not truly representative samples.3. Since Mrs. Silverman chose to bring up what happen on the prior occasions, her mis-statements of the facts require correcting again. Magistrate Judge Nancy Johnsongave the defense a specific time frame until September 16 to count and inspect the
marijuana plants, allowing for the destruction of the plants after that time. The plants werecounted taking the entire week of September 10. What followed next was a series of
Motions and responses ending up with the defense collecting samples of the marijuana onOctober 1, 2012, to be tested by an independent lab.The defense experts arrived first on October 1, 2012, and began to collect samples. All was going well until Mr. Silverman arrived. Mr. Silverman was shown by his expertswhat samples they had collected and Mr. Silverman was visibly upset. The followingconversation occurred in the vault among the marijuana plant with the Agents present.Mr. Silverman stated that he was not pleased. He stated that he wanted samples from theplants that did not contain THC. The expert informed Mr. Silverman that all parts of theplants have THC with various levels of THC being present. Mr. Silverman instructed theexpert to only collect samples from the area of the plants that would not have THC. At thispoint, Mr. Silverman and the experts left DEA to confer and returned a short time later.It seemed that Mr. Silverman and the experts had come to an agreement as to what wasto be collected.Shortly after their return to DEA, the Agent called and informed me that Mr.Silverman wanted to count the plants over again. The plants had already been countedby the same experts taking the full week of September 10. I informed Mr. Silverman over
the telephone that the current Order allowed the taking of samples and not counting.
Case 4:12-cr-00578 Document 213 Filed in TXSD on 10/12/12 Page 3 of 8