OJS Barney Sentencing

KAREN L.
LOEFFLER
United States Attorney
STEVEN E. SKROCKI
YVONNE LAMOUREUX
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse
222 West Seventh Avenue, #9, Rom 253
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7567
Phone: (907) 271-5071
Fax: (907) 271-1500
Email: steven.skrocki@usdoj.gov
yvonne.lamoureux@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 3:11-CR-00022-RJB

)
Plaintiff, ) UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING
vs. ) MEMORANDUM
)
COLEMAN L. BARNEY, )
)
Defendant. )
I. SUMMARY OF SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS
TERM OF IMPRISONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Months
SUPERVISED RELEASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Years
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200.00
FORFEITURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes
FINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not requested
Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 51

The United States Probation Office has prepared a presentence investigation
report (PSR) in this case. The United States does not dispute the factual findings
or legal conclusions of the PSR. It is the government’s position that there exists
sufficient evidence to support the factual findings of the PSR given the vast
amount of trial evidence and other evidence relied upon by the presentence report
writer.
II. BACKGROUND AND COUNTS OF CONVICTION1
Defendant Barney was charged with co-defendants Cox and Vernon in a 16-
count indictment for a variety of firearms violations, including possession of
unregistered destructive devices and conspiracy to possess unregistered silencers
and destructive devices, and conspiracy to murder federal officials. Trial was held
between May 7, 2012 and June 18, 2012. Approximately 80 witnesses testified.
Defendant Cox organized a number of groups, including the Alaska
Peacemaker Militia, the Second Amendment Task Force, and the Liberty Bell
network. He was also involved in the Alaska Assembly Post. Defendant Barney
was also involved with these groups. He eventually earned the rank of Major in
Cox’s militia. Cox was the Commander and Vernon was a Sergeant.
1
The PSR appropriately includes a number of facts regarding Barney’s co-defendants
Cox and Vernon and actions they took during the course of the conspiracy. The government sets
forth below a summary of recorded meetings where Barney was present and participated.
However, the government agrees that it is proper for the Court to take into account Barney’s co-
conspirator’s actions at Barney’s sentencing.
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 2

Barney hosted a militia commissioning ceremony at his house in August
2010. At that meeting, Cox told the attendees that there was a federal assassination
team out for Cox and his family. Ex. 1, pg. 100-02.2 Cox also described his
version of his dispute with the Office of Children Services (OCS). He accused the
federal government of being behind the OCS investigation. He relayed how he
told a state court judge, “We don’t mean any harm to anyone, but if you want a
war, we’ve got one hell of a war with your name on it.” Ex. 1, pg. 110.3
In November 2010, Cox was seeking a security team to protect him, his
wife, and common law “judge” Bartell from the federal assassin team while he was
at a State court hearing and subsequent interview at KJNP television station. Ex. 2.
The state court hearing was for a pending misdemeanor weapons charge against
Cox. Cox held a couple meetings to organize the security teams for his court
appearance and KJNP appearance. The whiteboard displaying the plans was seized
during the search of Cox’s residence. Ex. 148; PSR ¶ 34. Notes regarding the
security detail plans were also found during the search of Barney’s and Vernon’s
2
Unless otherwise noted, the exhibit number refers to the Trial Exhibit previously
admitted in this matter. Citations to recordings played at trial also include the corresponding
transcript page number.
3
Barney maintains that he held this meeting to recruit enough members to put on a
grenade golf game for a CNN story. The tone and substance of the recording played at trial
contradicts Barney’s testimony.
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 3

residences.4 Ex. 203, 446. Barney was in charge of the security detail at KJNP.
PSR ¶¶ 35, 35a, 36. He admitted that his understanding was that federal agents
were going to come for Cox and that is why he was armed that night with a 37mm
launcher loaded with a Hornet’s Nest round attached to his AR-15. Vernon was
also armed that night as part of Cox’s security detail. The security detail set up
lights and established a vehicular funnel point and stopped at least one incoming
vehicle while visibly armed with weapons. Barney was set up on the perimeter,
standing by a tree, and wearing body armor. Another member was patrolling on a
4-wheeler on the property.
In December 2010, Cox, Vernon and Barney and others continued to discuss
providing armed security for Cox. Barney attempted to recruit people to be part of
Cox’s security detail for Cox’s state court hearings.
In January 2011, Cox, Barney, and the Alaska Assembly Post organized a
“common law court” for the purpose of “trying” Cox for criminal violations of
Alaska for which Cox had already been convicted and/or charged by the State of
Alaska. Barney recruited the “jurors” for the “trial” held at Denny’s. The
“common law jury” unanimously “acquitted” Cox of the criminal charges.
4
Barney maintains that lethal means were only allowed if people showed up wearing
plain clothes without identifying themselves and started shooting without warning at Cox, his
wife or Bartell with the intent to kill. This is not reflected on any of the notes or the whiteboard.
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 4

On February 12, 2011, Cox held a meeting at Thesing’s residence with
Barney, Thesing, and Olson. PSR ¶¶ 52-53, 55. Cox indicated that he was not
going to appear for his next scheduled court date, February 14, 2011. Cox raised
the idea of a “2-4-1" plan that if Cox or any militia members were killed then Cox
and the others would kill two other people (including law enforcement and judges)
in return.5 During this meeting with Barney, Cox said that two State court
employees, Martin Guerrero and Ron Woods “need to dangle together like a
windchime.” Ex. 14-01, pg. 55. When Barney asked Cox whether 2-4-1 is
initiated upon killing people or hauling Cox to jail, Cox responded “I believe that it
is absolutely morally allowable if they were to come and arrest Ken for the three of
us to go kick in the judges’ door and the troopers and arrest two of them. And
because it’s war, it doesn’t even really have to be the ones that did it. ... And it’s
not just a war in fact, it’s a war declared by them, explicitly, without mincing any
words, and so I think it’s absolutely morally allowable that if they arrested Ken or
arrested me, to go in and arrest two of them. ... If they kill one of us, we go kill two
of them.” Ex. 14-03, pg. 83-84.
Cox continued that he “would be well within my rights to go drill
McConahy in the forehead and any of these people that are propagating this
5
In a notebook found next to Barney’s bed in his bedroom, Barney had written on a page
“Mission 241.” Ex. 209, pg. 20.
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 5

because they’re posing a huge threat to my life and my family.” Ex. 14-03, pg. 85.
Cox’s reference to McConahy was the State court judge presiding over his pending
criminal case. Cox continued on, stating that he had the moral allowance to shoot
them. After Olson sought clarification, Cox said “go for the ones that are either
authorized or failed to prevent.” Ex. 14-03, pg. 87. Cox’s rationale for that
statement was “because then they’ll give people pause to authorize or fail to
prevent.” Id. Cox continued, “I’d say the trooper that did it and the trooper that
authorized it and the judge that authorized it. You know, it would be - kind of the
top people.” Ex. 14-03, pg. 87-88. Cox expressed that it’s a tough issue because
“it’s easier to get ready to die than it is to kill.” Ex. 14-03, pg. 89. Cox said that he
was willing to kill. Ex. 14-03, pg. 90.
Barney also expressed his views on 2-4-1: “what I see will happen if they
grab you and we go for a two for one it’s going to be us ... and guys won’t want to
be involved with it until they fail to see enough sufficient force even on them to
justify, you know, they’ll just expand and it will be the three of us. ... Yeah, there’d
be four of us and it will be real quick and it will be over and they will - and all this
- and all it’s been doing will just go away. ... our war will just be over like that.”
Ex. 14-04, pg. 100. Cox and Barney then had the following exchange:
Barney: I mean, we need the force. We need something to spark the

force.
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 6

Cox: So, your position is just that we’re not strong enough?
Which I would agree.
Barney: Yeah, and I - and I think that even - even the guys that we
do have that are in the militia, they - they won’t see that as
enough violation, even though they thought - in principle
they believe it is.
Ex. 14-04, pg. 104. After hearing from Barney, Thesing, and Olson, Cox
summarized:
All right, well, let me give you guys my thoughts. I really appreciate
your thoughts on that. My thoughts on 241 is that we’re not in a strong
enough position to execute more than once, we’re not in a strong enough
position to follow through, and so at this point what we should do is do
everything we can to avoid it, but that what we should do is we should
bluff it for all it’s worth and pray for God’s protection and shielding
hand and, uh, work and train and get ready to where we can turn that 241
into a real ability instead of just (inaudible).
Ex. 14-05, pg. 113. Barney agreed with Cox and stated:
We need to bluff it because otherwise - you know, it’s like you said,
(inaudible), why do a lot of cops and a lot of judges and a lot of people
who maybe might not normally go along with something - why did these
guards over, you know, in Nazi Germany go along? It’s because they
hung their conscience on the person giving the orders. ... And, if by
doing this, it makes them think that, hey, there might be consequences
personally to me if I just keep on going along and make - make them
start thinking about the orders they’re getting and make them, uh - they,
themselves, be fearful for their own actions and not just, well, you know
- it has nothing to do with me, I’m just following orders.
Ex. 14-06, pg. 115. Cox and Barney then discussed next steps:
Barney: In the meantime training up guys and (inaudible) guys

through and getting them ready.
Cox: So, that we can - so that we can turn it from a bluff to a - to
a-
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 7

