Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hatfill v. US - DOJ and FBI Statement of Facts (filed Friday)
US DOJ and FBI Memorandum In Support of Motion For Summary Judgment (Statement of Facts) | April 11, 2008 | Department of Justice

Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook

On Friday, the government filed this statement of the facts in its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment in a civil rights and Privacy Act lawsuit brought by Dr. Steve Hatfill.

“The anthrax attacks occurred in October 2001. Public officials, prominent members of the media, and ordinary citizens were targeted by this first bio-terrorist attack on American soil. Twenty-two persons were infected with anthrax; five died. At least 17 public buildings were contaminated. The attacks wreaked havoc on the U.S. postal system and disrupted government and commerce, resulting in economic losses estimated to exceed one billion dollars. The attacks spread anxiety throughout the nation – already in a heightened state of alert in the wake of the attacks of September 11 – and left behind a lasting sense of vulnerability to future acts of bioterrorism. Given the unprecedented nature of the attacks, the investigation received intense media attention. Journalists from virtually every news organization pursued the story, sometimes conducting their own worldwide investigation to determine the person or persons responsible for the attacks and the motive behind them.

A. Journalistic Interest In Hatfill That Predates Alleged Disclosures

Testimony has revealed that at least certain members of the media began focusing their attention upon Hatfill in early 2002 because of tips they had received from former colleagues of his who found him to be highly suspicious. Articles about Hatfill thus began to appear in the mainstream press and on internet sites as early as January of 2002, and continued until the first search of his apartment on June 25, 2002, which, in turn, led to even more intense press attention.

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a Professor at the State University of New York, for example, complained in January and February 2002 on the Federation of American Scientists’ (“FAS”) website of the FBI’s apparent lack of progress on the investigation, and described generally the person she believed was the “anthrax perpetrator.” “Analysis of Anthrax Attacks,” Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator (Section IV.6), Defendant’s Appendix , Ex. 1. Rosenberg did not identify Hatfill by name, but described him in sufficient detail: a “Middle-aged American” who “[w]orks for a CIA contractor in Washington, DC area” and [w]orked in USAMRIID laboratory in the past” and “[k]nows Bill Patrick and probably learned a thing or two about weaponization from him informally.” Id. In his amended complaint, Hatfill states that “Professor Rosenberg’s ‘Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator’ . . . described [him].”

In addition to her postings on the FAS website, Professor Rosenberg also presented a lecture on February 18, 2002 at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, entitled “The Anthrax Attacks and the Control of Bioterrorism.” Ex. 2. During the course of her lecture, Rosenberg stated that she had “draw[n] a likely portrait of the perpetrator as a former Fort Detrick scientist who is now working for a contractor in the Washington, D.C, area[.]” Ex. 3. Rosenberg also commented upon Hatfill’s whereabouts on the date of the attacks, stating that “[h]e had reason for travel to Florida, New Jersey and the United Kingdom” – where the attacks had been and from which the letters had been purportedly sent – that “[h]e grew [the anthrax], probably on a solid medium, and weaponised it at a private location where he had accumulated the equipment and the material.” Id. Rosenberg also stated that the investigation had narrowed to a “common suspect[,]” and that “[t]he FBI has questioned that person more than once[.]” Id. Former White House Spokesperson, Ari Fleischer, immediately responded to Rosenberg’s comments, stating that there were several suspects and the FBI had not narrowed that list down to one. Ex. 4. The FBI also issued a press release, stating that it had “interviewed hundreds of persons, in some instances, more than once. It is not accurate, however, that the FBI has identified a prime suspect in this case.” Id. Rosenberg’s comments and writings were subsequently pursued by The New York Times (“The Times”). In a series of Op-Ed articles published from May through July 2002, Nicholas Kristof, a journalist with The Times, accused Hatfill of being responsible for the anthrax attacks. Kristof wrote on May 24, 2002 that the FBI was overlooking the anthrax perpetrator, noting that “experts” (Professor Rosenberg) point “to one middle-aged American who has worked for the United States military bio-defense program and had access to the labs at Fort Detrick, Md. His anthrax vaccinations are up to date, he unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax, and he was upset at the United States government in the period preceding the anthrax attack.” Ex. 5.

Hatfill first noticed the Kristof columns in May 2002. Hatfill Dep. Tran. in Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807 (E.D.Va.), Ex. 6, at 13: 3-6. According to Hatfill, “[w]hen Mr. Kristof’s article appeared, it was the first [time] that [he] realized that [his] name [was] in the public domain with connection with an incident of mass murder.” Id. at 16:15-18. Hatfill has charged that The Times began the “entire conflagration and gave every journalist out there reason to drive this thing beyond any sort of sanity. Mr. Kristof lit the fuse to a barn fire and he repeatedly kept stoking the fire.” Id. at 43:19 - 44:1. In July 2004, Hatfill thus filed suit alleging that these articles libeled him by falsely accusing him of being the anthrax mailer. Complaint, Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807 (E.D.Va.), Ex. 7.

