And the first renewal. Per the interview with Supervisiory Special Agent 1 Pg 43

MR. Berger ... So we don't have that original file and that's what creates the problem here, because at the heart of this entire matter and personnel law is notice. Right? Notice, what is expected of him. You're demanding an accounting. How is he to know what he's supposed to do unless he's told per policy what he's supposed to look at? We don't know what that original file alerted him to. So I'm reluctant to have him answer those questions.

MR. BAKER: I'm still confused who this reconstructed one, who reconstructed it. Did he go back in and redo it?

MR. BERGER: We learned and I believe I learned and we learned on Sunday, August 24th that the file that the OIG relied on and the file that we were being shown by the Bureau of Internal Affairs Unit was reconstructed by the case agent. There is a note in the file indicating that it was reconstructed from the original file on May 18, 2018, and where is the original file? We asked. No one knows. That's the one we want to look at.

MR. BAKER: So it was reconstructed from the original file?

MR. BERGER: There is a note. It's a non-sworn note saying this file was reconstructed from an original file. That's what it says in so many words, the same for Renewal No. 1, by the way, which is not involved here, but they run into the same problem. The thing is it was reconstructed. So it really is a hearsay document. So we have Case Agent No. 1 who is saying this is what the original document says and we're supposed to accept that as hearsay with no reliability factor whatsoever.

MR. BAKER: I understand the evidentiary problem. What I don't get is why is somebody reconstructing something from the original when you have the original?

MR. BERGER: That is a mystery that is yet to be resolved.

And the first renewal. Per the interview with Supervisiory Special Agent 1 Pg 43

MR. Berger ... So we don't have that original file and that's what creates the problem here, because at the heart of this entire matter and personnel law is notice. Right? Notice, what is expected of him. You're demanding an accounting. How is he to know what he's supposed to do unless he's told per policy what he's supposed to look at? We don't know what that original file alerted him to. So I'm reluctant to have him answer those questions. MR. BAKER: I'm still confused who this reconstructed one, who reconstructed it. Did he go back in and redo it? MR. BERGER: We learned and I believe I learned and we learned on Sunday, August 24th that the file that the OIG relied on and the file that we were being shown by the Bureau of Internal Affairs Unit was reconstructed by the case agent. There is a note in the file indicating that it was reconstructed from the original file on May 18, 2018, and where is the original file? We asked. No one knows. That's the one we want to look at. MR. BAKER: So it was reconstructed from the original file? MR. BERGER: There is a note. It's a non-sworn note saying this file was reconstructed from an original file. That's what it says in so many words, the same for Renewal No. 1, by the way, which is not involved here, but they run into the same problem. The thing is it was reconstructed. So it really is a hearsay document. So we have Case Agent No. 1 who is saying this is what the original document says and we're supposed to accept that as hearsay with no reliability factor whatsoever. MR. BAKER: I understand the evidentiary problem. What I don't get is why is somebody reconstructing something from the original when you have the original? MR. BERGER: That is a mystery that is yet to be resolved.

And the first renewal.

Per the interview with Supervisiory Special Agent 1 Pg 43

So we don't have that original file and that's what creates the problem here, because at the heart of this entire matter and personnel law is notice. Right? Notice, what is expected of him. You're demanding an accounting. How is he to know what he's supposed to do unless he's told per policy what he's supposed to look at? We don't know what that original file alerted him to. So I'm reluctant to have him answer those questions.

16 MR. BAKER: I'm still confused who this reconstructed one, who reconstructed it. Did he go back in and redo it?

18 MR. BERGER: We learned and I believe I learned and we learned on Sunday, August 24th that the file that the OIG relied on and the file that we were being shown by the Bureau of Internal Affairs Unit was reconstructed by the case agent. There is a note in the file indicating that it was reconstructed from the original file on May 18, 2018, and where is the original file? We asked. No one knows. That's the one we want to look at.

