Huseyin Parlak, a Kurdish man from Turkey, entered the US legally on a student visa in 1998, filed a claim for political asylum and went to every court date and meeting immigration officials asked of him. He has no criminal record, works in his brother’s restaurant in southwest Michigan and pays taxes.
Luis Posada Carriles, a right-wing Cuban exile, was convicted of bombing a jetliner that killed 73 people, of trying to assassinate a head of state, and carrying out multiple bombings. He escaped from prison in Venezuela, used numerous fake documents, entered the US illegally, and hid from US immigration officials. He has also allegedly been a member and accomplice of several terrorist groups.
On May 14, Parlak was deported to Turkey, with no advance notice, not even allowed to say goodbye to family and friends or pick up money and a change of clothes.
On May 8, a federal judge dropped immigration charges against Posada, who had been free on bond in Miami since being released from a New Mexico jail in April. Now he is relieved of bond and able to live as a free man in the US. The charges were dropped several days before Posada’s trial on seven counts of immigration fraud including lying to immigration officials, who had previously deemed Posada a national security threat.
Comparing the two men’s situations provides a prime example of hypocrisy and double standards within the US immigration system.
Parlak’s brother Ibrahim, who was held in immigration detention for 14 months himself, says that when he argued with immigration officials about his brother’s speedy and unexpected deportation, which comes with a 10-year ban on re-entering the US, he was told they were just following the laws.
"He had a clean record, he never did anything wrong, he wasn’t hiding anywhere, he was there every time they asked," said Parlak, whose own deportation order is frozen indefinitely since Michigan legislators (Senator Carl Levin and Congressman Fred Upton) have introduced private bills on his behalf. "When they say they’re playing by the rules, those rules should be for everybody. Not different rules for Cubans and Kurds."
The current immigration debate focuses largely on punishing immigrants who "broke the law" by entering the US illegally, and anti-immigrant parties frequently say they have no problem with immigration if it is done through legal channels. Ibrahim Parlak points out that his brother, now 40, followed the laws all along the way, and did everything authorities asked of him, even surrendering his passport. If his asylum claim had been denied -- he was deported before it had been resolved -- Parlak says the family likely would have voluntarily bought Huseyin a ticket to London or Germany, saving taxpayer money and avoiding the 10-year ban on re-entry.
Posada, by contrast, does not dispute that he entered the US illegally in 2005. He says he entered with a coyote through the desert near Brownsville, Texas; the government says he entered Florida on a shrimp boat owned by a wealthy Cuban American developer later sent to prison for weapons violations in an alleged plot to kill Castro. Posada was arrested by immigration agents in Miami in May 2005 and ordered deported four months later, but remained in limbo since the US couldn’t find a country willing to take him.
Breaking immigration laws is the least of Posada’ legal violations. Though he has not been charged with a crime by the US Department of Justice, it has called him "a dangerous criminal and an admitted mastermind of terrorist plots." A long list of crimes attributable to Posada in his all-out campaign against Cuban president Fidel Castro includes the 1976 bombing of a Cuban jetliner killing 73 people, for which he served eight years in prison in Venezuela before escaping; an assassination attempt on Castro in Panama in 2000, for which he was convicted but then pardoned four years later; and numerous bombings of tourist sites in Cuba in 1997, including attacks on European companies doing business with Cuba. An Italian tourist was killed in one of the bombings. Posada was even implicated in a 1976 car bombing in Washington DC, which killed Chilean foreign minister Orlando Letelier and American activist Ronni Moffit. Evidence sought by a grand jury relating to that bombing was destroyed in the FBI’s Miami office.
The White House has refused to comply with Venezuela ‘s extradition request for Posada, on the grounds he could be tortured in Venezuela -- even though there are no credible reports of torture under president Hugo Chavez’s regime. The real reason for the Bush administration’s support of Posada is assumed to be that they don’t want him to reveal details of his work with the CIA in Central American counter-insurgency operations in the 1980s, including the Iran-Contra affair. His association with the CIA goes back at least until 1961, when he helped organize the Bay of Pigs invasion. He also trained at the infamous School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Ga.
Omar Abbas -- a paid snitch -- helped the State Police win two murder-for-hire convictions in the 1990s and was an informant for the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.
But apparently, snitching didn't pay enough.
Posing as a corrupt FBI agent and a dirty lawyer, Abbas conned people into forking over thousands of dollars in bribes, authorities say.
Abbas, 41, is awaiting sentencing Nov. 2. A federal jury convicted him in August of impersonating an FBI agent, making false statements to the FBI, and crossing the state line with proceeds from fraud.
The FBI calls Abbas "a professional confidence man."
In 2003, he posed as an FBI agent, taking more than $9,500 in bribes to fix an immigration case. And in 2005, he masqueraded as a politically connected lawyer, taking a $5,000 bribe to secure bail for a man charged with attempted murder, the FBI said.
Abbas didn't hold up his end of either crooked deal, officials say.
The Jordanian national also gave the FBI a false tip that a Burbank man was a member of Hamas.
Ironically, Abbas was paid thousands of dollars to put other criminals behind bars.
In 1996, he was a State Police informant against Jackie Chamness, 46, who pleaded guilty in Cook County to soliciting the murder of his former girlfriend and was sentenced to 31 years in prison.
And in 1999, Abbas was a State Police informant against Jermaine Norris, 33, convicted of leading a bloody attack on a Will County drug house that left a woman dead. Norris is serving a 120-year prison term.
Abbas, a State Police informant for more than 10 years, was paid more than $12,000 by the State Police for the Norris investigation alone, according to court testimony.
Abbas also was an FBI informant between 2000 and 2005 and for the DEA in 1997 and 1998, records show.
Coroner refuses to file autopsy records Included is the information on the Luna case; DA didn’t ask for it to be sealed By Helen Colwell Adams Sunday News
Published: Oct 14, 2007 12:04 AM EST
LANCASTER, Pa. - Lancaster County officials aren't giving the county coroner, Dr. G. Gary Kirchner, any support in his effort to keep all his autopsy records, including those of federal prosecutor Jonathan Luna, out of the public's hands.But Kirchner said Saturday that he has no intention of filing his records in the county prothonotary's office, as state law would seem to require."We're not going to in any way expose anybody in Lancaster County to public disclosure by the prothonotary, who thinks public disclosure should happen," Kirchner said."We know legally it should not happen."Earlier this month, Prothonotary Randall Wenger denied Kirchner's request to have his office declared an "annex" of the prothonotary, an arrangement that existed between Wenger's and Kirchner's predecessors."I have no reason to believe that the prothonotary's duty to provide public access to the coroner's records would be upheld if I were to deputize an employee of the coroner," Wenger wrote to Kirchner. County solicitor Donald Lefever, who was asked by Kirchner for help with Luna's records, said last week that he told Kirchner the county won't get involved because law enforcement has not asked for Luna's autopsy report to be sealed from public view.And the private investigator whose attempts to compel Kirchner to release Luna's records, Ed Martino, said Saturday he will go to court this week to force Kirchner to comply with the state's County Code by filing all his records in the prothonotary's office.Martino, of Blue Ball, has been investigating the 2003 death of Luna, an assistant U.S. attorney in Baltimore whose body was found in a Brecknock Township stream in December 2003.Last month, Martino wrote to Kirchner to ask him to comply with state law after discovering that Kirchner had not filed any of his records, dating from the start of his term in 2004, with the prothonotary.Wenger wrote in an Oct. 4 letter to Kirchner that with a few legally specified exceptions, records in the prothonotary's office are open to the public."While you may personally disagree with the County Code in this area," Wenger wrote, "the authority to rewrite the county code lies with our state legislators and not with the prothonotary or the coroner."Sealing all recordsAlthough Luna, whose mysterious death had been ruled homicide, is at the center of the latest controversy, his isn't the only case affected by Kirchner's position.Kirchner said his refusal to file his official records applies to every case he has handled since becoming coroner in January 2004."We're going to keep the records," he said Saturday.Martino learned in September that Kirchner had been retaining records in the coroner's office at 131 E. Frederick St. rather than sending them to the prothonotary's office in the county courthouse.Kirchner told the Sunday News in late September that his office was considered an arm of the prothonotary and had been since his predecessor, Dr. Barry Walp, and former prothonotary Bob Getz developed an agreement on the question.But Wenger said the "annex" deal ended when both Walp and Getz left office at the end of 2003 and that Kirchner had not asked Wenger to renew the arrangement.In his Oct. 4 letter to Kirchner, Wenger wrote that the annex arrangement "was established to allow the coroner's office to generate revenue by providing copies to the public of requested documents."Earlier, Wenger said that Walp had agreed to provide public access to his records at his coroner's office.Wenger wrote to Kirchner that he is mandated to maintain records for the public, with a few exceptions that are spelled out in the law, unless they are sealed by a court order."That's clearly not true," Kirchner said Saturday. "So say my lawyers, and so says the [state] coroner education board, and so says the law."He [Wenger] can be in possession of the records, but he cannot be releasing the records to the public because he has possession."Kirchner said he has a legal opinion, backed by court precedent, saying autopsy reports are not public records.The County Code says in Section 1251 that coroners annually must file all their "official records" for the calendar year in the prothonotary's office "for the inspection of all persons interested therein."Coroners and law enforcement in other parts of the state have sought to have autopsy records excluded from the filing requirement, contending that releasing those reports could compromise a criminal investigation.In a 2005 ruling, the state Supreme Court upheld a Superior Court opinion based on a Blair County case, stating that investigators may get court approval to seal autopsy records, but "the commonwealth must make a specific showing that the release of the report would have a substantial negative impact on its investigation."A lower appellate court, Commonwealth Court, has argued against that Supreme Court opinion in a 2006 ruling from Lehigh County; that case is on appeal to the Supreme Court.Martino contended the Supreme Court ruling requires someone to go to court and demonstrate why release of an autopsy report would jeopardize an investigation."They haven't done that in this [Luna] case," he said. "There's no evidence of it that I can see."Martino said his attorney is preparing a court filing, which he expects to be ready this week, asking a judge to compel Kirchner to send all his records to the prothonotary's office."The problem is there's no penalty," Martino said. "The law was written with no teeth."Closing Luna's recordsOn Oct. 1, after a Sunday News story about Martino's quest to have Kirchner's records filed in the courthouse, Kirchner wrote a letter to Lefever, the county solicitor.Kirchner sent a copy of the letter to the Sunday News.He said Saturday the letter was "basically to say that I was not going to put the Luna record out on the street, and I had a legal opinion that said I did not have to do that, and I have not."Lefever said he talked to law enforcement about the question of Luna's autopsy records and was told that local and federal authorities did not object to the records being released.Without law enforcement wanting the records to be sealed, Lefever said, "the board of [county] commissioners isn't going to do so."County District Attorney Don Totaro said last week, "I have not petitioned the court to seal autopsy records involving the death of Jonathan Luna. Therefore, any release of documents must be addressed by the county coroner.""They should strenuously object, as Wayne Ross and I strenuously object, to them being released," Kirchner said. Ross, the county's forensic pathologist, couldn't be reached for comment Saturday.In his daily e-mail blog, in which Kirchner sometimes comments on cases, he wrote Monday, "Too much information gathered by us reside in the autopsy protocol and needs to stay there and not be public. Wayne and I feel the FBI would be very unhappy should Luna's records reach the street."Luna, 38, was found dead early Dec. 4, 2003, face down in a creek. He had been stabbed three dozen times; Walp, who was then the coroner, ruled the death was a homicide and that Luna died of multiple traumatic wounds and drowning.Anonymous federal sources later told major newspapers that Luna might have killed himself or died accidentally in the course of staging a suicide attempt. Despite FBI requests to change the manner of death to suicide, Kirchner has said he supports Walp's conclusions."It's a tragic situation," Martino said. "I don't know why Kirchner's sitting on these records. ... He's running for election. It's not going to help him; it's going to kill him."Kirchner is running a write-in campaign for a second term against Republican nominee Dr. Steve Diamantoni and Democrat Dave Rittenhouse.Kirchner said Saturday that Luna's records "would embarrass a lot of people."
