WhistleblowerSupporter

Kinan v. Robert M. Gates/Judge William G. Young: A Must Read

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

DOUGLAS K. KINAN

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 08-10477-WGY

 

 

ROBERT M. GATES Judge William G. Young

Defendant

MOTION FOR THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE MARK L. WOLF TO INTERVENE AND FOR JUDICIAL/ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW CONCERNING JUDGE WILLIAM G. YOUNG'S DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS BASED ON SPECIAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF LAW, THE EQUAL JUSTICE STANDARD, DUE PROCESS, THE "CLEAN HANDS" DOCTRINE, ATTORNEY INTIMIDATION, FRAUD ON THE COURT AND THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES ADOPTED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES'

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, pro se, in CA No. 08-10477-WGY cross

referenced with CA No. 99-11855-WGY and CA No. 99-11465-WGY and

moves the Honorable Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf to intervene and

conduct a judicial/administrative review of Judge William G.

Young's discretionary decisions on the grounds that Judge Young

gave every benefit of the doubt to the Defense Contract

Management Agency's ("DCMA")extensive pattern and practice of

verified criminal activity and deliberate acts of continuing

retaliation.

"TheCodeofConductprovidesguidancefor judgeson issues ofjudicialintegrityand independence,judicial diligence and impartiality, and the avoidance of impropriety or even its appearance. Judges may not hear cases in which they have either personal knowledge ofthe disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case...:'

I

On September 28, 2009, Judge Young denied Plaintiff's Verified Motion and Memorandum dated September 24, 2009, without explanation.

Judge Young's decisions preempts the DCMA and the Department of Justice from responding to Plaintiff's "First Amended Complaint" and "Combined Verified Motion and Memorandum" filed with the Court on or about June 14, 2008 and September 24, 2009 respectively2.

Judge Young's denial of Plaintiff's pleadings bends the law to protect crime, including the Department of Justice's participation in the willful and deliberate frame ups of many innocent citizens (even one is too many) .

Judge Young's decision ignores relevant and material facts, defends the case for the Defendant, allows the DOJ to remain silent concerning their participation in criminal activity and, for a second time, demonstrates a bias toward Plaintiff's pro se status, which deprives Plaintiff of equal justice, due process and an evidentiary hearing on the merits. Judge Young has absolute and unequivocal evidence ~tt~~~·d=-A9.G to prove a fraud on the court, which is contained in court records.

2 Neither AUSA Christine 1. Wichers or the DOl offered counterarguments or a defense to the verified criminal activity outlined in Plaintiff's pleadings except to characterize Plaintiff's lawful reporting and pleadings as being "irrelevant, repetitive, conclusory, inflammatory, prolix, disjointed, unintelligible, impenetrable, swollen with irrelevant rhetorical flourishes, muddled, personal and vindictive."

Judge Young never bothered to ask AUSA Wichers to explain in open court why Plaintiffs reporting of the DCMA's continuing violations to include, heinous and violent acts against women (and their children), sexual harassment, well planned discrimination, intentional exclusion of black candidates from working in the Equal Employment Office, quid pro quo promotions in exchange for false and/or tainted testimony or silence, suborning pe~jury, fabricating documents and reports to pretend complaints were investigated when they were not, frame ups, and widespread public corruption and criminal activity subsidized by millions of tax dollars is "irrelevant, repetitive, conclusory. inflammatory, prolix. disjointed, unintelligible, impenetrable, swollen with irrelevant rhetorical flourishes, muddled, personal and vindictive."

2

Judge Young's treatment toward overwhelming evidence of a rigged

promotion and a verified fraud on the court coupled with the

direct threat and intimidation of US Marshal Frank Dawson³ during

a court proceeding should not be cavalierly overlooked by denying

Plaintiff's motion. (See Attachment #1, Affidavit prepared for

Judge Young, which was withheld and/or concealed and Attachment

#2, Dawson's email dated March 27, 2009⁴ .)

Judge Young's decision embraces the Defendants' verified criminal activity, subsidized by millions of taxpayer dollars and ensures the pattern and practices as outlined in my 30-page affidavitS and verified complaints shall continue.

The truth, facts and evidence in the pleadings and the official

government record are undisputed and self-evident. Judge Young

ignored the weight of the evidence, which is violative of

Plaintiff's vested legal right. (See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. ⁶ )

Respectfully submitted,

 

L>-~.~~

Douglas K. lin~~

34 Glenburnie Road

Boston, MA 02132

617-323-6171

October 10, 2009

3 Dawson told Plaintiffthat the [violations in Judge Wolfs court] was "none ofJudge Wolfs business." PlaintifT disagreed with Dawson.

4 Dawson's told Plaintiffthat ifhe reported public corruption to the Public Corruption Officer, Brian Kelly, that he would prosecute Plaintiffas a "stalker." Dawson stated that Kelly thinks that Plaintiffs reporting is "bothersome."

