UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

L. LORRAINE MINTZMYER,  Plaintiff,

v.

BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR,  Defendant.

      

CA NO. 93-0773

10:30 A.M., November 1, 1994

Washington, D.C.

                                                

VOL. I OF V   

TRIAL TRANSCRIPT

OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE GLADYS KESSLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

FOR PLAINTIFF:   

CARL J. HARTMANN, III, ESQ., and PAUL J. RUSKIN, ESQ.

FOR DEFENDANT:   

CARLOTTA P. WELLS, ESQ., LAWRENCE D. ROSENBERG, ESQ., U.S. Department of Justice

      

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 7     MR. HARTMANN:  No, your Honor.  May I?  Mr. Sewell's

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 8   statements were given under oath to a court reporter.  Those

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 9   statements under oath to a court reporter who sat next to the

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 10   investigator during the investigation were part of the ROI,

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 11   part of their Report of Investigation.  They are not hearsay

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 12   statements because they are statements of a party opponent made

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 13   at the time he was acting in his official capacity as the

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 14   assistant deputy director.  He made those statements stating

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 15   what exactly occurred, why he did X.  It so happens that he

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 16   stated during that time a number of things that were just gross

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 17   falsehood.  The government has in its discovery admitted that

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 18   there was no basis in fact for those things.  All we are

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 19   showing is that he made the statements.  We are not admitting

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 20   them for the truth, your Honor, and they are statements by a

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 21   party opponent. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 22   THE COURT:  The government's position is what?  And

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 23   do you admit, by the way, or have you admitted that there is no

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 24   basis for those statements of Mr. Sewell's? 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 25     MS. WELLS:  Yes, I believe in interrogatory answers

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 1    we did and I don't have it in front of me.  I don't know if it

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 2    was interrogatory answers themselves but we indicated in fact

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 3    that the statements that Mr. Sewell made at that time were not

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 4    correct. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 5     THE COURT:  Were not true; is that right?  

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 6     MS. WELLS:  Were not true. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 7     THE COURT:  I always like to use real English. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 8     MS. WELLS:  Your Honor, Mr. Sewell is not going to be

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 9    testifying here.  In our motion in limine we actually did

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 10   not -- to the extent that he is not testifying we did not file

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 11   an objection to his EEO statement so I want to make that clear,

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 12   first of all.  Second of all, I would just like as a

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 13   foundation --

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 14     THE COURT:  The only objection is, as I understand

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 15   it, to the fact that the investigator, I believe, told Mrs.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 16   Mintzmyer about the false statements made by Mr. Sewell,

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 17   right? 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 18     MS. WELLS:  Right, because what the investigator told

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 19   her is hearsay. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 20     THE COURT:  No, it's only hearsay if it's being

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 21   offered for the truth of it. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 22     MR. HARTMANN:  Absolutely not. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 23     THE COURT:  Mr. Hartmann.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 24     MR. HARTMANN:  I'm sorry, your Honor.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 25     THE COURT:  I know it is getting late in the day. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 1     MR. HARTMANN:  I'm sorry, your Honor.  It is. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 2     THE COURT:  And it's not being offered for the truth,

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 3    quite the contrary.  The government itself has conceded that

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 4    the substance of what Mr. Sewell said is untrue and so,

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 5    therefore, the purpose of the statements is or the purpose of

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 6    Mrs. Mintzmyer's testimony is to put on the record that she was

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 7    told certain things by the EEO officer, whether true, false or

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 8    whatever, although we all know now that they are false so,

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 9    therefore, I don't think that a hearsay objection is warranted

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 10   given the very peculiar posture of where we are with all these

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 11   statements.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 12     I just want to make sure I understand the posture.  I

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 13   think I do though.  I didn't know the government had conceded

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 14   that everything that Mr. Sewell said was false.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 15     Does everybody remember the pending question? 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 16     MR. HARTMANN:  Your Honor, may I inquire of one final

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 17   point?  Would the Court prefer if the -- if the Court would

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 18   prefer we can admit the interrogatories in which Mr. Sewell

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 19   said the statements.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 20     THE COURT:  No, no, Miss Wells has clearly responded

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 21   to that.  (Emphasis added.)

 

This was followed by a partial list of the tactics and falsehoods Sewell leveled in attacking Mintzmyer:

 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 22    MR. RUSKIN:  Whatever the question was I will restate

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 23   it. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 24   BY MR. RUSKIN:

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 25   Q  Mrs. Mintzmyer, did you learn from the EEO investigator

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 1   that Mr. Sewell had made false statements about you?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 2   A  Yes.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 3   Q  When did you learn?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 4   A  Let me see.  It was about the 24th or 25th of March, right

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 5   after that deposition had been taken.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 6   Q  Let's deal with those, the particulars of those

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 7   statements. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 8     THE COURT:  Just so I can put it in context, this

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 9   would be about a week or ten days before you submitted your

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 10   resignation.  Is that right? 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 11     THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Well, the date of my resignation,