East Texas agent details FBI mission
By MICHELE MARCOTTESentinel Staff
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The current mission of the FBI is to gather intelligence on terrorism in order to prevent another 9/11 attack in the United States, said Terry Lane, an FBI liaison with U.S. Special Forces Troops in Afghanistan.
Lane, who has worked with various special forces, including the Green Berets and the Navy Seals, said there are roughly 30 FBI agents currently disbursed throughout Afghanistan, gathering intelligence on terrorism.
"It's a good mission," he said, "It's a mission that needs to be done."
Lane described the everyday process of that mission Tuesday during the Fredonia Rotary Club's weekly meeting.
Typically, FBI agents operate as guests of the military forces with whom they are working with, Lane said.
"We go in after (a target) is secured by the military, and then our objective is to look for anything of intelligence matter," he said.
But getting to those targets is quite the task.
"You can't drive anywhere," Lane said, noting that it is just too dangerous. "So most places you get to by a C47 or a blackhawk helicopter or some other means of air travel."
Because the helicopters make so much noise, when Lane was traveling with the Navy Seals at night, he said they would get dropped off anywhere from three to seven kilometers from their intended target.
Lane said whenever he traveled with the Navy Seals, they would make the inference that he didn't have to keep up with them. However, if he fell behind, they weren't coming back for him.
"Needless to say, I try to keep in shape," he said, laughing.
Lane said during their off time, the living accommodations the military provided them were wonderful.
"There was plywood over the air conditioning units ... to get the heat out," he said. "The tents were cool at night. That's all I can say, because during the day they were not."
While working in Afghanistan, Lane said some of the FBI's greatest accomplishments in their mission included locating the supreme Taliban leader at the time, Mullah Dadullah. He said they also located more than 30 pounds of opium, one of Afghanistan's leading exports widely known as a funding mechanism for terrorism.
"There are a lot of things that I can't show you because of the nature of them," he said, as he flipped through a slideshow of Afghanistan.
He said on some occasions they would locate cell phones and be able to see who was calling who. They also conduct a lot of human interrogation and locate large stockpiles of weapons. Lane said many of the weapons come from Russia.
He said even though he and his family live in East Texas, he is glad he has the opportunity to take three or four months out of the year to actively participate in the FBI's mission.
"Doing it with the military gives me great pride," he said.
Lane and his FBI partner, Fort Worth-based agent Michael Elsing, plan to return to Afghanistan this spring.
By Ed FarrellThe Winchester Star
Winchester — Police bomb experts detonated a suspicious item that had been left outside a downtown FBI office on Friday afternoon.
According to city police Capt. David Sobonya, three suspects were being questioned about the incident by local, state, and federal authorities.
He emphasized that "this was not a terrorist attack" and that the action was apparently intended as a prank.
Police identified the suspects as George B. Busse, 19, Aaron M. Sager, 18, and Barbara O. Hawk, 22, all of Winchester.
They are accused of violating a state law involving threats to bomb or damage buildings.
According to Sobonya, the suspects "found a [briefcase] in a trash can and thought it would be fun to leave it in front of a government facility."
The officer was not clear about how the three individuals were taken into police custody.
The FBI has leased the building at 112 N. Braddock St. — which formerly housed the Winchester Technology Center — since 2006.
An FBI employee, who declined to provide his name, said nothing identifies the building as an FBI facility.
Sobonya said an armed guard in the building saw the suspects put the briefcase down, and stepped outside to speak with them.
"She told the suspects that they had forgotten their bag," Sobonya said, adding that they ignored the guard and walked into the nearby Braddock Street Autopark.
He said the guard then notified city police at 1:55 p.m.
"We responded to the call and determined the device was in fact suspicious, and immediately secured the perimeter," he said.
Residents and employees in buildings on Braddock Street — from Piccadilly to Boscawen streets — were evacuated.
The police also used City Watch, or "reverse 911," to notify downtown residents and businesses of the potential danger, said interim Police Chief Craig Smith.
Cliff Armour, who lives at 126 N. Braddock, said he had seen the briefcase earlier.
"It’s so weird," he said while waiting for police to clear the scene. "I walked right past it, right there in front of the FBI building."
Traffic was snarled for hours as police detoured vehicles away from the area.
Shortly after 4 p.m., police ordered all onlookers away from a direct view of the site, and a loud explosion was heard at 4:15 p.m.
"That was our officers performing a rendering-safe operation," said Smith.
Virginia State Police Special Agent Kevin Newtin detonated the device at the location where it had been placed, assisted by city police Sgt. Tim Frazier, Sobonya said.
The FBI building and several nearby vehicles received minor damage in the blast, Sobonya said.
Following the explosion, officers were observed scanning the area, trying to identify parts of the suspicious object, which Sobonya said did not appear to contain explosives.
The officer said he did not know the charges the suspects might eventually face. "But we want to make clear that this was not a terrorist attack," he said.
Sobonya said it was the first time the bomb squad had detonated a device in Winchester since a suspicious package was found in the Loudoun Street Mall post office on May 29, 2002.
Wolff was sharp tongued and vibrant until the end. He could dominate a conversation, using history and politics to cast his spell. To have lunch with him was
to take a journey through history. And it wasn’t so much his retelling of Spanish Civil War adventures, but his tales of a time when actions had meaning and taking a stand against injustice was clear-cut. Wolff radiated a sense of purpose that was contagious. He was an active participant in the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and opposition to American intervention in Latin America.
To have fought in the Spanish Civil War has become synonymous with idealism, and it was the defining experience of Wolff’s life. He took over the command of the American volunteers when he was 22 years old. The previous commanders had all been killed or wounded. Ernest Hemingway compared Wolff to Abraham Lincoln in stature and praised his military prowess. The two became drinking buddies and friends.
After the war, Wolff became the commander of the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, an organization dedicated to aiding Spanish Civil War refugees and vets, and to continuing the fight against fascism in its many forms. He had a sense of how to get publicity and an uncanny ability to raise money for progressive causes. During its heyday, nearly 1,000 people attended the annual VALB reunions. At one point they raised over $100,000 to send ambulances to Nicaragua to support the Sandinista government against the U.S.-backed Contras.
Preserving the legacy of the struggle became Wolff’s raison d’être. Given any opportunity, he would talk about the Spanish Civil War and the activism of the Lincoln vets, from making speeches at political meetings to chatting up the person next to him in the supermarket line.
I remember picking Wolff up at the hospital when he was nearly 80. He had been injured bicycling to a gym at five in the morning. As he was leaving, one of the Kaiser nurses who had attended him walked up and, clenching her fist, chanted, “¡Viva Communista! No pasaran!” A week later Wolff was on his way to Cuba to challenge the U.S. blockade.
In contrast to his military exploits, Wolff was a self-made intellectual and artist, having dropped out of high school during the Great Depression. He attempted a career as a commercial artist and painter but was blacklisted by the FBI. He wrote two autobiographical novels, “Another Hill” and “Member of the Working Class.”
On Jan. 14, Milt Wolff died in hospice care. He was 92. “No pep talks,” he warned those who visited him in his final days, some from as far away as Spain. He quickly turned the conversation to who would win the primaries.
There will be a memorial to Milt Wolff on March 29, the time and place to be announced. For more information on the memorial go to http://www.MiltWolff.rb68.com.
On March 30, in San Francisco, there will be an unveiling of a monument to all of the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. For more information go to http://www.alba-valb.org.
Richard Bermack is the author of “The Front Lines of Social Change: Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.”
Photograph by Richard Bermack.
Brian Doherty | February 11, 2008, 6:45pm
Good piece from Rolling Stone reporting on the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF), and its tenacious battle against something that may or may not exist.
Reporter Guy Lawson finds a history of minor criminal agents provacateur ginning up feckless plans for impossible terror feats, misleading statistics, secrecy behind a veil of "if you knew what we know you'd understand, but we can't tell you" and some truly scary excrement setting off a radiological attack monitor in Chicago.
Some summational excerpts:
The expenditure of such massive resources to find would-be terrorists inevitably requires results. Plots must be uncovered. Sleeper cells must be infiltrated. Another attack must be prevented —or, at least, be seen to be prevented. But in backwaters like Rockford [Illinois], the JTTFs don't have much to do. To find threats to thwart, the task forces have increasingly taken to using paid informants to cajole and inveigle targets like [convicted domestic terrorist Derrick] Shareef into pursuing their harebrained schemes. ..........a closer inspection of the cases brought by JTTFs reveals that most of the prosecutions had one thing in common: The defendants posed little if any demonstrable threat to anyone or anything. According to a study by the Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law, only ten percent of the 619 "terrorist" cases brought by the federal government have resulted in convictions on "terrorism-related" charges —a category so broad as to be meaningless. In the past year, none of the convictions involved jihadist terror plots targeting America. ....In most cases, because no trial is ever held, few details emerge beyond the spare and slanted descriptions in the indictments. When facts do come to light during a trial, they cast doubt on the seriousness of the underlying case.
The expenditure of such massive resources to find would-be terrorists inevitably requires results. Plots must be uncovered. Sleeper cells must be infiltrated. Another attack must be prevented —or, at least, be seen to be prevented. But in backwaters like Rockford [Illinois], the JTTFs don't have much to do. To find threats to thwart, the task forces have increasingly taken to using paid informants to cajole and inveigle targets like [convicted domestic terrorist Derrick] Shareef into pursuing their harebrained schemes.
..........a closer inspection of the cases brought by JTTFs reveals that most of the prosecutions had one thing in common: The defendants posed little if any demonstrable threat to anyone or anything. According to a study by the Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law, only ten percent of the 619 "terrorist" cases brought by the federal government have resulted in convictions on "terrorism-related" charges —a category so broad as to be meaningless. In the past year, none of the convictions involved jihadist terror plots targeting America.
