No. 131, production of the memorandum warning identified in the New Jersey Star Ledger. The Government's response was it will submit in camera, and I don't know whether they have done that or not. That is one that is still to be resolved.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we need to discuss that, I believe. I, I think, disclosed the basic material that's in that threat; that it was specific to the conviction of the sheik in New York and the other -- his co-conspirators and that any information tending to indicate there was any threat said Washington, D.C. could be the -- would be the target.
THE COURT: Well, is this a marshal service communication that was sent to like chief judges? Or is this something different?
MS. WILKINSON: It's addressed -- can I get my copy?
THE COURT: You may. I don't think you've submitted it in camera.
MS. WILKINSON: No, I haven't.
THE COURT: Maybe we won't have to.
MS. WILKINSON: It is addressed to all the marshals across the country, your Honor, and it says at the bottom, This information should not be disclosed outside the marshal service and the court family. I believe that's their normal warning where it goes down through the marshal's service to the chief judge. Obviously, you're in a better position to know whether that's the procedure than I am, but --
THE COURT: Sometimes chief judges are in the court family. I --
MS. WILKINSON: It's my understanding that's how it works and that, often, it is also disseminated to local law enforcement, as I said yesterday.
MR. JONES: Well, your Honor, we asked for production of that under protective order to the defense. That memorandum was sent out within 30 days before the Oklahoma City bombing. It describes a threat to federal property. Talks about --
THE COURT: Well, why don't you go ahead with your plan to submit it to me and I'll decide it.
MS. WILKINSON: Sure.
MR. JONES: That's fair.
..........................................................
THE COURT: I'll -- my ruling is that the request is overbroad, just as the Government has responded.
137, list of ATF employees absent from the Murrah Building on April 19, 1995, before 9:00 a.m. The Government's response was it does not negate guilt or mitigation, but in a response the Government filed Friday, it addressed that issue.
And the Government's response resolves the issue, although we dispute that the resident agent fell eight floors in the elevator. We don't believe that's true.
But that -- nevertheless, he was in the building which is what the request --
THE COURT: That's the only thing that's relevant.
MR. JONES: 139, evidence of prior warning referenced in the Oregonian - - that's been resolved by the Government's announcement of the submission for 131 and the two letters concerning threats which previously have been furnished. The Government represents that's all it has.
MS. WILKINSON: Excuse me, your Honor, just to correct that. To be clear, we have made those two disclosures of threats, but we continue to review our files and obviously, if we discover other threats or new information comes, we'll continue to disclose that. I just wanted to make that clear that we're continuing with our obligations.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. JONES: One thing we do not have is a 302 of any interview with Judge Alley so I assume there wasn't one.
THE COURT: You don't have a 302?
MR. JONES: Correct.
THE COURT: Was --
MR. JONES: I don't know that he was interviewed.
THE COURT: Was the judge interviewed by an FBI agent and a 302 produced?
MS. WILKINSON: I don't know, your Honor. I have to go back to the index. I assume Mr. Jones has looked at the index, and if he says he didn't receive the - -
THE COURT: This is all about something that appeared in a newspaper?
MS. WILKINSON: Yes, Judge. What it is, it's the same story, I believe, as I told you this threat was -- the threat warning from the marshal service on March 15 was given to the -- the court family; and I believe after the bombing, Judge Alley made mention of the fact that he had received a general warning, you know, prior to the bombing.
MR. JONES: Well, I don't know that they are the same.
THE COURT: I see. But I mean, this is generated by the fact that there was some -- something in this newspaper in Oregon?
MR. JONES: He was interviewed by the Oregonian on the day of the bombing. He grew up in Oregon, and they called him because of the connection.
THE COURT: I see.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, could I ask if Mr. Jones has interviewed Judge Alley?
THE COURT: Do you want to answer that, Mr. Jones?
MR. JONES: Well, if you'll consult your index of people I've interviewed, no, I haven't interviewed Judge Alley. He's interviewed me on a few occasions.
173 and 174 --
THE COURT: Well, have we left that open here? I'm not sure what the resolution of this has been. You don't have an interview report of anybody interviewing Judge Alley about this public statement? Is that the response?
MS. WILKINSON: I don't believe we do, your Honor, but I'd have to go back and check our index. As I said, we're working from the same index that we provided to Mr. Jones.
THE COURT: Yeah. Yeah. And I'm sure Judge Alley is equally available to the defense counsel as he is to the Government's counsel.
MS. WILKINSON: That was my point.
THE COURT: Yes. Well, I'll make it explicitly for you.
MS. WILKINSON: Thank you.