| |
 |
 |
Plame's CIA Secrecy Agreement (redacted)
Valerie Plames Secrecy Agreement was filed in the district court
by the executive branch defendants as the last exhibit (Tab 41)
in their Administrative Record (Unclassified). Defendants redacted
the dates in the Secrecy Agreement, but did not redact its express
reference to “Executive Order 12356” dated April 2,
1982, which “prescribes a uniform system for classifying,
declassifying, and safeguarding national security information”
and was issued by Ronald Reagan with an effective date of August
1, 1982. Excerpt:
- I, Valerie Elise Plame (print full name), hereby agree to
accept as a prior condition of my being employed by, or otherwise
retained to perform services for, the Central Intelligence Agency,
or for staff elements of the Director of Central Intelligence
. . . .
- I understand that in the course of my employment or other
service with the Central Intelligence Agency, I may be given access
to information which is classified in accordance with the standards
set forth in Executive Order 12356 as amended or superseded, or
other applicable Executive Order . . . .
See the full
Plame CIA Secrecy Agreement
See Executive Order
12356
See Table of
Contents for Defendants’ Unclassified Administrative Record
See full
Defendants’ Administrative Record (Unclassified) Part 1
See full
Defendants’ Administrative Record (Unclassified) Part 2 |
 |
Legal Memorandum filed in United States of
America v. I. Lewis Libby by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald
Describing that When Valerie Plame Wilson’s Identity Was Disclosed
by “Multiple High-Level Government Officials,” Including
Libby, She Was a Covert CIA Officer and that She Traveled Overseas
Undercover On Official Business during Wartime
Excerpts from Exhibit M, Declaration of David B. Smallman, Esq.
in Wilson v. McConnell, in support of motion seeking relief
from executive branch censorship in violation of the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution:
“At the time of the leaks, Ms. Wilson in fact qualified
as a “covert agent” within the meaning of the I[ntelligence]
I[dentities] P[rotection] A[ct] . . . which makes plain, among
other things, that “Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee
for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her
intelligence relationship to the United States.”
“On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working
for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer
in the Director of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation
Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the chief
of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation
issues related to Iraq.” (emphasis added.)
“While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary
duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled
at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling
overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity –
sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias – but always
using cover – whether official or non-official cover (NOC)
– with no ostensible relationship to CIA.”
(emphasis added.)
“At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure
in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with
the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee
for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her
intelligence relationship to the United States.”
(emphasis added.)
“The evidence obtained by the grand jury and later presented
at trial, established that information concerning Ms. Wilson’s
CIA-employment was disclosed to multiple members of the news media,
including Robert Novak, Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, Walter Pincus
and Bob Woodward, none of whom were authorized to receive that
information. The disclosures were made by multiple high-level
government officials, including defendant [I. Lewis Libby].”
The evidence demonstrated that defendant [I. Lewis Libby],
in particular, made the disclosures deliberately and for the purpose
of influencing media coverage of the public debate concerning
intelligence leading to the war in Iraq. According to defendant
[I. Lewis Libby’s] grand jury testimony, [Libby’s]
disclosures of information regarding Ms. Wilson’s employment
may have been sanctioned by the Vice President.” (emphasis
added.)
“At about the time the investigation began (and
prior to his FBI interviews), defendant [I. Lewis Libby] asked
the Vice President’s legal counsel how he would know if
a CIA agent was covert, and was given a copy of the I[ntelligence]
I[dentities] P[rotection] A[ct]. In addition, newspaper articles
recovered from defendant [I. Lewis Libby’s] office indicated
that Ms. Wilson was, or may have been, a covert agent at the time
of the leaks, a matter of obvious relevance to whether
the I[ntelligence] I[dentities] P[rotection] A[ct] had been violated.”
(emphasis added.)
