1 Wednesday, 29 April 1998
2 (8.30 a.m.)
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Good morning, can the
4 Registrar call the case, please.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, case number ^
6 IT-95-17/1 PT, the Prosecutor versus Furundzija.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the accused hear me in a
8 language you understand?
9 MR. FURUNDZIJA: Yes.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: May I have appearances,
12 MR. BLAXILL: For the Office of the
13 Prosecutor, I appear; my name is Michael Blaxill, I am
14 accompanied by my learned friend Ms. Patricia Sellers
15 and our case manager Ms. Udo.
16 MR. MISETIC: Luka Misetic on behalf of the
17 defendant. Anto Furundzija.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: First of all, there is the
19 motion of the Defence on the defects in the
20 indictment. Although the Prosecutor did respond, it
21 was out of time and the Chamber has decided not to take
22 it into consideration. However, if the Defence counsel
23 wishes to make any oral submissions on the motion --
24 and we have received the authorities that accompanied
25 your motion -- and if you wish to say anything in
1 support of your motion, you are free to do so.
2 MR. MISETIC: I prepared an oral argument and,
3 if it pleases the court I would go ahead and proceed.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please.
5 MR. MISETIC: May it please the court, good
6 morning, President Mumba, Judge Cassese, Judge May.
7 This morning, 29 April 1998, Anto Furundzija asks you
8 to invoke the powers bestowed upon you by the Statute
9 of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
10 and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence to dismiss all
11 charges against him and to allow him to return to his
12 home country immediately.
13 The International Criminal Tribunal for the
14 former Yugoslavia was established to punish serious
15 violations of international humanitarian law, including
16 such crimes as genocide, murder and systematic rape.
17 The Tribunal is here to ensure that the architects and
18 engineers of such policies as ethnic cleansing do not
19 escape justice.
20 However, contrary to the beliefs of many
21 commentators, scholars and others in the general public
22 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
23 Yugoslavia is not here simply to punish violations of
24 international humanitarian law. Rather, the ICTY is
25 here to ensure that the rule of law is respected and
1 enforced. By focusing on the enforcement of the rule
2 of law, human rights are advanced by punishing the
3 ethnic cleansers, but also advanced by strenuously and
4 zealously protecting the rights of the individuals
5 brought before the Tribunal.
6 One such individual, Anto Furundzija, today
7 asks you, the guardians of the rule of law, to give
8 life to the rights enshrined in Article 21 of the
9 Statute of the Tribunal and to the rights enshrined in
10 the International Covenant on Civil and Political
12 A brief history of this case to date, your
13 Honours -- as you will recall, the Defence previously
14 filed a motion to dismiss for vagueness in February of
15 this year. That motion was heard by this Trial Chamber
16 on 9 March 1998. The Trial Chamber denied the motion,
17 but ordered that the Prosecutor:
18 "Specify how the accused, Anto Furundzija, is
19 alleged to have violated Article 7(1) of the Tribunal."
20 The Defence submits that the Prosecutor
21 failed to abide by that order. Instead, the Prosecutor
22 filed a document entitled, "Prosecutor's reply, re
23 Article 7(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal" which
24 enumerates many possible theories they may use at trial
25 against Mr. Furundzija but includes no additional facts
1 and in no way specifies how Mr. Furundzija specifically
2 and factually violated Article 7(1). The Prosecutor
3 does not commit to any theory of liability under
4 Article 7(1) and, in fact, in one paragraph at the end,
5 somewhat unbelievably to the Defence, includes a
6 paragraph which says we reserve the right to come up
7 with a new theory of liability at trial, including one
8 we have not disclosed to you previously but which may
9 arise during the course of the proceedings.
10 Nevertheless, despite the Defence's
11 contention that that document is a violation of the
12 order entered by this Tribunal, it is clear that the
13 Prosecutor now intends to pursue any one of six
14 potential theories of liability under Article 7(1),
15 that Mr. Furundzija planned, instigated, ordered, aided
16 and abetted in the planning, aided and abetted in the
17 preparation, and aided and abetted in the execution of
18 the rape of Witness A.
