Full opinion text
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ERICKSON, United States Magistrate Judge. I.Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a general assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), upon the following pretrial Motions of the Defendants: 1. The Motion of the Defendants Harold “Skip” Finn (“Finn”) and Daniel Brown (“Brown”) that the government agents retain their rough notes; 2. The Motion of Finn and Brown to compel the production of Sentencing Guidelines information; 3. The Motion of Finn and Brown for the disclosure of Jencks Act materials; 4. The Motion of Finn and Brown for the disclosure of Rule 404(b) evidence; 5. The Motion of Finn and Brown for discovery and inspection, and the Motion of the Defendant Alfred “Tig” Pemberton (“Pemberton”) and Brown for the disclosure of government witnesses; 6. The Motion of Finn and Brown for the disclosure of evidence favorable to the respective Defendant; 7. The Motion of Finn for the disclosure of post-conspiracy statements of co-Defendants; 8. The Defendants’ Motion for a Bill of Particulars; 9. The Motion of Finn and Brown to compel the immediate disclosure of expert witness summaries; 10. The Motion of Finn and Brown for the disclosure of Grand Jury instructions, minutes and transcript, or for an in camera review of the same; 11. The Defendants’ Motion to dismiss and/or strike all references to actions to defraud the State of Minnesota of sales tax; 12. The Motion of the Defendants Pem-berton and Brown for severance and for separate trials; 13. The Motion of Pemberton to bifurcate the forfeiture proceedings; 14. The Motion of Pemberton for leave to issue Rule 17(c) subpoenas without a particularized showing to the Court; 15. The Motion of Brown to affirm or deny the Government’s use of electronic surveillance; 16. The Defendants’ Motion for the suppression of physical evidence and statements; 17. The Defendants’ Motion to dismiss the indictment for want of subject matter jurisdiction; 18. The Motion of Finn and Pemberton to dismiss Counts 2 through 9 and 26; 19. The Motion of Finn and Pemberton to dismiss Counts 10,11,13 and 14; 20. The Motion of Finn and Pemberton to dismiss Count 12; 21. The Motion of Finn to dismiss Counts 15 through 19; and the Motion of Pember-ton to dismiss Count 19; and 22. The Motion of Finn and Brown to dismiss Counts 21 and 22, and the Motion of Pemberton to dismiss Counts 20 through 22. A Hearing on the Motions was conducted on August 80, 1995, at which time Finn appeared by Douglas A. Kelley and Steven E. Wolter, Esqs.; Pemberton appeared by Bruce H. Hanley, Esq.; Brown appeared by Kevin J. Short, Esq.; and the Government appeared by Paul A. Murphy and Michael W. Ward, Assistant United States Attorneys. As to the Motions which remained for resolution at the close of the Hearing in this matter, we either deny the Motions or we recommend that they be denied. II. Findings of Fact By a 26-Count Indictment that was filed on June 7, 1995, the Defendants are charged with participating in a conspiracy to steal and misapply money, including Federal funds, belonging to the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Indians (“Leech Lake Band”), in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 371. The Defendants are further accused of using the mails, and Finn and Pemberton are each accused of having engaged in money laundering, in furtherance of that conspiracy. Moreover, all of the Defendants are accused of impeding an investigation that was then being conducted by the United States Department of the Interior. Accordingly, in addition to one Count of conspiracy, Finn has been charged with three Counts of mail fraud, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346 and 2; with nine Counts of embezzlement and theft from an Indian Tribal Organization (“ITO”), in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1163; with four Counts of theft from a program that has received Federal funds, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 666; with one Count of bribery involving a program that has obtained Federal funds, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 666 and 2; with five Counts of money laundering, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1957; and with one Count of obstructing the due administration of justice by a Federal Grand Jury, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Along with one Count of conspiracy, Pem-berton has been charged with three Counts of mail fraud, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346, and 2; with one Count of embezzlement and theft from an ITO, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1163; with one Count of theft from a program that has received Federal funds, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 666; with one Count of bribery involving a program that has obtained Federal funds, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 666 and 2; with one Count of money laundering, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1957; and with one Count of knowingly and willfully making a false statement, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Brown, in addition to the conspiracy Count, has been charged with three Counts of mail fraud, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346, and 2; and with one Count of knowingly and willfully making a false statement, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001. In addition, the Indictment includes forfeiture allegations against Finn and Pemberton, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 982(a) and Title 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). The events which precipitated these charges, and which are germane to the Motions before the Court, may be briefly summarized. Due to an increase in insurance premiums, the Leech Lake Band initiated a self-insurance program in August of 1985. On October 1, 1985, the Leech Lake Reservation Business Committee (“RBC”) created a self-insurance plan, the purpose of which was to establish accounts for the collection of tribal funds to be used in the payment of liability claims. Pursuant to this plan, the RBC, through the passage of a tribal resolution, established Reservation Risk Management, Inc., (“RRM — Tribal Corp.”) to manage the self-insurance plan. Finn encouraged the creation of RRM — -Tribal Corp., and Pemberton and Brown voted for the tribal resolution by which that corporation was created. In October of 1985, RRM — Tribal Corp. issued a ten-year insurance policy to the RBC. Finn signed his name on the policy, and also signed the initials “/kb,” as RRM— Tribal Corp.’s authorized representative. As legal counsel for the Leech Lake Band, Finn explained the insurance policies to the RBC on October 29,1985 and, shortly thereafter, as an agent of RRM—Tribal Corp., Finn issued an insurance binder. The binder represented the insurance coverage that was protecting the RBC in the event of a loss. The Government contends, however, that the Defendants knew that they did not have sufficient means, either in RRM—Tribal Corp. or in any other corporate enterprise, to provide the liability protection that they had promised to underwrite. On January 14, 1986, the RBC obligated itself to make payments to RRM—Tribal Corp., in exchange for insurance coverage. Finn, acting as its President, executed the Agreement on behalf of RRM—Tribal Corp., while Pemberton, as Secretary-Treasurer, and Hartley White (“White”), as the Committee’s