See Government’s
Memorandum in Support of Its Proposed Sentencing Guidelines Calculations,
filed in United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby
See Unclassified
Summary of Valerie Wilson’s CIA Employment and Cover History
(Exhibit A to the above Memorandum)
See March
16, 2007 Hearing Transcript, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, of Witness Valerie Plame Wilson, Former CIA Employee (Exhibit
B to the above Memorandum) |
 |
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum filed
in United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby by Special
Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald
Excerpts from Exhibit L, Declaration of David B. Smallman, Esq.
in Wilson v. McConnell, in support of motion seeking relief
from executive branch censorship in violation of the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution:
“Regrettably, Mr. Libby chose the one option the law prohibited:
he lied. He lied repeatedly to FBI agents and in sworn grand jury
testimony, and he lied about multiple facts central to an assessment
of his role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment.
He lied about when he learned of Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment,
about how he learned of her CIA employment, about who he told
of her CIA employment, and about what he said when he disclosed
it. In short, Mr. Libby lied about nearly everything that
mattered.” (emphasis added.)
“These lies had two direct results. First, they
made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby
and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information
regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment and about the motivations
for their actions. Second, the lies required the government
to expend substantial time and resources attempting to determine
what – if any – of the information that Mr. Libby
provided could be believed.” (emphasis added.)
“The argument that Mr. Libby is an innocent wrongly charged
because it was known early in the investigation that others had
leaked the identity of Valerie Wilson overlooks critical facts
as well as the jury’s carefully reasoned verdict. First,
the evidence at trial proved that Mr. Libby was guilty, not innocent.
Mr. Libby learned about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment in June
2003 directly from the Vice President, as well as from
senior government officials from both the State Department (Marc
Grossman) and the CIA (Bob Grenier) and Cathie Martin, who handled
public affairs for the Vice President. The evidence showed that
Mr. Libby was aggravated about Ambassador Wilson and paid exceptionally
closed attention in June and July 2003 to media stories about
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Libby disclosed information about Ms. Wilson’s
employment to Judith Miller on June 23.” (emphasis added.)
“The assertion that the collective facts known at an early
point in the investigation warranted a summary termination of
the investigation does not stand up to close scrutiny. First,
it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson
qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States
Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed
by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press. Early
in the investigation, however, the critical issues remained as
to precisely what the particular officials knew about Ms. Wilson’s
status and what the officials intended when they disclosed her
identity to the media. Moreover, in assessing the intent
of these individuals, it was necessary to determine whether
there was concerted action by any combination of the officials
known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the
media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who
were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly
important in light of Mr. Libby’s statement to the FBI that
he may have discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with reporters
at the specific direction of the Vice President.”
(emphasis added.)
“While not commenting on the reasons for the charging decisions
as to any other persons, we can say that the reasons why Mr. Libby
was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized
disclosure of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson included,
but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby’s
false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in
fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the
reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not
include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby
knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent. On the other hand, there
was clear proof of perjury and obstruction of justice which could
be prosecuted in a relatively straightforward trial.
As Judge Tatel noted in his concurring opinion in In re Grand
Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller . . ‘insofar as false
testimony may have impaired the special counsel’s identification
of culprits, perjury in this context is itself a crime with national
security implications . . . .’” (emphasis
added)
“Mr. Libby, a high-ranking public official and
experienced lawyer, lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters
at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure
of a covert intelligence officer’s identity. He
has shown no regret for his actions, which significantly impeded
the investigation. Mr. Libby’s prosecution was based not
upon politics but upon his own conduct, as well as upon a principle
fundamental to preserving our judicial system’s independence
from politics: that any witness, whatever his political affiliation,
whatever his views on any policy or national issue, whether he
works in the White House or drives a truck to earn a living, must
tell the truth when he raises his hand and takes an oath in a
judicial proceeding, or gives a statement to federal law enforcement
officers. The judicial system has not corruptly mistreated
Mr. Libby; Mr. Libby has been found by a jury of his peers to
have corrupted the judicial system.” (emphasis
added.)
