Final Part: Judge Lind states that the R.C.M. 802 meeting and subsequent email correspondence also concerned a defense motion to compel discovery, a defense motion to compel deposition, and bill of particulars. Coombs (defense) says that when the defense requested discovery, prosecution said it needed more time, namely three weeks. Coombs (defense) says in an "email dated February 15, 2012 "the court advised the Government that their request for continuance is denied" (I missed Judge Lind exact question to prosecution.) Fein (prosecution) rises and states, "We didn't receive that email." Coombs (defense) rises and says to Judge Lind "in a prosecution email dated February 21, 2012, prosecution again requested a three week continuance…the email (thread) has your denial." Fein (prosecution): "We will look at that." Judge Lind then states that prior to today, defense and prosecution discussed that the next court session was to be March 15 and 16. She states that the date is not firm. The date, she says could be week of March 15 and 16 and would be "solidified next week." Next up the prosecution raises the issue of "classification spillage" when defense filed original motions. Fein (prosecution): When the defense filed the original motions there was spillage of classified info. We had to seek clarification from the original classification authorities (OCAs)…only 2 out of three (not sure if this refers to motions or…?). Coombs (defense): The Government alleges "spillage". Our experts determined there was "no spillage." Based upon…protective order which defense (filed?) the Government unilaterally determines there is "spillage." Coombs (defense) continues and proposes that the court security officer have the ultimate authority, and can consult the OCAs himself. Judge Lind says the matter will be addressed at the next session. Judge Lind brings up the matter of the trial publicity order, a court modified draft of which has been being proposed to counsel. Judge Lind says the trial publicity order "will be resolved by tomorrow." Judge Lind acknowledges the order proposing the court security officer (not signed). (I have in my notes that this individual is EB. I also have in my notes that defense mentions the individual Prather (spelling?) related to the protective order.) Judge Lind then tells defense: Please refrain from ex parte,/em> filing until next session March 15 or 16. She explains to the court that ex parte,/em> filings are where only the judge get to see the motion. There is a discussion concerning defense filing a motion to compel discovery. The defense's ex parte is for the filing, not the motion. This was clarified in court discussion. The defense motion to compel discovery was enormous when passed later from Judge Lind to a hand hidden behind a cubical desk in front of bench. Judge Lind then asks Fein (prosecution) if he wants to address the ex parte filing. FFein (prosecution) has no objection. I believe Judge Lind then says court will counsel on the ex parte filing. Coombs (defense) then brings up the matter of the Government not properly disclosing what evidence it will specifically use against Bradley Manning as required under R.C.M. 304 (D1 I believe) and 311 (Needs verification). He describes how that evidence was provided to defense counsel by the prosecution. He states the ranges are not precise, "There are 29 pages of bates numbers. Three pages of bates number ranges. The requirements are that the Government indicate content (statements etc.) they will use. Giving ranges is not proper disclosure…also requirement is to detail items seized that the Government intends to introduce." Fein (prosecution) rises and states they have complied under 304D1. Mentions there are 41, 821 documents, "Because of the amount of information… most efficient was (their system of finding info). He states that the documents that prosecution included contain statements from "AR from CID." Then he says, there is "no meaningful way to identify these documents so we have ascribed bates numbers…there are 41,000 documents to look at those statements. He continues and states (if I am not mistaken) prosecution did not make exception for duplicates. He says, "US provided individual pieces of seized property by item number from the chain of custody...by bates number…precisely what piece we intend to use." Coombs (defense): That is not the case. Coombs (defense) then gives two examples, "random samples…none of these indicate what the prosecution will introduced of the 29 pages of bates numbers. The Government should be forced to be clear on what statements…what evidence." Judge Lind then says that, "It seems to comply," but she leaves it open for review, "Well I won't say now." Fein (prosecution) then goes through a description of how seized items are identified. "We will provide as much clarity as we can." Judge Lind tells defense that they can raise that issue (namely, the prosecution's vague numbering system, lack of specificity) at another date. Judge Lind then asks the prosecution and defense if they want to supplement court record regarding the R.C.M. 802 meeting, and she brings up seating plans. Fein (prosecution): Moment M'am... Judge Lind: Yes. Fein (prosecution) brings up question of how documents will be marked. Judge Lind then says something regarding document marks and their being made part of the appellate record. Next segment in court concerns the filings by the prosecution and defense, as well as Judge Lind's entry of the filings into the court record Defense lists it's filings. They include: Case Management Order, Protective Order, Motion for Publicity, Motion to Compel Discovery, Motion to Compel Deposition, Bill of Particulars, Ex parte filing in supplement to Motion to Compel Discovery. Judge Lind asks the defense about the court security officer being introduced to the record of the trial. She then asks Government what they are filing. Fein (prosecution) lists filings: US Proposed Trial Calendar, and Protective Order. Judge Lind then says she will handle the filings and then take Bradley Manning's plea. Judge Lind calls the numbers and title for each filings one through nine, and staples them. After each she passes them to a hand in a hidden cubicle in front of bench. The hand passes them back. The hand belongs to a young thirty something African American woman in civilian garb who was also present in the same spot for the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing. I didn't write down the number of each corresponding filing. I do know that number nine was the defense's ex parte filing for supplemental Motion to Compel Discovery. Next up Judge states that the defense requests an open file of email correspondence related and subsequent to the telephonic R.C.M. 802 meeting on February 8, 2012 Fein (prosecution) rises and says he will keep a file. Coombs (defense) rises and states that defense would object to a trial schedule after June 2012 Prosecution has suggested August 3, 2012. Coombs (defense) states the fact that his client has been in pretrial confinement for 635 days, and how many days Bradley Manning will have been in confinement if the proceeding were to occur in August 2012. He states, "Defense has already demanded speedy trial several times. The Government is constantly citing the case's novelty, scale, and difficulty coordinating various agencies." Coombs (defense) then gives an example of when the Government turn around is in 24 hours regarding its own interests. Coombs (defense) states the need for timely progression and his client's due process rights. He concludes, "There is a problem." Fein (prosecution) rises and mentions "realistic trial scheduling." Judge Lind then asks if there is anything else before taking Manning plea. Coombs (defense) rises and stats that Bradley Manning will defer his plea. Judge Lind orders the court in recess till March 15 or 16. As court closes, guards surround the front of the gallery blocking the public from Bradley Manning At that moment David Eberhart, from Code Pink, asks loudly, "Judge, isn't a soldier required to report a war crime?"