Chairperson, approved the Agreement on behalf of the RBC. On November 5, 1985, Finn, along with Pemberton and White, who was still acting as the Chairperson of the RBC, executed a “Pre-Organization Subscription Agreement of Reservation Risk Management, Inc.” White, on behalf of the RBC, subscribed to the purchase of 250 shares in RRM—Tribal Corp. for $62,500, and Finn subscribed to the purchase of 750 shares in RRM—Tribal Corp. for $187,500. Finn never paid the amount agreed upon and, more importantly, RRM—Tribal Corp. never issued any shares. On January 14, 1986, Finn and Pemberton issued stock certificate number 001, in the name of the RBC, for 250 shares, and stock certificate number 002, in the name of Harold Finn, for 750 shares. In contrast to the subscription Agreement, the shares were not issued as the stock of RRM—Tribal Corp., however, but were shares of Reservation Risk Management, Inc., which was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (“RRM—Minnesota Corp”). Nevertheless, RRM—Minnesota Corp. was not formed until March 18, 1986. According to the Indictment, RRM—Minnesota Corp. was created as a shell corporation in furtherance of the Defendants’ conspiracy. On that same day—January 14, 1986— Finn, Pemberton and White executed a “Shareholder’s Agreement” between the RBC and RRM—Tribal Corp. Amongst its other provisions, the Agreement “required that the RBC make payments to RRM, Inc. in exchange for the insurance coverage * * *, which coverage the defendants then knew did not exist.” In addition, the Agreement provided, in part, that the “reserves in Fund C shall belong to the shareholders of RRM and cannot be distributed unless the parties (RBC and Finn) mutually agree to modification of this Agreement or dissolution of RRM.” As noted, no stock in RRM— Tribal Corp. was ever issued. Although White, on behalf of the RBC, and Finn, personally, subscribed to the purchase of shares in RRM — Tribal Corp., RBC and Finn were issued shares in RRM — Minnesota Corp. On January 15, 1987, Finn drafted, on RBC stationery, a letter by which Pemberton and Brown were appointed to serve on the Board of Directors for RRM — Tribal Corp. The first meeting of the incorporators was held at Walker, Minnesota, on February 4, 1987, at which time the Defendants elected themselves, along with Sally Pemberton and Teri Finn, to the Board of Directors of RRM — Tribal Corp. In addition, the Board adopted the “By-Laws of the Reservation Risk Management, Inc., a corporation of the Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians,” and Finn was elected President, Pemberton was elected Secretary-Treasurer, and Brown was elected Vice-President of the corporation. On February 10 and 20, 1987, Finn obtained, by proxy, Teri Finn’s and Sally Pemberton’s votes as members of RRM — Tribal Corp.’s Board of Directors. Thereafter, Finn controlled three of the five votes held by RRM— Tribal Corp.’s Board. On March 13, 1987, Finn and Pemberton issued stock certificate 003 for 630 shares of RRM — Minnesota Corp. to Finn, certificate 004 for 72 shares to Pemberton, and certificate 005 for 48 shares to Brown. On April 9, 1987, the Board of Directors of RRM— Tribal Corp. approved the transfer of 120 shares from Finn to Pemberton and Brown. In recording this transaction, Finn noted that stock certificate 002 for 750 shares in RRM — Minnesota Corp. was cancelled and replaced by certificates 003, 004 and 005. The stock certificates were then distributed at the July 1, 1987, Board of Directors meeting. On December 29, 1987, Finn marked the certificates issued to Pemberton and Brown “canceled 12/29/87” and indicated that certificate 003 was increased to 750 shares. On January 28,1986, Finn opened the first of at least five accounts at the First National Bank of Walker. Each account carried the taxpayer identification number of the RBC as the owner of the account. From October of 1985 through 1990, the Leech Lake Band deposited an estimated $1.5 million into these accounts. By letter dated June 12, 1987, which was addressed to Burton Howard as the Controller of the RBC, Finn suspended the RBC’s insurance coverage. Finn based the suspension on the RBC’s failure to make timely premium payments, and he advised that, if RBC did not cure its default by August 1, 1987, then RRM, Inc. would close the RBC account. On September 30, 1987, Finn advised the RBC that RRM, Inc. had exercised its forfeiture rights over the reserved fund equity that was owned by the RBC. Finn noted that RBC had paid $330,419 of the $400,000 premium and that RBC’s insurance remained suspended. By letter dated October 7, 1987, Finn acknowledged receipt of a portion of the amount owed, submitted an invoice in the amount of $400,000 — which represented the next year’s premium payment — and advised the RBC that its insurance would remain suspended until the RBC paid a $75,000 advance premium. On November 20, 1987, the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”), Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), advised Henry Moller, who was then auditing the Leach Lake Band accounts, that it was seeking more information concerning RRM, Inc. and its relationship to the Leech Lake Band. In particular, the OIG inquired about: 1. The Leech Lake Band’s ownership interest in RRM, Inc.; 2. Whether RRM, Inc., was chartered in Minnesota and licensed to perform insurance services in the State; 3. Whether any elected officials of the Leech Lake Band stood to profit from its relationship with RRM, Inc.; and 4. Whether any liability claims had been filed. In response to this request, Finn stated, in a letter to Moller dated February 18, 1988, that “Reservation Risk Management, Inc. is a privately owned, state chartered corporation.” Finn also related that the RBC held a 25% interest in RRM, Inc., and he enclosed a copy of the Articles of Incorporation for RRM — Minnesota Corp. On April 24, 1989, Brown and, on May 3, 1989, Pemberton, signed a letter explaining certain aspects of the relationship between RBC and RRM, Inc. In relevant part, Brown and Pemberton represented that there were no RBC elected officials who had exercised control or who had shared in the profits of RRM, and that no property insurance premiums were charged to any grant program. On June 12, 1989, in response to a Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) advisory, which warned about fraudulent practices by insurance carriers, Brown notified the BIA Area Director that, although the RBC had previously obtained permission to contract with unlicensed insurance carriers, the RBC would immediately seek to obtain coverage from a licensed insurance carrier. According to the allegations of the Indictment, these statements of the Defendants, among others, were false and, in some instances, were intended to impede a lawful governmental investigation. On March 29, 1990, the RBC accepted a proposal from RRM, Inc. to provide risk management services. The RBC authorized Brown and Pemberton to execute a contract for such services, which would be retroactive to October 1, 1989. However, on April 13, 1990, Finn notified the RBC that RRM, Inc. would not provide the risk management services. Finn also transmitted an invoice to the RBC, in the amount of $30,000 that charged for insurance services from October 1,1989 to March 31,1990. The Indictment also describes a lengthy series of transactions in which the Defendants are alleged to have unlawfully obtained money and properties that were owned by the Leech