Barney: An action.
Cox: Yeah, and we’ll take the - we’re ready - and the road I’ll
take is, we’re ready and we could have you dead in
minutes, but we are long suffering and we want to be your
friends. You’ve got to stop pushing, we want to be at
peace. We’re going to continue long suffering, but not
forever.
Ex. 14-06, pg. 117-18. Barney then volunteered that they should “get those little
target, bull’s-eye things, you put them on the ... back windows of all the cop cars.”
Ex. 14-06, pg. 118. Because Cox was not going to appear for his next court
hearing and they anticipated that an arrest warrant would be issued, Barney offered
that Cox and his family could hide out at Barney’s rental cabins. Ex. 14-06, pg.
119-20. Barney also expressed concern that law enforcement may be able to locate
Cox there. Ex. 14-06, pg. 120.
At the February 12, 2011, meeting, Cox also discussed with Barney,
Thesing, and Olson the grenades he currently possessed and expressed his desire to
get grenades with longer delayed fuses. Ex. 14-07. When Cox said, “I would like
to have eight-second fuses and powder that burns fast enough to really send that
shrapnel flying because we’re using the two second fuses right now,” Barney said
“Better have your arm cocked back when you light it.” Ex. 14-07, pg. 156. At this
point, Barney was clearly aware that Cox was in the market for more grenades.
Barney attended Cox’s state court hearing on February 14, 2011 to find out
if an arrest warrant was issued for Cox. Judge McConahy, the same McConahy
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 8

referenced by Cox at the February 12, 2011 meeting with Barney, issued an arrest
warrant for Cox. At his bail hearing on July 28, 2011, Barney admitted that he
faxed paperwork to the IRS to put a lien on Judge McConahy. Ex. A, 7/28/11
Barney Bail Hearing Tr. pg. 59-60 (attached). In Barney’s residence, Barney had
an IRS Information Referral form 3949 filled out against Michael McConahy by
Barney, which alleged the following violations: False/Altered Documents,
Unreported Income, Public/Political Corruption. Ex. 192, pg 5.
Cox kept a number of firearms in a shed on his rental property near Bradway
road in North Pole. Barney went to that shed before the KJNP security detail in
November 2010 to retrieve the 37mm launcher and Hornet’s Nest anti-personnel
rounds he carried that night. On February 14, 2011, after that warrant had been
issued for Cox’s arrest, Cox was staying with Vernon at his house. Vernon asked
Cox whether he needed anything out of that stash out at North Pole, and said that
“Coleman called me, I’ve got to call him back here pretty soon.” Ex. 20-03, pg.
13. Cox responded that “[t]here’s all kinds of goodies out there”, but “just leave
them there.” Id.
On February 19, 2011, Barney hosted a meeting with Cox, the Vernons,
Thesing, Barney and Olson. After the meeting, Cox and his family moved into
Barney’s home. Cox brought with him some of his firearms, his body armor, and
CS grenades. Cox and his family continued to live at Barney’s residence until the
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 9

day of arrest, March 10, 2011. At a separate meeting later on February 19, 2011
attended by Cox, Barney and Olson, there was further discussion about the 2-4-1
plan. PSR ¶ 64. Cox said “Because I’m not interested in go in and kill, you know,
wicked people who deserve it and who it’s - it’s definitely - I mean, if we all shook
hands and went out of here to go roll judges’ heads, I mean, we’re definitely
morally justified.” Ex. 24-12, pg. 329. Barney agreed. Id.
Regarding 2-4-1, Cox said “But I can say that I think for right now, a 241 is
- is - would - would be running out ahead of the scale and sacrificing our self to no
avail.” Ex. 24-12, pg. 336. Barney responded “It would be a very short 241.” Id.
Barney continued that he thinks “[t]hat - that our troops - and that’s the scale
starting to tip, when they see more people that start to wake up and come to our
aid, and even if they still have greater numbers, they’ll be a point to where even
with guerilla warfare and stuff like that, two for one becomes a real possibility at
that point. ... Because you actually have enough people on your side that you can -
you can pay 241 for a while.” Ex. 24-12, pg. 337.
Cox said that his “subconscious goal was to be able - was to get prepared to
execute a 241 that needed to be - I think that it needs three - three more things
here.” Ex. 24-12, pg. 338. Cox said one thing it needs is “more public pain.” Ex.
24-12, pg. 339. Second, Cox said, “we just need more numbers.” Ex. 24-12, pg.
340. Cox said “I think 241 is - is two things. We’ve got to be ready for it, and
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 10

there has to be - I mean, not for - not the predisposition to well, I don’t know -
judgment, just a few minutes (inaudible) in the - in the general. ... We’ve got to
have those two things in order for it to work. In order for it to not strengthen the
enemy. ... You got to have the numbers to sustain it and we got to have the - the
pain in the general public.” Ex. 24-12, pg. 340-41.
Barney then added “And - and - and even with our guys, we got to have the
pain. ... And you look at our - our snitch to - when J.R. contacted him, you know,
he was - he was all big talk.” Ex. 24-12, pg. 341. Barney was referring to Mike
Anderson and was clearly aware of what Anderson had been tasked with and what
he had failed to provide to them.
Later in the conversation, Cox and Barney agreed that if the government
took one of their kids, “that’s a 241". Ex. 24-15, pg. 383-86. Cox later told
Barney and Olson “Well, I’m not going to target women and children, but I’m not
opposed to killing them either, you know. I mean, God had them kill men, women,
and children.” Ex. 24-16, pg. 391.
Cox also told Barney and Olson that “[t]he purpose of killing somebody is to
prevent them from killing the innocent” and “I’m not against some like drastic,
shocking things either, like, you know, mailing heads to people.” Ex. 24-16, pg.
394. Cox then said “I don’t want to gloat. Just make people suffer. Ex. 24-16, pg.
395. Cox also told Barney and Olson, “I think if you got the time and resources,
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 11

you ought to give them proper burial, you know?” Ex. 24-17, pg. 398. Cox also
told Barney and Olson referring to the victims that “just for the fact that they’re
made in God’s image, they’re - they are valuable”, but “that doesn’t mean that I
won’t kill you” or “that I wouldn’t hang your body from a lamppost to deter
others.” Ex. 24-17, pg. 399.
On February 21, 2011, Barney, Cox and Olson went to the property off of
Bradway Road owned by Cox where he had a shed containing weapons. PSR ¶ 65.
When they arrived, Barney asked Cox, “The key still where I left it at?” Ex. 25-02.
Barney and Olson moved items from the shed into Barney’s truck. The items
included assault rifles, ammunition, and approximately 8 grenades.
On February 22, 2011, Cox, Barney and Olson met at Barney’s residence.
PSR ¶ 67. Barney relayed a conversation he had with an “arms dealer and
explosive dealer” about a rumor eight grenades got stolen from Fort Wainwright
and Cox got them. Ex. 27-01, pg. 7. Barney continued that “Me and Schaeffer
were talking about it and thinking eight grenades doesn’t sound like a lot unless
you’re one of the Judges or DAs we’re looking at.” Ex. 27-01, pg. 8. Barney then
described a new type of body armor, dragon skin, that he was interested in getting
and said that you could only get it through a dealer. Ex. 27-02. Cox, Barney and
Olson also discussed a communication plan, a way to avoid detection by law
enforcement, of using “red” phones and “yellow” phones to speak with each other.
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 12