See full Government’s
Sentencing Memorandum in United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby |
 |
April 27, 2007 Letter from Valerie Wilson’s
First Amendment Counsel, David B. Smallman, Esq., of Wollmuth Maher
& Deutsch LLP, to J. Michael McConnell, Director of National
Intelligence
Exhibit J from a declaration filed on June 28, 2007 in support
of a motion by Valerie Plame Wilson and Simon & Schuster, Inc.
for relief from government censorship by the executive branch defendants
in alleged violation of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Excerpt:
J. Michael McConnell
Director of National Intelligence
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Washington, D.C. 20505
Dear Mr. McConnell:
I represent Valerie Plame Wilson and am writing in connection
with CIA’s pre-publication review of her memoir entitled
“Fair Game” and your statutory oversight authority,
as the Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”),
“to ensure compliance with the Constitution and laws of
the United States by the Central Intelligence Agency . . . .”
50 U.S.C. § 403-1(f)(1)(B)(4).
Ms. Wilson, who loves her country and devoted her career
to protecting national security, has done everything possible
to cooperate with an agency that she served with loyalty and distinction.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to bring to your attention CIA’s
violation of clearly established First Amendment law by seeking
to prohibit publication of specific information about Ms. Wilson’s
dates of federal service that were “officially acknowledged”
by the Agency in its own unclassified letter now in the public
domain through publication in the Congressional Record. By unreasonably
interfering with the publication of Ms. Wilson’s book, this
conduct continues to prevent important information from reaching
the American public at a critical time in our nation’s history.
Furthermore, in order to conceal what CIA characterizes as
merely an “administrative error,” CIA’s Acting
General Counsel, John A. Rizzo, asserted in a letter to me this
week that the Agency had reclassified – as of April 24,
2007 – the information it had previously disclosed in February
2006 (now published in Congressional Record) as “secret.”
. . . . Nor can CIA assert that an “unauthorized disclosure”
somehow entered the public domain without the Agency’s full
awareness because CIA’s Chief, Retirement & Insurance
Services had presumptive authority to prepare and mail the February
10, 2006 letter and CIA undeniably had knowledge of its contents.
Given CIA’s presumed expertise in handling classified information,
it is indisputable that the Agency did not from the outset comply
with its own mandatory procedures for designating or handling
classified information with respect to the February 10, 2006 letter,
see Exec. Order 13292 § 1.6, and knew for almost a full year
that it had disclosed Ms. Wilson’s federal service dates
in unclassified and authorized form without taking any measures
whatsoever to retrieve or protect that information.
As recently underscored in her sworn testimony before Congress,
Ms. Wilson’s 20 years of dedicated service to the United
States ended prematurely when she was “outed” as an
undercover officer by government officials entrusted to protect
that information. Having deprived Ms. Wilson of her chosen career
and our nation from the continued benefit of her years of training,
certain officials within the Executive Branch may now be seeking
to impair the American public’s First Amendment right to
know unclassified information about Ms. Wilson’s government
service prior to 2002. While we do not have sufficient information
at this time to determine whether political pressure has been
brought to bear for the purpose of punishing Ms. Wilson by delaying
publication of her memoir or interfering with her ability to shape
a narrative by demanding that she fictionalize known facts in
the public domain, CIA’s current position certainly has
that practical effect. Whatever the motivation for CIA’s
conduct, DNI is statutorily empowered to correct such abuses as
they occur.
See full April 27,
2007 Letter to J. Michael McConnell, Part 1
See full April 27,
2007 Letter to J. Michael McConnell, Part 2
See letter dated
May 18, 2007 from Benjamin A. Powell, General Counsel Office of
the Director of National Intelligence, replying to April 27, 2007
letter to J. Michael McConnell |
 |
Pre-Argument Statement filed on October 4, 2007
in the U.S. Court of Appeals by Valerie Plame Wilson and Simon &
Schuster, Inc.
Excerpts from papers filed in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit on October 4, 2007, in connection with appeal
of decision by district court upholding a prior restraint that censored
portions of Valerie Plame Wilson’s memoir:
_Plaintiffs Valerie Plame Wilson and Simon & Schuster, Inc.,
publisher of Ms. Wilson’s memoir entitled FAIR GAME: MY LIFE
AS A SPY, MY BETRAYAL BY THE WHITE HOUSE, sought declaratory and
injunctive relief in the District Court under the First Amendment
of the United States Constitution to prevent an unlawful prior restraint
by the executive branch defendants in violation of the First Amendment
of the United States Constitution.