Lake Band and, in some instances, were obtained from Federal grants. The Indictment contends that these funds were unlawfully spent for the personal benefit of one or more of the Defendants. In this respect, the conspiracy Count generally portrays repeated occasions in which Finn, Brown, and Pemberton acquired funds, which the Band had deposited in the accounts at the First National Bank of Walker, for the purchase of liability insurance coverage. As but one example, the Government has invoked the Federal mail fraud statutes on the basis of the application for certificates of title on two boats that Finn is purported to have purchased with proceeds obtained from the conspiracy. Mail fraud is also alleged on the ground that Finn caused a retailer of one of the boats to file a false sales tax return. The remaining Counts specifically refer to the purported conspiratorial scheme and describe the Defendants’ conduct as it relates to the scheme. The details of the transactions, which comprise the substantive Counts of the Indictment, will be addressed in conjunction with the pertinent Motions of the Defendants. On the basis of this Record, the Defendants challenge the Indictment as being without a Federal jurisdictional basis, and they move to suppress the evidence that relates to the alleged money laundering, as having been collected by a Federal agent who was without investigatory jurisdiction. In addition, the Defendants move to dismiss one Count, and to strike all references relating to an alleged scheme to defraud the State of Minnesota of sales taxes, on the ground that the underlying purchases were exempt from State taxation. Lastly, the Defendants move to dismiss various other Counts of the Indictment as failing to state chargeable Federal offenses. III. Discussion For ease of reference, we first address the Motions which most properly lie within our non-dispositive, pretrial jurisdiction, and we then address the Motions which are the subject of our Recommendations. A. Motions Subject to Section 636(b)(1)(A) Jurisdiction. 1. Motions to Sever. As a general proposition, the join-der of Defendants in a multiple charge Indictment is permissible where the offenses, of which the Defendants are charged, involve a common activity that embraces all of the charged offenses, even though every Defendant has not participated in all of the activities, and has not been charged with every single offense. Rule 8(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; United States v. O’Connell, 841 F.2d 1408 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1210, 108 S.Ct. 2857, 101 L.Ed.2d 893 (1988). Moreover, “[tjhere is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together.” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 536, 113 S.Ct. 933, 937, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993); United States v. Payne, 923 F.2d 595, 597 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1219, 111 S.Ct. 2830, 115 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1991). Stated somewhat more dogmatically, “[r]arely, if ever, will it be improper for co-conspirators to be tried together.” United States v. Dijan, 37 F.3d 398, 402 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1418, 131 L.Ed.2d 302 (1995), quoting United States v. Wint, 974 F.2d 961, 968 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1062, 113 S.Ct. 1001, 122 L.Ed.2d 151 (1992); United States v. Stephenson, 924 F.2d 753, 762 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 813, 112 S.Ct. 63, 116 L.Ed.2d 39 (1991), quoting United States v. Drew, 894 F.2d 965, 968 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1089, 110 S.Ct. 1830, 108 L.Ed.2d 959 (1990). Even if joinder is technically proper, however, Rule 14, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides relief if specific prejudice is claimed to arise from a joint Trial. In this respect, Rule 14 provides: If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. In ruling on a motion by a defendant for severance the court may order the attorney for the government to deliver to the court for inspection in camera any statements or confessions made by the defendants which the government intends to introduce in evidence at the trial. A Defendant “can show real prejudice either by showing that [his] defense is irreconcilable with the defense of [his] codefendant or co-defendants or that the jury will be unable to compartmentalize the evidence as it relates to separate defendants.” United States v. Jackson, 64 F.3d 1213, 1217 (8th Cir.1995), quoting United States v. Gutberlet, 939 F.2d 643, 645 (8th Cir.1991). Both Pemberton and Brown request a severance of their respective Trials from each of the others. Pemberton contends that the offenses are not properly joined under Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that the Defendants are not properly joined under Rule 8(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In addition, both Pem-berton and Brown contend that they will suffer prejudice from their joint Trial and, therefore, relief pursuant to Rule 14, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is warranted. Under the settled law of this Circuit, whei’e, as here, the case involves jointly indicted Defendants, a claim that offenses have been misjoined is analyzed under Rule 8(b). See, United States v. Jones, 880 F.2d 55 (8th Cir.1989) (in cases involving jointly indicted multiple defendants, “the propriety of the initial joinder is governed by 8(b)”). See also, 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 144, at 494 (2d Ed.1982) (quoted in United States v. Jones, supra) (“It is firmly established in the case law that the propriety of joinder in cases where there are multiple defendants must be tested by Rule 8(b) alone and that Rule 8(a) has no application.”). The significant difference between the two sections is that Rule 8(a) permits joinder of offenses of “the same or similar character” and Rule 8(b) does not. Pemberton alleges a misjoinder because, in his view, not all of the offenses charged in the Indictment arose out of the “same series of acts or transactions.” The Courts have interpreted this language to require some common activity, that involves all of the Defendants and that embraces all of the charged offenses, but it is not necessary for each Defendant to have participated in each act or transaction within that series of events. See, United States v. O’Connell, supra at 1431; United States v. Andrade, 788 F.2d 521, 529 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 963, 107 S.Ct. 462, 93 L.Ed.2d 408 (1986). Here, fairly read, the Indictment reveals a basis for joinder on its face. See, United States v. Andrade, supra (“Generally, the propriety of the joinder must appear on the face of the indictment”.). Pemberton was joined with Finn and Brown in a single Count of conspiracy — the object of which, assertedly, was to steal money from the Leech Lake Band, to defraud the State of Minnesota of sales tax revenue, and to conceal the conspiracy. In furtherance of this objective, one or more of the Defendants are charged with using the mails, engaging in money laundering activities, and uttering false statements. Unquestionably, these allegations are sufficient to denote the Government’s belief that the Defendants participated “in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses” so as to render their joinder proper. Rule 8(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; see also, United States