On February 26, 2011, Cox, Barney and Olson met at Barney’s residence.
PSR ¶¶ 69-71. Olson told Barney that Vernon “was saying that - that uh, you guys
might be interested in some silencers.” Ex. 28-01. Barney responded “Oh, yeah.
He was - he’s the one that’s getting them.” Id. Olson corrected him and said “it’s
actually me” who’s getting them. Id. Olson also said that he’s getting them from
Bill. Id. Olson then told Barney that Bill Fulton is a dealer, but he “just does it
under the table kind of ... makes them disappear. ... loses them or however they ..
however he can work his - work his books.” Ex. 28-01, pg. 32. Olson told Barney
and Cox that Fulton is “all gung-ho ready to come north and start the Revolution.”
Ex. 28-01, pg. 35. Cox responded that “we’re going to have to have some pain to
shut people up about their decadence.” Id. Barney added “And then what will
happen is - is the - the numbers in the militia will be just enough of a force, I think
of people (inaudible) those who wanted to but didn’t feel enough pain then at that
point.” Id.
Cox ordered a pistol and silencer matched set. Ex. 28-02, pg. 37-38. Cox
then discussed with Barney and Olson how a silencer would work with a Glock
firearm. Ex. 28-02, pg. 38-40. Cox told Barney and Olson that he “would love to
get a center fire silencer.” Ex. 28-02, pg. 42. Cox also told Olson that “we just did
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 13

a little tutorial yesterday on ... homemade silencer for .22s.”6 Ex. 28-03. Cox,
Barney and Olson talked about subsonic ammunition. Ex. 28-03, pg. 51. Cox
agreed with Olson to trade his C-93 semi-automatic rifle, with a full auto lower
receiver, for the pistol/silencer matched set. Ex. 28-04. The C-93 rifle and lower
receiver were with a gun shop owner, Rob Carr. When Olson inquired whether
Rob would release it to him, Barney added that Rob’s “got to know that Schaeffer
is not out in the open right now.” Ex. 28-04, pg. 60. Barney also ordered a
pistol/silencer matched set. Ex. 28-05.
Later in the conversation, Cox, Barney and Olson discussed a missing
grenade launcher. Ex. 28-07. Cox asked Olson if he had gotten a grenade
launcher, but Olson said he didn’t see one when they moved the firearms from the
Bradway Road shed. Id. Barney added “And I know we haven’t used it on any of
the little missions that we’ve done. The only one we used is the one with the
spider on it and I had it mounted to my AR with HOV ... hornet’s nest.” Id.
On March 1, 2011, Cox, Barney and Olson met at one of Barney’s rental
cabins. PSR ¶¶ 72-73. During the conversation, Cox told Olson that he’d like to
have some pineapple grenades. When they were discussing the price of grenades,
Cox said “But, yeah, if [Bill Fulton] could come down even to I’d say anything
6
Barney testified at trial that he saw Cox fire his silenced pistol from Barney’s office
door.
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 14

below $70, I would be feeling like I can buy as much as I want. And if he gets it at
$50, I think I’d stock up.” Ex. 29-04, pg. 22. When Cox asked Olson how much
Fulton wants for 25 grenades, Barney said “That would be $200 cash right now,
ooh.” Ex. 29-04, pg. 23.
Barney also relayed a conversation he had with a member of his church who
asked Barney “I need to know where you stand on things because he says, I don’t
want my family to go through - is my family in danger? Are your guys going to
show up at church one time?” Ex. 29-05, pg. 27. Cox responded to Barney “You
should ask him, well, what are you planning on doing that would make my guys
show up at your house? You know, I’m the operations officer.” Id.
On March 9, 2011, Barney spoke on the phone with Olson. PSR ¶ 77.
Olson told Barney that “everything’s a go” and “we’ve got - got that equipment
in”. Ex. 35, pg. 3. They set a time to meet the following morning so that Barney
“can be there and - and check this stuff out and what not.” Ex. 35, pg. 4. Olson
later added “And we can meet - we’ll meet up with Hans (phonetic) too at the - at
the same time.” Ex. 35, pg. 5.
On March 10, 2011, Cox and Barney met Olson and rode with him in his
vehicle to a location where they were supposed to complete the deal to buy the
pistol/silencer matched sets and grenades. PSR ¶¶ 79-80. Seconds after Cox and
Barney got into Olson’s vehicle, Olson told them that he “stashed the goodies” and
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 15

that what Fulton got them was matched sets of .22s instead of the XDs they
ordered. Ex. 38-01, pg. 4. Cox’s response was “Well, that’s gay. I have a silenced
.22.” Ex. 38-01, pg. 5. Olson also told Cox and Barney that Fulton did have
grenades and they cost $50 each. Ex. 38-01, pg. 6. Olson added that the grenades
are “the real military legit straight from - straight from the Army.” Id. Barney
responded, “That’s still cool.” Id.
Cox, Barney and Olson then had the following conversation about silenced
.22s:
Olson: Because of the , uh - because of the silencers. They,

uh - I guess they go (inaudible) they’ll go - these
ones here will go 200 rounds, these .22s, before you
have to touch anything to the oil.
Barney: Well, we can go light.
Olson: (Laughter) Yeah.
Barney: Go light and quiet.
Olson: Well, the thing with a silencer is you’re - you’re
close range, anyway.
Barney: Yeah.
Olson: You know?
Cox: But see, .22s, even at close range, they take a long
time to die.
Ex. 38-02, pg. 2-3.
Cox, Barney and Olson then discussed subsonic ammunition, and Barney
asked “How are they for devastation? Pretty good?” Ex. 38-02, pg. 4. Barney
also asked whether the silencer “would go on my, uh, my .57 by .28?” Ex. 38-02,
pg. 6. Cox asked Olson whether he ordered the XD .9 mil pistol/silencer matched
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 16

sets, and Olson said “they’re 10 to 12 months out because the dealer has to lose
them.” Ex. 38-02, pg. 6. Barney responded, “Well, let’s get him on the..” and Cox
added “Yeah, see if they’re coming.” Id. Barney also asked if Olson “could talk to
[Fulton] about if you can get anything for, like, a .223, as well, or a 5-by-6.” Id.
Still on the topic of silencers, Barney, Cox and Olson had the following
conversation:
Olson: But in the way - the way I look at it, for me

personally, anything silent like this I’m, you know,
I’m prepared to - to take it.
Barney: Well, it - it keeps the element of surprise.
Olson: Yeah.
Cox: Yeah, well, the element of surprise is something in
you, even if it’s not so - not, uh, silencer, then you’re
going to be surprised. It’s the element of escape -
Olson: Yeah.
Barney: Yeah, but how - how deep can you get in with the
element of surprise, I should say.
Cox: Yeah, because -
Barney: Rather than there just be initial contact.
Ex. 38-02, pg. 7-8.
Olson asked whether “homemade ones” work, and Cox asked him to clarify
whether he’s talking about grenades or silencers. Ex. 38-02, pg. 8-9. When Olson
responded that he was asking about a silencer, Cox said that they work, and they’re
reliable and dependable. Ex. 38-02, pg. 8-9. Regarding homemade silencers, Cox,
Barney, and Olson had the following exchange:
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 17

Cox: Have you seen mine?
Olson: No. Uh-uh. No, you never did show me. You were
telling me - remember it was packed away.
Barney: It’s pretty - it’s pretty quiet.
Olson: Is it?
Cox: Super quiet.
Barney: I mean, how many can you get off before you to
refill it? Like, two or three?
Cox: Uh, well, a couple - a couple magazines. You could
probably do 20 rounds before you start to hear a
difference.
Ex. 38-02, pg. 9-10.
When they arrived at the location, Olson got out of his vehicle, retrieved the
pistol/silencer matched sets and grenades, and brought them back into the vehicle,
and handed the pistol/silencer matched sets to Cox and Barney. Cox and Barney
opened the cases and examined the pistol/silencer matched sets. Cox examined a
grenade. Barney got a phone call, but after he got off the phone, Olson handed
Barney a grenade. While Cox and Barney were examining the items, an innocent
citizen approached Olson’s vehicle and asked them what they were doing. Because
the situation was compromised, Cox and Barney were immediately arrested. Both
Cox and Barney were wearing body armor at the time they were arrested. In
addition, Cox was carrying a firearm on his person and Barney was carrying two
firearms on his person. Barney also had $5,000 cash on his person.
The same day as the arrests, law enforcement executed federal and state
search warrants on the defendants’ residences and vehicles. Some of the items
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 18

found in Barney’s residence included cash, computers, phones, a box containing
37mm launcher and projectile components, firearms, ammunition, earpieces,
tactical vest with CS canisters, ballistic vest, box containing two pulled pins and
two unattached spoons/handles from practice grenades, and numerous documents.
In his truck, Barney had phones identified as “yellow” phones and a note pad with
a list of red, yellow and green phone numbers. Barney’s and Cox’s “red” phones
were seized from their persons at the time of arrest.
At the time of arrest, law enforcement had not located Barney’s trailer,
which they knew had been storing some of Cox’s belongings since mid-February
2011. When law enforcement officers asked Barney whether there were any
dangerous items in the trailer, Barney told them that in the trailer there were empty
grenades with holes in the bottom. In fact, in Barney’s trailer there were two
37mm launchers, four Hornet’s Nest anti-personnel rounds, four live smoke
grenade fuses with bodies, 17 grenade bodies, ammunition, tannerite, smokeless
powder, JB weld, firearms (including .30 caliber Browning with crank-operated
firing mechanism and tripod), Sten machinegun, Sten manual, silenced pistol, gas
mask, police belt, and tactical scopes.
Defendant Coleman Barney stands convicted of Counts 1 and 9 of the Third
Superseding Indictment which charges him with, respectively, Conspiracy to
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 19