....In most cases, because no trial is ever held, few details emerge beyond the spare and slanted descriptions in the indictments. When facts do come to light during a trial, they cast doubt on the seriousness of the underlying case.
Of course, when there's no threat, that means that the people responsible for keeping us from the threat must be doing something right. Right?
When I ask what kinds of cases his CT squad has made, [Special Agent Robert] Holley cites the example of a local cab driver who came up on the JTTF's radar some time back —he won't say how or why. The man was East African, Holley says, a suspected Islamic extremist "connected to known bad guys overseas." After being interviewed by the JTTF, the cabbie decided to leave the country. Nothing criminal had occurred, and no charges were laid. The cab driver had simply come to the attention of the JTTF, and that in itself was enough to dispose of the matter."Can we consider that a success because we didn't put him in jail?" Holley asks. "Absolutely. This guy is no longer here. He is not a threat to one person in the United States.".........."Have you ever found a terrorist cell?" I ask."That's kind of a vague question," [Master Sgt. Carl] Gutierrez [of the Illinois State Police] says. "There are certain things we can't talk about, because it leads to more.""Do I believe there's a cell in Chicago?" [Sgt. Paul] DeRosa [of the Chicago Police Department] asks. "I bet you there is. Do I have any direct physical knowledge? No. But I think there is one, and that's why we're here."
When I ask what kinds of cases his CT squad has made, [Special Agent Robert] Holley cites the example of a local cab driver who came up on the JTTF's radar some time back —he won't say how or why. The man was East African, Holley says, a suspected Islamic extremist "connected to known bad guys overseas." After being interviewed by the JTTF, the cabbie decided to leave the country. Nothing criminal had occurred, and no charges were laid. The cab driver had simply come to the attention of the JTTF, and that in itself was enough to dispose of the matter.
"Can we consider that a success because we didn't put him in jail?" Holley asks. "Absolutely. This guy is no longer here. He is not a threat to one person in the United States."
"Have you ever found a terrorist cell?" I ask.
"That's kind of a vague question," [Master Sgt. Carl] Gutierrez [of the Illinois State Police] says. "There are certain things we can't talk about, because it leads to more."
"Do I believe there's a cell in Chicago?" [Sgt. Paul] DeRosa [of the Chicago Police Department] asks. "I bet you there is. Do I have any direct physical knowledge? No. But I think there is one, and that's why we're here."
The story has more detailed discussions of such supposed terror plots as the JFK jet fuel conspiracy, the "Albany pizza" case, and the "Liberty City Seven" case. Read the whole thing.
I wondered where's the terror? here on 9/11/06.
Go back to Jersey, Sonny. This is the City of the Angels and you haven't got any wings. James Cromwell's Dudley Smith, in L.A. Confidential, gives a visiting thug the advice to leave town.
All America, but especially Hollywood, loves a juicy celebrity trial. The slightly disappointing news to those of us who admit to taking some pleasure in the discomfort of swells is that the Pellicano trail looks like something of a film-industry fizzle. Though the government's hundred-odd pages of trial memorandum contain plenty of front-rank show biz names, they appear mostly as the victims of the nefarious doing of Anthony Pellicano, age 63, and his tight cadre of information-churning accomplices. The principal target of the Fed's case is of course Pellicano, who's not from New Jersey, but was raised by Sicilian parents in Chicago and became the alleged sometime confederate of folks like --Joey "The Clown" Lombardo, but he's always publicly denied Mafia ties.
Who needs bad guys when you have a couple crooks from the L.A.P.D. and the Beverly Hills P.D. on your side? The latter, Mark Arneson, searched law enforcement date bases 2,500 times to scare up useful info some 300 adversaries of Pellicano clients from his P.I.A. agency. Phone company employee Rayford Earl Turner installed wiretaps--noisy ones, sometimes. After Anita Busch first noticed a problem on her line in November of 2005, she complained to provider SBC, who removed the tap; a new one was installed on Nov 18--and subsequently removed.)
Computer programmer Kevin Kachikian helped forensic ace Pellicano develop and distribute a hardware/software package called Telesleuth, for analyzing wiretap calls. And businessman Abner Nicherie first hired Pellicano, then became his on-call Hebrew translator. When Arneson was otherwise occupied, Beverly Hills police officer Craig Stevens filled in and in January 2006 pled guilty to a row of counts.
(Related cases involving Terry N. Christensen, head of a Hollywood law firm who paid Pellicano $100,00 to wiretap the ex-wife of his client Kirk Kerkorian in a child support case, and John McTiernan, covered on this site recently, are on separate tracks.)
Thin as the gruel--intending no slight to Pellicano's former attorney, Steven Gruel, Esq., now replaced by the lips-zipped private eye himself--may be, certain details in the memo account do provide some specimen lessons in how to watch out for the mistrust, dirty dealing and screwing over of your buddy that are this town's way of life. (We repeat over and over that until it's solidified into cliche, and then the players always renew It.). The major execs are somewhere offstage in these accounts--not to dismiss Mike Ovitz, who certainly comes off in these pages as plenty creepy, but he lost his major player jersey sometime back and has since been complaining the gay mafia chased him out of power. (Yep, and the fawning media are responsible for Hillary's recent 0-11 run.)
Wile on the topic. Many among us have checked out Jack Nicholson's pro-Hillary video. This is a guy who's done the reading-most interviews with him will find their way to some compelling recent (or classic) book on politics or the arts--so it's undeniable he gave it due thought. But the fix Pellicano's in reminds one sooner of Faye Dunaway's character Evelyn Mulwray in Chinatown coolly eyeing Jack's Jake Gittes with this: I see you like publicity, Mr. Gittes. Well, you're going to get it. Let's look at some of the tragicomic points of the prosecutors' memo, t as it was filed under the rubric of the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney's Office, Violent and Organized Crime Section."
Submitted by our federal government in the person of U.S> Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien, USA Plaintiff vs The Feds have estimated the time requirted for the trial that begins Tuesday For the at 8 a.m. before the District Court Judge Dale S. Fischer, at about 8-10 weeks. Their memo cites rafts of case law relevant to this sort of RICO (racketeering) investigation. Most of the counts depend on mail and wire fraud--like taping his clients' adversaries during their phone calls and conveying the results to said clients. It's a curious thing that the Feds had little luck "turning" the accused operatives to testify against him, and doubtless certain parts of the government case are less substantial as a result.
The memo details how, from as far back as 1999, through Pellicano's arrest in 2002, Arneson did his searches on databases like the California Division of Motor Vehicles and the FBI adjunct Crime Information Center. Business was good enough that Turner recruited two deputy snoops with more access-- Teresa Wright and Michelle Malkin--and through the devoted efforts of his network was able to pull up such items as CAA agents Bryan Lourd and Kevin Huvane's records (dated 8/10/01).
Other sideshows abound.
In 1996, Susan Reddan Maguire initiated divorce proceedings against LA real estate developer Robert Maguire III, seeking evidence from the detective re the developer's ongoing affair with mistress Rosa Serrano. Around the time she filed, Maguire's Playa Vista project was losing its cornerstone tenant, DreamWorks SKG, because it was too slow off the mark (and also became an environmental pariah before serious modifications restored some credibility.) Another not-so-savory Pellicano client was one John Gordon Jones, who in October 1998 was facing charges of raping nine women he met in nightclubs; --Pellicano set about discrediting these Jane Does with a series of background checks. (Jones was eventually acquitted following a trial in 2001.)
The memorandum alludes to the scramble in Pellicano's office "in late 1999 or early 2000" when the private eye was so concerned that LA County Deputy District Attorney Karla Kerlin was going to execute search warrants that he ordered his files, particularly the ones tainted by Arneson references, to be purged.
Then there's former music executive Robert Pfeifer, 50, of Hollywood, who allegedly hired Pellicano to investigate and wiretap a former girlfriend; the aforementioned Abner Nicherie, 42, of Las Vegas, Nevada, who was involved in a business hassle with a man who was allegedly wiretapped; and Daniel Nicherie, 45, of Las Vegas, Nevada, Abner's brother, who is currently in federal custody on charges of defrauding the man who Pellicano allegedly wiretapped.
For a you-can't-make-this stuff-up touch, at the end of 2000, venture capitalist Alec Gores hired P.I.A. to investigate his wife Lisa's relationship with his younger brother Tom, an Israeli-immigrant buyout king and would be Hollywood player who was exec producer on the Lindsay Lohan vehicle, I Know Who Killed Me. Alec paid the p.i. $160,000 in early 2000, to confirmed the nature of the relationship between Tom and Lisa, and played his client three wire-tapped calls involving the lovers. (That had to be an interesting follow-up conversation between the brothers, both on the Forbes 400 Richest List last year).
Then there's the nasty scraps among the smaller fry--Pellicano's investigation of screenwriter Vincent Bo Zenga In July 2000 after he sued Brad Grey for breach of contract and fraud (the Grey legal team had previously retained PIA in February of 2001 to investigate alienated Grey management client Garry Shandling.) The researchers threw Zenga's wife, journalist Zoriana Kit, and three of his colleagues in the searches for good measure.
There's the Pellicano-aided February 2001 Sandra Carradine beef with husband Keith and his girlfriend, and a job for hedge fund manager Adam Sender over a dispute with a planned film company start-up with movie producer and Nevada gubernatorial candidate Aaron Russo. The p.i. used a wiretap to predict when Russo would be outside a Beverly Hills hair salon, and in one of the case's better Krooked Keystone Kops moments, the memo describes how the servers "traveled to the salon, where they subsequently chased Russo through several buildings before effecting service eon him. One haircutter-witness testified that Russo had turned down" the service, but he recanted his testimony after Pellicano's search found an outstanding arrest warrant (subsequently not served) bearing his name.
Perhaps most interesting to the media is the section called "The Enterprise's Investigation of Anita Busch" [the Ovitz matter, as opposed to the Steven Seagal dead-fish-on-the-car flap]. Arneson at one stage tried to submit that his Busch searches related. to " a legitimate gambling investigation he was working in his capacity as a vice squad detective in the LAPD." He tried to place and tried to place her at a pizzeria called Enzo's, which Busch will testify, she's never entered. (One hazards a guess hat Arneson, however, has.)
All in all, it looks to be an amusing few weeks downtown in Federal Court, moguls or no.
As Danny DeVito's Sid Hudgens, says in L.A. Confidential, "Something has to be done, but nothing too original, because hey, this is Hollywood."
(Anthony Pellicano in his offices, circa 2001; photo by Micahel Ochs/Getty Images)
Does the FBI track cellphone users' physical movements without a warrant? Does the Bureau store recordings of innocent Americans caught up in wiretaps in a searchable database? Does the FBI's wiretap equipment store information like voicemail passwords and bank account numbers without legal authorization to do so?
