31 1 2 BUT CERTAINLY THAT LEGAL ISSUE IS ONE THAT'S DESERVING OF 3 GIVEN THAT THE SENTENCE IS A SENTENCE IN TERMS OF 4 MONTHS, AND GIVEN THAT, AS YOUR HONOR IS AWARE, APPEALS DO TAKE 5 A MATTER OF MONTHS, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY, IF YOUR HONOR WERE 6 NOT TO STAY THE SENTENCE, THAT THE SENTENCE WOULD BE SERVED BY 7 8 9 THE TIME THE APPEAL IS REALLY PROCESSED THROUGH THE COURT OF APPEALS. SO, FOR THAT REASON, WE REQUEST THAT THE EXECUTION OF WE WOULD BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS WITH THE GOVERNMENT, WITH THAT THIS MATTER COULD BE CONSIDERED PROMPTLY BY THE COURT OF THE COURT: MR. WEINGARTEN, WOULD YOU BE IN A POSITION TO TAKE A STAND ON THIS MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE 10 11 12 13 APPEALS. WHICH HAS JUST BEEN HANDED TO THE COURT SO WE CAN RULE UPON THAT PROMPTLY? MR. WEINGARTEN: YES, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD. WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY OBJECT. I AGREE ENTIRELY WITH MR. HANSEN THAT HE LEWIN NOW ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN WAIVE SPEECH AND DEBATE IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. THE MOTION FALLS FOR OTHER REASONS. 32 2 I MEAN IT JUST - WE SEE NO POSSIBILITY WHATEVER OF 3 4 5 6 7 8 SUCCESS FOR THE DEFENDANT ON THIS MOTION. AND WE THINK THE SENTENCE SHOULD START AND THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT GET A STAY ON THESE MOTIONS BY THIS COURT. THE COURT: I WILL GRANT THE MOTION FOR STAY OF THE SENTENCE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ALTHOUGH MUCH OF WHAT THE 9 BE WITH THE SAME PROVISOS THAT WERE APPLICABLE TO MR. HANSEN AT 10 THE TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY AGO, AND 11 THAT IS: THAT YOU ARE TO CONTACT YOUR PROBATION OFFICER, MR. 12 HUNT, WHO IS SEATED AT THE TABLE YONDER, OR HIS SUCCESSOR, NO 13 LESS FREQUENTLY THAN ONE TIME PER MONTH, AND THAT IT SHOULD BE 14 ON I BELIEVE IT IS THE FIRST MONDAY OF EACH MONTH, BUT WHATEVER 15 THE RULING WAS IN THAT REGARD, TO ADVISE OF YOUR ACTIVITIES. 16 THAT ADVICE CAN BE GENERATED TELEPHONICALLY. IT IS ONLY WHEN 17 18 THE PROBATION OFFICER FEELS THAT IT IS IMPORTANT, FOR WHATEVER REASON HE DEEMS IN HIS SOLE DISCRETION IT IS IMPORTANT TO SEE 19 YOU, THAT YOU WILL THEN BE REQUIRED TO PURSUE AND SEE HIM. OBVIOUSLY, ALL OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS PENDING SENTENCE PERTAIN, SUCH AS NOT TO GET ARRESTED FOR ANY OTHER OFFENSE AND THE CUSTOMARY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD DAY. MR. BRAGA: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR (WHEREUPON, AT 11:25 A.M., THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER 7 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER AND THAT IT IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE 8 9 AND ABILITY. On March 21, Senator Hatch and Senator Cranston introduced S. 2214, a bill proposing that civil penalties be the exclusive sanctions for knowing and willful violations of the financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. The provisions of this legislation would apply to reports filed by officials of all three branches of the Federal government and would be retroactive to the date of the enactment of the Ethics in Government Act. I am enclosing a copy of S. 2214 for your consideration. The Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, to which S. 2214 has been referred, is considering holding a hearing on this legislation next month. Accordingly, I ask that the Department of Justice provide the Subcommittee with its official views regarding this legislation. I would appreciate your providing me with the Department's On March 28, I wrote to you requesting that you provide me with the official views of the Department of Justice on S. 2214, a bill proposing that civil penalties be the exclusive sanctions for knowing and willfull violations of the financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Although I had asked that this information be provided to me by April 18, I have not yet received a reply to my letter, a copy of which is enclosed. As our staffs have discussed, the hearing that the Subcommittee had scheduled on April 29 to consider S. 2214 was postponed in order to accommodate the Department of Justice's witness, who was scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the same day. Thus, while I realize that the Department was preparing testimony on S. 2214 in lieu of responding to my earlier request for comments, I ask that the Department provide me with its comments in anticipation of the Subcommittee's rescheduling its hearing on this bill. I ask that you provide me with this information by Friday, June 9. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. With best wishes, I am WSC:mbg Sincerely, Alliam S. Cohen |