Possess Unregistered Silencers and Destructive Devices, in violation of 18 U.S. C.
Section 371, and Possession of an Unregistered Destructive Device, in violation of
26 U.S.C. Section 5861(d). Barney was acquitted of Counts 2, 8, 11, and 13. The
jury hung as to Barney on Count 12, Conspiracy to Murder Federal Officials.
Defendants Cox and Vernon were convicted of Count 12, Conspiracy to Murder
Federal Officials. The Court declared a mistrial as to Count 12 against Barney and
the government subsequently moved to dismiss Count 12 as against Barney, which
the Court granted. Defendant Cox was convicted of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12,
and 16. Defendant Vernon was convicted of Counts 1 and 12. Barney’s
sentencing is scheduled for September 24, 2012.
III. GUIDELINE APPLICATIONS
A. Base Offense Level
The PSR found that the defendant’s conduct has a base offense level of 18
under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(5) because the defendant’s offenses involved a firearm
described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a). PSR ¶ 100. The definition of a “firearm” in 26
U.S.C. § 5845(a) includes silencers and destructive devices. The PSR indicates
that Count 1 involved two silencers and two hand grenades based on the items that
were going to be purchased by Barney and Cox on March 10, 2011. In fact, Count
1 involved numerous silencers, hand grenades, and 37mm launchers with Hornet’s
Nest anti-personnel rounds taking into consideration the items purchased by the
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 20

Vernons on March 10, 2011 and the items found in Barney’s trailer. This base
offense level is not contested by the parties.
B. Specific Offense Characteristic: U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)
The PSR correctly found that the defendant is subject to a two-level
enhancement because the offense involved between three and seven firearms. PSR
¶ 101. Application Note 5 indicates that “[f]or purposes of calculating the number
of firearms under subsection (b)(1), count only those firearms that were unlawfully
sought to be obtained, unlawfully possessed, or unlawfully distributed.” In fact the
range of 3-7 firearms does not encompass all of the firearms involved in the
defendant’s offenses given that Cox had sought to obtain numerous grenades, that
on March 10, 2011 Barney and his co-defendants’ illegal weapons transactions
involved three silencers and four hand grenades, and that on March 10, 2011 Cox
and Barney had stored in Barney’s trailer another silencer, the components to
assemble four grenades, and two 37mm launchers with four Hornet’s Nest anti-
personnel rounds. This enhancement is not contested by the parties.7
7
Barney objected to the reference in PSR ¶ 65 to 8 grenades in the Bradway Road shed
on February 21, 2011. Those 8 grenades are not being relied on in calculating this enhancement.
PSR fn 102.
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 21

C. Specific Offense Characteristic: U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)
enhancement because the offense involved a destructive device. PSR ¶ 102.
Defendant Barney objected to this enhancement, asserting that Barney did not
possess grenades and that the enhancement amounts to double counting.
Application Note 7 is clear that “[a] defendant whose offense involves a
destructive device receives both the base offense level from the subsection
applicable to a firearm listed in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) (e.g., subsection (a)(1), (a)(3),
(a)(4)(B), or (a)(5)), and the applicable enhancement under subsection (b)(3).”
(Emphasis added). The note further explains the rationale behind the application
of this enhancement:
Such devices pose a considerably greater risk to the public welfare

than other National Firearms Act weapons. Offenses involving
such devices cover a wide range of offense conduct and involve
different degrees of risk to the public welfare depending on the
type of destructive device involved and the location or manner in
which that destructive device was possessed or transported.
In this case, the enhancement applies not only because Barney was armed
with his AR-15 assault rifle with the 37mm launcher loaded with Hornet’s Nest
anti-personnel rounds during the “security detail” on the night of November 23,
2010, but also because the conspiracy to possess unregistered destructive devices
by Barney, Cox, Vernon and others involved grenades and 37mm launchers with
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 22

Hornet’s Nest anti-personnel rounds over the span of at least a few months. As set
forth above, Barney and Cox had destructive devices in the form of grenades and
37mm launchers with Hornet’s Nest anti-personnel rounds in Barney’s trailer,
which Barney drove and parked at the Fairbanks Ice Park the day of the illegal
weapons transactions. In addition, on March 10, 2011, Vernon did purchase
grenades and Cox and Barney, with the intention of purchasing grenades, met with
the confidential informant and were in the process of examining grenades when the
transaction was interrupted.
The application of this enhancement is absolutely appropriate in light of the
defendant’s offenses, specifically because the defendant’s offenses clearly
involved destructive devices. In response to Barney’s argument that the
enhancement constitutes double counting, the government points out that U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(a)(5) applies where the defendant’s offense involves only silencers.
Because the defendant’s offenses here involved not only silencers, but also
destructive devices, a two-level enhancement is warranted and does not offend any
notions of improper double counting.
D. Specific Offense Characteristic: U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)
The PSR correctly found that the defendant is subject to a four-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6). PSR ¶ 103. There are numerous
grounds to support application of the four-level enhancement in this case.

U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 23

1. Possession of Firearm In Connection With Another Felony
Offense
The United States agrees with the conclusion reached in the PSR that a 4-
level enhancement applies with respect to Barney’s possession of a firearm in
connection with another felony offense under 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Barney has
objected to application of the enhancement on the grounds that it is double
counting and that the evidence does not support it. Barney also asserts that
because Count 12, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, has been dismissed as against
Barney, that the charge cannot be the other felony offense for purposes of the
enhancement.
A four-level enhancement is warranted under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) if
the defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with
another felony offense; or possessed or transferred any firearm or ammunition with
knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in
connection with another felony offense.” Application Note 14(A) explains that
this enhancement applies “if the firearm or ammunition facilitated, or had the
potential of facilitating, another felony offense.” Application Note 14 (C) defines
“another felony offense” as “any federal, state, or local offense, other than the
explosive or firearms possession or trafficking offense, punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, regardless of whether a criminal
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 24

charge was brought, or a conviction obtained.” (Emphasis added). In fact,
2K2.1(b)(6)(B) would apply even if the defendant was acquitted of the other felony
offense that is the basis for the application of the subsection. See United States v.
Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 387 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993).
Application Note 14(D) indicates that an upward departure may be warranted
where the “defendant used or possessed a firearm or explosive to facilitate another
firearms or explosives offense (e.g., the defendant used or possessed a firearm to
protect the delivery of an unlawful shipment of explosives)”.
In this case, both prongs of 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) support application of the
enhancement. Barney’s possession of his AR-15 assault rifle with the 37mm
launcher loaded with Hornet’s Nest anti-personnel rounds on the night of
November 23, 2010 clearly facilitated the conspiracy to murder law enforcement
officers. In addition, under the second prong, Barney possessed grenades,
silencers, and 37mm launchers with Hornet’s Nest anti-personnel rounds, together
with a number of other firearms and ammunition, with reason to believe that those
firearms and ammunition would facilitate and had the potential to facilitate the
conspiracy to murder state and federal officials.
Conspiracy to murder is a State of Alaska felony offense under AS
11.41.100 and AS 11.31.120(a). Conspiracy to murder federal officials is a federal
felony offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1117. Barney participated in

U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 25

conversations where Cox described the need to prepare and get ready to implement
the 2-4-1 plan, including the desire to obtain more grenades. On March 10, 2011,
on the drive to the illegal weapons deal, Barney participated in a conversation
about the killing power of a .22 silencer. Barney himself stated that he and Cox
“were talking about it and thinking eight grenades doesn’t sound like a lot unless
you’re one of the judges or DAs we’re looking at.” Ex. 27-01, pg. 8. The evidence
at trial supports the application of this four-level enhancement.
In response to Barney’s argument that the enhancement constitutes double
counting, numerous courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have rejected that
argument. United States v. Turnipseed, 159 F.3d 383, 386 (9th Cir. 1998); United
States v. Jackson, 633 F.3d 703, 707-08 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 543
(2011); United States v. Bullock, 526 F.3d 312, 316 (6th Cir. 2008); United States
v. Eaton, 260 F.3d 1232, 1238-39 (10th Cir. 2001); United States v. Martin, 78
F.3d 808, 813 (2d Cir. 1996).
2. Possession of Firearm To Be Transported Out of the United

