Judge: CIA committed fraud in eavesdropping case
AP

*
Buzz Up
* Send
o Email
o IM
* Share
o Delicious
o Digg
o Facebook
o Fark
o Newsvine
o Reddit
o StumbleUpon
o Technorati
o Yahoo! Bookmarks
* Print

Featured Topics:

* Barack Obama

* Keeping Secrets Play Video Video:Keeping Secrets FOX News

The lobby of the CIA Headquarters Building in McLean, Virginia Reuters – The lobby of the CIA Headquarters Building in McLean, Virginia, August 14, 2008. REUTERS/Larry Downing
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Nedra Pickler, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 14 mins ago

WASHINGTON – A federal judge has ruled that CIA officials committed fraud to protect a former covert agent against an eavesdropping lawsuit and is considering sanctioning as many as six who have worked at the agency, including former CIA Director George Tenet.

According to court documents unsealed Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth referred a CIA attorney, Jeffrey Yeates, for disciplinary action. Lamberth also denied the CIA's renewed efforts under the Obama administration to keep the case secret because of what he calls the agency's "diminished credibility" and the "twisted history" in the case.

The judge also criticized CIA Director Leon Panetta, saying he's given conflicting accounts about what should be revealed in the case. The ruling led to the unsealing Monday of more than 200 unclassified versions of classified filings in the 13-year-old case.

"The court does not give the government a high degree of deference because of its prior misrepresentations regarding the state secrets privilege in this case," Lamberth ruled.

The court case comes amid increased scrutiny and allegations of lying against the spy agency.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in May that she believes the CIA lied to her about its harsh interrogation program in 2002. Panetta said in June that the CIA had not notified Congress about a secret program to develop hit squads for al-Qaida terrorists. And Congress is investigating whether the agency broke the law by not informing lawmakers about that and other secret activities.

The eavesdropping lawsuit was brought by a former agent with the Drug Enforcement Agency, Richard Horn, who says his home in Rangoon, Burma, was illegally wiretapped by the CIA in 1993. He says Arthur Brown, the former CIA station chief in Burma, and Franklin Huddle Jr., the chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Burma, were trying to get him relocated because they disagreed with his work with Burmese officials on the country's drug trade.

The agency has not said in court filings whether or not it monitored Horn, but Horn claims he was monitored without lawful authority and in violation of his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Horn says he became suspicious when he came back from a trip out of town to find his government-issued rectangular coffee table replaced with a round one.

Lamberth criticized Panetta for claiming at one point that the CIA's methods for conducting electronic surveillance are state secrets, even though the type of transmitter that Horn claims was used on his coffee table is unclassified and on display at Washington's Spy Museum.

Horn also points to a cable that Huddle sent to Washington quoting his private telephone conversation, which Lamberth labeled "highly suspicious."

Horn sued Brown and Huddle in 1994, seeking monetary damages for violations of his civil rights because of the alleged wiretapping.

Tenet filed an affidavit in 2000 asking that the case against Brown be dismissed because he was a covert agent whose identity was a state secret that must not be revealed in open court. Lamberth granted the CIA's request and threw out the case against Brown in 2004.

But Lamberth found out last year that Brown's cover had been lifted in 2002, even though the CIA continued to file legal documents saying his status was covert. The judge found that the CIA intentionally misled the court and reinstated the case against Brown.

The former acting CIA general counsel, John Rizzo, said in a court filing that the CIA's office of general counsel did not know Brown's cover status changed until 2005, three years after the fact. Rizzo said that one CIA attorney, Yeates, knew about the change but did not tell the court or his supervisors.

Brown disputes Rizzo's account. In a statement to the court, Brown says that he met personally with two other CIA attorneys, Robert J. Eatinger and John Radsan, in 2002, within a few months of the CIA rolling back his covert status and notified them of the agency's action.

While Lamberth referred Yeates for disciplinary action for intentionally misleading the court, he delayed action until he determines if others, including Rizzo, Eatinger, Radsan, Tenet and Brown himself, should face contempt charges or sanctions for failing to notify the court of Brown's change in status. He has given the five others a month to explain why they shouldn't be held responsible.

