C.A. NO C.A. NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

Transcription

1 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 1 of 236 C.. NO C.. NO IN THE UNITED STTES COURT OF PPELS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STTES OF MERIC, Plaintiff-ppellee v. SHERRYNNE L. CHRISTIE, FK Sherryanne L. St. Cyr (C NO ), and ROGER CUSICK CHRISTIE (C. NO ) Defendants-ppellants PPEL FROM THE UNITED STTES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HWII The Honorable Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge District Court Numbers 13-CR LEK-1 and 10-CR LEK-1 DEFENDNTS-PPELLNTS JOINT EXCERPTS OF RECORD VOLUME V THOMS M. OTKE 345 ueen Street, Suite 600 Honolulu, Hawaii Telephone: (808) Facsimile: (808) ttorney for Defendant-ppellant ROGER CUSICK CHRISTIE LYNN E. PNGKOS 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201 Honolulu, Hawaii Telephone: (808) Facsimile: (808) ttorney for Defendant-ppellant SHERRYNNE L. CHRISTIE

2 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 2 of 236 TBLE OF CONTENTS TBLE OF CONTENTS (prefacing each volume of excerpts) Order Denying Defendant Roger Cusick Christie's Motion to Dismiss Indictment... 05/07/13; Doc. No Order Denying Defendant Sherryanne L. St. Cyr's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Unconstitutional Vagueness... 05/20/13; Doc. No Status Conference... Tr. 07/21/13, pp First Preliminary Ruling as to Defendants' Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense... 12/30/13; Doc. No Order Denying Defendants' Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense... 12/30/13; Doc. No Order Denying Defendant John DeBaptist Bouey, III's Motion to Suppress Evidence, Filed December 10, 2012, Defendant Roger Cusick Christie's Joinder, Filed December 10, 2012, and Defendant Sherryanne L. Christie's Joinder, Filed March 1, /10/14; Doc. No Declaration of Laurie Cozad, Ph. D... 12/03/12; Doc. No Exhibit 1 (attached to Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Unconstitutional Vagueness)... 12/03/12; Doc. No Page i (Vol. 1) 1 (Vol. 1) 9 (Vol. 1) 20 (Vol. 1) 51 (Vol. 1) 67 (Vol. 1) 96 (Vol. 2) 113 (Vol. 2) Document Numbers refer to documents filed in District Court Cr. No. 10-CR LEK unless otherwise noted. i

3 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 3 of 236 TBLE OF CONTENTS 9. Exhibit 2 (attached to Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Unconstitutional Vagueness)... 12/03/12; Doc. No Exhibit 3 (attached to Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Unconstitutional Vagueness)... 12/03/12; Doc. No Exhibit 4 (attached to Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Unconstitutional Vagueness)... 12/03/12; Doc. No Exhibit 5 (attached to Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Unconstitutional Vagueness)... 12/03/12; Doc. No Exhibit (attached to Motion to Dismiss)... 12/03/12; Doc. No Exhibit B (attached to Defendant Roger Christie s Joinder in Defendant John DeBaptist Bouey, III s Motion to Suppress Evidence, Filed on December 10, 2012)... 12/10/12; Doc. No Exhibit to John DeBaptist Bouey, III s Motion to Suppress Evidence... 12/14/12; Doc. No First Superseding Indictment... 01/17/13; Doc. No Hearing on (1) Defendant Roger Cusick Christie's Motion to Dismiss Indictment; (2) Defendant Sherryanne L. St. Cyr's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Unconstitutional Vagueness; and (3) Defendant John DeBaptist Bouey, III's Motion to Suppress Evidence... Tr. 03/04/13 Page (Vol. 2) 117 (Vol. 2) 119 (Vol. 2) 123 (Vol. 2) 127 (Vol. 2) 129 (Vol. 2) 131 (Vol. 2) 269 (Vol. 2) 360 (Vol. 3) 376 ii

4 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 4 of 236 TBLE OF CONTENTS 18. Exhibit 1 (attached to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 04/01/13; Doc. No Exhibit 2 (attached to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 04/01/13; Doc. No Exhibit 3 (attached to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 04/01/13; Doc. No Exhibit 4 (attached to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 04/01/13; Doc. No Exhibit 5 (attached to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 04/01/13; Doc. No Declaration of James Warren Flaming Eagle Mooney (attached to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 04/01/13; Doc. No Declaration of Roger Christie (attached to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 04/01/13; Doc. No Declaration of Sherryanne L. Christie (attached to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 04/01/13; Doc. No Declaration of Laurie Cozad, Ph.D. (attached to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 04/01/13; Doc. No Page (Vol. 3) 471 (Vol. 3) 475 (Vol. 3) 477 (Vol. 3) 479 (Vol. 3) 484 (Vol. 3) 487 (Vol.3) 489 (Vol. 3) 508 (Vol. 3) 513 iii

5 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 5 of 236 TBLE OF CONTENTS 27. Transcription of Recording (08/13/08) (cited in United States Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Roger Christie s and Sherryanne Christie s Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 06/03/13; Doc. No Page (Vol. 3) Transcription of Recording (09/25/08) (cited in United States Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Roger Christie s and Sherryanne Christie s Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 06/03/13; Doc. No (Vol. 3) Transcription of Recording (09/26/08) (cited in United States Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Roger Christie s and Sherryanne Christie s Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 06/03/13; Doc. No Excerpts from THC Ministry Website (cited in United States Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Roger Christie s and Sherryanne Christie s Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 06/03/13; Doc. No Transcription of Recording (06/24/08) (cited in United States Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Roger Christie s and Sherryanne Christie s Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 06/03/13; Doc. No Declaration of Charles Webb, M.D. (attached to Defendants Roger and Sherryanne Christie s Joint Reply to Government s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense... 07/08/13; Doc. No (Vol. 3) 604 (Vol. 3) 661 (Vol. 4) 671 (Vol. 4) 719 iv

6 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 6 of 236 TBLE OF CONTENTS 33. Supplemental Declaration of Laurie Cozad, Ph.D. (attached to Defendants Roger and Sherryanne Christie s Joint Reply to Government s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense.. 07/08/13; Doc. No Supplemental Declaration of Roger Christie (attached to Defendants Roger and Sherryanne Christie s Joint Reply to Government s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense.. 07/16/13; Doc. No Status Conference... Tr. 07/23/13, pp Oral rgument Regarding Separate Issues Related to the Defendants. Tr. 07/29/13, pp Status Conference.. Tr. 07/31/13, pp Status Conference.. Tr. 08/07/13, pp Declaration of Jessica Walsh. 08/13/13, Doc. No Declaration of Victoria Fiore 08/14/13, Doc. No Exhibit 7 (attached to Defendants Roger and Sherryanne Christie s Joint Submission of Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense and Reply to Government s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense). 08/26/13; Doc. No Page (Vol. 4) 723 (Vol. 4) 747 (Vol. 4) 753 (Vol. 4) 779 (Vol. 4) 841 (Vol. 4) 872 (Vol. 4) 901 (Vol. 4) 912 (Vol. 4) 919 v

7 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 7 of 236 TBLE OF CONTENTS 42. Exhibit 8 (attached to Defendants Roger and Sherryanne Christie s Joint Submission of Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense and Reply to Government s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense). 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit 9 (attached to Defendants Roger and Sherryanne Christie s Joint Submission of Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense and Reply to Government s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense). 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit 10 (attached to Defendants Roger and Sherryanne Christie s Joint Submission of Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense and Reply to Government s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense). 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit 11 (attached to Defendants Roger and Sherryanne Christie s Joint Submission of Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense and Reply to Government s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense). 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit... 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit B... 08/26/13; Doc. No Page (Vol. 4) 926 (Vol. 4) 935 (Vol. 4) 939 (Vol. 4) 944 (Vol. 4) 946 (Vol. 4) Exhibit C... (Vol. 4) vi

8 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 8 of 236 TBLE OF CONTENTS Page 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit D... 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit E 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit F 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit G... 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit H... 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit I. 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit J. 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit K... 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit L 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit M... 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit N... 08/26/13; Doc. No Exhibit O... 08/26/13; Doc. No (Vol. 4) 949 (Vol. 4) 950 (Vol. 4) 951 (Vol. 4) 952 (Vol. 4) 953 (Vol. 4) 954 (Vol. 4) 955 (Vol. 4) 956 (Vol. 4) 957 (Vol. 4) 958 (Vol. 4) 959 (Vol. 4) 960 vii

9 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 9 of 236 TBLE OF CONTENTS 61. Declaration of Lynn Panagakos (attached to Defendants Roger and Sherryanne Christie s Joint Submission of Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense and Reply to Government s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Present Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense)... 08/26/13; Doc. No Ministry Membership Card... 08/26/13; Doc. No Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Defendants Motion in Limine to Present a Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense. Tr. 08/27/13, pp Exhibit 1 (attached to Defendants Roger and Sherryanne Christie s Joint Post Hearing Brief (RFR)). 09/04/13; Doc. No Information 09/26/13; Doc. No. 1 (filed in District Court Cr. No LEK) 66. Plea greement (Roger Christie).. 09/27/13; Doc. No Plea greement (Sherryanne L. Christie). 09/27/13; Doc. No Plea greement (Sherryanne L. Christie). 09/27/13; Doc. No. 8 (filed in District Court Cr. No LEK) 69. Judgment (Roger Christie) 04/29/14; Doc. No Judgment (Sherryanne L. Christie)... 04/29/14; Doc. No. 25 (filed in District Court Cr. No LEK) Page (Vol. 4) 961 (Vol. 4) 970 (Vol. 5) 971 (Vol. 5) 1075 (Vol. 5) 1080 (Vol. 5) 1084 (Vol. 5) 1111 (Vol. 5) 1135 (Vol. 5) 1159 (Vol. 5) 1174 viii

10 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 10 of 236 TBLE OF CONTENTS 71. mended Judgment (Sherryanne L. Christie)... 05/01/14; Doc. No. 28 (filed in District Court Cr. No LEK) 72. Notice of ppeal (Roger Christie) 05/08/14; Doc. No Notice of ppeal (Sherryanne L. Christie)... 05/08/14; Doc. No. 29 (filed in District Court Cr. No LEK) 74. First mended Notice of ppeal (Roger Christie)... 05/12/14; Doc. No First mended Notice of ppeal (Sherryanne L. Christie)... 05/12/14; Doc. No. 33 (filed in District Court Cr. No LEK) Page (Vol. 5) 1185 (Vol. 6) 1196 (Vol. 6) 1197 (Vol. 6) 1199 (Vol. 6) Criminal Docket (Cr. No LEK) (Vol. 6) 1205) 77. Criminal Docket (Cr. No LEK)... (Vol. 6) 1366 ix

11 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 11 of IN THE UNITED STTES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HWII UNITED STTES OF MERIC, Plaintiff, vs. ROGER CUSICK CHRISTIE, (01) SHERRYNNE L. CHRISTIE, (02) formerly known as Sherryanne L. St. Cyr, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CRIMINL NO LEK Honolulu, Hawaii ugust 27, :05 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Defendants (01) and (02) Motion in Limine to Present a Religious Freedom Restoration ct Defense PPERNCES: TRNSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORBLE LESLIE E. KOBYSHI UNITED STTES DISTRICT JUDGE For the Government: For Defendant(01): For Defendant(02): Michael K. Kawahara Office of the United States ttorney Prince Kuhio Federal Building 300 la Moana Blvd Ste 6100 Honolulu, HI Thomas M. Otake Thomas M. Otake L, LC 345 ueen Street, Ste 600 Honolulu, HI Lynn E. Panagakos 841 Bishop St., Ste 2201 Honolulu, HI Official Court Reporter: Cynthia R. Ott, RMR, CRR United States District Court P.O. Box Honolulu, Hawaii Proceedings recorded by machine shorthand, transcript produced with computer-aided transcription (CT). 0971

12 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 12 of INDEX EXMINTION Witness Name Jessica Walsh Page Direct By Mr. Kawahara... 8 Cross By Mr. Otake Cross By Ms. Panagakos Redirect By Mr. Kawahara Recross By Mr. Otake Recross By Ms. Panagakos Victoria Fiore Cross By Mr. Otake Cross By Ms. Panagakos Edwin Buyten Cross By Mr. Otake Cross By Ms. Panagakos EXHIBITS Exhibit Page (Government's Exhibits from Exhibit List Filed 08/22/2013:) Sze 1-4 Received in Evidence Sze 5-9 Received in Evidence Buyten 1-11 Received in Evidence TT1 Transcripts Received in Evidence TT2 Transcripts Received in Evidence

13 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 13 of EXHIBITS (CONTINUED) Exhibit Page TT3 Transcripts Received in Evidence Undercover Officer Recordings Received in Evidence THC Ministry Web Site Excerpts Received in Evidence SK-01 - SK-11 Received in Evidence Defendants Joint Exhibits - O Received in Evidence