5 Plaintiffs required government participation in the Gerard Francis investigation. See also Plaintiffs affidavit in the Harrison complaint and the contemporaneous emails in the VireJla frame up.

6 "Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case in United States law. This landmark decision helped define the 'checksandbalances'oftheAmerican formofgovernment." "One ofthekeylegalprinciplesonwhich Marbury relies is the notion that for every violation ofa vested legal right, there must be a legal remedy."

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas K. Kinan, hereby certify I request, by First Class Mail, prepaid		served the to:	within
Honorable Chief Judge Mark John J. Moakley Courthouse 1 Courthouse Way Boston, MA 02210	L. Wolf
Christine J. Wichers Assistant United States Attorney John J. Moakley Courthouse 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02210
Cornelius J.P. Sullivan 51 Ellison Street Mattapan, MA 02126
L>-. {L-. rJ~~ Douglas K. ~nan 34 Glenburnie Road Boston, MA 02132 617-323-6171 October 10, 2009

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT #1

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF MASSACHUSETIS

COUN1Y OF SUFFOLI<

I, Douglas K. Kinan, of Suffolk County provide this affidavit to the Honorable Judge William G. Young, as a result of a March 25, 2009 effort to retaliate, harass, intimidate, humiliate and embarrass me, place my job in jeopardy and silence me concerning my reporting of public corruption, verified felony conduct and fraud on the court, condoned by United States Attorney MichaelJ. Sullivan's office, knowing that this sworn statement is not confidential.

In the interest of substantial and equal justice and in accordance with the United States Marshals Service, Judicial Security Division aSD), which "is committed to the protection of the judicial process -by ensuring the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings and protecting federal judges, jurors and other members ofthe federal judiciary," I askJudge Young to inqUire as to who sent US Marshal Francis P. Dawson, Jr. ("Dawson") and why and whether or not Dawson's visit was meant to interfere with the judicial process in my federal civil complaint before Judge Young's court (08-1047? -WGY.)

There is no doubt in my mind that Dawson's visit was intended to scare, embarrass and silence me and interfere with my civil complaint. Dawson's visit was a disturbing and menacing act. Dawson had no ~uthoritycoming to my job at the court and he had no business acting contrary to JSD responsibilities and his job. No judge or no judge's clerk in his or her right mind would have sent Dawson to see me. Dawson's visit demonstrates that someone in the US Attorney's office, once again, has no difficulty in destroying my livelihood and my reputation in the court.

I hereby solemnly swear and affirm:

DAWSON'S VISIT TO SUFFOLK PROBATE COURT -10:30 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.

Upon my arrival to work on March 25, 2009, I was informed by employee, Tina Cole that at approximately 8:15 a.m. a US Marshall called, "looking for you." The call was forwarded to Peter Solomon who operates the switchboard.

Mr. Solomon informed me that he asked this US Marshall if he would like to be connected to my voicemail and leave a message. Dawson said, no, that he would come to my job and visit me.

At approximately 10:40 a.m., an individual walked into my office, which is open and public. In public view and earshot and approximately four feet from the line of attorneys who fue court pleadings with me, Dawson showed a badge and credentials, introduced himself as US Marshal Frank Dawson. (Dawson's business card is: "U.S. Department ofJustice, United States Marshals Service, Francis P. Dawson,]r., "Frank," Deputy U.S. Marshal.") 2

Dawson told me that his visit to my job was prompted by a letter that I had faxed to Judge

Gertner on February 26,2009 (Attachment #1) dated February 24,2009, and that he "should

have been here on the 27^th."

The timing ofDawson's visit, coupled with his comments corresponds more to my letter of March 24, 2009 (Attachment #2).

I asked Dawson who sent him to see me. His first version (Dawson gave three versions) was

thatJudge Gertner sent him and, "The judge don't want anymore letters." I informed Dawson that I admiredJudge Gertner, I would not do anything to offend her or any judge in any way, I was complying with the federal statute and I had sentJudge Gertner and other members of the

federal bench letters in the past, without consequence. Dawson then changed his story and said Judge Gertner's clerk sent him. In the afternoon during Dawson's follow up phone conversation

he emphatically stated, "I'm doing this on my own."

I informed Dawson that I would not and did not send any threatening letters to anyone, I am not a violent person and essentially I have always had my daughters' reputation to anchor my conduct to all ethical, moral, legal and civic standards. Dawson said, "Neither was I(acynski" (referring to Una-Bomber, Ted Kaczynski.

Dawson told me that I was in violation ofa federal law and that I am not supposed to send letters to judges. I informed Dawson that I work for the court, that his information was a

surprise to me and that judges get letters here everyday. Dawson said that a "2007 federal law

("1521 or something") supported his claim but that he did not remember the cite. Dawson later changed his story and said he was recendy in trairiing and learned of this new law.

