in nature.

But my understanding is -- and it's even on the US

Attorney's Website -- that their purpose here is to help

cities that ask for help, or that's the priority they're

giving it, I believe, is what the Website says, that they're

helping the California cities that are asking for help in

getting rid of collectives.

I don't know if I'm addressing -- the ultimate

purpose is -- is to do that, to help those cities.

That is where the cities -- that is where the

federal government has come in, sent letters -- for instance,

it did it in Costa Mesa -- and it enters into these

settlement agreements that are -- require a substantial

amount of payment back to the federal government, as well, by

these land owners, who, I believe, are relying on the

statement by Mr. Ogden, as well as the state law, in leasing

to collectives they believe are in compliance with the law;

and -- and I think the -- the substantial amounts that are

being paid -- for instance, all the rent that's been paid by

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

10:27

10:27

10:27

10:28

10:28



25

collectives ever and the government's cost of suit, that --

that that is something that is being used to bully these

people into closing them down and then to pay those monies.

That -- that -- that's what I think's happening

here.

I don't think the government intends to go to

trial, but I can't speak for it.

THE COURT: You know, I don't get many of these

forfeiture cases.

What is the nature of the trial?

Is the -- is the order of sale something to be

determined by the jury or the court?

MR. PAPPAS: The order of -- of sale?

THE COURT: Of forfeiture.

I -- not "order of sale," but is the ultimate order

of forfeiture something to be determined by the jury or the

court?

MR. PAPPAS: I don't know.

I think it's determined by the jury, because we can

make a jury demand; and so I believe we can demand a jury

trial, and then go through the process with a jury, if we

make that demand and Mr. Parham put that into the Rule 26

statement and --

THE COURT: Do you think the plaintiff intends to

go all the way to a jury verdict of forfeiture if you do not

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

10:28

10:29

10:29

10:29



26

do what others have done and, that is, settle out?

MR. PAPPAS: I think it will.

THE COURT: Do you think that would be a wonderful

case for you at the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court?

MR. PAPPAS: I don't know if I'd make it there,

because the land owners would probably kill me, but -- but

that would be just my take on it.

I -- I think it's a good issue.

I think there's a lot at risk for the claimants.

And so for the first time I recommended to the

claimants not to fight the government.

THE COURT: You mean for the

United States of America, when you say "claimants"?

MR. PAPPAS: No. The "claimants" being my clients.

They're the -- they're not the defendants.

It's an in rem action.

So the Jalalis would kill me.

THE COURT: What was your last sentence, though?

I missed it and my transcript went out.

I'm sorry. I missed something you said in there.

MR. PAPPAS: I think that, ultimately, it would --

there would be a determination made.

You had said something, Judge, at the first hearing

we had on James back two years ago, what do you think the

city's law would be in five years?

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

10:29

10:30

10:30

10:30

10:30



27

You said something to that effect.

And I agree with the court that this is something

that takes time.

I think for purposes of substantive due process or

any of these civil rights issues, there's necessarily

adversity, because I think the framers meant for that.

They didn't want for things to happen quickly.

Bad cases make bad law.

And so I think there is necessary adversity, but

there has been about 16 or 17 years of that now in

California.

And the tendency is in this country to say, medical

marijuana should be something that we allow for.

I think the polls on that -- and I'm speaking from

my recollection -- are 70 or 80 percent of the public

believes that, and --

THE COURT: Well, then, put Congressmen's

reelection at risk.

MR. PAPPAS: I -- I agree.

THE COURT: It's the democratic process.

MR. PAPPAS: There's other issues that are

probably --

THE COURT: Other than the ham handedness of a

district judge in Santa Ana, telling the Congress it cannot

respond to the will of the people.

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

10:31

10:31

10:31

10:31



28

MR. PAPPAS: I would agree, except that I think the

framers also meant that the judicial branch and that the

Article II branch were meant to restrain Congress as part of

coequal branches of government.

And here Congress is showing that it can't respond

properly, that it hasn't responded properly, that its hands

are tied by conflagration and difficulty within it that make

it impossible for it to do its job.

And -- and so, at that stage, I believe that the

coequal branches of government, even this district court,

which is established pursuant to Article III, has an

obligation to step in and say, hey, you know, this is

something that needs to happen because you're unable to get

it done. That's my --

THE COURT: Oh, no, no, no, it's not this has to

happen because you're unable to get it done. This has to

happen because you're violating the Constitution.

MR. PAPPAS: Because they're violating the

Constitution.

THE COURT: Because we're not going to wait and

deny people their rights while the legislature remains

inactive.

MR. PAPPAS: I don't want the court to legislate

from the bench, and so that came out a little too --

THE COURT: I know exactly what you meant.

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

10:31

10:32

10:32

10:32

10:32



29

I'm sorry.

It's just -- I'm processing myself what I should be

doing in these situations, and you have presented an amazing

series of cases.

And the government here has upped the ante, and the

Ninth Circuit was 2:1 the last go-round.

MR. PAPPAS: It was and it remains that.

THE COURT: And where are we on that, by the way?

So let's see, it's en banc?

MR. PAPPAS: The en banc is denied because the

panel issued an amended opinion on November 1st.

So the city sent me a stay request on that because

I notified the court.

THE COURT: Stay for certiorari?

MR. PAPPAS: Because I've got to file a petition

for writ of certiorari.

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

Well, I'd love to discuss all of this with you

further, but I think we should give the government a chance.

Thank you.

MR. PAPPAS: Yes, sir.

Thank you.

MR. PARHAM: Your Honor, where do I begin.

THE COURT: Well, how about this: Do you really

want to do this?

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

10:33

10:33

10:33

10:33



30

MR. PARHAM: Yes.

THE COURT: I mean, aren't you upping the ante?

Isn't -- aren't the appealing facts of the land

owner in this case the type of bad facts which might be the

perfect vehicle for Mr. Pappas to call into question the drug

law and our president's previous comments and Mr. Ogden's

letter and now you're going to grab the property?

MR. PARHAM: Yes, Your Honor.

That's the simple answer to your question: Yes.

And the reason why we are saying "yes" is because

back in September of last year, the four US attorneys in the

State of California determined that there was far too many --

we can call them dispensaries, collectives, cooperatives, we

call them pot stores.

There was far too many pot stores.

THE COURT: Are you saying that determination was

made by four US attorneys in California in contradiction to

what Mr. Ogden wrote in his letter or didn't the decision go

all the way back to DC?

MR. PARHAM: Deputy Attorney General Ogden --

THE COURT: No "S"?

MR. PARHAM: No "S."

THE COURT: Well, wait it appeared -- I have the

letter here. Go ahead.

MR. PARHAM: -- made a resource allocation

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

10:34

10:34

10:35



31

memorandum addressed to all US attorneys offices in the

nation, and said as you go through your work assignments,

don't put priority in prosecuting medical marijuana patients.

I don't believe the memo addressed --

THE COURT: (Reading) is unlikely to be an

efficient use of limited federal resources.

MR. PARHAM: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. So you're saying it's not as

negative as perhaps I was implying, and I understand what

you're saying.

MR. PARHAM: Right.

And that was the impetus for --

THE COURT: But there is no "S."

I'm sorry. It showed up with an "S" in the papers,

but now looking at the letter there is no "S."

So sorry, Mr. Ogden.

MR. PARHAM: But that was the impetus for the four

US attorneys to use their own discretion within the state to

determine that the problem of medical marijuana stores had

become so bad that this state's US attorneys determined that

they were going to allocate resources and start attempting to

close the -- in this district alone, I believe we had

somewhere in the area of 1,300/1,400 marijuana stores.

It was extraordinary.

THE COURT: Okay. What about the core principle

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

10:35

10:35

10:35

10:35

10:36



32

though, look, I own a piece of property, a mall, a mini mall,

or whatever, and I heard the president campaigning in 2008

and it's -- he should honor his campaign promises.

And then I phoned up Mr. Pappas and he said, well,

we've got this wonderful letter from Mr. Ogden that says that

they don't think it's inefficient use, so go ahead and rent

it out.

So they go ahead and rent it out.

They're not the people selling it; they're just

renting their property.

Oh, and by the way, they look at the law passed by

the People of the State of California, and then the

government comes in later and says, never mind what the

president may have said in his campaign, never mind what

Mr. Ogden said in his letter, never mind when the State of

California expressed through the proposition process, we're

going to grab your property.

Does that sound fair?

MR. PARHAM: Well, it does, because what they're

doing is they're looking at the federal law with blinders on.

They're not looking at Title 21, 856, indicating

it's a separate violation of the law to knowingly allow your

property, as a property owner, as a landlord, to be used in

this fashion, and that law has been on the books for 20 or

30 years.

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

10:36

10:36

10:37

10:37

10:37



33

So we see a certain degree of myopia on the part of

the marijuana industry -- and it is an industry -- that

continues to tout the vagaries of state law and they

disregard -- they put their blinders on and they do not

discuss federal law.

THE COURT: How about a letter from the deputy

attorney general that says (reading) it is unlikely to be an

efficient use of limited federal resources to go after

medical marijuana dispensaries.

That's not myopia; that's kind of black and white.

MR. PARHAM: And that's internal guidance.

Once again, it's resource allocation guidance for

each US Attorney's Office.

THE COURT: What about what the president said in

the 2008 campaign?

MR. PARHAM: As you know, candidates will say

whatever will get them reelected.

THE COURT: You know, and that's true, that's fine;

but then when the government who was the source of these

statements is going to grab the property of citizens who are

merely renting the building out, again, it sounds like a --

you know, maybe that's a solution to the fiscal cliff.

This sounds like a revenue-generating issue. Tell

them one thing and grab their property when they believe what

you said.

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

10:37

10:37

10:38

10:38

10:38



34

MR. PARHAM: Well, let's think this through.

The landlords are receiving money, rental proceeds

from a business engaged in a violation of a federal law.

Guess what? the federal government could be even

more heavy-handed, if you will.

We could have very well gotten seizure warrants

that take monies out of the bank accounts of these landlords

who were knowingly laundering drug procedures being paid as

"rentals."

Now, as far as the heavy handedness issue is

concerned, Congress has allowed somebody in the landlord

situation some re-dress, and, that is, in the innocent

ownership statute and also in 18 USC 983(g) which is the

proportionality portion of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

Act, that allows post-judgment a landlord or a property owner

to seek a reduction in the forfeiture based on an argument of

the Eighth Amendment, which is, I believe one of the concerns

the court was discussing earlier.

If this is heavy handed, the court, post-judgment,

has the ability to reduce the forfeiture to a level that does

not violate the Constitution.

THE COURT: Do you intend to carry this all the way

through forfeiture?

MR. PARHAM: Yes, absolutely, Your Honor.

We have not been -- we're not playing poker,

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

10:39

10:39

10:39

10:39

10:40



35

Your Honor.

We intend to follow through with the litigation

tactics that we've started a year ago.

I have been involved -- I've been involved in

marijuana issues since, roughly, 2008 when the DEA first

started this campaign.

The government wants to enforce Title 21.

The court said it very well.

Claimants want the law to be something else.

They want this court to change the law.

The court wisely indicated that their -- their

opportunity to change the law is with the legislature and if

they want to change the law they should do this on a

congressional level, not on an add ad hoc basis

through defending these various forfeiture actions.

THE COURT: Don't you think in this world of change

and whatever, progress or regress, depending on your point of

view, this is the exact case that you don't want presented as

a test case on the interaction of federal and state

and medical and dispensaries and forfeiture -- you know, a

poor dentist has to turn over a whole bunch of money just

because they maybe were relying on what they had heard

federal agents say?

MR. PARHAM: Well, the -- the estoppel argument

the -- the court is suggesting, has been litigated in the

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

10:40

10:40

10:40

10:41

10:41



36

criminal context, I know.

My colleagues in the criminal division have had the

estoppel argument raised by Defendants who are being

prosecuted for relying upon the government's statements in

that --

THE COURT: Defendants don't have that level of

innocence that this poor dentist has, criminal Defendants

don't.

MR. PARHAM: Well, they may -- they may have a

similar argument, though, Your Honor, that they relied upon

statements made by government officials.

And I don't know that it's that much different.

Besides that, it's -- it's my understanding that

Ms. -- Dr. Jalali, the claimant -- one of the claimants, her

medical practice is in this very building, so it's not as if

she was removed from the location and had no idea what was

going on there.

MR. PAPPAS: Your Honor, it is not.

Her medical practice is in Lake Forrest.

It's nowhere near the building.

MR. PARHAM: Sorry about that.

THE COURT: It sounds to me like a summary judgment

issue, but what about that?

Can -- are Constitutional arguments like this best

presented on a motion to dismiss?

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

10:41

10:41

10:41

10:42

10:42



37

MR. PARHAM: The government doesn't believe they

are, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. What about the pleading

requirements going to things like "notice"?

Do you think you have to plead notice?

And have you pled notice?

MR. PARHAM: No, we don't, Your Honor, and, again,

the government explained that in its opposition where we

said, if there was an argument to be made by the claimants

that they did not receive notice, i.e., they did not know

that this property was being used illegally, that's part of

their affirmative defense that they could raise and --

and prevail at trial if that were proven up.

THE COURT: What's your authority that it's an

affirmative defense?

MR. PARHAM: The statute itself, 18 USC 1983, and I

believe it's sub D.

THE COURT: And what about that makes you think

it's an affirmative defense?

I don't have it in front of me.

MR. PARHAM: The statute says it, Your Honor.

After a finding of forfeiture the claimant has the

burden of proving that they were the innocent owners of the

property, i.e., that they did not --

THE COURT: Does the notice have to come from the

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

10:42

10:42

10:43

10:43

10:43



38

feds or the local authority?

MR. PARHAM: I don't believe it has to come from

either, Your Honor, for the government to initiate the

action.

In this case, Your Honor, I know the court asked

Claimants' counsel about the letter that was directed to the

Jalalis by the city, it's no secret that cities have been

coming to the US attorney and saying we would like your help.

Our cities are being overrun with these marijuana

stores.

State courts are grappling with this issue. They

can't really decide what the state law is and how it's going

to apply.

So US government, can you step in and help us out?

THE COURT: Should a city -- should a

representative of the State of California take action so

inconsistent with a proposition passed by People the State of

California?

Should a state law enforcement officer become an

arm of the federal law enforcement regime when it's directly

contrary to what the People of the State of California said

in their proposition process?

MR. PARHAM: Well, is it contrary, Your Honor,

and that's an issue that I think is being decided -- and I'm

sure Mr. Pappas will correct me if I'm wrong -- he is

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

10:43

10:44

10:44

10:44

10:44



39

probably far more familiar with the state litigation that's

pending -- but I believe there are two cases before the

California Supreme Court discussing those types of issues.

MR. PAPPAS: Well, there's a -- there's a case --

the cases before the California Supreme Court are based upon

whether or not that cities, as creatures of state government,

have the ability to ban all collectives within their borders.

That question, essentially, centers -- I was the

lead case up there, and my case has been dismissed from the

California Supreme Court.

THE COURT: Is that the one that went through the

fourth district there?

MR. PAPPAS: It went through the second district.

Yes. The one with the fourth district is still

there, but it's on a grant of hold so I'm not active in the

arguing.

But, essentially, those cases are about whether

they can ban under, generally, Civil Code 3482.

Now, there are two state court cases pending,

alleging that the city's use of taxpayer dollars to call in

the federal government is because they are creatures of the

state under the Qualified Patients case, is a misuse of those

funds, thereby violating CCP 526(a), which prohibits those

types of illegal expenditures, and that the city should be

restrained from spending taxpayer dollars doing that.

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

10:44

10:45

10:45

10:45

10:45



40

THE COURT: Is there a pending proposition on

marijuana use?

MR. PAPPAS: Not that I'm aware of at this time.

MR. PARHAM: No, not in this state.

MR. PAPPAS: There is a pending -- there is a

pending local ballot initiative in the city of Los Angeles to

over- -- which was at first brought as a referendum to stop

the city council's announced institution of a complete ban

of -- of collectives.

THE COURT: Okay. I thought Judge Jim Gray was

working on another proposition?

MR. PAPPAS: He was, Judge Gray was, and his --

what has happened with that is that -- I think that

proposition was certified by the secretary, they didn't get

what they needed on time for the ballot, so it may continue.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I think the original

version of that was going to criminalize conduct by any state

law enforcement assisting the feds.

MR. PAPPAS: It was, yes.