v. Houston, 892 F.2d 696 (8th Cir.1989) (joinder proper where Indictment charged all of the Defendants with participation in a single conspiracy, and charged several of the Defendants with various substantive counts arising from the same conspiracy). Next, Pemberton joins Brown in arguing that, even if their joinder was technically proper; each Defendant is entitled to severance under Rule 14, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. As noted, Rule 14 authorizes a Trial Court to grant a severance if a Defendant would be prejudiced by a joint Trial. In order to prevail under Rule 14, Pemberton and Brown must each make a showing of real prejudice to themselves individually. In this respect, Pemberton and Brown urge severance on the ground that each has a defense which is inconsistent and antagonistic to the other Defendants. In particular, Pemberton contends that he will claim that he relied upon the advice of Finn who served as the Band’s legal counsel. Pemberton does not relate, however, how he relied on Finn’s advice, nor how his defenses would be irreconcilable with any evidence that Finn or Brown might proffer. See, United States v. Robinson, 774 F.2d 261, 267 (8th Cir.1985) (to establish prejudice, a defendant must at least show that the defenses were irreconcilable). Moreover, “[mjutually antagonistic defenses are not prejudicial per se.” Zafiro v. United States, supra at 538, 113 S.Ct. at 938. Rather, severance should be granted only if there is “a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.” Id. Here, the Court has not been presented with any contention that any of the Defendants will testify to the innocence of the others, or that any of the Defendants will be precluded from proffering exculpatory testimony in favor of any co-Defendant. While, in a eonclusory fashion, Pemberton asserts that evidence may be introduced at a joint trial that would not be admissible at individual severed trial proceedings, such a bald assertion is unavailing as the Courts have consistently declined to grant severance in the absence of a particularized showing of prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 549 F.2d 517, 524, n. 4 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 985, 97 S.Ct. 1682, 52 L.Ed.2d 379 (1977). In order to obtain a severance on this ground, “a defendant must show that the codefendant is likely to testify at a separate trial and that the testimony would substantially exculpate him.” United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541, 553 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 363, 130 L.Ed.2d 316 (1994), citing United States v. DeLuna, 763 F.2d 897, 920 (8th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 980, 106 S.Ct. 382, 88 L.Ed.2d 336 (1985). Moreover, even if we were to assume the likelihood of exculpatory testimony from a co-Defendant, severance is not required. As stated in United States v. Foote, 920 F.2d 1395, 1399-1400 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 946, 111 S.Ct. 2246, 114 L.Ed.2d 487 (1991): The question of whether severance should be granted cannot be answered in isolation by considering only the allegedly exculpatory evidence. The answer comes from examining the underlying acts which support the charges levied against the defendants, the nature of the evidence which the government has to prove those charges, and finally the nature of the exculpatory evidence. The last item should be able to meet and genuinely call into doubt the second by more than mere denial before the government is required to make separate and duplicative cases against co-conspirators. Moreover, we are unpersuaded by the Defendants’ contention that the Jury will be unable to separate the evidence against each of them. At this preliminary juncture, we have .not been presented with any cogent showing that the evidence at Trial will be so complex or confusing that the Jury will be unable to make individualized guilt determinations, or that the Jury will be disposed to cumulate the evidence against each Defendant. Rather, it appears to us that the roles played by each of the Defendants were sufficiently distinct to enable the jury, on proper instruction, to compartmentalize the evidence against each Defendant. See, Zafiro v. United States, supra at 540, 113 S.Ct. at 939 (even if there were some risk of prejudice, that risk was cured by the Court’s use of instructions to the Jury); United States v. Thornberg, 844 F.2d 573, 579 (8th Cir.1988) (limiting instructions “does much to reduce the prejudice against a defendant in a joint trial”), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1240, 108 S.Ct. 2913, 101 L.Ed.2d 944 (1988). The remaining arguments of Pemberton, for a severance of his Trial, may be summarily addressed. He asserts that he will be prejudiced because of the overwhelming evidence that relates exclusively to Finn. Nevertheless, there is no requirement that, in order to allow a joint Trial, the evidence against each defendant must be quantitatively or qualitatively equivalent. United States v. Jones, supra at 63, citing United States v. O’Connell, supra at 1432. Similarly, we reject his claim to severance on the ground that “significant Bruton issues” exist in this case, because he provided several statements to the Government. In Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), the Supreme Court held that the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s statement, which inculpated a defendant by name, violated the Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, even if a cautionary instruction were to be given to the Jury. However, as our Court of Appeals has stated, “the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a non-testifying eodefendant’s confession * * * when * * * the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant’s name, but any reference to his or her existence.” United States v. Comeaux, 955 F.2d 586, 590 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 845, 113 S.Ct. 135, 121 L.Ed.2d 89 (1992) (quoting United States v. Donahue, 948 F.2d 438, 443 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 976, 112 S.Ct. 1600, 118 L.Ed.2d 314 (1992) (in turn quoting Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 1709, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987))). Here, the Government has represented that any issues, which arise from the Court’s holding in Bruton, may be properly resolved by redacting those statements that were made by a Defendant so as not to implicate any co-Defendant. We agree. Lastly, we would observe that the evidence before us is sufficient to confirm that each Defendant is accused of being involved in the same course of criminal conduct, and that no “showing of real prejudice” has been presented such as would properly outweigh the obvious judicial economy that a joint Trial would achieve. United States v. Roach, 28 F.3d 729, 738 (8th Cir.1994); United States v. Garrett, 961 F.2d 743, 746 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Givens, 712 F.2d 1298, 1300 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1009, 104 S.Ct. 1005, 79 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984). As a consequence, we deny the Motion of Pember-ton and Brown to sever. 2. Motion for a Bill of Particulars. A Bill of Particulars is intended to permit a Defendant “to identify with sufficient particularity the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling the defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense.” United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir.1987) (per curiam); see also, United States v. Arenal, 768 F.2d 263, 268 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Miller, 543 F.2d 1221, 1224 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1108, 97 S.Ct. 1142, 51 L.Ed.2d 561 (1977). However, a Bill of Particulars is not intended to be a substitute for discovery, nor is it designed to provide information which the Defendant might regard as generally helpful, but which is not essential to his defense. United States v. Wessels, 12 F.3d 746, 750 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 105, 130 L.Ed.2d 53 (1994), citing United States v. Hester, 917 F.2d 1083, 1084 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Matlock, 675 F.2d 981, 986 (8th Cir.1982) (“Acquisition of evidentiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.”); United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919, 99 S.Ct. 2843, 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979); United States v. Little, 562 F.2d 578, 581 (8th Cir.1977); United States v. Chevalier, 776 F.Supp. 853, 856 (D.Vt.1991); United States v. Guerrerio, 670 F.Supp. 1215, 1224 (S.D.N.Y.1987). In sum, “[t]he purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges against him and to prevent or minimize the element of surprise at trial.” United States v. Matlock, supra quoting United States v. Miller, supra. The Bill should not issue where the specifics requested by the Defendants are readily available elsewhere. United States v. Bortnovsky, supra at 574; United States v. Chevalier, supra at 853. With these precepts in mind, we address Finn’s Motion, as adopted by Brown and Pemberton, for a Bill of Particulars. The Defendants seek a particularization of those Counts in the Indictment which allege a conspiracy, money laundering activities, and mail fraud. As an illustration, the Defendants have requested a specification, beyond the particulars of the Indictment, of the identities of the other participants in the conspiracy, and the dates and locations of the particular acts in which each is alleged to have participated. In addressing this request, we have reviewed the allegations of the Indictment and we find them to be sufficient in informing the Defendants of the nature of the charges against them. United States v. Sileven, 985 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir.1993) (District Court properly denied Bill of Particulars where the Indictment sufficiently informed the Defendant of the nature of the charges against him). As we have noted, the Defendants are charged in 26 Counts of an Indictment, that spans 68 pages and that delineates, in substantial detail, a progression of overt acts. With respect to the conspiracy Count, the Indictment is specific as to the objects of the conspiracy, as well as to the means by which the conspiracy is said to have been accomplished. See, United States v. Persico, 621 F.Supp. 842, 868 (N.Y.1985) (“Details as to how and when the conspiracy was formed or when each participant entered it, need not be revealed before trial.”). As to those Counts which have alleged a money laundering enterprise, we note that dates, amounts, and localities have been presented for each alleged offense. Likewise, the mail fraud Counts describe the dates and the specific objects that the Defendants, purportedly, had caused to be mailed. Although the allegations are not as detailed as the Defendants may prefer, that is not the test we apply. A Bill of Particulars serves an essential function in eliminating surprise, but the Bill was not designed to substitute for pretrial discovery. Accordingly, absent a showing of need, we find no basis to Order the provision of a Bill of Particulars for, to do so, would be to acquiesce in a particularized discovery, in the guise of a supplementation of an Indictment, which is well beyond the province of the Bill. We, therefore, deny the Defendants’ Motion for a Bill of Particulars. 3. Motion For The Disclosure Of Grand Jury Instructions, Minutes And Transcript, Or For An In Camera Review Of The Same. The disclosure of Grand Jury minutes is encompassed within Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(ii), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Rule provides that a disclosure of the Grand Jury materials may be made “when permitted by a court at the request of the defendant, upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury.” To secure grand jury materials, however, the defendant must show a “particularized need” for the information. See, United States v. Broyles, 37 F.3d 1314, 1319 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1441, 131 L.Ed.2d 320 (1995); United States v. Warren, 16 F.3d 247, 253 (8th Cir.1994). A “particularized need” is demonstrated by the presentation of “specific evidence of prosecutorial overreaching.” United States v. Lame, 716 F.2d 515, 518 (1983). As a consequence, a defendant who “has not pointed to anything in the record which might suggest that the prosecution has engaged in improper conduct before the grand jury” has failed to carry his burden. Id., quoting United States v. Edelson, 581 F.2d 1290, 1291 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908, 99 S.Ct. 1216, 59 L.Ed.2d 456 (1979). Here, Finn makes two assertions in the way of a particularized need. First, he suggests that access to the Grand Jury materials would be relevant in determining whether the Government properly apprised the Grand Jury of exculpatory evidence. In this respect, Finn believes that the obstruction of justice charge has been premised upon the testimony that was presented to the Grand Jury by the RBC controller who, according to Finn, may have altered his testimony on occasion. Since more than one Grand Jury may have received evidence on this matter, Finn claims that he is entitled to the Grand Jury materials in order to determine whether the Grand Jury was fully apprised of the witness’s “lack of candor.” We disagree. The rule is well-settled that a defendant may not challenge an Indictment on the ground that evidence favorable to a defendant had not been presented to the Grand Jury. See, United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 46, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 1742, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) (District Court may not dismiss Indictment on ground that the Government failed to disclose to Grand Jury “substantial exeulpatoiy evidence” in its possession); United States v. Boykin, 679 F.2d 1240, 1246 (8th Cir.1982) (defendant “may not challenge an indictment on the ground that information which he considered favorable to his defense was not presented to the grand jury”). A Grand Jury proceeding is not a mini-Trial, United States v. Civella, 666 F.2d 1122, 1127 (8th Cir.1981) and, as the Supreme Court observed in Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363, 76 S.Ct. 406, 408, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956), “[a]n indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of charge on the merits.” In addition, Finn seeks the instructions that were given to the Grand Jury, and that related to the definition of an ITO. As Finn emphasizes, an essential element of a Section 1163 offense is the presence of an ITO as a victim of the asserted criminal conduct. In support of his request, Finn relies on United States v. White Horse, 807 F.2d 1426 (8th Cir.1986), in which the Court reversed a