Feds Deny Calderon Leak Allegations

8/13/2019 Feds Deny Calderon Leak Allegations

1/49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

BENJ AMI N B. WAGNERUni t ed St at es At t or neyEaster n Di str i ct of Cal i f or ni aROBERT E. DUGDALE ( SBN: 167258)Speci al Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neyEaster n Di str i ct of Cal i f or ni a

Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neyChi ef , Cr i mi nal Di vi si onCent r al Di str i ct of Cal i f or ni a

1200 Uni t ed St at es Cour t house312 Nort h Spr i ng St r eetLos Angel es, Cal i f or ni a 90012Tel ephone: ( 213) 894- 4685Facsi mi l e: ( 213) 894- 0142E- mai l : r ober t . dugdal e@usdoj . gov

At t orneys f or Def endantUNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A

RONALD S. CALDERON,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

v.

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Def endant .

No. CV 2: 13- 02358- TLN

GOVERNMENT S OPPOSI TI ON TO MOTI ONFOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FORCONTEMPT FOR VI OLATI ON OF AMAGI STRATE J UDGE S SEALI NG ORDER

Hear i ng Dat e: TBDHear i ng Ti me: TBDLocat i on: TBD

Def endant , t he Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca, by and thr ough i t s

counsel of r ecor d, t he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney f or t he East er n

Di st r i ct of Cal i f or ni a and Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney Rober t E.

Dugdal e, desi gnat ed as a Speci al Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney i n

t he East er n Di st r i ct of Cal i f or ni a, her eby f i l es i t s opposi t i on t o

pl ai nt i f f s Mot i on f or an Or der t o Show Cause.

Thi s opposi t i on i s based upon t he at t ached memor andum of poi nt s

and aut hor i t i es, t he decl ar at i on of Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney

Dougl as M. Mi l l er , t he at t ached exhi bi t s, t he i n camer a and under

Case 2:13-cv-02358-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 19


2/49

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

seal exhi bi t f i l ed concur r ent l y wi t h t hi s Mot i on, and, i f t he Cour t

det er mi nes a hear i ng i s necessary, any addi t i onal evi dence and

argument t he Cour t wi shes t o consi der at t he hear i ng.

Dated: Febr uary 21, 2014 Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,

BENJ AMI N B. WAGNERUni t ed St at es At t or ney

Phi l i p A. Fer r ar i f orROBERT E. DUGDALESpeci al Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neyEaster n Di str i ct of Cal i f or ni aAssi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neyCent r al Di str i ct of Cal i f or ni a

At t orneys f or Def endantUNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA



3/49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTIONOn November 14, 2013, Ronal d S. Cal der on and hi s counsel , Mark

J . Ger agos ( Cal deron) , f i l ed a Not i ce of Mot i on and Mot i on f or

Or der t o Show Cause Why t he Government Shoul d Not be Hel d i n Cont empt

f or Vi ol at i on of a Magi st r at e J udge s Or der Seal i ng FBI Af f i davi t

( t he Mot i on) . Cal der on wai t ed appr oxi mat el y t wo mont hs bef ore

pr oper l y servi ng t he Mot i on on t he gover nment . ( Dk #5. ) I n t he

Mot i on, Cal der on cl ai ms t hat t he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney s Of f i ce and

t he Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on ( t he gover nment ) i l l egal l y

l eaked a sear ch war r ant af f i davi t t o Al J azeer a Amer i ca i n what he

descr i bes as an ef f or t t o def ame and r et al i at e agai nst hi m f or

r ef usi ng t o cooper at e i n a st i ng oper at i on pur por t edl y t ar get i ng

t wo ot her st at e senat or s. ( Mot i on, p. 2. ) Cal der on addi t i onal l y

asser t s t hat t he gover nment r et al i at ed agai nst hi m by conduct i ng a

r ai d on hi s of f i ce i n t he Cal i f or ni a Senat e on J une 4, 2013, and

i nt ent i onal l y not i f yi ng t he medi a about t he r ai d so that i t became a

medi a spect acl e. ( Mot i on, p. 3. ) Cal der on assi gns vi r t ual l y al l

of t he bl ame f or t hese l eaks t o Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney

Dougl as M. Mi l l er ( AUSA Mi l l er ) an Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es

At t or ney i n t he Cent r al Di st r i ct of Cal i f or ni a who he cl ai ms has a

syst emat i c pat t ern f or cont empt and was demandi ng t hat Cal deron

par t i ci pat e i n t he al l eged st i ng oper at i on. ( Mot i on, pp. 4, 7- 8,12. )

The Mot i on has no mer i t . Cal deron of f er s no evi dence t hat AUSA

Mi l l er or anyone el se i n t he gover nment was t he sour ce of t he

l eaked af f i davi t , and t he Mot i on i s r epl et e wi t h f act ual



4/49

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

i naccur aci es. 1 What ever t he mot i vat i on f or t hese i naccur aci es, as

expl ai ned i n det ai l bel ow, t her e i s no basi s t o bel i eve t hat AUSA

Mi l l er was t he sour ce of t he l eaked af f i davi t and t hat he r et al i at ed

agai nst Cal der on f or Cal der on s pur por t ed cooper at i on or l ack

t her eof . Cal der on s accusat i ons t o t he cont r ar y ar e r eckl ess. I n

f act , t he whol e not i on t hat AUSA Mi l l er woul d go thr ough t he t r oubl e

of l eaki ng a seal ed sear ch warr ant af f i davi t t o t he medi a makes no

sense. I f , as Cal der on cl ai ms, AUSA Mi l l er t r ul y desi r ed t o

assassi nat e Cal der on s char act er f or r ef usi ng t o cooper at e, he

woul d have si mpl y f i l ed t he sear ch war r ant af f i davi t used t o sear ch

Cal der on s of f i ce on t he Cour t s publ i c docket on J une 4, 2012, when

Cal der on s pur port ed cooper at i on had ended. AUSA Mi l l er di d not do

t hat . I nst ead, he chose t o f i l e t he sear ch war r ant af f i davi t under

