This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE COBELL, et al., 1 - - 
1 Case No. 1:96CV01285 (RCL) 
Plaintiffs, (Judge Lamberth) 
1 
GALE NORTON, et al., 1 
Defendants. 1 
INTERIOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 
TO DISQUALIFY JOSEPH CHRISTIE AS EXPERT WITNESS FOR PLAINTIFFS 
AND TO DISOUALIFT DENNIS GINGOLD AS COUNSEL FOR JOSEPH CHRISTIE 
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, Interior Defendants respectfully move to disqualify Joseph 
Christie - a retired Department of the Interior employee and a paid consultant to the Special 
Master in this matter - from testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiff class. In 
addition, Interior Defendants move to disqualify Dennis Gingold fi-om serving as Mr. Christie’s 
counsel in these proceedings.’ 
As is more fully explained below, Mr. Christie’s service as a testifying expert for 
Plaintiffs and as a consulting expert for the Special Master creates at least the appearance of 
impropriety with regard to Mr. Chnstie’s, and, derivatively, the Special Master’s, impartiality in 
this matter. Permitting Mr. Christie to serve as Plaintiffs’ expert would create prejudice and 
unfairness for Interior Defendants, who have provided confidential and privileged information to 
‘ In accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.1(m), counsel for Interior Defendants attempted 
to reach Mr. Gingold, counsel for Plaintiffs and Mr. Chnstie, to confer regarding this motion. 
Mr. Gingold has not responded, and Interior Defendants presume Plaintiffs and Mr. Christie will 
oppose this motion. 
1 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
the Special Master. To remedy this appearance of impropriety and to preserve the integrity of 
these proceedings, the Court should disqualify Mr. Christie as an expert for the plaintiff class. 
In addition, to avoid (1) the appearance of impropriety created by counsel for Plaintiffs 
also representing the Court’s consultant and (2) the conflict of interest resulting fiom Mr. 
Gingold’s dual representation of Plaintiffs and of a witness in the proceeding, the Court should 
disqualify Mr. Gingold from serving as Mr. Christie’s counsel. 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
Mr. Christie is a former employee of the Department of the Interior (“Interior”). This 
Court described Mr. Christie’s tenure at lnterior as follows: 
Joseph Christie is a former employee of the Department of the 
Interior. . . whose twenty-eight years of tenure with the 
Department include services as an agency superintendent where he 
“[mlanaged trust programs on an Agency level,” and “[wlorked on 
Trust Litigation,” as Deputy Director of Education for the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs, as a member of the Tribal Reconciliation Project 
and as the Director of the Office of Trust Litigation Support and 
Records-the office that later became known as OTR. These 
positions have required him to collect and image documents, 
publish reports, meet with tribes, draft settlement legislation and 
provide planning and budget information to the Department of the 
Interior, Congressional Offices and the Office of Management and 
Budget. 
Memorandum and Order at 2 (Mar. 29,2002). 
In February, 2001, Special Master Balaran retained Mr. Christie as an “advisor to the 
Special Master in his investigation of the Office of Trust Records.” Id.at 1. “Specifically, [Mr.] 
Christie was retained to ‘assist the Special Master in his review and analysis of the thousands of 
documents presented by the Defendant[s] and . . . accompany[] the Special Master to facilities 
which store trust records and during his interviews with Interior employees.”’ Id.at 4-5 (quoting 
2 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
Order of the SpeciaI Master, at 13 (July 23,2001)). On May 29,2001, Defendants filed a motion 
to rescind the Special Master’s hiring of Mr. Christie; this Court denied the motion on March 29, 
2002. Billing records for Mr. Christie suggest he has rendered services to the Special Master as 
recently as February, 2003. 
The “Phase 1.5” trial is scheduled to commence on May 1,2003. Plaintiffs’ witness list 
for the trial identifies Mr. Christie as an expert witness and describes his expected testimony as 
follows: “Matters concerning the parties’ compliance plans, including the effectiveness and 
credibility of DO1 fiduciary management regarding records management and the need for central 
records facility; consequences of inadequate records management and compliance; and [the] need 
for [a] remedial order in the nature and scope of plaintiffs’ proposed order.” Plaintiffs’ Witness 
List at 2. 
On March 19,2003, Defendants served a subpoena duces tecum on Mr. Christie, 
requiring him to appear for deposition on April 3,2003. Plaintiffs responded by moving for a 
protective order that would, among other things, limit the scope of documents Mr. Christie must 
produce and the range of questions Interior Defendants can pose to Mr. Christie. Plaintiffs’ 
Motion For Protective Order (April 1, 2003). Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order contained 
a footnote stating that “Dennis M. Gingold, one of plaintiffs’ counsel, also represents Mr. 
Christie in this matter and joins in the motion with respect to his subpoena.” Id.n.4. 
ARGUMENT 
I. Mr. Christie Should Be Disqualified From Serving As Plaintiffs’ Expert. 
Federal courts have the inherent power to disqualify expert witnesses. Koch Ref. Co. v. 