25 MR. BAKER: So it was reconstructed from the original file?

2 MR. BERGER: There is a note. It's a non-sworn note saying this file was reconstructed from an original file. That's what it says in so many words, the same for Renewal No. 1, by the way, which is not involved here, but they run into the same problem. The thing is it was reconstructed. So it really is a hearsay document. So we have Case Agent No. 1 who is saying this is what the original document says and we're supposed to accept that as hearsay with no reliability factor whatsoever.

11 MR. BAKER: I understand the evidentiary problem. What I don't get is why is somebody reconstructing something from the original when you have the original?

14 MR. BERGER: That is a mystery that is yet to be resolved.

And the first renewal.

Per the interview with Supervisiory Special Agent 1 Pg 43

So we don't have that original file and that's what creates the problem here, because at the heart of this entire matter and personnel law is notice. Right? Notice, what is expected of him. You're demanding an accounting. How is he to know what he's supposed to do unless he's told per policy what he's supposed to look at? We don't know what that original file alerted him to. So I'm reluctant to have him answer those questions.

16 MR. BAKER: I'm still confused who this reconstructed one, who reconstructed it. Did he go back in and redo it?

18 MR. BERGER: We learned and I believe I learned and we learned on Sunday, August 24th that the file that the OIG relied on and the file that we were being shown by the Bureau of Internal Affairs Unit was reconstructed by the case agent. There is a note in the file indicating that it was reconstructed from the original file on May 18, 2018, and where is the original file? We asked. No one knows. That's the one we want to look at.

25 MR. BAKER: So it was reconstructed from the original file?

2 MR. BERGER: There is a note. It's a non-sworn note saying this file was reconstructed from an original file. That's what it says in so many words, the same for Renewal No. 1, by the way, which is not involved here, but they run into the same problem. The thing is it was reconstructed. So it really is a hearsay document. So we have Case Agent No. 1 who is saying this is what the original document says and we're supposed to accept that as hearsay with no reliability factor whatsoever.

11 MR. BAKER: I understand the evidentiary problem. What I don't get is why is somebody reconstructing something from the original when you have the original?

14 MR. BERGER: That is a mystery that is yet to be resolved.

And the first renewal.

Per the interview with Supervisiory Special Agent 1 Pg 43

So we don't have that original file and that's what 8 creates the problem here, because at the heart of this entire 9 matter and personnel law is notice. Right? Notice, what is 10 expected of him. 11 You're demanding an accounting. How is he to know what 12 he's supposed to do unless he's told per policy what he's 13 supposed to look at? We don't know what that original file 14 alerted him to. 15 So I'm reluctant to have him answer those questions. 16 MR. BAKER: I'm still confused who this reconstructed 17 one, who reconstructed it. Did he go back in and redo it? 18 MR. BERGER: We learned and I believe I learned and we 19 learned on Sunday, August 24th that the file that the OIG relied 20 on and the file that we were being shown by the Bureau of Internal 21 Affairs Unit was reconstructed by the case agent. There is a 22 note in the file indicating that it was reconstructed from the 23 original file on May 18, 2018, and where is the original file? 24 We asked. No one knows. That's the one we want to look at. 25 MR. BAKER: So it was reconstructed from the original 43 www.trustpoint.one 800.FOR.DEPO www.aldersonreporting.com (800.367.3376) 1 file? 2 MR. BERGER: There is a note. It's a non-sworn note 3 saying this file was reconstructed from an original file. 4 That's what it says in so many words, the same for Renewal No. 5 1, by the way, which is not involved here, but they run into 6 the same problem. 7 The thing is it was reconstructed. So it really is a 8 hearsay document. So we have Case Agent No. 1 who is saying 9 this is what the original document says and we're supposed to 10 accept that as hearsay with no reliability factor whatsoever. 11 MR. BAKER: I understand the evidentiary problem. 12 What I don't get is why is somebody reconstructing something 13 from the original when you have the original? 14 MR. BERGER: That is a mystery that is yet to be 15 resolved.