CIA spokesman George Little offered a brief response to the case, saying that the agency takes its obligation to the U.S. courts seriously. The CIA refused to confirm the employment status of the officials in the case. A spokesman for Tenet declined to comment.

From the WV Supreme Court decision:

First, to be protected speech, it must be made with regard to matters of public concern. Mr. Alderman's comments about the Superintendent and Treasurer being cockroaches and thieves, his personal statements against the intelligence of the Superintendent, as well as his accusations of a Board member being an adulterer were not matters of public concern. Admittedly, thievery and misappropriation of money may be a matter of public concern. Moreover, if a Board member is not a proper resident of the district as required, that is also an issue of public concern. However, the issue of thievery and misappropriation arose from an allegation of the use of money for the golf team. The issue had been properly raised at a previous Board meeting and had already been through a full investigation with a finding of no impropriety. Mr. Alderman was fully aware of this final resolution as he was the person who properly raised the issue and followed through the investigation on a statewide level. Further, while Mr. Alderman's allegation that a certain Board member was not a proper resident of the district was a matter of public concern, the purported proof behind the statement was that the Board member was an adulterer and lived with his mistress in another district. No proof was offered to substantiate the allegation, and
Mr. Alderman's repeated and constant barrages on the Board member's integrity as a purported adulterer were not matters of public concern.

Further, “ hether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record.” See Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147-48, 103 S. Ct. 1684, 1690, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708 (1983) (internal footnote omitted). Significantly, “ hen employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment.” Id., 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S. Ct. at 1690. Thus, taking the record as a whole, Mr. Alderman's speech was not addressing any matters of public concern. Because the issues were resolved and unsubstantiated, they were no longer being asserted by Mr. Alderman as a matter of public concern. Rather, they were being asserted to embarrass and interrupt the business of the Board and its members. This intent by Mr. Alderman is further illustrated by his internet posting before the hearing stating his intent to expose the members for the thieves and cockroaches that they are, as well as his website posting following the event, wherein he gloated that he had succeeded in his mission.

HERE'S WHERE THE COURT BASICALLY CALLED NORMAN A LIAR:

Second, statements that are made with the knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false, are not protected. As found by the ALJ, Mr. Alderman's comments were made without consideration of the fact that they may or may not be false. The issue of the golf money had been resolutely decided by an investigation. However, Mr. Alderman continued to shake his finger at the Treasurer and call her a thief and a liar. Such comments were made without consideration of the fact that they may or may not be false. Moreover, his failure to provide any support for his assertion regarding the lack of proper residency by a Board member also shows his disregard for its truthfulness.

THE FINAL CONCLUSION:

Here, Mr. Alderman was acting willfully when he verbally attacked his employers. He made unsubstantiated comments with the sole purpose of demeaning and embarrassing his employer. Moreover, it was planned and premeditated, and then he boasted about his conduct on his website after-the-fact. Significantly, Mr. Alderman was never apologetic for his behavior. In fact, he maintained his right to be disrespectful. During the transfer hearing, Mr. Alderman was constantly directed by Board members to focus on the transfer issue at hand. Despite these repeated attempts, Mr. Alderman failed to contain his argument to any of the issues at hand. While Mr. Alderman's behavior may properly be defined as insubordination, the real issue is the fact that his continued behavior evidences a failure of Mr. Alderman to correct his behavior.

And this is the question: Was there a complete investigation? No! Alice and Dr. Law perjured themselves on the witness stand and under oath. Secondly, there was no investigation of the stealing of the public funds. That is why we are seeking a grand jury determination of the matter. We are asking Donna to have a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. She is covering for the board.

you people better stop or norman alderman will have another mental break down because he couldn't beat the superintendent or alice maybe you might want to check yourself in to mental rehab because you certainly can't get the concept that you will never be teacher again and that you can't beat Law or Alice ever. Just give up i know you still have some of your mental friends still backing you i think all of you need some mental rehab. I would like to see you be a cop only thing that you could do as a cop is eats all of there donuts