Boudreaux MV, 85 F.3d 1178, Z 181 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Campbell Indus. v. MN Gemini, 619 
3 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
F.2d 24,27 (9th Cir. 1980)). The exercise of this power serves to prevent conflicts of interest 
and maintain the integrity of the judicial process. Id.at 1 182; see also United States v. 
Salamanca, 244 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1026 (D.S.D. 2003). 
Mr. Christie’s service as Plaintiffs’ expert endangers his neutrality and imperils the 
integrity of, and public confidence in, the Special Master’s activities. The Court appointed the 
Special Master; the Special Master, in turn, retained Mr. Christie as an advisor to assist him. The 
Special Master is an officer of this Court, duty bound both to maintain impartiality in his 
activities and to avoid the appearance of impropriety.* Likewise, Mr. Christie’s role requires him 
to maintain neutrality with regard to the work he has performed for the Special Master. 
Edgar, 93 F.3d 256,262 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Experts appointed and supervised by a court carry 
special weight because of their presumed neutrality.”). 
Certainly the Special Master could not serve as an expert witness for Plaintiffs without 
compromising his impartiality and raising the appearance of impropriety. To permit the Special 
Master’s retained consultant to serve as an expert witness for Plaintiffs with regard to the very 
matters on which he advises the Special Master will create the appearance of impropriety by Mr. 
Christie, and, derivatively, by the Special Master. Permitting Mr. Christie to testify regarding 
information he obtained as an advisor to the Special Master would also circumvent Federal Rule 
of Civil Procedure 53, which requires a special master to make written reports and 
recommendations concerning findings of fact and conclusions of law to the court, which must 
* The Court discussed the Special Master’s role and relationship to the Court at length in 
its recent decision on the motions to disqualify. &e Cobell v. Norton, 237 F. Supp. 2d 
71 (D.D.C. 2003). 
4 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
ultimately decide to adopt or reject such findings and conclusions after considering written 
responses and objections by the parties. 
Furthermore, disqualification of an expert witness is required when the expert has had a 
confidential relationship with the objecting party. Wang. Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 762 F. 
Supp. 1246, 1248 (E.D. Va. 1991)). In making such disqualification determinations, courts 
assess: (1) whether it is objectively reasonable for the objecting party to conclude that a 
confidential relationship existed with the expert; and (2) whether the objecting party disclosed 
any confidential or privileged information to the expert. Mayer v. Dell, 139 F.R.D. 1,3 (D.D.C. 
1991)(quoting Wang Labs., lnc., 762 F. Supp. at 1248). By analogy, in this case, it is objectively 
reasonable to conclude that Defendants have a confidential relationship with the Special Master 
in the sense that they have provided a significant volume of confidential and privileged 
information to him. Interior Defendants have no way of knowing how much of their confidential 
or privileged information has been shared with Mr. Christie; indeed, as noted above, both Mr. 
Christie and Plaintiffs have attempted to limit Interior Defendants’ discovery. But Mr. Christie’s 
billing records (attached for reference at Exhibit A) are filed in this Court and demonstrate that 
he has gathered information on a nuniber of sensitive matters, spoken with numerous 
unidentified individuals, and engaged in extensive consultations with the Special Master. 
Plaintiffs cannot now use Mr. Christie to testify on their behalf on the same subject matters for 
which he has been retained to assist the Special Ma~ter.~ Under these circumstances, Mr. 
Moreover, Mr. Christie is statutorily prohibited from testifying as an expert about 
matters in which he “participated personally and substantially,” 18 U.S.C. tj 207(a), while 
employed at Interior absent a court order requiring him to serve as an expert witness for 
Plaintiffs. 18 U.S.C. tj 2076)(6)(A) (“[A] former officer or employee of the executive branch of 
the United States (including any independent agency) who is subject to the restrictions contained 
5 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
Christie cannot serve as an expert witness for Plaintiffs. cf.Paul v. RawlinFs Sporting Goods, 
-7Inc 123 F.R.D. 271,277 (S.D. Ohio 1988) (“The law will imply a relationship of confidence 
when it is just to do so.”) (quoting Conforti & Eiselle. Tnc. v. Div. of Bldg and Constr., 405 A.2d 
487,492 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)). 
Mr. Christie is “simply too close and too intimately involved on the part of [the Special 
Master] in the very process which will be examined in this case for the Court [to] allow him to 
testify as an expert for the [P]laintiffs.” Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, Case No. 95-2453, 1996 
WL 392149, *2 (E.D. La. July 8, 1996).4 The Court should act to protect public confidence in 
this case and preclude Mr. Christie from serving as an expert witness €or Plaintiffs in the Phase 
1.5 trial. Sells v. Wamser, 158 F.R.D. 390, 393 (S.D. Ohio 1994) (“[Tlhe overall guiding 
principle is to preserve the integrity of court proceedings, and [I any remedy imposed in a case 
where an expert witness has a conflict of interest should promote fundamental fairness in the 
litigation process.”). 