14 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 14 of TUESDY, UGUST 27, :05.M THE CLERK: Criminal LEK, United States of merica versus Defendant (01), Roger Cusick Christie, and Defendant (02), Sherryanne L. Christie, formerly known as Sherryanne L. St. Cyr. This case has been called for an evidentiary hearing regarding Defendants 1 and 2's motion in limine to present a Religious Freedom Restoration ct defense. Counsel, please make your appearances for the record. Please speak into a microphone. MR. KWHR: Good morning, Your Honor. Michael Kawahara representing the United States of merica. THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Kawahara. Mr. Otake. MR. OTKE: Good morning, Your Honor. Thomas Otake on behalf of Roger Christie, who is present. THE DEFENDNT: Good morning, Judge. THE COURT: ll right. The record will reflect his presence. Good morning. MS. PNGKOS: Good morning, Your Honor. Lynn Panagakos on behalf of Sherryanne Christie, who is present. THE COURT: Good morning. The record will reflect the presence of Mrs. Christie. So, are we ready to proceed with our hearing? MR. OTKE: Yes. Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. OTKE: s a very first preliminary issue, Your 0974

15 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 15 of Honor, I understand the marshals are just doing their job and it is policy, I guess there's a new policy about those in custody being handcuffed unless it's a trial, but it would be really helpful to me if he could take notes. nd obviously, you know, he's been on his best behavior every time he's been before you. So I would ask the Court to order that he be taken out of his handcuffs so that he can help in his defense. THE COURT: ll right. The Court will so order. MR. OTKE: Thank you. THE COURT: ll right. Of course, Mr. Christie, you understand the security issues, but the Court finds it reasonable for him to have his hands free to assist Mr. Otake and to take notes and otherwise communicate by writing. MR. OTKE: Thank you. THE COURT: re the parties in agreement that I should impose the witness exclusionary rule or is that not necessary, Mr. Kawahara? MR. KWHR: Yes, Your Honor. I think that would be appropriate. THE COURT: ll right. ny objection by the defense? MR. OTKE: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. There being no objection, the Court imposes the witness exclusionary rule. So any witnesses other than representative parties must be outside the courtroom when any testimony is being taken. 0975

16 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 16 of For planning purposes, I just need to let you know that if we're not finished by 1:30, I am going to take the lunch break then. nd then we'll return after that because I have to take my son to the doctor's, but other than that. MR. KWHR: We're following your trial schedule, I believe. THE COURT: Yes. Yes. MR. OTKE: I should have had a bigger breakfast. THE COURT: I'm sorry. There's lots of candy up here. Mr. Nakamura will share that with you. ll right. So we're ready to proceed? MR. KWHR: Yes, Your Honor. I'm having the first witness called to be brought into the courtroom. THE COURT: ll right. Very well. MR. KWHR: The first witness, Your Honor, is Jessica Walsh. nd if I may, Your Honor, I'd like to ask a couple questions as part of my direct exam of her before turning her over for cross-examination. THE COURT: ll right. So that's outside of your declaration? MR. KWHR: Yes. Yes, it is, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you have any -- okay. Mr. Otake. MR. OTKE: I mean, I guess that was not the understanding of how we were proceeding today, but I mean if it's just a few questions, I don't have a big problem with 0976

17 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 17 of that. If he's going to go on about a lot more things, then that should have been put in the declaration. MR. KWHR: Well, Your Honor, realize that there's been a lot of subsequent briefing, a lot of matters. I tried to get the declaration in as quickly as possible early on to defense counsel, and if we were going the regular route -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. KWHR: -- I would be permitted to ask all of these questions during direct examination here. MR. OTKE: Well -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. OTKE: -- and I'm not objecting. THE COURT: Okay. MR. OTKE: I'm just curious of the scope of how far he's going to be going so. MR. KWHR: I don't think it's going to be more than about five to 10 minutes, Your Honor. MR. OTKE: That's fine. THE COURT: So no objection. ll right. You may. (Witness sworn.) THE CLERK: Please state your name and spell your last name for the record. THE WITNESS: My name is Jessica R. Walsh. My last name is W--L-S-H. MR. KWHR: nd can we have a stipulation as to 0977

18 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 18 of identity for both defendants, so we don't have to go through the in-court identification? MR. OTKE: That's fine. MS. PNGKOS: Yep. MR. KWHR: Very well, Your Honor. DIRECT EXMINTION BY MR. KWHR: 8 Ms. Walsh, I have a -- aside from your declaration that was previously filed, I have just a couple questions, if I may ask of you. If you could, first of all, look at the computer screen in front of you. Do you see that in front of you? I do, yes. This is what has been marked as SK Exhibit 11. nd do you 14 recognize what's shown in this particular photograph? I do, yes. What do you see there? It's two ministry ID cards. nd is that the two ministry cards, is that both the front 19 on one card and the back on the other card? 20 On my screen it's the front on the left and the back on 21 the right. 22 So now in your declaration you've indicated that you would -- among one of the jobs that you had at the ministry was putting together the Sanctuary Kits; is that correct? 25 That is correct. 0978

19 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 19 of nd how many ministry ID membership cards did you include 2 in each Sanctuary Kit? Two in each. Two? Uh-huh. So the -- and so the person who received the Sanctuary Kit 7 had two cards to do with what they wanted to? 8 9 Yes. Now, if you look at the sanctuary card itself, you notice 10 that these are blank? Yes. nd when you sent out these Sanctuary Kits with these 13 membership cards, were all the membership cards all blank too? They were blank, yes. nd where is there on this, on this membership card where 16 the person's name was supposed to be filled in? 17 They would sign their name on the signature line on the 18 front of the card it? I see. nd if I'm -- how do I do this, Warren, to mark Well, if you look at the front of the card, which is on the right with the heart on it. THE COURT: I think you touch the screen and if you circle it it'll -- yes, there you go. MR. KWHR: Didn't do it the way I wanted, but I 0979

20 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 20 of think everyone understands. THE COURT: Or if you hold it, I think it'll highlight it. MR. KWHR: Undo is here, I think one or the other. BY MR. KWHR: 6 But do you see where the signature block is on the front 7 of the card, which is on the left of the screen? I do, yes. nd it says that's a signature there, right? Yes. nd so the person's supposed to sign their signature 12 there? Their signature, yes. Now, when you -- did you also have the opportunity to hand out membership cards for people who applied in person at the ministry? I did, yes. nd when you handed them the cards or when you gave them 19 the cards, were they blank cards too? They were blank cards. nd who was supposed to fill out the signature on these 22 membership cards that you were handing out? The prospective member filled out the signature. nd let me also show you two other exhibits. What I'm showing you now is marked as Sze, S-Z-E, 0980

21 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 21 of Exhibit 9. Do you see that in the screen in front of you? I do, yes. nd do you see that membership card at the top? Yes. Is there a name filled out there? There is. nd can you read that? Reverend Richard Turpin. T-U-R-P-I-N? Yes. nd let me show you another exhibit. What I'm showing you 12 is Exhibit Sze Exhibit 8. Do you see that? I see it, yes. nd can you make out the signature there? I cannot make out the signature. Now, when you were working at -- on Express. Now you describe Express in your declaration, when you were working on Express, what did the individual have to do to identify themselves to you? They would have to show this, their ministry ID card. nd what happens if like on this particular card you couldn't make out their signature? Was there any further identification process which was required for you to do of them? 25 There was not, no. 0981

22 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 22 of What was all that they needed -- and if an individual came 2 3 to you for Express to obtain sacrament, what was all that they needed to do to be eligible to receive sacrament? 4 They had to show their ministry ID card, but I wasn't -- I 5 didn't check the signature or read the signature or -- 6 Was there any requirement imposed on you to read the 7 8 signature or to somehow identify who the bearer of that ID card was? 9 10 There wasn't, no. I wasn't directed to even read it. Were you given any instructions as to confirm their identity by use of -- by having them show their license or other formal identification card? 13 I wasn't, no. It was a quick glance. Mostly, see the red 14 heart and know that they had a card. 15 Well, what I asked you was there any requirement imposed on you to check other -- other state ID or other licenses to confirm their identity? There was no requirement, no. Now, was there any requirement imposed by -- on you to check your membership -- your ministry membership records to make sure that this person who bore this card was a valid member? There was no requirement. MR. KWHR: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: ll right. Thank you. 0982

23 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 23 of Cross-examination, Mr. Otake. CROSS EXMINTION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDNT R. CHRISTIE BY MR. OTKE: Good morning, Ms. Walsh. Good morning. My name is Tommy Otake. I have a few questions for you 7 8 this morning. If you don't understand my question, ask me, and I can repeat it, okay? 9 10 Okay. Thank you. I'll start right where you left off or right where Mr. Kawahara left off, I should say. nd he was talking about the Express service and whether or not there was a requirement to check IDs, okay? nd you said at least from where you were, what your job was, you didn't check driver's license or anything like that, correct? Correct. But at the same time, though, oftentimes there -- in addition to you being where you were, there was a doorman that dealt with people coming into the ministry as well, right? There was, yes. nd the doorman as well would do things such as check 22 ministry card and check ID, yes? 23 I can't speak for the person at the door, but I was the door person a few times and I was not instructed to check anything other than the ministry ID card. 0983

24 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 24 of Okay. But there were times when there were other doormen 2 there, yes? 3 Yes. 4 nd you can't say whether they did or did not I cannot. -- check. Okay. Now, I'll come back to this Sanctuary Kit and other things you're being asked about in a while. But I want to kind of start from the beginning because that's kind of where it makes sense to start. In your declaration you indicated that you learned about the THC Ministry and a job opening there through an advertisement on Craigslist, yes? Yes. nd that's Craigslist.com on the internet, right? Yes, sir. Now, it wasn't any secret then that the THC Ministry existed and that they were looking to hire staff, right? It was on the internet, yes? Yes, sir. nd you responded to the ad and eventually you were hired 21 there, yes? Yes. Now, would you agree with me that just as they openly -- the THC Ministry openly advertised on the internet about the job position, the THC Ministry typically operated in 0984

25 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 25 of a fairly open, nonsecretive manner, yes? 2 3 I would say that's true in my experience, yes. Okay. nd for example, you were aware that, let's start 4 5 right with the physical location at the building in downtown Hilo -- well, first of all it was in downtown Hilo, right? 6 7 It was, yes. Oftentimes there would be a banner hanging outside of the 8 window that said the THC Ministry, yes? 9 10 Yes. nd oftentimes that banner said, "We use cannabis 11 religiously and you can too." Right? That's correct, sir. Okay. In addition to the banner, you were aware that 14 there were oftentimes ads placed in the paper, yes? Yes. nd that there also was a web site, right? There was, yes. nd I'll come back to the web site in a while, but you talked about the Express operation in your web site -- I mean in your declaration, and one of the things you said is that at times the line was out the door, right? That is correct. Okay. So if anybody, law enforcement or otherwise, were driving by on the street at the right time, they might see this banner that says "we use cannabis religiously," yes? 0985

26 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 26 of Yes. nd they might see a line going up into the building, 3 right? 4 5 Correct. You say you were hired in January of 2009, does that sound 6 right That sounds right, yes. -- after responding to the ad. nd one of the first 9 things that you do is you go through an orientation, right? Yes. nd you talked about this orientation, and Roger was there. nd you said there were about three to four other people at the orientation, correct? In that one, yes. nd the orientation wasn't an orientation for new employees, it was an orientation for potential new members, yes? That's correct. During this orientation, when Roger was there along with you and these other people, Roger took the time to explain the beliefs and the practices of the THC Ministry to those who were present, right? Yes, sir. He went over with you, I guess, the philosophies of the 25 ministry, right? 0986

27 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 27 of Yes, sir. nd he talked to you about the need to be sincere, right? Yes. nd he talked to you about his beliefs as well as the 5 beliefs of the ministry, yes? 6 7 That's correct. nd in the course of doing that, this might be an obvious question, but you not only had a chance to see him, but he had a chance to observe you and listen to you and see how you reacted to what he was sharing with you, yes? There was that opportunity, yes. You were told at this orientation that it was legal what 13 they were doing, right? Yes. nd this was an orientation for those appearing in person 16 and attempting to be a member, yes? Yes. Okay. Now in your declaration you talk about the Ministry's operating hours, and you say how they were very short only open Monday, Wednesday, Friday, from 2 to 5 p.m. Do you remember saying that? I do, yes. Okay. But what you were describing really was the time period when the sacrament would be shared with others who would show up, yes? 0987