Hatfill alleges in that lawsuit that “Kristof wrote his columns in such a way as to impute guilt for the anthrax letters to [him] in the minds of reasonable readers.” Id. ¶ 12. The articles, Hatfill claimed, which described his “background and work in the field of bio-terrorism, state or imply that [he] was the anthrax mailer.” Id. ¶ 14. Hatfill specifically alleged that statements in Kristof’s articles were false and defamatory, including those that stated that he: (1) “‘unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax’”; (2) “had the ‘ability’ to send the anthrax”; (3) “had the ‘access’ required to send the anthrax”; (4) “had a ‘motive’ to send the anthrax”; (5) “was one of a ‘handful’ of individuals who had the ‘ability, access and motive to send the anthrax’”; (6) “had access” to an ‘isolated residence’ in the fall of 2001, when the anthrax letters were sent”; (7) “‘gave CIPRO [an antibiotic famously used in the treatment of anthrax infection] to people who visited [the ‘isolated residence’]”; (8) his “anthrax vaccinations were ‘up to date’ as of May 24, 2002”; (9) he “‘failed 3 successive polygraph examinations’ between January 2002 and August 13, 2002”; (10) he “‘was upset at the United States government in the period preceding the attack’”; (11) he “‘was once caught with a girlfriend in a biohazard ‘hot suite’ at Fort Detrick [where Hatfill had concedely worked] surrounded only by blushing germs.’” Id. ¶ 16 (brackets in original). Hatfill alleges in his lawsuit against The Times that “[t]he publication of [Kristof’s] repeated defamation of [him] . . .gave rise to severe notoriety gravely injurious to [him].” Id. ¶ 29. The injury, Hatfill alleged, “was [made] all the more severe given the status and journalistic clout of The Times.” Id. This harm was compounded, Hatfill alleged, by the fact that these articles were “thereafter repeatedly published by a host of print and on-line publications and on the television and radio news” in the following months. Id., ¶ 30.

The case was initially dismissed by the trial court. Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807, 2004 WL 3023003 (E.D.Va.). That decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 416 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2005). Upon remand, the trial court granted The Times summary judgment, finding that Hatfill was a public figure and public official and had failed to present evidence of malice. Hatfill v. The New York Times, 488 F. Supp. 2d 522 (E.D. Va. 2007). In arriving at that conclusion, the court considered Hatfill’s repeated media interviews before the attacks; the fact that he had “drafted a novel, which he registered with [the] United States Copyright office, describing a scenario in which a terrorist sickens government officials with a biological agent”; and had lectured on the medical effects of chemical and biological agents. Id. at 525.

Although not recited by the district court in The New York Times litigation, Hatfill also talked directly to reporters about his suspected involvement in the attacks. Brian Ross of ABC News, and his producer, Victor Walter, for example, talked separately to Hatfill on two to three occasions as early as January and February 2002, Ross Dep. Tran., Ex. 8, at 263:14 - 270:1, and continued talking to Hatfill until May of that year. Id. Ross also spoke to Hatfill’s friend and mentor, William Patrick, about Hatfill. Id. at 287:9 - 295:12. These meetings were prompted by discussions ABC News had in January 2002 with eight to twelve former colleagues of Hatfill at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (“USAMRIID”). Id. at 242:7 - 246:14. Hatfill’s former colleagues found him to be “highly suspicious because of a number of things he had done when he worked at [USAMRIID], and this behavior was strange "and unusual and they felt that he was a likely candidate.” Id. at 242: 7-17. These meetings were also prompted by ABC News’s own investigative reporting into Hatfill’s background; the more ABC News learned “the more interested [they] became” in Hatfill. Id. at 264: 14-15.

Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun also spoke to Hatfill in February 2002. Shane also spoke to USAMRIID employees who had worked with Hatfill. Ex. 9. These employees stated that they had been questioned by the FBI and “asked about a former Fort Detrick scientist” – Hatfill – “who returned a few years ago and took discarded biological safety cabinets, used for work with dangerous pathogens.” Id. at 1. These employees claimed that Hatfill “ha[d] expertise on weaponizing anthrax and ha[d] been vaccinated against it[.]” Id. Shane also called one of Hatfill’s former classmates, who was “plagued” by questions from the Baltimore Sun and others within the media regarding Hatfill’s “alleged involvement with the large anthrax outbreak in Zimbabwe[.]” Ex. 10. According to Hatfill, this classmate was told by Shane that Hatfill was purportedly responsible for “mailing the anthrax letters and also starting the [anthrax] outbreak in Zimbabwe/ Rhodesia twenty years before.” Ex. 11, at AGD29SJH00014; see also e-mail to Hatfill fr. DF Andrews, dated Mar. 1, 2002, Ex. 10. Hatfill told Shane in February 2002 that he had been “questioned by the FBI” and that “he considered the questioning to be part of a routine effort to eliminate people with the knowledge to mount [the] attack.” Ex. 9. Hatfill also confirmed for Shane that he had taken an FBI polygraph. Ex. 12, at 2. In March 2002, Hatfill left Shane a frantic telephone message reportedly stating how he had “been [in the bioterrorism] field for a number of years, working until 3 o’clock in the morning, trying to counter this type of weapon of mass destruction” and fearing that his “career [was] over at [that] time.” Ex. 13, at 2. According to Hatfill, Shane later Case 1:03-cv-01793-RBW Document 232-2 Filed 04/11/2008 Page 17 of 73

