[Senate Hearing 109-57] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 109-57 PROTECTING THE JUDICIARY AT HOME AND IN THE COURTHOUSE ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ MAY 18, 2005 __________ Serial No. J-109-15 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 22-222 WASHINGTON : 2005 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma David Brog, Staff Director Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement............................................. 58 Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois....................................................... 2 prepared statement........................................... 60 Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement.................................. 63 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., A U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts, prepared statement.............................. 79 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 81 Schumer, Hon. Charles E., A U.S. Senator from the State of New York........................................................... 4 Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania................................................... 1 WITNESSES Alba, Samuel, Chief, U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah........................................... 20 Lefkow, Joan Humphrey, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois.................................... 6 Obama, Hon. Barack, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois.... 4 Reyna, Benigno G., Director, U.S. Marshals Service, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C....................................... 16 Roth, Jane R., Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and Chair, Committee on Security and Facilities, Judicial Conference of the U.S., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.... 14 Widup, Kim Richard, U.S. Marshal, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois.............................................. 18 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Alba, Samuel, Chief, U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, prepared statement....................... 30 Association of Administrative Law Judges, Ronald G. Bernoski, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, prepared statement and attachment........ 40 Fine, Glenn A., Inspector General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement........................... 65 Lefkow, Joan Humphrey, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, prepared statement................ 83 McQueen, Mary, President, National Center for State Courts, Arlington, Virginia, prepared statement........................ 88 Reyna, Benigno G., Director, U.S. Marshals Service, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement.................. 97 Roth, Jane R., Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and Chair, Committee on Security and Facilities, Judicial Conference of the U.S., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, prepared statement and attachments............................. 111 Schuck, Thomas R., President, Federal Bar Association, Washington, D.C., prepared statement........................... 133 Widup, Kim Richard, U.S. Marshal, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois.............................................. 136 PROTECTING THE JUDICIARY AT HOME AND IN THE COURTHOUSE ---------- WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2005 United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:32 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Specter, Kyl, Leahy, Schumer, and Durbin. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Chairman Specter. The Judiciary Committee will now proceed with our hearing on Protecting the Judiciary at Home and in the Courthouse. On February 28th of this year, an angry litigant--that is the characterization of Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow--shot and killed Judge Lefkow's husband and aged mother. On March 14th, I wrote to the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service to find out what security measures were in practice and what would be instituted following the terrible tragedy in Chicago. On April 11th, the Department of Justice responded that they were looking at the judicial facilities and off-site security, but nothing more than that. In the emergency supplemental recently passed, $11.9 million was appropriated for judicial security. On May 6th, I met with Third Circuit Judge Jane Roth, who is Chair of the Committee on Facilities and Security for the Judicial Conference of the United States. There is no doubt that the rule of law is the backbone of our civilized society. The capability of the judiciary to determine the rule of law without fear or favor is an indispensable prerequisite in our democratic society. Personal security, along with judicial independence, must be safeguarded at all costs. I intend to be very brief in my opening statement because every day on Capitol Hill is a busy day. This is more so because at 9:30 the Senate will start to consider the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen for the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and it will inevitably implicate the so-called constitutional or nuclear option, so that a number of us will have to excuse ourselves, but the hearing will proceed in full. Judge Jane Roth was quoted in the Chicago Tribune yesterday with some of the same comments that she made to me when I met with her earlier this month that in contacts with the Department of Justice on judicial security, Judge Roth said, quote, at least quoted, ``I think the Department of Justice feels that it is none of our business.'' In conversations with a ranking Department of Justice official, Judge Roth again is quoted, ``I told him we needed that information. He said it would be one independent branch meddling with another independent branch--separation of powers.'' Well, fortunately, there is a third branch. It is called the Congress, and the Congress intends to act. Without going into a litany of studies which raise serious questions about the adequacy of the Marshals Service--and we have the officials here today, some of them, but this matter will go to the Attorney General ultimately, who has responsibility. A report issued by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice in March of last year found that the U.S. Marshals Service threat assessments are, quote, ``untimely and of questionable validity,'' and that the U.S. Marshals Service has, quote, ``limited capability to collect and share intelligence, and lacks adequate standards for determining appropriate protective measures.'' This Committee will act, Judge Lefkow, and I can assure you that the Congress will act. And there will be no talk about separation of powers. We have the authority to provide adequate security for judges and we are determined to do just that. Let me yield now to my distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, unless he wishes to yield to-- Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield to Senator Durbin, who has been also such a leader in this and has expressed, as has Senator Obama, the feeling of his own State on this tragedy, a feeling joined by others. So I just ask consent that my statement be part of the record. Chairman Specter. Your statement will, without objection, be made part of the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. I am delighted now to recognize Senator Durbin, who discussed this entire matter with me shortly after February 28th, and we took the initial steps at that time, he and I, to proceed to where we are today with this hearing. Senator Durbin. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Chairman Specter. On behalf of Senator Obama, who is here today and will speak, and myself, I want to thank you for convening this hearing. I want to commend you for your leadership on this critical issue of judicial security, and I want to thank you as well for helping us secure an appropriation of $12 million to dedicate initially to this issue of judicial security. The gruesome crimes that were perpetrated against Judge Lefkow's family on February 28th, as well as the crimes against a judge and other court officials in Atlanta a few weeks later, were attacks not only on innocent people, but on the Federal judiciary itself. Three Federal judges have been assassinated since 1978. Never, never before has a Federal judge's family been a victim of these crimes. We must provide more protection for our judges and their families so that others will be spared the tragedy that Judge Lefkow and her family have been forced to endure. I am not going to go into detail here because I know we are anxious to hear from the judge. I do believe that we must make substantial changes in the Federal Marshals Service to meet this new challenge, and we will discuss those this morning. I am pleased that the Congress has accepted the amendment that Senator Obama, Senator Kennedy and I offered to appropriate $12 million for the Marshals Service to improve protection of Federal judges. I also think that we have to be careful in what we say. I know that we believe passionately in free speech in this country, but I believe that many public officials, both elected and otherwise, have made verbal attacks on the Federal judiciary which we should not tolerate. They are reprehensible. I will not list them. You have heard them. Some will be referred to during the course of this hearing. At this moment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Judge Lefkow and her daughters to the Judiciary Committee. I want to acknowledge the family of Judge Lefkow's husband, Michael. I know his two sisters and niece are here as well. It is an act of tremendous courage for them to be here. I know Judge Lefkow has declined many speaking invitations and interviews, but she felt that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was an appropriate forum to discuss her tragedy and to help us find ways to prevent such tragedies from happening again. A few weeks ago, I met with the judge in my Chicago office and I said to her, Joan, if you don't want to do this for any reason, I fully understand. She said, I want to do this. And I admire your courage so much in making this decision. I am honored to introduce Judge Lefkow today not only because she is a constituent of mine, but also because I recommended her nomination for the Federal bench five years ago. The last time she was in this hearing room in June 2000, I introduced her to the Committee and said Judge Lefkow has a rare combination of intelligence, professional experience, temperament and devotion to public service. She is going to be an excellent Federal judge. Well, my prediction turned out to be true. She has served not only with excellence, but with bravery and distinction. Even before the heart-breaking tragedy she recently suffered, she incurred death threats in multiple cases involving high- profile parties. Nevertheless, she has been a noble public servant and she has persevered. Judge Charles Kocoras, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court in the Northern District, wrote a letter to me a few weeks and here is what he said about Judge Lefkow, quote, ``The sweetest Federal judge I have ever met, and whose own sense of fairness is a model for the world.'' Boy, that is high praise. We are extremely fortunate to have Judge Lefkow on the Federal bench in Chicago. We are honored to have her with us today. I know that my colleague, Senator Obama, is here to say a few words, and I would defer to you now, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Senator Schumer. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say a brief word here. Chairman Specter. Senator Schumer. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I too want to just thank you, Judge Lefkow, for coming here, for your strength. When we face tragedy, it is easy to just curse the darkness, and you are trying to shed some light and we all very much appreciate that. We have never met before, but the pain and the strength and the sadness on your face, I think, speaks volumes. I note in your testimony, which I have read, that you talk about all of this debasing of the Federal judiciary in rather nasty terms. We all know that judges have faced threats all along. I mean, we have in New York a unit of the police department which has to often guard judges because of threats, almost all of them in non-political cases, but because it is the criminal justice system. Being a judge is not easy and it is sometimes dangerous. But when in the public dialogue it becomes acceptable just to debase judges in virulent and nasty terms, it sure doesn't help the independence of the judiciary or the ideals that America stands for. I note in your testimony that you ask that these kinds of things stop and be denounced readily and quickly. If you don't denounce them, they develop into a more virulent form. That has been what history shows us. I just hope we can begin to see that here in Washington that when people step over the line and talk about judges in ways that you shouldn't talk about any human being, let alone people who are supposed to guard our independence, that united from one end of this town to the other we just say that has no place in our dialogue. That has happened yet. Maybe your being here will importune it to happen. Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Schumer. We now recognize Senator Obama for an introduction of the judge. STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Senator Obama. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer. I very much appreciate this opportunity just briefly to introduce Judge Lefkow. Senator Durbin has already given you some sense of her background. I begin by just, as others have, thanking her for her incredible courage for appearing before the Committee. I know that she is blessed to have her four daughters here, as well as other family members. And I am sure that I speak for the entire Senate when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with you, Judge, during this difficult period. As an attorney from Chicago, I am also familiar with the work that her husband, Michael, did. He himself was a tireless activist and advocate on behalf of the less fortunate, as well as a loving father, and so he is missed in the Chicago community. Your mother, Donna Humphrey, I am sure was extraordinarily proud of you and the family as well. We do a lot of talking here in Washington, but too often we don't discuss the issues that matter most. Protecting our judges is one of those issues, and so I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing with Senator Durbin. Judges have an extraordinarily difficult job. Everyday, they walk into that courtroom knowing that a decision they make could not only affect the lives of those appearing them, but the lives of millions who abide by our Nation's laws. Judges are brave public servants who believe that our laws are an expression of our shared responsibility to one another as Americans. Joan Lefkow epitomizes this commitment to public service ever since she became a magistrate judge in 1982. As Senator Durbin mentioned, even after her life was threatened, she returned to the bench because she believed that the work she did helped to ensure all of us the kind of society that we have come to take for granted. Unfortunately, no judge should ever worry that upholding the law might endanger them or their family. Senator Durbin and I, as has been noted, recently were able to secure $12 million in next year's budget to keep our judges safe, but more must be done. So I am looking forward to hearing this Committee's ideas and working with this Committee in the future. My final note, I guess, would be that this hearing hopefully can help us with the political dialogue that has been referred to in recent months and years. All too often, politicians have a tendency to speak about judges not as public servants, but as obstacles who stand between those politicians and their partisan agendas. This is not what our judges are. This is not what Judge Lefkow is. She is a judge whose chamber was decorated with her children's art work, a mother who prepared four separate meals to suit her daughters' difference tastes, a student who attended an evangelical college to follow in the footsteps of her pastor, and a public servant who has made upholding the law her life's work. We are grateful for that work. We hopefully will honor that work and the work of all Federal judges by the efforts in this Committee. I thank you so much, Judge, for taking the time to be here. You have my utmost respect and gratitude. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Specter. Judge Lefkow, our Committee very much appreciates your presence. It is an enormously serious problem and your focus here will focus a great deal of attention not only on Capitol Hill, but in the country. And to repeat, the Congress will act to provide security for judges. Judge Lefkow has had a very distinguished career, has been a Federal judicial official since 1982. From 1982 until 1997, she was a U.S. magistrate judge in the Northern District of Illinois. From 1997, she served as a bankruptcy judge until the year 2000, when she was appointed to the United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, where she serves at the present time. She has a bachelor's degree from Wheaton College and a law degree from Northwestern University Law School. Judge Lefkow, again, thank you for your being here and we look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF JOAN HUMPHREY LEFKOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Judge Lefkow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for your invitation to appear here today, and I do want to also thank you, Senator Durbin, for your great compassion that you have expressed to me and my family through this. I also would like to acknowledge the presence of Senator Dan Coates, who is an old friend of mine and was kind enough to come along and give me support today. I have prepared my statement and, with your indulgence, I will probably be reading quite a bit of it because it is difficult for me to get through this. I am the fourth judge since 1978 who has been the victim of an assassination as a result of what President Clinton wrote to me, ``the madness in the shadows of modern life''; more specifically, as a direct result of a decision made in the course of fulfilling our duties to do justice without fear or favor. Among more than 1,000 letters of condolence that my family received are approximately 200 from judges, State and Federal, who know--each of them know in their own heart ``this could have been me.'' Five assassinations--that includes two for me-- in 25 years tells us that judges are particularly vulnerable. By comparison--I looked into this--the last such tragedy within the Congress was in 1978, and that was on foreign soil. And it tells us that something is wrong in the judicial protection arena. Let me briefly tell you what this has done not only to me and my children, but to my extended family of brothers and sisters, nieces, nephews and others. As Senator Obama just mentioned, Michael was a man whose excellent character and accomplishments at the bar and as a family man have been described in many recent news reports and I will not attempt to recount them. On a personal level, however, he was a man who at the age of 64 looked to the future with hopefulness and anticipation. A litigant who was angry with me shot him in the head, and my aged mother, on February 28th of this year, for no reason other than that they were in his way on his road to murder me. He could have easily added my daughter, who is 16 years old and lived in our house, and me. 2/28 is our own personal 9/11. Since 2/28, our family includes a daughter and her husband who have to explain to their young children why their grandfather is now with God and they will never see him again, two daughters who will not have their beaming father to walk them down the aisle at their weddings in the coming year, and two who will not have dad to be there to join the fun at their upcoming graduations from high school and college. From now on, they will have a father's guidance only through the memory of what he was to them. Michael's family includes, among others, four sisters and brothers, who have now lost their third sibling before the age of 65. An entire family has lost its ability to feel safe when we walk through the doors of our own homes. Beyond the family, there is a community of clients, friends, fellow church members and neighbors who simply miss this man and woman, who were a significant part of their lives in one way or another. The father who sent every report card to grandma so she also could rejoice in what the children accomplished is no longer there, and neither is the grandmother who made each of her 20 grandchildren and great grandchildren believe that that grandchild was her special favorite. Indeed, she was my children's only grandparent. Finally, I am the wife who wakes up in the morning not to a cup of coffee presented by my husband of 30 years to reopen what we called the endless conversation of marriage, but to an open book that I was reading in an effort to banish the memories of 5:30 p.m. on the day our world changed forever. I say all this not to garner sympathy or pity. We have been overwhelmed by the kindness of others and I could not begin to adequately express our gratitude. Rather, I come to you with a plea that you who have the power continue to make judicial protection a priority, as is reflected in the recent passage of H.R. 1268, which includes $12 million to the Marshals Service for increased security for Federal judges, specifically for home intrusion detection systems, and that you be vigilant in monitoring judicial security so that sympathetic feelings translate into something real for us. And I come to you with a plea that each of you exercise leadership to use your voices to support the vital role of judges in sustaining a society based on the rule of law instead of right being defined by might. I understand Congress can't eradicate all violence against judges, nor are we exempt from this madness in the shadows of modern life. But as I replay in my mind the events that led to our tragedy, I believe that several things might have prevented it and could prevent it from happening to even one more of our judges. The first is rapid distribution of the funds for home security systems. We, the judges, are very grateful that this money has been appropriated so rapidly and certainly appreciate it so much. Now, the judiciary, however, is concerned that all or part of this appropriation might be used to meet other needs of the Marshals Service. Obviously, had the Lefkow family had this system in our home, this horror could have been avoided. I hope that this Committee