I informed Dawson that I was lawfully required to report felony conduct to a "judge" and asked him ifhe wanted to see the statute confirming such reporting. He said he did. I left my

operations office to get the cite and returned with the letter to AUSA and Public Corruption ChiefBrian Kelly dated December 24,2007 (Attachment #3) showing the cite (18 USC 4 & 2(il), which was also footnoted in my February 24, 2009; letter, which Dawson claimed had prompted his visit. .

Upon my return I closed the door because there was a line of attorneys approximately four feet away listening to our discussion, which was embarrassing. I asked Dawson to read the Kelly letter and that I(elly had never notified me that my letters offended him or anyone else. Dawson said he did not want to read the letter, folded it and placed it in his book. We both agreed that he should check with I(elly to see ifI was "bothersome" and get back to me.

After Dawson read the footnote requiring reporting to a "judge" he said, it was not the "whole law," that the law has changed and proceeded to tell me that he was recendy in training in which he learned of a new law, which prohibits letters being sent to judges. I informed Dawson that I had no knowledge of the new law, informed him that I would respect any law and asked him if he would send me that cite. He said he would.

We continued our discussion and I informed Dawson that I was reporting the frame ups of innocent individuals, other crime and public corruption, to include the current retaliatory frame 3

up ofwhisdeblower Ken Pedeleose and that Kelly of the DOJ and Foley of the FBI refuse to investigate. I also informed Dawson that Foley thinks the frame-ups are amusing. I informed Dawson that unless there is a law that supercedes 18 USC 4, my lawfully required reporting needed to be recognized to prevent more harm to innocent individuals. Dawson again repeated that I should not be sending letters to judges.

Dawson then inquired as to how I gotJudge Gertner's fax number. I informed Dawson that it was public information, contained in the Massachusetts Lawyers Diary ("Redbook") and/or I may have called Judge Gertner's office, using the "Redbook" to obtain her fax number. I asked Dawson if he wanted to see the Directory. He said he did. I gave him a copy of the "Redbook" pointing out the Federal District Court Directory on Page 19. He said it was a "2006" book. I offered him the 2008 version of the Redbook to my right and asked if he wanted to see that version. He said Clno." .

The timing and comments surrounding Dawson's visit corresponds, not to my letter of February 24, 2009 but to my letter of March 24, 2009; because during our discussion Dawson brought up the ''Jeffrey Auerhahn" matter, which was previously before Honorable Judge Mark Wolf and told me that Auerhahn's conduct was "none ofJudge Wolf's business." I disagreed with Dawson and informed him that Auerhahn's conduct was Judge Wolfs business and that Judge Wolf acted appropriately.

Dawson then informed. me that his job requires him to check on people who are "bothersome" to the judiciary and to the United States attomey's office. I informed Dawsonif that were the case then why haven't I received notice during the approximately 10 years that I have been notifying I<elly and others at the US Attorney's office. I asked Dawson if he would be sure to checkwith I<ellyandwithFoleyto find outifmylawfullyrequitedreportingwas "bothersome⁷' and to let me know.

During the course of our discussion Dawson asked if I had a complaint in court. I told him I did. He also asked for my date of birth, twice, but not in succession. I informed Dawson there was no reason for him to have that information.

Dawson told me that I was "consumed" by this and to "get on with my life." Dawson said, ''You have a good thing going here (meaning my job at the court), don't ruin it."

Dawson restated many times that I should not be sending letters to judges and that if there was no remedy from the US Attorney's office or the FBI that I should talk to the press. Dawson suggested that I talk with Shelly Murphy or Dave Abel at the Boston Globe.

AF!ERNOON PHONE DISCUSSION WITH DAWSON -12:50 -1:08 p.m.

Walking into my administrative office for lunch, my phone indicated that I had a message waiting. It was from Dawson. I returned the call and left Dawson a voice message. He returned my call.

Dawson's tone was menacing and tough. He began by telling me that he was "extending my message to include no more letters to anyone at the US attorney's office." Dawson said that if I sent any more letters that he would, "come and talk to you again and open up a case against you, 4

then you'll go into a [national] database as an "inappropriate communicator." Dawson told me that [Kelly] said I was an "annoyance." "They don't want to hear from you. Don't even send them a Christmas card. They are not your friends."

I informed Dawson that all ofmy reporting to the Chief ofPublic Corruption, Kelly, was in the context of reporting crime, public corruption and verified felony conduct-and reminded Dawson of the frame-ups, including the current frame up ofwhistleblower, Ken Pedeleose.

Dawson told me that lam "fmding out too much" that I have the "propensity to stalk them." Dawson said, "I'm doing you a favor. I'm trying to nip it in the bud." I informed Dawson that I wouldn't threaten or stalk anyone.