19 It is the Defence's contention that, with
20 respect to the first five possible theories of
21 liability, those charges must be dismissed for
22 vagueness. Indeed, "vague" is too soft a word. There
23 are absolutely no factual allegations in the
24 indictment, in the reply filed by the Prosecutor or in
25 the supporting materials to support an allegation, or
1 even an inference, that Mr. Furundzija in any way
2 planned the rape, ordered the rape, instigated the
3 rape, or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning or
4 instigating or ordering of the rape -- none.
5 As a matter of fact, the indictment
6 specifically states that Witness A was raped at least
7 four times prior to Mr. Furundzija's mention in the
8 indictment. That is the same with respect to the
9 supporting materials that were disclosed to the Defence
10 and filed in this case.
11 How and from where the Prosecutor draws the
12 conclusion that he ordered, planned, instigated or
13 aided and/or abetted in the planning, ordering or
14 instigation is not evident from the documents and, more
15 importantly, is absolutely not clear to the Defence.
16 The Defence would submit that under Article
17 21 the Defence is entitled to know the factual basis
18 upon which such allegations could be brought, so that
19 we could prepare. Specifically, we are entitled to
20 know if there was a planning, if they intend to pursue
21 that theory, and ordering and instigating, who did it,
22 when did it happen, where did it happen, with whom did
23 it happen, et cetera. There are no factual allegations
24 to support such a conclusion and, on that basis, we ask
25 that the first five theories of liability be dismissed.
1 With respect to the sixth potential theory of
2 liability under Article 7(1), there are some factual
3 allegations made in the indictment and in the
4 supporting materials from which, if proven at trial,
5 they could make an argument for aiding and abetting in
6 the execution. First, let me preface this argument by
7 saying that the Defence, and Mr. Furundzija in
8 particular, strenuously deny the factual allegations in
9 the indictment and in the supporting materials against
11 Nevertheless, for the purposes of this motion
12 only, we concede every factual allegation made in the
13 indictment and made in the supporting materials. We
14 are asking you to draw a legal conclusion as to the
15 sufficiency of these factual allegations.
16 The allegations in the indictment and the
17 supporting materials to support the potential aiding
18 and abetting and the execution are as follows. The
19 person whom I will refer to as "Defendant A" allegedly
20 raped Witness A four times on or about 15 May 1993.
21 The indictment alleges that other individuals
22 brought Witness A to a specific location, that
23 Defendant A then appeared, Defendant A engaged in a
24 series of acts, including rape, including, I believe,
25 physical abuse of Witness A, et cetera, et cetera.
1 The indictment then alleges that
2 Mr. Furundzija appeared on the scene, asked Witness A a
3 couple of questions, and then was present while
4 Defendant A again raped Witness A. The indictment
5 states that Mr. Furundzija then allegedly left the scene
6 and, over the course of apparently the next two months,
7 Defendant A continued to engage in this conduct
8 repeatedly for what appears in the indictment and in
9 the supporting material to be dozens of occasions.
10 The question before this Trial Chamber now
11 is, in a theory for aiding and abetting in the
12 execution, what is the threshold standard for
13 liability? In the Tadic case, the Trial Chamber there,
14 in its judgement, reviewed the state of international
15 law, and determined that an individual can only be
16 guilty of aiding and abetting in the execution if the
17 individual directly and substantially facilitated the
18 rape of an individual -- in this case directly and
19 substantially facilitated the rape of Witness A in some
20 significant way.
21 Significantly enough, the Prosecutor has
22 conceded in the brief, which I understand now will not
23 be considered by the court, but the Prosecutor has
24 conceded that that indeed is the standard. This is a
25 standard also enumerated in the ILC draft code as
1 referenced in the defendant's brief. Therefore, the
2 issue before the court is, is Mr. Furundzija's presence,
3 and the fact that he allegedly asked a couple of
4 questions of Witness A -- does that rise to the level
5 of direct and substantial facilitation of the rape of
6 Witness A by Defendant A in some significant way?
7 JUDGE MAY: I follow the argument,
8 Mr. Misetic, but is that not just a matter of evidence?
9 MR. MISETIC: No.
10 JUDGE MAY: Why do you say that? Is it not
11 going to be a matter, if the Prosecution is putting the
12 case in the way you suggest they are, and of course we
13 must determine whether or not that is so, but if that
14 is the case, is it not then a matter of evidence for a
15 court to determine whether that standard has been
16 reached on the evidence; is it possible to draw the
17 inference or not, rather than at this stage trying to
18 have the entire indictment quashed?