_The dispute arose from the executive branch decision to prohibit
plaintiffs from republishing information voluntarily disclosed in
unclassified form to Valerie Wilson by CIA in February 2006 and
released to assist her in connection with obtaining a government
annuity through Congressional legislation when she was forced to
retire prematurely in January 2006.
_Although Congress subsequently printed the February 2006 letter
from CIA to Valerie Wilson in the Congressional Record as part of
the legislative process and it is now available worldwide on the
Internet, the executive branch opposed publication of the same information
in Valerie Wilson’s memoir for “national security”
reasons. The executive branch defendants asserted, and the District
Court agreed, that a letter on CIA letterhead prepared by its Chief
of Retirement and Insurance Services for the purpose of assisting
her efforts to obtain government benefits was not an “official”
disclosure by CIA.
_The executive branch defendants also asserted that despite the
fact that the February 10, 2006 letter entered the public domain
through the legislative process as a result of direct acknowledgments
by an authoritative government source – CIA’s Chief
of Retirement and Insurance Services – and despite the fact
that it was reasonably foreseeable that CIA’s direct acknowledgment
in unclassified form of Ms. Wilson’s federal service dates
would be utilized by Congress and thereby enter the public domain,
Ms. Wilson’s federal dates were not thereby “made public
‘through’ an official disclosure.” The District
Court agreed with the executive branch defendants and held that
the February 10, 2006 letter to Ms. Wilson from CIA setting forth
in unclassified form her dates of federal service for retirement
planning purposes and possible future enactment of Congressional
legislation to provide financial relief to Ms. Wilson was “not
a public disclosure” by CIA and was “not an official
disclosure” by CIA.
_The specific information that the executive branch sought to censor
– the dates of Valerie Wilson’s service with CIA –
directly related both to the seriousness of the “outing”
of a senior covert CIA officer by high level officials in the Bush
Administration and to the justification for the prosecution of I.
Lewis Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Richard Cheney,
for interfering with the leak investigation.
_That criminal investigation by the Department of Justice had been
initiated by CIA to determine whether illegal conduct jeopardizing
national security had occurred when the identity of Valerie Plame
Wilson – a covert CIA operations officer in the Directorate
of Operations who served as chief of a Counterproliferation Division
component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related
to Iraq and who traveled overseas under cover during wartime after
September 11, 2001 – was leaked to reporter Judy Miller and
columnist Robert Novak for apparently improper political purposes.
_According to a publicly available court document filed by Special
Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in United States of America v. I.
Lewis Libby, at the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure
in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with
CIA on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom
the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence
relationship to the United States. She traveled at least seven times
to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson
always traveled under a cover identity – sometimes in true
name and sometimes in alias – but always using cover –
whether official or non-official cover (NOC) – with no ostensible
relationship to the CIA.
_Evidence introduced at the criminal trial of I. Lewis Libby indicated
that prior to the “outing” of Ms. Wilson in July 2003,
Vice President Richard Cheney knew that she was a CIA officer and
had informed Mr. Libby of that fact. On July 2, 2007, President
Bush commuted the 30 month prison sentence of I. Lewis Libby.
_On August 1, 2007, the District Court upheld the executive branch
defendants’ prior restraint, granting the government’s
motion for summary judgment and denying Valerie Wilson’s and
Simon & Schuster’s motion for declaratory and injunctive
relief. The District Court held, inter alia, that “information
concerning Wilson’s pre-2002 employment for the CIA (if any)
is properly classified, has never been declassified, and was not
otherwise officially acknowledged by the CIA.” The
District Court stated that “[t]o be sure, the public may draw
whatever conclusions it might from the fact that the information
at issue was sent on CIA letterhead by the Chief of Retirement and
Insurance Services. However, nothing in the law or its policy requires
the CIA to officially acknowledge what those in the public may think
they know.” (italics added; emphasis added).