____ Hatfill did not sue either Shane or Rosenberg, even though Hatfill has stated that Rosenberg “caused” the focus on him. Ex. 14, at 10. Because Hatfill believed that the portrait Rosenberg painted at the February 2002 Princeton conference and in her website postings was so identifying and incriminating, however, Hatfill advised Rosenberg through his lawyers that “before [she] get[s] close to describing him in the future, by name or otherwise, [that she] submit [her] comments for legal vetting before publishing them to anyone.” Ex. 15. There is no evidence that the agency defendants bore any responsibility for the media presence. Information about FBI searches is routinely shared with a variety of state and local law enforcement authorities. Roth Dep. Tran., Ex. 16, at 163:5 -165:21; Garrett Dep. Tran. Ex. 17, at 79: 8-18. ______

compounded Hatfill’s problems by calling his then-employer, Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”), and accusing Hatfill of being responsible for the anthrax attacks, Ex. 11, at AGD29SJH00014, which, according to Hatfill, cost him his job as a contractor at SAIC. Id. 1

The media frenzy surrounding Hatfill intensified upon the search of his apartment on June 25, 2002, and the search of a refrigerated mini-storage facility in Ocala, Florida on June 26, 2002. Both were witnessed by the media, and the search of his apartment was carried live on national television. In addition to the television coverage, the searches generated a slew of articles about Hatfill throughout the media, one fueling the next. The Associated Press, for example, detailed in an article, dated June 27, 2002, Hatfill’s (1) work as biodefense researcher, including studies he had conducted at SAIC, and the work he had done at the USAMRIID; (2) his educational background; (3) where he had previously lived; and (4) security clearances he had held and the suspension of those clearances. Ex. 18. The Hartford Courant reported these same details, and additional information regarding Hatfill’s purported service in the Rhodesian army. Ex. 19. The next day -- June 28, 2002 -- the Hartford Courant reported details about Hatfill’s background in biological warfare, his vaccinations against anthrax, questioning that purportedly had occurred among Hatfill’s colleagues, his educational background (including the claim that he had attended medical school in Greendale), and lectures that he had given on the process of turning biological agents into easily inhaled powders. Ex. 20. None of this information is attributed to a government source.

B. Hatfill’s Public Relations Offensive

In July 2002, after these reports and after the first search of Hatfill’s apartment on June 25, 2002, Hatfill retained Victor Glasberg as his attorney. Glasberg Dep. Tran., Ex. 21, at 12: 16-19. Glasberg believed that “any number of people in the media [had] overstepped their bounds. . . . prior to July of 2002 .” Id. at 141:1 - 142:6. To counter this information, Hatfill set out on a “public relations offensive” of his own to “turn [the] tide.” Id. at 138: 20-21, 178: 12-13.

Recognizing that Hatfill “continue[d] [to] get[] killed with bad press, national as well as local[,]” Hatfill drafted a statement and Glasberg forwarded that statement in July 2002 to Hatfill’s then-employer at Louisiana State University (“LSU”). Ex. 11, at 1. The statement detailed Hatfill’s background, including his medical training and employment history, and provided details about Hatfill’s involvement in the anthrax investigation, including how he had been interviewed by the FBI and had taken a polygraph examination. Id. at AGD29SJH00002-13. Hatfill’s statement corroborated the conversations that Hatfill reportedly had with Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun in February 2002, and how that interaction had purportedly cost Hatfill his job at SAIC in March 2002. Id. at AGD29SJH00014.

In his July statement, Hatfill was careful not to blame DOJ or the FBI for his troubles or for any wrongdoing for the information about him that had made its way into the press. He touted the professionalism of the FBI, noting that “[t]he individual FBI agents with whom [he had come] in contact during this entire process are sons and daughters of which America can be justifiably proud. They are fine men and women doing their best to protect this country.” Id. at AGD29SJH00016. Hatfill’s objection lay with the media, whom he labeled as “irresponsible[,]” for trading in “half-truths, innuendo and speculation, making accusations and slanting real world events . . . to gain viewer recognition, sell newspapers, and increase readership and network ratings.” Id.

As the investigation proceeded, however, Glasberg publicly criticized investigators on the date of the second search of Hatfill’s apartment, August 1, 2002, for obtaining a search warrant rather than accepting the offer Glasberg had allegedly made to cooperate. Ex. 22. So angry was Glasberg with investigators that he wrote a letter, dated the same day as the search, to Assistant United States Attorney Kenneth C. Kohl, denouncing the fact that the search had been conducted “pursuant to a search warrant.” Ex. 23. Glasberg forwarded a copy of this letter to Tom Jackman of the Washington Post, and to the Associated Press, the morning of August 1st. Glasberg, Dep. Tran., Ex. 24, at 265:12 - 266:5; see also Ex. 25 (Glasberg memorandum to file, stating, among other things, that Glasberg showed Jackman Kohl letter on August 1, 2002).

On the day of the search, an FBI spokeswoman at the Bureau’s Washington field office, Debra Weierman, “confirmed that the search was part of the government’s anthrax investigation.” Ex. 25. Weierman added, however, that “she was unable to confirm that [investigators were acting on a search warrant] or to provide any further information about the search.” Id.