States
As set forth in the government’s objections to the draft PSR, the 4-level
enhancement is also legally and factually appropriate inasmuch under subsection
(A) of section 2K2.1(b)(6), for possession of firearms and ammunition with
knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be transported out of the
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 26

United States. Barney testified as to his knowledge of Cox’s plan to leave Alaska
and to flee to the lower 48 via Canada. On February 19, 2011, Cox told Barney
and Olson his plan was to “get smuggled through Canada with nothing but a gym
bag and a rifle,” Ex. 24-12, pg. 333, and that he might go to his stash on Bradway
to “pick a few cherries .. to take that with me.” Ex. 24-14, pg. 367.
On February 21, 2011, Barney and Cox went to the Bradway road shed and
Barney and Olson retrieved Cox’s items (including firearms and ammunition),
which they placed into Barney’s truck and Barney drove them back to Barney’s
house with Cox for Cox to bring with him when he left the State. Ex. B, 6/7/12
Barney Trial Tr. pg. 48 (attached). Cox’s firearms (including Sten machinegun,
silencer, grenades, Browning) and ammunition ended up in Barney’s trailer.
Barney knew that Cox had packaged and wrapped some of the items at Barney’s
house before moving them into the trailer. Barney drove that trailer to the Ice Park
on the day that they were planning on meeting up with the truck driver to get Cox
to the lower 48. This evidence provides an alternative basis for application of the
four-level enhancement under 2K2.1(b)(6).
E. Aggravating Role: U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1
The PSR correctly found that the defendant is subject to an aggravating role
adjustment based on his leadership role during the security detail at KJNP. PSR ¶
105. Barney did not object to this adjustment. The government has objected on
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 27

the grounds that a three-level adjustment is warranted instead of a two-level
adjustment based on the number of participants involved in the security detail.
Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), a three-level adjustment is warranted if the
defendant was a manager or supervisor and the criminal activity involved five or
more participants or was otherwise extensive. The evidence at trial establishes that
Major Barney had a leadership role for the security detail. The individuals to be
“protected” by the security detail were Cox, Cox’s wife, and “Judge” Bartell. Ex.
148 (dry erase board showing Security Team directions). The notes from the
security team briefing show that they had an extensive plan. Ex. 153, pg. 3 (notes
from Cox’s residence); Ex. 203, pg. 8 (notes from Barney’s residence); Ex. 446,
pg. 10 (notes from Vernon’s residence). The testimony at trial by Gary Brockman
and Coleman Barney establishes that there were at least four individuals outside
KJNP performing the various security functions. Barney testified at his bail
hearing that there were “probably five people” with him on the security detail. Ex.
52-02. Ken Thesing, while inside KJNP with Cox, Cox’s wife, and “Judge”
Bartell during the interview, was still part of the security detail that night. Thesing
was there to protect Cox, Cox’s wife, and “Judge” Bartell. Thesing was outside for
at least part of the time because the photo of Vernon and Brockman that night was
found on Thesing’s computer. Ex. 811; trial testimony of AST Ramin Dunford
and Gary Brockman. Because Thesing was also part of the security team that
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 28

night, there were at least five participants and a three-level adjustment is
appropriate for Barney’s leadership role.
F. Adjustment for Use of Body Armor in Crime of Violence: U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.5
The PSR correctly found that the defendant is subject to a four-level upward
adjustment because he used body armor during the commission of the offenses,
which were crimes of violence. PSR ¶ 105a.
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5(2)(B) applies if the defendant was convicted of a crime of
violence and the defendant used body armor during the commission of the offense,
in preparation for the offense, or in an attempt to avoid apprehension for the
offense. Barney was convicted of two crimes of violence, Count 1: Conspiracy to
Possess Unregistered Silencers and Destructive Devices and Count 9: Possession
of Unregistered Destructive Devices. See Order at docket 265 and Gov’t
Opposition to Barney’s Motion to Dismiss at docket 258.
Count 9 charged Barney with possession of a 37mm launcher loaded with a
Hornets Nest anti-personnel round on or about November 23, 2010. Barney
admitted at his bail hearing and during his trial testimony that he was wearing body
armor during the night of November 23, 2010, while he was in charge of the
security detail at KJNP and carrying his AR-15 with the 37mm launcher attached
to it and loaded with the Hornets Nest anti-personnel round. Brockman’s
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 29

testimony and the photo of Lonnie Vernon that same night (Ex. 811) corroborate
Barney’s testimony.
Count 1 charged Barney with Conspiracy to Possess Unregistered Silencers
and Destructive Devices between August 1, 2009 and March 10, 2011. On March
10, 2011, Barney was arrested wearing body armor and carrying two loaded guns
while at an illegal weapons deal where he was examining a silencer and hand
grenade. Barney did not wear the body armor every day. Barney testified that he
wore the body armor when Cox was with him.
Barney wore the body armor for protection from gunfire, both on 11/23/10
and on 3/10/11. As set forth in Application Note 1, “use” means active
employment in a manner to protect the person from gunfire, as in this case where
Barney wore the body armor during the 11/23/10 security detail where he expected
law enforcement to show up and had detailed plans for how to engage in force and
fire with law enforcement. In addition, Barney’s testimony that he wore it while he
was with Cox and his testimony that he was concerned they would run into Aaron
Bennett and their lives would be in danger, show that he was using the body armor
for protection from gunfire. After the warrant was issued for Cox on 2/14/11,
Barney and Cox expected that law enforcement would come to arrest Cox. Then,
when he knew he was going to go to an illegal weapons deal, he wore the body
armor. He wore it for protection from gunfire not only from law enforcement but
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 30

also from Bill Fulton and Aaron Bennett based on Barney’s and Cox’s stated
beliefs that Bill Fulton and Aaron Bennet were dangerous.
Here a 4-level enhancement is warranted instead of a 2-level enhancement
because the defendant himself was wearing the body armor. See United States v.
Haynes, 582 F.3d 686, 711 (7th Cir. 2009) (subsection (A) applies “when the
offense involved use of body armor, for example, when a codefendant used body
armor”; subsection (B) applies “when the defendant himself used body armor”).
In Haynes, the defendant objected to application of the enhancement because
he claimed that he wore body armor to make their targets believe they were
legitimate police officers engaged in legitimate law enforcement. The Seventh
Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument. The court upheld the district court’s
application of the 4-level enhancement: “The court drew the reasonable inference
that the body armor was being used for its primary purpose – for protection. The
fact that the body armor may also have been used to identify the defendant officers
as legitimate Chicago cops engaged in lawful police activity doesn’t make the
enhancement inappropriate.” Id. at 712. See also United States v. Barrett, 522
F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2009) (“The ability of body armor to serve dual purposes
does not make 3B1.5 inapplicable where the facts show one purpose could be to
protect the wearer from gunfire”).
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 31

In Barrett, the defendant claimed that he simply wore a bulletproof vest
while attending a party with his friends. 522 F.3d at 727. The court concluded that
the enhancement applied because the defendant wore the vest while distributing
meth to his friends and while threatening his “friends” with a gun, and because the
vest provided personal security when he shot one of his friends: the defendant’s
“’fashion statement’ did double duty as a protective shield in case others also
carried firearms and were equally disposed to use them.” Id. at 727-28. The court
held that the vest served its intended purpose even though shots were not fired at
the defendant. Id.
In an unpublished decision, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out
that this guideline enhancement does not require that the body armor be used in
connection with the drug trafficking offense (or crime of violence) and upheld the
application of the enhancement. United States v. Chambers, 2008 WL 622807, *4
(10th Cir. 2008). Here, Barney’s main purpose for wearing body armor both on
11/23/10 and 3/10/11 was for protection from gunfire. Thus, the 4-level
enhancement applies.
G. Adjustment for Obstruction of Justice: U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1
adjustment for obstruction of justice, as a result of the defendant’s false affidavits
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 32

and testimony at the bail hearing and trial. PSR ¶ 106. Barney has objected to this
adjustment.
“The commission of perjury is of obvious relevance [to the extent of
punishment], because it reflects on a defendant’s criminal history, on her
willingness to accept the commands of the law and the authority of the court, and
on her character in general.” United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993).
Perjury is “false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to
provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty
memory.” Id. “Material” testimony is that which “if believed, would tend to
influence or affect the issue under determination.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, Application
Note 6. An obstruction enhancement is mandatory once a proper supporting
factual finding is made. United States v. Luca, 183 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.
1999); United States v. Ancheta, 38 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 1994). False
testimony before the court can provide a basis for an obstruction enhancement. See
United States v. Sherwood, 98 F.3d 402, 415 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding 3C1.1.
enhancement based on suppression hearing testimony). Similarly, false affidavits
can provide a basis for an obstruction enhancement. See United States v.
Hernandez-Ramirez, 254 F.3d 841, 843-44 (9th Cir. 2001) (upholding 3C1.1
enhancement based on false financial affidavit); United States v. Tidwell, 191 F.3d
976, 982 (9th Cir. 1999) (upholding 3C1.1 enhancement where defendant
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 33

