Mr. Scott Sewell

• 
  www.sbsun.com/sports/ci_13221583 - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 8/28/2009    Last Visited: 8/28/2009  

  San Jacinto Wildlife area: Scott Sewell, manager of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, was upbeat about the dove prospects for opening day this year, and noted the wildlife area would be open to dove hunters on
  
  Sept. 1, not just the upland game portion of the area. He said there are more birds on the area than there have been in at least three seasons.
  
  Last year, well over 300 hunters were at the small wildlife area in Western Riverside County and shooting was just fair, at best. Sewell thinks those hunters choosing to stay closer to home will have a better opener.

• 
  www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_mys - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 2/22/2008    Last Visited: 2/22/2008  

  Recent rains have added some acreage to Mystic Lake but Scott Sewell, wildlife habitat supervisor for the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, says the lake will be gone by late summer.The lake, between Moreno Valley and San Jacinto, dropped from several thousand acres to less than 200.
  
  The lake, part of the 9,000-acre San Jacinto Wildlife Area owned and managed by the state agency, has been steadily shrinking over the past few years, dropping from several thousand acres to less than 200.Recent rains and their runoff added some acreage to Mystic, but Trakes and Scott Sewell, wildlife habitat supervisor, both believe the kidney bean-shaped lake will be gone by late August or September.
  ...
  Sewell said he has not seen the lake dry in the three years since he started working at the wildlife center.Little by little, though, Mystic has been receding.
  ...
  Even as Mystic has been shrinking, Sewell said there are 20,000 hunters, bird watchers and others who visit the wilderness area and lake each year.

• 
  www.federal-litigation.com/Cases.html - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 12/2/1996    Last Visited: 10/5/2009  

  • Mr. S. Scott Sewell, then Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of Interior, effectuated the destruction of the Draft Vision document by revising and taking control of the DRAFT document in October of 1990 at the behest of John Sununu, former Chief of Staff for the White House. (Chapter 2 and 4)
  ...
  • At the Department of Interior, Mr. Sewell and his staff revised the Draft Vision document outside of the public review process to accommodate special interest requests during the fall and winter of 1990, despite Mr. Sewell's denial, under oath, of revising or even reviewing the Draft document prior to June 1991. (Chapters 2, 3, and 4)
  ...
  Mr. Sewell originally denied, under oath, that he and his office revised the Draft Vision document. Document Exhibit # 122, written by Mr. Sewell's staffer, directly contradicted that assertion - specifically stating that Mr. Sewell's office was revising the Draft Vision document in line with special interest desires and Mr. Sewell was personally reviewing those changes. (Chapter 4)
  
  Well after document # 122 was brought to his attention, Mr. Sewell changed his story in an unsworn statement and asserted that he had instead formed a "working group" in his office to review the Draft document, not to revise it. However, Mr. Sewell and members of the working group gave four separate, conflicting accounts of the group's mission. (Chapter 4)
  ...
  Because early drafts of the Vision Document contained controversial recommendations, S. Scott Sewell, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the Department, took control of the drafting process in October [*5] of 1990. n1 It is fair to say that Plaintiff and Sewell had very different, and incompatible, views about the Vision Document. On March 21, 1991, Sewell, a political appointee, demanded that Plaintiff, a career Civil Service employee, be reprimanded for allegedly lobbying members of Congress in February of 1991, while attending briefings on the Hill with legislative aides and committee staff members to discuss activities in their area of interest. Upon investigating the serious charges made by Sewell, the Director of the Park Service concluded that Plaintiff had not been lobbying, had instead been engaged in appropriate informational activities, and that there was no basis for such a reprimand.

• 
  www.scrippsnews.com/node/28227 - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 11/8/2007    Last Visited: 11/18/2007  

  The cleanup was under way before last October's Esperanza Fire burned nearly 90 percent of the Potrero unit of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, said Scott Sewell, wildlife-habitat supervisor for the California Department of Fish and Game.
  ...
  A slice of Old California with its large oaks, creeks and boulder-studded hills, the park's trees and shrubs are recovering with the help of cool, moist weather that drifts in from the coast, Sewell said.

• 
  About The Artist - [Cached Version]
  Last Visited: 3/31/2008  

  24. Mr. Scott Sewell, Director, Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior, December 23, 1992.

• 
  California Hunting News and California Pheasant Hunting - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 11/10/2004    Last Visited: 6/30/2009  

  Recently, 4 Seasons Hunting hosted 50 new shooters as part of the Game Bird Heritage and Wildlife Outreach Program under the direction of Scott Sewell, a wildlife assistant for the California Department of Fish and Game.
  ...
  Throughout the morning hunt, kids were directed to six pheasant fields by Schulgen, Sewell and 4 Seasons Hunting employees Jimmy Katel and Joe McDonald.

• 
  Carl Hartmann - Mintzmyer Subcommittee Report - [Cached Version]
  Last Visited: 10/5/2009  

  • Mr. S. Scott Sewell, then Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of Interior, effectuated the destruction of the DRAFT Vision document by revising and taking control of the DRAFT document in October of 1990 at the behest of John Sununu, former Chief of Staff for the White House. (Chapter 2 and 4)
  ...
  • At the Department of Interior, Mr. Sewell and his staff revised the DRAFT Vision document outside of the public review process to accommodate special interest requests during the fall and winter of 1990, despite Mr. Sewell's denial, under oath, of revising or even reviewing the DRAFT document prior to June 1991. (Chapters 2, 3, and 4)
  ...
  Mr. Sewell originally denied, under oath, that he and his office revised the DRAFT Vision document. Document # 122, written by Mr. Sewell's staffer, directly contradicted that assertion by stating that Mr. Sewell's office was revising the DRAFT Vision document in line with special interest desires and Mr. Sewell was personally reviewing those changes. (Chapter 4)
  
  Well after document # 122 was brought to his attention, Mr. Sewell changed his story in an unsworn statement and asserted that he had instead formed a "working group" in his office to review the DRAFT document, not to revise it. However, Mr. Sewell and members of the working group gave four separate, conflicting accounts of the group's mission. (Chapter 4)
  ...
  According to witnesses, the following individuals attended: then Deputy Principal Assistant Secretary Scott Sewell, Department of Interior, then Assistant Secretary Moseley, Department of Agriculture, Mr. Jack Morehead, Associate Director for Park Operations, NPS, Mr. Cy Jamison, Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Mr. T.S. Ary, Director of the Bureau of Mines, Mr. George Leonard, Associate Chief of the Forest Service, Mr. Gary Cargill, Regional Forester for the Forest Service, Senator Simpson, Senator Wallop, Rep.
  ...
  During this meeting, Mr. Sewell began to effectuate the destruction of the DRAFT Vision document.
  ...
  [I] sat across from Mr. Sewell with my notebook and some other papers on my lap. He began a lecture on the fact that significant political contacts and pressures had been made to the White House and the Secretary regarding the Vision document by political delegations. He then stated that Mr. Sununu had personally spoken to him about this issue. He stated that Mr. Sununu told him that, from a political perspective, the existing draft of the Vision document was a disaster and must be rewritten ....
  
  Mr. Sewell made it clear that he had been delegated by the Department to retain the appearance that the document was the product of professional and scientific efforts by the agency involved but the reality would be that the document would be revised based on these political concerns , some of which he shared with me at the time. He also made it very clear that he was upset with me personally because of the draft and that he had, therefore, taken over control of the writing and content of that document. He was emphatic as to that point, stating that I should proceed but that it was he who would ultimately control and revise all contents.[ [8] ] (Emphasis added.)
  ...
  According to evidence the Subcommittee has obtained, Mr. Scott Sewell, DOI, was the principal force behind the activities to destroy the DRAFT Vision document.
  ...
  The Department of Interior moved further into the operation on October 23, 1990 when Mr. Sewell began his firsthand alteration of the DRAFT Vision document by directing Ms. Mary Bradford, his subordinate, to go through the DRAFT document and focus on the tone of the document and Department of Interior issues.[ [10] ] On October 25, 1990, staffers for Mr. Sewell-Ms.
  ...
  Once Mr. Sewell's staffers were through with their preliminary revisions, they passed a briefing copy of their efforts on to Ms. Constance Harriman, then Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, DOI.
  ...
  Ms. Bradford's trans mittal memo specifically noted that "Scott is now reviewing this.
  ...
  Thus, changes were definitely being made pursuant to Mr. Sewell's input from special interests.
  ...
  On January 31, 1991 the joint coordination between the Departments of Interior and Agriculture for watering down the DRAFT Vision document was cemented when Deputy Assistant Secretary Beuter (USDA) and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Sewell (DOI) met for a one-on-one meeting to discuss the DRAFT Vision document.
  ...
  Mr. Sewell continued his behind the scenes influence over the DRAFT Vision document at the Department of Interior well into 1991. Document #78 indicates that Sewell made changes to the draft Vision document personally as late as March 20, 1991.
  ...
  Mr. Sewell's efforts failed, however. Neither the Department of Interior nor the National Park Service ever responded to her memo nor was she disciplined for this alleged activity.
  
  Thus, the operation pursued the following course:
  
  1. An unusual meeting on October 4, 1990 between high-ranking Department of Interior and Agriculture officials, a western U.S. Congressional delegation, and commodity and special interest groups occurred to deal with the DRAFT Vision document.
  
  2. Mr. Scott Sewell, then Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of Interior, effectuated the destruction of the DRAFT Vision document by revising and taking control of the DRAFT document in October of 1990 and by suppressing Ms. Mintzmyer's participation on October 5, 1990.
  ...
  4. At the Department of Interior, Mr. Sewell and his staff revised the DRAFT Vision document during the fall and winter of 1990.
  ...
  6. Mr. Sewell continued to revise the DRAFT Vision document as late as March 20, 1991.
  
  7. Finally, Mr. Sewell tried to achieve the objectives of the concerted action by demanding that on March 21, 1991 Ms. Mintzmyer be reprimanded for allegedly lobbying Congress.
  ...
  The letter received the immediate attention of the Deputy Principal Assistant Secretary for Fish Wildlife and Parks, Scott Sewell.
  ...
  I think that Mr. Sewell attended that meeting.
  ...
  According to his actions and comments, the Department of Interior representative, Mr. Sewell, was also opposed to the DRAFT document. His opposition was notable for what he did not do. Mr. Sewell did not discuss the meeting with the Director of the National Park Service-the individual ultimately responsible for the DRAFT Vision document. The Director noted in his sworn statement,
  ...
  Mr. Sewell did voice his opposition to the DRAFT document to Ms. Mintzmyer, however.
  ...
  In a meeting in his office on October 5, 1990, Ms. Mintzmyer testified under oath that Mr. Sewell expressed the following sentiments regarding the DRAFT Vision document:
  ...
  Mr. Sewell made it clear that he had been delegated by the Department to retain the appearance that the document was the product of professional and scientific efforts by the agency involved but the reality would be that the document would be revised based on these political concerns, some of which he shared with me at the time.[ [34] ]
  ...
  2. Mr. Sewell closed down previously scheduled national hearings to avoid anticipated positive comment.
  ...
  A major blow to any assertion of legitimacy to the October 4, 1990 meeting is illustrated by the inconsistent statement made by former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Scott Sewell. His statement directly contradicts other testimony and evidence the Subcommittee gathered regarding the discussions and actions in and around the October 4, 1990 meeting.
  
  In an August 12, 1992 letter to the Subcommittee on the Civil Service, Mr. Sewell sought to characterize the October 4, 1990 meeting in the following manner:
  
  The purpose of the October 4, meeting was simply to ask for a fair public review; the constituents believed they had been excluded from full review of the document to that time. (Emphasis added.)
  
  Mr. Jack Morehead, then Associate Director of Operations, National Park Service, recently attempted to support Mr. Sewell's position in a July 31, 1992 unsworn, written statement.
  ...
  First, the timing of these statements and the lack of corroborating evidence casts doubt on Mr. Sewell's version of the events. For example, neither the Department of Interior, the National Park Service, Mr. Sewell nor Mr. Morehead provided the Subcommittee with any written notes, correspondence, planning materials, or other documents from the period surrounding the October 4, 1990 meeting to substantiate their recollection of what happened. [ [51] ] Instead, both participants only gave unsworn statements almost a year after Ms. Mintzmyer testified under oath before the Subcommittee and after additional evidence supporting Ms. Mintzmyer's view had been

• 
  Carl Hartmann - Mintzmyer Subcommittee Report - [Cached Version]
  Last Visited: 7/30/2008  

  , Mr. S. Scott Sewell, then Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of Interior, effectuated the destruction of the DRAFT Vision document by revising and taking control of the DRAFT document in October of 1990 at the behest of John Sununu, former Chief of Staff for the White House. (Chapter 2 and 4)
  ...
  , At the Department of Interior, Mr. Sewell and his staff revised the DRAFT Vision document outside of the public review process to accommodate special interest requests during the fall and winter of 1990, despite Mr. Sewell's denial, under oath, of revising or even reviewing the DRAFT document prior to June 1991. (Chapters 2, 3, and 4)
  ...
  Mr. Sewell originally denied, under oath, that he and his office revised the DRAFT Vision document.Document # 122, written by Mr. Sewell's staffer, directly contradicted that assertion by stating that Mr. Sewell's office was revising the DRAFT Vision document in line with special interest desires and Mr. Sewell was personally reviewing those changes. (Chapter 4)
  
  Well after document # 122 was brought to his attention, Mr. Sewell changed his story in an unsworn statement and asserted that he had instead formed a "working group" in his office to review the DRAFT document, not to revise it.However, Mr. Sewell and members of the working group gave four separate, conflicting accounts of the group's mission. (Chapter 4)
  ...
  According to witnesses, the following individuals attended: then Deputy Principal Assistant Secretary Scott Sewell, Department of Interior, then Assistant Secretary Moseley, Department of Agriculture, Mr. Jack Morehead, Associate Director for Park Operations, NPS, Mr. Cy Jamison, Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Mr. T.S. Ary, Director of the Bureau of Mines, Mr. George Leonard, Associate Chief of the Forest Service, Mr. Gary Cargill, Regional Forester for the Forest Service, Senator Simpson, Senator Wallop, Rep.
  ...
  During this meeting, Mr. Sewell began to effectuate the destruction of the DRAFT Vision document.
  ...
  [I] sat across from Mr. Sewell with my notebook and some other papers on my lap.He began a lecture on the fact that significant political contacts and pressures had been made to the White House and the Secretary regarding the Vision document by political delegations.He then stated that Mr. Sununu had personally spoken to him about this issue.He stated that Mr. Sununu told him that, from a political perspective, the existing draft of the Vision document was a disaster and must be rewritten ....
  
  Mr. Sewell made it clear that he had been delegated by the Department to retain the appearance that the document was the product of professional and scientific efforts by the agency involved but the reality would be that the document would be revised based on these political concerns, some of which he shared with me at the time.He also made it very clear that he was upset with me personally because of the draft and that he had, therefore, taken over control of the writing and content of that document.He was emphatic as to that point, stating that I should proceed but that it was he who would ultimately control and revise all contents.[ [8] ] (Emphasis added.)
  ...
  According to evidence the Subcommittee has obtained, Mr. Scott Sewell, DOI, was the principal force behind the activities to destroy the DRAFT Vision document.
  ...
  The Department of Interior moved further into the operation on October 23, 1990 when Mr. Sewell began his firsthand alteration of the DRAFT Vision document by directing Ms. Mary Bradford, his subordinate, to go through the DRAFT document and focus on the tone of the document and Department of Interior issues.[ [10] ] On October 25, 1990, staffers for Mr. Sewell-Ms.
  ...
  Once Mr. Sewell's staffers were through with their preliminary revisions, they passed a briefing copy of their efforts on to Ms. Constance Harriman, then Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, DOI.
  ...
  Ms. Bradford's transmittal memo specifically noted that "Scott is now reviewing this."
  ...
  Thus, changes were definitely being made pursuant to Mr. Sewell's input from special interests.
  ...
  On January 31, 1991 the joint coordination between the Departments of Interior and Agriculture for watering down the DRAFT Vision document was cemented when Deputy Assistant Secretary Beuter (USDA) and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Sewell (DOI) met for a one-on-one meeting to discuss the DRAFT Vision document.
  ...
  Mr. Sewell continued his behind the scenes influence over the DRAFT Vision document at the Department of Interior well into 1991.Document #78 indicates that Sewell made changes to the draft Vision document personally as late as March 20, 1991.
  ...
  Mr. Sewell's efforts failed, however.Neither the Department of Interior nor the National Park Service ever responded to her memo nor was she disciplined for this alleged activity.
  
  Thus, the operation pursued the following course:
  
  1. An unusual meeting on October 4, 1990 between high-ranking Department of Interior and Agriculture officials, a western U.S. Congressional delegation, and commodity and special interest groups occurred to deal with the DRAFT Vision document.
  
  2. Mr. Scott Sewell, then Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of Interior, effectuated the destruction of the DRAFT Vision document by revising and taking control of the DRAFT document in October of 1990 and by suppressing Ms. Mintzmyer's participation on October 5, 1990.
  ...
  4. At the Department of Interior, Mr. Sewell and his staff revised the DRAFT Vision document during the fall and winter of 1990.
  ...
  6. Mr. Sewell continued to revise the DRAFT Vision document as late as March 20, 1991.
  
  7. Finally, Mr. Sewell tried to achieve the objectives of the concerted action by demanding that on March 21, 1991 Ms. Mintzmyer be reprimanded for allegedly lobbying Congress.
  ...
  The letter received the immediate attention of the Deputy Principal Assistant Secretary for Fish Wildlife and Parks, Scott Sewell.
  ...
  I think that Mr. Sewell attended that meeting.
  ...
  According to his actions and comments, the Department of Interior representative, Mr. Sewell, was also opposed to the DRAFT document.His opposition was notable for what he did not do.Mr. Sewell did not discuss the meeting with the Director of the National Park Service-the individual ultimately responsible for the DRAFT Vision document.The Director noted in his sworn statement,
  
  Q: [Mr.Schaff] So he [Scott Sewell] did not talk to you about that meeting [October 4, 1990]?
  
  A: No.[ [33] ]
  
  Mr. Sewell did voice his opposition to the DRAFT document to Ms. Mintzmyer, however.
  ...
  In a meeting in his office on October 5, 1990, Ms. Mintzmyer testified under oath that Mr. Sewell expressed the following sentiments regarding the DRAFT Vision document:
  ...
  Mr. Sewell made it clear that he had been delegated by the Department to retain the appearance that the document was the product of professional and scientific efforts by the agency involved but the reality would be that the document would be revised based on these political concerns, some of which he shared with me at the time.[ [34] ]
  ...
  2. Mr. Sewell closed down previously scheduled national hearings to avoid anticipated positive comment.
  
  3. The scientific interdisciplinary (ID) team was maneuvered out of the revision process.
  ...
  A major blow to any assertion of legitimacy to the October 4, 1990 meeting is illustrated by the inconsistent statement made by former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Scott Sewell.His statement directly contradicts other testimony and evidence the Subcommittee gathered regarding the discussions and actions in and around the October 4, 1990 meeting.
  
  In an August 12, 1992 letter to the Subcommittee on the Civil Service, Mr. Sewell sought to characterize the October 4, 1990 meeting in the following manner:
  
  The purpose of the October 4, meeting was simply to ask for a fair public review; the constituents believed they had been excluded from full review of the document to that time. (Emphasis added.)
  
  Mr. Jack Morehead, then Associate Director of Operations, National Park Service, recently attempted to support Mr. Sewell's position in a July 31, 1992 unsworn, written statement.
  ...
  First, the timing of these statements and the lack of corroborating evidence casts doubt on Mr. Sewell's version of the events.For example, neither the Department of Interior, the National Park Service, Mr. Sewell nor Mr. Morehead provided the Subcommittee with any written notes, correspondence, planning materials, or other documents from the period surrounding the October 4, 1990 meeting to

• 
  Cases - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 12/2/1996    Last Visited: 7/30/2008  

  , Mr. S. Scott Sewell, then Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of Interior, effectuated the destruction of the Draft Vision document by revising and taking control of the DRAFT document in October of 1990 at the behest of John Sununu, former Chief of Staff for the White House. (Chapter 2 and 4)
  ...
  , At the Department of Interior, Mr. Sewell and his staff revised the Draft Vision document outside of the public review process to accommodate special interest requests during the fall and winter of 1990, despite Mr. Sewell's denial, under oath, of revising or even reviewing the Draft document prior to June 1991. (Chapters 2, 3, and 4)
  ...
  Mr. Sewell originally denied, under oath, that he and his office revised the Draft Vision document.Document Exhibit # 122, written by Mr. Sewell's staffer, directly contradicted that assertion , specifically stating that Mr. Sewell's office was revising the Draft Vision document in line with special interest desires and Mr. Sewell was personally reviewing those changes. (Chapter 4)
  
  Well after document # 122 was brought to his attention, Mr. Sewell changed his story in an unsworn statement and asserted that he had instead formed a "working group" in his office to review the Draft document, not to revise it.However, Mr. Sewell and members of the working group gave four separate, conflicting accounts of the group's mission. (Chapter 4)
  ...
  Because early drafts of the Vision Document contained controversial recommendations, S. Scott Sewell, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the Department, took control of the drafting process in October [*5] of 1990. n1 It is fair to say that Plaintiff and Sewell had very different, and incompatible, views about the Vision Document.On March 21, 1991, Sewell, a political appointee, demanded that Plaintiff, a career Civil Service employee, be reprimanded for allegedly lobbying members of Congress in February of 1991, while attending briefings on the Hill with legislative aides and committee staff members to discuss activities in their area of interest.Upon investigating the serious charges made by Sewell, the Director of the Park Service concluded that Plaintiff had not been lobbying, had instead been engaged in appropriate informational activities, and that there was no basis for such a reprimand.
  ...
  S. 10527 (August 10, 1984).

• 
  Home Page - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 2/18/2007    Last Visited: 10/5/2009  

  And do you admit, by the way, or have you admitted that there is no basis for those statements of Mr. Sewell's?
  ...
  I don't know if it was interrogatory answers themselves but we indicated in fact that the statements that Mr. Sewell made at that time were not correct.
  ...
  I didn't know the government had conceded that everything that Mr. Sewell said was false."
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 126, l. 24 basis for those statements of Mr. Sewell's?
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 3 that the statements that Mr. Sewell made at that time were not
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 8 MS. WELLS: Your Honor, Mr. Sewell is not going to be
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 16 Mintzmyer about the false statements made by Mr. Sewell,
  
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 17 right?
  
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 18 MS. WELLS: Right, because what the investigator told
  
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 127, l. 19 her is hearsay.
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 14that everything that Mr. Sewell said was false.
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 128, l. 18 prefer we can admit the interrogatories in which Mr. Sewell
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 129, l. 1 that Mr. Sewell had made false statements about you?
  ...
  Did Mr. Sewell
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 8 Scott Sewell as the chair of that board, he would bring up when
  
  Trial Tr. v. 1, p. 133, l. 9 one of the career employees had done something that he thought
  ...
  To avoid Sewell appearing as a witness for questioning by Mintzmyer's counsel (for obvious reasons, highlighted during the questioning of another Park Service official, Mr. Barbee, where the issue of Sewell's untrue statements on other environmental issues came up) the government instead repeatedly admitted the falsehoods:
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 9 Scott Sewell. Are you familiar with that individual?
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 208, l. 13 involved with the projects in which Mr. Sewell was also
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 209, l. 23 then that the proffer by the department is that Scott Sewell
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 10 now, your Honor, is that Mr. Sewell intentionally lied with
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 19 additional information beyond Mr. Sewell's lying in this
  
  Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 20 instance. The foundation I have laid about the geothermal
  
  Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 210, l. 21 project is a situation in which Mr. Sewell intentionally
  ...
  Trial Tr. v. 2, p. 211, l. 1 MR. HARTMANN: Simply to show that Mr. Sewell simply

Page:  1 2