That's what the nation's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wanted to know, in a series of secret inquiries in 2005 and 2006 into the bureau's counterterrorism electronic surveillance efforts, revealed for the first time in newly declassified documents.
The inquires are the first publicly known questioning of the FBI's post-9/11 surveillance activities by the secret court, which has historically approved nearly every wiretap application submitted to it. The court handles surveillance requests in counterterrorism and foreign espionage investigations. The inquiries add to questions surrounding how the FBI has used the broad powers handed to it by Congress in the 2001 USA Patriot Act, including the FBI's admitted abuse of so-called National Security Letters to get stored telephone and financial records.
Among other things, the declassified documents reveal that lawyers in the FBI's Office of General Counsel and the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy Review queried FBI technology officials in late July 2006 about cellphone tracking. The attorneys asked whether the FBI was obtaining and storing real-time cellphone-location data from carriers under a "pen register" court order that's normally limited to records of who a person called or was called by.
The internal inquiry seems to have preceded, and was likely prompted by, a secret court hearing on the matter days later. Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the documents suggest that the nation's spy court shares the reluctance of federal criminal courts to turn everyday cellphones into tracking devices, in the absence of evidence that the target has done something wrong.
"I hope that this signals that the FISC, like many magistrate judges that handle law enforcement surveillance requests, is growing skeptical of the government's authority to conduct real-time cellphone tracking without probable cause," says Bankston.
In criminal cases, the government's attempts to get cellphone-tracking data without probable cause to believe the target has committed a crime were denied several times in 2005 by federal judges in New York and Texas.
According to the documents, which the EFF obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, an FBI general counsel lawyer asked on July 21, 2006: "Can we at the collection end tell the equipment NOT to receive the cell site location information?"
The lawyer added a note of concern that phone companies might be sending along cell-site data even when they aren't asked for it. "Do we get it all or can we, when required, tell the equipment to not collect the cell-site location data?," the lawyer asked.
Separately, the secret court questioned if the FBI was using pen register orders to collect digits dialed after a call is made, potentially including voicemail passwords and account numbers entered into bank-by-phone applications.
Using a pen register order, the FBI can force a phone company to turn over records of who a person calls, or is called by, simply by asserting the information would be relevant to an investigation. But existing case law holds that those so-called "post-cut-through dialed digits" count as the content of a communication, and thus to collect that information, the FBI would need to get a full-blown wiretapping warrant based on probable cause.
On August 7 2006, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly took the extraordinary step of ordering the FBI to report (.pdf) on how its sophisticated phone wiretapping system, known as Digital Collection System, handled those extra digits and whether it stored them in a centralized data-mining depository known as Telephone Application.
The documents (.pdf) show that the majority of FBI offices surveyed internally were collecting that information without full-blown wiretap orders, especially in classified investigations. The documents also indicate that the information was being uploaded to the FBI's central repository for wiretap recordings and phone records, where analysts can data-mine the records for decades.
EFF's Bankston says it's clear that FBI offices had configured their digit-recording software, DCS 3000, to collect more than the law allows.
"The FBI's configuration of DCS 3000 to collect post-cut-through dialed digits when conducting pen-register surveillance is flatly illegal under statute and raises serious Fourth Amendment questions, based on the unanimous decisions of two district court judges and three federal magistrate judges holding that such interceptions require a wiretap order based on probable cause," Bankston said.
The documents also reveal that the inquiry on dialed-digits collection wasn't the first time the secret court had queried the FBI regarding its use and storage of information from wiretaps. In October 2005, the court also asked the FBI to explain how it stored "raw" foreign-intelligence wiretap content and information about Americans collected during those wiretaps.
The government is supposed to "minimize" -- that is anonymize or destroy -- information gathered on Americans who aren't the targets of a wiretap, unless that information is crucial to an investigation.
The court wanted the FBI to explain what databases stored raw wiretaps (.pdf), how those recordings could be accessed, and by whom, as well as how minimization standards were implemented.
The documents don't reveal the answer to that question. The FBI did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
For more on the FBI's sophisticated wiretapping technology and how it links in with the nation's phone and internet infrastructure, see Point, Click, Eavesdrop.
In poring through the latest round of documents the FBI turned over to the Electronic Frontier Foundation about how the FBI legally plugs into the nation's telephone system, THREAT LEVEL discovered that the nation's secret spy court repeatedly questioned the FBI in 2005 and 2006 about whether the Bureau was exceeding its wiretap authority.
But there were other fine eavesdropping nuggets in those pages, including info on when the FBI learned to wiretap VOIP calls, how number portability messed with FBI taps, and a moment of candor from an FBI technician about how the FBI's wiretapping software could work with the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.
For instance, the FBI accidentally listened in on one innocent American phone conversations due to a hack a phone company used to let people take port their phone numbers from one cell provider to another. At issue is a workaround used by CDMA providers, where a carrier assigns an alias number to a ported number in order to speed up switching at a user's usual calling area. The workaround has the unfortunate side effect of occasionally reporting the alias -- which could actually be a real person's number -- instead of the real caller to the FBI's wiretapping software.
In the FBI's own words, "due to misinformation in the call records, the unrelated subscriber was temporarily included in the investigation" and "this error has recently misled a few FBI investigations.
Secondly, in one message thread (.pdf) about moving offices in Manhattan and wiretapping the traditional wireline phone service in March 2006, one FBI employee who works for the FBI's Operational Technology Division asks if the NSA still does warrantless wiretaps and suggests how the FBI's equipment could be configured to deal with the lack of court orders.
Does the [redacted] do intercepts without court orders? I thought we act as a proxy for [redacted -- likely FISA]. That is, we serve the company the order for the [FISA] targets. If so there should not be a problem: the DCS-3000 can direct all FISA traffic to the [ redacted - likely DCS-5000 system]. If not, then we can segreagate the [redacted - likely NSA] traffic from our traffic by giving [redacted - likely the carriers] separate telephone numbers for [redacted - likely the NSA] and Bureau to deliver the CDC data. For example, [redacted - likely the NSA's] targets' CDC data can be delivered to 212-[redacted phone number] the FBI's target's CDC data can be delivered to 212[redacted phone number].
In reply, an FBI agent from New York City wrote back:
It is my understanding that we do act as a proxy with delivering their orders. The [redacted] does that. However, they do a lot more surveillance than we do. I will get someone from the [redacted - likely NSA] down here when you guys come to set up the equipment for the DCS_3000 move.
It is my understanding that we do act as a proxy with delivering their orders. The [redacted] does that. However, they do a lot more surveillance than we do. I will get someone from the [redacted - likely NSA] down here when you guys come to set up the equipment for the DCS_3000 move.
A third message of interest note that in June 2005, the FBI's wiretapping software successfully collected foreign intelligence wiretaps on two separate VOIP subscribers (provider is redacted in the docs). The call records were delivered like any phone switch would, while the phone communication itself was snagged via a CALEA-like feature built-into Cisco CMTS routers, which delivered copies of the conversation to the FBI. That's pretty significant since the Justice Department argued that this capability had to be mandated for VOIP companies, when it seems the feds were able to pull it off without design mandates.
That interception predated the extension of CALEA mandates to the internet and IP traffic generally. That mandate went into effect May 11, 2007, on what THREAT LEVEL dubbed "Wiretap the Internet Day."
Next witness. MR. TRITICO: Dr. Fred Whitehurst. THE COURT: All right. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you raise your righthand, please. (Frederic Whitehurst affirmed.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you have a seat, please. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you state your full namefor the record and spell your last name. THE WITNESS: Yes. My name is Frederic WilliamWhitehurst. My last name is spelled W-H-I-T-E-H-U-R-S-T. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Tritico. DIRECT EXAMINATIONBY MR. TRITICO:Q. Dr. Whitehurst, how are you employed?A. I'm a supervisory special agent of the FBI.Q. And you're appearing here today under subpoena fromMr. McVeigh and his defense team?A. Yes, sir.Q. Would you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jurybriefly your educational background. Where did you go tocollege?A. Yes. I got a bachelor of science degree in chemistry fromEast Carolina University in 1974. I received a doctorate fromchemistry in Duke University in 1980. I received -- well, Icompleted a couple of years of post-doctoral research at TexasA & M University.Q. What was your post-doctoral work at Texas A & M?A. X-ray crystallography, theoretical applications.Q. I'm sorry?A. X-ray crystallography.Q. What is that, briefly?A. Some solid materials are ordered; they're not random. Theatoms that are in them are ordered. We use various and sundrypieces of equipment to find out what that order is. And I alsocompleted a law degree at Georgetown University.Q. With respect to your law degree, did you sit for the bar inany state?A. No, I haven't.Q. You do not practice law, but you do have a doctorate ofjurisprudence in law; is that correct?A. Yes, I do.Q. Have you had any practical experience in your lifetime withthe use of explosives?A. Yes, sir, I have.Q. And when did you obtain this practical experience?A. I spent three years with combat units in Vietnam.Q. And what were you assigned to in Vietnam?A. Well, I spent about six months in the infantry. I was amortarman, a rifleman. I worked a lot with explosives,assisting engineers in blowing up tunnels, blowing down trees,that sort of thing. I spent two and a half years in military intelligence.I went to the field quite often. I had a lot of -- ofexperience with explosives being used very close to me.Q. With respect to the explosives, have you during Vietnam --did you participate in or explode things, if you will, on few,or many occasions?A. Many occasions.Q. Since you left the military, would you briefly describe forthe ladies and gentlemen of the jury your work history withrespect to chemical trace analysis, or explosives traceanalysis.A. Yes. I -- excuse me. I entered the FBI Laboratory in1986, and I underwent about 13 months of training to qualify tobe a forensic chemist with a specialty in the area ofexplosives and explosive residue analysis. And then I -- between August of 1987 and June of 1994,I worked cases, criminal cases and other cases in explosives,explosive residue analysis.Q. Prior to 1986, when you joined the lab, were you a specialagent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation?A. Yes, I was.Q. Is that somebody working in the field conductinginvestigations?A. Yes.Q. And what year did you join the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation?A. It was in 1982.Q. And I believe you testified that you joined