11. Mr. Gingold Should Be Disqualified From Serving As Mr. Christie’s Counsel 
Disqualification of counsel rests within the sound discretion of the Court, and arises from 
the Court’s inherent supervisory power over the professionalism of lawyers practicing before it. 
Groper v. Taff, 717 F.2d 1415, 1418 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Palumbo v. Tele-Communications, Inc., 
in [18 U.S.C. 4 207(a)(l)] with respect to a particular matter may not, except pursuant to court 
order, serve as an expert witness for any other person (except the United States) in that matter.”) 
4 This is not a case in which Plaintiffs will be unfairly deprived of expert testimony. 
Plaintiffs have had ample time to locate and prepare an expert for trial without appropriating the 
Court’s advisor. Koch Refining, 85 F.3d at 1183. 
6 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
157 F.R.D. 129, 131 (D.D.C. 1994). Counsel’s violation of applicable ethical rules supplies a 
basis for disqualification. Palumbo, 157 F.R.D. at 132. 
Although courts treat motions to disqualify with caution, “any doubt is to be resolved in 
favor of disqualification.” Demckson v. Derrickson, 541 A.2d 149, 152 (D.C. 1988) (citing 
Mondello v. Mondello, 499 N.Y.S.2d 9, 10 (N.Y.App. Div. 1986)); see also Rentclub. Inc. v. 
Transamerica Rental Finance Coy., 811 F. Supp. 651,654 (M.D. Fla. 1992), affd,43 F.3d 1439 
(1 lth Cir. 1995). In this circuit, counsel may be disqualified even where no present impropriety 
exists, particularly where important societal interests are at stake. &, Kessenich v. CFTC, 684 
F.2d 88,98 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (citing Yablonski v. United Mine Workers, 448 F.2d 1175, 1177-82 
(D.C. Cir. 1971)). As this Court observed in Palumbo, the class action setting imposes a 
particularly “heightened” professional standard upon class counsel due in part to his obligations 
to absent class members. Palumbo, 157 F.R.D. at 132 -33 (disqualifyrng class counsel) (citing 
Smith v. Josten’s American Yearbook Co., 78 F.R.D. 154, 163 (D. Kan. 1978), affd,624 F.2d 
125 (1 0th Cir. 1980)). These standards require the Court to disqualify Mr. Gingold fiom 
representing Mr. Christie in this case. 
The D.C. Circuit has held that the Code of Conduct for United States Judges applies to 
special rnasters.j Jenkins v. Sterlacci, 849 F.2d 627,632 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (A “special master 
must hold himself to the same high standards applicable to the conduct ofjudges.”); see also 
Belfiore v. New York Times Co., 826 F.2d 177, 185 (2d Cir. 1987); In re Joint E. & S. Dist. 
5 This Court distinguished Jenkins in its decision denying the motions of certain 
individuals to disqualify the Special Master and others in this case, largely on the ground that the 
Court would not afford the findings of the Special Master the benefit of “clearly erroneous “ 
deference in the contempt proceedings now before him. Cobell v. Norton, 237 F. Supp. 2d 71, 
84 (D.D.C. 2003). 
7 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
Asbestos Litip., 737 F. Supp. 735,739 (E.& S.D.N.Y. 1990). The Code of Conduct for United 
States Judges (“Code of Conduct”) requires judges to “act at all times in a manner that promotes 
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Code of Conduct, Canon 2A. 
“The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds, 
with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a 
perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, 
and competence is impaired. Id., cmt. The Code of Conduct imposes a duty of impartiality and 
further requires judicial officers to take reasonable steps to ensure impartiality by law clerks and 
other court personnel. Code of Conduct, Canon 3 & cnk6 
The D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct require Mr. Gingold to “avoid contributing to a 
violation of’ the Code of Conduct. D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 3.5 cmt. 1. Yet his representation of 
both the plaintiff class and Mr. Christie does precisely this by drawing into question the integrity 
and impartiality of the Special Master’s investigation. Mr. Gingold’s dual representation gives 
him undeniable influence over how Mr. Christie wilI respond to discovery and testify at trial. In 
effect, Mr. Gingold’s representation of Mr. Christie permits the class to influence Mr. Christie’s 
participation in this case, thus stripping Mr. Christie of his presumed neutrality and imbuing him 
with the partisanship of the plaintiff class. The unavoidable consequence of Mr. Gingold’s 
representation of Mr. Christie will be a perception that the Special Master’s investigation has 
The D.C. Circuit has applied the Code of Conduct in a variety of contexts. See, e.g% 
Pioneer Hotel, Inc. v. NLRB, 182 F.3d 939,944 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (analyzing ex parte contacts 
under Canon 3B(7)); Clifford v. United States, 136 F.3d 144, 149 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 
(disqualification of judge for impartiality proper under certain circumstances pursuant to Canon 
3E(l)); United States v. Barry, 961 F.2d 260, 263 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (analyzing out-of-court 
comments by judge under Canon 3A(6)). 