1 I ndeed, t he Mot i on i s not support ed wi t h competent evi dence ofany ki nd, as Cal der on f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h t he l ocal r ul es by notat t achi ng any decl ar at i ons t o t he Mot i on. As t he Cour t i s awar e,unsuppor t ed f act ual aver ment s by counsel i n pr e- t r i al pl eadi ngs

vi ol at e Local Rul e 230( h) . Thi s r ul e r equi r es t hat [ f ] act ualcont ent i ons i nvol ved i n pr et r i al mot i ons shal l be i ni t i al l y pr esent edand hear d upon af f i davi t s[ . ] Fai l i ng t o do so i s enough t o deny apr e- t r i al mot i on t hat r equi r es f act ual suppor t . See Uni t ed St at es v.Schaf er , 625 F. 3d 629, 636 n. 3 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ; Uni t ed St at es v.Wardl ow, 951 F. 2d 1115, 1116 ( 9t h Ci r . 1991) . The Ni nt h Ci r cui t hasr ecogni zed t he i mport ance of compl i ance wi t h such l ocal r ul es and hasst r ongl y admoni shed counsel f or t hese same t ypes of pr ocedur aldef ect s i n a pr e- t r i al mot i on. See Schaf er , 625 F. 3d at 636 f n. 3( Appel l ant s' f actual st at ement s wer e r ai sed as unsworn argument s ofdef ense counsel i n t hei r pl eadi ngs. The di st r i ct cour t woul d havebeen wel l wi t hi n i t s r i ght s t o r ej ect t he r equest f or an evi dent i ar yhear i ng on t hi s gr ound al one . . . Tr i al counsel . . . woul d be wel ladvi sed t o f ol l ow t he [ l ocal ] r ul es. ) ; War dl ow, 951 F. 2d at 1116( af f i r mi ng t hat def endant had f or f ei t ed hi s r i ght t o a hear i ng bynot pr oper l y submi t t i ng a decl ar at i on. ) . Thi s gl ar i ng omi ssi onst r ongl y suggest s an ul t er i or mot i ve f or t he Mot i on apar t f r om anef f or t t o ar r i ve at a f act ual l y suppor t ed concl usi on. See Exhi bi t A( quot i ng Cal der on s counsel as sayi ng, We ar e not goi ng to st andher e and t ake t hat when expl ai ni ng t he Mot i on and i t s connect i on t oCal der on bei ng st r i pped of hi s commi t t ee posi t i ons i n t he Senat e i nt he af t er math of publ i c news r eport s t hat Cal der on had engaged i nacts of publ i c cor r upt i on) .



5/49

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

seal , i ndi cat i ng t hat he had no desi r e t o r et al i at e agai nst Cal der on

and t hat he was not t he sour ce of t he l eak.

Even assumi ng, f or t he sake of argument , t hat t he Mot i on had

some mer i t ( and t o be cl ear , i t has none) , t hi s Cour t has no

j ur i sdi ct i on t o consi der i t . Fi r st , t hi s Cour t di d not i ssue t he

seal i ng or der t hat Cal der on i s cl ai mi ng t he gover nment vi ol at ed. The

j udge who si gned t he sear ch war r ant was Uni t ed St at es Magi st r at e

J udge Kendal l J . Newman ( J udge Newman) . ( Mot i on at Exhi bi t C. ) As

a r esul t , t hi s Cour t shoul d di smi ss t he Mot i on f or l ack of

j ur i sdi ct i on. Second, t hi s Cour t l acks subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on

over t he Mot i on because i t ef f ect i vel y al l eges t hat const i t ut i onal

t or t s wer e commi t t ed agai nst Cal der on, whi ch ar e barr ed under t he

doct r i ne of sover ei gn i mmuni t y when t he Uni t ed St at es i s named as t he

sol e def endant . For t hese r easons, t he Cour t shoul d di smi ss t he

Mot i on out r i ght .

II. STATEMENT OF FACTSOn May 4, 2013, Cal der on f l ew t o Las Vegas t o meet wi t h someone

he bel i eved was t he owner of an i ndependent f i l m st udi o i n Los

Angel es ( UC- 1) and one of UC- 1 s i nvest or s ( UC- 3) . ( Mi l l er Decl .

2. ) Unbeknownst t o Cal deron, UC- 1 and UC- 3 were act ual l y undercover

agent s wor ki ng f or t he FBI . ( I d. ) When Cal der on ar r i ved i n Las

Vegas, he went wi t h UC- 3 t o a hot el , wher e he was met by two FBI

agent s assi gned t o t he Los Angel es Fi el d Of f i ce ( t he FBI agent s) .( Mi l l er Decl . 3. ) The FBI agent s expl ai ned t o Cal der on t hat t hey

worked f or t he FBI s Publ i c Corr upt i on Squad and had been

i nvest i gat i ng Cal der on f or qui t e some t i me. ( I d. ) The FBI agent s

di d not t el l Cal der on t hey wer e i nvest i gat i ng ot her st at e senat or s.

