From kstahl@nr.infi.net Sun Mar 3 09:36:20 1996 Xref: elastic can.general:36331 Path: elastic!jaywon.pci.on.ca!ftn.net!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!istar.net!torn!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!melba.bby.com.au!news.mira.net.au!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nwgw.infi.net!news.infi.net!usenet From: kstahl@nr.infi.net (Kenneth C Stahl) Newsgroups: alt.misc,alt.tv.newsradio,aus.legal,can.general,cl.datenschutz.diskussion Subject: My case against the CIA Date: 23 Feb 1996 11:57:53 GMT Organization: InfiNet Lines: 232 Message-ID: <4gka41$72f@nw002.infi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pa6dsp24.nr.infi.net Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.4 The 6th floor of the Original Headquarters Building of the Central Intelligence Agency had reasons to celebrate recently. Through considerable deceit, dishonesty, prevarications, malfeasanse and illegal actions, the agency lawyers apparently convinced a Judge of the United States District Court in Miami, Florida that they simply would not tolerate my case coming to trial. So, with the trial scheduled to begin in mid-January and with no substantive issues upon which to dismiss the case, the court just simply issued an adverse judgment against the plaintiff that was based on fantasy and fabrication rather then on any substantive facts. This action was apparently intended to indicate that the court does not want to be bothered with reverse discrimination cases and will permit such cases to be argued before a jury. Over the past 27 months the courts and the CIA have had to go to great lengths to pursue their illegal, immoral and unethical actions. Luckily, the gross misconduct of the court, the U.S. Attorney's office and the CIA is so blatant that it doesn't take any effort at all to show that all illegal actions were taken by the defendant and the court and that the plaintiff made every effort to pursue the case using proper procedures but was prevented from vigorously prosecuting the case by circumstances beyond his control. 1. When the case was first submitted in federal district court in Greensboro, NC, the U.S. Attorney contacted plaintiff's attorney and advised him that under no circumstances would the CIA mediate. The U.S. Attorney was either ignorant of existing laws or just chose to disregard them since the CIA simply believes that it is not subject to any law. There is a law called Executive Order 12778 which basically states that whenever the U.S government is the defendant in civil litigation, mediation must be initiated by the U.S. government agency named as the defendant. EO12778 is extremely clear on this point. However, the CIA does not believe it is to abide by such laws - after all, they don't work for the President so they decided unilaterally that they would simply refuse to mediate. After the case was transferred to federal district court in Miami, the court, also ignorant of the provisions of EO12778, issued an order which demanded that the plaintiff initiate mediation. Despite the fact that law required the initiative to come from the defendant, plaintiff's attorneys made every effort to instigate mediation, but the government was adamant that they would remain in violation of the law. The court, being thoroughly intimated by the CIA and apparently having no desire to uphold the law and obviously having no power to enforce the law, ultimately rewarded the CIA for its violation of this law by accusing the plaintiff of failing to enter into mediation. 2. In August 1995 plaintiff agreed to travel to Miami for a deposition. The U.S. Attorney, seeing this as an opportunity to defame and denigrate the plaintiff, made personally insulting remarks to the plaintiff during the deposition without any provocation on the part of the plaintiff. Luckily these remarks are part of the official document and can be used to demonstrate the clear hostility on the part of the U.S. Attorney's office. At the end of the deposition an agreement was reached that once the deposition was transcribed, the deposition would be provided to the defendant to permit any technical corrections. The copy of the deposition was subsequently received along with a bill for over $200. So not only did the defendant have to pay for travel to Miami, but he was also required to pay for the costs of the deposition. The government ended up with no costs whatsoever. Then on top of that, after the errata corrections were provided the defendant refused to provide a corrected copy of the deposition document. Did the court see anything wrong with this? Of course not. They are part of the government. They will quite naturally favor the government whenever possible. The problem here is that the Constitution of the United States provides that a citizen of the United States has an absolute right of equal standing before the court. By favoring the CIA in this matter, the court has violated the provisions of the constitution. I might also add that the quality of the transcription was extremely poor. The court recorder made so many errors that it was necessary to submit several pages worth of extensive corrections. 