8 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
been compromised. Rentclub, Inc., 811 F. Supp. at 655 (appearance of impropriety arises 
from inference that attorney induced another to breach a confidence). 
Mr. Gingold’s dual representation raises another ethical dilemma in the form of a 
potential conflict of interest between his clients. Rule 1.7(b) of the D.C. Rules of Professional 
Conduct states that: 
[A] lawyer shall not represent a client with respect to a matter if: 
(I) That matter involves a specific party or parties, and a position 
to be taken by that client in that matter is adverse to a position 
taken or to be taken by another client in the same matter.... 
(2) Such representation will be or is likely to be adversely affected 
by representation of another client; [or] 
(3) Representation of another client will be or is likely to be 
adversely affected by such representation. 
D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(b). 
Courts have interpreted this rule as presenting an ethical barrier to a lawyer representing 
both a party in interest and a witness in the same matter. See In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litin., 124 
F. Supp. 2d 235 (D.N.J. 2000); see also Bobokoski v. Bd. of Educ., No. 90-C-5737, 1991 WL 
140I50 (N.D. 111. July 23, 1991). In granting a motion to disqualify under Rule 1.7 in a class 
action securities fraud case, the court in Cendant Corp. held that a lawyer could not represent the 
named defendant in a case in which it also represented a former officer of that company who was 
a critical and potentially adverse witness in the matter. In describing the many hazards of such a 
dual representation, the court observed: 
as a general matter examining one’s own client as an adverse 
witness on behalf of another client, or conducting third party 
discovery of one client on behalf of another client, is likely (I) to 
9 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
pit the duty of loyalty to each client against the duty of loyalty to 
the other; (2) to risk breaching the duty of confidentiality to the 
client-witness; and (3) present a tension between the lawyer’s own 
pecuniary interest in continued employment by the client-witness 
and the lawyer’s ability to effectively represent the litigation client. 
The first two of these hazards are likely to present a direct 
adverseness of interest falling within Rule 1.7(a); all three may 
constitute material limitations on the lawyer’s representation, so as 
to come under Rule 1.7(b).’ 
Cendant Corp., 124 F. Supp. 2d at 241-42 (emphasis omitted) (quoting ABA Formal Opinion 
No. 92-367 (October 16, 1 992)).8 The court emphasized that Rule 1.7 is violated where there is a 
mere “possibility of a breach occurring;” actual improper conduct is not required to establish a 
violation. Id.at 243,244. This is because the rule is intended not to prevent actual conflicts but 
to bolster the public’s confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Td. at 245. 
In his dual representation, Mr. Gingold will elicit the testimony of one client (Christie) 
for the benefit of another (the class). Should Mr. Christie offer views that are unfavorable to the 
class, Mr. Gingold will have to decide whether to impeach or question the credibility of his 
individual client or remain silent to the detriment of his class client. Particularly given the 
heightened standards imposed upon the professionalism of class counsel, disqualification of Mr. 
Ln Cendant Corp., the conflicted firm had erected “walls” to eliminate intra-firm 
communications between lawyers representing the two clients but the court deemed those 
protections insufficient. 124 F. Supp. 2d at 243. Here, of course, no such measures are possible. 
Disquaiification motions involving representation of both a witness and a party in the 
same matter arise fi-equentlyin the criminal context. See, e.g, Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 
153, 160 (1988). While conflicts of interest in the criminal arena require a heightened concern 
for defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights, equal judicial caution about permitting counsel to 
represent witnesses and parties in the same matter applies in civil cases. Compare Perillo v. 
Johnson, 205 F.3d 775, 808 (5th Cir. 2000) (conflict between former and present clients raised 
suspicion concerning defense strategies in criminal case) yitJ Cendant Corn., supra. 
10 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
Gingold as counsel for Mr. Christie is warranted for this reason as well.9 Palumbo, 157 
F.R.D. at 132-33. 
CONCLUSION 
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court should disqualify Mr. Christie from testifying 
as Plaintiffs’ expert in this matter and disqualifi Mi. Gingold from serving as counsel of record 
for Mr. Christie. 
Dated: April 28,2003 Respectfully submitted, 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR, 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRlSTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
Deputy Director 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
United States Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 307-0183 
Rule 1.7(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct permits an adversely affected party to 
waive any conflict of interest. However, as this Court ruled in Palumbo, absent class members 
cannot, as a matter of law, waive conflicts of interest. 157 F.R.D. at 133. Moreover, a waiver by 
Mr. Christie would only increase the appearance of impropriety discussed above. 
11 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, gt al., )
1 
Plaintiffs, ) 
) 
V. 1 Case No. 1:96CVO1285 
) (Judge Lamberth) 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, g &, ) 
) 
Defendants. 