The FBI agent s made i t cl ear t o Cal deron t hat he was not under ar r est



6/49

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

and t hat he coul d l eave t he hot el at any t i me. ( I d. ) Cal der on

agr eed t o st ay and was i nt er vi ewed by t he FBI agent s f or

appr oxi mat el y t hr ee hour s. ( I d. )

The FBI agent s of f er ed Cal deron t he oppor t uni t y t o cooper at e i n

t hei r i nvest i gat i on, but made i t ver y cl ear t hat t hey wer e pr epar ed

t o move f or war d wi t h t hei r i nvest i gat i on i f Cal der on t ur ned down

t hei r of f er . ( Mi l l er Decl . 4. ) I n f act, t he FBI agent s had

al r eady obt ai ned a sear ch war r ant f or Cal der on s Senat e of f i ce f r om

J udge Newman on May 2, 2013 ( Sear ch War r ant #1) t wo days pr i or t o

t hi s meet i ng wi t h Cal der on. 2 ( I d. ) The af f i davi t f or Sear ch War r ant

#1 was f i l ed under seal at t he r equest of AUSA Mi l l er , but t he sear ch

warr ant i t sel f was never execut ed because Cal der on i ndi cated he

want ed t o cooper at e. ( I d. ) The FBI agent s began t o debr i ef Cal der on

and ask hi m about sever al i ndi vi dual s whose names he had ment i oned

dur i ng t he i nvest i gat i on, i ncl udi ng ot her st at e senat or s. ( Mi l l er

Decl . 5. ) These wer e not t he onl y i ndi vi dual s Cal der on was asked

about . Fur t her mor e, Cal der on was never t ol d t hat ot her st ate

senat or s wer e t ar get s of t he i nvest i gat i on. 3 ( I d. )

Despi t e hi s pur port ed desi r e t o cooperate wi t h t he gover nment ,

Cal der on cl ai med t hat t he i nf or mat i on he coul d pr ovi de t o t he FBI

agent s woul d be of l i t t l e val ue. ( I d. ) The FBI agent s subsequent l y

met wi t h Cal der on on f i ve separate dates ( May 5, 8, 11, 14, and 15) ,

dur i ng whi ch t hey cont i nued to debr i ef Cal der on and expl or e hi swi l l i ngness and abi l i t y t o cooper at e wi t h t he i nvest i gat i on. ( Mi l l er

Decl . 6. ) AUSA Mi l l er par t i ci pat ed i n t wo of t hese subsequent

2 Search War r ant #1 was f i l ed as CR 13- SW- 0291- KJ N.3 The gover nment i s pr epared t o pr ovi de t he Cour t wi t h t he names

of t he ot her st at e senat or s i n a separ at e i n camer a f i l i ng, i f t heCour t bel i eves i t i s necessar y to r ul e on t he Mot i on.



7/49

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

meet i ngs ( May 14 and 15) . ( I d. ) At no poi nt dur i ng t hese subsequent

meet i ngs was Cal der on t ol d t hat ot her st at e senat or s wer e t ar get s of

t he i nvest i gat i on or t hat Cal der on was r equi r ed t o cont i nue hi s

ef f or t s t o cooper at e. ( I d. )

Cal der on made i t cl ear f r om hi s f i r st meet i ng wi t h t he FBI

agent s t hat he was wi l l i ng t o wear a wi r e and r ecor d hi s

conver sat i ons wi t h ot her publ i c of f i ci al s. ( Mi l l er Decl . 7. ) The

onl y peopl e Cal der on sai d he was not wi l l i ng t o recor d wer e hi s

f ami l y member s. ( I d. ) On May 6, 2013, t he FBI agent s tol d Cal der on

t hey want ed hi m t o r ecor d hi s conver sat i ons wi t h anot her i ndi vi dual . 4

Cal deron agr eed and r ecor ded t wo of t he conver sat i ons he had wi t h t he

i ndi vi dual usi ng a recor di ng devi ce pr ovi ded by t he FBI agent s.

( I d. ) Cal der on never r ef used t o make t he r ecor di ngs and, at one

poi nt , he even encour aged t he FBI agent s t o set up a meet i ng wi t h t he

i ndi vi dual soon. ( I d. ) The f act t hat Cal der on r ecor ded hi s

conver sat i ons wi t h t he i ndi vi dual di d not make t hat i ndi vi dual a

t ar get of t he i nvest i gat i on. Si mi l ar l y, Cal der on was never t ol d t hat

t he r ecor ded i ndi vi dual was a t ar get . ( I d. ) Cal der on s r ecor ded

conver sat i ons wi t h t he i ndi vi dual wer e br i ef and di d not r esul t i n

any cri mi nal char ges agai nst t he i ndi vi dual . ( I d. )

Cal der on was schedul ed t o meet wi t h t he i ndi vi dual a t hi r d t i me,

but on t he day of t he meet i ng he cont act ed t he FBI agent s and cl ai med

he was not f eel i ng wel l . ( Mi l l er Decl . 8. ) The FBI agent s askedCal deron i f he was sure t hat he want ed t o cancel t he meet i ng gi ven

t hat hi s oppor t uni t i es f or cooper at i on wer e l i mi t ed and t i me was of

4 The gover nment i s pr epared t o pr ovi de t he Cour t wi t h t he nameof t hi s i ndi vi dual i n a separ at e i n camer a f i l i ng, i f t he Cour tbel i eves i t i s necessar y to r ul e on t he Mot i on.



8/49

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t he essence. ( I d. ) Cal der on i nsi st ed t hat he was not cancel i ng t he

meet i ng and was j ust post poni ng i t . ( I d. ) The FBI agent s t ol d

Cal der on i t was hi s deci si on t o make and t hat t hey woul d l et t he

pr osecut or know what he deci ded t o do. Cal deron di d not cont act t he

FBI agent s agai n, even though he sai d he woul d cont act t hem t he

f ol l owi ng week. ( I d. )

J ust as t hey t ol d Cal deron t hey woul d, t he FBI agent s moved

f or war d wi t h t hei r i nvest i gat i on and never at t empt ed t o cont act

Cal der on or demand that he cooper at e. ( Mi l l er Decl . 9. ) On J une

4, 2013, t he FBI agent s obt ai ned a second search warr ant t o sear ch

Cal der on s of f i ce ( Search Warr ant #2) , whi ch was si gned by Uni t ed

St at es Magi st r at e J udge Dal e A. Dr ozd ( J udge Dr ozd) . 5 ( I d. )

Sear ch Warr ant #2 was al so f i l ed under seal at t he r equest of AUSA

Mi l l er . 6 ( I d. )

The FBI agent s execut ed Sear ch War r ant #2 on t he same day i t was

si gned and seal ed by J udge Dr ozd. ( Mi l l er Decl . 10. ) The FBI

agent s at t empt ed t o speak wi t h Cal deron by t el ephone bef ore execut i ng

t he sear ch of hi s of f i ce, but Cal der on t ol d t he FBI agent s vi a t ext

message t hat he was not avai l abl e t o t al k wi t h t hem. ( Mi l l er Decl .