3. In December of this past year the U.S. Attorney contacted one of the plaintiff's secondary attorneys to schedule a meeting. No notification of this meeting was ever provided to the plaintiff's primary attorney, nor was the plaintiff notified of the meeting. On the day of the meeting it became clear that the secondary attorney had a scheduling conflict and notified the court that his presence would be slightly delayed. The court, desperate for any pretext to issue an unfavorable ruling against the plaintiff claimed that the attorney did not appear. Factually, the courts allegations are a gross distortion of the actual facts. Plaintiff's attorney did appear in court that day with the full expectation that the court would act in a normative civil manner and acknowledge plaintiff's attorney's prior declaration that he was unavoidably detained from meeting the exact time of the scheduled meeting. Had this been a habitual occurrence, the circumstances may have warranted comment by the court with perhaps a warning against future tardiness. However, this occurred on a single occasion and plaintiff was severely punished as a result. 4. When this case was first presented to the courts, the U.S. Attorney's office advised plaintiff's attorney that a security clearance was required. Plaintiff's attorney made numerous attempts to resolve this issue but was met with stonewall silence and the government refused to take any action to provide this clearance to the plaintiff's attorney. As a result the plaintiff was severely constrained from discussing vital aspects of this case with his attorney. This matter was placed before the court, but the court chose to ignore the issue. As a result, plaintiff was further punished because the plaintiff had been an employee of an agency which believes it is not subject to the laws of the United States but which would have pursued criminal action against the plaintiff if these crucial issues had been discussed without the benefit of a security clearance. 5. There is a issue of possible ethical complicity in this case. Rather than using its own lawyers, the CIA enlisted the services of the U.S. Attorney's office in Miami. The problem with this is that the judges in U.S. District Court and the U.S. Attorneys often work very closely together, they tend to develop personal relationships with each other and probably address each other on a first name basis outside of public conversations such as are held in courtroom. This placed the plaintiff at an extreme disadvantage in this case because plaintiff's attorneys did not have the same type of instant access to the judge as that which was enjoyed by the U.S. Attorney. Once may well imagine what might transpire in a casual conversation at the coffee pot on some listless Friday afternoon. Off-hand comments by both the judge and the U.S. Attorney regarding the case could be exchanged and together they decide what course of action should take place. This is an equal standing issue. The government enjoyed considerable access to the court in this case and they used that to their advantage in obtaining the adverse ruling. The point is, when there is a potential for a casual social relationship to arise they almost always occur. This tends to thwart justice. In cases such as this extra precautions must be provided to ensure an atmosphere of absolute fairness to both parties. If either the U.S. Attorney or the judge ever made any comments regarding this case in each other's presence without the presence of the plaintiff's attorney, then a serious breach of ethics occurred and both the judge and the U.S. Attorney should be severally censured for their actions and criminal proceedings should be considered by the appeals court. But, since it became evident in this case that the court was going to do everything in its power to favor the defendant - especially since this specific defendant has extraordinary powers to circumvent the law in ways that are not subject to public viewing - all sorts of ethical violations could occur and then the court rewarded both itself and the defendant for such violations. Throughout the time the case was before the court the CIA maintained that the merits of this case were irrelevant. How can this be? There is a basic assumption in U.S. law that the primary consideration in any case must be the merits of the case itself. Whatever rules are fabricated by the courts must be ultimately be measured by the Constitution. If they do not support the same rights as those set forth by the Constitution, then it is those rules which must be disregarded rather then the Constitution. But, since the courts have virtually no experience with reverse discrimination cases, they are loathe to hear such cases because when the facts are finally aired the jury may decide, that the government was at fault and that the judgment must go in favor of the plaintiff. That, of course, would set a precedent. Courts detest precedence because once a precedent is established it can be used in other cases. This particular case was so riddled with blatant willful violations of the law by the CIA that it was apparently obvious to both the court and to the CIA that there was simply no means whereby the CIA's actions could be successfully