19 MR. MISETIC: I would contend absolutely not.
20 The reason is as follows: as I have stated before, we
21 are conceding for the purposes of this motion every
22 factual allegation.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes, as you must.
24 MR. MISETIC: Right. So the fact of the
25 matter is you will be faced then at the close of trial
1 or at the close of the Prosecutor's case -- you will be
2 in the exact same position as you would be today. In
3 fact, the Prosecutor's case today will be better than
4 the Prosecutor's case at the close of trial. Why?
5 Because I will guarantee you right now I am not going
6 to concede the facts at the time of trial. I will
7 strenuously cross-examine the witnesses brought by the
8 Prosecutor with respect to their veracity, with respect
9 to their reliability, et cetera.
10 Furthermore, if necessary, if you do not
11 dismiss the case at the close of the Prosecutor's
12 evidence, we will put on evidence to further contradict
13 the allegations made in the indictment and in the
14 supporting materials. Therefore, the Prosecutor, in
15 effect what they are arguing here is not they should
16 have a trial where this will become clear because it
17 will never be better than it is today; rather, they
18 wish -- and this is the Defence's position -- to
19 continue on in this fog, where they cannot enumerate
20 what Mr. Furundzija did. If you read the reply they
21 filed with respect to Article 7(1) liability, they do
22 not commit to a legal theory, because they do not know
23 what the theory is. That is the basis of this motion.
24 Why is it our position that we do not need to
25 have a full trial? If we have conceded every factual
1 allegation, the question before you is to make a legal
2 determination right now as to whether these factual
3 allegations could lead to a conclusion of aiding and
4 abetting. If they are going to contend that there is
5 some other factual evidence that could arise at trial
6 which would give rise to aiding and abetting, we are
7 entitled to know that now and we are entitled to have
8 it in the indictment so we can prepare for it. But to
9 suggest that they can make certain factual allegations
10 which they are not saying is the basis for the aiding
11 and abetting liability and that they can keep this
12 hidden from the Defence and then spring it at trial to
13 get aiding and abetting liability, clearly violates
14 Article 21, because we are entitled to be fully
15 prepared for trial, and it violates the International
16 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They cannot
17 have it both ways.
18 JUDGE MAY: Let me just add this. If that
19 were the position, if there were some evidence which
20 was being kept back from you, and you had not received
21 it before the trial, then clearly, in my view, you
22 would be entitled to claim the defendant's right to a
23 fair trial had been breached. It is clearly right that
24 you have all the material before the trial so that you
25 can prepare for it properly and also right that you
1 know the way in which the Prosecution put the case.
2 How do they put the case against your client, how do
3 they say that he was involved in these offences -- all
4 that is clearly so and, in due course, no doubt, we
5 will find out.
6 So, you need not, as far as I am concerned,
7 trouble yourself with that aspect of it.
8 MR. MISETIC: If I may reply. We are on the
9 eve of trial now -- we are inside of six weeks to the
10 start of trial. My first contention is that that is
11 not something that can be disclosed to the Defence in
12 the form of a witness statement, but if the substance
13 of the aiding and abetting liability has not been
14 stated in the indictment, then it must be put in the
15 indictment. What we are saying is that you cannot have
16 factual allegations in an indictment which you now, at
17 a motion to dismiss, say, "Well, that is not what we
18 are really relying on to establish that the person
19 committed the crime which we are alleging." If they
20 are claiming that there is something else out there
21 that is the basis for aiding and abetting liability
22 under Article 7(1), then under every national
23 jurisdiction that I know of and under the Rules of
24 Procedure and Evidence and the Articles of the
25 Tribunal, that has to be spelt out in the indictment.
1 We cannot wait until a week before a trial or
2 whenever the Prosecutor decides to submit a witness
3 statement -- (a) wait a week before trial; (b) have the
4 Defence guess through the supporting materials or any
5 other materials provided by the Prosecutor that this is
6 the theory of liability under Article 7(1).
