THE COURT:   WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE NOT IN A

 POSITION TO JUST OBJECT.

     WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IS PROPOSE 

SOMETHING.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   I UNDERSTAND. WHAT I INTENDED TO DO, 

YOUR HONOR, IS FOCUS UNDER 5(F)1.1. THE FOCUS OF THAT -- 

AND THE APPLICATION NOTES ARE INSTRUCTIVE IN THIS REGARD -- 

IT IS NOT ON CONDUCT SO MUCH AS ON OCCUPATION, BUSINESS OR 

PROFESSION, AND I UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY FROM THE COMMENTS OF 

THE COURT LAST TIME BUT FROM THE GIST OF THESE 7 CONDITIONS 

WHAT THE COURT IS CONCERNED ABOUT, AND I AM WELL AWARE OF 

THAT, AND PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE TRIED TO DRAFT SOMETHING.

     THE COURT:   NUMBER 2 COULD READ, "UNLESS APPROVED BY 

HIS PROBATION OFFICER."

     MR. RANDOLPH:   I THINK THAT'S TRUE, YES, YOUR HONOR, 

BUT WHAT WILL THE PROBATION OFFICER USE AS A GUIDELINE FOR 

DETERMINING WHAT IS COMPUTER-RELATED SOFTWARE?

     THE COURT:   I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO YOU.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   I'M SORRY.

     THE COURT:   THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE TURNED INTO A 

PATENT CASE, AND SO WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SUGGEST -- IT

WILL NOT DO TO OBJECT TO WHAT IS A COMPUTER. IT WILL NOT 

DO TO DO THAT.

     THIS IS A CRIMINAL SENTENCE AFTER ALL, AND IT IS 

GOING TO BE INTERPRETED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PATENT 

LAWYERS, AND CONSEQUENTLY, IT MEANS PRETTY MUCH WHAT IT 

SAYS.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   WELL, I WONDER --

     THE COURT:   AND SO IF YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE GOING

TO FILE SOMETHING THAT SAYS, "THIS IS AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE

BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS WHAT A COMPUTER IS," YOU SHOULD PUT

THAT OUT OF YOUR MIND.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   I WAS INTENDING NOT TO SIMPLY OBJECT 

BUT RATHER TO PUT SOMETHING FORWARD.

     THE COURT:   BUT I AM WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER I AM NOW 

GOING TO GET SOME VERY DIFFICULT DEFINITION OF WHAT A 

COMPUTER IS. IT'S A COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD WORD.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   WELL, I THINK IT HAS BEEN, YOUR 

HONOR, UP UNTIL THE LAST 2 YEARS.

     THE COURT:   OH, REALLY.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   NOW WHEN I TURN MY CAR ON, YOUR 

HONOR, I AM OPERATING A COMPUTER.

     THE COURT:   I TOLD YOU IT IS NOT A PATENT CASE. WE

ARE NOT IN A PATENT CASE. THAT KIND OF ARGUMENT IS FINE

EXCEPT THAT WHAT WE HAVE GOT HERE IS A CRIMINAL SENTENCE.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   WELL, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHAT A

PC COMPUTER IS, YOUR HONOR, WHAT THAT ITEM IS, BUT

COMPUTERS ARE NOW USED IN -- FOR INSTANCE, A WAITER IN A

RESTAURANT USES A COMPUTER TO DO A NUMBER OF -- EVERYTHING

FROM SEATING TO COMING UP WITH THE BILL.

     THE COURT:   I SAID THAT YOU COULD SAY IN

HERE, "UNLESS APPROVED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER."

     I REALLY MEAN THIS. I AM NOT IN ANY WAY TO BE TAKEN

LIGHTLY BY HANDING OUT TO YOU CONDITIONS.

     YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THAT HAPPEN BEFORE, HAVE YOU?

     MR. RANDOLPH:   NOT IN THIS COURT, NO.

     THE COURT:   NEVER, NO; NOT ANYWHERE, REALLY.

     WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO IS BE FAIR, BUT I AM NOT 

GOING TO LET YOU GET IN A POSITION WHERE YOU THINK THAT WE

ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER THREE MONTHS OF TALKING

OVER WHAT A COMPUTER IS, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   I WOULD THINK, YOUR HONOR, BASICALLY

ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT WHAT I THINK MY ROLE WOULD BE IS TO

TRY AND THROUGH THE COURT -- THIS BEING MY ONLY OPPORTUNITY

RATHER THAN SOMETIME DOWN THE LINE AFTER I AM NO LONGER

REPRESENTING MR. MITNICK AND THEN THEY GET INTO A SQUABBLE 

OVER WHAT IS THE PROPER DEFINITION -- TO TRY AND JUST GIVE 

SOME DEFINITIONAL POINTS IN THE 7 ITEMS THAT THE COURT HAS 

SET FORTH.

     THE COURT:   WELL, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET

TOGETHER WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO DEFINE THIS.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT IS MY 

RESPONSE. I WOULD LIKE SOME TIME.

     THE COURT:   THAT IS A LOT OF WORK TO DO -- WHAT YOU 

HAVE IN YOUR HAND, AND IT HAS BEEN WHITTLED DOWN AND

REFINED, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET INTO A LONG, LONG

EXCHANGE AS WE WOULD IF WE WERE IN A PATENT CASE IN

DEFINING WHAT A MODUM IS OR DEFINING WHAT A COMPUTER IS.

     MR. MITNICK KNOWS EXACTLY THE IMPORT OF THESE

CONDITIONS, UNDERSTANDS IT PERFECTLY.

     YOU DO; DON'T YOU?

     MR. PAINTER:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

     THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO SAY

ANYTHING?

     MR. PAINTER:   JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. 

     THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT.

     MR. PAINTER:   THERE WERE TWO -- I THINK YOUR HONOR

IS CORRECT. TO THE EXTENT THERE IS ANY QUESTION AS TO WHAT

CONSTITUTES ACCESSING A COMPUTER, THAT COULD BE CURED BY

SIMPLY SAYING "WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE

PROBATION OFFICER."

     THE COURT:   WELL, I DIDN'T OFFER TO DO THAT 

THROUGHOUT.

     MR. PAINTER:   I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR.

     THE COURT:   I ONLY OFFERED TO DO THAT WITH RESPECT

TO SOMETHING WHERE HE IS GOING TO BE EMPLOYED.

     MR. PAINTER:   AND, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THE ONE FOR 

NUMBER 2, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE APPROPRIATE, BUT NUMBER 3 

I READ THAT, AND I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORT OF THAT. I THINK 

THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SUGGEST THAT AFTER THE WORD 

COMMUNICATIONS IT ADDS EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY THIRD 

PARTIES, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE IS A STRICT 

PROHIBITION, ALTHOUGH THAT IS THE IMPORT OF NUMBER ONE, NOT 

OWNING ANYTHING, THAT HE NOT ACCESS THE COMPUTERS HIMSELF, 

SO THAT WOULD JUST BE A STYLISTIC CHANGE.

     THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PROPOSE 2 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 

FOR THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION, ONE THAT WAS A CONDITION OF 

THE ORIGINAL 1989 SUPERVISED RELEASE WHICH IS THAT HE NOT 

ASSOCIATE WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS ENGAGED IN OR KNOWN TO 

HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN COMPUTER OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRAUD, 

AND THE SECOND, YOUR HONOR --

     THE COURT:   IT IS TOO HARD TO ENFORCE.

     MR. PAINTER:   UNDERSTANDABLE, YOUR HONOR, BUT THE 

PROBLEM --

     THE COURT:   TOO HARD TO ENFORCE.

     MR. PAINTER:   THE SECOND SUGGESTION, YOUR HONOR, IS 

TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE, AND YOUR HONOR MAY KNOW OF 

THESE, CONFERENCES, MEETINGS, ETC. DEVOTED TO THE 

DISCUSSION OF COMPUTER HACKING AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

FRAUD, THE DEFENDANT NOT PARTICIPATE IN, NOT ATTEND THOSE 

KINDS OF CONFERENCES OR MEETINGS.

     THE COURT:   TOO HARD TO ENFORCE.

     MR. PAINTER:   OTHER THAN THAT, YOUR HONOR, THE 

GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   YOUR HONOR, MAY I INQUIRE 

SPECIFICALLY IN NUMBER 6, THE WORD ALTERED, DOES THAT REFER 

TO EACH OF THE THREE ITEMS? I THINK THAT IS HOW I WOULD 

INTERPRET IT, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

     THE COURT:   YES. YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE A JOINT

PROPOSAL TO ME.

     NOW HEAR ME. THAT KIND OF FURTHER FILING IS NOT 

ACCEPTABLE. WHATEVER YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE ME IS 2 OR 3 

PAGES LONG AT THE MOST. IT IS A SUGGESTED CHANGE TO WHAT I 

HAVE GIVEN YOU.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   I UNDERSTAND.

     THE COURT:   I HAVE READ AND READ AND READ AND THE 

TAXPAYERS HAVE PAID FOR SERVICES TO GENERATE ALL THAT 

PAPER, AND HAVING READ ALL THAT PAPER I SAY TO YOU WE ARE 

NOW DOWN TO THE SENTENCING, AND I TOLD YOU WHAT THE NUMBER 

OF MONTHS WOULD BE. I TOLD YOU THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT 

THE CONDITIONS. I HAVE HANDED OUT COPIES OF THE 

CONDITIONS. I WILL NOT NOW ACCEPT HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF 

PAPER GENERATED ON BOTH SIDES.

     WE ARE NOT AS I SAID, AND THIS IS THE SIXTH TIME I 

HAVE SAID IT, WE ARE NOT IN A PATENT CASE.

     NOW, YOU CAN HAVE UNTIL WEDNESDAY TO GIVE ME YOUR

SUGGESTED VERSION OF THE CONDITIONS -- BOTH OF YOU CAN. 

THURSDAY - LET'S MAKE IT THURSDAY. WE WILL CONTINUE THIS 

ONE WEEK AND ON THAT DAY WE WILL CLOSE IT OFF.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   YOUR HONOR, NEXT WEEK I HAVE PLANS TO 

BE WITH MY FAMILY OUT OF TOWN.

     THE COURT:   THEN WE WILL DO IT FRIDAY.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   MAY I HAVE A MOMENT PLEASE, YOUR

HONOR.

     MR. PAINTER:   FRIDAY IS FINE WITH THE GOVERNMENT,

YOUR HONOR.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   FRIDAY IS FINE, YOUR HONOR.

     THE COURT:   FRIDAY AT 1:30. NOW HAVING ARGUED 

ENDLESSLY ABOUT WHAT THE WORD "ABSCOND" MEANS AND HAVING 

ARGUED ENDLESSLY ABOUT WHAT A FUGITIVE IS, I DO NOT PLAN TO 

ARGUE ENDLESSLY ABOUT WHAT A COMPUTER IS.

     MR. PAINTER:   WE UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR.

     THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

     MR. RANDOLPH:   THANK YOU.