Rule 6 lists those persons who may be present before the grand jury; the list includes "[a]ttorneys for the government." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(d). In addition, Rule 7 states that the Indictment "shall be signed by the attorney for the government." Fed. R. Crim. P. 7 (c) (1) . "Attorney for the government" is a term of art defined in Rule 54 as "the Attorney General, an authorized assistant of the Attorney General, a United States Attorney, an authorized assistant of a United States Attorney . . Fed. R. Crim. P. 54(c). Thus, in order to comply with Rules 6 and 7, an Indictment must be obtained, and signed by either the Attorney General, a United States Attorney, or, as is usually the case, an "authorized assistant." In this case, SAUSA Boyd is not an "authorized assistant," and therefore, Rules 6 and 7 have been violated.

Indeed, in United States v. Hawthorne, 449 F. Supp. 1048, 1056 (S.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 626 F.2d 87 (9th Cir. 1980), Judge Thompson held that although SAUSAs do not need specific authorization from the Attorney General to appear before grand juries, they do need such authorization from the United States Attorney's Office. Any showing of authorization will require proof that SAUSA Boyd was receiving compensation for his services. See 31 U.S.C. In this case, there is no showing that SAUSA Boyd received such authorization.'- As a result, the Indictment should be dismissed because SAUSA Boyd's lack of authorization goes to the very jurisdiction of this Court. See United States v. Providence Journal Co., 485 U.S. 693, 708 (1988) ("Absent a proper representative of the Government as a petitioner in this criminal prosecution, jurisdiction is lacking United States v. Durham, 941 F.2d 886, 892 (9th Cir. 1991) ("In every case addressing the authority of a Special Assistant United States Attorney the jurisdiction of the district court was in question.") ; United States v. Navarro, 959 F. Supp. 1273 (E. D. Cal. 199-7) ("where an attorney, acting essentially without supervision who is not authorized to represent the United States presents the case to the grand jury, or perhaps otherwise conducts all of the proceedings, a jurisdictional defect is tendered and the proceedings are a nullity") ; United States v. Mendoza, 957 F. Supp. 1155 (E.D. Cal. 1997) (distinguishing between unauthorized appearance of SAUSA at post-indictment proceedings and unauthorized appearance before the grand jury and concluding that the former is not a jurisdictional defect but the latter is).

§ 1342 ("An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.") .

C:\wwwfpd\jurisdic.wpd