The next day – August 2, 2002 – Glasberg faxed the Kohl letter to members of the media. Ex. 26. In the fax transmittal sheet accompanying the Kohl letter, Glasberg also advised the media that: Dr. Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI earlier this year, as part of the Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a lengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI. He and his lawyer Tom Carter were told that the results were all favorable and that he was not a suspect in the case. Id. at AGD16SJH03106. Subsequent to the fax transmittal by Glasberg, Weierman confirmed that the search had been conducted pursuant to a search warrant, but only after receiving appropriate authorization from her superiors. Weierman Dep. Tran., Ex. 27, at 93:16 - 94:14.

Hatfill had also accompanied Glasberg for his interview with Jackman the day before to address the “media feeding frenzy.” Ex. 28. Glasberg provided Jackman with the promise of an “[e]xclusive personal statement” from Hatfill and the promise of “[n]o other press contacts pending publication” of the article. Id. Glasberg thus provided Jackman background information about Hatfill, Rosenberg’s statements, and other publications. Ex. 25. Hatfill reportedly complained to the Washington Post in the interview about the media feeding frenzy, and about how his “friends are bombarded” with press inquiries. Ex. 29, at 1. Hatfill also complained about the “[p]hone calls at night. Trespassing. Beating on my door. For the sheer purpose of selling newspapers and television.” Id.

C. Attorney General Ashcroft’s Person of Interest Statements

Following this “media frenzy,” not to mention the two searches of Hatfill’s apartment, former Attorney General John Ashcroft was asked on August 6, 2002 (at an event addressing the subject of missing and exploited children) about Hatfill’s involvement in the investigation. Jane Clayson of CBS News asked General Ashcroft about the searches and whether Hatfill was a “suspect” in the investigation. Ex. 30, at 2. General Ashcroft responded that Hatfill was a “person of interest.” General Ashcroft cautioned, however, that he was “not prepared to say any more at [that] time other than the fact that he is an individual of interest.” Id. At the same media event, Matt Lauer of NBC News also asked General Ashcroft whether Hatfill was a “suspect” in the investigation. Ex. 31. General Ashcroft responded that Hatfill was a “person that – that the FBI’s been interested in.” Id. at 2. General Ashcroft cautioned that he was “not prepared to make a . . . comment about whether a person is officially a . . . suspect or not.” Id.

General Ashcroft made the same comments at a news conference in Newark, New Jersey on August 22, 2002, stating that Hatfill was a “person of interest to the Department of Justice, and we continue the investigation.” Ex. 32, at 1. As in his previous statements, General Ashcroft refused to provide further comment. Id. When asked upon deposition why he referred to Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation in response to these media inquiries, General Ashcroft testified that he did so in an attempt to correct the record presented by the media that he was a “suspect” in the investigation, which he believed served a necessary law enforcement purpose. Ashcroft Dep. Tran., Ex. 33, at 81: 5-12; 103:18; 108: 9-13; 138: 5-7; 125: 18-21; 134:22 - 136:8. Prior to making these statements, General Ashcroft did not review or otherwise consult any investigative record, id. at 128:14 - 129:12, much less any record pertaining to Hatfill.

General Ashcroft’s initial statements on August 6, 2002 were followed, on August 11, 2002, by the first of Hatfill’s two nationally televised press conferences. Ex. 34. During his press conference, Hatfill lashed out at Rosenberg and other journalists and columnists who he believed wrote a series of “defamatory speculation and innuendo about [him].” Id. at 3. In apparent response to the “person of interest” statements, by contrast, he stated that he did “not object to being considered a ‘subject of interest’ because of [his] knowledge and background in the field of biological warfare.” Id. at 4. This was consistent with Hatfill’s statement to ABC News earlier in 2002 in which he stated that “his background and comments made him a logical subject of the investigation.” Ex. 35. As noted, moreover, Glasberg told the media -- almost a week before the first of General Ashcroft’s statements -- that “Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI [earlier that] year, as part of the Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a lengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI.” Ex. 26.

Hatfill’s second press conference was held on August 25, 2002. In the flyer publicizing the conference, Hatfill identified himself to the media -- in bold lettering -- as “the ‘person of interest’ at the center of the federal Government’s [anthrax] investigation.” DA, Exhibit 36.

D. Clawson’s “Sunshine” Policy

Patrick Clawson joined the Hatfill team in early August 2002 as spokesperson and “fielded hundreds of inquiries from members of the press worldwide regarding Dr. Hatfill[.]” Ex. 12, at 13. Clawson believed it best to employ a media strategy that would, in his words, “let it all hang out.” Id. at 50:10. Clawson felt that “permitting maximum sunshine into . . . Hatfill’s existence would do both him and the public the best good.” Clawson Dep. Tran., Ex. 37, at 50:16-18.

