On August 9, 2006, the Named Victims filed a supplemental document that asserts redaction of the original writings is necessary not only to protect their privacy, but also to avoid the “painful conflict” of “profiting from the sale of materials that identify and discuss the injuries of specific named individuals….” (Victims’ Supplemental Submission, filed August 9, 2006, at 2.)
Discussion
At issue is whether the July Plan satisfies the Ninth Circuit remand directive that the government “propose a detailed, written plan to dispose of the property in question in a commercially reasonable manner calculated to maximize the monetary return to [the Named Victims].” Kaczynski, 416 F.3d at 972. In the July 31 Plan, the government describes how its proposed internet auction would be effectuated and how the auction would likely “afford greater exposure of the items for the greatest possible value.” (Gov’t Status Report, filed July 31, 2006, Ex. A; id. at 2 (stating that an internet sale, as opposed to a courthouse sale, “may increase the amounts bid for the sale items” because the internet sale would have “a longer period of exposure and bidding”).) Since the government has described the proposed internet auction in sufficient detail, and shown that the auction is calculated to maximize monetary return to the Named Victims, that portion of the July 31 Plan is approved. See Kaczynski, 416 F.3d at 972. A discussion of the items that may be included in the approved internet auction follows.
I. Proposal as to Personal Items
The July 31 plan proposes to sell all of Kaczynski’s personal items and asserts that the sale of these items is “likely to bring net proceeds to the Named Victims … [i.e.] the sales price … will exceed the costs of sale.” (Gov’t Status Report, filed July 31, 2006, at 3.) Kaczynski does not challenge the sale of his personal items, but he does object to credit bidding by the Named Victims on any unsold items. Specifically, Kaczynski contends credit bidding does not comport with the Ninth Circuit remand decision because “any property that does not sell at an auction by definition is of minimal or no value,” and “must be returned to [him].” (Kaczynski’s Objections, filed July 21, 2006, at 4.) This argument is purely speculative and does not account for the possibility that the property may have some value to the Named Victims. If their credit bids assign more than “negligible value” to the property, then the “property is needed to satisfy the terms of the restitution order.” Kaczynski, 416 F.3d at 976 (indicating that property having more than “negligible value” can be used to reduce the amount of restitution a defendant owes a victim).
Kaczynski also argues the Ninth Circuit remand decision prevents credit bidding because it will not result in monetary return to the Named Victims. Although the remand decision indicated the “principal purpose” of the government’s plan should be “to maximize monetary return,” the Ninth Circuit also stated that “the viewpoints and desires” of the Named Victims were “missing throughout this litigation” and indicated that their desires should be taken into consideration. Id. at 977. The government represents the Named Victims have expressed a desire to credit bid on any property that does not sell during the internet auction.
The remand decision states that “the government has some degree of discretion as to how to enforce the restitution lien,” and indicates that an “order of restitution may be enforced ‘by all … available and reasonable means.’ ” Id. at 976 (quoting