28 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 28 of Yes. The time period when the members could come in. Right. The time period where the members could come in to 3 receive what was referred to as sacrament, right? 4 5 Yes, sir. But aside from those hours, Roger was there a lot more 6 than just those hours, right? 7 I can say that he was there when I was there, and I 8 would -- anything more than that, I didn't see so Okay. So you weren't there all the time then? I was not there all the time, no. So if there were other times aside from these three days, three hours a week where he was meeting and counseling others, you wouldn't be aware of that because you weren't there? That is correct. ll right. Unless I talked to him, right, on the phone and he said I'm at the ministry. So there's times that I knew but not all the time. 19 Okay. So you do know that there were times aside from these three hours, three days a week that he was at the Ministry doing whatever else he may have been doing? Yes, sir. ll right. But in terms of the time when members could come and receive sacrament, it was limited to three days a week for three hours a day, yes? 0988

29 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 29 of Yes, that's what I recall. nd that's what you put in your declaration, right? Yes. nd so -- and that was a decision made obviously by Roger, 5 right? 6 7 Yes. bsolutely. It's not as though Roger -- well, let me rephrase it. 8 9 It's not as though any day, every day, at any hour, someone could come in and get cannabis. It wasn't like that, was it? No, not necessarily, it was not like that. ll right. Now, one of the things you say in your declaration is that you weren't allowed to give out cannabis to the members unless they could pay, absent permission from Roger, right? That is correct. But there were times that Roger would share cannabis with 17 others who could not pay, members that could not pay, right? There were, yes. Okay. You just couldn't do that without his permission, 20 right? 21 I couldn't do anything without Roger's permission, or 22 Sherry's, but generally Roger's. 23 In fact, you do mention later in your declaration these 24 things called aloha bags, yes? 25 Yes. 0989

30 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 30 of nd that was, as you referred to it, free sacrament for 2 those who perhaps didn't have the means to pay, yes? 3 4 That's correct. With regards to the sharing of sacrament with those who were there at the Ministry during these limited hours, you were instructed by Roger that only Ministry members or those with medical marijuana cards could obtain sacrament, correct? 8 9 Yes, that's correct. In other words, it's not as though he told you, hey, whoever shows up who has some money, let them pay and let them take it. They had to be a member, right? They had to be a member. nd they had to also -- either that or they had to have a 14 medical marijuana card, right? 15 Yes nd one of the things you indicate though is that 85 to 90 percent of those who acquired cannabis were members, right? Yes. In your experience, the remainder were those with state 20 medical marijuana cards, yes? Yes. That was my experience. nd just to be clear, in your understanding, to have a 23 medical marijuana card that requires physician approval, yes? That's my understanding, yes. Okay. nd again, just to be clear, Roger made the 0990

31 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 31 of decision of who would become members, not you, right? 2 3 That's correct, yes. ll right. Now, focusing again on this Express practice, the one you talked about in your declaration at length, you talked earlier about how they had to show their membership card, right? 7 8 Yes. nd Mr. Kawahara says, well, did you check the ID, did you 9 10 check the signature. You don't know of any specific instance where somebody used somebody else's card, do you? No. I didn't have any experience with that. ll right. We talked about the doorman. One of the other things that had to happen when people came in the door, other than showing their -- in addition to showing their card, they also had to wash their hands with hemp soap, right? Yes. That's correct. nd to your understanding this was a symbolic practice created -- well, enforced by Roger to make sure the people understood the religious nature of the Ministry and what they were about to do, right? That was my understanding of his intent, yes. It was a symbolic practice that reflected sincerity, yes? Yes. Roger also required anyone present -- any of the members 25 present to receive sacrament to have good manners and be 0991

32 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 32 of respectful, yes? 2 3 Yes. nd that was kind of a big deal to him. It's not like you 4 5 could come in here and be disrespectful and do whatever. He required manners and respect, yes? 6 7 That was my experience, yes. ll right. Now, you talked about some of the different donation prices in your declaration, but I want to clarify a few things about that. You mentioned different amounts and, you know, smaller amounts, larger amounts, but the truth is, isn't it, for the most part the majority of those who came in for sacrament would be making donations in the -- somewhere in the $20 to $50 range, yes? I would say the majority, yes. Okay. nd when you're talking the $20 to $50 range, in your experience you're talking about enough cannabis for possibly like one to three joints or something like that, right? I mean that's the kind of amounts we're talking about, right, majority of the time? I would say it depends on the size joint you roll. Okay. That's a good point. But typically that's what you're talking about, is one to, you know, a small amount of joints in other words, right? MR. KWHR: Objection, Your Honor. sked and answered. 0992

33 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 33 of THE COURT: Okay. So before I rule on that, I see that one of your witnesses are here. MR. KWHR: Yeah, that's the case agent. THE COURT: Yes, so he's going to be your -- I just wanted that clear on the record. MR. KWHR: Yes. THE COURT: ll right. Thank you. So overruled. You can sit next to him. Overruled. Do you have the question before you? If not, he can repeat it. THE WITNESS: If you could repeat it. BY MR. OTKE: 13 Let me rephrase it. Maybe the way I asked it wasn't, let me rephrase it. Like you said, the majority to your recollection was the $20 to $50 range, yes? Yes. ll right. nd at least then, in your experience, the majority of what was taking place was the sharing of smaller amounts of cannabis for individual use, is what it appeared like to you, right? MR. KWHR: Objection. That calls for a conclusion, Your Honor. MR. OTKE: No. It's what it appeared like to her. THE COURT: Overruled. BY MR. OTKE: 0993

34 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 34 of Yes? 2 I'm sorry. Can you -- 3 nd at least from what you observed and what you did, the majority of the time it appeared to you that the cannabis being shared were smaller amounts for individual use, yes? THE COURT: Wait. Okay. Now you're assuming facts not in evidence. How would she know it's for individual use? MR. OTKE: I mean, as it appeared to her. I mean, well, in her mind. THE COURT: Well, I guess it sort of lacks foundation. I would just ask her, in your mind, did you make any determination how these people were going to use the sacrament that was distributed -- not distributed -- the sacrament that they received? THE WITNESS: I didn't make a determination about what they were doing with it. MR. OTKE: Okay. ll right. THE COURT: Yeah. BY MR. OTKE: 20 Now, moving on to another subject, who wrote this 21 declaration, your declaration? Mr. Kawahara drafted it. I reviewed it. Okay. nd you understand Mr. Kawahara is the U.S. 24 attorney that was also prosecuting you in this case, right? 25 I do understand that, yes. 0994

35 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 35 of nd who is your attorney? lvin Nishimura. You understand that as you were charged in this case, you 4 were looking at a mandatory minimum of five years, right? 5 6 Yes. Okay. nd that you were charged with a conspiracy to 7 distribute marijuana involving over a hundred plants, yes? 8 9 I understand, yes. Okay. Now, he drafts this, you review it, you sign it, 10 right? I did sign it, yes. Okay. nd one of the things you say in here, or that he wrote in here and then you adopted, was that you never advised members of any restrictions on what they could do with sacrament. Do you remember that being in here? I do, yes. nd aside from what you may or may not have done, as far as you know, Roger though in your experience would advise members as to what they could or could not do with sacrament, correct? MR. KWHR: Objection to the extent this calls for speculation on the part of what Mr. Christie does or doesn't do, Your Honor. MR. OTKE: s far as she knows. THE COURT: That 's it. She needs to testify whether 0995

36 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 36 of she knew that or not, so overruled. Do you know if Roger Christie ever told -- well, you can state the question. Sorry. BY MR. OTKE: 5 re you aware in your experience of any information or 6 7 instruction Roger Christie would give others about the restricted use of the sacrament? In my experience, Roger would explain it as religious use. Okay. But I don't recall details about, you know,, B, and C of 11 what that means Okay. So you can do X, you shouldn't do Y, those kind of things. Now you're familiar with the web site, right? I am, yes. nd, in fact, at your grand jury testimony you were asked 17 about your knowledge of the web site, right? Yes. Remember that? Okay. MR. OTKE: nd, Your Honor, at this time if I could publish a portion of the web site. THE COURT: No objection? MR. KWHR: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: ll right. You may. BY MR. OTKE: 0996

37 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 37 of I'm going to show you a page on the web site. Let me move it up a bit here. Kit, yes? nd he's talking about -- this is about the Sanctuary 5 6 It is, yes. nd then on the bottom there he talks about successful 7 8 religious defense, the prosecution is based upon five qualities, do you see that? I do see that. You remember seeing that on the web site, yes? I don't actually remember looking at it and the time 12 period that I read it, but I don't doubt that it exists there. 13 Do you recall that one of the restrictions that Roger had on this was, as it says at number one, sincerity, does that sound familiar? That sounds familiar, yes. I'm going to turn to the next page. nd it repeats 18 sincerity again. But number two was legitimacy, yes? It is, yes. Number three, he talked about a mandate to grow and use 21 cannabis. Do you remember Roger talking about that? Yes. Okay. nd then number four, sacrament must be used in private, preferably at home or at church. Do you recall that being something Roger would share with others? 0997

38 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 38 of I see it on the web site. Okay. Isn't it true at the orientation and other times Roger would repeat, to your knowledge, that the cannabis for -- was for use in private, at home, in church, or in the tabernacles of nature. Did you ever hear him say that? Does that sound familiar? 7 I don't recall if he said it at my orientation. I didn't 8 sit through other orientations Okay. So I can't speak that it was said to that, but. Does that sound like something Roger would say? MR. KWHR: Objection. That calls for speculation, Your Honor. MR. OTKE: In your -- well, in your experience of knowing Roger. THE COURT: Sustained. Calls for speculation. BY MR. OTKE: 18 Now, turning your attention to these Sanctuary Kits that you mentioned in your declaration, okay? So the Sanctuary Kits were mailed to people, yes? They were. Yes, sir. nd that's different from this process of orientation where those people could come in, meet face-to-face with Roger, and have a conversation with him, yes? 25 It's different. There were people that came in and got a 0998

39 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 39 of Sanctuary Kit as well but. 2 Okay. But the Sanctuary Kit didn't necessarily require 3 you to come in, right? 4 5 Right. But the Sanctuary Kit that you guys mailed out, it was 6 mostly mailed to people outside of Hilo, yes? 7 8 Yes. That's correct. nd because a Sanctuary Kit was sent mostly outside of Hilo, to your knowledge and to your experience, the people receiving a Sanctuary Kit were not regular participants in the Express system, would that be fair to say, in your experience? 12 In my experience, yes. There was a few times that people 13 from out of state would come and visit Okay. nd so they were like I'm a member and I'm here now. But that was pretty rare, right? That was pretty rare, yes. Okay. Most of the people that came through the Express 19 system were from Hilo, yes? That is correct. The Sanctuary Kit itself, I want to talk to you a little more about that in detail because Mr. Kawahara was asking you about that today. Now, there were plant tags in the Sanctuary Kit, right? 0999

40 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 40 of That is correct, sir. nd just to be clear, that's a piece of plastic that you 3 can attach to a plant, right? 4 5 Yes, sir. nd this may sound obvious, but the Sanctuary Kit did 6 7 not -- it had plant tags, but it did not mail out actual plants, did it? No live plants. Okay. There was a sanctuary sign, yes? Yes, there was. There were bag tags, and you were asked about -- well, in 12 your declaration you mentioned the bag tags, yes? They were there, yes. Now, again, this may be clear, but I want to make it crystal clear, there were bag tags that were sent out, but there were not bags of cannabis mailed out, right? There were not bags of cannabis. There was a certificate and ID cards, right? Yes. nd in addition, there was a small bottle of holy 21 anointing oil, right? Yes. Now, the holy anointing oil, I want to talk to you about that, that basically was, again this sounds obvious, but it was an oil, right? 1000

41 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 41 of It was olive oil and some essential oils. Yeah, it was basically olive oil with some other things 3 mixed in, right? 4 5 Yes. nd you couldn't, in your -- to your knowledge and 6 7 experience, you couldn't smoke the holy anointing oil, could you? 8 9 I never smoked holy anointing oil. Right. You never did, right? You couldn't really 10 vaporize it or get high off it, right? I don't think so. It was made with cannabis though. Okay. But it was made with relatively symbolic levels of cannabis, wouldn't you agree? MR. KWHR: Objection. That calls for speculation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Lack of foundation -- MR. OTKE: Okay. THE COURT: -- unless she knows how it was made. BY MR. OTKE: 20 You mentioned it was made with cannabis, so you're 21 familiar to some degree with the recipe of this oil, right? Yes. nd it was in large part oil, like you said, olive oil, 24 yes? Yes? 25 Olive oil, yes. 1001

42 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 42 of nd symbolic amounts of cannabis, right? MR. KWHR: Objection, Your Honor, to the use of the word, "symbolic." THE COURT: Well, if she understands the question she can answer it. Overruled. Do you understand the question? THE WITNESS: I understand the question. BY MR. OTKE: 9 10 Right? I think symbolic means different things to different 11 people. 12 Let me use a different word then, okay, because that's a fair response. In other words, the purpose of the holy anointing oil itself was symbolic, yes? Right? Yes. In other words, it's not as though it was something that somebody wanting to get high or wanting to smoke cannabis would really have any use of, right? Right? MR. KWHR: Objection to the extent she knows, Your Honor. THE COURT: So you're saying a lack of foundation? MR. KWHR: Yes. I think in terms of the question that's being posed. THE COURT: ll right. Well, first of all, do you know what other people did with the oil? 1002

43 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 43 of THE WITNESS: Not -- I didn't experience anyone using the oil. I know what Roger would have said the oil is used for. I've heard him say that. BY MR. OTKE: 5 Okay. 6 I didn't use the oil, so that's Okay. THE COURT: So sustained. She doesn't know, yeah. 9 BY MR. OTKE: What did Roger say the oil was used for? For healing. For healing? For anointment. For anointment, right? Yes. He didn't say to smoke it, did he? No. He didn't say to smoke it. Okay. So in terms of the Sanctuary Kit, aside from the holy anointing oil and what that was used for and not used for, there wasn't any live plants in it, was there? No, sir. There wasn't any bagged cannabis, was there? No. It was in large part an informational packet, yes? Yes. 1003

44 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 44 of Now, you would agree that in your experience working there 2 3 and observing Roger, he wasn't a money motivated guy, would you agree with that? 4 5 I would agree that that's my experience, yes. Okay. nd you signed up and agreed to work there because 6 7 you believed that he was operating a legitimate ministry, right? 8 9 I did, yes. Okay. In other words, you would never have agreed to work there had you believed it was just a front for drug dealing, would you have? I would not have. Never would have, right? Never would have. Did you know how many plants was at the farm being run by 16 the people with the last names Mann and Friend? 17 I would say that that number may have been told to me, but 18 I don't remember it. nd I didn't hold on to it. 19 You had no personal knowledge of how many plants that was 20 or was not at the farm? No. Okay. But you pled guilty to being part of a conspiracy 23 to distribute marijuana involving more than a hundred plants? I did. Okay. While you were working there, during your time 1004

45 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 45 of period working there -- and I don't have that many more questions, okay, just a few more. In your time period working there, you know, we talked about the banner and the lines and the ads and the public nature of the Ministry, did law enforcement ever come by and come into the Ministry and ask, hey, what's going on or anything like that? 7 I saw law enforcement not come upstairs, but definitely 8 downstairs. 9 Okay. So it was clear to you that -- well, was it clear to you that at least to some degree certain law enforcement people were aware of the Ministry? MR. KWHR: Calls for speculation on the part of this witness, Your Honor. BY MR. OTKE: From what you observed. THE COURT: Well, overruled. She's testified that, I don't know how, but she recognized law enforcement -- MR. OTKE: So -- THE COURT: -- inside the physical plant of the Ministry. BY MR. OTKE: 22 Well, let me ask you this, in other words, it's not like they just were driving by or walking by, but you saw them in the area and it seemed that they're -- from what you observed that they were interested in kind of what was going on over 1005

46 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 46 of there, right? 2 I saw them in the area. I would say that it was very 3 4 visible. nd I can't say for sure that they acknowledged that it was present, but it would be hard not to for people. 5 But at least while you were there, did any law enforcement 6 7 come upstairs and say, hey, we want to talk to the person running this operation? 8 9 No. I don't remember that. Okay. Did any law enforcement personnel come upstairs and 10 make any suggestions on how you guys could do things better? No. I don't remember that happening. Now, only if you know but from what you know of Roger, in your experience there, would Roger have talked to law enforcement people had they come by? MR. KWHR: Objection. Calls for speculation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. OTKE: Your Honor, one second, if I could just check with my client. THE COURT: You may. BY MR. OTKE: Just a couple more questions, Ms. Walsh. Thank you. Throughout the course and scope of your employment there and your knowledge of Roger, were you aware that at times Roger would go and speak at county council meetings and public 1006

47 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 47 of events and things like that? 2 3 He relayed that information to me, yes. You understood that he would go to these meetings and share about the THC Ministry and things that he was involved in, yes? I never went to any of them with him or Okay. -- without him, but he did say I went and spoke here, I wrote a letter to this person. Those kinds of things. MR. OTKE: Okay. Thank you. THE WITNESS: You're welcome. MR. OTKE: No further questions. THE COURT: Ms. Panagakos, your witness. MS. PNGKOS: Thank you, Your Honor. CROSS EXMINTION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDNT S. CHRISTIE BY MS. PNGKOS: Good morning, Ms. Walsh. Good morning. My name is Lynn Panagakos. I represent Share Christie Now you said that -- just a moment. I believe you testified when Mr. Otake was questioning you or Mr. Kawahara, I'm not sure, that you couldn't do anything without Roger's permission or Share's but generally Roger, correct? 25 That is true. 1007

48 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 48 of So was the situation with Share only when Roger's ankle 2 was broken? Then Share would be the person that would say what. That was the time? Yes. That was the only time? It was close to like a manager and assistant manager, so Share had a say. She would, you know, Roger would listen to her opinion on things, and then Roger would generally say yea or nay to whatever the topic was. 11 The only time she was involved in the Express procedure 12 was during the time that Roger's ankle was broken? I can't recall. Okay. Do you know how long Roger -- do you remember when 15 his ankle was broken? 16 I don't remember the date. I remember the occurrence 17 though, yes. 18 nd was he then -- at that time, did Share come in more 19 often? She did, yes. Okay. nd how long did that last that Share was there 22 more often? I can't say with certainty. Was it a couple of months? It might have been a couple of months. My best estimate 1008

49 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 49 of would be less than three and more than one. 2 Do you recall testifying before the grand jury in ugust 3 of 2010? 4 5 I do, yes. Okay. nd you testified about your application after you 6 saw the ad in Craigslist, right? Yes. nd who interviewed you? Roger did. nd then who defined your duties? Roger did. nd who conducted the orientation? Roger did. nd you talked about prayer circles being conducted in the 15 morning, was that a routine occurrence? That was a routine occurrence, yes. Okay. Did that happen pretty much every day before the 18 Ministry opened? Pretty much every day, yes. Okay. nd it was Roger and you and the doorman and 21 generally one other employee; is that correct? 22 nd Share. nd anyone else that was working at that time So if there was someone there cleaning, they joined. If there was anyone that was working, it was a good team event. 25 I'd like to present the witness with a copy of her grand 1009

50 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 50 of jury testimony, and it's marked Defendant's Exhibit P. THE COURT: ny objection, Mr. Kawahara? MR. KWHR: Showing her the grand jury testimony, I have no objection to that. THE COURT: If you put it on the Elmo, then it'll show it to her on her screen. BY MS. PNGKOS: 8 Do you see your testimony starting at line 17 describing 9 the prayer circle? I do, yes. nd you described it as being the people that were 12 working, correct? Yes. There's no mention of Share there, is there? I would say that Share counts as the people that were 16 working Okay. Someone on Express, that would be you, correct? That would be myself or there was a couple of other people 19 that did Express, yes. 20 nd -- during this testimony, the only time you described Share working at Express was while Roger's ankle was broken; is that correct? Probably, yes. nd it was -- did Heather Duffy have a role in getting 25 that procedure set up? 1010

51 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 51 of She did, yes. It was she who recommended it, right? She did, yes. nd I believe you testified in your grand jury testimony 5 6 that the reason Roger went forward with Express was because he felt like he was able to help more people; is that correct? 7 8 Can I see that on my testimony? Well, I'll start at page -- do you see at the bottom of page 40 the grand juror is asking you, "Did you ever hear that in conversations whether he was more interested in promoting marijuana as a product to make money off the sale?" nd do you see your answer -- THE CLERK: I'm sorry, Ms. Panagakos. Can you go to the microphone. BY MS. PNGKOS: 16 Do you see the question from the grand juror starting at line 24 of page 40: "Did you ever hear that then in conversations whether he," that would be Roger, "was more interested in promoting marijuana as a product to make money off of the sales?" Do you see that question? I do, yes. nd do you see your answer? "The only thing I ever heard from Roger is that he believed that marijuana should be liberated and that anyone that wanted it should have it. He never mentioned being happy necessarily about the money. He 1011

52 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 52 of mostly talked about helping people. He went forward with the Express because he felt like he was able to help more people is the way he put it." Okay. Yes. nd was that his reason for going forward? MR. KWHR: Objection. That calls for a conclusion on what Mr. Christie's motives may have been. THE COURT: ll right. To the extent that you formed an impression, I'm going to overrule the objection. THE WITNESS: I did. I formed an opinion definitely that Roger wanted to help people. I know because I was there when Heather presented the idea of Express that she presented it in a way that more people could be seen to receive sacrament. BY MS. PNGKOS: nd the majority of the people purchased or received $20 to $50 worth; is that correct? That I saw, yes. Now, as far as the farm, it was your understanding when you were working at the Ministry that Susanne Friend only ever delivered shake to the Ministry; is that correct? That is correct. So you had no knowledge of, at the time you were working there, the relationship between the Friend and Mann and Mr. and Mrs. Christie? 1012

53 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 53 of Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. Other than Susanne Friend supplying shake to the Ministry, 3 4 did you have any other knowledge of any other role she had at the Ministry? 5 6 I didn't, no. You were asked about the web site during your grand jury 7 testimony, weren't you? 8 9 I believe so, yes. nd you saw at that time the web site's emphasis on 10 sincerity, correct? I saw that, yes. nd you resigned after the search of the premises in March ; is that correct? That is correct. nd at that time Roger told you that your sincerity would 16 be your defense; is that correct? He did, yes. nd it was Roger who -- do you know when Share met Roger? Do I know when Share met Roger? Uh-huh. No, I don't know. Do you know when the Ministry was formed? No, I don't know. s part of the orientation, he gave you background on the 25 Ministry, right? 1013

54 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 54 of He did, yes. re you aware that Share met Roger years after it was 3 formed? 4 5 I would say yes. nd so it was Roger who set the tenets of the Ministry, 6 correct? 7 8 That is correct. nd it was Roger who set the procedures for the Express, 9 correct? 10 It is like I said before, Share played a role in how it was managed to the extent that her opinion was heard. She provided her opinion, it was heard, and Roger made a decision. 13 When Roger was at the Ministry, Share spent most of her time at the farm in Puna, didn't she? MR. KWHR: Objection. How would the witness know that, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sustained. If you can lay a foundation. BY MS. PNGKOS: 19 She spent far less time at the Ministry when Roger was 20 present there, is that correct, than when he wasn't? Did you say she spent far less time? Less time at the Ministry when Roger was not injured. She spent less time at the Ministry when Roger was not 24 injured, but she did spend plenty of time at the Ministry. 25 She didn't work at the Express desk itself, did she? 1014

55 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 55 of There were a couple of times she did, yes. couple of times? Uh-huh. nd when you worked there, there were quite a few other 5 workers, correct? There were, yes. There was Heather? Heather, yes. Victoria? Victoria, yes. David Wallersteen? Yes. nn Timbers? Yes. Laura Krivo? Yes. nd Gwen? Gwen. nd Julie? Julie, yes. nd to your knowledge, all of these people were paid, 22 correct? 23 To my knowledge, they were. There were other people as 24 well besides them. 25 nd rent was paid for the premises, correct? 1015

56 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 56 of MR. KWHR: Objection. To the extent she knows, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you know whether or not rent was paid? THE WITNESS: I believe rent was paid, yes. MS. PNGKOS: May I have a moment, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. MS. PNGKOS: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: ll right. Thank you. Mr. Kawahara, redirect. MR. KWHR: Yes, Your Honor, thank you. REDIRECT EXMINTION BY MR. KWHR: 13 Ms. Walsh, you were asked on cross-examination the extent of your knowledge of Susanne Friend's involvement, do you remember that testimony? I do, yes. Now, while you were working at the Ministry, is there any reason why you would not have known what possible involvement Susanne Friend may have had with the Ministry? 20 There is reason. When Roger met with people who I -- so sometimes we would run out of sacrament and we wouldn't see any members. nd then someone would come in, and Roger would say I don't want anyone in here, I'm going to meet with this person privately. nd then when they were finished with the meeting, we would reopen and have sacrament again. 1016

57 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 57 of So that led me to believe potentially that that person brought sacrament and -- but I wasn't included in the meeting. It was very private. 4 So in other words, what you're saying is that at least on the supply side neither Roger nor Share indicated to you or identified to you where they were getting sacrament from? Not -- no. I mean occasionally I would make part? told? Well, the question is did they tell you? They didn't tell me, no. I see. So there was a question of a need to know on your need to know? I guess, did you need to know? That's why you weren't They definitely thought I did not need to know. THE COURT: I'm sorry. MR. OTKE: Objection, leading. rgumentative. Calls for speculation. MR. KWHR: rgumentative? THE COURT: Well, you can't object to his objection, so let's let him finish. Okay. So it's sustained. It is leading and argumentative. No, I mean, it's leading. So go ahead. Why don't you -- BY MR. KWHR: 25 What I'm trying to ask you was if Roger or Share told you 1017

58 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 58 of about things like who their suppliers were, then you would know, but did they tell you or did they not tell you? 3 4 They did not tell me. I see. So there were aspects of the Ministry then that you were aware of, like the sign in front, things like that, but were there other aspects of the Ministry that you just weren't told about by anyone? 8 9 Yes. There was some discussion during the cross-examination too about Express. Now, when Express first started, do you recall hearing what -- do you recall if -- hearing if Sherryanne Christie voiced any opinion about Express, pro or con? bout Express what? bout the Express procedure. Do you recall what Sherryanne Christie may have said in your presence about Express, the Express procedure? I don't recall. Did she say anything about Express or whether it was good 19 or for bad? 20 She thought it was, my understanding is that it was good. 21 She thought it was good because Is that what she said? That is what she said, that it was good, because Roger 24 spent time with each member and so fewer members could be seen. 25 nd by the Express procedure, because Roger was not, did 1018

59 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 59 of not have to spend time with them, more people could be seen? Yes. nd more -- what about the sacrament? More sacrament would be distributed. I see. Now, there were also -- there was also some questions posed to you about what was on the web site, about what Roger may have said about the use of the sacrament. Do you remember those questions? 9 10 I do, yes. You know, when the Express procedure that you described in your declaration, when that Express procedure is followed, what involvement -- what direct involvement did Roger, or when Share was present, what involvement did they have in that Express procedure with the customers? 15 If a member was needy, like they would say, I really want to talk to Roger, I want to meet with Roger, more often than they would want to meet with Share, that would be accommodated occasionally. t some frequency, that would be accommodated. 19 But in most instances for -- if people had the money and they provided the money that was the requested donation, they showed their card, would they have to see Roger at all to be able to get the sacrament? No. nd so if you did not give them that instruction about 25 what sacrament could be used for, then nobody did during, for 1019

60 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 60 of the Express procedure, would that be correct? 2 3 That would be correct. MR. OTKE: Objection, it's leading. It's also argument. It's leading. It's his witness. BY MR. KWHR: THE COURT: Well, it is leading, so sustained. 7 You did not -- you indicated in your direct examination, 8 9 you did not give any instruction about what the sacrament could be used for? I gave no instruction. nd unless the customer asked, was there any contact 12 with -- with Roger involved in the Express procedure? No contact. You discussed before the question of -- or there was some discussion in the cross-examination about sacrament and aloha bags. Let's talk about those aloha bags first. What kind of marijuana was contained in those aloha bags? 18 If -- if possible, it was the shake. So the stems, the 19 leaves, the trimmings nd are you familiar with the term shake and buds? I am, yes. What are buds? The flowers. The marijuana flowers? Uh-huh. 1020

61 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 61 of Is that what the more desirable part would be for smoking 2 purposes? That is the more desirable. nd is that what was being sold as sacrament? That was the sacrament, yes. What about shake, what did shake consist of? Shake was the stems, the leaves, the trimmings, the less 8 desirable parts of the plant. 9 That would have been what is left over, what you cut off 10 to process the buds? Yes. nd have you had the opportunity to use both buds and 13 shake? I have, yes. What's the quality of the shake? It is headache providing, for me. I received a headache 17 after smoking shake. 18 nd you did indicate in your declaration primarily it was 19 shake that was used, provided for in those free aloha bags? If it was available, yes. Now, let's talk about the buds. You were asked some questions about whether the buds could be provided at less than the donation cost. Do you remember that? I do, yes. nd was that a unusual occurrence only permitted by Roger? 1021

62 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 62 of It was only permitted by Roger. It was requested 2 3 frequently by members, and sometimes it was accepted and sometimes it was not. 4 But generally speaking, the people who came for Express, 5 did they pay you the full amount? 6 7 Generally speaking, yes. Now, you were also asked about, questions before that, whether you yourself would know if someone was using someone else's membership card. Do you remember that during cross-examination? I do, yes. How would you know if someone was using someone else's 13 membership card? I wouldn't know. nd were there also occasions where you were talking to people with respect to joining the Ministry where they wanted to use -- they did not want to use their real names? There were, yes. nd was that permitted? MR. OTKE: Objection, calls for hearsay. MR. KWHR: No. She said -- THE COURT: Wait, stop. Okay. Let me look at the testimony. Overruled. It was when she was speaking to people, did she know of instances where they did not want to use their real names. So the objection is overruled. 1022

63 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 63 of MR. OTKE: nd just to make the record clear, my objection is to what the people's responses were to her. That's clearly hearsay if he's trying to say that there were people who were interested in not using their real names. That's nothing but hearsay, Your Honor. MR. KWHR: But it's an indication, Your Honor. It doesn't necessarily have to go to the truth of the matter -- MR. OTKE: But asked -- MR. KWHR: -- and what they said. MR. OTKE: If it doesn't go to the truth, then what's the relevance of it to this proceeding? Obviously, he's trying to show it for the truth and then it's hearsay. THE COURT: ll right. So it's overruled. You're asking for her understanding, what did she take from these conversations, and it goes to her knowledge. MR. KWHR: Yes. THE COURT: It's not going to be received for the truth of whether these people are using their real names or not. MR. KWHR: No. But it goes to the practices of the Ministry and the like -- THE COURT: Right. MR. KWHR: -- with respect to, were these -- these people indicated to you they did not want to use their real names when you were talking about membership? 1023

64 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 64 of THE COURT: So now you're asking her for the hearsay 2 though. 3 4 MR. KWHR: No. THE COURT: Yeah. You're saying did they indicate to 5 her MR. KWHR: Did they ask you -- I'm just asking, did they tell you -- did they give you any kind of indication that they did not want to use their real names, were they still accepted as members? MR. OTKE: But that's still hearsay. MR. KWHR: No. It's the whole question of, the whole issue here, Your Honor, is the question of the legitimacy of membership and the extent to which, say, the Ministry cared about it. That goes to -- I think in the Lepp decision, that is an important factor. THE COURT: Except you're asking her for the hearsay. MR. OTKE: Right. THE COURT: So, I mean, I don't want to be overly technical on this, we don't have a jury here, but I'm going to sustain the objection. Basically what he's asking you is after dealing with these people in the role that you played with regard to the Express procedure, did it become part of your understanding that some people were apparently not using their real names? MS. PNGKOS: Your Honor, I have another objection, 1024

65 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 65 of and that is that the Court has found that we have met our prima facie burden. We're not here to challenge the legitimacy of the religion, but only the government's compelling interest in preventing diversion and whether this is the least restrictive means. It's not about an attack on sincerity, and if that's the case, that's why it needs to go to the jury. THE COURT: No. I think this is absolutely relevant to the government's burden. It doesn't have to do with the sincerity -- MR. KWHR: No. THE COURT: -- of the defendants or any belief in it, it has to do with, just like in I think the Lepp decision where the judge, you know, noted that the marijuana fields were unfenced, they were clearly observable, and that people could come and help themselves. I believe Mr. Kawahara's point is that people could come in and not even -- the argument is not even use their real names because they just want to get the card. nd nothing was done to make sure that they didn't want to use it for illegal purposes as opposed to religious. Yes. MR. OTKE: nd I understand the relevance of that, Your Honor, but I'm objecting to her saying what other people said. Mr. Kawahara had plenty of notice, and if he could find someone that was actually using a false name, they should be the ones testifying to it. THE COURT: Right. 1025

66 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 66 of MR. OTKE: Not her. THE COURT: But that's why we want this witness's understanding. I mean here she's having interaction. You're asking her did she observe law enforcement. She's using -- not that, you know, what would be hearsay was did people come up, did they say they were in law enforcement, did they say I want this, that and the other thing. What did she observe, did you ever see law enforcement there. So same thing, when these people come in, based on her interactions with them, did she come to an understanding that whatever he wants to. You're right, he can't ask her what did they tell you. I'm not using my real name because I only want the illegal stuff. You're right, that would totally be hearsay. MR. OTKE: Sure. If the question is simply was it your understanding from your experience, you know. THE COURT: Right. MR. OTKE: But not what people told her. Just from what she observed -- THE COURT: Right. MR. OTKE: -- then that's one thing. THE COURT: So then you can question her on whether her observations, understandings, conclusions were reasonable or not -- MR. OTKE: Right. THE COURT: -- but he's asking her, some of the people 1026

67 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 67 of who came, because she's involved, she's testified amply and laid a foundation that she's involved with this procedure. MR. OTKE: nd I'm still saying that's different from what he was asking, so I'm objecting. THE COURT: I agree. I agree. So the objection to hearsay is sustained as to the way it was asked, but you can ask her about her understanding from interacting with the people who came through the Express procedure. BY MR. KWHR: 10 Yeah, okay. Did you have any understanding when you were working at Express and seeing people with their identification cards whether they were using their real names or not? 13 I had no indication. I never checked their driver's 14 license. 15 But did you ever suspect at times that there were issues 16 about who they really were? 17 I suspected at times because there were members who clearly said to me that -- MR. OTKE: Objection -- THE WITNESS: Sorry. MR. OTKE: -- as to what members said, Your Honor. MR. KWHR: Well, we're talking about her understanding, so she can rely upon what people said to her. MR. OTKE: But then that's the whole point of what hearsay is, right? 1027

68 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 68 of MR. KWHR: No. MR. OTKE: I mean -- THE COURT: Okay. Stop, stop. It's sustained. But she can say that she did suspect that, based on what her interactions with these people, and that's her testimony right now. So you can follow up. BY MR. KWHR: 8 nd even though there was that, that did not stop them 9 from being able to acquire sacrament; is that correct? That is correct. You were also asked some questions by Mr. Otake concerning 12 Roger Christie and finances and money. Do you remember that? I do, yes. Did Roger Christie ever talk to you about having a grand 15 day, G-R--N-D? day? He did, yes. nd did he explain to you what he meant by having a grand Yes. nd what was that? What did he tell you? It meant that it was grand in terms of it was happy 22 because he made a grand, meaning $1, grand being the slang for $1,000 from what? grand 24 from what? 25 From the donations accepted for sacrament. 1028

69 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 69 of nd that would be for the time that when he -- when the 2 3 Ministry would be opened, those three days a week, from 2:00 to 5:00? 4 I would assume that. There's a possibility that he was 5 there earlier or later but. 6 I see. I see. Now, did Roger Christie also talk about a 7 concept called ganganomics? He did, yes. What did he say about that? MS. PNGKOS: Objection, Your Honor. That's beyond the scope of -- MR. KWHR: No, that was raised in her -- THE COURT: Wait, wait. Let her finish. MR. OTKE: I'm going to have to ask Mr. Kawahara to stop interrupting when we object. THE COURT: I agree. MS. PNGKOS: It was beyond the scope of any cross. MR. OTKE: I join in that. MR. KWHR: It was raised -- the question was raised, Your Honor, during cross-examination about what, her understanding about Mr. Christie and money. nd I think this is, that this is -- this clearly opened the door for this. THE COURT: Overruled. I agree. ll right. So he's asked you a question about ganganomics. BY MR. KWHR: 1029

70 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 70 of Do you recall that term? I do, yes. What do you recall Mr. Christie talking about that? I would be paraphrasing, but I would say it was generally the economy between a grower growing enough that they could then support themselves by distributing it, so they would make a profit to continue their garden and buy their groceries, for example, or something like that. 9 nd who would they be -- under this concept of ganganomics who, according to Mr. Christie, would they be providing their harvest to? 12 The way he explained it to me would be that the members would grow enough for themselves and to provide back to the Ministry, so that the Ministry could then provide to additional members. 16 I see. nd would the Ministry be donating something back 17 for this donation of sacrament received from the growers? I'm not sure. MR. KWHR: No further questions, Your Honor. MR. OTKE: Just brief follow-up. THE COURT: You may. RECROSS EXMINTION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDNT R. CHRISTIE 23 BY MR. OTKE: 24 Ms. Walsh, you were asked about this grand day. That was 25 pretty rare, yes? 1030

71 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 71 of Pretty rare. MR. KWHR: Objection. To the extent she knows, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, she's already testified he said that to her. So you're asking her, it was rare that he said that to her. MR. KWHR: No, I think he was asking -- THE COURT: Well, I'm asking him. re you asking if it was, she rarely heard that? MR. OTKE: Yeah, yeah. I'm following up with what he asked. THE COURT: ll right. So the -- MR. OTKE: Let me add a couple words. THE COURT: First, the objection is overruled. Go ahead. Did you want to rephrase? MR. OTKE: I can so. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. OTKE: 19 So Mr. Kawahara asked you about times when you would hear Roger say it was a grand day, and you said your explanation of that had to do with this money issue. I mean, it was pretty rare that he would say that, yes? few times that he told me it was a grand day. nd you had worked there for about two years, right? I think it was a year-and-a-half. 1031

72 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 72 of Okay. little less. Okay. So a few times he said that to you, and like you 4 5 were asked earlier by Ms. Panagakos, there were employees of the Ministry, yes? There were, yes. nd you guys were paid, right? We were, yes. To your knowledge, there was rent that was paid, right? Yes. So you in your knowledge of the Ministry understood that the Ministry, to operate it, there was some overhead involved, yes? That's my understanding, yes. MR. OTKE: ll right. Thank you, Ms. Walsh. THE WITNESS: You're welcome. MR. OTKE: Nothing further. THE COURT: Ms. Panagakos? RECROSS EXMINTION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDNT S. CHRISTIE 20 BY MS. PNGKOS: 21 Mr. Kawahara asked you about the suppliers to the Ministry. Do you recall testifying about that in your grand jury testimony? If you could point it out. It was Roger who asked you to leave the Ministry when 1032

73 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 73 of distributors came, correct? 2 3 It was, yes. nd sometimes you saw the people who were coming in those 4 meetings, right? 5 6 Sometimes I did, yes. nd you never saw Susanne Friend or Timothy Mann come for 7 that purpose? 8 I don't recall ever seeing Timothy Mann. Susanne Friend, 9 I might have seen coming from Right. It was your experience that she came to deliver 11 aloha bags, correct? Yes. nd during your grand jury testimony, you never testified about Share asking you to leave while there was any secret meeting with a distributor? I didn't, no. nd it was Roger who set the donation prices, correct? It was, yes. nd Roger, I believe you testified in your grand jury testimony, he met almost every single person who became a member, correct? That's not my experience, no. Can I add to that? The members that were on Hilo came in for orientation and 24 he met them, correct? 25 The members that were on Hilo came in to orientation. 1033

74 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 74 of There were some members, prospective members, that came in outside of orientation. They would become members. It would be preferred if they ended up attending an orientation, but I don't know that they always did. nd so I can't say with certainty from my experience that Roger met every member before they became a member. 7 He usually met almost every person as long as they were in Hawaii; is that correct? MR. KWHR: Objection. To the extent she knows, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. To the extent you know, based on your knowledge. So it's overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. PNGKOS: 15 You see your grand jury testimony here, line 16, 17, and he usually met almost every person as long as they were in Hawaii, correct? It says that, yes. MS. PNGKOS: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. KWHR: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: ll right. Thank you very much. You're excused as a witness. Please do not discuss your testimony with anyone until after the Court makes a decision whether to grant or deny the motion. ll right. Thank you very much. You're excused. 1034

75 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 75 of Call your next witness. ctually, we should take a recess. So we'll take a recess, and how about 20-minute recess? nd so we'll reconvene at 10:40. ll right. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) THE COURT: ll right. The record will reflect the presence of counsel and Mr. Christie and Mrs. Christie. You may be seated. ll right. Your next witness, Mr. Kawahara. MR. KWHR: The next witness is on the witness stand, Your Honor, Victoria Fiore, F-I-O-R-E. THE COURT: Thank you very much. Please administer the oath. (Witness sworn.) THE CLERK: Please state your name and spell your last name for the record. THE WITNESS: Victoria Fiore, F, as in Frank, I-O-R-E. MR. KWHR: I have no questions for her for direct examination. Her declaration has already been filed with this court. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Otake. CROSS EXMINTION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDNT R. CHRISTIE BY MR. OTKE: Good morning, Ms. Fiore. Good morning. Is that how you say your last name, Fiore? 1035

76 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 76 of Yeah. I have some questions for you this morning, not a whole 3 4 lot, but if there's a question I ask that you don't understand, let me know and I'll rephrase it, okay? 5 6 Okay. Now from your declaration that you signed related to this 7 8 case, it appears that you only worked at the THC Ministry for about two months; is that right? Correct. Do you remember the dates, I mean the months? It was about the second week of pril to about the third 12 week of June Okay. Speaking of this declaration, what was the process that led to this declaration being signed? In other words, did you draft it? Who drafted the declaration to your knowledge? 16 I would imagine the prosecuting attorney would be drafting 17 the declaration. 18 ll right. So he drafted it, you reviewed it, and then 19 you signed it, right? Correct. ll right. In this case you were also charged, right? Yes. nd then you understood that there was a possibility of a 24 five-year mandatory minimum, yes? 25 Correct. 1036

77 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 77 of nd you understood that the prosecutor who was drafting 2 3 this declaration was the one that would have an input on what would happen in your case, yes? 4 5 Correct. ll right. Now, how did you learn about the THC Ministry 6 first? How did you first learn of it? 7 banner on Bay -- or on Kamehameha venue by Nui Nui, 8 their office had a huge banner hanging right outside of it. 9 Okay. So you happened to be passing by in Hilo one day 10 and you saw the banner, yes? Correct. nd it is the banner that said something along the lines of, the THC Ministry, we use cannabis religiously and you can too? Correct. ll right. Following seeing that banner, at some point 17 you went and tried to learn more about the Ministry, correct? Yes. lthough you only worked there for a couple of months, in your experience, the Ministry operated in a fairly nonsecretive way, yes? bsolutely. In addition to the banner, for example, there were 24 newspaper advertisements done, yes? 25 Yes. 1037

78 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 78 of nd there was even a web site that you knew of, right? Yes. ll right. You talked about when there were people there 4 5 to receive sacrament, that there were times when sometimes the line would kind of be out the door; is that right? Correct. On to the sidewalk in public view, yes? Correct. So from your interactions with Roger and what you saw and what you observed, it didn't appear to you that he was trying to conceal his activities from the public Correct. -- is that safe to say? Yeah. ll right. Now, one of the first things you had to do, I guess, as part of becoming a member and working there was go through an orientation, yes? Yes. t this orientation, you mentioned in your declaration 20 that there was maybe six or seven other people, right? Correct. nd obviously Roger was there too, yes? Correct. He had the opportunity to interact with you and the other 25 people, yes? 1038

79 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 79 of Yes. nd he explained to you the beliefs of the Ministry, 3 right? 4 5 Correct. He also had an opportunity to answer any questions if 6 anybody had questions; is that right? 7 8 Right. nd among other things, he told you that the Ministry and 9 10 the use of cannabis as a sacrament was legal so long as you were sincere in using it for religious purposes, right? Correct. So at least to your understanding, to the people that were appearing in person to become members, Roger would interact with every one of them, right? Correct. Do you recall hearing Roger from time to time, whether it was to you or others and you were there that you could hear, do you recall him indicating to people that the cannabis for religious use should be used at home, at church, or in nature? Correct. I've heard that. With regards to the sharing of what was referred to as sacrament, isn't it true that you were instructed by Roger that only ministry members or those with medical marijuana cards could obtain sacrament? 25 Yes. That is correct. 1039

80 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 80 of nd to your knowledge, it was Roger who made the decision 2 of who would be a member, not you, right? 3 4 Yes. There's been this talk about this Express practice dealing with sharing sacrament with members and as far as when that would take place. In your experience, it was three days a week for about three hours each day; is that right? 8 9 Correct. nd that's what you're talking about, about where people had to show their membership card or their medical marijuana card, yes? Yes. Now, just to be clear, when you were working during these 14 times, you would be inside the Ministry; is that right? Yes. But at times there was also a doorman, yes? Yes. nd the doorman also, to your knowledge, would be checking 19 for membership cards; is that right? Right. In addition to having to have that form of membership card or medical marijuana card, one of the things that people were required to do when they came in was to wash their hands with hemp soap, right? 25 Right. 1040

81 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 81 of nd your understanding was that was to some degree a 2 3 symbolic act to reinforce that they were there for this religious purpose, right? 4 5 Correct. It was also important and required by Roger, to your 6 7 knowledge, that the people who were there to receive sacrament were respectful and demonstrated good manners? 8 9 Yes. Would you agree with me -- well, let me rephrase that Would you agree with the statement that most of the people that came through this Express procedure would be making a donation in the range of $20 to $50, the majority of people? That would be the average, the majority, yes. Okay. Now, one of the things in the declaration drafted by Mr. Kawahara that you adopted, one of the things in the declaration is that you never advised members of any restrictions on what they could do with the sacrament; is that right? Correct. side from your orientation, you weren't there though at all of the orientations Roger was doing during this time period, were you? Not all of them, no. Okay. You talk about the Sanctuary Kit in your 25 declaration. You're familiar with what that is, yes? 1041

82 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 82 of Yes. nd it's true that the Sanctuary Kits that were mailed out 3 were mostly mailed to people outside of Hilo, yes? 4 5 Yes. nd was it your assumption then that because -- well, for 6 example, that they were mailed to the mainland, yes Yes. -- right? nd mailed to other islands, right? Yes. nd was it your assumption then that for the most part the people you were mailing the Sanctuary Kits to were not regular participants in the Express procedure at the Hilo office? Correct. Okay. The Sanctuary Kits, the contents of it, there were 15 plant tags, yes? Yes. Not actual live plants, but plant tags, right? Plant tags. There were bag tags, yes? Correct. There was a certificate of some sort, yes? Yes. nd I want to ask you specifically about this holy anointing oil, and you remember that a small bottle of that would also be in the kit as well, yes? 1042

83 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 83 of Correct. Were you familiar with what was -- what the ingredients of 3 the holy anointing oil was? 4 5 Yes. What were the ingredients to your knowledge? 6 To my knowledge, there was sacrament or marijuana Okay. -- that was infused in a blend of oils. Okay. I'm not sure what the process was or exactly what oils 11 those were So there was some sacrament infused into oils, yes? Correct. What was your understanding of what the purpose of the 15 holy anointing oil was as you were From what I understood, it was a replication of what was -- what was in the Bible as far as holy anointing oil, and I believe it was referenced to Moses. 19 Okay. But the purpose of when it was sent out to people who were obtaining the Sanctuary Kit or even within any other members, what is your understanding of what the purpose of that oil was for? 23 The purpose of that oil, from my understanding, was used 24 for kind of like a personal blessing or a blessing Okay. 1043

84 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 84 of that they would give unto other people to use it -- So you as a prayer, I would suppose. So your understanding is it had a somewhat symbolic or 5 religious purpose in issuing a blessing or a prayer? 6 7 Right. There was a religious connotation to it. Okay. s far as your time working there, were you aware 8 9 of a farm being run by people with the last names Friend and Mann? 10 I had heard -- I had heard that there was one, yes. 11 Did you know I didn't know who they were per se or where that was 13 located. 14 Okay. Did you have any idea how many plants were being 15 grown at that farm? No. Excuse me? No. Okay. Now you -- as part of your efforts to resolve this case, you pled out or you pled guilty to being part of a conspiracy to distribute marijuana, yes? Yes. nd that included -- well, let me rephrase that. The charge indicated that it was a conspiracy to distribute marijuana and that it involved more than a hundred plants; is 1044

85 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 85 of that right? 2 Correct But you had no idea how many plants -- MR. KWHR: Objection, Your Honor. That calls for a legal conclusion on her part. MR. OTKE: How many plants are at the farm -- THE COURT: Overruled. BY MR. OTKE: You had no idea how many plants were at the farm, did you? I had no idea how many they were growing, no. But obviously you were scared when you heard there was 12 this five-year mandatory minimum, yeah? Obviously, anybody would be concerned if they heard that. Sure. Sure. Okay. nd you, after receiving advice from counsel, decided the best way for you to avoid that was to go this route that you've gone, yes? Correct. Now, I know you were only there about two months, but during your two months of being there, do you ever recall a time when anyone that, to your knowledge, was from any -- any type of law enforcement agency came by the Ministry? Yes. Okay. nd who was that? local Hilo police officer. nd what was his name? 1045

86 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 86 of I don't know what his name was. nd he came by the Ministry? Yes. nd did he have a chance to talk to Roger? Yep. Okay. Now -- and that was someone from the Hawaii County 7 Police Department to your knowledge? 8 9 To my knowledge, yeah. Now I don't want to get into what he said, but did Roger 10 appear willing to talk to him? Yes. nd this took place at the Ministry? t the Ministry, yes. So obviously this person from law enforcement knew of the 15 Ministry, right? Correct. nd Roger was willing to engage in a conversation with him 18 that you saw? Yes. ll right. MR. OTKE: Thank you. No further questions. THE COURT: Ms. Panagakos, your witness. CROSS EXMINTION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDNT S. CHRISTIE 24 BY MS. PNGKOS: 25 So you testified before the grand jury in -- a few years 1046

87 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 87 of ago, in ugust of 2010; is that correct? 2 3 That, I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part. Do you recall testifying before the grand jury in this 4 case a few years ago? Yes. nd also being interviewed by a DE agent? Correct. nd at -- on those occasions, you testified that Share's 9 10 role in Express was to fill in when Roger was not available, correct? Correct. Were you familiar with the Ministry web site? Yes. nd this is what was filed as document 613-1, which is an excerpt of the web site. The web site emphasized the importance of sincerity, correct? Correct. nd this ministry offers cannabis to sincere 19 practitioners, correct? Correct. nd Roger had actually told you that if -- that that was 22 important for your participation was your sincerity, correct? Correct. nd he also emphasized that good manners and respect for 25 others was a practice of this ministry? 1047

88 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 88 of Yes. nd this page of the excerpt lists five things, sincerity, legitimacy, a mandate to grow and use cannabis, sacrament must be used in private, preferably at home or church, and sale of sacrament is not permitted. Do you see that? 7 8 Yes. nd were these the tenets of the Ministry as far as 9 members? s far as I understand, yes. MS. PNGKOS: I have nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. KWHR: No redirect, Your Honor. THE COURT: No redirect, is that what you said? MR. KWHR: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: ll right. Then thank you very much, Ms Fiore. I'm excusing you as a witness. Please don't discuss your testimony with anyone until after I make a ruling whether to grant or deny the motion. Thank you and good day. THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. MR. KWHR: Next witness, Your Honor, is -- oh, might as well do exhibits now. MR. OTKE: Your Honor, before we forget, just really quickly, not really in regards to Ms. Fiore. Thank you, Ms. Fiore. 1048

89 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 89 of There's some exhibits that we wanted to stipulate in, and we thought this might be a good time. THE COURT: Very well. Good idea. MR. KWHR: It's a stipulation concerning exhibits on both sides that are on our exhibit lists, Your Honor, and have been tendered to the Court. MS. PNGKOS: Yes, Your Honor. Specifically about Exhibits through O, the defense exhibits, those are plants that were seized from the Mann/Friend farm and are part of the plants that comprise the 284 plants at issue in the charges in the indictment. nd I believe Mr. Kawahara would agree with that. MR. KWHR: Yes, Your Honor. nd also I believe the defense is stipulating to the exhibits that we have identified in our exhibit list and provided to the Court, as well as the Sze exhibits that we tendered yesterday. THE COURT: ll right. Thank you very much. So the Court is going to receive in evidence then by stipulation Defendants Roger and Sherryanne Christie's Joint Exhibits through O, that is more fully described and attached to the filing filed on ugust 26th, nd government's exhibits as identified in their submission and filing -- is that the one of ugust 22? MR. KWHR: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. ugust 22, So all of those 1049

90 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 90 of exhibits are received by stipulation. MR. KWHR: s well as, Your Honor, yesterday I submitted what is called Sze exhibits -- pardon me, Sze Exhibits 5 through 9, those would also be part of the stipulation. THE COURT: ll right. Is that correct from defense counsel, do you agree? MR. OTKE: Yes. THE COURT: ll right. I'm not trying to force you to it. I just wanted to make sure we have confirmation on the record before I receive it in evidence via stipulation. So that is via stipulation, those are received as well. nything else we need to do for housekeeping before we take the next witness? MR. OTKE: Yes, Your Honor. With regards to the declaration of Edwin Buyten, I am asking that at the very least the last sentence of the ugust 5th, 2013 declaration be stricken as it is simply -- it's just hearsay. nd there would be no basis. MR. KWHR: How would you know that? THE COURT: Wait, wait. MR. OTKE: Because I read it and it's talking about -- THE COURT: So this is what we're going to do is, I can take that up and rule on that after we have the witness. 1050

91 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 91 of MR. OTKE: That's fine. I just wanted to remember to put that on the record. It doesn't have to do with what I'm going to be asking him, but I wasn't sure if you wanted me to do that now or later because we have other arguments, you know, as to -- well, that's fine. THE COURT: Okay. MS. PNGKOS: nd, Your Honor, can I just be deemed to join in all of Mr. Otake's objections unless I say otherwise? THE COURT: Yes. ny objection in that, Mr. Kawahara? Whatever defense counsel makes an objection in the hearing, the other is going to be deemed to have joined. MR. KWHR: Yes, that's fine. THE COURT: So we'll take that up after he's called. MR. OTKE: That's fine. THE COURT: ll right. MR. OTKE: I just wanted to remember to do it. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. ll right. So Mr. Kawahara, I think your -- MR. KWHR: Next witness, Your Honor, is a Hawaii County Police Department officer, Detective Edwin. Buyten. (Witness sworn.) THE CLERK: Please state your name and spell your last name for the record. THE WITNESS: My name is Edwin Buyten. That's spelled 1051

92 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 92 of like B, like boy, U-Y-T-E-N. THE COURT: Thank you very much. Mr. Otake, we'll begin with your cross examination. CROSS EXMINTION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDNT R. CHRISTIE BY MR. OTKE: 6 Thank you. Sir, what is your current rank in Hawaii 7 County? 8 9 My current rank is Sergeant Detective. Okay. I only ask because do most people call you 10 detective or sergeant? 11 It's odd in the police department. You can call me 12 detective. I go by detective. 13 ll right. Detective Buyten, you've been with the Hawaii 14 County Police Department since 2002, yes? Correct. nd you've been in the vice, I guess, squad of the Kona 17 division since 2006; is that right? Yes. Since you started in well, when you started in , were you also assigned to the Kona side of the island? Yes. We refer to it as area two. Kona is area two? Correct. What is Hilo called? rea one. 1052

93 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 93 of Okay. So you've always been assigned to area two since 2 3 you started with the Hawaii County Police Department; is that right? 4 Not always. I was assigned generally to the Big Island 5 during a stint in intelligence, which covers the whole island. 6 Okay. But since 2006, you were assigned to the Kona vice 7 division, yes? 8 9 Correct. So the island is basically, as far as the Hawaii County Police Department is concerned, there's area one and area two; is that right? Correct. Did you ever work specifically in the Hilo division or I guess what would be area one, in other words, were you ever assigned specifically to that Hilo area? 16 To answer that question, so I can make it clear, when I was in criminal intelligence, I worked both Kona and Hilo, the entire island Hilo? Okay. But were you ever assigned just specifically to Not specifically to Hilo, no. So, for example, since 2006 you were specifically assigned 23 to the Kona vice, yes? Yes. Okay. 1053

94 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 94 of But I'd have to elaborate a little bit more on that so I could make it clear one more time that from 2006 to 2011, I was assigned to criminal intelligence which covered both Hilo and Kona, the entire island. 5 Okay. So from 2006 to 2011 you were only in Kona though, 6 right? 7 8 I was assigned to Kona, but I did work in Hilo. ll right. Not trying to trick you. You were only 9 assigned to Kona, yes? 10 Yes. 11 From 2006 to 2011? Correct. ll right. Now, to your knowledge the THC Ministry was 14 located in downtown Hilo, yes? Yes. re you aware throughout the course of your employment that the THC Ministry would regularly place ads in the paper, Sunday paper and whatnot, about their existence? I can't say I ever saw any of those ads. Okay. Were you aware that there was a large banner hanging outside of the THC Ministry that indicated "we use cannabis religiously, you can too"? 23 I've seen the banner before on the news or maybe in the 24 newspaper. 25 Okay. 1054

95 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 95 of I'm only familiar with the THC Ministry part. Only familiar with, excuse me? When you're referring to the banner. Yeah. I've seen pictures of the banner before. Okay. But did you ever have the opportunity to see it as 7 it was hanging outside the window in downtown Hilo? down? No. Have you ever been to the Ministry? No. Did you ever drive by the Ministry prior to it being shut No. re you aware that the Ministry had a web site? Yes, I am aware they had a web site. re you aware that the Ministry would advertise seminars that they would be putting on in a variety of publications throughout the Big Island? I'm not aware of those seminars, no. In your training and experience, including your time in the Kona vice, would you agree that the use of a banner, the use of a web site, the use of newspaper advertisements, in your training and experiences that doesn't demonstrate a desire to conceal one's activities, yes? MR. KWHR: Objection, Your Honor. That calls for 1055

96 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 96 of speculation on the part of this witness. THE COURT: Overruled. This is his area of experience. MR. OTKE: Right. THE WITNESS: In my experience, I've conducted a lot of different investigations where people have used web sites, Craigslist, articles in the newspaper, to sell other items that wasn't exactly what they were proclaiming to be. BY MR. OTKE: 10 Okay. So when the THC Ministry hung out a banner that said, "we use cannabis religiously, you can too," you would agree that that is not indicative of someone trying to conceal the fact that they're using cannabis religiously, correct? I feel that, yeah, it's a pretty open statement. ll right. You mentioned in your declaration that you saw 16 plant tags in about 20 different investigations, yes? Yes. nd you saw bag tags in about 25 to 50 different 19 investigations, yes? Yes. nd in your declaration, the second one that Mr. Kawahara had you do later, you mentioned two of these so-called 50 investigations by name, correct? Correct. You didn't name the other 48, right? 1056

97 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 97 of No, sir. You say you saw plant tags on cannabis plants in these 3 different investigations, right? 4 5 Correct. Now, although you can say what the plant tags had on them, 6 7 you cannot say where the plants came from, can you, in terms of your personal knowledge of what you observed? 8 9 No. Okay. To your knowledge, throughout the course of your employment, does it violate Hawaii County law to be in possession of a plastic plant tag? To be in possession of a plant tag, no. Okay. Does it violate county law to distribute a plastic 14 plant tag? The plant tag itself, no. Now, you talked about these bags that you saw, plant bags 17 labeled with ministry stickers, yes? Correct. nd again, as far as from your observation of the bag, you can make certain assumptions -- well, let me rephrase that. s far as your observations of the bag, you cannot say that the actual cannabis in the bag came from the THC Ministry, can you? No, I cannot. In the course of your employment, are you aware that the 1057

98 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 98 of Hawaii County Council, sometime in 2008, around that time period, passed something called The Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis ordinance? 4 5 I'm generally familiar with it, yes. ll right. When you say you saw these plant tags and 6 7 plant bags in up to 50 investigations, did you notify other law enforcement people on the Big Island of your concerns? 8 In those situations being assigned to vice narcotics for eight years, I've assisted in a lot of investigations. Mostly those investigations were led by other investigators in other agencies, so they were aware of it, would be my answer to that question. 13 Did you notify other people in law enforcement within your department of your concerns when you saw these plant tags and bags in up to 50 investigations? 16 gain, those parties would have been present at the same time as me in assisting them, so they were aware of the situation What's your rank right now, again? My rank now is sergeant or detective. 21 Who do you report to? Who's above you in the lieutenant. Who's above the lieutenant? captain. Who's above the captain? 1058

99 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 99 of major. nd then from the major it goes to where? ssistant chief. nd then to the chief? Deputy chief. Okay. Did you ever make your concerns known up the chain 7 of command up to any major, yes or no? 8 Well, sir, I can't answer that yes or no because at the time I would have been an officer. So there would have been a sergeant or a detective and/or a lieutenant on the scene who's aware of the situation. So, yes, they're aware of it because I was an officer assisting in the investigations. 13 Okay. So did you ever follow up and see if concerns over these plant tags was conveyed up the chain of command within the Hawaii County department? No. I wouldn't have followed up with it. ll right. To your knowledge did you or anyone from your department ever set up a meeting with Roger Christie to discuss these concerns you say you had? I wouldn't be aware of any meeting. Did you or anyone from your department ever suggest to the Ministry ways that it could improve their operation from a law enforcement standpoint? 24 I can only speak for myself, and I would say not me. 25 nd you're not aware of anybody else doing that

100 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 100 of No, sir. -- within the department? No. Prior to the federal government indicting Mr. Christie with federal crimes, are you aware of anything that you or your department did to explore other means of curbing some of the activities that concerned you? 8 I'm not aware of anything that the department would have 9 10 done. I can only speak to the investigations that I was part of. 11 nd you did nothing to approach Mr. Christie or his 12 ministry to express concerns that you had, right? Not me directly, sir, no. MR. OTKE: ll right. No further questions -- hold on, I'm sorry, Your Honor. MS. PNGKOS: May we confer? THE COURT: Yes. You may. MR. OTKE: No further questions. THE COURT: ll right. Thank you. Ms. Panagakos, your witness. CROSS EXMINTION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDNT S. CHRISTIE BY MS. PNGKOS: Hi, Detective. Good morning. So do you know a sergeant nicknamed Bully? 1060