“The majority of Clawson’s communications with the press regarding this case have been oral and by telephone and he did not keep a press log or any other regular record of such contacts with the press.” Ex. 12, at 13. Clawson nonetheless admitted upon deposition that he revealed numerous details about Hatfill’s personal and professional background to members of the press (Clawson Dep. Tran., Ex. 37, at 101:9 - 105:21), including Hatfill’s professional expertise (id. at 103:10 - 105:21), use of Cipro (id. at 123:16 - 130:11, 248: 8-13), whereabouts on the days of the attacks (id. at 148:12 - 158:10, 361:15 - 362:3), expertise in working with anthrax (id. at 194:13 - 195:8), former service in the Rhodesian Army (id. at 210:9 - 211:10), and drunk driving arrest (id. at 795: 7-9, 798: 4-6). Clawson also told reporters what had been purportedly removed from Hatfill’s apartment during the two searches of his apartment on June 25, 2002 and August 1, 2002 (including medical books and a jar of bacillus thuringiensis (“BT”)) (id. at 121: 6-12, 131:2 - 131:12, 14:8 - 147:3, 313: 3-10). Clawson also freely relayed to the press that bloodhounds had been presented to Hatfill during the investigation (id. at 200: 15-19); that Hatfill had been the subject of surveillance (id. at 123:12-15, 428: 19-21); that Hatfill had taken polygraphs (id. at 135:16 - 137:17); and that he had submitted to blood tests (id. at 137:18-138:5, 347: 6-10).

In furtherance of Clawson’s “sunshine” policy, Hatfill, Clawson, and Glasberg, together, provided countless on-the-record, on-background (i.e., for use, but not for attribution), and off-the-record (i.e., not for attribution or use) interviews to counter misinformation. Although Hatfill repeatedly claimed upon deposition not to remember what he said during these interviews, he acknowledged in his responses to the Agency Defendants’ interrogatories having such conversations with, in addition to Mr. Jackman, Judith Miller of The New York Times, Jeremy Cherkis of the City Paper, Guy Gugliotta of the Washington Post, David Kestenbaum of National Public Radio, Rick Schmidt of the LA Times, Rob Buchanan of NBC Dateline, Jim Popkin of NBC News, Dee Ann David and Nick Horrock of UPI, Gary Matsumato of Fox TV, Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, and David Tell of the Weekly Standard. Ex. 12, at 3-4. With respect to the Matsumato interview, Glasberg warned Hatfill before the interview that he “should not be quoted, nor should Matsumato say or imply that he spoke with him.” Ex. 38, at 1. Glasberg warned Hatfill that “Matsumato must be willing to go to jail rather than reveal word one of anything [he] says on ‘deep background.’” Id.

All of these disclosures became too much even for Glasberg, who attempted to put a stop to them. In August, when Jackman aired his exclusive interview with Glasberg and Hatfill, Glasberg heralded the success of his public relations strategy noting that “Rosenberg, Shane and Kristof are, [each] of them, in varying stages of sulking, licking their wounds, reacting defensively and changing their tune.” Ex. 39. Slowly Glasberg advised both Hatfill and Glasberg to observe “the rule of COMPLETE SILENCE regarding anything and everything about the case[.]” Ex. 40 (emphasis in original). Ultimately, in September 2002, Glasberg ordered Clawson to stand down, noting “[w]hat you know, you know, and you have put virtually all of that into the public record. Fine. That is where we are, and for good or ill we can and will deal with it. But we must put a full stop to any further conveyance of substantive data about ANYTHING from Steve to anyone [but his attorneys].” Ex. 41 (emphasis in original). To no avail. On October 5, 2002, Hatfill and Clawson appeared together at an Accuracy in Media Conference. Hatfill was asked about the reaction of bloodhounds, and stated, I’m not supposed to answer things against . . . but let me tell you something. They brought this good-looking dog in. I mean, this was the best-fed dog I have seen in a long time. They brought him in and he walked around the room. By the way, I could have left at anytime but I volunteered while they were raiding my apartment the second time, I volunteered to talk with them. The dog came around and I petted him. And the dog walked out. So animals like me (laughter). Ex. 42, at 2.

Disclosures from the Hatfill camp to the media continued. For example, between late 2002 and May 8, 2003, Hatfill’s current attorney, Tom Connolly, and CBS News reporter James Stewart had multiple telephone conversations and two lunch meetings. Ex. 43. According to Stewart, Connolly told Stewart that the investigation was focusing on Hatfill, and detailed at great length the FBI’s surveillance of Hatfill. In virtually every one of these conversations, Connolly encouraged Stewart to report on these subjects. Id. at 96.

E. Louisiana State University’s Decision To Terminate Hatfill

At the time of the second search of his apartment in August 2002, Hatfill was working as a contract employee at the Louisiana State University (“LSU”) on a program to train first responders in the event of a biological attack. This program was funded by the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”) as part of a cooperative agreement. Ex. 44. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, OJP “maintain[ed] managerial oversight and control” of the program. Id. at 2. Following the second search of Hatfill’s apartment on August 1, 2002, Timothy Beres, Acting Director of OJP’s Office of Domestic Preparedness, directed that LSU “cease and desist from utilizing the subject-matter expert and course instructor duties of Steven J. Hatfill on all Department of Justice funded programs.” Ex. 45. LSU, meanwhile, had independently hired Hatfill to serve as Associate Director of its Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education. Following the second search, LSU placed Hatfill on administrative leave. Ex. 46. LSU then requested a background check of Hatfill. Ex. 47. During the course of that investigation, the University became concerned that Hatfill had forged a diploma for a Ph.D that he claimed to have received from Rhodes University in South Africa. Hatfill explained to Stephen L. Guillott, Jr., who was the Director of the Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education at LSU, that “[h]e assumed the degree had, in fact been awarded since neither his [thesis advisor] nor Rhodes University advised him to the contrary.” Ex. 48. LSU’s Chancellor, Mark A. Emmert, made “an internal decision to terminate [LSU’s] relationship with Dr. Hatfill quite independent of [the DOJ e-mail] communication.” Ex. 51.