ORDER 
Upon consideration of Interior Defendants’ Motion To Disqualify Joseph Christie As 
Expert Witness For Plaintiffs And To Disqualify Dennis Gingold As Counsel For Joseph Christie 
(“Interior Defendants Motion”), any responses thereto, and the record of the case, it is hereby 
ORDERED, that Interior Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. It is hrther 
ORDERED, that Joseph Christie shall be disqualified from testifying as an expert witness 
for the plaintiffs in the Phase 1.5 trial; and it is further 
ORDERED, that Dennis Gingold, counsel for the plaintiff class in this matter, shall be 
disqualified as counsel for Joseph Christie. 
SO ORDERED this day of 2003. 
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 
United States District Judge This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
cc: 
J. Christopher Kohn 
Sandra P. Spooner 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Brown, Esq. 
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Ninth Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
202-318-2372 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
202-822-0068 
Elliott Levitas, Esq. 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I declare under penalty of perjury that, on April 28, 2003 1served the foregoing Interior 
Defendants ’Motion to Disqualijj Joseph Christie as Expert Witnessfor PIaintfls and to 
Disqualzjj Dennis GingoId as Counselfor Joseph Christie by facsimile in accordance with their 
written request of October 3 1,2001 upon: 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
(202) 822-0068 
Per the Court’s Order of April 17,2003, 
by facsimile and by U.S. Mail upon: 
Earl Old Person (Prose) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
(406) 338-7530 
By facsimile and U.S. Mail: 
Alan L. Balaran, Esq. 
Special Master 
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
13th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
(202) 986-8477 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Ninth Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
(202) 3 18-2372 
By U.S. Mail upon: 
Elliott Levitas, Esq 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
02/26/2001 06:31 5052960047 
Chats Consulting Invoice 
l o t c.Christia. 
1 1704 san Victoria NE 
Aibuqucrque, New Mexico, 8711 f 
--.-I -.. 
A m O U n t i .-- .-.._. I 
390.00 i 
520.00 I 
390.00 f 
390.00 I 
260.00 . 
130.00, f 
390.001 i 
33.00 i . 
8.00 ; 
19.00 i 
147.05 
EXHIBIT A 
- .- . This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
03/23/2001 14: 56 5052960047 
" 
Invoice 
Joe c.Christie 
11704 San Victorio NE 
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 871 11. 
-.__.'---A!VWunt . . 
.. .-- 
390.00T! 
260.001i 
31.00 ; 
260.00T j 
130.iK)Tf 
2.00 : 
130.W i 
2.00 1 
130.00T 
6SO.WT 
i 2.00 ; 
130.wT 
I, I M.OOT : 
4.00 I 
5.S6 
910.OOTt 
. . 4.00 
i . 4.ou 
1JOO.WT: 
4.00 
780.00Tr 
57.49 ' 
260.001 
' 43.13 
4.00 
9lO.WT 
4.00 
91 O.OOT 
6.00 
26.w 
780.DOT 
19.97 
. . .- .- __ -.-
This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
- 04/25/2001 06: 55 5052960847 
PAGE 02 
Invoice 
Joe C:. C.hristic; 
I 1704 SanVictclrio NE 
Albuquerque, 'NewMexico. 87 I 1 1 
Deecription Amounr 
.......... -....... ,,-___. -.--_. -__- . .--.. . .....---- .. __^., -..-..--.-. -....................... .-*, 
03-25 1 hr reviewed Financia\dmr dircuYviorr 
. . 
I 
! 
! 
.... A. .... -. ..... -..-.___._ ._.,^.--___._ ___-_. .......... .-,-- 
Total 35,067.43 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
05/25/2001 13:57 5052960047 owt WOMAN PAGE 02 
Invoice 
Joe C . Christie 
I 1704 5&n\-wMio NE 
Albuquerque. Ne\v Mexico, 8?111 
--..., ..................... -----.-C._ ._-. _.____-.-.-.._.... 
f . 
130.00Ti 
130.001I 
130.00T 
.390.00T1 1.WI 
12.25T1 
130.00Ti 
l30.OoT I 
130.WT; 
13o.oor; 
I30.00T! 
],170.OOT 
1.43Q.QOTi 
' 1,170.M)T:. 
6M.OOT ! 
21+26T! 
4.62Tj 
4.OOT f 
7 . m i 
J.MIT. 
75.341 i 
53.53T1 
350.73 I 
! This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
06/25/2001 86:11 5052968047 
PAGE 02 
. inmice 
... i--.,-... ._........... -.-: .-__._. ..,.. ,,-c-­.... 
I 
i 
:-I 
...... ..-.. ............ ...---- . -,---..... _..I..--____r__ -.-_. .,-.,-._._,._-.-- ....... . . . . . . . ___._ . 
I ii Totat $4.318.00' : 
I-___"-..- ....................... ___,___._ C ,..___.. . _ . ............. ~ --_ .---.-.--. ....................... -c_-
This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
87/25/2001 07: 57 5052960047 OWL WOMM PAGE 02 
Invoice 
196.13 
Totaf This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
08/25/2001 17: 59 5052960047 
tlbsta Consulting 
laeC Christie 
f 1704 San VictAbNE 
hlhuqutwqw, Mvw Mexico, 87 I 1 1 
PAGE 02 
Invoice 
.......... ..- ............. 