defendant’s conviction, under Section 1163, because the Trial Court instructed the Jury that the entity involved was an ITO. Accordingly, Finn requests access to the Grand Jury’s instructions in order to ensure that the Grand Jury was properly allowed to make a determination, on the ITO element, for itself. Nevertheless, we find Finn’s reliance on United States v. White Horse to be misplaced. Under the prevailing law of this Circuit, the prosecutor is not under an obligation to provide the Grand Jury with any legal instructions. See, United States v. Zangger, 848 F.2d 923, 925 (8th Cir.1988) (Indictment should not have been dismissed because of prosecutor’s failure to instruct the Grand Jury on the applicable law of obscenity). See also, United States v. Buchanan, 787 F.2d 477, 487 (10th Cir.1986) (rejecting an attack on an erroneous legal instruction that had been provided to the Grand Jury). Therefore, a challenge to an instruction to the Grand Jury is not a proper basis for the dismissal of an Indictment that is valid on its face. Thus, even if we assumed that the information, which related to a witness’s lack of candor had not been presented to the Grand Jury, and if we further assumed that the Grand Jury was improperly instructed as to the definition of an ITO, for purposes of Section 1163, we would not dismiss the related Counts of the Indictment, and we would have no permissible basis to invade the secrecy of the Grand Jury proceedings, as Finn has requested. Accordingly, because he has failed to demonstrate any basis to do so, we deny Finn’s Motion for Disclosure and Examination of Grand Jury materials. 4.Motion to Compel the Sentencing Guidelines Information. Finn, in a Motion that Brown has joined, requests the Government to disclose information that would pertain to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. While we do not wish to discourage the free exchange amongst the parties of information concerning the Sentencing Guidelines, we find no basis to direct the Government to affirmatively provide this information to the Defendants. As to certain of the Guidelines’ factors, the operative information is more readily available to the Defendants than to the Government, and the factors at play, in the ascertainment of a sentencing range, are equally accessible to all parties. Perhaps, if the full complement of Pretrial Services were not available in this District, a more compelling argument could be advanced for the relief that the Defendants request but, in the absence of a particularized need for the information, we are unpersuaded that any legitimate interest is furthered by imposing an additional burden upon the Government to disclose its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines. Ultimately, the Government’s translation of the Sentencing Guidelines is no more dis-positive of the sentencing issues than the Defendants’ interpretation and, in the absence of a pressing need for the information, or some cogent legal authority, we deny the Motion as without merit. Of course, the Defendants remain at liberty to request the Government’s construction of the Sentencing Guidelines, in addition to the interpretation provided by Pretrial Services, and we would encourage — but will not compel — the Government to fully respond. 5.Motion For The Disclosure Of Post-Conspiracy Statements Of Co-Defendants. Rule 16, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regulates the Defendants’ discovery of evidence in possession, custody or control of the Government. By this Motion, Finn seeks the disclosure of the post-conspiracy statements of a co-Defendant. In addressing the scope of Rule 16, our Court of Appeals has interpreted the Rule as meaning “that only statements made by the defendant” are discoverable. United States v. Manthei, 979 F.2d 124, 126 (8th Cir.1992). Similarly, in United States v. Hoelscher, 914 F.2d 1627, 1535 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1090, 111 S.Ct. 971, 112 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1991), the Court concluded that Rule 16 did not cover “testimony by a government witness as to an oral statement by a conspirator in the course of the conspiracy.” Id., at 1535. Rather, Rule 16 covers statements “made by a Defendant” in response to an interrogation by a Government agent. Id. Relying upon Bruton v. United States, supra, Finn claims that a disclosure is necessary in order to determine whether any of the statements imply that he was involved in the conspiracy. As noted, however, under the law of this Circuit, Bruton is not violated when the statements of a co-Defendant are redacted so as to eliminate any reference to a Defendant. See, United States v. Comeaux, supra at 590; United States v. Donahue, supra at 443. Since the Government has represented that any Bruton concerns will be resolved by an appropriate redaction of the statements of a co-Defendant, we deny Finn’s Motion as being without merit. 6.Motion For Leave To Issue Rule 17(c) Subpoenas Without A Particularized Showing To The Court. Pursuant to Rule 17(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant in a criminal proceeding may obtain a Subpoena duces tecum directing the recipient to produce documents or other materials. See, California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). In this respect, Rule 17(c) provides as follows: A subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, documents or other objects designated therein. The court on motion made promptly may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. The court may direct that books, papers, documents or objects designated in the subpoena be produced before the court at a time prior to the trial or prior to the time when they are to be offered in evidence and may upon their production permit the books, papers, documents or objects or portions thereof to be inspected by the parties and their attorneys. In Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220, 71 S.Ct. 675, 678, 95 L.Ed. 879 (1951) the Supreme Court made clear that “Rule 17(c) was not intended to provide an additional means of discovery.” Rather, “[i]ts chief innovation was to expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of the subpoenaed materials.” Id. [Emphasis in original]. Following Bowman, the Courts have routinely followed the test formulated in United States v. Iozia, 13 F.R.D. 335, 338 (S.D.N.Y.1952), when deciding whether to require the production of documents prior to Tidal. “Under this test, in order to require production prior to trial, the moving party must show: (1) that the documents are evi-dentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspéction may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general ‘fishing expedition’.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3103, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). Accordingly, in order to carry its burden, the requesting party must “clear three hurdles: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity.” Id. at 300; United States v. Kalter, 5 F.3d 1166, 1169 (8th Cir.1993). Here, Pemberton requests a Standing Order which would allow his counsel to issue Subpoenas, pursuant to Rule 17(c), without a prior Motion to this Court. Although Pemberton does not cite a case, which is purported to establish any such right to proceed without the involvement of the Court, he correctly observes that, if the recipient objects to the Subpoena after its service, then Rule 17(c) would provide a mechanism for challenging the propriety of the Subpoena by a Motion to Quash. In response, the Government cautions that a Standing Order, which would authorize Pemberton, without supervision, to issue a Subpoena of this Court, would create a dangerous precedent. In the Government’s view, Rule 17(c) does not invest the Court with the discretion to grant Pemberton such a limitless exercise of the Court’s Subpoena power. We agree. Clearly, we would be forfeiting our obligation and responsibility of assuring that Rule 17(c) subpoenas were being utilized to gather specific evidence that would be both relevant and admissible, were we to authorize the Defendant to issue such a Subpoena without Court intercession. Without the Court’s supervision, Rule 17(c) would lend itself to discovery of the broadest sort — a result that the drafters of the Rule decried. See, United States v. Nixon, supra at 698, 94 S.Ct. at 3102; Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, supra at 220, 71 S.Ct. at 678 (“It was not intended by Rule 16 to give a limited right of discovery, and then by Rule 17 to give a right of discovery in the broadest of terms.”); 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 274 at 153 and n. 16 (1982) (“[I]t has always been clear that Rule 17(c) was not intended as a discovery device * * *.”), and cases cited therein. Accordingly, we agree with the rationale employed in two recent District Court opinions, for the District of New York, which have recognized the desirability of a Court’s review of Rule 17(c) subpoenas prior to their issuance. In United States v. Urlacher, 136 F.R.D. 550 (W.D.N.Y.1991), the Court acknowledged that Rule 17(c) contemplates a Court’s capacity to review the propriety of a pretrial subpoena duces tecum during a Motion to Quash, but the Court preferred to address the legitimacy of the information requests prior to the subpoena’s issuance. As the Court noted, the Defendant had, by its filing of a Motion for the issuance of the subpoena, sought the “court’s aid in the matter, which will ensure the judicial supervision contemplated by subdivision (c) at the earliest stage.” Id. at 554-55. Similarly, in United States v. Ashley, 162 F.R.D. 265, 266 (E.D.N.Y.1995), the Court concluded that “the motion for issuance is appropriate, though not strictly necessary, and should be entertained by the court.” Id., at 266, (quoting United States v. Urlacher, supra). See also, United States v. Ferguson, 37 F.R.D. 6, 8 (D.C.D.C.1966) (Court vacated, without prejudice, Subpoena duces tecum on the ground that “no direction was obtained from the Court”). Implicit in Pemberton’s Motion for a Standing Order is the related issue of whether Pemberton must notify the Government of its application for a Subpoena. The Government asserts that such notification is required under the plain language of Rule 17(c), and cites to the language of the Rule which provides that the Court may permit the documents “to be inspected by the parties and their attorneys.” Of course, we need not hold, and do not hold, that every Subpoena duces tecum requires a disclosure of its contents to the opposing party, for Rule 17(c) does not evince any such intent. Rather, we only decide that, when the Rule is utilized for the disclosure of evidentiary materials in advance of Trial, the application should be reviewable by the other parties to that proceeding. In United States v. Urlacher, supra at 555-58, the Court thoroughly addressed the impropriety of such an ex parte request, leading one of the eminent treatises to conclude that, “[i]f a [Rule 17(c) ] Motion is made it cannot be ex parte.” 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 274 at p. 46 of 1995 Pocket Part; see also, United States v. Hart, 826 F.Supp. 380, 381 (D.Colo.1993) (Rule 17(c) negates any assumption that production should be on an ex parte basis); United States v. Ferguson, supra at 8 (Court vacated, without prejudice, Subpoena duces tecum on the ground that “no direction was obtained from the Court”). Accordingly, we deny Pemberton’s Motion for leave to issue Rule 17(c) Subpoenas without a particularized showing to the Court, and we further direct that, in requesting an Order for the issuance of a pretrial Subpoena, the Defendants duly notify the Government of their request. B. Motions Subject to Section 636(b)(1)(B) Jurisdiction. 1. The Motion To Dismiss The Indictment For Want Of Subject Matter - Jurisdiction. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Indictment against them, arguing that the Government is without the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute the indicted offenses. In support of this argument, the Defendants rely upon Public Law 280, which was enacted in 1953, and which provides in relevant part: (a) Each of the States or Territories listed in the following table shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country listed opposite the name of the State or Territory to the same extent that such State or Territory has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State or Territory, and the criminal laws of such State or Territory shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State or Territory: Minnesota.All Indian country within the State, except the Red Lake Reservation. * * * # * * (c) The provisions of sections 1152 and 1153 of this chapter shall not be applicable within the areas of Indian County listed in subsection (a) of this section as areas over which the several States have exclusive jurisdiction. Act of August 15, 1953, eh. 505, 67 Stat. 588. Public Law 280 is codified at Title 18 U.S.C. § 1162, Title 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-1326, and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1360. The Defendants contend that, in adopting Public Law 280, Congress necessarily vested the State of Minnesota with exclusive jurisdiction over all crimes committed within the Indian country, situated in this State, with the exception of the Red Lake Reservation. Since the Red Lake Reservation is not implicated in any of the activities of the Defendants, they conclude that the Federal Government has no authority to prosecute the Federal violations of which the Defendants are accused. In response, the Government urges that Public Law 280 did no more than, in effect, cede to the State of Minnesota the Federal Government’s jurisdiction which is prescribed by Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 and 1153, and that, notwithstanding the Defendants’ encouragement to do so, we should reject their request that we interpret Public Law 280 as a complete abandonment of Federal jurisdiction over crimes committed within specified segments of the Indian country. At the outset, we acknowledge that, as the Supreme Court has expressly recognized, in assessing the contours of the laws which govern the commission of crimes upon an Indian Reservation, we are confronted with “a complex patchwork of federal, state and tribal laws.” See, Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99, 101, 113 S.Ct. 1119, 1121, 122 L.Ed.2d 457 (1993), (quoting Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 680 n. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2053, 2057 n. 1, 109 L.Ed.2d 693) (1990) (“Criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed in ‘Indian country,’ which is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151, is governed by a complex patchwork of federal, state and tribal laws.”). As is the ease with any mosaic, however, its substance is best discerned when viewed as an integrated whole. Our analysis, therefore, requires the perspective shed by the unique history and development of this specialized aspect of the law. In considering the merits of the parties’ respective interpretations of Public Law 280, we begin where we must, with an appreciation of the context in which this enactment evolved. See, United States v. Johnson, 637 F.2d 1224, 1230 (9th Cir.1980) (familiarity with the development of Federal criminal jurisdiction over Indians is a “useful starting point”). As all parties concede, Congress has the exclusive and plenary authority to regulate the conduct of Indians within Indian country. Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030 (1883). To this end, Congress has long conferred upon the Federal Courts special jurisdiction over those criminal activities that have occurred on Indian Reservations. F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law at 286 (1982 Ed.). In most instances, the Court’s authority in such matters emanates from either the Indian Country Crimes Act or the Major Crimes Act. The Indian Country Crimes Act, which is codified at Title 18 U.S.C. § 1152, extends the Federal “enclave laws” to Indian country. Section 1152, however, does not purport to encompass those Federal laws that criminalize conduct irrespective of where that conduct occurs. As a consequence, our Court of Appeals determined, in United States v. Blue, 722 F.2d 383, 384 (8th Cir. 1983), that Section 1152 did not “extend or restrict the application of general federal criminal statutes to Indian reservations.” In practical effect, Section 1152 “refers only to those laws where the situs of the offense is an element of the crime.” Stone v. United States, 506 F.2d 561, 563 (8th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 978, 95 S.Ct. 1405, 43 L.Ed.2d 659 (1975); see also, United States v. White, 508 F.2d 453 (8th Cir.1974). Moreover, Section 1152 excepts from its coverage those enclave — or situs-restricted — ■ offenses which have been “committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian.” In its 1883 decision in Ex parte Crow Dog, supra, the Supreme Court relied upon this exception in concluding that Federal Courts did not possess the jurisdiction to try an Indian on charges that he had murdered a fellow Indian on Reservation properties. However, in response to the Court’s holding in Ex parte Crow Dog, Congress extended, in 1885, the Federal Court’s jurisdiction over a number of offenses that are committed by one Indian against another, through the enactment of the Major Crimes Act. The Major Crimes Act, which is codified at Title 18 U.S.C. § 1153, currently lists fourteen specific offenses as constituting Federal crimes, if committed by one Indian upon another. As all concede, the offenses, for which the Defendants have been indicted, are not among those specified in Section 1153 nor, as the Government correctly points out, are the offenses premised upon the Court’s enclave jurisdiction under Section 1152. Rather, the asserted violations are, admittedly, Federal crimes of general applicability. As to such generally applicable criminal statutes, there can be no serious contention that Sections 1152 and 1153 have displaced them applicability to crimes that have been committed in Indian country. Indeed, with uniformity, the Courts have rejected any such contention, and have concluded that the generally applicable provisions of the Federal Criminal Code govern, with equal force, the prosecution of the pertinent crimes as they should be committed by Indians in Indian country. See, e.g., United States v. Blue, supra (Federal narcotics violation); Stone v. United States, supra (assault on a Federal officer); United States v. McGrady, 508 F.2d 13 (8th Cir.1974) (conversion of Indian Funds), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 979, 95 S.Ct. 1408, 43 L.Ed.2d 661 (1975); United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999 (6th Cir.1994) (firearms possession), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1172, 130 L.Ed.2d 1125 (1995); United States v. Young, 936 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir.1991) (assault on a Federal officer); United States v. Burns, 529 F.2d 114 (9th Cir.1976) (firearms possession); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288 (7th Cir.1974) (firearms possession). In fact, the Defendants do not argue to the contrary. Rather, they assert that Public Law 280 categorically withdrew all Federal criminal jurisdiction over those crimes, which involve the acts of one Indian against another, when the acts occurred within the designated Indian Country—inclusive of the Leech Lake Reservation in Minnesota. They emphasize that, while numerous decisions have addressed the extent to which Federal criminal laws of general application can be imposed upon Indians in Indian country, not one of those decisions has addressed whether an Indian may be convicted of committing a generally applicable Federal crime, which occurred within the Indian country designated in Public Law 280. With one slender exception, we agree and, therefore, we concur in the parties’ observation that the issue presented is one of first impression. Quite logically, in analyzing the parties’ respective contentions, we begin with the text of Public Law 280. See, Consumer Product Safety Comm’n. v. GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S. 102, 108, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2056, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980) (“the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself’). As we have noted, Public Law 280 was enacted in 1953, in order to delegate jurisdiction to five—later six— States over most crimes, and many civil matters, that should occur within much of the Indian country within their State borders. In addition, the Act offered any other State the option of adopting the same extension to its jurisdiction. In defining the extent of its grant of criminal jurisdiction to the listed States, the Act expressly caveated that the designated States would have “jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country listed[,] * * * to the same extent that such State * *' * has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State.” By this language, it is clear that Congress was not expanding the inherent jurisdiction of the designated States so as to prosecute all Federal crimes, as the States had no such authority to institute Federal charges elsewhere within their territorial limits. See, e.g., Title 28 U.S.C. § 517(1) (United States Attorney is the sole individual, in each of the respective Federal Districts, in whom Congress has vested the solemn obligation to institute Federal criminal proceedings). Rather, in enacting Public Law 280, Congress was attempting to assimilate the Indians in Indian country within the criminal justice system of the respective, designated States. See, Frickey, “Marshalling Past and Present: Colonialism, Constitutionalism, and Interpretation in Federal Indian Law,” 107 Harv.L.Rev. 381, 440 n. 205 (“Public Law 280 was adopted by the Congress with perhaps the strongest assimilationist views about federal Indian policy in modern times.”). Accordingly, Public Law 280 expressly provided that the criminal laws of the designated State would “have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State.” Title 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a). In addition, Pu