Hatfill has now testified that in fact he created a fraudulent diploma with the assistance of someone he met in a bar who boasted that he could make a fraudulent diploma. Hatfill Dep. Tran., Ex. 49 at 19:20 - 20:12. Glasberg, moreover, has stated under oath that Hatfill’s earlier attempted explanation was untrue. Glasberg, Dep. Tran., Ex. 21, at 314:10 - 317:2. In a nationally televised 60 Minutes episode that aired in March 2007, Connolly confirmed that Hatfill forged the diploma for the Ph.D from Rhodes University. Ex. 50, at 3.

F. Hatfill’s Amended Complaint

Hatfill claims lost wages and other emotional damages resulting from General Ashcroft’s “person of interest” statements and other for-attribution statements by DOJ and FBI officials. He also seeks to recover for certain other alleged “leaks” by DOJ and FBI officials. Hatfill additionally asserts that the defendants violated the Act by purportedly failing to (1) maintain an accurate accounting of such disclosures, which he asserts is required by section 552a(c) of the Act; (2) establish appropriate safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of the records that were purportedly disclosed, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(10); (3) correct information that was disseminated about him that was inaccurate or incomplete, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(5); and (4) establish adequate rules of conduct, procedures, and penalties for noncompliance, or to train employees in the requirements of the Act, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(9). Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”


TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Breaking News; Extended News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: amerithrax; anthrax; anthraxattacks; bioterrorism; doj; domesticterrorism; fbi; hatfill; islamothrax; trialbymedia; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 981-987 next last
To: ZacandPook

From: Howard, Roscoe, Jr.
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:42 P.M. (responding to email above which was at 6:39 P.M.)
To: Blier, William
Subject: RE: Conversation with Glenn Fine

Find out who the FBI opened their investigation with. Van says that they have — but wouldn’t that be OIG?


181 posted on 04/18/2008 10:38:19 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

From: Blier, William
Sent : Tuesday, August 13, 2001 1:23 P.M.
To: Howard, Roscoe C, Jr.
Subject: RE: Conversation with Glenn Fine

Van has indicated to Ken that WFO opened the investigation and assigned it to a separate squad, but neither Ken nor any of the agents have been interviewed or have any other indication that an investigation is ongoing. OIG had not received a referral. Ken has prepared and I have approved a letter to Van from inquiring of the status of the “leak investigation.” I think the letter is consistent with the approach you articulated last night. Ken feels strongly about it and we should keep Van and the FBI honest. If we receive no response to the letter, perhaps we should send a copy of it to OIG. We will provide to you a copy of Ken’s letter. Thanks, Bill.


182 posted on 04/18/2008 10:47:25 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

From: Howard, Roscoe C, Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:55 PM
To: Blier, William
cc: Seikaly, Daniel; Leary, Mary Lou; Fredericksen, Scott
Subject: RE: Conversation with Glenn Fine

Bill — The letter to Van is fine. It should ask, specifically, what has been done to “open” the investigation. I have some problem with the FBI investigating its own [imagine the field day a publication would have with that]. You mentioned yesterday contacting the DAG and having him make the referral to OIG. We should consider that. As I said yesterday, I think we need to make sure we are doing the “internal inquiry” we represented to the press that we would do. Roscoe


183 posted on 04/18/2008 10:52:06 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

From: Blier, William
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:57 P.M.
To: Kohl, Ken
Subject: FW Conversation with Glenn Fine

Ken,
Looks like we still have our jobs. Let me know what kind of reaction you get from Van. Thanks, Bill.


184 posted on 04/18/2008 10:54:59 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
Because Hatfill said he was going to make his referall to OPR, and because the substance of Hatfill’s complaints are not really criminal, Hatfill’s referall would probably result in OPR handling it (with OIG deferring).

Confirming what I wrote earlier.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

185 posted on 04/18/2008 11:00:27 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
Van has indicated to Ken that WFO opened the investigation and assigned it to a separate squad, but neither Ken nor any of the agents have been interviewed or have any other indication that an investigation is ongoing.

This seems to indicate that Van Harp knew who was doing some of the leaking, so he wasn't interviewing agents of the FBI. The leak was within the DOJ.

Newsweek's article about the bloodhounds was printed about this time. The FBI could have told Seikaly, Seikaly could have told Newsweek, and Newsweek could have put it in their August 12 issue which was actually published about a week earlier than that date.

So, if Van Harp executed his sting operation about 7 or 10 days before this email, everything falls in to place.

This is interesting stuff, but it's also very easy to misinterpret. On the 13th they're saying that the Washington Field Office (WFO) "opened the investigation and assigned it to a separate squad," but there's no indication of when that happened. All we know is that he's talking in the past tense. It seems very reasonable that it could have been 7 to 10 days prior if they already know that no agents were interviewed.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

186 posted on 04/18/2008 11:15:39 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

From: KENNETH KOHL
To: HARP, VAN, HESS, JOHN J., LAMBERT, RICHARD

Van / Rick / Jack

Yesterday, ABCNEWS.COM ran another Brian Ross article on the anthrax investigation (attached). The report states that “Federal investigators on the anthrax task force continue to focus on former government Steven J. Hatfill as the man most likely responsible for the bioterror attacks last year that killed five people, even though they have found no hard evidence linking him to the attacks.” The source of the story are described as “several officals who attended a recent task force summit meeting in Washington [who] talked with ABCNEWS on the condition of anonymity.”