7 We are saying it should be dismissed because,
8 in all honesty, if the theories of liability are not in
9 the witness statements of Witness A, I cannot imagine
10 where they are coming up with these factual
11 allegations. That is point 1. But point 2, we are
12 entitled to rely on what we have been given so far --
13 the facts in the indictment, the supporting materials,
14 the "clarification" provided by the Prosecutor's
15 reply. Based on this body of documents that have been
16 provided to us, we are saying, okay, let us review now
17 what the allegations are. It is unfathomable to me
18 that we can sit here today, less than six weeks before
19 trial, and say, yes, you have this entire body; yes,
20 you have the indictment, but we cannot rule as to what
21 the basis for aiding and abetting liability is, because
22 the Prosecutor would like to go to trial to see if he
23 can figure it out. That is basically what their
24 contention is.
25 We are entitled to go to trial and, if you
1 read the reply, it says -- something that I had a lot
2 of fun with -- "The trial process is a fluid and
3 dynamic process." I read that as code: "We want to go
4 to trial and examine some witnesses because we may
5 stumble upon something upon which we can then base an
7 That is not the way that this Trial Chamber
8 or this Tribunal should operate. If we are going to
9 have a trial, Mr. Furundzija and I are fully prepared to
10 go absolutely to the wall at trial --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could you ask Defence
12 counsel to speak a little more slowly, please?
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you slow down for the
15 MR. MISETIC: I am sorry, I apologise to the
16 translators and to the people in the booth.
17 We are entitled not to have to wait on the
18 eve of trial and then try to catch a butterfly with a
19 net. They interview a witness or examine a witness and
20 we will come up with a different theory. If you read
21 the reply, which I would ask you to re-read, we could
22 do this --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: I think that point has been
24 taken. It is a long response.
25 MR. MISETIC: I was responding to Judge May,
1 though. If I may basically wind up with this: again,
2 let me reiterate something. Their factual allegations
3 will never be better than they are today, and to the
4 extent then that their argument is going to be, "We are
5 entitled to go to trial anyway," then we would say that
6 that is a clear violation of Article 21 and our right
7 to be prepared for trial, because we would say, "No,
8 you are not entitled to go to trial. If I concede to
9 you every factual allegation," then the point of a
10 trial, your Honour, is to weigh the factual issues,
11 because there are factual issues in doubt. That is the
12 point of a trial. If there are no factual issues in
13 dispute for the purposes of the motion, then (a) there
14 is no need for a trial; and, (b), let me also state it
15 is a gross waste of the Tribunal's resources and time
16 then to have to have a full trial on issues that we are
17 willing to concede right now, just so that the
18 Prosecutor can try to figure out what they are doing at
20 On that basis, we would say that we believe
21 absolutely that, no, they are not entitled to go to
22 trial. Even if now they were to come up and say we
23 have a witness statement, we would argue that five
24 weeks before trial is a little late to be now amending
25 your indictment and coming up with a new theory of
1 liability -- if that is something they wanted to
2 contend, obviously we would take that up with a
3 different motion.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: I think that is all on this
6 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, that is fine.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: We have decided that perhaps
8 we may give the Prosecution a right to reply, only to
9 what has been raised in the oral arguments, because, as
10 I indicated earlier, your response came a day late,
11 without any reasons for the delay.
12 MR. BLAXILL: Your Honour, I am much obliged
13 for the opportunity. I will confine myself, as your
14 Honour requires, and obviously there is an apology due
15 to you as a Chamber and individually for a failing on
16 the part of the Prosecution. I was proposing that
17 perhaps that could be dealt with as a professional
18 courtesy and as a matter of the process of the
19 proceedings towards trial during the status conference,
20 but if you wish a formal apology to be lodged at this
21 point in connection with the motion, then certainly you
22 have an unreserved apology for the untimely filing of a
23 document by the Prosecution.
24 The issue here, I think, is very much, as his
25 Honour Judge May has indicated, a factual issue
1 relating to the trial. The indictment has already been
2 subjected to the scrutiny of a confirming judge. The
3 indictment has already been the subject of the scrutiny
4 of this Chamber and, indeed, a previous motion as to
5 the form of the indictment has been denied, and the
6 indictment stands.