101 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 101 of I'm sorry. Hawaii County police sergeant nicknamed Bully? Bully? Yeah. I can't say that I know a Bully. So you're not aware that he visited the Ministry and told 7 them that the religious use was okay? 8 9 No, ma'am. nd you're not aware of members of the vice squad visiting 10 the Ministry? I am not, no. I assume -- are you aware that Mr. Christie made annual 13 visits to the police chief? I'm not aware of that, no. re you aware that he had annual meetings with the mayor? I did not know that, no. re you aware that Mr. Christie spoke directly with 18 Community Police Officer William Derr too? No, ma'am. re you aware that Mr. Christie spoke regularly at the 21 Hawaii County Council? 22 I know he was involved in politics, but not directly to 23 the county council, no. 24 nd when you say you know he was involved in politics, he 25 was open about his ministry in connection with those political 1061

102 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 102 of activities? 2 I think I remember an article that he actually ran for 3 politics one time, on the Big Island is what I'm referring to. 4 5 nd do you recall when that was? Over five years ago maybe. 6 But sometime after 2000? Yeah. So while he was operating the Ministry? If it's the same time, yes. re you aware that he spoke regularly to the Hawaii County 11 Police Commission? No. re you aware that Hawaii County has rules permitting religious use signed by Police Chief James Correa and Mayor Kim? Religious use of marijuana? Yeah. I'm not aware of that, no. MS. PNGKOS: Nothing further, Your Honor. MR. KWHR: No redirect, Your Honor. THE COURT: ll right. Thank you very much. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're excused as a witness. Please don't discuss your testimony with anyone until I make a ruling on this motion. 1062

103 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 103 of THE WITNESS: I understand. THE COURT: ll right. Good day to you. MR. KWHR: That concludes my evidence presentation, Your Honor. THE COURT: ll right. So you wanted to address the hearsay? MR. OTKE: Yeah. So, thank you, Your Honor. So when you look at what was his first declaration, the first declaration of Edwin Buyten, page three. The declaration dated ugust 5th, The last sentence says, "Furthermore, in many instances the persons in possession of said marked plastic bags did not claim to be members of the THC Ministry." I'd ask that that be stricken and not considered by Your Honor. It is clearly a hearsay statement being offered for the truth. THE COURT: Mr. Kawahara, did you want to argue this point? MR. KWHR: The issue, Your Honor, here is that what the -- what individuals told the police officer, I think, is relevant in terms of what possible relationship there was to those particular tags. nd I think it is important that not everyone says whether they're a member or not and that is important in terms of what -- in terms of the interest that the -- that the United States, that prosecution authorities have, is that people do not claim to have membership at times. 1063

104 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 104 of nd that has a bearing, whether they're a member or not, that still has a bearing on whether or not there is a compelling interest. So the fact that people say things one or the other -- MR. OTKE: Right. MR. KWHR: -- it does bear on how the United States or how prosecution authorities should view it in terms of their own interest. nd I think that's the full purpose of it, Your Honor. MR. OTKE: Well, and that's why, my objection wasn't relevance. It clearly would be relevant if those people were here to say it, but my objection is hearsay because they're not here. THE COURT: So the objection is overruled because what he's doing is he's giving his conclusion as part of his investigation. MR. OTKE: Okay. But it's not being considered for the truth. THE COURT: Right. MR. OTKE: That isn't what these people said. THE COURT: Exactly. nd just like any police investigation, police officers can interview witnesses and then come up with a conclusion, making a recommendation to the prosecutor, for instance, that there's sufficient evidence for charges to be brought. They may be wrong. They may be 1064

105 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 105 of mistaken, and that's why the prosecutor needs to review it. MR. OTKE: But I just want to be clear, I mean what he's writing is not his conclusion. What he's writing is what he's saying these people said. nd so -- THE COURT: s part of his investigation, he can rely on hearsay, and that's what he's saying, you know, for his conclusion for the -- his investigation. So it's not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It's saying he's doing this investigation and he gathers all of this information and this is what his assessment is. nd police officers can do that. Law enforcement officers can do that. MR. OTKE: Surely they can do that, Your Honor, but I'm objecting, as the Court understands, to this statement being used in any substantive way as it relates to the issue of diversion that the Court is deciding today. Because these people aren't here, and we've never had a chance to confront them. It's simply him making a statement of what was said to him. nd so, I mean, if the Court, I know, you know, there's no jury here and the Court has -- I'm sure is perfectly capable of piecemealing that out. nd that's all I'm saying is just for the record, that that should not be considered by this court at all in any substantive way as to whether or not these people really had a sincere belief or not. MR. KWHR: It's not a question -- THE COURT: Well, it's not a question of whether they 1065

106 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 106 of had a sincere belief or not. MR. KWHR: No. THE COURT: It's a question, I mean, what we're focusing on is the government's burden and was the process -- I mean they're particularly focusing on this Express procedure. You know, was the process sufficient to address the concerns raised in the Lepp decision in terms of diversion. nd so their argument, as I understand it, is they get these blank cards that has no indication of how that you can check that these people are actually the people that went to orientation or what have you. That's their argument. MR. OTKE: Right. THE COURT: So you can have -- MR. OTKE: I'm not saying it's irrelevant, but I'm objecting because it's hearsay. MR. KWHR: Well, Your Honor, no, it's not hearsay because the issue -- THE COURT: Understood. nd so I've ruled on it. MR. KWHR: Then I will say no further -- THE COURT: It's overruled. Yeah, it's overruled. I understand what your argument is, but as I'm looking at it, it really pales in comparison to the rest of the testimony. This witness, quite frankly, doesn't really add all that much. It's the first two witnesses, I think, that are significant in terms of the motion. But that being said, so you rest? I mean, you 1066

107 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 107 of don't have any -- MR. KWHR: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. nd are you folks planning to call any witnesses, the defense? MR. OTKE: Well, can we have a second, Your Honor? THE COURT: In fact, I think this would be a good time to recess. So, I don't mean to have you make that decision right this second. So why don't we take a 15-minute recess and give our hard-working court reporter a few moments to catch her breath, and we'll come back at quarter to. Thank you. We're in recess. (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) THE COURT: The record will reflect the presence of counsel and Mr. Christie and Mrs. Christie. You may be seated. So Mr. Otake, Ms. Panagakos, you've had an opportunity to confer among yourselves and with your clients, will you be calling any witnesses at this time? MR. OTKE: fter discussing the matter with my client, no, we will not be. THE COURT: ll right. Ms. Panagakos. MS. PNGKOS: Same here. fter discussing with Ms. Christie, we will not be calling any witnesses. THE COURT: ll right. MR. OTKE: However. THE COURT: Yes. 1067

108 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 108 of MR. OTKE: You know, one of the things we brought up to Mr. Kawahara as far as how we proceed from here, given the nature of this hearing and its significance, obviously, to this case as a whole and the uniqueness of the law and the uniqueness of the situation, Ms. Panagakos and I are requesting an opportunity to submit a written argument to the Court, primarily due to the testimony that came out today on cross. nd we want to be able to fully integrate that and the new exhibits, some of which that were just filed in the last day or two. We want to fully be able to address those and integrate that into our arguments. Obviously, we came here today prepared to do what, I guess, would be similar to a closing argument if the Court wanted us to do that. However, we really would appreciate the opportunity to address this in writing, as we feel, number one, because of its significance, number one, and number two, we believe that would also give us a chance to, as best as possible, preserve our record in the best way that we know how. nd so that's what we would be asking for an opportunity to do that. THE COURT: ll right. re you proposing -- Mr. Kawahara? MR. KWHR: No, Your Honor. I would oppose that, Your Honor. I think there has been a significant amount of briefing over the course of two months submitted here. What came out today, what's come out in recent times 1068

109 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 109 of has not really added all that much. I noticed yesterday that defense filed a considerable amount of additional briefing raising additional material, but I believe all of it can be addressed. s the Court pointed out to me once before about a 119-page memorandum in opposition I filed, I think that the briefing has been rather complete in this case. ll of the significant cases of importance have been pointed out to the Court. It's a matter, I think, of we've got trial coming up fairly quickly. nd as this court -- I think this court has tried to be very, very well-prepared such to give us a ruling in advance to assist us in our trial preparation, and I think that was the original notion. I see nothing that would change it. I think anything that could be -- now, if defense wants additional time, the Court could very well have a luncheon recess and schedule oral argument for this afternoon. But it seems to me that whatever needs to be covered can be covered by way of oral argument at this time, and rather than prolonging this particular issue, I think it's more important that we have some kind of ruling such that all parties understand where we go from here. I'm not so sure, I can't understand what additional briefing is going to permit in this particular case. THE COURT: ll right. 1069

110 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 110 of MS. PNGKOS: Your Honor. THE COURT: Over your objection, I'm going to permit the additional briefing. I suggest it be simultaneous, in other words, basically written closing argument. Obviously there's not going to be any new things brought up or any additional exhibits, it's based on what's submitted and what's held in hearing. Time wise, today is the 27th. I'm not looking for, you know, an extended period of time. I would say at the most a week, although we have the three-day weekend coming up, so, you know, I would say the 3rd or the 4th at the latest. This Friday would be fine too, but I think that is a little short in time. Of course, Mr. Kawahara, you don't have to submit anything if you don't want to, and I would highly encourage you not to submit 119 pages. MR. KWHR: I'm not thinking anywhere near that, Your Honor. I would suggest, Your Honor, it seems to me that in the interest of, you know, in the interest of efficiency and all that if the parties can't submit something by Friday, that's rather appalling to me. THE COURT: Well, but it's difficult for them because they have to run things by their clients. If it was up to them and they were just going to do something, they could probably turn it around in, you know, 48 hours or so. But I will tell 1070

111 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 111 of you, I do agree with you that a ruling on this obviously is pivotal. So what I'm going to do is within, I would say, three days after I receive the briefing, I'm going to issue a outline of my decision, not the reasoned order, but just so that you know what the decision is, which you cannot file a motion for recon on the outline, wait for my reasoned order, so that you folks will know. nd you can then plan accordingly. MR. OTKE: If I could ask -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. OTKE: -- perhaps that the written arguments be due on Wednesday the 4th of September at, I don't know, 3 p.m., and then perhaps the Court's outline could come out on Friday the 6th. THE COURT: Well, thanks a lot. You're giving you like over a week, and you give me less than two days. MR. KWHR: Your Honor, I would suggest if the briefing is to be done, let it be done by Tuesday, and that will give the Court till Friday, your three days that you're talking about. THE COURT: I'll let you do it the 4th. Hopefully, I'll get it out before then, but I'm going to give myself to the 10th, okay. MS. PNGKOS: Would it be possible to get court authorization to get expedited transcript of today's proceeding, so I can incorporate that in the briefing? 1071

112 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 112 of THE COURT: Yes. MS. PNGKOS: Because we have to do the CJ paperwork. THE COURT: Right. Good. I'll put it on the record and we'll put it in the minutes, okay, so that Cynthia will be given a heads-up on that. What else do we need to address? nything, Mr. Kawahara, from the government's standpoint? MR. KWHR: So what would be the due date for simultaneous briefing, Your Honor? THE COURT: That would be September 4. THE CLERK: By 3 p.m. THE COURT: 3 p.m. Oh, and make sure we get courtesy copies, otherwise. MS. PNGKOS: ll right. THE COURT: Thank you. Have them delivered to chambers, please, so that we can start looking at it right away. Mr. Otake. MR. OTKE: Your Honor, I'll work this out with Ms. Panagakos, but actually could I have one second? THE COURT: Sure. MR. OTKE: Your Honor, we'll work it out. We filed a lot of things together in the past but. THE COURT: Yeah, I'll leave that up to you. MR. OTKE: There's parts of this that we can do together, and there's parts that we can't. nd we'll figure 1072

113 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 113 of that out THE COURT: Understood. Understood. It's helpful to the Court if you folks are the same on a certain position -- MR. OTKE: Right. THE COURT: -- or interpretation of the evidence that rather than you file separately on that, that would be helpful, and then we don't have to read it twice. MR. OTKE: Yeah. We'll figure out the best way to do that. THE COURT: But recognizing that you have separate clients with separate, you know, interests, perhaps. I would not require you to file a joint one. Okay? ll right. Very good then. MS. PNGKOS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you have anything else? No? Then, Mr. Christie, you are remanded back to the custody of the U.S. Marshal Service, and we are in recess. Thank you. (The proceedings concluded at 11:55 a.m., ugust 27, 2013.)

114 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 114 of COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICTE I, CYNTHI R. OTT, Official Court Reporter, United States District Court, District of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, complete and correct transcript of the proceedings had in connection with the above-entitled matter. DTED at Honolulu, Hawaii, ugust 28, _/s/ CYNTHI R. OTT CYNTHI R. OTT, RMR, CRR

115 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 115 of 236 Case 1:10-cr LEK Document Filed 09/04/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

116 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 116 of 236 Case 1:10-cr LEK Document Filed 09/04/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

117 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 117 of 236 Case 1:10-cr LEK Document Filed 09/04/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

118 Case = , 10/30/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 10-10, Page 118 of 236 Case 1:10-cr LEK Document Filed 09/04/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: