Federal Judge Permits Linda Tripp to Prove Multiple Privacy Act Violations Committed By Defense Dept

LindaTripp.com ^ | September 4, 2002 | Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.

[Jim Robinson]

Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3233 P Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007-2756
(202) 342-6980 · FAX (202) 342-6984

For more information contact:

(202) 342-6980

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Federal Judge Permits Linda Tripp to Prove Multiple Privacy Act Violations Committed By Defense Department

Bush Administration Motion to Dismiss Denied

Washington, D.C. , September 4, 2002 – In a 19-page written ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has rejected the Bush Administration’s attempt to dismiss a complaint filed by Mrs. Linda Tripp alleging that the Defense Department committed multiple violations of the Privacy Act over a 2-month period of time in 1998. The court denied efforts by bureaucrats in the Bush Administration to limit Mrs. Tripp’s case to just one leak to Jane Mayer of the New Yorker that the government now admits was committed by Ken Bacon, former DOD spokesman, and Clifford Bernath, another DOD official, in violation of the Privacy Act. However, published news accounts show that numerous leaks of Mrs. Tripp’s personnel and security records occurred in early 1998.

Although Mrs. Tripp had from the outset of this case alleged that the DOD made numerous unauthorized disclosures of information to the press and public from Mrs. Tripp’s personnel and security files between late January and late March, 1998, the Bush Administration fought vigorously to prevent Mrs. Tripp from conducting any discovery or seeking any judicial relief for these multiple Privacy Act violations. The government fought hard to prevent Mrs. Tripp from obtaining any information about these horrible leaks or to seek any damages based on the egregious multiple violations that occurred.

Mrs. Tripp’s Privacy Act case alleges that the Clinton Administration leaked information from government files to discredit and malign her in retaliation for providing evidence to the Office of Independent Counsel which eventually resulted in the impeachment of President Clinton.

Mrs. Tripp’s attorneys, Stephen M. Kohn, David Colapinto and Michael Kohn issued the following statement:

"The way the government has treated Linda Tripp after she became a whistleblower is nothing short of horrific. She was under a legal duty to document and disclose illegal conduct committed by former President Clinton. By all accounts, before she blew the whistle, Mrs. Tripp’s work performance was consistently rated as outstanding. Now, her attempt to obtain employment, even at a lower grade and lower salary, and her efforts to obtain justice have been opposed by bureaucrats in the Bush Administration. The dislike and even hatred of Mrs. Tripp came about because she was subjected to a vicious smear campaign in order to save a presidency. We believe that this ruling by the court is an important step towards justice for Linda Tripp."

A copy of the court’s ruling may be found at www.kkc.com/whistleblower.htm

or www.lindatripp.com or www.dcd.uscourts.gov/district-court-recent.html

 

 

- 30 -

[IncPen]

This made my day.

[KC Burke]

bumpus maximus

[RJCogburn]

Thanks for posting. Good news.

the Bush Administration’s attempt to dismiss hardly is a credit to the current people in power.

[cynicom]

The name in the Whitehouse may change, but big government never changes. Those people look after each other, regardless of the party or the person.

[Republic]

I am GLAD the Bush adm. lost this one-they should have. My hope is that they did not try to hard to win it. Truly. Because anyone with a heart and soul for justice knows that Linda was royally ripped apart by our government, first by the klintons and their trash team, secondly by the press, and lastly by our current administration that has failed to smash the klinton's attempt to first ruin this good woman.

Go Linda. I love you for what you did.

[Fred Mertz]

The court denied efforts by bureaucrats in the Bush Administration to limit Mrs. Tripp’s case to just one leak to Jane Mayer of the New Yorker that the government now admits was committed by Ken Bacon, former DOD spokesman, and Clifford Bernath, another DOD official, in violation of the Privacy Act.

I hope this opens the floodgates.

[oldironsides]

Eagles up !

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I guess Bush43 is protecting Clinton42 for protecting Bush41.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I hope this opens the floodgates.

We are talking about the Imperial Federal Government here. Nothing will come of this. Believe me.

[Jim Robinson]

Interesting point. Here's some text from the actual ruling:


VI. Summary Judgment
Despite filing a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, defendant has not specifically moved for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's claims. Defendant's arguments in its Memorandum in support of the motion all go to dismissal pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The sole mention of summary judgment is in the final sentence of the Memorandum, where defendant urges the Court to grant summary judgment should it rely on materials outside the pleading or documents incorporated into the pleading by reference. Insofar as defendant has attempted to move for summary judgment without providing any argument as to why this Court should grant judgment in its favor, that motion is denied. Summary judgment may be revisited as appropriate at the end of discovery.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss or in the
alternative for summary judgment is DENIED;

[bert]

The administration is continuing the effort but letting the courts decide the issue. This is as it should be. The out come will reveal that the individuals are at fault, not the institution.

we know the motivation of the individuals and that they no lonfer function in positions of power.

[eureka!]

"The court denied efforts by bureaucrats..."

Says it all...

[Windshark]

Hope your analysis is right.

It makes more sense that way.

I can't see the Bush administration knowingly supporting what Slick began here.

[cynicom]

bert...

In my opinion, it is precisely the institution that is at fault. I spent many years in Federal service and learned that lesson early on.

[Republic]

I can't see the Bush administration knowingly supporting what Slick began here.

Nor I. At least I hope not. And Jim's post(VI. Summary Judgment & CONCLUSION, thread post #11 )is incredibly insightful regarding the effort the defendents put into Linda's case. It almost appears as if the government lawyers purposefully forced the judge to rule as he did...in accordance with the law. I like that. A lot. One can hope, at any rate, that this was the plan.

GO LINDA GO!!!!

[chit*chat]

the Bush Administration’s attempt to dismiss

I certainly didn't vote him into office to dump on her too.

[RAT Patrol]

Cool!

[Republic]

GO LINDA GO!

[thucydides]

Oddly enough, Judge Sullivan is a Clinton appointee who has previously issued questionable rulings in matters affecting that administration.