Dawson told me that my reporting is nothing but "rumor, speculation, conjecture and hearsay." I informed Dawson that if the firsthand information in my thirty-page affidavit were false that I would not be talking to him from a courthouse. I informed Dawson that my affidavit was paid off to conceal the DCMAE's verified criminal activity, as were other cases; .

I informed Dawson that my letters did not threaten anyone, there was no name-calling and no defamatory statements in my lawfully requited reporting. Dawson told me, "It's how they perceive it." Each time I provided a fact to Dawson, he rebutted my facts with a comment about no more letters. Dawson repeated his belief that I was "consumed" by this.

I informed Dawson that his visit to my job was improper. He said he was just "doing his job." I informed Dawson that I would think about everything he said. Dawson said I could file a complaint, that he did not care.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 26^th day of March, 2009.

f.>.{L..~

March 26, 2009 Douglas 1<. I<i.nan

 

 

ATTACHMENT #2

 

.".b..x!iOO._ MAIL

.......tI: .. It,:!, Cbsslt

: Inappropriate Communication(s) ^{Friday, March 27, 20099:51 AM}

j hom: "Dawson, Frank (USMS)" <Frank.Dawson2@usdoj.gov>

To: dougkinan@yahoo.com, douglas.kinan@jud.state.ma.us

Mr. Kinan,

I would like to reiterate what we discussed the other day, in person and on the phone. The U.S. Marshals attention was drawn towards you because you had originally sent an Inappropriate Communication (a fax) to JUdge Gertner. But during our meeting you admitted sending letters to other Federal Judges, and also to several Assistant U.S. Attorney's.

As an agency that is responsible for the safety and security of the Federal JUdiciary, as well as the U.S. Attorney's, the U.S. Marshal Service (USMS) is advising you that you should immediately cease from any further attempts to communicate with any Federal Judges or Federal Prosecutors. If you do communicate with them in any fashion it will be construed as an Inappropriate Communication, and will be investigated by the USMS..

No Judge or Prosecutor seeks to have any communication with you at all.

Therefore the U. S. Marshals Service is politely advising you to not contact anyone mentioned above by any form 'of writing, e-mail, phone call or in any other manner. If you partake in any Inappropriate Communication(s) the U.S. Marshals Service will be calling on you to conduct an in-depth interview, so please comply with this advisory.

Remember I know we specifically discussed Judge Gertner and Assistant U.S. Atto'rney Brian Ke'l1y, but you are prohibited from trying to communicate with any. Judge or Prosecutor, with the exception of through a motion filed with the Court, and only in regards to a specific case you may have at the D/Mass U.S. District Court.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Frank Dawson United States Marshals Service Protective Intelligence Investigator

(617)-748-2575 office (617)-594-7008 Cell (617)-748-2579 FAX

Rove's Plan for Handling Siegelman Prosecution Questioning

How Rove Said He’d Answer Siegelman Prosecution Queries

 

Link:  http://www.truthout.org/071109A?n

Saturday 11 July 2009

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

 

Karl Rove continues to be a subject of congressional investigations. (Photo: Getty Images)

    While the details of Karl Rove's eight-hour deposition Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee remain unknown, Rove has provided insight into how he said he intended to answer the panel's questions. The deposition concerned Rove's role in the firings of nine US attorneys and the alleged political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

    In March, during a little-known interview on Fox News, where Rove is a contributor, Rove told Chris Wallace that he has already responded to questions about Siegelman's prosecution and has posted his answers to written questions on his web site, Rove.com.

    "My understanding is I am going to be questioned both about the US attorneys [dismissals] and about the allegations that I was responsible for the prosecution of Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman ... a lot of these answers, particularly with regard to Siegelman, are already on my web site," Rove said in the March 8 interview.

    Last December, Rove obtained a copy of an e-mail Siegelman had sent to his supporters who contributed to his legal defense fund. Rove blogged about it under a headline in which he portrayed himself as a victim: "Personal Responsibility: Who Needs It When You Can Blame Karl Rove?" www.rove.com/notes?page=4 (sixth item down from the top).

    "Below is a fundraising letter sent out by Friends of Don Siegelman 2008. Despite that it has no basis in fact, I thought you might find it amusing. In case you're interested, visit these links for the facts," Rove wrote.

    Rove then posted links to four documents on his web site, one of which was his response to questions posed to him last July by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. Smith, the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, has been a vocal critic of the panel's chairman John Conyers's attempts to force Rove to comply with numerous congressional subpoenas about the firings of federal prosecutors and the prosecution of Siegelman. Rove subsequently defied the subpoenas on executive privilege grounds.

    Smith sent a letter to Rove's longtime attorney, Robert Luskin, on July 15, 2008, excoriating Conyers for not accepting an offer to have Rove respond to questions about the Siegelman prosecution in a private setting and not under oath. Smith did not inform Conyers or other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee that he had sent the letter.