....................Date ln~oicw# 
......IP... - 
I MS!2UoI I 7 
.. ___,. ................. *---- 
.* ......-. 
! 
Amount 
. ._____ -< 
26O.W i 
650.00T ! 
260.OOT ; 
3m.m i 
390.00T 
260.00T 1 
! 
1i.wr i 
260.00T i 
260.00T ! 
260.00TI. 
0.007 
6.oolj. 
26Q.OOT. 
5ZO.OOT 
650.00T 
78O.OOT 
f 303.24 j 
-I
.. ......... (/..'>- : 
......................... ....-..-... _-,""----- .... 
j: Tdzrl J5,520.24 ! 
. ---. ..... ........... .- --__-..... .--_.__ ............ .--___ . This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
09/25/2001 21:34 5052C 17 
Invoice . + 
I . 
1 . . - ~-----"-.--'-.--..- .--__.__ _________ .............. 4........... __ 
DeeOripdo?l 1 Amount . I I----.- I ...... .- ...... ............ __ ......... -1- --.-- .. ...-.--....... 1------..-....L : ...... 
. . I8-2720 n t h mt Wto qiqidjxuua 0.oof i 
0.WT ' 
.. 390.0~~; 
_ . 0.OOT 
390.00T 
780.00T!' 
... '. 
... 9.03Tf :. 
16.25T: .... 16.00Tf 
2.mt 
260.OUT! .. . . 
390.00f 
130.007f 
390.mi 
! . 
16.Wi 
26u.oO'I; i 
130.OOT1' 
1S.OM:f. 
780.007 ! . 
Tdal $4,480.4(1 1 
................. 7......... ...1---_ ! I-:.. __ ........ .._-- : This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text. 
  
- . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. 
P E 02 
. - . - -..*" 
. Invoice.: 
. ? 
I - ...... -..--... .: ! 
I _ . 
. ............... ---..--- ... ' - ;-_... ____ ........... .-..i 
. . 
....... . . . . --- 
7.I . . 
i 
20-00r' ,. . . . 3.001- . 
.520.m 
130.0OT i. 
26O.OOT f 
208.96 !1 . This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
11/25/2002 21: L 3 !50!~:3047 OWLWDMPN -. ...-. . . . . . . 
,Invoice 
:. ...-. . . . . ---__. 
.Data i Ihmice# i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .-- 
........ .... i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _____ 
i f3iYT0': 
' -I 
I 
I 
. . 
I L 
---. . . . . . . . . . 
. ....... i.. . . . . . . . . . . . ....- .-__ ... 
. ,: 
I 
..--.-.*. . . . . . . . . . . . .. - ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........-.--.......-. ...... .-- _i.................... ............ . - . 
. .. i . . 
: . . . DeSCriptiOn 
i . . Amount i ' 
-;'-.-...- ........ ,............. ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....-..._, ._- .... .-.-.;. -I..;.:.- . . . . . . ...____, I 
. - . !10-29 2 hn 15 thi& Chlr LO&&d My~w : iisua -farnming ~ m-12.MQ~& m-12 is- ,-,f i . . - . ~MJ.OOTI . . 
'a. :a#lcern. ! . 
_ . 
. _ 
. . 
. . 
. . 
.. 
! 
: 
. . ....................... ....... ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-...... ..... _ . a . . . . . . i Tota.1 SY62.89 f 
.. -...... ....... .... ....... . .. ........ .. . . . . . . - . . . -. . . . __... ...... 'I_ ................ . . . . -. _.. __-. This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
Chars Codring Invoice 
Joe c. chrisrie 
11704 San Vktorio NE 
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 8711I 
11-26 9pagcsfmteS~CcvdKd 
W 11-28 1 hr25 min call with SP ~ C ofM12 marcrids r a d repw dl and dtamim wirt, M-12 
7.-1 1hr 7 min &me discussionsW:dircllsw'mon invtmory with M-13 
:-3 Ihr 17 min Mg with hl-2 dls with M-1 mailu)SM inventory i s m 
lZ4lbf3 lmiu d l s mdrn-cchgwhh h+i oninventmy bw . - - I 
12-5 3 paga faxcsS e l I or d v c d 
124 2 h3 min k c s r d d fianM-I d'rcuslim ofthc mataials and analysis of rhc mncnals 
I24 7 pescr of Etxa sax or recaived 7.00: 
12-7 3 hrs 5 min molcrialr Cmn M-1 uld M-12. phone calls, rcviov and analpis ofmC M-12mntriols 390.w 
12-8 20 miru p n p d und sau email toSM 0.001 
12-11 50 min calls wirh M-l dM-I2 mcaing with M-I dixussion ofinvcnuny +anr and ofificc 130.001 
mblhnr 
rlovMaim Gmri rcccipu u ~ r 99.34 
i Total S 1.BOR.34 
I This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
01/04/2002 01: 01 505296 PAGE a? 
Invoice 
. . . . . . . . . . .- . -._ .. L... . 