THE COURT: I think that was removed.

I think it was.

That just shows the level of passion that a state

officer would -- would be violating the law were he to -- he

or she to assist the feds.

But, still, those are all interesting points.

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

10:46

10:46

10:46

10:46

10:47



41

Let me ask, in your papers you cite Conley on

pleading.

Why would you cite the Conley case for pleading?

Didn't Iqbal and Twombly kind of kill Conley.

MR. PARHAM: I can't remember the context.

THE COURT: You might be careful about citing

Conley these days, because I think Iqbal and Twombly

eviscerated if not destroyed it.

MR. PARHAM: Your Honor, if I can mention one other

point about the notice letter.

The city of Anaheim did, in fact, approach the US

government seeking our permission to attach a warning letter

from the Department of Justice to their warning letter that

they were sending to property owners and marijuana stores.

So what we provided to the -- to that city

and other cities who have requested the same thing, we have

provided a redacted version of the warning letters that we're

sending out all throughout the district, telling a property

owner, telling a store operator, that they need to stop the

illegal activity at the location within 14 days of the -- of

the letter.

It was an official DOJ letter.

It just wasn't addressed specifically to the

claimants in this instance.

THE COURT: If I take this under submission

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

10:47

10:47

10:48

10:48

10:48



42

and wait eight months do you think the four United States

attorneys in the State of California might change their mind

about what they want to be doing?

MR. PARHAM: Your Honor, that is a topic within my

unit that is discussed almost daily.

We -- we wonder whether the department is going to

step forward and clarify the policy in this nation.

As the court is well aware of and as counsel

pointed out, three states have now passed what we believe are

very liberal marijuana laws -- Colorado, Washington state

and Massachusetts -- it's just begging -- in my view it's

begging the department to come forward and say "enough."

We have to enforce Title 21 or they're going to

have to create a policy that carves an exception out of these

laws, but that day has not come and I don't know when that

day will arrive, if at all.

THE COURT: All right. Anything further?

MR. PARHAM: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Parham; right?

MR. PARHAM: Yes.

THE COURT: You've done a great job presenting the

position of the United States on this.

Mr. Pappas, you've done a great job of representing

the position of your immediate clients here and your -- you

have a bit of challenge ethically -- that's not the right way

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

10:48

10:48

10:49

10:49

10:49



43

to put it.

Do you understand what I'm about to say?

MR. PAPPAS: I do.

THE COURT: You said your clients would hate you

and I understand that and I think you're doing what you need

to do on behalf of all your clients confronting this

difficult issue and I appreciate the diligence and passion

you bring to it and you, as well, Mr. Parham, and I didn't

issue a tentative because I -- I just wanted to hear where

folks were, and you both helped me focus.

I'm going to take it under submission.

I'm not going to wait for action.

We'll get our ruling out shortly.


MR. PARHAM: Very well, Your Honor.

THE CLERK: Are we going to have a scheduling

conference or --

THE COURT: Right.

We still have the pesky scheduling conference which

I think we can get through very quickly here.

The folks have talked about a three to five-day

jury trial on June 11, 2013?

Is that right?

MR. PARHAM: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. PAPPAS: Yes.

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

10:49

10:49

10:49

10:50

10:50



44

THE COURT: Wow, that's coming up quick.

Is that going to preclude a summary judgment?

Do you have all the discovery you need?

MR. PAPPAS: Well, Mr. Parham had -- you indicated

you're going to do a summary judgment or thought we were when

we had the 26 --

MR. PARHAM: Yes.

THE COURT: I was thinking a summary judgment from

the defense.

MR. PAPPAS: We would --

THE COURT: -- assuming the 12(b)(6) doesn't

succeed.

All right. You know what?

We'll set it for June 11th.

We'll see how motion practice develops as we go

along.

All right. The parties have suggested June 11th.

How does that work for you, Ms. Bredahl?

THE CLERK: That's fine, Judge.

THE COURT: You know, you say three to five days.

A rarity.

I'm going to go long-end on that.

We're going to go a five-day jury trial on

June 11th, which you're telling me is a Tuesday, Ms. Bredahl?

THE CLERK: Yes, Judge.

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

10:50

10:50

10:50

10:51

10:51



45

THE COURT: Okay. That will be the trial.

Pretrial conference on --

THE CLERK: May 20th.

THE COURT: -- May 20th.

And a discovery cutoff of --

THE CLERK: March 11th.

THE COURT: -- March 11th.

So if you get our scheduling order which should

have been available to you when you checked in, you can put

in those dates and that creates other dates such as motion

cutoff, et cetera.

And given the notice needed for summary judgment,

it comes up pretty quickly.

And so consider all of that.

And in the process if you find the need to make

adjustment, the court will certainly hear any requests along

that line.

As a settlement procedure, you've requested No. --

did you request Option 2, which is the court's panel?

MR. PAPPAS: I -- I don't know.

What did we --

MR. PARHAM: I believe we requested the magistrate

assignment.

MR. PAPPAS: We did.

We requested magistrate.

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

10:51

10:51

10:51

// //

// //

// //

// //

// //

// //

// //



46

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PARHAM: And I understand the court's concern.

I can speak with Mr. Pappas to see if he wants to

go to the settlement panel.

THE COURT: If you can go to the settlement panel,

it's obviously an interesting case.

Judge Goldman would be a -- he is the magistrate

judge.

He would be -- it would be interesting to go before

Judge Goldman.

You may also want to look at the settlement panel

offered by the court, which you can look up on the Internet.

MR. PARHAM: Right.


Thank you, all.

MR. PARHAM: Thank you, Your Honor.


(End of proceedings.)

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



47

***

Certificate

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and

correct transcript of the stenographically recorded

proceedings in the above matter.

Fees charged for this transcript, less any circuit

fee reduction and/or deposit, are in conformance with the

regulations of the judicial conference of the United States.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Date: January 17, 2013

/ s / D E N I S E P A D D O C K

C M R S , R M R , C R R , C S R 1 0 1 9 9

$

$37 [3] <10:04> - 5:15

<10:04>, 6:1 <10:14>,

14:4

/

/s [1] - 47:11

1

1 [2] <10:05> - 6:11

<10:10>, 10:18

1,300/1,400 [1]

<10:34> - 31:23

10199 [2] - 1:24,

47:11

10:00 [4] <09:11> - 1:9

<09:11>, 1:16 <09:12>,

1:24 <09:12>, 1:25

10D [2] - 1:4, 2:2

11 [2] <10:07> - 8:18

<10:49>, 43:22

11th [5] <10:49> -

44:14 <10:49>, 44:17

<10:50>, 44:24 <10:50>,

45:6 <10:50>, 45:7

12(b)(6 [9] <10:02> -

4:3 <10:02>, 4:17

<10:04>, 5:18 <10:12>,

12:16 <10:12>, 12:19

<10:12>, 12:24 <10:13>,

13:16 <10:25>, 24:3

<10:49>, 44:11

12(b)(6) [1] <10:12> -

13:2

12-1345 [1] <10:00> -

2:6

12-1345-AG(MLGx

[3] - 1:10, 2:2 <09:11>,

1:3

120312 [1] - 2:2

14 [1] <10:46> - 41:20

14th [1] - 2:6

16 [1] <10:30> - 27:10

17 [6] <10:07> - 8:16

<10:07>, 8:17 <10:07>,

8:18 <10:07>, 8:19

<10:30>, 27:10, 47:10

18 [2] <10:38> - 34:13

<10:41>, 37:16

1983 [1] <10:41> -

37:16

1st [1] <10:32> - 29:11

2

2 [4] <10:05> - 6:12

<10:05>, 6:13 <10:25>,

23:11 <10:50>, 45:19

20 [1] <10:36> - 32:24

2006 [1] <10:06> - 7:4

2007 [1] <10:22> - 21:1

2008 [4] <10:07> - 8:2

<10:35>, 32:2 <10:37>,

33:15 <10:39>, 35:5

2009 [1] <10:06> - 7:8

2012 [2] - 1:18

<09:11>, 1:1

2013 [2] <10:49> -

43:22, 47:10

202-107 [1] - 2:12

20th [2] <10:50> - 45:3

<10:50>, 45:4

21 [3] <10:36> - 32:21

<10:39>, 35:7 <10:47>,

42:13

213-894-6528 [1] -

2:7

213-894-7177 [1] -

2:8

22762 [1] - 2:12

26 [2] <10:28> - 25:22

<10:49>, 44:6

2601 [3] - 1:12

<09:11>, 1:4, 2:7

2:1 [1] <10:31> - 29:6

3

3 [4] - 1:18 <09:11>,

1:1 <09:11>, 1:2 <10:00>,

2:6

30 [1] <10:36> - 32:25

312 [1] - 2:6

3482 [1] <10:44> -

39:18

5

526(a [1] <10:44> -

39:23

7

70 [1] <10:30> - 27:15

8

80 [1] <10:30> - 27:15

856 [1] <10:36> - 32:21

9

90012 [1] - 2:7

92630 [1] - 2:13

949-242-2605 [1] -

2:14

949-371-7881 [1] -

2:13

983(g [1] <10:38> -

34:13

9:00 [1] <09:11> - 1:16

A

ability [3] <10:24> -

23:6 <10:38>, 34:20

<10:43>, 39:7

able [3] <10:08> - 9:2

<10:15>, 14:24 <10:23>,

22:8

absolutely [1] <10:38>

- 34:24

abuse [1] <10:08> - 9:8

according [1] <10:10>

- 11:6

accounts [1] <10:37> -

34:7

Act [1] <10:38> - 34:15

acting [1] <10:07> - 8:4

action [7] <10:03> - 5:4

<10:07>, 8:10 <10:10>,

10:16 <10:29>, 26:16

<10:42>, 38:4 <10:43>,

38:16 <10:48>, 43:12

actionable [1] <10:07>

- 8:8

actions [2] <10:06> -

7:7 <10:39>, 35:15

active [1] <10:44> -

39:15

activities [2] <10:05> -

6:25 <10:05>, 7:1

activity [1] <10:46> -

41:20

ad [1] <10:39> - 35:14

ADA [1] <10:03> - 4:24

add [1] <10:39> - 35:14

added [1] <10:22> -

21:8

additional [2] <10:11>

- 12:1 <10:22>, 21:8

address [1] <10:25> -

23:18

addressed [3] <10:33>

- 31:1 <10:34>, 31:4

<10:47>, 41:23

addressing [1]

<10:26> - 24:14

adjustment [1]

<10:50> - 45:16

Administration [1]

<10:22> - 21:13

admissibility [1]

<10:13> - 13:23

admissible [1] <10:14>

- 14:22

adversity [2] <10:29> -

27:6 <10:29>, 27:9

agent [1] <10:17> -

16:21

agents [1] <10:40> -

35:23

ago [3] <10:24> - 22:17

<10:29>, 26:24 <10:38>,

35:3

agree [6] <10:06> -

7:10, 20:4 <10:26>,

24:7 <10:29>, 27:2,

27:19 <10:30>, 28:1

agreements [1]

<10:26> - 24:19

ahead [3] <10:33> -

30:24 <10:35>, 32:6

<10:35>, 32:8

allegation [5] <10:09>

- 9:25 <10:10>, 10:24

<10:10>, 11:12 <10:17>,

17:6 <10:17>, 17:9

allegations [1] <10:13>

- 13:21

allege [3] <10:09> -

9:17 <10:11>, 12:3

<10:11>, 12:5

alleged [1] <10:17> -

16:23

allegedly [1] <10:10> -

11:7

alleging [2] <10:17> -

16:20 <10:44>, 39:20

allocate [1] <10:34> -

31:21

allocation [2] <10:33>

- 30:25 <10:36>, 33:12

allow [2] <10:30> -

27:13 <10:36>, 32:22

allowed [1] <10:38> -

34:11

allows [1] <10:38> -

34:15

almost [1] <10:47> -

42:5

alone [1] <10:34> -

31:22

amazing [1] <10:31> -

29:3

amended [3] <10:01> -

3:15 <10:01>, 3:16

<10:32>, 29:11



1

Amendment [1]

<10:38> - 34:17

America [5] - 1:6

<09:11>, 1:3, 2:7

<10:07>, 8:11 <10:29>,

26:13

amount [1] <10:26> -

24:20

amounts [1] <10:27> -

24:24

amphetamines [1]

<10:21> - 20:6

Ana [2] <10:23> -

21:22 <10:30>, 27:24

ANA [2] - 1:18 <09:11>,

1:1

Anaheim [11] - 1:13

<09:11>, 1:4 <10:00>, 2:8

<10:09>, 9:18 <10:09>,

9:21 <10:10>, 11:2

<10:11>, 12:7 <10:14>,

14:5 <10:14>, 14:7

<10:17>, 16:21 <10:46>,

41:11

ANDREW [1] - 1:4

Angeles [2] - 2:7

<10:44>, 40:6

announced [1]

<10:45> - 40:8

anonymous [4]

<10:13> - 14:2 <10:14>,

14:23 <10:17>, 16:25

<10:17>, 17:13

answer [3] <10:02> -

3:21 <10:24>, 22:24

<10:33>, 30:9

answered [1] <10:02> -

3:18

ante [2] <10:31> - 29:5

<10:32>, 30:2

apologize [1] <10:08> -

9:4

appeal [1] <10:13> -

13:15

appealing [2] <10:06>

- 7:22 <10:32>, 30:3

appeared [1] <10:33> -

30:23

apply [2] <10:21> -

20:21 <10:42>, 38:13

appreciate [1] <10:48>

- 43:7

approach [2] <10:18> -

17:18 <10:46>, 41:11

approval [1] <10:23> -

22:6

approve [1] <10:21> -

20:12

approved [1] <10:21> -

20:15

approving [1] <10:21>

- 20:10

area [4] <10:05> - 6:15

<10:08>, 9:11 <10:24>,

23:7 <10:34>, 31:23

argue [2] <09:12> -

1:24 <10:05>, 6:9

arguing [2] <10:21> -

20:2 <10:44>, 39:16

argument [27] <10:04>

- 5:9 <10:04>, 5:11

<10:04>, 5:13 <10:04>,

5:17 <10:04>, 5:19

<10:04>, 6:4 <10:05>, 6:7

<10:05>, 6:12 <10:05>,

6:13 <10:06>, 7:9

<10:06>, 7:11 <10:06>,

7:12 <10:06>, 7:14

<10:07>, 8:12 <10:08>,

8:22 <10:08>, 8:23

<10:08>, 8:24 <10:19>,

19:1 <10:19>, 19:3

<10:19>, 19:4 <10:20>,

19:16 <10:38>, 34:16

<10:40>, 35:24 <10:40>,

36:3 <10:40>, 36:10

<10:41>, 37:9

arguments [4] <10:03>

- 5:2 <10:04>, 5:12

<10:05>, 6:9 <10:41>,

36:24

arm [1] <10:43> - 38:20

arrive [1] <10:48> -

42:16

arthritis [1] <10:16> -

15:22

Article [2] <10:30> -

28:3 <10:31>, 28:11

article [2] <10:06> - 7:7

<10:16>, 16:10

Aspan [1] - 2:12

Asset [2] - 2:6

<10:38>, 34:14

assignment [1]

<10:51> - 45:23

assignments [1]