7 I will not reiterate the arguments that have
8 already been canvassed in this case in relation to the
9 contents of the indictment, save to say that in his
10 address this morning, my learned friend for the Defence
11 has concentrated very much on the issue of saying some
12 substantial or direct contribution to the act of rape.
13 It should be borne in mind that the allegations against
14 the accused are those provisions relating to torture or
15 inhumane treatment, so in fact it is not simply the
16 level of involvement in just -- I say "just" -- that is
17 not in any way to diminish the act, but just in the
18 element of rape but in the overall circumstances
19 pleaded in, now, counts 13 and 14.
20 It is our view that, therefore, this is an
21 issue that has previously been decided by the court.
22 Clearly, however, I feel it is appropriate never to try
23 and object to the airing of any fresh issue by Defence
24 counsel -- I think it is only proper that every avenue
25 is explored on the way to and during a trial. The
1 simple fact here is that this present motion is borne
2 of a document filed pursuant to the order of this
3 court, and the document was to specify the legal
4 theories we may advance in relation to Article 7(1) of
5 the Statute.
6 Article 7(1) is pleaded at paragraph 11 of
7 the indictment, and is stated as individual criminal
8 responsibility "includes committing, planning
9 instigating, ordering or otherwise aiding and abetting
10 in", et cetera. The reality is that our theory, our
11 legal theory relating to Article 7(1) is quite simply
12 that these elements are alternatives within a given
14 I think it would be an improper construction
15 of the wording of that Article, I think it would be
16 indeed, on the common meaning and the application of
17 the words contained therein -- I think it would be
18 perhaps to make a nonsense of the Article if one had to
19 prove that for any criminal offence somebody committed
20 it and planned it and instigated it and ordered it. It
21 would seem that if somebody orders the commission of a
22 crime, they probably are not the person committing it
23 in the hands-on way.
24 So, I do submit to your Honours that these
25 are mutually independent -- they are exclusive, they
1 are alternatives. They are independent constructions
2 which can be applied on the evidence that the court
3 receives and I think that is the crucial point.
4 Turning to His Honour Judge May's remarks, it
5 is a matter of evidence. There has been the rather
6 perhaps trite phrase of "fluid and dynamic process" for
7 a trial, but in point of fact I think that is so.
8 Quite often, in the course of a trial, the evidence
9 will be different at the end of the day to that which
10 is anticipated by the parties at the outset. It is the
11 natural way of things. Some witnesses will become
12 stronger in some areas, some will forget things and
13 appear weaker than they are anticipated by either
14 counsel for the Prosecution or the Defence.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: You may save yourself some
16 breath. We do not need those details. We are quite
17 acquainted with what goes on in criminal trial.
18 MR. BLAXILL: I am sorry, I did not mean to be
19 impudent and try to instruct you in the duties of the
20 court. That is essentially it. At this stage we are
21 saying, in a sense, do we try the case by motion or do
22 we let the trial try the case. I commend to you the
23 latter and your previous denial for the motion of lack
24 in the form of the indictment would indeed hold good
1 JUDGE MAY: Will you help us factually? As
2 opposed to the theory of the matter, if one looks at
3 counts 12 to 14, what is alleged is that this accused
4 was present -- is this right -- while the other man was
5 responsible for various indecencies and indeed a rape?
6 MR. BLAXILL: Yes, your Honour.
7 JUDGE MAY: And do you invite us to draw an
8 inference from that? Is that the way that you put it?
9 MR. BLAXILL: No, I would say it is far more
10 than an inference, your Honour. The essential issue
11 that the Prosecution say factually applies here is
12 this: it is alleged that this lady is being held,
13 Witness A, by members of a small unit in a building.
14 This person indeed has been -- has suffered and been
15 subjected to abuse. The allegation against this
16 accused is that he, in performing his duties, enters
17 the room where this is taking place. He commences an
18 interrogation. In the course of interrogation, a
19 further rape takes place. This person allegedly is
20 also beaten. Another person, who knows her, is brought
21 in -- both of them are beaten -- and this is, we say,
22 forms part of the interrogation, or, rather the
23 interrogation is laid over this abuse of the Witness A
24 and the other person.
25 So, we are saying that this is a direct
1 involvement, because in the torture -- it is an
2 element, as we understand it, of torture, that to allow
3 some kind of physical abuse of somebody who is being
4 held whilst trying to elicit information forms torture
5 and therefore is a direct participation in the
6 offence. I hope that assists, your Honour.
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes, thank you.
8 MR. BLAXILL: Essentially, those are my
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
11 MR. MISETIC: May I reply very briefly?
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Very briefly.
13 MR. MISETIC: It is our strenuous objection
14 now to the reintroduction of a torture theory of
15 liability against Mr. Furundzija. You ordered the
16 Prosecution to clarify what their theories of liability
17 against Mr. Furundzija were. They filed the reply. Not
18 one solitary word in their four-page reply about a
19 potential theory of liability involving torture -- not
20 one. I would contend that this pleading is a pleading
21 which clarified the indictment and therefore we are
22 entitled to rely on that document.
23 That document has been filed for a month and
24 now they want to go back, because I contend they
25 concede, on this motion, and now want to reintroduce
1 another theory of liability which they gave up by
2 filing that document. My frustration with this case,
3 your Honours, is I am five weeks at trial and they are
4 coming up with new theories of liability, you order to
5 specify the theories of liability, I rely on it.
6 A month later they come back and say -- I am
7 sure Mr. Blaxill will get up and say, "I am entitled to
8 come back with something else now." How we are to
9 prepare for trial if we are not entitled to get the
10 Prosecutor to specify what the charges are against
11 him. I object strenuously now to a torture theory of
12 liability. Four pages and not a word about torture.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: After due consideration of
15 the arguments by the parties, the Chamber has decided
16 that the motion by the Defence will be declined, but
17 the Prosecution is ordered to file a document
18 containing factual specifications on which they intend
19 to rely at trial as to what the accused before the
20 court now did on the material dates and at the material
21 times and this document must be filed by Monday, 4 May
23 The Defence raised the issue that the
24 document which you filed on your legal theories does
25 not appear to be sufficient.
1 MR. BLAXILL: I take --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: When one takes into account
3 what you have just submitted before the court.
4 MR. BLAXILL: I heard the point. We were
5 asked specifically, indeed ordered, to explain the
6 legal theories under Article 7(1); we did restrict
7 ourselves to what we thought was a legal exposition.
8 We did not in fact consider that factual
9 representations were relevant to that exercise. My
10 learned friend filed a comment relating to "a bill of
11 particulars" and that is a term of art with which I am
12 not familiar and we did not treat it as such. Clearly
13 we will back it up with what you require.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Now that the decision has
15 been taken, I hope that the Prosecution will comply,
16 particularly with timing, which is very important.
17 MR. BLAXILL: The point is well taken, your
19 MR. MISETIC: If I can clarify something.
20 With respect to the argument I made at the close, are
21 they now going to be entitled to re-raise the issue of
23 JUDGE MUMBA: They are entitled to raise
24 whatever theory they are going to rely on at trial.
25 MR. MISETIC: Even though they gave up that
1 theory in the last pleading filed in the case?
2 JUDGE MUMBA: They are being given a chance
3 now to deal with their case properly, to specify the
4 factual situations and also to specify the legal theory
5 they are going to rely on at trial. When that document
6 comes, that is the document which the Trial Chamber, as
7 well as the Defence, would rely on, for the purposes of
8 this trial.
9 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, your Honour.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: We now have another motion by
11 the Defence, which is dealing with the fact that, since
12 the other statements for the other witnesses were not
13 filed, they will not be heard at the trial. This
14 motion is unfortunately tied up with the Prosecution's
15 motion for protective measures which deals with the
16 type of witnesses they have and the type of protection
17 they are asking from the Trial Chamber, and, because of
18 this, the two were filed on the same date -- 24 April
19 -- so we believe it is better to deal with these
20 issues in the status conference which is to follow
22 MR. MISETIC: If it was filed on the 24th,
23 I have no copy of it. I checked my mailbox this
24 morning before I walked in -- nothing.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: What happened with service?
1 MR. BLAXILL: That particular protective
2 motion was filed ex parte, so indeed Mr. Misetic would
3 not have a copy in his possession at this time.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: We will move on to the status
5 conference, which will be in closed session.
6 (The hearing adjourned)
Status conference (Closed Session)