defended. They would have lost. Since neither the court nor the CIA wanted that to occur, they apparently decided that they would use a fabricated pretext to dismiss the case. It must always be kept in mind that one of the very basic stances of the CIA is that it retains the right to lie about any matter which it believes a lie will best serve its own internal interests. It is irrelevant that every CIA officer takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The CIA lives by a concept called "plausible denial" which basically implies that if they can tell a lie and it serves their purpose better then the truth, then the lie is permissible and desirable. There have been countless books written which demonstrate that the CIA has made numerous public statements which have latter been show to absolute lies. The CIA has become so accustomed to lying on every issue that it is now incapable of telling the truth on any issue. The CIA started its lies to the plaintiff back in 1989. It has yet to make any substantive truthful statements about this case. At one point, the statutory Inspector General even went as far as to say that the harsh, punitive and vindictive actions taken against the plaintiff were "reasonable" even though those actions were taken without due process of the law, were in clear violation of the law. Yet, because the CIA has the power to classify any piece of information, none of the documents which would clearly demonstrate their hostile intent against the plaintiff will probably never see the light of day. Why? Because "national security" might be jeopardized. If a government agency such as the Department of Agriculture had taken such actions against one of its employees and the same types of documents which clearly show the discriminatory intent had been written, the employee would have been able to make copies of the documents and retain them for his own personal use in civil litigation. But, in this case all of the documents were classified because the CIA routinely classifies almost every document ever produced internally. As it is, the CIA can now claim that such documents do not exist - and it knows that I cannot possibly have such documents because I could not remove them from the building when I was forced to resign. A Department of Agriculture employee might have a chance at a fair trial. Plaintiff, in this case, does not. This case has also revealed that the U.S. government as a whole would rather support the continued illegal actions of the CIA rather then uphold the Constitution of the United States. Even prior to the time that this case was filed in court, plaintiff made numerous attempts to air the core issues of this case to various members of the government. On the whole, all of the plaintiff's letters were either ignored or received form letter replies. At no time did any public official attempt to determine the actual facts in this case. Plaintiff wrote letters to the President of the United States. The President was never given the opportunity to read these letters. Mail clerks were designated to provide condescending and meaningless replies. Plaintiff wrote letters to the Attorney General. The Attorney General only pays attention to cases that are scrutinized by the forth estate. Plaintiff wrote letters to the Director of the CIA. The director was never permitted to view these letters and the statutory Inspector General - whose loyalty is supposed to lie with the Congress and with the President chose to side with the CIA and refused to investigate the matter. Plaintiff wrote letters to members of Congress. These letters were either ignored or provided replies which were filled with factual misstatements provided by the CIA. Plaintiff even wrote letters to the elements of the print and broadcast media. In the few instances where initial interest was generated by the letter the media refused to look into the matter. Many people argue long and loud about freedom of the press, but despite the provisions of the Constitution there is no free press within the United States. Journalists of every type rely on access to public officials and that access can be jeopardized by covering stories that the U.S. government does not wish to have covered. If any of the major networks, newspapers or magazines had actually published anything about my case they probably would have been punished by the government in a variety of subtle and covert means. I am a nobody. The media isn't going to risk its access privileges over a nobody. If I had been a woman or a minority the case could have been very different. But, this case has been about reverse discrimination from the moment that a high ranking official in the CIA told me that as a Single, White Male I have no rights because I am not a member of a protected class. This case is not over yet. I intend to keep fighting until the day that someone finds me face down in a ravine with a CIA bullet in the back of my head. If the government wants to make this case disappear their only options are to either face the issues in an open and absolutely fair way or simply eliminate me in a executive action. I do not fear the latter - martyrs often have more power to change things then those who are living.