<10:33> - 31:2

assist [1] <10:45> -

40:24

Assistant [2] <09:11> -

1:6 <10:00>, 2:20

assisting [1] <10:45> -

40:18

assume [1] <09:11> -

1:18

assuming [1] <10:49>

- 44:11

attach [1] <10:46> -

41:12

attempting [1] <10:34>

- 31:21

attorney [3] <10:25> -

23:23 <10:36>, 33:7

<10:42>, 38:8

Attorney [4] - 2:5

<09:11>, 1:6 <10:00>,

2:20 <10:33>, 30:20

Attorney's [3] <10:25>

- 23:19 <10:26>, 24:9

<10:36>, 33:13

attorneys [6] <10:33> -

30:11 <10:33>, 30:17

<10:33>, 31:1 <10:34>,

31:18 <10:34>, 31:20

<10:47>, 42:2

audio [1] <10:18> -

18:2

AUSA [1] - 2:5

authentic [1] <10:15> -

15:6

authorities [1] <10:10>

- 10:25

authority [4] <10:11> -

11:21 <10:11>, 11:22

<10:41>, 37:14 <10:42>,

38:1

available [1] <10:50> -

45:9

aware [2] <10:44> -

40:3 <10:47>, 42:8

awareness [1] <10:20>

- 19:9

B

backward [1] <10:03> -

5:5

bad [4] <10:29> - 27:8

<10:32>, 30:4 <10:34>,

31:20

Baker [1] <10:23> -

22:8

Ball [3] - 1:12 <09:11>,

1:4, 2:7

ballot [2] <10:44> -

40:6 <10:45>, 40:15

ban [4] <10:25> - 23:24

<10:43>, 39:7 <10:44>,

39:18 <10:45>, 40:8

banc [2] <10:32> - 29:9

<10:32>, 29:10

bank [1] <10:37> - 34:7

bar [3] <10:18> - 17:20

<10:23>, 22:3 <10:23>,

22:9

based [4] <10:04> -

5:15 <10:04>, 6:1

<10:38>, 34:16 <10:43>,

39:5

basis [2] <10:20> -

19:18 <10:39>, 35:14

become [2] <10:34> -

31:20 <10:43>, 38:19

becomes [1] <10:25> -

24:4

beer [1] <10:23> - 22:8

begging [2] <10:47> -

42:11 <10:47>, 42:12

begin [1] <10:32> -

29:23

behalf [2] <10:25> -

23:18 <10:48>, 43:6

BEHALF [2] - 2:4,

2:9

belief [3] <10:09> -

10:8 <10:17>, 17:10

<10:17>, 17:12

believes [1] <10:30> -

27:16

belonging [1] <10:08>

- 9:12

bench [1] <10:31> -

28:24

benefits [1] <10:22> -

21:11

best [5] <10:02> - 4:2

<10:06>, 7:9 <10:12>,

12:18 <10:13>, 13:15

<10:41>, 36:24

big [1] <10:25> - 24:2

bill [1] <10:24> - 22:18

birotte [1] <10:25> -

23:19

bit [1] <10:48> - 42:25

black [1] <10:36> -

33:10

Blackberry [1] <10:16>

- 15:19

blinders [2] <10:35> -

32:20 <10:36>, 33:4

block [1] <10:22> -

21:19

Bond [1] <10:23> -

22:11

books [1] <10:36> -

32:24

borders [1] <10:43> -

39:7

Bowers [1] <10:21> -

20:19

boy [1] <10:23> - 21:22

branch [3] <10:06> -

7:7 <10:30>, 28:2

<10:30>, 28:3

branches [2] <10:30> -

28:4 <10:31>, 28:10

Bredahl [2] <10:49> -

44:18 <10:50>, 44:24

briefly [1] <10:07> -

8:17

bring [4] <10:01> - 3:2

<10:07>, 8:10 <10:20>,

19:21 <10:48>, 43:8

broadly [1] <10:03> -

4:23

brought [2] <10:20> -

19:8 <10:45>, 40:7

building [3] <10:37> -

33:21 <10:40>, 36:15

<10:41>, 36:20

bully [1] <10:27> - 25:2

bunch [1] <10:40> -

35:21

burden [3] <10:13> -

13:19 <10:13>, 13:24

<10:42>, 37:23

business [1] <10:37> -

34:3

C

CA [2] - 2:7, 2:13

CALIFORNIA [3] -

1:2, 1:18 <09:11>, 1:1

California [17] - 1:13

<10:03>, 4:25 <10:17>,

16:18 <10:17>, 17:8

<10:26>, 24:12 <10:30>,

27:11 <10:33>, 30:12

<10:33>, 30:17 <10:35>,

32:12 <10:35>, 32:16

<10:43>, 38:16 <10:43>,

38:18 <10:43>, 38:21

<10:43>, 39:3 <10:43>,

39:5 <10:44>, 39:10

<10:47>, 42:2

California's [1]

<10:16> - 16:5

Californians [1]

<10:16> - 16:7

campaign [4] <10:35>

- 32:3 <10:35>, 32:14

<10:37>, 33:15 <10:39>,

35:6

campaigning [1]

<10:35> - 32:2

Cancer [1] <10:22> -

21:10

candidates [2] <10:24>

- 23:9 <10:37>, 33:16

Cannibis [1] <10:22> -

21:12

cannot [1] <10:30> -

27:24

care [2] <10:05> - 6:18

<10:05>, 6:21

careful [1] <10:46> -

41:6



2

carry [1] <10:38> -

34:22

Carta [1] <10:03> - 5:2

carves [1] <10:47> -

42:14

case [24] <10:01> - 3:5

<10:01>, 3:6 <10:01>,

3:12 <10:02>, 3:22

<10:02>, 3:25 <10:02>,

4:11 <10:10>, 10:19

<10:11>, 11:19 <10:11>,

12:12 <10:20>, 19:7

<10:22>, 20:25 <10:22>,

21:7 <10:25>, 23:15

<10:28>, 26:4 <10:32>,

30:4 <10:39>, 35:18

<10:39>, 35:19 <10:42>,

38:5 <10:43>, 39:4

<10:43>, 39:9 <10:44>,

39:22 <10:45>, 41:3

<10:51>, 46:6

cases [12] <10:03> -

4:20 <10:03>, 4:21

<10:12>, 12:23 <10:21>,

20:16 <10:25>, 23:23

<10:27>, 25:9 <10:29>,

27:8 <10:31>, 29:4

<10:43>, 39:2 <10:43>,

39:5 <10:44>, 39:17

<10:44>, 39:19

catch [1] <10:00> -

2:15

caught [1] <10:18> -

18:2

CCP [1] <10:44> -

39:23

centers [1] <10:43> -

39:8

central [2] <10:08> -

9:12 <10:23>, 22:10

Central [1] <10:25> -

23:19

CENTRAL [1] - 1:2

certain [1] <10:36> -

33:1

certainly [1] <10:50> -

45:16

certificate [1] - 47:2

certified [1] <10:45> -

40:14

certify [1] - 47:3

certiorari [2] <10:32> -

29:14 <10:32>, 29:16

cetera [1] <10:50> -

45:11

challenge [1] <10:48> -

42:25

chance [2] <10:07> -

8:13 <10:32>, 29:19

change [7] <10:18> -

18:9 <10:19>, 18:10

<10:39>, 35:10 <10:39>,

35:12 <10:39>, 35:13

<10:39>, 35:16 <10:47>,

42:2

changes [1] <10:19> -

19:5

charged [1] - 47:6

checked [1] <10:50> -

45:9

chose [1] <10:05> - 6:8

circuit [1] - 47:6

Circuit [3] <10:21> -

20:24 <10:28>, 26:4

<10:31>, 29:6

circumstances [1]

<10:11> - 12:1

cite [3] <10:21> - 20:22

<10:45>, 41:1 <10:45>,

41:3

cited [1] <10:21> -

20:23

cites [2] <10:20> - 19:6

<10:20>, 19:7

cities [9] <10:25> -

23:25 <10:26>, 24:10

<10:26>, 24:12 <10:26>,

24:15 <10:26>, 24:16

<10:42>, 38:7 <10:42>,

38:9 <10:43>, 39:6

<10:46>, 41:16

citing [3] <10:22> -

21:15 <10:22>, 21:17

<10:46>, 41:6

citizens [1] <10:37> -

33:20

city [11] <10:09> - 9:18

<10:09>, 9:21 <10:11>,

12:7 <10:32>, 29:12

<10:42>, 38:7 <10:43>,

38:15 <10:44>, 39:24

<10:44>, 40:6 <10:45>,

40:8 <10:46>, 41:11

<10:46>, 41:15

city's [2] <10:29> -

26:25 <10:44>, 39:20

Civil [2] <10:38> -

34:14 <10:44>, 39:18

civil [1] <10:29> - 27:5

claim [3] <10:11> -

11:18 <10:11>, 12:2

<10:15>, 15:16

claimant [2] <10:40> -

36:14 <10:42>, 37:22

claimants [15] <10:00>

- 2:10 <10:00>, 2:13

<10:05>, 6:14 <10:09>,

9:21 <10:10>, 10:19

<10:10>, 11:5 <10:11>,

12:13 <10:28>, 26:9

<10:29>, 26:11 <10:29>,

26:13 <10:29>, 26:14

<10:39>, 35:9 <10:40>,

36:14 <10:41>, 37:9

<10:47>, 41:24

Claimants' [1] <10:42>

- 38:6

claiming [2] <10:15> -

15:4 <10:15>, 15:11

clarify [1] <10:47> -

42:7

class [1] <10:07> -

8:10

clear [2] <10:05> - 6:24

<10:06>, 7:3

CLERK [6] <10:00> -

2:6 <10:49>, 43:16

<10:50>, 44:19 <10:50>,

44:25 <10:50>, 45:3

<10:50>, 45:6

client [1] <10:12> -

13:9

client's [1] <10:25> -

23:16

clients [6] <10:04> -

5:25 <10:06>, 7:21

<10:29>, 26:14 <10:48>,

42:24 <10:48>, 43:4

<10:48>, 43:6

cliff [2] <10:19> - 18:17

<10:37>, 33:22

close [1] <10:34> -

31:22

closed [1] <10:14> -

14:6

closing [1] <10:27> -

25:3

CMRS [2] - 1:24,

47:11

Code [1] <10:44> -

39:18

coequal [2] <10:30> -

28:4 <10:31>, 28:10

colleagues [1] <10:40>

- 36:2

collective [1] <10:14> -

14:7

collectives [8] <10:17>

- 17:7 <10:25>, 23:24

<10:26>, 24:13 <10:27>,

24:23 <10:27>, 25:1

<10:33>, 30:13 <10:43>,

39:7 <10:45>, 40:9

Colorado [4] <10:20> -

19:23 <10:21>, 20:10

<10:23>, 21:25 <10:47>,

42:10

Colorado's [1] <10:20>

- 19:25

combined [1] <10:06>

- 7:6

coming [4] <10:12> -

13:9 <10:13>, 13:12

<10:42>, 38:8 <10:49>,

44:1

commend [1] <09:11>

- 1:21

comments [1] <10:32>

- 30:6

complaint [14] <10:01>

- 3:15 <10:01>, 3:16

<10:02>, 3:19 <10:04>,

5:15 <10:09>, 9:25

<10:10>, 11:12 <10:10>,

11:13 <10:13>, 13:20

<10:13>, 14:3 <10:14>,

14:11 <10:14>, 14:15

<10:17>, 16:23 <10:17>,

17:6 <10:17>, 17:9

complete [1] <10:45> -

40:8

completely [1] <10:25>

- 23:24

compliance [2]

<10:09> - 10:8 <10:27>,

24:23

computer [2] <10:06> -

7:23 <10:06>, 7:24

concern [1] <10:51> -

46:2

concerned [3] <10:16>

- 15:21 <10:23>, 22:12

<10:38>, 34:11

concerns [1] <10:38> -

34:17

conduct [1] <10:45> -

40:17

conference [6]

<09:11> - 1:15 <10:02>,

3:23 <10:49>, 43:17

<10:49>, 43:19 <10:50>,

45:2, 47:8

conflagration [2]

<10:24> - 23:4 <10:30>,

28:7

conformance [1] -

47:7

confronting [1]

<10:48> - 43:6

confused [4] <09:11> -

1:12 <09:11>, 1:16

<09:11>, 1:19 <10:21>,

20:18

Congress [9] <10:22> -

21:17 <10:23>, 22:2

<10:23>, 22:4 <10:23>,

22:10 <10:24>, 22:18

<10:30>, 27:24 <10:30>,

28:3 <10:30>, 28:5

<10:38>, 34:11

congressional [1]

<10:39> - 35:14

Congressmen's [1]

<10:30> - 27:17

Conley [4] <10:45> -

41:1 <10:45>, 41:3

<10:46>, 41:4 <10:46>,

41:7

conservative [1]

<10:21> - 20:11

consider [1] <10:50> -

45:14

Constitution [3]

<10:31> - 28:17 <10:31>,

28:19 <10:38>, 34:21

Constitutional [2]

<10:12> - 12:23 <10:41>,

36:24

contents [3] <10:07> -

8:16 <10:07>, 8:18

<10:08>, 9:5

contesting [1] <10:09>

- 9:16

context [2] <10:40> -

36:1 <10:46>, 41:5

continue [2] <10:19> -

19:1 <10:45>, 40:15

continues [1] <10:36>

- 33:3

contradiction [1]

<10:33> - 30:17

contrary [2] <10:43> -

38:21 <10:43>, 38:23

controlled [2] <10:24>

- 23:2 <10:24>, 23:3

controls [1] <10:20> -

19:17

cooperatives [1]

<10:33> - 30:13

copy [3] <10:10> - 11:6

<10:10>, 11:7 <10:11>,

12:9

core [1] <10:35> -

31:25

correct [4] <10:04> -

6:2 <10:04>, 6:3 <10:43>,

38:25, 47:4

cost [1] <10:27> - 25:1

Costa [1] <10:26> -

24:18

council's [1] <10:45> -

40:8

Counsel [1] <10:07> -

8:14

counsel [3] <10:25> -

23:22 <10:42>, 38:6

<10:47>, 42:8

country [1] <10:30> -

27:12

County [2] <10:15> -



3

15:13 <10:16>, 16:10

course [3] <10:05> -

6:8 <10:12>, 13:11

<10:19>, 19:2

COURT [134] - 1:1,

1:25 <09:11>, 1:2

<09:11>, 1:8 <09:11>,

1:12 <09:11>, 1:18

<09:11>, 1:21 <09:11>,

1:23 <09:12>, 2:2

<10:00>, 2:11 <10:00>,

2:14 <10:00>, 2:17

<10:00>, 2:22 <10:01>,

3:1 <10:01>, 3:4 <10:01>,

3:9 <10:01>, 3:12

<10:02>, 3:22 <10:02>,

4:7 <10:02>, 4:9 <10:02>,

4:15 <10:04>, 5:19

<10:04>, 5:23 <10:04>,

6:4 <10:05>, 6:11

<10:05>, 6:17 <10:06>,

7:9 <10:06>, 7:13

<10:06>, 7:24 <10:07>,

8:10 <10:08>, 9:14

<10:09>, 9:23 <10:09>,

10:3 <10:09>, 10:10

<10:09>, 10:13 <10:10>,

10:20 <10:10>, 10:23

<10:10>, 11:4 <10:10>,

11:9 <10:10>, 11:13

<10:11>, 11:17 <10:11>,

11:21 <10:11>, 11:24

<10:11>, 12:14 <10:12>,

12:21 <10:12>, 13:1

<10:12>, 13:5 <10:14>,

14:14 <10:14>, 14:19

<10:15>, 15:2 <10:15>,

15:10 <10:16>, 15:25

<10:16>, 16:12 <10:17>,

17:2 <10:18>, 17:14

<10:18>, 17:23 <10:18>,

18:1 <10:18>, 18:5

<10:19>, 18:10 <10:19>,

18:12 <10:19>, 18:14

<10:19>, 18:19 <10:19>,

18:25 <10:20>, 19:22

<10:20>, 19:25, 20:4

<10:21>, 20:9 <10:21>,

20:18 <10:23>, 21:21

<10:24>, 22:17 <10:24>,

22:21 <10:24>, 22:23

<10:24>, 23:9 <10:25>,

23:13 <10:25>, 24:1

<10:27>, 25:8 <10:27>,

25:14 <10:28>, 25:24

<10:28>, 26:3 <10:29>,

26:12 <10:29>, 26:18

<10:30>, 27:17 <10:30>,

27:20 <10:30>, 27:23

<10:31>, 28:15 <10:31>,

28:20 <10:31>, 28:25

<10:31>, 29:8 <10:32>,

29:14 <10:32>, 29:17

<10:32>, 29:24 <10:32>,

30:2 <10:33>, 30:16

<10:33>, 30:21 <10:33>,

30:23 <10:34>, 31:5

<10:34>, 31:8 <10:34>,

31:13 <10:35>, 31:25

<10:36>, 33:6 <10:36>,

33:14 <10:37>, 33:18

<10:38>, 34:22 <10:39>,

35:16 <10:40>, 36:6

<10:41>, 36:22 <10:41>,

37:3 <10:41>, 37:14

<10:42>, 37:18 <10:42>,

37:25 <10:43>, 38:15

<10:44>, 39:11 <10:44>,

40:1 <10:45>, 40:10

<10:45>, 40:16 <10:45>,

40:20 <10:46>, 41:6

<10:47>, 41:25 <10:48>,

42:17 <10:48>, 42:19

<10:48>, 42:21 <10:48>,

43:4 <10:49>, 43:18

<10:49>, 44:1 <10:49>,

44:8 <10:49>, 44:11

<10:50>, 44:20 <10:50>,

45:1 <10:50>, 45:4

<10:50>, 45:7 <10:51>,

46:1 <10:51>, 46:5

<10:51>, 46:14, 47:9

court [26] <10:02> -

4:16 <10:06>, 7:11

<10:14>, 14:17 <10:16>,

16:17 <10:17>, 16:25

<10:20>, 19:7 <10:25>,

23:16 <10:25>, 23:20

<10:26>, 24:7 <10:27>,

25:12 <10:28>, 25:17

<10:29>, 27:2 <10:31>,

28:10 <10:31>, 28:23

<10:32>, 29:13 <10:38>,

34:18 <10:38>, 34:19

<10:39>, 35:8 <10:39>,

35:10 <10:39>, 35:11

<10:40>, 35:25 <10:42>,

38:5 <10:44>, 39:19

<10:47>, 42:8 <10:50>,

45:16 <10:51>, 46:12

Court [7] <10:05> -

6:19 <10:05>, 6:24

<10:22>, 21:2 <10:28>,

26:4 <10:43>, 39:3

<10:43>, 39:5 <10:44>,

39:10

court's [4] <10:06> -

7:3 <10:17>, 17:3

<10:50>, 45:19 <10:51>,

46:2

courtesy [4] <10:10> -

11:6 <10:10>, 11:7

<10:10>, 11:14 <10:11>,

12:9

COURTROOM [1] -

1:4

courts [1] <10:42> -

38:11

create [5] <10:10> -

10:16 <10:11>, 12:1

<10:13>, 13:14 <10:13>,

13:15 <10:47>, 42:14

created [1] <10:14> -

14:17

creates [1] <10:50> -

45:10

creatures [2] <10:43> -

39:6 <10:44>, 39:21

criminal [3] <10:40> -

36:1 <10:40>, 36:2

<10:40>, 36:7

criminalize [1] <10:45>

- 40:17

CRR [2] - 1:24, 47:11

CSA [4] <10:05> - 6:24

<10:06>, 7:5 <10:16>,

16:2 <10:21>, 20:3

CSR [2] - 1:24, 47:11

curious [1] <10:17> -

17:5

curry [1] <10:18> -

17:17

currying [1] <10:18> -

17:17

cutoff [2] <10:50> -

45:5 <10:50>, 45:11

D

D.C [1] <10:22> - 21:15

daily [1] <10:47> - 42:5

DAILY [1] - 1:17

Date [1] - 47:10

date [1] <10:20> - 19:7

dates [2] <10:50> -

45:10

daughter [1] <10:16> -

16:16

David [1] <10:06> - 7:7

dawn [1] <10:22> -

21:5

days [3] <10:46> - 41:7

<10:46>, 41:20 <10:50>,

44:20

DC [4] <10:03> - 4:24

<10:22>, 21:18 <10:33>,

30:19

DCCD [1] - 2:2

DEA [3] <10:11> - 12:6

<10:17>, 16:21 <10:39>,

35:5

deal [2] <10:18> - 18:3

<10:18>, 18:4

DECEMBER [2] -

1:18 <09:11>, 1:1

decide [1] <10:42> -

38:12

decided [1] <10:43> -

38:24

decision [3] <10:06> -

7:4 <10:08>, 9:7 <10:33>,

30:18

decisions [1] <10:20> -

19:7

DEFENDANT [1] -

2:9

Defendant(s) [1] -

1:14

defendants [1]

<10:29> - 26:15

Defendants [3]

<10:40> - 36:3 <10:40>,

36:6 <10:40>, 36:7

defending [1] <10:39>

- 35:15

defense [5] <10:02> -

4:2 <10:41>, 37:12

<10:41>, 37:15 <10:42>,

37:19 <10:49>, 44:9

degree [1] <10:36> -

33:1

demand [3] <10:28> -

25:20 <10:28>, 25:22

democratic [1]

<10:30> - 27:20

Democrats [1] <10:24>

- 23:3

demonstrates [1]

<10:16> - 16:11

denied [1] <10:32> -

29:10

DENISE [2] - 1:24,

47:11

dentist [4] <10:06> -

7:23 <10:06>, 7:24

<10:40>, 35:21 <10:40>,

36:7

deny [1] - 28:21

department [2]

<10:47> - 42:6 <10:47>,

42:12

Department [3]

<10:06> - 7:15 <10:07>,

8:2 <10:46>, 41:13

deposit [1] - 47:7

deputy [2] <10:33> -

30:20 <10:36>, 33:6

destroyed [1] <10:46>

- 41:8

detail [1] <10:13> -

13:18

detailed [2] <10:14> -

14:4 <10:14>, 14:10

determination [2]

<10:29> - 26:22 <10:33>,

30:16

determine [1] <10:34>

- 31:19

determined [6]

<10:22> - 21:2 <10:27>,

25:12 <10:28>, 25:16

<10:28>, 25:19 <10:33>,

30:12 <10:34>, 31:20

developed [1] <10:20>

- 19:19

develops [1] <10:49> -

44:15

different [2] <10:05> -

6:20 <10:40>, 36:12

difficult [1] <10:48> -

43:7

difficulty [1] <10:30> -

28:7

diligence [1] <10:48> -

43:7

direct [2] <10:03> - 5:3

<10:09>, 9:20

directed [1] <10:42> -

38:6

directly [5] <10:09> -

10:2 <10:12>, 12:22

<10:15>, 14:24 <10:17>,

16:20 <10:43>, 38:20

dirty [1] <10:13> -

13:13

disabled [1] <10:16> -

16:6

disagree [1] <10:04> -

5:10

discovery [2] <10:49> -

44:3 <10:50>, 45:5

discretion [1] <10:34>

- 31:18

discuss [2] <10:32> -

29:18 <10:36>, 33:5

discussed [1] <10:47>

- 42:5

discussing [2] <10:38>

- 34:18 <10:43>, 39:3

discussions [1]

<10:02> - 3:24

dismiss [3] <09:11> -

1:9 <09:12>, 1:24

<10:41>, 36:25

dismissed [1] <10:43>

- 39:9

dispensaries [4]

<10:06> - 7:17 <10:33>,

30:13 <10:36>, 33:9

<10:39>, 35:20

disregard [1] <10:36> -



4

33:4

dissent [2] <10:20> -

19:15 <10:20>, 19:16

dissents [1] <10:05> -

7:2

DISTRICT [4] - 1:1,

1:2, 1:25, 47:9

district [10] <10:02> -

4:16 <10:20>, 19:7

<10:23>, 21:21 <10:30>,

27:24 <10:31>, 28:10

<10:34>, 31:22 <10:44>,

39:12 <10:44>, 39:13

<10:44>, 39:14 <10:46>,

41:18

District's [1] <10:25> -

23:20

Division [1] - 2:6

division [1] <10:40> -

36:2

doctor's [1] <10:16> -

16:4

doctors [1] <10:22> -

21:12

DOJ [1] <10:46> -

41:22

dollars [2] <10:44> -

39:20 <10:44>, 39:25

done [6] <10:03> - 4:19

<10:28>, 26:1 <10:31>,

28:14 <10:31>, 28:16

<10:48>, 42:21 <10:48>,

42:23

doubt [1] <10:24> -

23:8

down [2] <10:22> -

21:7 <10:27>, 25:3

Dr [1] <10:40> - 36:14

dramatically [1]

<10:06> - 7:13

dress [1] <10:38> -

34:12

drug [5] <10:05> - 6:25

<10:05>, 7:1 <10:08>, 9:8

<10:32>, 30:5 <10:37>,

34:8

drugs [1] <10:08> - 9:9

dual [1] <09:11> - 1:13

due [3] <10:08> - 9:6

<10:20>, 19:9 <10:29>,

27:4

DURST [4] <10:00> -

2:12 <10:01>, 3:8

<10:01>, 3:10 <10:01>,

3:13

Durst [5] - 2:11

<10:00>, 2:13 <10:00>,

2:18 <10:01>, 3:5

<10:01>, 3:7

E

early [1] <09:11> - 1:21

economically [1]

<10:06> - 7:19

effect [1] <10:29> -

27:1

effective [2] <10:16> -

16:2 <10:20>, 19:13

effectively [1] <10:24>

- 22:15

efficient [3] <10:06> -

7:19 <10:34>, 31:6

<10:36>, 33:8

eight [1] <10:47> - 42:1

Eighth [1] <10:38> -

34:17

either [1] <10:42> -

38:3

elections [2] <10:19> -

18:15 <10:19>, 18:18

element [1] <10:11> -

11:18

elements [1] <10:11> -

12:1

elsewhere [1] <10:23>

- 22:1

Email [2] - 2:8, 2:14

emerging [1] <10:20> -

19:8

en [2] <10:32> - 29:9

<10:32>, 29:10

End [1] <10:51> -

46:18

end [2] <10:02> - 3:24

<10:50>, 44:22

enforce [2] <10:39> -

35:7 <10:47>, 42:13

enforcement [3]

<10:43> - 38:19 <10:43>,

38:20 <10:45>, 40:18

engaged [1] <10:37> -

34:3

engineer [2] <10:06> -

7:23 <10:06>, 7:24

enters [1] <10:26> -

24:18

equal [1] <10:22> -

21:15

esoteric [2] <10:05> -

6:9 <10:19>, 19:3

especially [1] <10:05>

- 7:2

espousing [1] <10:25>

- 23:10

essentially [3] <10:13>

- 13:21 <10:43>, 39:8

<10:44>, 39:17

establish [2] <10:14> -

14:16 <10:17>, 17:3

established [1]

<10:31> - 28:11

estoppel [2] <10:40> -

35:24 <10:40>, 36:3

et [1] <10:50> - 45:11

ethically [1] <10:48> -

42:25

evidence [2] <10:17> -

16:20 <10:18>, 17:20

evidentiary [1] <10:26>

- 24:7

eviscerated [1]

<10:46> - 41:8

exact [2] <10:17> -

17:10 <10:39>, 35:18

exactly [2] <10:06> -

7:18 <10:31>, 28:25

except [1] <10:30> -

28:1

exception [1] <10:47>

- 42:14

excruciating [2]

<10:20> - 19:11 <10:24>,

22:14

expand [1] <10:09> -

10:15

expenditures [1]

<10:44> - 39:24

explained [1] <10:41> -

37:8

expressed [1] <10:35>

- 32:16

extraordinary [1]

<10:35> - 31:24

F

facetious [1] <10:02> -

4:15

facility [2] <10:14> -

14:6 <10:15>, 14:24

fact [3] <10:14> - 14:5

<10:17>, 17:11 <10:46>,

41:11

facts [6] <10:12> -

12:18 <10:12>, 13:7

<10:13>, 14:3 <10:14>,

14:10 <10:32>, 30:3

<10:32>, 30:4

factual [2] <10:11> -

12:11 <10:13>, 13:14

factually [1] <10:13> -

13:18

fair [2] <10:11> - 11:24

<10:35>, 32:18

fairly [1] <10:11> -

11:25

familiar [1] <10:43> -

39:1

fan [1] <10:25> - 24:2

far [4] <10:33> - 30:12

<10:33>, 30:15 <10:37>,

34:10 <10:43>, 39:1

fashion [1] <10:36> -

32:24

favor [2] <10:18> -

17:17

Fax [2] - 2:8, 2:14

federal [15] <10:06> -

7:11 <10:09>, 10:1

<10:22>, 21:11 <10:26>,

24:17 <10:26>, 24:20

<10:34>, 31:6 <10:35>,

32:20 <10:36>, 33:5

<10:36>, 33:8 <10:37>,

34:3 <10:37>, 34:4

<10:39>, 35:19 <10:40>,

35:23 <10:43>, 38:20

<10:44>, 39:21

Feds [2] <10:09> - 9:24

<10:13>, 13:12

feds [6] <10:09> - 10:4

<10:09>, 10:5 <10:21>,

20:13 <10:42>, 38:1

<10:45>, 40:18 <10:45>,

40:24

fee [1] - 47:7

fees [1] - 47:6

fellow [1] <10:16> -

15:18

few [1] <10:24> - 22:17

fight [1] <10:29> -

26:11

file [1] <10:32> - 29:15

fine [2] <10:37> - 33:18

<10:50>, 44:19

finger [1] <10:18> -

17:15

first [7] <10:01> - 3:1

<10:02>, 3:18 <10:24>,

22:18 <10:28>, 26:10

<10:29>, 26:23 <10:39>,

35:5 <10:45>, 40:7

First [1] <10:01> - 3:8

fiscal [2] <10:19> -

18:17 <10:37>, 33:22

five [5] <10:15> - 15:12

<10:29>, 26:25 <10:49>,

43:21 <10:50>, 44:20

<10:50>, 44:23

five-day [2] <10:49> -

43:21 <10:50>, 44:23

Floor [1] - 2:6

focus [2] <10:25> -

23:20 <10:48>, 43:10

fold [1] <10:22> - 21:9

folks [3] <10:01> - 2:23

<10:48>, 43:10 <10:49>,

43:21

follow [1] <10:38> -

35:2

foregoing [1] - 47:3

Forest [1] - 2:13

forfeiture [10] <10:27>

- 25:9 <10:27>, 25:14

<10:28>, 25:16 <10:28>,

25:25 <10:38>, 34:16

<10:38>, 34:20 <10:38>,

34:23 <10:39>, 35:15

<10:39>, 35:20 <10:42>,

37:22

Forfeiture [2] - 2:6

<10:38>, 34:14

forgotten [1] <10:09> -

10:12

Forrest [1] <10:41> -

36:19

forth [1] <10:09> -

10:14

fortiori [1] <10:21> -

20:9

forward [3] <10:03> -

5:5 <10:47>, 42:7

<10:47>, 42:12

four [4] <10:33> -

30:11 <10:33>, 30:17

<10:34>, 31:17 <10:47>,

42:1

fourth [2] <10:44> -

39:12 <10:44>, 39:14

framers [2] <10:29> -

27:6 <10:30>, 28:2

frankly [1] <10:02> -

4:1

fraud [1] <10:07> - 8:8

free [1] <10:24> - 22:14

front [1] <10:42> -

37:20

fundamental [3]

<10:05> - 6:15 <10:19>,

19:4 <10:24>, 22:13

funds [1] <10:44> -

39:23

future [1] <10:23> -

22:7

G

G(5 [1] <10:11> - 12:10

General [1] <10:33> -

30:20

general [1] <10:36> -

33:7

generally [1] <10:44> -

39:18

generating [2] <10:07>

- 8:6 <10:37>, 33:23



5

given [2] <10:19> -

18:23 <10:50>, 45:12

go-round [1] <10:31> -

29:6

goldman [2] <10:51> -

46:7 <10:51>, 46:10

gots [1] <10:16> -

15:18

government [42]

<09:11> - 1:7 <10:00>,

2:21 <10:03>, 5:4

<10:07>, 8:4 <10:07>, 8:7

<10:08>, 9:2 <10:08>,

9:15 <10:09>, 9:20

<10:09>, 10:1 <10:10>,

10:17 <10:10>, 11:6

<10:11>, 12:12 <10:12>,

13:10 <10:13>, 13:19

<10:15>, 15:4 <10:15>,

15:11 <10:17>, 16:19

<10:19>, 18:20 <10:20>,

19:6 <10:20>, 19:16

<10:22>, 21:11 <10:25>,

23:15 <10:26>, 24:17

<10:26>, 24:20 <10:27>,

25:6 <10:29>, 26:11

<10:30>, 28:4 <10:31>,

28:10 <10:31>, 29:5

<10:32>, 29:19 <10:35>,

32:13 <10:37>, 33:19

<10:37>, 34:4 <10:39>,

35:7 <10:40>, 36:11

<10:41>, 37:1 <10:41>,

37:8 <10:42>, 38:3

<10:42>, 38:14 <10:43>,

39:6 <10:44>, 39:21

<10:46>, 41:12

government's [2]

<10:27> - 25:1 <10:40>,

36:4

grab [4] <10:33> - 30:7

<10:35>, 32:17 <10:37>,

33:20 <10:37>, 33:24

grant [1] <10:44> -

39:15

grappling [1] <10:42> -

38:11

Gray [2] <10:45> -

40:10 <10:45>, 40:12

great [2] <10:48> -

42:21 <10:48>, 42:23

Greg [3] - 2:5 <09:11>,

1:6 <10:00>, 2:20

guess [1] <10:37> -

34:4

guidance [2] <10:36> -

33:11 <10:36>, 33:12

GUILFORD [2] - 1:4,

2:2

H

ham [1] <10:30> -

27:23

handed [2] <10:37> -

34:5 <10:38>, 34:19

handedness [2]

<10:30> - 27:23 <10:37>,

34:10

handled [2] <09:12> -

2:5 <10:01>, 2:25

hands [1] <10:30> -

28:6

Happy [1] <10:15> -

15:17

hate [1] <10:48> - 43:4

head [2] <10:12> -

12:25 <10:25>, 23:12

healthcare [1] <10:24>

- 22:18

hear [2] <10:48> - 43:9

<10:50>, 45:16

heard [2] <10:35> -

32:2 <10:40>, 35:22

hearing [4] <10:12> -

12:16 <10:12>, 12:17

<10:12>, 12:19 <10:29>,

26:23

heaven's [1] <10:21> -

20:1

heavy [3] <10:37> -

34:5 <10:37>, 34:10

<10:38>, 34:19

heavy-handed [1]

<10:37> - 34:5

help [8] <10:02> - 4:10

<10:25>, 23:24 <10:26>,

24:9 <10:26>, 24:10

<10:26>, 24:12 <10:26>,

24:15 <10:42>, 38:8

<10:42>, 38:14

helped [1] <10:48> -

43:10

helping [1] <10:26> -

24:12

hereby [1] - 47:3

highly [1] <10:17> -

16:24

hoc [1] <10:39> - 35:14

hold [2] <10:09> - 9:23

<10:44>, 39:15

holds [1] <10:21> -

20:14

Honor [24] <09:11> -

1:5 <09:12>, 2:4 <10:00>,

2:12 <10:00>, 2:19

<10:05>, 6:9 <10:20>,

19:10 <10:32>, 29:23

<10:33>, 30:8 <10:38>,

34:24 <10:38>, 35:1

<10:40>, 36:10 <10:41>,

36:18 <10:41>, 37:2

<10:41>, 37:7 <10:42>,

37:21 <10:42>, 38:3

<10:42>, 38:5 <10:43>,

38:23 <10:46>, 41:9

<10:47>, 42:4 <10:48>,

42:18 <10:49>, 43:15

<10:49>, 43:24 <10:51>,

46:16

honor [1] <10:35> -

32:3

HONORABLE [1] -

1:4

hooked [1] <10:16> -

15:20

hope [2] <10:24> -

22:19 <10:24>, 22:21

House [1] <10:24> -

23:2

houses [1] <10:24> -

23:1

Howard [1] <10:23> -

22:8

huge [1] <10:03> - 5:5

I

i.e [2] <10:41> - 37:10

<10:42>, 37:24

idea [3] <10:21> - 20:7

<10:22>, 21:17 <10:41>,

36:16

II [9] <10:03> - 4:18

<10:04>, 5:8 <10:19>,

19:4 <10:19>, 19:5

<10:20>, 19:6 <10:21>,

20:24 <10:22>, 21:1

<10:22>, 21:16 <10:30>,

28:3

III [1] <10:31> - 28:11

ill [1] <10:16> - 16:6

illegal [2] <10:44> -

39:24 <10:46>, 41:20

illegally [1] <10:41> -

37:11

immediate [1] <10:48>

- 42:24

impetus [2] <10:34> -

31:12 <10:34>, 31:17

implying [1] <10:34> -

31:9

impossible [1] <10:30>

- 28:8

inactive [1] <10:31> -

28:22

include [1] <10:13> -

14:1

included [3] <10:10> -

11:14 <10:13>, 13:20

<10:17>, 17:11

includes [1] <10:25> -

23:22

including [1] <10:06> -

7:7

inconsistent [1]

<10:43> - 38:17

incur [1] <10:17> -

17:3

indeed [1] <10:09> -

10:6

indicated [2] <10:39> -

35:11 <10:49>, 44:4

indicating [1] <10:36>

- 32:21

individual [1] <10:07>

- 8:8

individuals [1] <10:14>

- 14:23

industry [2] <10:36> -

33:2

inefficient [1] <10:35>

- 32:6

information [3]

<10:17> - 16:22 <10:17>,

17:10 <10:17>, 17:12

initiate [1] <10:42> -

38:3

initiative [1] <10:44> -

40:6

innocence [1] <10:40>

- 36:7

innocent [2] <10:38> -

34:12 <10:42>, 37:23

instance [3] <10:26> -

24:17 <10:27>, 24:25

<10:47>, 41:24

instead [1] <10:04> -

6:5

Institute [1] <10:22> -

21:10

institution [1] <10:45>

- 40:8

institutions [1]

<10:24> - 23:5

instructions [1]

<10:01> - 3:16

intend [2] <10:38> -

34:22 <10:38>, 35:2

intends [2] <10:27> -

25:6 <10:28>, 25:24

interaction [1] <10:39>

- 35:19

interesting [5] <10:03>

- 4:21 <10:03>, 5:4

<10:45>, 40:25 <10:51>,

46:6 <10:51>, 46:9

internal [1] <10:36> -

33:11

Internet [3] <10:13> -

13:22 <10:15>, 14:25

<10:51>, 46:12

interrupting [1]

<10:12> - 13:6

intervene [1] <10:25> -

23:16

involved [3] <10:17> -

16:19 <10:39>, 35:4

involving [1] <10:01> -

3:5

Iqbal [2] <10:46> - 41:4

<10:46>, 41:7

ire [2] <10:14> - 14:17

<10:17>, 17:3

ired [1] <10:14> - 14:19

issue [14] <10:02> -

3:25 <10:07>, 8:3

<10:09>, 9:22 <10:11>,

12:14 <10:11>, 12:15

<10:18>, 18:4 <10:28>,

26:8 <10:37>, 33:23

<10:37>, 34:10 <10:41>,

36:23 <10:42>, 38:11

<10:43>, 38:24 <10:48>,

43:7 <10:48>, 43:9

issued [2] <10:07> -

8:3 <10:32>, 29:11

issues [7] <10:12> -

12:24 <10:13>, 13:14

<10:17>, 16:18 <10:29>,

27:5, 27:21 <10:39>,

35:5 <10:43>, 39:3

Item [2] <09:11> - 1:2

<10:00>, 2:6

itself [3] <10:13> -

13:17 <10:22>, 21:18

<10:41>, 37:16

J

Jalali [2] <10:09> -

10:6 <10:40>, 36:14

Jalalis [7] <10:05> -

6:14 <10:08>, 9:6

<10:09>, 9:19 <10:09>,

10:1 <10:09>, 10:3

<10:29>, 26:17 <10:42>,

38:7

James [10] <10:01> -

3:3 <10:03>, 4:18

<10:04>, 5:8 <10:16>,

16:13 <10:20>, 19:10

<10:22>, 21:16 <10:25>,

23:23 <10:29>, 26:24

January [1] - 47:10

Jim [1] <10:45> - 40:10

job [3] <10:30> - 28:8



6

<10:48>, 42:21 <10:48>,

42:23

John [1] <10:02> - 4:12

joke [1] <10:16> - 16:9

jokes [1] <10:16> -

16:8

judge [3] <10:23> -

21:22 <10:30>, 27:24

<10:51>, 46:8

Judge [13] <10:00> -

2:9 <10:02>, 4:6 <10:10>,

11:2 <10:12>, 13:1

<10:29>, 26:23 <10:45>,

40:10 <10:45>, 40:12

<10:49>, 43:14 <10:50>,

44:19 <10:50>, 44:25

<10:51>, 46:7 <10:51>,

46:10 <10:51>, 46:17

JUDGE [1] - 1:4

judgment [12] <10:12>

- 12:17 <10:12>, 12:18

<10:12>, 12:24 <10:13>,

13:16 <10:25>, 24:4

<10:38>, 34:15 <10:38>,

34:19 <10:41>, 36:22

<10:49>, 44:2 <10:49>,

44:5 <10:49>, 44:8

<10:50>, 45:12

judicial [4] <10:25> -

23:21 <10:25>, 24:2

<10:30>, 28:2, 47:8

jumps [1] <10:15> -

15:13

June [4] <10:49> -

43:22 <10:49>, 44:14

<10:49>, 44:17 <10:50>,

44:24

jury [9] <10:27> - 25:12

<10:28>, 25:16 <10:28>,

25:19 <10:28>, 25:20

<10:28>, 25:21 <10:28>,

25:25 <10:49>, 43:22

<10:50>, 44:23

Justice [8] <10:05> -

7:2 <10:06>, 7:3 <10:06>,

7:15 <10:07>, 8:2

<10:20>, 19:15 <10:22>,

20:25 <10:23>, 22:11

<10:46>, 41:13

K

keep [1] <10:12> - 13:6

Kennedy [1] <10:23> -

22:11

kill [3] <10:28> - 26:6

<10:29>, 26:17 <10:46>,

41:4

killed [1] <10:24> -

22:16

kind [4] <10:03> - 4:18

<10:15>, 15:13 <10:36>,

33:10 <10:46>, 41:4

King [1] <10:02> - 4:12

knowingly [2] <10:36>

- 32:22 <10:37>, 34:8

knowledge [1] <10:17>

- 16:22

L

Lake [2] - 2:13

<10:41>, 36:19

land [3] <10:27> -

24:21 <10:28>, 26:6

<10:32>, 30:3

landlord [3] <10:36> -

32:23 <10:38>, 34:11

<10:38>, 34:15

landlords [2] <10:37> -

34:2 <10:37>, 34:7

last [6] <10:15> - 15:12

<10:18>, 18:8 <10:19>,

19:2 <10:29>, 26:18

<10:31>, 29:6 <10:33>,

30:11

late [1] <10:16> - 16:8

late-night [1] <10:16> -

16:8

Laughter [2] <10:02> -

4:14 <10:24>, 22:22

laundering [1] <10:37>

- 34:8

Law [1] - 2:11

law [32] <10:05> - 6:15

<10:05>, 6:25 <10:08>,

9:8 <10:09>, 10:9

<10:10>, 10:16 <10:12>,

13:2 <10:12>, 13:4

<10:16>, 16:6 <10:17>,

17:8 <10:22>, 21:3

<10:22>, 21:14 <10:27>,

24:22 <10:27>, 24:23

<10:29>, 26:25 <10:29>,

27:8 <10:32>, 30:6

<10:35>, 32:11 <10:35>,

32:20 <10:36>, 32:22

<10:36>, 32:24 <10:36>,

33:3 <10:36>, 33:5

<10:37>, 34:3 <10:39>,

35:9 <10:39>, 35:10

<10:39>, 35:12 <10:39>,

35:13 <10:42>, 38:12

<10:43>, 38:19 <10:43>,

38:20 <10:45>, 40:18

<10:45>, 40:23

law's [1] <10:20> -

19:19

Lawrence [3] <10:21> -

20:19 <10:21>, 20:22

<10:21>, 20:23

laws [4] <10:08> - 9:10

<10:08>, 9:11 <10:47>,

42:10 <10:48>, 42:15

layers [1] <10:12> -

12:17

lead [1] <10:43> - 39:9

leasing [1] <10:27> -

24:22

least [1] <10:15> -

14:24

Lee [2] - 2:11 <10:00>,

2:13

legal [3] <10:08> - 9:2

<10:22>, 21:19 <10:26>,

24:5

legalization [1]

<10:25> - 23:10

legally [1] <10:15> -

14:24

legislate [1] <10:31> -

28:23

legislation [1] <10:24>

- 23:6

legislative [1] <10:23>

- 21:23

legislature [2] -

28:21 <10:39>, 35:12

less [2] <10:25> -

23:10, 47:6

letter [21] <10:07> - 8:3

<10:07>, 8:15 <10:09>,

9:18 <10:09>, 9:21

<10:09>, 10:4 <10:10>,

11:2 <10:25>, 23:22

<10:26>, 24:6 <10:33>,

30:7 <10:33>, 30:18

<10:33>, 30:24 <10:34>,

31:15 <10:35>, 32:5

<10:35>, 32:15 <10:36>,

33:6 <10:42>, 38:6

<10:46>, 41:10 <10:46>,

41:12 <10:46>, 41:13

<10:46>, 41:21 <10:46>,

41:22

letters [2] <10:26> -

24:17 <10:46>, 41:17

level [4] <10:38> -

34:20 <10:39>, 35:14

<10:40>, 36:6 <10:45>,

40:22

liberal [1] <10:47> -

42:10

life [1] <10:24> - 23:5

lift [1] <10:06> - 7:11

light [1] <10:02> - 4:13

limited [2] <10:34> -

31:6 <10:36>, 33:8

limits [1] <10:06> - 7:4

line [1] <10:50> - 45:17

litigated [1] <10:40> -

35:25

litigation [2] <10:38> -

35:2 <10:43>, 39:1

local [3] <10:10> -

10:24 <10:42>, 38:1

<10:44>, 40:6

locals [1] <10:13> -

13:12

Located [3] - 1:12

<09:11>, 1:4, 2:7

location [2] <10:41> -

36:16 <10:46>, 41:20

long-end [1] <10:50> -

44:22

look [11] <10:07> -

8:15 <10:08>, 9:1

<10:08>, 9:10 <10:15>,

15:12 <10:16>, 15:21

<10:16>, 16:1 <10:18>,

17:24 <10:35>, 32:1

<10:35>, 32:11 <10:51>,

46:11 <10:51>, 46:12

looking [5] <10:04> -

5:18 <10:13>, 13:23

<10:34>, 31:15 <10:35>,

32:20 <10:36>, 32:21

Los [2] - 2:7 <10:44>,

40:6

lose [1] <10:07> - 8:5

losing [1] <10:04> -

5:25

lot [1] <10:28> - 26:9

love [2] <10:02> - 4:7

<10:32>, 29:18

low [1] <10:23> - 22:6

M

made [7] <10:04> -

5:19 <10:17>, 17:10

<10:29>, 26:22 <10:33>,

30:17 <10:33>, 30:25

<10:40>, 36:11 <10:41>,

37:9

magistrate [3] <10:51>

- 45:22 <10:51>, 45:25

<10:51>, 46:7

Magna [1] <10:03> -

5:2

major [1] <10:03> -

4:20

mall [2] <10:35> - 32:1

man [1] <10:16> -

15:18

March [2] <10:50> -

45:6 <10:50>, 45:7

marijuana [22] <10:04>

- 5:16 <10:04>, 6:1

<10:06>, 7:16 <10:14>,

14:4 <10:14>, 14:6

<10:14>, 14:8 <10:16>,

16:5 <10:16>, 16:9

<10:20>, 19:20 <10:22>,

21:9 <10:25>, 23:10

<10:30>, 27:13 <10:34>,

31:3 <10:34>, 31:19

<10:34>, 31:23 <10:36>,

33:2 <10:36>, 33:9

<10:39>, 35:5 <10:42>,

38:9 <10:44>, 40:2

<10:46>, 41:14 <10:47>,

42:10

market [1] <10:19> -

19:5

Marla [2] <10:16> -

16:13 <10:20>, 19:10

Massachusetts [3]

<10:20> - 19:24 <10:23>,

22:1 <10:47>, 42:11

Matt [1] - 2:11

matt.pappas@

mattpappaslaw.com

[1] - 2:14

matter [4] <09:11> -

1:2 <09:12>, 2:5 <10:01>,

2:25, 47:5

Matthew [2] - 2:10

<10:00>, 2:10

mean [8] <10:03> -

4:23 <10:05>, 6:21

<10:07>, 8:12 <10:10>,

11:4 <10:11>, 12:5

<10:21>, 20:19 <10:29>,

26:12 <10:32>, 30:2

meant [4] <10:29> -

27:6 <10:30>, 28:2

<10:30>, 28:3 <10:31>,

28:25

medical [13] <10:05> -

7:1 <10:06>, 7:16

<10:08>, 9:8 <10:16>,

16:5 <10:20>, 19:20

<10:22>, 21:9 <10:30>,

27:12 <10:34>, 31:3

<10:34>, 31:19 <10:36>,

33:9 <10:39>, 35:20

<10:40>, 36:15 <10:41>,

36:19

medication [1]

<10:20> - 19:12

medicinal [2] <10:15> -

15:16 <10:21>, 20:12

Medvedev [1] <10:18>

- 17:25

meet [1] <10:13> -

13:19

meeting [1] <10:13> -



7

13:24

memo [1] <10:34> -

31:4

memorandum [3]