Date j lnvoicex ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . ___... 
' '1/2si2im2 i 12 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _._-..-. . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.-.----._-.____._._. .--.-..-. . . . . . 
- . -.._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- ~ ....-______ ,_............... __............ _- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .------.-- 
! 
! : 
. . . . ...__.______.__.__..__.____ I 
~ -.~ . . , 
Description -....-....--.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Ambunt 
..: ._.._-*_ -.< j--- ._.__-_-..___._-.- 
1 2 M 21 mins e-;nail 10Shi Ckiail ruponx toSM.Esll from M 12 and d l fhm M-I. O.OOT ' 
12/27 48 mins k-iW tmin M-I:l.tvithattachmcntr scvt cg SM, analpis ofe-mail marcrid and tcspcmSc 16 130.ooT 
I I M-12. 
0.WT 
130.00T 
260.00T 
0.007 
0.om 
130.00T 
390.00f 
4 3 - I n 
0.DOT 
260.00T * 
f30.OO7 : 
260.00T 
I30.00T : 
l30.OOT: 
260,WfI 
390.007i 
I 
........ . . . . . . . . . . - ~ - ._.._. . . . _-____ . I This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text. 
  
PAGE 03 
9c)'E4/2002 09: 04 5052960047 -..--. , . .-.....-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
-I 
tnvoice 
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --.._... . 
.. Gate invoice X ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----. 
' M.(R(KlZ ' 13 
' _ _ _ ..--_-. ; 
;: . , 
.?. 
* . 
............ 
: i ! 
I 
>..-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . .'. . :- . . I 
' I 
. . ~ rdai- i 
... ....... . . . . . ............. .- . ..___. . . . . __ . . . . . . .- - . . _ . _ _ _ 
Page 1 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
??/a412002 09: 04 5052960047 PACE 82 .__ 
. . Invoice 
. . 
'i.ea092 . j I 3 
..... . . ....... . . . . 
. . 
I . . 
I . . . . . 
.-... ...... , :-- ..:.: _._ - ......... I 
, 
. . 
. . 
. . . . 
. . . . . . 
. . 
! 
! 
. . 
. . . 
! - . . 
! 
. . 
__ 
.. 
. .-_- .-_ 
I. . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... -! 
. Total s7.079.81 !. 
. . . . . *- --...-.-.. . . . .......... Pege 2 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
. . 
. . . . . . . . . : 
. . .Invoice 
. . . . . . - . " . . . . .,.. .-.--. .-.............. 
Dale, lnwice# : . . . . .-. . . . I .....1. .-_-_^..__..__., 
1 .. , 5i2fId2W.. 14 
.. . .. . . . . . . . . ..------.--- . 
.... -......... .- -.- . --.. .. 
8dTo 
I 
I . 
. . . 
L.---.... ......... - . . . . .... -*-.---I ..-..._..__.,.-.... . . 
. . .._.. . . . . . . . . . _,... . .--.-----I.. 
1': c----.. "f - I.- .- ...... . . . .-- I . I ._ . I . . . . 
. . . . . . . .- ......-........ - ...... ...... . . . . 
. ._ 
. . 
I ' 
OOOT; 
.13O.OOr.i 
' 0.007-i . 
913.5 : _. 
. . 
I ­. 
. 
I . ' 
! . . 
I ­! 
. . . . 
I . 
. . . . . . . . __ 
I 
. . . . . . . . . . .. -..-.-.. ....... . - ...... This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
04/84/2002 07: 31 50529FR047 
. 1 - . . 
. .:. . . . . . 
hvofce 
.................. ........ ...---,- 
I .oak- . -invoice W ..... - . . . . . . . . ...... ..... ___ 
: 47_74//2w,, IS 
- . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .--___.._ 
. . 
!-......... -, _ . . BiUTa :. 
........................... -. .-..-._,__-__.--.,, ... - --i ' ' ' . 
... 
.. . . . . 
. . 
.. 
I . ..... -. . . .............. . ._____.. _ _ . _ I . ...... .._____ 
i ..: 
. . Af?ab*t i . . J ... --...... ....-__ . .. . . . . . . . . . .... ____-_. 
. . $169 .13O.UOTI, ;..: 
130.00TI I . . 
. $143 
. . $104 
' $247 
$91 
and issucs $221 
.$26 
$39 
. . 
1 . . . 
. . 
1. . 
1 . . , 
. . ! ; . . i . . . . . 
. . 
.... , . 
! . . 
. i ' . . I . . 
'i .-._.. - . - . .~ _.. _ - ., . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ................... :I 
* , :'I ToQI. I.. $1.33757 .:: i 
-.. . . . . . . . . . . . I - . .............. \............. ~ --.---. .--.--... ..... ..... .___.... -. . . . . . . . -. . . . This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
JUII-17-2082 89'83 P M CHQTA CONSULTING, INC. 