the lab in1986; is that correct?A. Yes, that's correct.Q. What unit were you assigned to in the lab when you firstjoined the lab?A. To the Materials Analysis Unit.Q. And in 1986, was that the unit of the lab that conductedtrace analysis, explosives trace analysis?A. Yes, it was.Q. Is that the same thing as explosives residue analysis?A. Yes.Q. Has -- during the time that you've been employed at the FBIlab, has the trace analysis section, if you will, always beenassigned to the Materials Analysis Unit?A. Well, there is many types of trace analysis. Theexplosives and explosives residue analysis was assigned to thematerials analysis until, oh, I don't know -- I think it'smaybe a couple of years ago now.Q. Where did it go?A. It was moved over to the Chemistry/Toxicology Unit.Q. Now, when it was moved to the Chemistry/Toxicology Unit,did that require the members of the lab to physically move theequipment, or was this a flowchart change?A. It was a flowchart change.Q. Now, are you a member of any professional organizations?A. Yes, sir.Q. Which ones?A. I belong to the American Chemical Society, the FederationSocieties of Coatings Technology, Pyrotechnic GuildInternational that I belong to. Sigma Psi Scientific HonorSociety, the International Society of Explosives Engineers.That's all I can remember right now, sir.Q. Do you from time to time attend international symposiums inthe field of chemistry and/or explosives residue analysis?A. Yes, sir, I do.Q. Do you do that on few, or many occasions?A. Excuse me?Q. You do that on few, or many occasions?A. I'd say on a few occasions.Q. And do you regularly read journals and treatises on thesubject of explosives trace analysis?A. Yes, I do.Q. And have you had occasion to contribute to those journalsand/or treatises as a contributing author or editor, if youwill?A. Yes, but not very often.Q. I'd like to show you, sir, what's already been introducedinto evidence as McVeigh Exhibit J400.A. Excuse me. I've got J444, also. Am I supposed to?Q. We'll get to that in a minute.A. All right.Q. J400, it has been represented here, are the protocols thatwere in effect in the FBI lab from April 1, 1995, to present,which, according to the letter, would have been December 19,1996. My question to you, Dr. Whitehurst: Are thoseprotocols?A. Some of this that I'm looking at is data that was generatedto help us understand a piece of equipment that we had in thelaboratory that was a new piece of equipment. That is -- that does not fit within my understandingof what a protocol is.Q. Do you recognize some of those documents?A. Yes. My handwriting is on them, and some of them aredocuments that I wrote.Q. Down at the bottom right-hand corner of each documentshould be a number. Can you identify the document that youwrote that make up Exhibit J400?A. There is a stamp on the bottom that says 000895.Q. 895?A. Yes.Q. Okay. Any others that you wrote?A. 000896 is something that I believe I generated. 000897, 898, and part of 899, 900. I wrote 901, 902,903, 904, 905. I generated 906 in conjunction withMr. Burmeister and Monica Knuckles in the laboratory. Let'ssee. Yes. I generated, I believe, 921, 922, 923 -- yes, 923,924 --Q. Let's talk about some of these, Dr. Whitehurst.A. Yes. MR. TRITICO: May I have the ELMO?BY MR. TRITICO:Q. Looking at page 000895 --A. Yes.Q. -- now, this is the first one that you identified assomething that you had written; is that correct?A. Yes.Q. What is this?A. It appears to be laboratory notes associated with thetesting of the echo gas chromatography electron capturedetector instrument that we had in the laboratory.Q. Is this a document that you prepared to be used as awritten protocol for the FBI lab?A. No, sir. It was -- it was the notes from the results oftesting of the instrument.Q. And 000896: Does this have to do with the same machine?A. Yes, it does.Q. Is this -- was this prepared, this chart printed off foruse as a written protocol, for the FBI lab?A. No, sir.Q. And 897: Is that part of the same document?A. That's correct. And --Q. And 898?A. Yes.Q. And I guess 899 is also a part of the same document. Isthat correct?A. Yes. It appears to be.Q. Are any of the documents or the page numbers that you'veidentified incorporated within McVeigh Exhibit J400, thedocuments that you wrote -- were they written to be writtenprotocols for the FBI lab?A. Yes, some of them were.Q. Which ones?A. The description of analysis on 901 was not. Okay. It goesthrough after that.Q. I'm sorry. 000901?A. Yes. That says what we do, but it wasn't to be part of aprotocol. There is a document in the back that starts at 922 or921 -- excuse me -- which was meant to be the initial attemptsat a protocol.Q. Is this the page you're talking about? Look at the screenthere, please.A. Yes, that's correct.Q. Now, I believe I understood you to say a moment ago thatthis was the initial attempt at a written protocol?A. Yes.Q. What do you mean by that? MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, could I object just as totiming so we can figure out what time this protocolMr. Whitehurst or Dr. Whitehurst -- THE COURT: All right. Let's establish time.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. When did you write this? THE COURT: What page is this? MR. TRITICO: I'm sorry, your Honor. It's 000922. THE COURT: Thank you.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. When did you write this?A. Sometime back in the early 90's. I think it was in 1991 or1992. I don't know for sure.Q. Now, if I understood your testimony a moment ago, this wasyour attempt at a protocol?A. Yes. Yes, sir.Q. What do you mean by that?A. We became aware that the flowchart that we were usingdidn't have enough specific instructions in it. Somebodycouldn't just review that and see what we had done; and werealized that, you know, real scientific protocol needs to bemore specific than the flowchart was. So Mr. Burmeister and Isat down to try to build a protocol to -- you know, to fleshout that -- that flowchart that we were using. And, you know,to the best of my memory, this is part of that attempt.Q. Did you complete the project?A. No. Not during my tenure.Q. Look at the very first page of McVeigh Exhibit J400 for me,please.A. Yes.Q. The first sentence of this says, "The enclosed materialsreflect the protocols and procedures in effect from April 1,1995, to present." And the date of this letter is December 19,1996. Do you see that?A. Yes, I do.Q. Do you view that as an accurate statement? MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor. I don'tbelieve that Mr. -- Dr. Whitehurst was a member of this unitduring that time period. THE COURT: Well, he's read the attached. Thequestion goes to the attached; is that correct? MR. TRITICO: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Overruled.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. Do you view that as an accurate statement?A. Well, some of these documents are not to my understandingpart of a protocol. They're just laboratory notes. Some ofthese documents do represent the -- I don't know the state ofApril 1, 1995. I wasn't working this April 1, 1995; butthey -- if that's all they had for a protocol, then thatrepresents -- that represents the protocol that was used, sir.Q. However, the documents that you've identified that we'vediscussed in your view as a scientist are not protocols; isthat correct?A. They don't satisfy the protocol requirements of theorganization that I work for.Q. What do you mean by that?A. Well, the FBI has a standard operating procedure for makingprotocols, for writing protocols which they've developed in thelast while. And I know -- I'm the author of some of thisstuff, and I know that these don't satisfy those requirementsthat I've read.Q. Now, let me talk to you for a minute about contaminationstudies at the FBI lab while you were there. Have you ever conducted a contamination study at theFBI lab?A. Yes. MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor, to relevanceand timing. THE COURT: Well, we need foundation to make itrelevant, so . . .BY MR. TRITICO:Q. How many studies have you conducted?A. I've conducted a number of studies.Q. When was the last one?A. In May of 1995, I believe.Q. What was that study? What were you doing?A. I was trying to determine if there were organicexplosives -- particular types of organic explosives in thelaboratory in various places that I felt at the time wereimportant to the handling of explosive residues evidence.Q. Did you complete the study?A. Yes.Q. What were your results?A. We found -- I think we took 50 swabs. I'd have to look atthe study myself, but we found that there were some places thathad -- there were four or five, maybe -- yes, that had someorganic explosives.Q. Where were those places? Do you recall?A. The best I can recall now is they were in areas of theExplosives Unit's evidence-handling area and evidence-storagearea.Q. If you know, is that the area where evidence is checked inwhen it's brought into the lab?A. Yes.Q. Yes, you know, or yes, it is?A. Yes, that's correct.Q. Okay. What contamination did you find in those areas?A. We found residues of PETN and residues of RDX.Q. In April and May of 1995, did the FBI lab have a procedurefor regular monitoring with respect to contamination in theExplosives Units?A. Not to my knowledge.Q. What efforts, if any, were taken, other than thecontamination study that you testified about, to determine theexistence of contamination in the Explosives Units?A. I was told about a study that -- MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. Do you know of any other efforts that were taken todetermine the existence, if any, of contamination other thanthe one you just testified about in 1995?A. Can you repeat that again, sir.Q. Sure. Other than the contamination study that you did thatyou just testified about, are you aware of any other testing inand around April and May of 1995 to determine the existence ofcontamination? THE COURT: In the entire laboratory? MR. TRITICO: In the Explosive Units, is what I'mtalking about. MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, he's saying "ExplosiveUnits." I'm not sure what he's referring to in the plural. THE COURT: Let's clarify.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. How many units of the lab handle explosives?A. Um --Q. Let me ask it this way.A. Very many would, because evidence -- Should I wait?Q. Let me ask you this: Does the Explosives Unit -- is thatthe area that in April and May of 1995 that would have checkedin evidence from the Oklahoma City case?A. I believe so.Q. The chemistry/toxicology area: Was that the area of thelab that conducted explosives trace analysis in April and Mayof 1995?A. Yes.Q. And the Explosives Unit would have conducted their testing,if you will, on other evidence from the Oklahoma City case inApril or May of 1995; is that correct?A. That would be standard procedure.Q. Are those the two areas -- and the Materials Analysis Unit:Would they handle certain evidence of an explosives nature withrespect to Oklahoma City in April and May of 1995?A. Yes, they would.Q. Those three areas: Are you aware of any other testing forcontamination other than the one that you did in -- I believeyou said May of 1995?A. During that period, no.Q. Are you aware of any monitoring performed by the FBI lab orthe FBI in those three units of the lab in April or May of 1995to determine the existence, if any, of contamination?A. No, sir.Q. Why is it important in your mind to determine if there iscontamination in the lab in those three areas?A. If we're processing evidence and we are contaminatedourselves, then we don't know whether our finding of explosivesresidues on material is a result of our contaminating thematerial ourselves or the result of the explosives residuehaving been on the evidence before it ever got to us.Q. Can you see explosives residue?A. Sometimes.Q. Can you generally?A. I don't know that I've done a study. There are explosiveresidues that are invisible. There could be explosive residueson my hand right now, sir, that you just couldn't see.Q. Can explosives residue travel around?A. It can and does.Q. And have you ever conducted any studies wherein youdetermined that explosive residues had traveled around andcontaminated other items?A. The FBI has.Q. Have you participated in those?A. Yes, I have. I have looked -- THE COURT: I don't know what you mean by "traveledaround." That doesn't sound very scientific. MR. TRITICO: It probably wasn't, your Honor.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. Can it move around in the air?A. Yes.Q. Some explosives residues?A. Yes, I'm aware that some can move around in the air.Q. Can explosives residues be transferred by people like on myhands or clothes or shoes?A. Yes, it can.Q. How does that happen?A. You touch the explosive. A study we did at Quantico, whereyou touch the individual and the individual touched theexplosive, went and touched door handles throughout ourQuantico facility -- and I think it was up to 30 door handlesthat they could find explosives on it. Don't quote me on thatnumber. But I've seen the studies, also, where a thumb is puton C-4 plastic explosive; and for 100 thumb prints, you canstill find explosive residue.Q. Can explosives residue travel from, say, box to box?A. Some can. MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, could we talk about aspecific residue? Explosive residue and the timing. THE COURT: Well, you can on cross. This ispermissible direct.