_To date, White House has declined to rule out the future possibility
of a full pardon for I. Lewis Libby, and continues to seek and enforce
a prior restraint of the information at issue about Valerie Wilson’s
dates of employment with CIA previously published in the Congressional
Record.
_Proposed issues to be raised on appeal . . . .:
- Whether the District Court erred in upholding a prior restraint
in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
imposed by the executive branch of the federal government to prevent
publication in Valerie Plame Wilson’s memoir FAIR GAME:
MY LIFE AS A SPY, MY BETRAYAL BY THE WHITE HOUSE of the dates
of her service with CIA set forth in a February 10, 2006 letter
from the Chief of the CIA’s Retirement and Insurance Services
that was delivered in unclassified form to Ms. Wilson for the
purpose of explaining her entitlement to a deferred federal annuity
and subsequently relied upon by the United States House of Representatives
in connection with introduction of federal legislation to provide
Ms. Wilson with retirement benefits and published in the Congressional
Record.
- Whether the First Amendment interests of Valerie Wilson
and Simon & Schuster, Inc. in free dissemination of Ms. Wilson’s
pre-2002 federal service dates previously disclosed in unclassified
form by CIA in February 2006 that bear upon the following: (a)
the seriousness of her “outing” as a covert CIA officer
in 2003 by senior officials in the Bush Administration, (b) the
justification for the criminal prosecution of I. Lewis Libby for
perjury and obstruction of justice that interfered with an investigation
of suspects ultimately responsible for the disclosure of the identity
of a covert CIA officer serving overseas during wartime for improper
political purposes which jeopardized national security, and (c)
the accountability of the White House for commuting the prison
sentence of Mr. Libby and any possible future pardon, are outweighed
by the executive branch’s interest in censoring on national
security grounds precisely the same specific information about
Valerie Wilson’s dates of service with CIA published in
the Congressional Record in January 2007 for legislative purposes
that would provide early retirement benefits to a former CIA officer
forced to retire prematurely by government misconduct, and now
available online worldwide.
- Whether, because the government’s right to censor
information does not extend to information that it has already
officially acknowledged, and because the District Court erred
in holding that the government had not officially acknowledged
the specific information about Ms. Wilson’s federal service
dates, the District Court’s judgment should be reversed
as a matter of law because the government’s interest in
precluding further dissemination of the identical information
previously published by Congress was outweighed by competing First
Amendment rights of Ms. Wilson and her publisher, Simon &
Schuster.
See Pre-Argument
Statement, Addendum
See Forms C&D
Filed in the United States Court of Appeals on October 4, 2007
See Notice of Appeal
in Wilson and Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. McConnell, et al.
See District Court
decision Filed on August 3, 2007 |
 |
February 10, 2006 Annuity Letter from CIA to Valerie
Wilson published by Congress
The letter was sent via First Class Mail in unclassified form by
CIA’s Chief of Retirement and Insurance Services to Valerie
Wilson in connection with her efforts to obtain retirement benefits
and financial relief from Congress after her “outing”
by high-level executive branch officials in July 2003. Printed on
Page E119 of the January 16, 2007 Congressional Record, the letter
was attached to the First Amendment complaint filed in the district
court by plaintiffs Valerie Plame Wilson and Simon & Schuster,
Inc., and also attached as Exhibit A-1 to the Declaration of David
B. Smallman in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment and for
a Permanent Injunction. Excerpt from Congressional Record:
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, DC, February 10, 2006
Mrs. Valerie Wilson
Dear Mrs. Wilson, This letter is in response to your recent telephone
conversation with regarding when you would be eligible to receive
your
Deferred annuity. Per federal statute, employees participating
under the Federal Employees Reirement System (FERS) Special Category,
who have acquired a minimum of 20 years of service, are eligible
to received their deferred annuity at their Minimum Retirement
Age (MRA). Your MRA is age 56, at which time you’ll be eligible
to received a deferred annuity.
. . . . Our records show that since January 1, 1987, you have
acquired 6 years, 1 month and 29 days of overseas service.