and the Senate will make it very clear to the Director of the Marshals Service, Mr. Reyna, your intent that this money be distributed to the judges in the field as quickly as the judiciary can make it possible, make the arrangements possible. As recently as last Friday, which was May 13th, I was spotted and harassed in a restaurant in downtown Chicago. Now, had that harasser come back rather than with a nasty sign and had a gun, obviously I wouldn't be here today to speak with you. I also urge your support for legislation that prohibits the posting of personal information about judges, as well as other public officials, on the Internet without their written consent. I had in my local court asked that some online research be done about each of the members of the Committee just to try to illustrate to you what is out there on the Internet free of charge or for a mere $20, and it is really shocking what can be found on the Internet. As some of you may have heard, during the late fall of 2003 I became aware that I was being vilified on the Internet by a white supremacist organization that had a trademark case before me. As some may be aware, the circumstances resulted in prosecution and conviction of the principal of that group. I was labeled ``a probable Jew'' with ``mixed-race grandchildren,'' as if those were shameful things. But eventually my home address and other personal information were posted by this fringe group. The information, true and false, that was posted about me was readily available free of charge on the Internet. A small fee will give anyone who wants it access to Social Security numbers, loans, land transactions, the names of neighbors, and so forth. Although it may never be stopped entirely, this is a brave new world and I hope that something can be done to limit the commercial trafficking in such information which makes it out there for people to find. The third item for which the judiciary needs your support is adequate funding for adequate staffing of the United States Marshals Service. Others who are more knowledgeable than I, including Judge Roth, will be addressing you on these matters, and I also believe that you have been provided a letter that my Chief Judge, Charles Kocoras, wrote to you, Senator Specter, addressing these issues as well. This is my personal observation over the 22-plus years that I have worked in the Federal judiciary: There has been a reduction of support for the judges that corresponds with the increase in the demand for transportation of prisoners, apprehension of fugitives and other responsibilities associated with the federalization of criminal law. Although security is provided at all criminal case hearings, many officers are not trained U.S. Marshals, and on the civil side no security is provided unless the judge specifically requests it from an already strained district office. We need a trained deputy marshal present at all court hearings, criminal and civil, who can be our eyes and ears to identify and follow up on litigants who appear to be dangerous. How many times have I chastised myself for not recognizing this threat that became a reality? But this is neither my expertise nor do I believe it is appropriate that I should be thinking about whether someone is dangerous when I am trying to decide their case. In addition, my own experience with my current security detail suggests to me that there is a tremendous need for thinking and planning and training from the top of the Marshals Service. Let me be clear. I do not intend by these remarks to convey any criticism of either Marshal Kim Widup of the Northern District of Illinois, nor any individual deputy whom I have encountered on my protection detail since February 28th. Starting with the team who swept a shaken, disbelieving family into protective custody on that awful night, these deputies were the knot at the end of our rope for weeks, and not one of them has been anything but compassionate, available and committed beyond the call of duty. This has been a sacrifice for the entire Service, of course, as districts who have lent deputies for my detail are even more short-handed in their own locales than they were under normal circumstances. It is easy enough to blame the Service for problems, but the truth is that the Congress has never treated the U.S. Marshals as it has, for example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, giving it the respect and resources that it needs to fulfill the tremendous responsibilities that it has. The more that I learn about what is in place for judicial protection in the Marshals Service, the less sanguine I am that judicial security is anything but an ad hoc response to individual requests, and this is very disturbing to me. Judges do not invite anyone to file a lawsuit. The cases come to us because the prosecutor and individual or corporation is convinced that the court will protect the rights that they believe are granted to them by the Congress and the Constitution. Neither do we choose the issues. I know many judges who welcome the--I am sorry. I will back up here. Let me just start back. I am sorry. I skipped a little bit. Chairman Specter. Judge Lefkow, just take your time. You are fine. Judge Lefkow. Okay. My final point--and it really follows directly from the whole issue about the Marshals Service--is that I would ask the members of this Committee who are particularly committed with responsibility for the judiciary to publicly and persistently repudiate gratuitous attacks on the judiciary, such as the recent statement of Pat Robertson on national television, and unfortunately some members of the Congress, albeit in more measured terms. We need your help in tempering the tone of the debates that concern the independence of the judiciary. I have come to know scores of judges during my 22 years as a magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge and district judge. Whether liberal or conservative, I have never encountered a judge in the Federal judiciary who can remotely be described as posing a threat, as Mr. Robertson said, ``probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.'' In this age of mass communication, harsh rhetoric is truly dangerous. It seems to me that even though we cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship between rhetorical attacks on judges in general and violent acts of vengeance by a particular litigant, the fostering of disrespect for judges can only encourage those who are on the edge or on the fringe to exact revenge on a judge who displeases them. As I was saying, we don't invite the cases. The cases come to us. These decisions can be very difficult, decisions such as whether a man's heinous crime was a result of inability to understand the nature of his acts, or whether a decision by the next of kin to remove a feeding tube from a living human being should or should not be honored, or whether termination of a collectively-bargained pension plan is lawful. We call this winning and losing, but the terms are inadequate. This is never a game. These cases entail enormous consequences for the individuals involved and emotions can be powerful in these situations. I would like to just remind you, although, Senator Specter, you have already said this--and I thank you for your words--my Chief Judge, Charles Kocoras, wrote this: ``No principle by which we live as Americans or govern and judge ourselves is worthier of greater respect and fealty than the doctrine of the rule of law. Respect for the rule of law and the civility it affords requires acceptance of the results the law ordains. If it comes to pass that [attacks on judges] are perpetuated because each person feels free in deciding for themselves what is right or just, then chaos and anarchy will not be far behind...'' This very statement has been echoed by dozens of strangers in my mail. These ordinary citizens and voters understand what Judge Kocoras puts eloquently. This is the reason American judges are invited by developing democracies throughout the world to help establish an independent judiciary. Our system is the role model for the world. Without fearless judges, where are we as a Nation? I have no doubt that each of you is equally committed to this idea, but your voices as elected officials are magnified. Judges, by contrast, speak most often through our decisions. We need your leadership in this area, and the stakes are profound. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here today. I know that I speak for all my judicial colleagues throughout the Nation in expressing our appreciation for the time and attention that you are giving to our security needs, and it is very reassuring that you say that Congress will do something. I would be pleased to respond to any questions anyone would have. [The prepared statement of Judge Lefkow appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. Well, thank you very much, Judge Lefkow. Just a few questions. You made a comment about an incident where you were harassed in a public restaurant. What kind of security are you now getting? Judge Lefkow. I have a full protection detail and they were present with me, yes. Chairman Specter. You made a comment about an incident involving white supremacists. Had you requested security protection at that time? Judge Lefkow. I had security protection for a couple of days about the time that this gentleman was to be arrested and during the court hearings. I did not have protection thereafter, no, and I want to make sure that it is understood that I did not request it or demand it. But if I could use this as an opportunity to say that I think the judges don't really know--it is not our expertise to know when we need protection. That is why I think we need someone in the Marshals Service or we need the Marshals Service to really study and analyze this issue as law enforcement people to help us understand, yes, you need protection. Chairman Specter. Judge Lefkow, my suggestion to you and your fellow judges would be not to be reluctant about requesting protection. It is true that you are not an expert in the field, and it may be that you feel a certain reluctance to have resources attached to your security, leaving it to somebody else. But the squeaky wheel gets the oil and there has been enough experience so that you are well within your rights and well within your prudence to ask for it. Tell us just a little bit more about what happened on this white supremacist case, what the circumstances were and what were the indicators that there could have been a problem and why you were only given protection for a couple of days. Judge Lefkow. The case was a very non-controversial case. You would never call it a, quote, ``heater'' case or high- profile case. It was a trademark case. I began to learn about this happening when the opposing party to this supremacist organization was attaching copies of e-mail print-outs in the papers that were sent to me. By December of 2002, the United States Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, came to visit me and told me that there was a threat against my life. And he also told me that there was, shall we say, a mole or an inside informant in the organization. Chairman Specter. A threat against your life? Judge Lefkow. Pardon me? Chairman Specter. A threat against your life? Judge Lefkow. Yes, yes. Chairman Specter. Well, it seems to me that would require some immediate protection from the Marshals Service. Did you get it? Judge Lefkow. He asked me--Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I wanted protection, and based on what he said to me, I said, well, if they get my home address, let's talk about this again. But as far as I knew, they didn't know where I lived. And, you know, it is difficult for me to talk about this because I can say, you know, if I had done this, if I had done that, this might not have happened. But I never spoke--well, that is not true. The Marshals Service knew about this and I suppose--I don't know, I don't know. The way it was presented, I don't feel that there was any system in place. It was just very much a local thing, and I knew that our Marshals Service couldn't even get the prisoners to court on time. Chairman Specter. Judge Lefkow, I can fully understand your saying you don't know, but when the U.S. Attorney reports a threat, the U.S. Attorney ought to take the initiative to see that you have protection. And when you say the Marshals Service knew about it, they should take the initiative to give you the protection. A threat against your life is no minor matter and it should not be your burden to have to ask for it or insist on it because of the natural reluctance that someone in your position would have. There are going to be a lot of people listening to your testimony, Judge Lefkow, and I would conclude--my red light is about to go on--with an urging of Federal judges or anyone who is subject to these kinds of threats not to be reticent. Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Lefkow, thank you. I am glad you are here today. I am glad your family is with you to be part of this testimony. Since the tragedy that you have lived through, I have had conversations with several of your colleagues on the bench. One or two called me and a few others I ran into and talked to, and they were stunned by what happened to you and then stepped back and realized how vulnerable they were. They started looking at the world and their jobs a lot differently. Without naming names, can you relate some of the conversations that you have had with your colleagues concerning their fears and their concerns? Judge Lefkow. Well, one of my colleagues said that they had a home security system installed and they hadn't been entirely vigilant about making sure it was on all the time, but obviously now it is on. I think it was just a tremendous--a wake-up call is not the right word. It was much more than that. It is like being run over by an 18-wheeler when this happens to one of your colleagues. Judge Kocoras has been very supportive and strong, and he really has come out in favor of having a trained marshal at all court hearings. I think we are all concerned that we--everyone understands you need protection in criminal cases, but the civil cases--and indeed the judges who have been killed, they have all been civil cases where desperate people believe that they will find justice in Federal court. They have been through the State courts, they have been turned down. They think my civil rights will be protected in Federal court. And then if, as in my case, I dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction, it is an easy decision for me on that level because it was clear as a matter of law, but for this man it was the end of the road for him in terms of a peaceable solution to his problem. Senator Durbin. I might just add, Mr. Chairman, that after the identity of the murderer was disclosed, we realized that he had come to our office with the same file, in desperation. That doesn't happen frequently, but it happens, and I can understand why you stepped back and had to measure is this a real threat or is this what you can expect in the course of business that wouldn't be something of major concern. So for your life, it has been changed dramatically, but for your colleagues on the bench, do you believe they are prepared to accept the changes that their lives would have to see if they moved forward with more security and more protection for their families? Judge Lefkow. I do, I do. They want it. That is what I am hearing. They want it. Senator Durbin. And what you said loud and clear was this $12 million that Senator Obama and I worked for--you want to see that money as quickly as possible come through and be made available for home security systems for the judges that want it. Judge Lefkow. Yes. As I understand it, though, that money is not necessarily earmarked for this purpose and we are hopeful we can work with the Marshals Service. But I just hope that everyone will understand that that is what the money is needed for now. Senator Durbin. And, of course, I think Senator Obama and I both feel that that is what we want done, and we will work with you in that regard. The last point you went into is a delicate one because of our constitutional protection of free speech. People can say what they want to say and that is part of America. But some of the comments that you referred to from Reverend Robertson and some of the members of Congress clearly went over the line. To say that judges are a greater threat to America than bearded terrorists is sadly an incendiary remark which Mr. Robertson should have known better than to make that kind of remark. I just want to say that he has the right to say what he believes, but you are correct in arguing that all of us, regardless of party, liberal, conservative, should be denouncing these remarks as totally irresponsible. Judge Lefkow. I agree with you. Senator Durbin. Thank you and your family for being here today. Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Senator Obama, would you care to ask a question or make a further comment? Senator Obama. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate you just allowing me to hear this testimony. I thought Judge Lefkow was incredibly eloquent under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, and I would just urge that we take this extraordinarily seriously and underscore maybe one point that I heard. As Senator Durbin indicated, in our interactions with the public oftentimes we have people come in who are in difficult straits, having a difficult time, display erratic behavior. Part of our job as public servants, I think, is to try to treat everybody who comes through our doors with respect. So I am just very sympathetic to the fact that Judge Lefkow may not be in a position to evaluate threats any more than I would be in these circumstances, and I just want to underscore the point that the initiative is going to need to come from the professionals. Obviously, all of us are now more mindful of the possibilities of these threats and will be on higher alert, but ultimately we have got to set up some systems and some structures whereby these threats are evaluated and appropriate protective steps are taken. My hope is that the Marshals Service, through not only additional money but additional planning and foresight, will be able to put such systems in place. So, Judge Lefkow, I just thank you again for your wonderful testimony. It is very much appreciated. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to participate. Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Obama. Thank you very much, Judge Lefkow. We appreciate your family coming and we appreciate our former colleague, Senator Dan Coates, being with you as a longstanding friend. We turn now to the second panel: Judge Jane Roth; U.S. Marshals Services Director Benigno Reyna; the Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois, Kim R. Widup; and Judge Samuel Alba, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Utah. Judge Roth is testifying today in her capacity as Chair of the United States Judicial Conference's Committee on Security and Facilities. She has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since July of 1991 and had been a Federal judge in the District of Delaware from November 1985 until her appointment to the Third Circuit. She has a bachelor's degree from Smith College and a law degree from the Harvard Law School. Regretfully, I am going to have to excuse myself at this point. I will be following the testimony very closely. I have met with Judge Roth, as I stated before when earlier this month she and former Chief Judge Edward R. Becker and I sat in Philadelphia and talked over these issues. This hearing started very early, as you all know, because we had expected a mark-up on asbestos at 9:30. On Capitol Hill, one thing consistently trumps something else and the current consideration of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen is the number one item on the agenda because, as I noted earlier, it implicates the potential for the so-called constitutional or nuclear option. I regret that more of our colleagues couldn't be here, but it is a very busy place, and I can assure you that there will be a lot of attention paid to the transcript here. My distinguished colleague, Senator Sessions, has just arrived without an opportunity for me to ask his favor of presiding at the hearing, but I saw that our two counsel talked to him. May I now turn the gavel over to you, Senator Sessions? Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would be honored to do as well as I can in your absence. Chairman Specter. Well, I am sure you will be exemplary, as always. Thank you very much. Senator Sessions [presiding.] Judge Roth, it is an honor to be before you. STATEMENT OF JANE R. ROTH, JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, AND CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND FACILITIES, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Judge Roth. Well, our paths have crossed many times over the years and it is a great pleasure for me to be here today to testify before you. As Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities, I want to thank you for calling this important hearing. I would particularly like to thank my colleague, Judge Joan Lefkow, for her willingness to be here today and to share with you the personal tragedy which she recently experienced. I also want to thank Magistrate Judge Sam Alba for being here today. The testimony and personal experience of these judges reinforces my view that the manner in which security is provided to the judiciary is unsatisfactory. Simply put, we have an ongoing crisis in the relationship that exists between the judiciary, the United States Marshals Service and the Department of Justice. In a word, the relationship is dysfunctional. Unfortunately, it affects the security of judges, of their families and of everyone in the courthouse. It is a very serious matter, as Judge Lefkow's presence here today indicates. I say this in spite of the dedication and hard work of the marshals serving in courthouses throughout the country. The problem is here in Washington, not out in the courts, where marshals work tirelessly to make do with inadequate resources. Despite the fact that judges are subject to an increasingly hostile environment, the judiciary is not able to participate in a meaningful way with the Marshals Service and the Department of Justice to ensure adequate resources for judicial security. Right now, the judiciary is excluded from three key areas-- policy, planning and budget--in the determination of the need for resources. Our requests to examine staffing levels have been denied. Our requests to participate in the determination of adequate staffing levels have not been honored. Within that context, we need answers to the following questions. What policies are in place that govern how and when protective details will be assigned to judges and their families? What criteria are used in threat