Date: September 7, 2005 The Grand Jury Judicial Committee has requested a written response to their final report

(Quoting from Chief Judge Emeritus, Lawrence K Karlton, United States District Court, in his order on motion to dismiss based on outrageous government conduct, U.S. vs. Spruth, Spruth and Rowley, Order dated May 19, 1998.) "It must be emphasized from the outset that this is not a case in which the government's conduct was such as to represent 'no danger of distribution. 'On the contrary, as much as a hundred thousand doses of methamphetamine were distributed Nor is this a case in which law enforcement did not violate any federal statue or rule or commit any crime in infiltrating the defendant's drug enterprise'. On the contrary, here the agents, at a minimum, aided and abetted the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine, and given the fact that the agents received money rather than drugs, could properly be viewed as having conspired to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, both being federal crimes. Moreover, it is not without significance that almost every aspect of the BNE's reversal policy designed to protect the public was treated with disdain" "In this court's view the agents' loss ofperspective led to outrageous behavior." "It seems certain that the denial of the defendants' motion will simply send the wrong message to law enforcement. These law enforcement officers have demonstrated beyond peradventure of a doubt that they are focused exclusively on "the bottom line," and the bottom line in this proceeding is that the irresponsible behavior of these officers will have no consequences. It is the height of naiveté, to believe that the court's expression of concern will affect their conduct in any way." Response: I have no reason to doubt that Judge Karlton made these statements, so I do. not disagree with the finding.

The testimony within the trial transcripts and evidence presented raised a question whether monetary gain versus recovery of the methamphetamine produced became a priority during reverse sting operations. One financial aspect was not fully addressed and remains an open question: What happened to the approximately $2.6 million revenue from the street sale of 130,000 + doses of methamphetamine? And what happened to the BNE/SINTF profit gained by the sale or barter of 102 and 1/2 pounds of ephedrine @ $1000 per pound or its equivalent, and the pseudoephedrine sold to Molko? Response: The findings are in the form of questions, so I cannot respond by stating whether I agree or disagree with the findings.