    "The Committee's goal should not be the unnecessary persecution of witnesses with compulsory congressional process and needless contempt proceedings," Smith wrote. "Because written answers to written questions about the Siegelman matter would serve the Committee's proper objective, I am accepting by this letter your offer to provide those answers."

    About a week later, during a committee hearing on the matter last year, while Conyers and other Democrats were considering whether to hold Rove in contempt, Smith announced that he had obtained Rove's responses to lingering questions about his alleged role in Siegelman's prosecution. Smith then submitted the written question-and-answer exchange with Rove into the Congressional record.

    In a July 22, 2008, letter accompanying Rove's response to Smith's questions, Rove's longtime attorney, Robert Luskin, wrote:

    "As you know, Mr. Rove has never asserted any personal privileges in response to the Committee's subpoena, but remains obligated to follow the direction of the President. We simply cannot understand the Committee's interest in provoking a confrontation with Mr. Rove while the precise legal issue that is presented by his subpoena is subject to a pending action in District Court.

    "We have struggled instead to find a method by which Mr. Rove could answer the Committee's questions while at the same time respecting the prerogatives of the President. We thank you for providing such an opportunity, and we trust that Mr. Rove's answers will assist the Committee in resolving these utterly unfounded allegations."

    Claims that Rove never asserted "personal privileges" is a familiar line Luskin has used as recently as February, when Conyers subpoenaed Rove for the third time this year to try to compel him to testify about Siegelman's prosecution and the US attorney firings. In March, Conyers's committee, with the help of White House Counsel Gregory Craig, brokered a deal that resulted in Rove agreeing to testify before the committee privately.

    But Rove indicated during his Fox News interview that he doesn't intend to stray from the responses to questions he had already provided to Smith, which were clearly written to elicit denials from Rove about his involvement in Siegelman's prosecution.

    In his written responses to Smith's 14 questions, Rove denied speaking to anyone "either directly or indirectly" at the Justice Department or to Alabama state officials about bringing corruption charges against Siegelman.

    "I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, or about any other matter related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf," Rove wrote. "I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters."

    Rove responded to eight other questions with the exact same response.

    Rove said the Judiciary Committee should press Siegelman to justify his allegations about Rove's interference in the case.

    "The committee should require Siegelman to substantiate his allegations about my 'involvement' in his prosecution - something he has failed to do in either media interviews or court filings," Rove wrote.

    Siegelman was convicted of corruption in 2006, but was released from prison on bond in March 2008 after an appeals court ruled that "substantial questions" about the case could very well result in either a new trial or a dismissal. In March, the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld Siegelman's bribery conviction but threw out two lesser charges. The panel ordered a new sentencing date for the former governor, who has been urging Attorney General Eric Holder to look into specific evidence that would appear to suggest that he was the victim of a partisan witch hunt.

    In an interview with The Anniston Star on May 18, 2008, Siegelman said Rove first targeted him in 1998.

    "It started when Karl Rove's bag man, I call him, [disgraced lobbyist] Jack Abramoff, started putting Indian casino money into Alabama to defeat me in 1998," Siegelman told the newspaper. "Shortly after I endorsed Al Gore in 1999, Karl Rove's client, the attorney general of Alabama (Bill Pryor) started an investigation.

    "In 2001, Karl Rove's business associate and political partner's wife, Leura Canary, became a US Attorney and started a federal investigation.... It started with the attorney general and the state investigation, followed by the federal investigation, followed by indictments in 2004, and then another series of indictments leading up to the 2006 election ... but, yeah, it's all part of the same case."

    In March when a US Appeals Court upheld many of the corruption charges against Siegelman, Rove once again directed his supporters to the documents on his web site containing his answers to Smith's questions about the matter.

    "Honoring the President's executive privilege and acting with White House approval, Karl Rove responded to Judiciary Committee questions about the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman," Rove wrote.

    Conyers did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

    When his panel reached an agreement with Rove on March 5, Conyers said, "I am determined to have it known whether US attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for improper political reasons, and if so, by whom."

    In a statement released to NBC News Tuesday Luskin said, "The agreement setting up the interviews contemplated that they would remain entirely confidential until all the interviews were complete. Out of respect for that term of the agreement, Mr. Rove is not commenting."

»

---

Jason Leopold is editor in chief of The Public Record, www.pubrecord.org.

DOJ Discloses Details About Cheney Interview

DOJ Reveals Details About Cheney’s Interview With Patrick Fitzgerald

Link:  http://www.truthout.org/070709J

Tuesday 07 July 2009

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

Former Vice President Dick Cheney. (Photo: Getty Images)

    In early fall 2003, as the scandal over leaking a covert CIA officer's identity was exploding, President George W. Bush claimed not to know anything about the leak and called on anyone in his administration who had knowledge to come "forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true."