10. ) Sever al medi a out l et s showed up out si de of Cal der on s of f i ce

whi l e Search Warr ant #2 was bei ng execut ed. ( I d. ) The medi a di d not

r ecei ve any advance not i ce of t he sear ch f r om t he FBI agent s, AUSA

Mi l l er , or t he FBI s Publ i c Af f ai r s Speci al i st i n Los Angel es, Laur a5 Sear ch War r ant #2 was f i l ed as CR 13- SW- 0385- DAD.6 To be cl ear , t he seal i ng appl i cat i ons f or Sear ch War r ant #1

and #2 wer e act ual l y submi t t ed and si gned by Assi st ant Uni t ed St atesAt t or ney Phi l i p A. Fer r ar i . However , he was si mpl y assi st i ng t he FBIagent s and AUSA Mi l l er wi t h t he pr epar at i on and f i l i ng of Sear chWarr ant s #1 and #2, whi ch wer e consi der ed out - of - di st r i ct warr ant spr epar ed by AUSA Mi l l er and agent s based i n t he Cent r al Di st r i ct ofCal i f or ni a. ( Mi l l er Decl . 9. )



9/49

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Ei mi l l er . 7 ( Mi l l er Decl . 10- 11. ) Once t he FBI agent s began

execut i ng t he sear ch, Ei mi l l er began r ecei vi ng cal l s f r om sever al

medi a out l et s and di d acknowl edge that t he FBI was conduct i ng a

sear ch at t he Capi t ol , somet hi ng t he FBI r out i nel y does t o avoi d

i nt er f er ence by l ocal l aw enf or cement and f or gener al saf et y.

( Mi l l er Decl . 11. ) The f ol l owi ng day, on J une 5, 2013, AUSA Mi l l er

cont act ed Cal der on s counsel and asked f or hi m t o r et ur n t he

r ecor di ng devi ce t hat t he FBI agent s had pr ovi ded t o Cal der on.

( Mi l l er Decl . 13. ) Cal der on s counsel di d not r et ur n t he r ecor di ng

devi ce unt i l J une 13, 2013. ( I d. )

Af t er execut i ng Sear ch War r ant #2, t he FBI agent s and AUSA

Mi l l er cont i nued movi ng f or war d wi t h t hei r i nvest i gat i on, i ncl udi ng

i nt er vi ewi ng wi t nesses, subpoenai ng wi t nesses t o t est i f y bef or e t he

gr and j ur y, and subpoenai ng document s. ( Mi l l er Decl . 14. ) AUSA

Mi l l er l at er wr ot e l et t er s advi si ng some of t he i ndi vi dual s he had

i nt er vi ewed t hat t hey wer e vi ewed as wi t nesses and not t arget s or

subj ect s of t he i nvest i gat i on. 8 ( I d. )

On Oct ober 30, 2013, Al J azeer a Amer i ca publ i shed a news ar t i cl e

i ndi cat i ng t hat i t s I nvest i gat i ve Uni t had obt ai ned a copy of a

124- page under seal sear ch war r ant af f i davi t det ai l i ng an under cover

i nvest i gat i on i nt o Cal der on. ( Mot i on at Exhi bi t B. ) At no poi nt i n

7 I ndeed, cont r ar y t o t he unsuppor t ed accusat i on i n t he Mot i on

t hat t he FBI at t empt ed t o t ur n t he sear ch of Cal der on s of f i ce i nt o amedi a spect acl e, t he FBI agent s who sear ched Cal der on s of f i ceat t empt ed t o mi ni mi ze publ i c awareness of t hei r presence. Forexampl e, t he FBI agent s and ot her s assi st i ng i n t he sear ch ent er edt he Capi t ol t hr ough an under gr ound parki ng st r uct ur e, as opposed t o amai n ent r ance; pur posel y avoi ded wear i ng j acket s di spl ayi ng t hel et t er s FBI ; and conceal ed t hei r weapons. ( Mi l l er Decl . 10. )

8 The gover nment i s pr epared t o pr ovi de t he Cour t wi t h t he namesof t he i ndi vi dual s who recei ved t hese l et t er s i n a separ at e i n camer af i l i ng, i f t he Cour t bel i eves i t i s necessar y t o r ul e on t he Mot i on.



10/49

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t he ar t i cl e di d Al J azeer a Amer i ca at t r i but e t he l eak to a

gover nment source or a gover nment agent . ( I d. ) The FBI agent s

and AUSA Mi l l er r evi ewed t he 124- page af f i davi t obt ai ned by Al

J azeer a Amer i ca and deter mi ned t hat i t appeared t o be Sear ch War r ant

#1, whi ch J udge Newman had pr evi ousl y order ed seal ed, but was never

execut ed. ( Mi l l er Decl . 15. ) The ver y next day, t he U. S.