Following is a list of your federal service:
Dates of Service: CIA, CIA (LWOP, CIA (P/T 40), from 11/91985
to 1/9/2006_total 20 years, 7 days.
. . . .
The above figures are estimates for your planning purposes . .
. .
See full letter on
page E119
See Introduction of the Valerie
Plame Wilson Compensation Act
See Exhibit A-1
to Complaint
See full Complaint in
Valerie Plame Wilson; Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. McConnell, et
al. |
 |
Version of February 10, 2006 CIA Letter Subsequently
“Released” April 2007
According to the complaint filed by Valerie Plame Wilson and Simon
& Schuster, Inc. “51. On April 25, 2007, in order further
to conceal what defendant CIA mischaracterizes as merely an “administrative
error,” CIA’s Acting General Counsel, John A. Rizzo,
on behalf of defendant CIA and defendant Hayden, sent a letter to
Valerie Wilson’s attorneys in New York purporting either to
classify or reclassify – as of April 24, 2007 – the
information it had previously disclosed in February 2006 (now published
in Congressional Record) – as ‘secret.’ 52. In
this April 25, 2007 letter, on behalf of defendant CIA and defendant
Hayden, Mr. Rizzo forwarded to Valerie Wilson’s attorneys
a newly redacted copy of the Agency Annuity Letter that he asserted
“reflects the proper classification markings and that has
been approved for release in redacted form as a result of a declassification
review.” Notwithstanding the CIA’s documented official
disclosure of her service dates previously published in the Congressional
Record, the newest version of the Agency Annuity Letter is largely
blank, except for the CIA’s official letterhead, date of the
letter, addressee information, CIA service dates from 1/01/2002
to 1/09/2006, and title of the sender. In a transparent effort to
cover up its unclassified release of Ms. Wilson’s federal
service dates back in February 2006, this new version of the Agency
Annuity Letter includes the crossed out word “secret.”
The word “secret” appeared nowhere on the original and
official February 10, 2006 letter and was added to this new version,
and then crossed out, in order to create the pretext that as originally
issued the document was labeled ‘secret.’”
See Letter to Valerie Wilson
from CIA, dated February 10, 2006, with classification markings
added April 2007
See Letter from CIA
Acting General Counsel, John A. Rizzo, Esq., dated April 24, 2007
See Letter from David B.
Smallman, Esq. to John A. Rizzo, Esq., dated April 27, 2007 |
 |
Letter from Plaintiffs’ Counsel to District
Court Opposing Designation by Executive Branch Defendants of Document
Printed in Congressonal Record as “Classified”
Excerpt:
Hon. Barbara S. Jones
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 620
New York, NY 10007
Dear Judge Jones:
My firm represents plaintiffs Valerie Plame Wilson and Simon
& Schuster, Inc. and we write to inform the Court that the
government defendants in the above-referenced action have designated
a public domain “excerpt from the Congressional Record”
as a “classified” document in the Adminsitrative
Record submitted by them in this proceeding. The Congressional
Record excerpt was an exhibit to plaintiffs’ complaint
and is part of the public judicial record, but does not appear
in defendants’ “unclassified” Administrative
Record even though it was an attachment to letters sent to defendant
CIA and defendant McConnell . . . . Plaintiffs expressly reserved
their right to dispute that the government defendants could
properly designate a public domain documents, such as an excerpt
from the Congressional Record, as part of the “Classified
Amdinistrative Reocrd,” as opposed to the “Unclassified
Administrative Record.” Plaintiffs therefore disagree
with and oppose defendants’ designation in this proceeding
of an excerpt from the Congressional Record as a “classified”
document (and reserve their right to challenge the designation
and inclusion in the “Classified Amdinistrative Record”
of any other public domain document.”
See Letter dated
July 2, 2007 from David B. Smallman, Esq. to Hon. Barbara S. Jones
See Letter dated
July 2, 2007 from Assistant United States Attorney Benjamin H. Torrance
to Hon. Barbara S. Jones
See Court Order issued
July 3, 2007
|
|
|