    How disingenuous the president's appeal was has been underscored again by a new Justice Department court filing sketching out the contents of the 2004 interview between special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and Vice President Dick Cheney.

    Though the Obama administration continues to balk at releasing the full contents of the Cheney interview, it did reveal that Bush and Cheney were in contact about the scandal, including what is described as "a confidential conversation" and "an apparent communication between the Vice President and the President."

    The filing in a federal court case also makes clear that Cheney was at the center of White House machinations rebutting criticism from former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who charged in summer 2003 that the Bush administration had "twisted" intelligence to justify invading Iraq in March 2003. While seeking to discredit Wilson, administration officials disclosed to reporters that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

    Bush and his subordinates then sought to deny a White House hand in the leak. White House press secretary Scott McClellan later apologized for his role in the deception in his 2008 book, "What Happened," saying that Bush and four other high-ranking officials caused him to lie to the public in clearing Bush's political adviser Karl Rove and Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis Libby of any responsibility for the Plame leak.

    "I had unknowingly passed along false information," McClellan wrote. "And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, Vice President Cheney, the president's chief of staff [Andrew Card], and the president himself."

    Eventually, the cover-up led to the prosecution of Libby, who was found guilty in 2007 of four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, but Bush commuted Libby's 30-month prison sentence.

    When Fitzgerald's investigation came to a close with only that one prosecution, questions were raised about his reasoning for not bringing legal action against Bush, Cheney, or other senior officials implicated in the leak and cover-up. Those questions led to Congressional requests for the Bush-Cheney interviews and to the current Freedom of Information court case.

    In its new court filing, the Obama administration opposed release of the Cheney interview, but described the topics discussed. Besides the contacts with Bush, the filing referenced Cheney's questions to the CIA about its decision to send Wilson to Africa in 2002 to investigate - and ultimately refute - suspicions that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger.

    Cheney also was asked about his role in arranging a statement by then-CIA Director George Tenet taking responsibility for including a misleading claim about the African uranium in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, and Cheney's discussions with Libby and other White House officials about how to respond to inquiries regarding the leak of Plame's identity, the court filing said.

    Fitzgerald also questioned Cheney about his participation in the decision to declassify parts of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's alleged WMD. It ultimately fell to Bush to clear selected parts of the NIE so they could be leaked as part of the White House campaign to disparage Wilson.

    Obama's Resistance

    A public interest group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is seeking access to Fitzgerald's interview with Cheney under the Freedom of Information Act and now has confronted refusals from both the Bush administration and the Obama administration.

    Though President Obama declared a new era of openness when he entered the White House in January, he has recently had his administration's lawyers resist releasing information about the secret dealings of the Bush administration.

    In the CIA leak case, Justice Department lawyers claimed that disclosing Cheney's interview might discourage future government officials from cooperating with criminal inquiries.

    "In any such investigation, it will be important that White House officials be able to provide law enforcement officials with a full account of relevant events," said Lanny Breuer, assistant attorney general for the criminal division.

    "Baseless, partisan allegations that easily could be investigated and dismissed through voluntary interviews now may have to be investigated through the specter of the grand jury process. In addition, if law enforcement interviews are routinely subject to public disclosure, there could be a significant risk of politicization of law enforcement files and investigations, which could undermine the integrity and effectiveness of, and public confidence in, those investigations."

    Last month, during a court hearing on the case, Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Smith told the judge that release of the transcript might open Cheney to ridicule from late-night comics and thus could discourage other White House officials from cooperating with government prosecutors.

    "If we become a fact-finder for political enemies, they aren't going to cooperate," Smith said during a court hearing. "I don't want a future Vice President to say, 'I'm not going to cooperate with you because I don't want to be fodder for The Daily Show.'"

    When asked by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan whether the Obama administration was standing behind the refusal of Bush's Justice Department to release the transcript, Smith answered, "This has been vetted by the leadership offices.... This is a department position."

    Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said, "It is astonishing that a top Department of Justice political appointee is suggesting other high-level appointees are unlikely to cooperate with legitimate law enforcement investigations. What is wrong with this picture?"

    Fitzgerald told a Congressional committee last year that the interviews he conducted with Cheney and Bush in 2004 were not protected by grand jury secrecy rules, nor were there any prearranged agreements to keep the interview transcripts secret.

    The insistence on keeping the interviews secret arose late in the Bush administration when Congress sought the transcripts. Bush's Justice Department cited executive privilege and national security in refusing to turn them over as well as the speculation about the effect on future White House cooperation with investigations.

    The Obama administration has now taken up that banner while also adding concerns about possible comic use of the transcripts.

    More CIA Delays

    The CIA leak case was only one of two examples this week of the Obama administration going back on its word about government transparency.