At t or ney s Of f i ce r ef er r ed t he mat t er t o t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce

f or f ur t her i nvest i gat i on. ( I d. ) The FBI agent s and AUSA Mi l l er

have been i nt er vi ewed i n t hat i nvest i gat i on, whi ch i s bei ng conduct ed

by i ndependent i nvest i gat or s wi t hout t he i nvol vement of t he FBI or

t he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney s Of f i ce f or t he Cent r al Di st r i ct of

Cal i f or ni a. ( Mi l l er Decl . 16. ) The FBI agent s and AUSA Mi l l er

pr ovi ded swor n st at ement s t o the i nvest i gator s st at i ng t hey wer e not

t he sour ce of t he l eak. ( Mi l l er Decl . 16. ) As of t he dat e of t hi s

f i l i ng, t he l eak i nvest i gat i on r emai ns ongoi ng. ( I d. )

III.ARGUMENTA. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE CALDERON HAS FAILED TO

PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS THE SOURCE OF

THE LEAKED SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT

I n a ci vi l cont empt pr oceedi ng, t he movi ng part y has t he bur den

of pr ovi ng by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence t hat t he cont emnor

vi ol at ed a speci f i c and def i ni t e or der . See Uni t ed St at es v. Power s,

629 F. 2d 619, 626 n. 9 ( 9t h Ci r . 1980) . When t he al l eged cont empt i s

l eaki ng i nf or mat i on t o t he medi a, cour t s have t ypi cal l y exami nedwhet her ( 1) t he or der cl ear l y pr oscr i bed l eaki ng i nf or mat i on t o t he

medi a, ( 2) t he cont emnor deni ed bei ng t he sour ce of t he l eak, and ( 3)

t he medi a out l et suggest ed t hat t he cont emnor was t he sour ce of t he

l eak. See e. g. , Romero v. Dr ummond Co. I nc. , 480 F. 3d 1234, 1243- 44

( 11t h Ci r . 2007) ( exami ni ng whet her cont emnors wer e pr oscr i bed f r om



11/49

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

l eaki ng i nf or mat i on t o the medi a, deni ed bei ng t he sour ce of t he

l eak, and wer e i dent i f i ed as t he pot ent i al sour ce of t he l eak by t he

medi a out l et ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ri oux, 97 F. 3d 648, 662 ( 2d Ci r .

1996) ( exami ni ng whether t he medi a out l et i dent i f i ed a gover nment

of f i ci al as t he sour ce of t he l eak and whet her such l eaks wer e

pr oscr i bed) ; Bar r y v. Uni t ed St at es, 865 F. 2d 1317, 1321 ( D. C. Ci r .

1989) ( same) ; I n r e Gr and J ur y I nvest i gat i on ( Lance) , 610 F. 2d 202,

217 (5t h Ci r . 1980) ( same) .

Her e, al l Cal der on has shown i s t hat t he sear ch war r ant

af f i davi t l eaked t o Al J azeer a Amer i ca was seal ed. Nowher e i n t he

accompanyi ng ar t i cl e does i t say or even suggest t hat a government

of f i ci al or a l aw enf or cement of f i ci al was t he sour ce of t he l eak.

( Mot i on at Exhi bi t B. ) Al l i t says i s Al J azeer a s I nvest i gat i ve

Uni t subsequent l y l ear ned of t he secret oper at i on. ( I d. ) Al

J azeer a s f ai l ure t o i dent i f y AUSA Mi l l er or even a gover nment

of f i ci al as t he pot ent i al sour ce of t he l eak i s si gni f i cant . When

t he medi a has an anonymous l aw enf or cement sour ce, t he sour ce

t ypi cal l y wi l l be so i dent i f i ed i n accor d wi t h t he medi a s ef f or t t o

t el l t he r eader as much as possi bl e about t he pl acement and

mot i vat i on of t he sour ce i n par t i cul ar , whet her t he sour ce has

f i r st hand knowl edge of t he f act s. ( New Yor k Ti mes Company

Conf i dent i al News Sour ces Pol i cy, at t ached her et o as Exhi bi t B) . 9

Accor di ngl y, ci t i ng an i nsi de sour ce f or an ar t i cl e about ani nvest i gat i on woul d add enor mous credi bi l i t y t o t he ar t i cl e. Al

9 The gover nment acknowl edges t hat t he New Yor k Ti mes pol i cy i smerel y one exampl e of many f ormal and i nf ormal pol i ci es t hatdi f f er ent medi a ent i t i es have. However , t he New Yor k Ti mes pol i cyexpl i ci t l y f r owns upon t he use of t he wor d sour ce wi t hout ameani ngf ul modi f i er and i nst r uct s t hat t he descr i pt i on of a sour ceshoul d be as det ai l ed as possi bl e. ( Exhi bi t B at 2) .



12/49

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

J azeer a s f ai l ure t o do so here, i n such a hi ghl y publ i ci zed ar t i cl e,

accompani ed by a l engt hy on- l i ne vi deo, st r ongl y i ndi cat es t hat i t s

source was someone out si de of t he gover nment .

Cal der on at t empt s t o over come t he f act t hat Al J azeer a never

i dent i f i ed AUSA Mi l l er or , f or t hat mat t er , anyone wi t hi n t he

gover nment , as t he pot ent i al sour ce of t he l eak i n t wo ver y

mi sl eadi ng ways. 10 Fi r st , Cal der on ar gues t hat because AUSA Mi l l er

was i nvol ved i n t wo ot her hi gh pr of i l e cases i n whi ch i nf or mat i on was

l eaked t o t he medi a, t he Cour t shoul d j ust assume t hat l eaks are a

par t of AUSA Mi l l er s modus oper andi and hol d hi m r esponsi bl e f or

t he l eak i n t hi s case. ( Mot i on at pp. 7- 8. ) Not onl y does t hi s

argument st r ay f r om t he presumpt i on of i nnocence t hat Cal der on

advocat es i n t he Mot i on, i t r est s on f act s al l eged by Cal der on s

counsel t hat ar e f l at wr ong.

For exampl e, Cal der on cl ai ms t hat AUSA Mi l l er was i nvol ved i n

t he i nvest i gat i on i nt o st er oi d use i n maj or l eague basebal l i n 2003-

2004. ( Mot i on at p. 7. ) Thi s i s not t r ue. The i nvest i gat i on

Cal der on i s r ef er r i ng t o was pr osecut ed by the Nor t her n Di st r i ct of

Cal i f orni a. See I n Re Gr and J ur y Subpoenas, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1111,

1113 ( N. D. Cal i f . 2006) ( her ei naf t er , r ef er r ed t o as t he st er oi ds

i nvest i gat i on) . AUSA Mi l l er i s assi gned t o t he Cent r al Di st r i ct of

Cal i f or ni a and was not one of t he pr osecut or s assi gned t o t he

10 Cal der on al l udes t o a t hi r d ar gument i n t he Mot i on, cl ai mi ngt hat he has evi dence t hat Al J azeer a repor t er s wer e i n pr i or cont actwi t h FBI Publ i c I nf or mat i on Of f i cer Samor a I ver a about t he sear chwar r ant . ( Mot i on at p. 5. ) Thi s ar gument t ypi cal of t he ot her sr ai sed by Cal der on s counsel i n t he Mot i on i s compl et el y speci ous,and i t shoul d be r ej ect ed by t hi s Cour t . Not onl y i s i tunaccompani ed by any evi dent i ary suppor t , t he gover nment i s unawareof anyone named Samora I ver a worki ng f or t he FBI , much l ess as i t sPubl i c I nf or mat i on Of f i cer . ( Mi l l er Decl . 12. )



13/49

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

st er oi ds i nvest i gat i on. I ndeed, t he onl y i nvol vement AUSA Mi l l er

had i n t he st er oi ds i nvest i gat i on was pr osecut i ng t he ver y l eak t hat

Cal der on i s now cl ai mi ng AUSA Mi l l er was r esponsi bl e f or and whi ch he

cl ai ms evi dences AUSA Mi l l er s syst emat i c pat t er n f or cont empt .

AUSA Mi l l er and ot her pr osecut or s i n t he Cent r al Di st r i ct of

Cal i f or ni a wer e asked by t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce t o i nvest i gat e

whet her t he pr osecut or s i n t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct of Cal i f or ni a or

anyone el se wi t h access t o gr and j ur y test i mony i n t he st er oi ds

i nvest i gat i on wer e r esponsi bl e f or l eaki ng t hat t est i mony t o t he

medi a. 11 See I n Re Gr and J ury Subpoenas, 438 F. Supp. 2d at 1114.

Thi s i nvest i gat i on t ook pl ace between 2004 and 2007 and, i n t he end,

r eveal ed t hat one of t he def ense at t or neys i n t he st er oi d

i nvest i gat i on not AUSA Mi l l er l eaked t he i nf or mat i on t o t he

medi a. See Exhi bi t C ( Lawyer Admi t s Leaki ng Bal co Test i mony, the

San Franci sco Chr oni cl e ( Feb. 14, 2007) ) . As f or t he posi t i ve

r esul t s l i st s t hat Cal der on makes r ef er ence t o i n t he Mot i on, AUSA

Mi l l er never even saw t he l i st as a par t of hi s i nvest i gat i on i nt o

t he l eak and t hus coul d not have been t he anonymous source quot ed

i n t he New Yor k Ti mes ar t i cl e, whi ch was not even publ i shed unt i l t wo

year s af t er AUSA Mi l l er s l eak i nvest i gat i on had been cl osed. 12

11 Cal der on s counsel descr i bes t he pr act i ce of r ef er r i ng l eakal l egat i ons t o t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce f or an i ndependent

i nvest i gat i on by a separ at e Uni t ed St at es At t or ney s Of f i ce as t hef ox guardi ng the pr over bi al henhouse, but cour t s have endorsed t hi spr ocedur e. See Uni t ed St at es v. Hel msl ey, 866 F. 2d 19, 22 ( 2d Ci r .1988) .

12 Cal der on s counsel appear s t o have pi ggybacked t hi s mi sgui dedposi t i ve r esul t s l i st ar gument , i f not hi s ent i r e mot i on, f r om apubl i cl y f i l ed mot i on i n t he Lance Ar mst r ong i nvest i gat i on. See I nRe Gr and J ury Leaks, 2011 WL 2766956 *7 ( C. D. Cal . 2011) . HadCal deron s counsel exami ned t hat mot i on more cl osel y, however , hewoul d have obser ved t hat t he def ense at t orneys i n t hat case appear ed

(footnote contd on next page)



14/49

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

( Mi l l er Decl . 17. ) Accor di ngl y, t he not i on t hat AUSA Mi l l er s

i nvol vement i n t he st er oi ds i nvest i gat i on somehow l ends suppor t t o

t he i dea t hat he was r esponsi bl e f or t he l eak i n t hi s case i s

l udi cr ous. AUSA Mi l l er s i nvol vement was as a pr osecut or who

uncover ed the l eak and pr osecut ed the def ense at t orney r esponsi bl e

f or t he l eak. Thi s di r ect l y under mi nes t he basel ess cl ai m t hat AUSA

Mi l l er has shown a syst emat i c pat t er n f or cont empt f or cour t

or der s. 13

The ot her case Cal deron r el i es on i n suppor t of hi s unsuppor t ed

and r eckl ess cl ai m t hat AUSA Mi l l er has a syst emat i c pat t er n f or

cont empt i n hi gh pr of i l e cases i s t he Lance Ar mst r ong i nvest i gat i on.

Ther e, t he def ense at t or neys f i l ed a mot i on al l egi ng t hat someone

f r om t he i nvest i gat i on s i nner ci r cl e was l eaki ng gr and j ur y

i nf ormat i on t o t he medi a. See I n Re Gr and J ur y Leaks, 2011 WL

2766956 *3 ( C. D. Cal . 2011) . The mot i on ci t ed over 30 separat e news

ar t i cl es f r om var i ous publ i cat i ons, whi ch Ar mst r ong s def ense

at t orneys ar gued pr oved t he government was t he sour ce of t he l eak.

( I d. ) Ni nt h Ci r cui t J udge J acquel i ne Nguyen, who was t hen a di st r i ct

cour t j udge, consi dered Ar mst r ong s mot i on and t he government s

opposi t i on t o t hat mot i on and ul t i mat el y i ssued a r ul i ng on t he l eak

al l egat i ons on December 13, 2011. Thi s rul i ng r emai ns under seal , so

t o be poi nt i ng t he f i nger f or t he al l eged l eaks at someone ot her t hanAUSA Mi l l er . I d.

13 Thi s basel ess cl ai m by Cal der on s counsel i s par t i cul ar l yr eckl ess and i s on par wi t h hi s accompanyi ng ef f or t t o bl ame t hel eak on an FBI empl oyee who does not exi st as a si mpl e on- l i nesear ch woul d have qui ckl y conf i r med t hat AUSA Mi l l er s i nvol vement i nt he st er oi ds i nvest i gat i on was not t hat of an al l eged l eaker ofi nf ormat i on i n t he possessi on of a Gr and J ur y but as a pr osecut or whohel ped hol d a def ense at t or ney cr i mi nal l y r esponsi bl e f or l eaki ngsuch i nf ormat i on i n t hat case. See Exhi bi t D ( BALCO Leak Sour cePl eads Gui l t y to Obst r uct i ng J ust i ce, Associ at ed Pr ess ( Febr uar y 15,2007) ) .



15/49

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t he gover nment has f i l ed i t under seal and i n camer a wi t h t he Cour t .

See Exhi bi t E. As t he Cour t wi l l see, i t l ends absol ut el y no suppor t

t o Cal der on s ar gument t hat AUSA Mi l l er was i nvol ved i n any

wr ongdoi ng i n t hat case. ( I d. )

The second mi sl eadi ng ar gument Cal deron makes i n an at t empt t o

over come t he f act t hat Al J azeer a never i dent i f i ed AUSA Mi l l er or

someone el se i n t he gover nment as t he sour ce of t he l eak i s t o cl ai m

t hat [ t ] he sour ce of t he l eaked af f i davi t coul d onl y have come f r om

t he FBI and/ or t he AUSA- CDC because t he FBI af f i davi t was onl y

possessed by the FBI and t he AUSA- CDC and t hus onl y t he government

had access t o t he document . ( Mot i on at pp. 4, 12. ) Li ke hi s f i r st

ar gument , t he f act s Cal der on r el i es upon i n suppor t of t hi s

ar gument ar e pl ai nl y wr ong. The Cl er k s Of f i ce and ot her s i n t he

East er n Di st r i ct of Cal i f or ni a al so had access t o t he l eaked

af f i davi t . I n ot her wor ds, whi l e i t t r ue t hat t he Cour t need not

l ook t o t he medi a out l et f or t he i dent i t y of t he sour ce when t he ver y

nat ur e of t he l eaked i nf ormat i on f ur ni shes t he connect i on, Lance, 610

F. 2d at 218, t hi s does not hel p Cal der on because the Cl er k s of f i ce

and ot her s al so had access t o t he l eaked af f i davi t . To be cl ear , t he

gover nment i s not al l egi ng t hat someone i nsi de t he Cl er k s of f i ce i s

behi nd t he l eak i n t hi s case. On t he cont r ar y, t he gover nment i s

si mpl y poi nt i ng out once agai n t hat an argument Cal der on r ai ses

i n t he Mot i on, t hat onl y t he gover nment had access t o t he af f i davi t ,i s mi sl eadi ng and f act ual l y wr ong. 14

14 The gover nment has pr evi ousl y i nvest i gat ed l eaks t hat appearedt o have or i gi nat ed i n t he Cl er k s Of f i ces i n bot h t he East er n andCent r al Di str i ct s of Cal i f or ni a. See Exhi bi t F( Cour t Cl er k i n L. A.Accused of Reveal i ng Rai ds t o Gang Member s, The Los Angel es Ti mes

(footnote contd on next page)



16/49


17/49

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Cal der on may ar gue i n r epl y t hat t he reason AUSA Mi l l er f i l ed

t he l eaked sear ch war r ant ( what appear s t o be Sear ch Warr ant #1)

under seal was because he st i l l di d not know at t hat poi nt ( May 2,

2013) whet her Cal der on woul d agr ee t o cooperat e. Thi s ar gument mi ght

be persuasi ve i f Sear ch Warr ant #1 was t he onl y sear ch war r ant

af f i davi t AUSA Mi l l er f i l ed i n t hi s case. However , as set f or t h

above, Cal der on st opped cooperat i ng wi t h t he gover nment on May 18,

2013, and appr oxi mat el y 17 days l at er AUSA Mi l l er obt ai ned Sear ch

War r ant #2, whi ch he st i l l chose t o f i l e under seal . Sear ch War r ant

#2 was equal l y, i f not more, embarr assi ng t o Cal der on and yet i t

r emai ns under seal t oday. The f act t hat t he af f i davi t f or Sear ch

Warr ant #1 an af f i davi t t hat was f i l ed but never excut ed woul d

end up i n Al J azzer a Amer i ca s possessi on r ather t han t he more

embar r assi ng af f i davi t f i l ed i n suppor t of t he sear ch war r ant t hat

was act ual l y executed suggest s t hat t he person who l eaked t he

af f i davi t f or Sear ch War r ant #1 t o t he medi a was not par t i cul ar l y

f ami l i ar wi t h t he Cal der on i nvest i gat i on. I t al so f ur t her under mi nes

Cal der on s basel ess cl ai m t hat t hi s af f i davi t was l eaked by AUSA

Mi l l er t o r et al i at e agai nst hi m and embar r ass hi m.

I n summar y, vi r t ual l y al l of t he f act s Cal der on has set f or t h

i n t he Mot i on bl ami ng AUSA Mi l l er and t he members of hi s

i nvest i gat i ve t eam f or t he l eak i n t hi s case ar e wr ong and pl ai nl y

ver si on of event s pr i or t o bei ng i nt er vi ewed by l aw enf or cement , orf l ee t he j ur i sdi ct i on bef or e t he i nvest i gat i on i s compl et ed. SeeTi mes Mi r r or Co. v. Uni t ed St at es, 873 F. 2d 1210, 1215 ( 9t h Ci r .1989) ( descr i bi ng t hese r i sks as obvi ous) . That i s exact l y whycour t s r out i nel y gr ant t he gover nment s r equest s t o seal sear chwar r ant af f i davi t s. To put i t i n mor e si mpl e t er ms, any pur por t edgai n by t he gover nment r esul t i ng f r om publ i cl y di scl osi ng ei t her oft he seal ed sear ch war r ant af f i davi t s i n t hi s case (def ami ng andr et al i at i ng agai nst Cal der on) woul d be f ar out wei ghed by the obvi ouscost s t hat coul d r esul t by doi ng so ( compr omi si ng t he i nt egr i t y, andpossi bl y t he success, of i t s i nvest i gat i on) .



18/49

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

wr ong at t hat and once t he t r ut h i s anal yzed under t he pr evai l i ng

case l aw addr essi ng l eaks of pr ot ect ed i nf or mat i on t o the medi a i t i s

cl ear t he Mot i on has no mer i t .

B. THIS COURT ALSO LACKS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE MOTION1. The Cour t Has No J ur i sdi ct i on t o I mpose a Cont empt

Sanct i on f or an Or der I t Di d Not I ssue

The Ni nt h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat a f eder al cour t s aut hor i t y t o

puni sh one s f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h j udi ci al or der s i s not wi t hout

l i mi t at i on and i s def i ned by 18 U. S. C. 401, whi ch out l i nes t he

st at ut ory aut hor i t y cour t s have t o puni sh cont empt uous act i ons. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Power s, 629 F. 2d at 624. 18 U. S. C. 401 cl ear l y

pr ovi des t hat :

A cour t of t he Uni t ed St ates shal l have power t o puni sh byf i ne or i mpr i sonment , at i t s di scr et i on, such cont empt ofi t s aut hor i t y, and none ot her . . .

( Emphasi s added. ) I n ot her wor ds, f eder al cour t s ar e gener al l y

wi t hout aut hor i t y t o i mpose ci vi l cont empt sanct i ons f or or der s

t hey di d not i ssue. See Power s, 629 F. 2d at 624 ( not i ng t hat

cour t s have t he i nher ent power t o puni sh cont empt of t hei r

aut hor i t y) ; Kl et t v. Pi m, 965 F. 2d 587, 591 ( 8t h Ci r . 1992)

( hol di ng t hat t he pl ai n meani ng of 401 pr event s a f eder al

cour t f r om i mposi ng a sanct i on f or cont empt when another cour t

i ssued t he or i gi nal i nj unct i on) .

Cal der on concedes i n t he Mot i on t hat t he search warr ant

af f i davi t he i s al l egi ng AUSA Mi l l er l eaked t o Al J azeer a

Amer i ca was order ed to be seal ed and kept conf i dent i al by t he

Magi st r at e J udge f or t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t , East er n

Di st r i ct of Cal i f or ni a. ( Mot i on at p. 5. ) The l ast page of

t he l eaked sear ch war r ant af f i davi t makes i t cl ear t hat i t was



19/49

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

si gned by Uni t ed St ates Magi st r ate J udge J . Newman. ( Mot i on

at Exhi bi t C. ) As a r esul t , t hi s Cour t shoul d di smi ss the

Mot i on f or l ack of j ur i sdi ct i on.

2. The Government Has Not Wai ved Soverei gn I mmuni t y, Whi chProvi des a Def ense t o Cal der on s Cl ai msThi s Cour t shoul d al so di smi ss t he Mot i on because Cal deron has

named t he Uni t ed Stat es as t he sol e def endant and ar gues t hat AUSA

Mi l l er i nt ent i onal l y l eaked t he sear ch war r ant af f i davi t i n or der t o

def ame and r et al i at e agai nst hi m f or r ef usi ng t o cooper at e. ( Mot i on,

p. 2. ) Cal der on r ef er s t o AUSA Mi l l er s al l eged conduct as

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons t hat have i r r epar abl y har med hi s

r eput at i on. ( Mot i on, pp. 4, 8. ) Because Cal der on i s ef f ect i vel y

al l egi ng t hat AUSA Mi l l er commi t t ed a const i t ut i onal t or t agai nst

hi m, t he Mot i on i s barr ed by t he doct r i ne of sover ei gn i mmuni t y. The

Uni t ed St at es and i t s empl oyees act i ng i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t y, as

a sover ei gn, are i mmune f r om sui t unl ess t hey expr essl y wai ve such

i mmuni t y and consent t o be sued. Uni t ed Stat es v. Shaw, 309 U. S.

495, 500- 01, 60 S. Ct . 659, 84 L. Ed. 888 ( 1940) ; Gi l ber t v. DaGr ossa,

756 F. 2d 1455, 1458 ( 9t h Ci r . 1985) . The Uni t ed St ates has not

wai ved i t s sover ei gn i mmuni t y wi t h r espect t o the const i t ut i onal

t or t s Cal der on appear s t o be r ai si ng i n t he Mot i on. Ri ver a v. Uni t ed

St at es, 924 F. 2d 948, 951 ( 9t h Ci r . 1991) . Ther ef or e, t he Cour t

shoul d di smi ss t he Mot i on under t he doct r i ne of sover ei gn i mmuni t y.IV. CONCLUSION

For each of t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he gover nment r espect f ul l y

r equest s t hat t hi s Cour t di smi ss t he Mot i on out r i ght wi t hout an

evi dent i ar y hear i ng.



20/49

Case 2:13-cv-02358-TLN-EFB Document 6-1 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 6


21/49



22/49



23/49



24/49



25/49



26/49


EXHIBIT A


27/49



28/49



29/49



30/49


EXHIBIT B


31/49


32/49



33/49



34/49


EXHIBIT C


35/49


36/49



37/49



38/49



39/49



40/49


EXHIBIT D


41/49



42/49



43/49



44/49


EXHIBIT F


45/49



46/49



47/49


EXHIBIT G


48/49



49/49


Feds Deny Calderon Leak Allegations

Documents

Transcript of Feds Deny Calderon Leak Allegations