United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY RE: DKT. NO. 44
A WESTMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6, 2019, the United States filed a complaint under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3184, seeking to provisionally arrest Defendant Don
Kollmar for extradition to Canada. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On
July 10, 2019, the United States filed its Memorandum in
Support of Extradition. (Extradition Memo., Dkt. No. 39.)
before the Court is Defendant's motion for discovery.
(Def.'s Mot., Dkt. No. 44.) Having considered the
parties' filings, oral arguments, and the relevant legal
authority, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
Defendant's motion for discovery.
6, 2019, the instant criminal complaint was filed, alleging
that Defendant was wanted in Canada. (Compl. ¶ 5.) The
complaint alleged that in 1997, B.B. reported to Canadian law
enforcement that Defendant had sexually assaulted her while
she and her family belonged to a religious group, the
“Students of Light.” (Compl. ¶ 7a.) B.B. was
eleven or twelve when her family first joined, while
Defendant was a member who had a close connection to the
group's leader. (Compl. ¶ 7a.) B.B. stated that
Defendant would spend time alone with her under the guise of
providing her with instruction on the group's beliefs,
but would sexually molest and abuse her starting when she was
twelve or thirteen. (Comp. ¶¶ 7b-c.) On
Mother's Day weekend in 1977, when B.B. was fourteen,
Defendant penetrated her. (Compl. ¶ 7d.)
complaint, B.B. described her relationship with Defendant by
saying that Defendant was a spiritual leader “chosen by
God.” (Compl. ¶ 7e.) She felt like she was
“chosen by God to be with him.” Defendant would
tell B.B. that he intended to marry her once she was sixteen,
and B.B. felt that it was her “responsibility”
and “honour to be with him, and married to him.”
(Compl. ¶ 7e.) When B.B. was sixteen, she reported
Defendant's behavior to her parents. (Compl. ¶ 7f.)
B.B.'s parents consulted with an attorney provided by the
group, who advised them against lodging a formal complaint.
(Compl. ¶ 7f.)
B.B.'s statement to the Canadian authorities in 1997, an
initial arrest warrant for Defendant was issued. (Compl.
¶ 7e.) On November 28, 2018, an Information was sworn
before the Ontario Court of Justice, charging Defendant with:
(1) indecent assault on a female, contrary to the Criminal
Code of Canada (“CCC”) § 149; (2) rape,
contrary to CCC § 143(b)(iii), and (3) rape of a female,
contrary to CCC § 146(2). (Compl. ¶ 6.) On December
24, 2018, an arrest warrant was issued. (Compl. ¶ 7.)
3, 2019, Defendant was arrested in this district. (Dkt. No.
6.) On May 6, 2019, the United States filed a memorandum in
opposition to bail for Defendant. (Dkt. No. 4.) On May 10,
2019, Defendant filed a response regarding bail. (Dkt. No.
9.) In seeking bail, Defendant argued in part that he could
not be extradited on Count 1 or 2 because “there is no
federal analogue to rape by false statements . . . .”
(Id. at 11.) Defendant also argued there was no
federal analogue as to Count 3. (Id.)
17, 2019, the Court granted Defendant release on a secured
bond. (Dkt. No. 28.) On July 10, 2019, the United States
filed a Memorandum in Support of Extradition, stating that
Defendant “is wanted by Canada for trial on charges of
Rape and Indecent Assault, in violation of sections 143, 144,
and 149 of the [CCC].” (Extradition Memo. at 2.) The
Memorandum included an affidavit by Detective Constable
Robert Speakman. (Speakman Aff., Dkt. No. 39-1.) Mr. Speakman
stated that on February 25, 1997, B.B. provided a statement
to Canadian authorities that Defendant had sexually assaulted
her between 1974 and 1978, when B.B. was between the ages of
twelve and sixteen. (Speakman Aff. ¶ 4.) B.B. provided
both an audio-video recorded statement and a written
statement that she had prepared in advance. (Speakman Aff.
on the audio-video recorded statement and her written
statement, Mr. Speakman stated that in 1974, B.B.'s
family became involved in the Students of Light group.
(Speakman Aff. ¶ 5.) Defendant was a “spiritual
advisor” and licensed minister, and the “right
hand assistant” of the group's leader, John Hanas.
(Speakman Aff. ¶ 5.) Defendant began to show a strong
interest in B.B. when she was twelve, and started spending
time alone with her. (Speakman Aff. ¶ 8.) Defendant
would tell B.B. how unique and important he was, and that
B.B. was a very special person. (Speakman Aff. ¶ 8.)
Defendant also told B.B. that he had a “very pure and
unique love” for her, and that he had intended to wait
until she was sixteen years old before approaching her, but
that he could not wait any longer. (Speakman Aff. ¶ 9.)
Defendant emphasized that she should not tell anyone, and
criticized her family, telling her that she had to separate
herself from them. (Speakman Aff. ¶ 11.)
time, Defendant became more abusive, controlling when B.B.
slept, went to the bathroom, brushed her teeth, showered, and
brushed her hair. (Speakman Aff. ¶¶ 12-14.)
Defendant slapped her on three occasions, would threaten to
hit her, and grabbed and twisted her wrist several times.
(Speakman Aff. ¶¶ 15-16.) Defendant would also tell
B.B. that her will or desire “was not valid.”
(Speakman Aff. ¶ 18.) B.B. stated she “felt
paralyzed by fear in [his] presence” and would do what
he wanted to avoid making him upset with her. (Speakman Aff.
¶ 17.) She felt fear even during the time she was away
from Defendant. (Speakman Aff. ¶ 19.)
described how Defendant touched her in a sexual manner,
including when Defendant penetrated her during Mother's
Day weekend in 1977. (Speakman Aff. ¶¶ 20-22, 25,
27, 29, 31, 32.) B.B. further stated that 99% of the time,
Defendant would prelude the sexual assaults by verbally
humiliating and demoralizing her, yelling at her and telling
her that she was stupid, incompetent, worthless, and a
terrible person. (Speakman Aff. ¶ 34.)
1979, arrangements were underway for B.B. to marry Defendant.
(Speakman Aff. ¶ 35.) That month, B.B. lost
consciousness and was taken to the hospital, where she told
her parents about Defendant's abuse. (Speakman Aff.
¶¶ 35-36.) The relationship ended, and Defendant
was “enraged” by the interference of B.B.'s
parents. (Speakman Aff. ¶¶ 36-37.)
allegedly attempted to coerce people into following him
rather than John Hanas; failing at that, he returned to ...