    On Thursday, the Justice Department said it would not release until the end of the summer a CIA inspector general's report that was believed to have been sharply critical of the Bush administration's torture program. Even then, the Justice Department said there is no guarantee that any part of the report would be declassified.

    The announcement was made following several previous delays in the long-running court case between the CIA and the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to gain access to the report and other documents related to the treatment of prisoners.

    The Justice Department, acting on behalf of the CIA, previously told US District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein that the agency would re-evaluate whether the report's contents could be at least partially released by June 19. The CIA then requested two extensions - to June 26 and then July 1.

    "The Report poses unique processing issues," the Justice Department said in a letter on Thursday. "It is over 200 pages long and contains a comprehensive summary and review of the CIA's detention and interrogation program.

    "The Report touches upon the information contained in virtually all of the remaining 318 documents remanded for further review. Although the Government has endeavored in good faith to complete the review of the Special Review Report first, as we have gone through the process, we have determined that prioritizing the Report is simply untenable....

    "We have determined that the only practicable approach is to first complete the review of the remaining 318 documents, and then apply the withholding determinations made with respect to the information in those documents to the Special Review Report....One month into that process, we have concluded that we must review all of the documents together, and that the review will take until August 31, 2009."

    ACLU Objections

    The ACLU, in a letter to Hellerstein, said it "strenuously" opposes the two-month delay, which would amount to "a fourth extension" of the original deadline.

    Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said the CIA "has already had more than five months to review the inspector general's report, and the report is only about two hundred pages long."

    "We're increasingly troubled that the Obama administration is suppressing documents that would provide more evidence that the CIA's interrogation program was both ineffective and illegal," Jaffer said. "President Obama should not allow the CIA to determine whether evidence of its own unlawful conduct should be made available to the public. The public has a right to know what took place in the CIA's secret prisons and on whose authority."

    Amrit Singh, an ACLU staff attorney who has been working on the case, said it's "apparent that the CIA report is not being delayed for legitimate reasons, but to cover up evidence of the agency's illegal and ineffective interrogation practices....

    "It is time for the President to hold true to his promise of transparency and once and for all quash the forces of secrecy within the agency. The American public has a right to know the full truth about the torture that was committed in its name."

»

---

Jason Leopold is editor in chief of The Public Record, www.pubrecord.org.

POGO Calls for FDA IG Investigation

From Project On Government Oversight          

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Danielle Brian , Executive Director, 202-347-1122 or Dr. Ned Feder, POGO Staff Scientist, 202-347-1122

POGO Calls for IG Investigation by FDA Commissioner Hamburg: Cozy Relationship with Manufacturers Blamed for Oversight Failures

The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) sent a letter to Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration on June 6, 2009, requesting she call for an investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General. 

The issue is a specific instance of regulatory failure in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA: the case of AM2PAT, Inc., a small company that manufactured and sold syringes. In December 2007, some of the syringes were found to have been contaminated by bacteria that caused deaths and serious illnesses. Two years later, two officials of AM2PAT were sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to crimes related to these events. At least four patients died and hundreds were harmed. Some suffered permanent, severe brain damage.

While senior officials of AM2PAT were clearly responsible for this tragedy, the FDA bears much of the blame for allowing it to happen.

“The role of the FDA in this case as a possible enabler of wrongdoing has not been publicly acknowledged either by the FDA or the Inspector General.   Accordingly, we ask that you request an investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. Such an investigation is long overdue,” said Danielle Brian , Executive Director in POGO’s letter.

As shown by its own records, the FDA had known for a long time about safety problems at AM2PAT. Repeatedly, for at least two years before it finally took decisive action, the FDA was given ample warning that AM2PAT was failing to ensure the safety of the company’s syringes. Months before the outbreak, a whistleblower working at the AM2PAT plant sent the FDA an email identifying herself and warning explicitly about unsuitable conditions in the plant.

In the letter to the Commissioner, POGO maintains that part of the reason for this failure is a culture within the FDA that habitually maintains a relationship with manufacturers that is too collegial and too tolerant. Too often, there is reluctance by the FDA to take corrective action stronger than a Warning Letter, even when stronger action is clearly indicated.  POGO acknowledges these failures also stem from the grossly inadequate resources available to the FDA for inspection and enforcement.

A thorough IG investigation of the AM2PAT failures will enable the IG to make recommend policy changes and reforms to the Secretary of HHS and the Congress necessary to ensure the public’s safety is protected against criminal misconduct and lax oversight by the FDA.  

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government.

A Path to Destruction....

Joe Brewer wrote an article for Truthout, “How to Destroy the Government in Three Easy Steps” which  was quite interesting.  Here is an excerpt:

 

  “ In eight short years, conservatives have effectively bankrupted many state governments and left the fed in shambles. And now citizens have to "make tough decisions" and share the suffering equally across the land (unless of course, you're part of that lucky 1 percent who co-opted the functions of government to serve their own ends ... they'll be cozy with their offshore bank accounts, golden parachutes and permanent tax holidays).