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 12   I submitted it officially October the 1st. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 13     MR. RUSKIN:  Excuse me? 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 14     THE WITNESS:  I mean not October 1st, excuse me,

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 15   April the 1st, 1992. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 16   BY MR. RUSKIN:

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 17   Q  What was the effective date of your resignation?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 18   A  April the 3rd, 1992.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 19   Q  Just for the record, would it have been the 4th of April?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 20   A  Well, there was a back and forth on that one.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 21   Q  Okay, what do you mean?  Was there an issue about whether

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 22   it was the 3rd or the 4th?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 23   A  There was an issue about which was the best date to retire

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 24   because I could immediately get a check. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 25     THE COURT:  We are going to deal with that as

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 1   deminimis, everybody.  Let's try and move on. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 2   BY MR. RUSKIN:

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 3   Q  Let's deal with the first of the Sewell statements.  What

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 4   was the first of the Sewell statements that you learned about?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 5   A  Well, I was astounded that he was once again bringing up

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 6   that lobbying issue which I thought had all gone away and

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 7   especially in EEO context.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 8   Q  Why in the EEO context was that so strange?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 9   A  Because it had been disproven.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 10   Q  Okay, if there were any substance to the lobbying

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 11   allegations what would have been the proper channels?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 12   A  Then there should have been an investigation by the

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 13   Inspector General and it should have been done through the

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 14   director of the National Park Service.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 15   Q  What other false statements did Mr. Sewell make?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 16   A  He made statements that accused me of malfeasance and

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 17   misfeasance in office.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 18   Q  In what regard?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 19   A  He said I had let the roads in Yellowstone go to rack and

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 20   ruin, said I had -- he accused me of diverting funds from

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 21   Yellowstone projects to other projects.  He accused me of

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 22   having favorite projects.  He accused me of being an aggrieved

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 23   martyr and that I was --

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 24     THE COURT:  Accused you of being what? 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 130, l. 25     THE WITNESS:  An aggrieved martyr and accused me of

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 1   talking to the press. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 2   BY MR. RUSKIN:

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 3   Q  Has the government admitted that those statements are all

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 4   false?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 5   A  They have and they were and they are.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 6   Q  Good.  Now, what else did Mr. Sewell state in the course

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 7   of his deposition?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 8   A  At one point he threatened an investigation by the

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 9   Inspector General's office and that really was frightening that

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 10   he would do that in an EEO complaint. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 11   Q  Did he ever raise the issue of an Inspector General's

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 12   investigation in any context besides EEO?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 13   A  No.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 14   Q  Were any of these statements about the roads in

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 15   Yellowstone or calling you a martyr or anything like that, were

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 16   these ever made before you filed an EEO complaint? 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 17   A  No, this is the first time they had ever been raised. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 18   Q  Now, with regard to the issue of the Inspector General why

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 19   was that such a scary thing for you? 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 20   A  Because what he was threatening was an investigation by

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 21   the Department of Interior into my activities and it -- one

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 22   always respects the fact that investigations are difficult at

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 23   best and it just indicated to me a state of mind.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 24   Q  Well, had anybody else ever been subjected to an Inspector

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 131, l. 25   General's investigation in this context?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 1   A  Not in the context of an EEO case. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 2   Q  In what context?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 3   A  They never brought up such a thing in an EEO case.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 4   Q  Okay.  Let's move along then and talk about bonuses.  Did

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 5   you receive any notification about your SES bonus in February

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 6   of 1992?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 7   A  Yes.  I received a memorandum.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 8   Q  And if you would turn to Exhibit 5-22.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 9   A  I have it. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 10   Q  Let me go back to the Sewell statements.  Did Mr. Sewell

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 11   ever make any of these statements outside of the context of

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 12   EEO?  Obviously except for the previous instance of the

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 13   lobbying that he raised the year earlier, any of the other

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 14   statements, did he ever raise them outside the context of the

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 15   EEO complaint process?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 16   A  No.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 17   Q  Okay, if you take a look at Exhibit 5-22 what is that

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 18   document, please?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 19   A  It is a memorandum from Ed Davis dated January 24th

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 20   notifying me of my 1991 performance appraisal.

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 21   Q  And what did it say?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 22   A  It says that the director recommended me for a bonus of

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 23   $5025 but it was unapproved at the department level. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 24   Q  What does that mean, not approved at the department level?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 132, l. 25   A  That means that when they went through the process they

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 1   did not go along with a bonus for me. 

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 2   Q  And do you have any personal knowledge based on your own

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 3   experience with the PRB, the Performance Review Board, as to

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 4   why you didn't get your bonus in 1991?

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 5   A  I was a member of the Performance Review Board in 1990, I

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 6   believe, wherein I observed and was part of the review of the

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 7   bonuses for career employees.  I was astounded to see that when

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 8   Scott Sewell as the chair of that board, he would bring up when

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 9   one of the career employees had done something that he thought

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 10   or somebody else thought was against, was a political thing and

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 11   that person had not done well politically that the -- all of a

Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 12   sudden that the rating went down.  (Emphasis added.)

 

To avoid Sewell appearing as a witness for questioning by Mintzmyer’s counsel (for obvious reasons, highlighted during the questioning of another Park Service official, Mr. Barbee, where the issue of Sewell’s untrue statements on other environmental issues came up) the government instead repeatedly admitted the falsehoods:

 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 4   Q  I am now going to show you an exhibit, sir, marked

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 5   Plaintiff's 4-1.  Now, sir, the document I have handed you,

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 6   Plaintiff's Exhibit 4-1, is a part of the report of

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 7   investigation which has been admitted in this case in previous

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 8   testimony and it is the sworn statement under oath of Mr. S.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 9   Scott Sewell.  Are you familiar with that individual?

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 10   A  Yes, I am.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 11   Q  And as part of your duties, whether or not it was part of

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 12   the official letter of authority, did you have occasion to be

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 13   involved with the projects in which Mr. Sewell was also

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 14   involved?

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 15   A  Peripherally.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 16   Q  And among those projects was the Yellowstone Vision

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 17   document one?

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 18   A  I would say so, yes.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 19   Q  And was another one a report that was given to the

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 20   Congress with regard to the geothermal?

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 21   A  Yes, yes.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 22   Q  I am going to ask you to turn to Page 28 -- excuse me. 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 23   Strike that.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 24   A  28?

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 25   Q  You can turn to it.  Let me ask you some questions.  First

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 1   of all, to the best of your knowledge, and I am going to ask

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 2   you to reflect on the entire period in which you were

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 3   supervised by Lorraine Mintzmyer, did you ever knowingly or

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 4   negligently defer regular maintenance, cyclical maintenance or

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 5   use funds for purposes other than what they were intended for? 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 6     MR. ROSENBERG:  Your Honor, I have an objection.  I

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 7   am going to object that this is cumulative.  We have already in

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 8   previous testimony had an admission that these statements are

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 9   incorrect as a matter of fact. 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 10     THE COURT:  Why are we going into this, Mr.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 11   Hartmann?  I know that he lied.  You can't say it much more

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 12   clearly than that. 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 13     MR. HARTMANN:  That was the point.  This was the

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 14   official who was on the ground with regard to all of these

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 15   things. 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 16     THE COURT:  The department itself has admitted it.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 17     MR. HARTMANN:  They aren't the witness though, your

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 18   Honor, so I just wanted to proffer that.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 19     THE COURT:  I am certainly going to accept the

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 20   department's representations that this gentleman lied under

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 21   oath. 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 22     MR. HARTMANN:  Can I make it clear for the record

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 23   then that the proffer by the department is that Scott Sewell

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 24   specifically and intentionally lied with regard to all of these

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 25   statements within the Vision document? 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 1     MR. ROSENBERG:  Your Honor --

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 2  THE COURT:  Well, excuse me just a minute.  I think,

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 3   and perhaps I stated it a little bit broadly, I think what I

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 4   believe it was Miss Wells said yesterday was that the

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 5   statements are inaccurate and untrue.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 6     MR. HARTMANN:  Right.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 7     THE COURT:  Is that correct? 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 8     MR. ROSENBERG:  That is correct. 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 9     MR. HARTMANN:  And what I would like to establish

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 10   now, your Honor, is that Mr. Sewell intentionally lied with

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 11   regard to all of these statements.  Mr. Barbee -- 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 12     THE COURT:  That's a different issue, it seems to

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 13   me.  The department can certainly if they deem it appropriate

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 14   represent to the Court that the statements themselves are not

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 15   based upon fact.  Intentional lying I think is a different

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 16   standard.  I'm not sure you need that in your case, Mr.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 17   Hartmann. 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 18     MR. HARTMANN:  Your Honor, this witness has

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 19   additional information beyond Mr. Sewell's lying in this

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 20   instance.  The foundation I have laid about the geothermal

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 21   project is a situation in which Mr. Sewell intentionally

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 22   removed documents that were submitted to Congress and which Mr.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 23   Barbee has previously testified in another proceeding about.  

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 24     THE COURT:  But how does that relate to Mrs.

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 25   Mintzmyer's case? 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 1     MR. HARTMANN:  Simply to show that Mr. Sewell simply

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 2   did not make an error in statement of fact, that he was

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 3   intentionally retaliating against her. 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 4     THE COURT:  I understand all that.  I heard all the

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 5   evidence thus far.  One doesn't make that many misstatements of

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 6   fact.  

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 7     MR. HARTMANN:  Your Honor, can I ask then just one

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 8   final question of Mr. Barbee with regard to her general

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 9   reputation? 

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 10   BY MR. HARTMANN:

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 11   Q  Mr. Barbee, during the entire time that you worked with

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 12   Lorraine Mintzmyer did you ever know her to be anything other

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 13   than entirely truthful with regard to her dealings with you?

Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 14   A  Never.  (Emphasis added.)