“willfully created affidavits with the expectation that they would mislead the
court”). See also United States v. Munoz, 101 Fed. Appx. 216, 217 (9th Cir. 2004)
(upholding 3C1.1 enhancement where “in a sworn affidavit submitted in
connection with a motion to suppress, [defendant] committed perjury pertaining to
alleged threats made to her by an investigating officer”).
Barney’s Affidavit at Docket 162-2
Here, the defendant’s affidavits and testimony were clearly willful, and not
the product of a mistake or misunderstanding. Barney submitted two false
affidavits during the course of this case. On December 16, 2011, Barney filed a
declaration concerning the search of his trailer. Docket 162-2. Barney swore to
the following statements:
- “Before starting their tape recorded interrogation, the federal and state
officers told me that they were to going to arrest my wife, Rachel Barney, if I were
not cooperative.” [para 4]
- Referring to the officers transporting Barney, “[t]he context and tenor of
their words was related to the threat to arrest Rachel.” [para 5]
- “Because of the threat to my wife, I told them that the trailer was located at
the Fairbanks Ice Park. I had backed it into a parking space where a large number
of other trailers were also parked, many of them identical to mine.” [para 6]
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 34

- “I would not have told them about the trailer except for their threat to
Rachel.” [para 7]
The declaration was submitted as an attachment to Barney’s motion to
suppress items found in Barney’s trailer based on coercion. Docket 162. Barney’s
statements were material to the proceeding as Barney attempted to convince the
Court that the items found in Barney’s trailer should be suppressed because of the
alleged coercion and threats directed at him by law enforcement.
The officers who attempted to interview Barney and the officers who
transported Barney testified at the suppression hearings on January 23 and 24,
2012. Alaska State Trooper Moore testified that he did not threaten to arrest
Barney’s wife if Barney did not cooperate. Ex. C, 1/24/12 AST Moore Suppression
Hrg Tr. pg. 207, 213-14 (attached). FBI Special Agent Westerhaus also testified
that they did not threaten to arrest Rachel Barney. Ex. D, 1/23/12 FBI Agent
Westerhaus Suppression Hrg Tr. pg. 148-150 (attached). Their testimony is
corroborated by the transcript of the recorded contact with the defendant. See
Docket 219-2 through 219-8. U.S. Supervisory Deputy Marshal Coyne also
testified at the suppression hearing regarding transporting Barney. Deputy Marshal
Coyne testified that his tenor and tone was the same as his courtroom testimony
and that Barney never brought up any threats made by law enforcement. Ex. E,
1/24/12 Marshal Coyne Suppression Hrg Tr. pg. 234, 236-37 (attached). Similarly,
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 35

Fairbanks Police Department Detective Merideth testified that while he was
transporting Barney with Deputy Marshal Coyne, the conversation between Coyne
and Barney was cordial and that at no time did Barney make any reference that law
enforcement had threatened him or threatened to arrest his wife. Ex. F, 1/24/12
FPD Detective Merideth Suppression Hrg Tr. pg. 243 (attached).
Barney’s statements were necessarily rejected by the Court when it denied
Barney’s motion on January 24, 2012. The Court concluded that Barney was not
coerced, that Barney was not in fear, that there was no direct threat, and that
nothing the law enforcement officers said amounted to a threat. The Court pointed
out that at the conclusion of the meeting with FBI Agent Westerhaus and Trooper
Moore, Barney stated “Well I’d like to talk with you guys, but I just want to make
sure that – that I’m getting counsel. ... But I do appreciate it you taking care of my
family.” Docket 162-3, pg. 20.
In an attempt to discount an inevitable discovery argument by the
government regarding locating the trailer, Barney swore that he backed the trailer
into a parking space where a number of identical trailers were parked. FBI Agent
Westerhaus testified that there was only one white utility trailer parked by itself at
the Ice Park, and that there were no other similar trailers parked around it. Ex. G,
1/23/12 FBI Agent Westerhaus Suppression Hrg Tr. pg. 143-144 (attached).
Trooper Moore also testified that there was one white trailer parked at the Ice Park
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 36

and that there were no other trailers around it. Ex. H, 1/24/12 AST Moore
Suppression Hrg Tr. pg. 217 (attached). Barney’s statements on this point were
also necessarily rejected by the Court when it concluded that Barney’s trailer
would have been discovered if it wasn’t moved from the Ice Park and denied
Barney’s motion.
Barney’s Affidavit at Docket 181-9, Bail Hearing Testimony, Trial

Testimony
In addition to the declaration at docket 162-2, Barney filed another
declaration to the Court at docket 181-9, in connection with his motion to suppress
the search of his trailer and his home filed at docket 179. Barney also testified at a
bail hearing on July 28, 2011 and at trial. Barney made misleading statements
which were both willful and material.
1. Illegal Weapons
Throughout this case, Barney has denied that he was involved in illegal
weapons transactions. For example, Barney made the following sworn statements:
- “I, at least was never ‘aware’ that Schaeffer Cox was to receive hand
grenades from anyone.” [docket 181-9, para 15]
- “I did want a .40 caliber hand gun with a silencer, but I was expecting to
purchase it legally. ... I thought that Bill Fulton was a Class III gun dealer and that
Gerald Olson was working with him. I knew I could get one through Bill Fulton
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 37

and I figured he would walk me through the process and I would eventually get the
gun I wanted with a silencer.” [docket 181-9, para 17]
- “So we were headed not to an illegal gun sale, we were headed to go check
out this diesel trailer to see if there was room for his stuff.” [Ex. 52-01, Bail
Hearing Tr.]
- “On the way over there, [Olson] mentioned that [hand grenades] were for
sale.” [Ex. 52-08, Bail Hearing Tr.]
Barney’s statements attempted to convince the Court that he was not aware
that Cox was going to receive grenades, that he was planning on buying a silencer
legally, that on March 10, 2011 he was not on his way to an illegal weapons
transaction, and that he did not know that grenades were for sale until Olson
mentioned that in the vehicle on March 10, 2011. These statements were material
to the proceedings before the Court, for determining Barney’s motion to suppress
and request for release pending trial, both of which were denied. Moreover, the
bail hearing testimony referenced above was played for the jury at trial and
Barney’s statements were rejected by the jury when Barney was convicted of
Count 1: Conspiracy to Possess Unregistered Silencers and Destructive Devices
together with his co-defendants, Cox and Vernon.
The evidence at trial established that Barney was present on at least two
occasions when Cox talked about obtaining more grenades. On February 12, 2011,
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 38

Barney was present when Cox said he wanted to get grenades with longer delayed
fuses. Ex. 14-07, pg. 156. The jury also heard portions of the recording from
March 1, 2011 when Cox, Barney and Olson were at Barney’s rental cabin.
Barney joined in the conversation when Cox was discussing the price he would pay
to Bill Fulton for the grenades. Ex. 29-04, pg. 22-23.
In addition to the conversations about obtaining more grenades, Barney also
participated in conversations about using grenades. For example, on February 22,
2011, Barney said “eight grenades doesn’t sound like a lot unless you’re one of the
Judges or DAs we’re looking at.” Ex. 27-01, pg. 8. Adam Marchbanks testified
that Barney was practicing with grenades with Cox. A box with two pulled pins
and two unattached spoons from practice grenades was found in Barney’s
residence. Barney himself told law enforcement that there were grenade bodies in
the trailer he brought to the Ice Park.
The evidence at trial also established that Barney was aware that he was
going to an illegal weapons transaction on March 10, 2011. On March 9, 2011,
during a phone call, Olson told Barney that the “equipment” was in. Ex. 35, pg. 3.
They set a time to meet so that Barney could be there to examine the weapons
himself. Ex. 35, pg. 4. Olson added that they could also meet up with the truck
driver at the same time too. From the recording, it is clear that there were two
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 39

purposes for meeting on March 10, 2011, one of the purposes being the illegal
weapons transaction.
In addition, once Cox and Barney met Olson on March 10, 2011, Barney did
not express any surprise when Olson said he had silencers and grenades. In fact,
when Olson said the grenades are “the real military legit straight from - straight
from the Army,” Barney responded “That’s still cool.” Ex. 38-01, pg. 6. Nor did
Barney express any confusion or surprise when, shortly after Barney got into
Olson’s vehicle, Olson said he “stashed the goodies.” Ex. 38-01, pg. 4. Barney
didn’t seek clarification for what Olson was talking about or why he would need to
“stash” them. When Barney was physically given the silencer and grenade, he did
not object, he did not refuse, he did not act surprised, nor did he ask a single
question nor articulate any confusion as to the presence of grenades.
Moreover, Barney brought $5,000 cash with him to the illegal weapons
transaction. Barney presented evidence at trial that he owed money to one of his
subcontractors and was planning on depositing that money into his bank account to
pay his subcontractor. However, he chose to bring the cash with him to the
transaction instead of depositing the money in the bank when he had an
opportunity to before going to the transaction. In addition, he may have had
enough money in his account to cover both the price of the illegal weapons and the
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 40

payment to his subcontractor. There was no evidence of what his bank account
balance was on March 10, 2011.
There is additional trial evidence which demonstrates that Barney was
planning on buying the silencer illegally. First, on February 22, 2011, Barney
relayed a conversation he had with an “arms dealer and explosive dealer.” Ex. 27-
01, pg. 7. If Barney wanted to purchase a silencer legally, he could have contacted
that dealer or ProTec, the local gunshop where his wife purchased his AR-15. On
February 26, 2011, Barney told Olson that Vernon was getting silencers. Ex. 28-
01. Vernon is not a legal dealer. Olson told Barney that Olson was getting them
from Bill Fulton, who is a dealer, but he “just does it under the table kind of ...
makes them disappear ... loses them or however they ... however he can work his -
work his books.” Ex. 28-01, pg. 32. After Barney learned about this, he placed an
order for a pistol/silencer matched set. Ex. 28-05. Barney was also aware that Cox
was going to trade his C-93 semi-automatic rifle, with a full auto lower receiver,
for the pistol/silencer matched set. Ex. 28-04. Again, on March 10, 2011, Olson
told Barney and Cox that there would be a delay getting the .9 mil pistol/silencer
matched sets “because the dealer has to lose them.” Ex. 38-02, pg. 6. Again, after
hearing this, Barney placed an order for a .9 mil pistol/silencer matched set and
asked about getting a silencer for a “.223, as well, or a 5-by-6.” Id. The evidence
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 41

at trial clearly established that on March 10, 2011, Barney knew that he was going
to an illegal weapons transaction.
2. 2-4-1 Plan
With regard to the 2-4-1 plan, Barney made the following sworn statements:
- “The only one in favor of [the 2-4-1 plan] was Gerald Olson. Olson kept
bringing up ‘2-4-1' in later conversations and he kept getting told that such a thing
was not going to happen.” [docket 181-9, para 5]
- “Other than the ‘drilling the forehead’ comment I already mentioned, there
was never any mention of capturing or killing police officers, judges, or district
attorneys or people involved in Cox’s State court case.” [docket 181-9, para 5]
- “I was in a conversation where [2-4-1 plan] was brought up, it was
discussed. J.R. Olson pushed very strongly for it and there was arguments made
why not to do it, and the overall outcome was not to do it.” [Ex. I, 7/28/11 Barney
Bail Hearing Tr. pg. 71 (attached)]
- “After the February 12th day at Ken’s bus, it was decided that nobody was
for it, Ken wasn’t for it, I wasn’t for it, and – and Schaeffer was against it. He was
for leaving town. The only person that was in favor of it was Gerald Olson.” [Ex.
J, 6/7/12 Barney Trial Tr. pg. 30 (attached)]
Barney’s statements regarding the 2-4-1 plan are misleading. The
recordings and corresponding transcripts indicate that Barney’s only objection to

U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 42

moving forward was based on its futility - the organization was simply not yet
strong enough. Barney’s and Cox’s contributions to the discussions reveal that
they supported the 2-4-1 plan, but they voiced reluctance to initiate it because the
militia was simply not yet strong enough. They decided that they needed to train
and recruit more members to get ready to initiate it. Their hesitation to initiate it
was based only on sustainability. There is no evidence that Barney or anyone ever
stated that 2-4-1 was wrong, illegal, immoral or otherwise. Barney’s statements
were necessarily rejected by the jury when Cox was convicted of both Count 12,
Conspiracy to Murder Federal Officials, and Count 16, Solicitation of Others, that
is, defendants Barney and Vernon, and others, to Engage in the Murder of Federal
Officials.
The evidence at trial reveals that Barney’s statements were false. At the
February 12, 2011 meeting, Cox said that two State court employees, Martin
Guerrero and Ron Woods “need to dangle together like a windchime.” Ex. 14-01,
pg. 55. The discussion of 2-4-1 on February 12, 2011 was based on the
assumption that if one of them was arrested, then they would “go kick in the
judges’ door and the troopers and arrest two of them.” Ex. 14-03, pg. 83-84. They
were anticipating that a warrant would be issued for Cox’s arrest when he failed to
appear for his state court hearing on February 14, 2011. The entire discussion
referencing “arresting” them was a discussion of capturing those government

U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 43

officials. At one point, Olson asked Cox where to “hold” the victims, and Cox said
“we’re not set up for it.” Ex. 14-03, pg. 88. Cox specifically told Barney, Thesing,
and Olson who to target - “the trooper that did it and the trooper that authorized it
and the judge that authorized it.” Ex. 14-03, pg. 87-88. Cox then talked about
whether they were ready or willing to kill. Ex. 14-03, pg. 89-90. Cox said he was
willing to kill. Ex. 14-03, pg. 90.
In addition to the February 12, 2011 recorded meeting, the meeting between
Barney, Cox and Olson on February 19, 2011 was also recorded. Cox said that
they’d be morally justified to go “roll judges’ heads.” Ex. 24-12, pg. 329. That
comment was separate from when Cox said he’d be “well within my rights to go
drill McConahy in the forehead” on February 12, 2011. Ex. 14-03, pg. 85. On
February 19, 2011, Cox and Barney talked about when 2-4-1 could become a real
possibility. Ex. 24-12, pg. 337. Cox talked about what they needed in order to
execute a 2-4-1. Ex. 24-12, pg. 338-341.
Cox’s statements throughout both the February 12, 2011 and February 19,
2011 meetings do not indicate that he was against it. The number of police duty
belts, handcuffs, and thumbcuffs found in Cox’s residence and the trailer also do
not indicate that he was against it. The evidence at trial proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that he was for it. The jury rejected Barney’s statements when
Cox was convicted of Counts 12 and 16.

U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 44

3. Trial Testimony re Relationship with Cox
With respect to this enhancement, one other set of facts requires mention.
Barney testified during trial that it was his goal to “support” Cox and not
abandon him while he was avoiding the court system of the State of Alaska. The
factual and evidentiary record of this investigation and trial belies this claim.
Barney, among other things, harbored Cox in his home. He failed to contradict and
counsel against Cox’s notions of a “2-4-1" plan. He was a loyal and ardent
disciple and follower, even referring to Cox as the next “Angel Maroni.”
Barney additionally organized not one but two security details for Cox.
Barney armed himself with an illegal weapon, and was prepared to kill for Cox.
Additionally, the testimony of Sarah Thompson, Barney’s former sister-in-law,
described in poignant and honest detail the change in Coleman Barney after he
became involved with Cox, as well as his attempts to convert Thompson and her
then fiancé to adopt Cox’s beliefs. Barney also collected “jurors” for Cox’s
Denny’s trial, threw practice grenades with Cox in a sideyard at his home,
provided a trailer for Cox’s belongings (including Cox’s grenade bodies and fuses)
and then drove Cox and participated in an illegal weapons transaction.
In this regard, the Court only has the testimony of the defendant to rely on
with respect to this assertion. It is not, however, backed up by any other fact. The
totality of Barney’s actions, from hosting Cox’s militia swearing in ceremony, to

U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 45

providing armed security at KJNP and the plans for same at the Rabinowitz
Courthouse, to the 2-4-1 plans, the illegal weapons sales and Barney’s knowledge
that both he and Cox were to buy under the table silencers and grenades utterly
contradicts Barney’s testimony with respect to his intentions. Put simply, the
weight of the evidence as it relates to Barney’s own actions and statements utterly
contradicts this position. The Court should include this falsehood in its
determination that Barney has obstructed justice with respect to his actions in this
case.
Acceptance of Responsibility
Given Barney’s testimony during the bail hearing, his declarations in support
of his motions to suppress, and trial testimony, the Final Presentence Report is
correct in not awarding Barney a two-point reduction for acceptance of
responsibility.
Criminal History Category Computation
There is no dispute that Barney’s criminal history category is Category I.
IV. APPLICATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
In addition to the Guidelines, the following sentencing factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) apply: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and history
and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, afford deterrence, protect the public from further crimes
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 46

and provide the defendant training and treatment; (3) the kinds of sentences
available; (4) the established Guidelines sentencing ranges; (5) any pertinent
Guidelines policy statements; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparity
between defendants with similar records convicted of similar crimes; and (7) the
need to provide restitution to victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)
through (7). Each sentencing factor is addressed in turn:
A. Nature and Circumstances of Offense and the History and

Characteristics of the Defendant.
1. History and Characteristics of the Defendant
The government does not dispute the fact that Coleman Barney was a
successful business man, a family man and father, and active in his community.
He had no criminal history. Coleman Barney, however, placed his family, work
and virtually everything else in his life in a subordinate position to his allegiance to
Schaeffer Cox, and Schaeffer Cox’s ideals. This included providing lethal-force
security details, organizing jurors for “common law trials” (which Barney claims
he did not understand), arming with illegal weapons, practicing with practice
grenades, and conspiring to possess silencers and destructive devices.
2. The Instant Offense
The facts of the instant offense are well known to the Court through the trial
of this case, Cox’s own testimony, and the defendant’s own testimony. Barney’s
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 47

defense was one of, “I simply didn’t know” or, that he was trying not to hurt Cox’s
feelings as everyone else abandoned him. Barney’s personal actions, and the
evidence at trial belie this explanation. Barney was, in fact, a full fledged major - a
leader - in Cox’s militia, was a trusted confidant and loyal compatriot. The trust
between the two was mutual and without reservation, and included, as to the counts
of conviction, Barney carrying an illegal firearm with the intent that it be used to
kill, as well as driving Cox (as well as himself) to an illegal weapons sale involving
what he believed to be live grenades and “off the books” silencers. He is
responsible for creating a dangerous situation for himself and others.
B. Need for the Sentence to Reflect the Seriousness of the Offense,

Afford Deterrence, Protect the Public, and Rehabilitate the
Defendant.
The sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote general
respect for the law, and provide just punishment. In addition, the sentence must be
sufficient to adequately deter criminal conduct, both for the defendant and the
general community. Here, an educated man old enough to know better, took
actions which endangered not only himself and his family, but also the general
public. This is not a case where someone simply possessed an unregistered firearm
in the closet of their home. Barney led the security detail for Cox the night of
KJNP with about five other individuals who were also armed and ready to kill for
Cox. Barney was armed not just with his AR-15 assault rifle, but also the 37mm
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 48

launcher loaded with a Hornet’s Nest anti-personnel round. Barney subsequently
participated in conversations about killing government officials. Barney also
opined about ways to be stronger to further that goal, such as recruiting and
training, which are actions Barney previously took on behalf of Cox and his
militia. Barney also harbored Cox, together with all of his weapons, while he was
a fugitive. Then Barney made arrangements to purchase an unregistered silencer
and went to an illegal weapons deal for grenades and silencers. A serious sentence
is warranted to reflect these dangerous offenses, to emphasize the necessity of
following the law, and to deter criminal conduct.
C. Kinds of Sentences Available.
Given the defendant’s position on the sentencing guidelines scale, there are
not other types of sentences available aside from imprisonment. With a Criminal
History Category of I and an Offense Level of 34, as calculated by Probation, the
Guideline range is 151-188 months’ imprisonment. An Offense Level of 35 would
result in a Guideline range of 168-210 months’ imprisonment.
D. Sentencing Ranges Available.
The Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), and the sentencing court may not simply presume that the
Guideline range is reasonable. Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 352 (2009);
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007). However, the sentencing court
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 49

must still carefully and correctly calculate the Guideline range, and this “remains
the starting point” for any sentencing determination. United States v. Ameline, 409
F.3d 1073, 186 (9th Cir. 2005).
E. Pertinent Policy Statements.
There are two policy statements pertinent here: Weapons and Dangerous
Instrumentalities under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.6 and Public Welfare under U.S.S.G. §
5K2.14.
F. Need to Avoid Sentence Disparity.
The sentence sought takes into account the full range of offense conduct.
Based on the history and characteristics of the defendant, together with the
statutory maximum sentences for the offenses of conviction (five years and ten
years, respectively, for Counts 1 and 9), the government is recommending a below-
Guidelines sentence.
G. Fine, Restitution, Forfeiture.
The government agrees that the defendant does not have the ability to pay a
fine. Restitution is not an issue in this case. The government filed a non-opposed
motion for forfeiture of the 37mm launcher and Hornet’s Nest anti-personnel round
at docket 463. This Court entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture at docket 467.
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 50

V. CONCLUSION
From November 2010 to March 2011, the defendant took actions which
endangered the public and certain government officials. The seriousness of the
defendant’s crimes supports an imposition of sentence of 120 months’
imprisonment followed by three years supervised release.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of September, 2012, in
Anchorage, Alaska.
KAREN L. LOEFFLER
United States Attorney
s/ Steven E. Skrocki
STEVEN E. SKROCKI
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States of America
s/ Yvonne Lamoureux
YVONNE LAMOUREUX
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States of America
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 19, 2012, a copy of
the foregoing was served electronically on:
Tim Dooley
s/ Yvonne Lamoureux
Office of the U.S. Attorney
U.S. v. Barney
3:11-cr-00022-RJB 51

OJS Barney Sentencing

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

OJS Barney Sentencing

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

KAREN L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 3:11-CR-00022-RJB

I. SUMMARY OF SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS

TERM OF IMPRISONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Months

SUPERVISED RELEASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Years

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200.00

FINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not requested

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 51

II. BACKGROUND AND COUNTS OF CONVICTION1

count indictment for a variety of firearms violations, including possession of

unregistered destructive devices and conspiracy to possess unregistered silencers

Defendant Cox organized a number of groups, including the Alaska

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 2 of 51

federal government of being behind the OCS investigation. He relayed how he

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 3 of 51

4-wheeler on the property.

Cox’s security detail for Cox’s state court hearings.

“common law jury” unanimously “acquitted” Cox of the criminal charges.

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 4 of 51

of them.” Ex. 14-03, pg. 83-84.

Cox continued that he “would be well within my rights to go drill

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 5 of 51

was willing to kill. Ex. 14-03, pg. 90.

Barney: I mean, we need the force. We need something to spark the

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 6 of 51

Barney: In the meantime training up guys and (inaudible) guys

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 7 of 51

Cox there. Ex. 14-06, pg. 120.

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 8 of 51

Barney, which alleged the following violations: False/Altered Documents,

Unreported Income, Public/Political Corruption. Ex. 192, pg 5.

them there.” Id.

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 9 of 51

morally justified.” Ex. 24-12, pg. 329. Barney agreed. Id.

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 10 of 51

pain in the general public.” Ex. 24-12, pg. 340-41.

he had failed to provide to them.

and children.” Ex. 24-16, pg. 391.

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 11 of 51

others.” Ex. 24-17, pg. 399.

included assault rifles, ammunition, and approximately 8 grenades.

Olson also discussed a communication plan, a way to avoid detection by law

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 12 of 51

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 13 of 51

pistol/silencer matched set. Ex. 28-05.

Later in the conversation, Cox, Barney and Olson discussed a missing

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 14 of 51

ooh.” Ex. 29-04, pg. 23.

want my family to go through - is my family in danger? Are your guys going to

the same time.” Ex. 35, pg. 5.

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 15 of 51

responded, “That’s still cool.” Id.

Olson: Because of the , uh - because of the silencers. They,

Ex. 38-02, pg. 2-3.

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 16 of 51

Olson: But in the way - the way I look at it, for me

Ex. 38-02, pg. 7-8.

Barney, and Olson had the following exchange:

Case 3:11-cr-00022-RJB Document 488 Filed 09/19/12 Page 17 of 51

Ex. 38-02, pg. 9-10.