The most disturbing aspect of the article is that the “officials are quoted as saying that [about 5 lines redacted].
***

[Comment: the quote redacted relates to the FBI’s plan to re-interview other current and former government scientists (i.e., under a non-Hatfill theory).

So Mr. Seikaly’s leak had the effect of letting the folks re-interviewed know they were under suspicion].]


187 posted on 04/18/2008 11:21:29 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

April 11, 2003 notification to Attorney Glasberg stating:

“Each person interviewed denied, under penalty of perjury, having leaked any information to the media.”


188 posted on 04/18/2008 11:34:06 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

OCTOBER 7, 2004 - TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE REGGIE B. WALTON:

THE COURT: HAS THERE BEEN SOME TYPE OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION COMING FROM THE TOP SAYING THAT THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, IT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, AND IF YOU ARE CAUGHT, YOU WILL BE FIRED AND PUNISHED? HAS THAT HAPPENED?

MS. SHAPIRO: THERE HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE TOP. THERE HAVE, INDEED, YOUR HONOR.


189 posted on 04/18/2008 12:43:57 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

OCTOBER 7, 2004 - TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE REGGIE B. WALTON:

THE COURT: HAS THERE BEEN SOME TYPE OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION COMING FROM THE TOP SAYING THAT THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, IT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, AND IF YOU ARE CAUGHT, YOU WILL BE FIRED AND PUNISHED? HAS THAT HAPPENED?

MS. SHAPIRO: THERE HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE TOP. THERE HAVE, INDEED, YOUR HONOR.


190 posted on 04/18/2008 12:44:12 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
MS. SHAPIRO: THERE HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE TOP. THERE HAVE, INDEED, YOUR HONOR.

This is all very interesting, but it's just stuff which proves what I've been saying about the sting operation is true.

Back in message #144 in this thread, TrebelRebel wrote:

Thanks for the exhibits - I’m sure Ed doesn’t want to see them - since they prove he is wrong about everything.

Would you please post something that proves me wrong? I'd like to see what TrebelRebel was talking about.

Or was he just posting nonsense as usual?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

191 posted on 04/18/2008 2:00:11 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
The most disturbing aspect of the article is that the “officials are quoted as saying that [about 5 lines redacted].

That's weird. Why would they redact part of an ABC news report? It looks like the January 9, 2003, article I have on my web site.

I don't see anything that matches what you posted, though. The closest I see is this:

Officials attending the meeting also told ABCNEWS that FBI agents plan another round of interviews with other persons of interest, including some current and former government scientists.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

192 posted on 04/18/2008 2:22:54 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

As I explained in post #19 above, “After a January 9, 2003 “exclusive” report by ABC’s Brian Ross that the FBI was focusing on Hatfill and was going to conduct a second round of interviews with other former and current government scientists so that they might rule them out by the process of elimination, the FBI initiated a second media leak investigation. This time it was to proceed with ‘extreme zeal.’”

The full passage redacted states:

“Officials attending the meeting also told ABCNEWS that FBI agents plan another round of interviews with other persons of interest, including some current and former government scientists.

‘It’s an attempt to rule out anybody else who has come across our radar,’ said one investigator. ‘Then, we can focus entirely on Hatfill,’ the investigator said.”

According to FoxNews, it turned out that it was Hatfill they were able to rule out. The blind sheik’s son who had spoken alongside Al-Timimi — Mohammed Abdel-Rahman from the AQ WMD committee — was arrested the next month, along with KSM. Hambali was captured in August. He pointed to where the extremely virulent anthrax was found. The FBI searched Kabul and Kandahar areas under the theory it was stolen in the US and was brought there etc.

I sent you about 70 exhibits. But at least some of pdfs (e.g., vol 10 and 12) are as big as 20 MB and am still working out how to email them.

But I would be glad to email Vol 11 containing the above media leak documents to anyone who emails me that they want them.

I will be integrating the deposition testimony here and other exhibits here:

http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com


193 posted on 04/18/2008 3:10:54 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
I sent you about 70 exhibits. But at least some of pdfs (e.g., vol 10 and 12) are as big as 20 MB and am still working out how to email them.

There are limits on the size of what can go via email.

When I run into those limits, I put the item on my web site and tell the other person where to find it. They can then download it, and, when they are done, I delete the file.

Thanks for sending me what you did.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

194 posted on 04/18/2008 3:22:50 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; TrebleRebel

TrebelRebel may have been concerned that your theory as to how the bloodhounds were used omits any mention of smurfs:

Q. And then you would take all the Smurf sightings, compile them , and analyze them?
A. Correct.

***

Q. would you agree with me that the dogs did some kind of sniffing activity?
A. Yes.
Q. And so they’re not doing interviews, lifting fingerprints?

[A] Yes
Q. I mean, they’re doing work with their noses. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree me on that?
And whatever work they did with their noses, the sniffing, we’ve talked about before, there was was a record made of those efforts?
A. Yes.
Q. And the record was the — now I can’t remember the name of it.
A. The deployment sheets.