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. Can explosives residue travel from box to box?A. There are explosive residues that have high vapor pressure,like nitroglycerine and ethylene glycol dinitrate that can.Q. What does high vapor pressure mean?A. The material evaporates. Just molecules of nitroglycerine,for instance, evaporate, travel through objects over a periodof time.Q. How about explosives residue traveling from item to itemwithin a box?A. If you're dealing with, again, explosives residue that havehigh vapor pressures.Q. Did you ever conduct a study wherein you used blue jeans?A. Yes, I did.Q. Can you tell me about when -- well, when did you performthat study?A. We started in 1992, I believe.Q. And what was the purpose of this study? MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor, as torelevance, timing. THE COURT: Overruled.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. What was the purpose of this study?A. Initially what we were trying to do was find out how longethylene glycol dinitrate would last on blue jeans. So it wasgoing to be a multiyear study.Q. Is that EGDN?A. Yes, EGDN.Q. Okay.A. Excuse me.Q. So what did you do?A. We carried, I believe, eight pairs of blue jeans down tothe Quantico bomb range and put some aside, blew up anexplosive that didn't have any EGDN in it near them and putsome others that were hanging up on like a clothesline thereand blew up explosives that had EGDN up close to the others.And we tested them to see if EGDN was on them. Then we placedthem in plastic bags. We put them all together in a box,cardboard box. We stored the box over a period of time andfound that EGDN was on the original blue jeans that had EGDN onthem, but it was also on the blue jeans that didn't have theEGDN on them to start out with.Q. Did you find any other substances on the blue jeans whenyou tested them later?A. No.Q. Did you make any findings with respect to PETN in thatstudy?A. Yes. One of the things I wanted to do in 1996 -- I believeit was '96 when the study was over -- was to find out if EGDNhad come out of the box. And so I did a test on the outside ofthe box and found PETN, which wasn't -- it was nonsensical.Q. What do you mean?A. We hadn't used it. It wasn't an explosive we were using;the box was a brand-new box out of a stack of boxes. It didn'tmake sense that there was -- I say we found EGDN. The data wehad was consistent with the presence -- excuse me -- of PETNbeing on the box.Q. On the outside of the box?A. Yes, on the outside of the box.Q. Was PETN used in the initial explosion when you started thetest?A. No, it wasn't.Q. Do you know how the PETN got on the box?A. No, I don't. It didn't make any sense to me.Q. Where was the box stored?A. It was stored on top of some book shelves up over close tothe -- close to the ceiling in my office.Q. How long did you store it there?A. Four years.Q. I'm sorry?A. Four years.Q. Four years? What is Turbo Vap?A. It's an instrument that's used to evaporate many containersof solvent all at the same time, and it -- if you want to knowif a material is in, say, this pen or whatever this object is,you might immerse it into a solvent and soak out of that pensome material that you're looking for. Well, now you've gotsolvent and material. You want to get rid of the solvent soyou can analyze the material, and so what you do is blow astream of gas such as nitrogen into a test tube that you've gotthe solvent and the material in and evaporate it.Q. You have -- in April and May of 1995, did you have one ofthose in the FBI lab?A. Yes.Q. Have you ever tested the Turbo Vap yourself for theexistence of contamination?A. Yes, I have.Q. And when that?A. It was terribly contaminated.Q. When. I'm sorry.A. Oh, when? It was sometime -- I think it was around 1992.Q. Have you tested it since?A. No. Not that I remember.Q. Was there any regular monitoring or testing of the TurboVap while you were in the FBI lab?A. No, no.Q. What did you find in 1992 when you tested the Turbo Vap?A. There were a number of explosives on there. I had beenprocessing raw explosives in the Turbo Vap.Q. What was the policy and procedure of the FBI lab in Aprilor May of 1995 for regular cleaning, if any, of the Turbo Vap?A. There wasn't one because we abandoned the use of it.Q. Have you ever known individuals to keep raw explosives inthe trace analysis area of the lab?A. Yes.Q. Who? MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, again, timing. THE COURT: Yes. Let's be more specific.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. April and May of 1995, were you aware of any?A. Yes.Q. Who?A. Mr. Burmeister did.Q. What did he keep? Do you know?A. Very small containers of standards, screw-cap vials.Q. What's a standard?A. They're known explosives.Q. Like what?A. Hexanitrostilbene or RDX or TNT or PETN or -- there is anumber of types of explosives. I think we have 15 or 20 ofthem.Q. What do you use the standard for?A. If you run -- if you know what the material is, you run anunknown, you could run the standard to find out what theunknown is. We use the standards for testing equipment that's,you know -- if you get a new piece of explosive detectionequipment, you want to know could it detect this type ofexplosive. We know what is in the jar or in the little bottle,so we use the equipment for that -- I mean the standards forthat.Q. Let me see if I can break that down a little bit. Thestandard is used when you run an unknown sample through, forinstance, a GC/Chem machine so that you have something tocompare the charts with against each other; right?A. Yes.Q. And you're looking to see with the known standard if itmatches up with the unknown sample, then you know if you haveidentified explosives residue on that unknown sample. Is thatfair?A. Well, it's not -- you don't quite identify it that way, butyou know your data is consistent with the same type of materialgoing through the instrument.Q. In your opinion, should raw explosives like standards bekept in the trace analysis area of the lab?A. The way those explosives are stored, I -- I'm not thatconcerned about it. They're handled very carefully, and Idon't have a great deal of concern about that.Q. Have you ever found contamination in Steve Burmeister'swork area?A. We did one time a long time ago.Q. When?A. It was in the early 90's, just after Steve came that wefound something.Q. What did you find?A. There was an RDX signal off his computer keyboard.Q. Have you tested his office since you found the RDX?A. I don't know if -- when we did the test in '95 that itincluded that office. I'd have to review the test results.Q. Now, the -- each -- some of the examiners -- you, forinstance, and Mr. Burmeister -- had individual offices withinthe trace analysis area of the lab; is that right?A. Yes.Q. And these offices: Did they have locks on the doors?A. Yes, they did.Q. Was there a policy or procedure for regular monitoring ofeach individual office for contamination in April and May of1995?A. Not that I'm aware of.Q. Does the FBI permit tours by the general public through theFBI lab?A. No longer as far as I understand.Q. Let me break that down. In April and May of 1995, weretours permitted by the -- for the general public through theFBI lab?A. There were tours that came through. Not of the generalpublic. They were special tours that came through.Q. Through the trace analysis area is what you're talkingabout?A. Yes.Q. And who generally would be invited into the trace analysisarea on these special tours?A. I've seen lots of different groups, visiting dignitariesfrom places even like Russia and Czechoslovakia, Japan,Southeast Asia, the Middle East. We have a number of visitsfrom Israelis. Those kinds of people come through.Q. Foreign dignitaries?A. Foreign dignitaries. We also have, you know, at timesAmericans, civilians that come through the lab.Q. And have you seen -- had occasion to see military personnelon these special tours?A. Yes, I have.Q. From the United States, or abroad, or both?A. Both.Q. I'm sorry?A. Both.Q. Now, does the general public: Are they allowed to tour inand around or around the trace analysis area?A. No longer.Q. My questions are only referring to April and May of '95.Okay?A. Okay.Q. Were they allowed then to tour around the trace analysisarea?A. To the best of my recollection, that practice had beenstopped before that time.Q. How soon before?A. That, I don't know. I know I myself have brought groups asmany as 15 to 20 people through the lab.Q. Members of the general public?A. Yes.Q. In April or May of '95, or around that time frame?A. No. To the best of my recollection, that practice hadhalted by that time, sir.Q. Okay. Now, is there a carpeting in the FBI lab?A. Yes, there is, in a number of places.Q. I'm talking about the trace analysis area.A. Yes, there is.Q. Excuse me. Can you draw me a picture of the interior, asketch, if you will, of the trace analysis area, if I give youa piece of paper?A. Yes. MR. TRITICO: May I approach? THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: You want me to go ahead and draw?BY MR. TRITICO:Q. Yes. And can you write and me ask questions at the sametime?A. We'll try.Q. Okay. In April and May of '95, were there locks onexterior doors of the trace analysis area?A. No.Q. You want to go ahead and draw?A. You want me to start drawing?Q. Go ahead and draw that.A. Okay. Understand I'm a scientist, not an artist, sir.Q. Yes, sir. I just need a sketch, Dr. Whitehurst, not a van Gogh.A. Yes. It's a rather complex area. I'm sorry. I'm holdingyou up.Q. That's okay. Are you through?A. Well, sure.Q. If you're not, I want you to finish it.A. I wasn't sure if that was a hint or not.Q. Okay.A. I think that I should be able to explain what I need withwhat I've got here, sir. MR. TRITICO: May I retrieve that, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. TRITICO: May I show this -- THE COURT: Will you show it to counsel first? MR. TRITICO: Oh, yes, I guess I will.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. Now, I'm showing you what's now been marked as McVeighExhibit J750. Is this the sketch that you drew?A. Yes, it is.Q. Would this assist the jury in understanding your testimonyabout the lab and the egress and the ingress into and from thelab and --A. Yes, I believe it would.Q. This is not a Vincent van Gogh drawing, is it?A. It's not completely accurate.Q. Okay. MR. TRITICO: I'll offer McVeigh Exhibit J750, yourHonor. MS. WILKINSON: No objection. THE COURT: All right. It's received to illustratethe testimony. MR. TRITICO: Yes, sir.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. Now, can you see what I'm pointing at right here?A. Yes, I do.Q. What is this?A. That's a doorway.Q. Is this the doorway -- the main entrance into the traceanalysis section of the lab?A. It is one of the entrances. On the other corner, there isanother entrance.Q. Over here?A. Yes, uh-huh.Q. Is the area that is enclosed in here within the pagebetween these two doors: Does that comprise the trace analysisarea of the lab?A. Well, there is other -- there is other areas in the labwhere explosive trace analysis takes place, also.Q. Is this where the majority of it is done?A. During my tenure, that's where the majority was done.Q. Is this the area where you officed when you were at -- inthe explosives residue analysis for the lab?A. Yes, that's correct.Q. What is this right here that I'm pointing at right here?A. It's an area that leads through the national automotivepaint file area, where the carpet is.Q. Was this carpet here in April and May of 1995?A. Yes, it was.Q. How big is that carpet?A. I'd say it's 3 or 4 feet wide and maybe 15 feet long.Something like that.Q. What was the regular practice for cleaning the carpet inthis area in April and May of 1995?A. The facilities management personnel would vacuum it.Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not vacuuming thecarpet in the trace analysis area is appropriate?A. Yes, I have an opinion.Q. What is that opinion?A. I think, first of all, it's inappropriate to have thecarpet there; and second of all, it's inappropriate to vacuumit with an industrial-grade vacuum cleaner.Q. Let's break that down. Why is it inappropriate to have thecarpet in that area?A. It's very difficult to really clean and to characterize asto whether it's been contaminated with anything. It acts as anarea where individuals that are undefined coming through canwalk across and leave materials that we can't -- we can't mopup, we can't clean very often, so that that carpet could beabsolutely clean now, and five minutes from now when trafficcomes through, it's no longer clean. We just can't monitor it.Q. What type of traffic would this carpet see? From whom, I'masking you? Other people in the lab?A. Other people in the lab, other people in the FBI building.Just all kinds of people.Q. Have you had occasion to see people that have come from thebomb range in Quantico walk across that carpet?A. Yes.Q. Now, you -- I got past what we were talking about withrespect to vacuuming. Why is that inappropriate, vacuuming thecarpet?A. Vacuum cleaners that you normally use around your housethrow a lot of dust out. They vacuum up the big particles, anda lot of dust goes out. In fact, you know if you clean, youknow that if you vacuum then you dust, you know because if youvac -- I mean if you dust first, you're going to have to dustagain after you vacuum.Q. What studies while you were -- In or around April or May of1995, were any studies conducted with respect to this carpetand contamination that you're aware of?A. I don't know that the study we did actually tested thecarpet.Q. How many times did you see the carpet shampooed while youwere in the lab?A. I don't remember it ever being shampooed.Q. Now, over here on -- along here are -- I take it offices iswhat you've drawn. Is that correct?A. Yes, that's correct.Q. Are these the offices where the examiners officed?A. Yes.Q. One of which was yours?A. Yes, that's correct.Q. Which one was yours?A. I don't know how to point at this thing.Q. This one?A. Let me see. Yes, that's correct.Q. This was your office?A. Yes, that was my office.Q. Take that pen, go underneath the glass onto the screen.You can just put a little X or whatever you want, just right onthe screen. There you go.A. Fascinating.Q. Which one was Mr. Burmeister's office?A. It's this one right here.Q. I can't see it --A. Excuse me. I apologize.Q. Thank you. Now, this door you testified a moment ago wasnot locked; is that right? In April and May of '95?A. Yes, that's correct.Q. Were any efforts taken by the lab to control the egress andingress of individuals who did not work in that trace analysisarea of the lab in April and May of 1995?A. Yes. I'm aware of a 1991 memo requesting that locks be puton those doors to provide proper security for our evidence andto keep people from going through the area.Q. And was that done?A. No.Q. Do you know why?A. No.Q. Do you feel that the doors should have been locked and theegress and ingress of individuals who did not work in the traceanalysis area should have been controlled?A. Yes.Q. Why?A. I've had a concern about chain of custody ever since I gotin the lab. We very often don't have a place to store ourevidence, so it stays out overnight in the hoods, or even outin the lab. And I don't know how -- I don't know how we canlegally justify that to say that evidence was, you know,totally under our control. I also have a concern that if the door isn't locked,people don't think before they go through it. They don'tthink, "Am I dirty? Should I not go in there?" You know? Andwhen I mean dirty, I mean, "Am I contaminated with somethingthat shouldn't be in that room?"Q. What efforts were taken in and around April and May of 1995to determine if individuals entering the trace analysis area ofthe lab were contaminated with explosives residue?A. I don't remember any -- there was no -- there was noprocedure of checking people out that came into the lab that Iremember.Q. What efforts could have been taken in and around April orMay of 1995 to check individuals for explosives residuecontamination?A. We could have -- well, the efforts could be like what I sawin 1989 in the British lab that I -- MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. What efforts could you have taken in and around April orMay of 1995 to check individuals for the existence ofexplosives residue?A. We could have checked their hands to find out if theirhands were contaminated. We could have checked their shoes tofind out if their shoes were contaminated. We had anexplosives detector; and anybody coming through that area couldhave been interrogated with that detector, could have beensampled with that detector.Q. Other than checking their shoes, are there ways that youcould have further protected from contamination with respect toshoes?A. I understand there is materials that you can put atentranceways, but I've not actually seen that stuff myself.Q. I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you said.A. There are materials that you can put in entranceways,sticky materials where you walk over it and your shoes -- youknow, stuff that's on your shoes --Q. Would stick to the mat?A. Stick to the mat.Q. How about covering?A. Yes. There could have been booties put on people.Q. In your opinion, what is the -- if you have a contaminationproblem in a lab, what is the most highly contaminated areagenerally? Do you know?A. I would expect that it would be where raw explosives andevidence with explosive residues were on it would be found.Q. My question wasn't fair --A. Okay.Q. -- and I don't think it was clear. Floor, wall, table,things like that, in the trace analysis area: What would bethe most contaminated area?A. From what I know about explosives, sir, it would beanywhere.Q. Okay. What was the FBI's protocol or procedure in April orMay of 1995 for testing the floors of the Explosives Unit,Chemistry/Toxicology Unit and the Materials Analysis Unit forcontamination?A. I'm not aware that there was one.Q. Have you ever personally done it?A. No. The contamination study that was done in May -- Idon't know if swabs were taken off the floor. It's been a longtime since that was done.Q. Do you feel -- do you have an opinion as to whether or notthe FBI lab in and around April or May of 1995 should haveregularly tested the floors and other areas of the MaterialsAnalysis Unit, the Chemistry/Toxicology Unit, and theExplosives Unit for contamination?A. Yes, I believe we should have.Q. There has been evidence in this case that when Mr. Millsreceived the -- Mr. McVeigh's clothes, he brought them into theExplosives Unit and put them on the floor. After preparing histable, he put the box onto the table. Do you have an opinionas to whether or not that is an appropriate method for checkingin evidence?A. I think it could lead to a contamination issue with theevidence.Q. Why?A. Because the people in the Explosive Unit that go to thebomb range come home from the bomb range -- or I've -- youknow, I've experienced that where they come back from the bombrange and go into the Explosive Unit area with the clothesthey've had on at the range, with the shoes they've had on atthe range. There is a high likelihood that they've broughtexplosive residues back from the bomb range, and so it's -- it,you know -- if you put something on that floor, there is a highlikelihood that you're going to pick up some contamination fromthe floor.Q. Without taking control samples of the floor on a regularbasis or at the time you placed the box on the floor, how wouldyou ever know if you had contaminated that evidence?A. You wouldn't.Q. Is packaging evidence, more than one single item ofevidence, in a brown paper bag in your opinion an appropriatemethod for packaging and transporting evidence?A. It's according to what you want to do with it when you dothe analysis. It's according to what your concerns are withthe evidence. If you're not concerned about, for instance, isthere residue on this and not residue on this one, it wouldn'tconcern me.Q. Would you agree that you might not know at the time thatyou package it?A. Certainly.Q. And based on that, would you agree that it would be betterto package it separately?A. Yes.Q. You're familiar with the explosive PETN, are you not?A. Yes, I am.Q. If you know, is PETN used in any other method than a highexplosive?A. Yes, I'm aware that it's used as a medicine, as a componentof smokeless powder, gunpowder.Q. With respect to the medicine, have you checked to see ifPETN was used in medicines in the United States in and around1994 and 1995?A. Yes, I have.Q. And what did you find?A. I found there are a number of products, quite a number ofproducts that have PETN in them. There is quite a number ofreferences out there to medicinal products with PETN in them.Q. Where did you check? What books or research did you do tofind this out?A. I went to the U.S. Pharmacopeia, to the American Drug Index.Q. I'm sorry. Slow down. What?A. The American Drug Index.Q. What was the first one?A. I hope I'm saying it right, sir. I'm a chemist.Pharmacopeia.Q. Okay.A. I checked in references that nurses and doctors would use,and I guess four or five of them. I looked in the Merck Index,which is sort of a general reference that people -- thatchemists use to find out what are the uses of the drug, whatare the characteristics of -- not the drug but the chemical.Q. And based on that research, you found that PETN was used incertain medicines in the United States in and around 1994 and1995?A. I think we need to be specific about that.Q. All right.A. I called a couple of -- one particular drug company, andthe individual I talked to there said it was commonly used.The references showed medicines that were -- the names ofmedicines that I took to be manufactured. I -- you know,they're American medicines, so I would expect they aremarketed.Q. Now, you also testified a moment ago that PETN is used insmokeless powder. Is that what you said?A. Well, I know a reference that says that it is in smokelesspowder.Q. Would you take a look at McVeigh Exhibit J444A there infront of you.A. Yes.Q. Is that the reference that you were referring to -- 444A.Do you have 444A?A. No, no. I'm afraid I don't. I apologize.Q. Well, then, I'll give it to you.A. Okay. I'm acquainted with this reference, sir. MR. TRITICO: Your Honor, so that we may be clear,this is the article that was previously attached to ExhibitJ444 that was removed. THE COURT: I understand, yes.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. Now, do you have McVeigh Exhibit J444 there in front ofyou?A. Yes, I do.Q. This is a memo that you wrote to Special Agent Burmeisteron May 4, 1995?A. Yes.Q. Did you attach anything to the memorandum?A. Yes.Q. What?A. Well, this was -- I've attached -- according to the text,attached two papers to this. I attached this paper, this 4 --Q. Don't hold it up yet. THE WITNESS: Excuse me, your Honor. I'm sorry. I attached that paper and another paper and anotherdocument to this.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. Did you give this memo with the attachments to SpecialAgent Burmeister?A. Yes. MR. TRITICO: I'll offer McVeigh Exhibit J444A, yourHonor. MS. WILKINSON: No objection. THE COURT: It's received.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. Now, does McVeigh Exhibit J444A discuss compounds --component parts of smokeless powders?A. Well, there is on the second page of it a Table 1 which isentitled "Organic Compounds that May be Found in SmokelessGunpowder." MR. TRITICO: Publish this? THE COURT: Yes.BY MR. TRITICO:Q. This is the table you were referring to?A. Yes, that's correct.Q. And is PETN listed among those organic compounds that maybe found in smokeless gunpowder?A. Yes.Q. When we say the term "smokeless gunpowder," is that thesame thing that's inside of a bullet?A. Yes, that's correct.Q. Who compiled this list? Do you know?A. No, I don't. I've got some references here, but I -- Idon't know that.Q. Who are the authors of this article employed -- were theyemployed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation? Do you know?A. Well, Mr. Hardy was. He's Reference No. 2. And ReferenceNo. 2 says, "D. D. Hardy, FBI lab, personal communication,1979."Q. Looking at the first sentence on the first page of thisJ444A, can you -- you can look at your copy, if you want,instead of looking at the screen. That says, "In connectionwith its work on mass spectrometry approach to the analysis ofgunshot residues, the FBI Laboratory has compiled an array of23 organic compounds that may occur in smokeless gunpowders."Is that right?A. Yes, that's correct. So the author of this was Mr. --Mr. Hardy.Q. And that's referencing the list on page -- the second pageof J444A. Is that right?A. Yes.Q. Now, this article was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences; is that correct? See that at the very top?A. Yes, I do see it.Q. Do you consider the Journal of Forensic Sciences to beauthoritative in the field of explosives trace analysis orforensic sciences in general?A. Yes, I do.Q. If you know, was any effort made in April or May of 1995 todetermine if the PETN that was found on Mr. McVeigh's clothingwas the result of gunpowder or gunshot residue?A. I don't know.Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not it would havebeen appropriate for the FBI lab to make such a determination?A. It would have.Q. It would have been appropriate to do it?A. Yes.Q. Now, there is a piece of evidence that's come to be knownas Q507. I want to talk to you for a minute about that. Haveyou seen a piece of evidence back in April and May of 1995 thatMr. Burmeister had located some crystals on?A. Yes, I did.Q. Do you know that that's the piece of evidence that's nowcalled Q507?A. I believe that it is.Q. You regarded the finding of the crystals as brilliant byMr. Burmeister, did you not?A. Yes, I did.Q. Do you agree with the conclusions that Mr. Burmeister drewwith respect to the origin of those crystals?A. What were the conclusions, sir?Q. That they were deposited on there as a result of a blast oran explosion.A. I'm not sure that I can agree with that.Q. Why?A. I -- it may be because I don't have enough data, but Iunderstand that piece of evidence -- the crystals were ammoniumnitrate. Ammonium nitrate is very hydroscopic -- means itpicks up water very quickly. I understand that the evidence --and if I'm wrong, please correct me. The evidence lay outexposed to the environment, specifically rain, a very strongrain.Q. Would it change your opinion if you knew that the side thatSpecial Agent Burmeister found the crystals on was face-downoutside?A. No, sir. It's -- there is some data missing, and it may bejust me that's missing it. But there is some data missing thatI find it an enigma what I'm looking at: that the ammoniumnitrate crystal survived in 100 percent humidity, didn't pickup water in that hundred percent humidity situation. I don'tknow how that could have happened.Q. Why is that? You said it was hydroscopic. What does thatmean?A. Well, it means it just -- it picks up water. It's some --some materials, if you just lay them out in this room and thereis any humidity at all in this room, they would absorb water;and pretty soon you'd have a little spot of water, you wouldn'thave a crystal. In the laboratory, I've analyzed ammonium nitrate foryears; and one of the problems with it is it -- when we try toanalyze it with the X-ray powder diffractometer, very often itpicks up water while the analysis is going on and you end upwith water, with a liquid solution instead of with crystal.And our lab has a very controlled humidity environment. So I don't know how that ammonium nitrate survived, ifit went through a rainstorm. I don't know how it could be onthat evidence. It doesn't make sense to me.Q. Did you have a discussion with Special Agent Dave Williamsregarding paint protocols and with respect to Q507?A. Yes, I did.Q. In April or May of 1995?A. No.Q. Well, around that time?A. No. It was in somewhere -- September of 1995.Q. So, after April 19 is what I was trying to get at.A. Yes, uh-huh.Q. Did Special Agent David Williams make to you any statementor comment regarding the origin or how Q507 was found?A. Yes.Q. What did he say?A. He told me that -- that the -- I need to make sure I saythis right: That the piece of evidence that had the ammoniumnitrate and the paint on it -- that's what we were referringto -- had been provided to us by -- to the FBI by a civilian.I'd raised an issue with identifying that piece as actuallycoming from the Ryder truck; and he said, "Well, it's a mootpoint because a civilian brought it in." And he said, "Youknow, we've got a problem with the chain of custody, so we'renot going to use it."Q. Do you have an opinion, Dr. Whitehurst, as to whether ornot if, in fact, as alleged this bomb was an ammonium nitrateand fuel oil bomb -- do you have an opinion as to whether ornot unconsumed prills of ammonium nitrate could have beendiscovered at the scene? Did my question make sense?A. Yes, it made sense, and I'd like to qualify it. Mytraining taught me that that -- that we could find prills withthese homemade types of devices that -- you know, if theyfunctioned improperly. They would have to have been found in a protectedarea, but it's possible it could have happened.Q. Protected area such as what?A. Where the weather wasn't getting to it.Q. Like pockets in the building or things like that?A. Sure.Q. Could they have been discovered before the rain, if theywere outside?A. If they were there.PART 1
Gang Stalking = COINTELPRO = STASI decomposition
The FBI and all law enforcement agencies are currently using a psychological warfare protocol like "COINTELPRO" which is almost identical to the STASI "decomposition". This is what people are referring to as Gang Stalking.
The earliest forms of this that I know of are from Egypt, Greece and Rome. Each of these societies had pervasive spy/informant networks that were spying on each other as well as looking for spies inside of their own empires. Anyone who did not feel that their own respective empire was the most perfect society could be considered a traitor. In other words they were looking for anyone who had thoughts beliefs and attitudes that were not approved of by the state that could instigate revolt or subversive activity or otherwise make them a danger to the empire. This obviously created a snitch culture and there were bound to be abuses. If a person was not liked by another then it was easy to persuade others to make a complaint and get that person killed or exiled. No one dare say or do anything that was politically incorrect and thus the rulers were able to maintain power and control over the people. Blatant execution or exile is common in an empire but in a democracy it is not as easy to accomplish these punishments so modern psychological operations were developed to accomplish these goals and in this way an empire can masquerade as a democracy.
The STASI decomposition protocol is an excellent example of how these modern psychological operations work. The STASI decomposition is almost identical to the FBI’s COINTELPRO. Here is a link to a document that shows an overview of the STASI decomposition.
Law enforcement agencies in concert with government and corporations are using bribery, deception, coercion & blackmail to create an informant & saboteur network out of criminals of all kinds, extremist groups, cults, patriotic zealots, the poor, the homeless, friends, family, neighbors, repair men, fire men, police, military personnel and agents to target individuals and groups that have beliefs and attitudes (such as civil rights and animal rights.) that may cause them to commit acts of terrorism at some future time or motivate others to commit terrorist acts or incite revolt. This pre-crime approach has existed numerous times throughout American history but has reared its ugly head again due to 9/11.
Unfortunately, according to former FBI agent Mike German, many post 9/11 targeted individuals are nothing more than a training exercise.
Here is a lecture by Noam Chomsky that uncovers the root mindset in America that predicates the targeting of groups and individuals.
The real power behind gang stalking and many other terrible things is the minority of the opulent but the front group making all the policy changes these days is the neoconservatives. Neoconservatisim is a cult ideology that has been bankrolled and nurtured by the opulent just like all of the other cult ideologies created or co-opted by the opulent for their machinations.
Stalin and Hitler were fanatical leaders inspired by a gang mentality and by the concept of "historic mission." They believed that intolerance and large scale brutality were necessary ingredients of social order. Each of them was also supported by the “cult of personality.” The neocons are strikingly similar.
What are the components of gang mentality?
· Extreme concern with reputation both inside and outside of the ideology. Neocons are this way.
· Extreme concern with respect both inside and outside of the ideology. Neocons are this way.
· No challenge will go unanswered. It is so with the neocons as well.
What is the concept of “historic mission”?
In a well documented conversation, Adolf Hitler berated the Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg and stated…
"That is what you say!...But I am telling you that I am going to solve the so-called Austrian problem one way or the other...I have a historic mission, and this mission I will fulfill because Providence has destined me to do so...I have only to give an order and all your ridiculous defense mechanisms will be blown to bits. You don't seriously believe you can stop me or even delay me for half an hour, do you?"
Prominent neocon Michael Ledeen stated…
“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
What is the cult of personality?
The cult of personality is explained pretty well here…
The Straussian philosophy is a cult of personality and the neocons follow the Straussian philosophy
If you select 1 percent of a population (Whistle blowers, dissidents, artists, those that look funny, and act or dress funny) and punish them severely for little or nothing, then you will gain the compliance of the other 99 percent either through fear or because they’ve been conned by the COINTELPRO/STASI type propaganda in to believing that the TI’s must be removed from society for the common good. Then you can implement the social, political and financial changes you want on a grand scale in a relatively short period of time. I.E. advance your historic mission. This has been done enumerable times throughout history.
When the average person considers what the Nazis or Stalin did, they are naturally horrified. When a banker considers what the Nazis or Stalin did they have dollar signs in their eyes. MONEY is the real reason this is happening!!! The bankers know that a one world government is not possible. Empire building has been going on for centuries and a global empire has never been realized. But if you understand finance, history, politics and the military industrial complex, then it is clear to see that it is the EXERCISE of building empires and large scale wars that redistributes the wealth of nations into the hands of the banking elite and keeps the masses under control.
Unfortunately most human beings don't understand how their own minds work nor are they well educated in multiple disciplines. Most of the people that perpetrate these crimes against humanity aren't fully aware that there is such a big conspiracy going on. It’s just that most human beings have so many inherent psychological weaknesses and such a deep lack of education that if you alter the socioeconomic landscape in just the right way, you get what you see here in America today.
Here are a few very credible documentaries that will help you to understand what’s really going on and hopefully survive…
One of the biggest mistakes people make when they become TI’s is to attempt to create a counter spy network against those that are surveilling them. This is something that the neocons and the banking elite are OK with. A global spy counter spy network is much like the cold war and the cold war was extremely profitable for the banking elite not to mention a powerful pretext to control people. The global war on terror needs a global terrorist network and since there really is not one, many targets will be manipulated into acting out in ways that can classify them as terrorists thus creating the impetus for law enforcement agencies to demand more tax payer money to fight the war on terror. Targets are all better off contacting a civil rights group and explaining that they have reason to believe they have been placed on the terrorist watch list.
Do yourself a favor and learn as much about economics and finance as possible. It will help you survive. This is all the info you will need to be an educated investor. It’s not a get rich quick thing, just a solid economics and investing education.
Also, listen to as many lectures by Professor Noam Chomsky as possible. They are all over the internet. He is brilliant and has been exposing the machinations of the opulent (Rothschild, Rockefeller etc) for decades. His research is very credible and will help you to separate the facts from the propaganda and give you a measure of mental clarity and peace. Utilizing his research will also help you gain some of your credibility back with others.
Try to explain all of this to your friends and family. Usually when people see the mission statement of the neocons from their websites (PNAC & FPI) they start listening.
According to anti-communist author Ludwik Kowalski
“Mass murder occurs when brutal and sadistic criminals, to be found in every society, are promoted to positions of dominance, when propaganda is used to dehumanize the targeted population and when children are inoculated with intolerance and hatred. It occurs when victims ("inferior races" or "class enemies") are excluded from the norms of morality, when ideological totalitarianism is imposed and when freedom is suspended. Fear and violence, the preconditions of genocide, are likely to be found in societies with large numbers of thieves and informants.”
Here is some info on how to take care of your physical health.
Visit this YouTube channel and watch everything on it. You will gain a clear understanding of what’s really going on.
Supported videos include:
Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.