    Are you a teacher who educates our future citizens? Too bad. You've got to tighten your belt and let that job go. Manual laborer? Sorry, but that job can earn more money for our shareholders if it's done in Micronesia. Need a college degree? Prepare for indentured servitude because you'll be working to pay us off for most of your adult life. Health care? Ha! That's just a Ponzi scheme dreamed up by a bunch of socialists.

    Ever wonder how conservatives did all this?

    Well, here's your very own how-to manual for getting Big Government out of the way so you and your buddies can horde all the wealth to yourselves and build your empire.”

 

To read the rest of this article, go here:   http://www.truthout.org/031909J

 

 

If you like what you see on Truthout.org, please support them with a contribution.  They are independent and continue to publish with reader contributions.  Thanks.  -GFS

Government Fails to Withhold Contracts from Criminal Contractors

Yes, after the stellar examples of broken oversight in the federal contracting world like the infamous Boeing Deferred Prosecution Agreement, which would allow a corrupted contractor to evade being held accountable and losing contracts or being disbarred, I can well believe what Mr. Brodsky reports here.  –GFS

 

 

Government continues to provide unethical contractors with work, GAO says

 

By Robert Brodsky rbrodsky@govexec.com February 26, 2009

 

More than two dozen contracts were issued in fiscal 2006 and 2007 to businesses or individuals who at the time were under federal suspension or debarment, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

"This is probably just the tip of the iceberg," said Gregory Kurtz, GAO's managing director of forensic audits and special projects before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday. "I believe that further investigation will find dozens or hundreds of other cases. These are the kinds of cases that cause taxpayers to lose faith in their government."

When the government decides to suspend or debar a contractor, they are placed in the Excluded Parties List System, a database maintained by the General Services Administration. Contracting officers are required to check the list before issuing a new award.

But according to GAO, contracting officers repeatedly failed to check EPLS or, in the Army's case, willfully ignored the suspension and debarment notice.

The president of defense contractor Optronics, a German military training company, was convicted in 2004 of attempting to illegally sell to North Korea aluminum tubes, which can be used to develop a nuclear bomb. In July 2005, more than a year after the conviction, the Army said there was a "compelling interest to discontinue any business with this morally bankrupt individual," and debarred the company from receiving further contracts.

But Army procurement officers disregarded the debarment notice and continued to pay the company an additional $4 million in fiscal 2006 through contract extensions and task orders from an existing training contract, the report said.

Despite grilling from lawmakers, Brig. Gen. Edward Harrington, the Army's deputy assistant secretary for procurement, would not acknowledge that extending Optronics' contract was a mistake, noting that the company's performance was rated as "excellent."

The general argued that the training Optronics was providing was a matter of national security, that it would have taken as long as six months to bring on a new contractor and the Army would have been obliged to pay the debarred firm in full if it canceled the contract.

"What is the point of having suspension and debarment regulations, if our own agencies disregard them?" asked committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y.

In other instances, GAO attributed errors to ineffective management of the EPLS database or to control weaknesses at both excluding and procuring agencies.

For example, in April 2006 the Navy suspended a company after one of the contractor's employees was caught sabotaging repairs on an aircraft carrier by using unsuitable parts to replace fasteners on steam pipes. If the pipes had ruptured as a result of faulty fasteners, hundreds could have died, the watchdog said.

But less than a month after the suspension the Navy awarded the same company three new contracts, worth more than $100,000, because a department contracting officer failed to check EPLS to verify the company's eligibility.

The problems were not limited to military agencies. In September 2006, GSA suspended a construction company after its president opened fraudulent GSA surplus property auction accounts using phony Social Security numbers.

Shortly thereafter, the Interior Department tried to check the contractor's eligibility in EPLS before making several awards to the company, but GSA had not yet noted the suspension in the system.

During its investigation, GAO successfully bought body armor worth more than $3,000 with a government purchase card through a GSA supply schedule from a company that had been debarred by the Air Force in 2007 for falsifying tests related to the safety of its products.

Jim Williams, commissioner of GSA's Federal Acquisition Service, acknowledged the mistakes, but noted they represented a few "isolated incidents" of human error, rather than a systematic breakdown. Nonetheless, GSA, as well as the Army and Navy, has sent out alert notices to agency contracting officers to remind them to check the EPLS.

"EPLS is not broken," said David Drabkin, GSA's acting chief acquisition officer.

But some lawmakers noted the database suffers from fundamental flaws, such as missing corporate identification numbers, an inadequate search function, obsolete contact information and an incompatibility with other government procurement databases.

"The egregious examples of contracting failures found by GAO not only led to waste but endangered lives," said Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the committee's ranking member. "Recommendations for fixing mistakes, including better training and technology, need to be implemented."