assessments? How are decisions about competing resource needs resolved? What is the process that establishes Marshals Service staffing levels for court security? Are these staffing levels being met? How are long-term resource needs determined and planned for? These processes should be transparent and not exclude the client to whom the services are provided. We need a meaningful place at the table if there is to be any real accountability for judicial security. I believe that legislation is the only acceptable solution to the problem. I say this because of the repeated failure of the Marshals Service and the Department of Justice to respond meaningfully to our requests for answers. I have provided you and your staff with draft language that is simple and straightforward. The proposed language would require the Marshals Service and the judiciary to jointly submit to Congress 180 days after the date of enactment a report that states what the security needs of the judiciary are and how they are to be addressed. Such a report will greatly assist your Committee in exercising its oversight responsibility over the judiciary's security requirements, and it will serve as a vehicle for bringing the judiciary and the Department of Justice together in a more productive relationship. I would also like to thank you and the rest of the Senate for providing almost $12 million for judicial security, including home alarm systems for judges. This bill was recently signed into law by President Bush. It is worth noting that this request for home alarm systems came from the judiciary, not from the Marshals Service. In the bill, this amount specifically included home security systems. The judiciary needs to start planning now with the Marshals Service for its implementation. We are concerned that the Marshals Service is not prepared to do so now. We want to start today. Today's hearing reflects your appreciation for the seriousness of the issue. We hope you will support our request for legislation that will result in judicial security decisions being made in a more rational, realistic and collaborative fashion. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions that the Committee may have. [The prepared statement of Judge Roth appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Sessions. Thank you, Judge Roth. We take seriously the comments that you have made. Our next witness is Mr. Ben Reyna. He was appointed by President George Bush to serve as Director of the United States Marshals Service on October 29, 2001. He began his law enforcement career in 1976 with the Brownsville Police Department in the city of Brownsville, Texas. During his 25- year career, he rose through the ranks and served six years as chief of police in Brownsville. In 1997, he was appointed to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education by then-Governor Bush. He was appointed presiding officer in 2000, where he served until is current position. He has served in various positions for many Federal programs, including from 1998 to 2001 as regional law enforcement technology expert with the Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center, which is part of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and as law enforcement adviser to the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas. He received his bachelor's degree in criminal justice from the University of Texas-Pan American and he is a graduate of the Federal of Bureau of Investigation National Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Mr. Marshal, we are delighted to have you with us and would be pleased to hear your comments at this time. STATEMENT OF BENIGNO G. REYNA, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Reyna. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman. I certainly want to also thank the prior members of the Committee who were here earlier. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I appreciate the support that you have given the United States Marshals Service in the past, and we look forward to working with you in addressing the challenges we face in preserving the integrity of the judicial process. I am pleased to be joined this morning by the Honorable Jane Roth, Judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; the Honorable Samuel Alba, Magistrate Judge, District of Utah; and United States Marshal of the Northern District of Illinois, the Honorable Kim Widup. I am proud to be here today to represent the thousands of dedicated deputy marshals and law enforcement professionals who make up this country's oldest Federal law enforcement profession. The protection of the judiciary is one of the most important functions in American Government. If Federal jurists are to preside over cases and render verdicts free from fear of threat and intimidation in a safe environment, then judicial security must continue to be a priority for our Government. A secure judiciary is fundamentally necessary in the preservation of justice, in maintaining the rule of law and in protecting the rights of all citizens. While the judicial security mission traditionally has been defined as protection of Federal judges and the physical protection of Federal courthouses, the full resources of the Marshals Service are devoted to the protection of the judicial process. We are an agency steeped in history and service and we stand proud of our record. Each day, the men and women of the Marshals Service place their lives on the line to carry out this agency's primary mission--protecting the integrity of the judicial process of this great Nation. We do this in many ways, many of which the public will never hear or think about. Please allow me to give you some examples. Today, somewhere in the Northeast, we will pick up a Federal judge who is under our protection and safely take them to court. Then at the end of the day, we will take him home again, ensuring his safety. Today, in Chicago, deputy United States marshals will produce 18 defendants in front of a judge in is courtroom in the Dirksen Building. Many of these defendants are accused of violent acts, and the safety of the judge on the bench and everyone in that courtroom will be maintained by deputy United States marshals. Today, we will screen countless visitors in Federal courthouses all across this country, and the safety of judges, lawyers, witnesses, jurors and court personnel will be maintained by deputy United States marshals. As we speak, from Oklahoma City alone, the United States Marshals Service's air fleet is flying more than 400 criminal defendants en route to courtrooms in cities all across this Nation. Both the defendants and judges that they will appear before will be protected by deputy United States marshals. How do I know this? I know this because in the Marshals Service we do this everyday. We do this while successfully completing the other missions which have been mandated to the Marshals Service by Congress. We investigate inappropriate communications, which include threats to judges, Federal prosecutors, witnesses and jurors. We do this an average of 60 times a month as part of the judicial process. We continue to protect witnesses from intimidation and from threat of harm as they provide testimony that is critical in high-profile trials as part of the judicial process. We transport prisoners. In the past week, deputy United States marshals safely moved more than 6,000 prisoners all across this country as part of the judicial process. We arrest violent fugitives. In fact, last week we arrested 638 defendants wanted on felony warrants issued by the court as part of the judicial process. As part of the judicial process, every single defendant in the Federal system goes through the United States Marshals Service, and on any given day we have over 50,000 prisoners in our custody. Most of this work is done with very little fanfare. It is work that doesn't make the news, but it is done with professionalism and it is vital to the judicial process in this country. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I assure you that the men and women of the United States Marshals Service perform these duties and many others in a safe and secure manner and with the highest level of commitment each day. We appreciate your support in providing resources as we work with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in enhancing outside security for members of the judiciary. My written testimony has been submitted to the Committee. I want to thank you again for your invitation and support of the Marshals Service, and I look forward to answering any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Reyna appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Sessions. Thank you, sir. Next, we will have Mr. Kim Widup, who is the United States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois, one of our largest U.S. Marshal districts. Prior to his appointment, he was a supervisory special agent or criminal investigator at the Federal level for 25 years, specializing in public corruption, white-collar crime and complex criminal investigations. Among his many assignments, he was senior criminal investigator in the Office of the Inspector General's Headquarters Investigation and Protective Operations Division from 1992 to 1994, the lead investigator and supervisor to the Office of Independent Counsel investigating a former Agriculture Secretary, Assistant Special Agent in Charge for the Midwest Region of the Office of Inspector General in Chicago, and Chief of Investigations for the Whitewater investigation under Independent Counsel Robert Ray. Marshal Widup, we are delighted to have you here and hear your perspective on courthouse security, since where the rubber meets the road, I guess it is your responsibility there in the courthouses of the Northern District of Illinois. STATEMENT OF KIM RICHARD WIDUP, UNITED STATES MARSHAL, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Mr. Widup. Yes, sir, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the role of the United States Marshals Service in protecting the Federal judiciary. It is vital to our democracy that those who work within our judicial system do so without any fear or intimidation. Recent tragic events in Chicago and Atlanta highlight the need for securing our courts and protecting those who work in them. I am a 26-year veteran of Federal law enforcement and have been the United States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois since April 2002. I have personal knowledge of the important task of protecting judges and our judicial process, and I was serving as United States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois when Bart Ross murdered the husband and mother of District Judge Joan Lefkow. During my law enforcement career, I have received many hours of protective operations training from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the U.S. Secret Service and agency-sponsored courses. I supervised the protective detail of the Secretary of Agriculture and have been involved in the supervision of numerous protective assignments within the Marshals Service for the Northern District of Illinois. Since my appointment by President Bush to serve as U.S. Marshal, I have witnessed firsthand the vital importance of protecting our Federal judicial process. Just last month, members of my staff provided a safe and secure environment at the United States district courthouse in Chicago as white supremacist Matthew Hale was sentenced for his role in the solicitation of the murder of Judge Lefkow. We have recently had several violent street gang proceedings, and in the recent past the cases against an Iraqi intelligence officer and Al Qaeda financier Enaam Aranout, both of which required extensive security measures by my staff. Last year, we had the trial and sentencing of a defendant who was responsible for smuggling a handcuff key to Jeffrey Erickson approximately ten years ago. Erickson, in turn, murdered a deputy United States marshal and a court security officer before being fatally shot by the same court security officer. Because failure is not an option, our security planning and execution needs to be the very best it can be. I have an excellent relationship with United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, as well as both the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Illinois and the Chief Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit. My chief deputy and I meet with them, the clerk of the court and others who have a stake in protecting the judicial process on an as-needed basis. Additionally, threats against our judges, U.S. Attorneys, Assistant United States Attorneys and others are brought to our attention on a regular basis either as direct threats or inappropriate communications. In the Northern District of Illinois, three deputy Marshals Service marshals are assigned full-time to investigate these potential threats. In our district, we also enjoy a close working relationship with our colleagues in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Chicago Police Department, the Cook County Sheriff's office, as well as other State, local and Federal law enforcement agencies. Because of these relationships, once a threat is received, a collaborative effort is undertaken to investigate and resolve the situation, to run every lead possible to get to the source of the situation. Throughout our 215-year history, the United States Marshals Service has given the highest priority to our judicial security mission and we are proud of our accomplishments. However, we must keep ever vigilant and ready. Judge Lefkow mentioned Friday night in Chicago while she was having dinner under the protection of the U.S. Marshals Service--she had a security detail that evening--an individual came up and slapped an offensive note on the window where she was dining and the person ran. Our deputies--one of them pursued him. The rest of the deputies stayed to protect the judge. It is a sad situation that people can write such notes, but there were deputies on the scene and they were there to protect the judge, as she has been everyday since February 28th of this year. Again, we must keep ever vigilant and ready. With threats against the judiciary on the rise, it is vitally important that we all work together to maintain a safe and secure environment for our justice system. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have, sir. [The prepared statement of Mr. Widup appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Sessions. Thank you very much, Marshal. Judge Samuel Alba has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the District of Utah since August of 1992 and has been Chief Magistrate Judge since 2003. Prior to his appointment, he was a shareholder in Prince, Yates and Gelzoller from 1987 to 1992, and was first assistant and chief of the criminal section with the United States attorney's office from 1980 to 1987 and worked on criminal defense matters both at a private firm and at the Federal public defender's office in Phoenix, Arizona, from 1972 to 1980. I should have asked my colleague-- Senator Kyl. Where did he graduate from? Senator Sessions. --where did he graduate from law school. He got his undergraduate degree from Utah State University and his law degree from Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Senator Kyl, what comments do you have? Senator Kyl. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not my alma mater, but it is a fine law school. I welcome Sam here today. Thanks, Sam, for being here. Senator Sessions. Judge Alba. STATEMENT OF SAMUEL ALBA, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DISTRICT OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Judge Alba. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kyl, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee today and offer some comments. I know that my statement pales by comparison with the tragic events of the Lefkow family. I make it, however, to demonstrate how the United States Marshals Service fails to provide adequate resources when situations are presented which impact judicial security at home. Even with my local Marshals Service marshal's concern, headquarters in Washington was non-responsive or is inconsistent in its response to these requests. It has rigid procedures, some unknown to the judiciary, in place which only exacerbate the situation. For the last few months, I have been conducting preliminary proceedings in a case involving 12 members of a violent white supremacist criminal organization primarily within the Utah State prison system. Twice in the last few months, I have been notified by members of the United States Marshals Service and FBI representatives that credible threats have been made against the female African American Assistant United States Attorney assisting with the prosecution and another prosecutor. I have conducted a number of proceedings where I have had these defendants in front of me. The first time, I brought them in in three separate groups--my hearing is quite small and that is all that I could accommodate--to warn them that this would not be tolerated. The second time, I had to borrow Judge Benson's ceremonial courtroom to accommodate all 12 of the defendants in court for this proceeding. It was at that time that I seated them in what is usually reserved for the press, in the press box, for control purposes. Each of the defendants had two deputy marshals or prison security officers assigned to them, plus a third officer who was stationed nearby. These are violent individuals. The courtroom was full with many of the defendants' family members and friends seated in the audience. I imposed certain restrictions on them which implicated their ability to continue visits with their families, and it implicated the families as well. After being told of these new restrictions, the defendant seated closest to the bench stood up and shouted objections and obscenities to me. I ordered the United States deputy marshal who was closest to him to put him down in his seat. This defendant then spit into the face of the deputy marshal who was trying to carry out my order. Almost instantaneously, at least four other handcuffed, shackled defendants leaped to their feet, spewed profanity-laden protests, spat, kicked and scuffled with the United States marshals and other court security officers. A deputy marshal, fearing for the safety of a female defense attorney who was seated between two of these defendants, lifted the woman over the wall separating the press box from the bench. The scuffle went on for a couple of minutes, until deputy marshals and other security personnel were able to get the defendants under control. I consider this a very serious threat. They were trying to get at where I was on the bench in a direct response and immediate response to my ruling. As a result of these actions, within the next couple of days I had a meeting with investigators from the United States Marshals office and the judicial security inspector. I advised them of my concern for my safety and for my family's safety. They informed me at the time that both Assistant United States Attorneys who were the subject of these threats were receiving United States Marshal protection details, and both of them, through the Department of Justice, had also had home intrusion security systems installed in their homes. I requested the inspector to go to my house and speak with my wife. He advised her that the United States Attorney's office had identified between 125 to 150 sympathizers of this criminal organization on the outside and gave several suggestions for protecting our home and our family, including setting up a security system. Within a couple of days, I made that specific request of the marshal and of my clerk to seek some funding to accomplish that. I was advised that none was available. The marshal had contacted headquarters and they had told him that under the threat matrix, I did not qualify for a detail, and I also did not qualify for any home security system to be provided for me at home. In desperation, my wife and I turned to the local authorities, who expressed greater concern and to this day they send individual patrols into our neighborhood every evening and patrol through our street. The impact on my family was intense. Within a few days of this incident occurring in court, I had to travel out of State to attend a meeting of the Defender Services Committee. The first night I was gone, my wife and son were alone. Our dog was insistent late in the evening. She went to the back door and let him out. He stayed out for about 30 minutes, barking. Finally, he came back into the house. The rest of the night, my wife was petrified. We have been to our son's elementary school and notified the principal and the teacher of concerns that we had. They were aware through the newspaper and other media stories of what was going on, and this heightened their concern as well. As a result of these threats, we have had to install a system which cost us in excess of $4,000 in our home. Unbeknownst to me until this month, a fellow United States magistrate judge in the District of Maryland had received a temporary home security system from his district marshal's office after the marshals had detected not an overt threat, but a series of signs that he may be targeted. That occurred in the fall of 2004, just a few months before my request for a temporary home alarm system. That request reportedly was approved by the marshals headquarters office that had disapproved the request from my district marshal. Mr. Chairman, I ask that you help Federal judges be safe and secure both at the courthouse and in our homes by providing oversight so that the Marshals Service will have the resources and staff necessary to fully provide the judicial protection for which they are statutorily responsible. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today. [The prepared statement of Judge Alba appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Sessions. Thank you, Judge Alba, for those comments that I think do indicate the seriousness of the issue with which we are dealing. It is absolutely critical that our legal system function, and when that system is threatened by groups of people who are willing to utilize violence against the very system itself, the integrity of our Government, our laws and our authorities that enforce the law, then we are confronted with a challenge we cannot fail to meet. We just have to meet it. I have been in Iraq and talked to judges there, and when you know the daily threat they are under, you know what that kind of violent threat can do to a legal system and how hard it is to conduct one under those threats. We have to do whatever is necessary to protect our people and to prosecute, detain and lock up those who would violate the system. I couldn't be more convinced of that. I have a statement from Senator Russ Feingold for the record and I will, without objection, make that a part of the record. Marshal Widup, you are there in the courthouse and you deal with the Federal judges. You indicated that you had a good relationship. It appears that in Utah and in Judge Roth's circuit, they don't feel as comfortable with it. What do you do that works? When I was United States Attorney, there was a court security committee, and it met and worked, although it wasn't always pleasant. Usually, the judges wanted to do A and the marshal wanted to do B. I took the side of the marshals and it wasn't much longer that I didn't get any notice of the meetings. So the judges and the marshal went at it, presumably, without my moderation of the discussion. But it would appear to me that there has been some tension for some time, so what have you done in your district to try to alleviate that? Mr. Widup. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. We do still have the court security meetings and those tensions still do exist at different times. There is a balance in Chicago, as in our other courthouses, that we have to strike, which is the public's access to the Federal courts and the security of the facility itself. That causes difficult decisions at different times as far as how do we restrict the public's access in entering the courtroom. In our particular case, we have a screening point that is set up on the first floor of the building at which individuals entering the courthouse was be screened. They must be x-rayed and they must show identification to enter the building. Senator Sessions. Could I just interrupt you a little bit? Mr. Widup. Yes. Senator Sessions. Without getting into the details of that system, which I think in the courthouse I used to practice in in Mobile, Alabama, is pretty good, I guess my question is what do you do to communicate with the judges? How does that committee work? If you get a request as Judge Alba had for security, how do you respond? When do you have to go to Washington and how does it work? Are they happy in the Northern District of Illinois or would your judges like to see more support from the Marshals Service? Mr. Widup. I am sure our judges would like to see more, particularly in light of the recent tragedy involving Judge Lefkow and her family, but we do communicate, as with anything. The chief judge communicates with me directly on a frequent basis. I have a judicial security inspector who meets with all of the judges when they have an issue that they need to speak to him about. I have addressed the judges as a group and individually, both in the district and in the circuit. We also have a deputy marshal assigned to each judge as a contact person for that judge. In the event that that judge notices anything that occurs in their courtroom that they find to be out of the ordinary, whether a deputy is present or not, that liaison between the deputies and those judges continued everyday and that particular deputy tries to keep the judge informed. But, Mr. Chairman, we do have the press of a huge prisoner population in our district, as we do in many other districts, and this causes conflict at times with the judiciary in the sense that courts get backed up. And we have a practice in the Northern District of Illinois that we will have one deputy marshal or one of our hired contract guards to each in-custody defendant that we produce in court, plus an additional deputy. Senator Sessions. So that is three for every defendant? Mr. Widup. No. We call it one plus one. If we have five defendants, we will have at least five deputies on the defendants and a sixth deputy in there as well. Now, many times we have more, depending on the severity of the offender, the offense, and frankly the unrest of the crowd. But when we have these proceedings like this and we get backed up, we communicate to the judges. And, thankfully, in Chicago our judges will work with us and they understand that there may be a delay in the next court proceeding because we have to assign more deputies to an earlier proceeding. But this is again done with constant communication between us and the judges. But there are breakdowns that occur. Judges get backed up and they get irritated, but fortunately for us we do communicate with them and we try to address each of their issues. And they are not shy at all about picking up the phone and letting me know. Senator Sessions. When you do have a threat that is more unusual, you have advanced notice of that and you staff that courtroom appropriately, do you not? Mr. Widup. Yes, we do. Senator Sessions. I mean, that is the system for doing that. Marshal Reyna, have you ever dealt with what they call a stun belt? Has that ever been considered in the Marshals Service for a violent criminal? Mr. Reyna. The answer is yes, and I will let Marshal Widup at the district level explain that. Senator Sessions. All right. Apparently, you can't shackle a prisoner, under the court rulings, in front of the jury except in the most extreme circumstances. And if you know you have a violent person that could be dangerous to the marshals and the judges and everyone, I understand there is a device called a stun belt that could be put on them under their clothes. Mr. Widup. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do have those in the Marshals Service and we do have them in the Northern District of Illinois. Senator Sessions. Have you used it? Mr. Widup. No, we haven't. It is an involved process, with the final part of it being the defendant has to agree to wear the stun belt in order to use that. Senator Sessions. I thought you might say something like that. The reason I learned this, Senator Kyl, is because in looking at the complaints against Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the California Supreme Court ruled eight to one that a stun belt worn under the clothes, not visible to the public, by a very violent criminal was unconstitutional or something. They reversed the conviction over that defendant having worn it. She dissented it, and they blame her for being an extremist. But I think this was before the killing that we heard about this morning and before the Atlanta killing, and I think maybe we need to review that State court decision because it seems to me that could be a help. My time is up. Judge Roth, we are delighted to have you here. I am sorry I didn't get to address any questions to you, but we admire your service very much. Senator Kyl, thank you for your leadership here. Senator Kyl is a thoroughgoing lawyer and practitioner in courts for many years, including the Supreme Court of the United States, and he cares about these issues very much. Senator Kyl. Well, thank you, Senator Sessions, and let me begin by saying that in the Arizona Federal court system I am aware that there is a very close relationship between the judges and the marshals. They meet together frequently. That is the way it should be. I know they have a lot of confidence in each other. The judges certainly have a lot of confidence in the marshals there. But there are incidents around the country that suggest that all is not well, some of which has been testified to here today. Mr. Reyna, I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to some of the things that were said after your testimony to advise us what you think the proper response to those points is. Mr. Reyna. Thank you, Senator Kyl. The Marshals Service conducts many missions that it has been tasked by Congress. There is no doubt that the most important mission is to protect the judicial process. And we say protect the judicial process and the integrity of that process because not only do we have the responsibility of protecting the over 2,000 Federal judges that we are responsible for, but we also have the responsibility to protect the approximately 5,500 prosecutors in those courts, the jurors, the witnesses and other members of the court family. So what happens in every district is an extreme amount of coordination on a daily basis, and we appreciate the patience and the hard work that the judges at the district level do each single day so that we are able to adequately address their needs. One of the things that does occur, as Marshal Widup was pointing out, is that there are some stress factors that the Marshals Service will experience. For instance, any new law enforcement initiative in a certain region of the country will create a different workload within the Marshals Service. For example, in Arizona we received a letter from the supervisor of ICE indicating that 500 agents would be added to their ranks to support their mission along the southwest border, which is obviously very needed. Well, we certainly appreciated that heads-up, so to speak, but it also indicated to us that it would require, obviously, additional resources to deal with the already difficult situation on the southwest border. So that requires-- Senator Kyl. May I just interrupt you? I think that one of the questions here is are you asking for adequate resources. If there are inadequate, whose responsibility is it to ask for more? And, secondly, is there any specific response to what you have heard here today with respect to--and I will be very specific--the criticisms of the Marshals Service? Mr. Reyna. Senator Kyl, certainly we always request that the Congress support the President's budget. Over the last five fiscal years, the President's budget, had it been fully funded as requested, we would have achieved an additional 462 positions that are vitally needed in every district and in every area of the Marshals Service. Regarding the criticism and the concern of communication, a lot of the communication, as you indicated from your past experience, happens at the local level through the various committees, through the various meetings that happens sometimes one-on-one with the judges in each individual court and the Marshals Service. At the national level, we discuss a lot of the issues, some formally through the Security and Facilities Committee, which is responsible and works with us on all issues involving facilities and security in those facilities. In addition to that, there are other discussions that occur on a daily basis between the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and many of the other operational matters, including the administrative necessities that have to be undertaken. We certainly support the issues and the areas that Judge Roth has articulated as far as some of the regulatory changes that need to be made so that we can better protect the judiciary and give us those necessary tools. She has articulated those. We support those. There are other areas that we also have undertaken to ensure that we timely assess any threats that come into the judiciary, and we assess them pursuant to a process that we have in place and responds to Magistrate Alba's concerns. One of the things that I would like to articulate regarding Magistrate Alba's comments is that every threat assessment in every district has to be handled by the local marshal. It is handled also in consultation with not only the person that received the threat, but also the Security and Facilities Committee. Depending on the threat level and the type of threat that it is, where it is one that is perhaps very direct, maybe not overt, or no threat at all, is what is going to make the determination. The Marshals Service does not have the funding up until recently to support full-time security alarm systems. We are very pleased that that has occurred because it will allow us to enhance off-site security, which is an issue of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the entire judiciary. In the case involving Magistrate Alba, in our conversation when I learned about this matter with Marshal Anderson from the District of Utah, he indicated that the matter had been resolved at the local level and there was no further request of involvement from headquarters on that matter. One of the things that I want to articulate here today, Senator Sessions and Senator Kyl, is that we certainly encourage all Federal judges to allow us to exercise our ability to protect the judges, to report all type of communications, whether it be perceived inappropriate or any area that they feel uncomfortable with. It is important that we address all the issues. It is important that we review all those potential threats, or perhaps concerns. We would rather address hundreds of concerns that turn out to be nothing than fail to address one that was not brought to our attention. Senator Kyl. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one follow-up question of Judge Roth. There is a suggestion that legislation may be required to better reflect the views of judges. That is obviously a last resort here. At least it seems to me to be a last resort. We ought to be able to have structures in place in which judges and marshals can visit together and identify the needs and have it properly followed up. What is your view of that? Judge Roth. I agree it is a last resort. I have been Chair of the committee for five-and-a-half years. I have had numerous discussions with the Attorney General and with Mr. Reyna over our need to help determine what is needed for judicial security. We have no progress to report in this effort. We still don't know how the staffing for judicial security is arrived at. We don't know, that having been determined, whether that is being fulfilled. We do know across the country that marshals from the districts are confidentially reporting to us--they will get fired if they do it publicly, but they are reporting to us what their staffing patterns are, how those staffing patterns are going down in recent years. I know of one district where, in 2002, there were a number of--in the 60s--deputy marshals that should have been there. There were about eight less that were actually there. They were forecasting for 2005 that there would be in the high 80s needed. In 2005, they have 50-some. And how is the gap being made up? In two ways. Number one is by contract prison guards, deputy sheriffs, local policemen who are brought in on a daily contract basis to help handle prisoners. The Inspector General of the Department of Justice has just come out with a report very critical of this program that there is inadequate training and there is inadequate background of these contract guards. We hear reports from local judges that these guards are falling asleep in the courtroom because they have been working all day at their county or State job and then they come in. We find this unacceptable. Another way that the gap is being filled is by not doing certain requirements that deputy marshals should be doing, such as being present in the courtroom when any defendant, whether that defendant is in custody or not in custody, is in the courtroom. In criminal cases, defendants can be dangerous. When you are sending them to jail, their families can create problems and we need to have at least one deputy United States marshal in the courtroom during a criminal proceeding. Director Reyna is aware of this. He has supported this position, but the Marshals Service is not producing the deputy marshal staffing to fulfill this function. The courts pay for court security officers. They are supervised by the Marshals Service. We pay for them. We find more and more around the country that these court security officers are being used for functions that are deputy marshal functions, such as prisoner guarding which the court security officers are not trained for. These are a few particular, specific examples that we see of the results of lack of funding. We feel that we have enough concrete examples that we should be able to participate in determining what is needed for judicial security and whether that standard is actually being met. Having failed to get it from our conversations with the Department of Justice and the Marshals Service, we are turning to you saying please help us. Senator Kyl. I appreciate that. Let me just conclude by saying that throughout the entire criminal justice process at the Federal level, and also at the State level in States like mine, the problem of illegal immigration has put a huge burden on both the Federal and the State government. Nothing is funded adequately. There isn't adequate courtroom space, sufficient judges, clerks, prosecutors, public defenders, marshals, detention space, transportation opportunity, or anything else. The situation is the same in our State court systems, especially in those counties that are along the border. Ultimately, this is the responsibility of the Congress. And, Mr. Reyna, if you are correct, there would be 462 additional positions had Congress funded pursuant to the President's budget. Then that responsibility lies with the Congress. I think it is important that this Committee document the information that we have received here and before passing legislation that simply puts into practice the custom of getting advice from judges, we ought to look at our appropriations process and short-circuit the whole proposition. Every one of these areas needs additional funding. Everyone understands that and it is a matter of prioritization. But when we hire an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents, for example, we are going to get a certain number of additional criminal defendants in court and the tale of that initial commitment is going to be felt throughout the entire system. That is just one of the areas, I appreciate, but at least in my area it is what is driving the need for more resources throughout the entire system. Our area is the fastest growing in terms of need, precisely because of that phenomenon. I am amazed that the Marshals Service is able to do as well as it does, and again I want to express my appreciation, as I know the judges do, too. But we have got to do better and I think this hearing has helped to highlight that. Senator Sessions. Senator Kyl, I am going to offer for the record, if there is no objection, the statements of Senator Durbin, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Glenn Fine, and Senator John Cornyn. I am being called to a mark-up where we need a quorum in the HELP Committee. I would love to turn the chairmanship over to you, and you will do so ably. Senator Kyl. Unless there is anything else from the witnesses, I have nothing else. Senator Sessions. Judge Roth, you noted that there is a crisis and we have a dysfunctional relationship here. I believe, Mr. Reyna, that is something that the courts and you need to work on. We have just got to have that kind of communication. That is important. You need to listen to the requests of the courts, and you may not be able to fulfill them all, but there should be able to be a circumstance in which requests are made clearly and that you respond, recognizing that in the huge system that you have, the whole United States, there will be glitches that don't always go the way you would like. I will just make this observation which I think is a fact and is a danger for the Treasury of the United States, and that is we cannot, judges or anyone else, U.S. Attorneys, staff the Marshals Service for the five most busy days in a court's life and those personnel are then not utilized for 300 days of the year. They don't really have enough work to do. The stress will be on you, the individual marshals, the head marshal in Washington, to try to be able to draw from other districts. When we had big cases in my small district of the Southern District of Alabama, deputy marshals came in to help handle those cases and supplement the people there when maybe there was a down time in their district, but stress in our district. It is really hard to do that, but I think if you continue the trend to be flexible to respond to what Judge Alba is talking about--presumably, you eventually did get the alarm system you needed. Is that correct? Judge Alba. I did, but I had to pay for it myself. Senator Sessions. And you indicated that the money has been now appropriated for that, Mr. Reyna? Mr. Reyna. Yes, sir. Senator Sessions. So in the future, a magistrate judge would be able to get that system put in if he had a real threat? Mr. Reyna. The $12 million has been received. We will be working with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to develop a process by which to address those matters of off-site security, and specifically alarm systems. Senator Sessions. Well, I think when you have got a family and you have got a group of people that actually acted in court as he said they did, that indicates to me that these people are capable of killing somebody and we have to be responsive to that. So it is a tough business, and I think, as Senator Kyl, we ought to look at the number of people you have, but be lean. We don't have any money to waste, do we, not with the deficit we have got? So we want you to be effective in utilizing the resources, and I think from what I am hearing from this discussion today we need to make sure that we analyze your next appropriation and see if we can get you some more people. Judge Roth or anyone else, do you have anything to add before we adjourn? Judge Roth. Could I, Mr. Chairman? I would appreciate it. Let me add two things. The shortfall in Marshals Service staffing appropriations reflects what the OMB has presented to the President. It does not necessarily reflect what the Marshals Service at the beginning sad was necessary. Senator Sessions. Right. Judge Roth. That figure is often, I think, inevitably cut down by the Department of Justice, and then cut down again by OMB. Senator Sessions. Well, I understood Mr. Reyna to say that the President actually requested more of Congress than we gave him. Is that correct? Mr. Reyna. That is correct, Senator. Senator Sessions. And that is the third cut. Judge Roth. The President requested less of Congress than the Marshals Service really needed, and we want to know what the Marshals Service really needed. Senator Sessions. Or what they wanted. Judge Roth. Well, we want to know if they needed it, and from the shortfalls we are seeing, some of it was urgently needed. We are also concerned about intelligence analysis by the Marshals Service. Are they really assessing threats in the way that threats should be assessed? You need protection in many cases where there is not a direct threat on a judge. In fact, the judges have been assassinated in no case actually received a direct threat, and we feel that the Marshals Service's analysis of intelligence needs to have a more intricate scope in the present day of terrorist threats. We are concerned that they are operating under the old system. Unless you get a direct threat, you don't get anything, and our concern in Judge Alba's situation was that he fell within that category when I think very definitely he did need protection. Senator Sessions. Well said. Thank you for an excellent discussion. You have raised a very important point. The rule of law is central to American freedom and prosperity, and we cannot allow it to be eroded by violence and threats in the courthouse. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 10:19 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2222.110