Chats Consulting 
Joe C.Christie 
11704 San Victor'ioNE 
Albuquerque,New Mexico, 87111 
Bill lo -__.-- 
AQILBdam 
1717Pamylvsnir AVC.N.W. 
Twolah Floa 
W d q t m , D.C. 20006 
605 229 7452 " 9.82 
Invoice 
260.w 
130.00' 
0.W 
a m 
0.00' 
780.00' 
9.W 
390.M): 
130.00' 
130.007 
106.3 1 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
i17/03/2002 14: 30 5052960047 
. . PAGE- 02 
r- ............ -...... ----A . . TSSlTo , . . . I 
. . 
szo.00l.j . 
130.QOT 
. * 
. *: i 
. . .. . . I . 
. . . . . 
. . 
I 
! 
ii
I ! i . . . . . 
. . This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text. 
 
  
PAGE- 82 .. .... . --.., .. 
. . . 
. t . . . . . . . 
:,. 
I ­. 
. 
. . 
. . 
_ . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . ' f . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , . . 
a . 
. * 
. . 
. . . . . 
. . 
* . . . . i . . . _ . . . 
. . 
. ' . . 
: I . . 
i 
.. ... 
. . . .. . . . . . 
.. 
. :, ;.; 
. ' . ; I . 
. . 
. . 
. . . ... . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . I ' 
, .: 
. . . . . . 
, . .. . . . . . 
. :.: ' . .. . - .: \ . . . . 3 
. . . .: . . . . . . . . . 
. . This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
P E .-02 
. . . . 
1 . ....< ...... ......._.__-.-! . 
.. . . . . 
.................. i!-.---
6QTo .: 
iL._ ----.-- .- --. 
.......... . ._ 
. . . 
. . . . 
. . ... 
. . 1 . . _ _ . . . 
. . 
. . . 
. ' .. 
I 
! . 
i 
i 
! . . I.. . 
i .: i : 
. . 
. . . . . . 
. I .,.-. . 
. 1 . 
: . . . i ' . 
I . 
. . . i 
i : 
I . . 
. , jI 
.. . _ 
. . . . . . . I . . :r 
: . . . . 
. * 
........... _____ This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
. . . . . 
1 . 
. . : 
.-..-.-. 
,. : .. : 
. . 
* . . . * >.- . I 1 . ...... . . . . . 1 .. . .'.,'I,,'.".. . . ..._._ --.--..-.-.I . . a . . . . . . . . . . .. * . - . . . . ' I , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . a . ; :. 
. . . ' ? 
. ^...... ... . . * .. . . ..C . . ..... .., 
..... 
! 
" .I 
. i' 
. . i . . . . ... . _ . . I, A . . . . . . 
. . . 1. . . . . . 
. . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . .. .. f 
. . 
. . . . . 
.. -1 
' . -{ . 
. . . . . . i # . .... i 
J .. ~ . .. I . . . 
' : ! 
, . 
. : . 
I . . ......... . " . . . i, /-- .-.1_.-:-..... '.,'" (""f.'... .......-......._. -._______....( , .-,.1 
i..-..*..2;" .......... i i 
J . .:, 
E L.".-- .-.--.-... L. .... ! . 
i.I 
-.:...__.........,....... , 
! ;T&: 5550.23 ; 
):. ...... I ) ' !: . . - ...... ............ .-.. 1....... .:- i.-,-.,_._.: :. .,.-.a ..____ i .... . I. 4. . . ... 
* a 
. I 
* . . . 
. . . This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text. 
  
02/24/2003 23:10 5052968047 
. .. *.* . i . .......... . . . . . . . . . . ,... . . : < - , _ . _ i . . . . .. . . . 
. . . . . ..i.;_ _- . . . . . 
.-. . ._ . 
:, . . 
. .._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. ,: . . . . L. . ..> .--.-._ .-_-.- ........ ---.- ...... . . ' . . ' ! . . . 
,._. ____ .. -.--. . -._-. 
I 
. . . 
. . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . .;. . . . . . i .. . .. . . . . . . .i_. . - 
. . . . - . . . . .'. 
. I . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 
_ . .. .. .... , . . . . . _ . . . . . . . 1 -. - I . .... . A-. ......... :.::..G',& --I-- .-__. -,-i___..-----.---.- ............ -'--- . . : : < , . . . _ . 
............... .-- -___.___-_. ..... ._ 
. . 
. . . 
. . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . 
: i . ' . . . . . . _ . . . . * .. . . . . . . 
. _ . . , . 
. . . .'.I.'.. . 
. . ., . . . 
. . . ... _.I . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. -.. . . . . . . :. . 
. . 
. . . . 
. . . . , . . . ! . ' - . _ . . . . . . 
I . . _ 
. . 
I 
.I . . . , 
. . . . . . .~. . . . _ 
. . .. 
. . . 
. . . i . . ... ,.--__-_:......... .-.- ,.----.. 
Tohi - S687.78 
. . . . . . .." . . . . . . . : . . . . ............................... ....... .......... ...... z .... -.. ...... . . 
" . .,. . . . . .