The witness described what was on the deployment sheets:

“A. Yeah, date and time; case identification; what scent article we would be using; place that we were conducting the search; the response, the outcome of the search; the response, the outcome of the search. Witnesses, and keeper of the — that particular note or that deployment sheet. And things like GPS coordinates; “


195 posted on 04/18/2008 3:45:29 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

“6. DOJ objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call for disclosing the identities or conduct of any officials, agents, or employees of the CIA.”


196 posted on 04/18/2008 4:10:42 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

Folks attending the December 4, 2002 briefing meeting on the Task Force progress outside of DC area included Kevin FBI-Trenton, Bill FBI-NY, David USPIS-NJ, Jim USPIS-NJ, Bill USPIS-NJ, Marty USPIS-NJ, Ed FBI-Newark, Stuart USAO -NJ, Ken FBI - Newark, Tony - FBI-NY, Bill FBI-NY (JTTF), Kevin NYPD (JTTF) and Tom FBI-NY (JTTF).

No one from Ohio or Wisconsin. The logical inference is that the POIs are in the DC or the NJ/NYC area and thus Ed’s theory can be ruled out.


197 posted on 04/18/2008 4:26:24 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

Interrogatory response:

Dr. Hatfill has incurred the following expenses as a result of the Agency Defendants’ actions:

- Approximately $20,000 to renovate girlfriends’ apartment and replace furniture given away in anticipation of move to Baton Rouge.
- Approximately $14,000 lease on truck to complete apartment renovations.
- Approximately $2,400 insurance for Chevy truck used in renovations.
- Approximately $3,000 for apartment deposit and rent paid in Baton rouge in advance of move in June 2002.
- Approximately $2,500 moving expenses paid to Allied Moving for first move to Baton Rouge from Washington, DC in August 2002.
- Approximately $750 Roundtrip airline ticket from Baton Rouge to Washington, DC
-Approximately $500 trip to clear out storage facility in Florida
-Approximately $3,000 medical/dental bills due to being uninsured from loss of employment
-Psychiatric treatment by Dr. Catherine May - expenses detailed on documents that will be produced to Agency Defendants pursuant to appropiate protective order.
-Legal fees and expenses incurred - to the extent possible, these are detailed on documents that will be produced to Agency Defendants in response to their document requests.
-unknown amount for storage of belongings in Frederick, MD while in Baton Rouge.


198 posted on 04/18/2008 4:44:25 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

If anyone doubted that Dr. H was on Cipro due to nasal surgery his doctor for the September 2001 is listed.


199 posted on 04/18/2008 4:48:15 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

From January 11, 2006 Deposition of Dwight Adams:

“THE WITNESS: I think any prosecutor or investigator would be concerned about information, especially wrong information, being put into the press that would damage an investigation.

BY MR. CONNOLLY:

Q How would it damage an investigation?
A It could indicate which way the investigation is going. It could signal to the perpetrators what we are attempting to accomplish, and maybe you have not even gotten to that point yet in the investigation. So you — they or the person — the perpetrator of this crime could have been destroying evidence, for example.

A I don’t think I was concerned about the investigation but I was concerned to see a lot of
wrong information particularly related to the science of the investigation appearing in the press.

***

Q Could it help the perpetrator map the investigation, the FBI’s investigation if it knew who the FBI
was interested in, at least speaking to?
A Yes.

***

Q Earlier you testified that regarding the scientific aspect of the investigation there was information that simply in your view too sensitive to share to the public about the particular characteristic of the organism sent in the mail. Is hat correct?
A In so many words, yes, sir.

***
Q Did you feel like you had the same restrictions in informing the senate, congress or staff in terms of what it is you would reveal to them about the particular characteristics of the organism that was sent?

A As I’ve already stated there was specific information that I did not feel appropriate to share with either the media or to the Hill because it was too sensitive of information to do so. It would show too much of where were were going and what we hoped to accomplish. But in more broad terms I was able to at least give them the sense that, one, we clearly knew what we were dealing with and how were going to get to the answers of who might be responsible for this.
***
I just recall we were restricted or told to hold back in talking about specific individuals or specific techniques and just give a broader view of —

A *** It was the director [Mueller] stating that the briefing would be fine but we need to keep that type of information on individuals and other things close hold and not reveal that. I also remember that the director himself went — when we actually were before the two senators.

***
Q Did you have a sense that Ms. Rosenberg, and I’m not going to ask you what she told you about the science, okay, but did you have a sense that she was briefed in on the organism but had a good sense of what it was?
A No.
Q Was she misinformed?
A Yes.
Q You could tell that immediately, correct?
A Related to the science, yes.
***
Q You found that in fact the information she provided at least on the science side you didn’t find very credible.
A That’s right.

***
Q I just want to go the very bottom there it says, “Follow Up Action : SC Carey pointed out that the FBI never precluded looking at international origin of anthrax.” Do you see that?
A Yes
Q Do you have any recollection of Mr. Carey or anyone else making sure the staffers understood that the FBI hadn’t explicitly limited their pool of candidates who could have been involved in this domestic source?
A Yeah, I recall that being a topic of discussion on occasion, yes.”


200 posted on 04/18/2008 7:28:11 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 981-987 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson