Cite as 446 F.Supp.2d 1146 (E.D.Cal. 2006)
provide such a plan within a reasonable period of time, or if its plan includes a finding of negligible value or results in a nominal, taxpayer-funded contribution to victim restitution, then the district court is directed to return Kaczynski’s property to him.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit also stated that Kaczynski, and the Named Victims through appointed pro bono amicus counsel, were to be provided an opportunity to “comment upon” the plan proposed by the government. Id. The Ninth Circuit observed that the “viewpoints and desires” of the Named Victims were “missing throughout this litigation” and should be obtained since the “very purpose” of the restitution order “is to provide financial compensation for their great losses.” Id.
Upon remand, the government proposed a plan in a Status Report filed September 12, 2005, (“September 12 Plan”).[1] However, the parties subsequently stipulated to multiple continuances of a Status Conference regarding the plan, mainly to allow time for settlement discussions. As a result, a Status Conference was not held until June 16, 2006.[2]
At the Status Conference, I questioned whether the September 12 Plan comported with the Ninth Circuit remand decision.[3] The government responded that “the reason [it] ha[d] net proposed a detailed plan … [was] because [it] d[id] know exactly what … [it was] to sell.” (Reporter’s Tr. of June 16 Status Conf. (“RT”) at 14.) The government asserted it “need[ed] direction from the victims” since “the purpose of the restitution order … is to bring benefit to the victims.” (Id. at 14.) Counsel for the Named Victims then “suggest[ed] … a fairly short deadline [be set] to come up with [the] kind of detailed proposal that would satisfy the [Ninth Circuit remand decision].” (Id. at 17.) The government agreed, Kaczynski’s counsel acquiesced, and the government was given a deadline to file a document that proposed a plan consistent with the remand decision and explained why such a plan should be found timely submitted. (Id. at 22.) Kaczynski and the Named Victims were given an opportunity to respond to the proposal. (Id. at 23–24.)
On July 7, 2006, the government submitted another Status Report, in which it proposed a markedly different plan (“July 7 Plan”). In the Status Report, the government asserted the July 7 Plan was timely because the government could not submit a more concrete plan “until [it] knew precisely what the Named Victims wanted to do and how the costs of the sale would be handled.” (Gov’t Status Report, filed July 7, 2006, at 5.) In addition, the government explained that some delay was attributable to settlement negotiations, which “the parties [explored] for several months.”[4] (Id. at 6.)
The July 7 Plan proposed to sell Kaczynski’s property in a modified “federal judicial execution sale,” which would involve the United States Marshal “con-
- ↑ The content of the September 12 Plan is described in a Pre-Status Conference Communication filed August 4, 2006.
- ↑ Before the Status Conference, the government filed an Amended Status Report that provided more information about the September 12 Plan. (See Pre-Status Conference Communication, filed Aug. 4, 2006, at 4–6.)
- ↑ Even though the remand decision only concerned the seized property already in the government’s possession, the September 12 Plan appeared to contemplate taking any necessary action to gather all of Kaczynski’s writings from wherever they could be located.
- ↑ Kaczynski’s counsel made a similar representation about the length of settlement negotiations at the Status Conference on June 16, 2006. (RT at 19.)