<10:06> - 7:8 <10:08>,

9:1 <10:33>, 31:1

mention [1] <10:46> -

41:9

mentioned [1] <10:20>

- 19:10

merely [1] <10:37> -

33:21

Mesa [1] <10:26> -

24:18

met [1] <10:09> - 10:6

mid [2] <10:19> - 18:15

<10:19>, 18:18

mid-term [2] <10:19> -

18:15 <10:19>, 18:18

might [8] <10:04> -

5:25 <10:05>, 6:19

<10:09>, 10:3 <10:18>,

17:18 <10:23>, 22:1

<10:32>, 30:4 <10:46>,

41:6 <10:47>, 42:2

millions [1] <10:21> -

20:8

mind [4] <10:35> -

32:13 <10:35>, 32:14

<10:35>, 32:15 <10:47>,

42:2

mini [1] <10:35> - 32:1

minimal [1] <10:24> -

23:7

missed [2] <10:29> -

26:19 <10:29>, 26:20

missile [1] <10:18> -

18:4

misspoke [1] <10:07> -

8:21

misuse [1] <10:44> -

39:22

modest [1] <10:06> -

7:21

moment [1] <10:00> -

2:14

MONDAY [2] - 1:18

<09:11>, 1:1

money [2] <10:37> -

34:2 <10:40>, 35:21

monies [2] <10:27> -

25:3 <10:37>, 34:7

month [1] <10:01> -

3:11

months [1] <10:47> -

42:1

moot [1] <10:18> -

17:23

morning [4] <09:11> -

1:5 <10:00>, 2:9 <10:00>,

2:12 <10:00>, 2:19

most [1] <10:19> - 19:3

motion [8] <09:11> -

1:9 <09:11>, 1:16

<09:11>, 1:23 <10:02>,

4:3 <10:02>, 4:17

<10:41>, 36:25 <10:49>,

44:15 <10:50>, 45:10

motions [1] <10:25> -

24:3

move [1] <10:02> -

3:22

MR [136] <09:11> - 1:5

<09:11>, 1:11 <09:11>,

1:13 <09:11>, 1:20

<09:11>, 1:22 <09:12>,

2:1 <09:12>, 2:4 <10:00>,

2:9 <10:00>, 2:12

<10:00>, 2:19 <10:01>,

3:3 <10:01>, 3:8 <10:01>,

3:10 <10:01>, 3:13

<10:02>, 4:6 <10:02>, 4:8

<10:04>, 5:15 <10:04>,

5:21 <10:04>, 6:3

<10:05>, 6:7 <10:05>,

6:13 <10:05>, 6:22

<10:06>, 7:10 <10:06>,

7:23 <10:07>, 8:9

<10:08>, 8:24 <10:09>,

9:17 <10:09>, 9:25

<10:09>, 10:6 <10:09>,

10:12 <10:10>, 10:18

<10:10>, 10:21 <10:10>,

11:1 <10:10>, 11:5

<10:10>, 11:11 <10:10>,

11:16 <10:11>, 11:19

<10:11>, 11:22 <10:11>,

12:5 <10:12>, 12:20

<10:12>, 12:25 <10:12>,

13:3 <10:13>, 13:17

<10:14>, 14:17 <10:14>,

14:20 <10:15>, 15:8

<10:16>, 15:23 <10:16>,

16:1 <10:16>, 16:14

<10:17>, 17:6 <10:18>,

17:22 <10:18>, 17:24

<10:18>, 18:2 <10:18>,

18:6 <10:19>, 18:11

<10:19>, 18:13 <10:19>,

18:16 <10:19>, 18:22

<10:19>, 19:2 <10:20>,

19:24 <10:21>, 20:2

<10:21>, 20:5 <10:21>,

20:14 <10:21>, 20:23

<10:23>, 22:3 <10:24>,

22:20 <10:24>, 22:25

<10:25>, 23:12 <10:25>,

23:17 <10:26>, 24:5

<10:27>, 25:13 <10:28>,

25:18 <10:28>, 26:2

<10:28>, 26:5 <10:29>,

26:14 <10:29>, 26:21,

27:19, 27:21 <10:30>,

28:1 <10:31>, 28:18

<10:31>, 28:23 <10:31>,

29:7 <10:32>, 29:10

<10:32>, 29:15 <10:32>,

29:21 <10:32>, 29:23

<10:32>, 30:1 <10:33>,

30:8 <10:33>, 30:20

<10:33>, 30:22 <10:33>,

30:25 <10:34>, 31:7

<10:34>, 31:11 <10:34>,

31:17 <10:35>, 32:19

<10:36>, 33:11 <10:37>,

33:16 <10:37>, 34:1

<10:38>, 34:24 <10:40>,

35:24 <10:40>, 36:9

<10:41>, 36:18 <10:41>,

36:21 <10:41>, 37:1

<10:41>, 37:7 <10:41>,

37:16 <10:42>, 37:21

<10:42>, 38:2 <10:43>,

38:23 <10:43>, 39:4

<10:44>, 39:13 <10:44>,

40:3 <10:44>, 40:4

<10:44>, 40:5 <10:45>,

40:12 <10:45>, 40:19

<10:46>, 41:5 <10:46>,

41:9 <10:47>, 42:4

<10:48>, 42:18 <10:48>,

42:20 <10:48>, 43:3

<10:49>, 43:14 <10:49>,

43:15 <10:49>, 43:24

<10:49>, 43:25 <10:49>,

44:4 <10:49>, 44:7

<10:49>, 44:10 <10:51>,

45:20 <10:51>, 45:22

<10:51>, 45:24 <10:51>,

46:2 <10:51>, 46:13

<10:51>, 46:16 <10:51>,

46:17

must [1] <10:15> -

15:12

myopia [2] <10:36> -

33:1 <10:36>, 33:10

N

name [1] <10:12> -

12:23

named [1] <10:16> -

16:13

nation [2] <10:33> -

31:2 <10:47>, 42:7

National [1] <10:22> -

21:10

national [1] <10:24> -

22:18

natural [1] <10:24> -

22:15

nature [3] <10:12> -

13:7 <10:26>, 24:7

<10:27>, 25:10

near [1] <10:41> -

36:20

necessarily [1]

<10:29> - 27:5

necessary [1] <10:29>

- 27:9

need [5] <10:11> - 12:1

<10:46>, 41:19 <10:48>,

43:5 <10:49>, 44:3

<10:50>, 45:15

needed [2] <10:45> -

40:15 <10:50>, 45:12

needing [1] <10:18> -

17:16

needs [1] <10:31> -

28:13

negative [1] <10:34> -

31:9

never [4] <10:24> -

22:15 <10:35>, 32:13

<10:35>, 32:14 <10:35>,

32:15

New [1] <10:15> -

15:17

new [1] <10:11> -

11:25

next [1] <10:19> -

18:23

night [1] <10:16> -

16:8

Ninth [3] <10:21> -

20:24 <10:28>, 26:4

<10:31>, 29:6

nonmedicinal [5]

<10:15> - 15:5 <10:15>,

15:7 <10:15>, 15:11

<10:15>, 15:14 <10:17>,

17:4

North [1] - 2:6

note [1] <10:01> - 3:1

notice [22] <10:09> -

9:16 <10:09>, 9:18

<10:09>, 9:20 <10:09>,

10:11 <10:10>, 10:23

<10:11>, 12:3 <10:11>,

12:4 <10:11>, 12:5

<10:11>, 12:7 <10:11>,

12:8 <10:11>, 12:13

<10:12>, 13:7 <10:12>,

13:8 <10:25>, 23:21

<10:25>, 24:2 <10:41>,

37:4 <10:41>, 37:5

<10:41>, 37:6 <10:41>,

37:10 <10:42>, 37:25

<10:46>, 41:10 <10:50>,

45:12

notified [3] <10:09> -

10:1 <10:10>, 10:19

<10:32>, 29:13

November [1] <10:32>

- 29:11

nowhere [1] <10:41> -

36:20

number [3] <10:17> -

16:24 <10:21>, 20:15

<10:22>, 21:8

nurse [1] <10:15> -

15:15

O

O'Neill [1] <10:23> -

22:8

obligation [1] <10:31>

- 28:12

obtained [1] <10:16> -

16:3

obviously [2] <09:11>

- 1:15 <10:51>, 46:6

occur [1] <10:19> -

18:20

offered [1] <10:51> -

46:12

Office [3] - 2:5

<10:25>, 23:19 <10:36>,

33:13

officer [4] <10:11> -

12:6 <10:14>, 14:5

<10:43>, 38:19 <10:45>,

40:23

offices [1] <10:33> -

31:1

official [1] <10:46> -

41:22

officials [1] <10:40> -

36:11

Ogden [14] <10:06> -

7:7 <10:07>, 8:15

<10:07>, 8:20 <10:08>,

9:1 <10:09>, 10:4

<10:18>, 17:18 <10:19>,

18:12 <10:19>, 18:13

<10:27>, 24:22 <10:33>,

30:18 <10:33>, 30:20

<10:34>, 31:16 <10:35>,

32:5 <10:35>, 32:15

Ogden's [1] <10:32> -

30:6

once [2] <10:18> - 18:3

<10:36>, 33:12

one [12] <09:11> - 1:17

<10:00>, 2:14 <10:02>,

4:13 <10:09>, 9:24

<10:14>, 14:7 <10:24>,

22:20 <10:37>, 33:24



8

<10:38>, 34:17 <10:40>,

36:14 <10:44>, 39:11

<10:44>, 39:14 <10:46>,

41:9

opening [3] <10:04> -

5:24 <10:04>, 5:25

<10:04>, 6:4

operating [1] <10:17> -

17:7

operator [1] <10:46> -

41:19

opinion [4] <10:14> -

14:21 <10:22>, 21:1

<10:22>, 21:4 <10:32>,

29:11

opportunity [1]

<10:39> - 35:12

opposes [1] <10:25> -

23:23

opposition [1] <10:41>

- 37:8

Option [1] <10:50> -

45:19

Orange [2] <10:15> -

15:13 <10:16>, 16:10

order [5] <10:27> -

25:11 <10:27>, 25:13

<10:27>, 25:15 <10:50>,

45:8

Oregon [3] <10:05> -

6:23 <10:05>, 6:24

<10:08>, 9:7

original [1] <10:45> -

40:16

originally [1] <10:01> -

3:6

outside [1] <10:23> -

22:9

overall [1] <10:16> -

16:16

overrun [1] <10:42> -

38:9

own [2] <10:34> -

31:18 <10:35>, 32:1

owner [4] <10:32> -

30:4 <10:36>, 32:23

<10:38>, 34:15 <10:46>,

41:19

owners [8] <10:06> -

7:21 <10:10>, 11:9

<10:10>, 11:14 <10:10>,

11:15 <10:27>, 24:21

<10:28>, 26:6 <10:42>,

37:23 <10:46>, 41:14

ownership [1] <10:38>

- 34:13

OxyContin [1] <10:16>

- 16:3

P

PADDOCK [2] - 1:24,

47:11

Page [4] <10:07> - 8:16

<10:07>, 8:17 <10:07>,

8:18 <10:07>, 8:19

pages [1] <10:15> -

15:12

paid [3] <10:27> -

24:25 <10:37>, 34:8

pain [2] <10:20> -

19:11 <10:24>, 22:14

panel [5] <10:32> -

29:11 <10:50>, 45:19

<10:51>, 46:4 <10:51>,

46:5 <10:51>, 46:11

paper [1] <10:08> - 9:4

papers [10] <10:02> -

4:7 <10:03>, 4:18

<10:03>, 5:2 <10:04>,

5:20 <10:05>, 6:10

<10:08>, 9:15 <10:09>,

10:14 <10:12>, 13:11

<10:34>, 31:14 <10:45>,

41:1

Pappas [10] - 2:10,

2:11 <10:00>, 2:10

<10:00>, 2:11 <10:00>,

2:18 <10:32>, 30:5

<10:35>, 32:4 <10:43>,

38:25 <10:48>, 42:23

<10:51>, 46:3

PAPPAS [88] <10:00> -

2:9 <10:01>, 3:3 <10:02>,

4:6 <10:02>, 4:8 <10:04>,

5:15 <10:04>, 5:21

<10:04>, 6:3 <10:05>, 6:7

<10:05>, 6:13 <10:05>,

6:22 <10:06>, 7:10

<10:06>, 7:23 <10:07>,

8:9 <10:08>, 8:24

<10:09>, 9:17 <10:09>,

9:25 <10:09>, 10:6

<10:09>, 10:12 <10:10>,

10:18 <10:10>, 10:21

<10:10>, 11:1 <10:10>,

11:5 <10:10>, 11:11

<10:10>, 11:16 <10:11>,

11:19 <10:11>, 11:22

<10:11>, 12:5 <10:12>,

12:20 <10:12>, 12:25

<10:12>, 13:3 <10:13>,

13:17 <10:14>, 14:17

<10:14>, 14:20 <10:15>,

15:8 <10:16>, 15:23

<10:16>, 16:1 <10:16>,

16:14 <10:17>, 17:6

<10:18>, 17:22 <10:18>,

17:24 <10:18>, 18:2

<10:18>, 18:6 <10:19>,

18:11 <10:19>, 18:13

<10:19>, 18:16 <10:19>,

18:22 <10:19>, 19:2

<10:20>, 19:24 <10:21>,

20:2 <10:21>, 20:5

<10:21>, 20:14 <10:21>,

20:23 <10:23>, 22:3

<10:24>, 22:20 <10:24>,

22:25 <10:25>, 23:12

<10:25>, 23:17 <10:26>,

24:5 <10:27>, 25:13

<10:28>, 25:18 <10:28>,

26:2 <10:28>, 26:5

<10:29>, 26:14 <10:29>,

26:21, 27:19, 27:21

<10:30>, 28:1 <10:31>,

28:18 <10:31>, 28:23

<10:31>, 29:7 <10:32>,

29:10 <10:32>, 29:15

<10:32>, 29:21 <10:41>,

36:18 <10:43>, 39:4

<10:44>, 39:13 <10:44>,

40:3 <10:44>, 40:5

<10:45>, 40:12 <10:45>,

40:19 <10:48>, 43:3

<10:49>, 43:14 <10:49>,

43:25 <10:49>, 44:4

<10:49>, 44:10 <10:51>,

45:20 <10:51>, 45:24

<10:51>, 46:17

paragraph [3] <10:04>

- 5:24 <10:04>, 5:25

<10:17>, 17:10

parham [1] <10:25> -

23:18

Parham [7] - 2:5

<09:11>, 1:6 <10:00>,

2:20 <10:28>, 25:22

<10:48>, 42:19 <10:48>,

43:8 <10:49>, 44:4

PARHAM [44] <09:11>

- 1:5 <09:11>, 1:11

<09:11>, 1:13 <09:11>,

1:20 <09:11>, 1:22

<09:12>, 2:1 <09:12>, 2:4

<10:00>, 2:19 <10:32>,

29:23 <10:32>, 30:1

<10:33>, 30:8 <10:33>,

30:20 <10:33>, 30:22

<10:33>, 30:25 <10:34>,

31:7 <10:34>, 31:11

<10:34>, 31:17 <10:35>,

32:19 <10:36>, 33:11

<10:37>, 33:16 <10:37>,

34:1 <10:38>, 34:24

<10:40>, 35:24 <10:40>,

36:9 <10:41>, 36:21

<10:41>, 37:1 <10:41>,

37:7 <10:41>, 37:16

<10:42>, 37:21 <10:42>,

38:2 <10:43>, 38:23

<10:44>, 40:4 <10:46>,

41:5 <10:46>, 41:9

<10:47>, 42:4 <10:48>,

42:18 <10:48>, 42:20

<10:49>, 43:15 <10:49>,

43:24 <10:49>, 44:7

<10:51>, 45:22 <10:51>,

46:2 <10:51>, 46:13

<10:51>, 46:16

parsing [1] <10:03> -

5:1

part [5] <10:11> -

12:11 <10:22>, 21:10

<10:30>, 28:3 <10:36>,

33:1 <10:41>, 37:11

participate [1] <10:04>

- 6:2

particular [1] <10:26> -

24:6

parties [1] <10:49> -

44:17

party [1] <10:10> -

11:1

pass [3] <10:20> -

19:20 <10:20>, 19:24

<10:24>, 23:6

passed [4] <10:24> -

22:18 <10:35>, 32:11

<10:43>, 38:17 <10:47>,

42:9

passion [2] <10:45> -

40:22 <10:48>, 43:7

patch [1] <10:17> -

16:23

patience [1] <10:14> -

14:18

patient [1] <10:16> -

16:12

patients [4] <10:16> -

16:9 <10:21>, 20:8

<10:24>, 22:13 <10:34>,

31:3

Patients [1] <10:44> -

39:22

Pause [1] <10:00> -

2:16

pay [1] <10:27> - 25:3

payment [1] <10:26> -

24:20

pending [5] <10:43> -

39:2 <10:44>, 39:19

<10:44>, 40:1 <10:44>,

40:5 <10:44>, 40:6

People [3] <10:35> -

32:12 <10:43>, 38:17

<10:43>, 38:21

people [7] <10:20> -

19:8 <10:21>, 20:10

<10:21>, 20:17 <10:27>,

25:3 <10:30>, 27:25,

28:21 <10:35>, 32:9

per [1] <10:01> - 3:15

percent [2] <10:25> -

23:11 <10:30>, 27:15

perfect [1] <10:32> -

30:5

perhaps [5] <10:14> -

14:18 <10:17>, 17:12

<10:21>, 20:11 <10:23>,

21:20 <10:34>, 31:9

permission [1]

<10:46> - 41:12

perpetrated [1]

<10:07> - 8:7

personal [1] <10:17> -

16:22

perspective [1]

<10:26> - 24:6

pesky [1] <10:49> -

43:19

petition [1] <10:32> -

29:15

phoned [1] <10:35> -

32:4

phrase [1] <10:12> -

12:22

pick [1] <10:02> - 3:23

picked [1] <10:16> -

15:19

piece [1] <10:35> -

32:1

place [1] <10:20> -

19:17

plains [1] <10:02> - 4:9

PLAINTIFF [1] - 2:4

plaintiff [3] <10:01> -

3:7 <10:10>, 10:24

<10:28>, 25:24

Plaintiff(s [1] - 1:8

plaintiffs [1] <10:04> -

5:24

Plane [1] <10:16> -

15:20

plant [2] <10:24> -

22:14 <10:24>, 22:15

Platinum [1] <10:16> -

15:19

playing [1] <10:38> -

34:25

plead [1] <10:41> -

37:5

pleading [10] <10:09> -

10:15 <10:10>, 10:16

<10:10>, 10:21 <10:11>,

12:11 <10:11>, 12:14

<10:13>, 13:17 <10:41>,

37:3 <10:45>, 41:2

<10:45>, 41:3

pled [3] <10:13> -



9

13:18 <10:14>, 14:10

<10:41>, 37:6

point [5] <10:14> -

14:7 <10:16>, 16:1

<10:22>, 21:5 <10:39>,

35:17 <10:46>, 41:10

pointed [1] <10:47> -

42:9

points [1] <10:45> -

40:25

poker [1] <10:38> -

34:25

policy [2] <10:47> -

42:7 <10:47>, 42:14

politicians [2] <10:18>

- 18:7 <10:23>, 22:10

polls [1] <10:30> -

27:14

poor [2] <10:40> -

35:21 <10:40>, 36:7

portion [1] <10:38> -

34:14

position [4] <10:18> -

18:9 <10:23>, 22:4

<10:48>, 42:22 <10:48>,

42:24

post [2] <10:38> -

34:15 <10:38>, 34:19

post-judgment [2]

<10:38> - 34:15 <10:38>,

34:19

pot [2] <10:33> - 30:14

<10:33>, 30:15

potheads [1] <10:16> -

15:18

power [2] <10:08> -

9:13 <10:23>, 22:11

practice [3] <10:40> -

36:15 <10:41>, 36:19

<10:49>, 44:15

preclude [1] <10:49> -

44:2

Pregerson [1] <10:22>

- 20:25

prejudicial [2] <10:17>

- 16:24

prescription [1]

<10:16> - 16:4

present [1] <10:12> -

12:18

presentation [1]

<10:02> - 4:3

presented [8] <10:03>

- 4:21 <10:07>, 8:16

<10:07>, 8:17 <10:07>,

8:18 <10:26>, 24:5

<10:31>, 29:3 <10:39>,

35:18 <10:41>, 36:25

presenting [1] <10:48>

- 42:21

president [7] <10:06> -

8:1 <10:07>, 8:2 <10:18>,

17:18 <10:18>, 17:25

<10:35>, 32:2 <10:35>,

32:14 <10:36>, 33:14

president's [1]

<10:32> - 30:6

presidential [1]

<10:24> - 23:9

PRESIDING [1] - 1:4

pretend [1] <10:18> -

17:19

pretrial [1] <10:50> -

45:2

PRETRIAL [1] - 1:17

pretty [5] <10:04> - 6:4

<10:06>, 7:22 <10:07>,

8:17 <10:08>, 8:22

<10:50>, 45:13

prevail [1] <10:41> -

37:13

previous [1] <10:32> -

30:6

previously [4] <10:02>

- 3:18 <10:03>, 5:3

<10:05>, 6:8 <10:24>,

23:5

principle [1] <10:35> -

31:25

printed [1] <10:08> -

9:5

printout [4] <10:13> -

13:21 <10:14>, 14:15

<10:15>, 15:3 <10:15>,

15:6

priority [2] <10:26> -

24:10 <10:34>, 31:3

probable [1] <10:19> -

18:23

problem [3] <10:13> -

13:25 <10:19>, 18:22

<10:34>, 31:19

procedure [1] <10:50>

- 45:18

procedures [1]

<10:37> - 34:8

proceedings [3]

<10:00> - 2:16 <10:51>,

46:18, 47:5

PROCEEDINGS [1] -

1:17

proceeds [1] <10:37> -

34:2

process [10] <10:08> -

9:6 <10:13>, 13:16

<10:20>, 19:9 <10:28>,

25:21 <10:29>, 27:4

<10:30>, 27:20 <10:35>,

32:16 <10:43>, 38:22

<10:50>, 45:15

processing [1]

<10:31> - 29:2

professions [1]

<10:06> - 7:22

progress [1] <10:39> -

35:17

prohibits [1] <10:44> -

39:23

promises [1] <10:35> -

32:3

properly [2] <10:30> -

28:6

Property [3] - 1:12

<09:11>, 1:4, 2:7

property [19] <10:04> -

6:1 <10:06>, 7:21

<10:07>, 8:5 <10:10>,

11:15 <10:19>, 18:21

<10:25>, 23:16 <10:33>,

30:7 <10:35>, 32:1

<10:35>, 32:10 <10:35>,

32:17 <10:36>, 32:23

<10:37>, 33:20 <10:37>,

33:24 <10:38>, 34:15

<10:41>, 37:11 <10:42>,

37:24 <10:46>, 41:14

<10:46>, 41:18

PROPERTY [1] - 2:2

proportionality [1]

<10:38> - 34:14

proposition [6]

<10:35> - 32:16 <10:43>,

38:17 <10:43>, 38:22

<10:44>, 40:1 <10:45>,

40:11 <10:45>, 40:14

prosecuted [1]

<10:40> - 36:4

prosecuting [2]

<10:06> - 7:16 <10:34>,

31:3

prospects [1] <10:25>

- 23:14

protection [1] <10:22>

- 21:15

proven [1] <10:41> -

37:13

provide [1] <10:16> -

16:6

provided [4] <10:17> -

16:20 <10:20>, 19:14

<10:46>, 41:15 <10:46>,

41:17

proving [1] <10:42> -

37:23

public [1] <10:30> -

27:15

pulse [1] <10:18> -

17:15

purely [2] <10:12> -

13:2 <10:12>, 13:3

purpose [5] <10:14> -

14:14 <10:14>, 14:20

<10:16>, 16:5 <10:26>,

24:9 <10:26>, 24:15

purposes [1] <10:29> -

27:4

pursuant [2] <10:17> -

17:8 <10:31>, 28:11

pursue [1] <10:25> -

23:15

push [1] <10:12> - 13:5

put [9] <09:12> - 1:25

<10:15>, 14:25 <10:15>,

15:15 <10:28>, 25:22

<10:30>, 27:17 <10:34>,

31:3 <10:36>, 33:4

<10:48>, 43:1 <10:50>,

45:9

putting [1] <10:22> -

21:11

Q

Qualified [1] <10:44> -

39:22

questions [2] <10:02>

- 4:1 <10:02>, 4:4

quick [1] <10:49> -

44:1

quickly [3] <10:29> -

27:7 <10:49>, 43:20

<10:50>, 45:13

quote [1] <10:15> -

15:17

R

Raich [10] <10:05> -

6:18 <10:05>, 6:19

<10:05>, 6:21 <10:05>,

6:23 <10:19>, 19:4

<10:19>, 19:5 <10:20>,

19:6 <10:20>, 19:15

<10:21>, 20:24 <10:22>,

21:1

raise [1] <10:41> -

37:12

raised [2] <10:03> - 5:3

<10:40>, 36:3

ran [1] <10:06> - 8:1

rarity [1] <10:50> -

44:21

rather [5] <10:08> -

9:12 <10:08>, 9:15

<10:12>, 12:19 <10:12>,

12:24 <10:13>, 13:16

rating [1] <10:23> -

22:6

re [1] <10:38> - 34:12

re-dress [1] <10:38> -

34:12

reached [3] <10:22> -

21:2 <10:22>, 21:5

<10:23>, 21:20

read [2] <10:15> - 15:8

<10:17>, 16:25

reading [6] <10:02> -

4:7 <10:04>, 5:24

<10:04>, 5:25 <10:15>,

15:17 <10:34>, 31:5

<10:36>, 33:7

ready [1] <10:07> -

8:13

Real [3] - 1:12 <09:11>,

1:4, 2:7

real [2] <10:04> - 6:1

<10:19>, 18:21

REAL [1] - 2:2

really [4] <10:12> -

13:9 <10:18>, 17:14

<10:32>, 29:24 <10:42>,

38:12

rearguing [1] <10:03> -

4:18

reason [2] <10:17> -

17:11 <10:33>, 30:10

receive [1] <10:41> -

37:10

received [1] <10:10> -

11:5

receiving [1] <10:37> -

34:2

recollection [1]

<10:30> - 27:15

recommended [1]

<10:28> - 26:10

record [1] <10:13> -

13:15

recorded [1] - 47:4

recreational [8]

<10:05> - 6:25 <10:08>,

9:8 <10:16>, 16:3

<10:20>, 19:23 <10:20>,

19:25 <10:21>, 20:2

<10:21>, 20:5 <10:21>,

20:11

redacted [1] <10:46> -

41:17

reduce [1] <10:38> -

34:20

reduction [2] <10:38> -

34:16, 47:7

reelected [3] <10:18> -

18:3 <10:18>, 18:8

<10:37>, 33:17

reelection [1] <10:30>

- 27:18

referencing [1]

<10:08> - 9:3



10

referendum [1]

<10:45> - 40:7

refers [1] <10:23> -

22:11

Reform [1] <10:38> -

34:14

regard [1] <10:17> -

17:7

regime [1] <10:43> -

38:20

regress [1] <10:39> -

35:17

regulations [1] -

47:8

related [1] <10:11> -

12:15

relation [1] <10:03> -

5:3

relatively [1] <10:17> -

16:24

relevant [2] <10:15> -

15:3 <10:19>, 18:19

reliance [1] <10:07> -

8:4

relied [1] <10:40> -

36:10

relief [3] <10:11> -

11:18 <10:11>, 12:2

<10:23>, 21:23

rely [2] <10:05> - 6:14

<10:08>, 9:6

relying [3] <10:27> -

24:21 <10:40>, 35:22

<10:40>, 36:4

rem [1] <10:29> - 26:16

remains [2] - 28:21

<10:31>, 29:7

Remedy [1] <10:16> -

15:18

remember [1] <10:46>

- 41:5

remote [2] <10:08> -

9:12 <10:23>, 22:10

removed [2] <10:41> -

36:16 <10:45>, 40:20

rent [3] <10:27> -

24:25 <10:35>, 32:6

<10:35>, 32:8

rental [1] <10:37> -

34:2

rentals [1] <10:37> -

34:9

renting [2] <10:35> -

32:10 <10:37>, 33:21

reply [1] <10:04> - 5:21

REPORTER [1] -

1:25

REPORTER'S [1] -

1:17

representative [1]

<10:43> - 38:16

Representatives [1]

<10:24> - 23:2

representing [1]

<10:48> - 42:23

Republican [1]

<10:24> - 22:20

Republicans [1]

<10:24> - 23:3

request [3] <10:25> -

23:21 <10:32>, 29:12

<10:50>, 45:19

requested [4] <10:46>

- 41:16 <10:50>, 45:18

<10:51>, 45:22 <10:51>,

45:25

requests [2] <10:25> -

24:2 <10:50>, 45:16

require [1] <10:26> -

24:19

requirement [2]

<10:10> - 10:21 <10:11>,

12:11

requirements [2]

<10:11> - 12:15 <10:41>,

37:4

resolve [1] <10:12> -

13:2

resolved [2] <10:12> -

12:16 <10:12>, 12:24

resource [2] <10:33> -

30:25 <10:36>, 33:12

resources [3] <10:34>

- 31:6 <10:34>, 31:21

<10:36>, 33:8

respect [1] <10:17> -

16:18

respected [1] <10:21>

- 20:12

respond [3] <10:07> -

8:14 <10:30>, 27:25

<10:30>, 28:5

responded [1] <10:30>

- 28:6

response [1] <10:12> -

13:1

responses [1] <10:01>

- 3:14

responsibility [1]

<10:17> - 16:19

restrain [1] <10:30> -

28:3

restrained [1] <10:44>

- 39:25

result [1] <10:05> -

6:20

return [1] <10:18> -

17:18

revenue [2] <10:07> -

8:6 <10:37>, 33:23

revenue-

generating [1] <10:37> -

33:23

revisiting [1] <10:04> -

5:7

rid [1] <10:26> - 24:13

rights [3] <10:19> -

19:4 <10:29>, 27:5,

28:21

risk [2] <10:28> - 26:9

<10:30>, 27:18

RMR [2] - 1:24, 47:11

Road [3] - 1:12

<09:11>, 1:4, 2:7

roughly [1] <10:39> -

35:5

round [1] <10:31> -

29:6

Rule [1] <10:28> -

25:22

rule [1] <10:11> - 12:10

rules [2] <10:09> -

10:15

ruling [1] <10:49> -

43:13

Runnymede [3]

<10:02> - 4:9 <10:04>,

6:5 <10:21>, 20:20

ruse [1] <10:12> -

13:11

Russian [1] <10:18> -

17:25

S

SACV [4] - 1:10, 2:2

<09:11>, 1:3 <10:00>, 2:6

sakes [1] <10:21> -

20:1

sale [3] <10:27> -

25:11 <10:27>, 25:13

<10:27>, 25:15

Santa [2] <10:23> -

21:22 <10:30>, 27:24

SANTA [2] - 1:18

<09:11>, 1:1

saw [1] <10:14> - 14:6

Scalia [1] <10:06> - 7:3

schedule [1] <10:19> -

18:23

scheduled [2] <09:11>

- 1:9 <10:01>, 3:6

scheduling [5]

<09:11> - 1:15 <10:02>,

3:23 <10:49>, 43:16

<10:49>, 43:19 <10:50>,

45:8

scope [1] <10:06> - 7:4

seat [1] <10:01> - 2:23

second [2] <10:18> -

17:16 <10:44>, 39:13

secret [1] <10:42> -

38:7

secretary [1] <10:45> -

40:14

see [7] <10:04> - 5:23

<10:05>, 6:17 <10:21>,

20:18 <10:32>, 29:9

<10:36>, 33:1 <10:49>,

44:15 <10:51>, 46:3

seek [1] <10:38> -

34:16

seeking [1] <10:46> -

41:12

seem [1] <10:09> -

9:16

seize [1] <10:25> -

23:15

seizes [1] <10:19> -

18:20

seizure [1] <10:37> -

34:6

selling [1] <10:35> -

32:9

Senate [1] <10:24> -

23:3

sending [2] <10:46> -

41:14 <10:46>, 41:18

sent [11] <10:09> -

9:18 <10:10>, 11:2

<10:10>, 11:3 <10:10>,

11:7 <10:10>, 11:9

<10:10>, 11:13 <10:11>,

12:8 <10:25>, 23:20

<10:26>, 24:17 <10:32>,

29:12

sentence [1] <10:29> -

26:18

separate [1] <10:36> -

32:22

September [1] <10:33>

- 30:11

series [2] <10:06> - 7:6

<10:31>, 29:4

serious [2] <10:16> -

16:9 <10:16>, 16:12

seriously [1] <10:16> -

16:6

served [2] <10:01> -

3:13 <10:02>, 3:17

set [4] <09:11> - 1:15

<09:12>, 1:24 <10:09>,

10:14 <10:49>, 44:14

settle [1] <10:28> -

26:1

settlement [5] <10:26>

- 24:19 <10:50>, 45:18

<10:51>, 46:4 <10:51>,

46:5 <10:51>, 46:11

sexy [1] <10:15> -

15:15

shield [1] <10:18> -

18:4

shop [2] <10:10> -

11:10 <10:10>, 11:14

shortly [1] <10:49> -

43:13

show [4] <10:08> -

9:10 <10:13>, 13:18

<10:14>, 14:18 <10:22>,

21:19

showed [1] <10:34> -

31:14

showing [1] <10:30> -

28:5

shows [1] <10:45> -

40:22

similar [1] <10:40> -

36:10

simple [1] <10:33> -

30:9

simply [2] <10:03> -

4:24 <10:20>, 19:17

sits [1] <10:16> - 16:13

situation [4] <10:04> -

5:6 <10:04>, 5:7 <10:11>,

11:25 <10:38>, 34:12

situations [1] <10:31>

- 29:3

slew [1] <10:08> - 9:9

smelled [1] <10:14> -

14:8

sodomy [2] <10:21> -

20:16 <10:21>, 20:20

solution [1] <10:37> -

33:22

someone [1] <10:07> -

8:4

sometimes [1] <10:16>

- 16:12

somewhere [1]

<10:34> - 31:23

soon [1] <10:22> - 21:5

sorry [6] <10:12> -

13:6 <10:29>, 26:20

<10:31>, 29:1 <10:34>,

31:14 <10:34>, 31:16

<10:41>, 36:21

sound [1] <10:35> -

32:18

sounds [4] <10:07> -

8:6 <10:37>, 33:21

<10:37>, 33:23 <10:41>,

36:22

source [2] <10:17> -

16:25 <10:37>, 33:19

Southern [1] <10:01> -

3:8

southern [1] <10:16> -



11

16:17

sovereign's [1]

<10:08> - 9:11

speaking [1] <10:30> -

27:14

specific [1] <10:11> -

12:11

specifically [3]

<10:15> - 15:3 <10:16>,

16:15 <10:47>, 41:23

spending [1] <10:44> -

39:25

Spring [1] - 2:6

stage [1] <10:31> -

28:9

start [2] <10:02> - 4:2

<10:34>, 31:21

started [2] <10:38> -

35:3 <10:39>, 35:6

State [7] <10:33> -

30:12 <10:35>, 32:12

<10:35>, 32:15 <10:43>,

38:16 <10:43>, 38:17

<10:43>, 38:21 <10:47>,

42:2

state [21] <10:05> -

6:15 <10:06>, 7:13

<10:20>, 19:14 <10:20>,

19:20 <10:21>, 20:10

<10:23>, 22:11 <10:27>,

24:22 <10:34>, 31:18

<10:36>, 33:3 <10:39>,

35:19 <10:42>, 38:11

<10:42>, 38:12 <10:43>,

38:19 <10:43>, 39:1

<10:43>, 39:6 <10:44>,

39:19 <10:44>, 39:22

<10:44>, 40:4 <10:45>,

40:17 <10:45>, 40:22

<10:47>, 42:10

state's [3] <10:08> -

9:9 <10:08>, 9:11

<10:34>, 31:20

statement [5] <10:08>

- 9:7 <10:11>, 11:24

<10:14>, 14:22 <10:27>,

24:22 <10:28>, 25:23

statements [8]

<10:13> - 14:1 <10:14>,

14:22 <10:15>, 15:8

<10:17>, 16:23 <10:17>,

16:25 <10:37>, 33:20

<10:40>, 36:4 <10:40>,

36:11

STATES [1] - 1:1

states [7] <10:08> -

9:12 <10:21>, 20:11

<10:21>, 20:15 <10:22>,

21:8 <10:22>, 21:18

<10:47>, 42:9, 47:8

States [12] - 1:6

<09:11>, 1:3 <09:11>, 1:6

<10:00>, 2:6 <10:00>,

2:20 <10:07>, 8:7

<10:07>, 8:11 <10:23>,

22:2 <10:24>, 22:19

<10:29>, 26:13 <10:47>,

42:1 <10:48>, 42:22

status [1] <10:01> -

3:12

statute [3] <10:38> -

34:13 <10:41>, 37:16

<10:42>, 37:21

stay [2] <10:32> -

29:12 <10:32>, 29:14

stays [1] <10:03> -

4:24

stenographically [1]

- 47:4

step [5] <10:03> - 5:5

<10:31>, 28:12 <10:42>,

38:14 <10:47>, 42:7

stethoscope [1]

<10:15> - 15:15

still [4] <10:15> - 15:2

<10:44>, 39:14 <10:45>,

40:25 <10:49>, 43:19

stop [2] <10:45> - 40:7

<10:46>, 41:19

stopping [1] <10:16> -

16:2

store [1] <10:46> -

41:19

stores [6] <10:33> -

30:14 <10:33>, 30:15

<10:34>, 31:19 <10:34>,

31:23 <10:42>, 38:10

<10:46>, 41:14

Street [2] - 2:6, 2:12

strikes [1] <10:07> -

8:12

strong [4] <10:04> -

5:11 <10:04>, 6:4

<10:05>, 6:7 <10:07>,

8:12

strongest [4] <10:04> -

5:9 <10:04>, 5:11

<10:04>, 5:13 <10:04>,

5:17

sub [1] <10:42> - 37:17

submission [2]

<10:47> - 41:25 <10:48>,

43:11

substance [1] <10:14>

- 14:9

substantial [4]

<10:14> - 14:10 <10:14>,

14:13 <10:26>, 24:19

<10:27>, 24:24

substantially [1]

<10:14> - 14:13

substantive [4]

<10:08> - 9:6 <10:13>,

13:24 <10:20>, 19:9

<10:29>, 27:4

succeed [1] <10:49> -

44:12

sudden [1] <10:15> -

15:16

suffering [1] <10:21> -

20:17

suffers [1] <10:20> -

19:11

sufficient [1] <10:11> -

12:4

sufficiently [1]

<10:13> - 13:18

suggest [1] <10:15> -

15:6

suggested [1] <10:49>

- 44:17

suggesting [1]

<10:40> - 35:25

suit [1] <10:27> - 25:1

Suite [1] - 2:12

summary [10] <10:12>

- 12:16 <10:12>, 12:18

<10:12>, 12:24 <10:13>,

13:16 <10:25>, 24:4

<10:41>, 36:22 <10:49>,

44:2 <10:49>, 44:5

<10:49>, 44:8 <10:50>,

45:12

summing [1] <10:03> -

4:23

support [1] <10:22> -

21:17

supposed [1] <10:14>

- 14:10

Supreme [7] <10:05> -

6:19 <10:05>, 6:24

<10:22>, 21:2 <10:28>,

26:4 <10:43>, 39:3

<10:43>, 39:5 <10:44>,

39:10

systems [1] <10:20> -

19:17

T

table [3] <10:07> - 8:16

<10:07>, 8:18 <10:08>,

9:5

tactics [1] <10:38> -

35:3

take [8] <10:09> - 9:22

<10:17>, 16:20 <10:22>,

21:19 <10:28>, 26:7

<10:37>, 34:7 <10:43>,

38:16 <10:47>, 41:25

<10:48>, 43:11

taken [3] <10:03> - 5:4

<10:05>, 6:18 <10:05>,

6:21

targets [2] <10:05> -

6:25 <10:08>, 9:8

taxpayer [2] <10:44> -

39:20 <10:44>, 39:25

technically [1] <10:04>

- 5:18

television [1] <10:16> -

16:8

tendency [1] <10:30> -

27:12

tentative [2] <10:02> -

3:25 <10:48>, 43:9

term [4] <10:18> -

17:16 <10:18>, 18:9

<10:19>, 18:15 <10:19>,

18:18

terms [5] <10:04> -

5:18 <10:11>, 12:10

<10:13>, 13:24 <10:20>,

19:8 <10:24>, 23:5

test [1] <10:39> - 35:19

Texas [1] <10:21> -

20:20

themselves [1]

<10:23> - 22:9

theories [1] <10:03> -

4:22

thereby [1] <10:44> -

39:23

think's [1] <10:27> -

25:4

thinking [2] <10:23> -

21:22 <10:49>, 44:8

third [1] <10:10> - 11:1

third-party [1] <10:10>

- 11:1

Thomas [2] <10:06> -

7:3 <10:20>, 19:15

three [5] <10:03> -

4:20 <10:47>, 42:9

<10:49>, 43:21 <10:50>,

44:20

throughout [2]

<10:16> - 16:17 <10:46>,

41:18

throwing [1] <10:21> -

20:19

tie [2] <10:06> - 7:11

<10:15>, 14:24

tie-able [1] <10:15> -

14:24

tied [1] <10:30> - 28:7

ties [1] <10:08> - 9:2

Tip [1] <10:23> - 22:8

Title [3] <10:36> -

32:21 <10:39>, 35:7

<10:47>, 42:13

today [4] <10:01> - 3:7

<10:01>, 3:10 <10:03>,

5:2 <10:16>, 16:15

top [1] <10:12> - 12:25

topic [1] <10:47> - 42:4

touché [1] <10:24> -

22:23

tout [1] <10:36> - 33:3

traction [4] <10:22> -

21:3 <10:22>, 21:14

<10:22>, 21:19 <10:23>,

21:22

traditionally [1]

<10:08> - 9:11

transaction [3]

<10:04> - 5:16 <10:04>,

6:1 <10:14>, 14:5

transcript [3] <10:29> -

26:19, 47:4, 47:6

TRANSCRIPT [1] -

1:17

transcripts@

ocrecord.com [1] -

1:25

tree [1] <10:16> - 15:18

trial [10] <10:13> -

13:19 <10:13>, 13:25

<10:19>, 18:23 <10:27>,

25:7 <10:27>, 25:10

<10:28>, 25:21 <10:41>,

37:13 <10:49>, 43:22

<10:50>, 44:23 <10:50>,

45:1

trouble [1] <10:03> -

5:1

true [3] <10:21> -

20:14 <10:37>, 33:18,

47:3

trusted [2] <10:06> -

8:1 <10:07>, 8:2

trying [2] <10:08> - 9:1

<10:21>, 20:20

Tuesday [1] <10:50> -

44:24

turn [1] <10:40> -

35:21

two [6] <10:05> - 7:2

<10:06>, 7:7 <10:24>,

23:1 <10:29>, 26:24

<10:43>, 39:2 <10:44>,

39:19

Twombly [2] <10:46> -

41:4 <10:46>, 41:7

type [4] <10:10> -

10:19 <10:11>, 11:19

<10:11>, 12:12 <10:32>,

30:4

types [2] <10:43> -



12

39:3 <10:44>, 39:24

U

U.S [2] - 1:25, 47:9

ultimate [2] <10:26> -

24:14 <10:27>, 25:15

ultimately [2] <10:25>

- 23:15 <10:29>, 26:21

unable [3] <10:23> -

22:4 <10:31>, 28:13

<10:31>, 28:16

under [5] <10:11> -

11:25 <10:44>, 39:18

<10:44>, 39:22 <10:47>,

41:25 <10:48>, 43:11

unique [2] <10:03> -

4:22 <10:19>, 19:4

unit [1] <10:47> - 42:5

united [1] - 47:8

UNITED [1] - 1:1

United [12] - 1:6

<09:11>, 1:3 <09:11>, 1:6

<10:00>, 2:6 <10:00>,

2:20 <10:07>, 8:7

<10:07>, 8:11 <10:23>,

22:2 <10:24>, 22:19

<10:29>, 26:13 <10:47>,

42:1 <10:48>, 42:22

unlikely [2] <10:34> -

31:5 <10:36>, 33:7

unrelated [3] <09:12> -

2:5 <10:01>, 2:25

<10:01>, 3:1

up [16] <10:00> - 2:15

<10:01>, 3:2 <10:02>,

3:23 <10:02>, 4:13

<10:03>, 4:23 <10:16>,

15:19 <10:16>, 15:20

<10:24>, 22:19 <10:24>,

22:21 <10:34>, 31:14

<10:35>, 32:4 <10:41>,

37:13 <10:43>, 39:9

<10:49>, 44:1 <10:50>,

45:13 <10:51>, 46:12

update [1] <10:08> -

9:4

upped [1] <10:31> -

29:5

upping [1] <10:32> -

30:2

USA [1] - 2:2

USACAC.Criminal

@usdoj.gov [1] - 2:8

USC [2] <10:38> -

34:13 <10:41>, 37:16

V

vagaries [1] <10:36> -

33:3

value [1] <10:13> -

13:24

various [1] <10:39> -

35:15

vehicle [1] <10:32> -

30:5

verdict [1] <10:28> -

25:25

verification [2]

<10:11> - 12:6

verify [1] <10:17> -

16:21

version [2] <10:45> -

40:17 <10:46>, 41:17

versus [2] <09:11> -

1:3 <10:01>, 3:7

Veterans [1] <10:22> -

21:13

view [2] <10:39> -

35:18 <10:47>, 42:11

violate [2] <10:21> -

20:6 <10:38>, 34:21

violates [1] <10:21> -

20:3

violating [4] <10:31> -

28:17 <10:31>, 28:18

<10:44>, 39:23 <10:45>,

40:23

violation [2] <10:36> -

32:22 <10:37>, 34:3

virtually [1] <10:23> -

22:5

voluminous [1]

<10:08> - 9:15

vote [1] <10:24> -

22:20

vs [1] - 1:10

W

wait [6] <10:00> - 2:14

<10:20>, 19:22 <10:31>,

28:20 <10:33>, 30:23

<10:47>, 42:1 <10:48>,

43:12

waiting [1] <10:02> -

3:20

wants [2] <10:39> -

35:7 <10:51>, 46:3

warning [3] <10:46> -

41:12 <10:46>, 41:13

<10:46>, 41:17

warrants [1] <10:37> -

34:6

Washington [2]

<10:22> - 21:15 <10:47>,

42:10

Webpage [1] <10:14> -

14:15

Website [6] <10:13> -

13:22 <10:13>, 14:2

<10:17>, 17:1 <10:22>,

21:11 <10:26>, 24:9

<10:26>, 24:11

weedmaps.com [1]

<10:13> - 13:22

Weekly [2] <10:15> -

15:13 <10:16>, 16:10

welcome [1] <10:00> -

2:11

well-being [1] <10:24>

- 22:13

West [3] - 1:12

<09:11>, 1:4, 2:7

wheelchair [1] <10:16>

- 16:13

white [1] <10:36> -

33:10

whole [2] <10:04> - 5:6

<10:40>, 35:21

wisely [1] <10:39> -

35:11

wonder [2] <10:15> -

15:3 <10:47>, 42:6

wonderful [2] <10:28>

- 26:3 <10:35>, 32:5

wondering [4] <10:02>

- 4:10 <10:02>, 4:12

<10:15>, 15:2 <10:15>,

15:10

work [4] <10:01> - 2:24

<10:13>, 13:13 <10:33>,

31:2 <10:49>, 44:18

working [1] <10:45> -

40:11

works [2] <10:20> -

19:12 <10:24>, 22:15

world [3] <10:06> -

7:15 <10:06>, 7:20

<10:39>, 35:16

wow [1] <10:49> - 44:1

Wreck [1] <10:16> -

15:20

writ [1] <10:32> - 29:16

wrong [3] <10:09> -

10:7 <10:18>, 18:7

<10:43>, 38:25

wrote [1] <10:33> -

30:18

Y

year [3] <10:19> -



13

18:23 <10:33>, 30:11

<10:38>, 35:3

Years [1] <10:16> -

15:18

years [5] <10:24> -

22:17 <10:29>, 26:24

<10:29>, 26:25 <10:30>,

27:10 <10:36>, 32:25

united states v. 2601 w. ball rd., hearing transcript, december 3, 2012 (sacv 12-01345 ag)

Documents