:.

•

•

_.
. CIV. la (2~64)
, {Formerly D. C. Form ~·o.45a Rev. (6-49))

,SJJJII?..MONS IN A C:IVIL ~CTION.

lllnttrn

~...
RETURN ON SERVICE OF WRIT
I hereby certify and return, that on the

day· of

19

I received this summons and' served· 'it ...
U.S. MARSHALS <:J:<Hirll
PROCESS RECEIPT and

77'1 -t LJP
TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN

/)L
Number of process to be
served with thi...
,.,_----------,---,----------SiT:!'

Form No. USA-33s-270
{Rev. 9-77)

'1

'
. Y 'u will pleilse take notice that a _____ ...
,_,

"'
Form No. USA-33s-270
(Rev. 9-77)

Si1·: I

·r

·I

>

Y 'u will ple<1se take notice that a -----of 1 V!ich the 1bi...
...

.....

·-

::,:;_:
-.~

'K

-)_~-.; ·,

,•.

··.

··~
.-~--~i

-:.:

·--~~~
.. .

.-,

,k· ...

~

·:-.

"

.:>lf·

have been.
~-.

'""·

.

. ..,;·
.., ''
--~

•.

.

. , __

.•
.,

..


,_.:
'~

~;

.·'

.·~

'

.
~---~

...

. -.:..

__

....

·--~

-~~~

.

c:~
-~~

...
NEFijsw

:.~""'

-~ .$,-r-~

,,

-..:
·c
-~

....

.

.

·-.-..c'

...

~

l~~

'7.....--~;~
<~

-··

-"'~
"';~_'

'·

.. ...
-, . •
PRO SE-OFFIGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------x
:
AL...
,...

___

•

-.,~.

~.,..j:·:~

•

Information Act.
4. With respect to the allegations in paragraph ten, defendants
Secon...
·'"

•

.. ..

__.._.:• ~.,;~

•

Wherefore, plaintiff prays (1) That the Court order defendant
to produce requested docum...
;I :[J f J' It JL '·(_) "J' {;~,z LJA;; Q~ ~ :t:':..'tf ~ !(~- L!J/ff. !{~~ ~~:'0t:~ ~ ~:~t

~

~

.u
.n

• ·
~

.

!
n' l...
-l

,I

! .

 Corttin:.~.hlfrompcg~ 8-:.-~ ~ · :.~~.-.:-~ .:.: ·- ..
t3Ch oilier. Aleg'-...nd holds duriorr.ron~whD
tried ...
.,,,,.

.

•

·; .-;'--

•

•

'

THE CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY

Michael Canfield
Alan J. Weberman

For...
-

•

·j;;=-...4<tt<tr·',~~~~~~..,.;....;..;.··-·..,:~...""...~.............c.....-.................." '-~".........._.......
•

•

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WASHINGTON, D.C.-20223

U FEB 1979

Mr. Al...
•

•

As to your letter regarding the disclosure of information under the Privacy Act, the system of records, from
which i...
•

•

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------~---------x

:

ALAN JULES WEB...
•

•

·-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NE>·T YORK

----------------------------------x
.
•
:

ALAN JU...
•

•

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NE'1 YORK
--------------~-------------------x

:
:
:

ALAN JULES W...
•

•

documents fall within exemptions (b) (7) and (b) (2), 5 USC 552,
and make no attempt to correlate the claimed exempt...
I.
.

'J',

Sit·: ,e

 i

h

··~
')

:Form No. USA-336-270
(Rev. 9-77)

·~

I'

•·

': Yon 1oill.please take notice that a...
~

_/

NEF:em
79-58/+

.I

•

-

_,

~-·

.

..

•

'

r

!uNITED STATES DISTRICT COlJRT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEH YCJR'Z
-...
. -···~-..---~·~-:
~

..

~-JITED STATES DLSTRICT tdOUit'F' 1 .

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------...
NF:ss
04-6778

i

I
I
~

to requesters (a) matters pertaining solely to internal rules
and practices of the Secret Service...
j •.
(

'

r·-

••

I

F:ss
4-6778

I

!

TNITED STATES DISTRICT 'COURT·
OUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------...
.i~·.····:· _;.

·~/!.

•.

·-·-

NF:ss
04-6778
2.

By.letter to the Secret Service, dated

December 23, 1978, plain.tiff ...
I

•

~-

/.

.....

:

r--·

_____ ____ 

NF:ss
04-6778

98932l~~~t~- .·

-I

marked-• January 23, 1979-., plaintif-f sen...
I

.1

I

-I

.

/·.

-···.····

.._ .. ).-

-···-

··-

- '""···"-·---

4···

--..;-

NF:ss
()4- 6778

I

9.

-j

I am ad...
/"

/

•

;

•

z

_,

I F: ss
ra4-6778
twelve-page computer print-out concerning an incident on

_,
.!

lormer President ...
•

•

--~--~-·· -·----~-- ----~--~--~·-------~-

·-.------·-----.

NF: ss
04-6778
--~.

14,

Other portiona of the request...
'}~: __ ,:::')"
,.~
J..
·..'/ .
,._

J

.•.

· ....

·.

·.

f.

;

•
..

. . -~

......--

·,_f/

,_,._~ ~--

..

-·-----...
•
NF:ss
04-6778
'

15.


I

Finally, other portions of the requested

material were wi thileld on the basis of the exemp't...
1.
NF:ss
4/27/79
,'

I

I

"I

were withheld entirely.

None of the material withheld

under this exemption pertains to pl...
••

;
•

EXHIBIT A

•
DATE OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST

.1. (Received)
..
. 2.

. ,;
..... .

5/20/76

DATE OF
SECRET SERVICE RESPONSE

SUBJECT OF RE...
L.:-~~--

DATE

r.

OF~PLAENTIFF'S

SUBJECT OF REQUEST

REQUEST

Documents concerning Marita
Lorenz.

RESPONSE~

SECRET SE...
···.v

' ~:

' .;

.·.- ....

I

'1
(

'

..

EXHIBIT B
'.

I

I ,.
- I

r.

.

iii..

_.~

INDEPENDENT RESEARC-. ,...,....
-. .
I
. H As.::') 0 cIA T Es

-!

6 BLEECKER STREET. ...
..
SWBJECT FILE
.;;··

•

:--!~

··.:;:
U.S. SECRET SERVICE
800.7
I78-05124 ·

.

··'·

.j

;,... ·.:.:.;.:.:.

--

I
'•
J...
~;,.Y

'·-~·.:;;.'

.,.

.,

·.
,·_.

'··::<··
.~

~

-

..

-

. .-

~~.

.. - - ~

r:e

-~

.

INDEPENDEI!TYORK CITY 10012. PHONE·
RESEARCH ASSOC IAT E.S
6 BLEECKER ST...
--.

.•
, --~

.

•

~

.

·. ·' ..

_INDEPENDENT RESEARCH AS
6 BLEECKER STREET . NEW YORK
•

fo ((f!t
U5f5

.

.

en
1

I

:1 {
c...
•
.......
.

·.;~·

.,

<

:.~~

.·.I

.

•

u'
.~- .... '

I

1

"' -

.: :-••.( <l" :
: ;,.

~

..;.1-~·-~.r ~· .....

I...
•

··.r

..._.
I
...
.<

•

. - .. L

cIA T Es

fo f/fA
UffJ
Vltff1 r rJ [
/.

[/JV!}(;j(

1

f!(oJr5(JrJ 1f-

p~)VACY ACT

''

.

.

6 BLE...
•

-·
i

•

..


.··

_ ·:··":'_:l,··.: ...... ·- -·--................. .

1'•-v:J:>C>;o,"');a''~"'~~·'-"'<'i~~

h:.....~~...
••
'··.

'I

I

•
.

'·

.-·..

-I

I

•

•
U.S. SECRET SERVICE
800.6

.,

,.

..

:.

ih

,.

iS FEB 1979
:;

...

'~

Hr. Alan Jules 1-leb...
•

•

•.

.

,,

As to your letter regarding the disclosure of inform~­
tion under the Privacy Act, the system of records,...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-x

ALAN JULES WEB...
NF:bj
E-171

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-x

•

ALAN JULES WEBERMAN,
Plaintiff,
- against -...
NF:bj
E-171

As demonstrated in the accompanying Weinstein
Declaration, the Rule 9(g) Statement and the authorities
cited ...
NF:bj
E-171

Statement of Facts
The facts giving rise to this action, the materials
requested, the disclosures made and th...
NF:bj
E-171

By letter dated January 12, 1979, received by the
Secret Service Deputy Director by regular mail on January
1...
NF:bj
E-171

Plaintiff never filed an administrative appeal regarding the lack of response to the January 18 Letter.
ARGUM...
·---NF:bj
E-171

n a. FOIA suit, the burden is on the Government
to justify any withholding of requested agency records.
5...
NF:bj
E-171

POINT II
THE SECRET SERVICE'S CLAIMS OF
EXEMPTION UNDER 5 U.S.C . §
552(b)(2) ARE FULLY JUSTIFIED
Title 5 U.S...
·----NF:bj
E-171

Moreover, in . the seminal case of Department of the
Air Force v. Rose, the_ Supreme Court emphasized th...
NF:bj
E-171

: POINT III
THE SECRET SERVICE'S CLAIMS OF
EXEMPTION UNDER 5 U.S.C. §
. 5"52 (b) (7) ARE FULLY JUSTIFIED
A.

...
NF:bj
E-171

B.

The Secret Service's Deletion of the Names
and Other Identifying Data on Investigative
Subjects, Secret S...
·---·
NF:bj
E-171
(b)(7)(C) language, as compared to the (b)(6) phrasing,
Congress indicated that the (b)(7)(C) exemption ...
NF:bj
E-171

The balancing ·test applies equally to the privacy
interest of . the Secret Service's agents and other law en...
NF:bj
E-171

· It thus is clear that the limited deletions from
the requested materials, pursuant to (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(...
NF:bj
E-171

exemption in the FOib, but also the specific exemption
covering the Secret Service in the Privacy Act.

5 U.S...
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Weberman v USSS
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Weberman v USSS

661 views
520 views

Published on

The USSS had my pistol permit revoked after I threw a tomato at Nixscum

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
661
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Weberman v USSS

  1. 1. :. • • _. . CIV. la (2~64) , {Formerly D. C. Form ~·o.45a Rev. (6-49)) ,SJJJII?..MONS IN A C:IVIL ~CTION. lllnttrn ~tuba. iintrirt. @nurt . FoR THE .· . Jlln~E . ~ctU1Ht(l,J }ll5r/Vt;l Of- ;JtvJ ittJW~ PERCE . · 79 c1v.· 0779 CIVIL ACTION FILE No. -~~- Pt--llr-J :J (JJ£.§3er?-Mfl :J ~( (p 8L--[;iCK f:;(t. pJ l(G (o612_ ; Plaintiff v. . . SUMMONS ' .·· "· :. Uf'll1 tO. 51fl1fi (.{&.OUT Str<vl~E 86 0 rtfr" 5-r fJ vJ . . .vJASf-/ I DG 26223 . Defendant To the above named Defendant : You are hereby summoned and 1'equired to serve upon· .;_- '·.: . : ' (. .J· ..-::p "0 .s .J2_ plaiiitiff'TI attorney , whose address ,al) answer t? the complaint which is herewith served upohyou, within . days after' service' of •this . •,, • i • ' summons tip~n you,-: exclusive of the day of service. I f you .fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken ----7---::------------------------------------Deputy Cle1·k. [Seal of Court] Date: ' ' . •'. " ;. .. '· '•·' - .. ·,, : -,,·:
  2. 2. RETURN ON SERVICE OF WRIT I hereby certify and return, that on the day· of 19 I received this summons and' served· 'it together with· the' COI)tplaint =herein as follows: '•' ' .; .·• .. ,, MARSHAL'S FEES Travel ___ $ ------'-"----' ·---~---------------------------------------- United States. Marshal. . Service ___ _ By . .·•·' .) ' . . ' . ·-------------------------------------Deputy United StatesMarshal. r• f,..J.. Subscribed and sworn to before me, a day' of ( '· this , 19 ·[SEAL) ·-----------------.:..---------·------------- ----, ; ., '1 ' ' Note:-Affidavit required. only if service is made ·by a pel-sOh' other than a United States ~farshal or his Deputy. ,., '" "' "" I I I I I I -H " tl I !;:;) I I ··l:i I I ~ u I I I .~ l'::l fl¢uc I I I .,o;: I ,. ~~ I I fifi:, I 0 "" " :<:; - ~ 1'it -1 ·. z I I I '-' I . ' ' ,. I I I .I, 'I """ > ~ ,; '; I I """ u z: J. :'··~, 1-< I I I I z 0 I " " " ~ I .. - ""' I I " '" ,., "' -~ ,., > +' , I I I I I I " :0 U1 I 1$·· +' 0 iS iS p I I I I " " ,a ,., ~ U1 I " ..... "' "' ~ I ~ ·~ ~ .... I ~ I tl I I I I '. I 0 I I I N I ,I ~ I 0 I ~ ~ I' u I I I I I I s E-< I I I I I ·I I I I I I I I. I I " '" I I I '" " +' 'H I "· I r ! "· ;_ ' 'I . '· ··- . ,,. .:, ' .......
  3. 3. U.S. MARSHALS <:J:<Hirll PROCESS RECEIPT and 77'1 -t LJP TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN /)L Number of process to be served with this Form-285 -~/A:) [N( (].{: f(Mfl::(; 1]1. t f..( V: f: (l _.__,I L P"~C-- I oo/Z- Number of parties to be served in th.s case { Check for service on U.S.A. ·--------------------------------------------------------------------------,..:;:::.~,:c;:-..::;:c.:::::-;;c':",.-,;-:--~---;--;-;:--~L......--:=-:-:- -SPECAb!NSTRUCTONS OR.OTHER-1NFORMAT10N THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE Numbers, and Estimated Times Available For Service): . · ·· ·· -· Business and Alternate Addresses, All Telephone ·- -~~ ·--··-· ---~- -- Fo< Fold TELEPHONE NUMBER ;?t;··t!}-u~ .. Total Proc%s District of Origin L- No.J -- District to Serve L- No. DATE ?r-~71. : Signature of Authorized USMS Deputy or Clerk (:A // /I ./_i "- _;-'./ /J '' d /1' oi l her8by certify and return that 1 0 have personaly served, D. have ega evidence 1 ervice, 0 have exec.uted as shown in "Remarks", the process described on the individua.,l. company:corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual, company. corporation, etc.; shown at the address inserted below. 0 hereby certify and return that lam unable to ocate the individual, company, corporation, etc., named above. (~ee remarks below) Name and title of Individual served (if not shown above) Address Forwarding Fee / iHIS JS .YOUR OffiCIAl Sll~ . ~ Jlll Procesw"l llccolillred. fo(k'·'-'?"'"" Initial Oeposl!: .::::;;? 1 3 . Cost lor S~rvice: ~;·..;;:::.¥2~:::-Bcb-sTTIJ!; ,..._..,_~·~--~ P!aase make remittance payable NOTE ~.:?7 to U. S. Marshal,. SONY, U. S, Courthouce, Annex 3. NOTICE OF SERV!Cffilw York, N, Y. 10007 FDRMUSM·285(Re•. ~~~~~~~----
  4. 4. ,.,_----------,---,----------SiT:!' Form No. USA-33s-270 {Rev. 9-77) '1 ' . Y 'u will pleilse take notice that a _____ _ of 1 ~~ich the 1~itldn is a copy, was this day dul1~ ente?·ed in the within entitled action, in t )( of}ice of the CleTk of this Court. ;lffuitcl't ;§tatcs 2£listrrct C!Innd SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Di'ted, N.Y.,------------------, 19 ___ _ t Youn, etc., Al.AH Jtt181 WUI.'WU.M I He.intU'f, ·---1------- ----------------------------United States Attorney Attorney for--------- r4fo • ·---,~~~----:--~---------~~~~'~:~~~~~==~-~==~ J -~ m• a.plut .. t'l'Aml Sl!'..n!T BE!tvtct lL S, lQIIQrf., MUct'OB. OJ!! Tim tll!fl;'l.En STAtU $~'1 ~d S~v:tCJ~ Si1·:. Pfease take notice that the within _____ _ willl·! be presented fo?' settlement and signat te to the Honorable ----------------Uni ed States District Judge, at the office of the Clerk, United States Cou?·thouse, Foley Squffn, Borough of Manhattan, City of New Yo?:~, on the ____ day of ____ , 19 ____ , at 10'~t'o o'clock in the ______ noon O?' as soon · - · e r a~ counsel can be hea?'d. n1ate~·Y., ------------------, 19 ___ _ Yo·w·sJ etc., ----------------------------------United States Attornei; A ttmtwy for --------- I To I: . ·--'r------;-------~-------------------- Attorney /o?· --------- llifill'f tL f!Uf., .T&. ---------------------------------------(21'-) 791.,.!>.1.09 1Jlff.€l.'ttllml':$ United States A ttonLey for ________ :.. .· Due,se?'Vice of a copy of the within iS hereby arlmitted. .Ne1u Y01·k, --------------------, 19 _____ _ ---------------------------------------Attorney for To ---------------------------------------Att01-ney for
  5. 5. ,_, "' Form No. USA-33s-270 (Rev. 9-77) Si1·: I ·r ·I > Y 'u will ple<1se take notice that a -----of 1 V!ich the 1bithin is a copy, was this day dnl1~ ente?'ed in the 1oithin entitled action, in t e office of the Cle1·k of this C01wt. ~lnitdi JStatez ~istrict CIIumt SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ' Di'ted, N. Y., ------------------, 19 ___ _ ALAl .rtn:.B$ WH'I.UUJf, r Yon?'S, etc., l'iabtillf, ·-- -+----- -- ·--- ------------------------United States Attorney Attontey for--------- [~0:. J----.r----~-------------,;~:~~~-~~~~~~~-~~== /P- .lr. '" _,. , aplnst ~ 'l'llltt'l'.Ml S'l'AUS S!CUXT SE.EtV!ct ~d !1:. $, l(J.ttw:t,. MUC'.l.'OU. Q¥· ~ tlltt'.!:ll$ STAn.i :S&tn'l SBVlt:J.~ - Si1·: P(ease take notice that the within _____ _ will be presented fm· settlement and signat+·e to the Honomble ----------------unifed States Dist?-ict Judge, at the office of the ~Clerk, United St,ates Cou?·thouse, Foley Squ'Ve, Bo1·ough of Manhattan, City of New Yor/!:, on the ____ day of ____ , 19 ____ , at 10'3b o'clock in the ______ noon or as soon ' .Y., ------------------, ··;~er a~ counsel can be heard. Date IC.'IBBlY lL Jt&K:i!:, J&. ·--------------------------------------(112.} 79l.,.~l09 United States 1:fl£f~ant; Attorney for ________ :... Due,se?·vice of a copy of the "oithin iS hereby admitted. .New York, ____________________ , 19 _____ _ 19 ___ _ You1·s, etc., Attorney jo1· To United States Attorney Attorney for --------I To Attorney jo1· i: . FP!•MAR-5·15·78 ---'-1~---------------T""-------------------- ;J Attor·ney for ________ _ S
  6. 6. ... ..... ·- ::,:;_: -.~ 'K -)_~-.; ·, ,•. ··. ··~ .-~--~i -:.: ·--~~~
  7. 7. .. . .-, ,k· ... ~ ·:-. " .:>lf· have been. ~-. '""· . . ..,;·
  8. 8. .., '' --~ •. . . , __ .• ., .. ,_.: '~ ~; .·' .·~ ' . ~---~ ... . -.:.. __ .... ·--~ -~~~ . c:~ -~~ ... . -.4 :. .--__;.. ·..:.:,. •.· ; ·.-. ·:~:~:;~s;~~ ·-·+ .;.- '-~- ~- -- '. :.;...;. ~- ·;.-:-'- ' ~· ~.. ,; - ,--~-: ~-;~~· 3 ;.'<~ _ _i. ' .. .o~~-- --~-' .Jf!.,.-~:iiiP " } -• • !< •• :; .- _.- -!.
  9. 9. NEFijsw :.~""' -~ .$,-r-~ ,, -..: ·c -~ .... . . ·-.-..c' ... ~ l~~ '7.....--~;~ <~ -·· -"'~ "';~_' '· .. , ... , ;. ·- ..... __ ,. •"· '_f:.' _ ._,; -:f.• •·· ·- ··.:.;t-·· ·- ?.:'""'". ~~1'-~-: -~ ·.,_ -;., ~: ...·,. ·- . > ' . ...... ;· !.i_:·· ·.;;: ·-:r/:_..;.. ,,_ .. .• . -": •. ~-. ~· _,_ ·-.•. ---''!!' ~ •!<-.-- , ____ -~ -· £42-t&~~:. --~-~ ..... .. , __ •. ,..1·'!
  10. 10. -, . • PRO SE-OFFIGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------x : ALAN JULES WEBERMAN Plaintiff, vs. : : : : ·uNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and : H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED: STATES SECRET SERVICE, : Defendants. 79Civ779 (LWP) : (pro se) ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS : . ----------------------------.---,----x Plaintiff, ALAN JULES WEBERMAN, pro se, in ansHer to .the defendants motion to dismiss, alleges as follows: 1. With respect to the allegations in paragraph three of defendants Answer, plaintiff has attached photocopy of page from book titled Coup D'Etat In America by Alan J. Weberman and Micheal . Canfield published by Third Press, 1995 Broadway, New York, NeH York (1975) which contains statements critical of the United State Secret Service. This document has been labeled "Plaintiff's Exhibi A". Plaintiff has also attached photocopy of article from the Village Voice, 80 University Place, New York, New York, dated 27 November 1978 titled-"Tom Forcade: Death of a Radical Romantic" by A.J. Weberman, which contains a paragraph critical of the Secret Service. This photocopy has been labled "Plaintiff's Exhibi B." Attached also find Affidavit In Fact in ,.,hich plaintiff swear to the authenticity of the aforementioned Exhibits. 2. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs six, seven and ·eight, plaintiff contends allegations are moot. On 13 Feb. 1979 Plaintiff received documents from Secret Service, in highly deleted form. 3. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph nine, First Defense, plaintiff admits Secret Service is exempt from requirements of Privacy Act. Plaintiff maintains, however, that the Secret Service is not exempt from requirements of Freedom of .. ----·----·-·----·----------------·-- ....., I.
  11. 11. ,... ___ • -.,~. ~.,..j:·:~ • Information Act. 4. With respect to the allegations in paragraph ten, defendants Second Defense, plaintiff contends he has exhausted his Adrninisrative Remedies. Attached and labeled plaintiff's Exhibit "C" , is letter from United States Secret Service dated 13 Feb. 1979 which substantiates this contention. 5.-With respect to the allegations in paragraph ten; defendant' Third Partial Defense, claiming exemption under 5 u.s.c. 552 (b) (7) it should be noted that this clause is primarily a protection against prejudicial publicity in criminal or civil trials of individuals. In Bristol'-Myers Co. vs. FTC 424 f.2d 935 (D.C. Cir.) documents originally compiled during a law enforcement investigation _vrhich ended_ vlithout _prosecution, lost their protected status as law enforcement files. Plaintiff has been subject of Secret Service investigation vrhich ended vrithout prosecution. 6. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph tvrel ve. Defendant 1 s Fourth Partial Defense, exemption ( 2) (b) has been definitively construed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Department of the Air Force v Rose, u.s. , 44 ·u.s._L.w. 4503 (21 April76). Rose holds that " ••• at least VThere the situation is not one vrhere disclosure may risk circumvention of Agency regulation, exemption two is not applicable to matters subject to·a genuine and significant public interest." One District Court has held that even documents which deal with an Agency's filing proceedures must be disclosed; even though the documents "appear to verge on the trivial" Department of Labor (Lord and Taylor vs 22WH cases 1245, 1248 S.D.N.Y. 3 Sept. 76) Plaintiff represents a certain segement of the public that has manifested a distinct interest in these passages, as plaintiff is journalist and author.
  12. 12. ·'" • .. .. __.._.:• ~.,;~ • Wherefore, plaintiff prays (1) That the Court order defendant to produce requested documents to him for inspection and copying (2) That this eourt grant the complainant his costs and disbursements herein; as specified in the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552. Dated: New York, New York Apri~ 10, 1979 &aJ i-_-rr ALAN JUlES WEBERNAN (pro se.) SIX BL~~KER STREET NEW YORK CITY 10012 ---~··:~ .
  13. 13. ;I :[J f J' It JL '·(_) "J' {;~,z LJA;; Q~ ~ :t:':..'tf ~ !(~- L!J/ff. !{~~ ~~:'0t:~ ~ ~:~t ~ ~ .u .n • · ~ . ! n' lto b Bri II· r I . .-.-~·:·:.·(~l'-·.~····1 jT0:n Fcrcoue, rodiol rolitkoiJctil'ist'and ·§ uidcrcw:>::J publisher,' die~ bs 1 f'ritlay eye: w ning ot St. Vincent's Jiospnll o( J .~5 gtln·:shot 'O"nd to the hood. Porcnde's dc-lth, at .> ·. 33, wa.s bbcled z suicide .. , •,'. ·.. ·, .,, '·. .. ~ .. In recent yc,:.Jrs 1 FOicadc w.:~s perh:lps be~. :. "'·known as 1he launder wJ U"idin~ spiritol l!i~h Time~, the 'monthly magozinc· of th~ . ·· ··.··drug cUhu.rc. Ironically, while he frequently ' conveyed personal shyness, Porcadc was ncv-: er lor from the spotlight of the m~dia.:..his . chosen forum for politico. I nnd socbl chungc, :.·It was" a correspondent lor thc_Undcr: gr 0und Pres> Syndbtc thlt he became the' fir~t member ?I the nltcrmtivc media t~ rc- 6 4 'LU '/ :Y ~ L~ Y J 1-· J-. ~, ··,; · . . , •._ ·;~·:··~· :-:.:··.; :r~: ..,:_'b'. ."I·,..·'J;·.: : . .... J'~'..""'~'!U{·-l;~·.-"~' 1J,iJ'-~; ..•::·):,.:-;·:.-···; .,:i l ·.'-:. 1_.·:1 :-· ~ . -· ,·, · I · ·,...· -i .; : :-.-: ;~~·-~:::I.-~ .i.'·'r' 'j,.. P~·-1;.:,">:'/~:.-.·~ ,:)··. j1:, t;.;::.! . ·:'-;:,1:(·:;-:.:~J{Ii' ~,":1-:;,:-.)':r·J;(~',!..>IJ~·!!}I~ :~:--. >. '· ·..!! . 'i•···!·· .....~:· · . I , · . ·-!j .. :,.,_,.,''; . . .. :,•;•.i·::Y:,l.'·'·'<=-~~- j.l;'.-;:r;~~(·"/ A'morin'i;tci" [q.;on icin'g'(Jc,ikd'ioercditl-' tio!l· by, th~. 'ihti!q', j·!?l)S' ,·'i,J(bruu(!ht sue: ccsslul suit ug:>.inst the government ... ~ .::.:;., .' Fo;ca?c's hassles witli l)lc ('lixol) ?9minis'.' nation·contin't'ic<!'vhcn··linvas charged 1vitl: po%c;.si0n ol..cXp]r;sfvcS Ourinri 1-.::i-r:.:rtiLip:;,- ,;)tl~~-:~;··-~ ·-~~ ~-·_t::,.~:l•, I ::." 'vhat his'cullcaliu~s ·'"led his l)~siiess "wiz· artl;y." I (icli 'J'iwcs,' which has i d rcul.1tion ol.at 'lcast:100,000, last wed; bunched a spinoiJ ·mag'a~c 'called Stone tlgc ... F~rcadc also hclpc<i prpdtic~:~murglm,'·?· fil!n t!ocuno-:IH=try· that will be' rdc:t~cd soon.·AnOlLt:r tioilinYippicprotc'oJSlt.thc.~7ZG.O.l'.na·' r-:-:,;;::'.(,·'·r;:~:;;.:. tional'co 11 ven.rjo'r(ThaiC:ise'agiliiist himv•s qropJ)cd.:.~:-~:~:':.t.~:.~:1~~~·;~)}~~~.~:. ~.;:;;~:.f::t~::·~~.'~$·;?l;{~: : ·:"!In 1970 I?orcadc'nppcarcd Jcfoic thc.Prcsi- · dciitio.l'Con1mission.on Obscenity and Pornography. When.;1skcd to' ci:plnin his 9'ccus~-tiop;I)Jat the ,on)mission i)nd.~'.cngagcd i~·q'. blltant MCCnrthycsqucvitchhunt,".Forcndc·. ', flung a p!c nt h,is i.n,q:tis!to.r,.,s·{V.'iic·.?·ic'.~C.~i:ff.:· , . • •. }1 • : ,'• ··. .,·, :onc-.about··thc ·punk ntovc:ncnt is <n ;,1; " w_orr~. l l!s fricntls ?n~ ·pvl iticulolli;s pil iscJ lum for Ius generoSity "'J unwa~·onng ftn:lflcia! suppo;t· for a var!«v of rc~istantc • ousc.s-Ke<:h ~ucu;o, d:ccctor c! t:·' :a· W)11JJ Or~.~:w.Juur: f..;· ;L..: 1-:.cf . . . r:!i cf .L:-> . juana Laws (NORAIL), saiJ fli~h Tir:~cr'~ ' : -support for h:s crgc:~:,~::c:r h:d ;orcw:! <>.· Scntbl to !.ts continued cxi~lcncc. Two .yea:-s ~go, Forcadc ICI up 3 non-profit ch3mablc trust· maldng .Hiuh · 'l'i1nc»-- cmpluyccs, . NORML, nnu bte Altcrnatiye Me db ilccm .. :Corpora~ion (succ,ssor IO Itt Undcrcr•IUnd. fress Syndicnte) bcnefida,·ic> to the profit~ 0f .the .'l~r;n_I·High ~orr.o:ation, the ~mbrcll~ ~r~u~I~t.'o;dor h1: b~rnes) ent~rpmcs .. " · {·· ·:- · .: >···.· ·· . ·-~ · ·-~ ··· ·· ·.; · •.·~ .·~, 1 Tom ForcJde was on'c "of my closest bers)'nnd bcgan~to follow Yii ;Jet llt·os.' Car:., or his ceil. Dunn Deal ond I started the Tom . :r:o.cJs. I idoli_ze~ him. ·_,::.;·;·' :. ·. ·, · · , ; ' " avgn_ of.' L~y!--';nri·':a'poli~i~~~·, y,r':iRn, of the . and Cindy Defense C~mndttce, A_arun Koy . collected muncy. fur l'om at vanous West I lirst met hnn tnl97l when he came to my Hqg . FurnJ.;.,nr9y~d ...the. cquflry_;;,hrcude • ·'· Dybnclut;y .c!m atth•; AltcrMtJ; U_niversity-; un~/echvcr~. nl;nost. ~tnbbcg, Wn.,.)'(lu~nc(: Coast rock co<,lCcits. l;i1t1: did .~o.:ron how Al:ormtJs I om took me out'to d1nner and llros:t.hug lor.tryUlg to put ~om~ politJcs mto tlllt Tom ho.d Ull'entd pol meal p~eLog-btcr . •' . told mCJboUI his participation in every phaie tlle li.lni';. Bcc~tise'o(t.his Tom' could rchitc iii. to. be-come Kny's shlick-when he lhrtw ' '.' : .;::/ ?lt~c ont!inr ino~cmcnt-up to nnd inc!~d: n;Y s!Io,-ts 16{it[:iight'c'fl·'o~t'::':B.o.9 I!~lao.'.·. pic at a pornogro.phy commidoncr li 1970.' ·: .·mg c-omb:;Jg--,_Whllc a member of the Wcnth- We grew dose; nne when I wen Unto a:statc·. , .Very few other people would help Tee•. Rucr Undcrgrcund llction of SDS. Prior · of depression alter Jo)ui and Yoko 'prcs:surcd' bin i'!'id Hoflm:lfl had c:liku him a coP. ci.lrbg' . jo:ning !~O Weather Underground Organi7.:1· me, into npologi'l.ing''w,Dylan,:it was Ton" "i tile Yippic-Zippic ronlli~t in Minmi. ond tllc · .. tion To::; l::d stnncd a ':hippicsOJ1tmunc" in who pnlle~ me out of it,' He corivinc>d n1c t9 · @ io.bcl stuck. Ewntunlly both Abbie and Jerry. his native Phoenix, Arizonl. Alter the cops go after BentC manager Allen Klein who had , E .ldmittcd this was the wrnn~ thing to do. In- . .. · . busted the plnc_c.lor LSD the cummun; be-. nlkgeJJy·nijsappr?printe~ ~0 cents on 'each.' , ;.:/,-':~T'•'i>;;·Yl:~·;<'ct :; ;-:;·'Ui:·.:.':·IG'·.Y,.::;' :<:. lm 1973, Tom and Cindy were acqr:_ittcJ of · '· . came mo:·c poilllcli: Torn bcgnnocd<tan llnngbdcsh·bendll LP,·1ont told me he· ·· ·.' .,_._,..,._.., .. ::;'·~- ,,. ... , ...,.-.:·.•, nllchlfgcs, . . . .. · . . . ·._ ·_,. · um!crgro:<od mng:tJ.inc cnllcd:O:phcus. -I.n ~uught Klein ir_ .aJ:ckvnt?f ::;;d ~u~chcd. ~im_. f:~j:'~~lh:c ,~ 0 ~,;e.ntl?,!l h~ljd,-,:l~9>:hNc ??cge~ly . .~·Tom, frazzled !rom th.c· ardell Of ~1e t<~l, .. · · · · 1967, Tom bent Ius part of tllc uad rJp and ill the head.·~'·,.,: ...-<:-,>-'-'-.,,.-....... :..-: · ·.: .<. 1 .. ' 1!0 !. "!"t .. 9ecwr: ·?''en ' Lxon IIUS .came buck· ru New Yor< and cononucd • ·" _. ·:. moved to New York City; wl;erc he founded ,Tar:'· a!w~ys ~·au·.'j( i~: f9~ 'Abbi~ H~_rrn·;u;;. n~llllnnl'?::..il.~_-lc~~t :.t,lus:o.~;-)?'hut }the· FBI ·,run tl1e Undcr~rotlld Pre." _$ynuic.ate. A fc ?.-- . · the Un·oc:r)roud Press SynuJCnte, UPS was . and coulCl not understand why·I;VUs jnc~dlY. th~ygh_t,; Sill~- ~hc,,_,tt,,d. toJ!l~e ,him ,and weeks IJter he and Rex '1' c:~er .s towed,-awny · , ;, .. :, (~nanced through a deal Tom h.1d arr;uigcd · .with .-hinii:Whcn: Abbie' atid !forit'hnd 'a 'dis'; Jl;e .a~s')"t~tet..Ci;'.(iy. )!"jt~ns.rC~,·:!o;_·posE>1:· ,on "·ship' fulcd witli ·l'l :SA. scientist;,· This ··. ~-::''>.··giving Dell ;od J1owell the' rights to ini-. putc::oi!e'rSr<<ii:Thi; iJ~ok·,~lvhic~· they hnd {:on·,_of_:~~f'!l.~'H'e~c'}tlyd·~:Nam~y,ha. ;episodc'.,i·~s right out 0!' .L:trx Brotlicrs · .:.;. '.. ":· ·crofilm the undcrground·prcsj. Duri~g tnc . both syo_rkc~ 9n!.tl;c? :creed ~o.holc( a mov,; · 0.'~';r· ... :,·smtc:'._IY...~. ~ . ,.. ~t;ae t•. ': tl)ovie, -~; -..':·. ·•··: ;·~ '· ..;.._.. , · , ......_ .:. :, .· .: Jatc 196Cs and cnrlv 1970s UPS served as the· .mcnt·tmi·cUlmy.-nomc:.Tom Wolf; but the· z,pp:cs .~ns.. come.forwnrd.illu a~mntcd thltt ·:.When Tom returned he b<gan work on .· · . · war room in the l)ndorground Press's fight ."court!' could ~ut iniorcc-thc decisioh:>: '.- ': ,tllc Jusuce Department 1 :'unted him t~Julsel_y High Tiu!es p1agazinc, asUck monthly dci'Ot- · :.. lor sun·i•:ol. The Flll's · C0mtd :p1ogrnm In the sp(ing cif·l972, To<n started t.hc· Zip: .testify aJ:oli·.Tom nn4 Ctntly, NaJ1ICy, who :s ed .exclusively to dmus. 'The story ·of Hi~h .lza:r.sr .tJ-.e undcrcround "'" in full swing pies in 'reaction to Abbie nnJ Jerry's lnck of now, d~tn~: a ,?oQk._..lor. Quadrangle Press Tiu<.es is publishing history. From a circulaoncJ Tom tlid his best to combat it:·::'! ·' -:: ;. Yippie lcadmltip:,The Zippks· put tin tlte n~out. hisp;p~r,'~~cfs, .r:fu.scd t? .~:IP. frame tion-of less tho.n )CO, J!igh 'J'i'"" b,·ea:nc a · · . ~o: o:·.:;• did Tom fight the intelligence first;Nationnl ,arijunn~ -Day Smoke-in in tlr_cm_. · ·,.,,:,.;,-.,y.:.,:.; ':'; .;,'-.'<r'·.~i · .:· ;::. · milliou-dolbr busiucss in bs th:lfl a yco.r. -~ c.,mmu:l::y, he also wenr after riJJS in tltc Central·Pnrk.· Jhat sunuucr Tom took the .:. : To1n wns"o.rr~Sed it the UPS office'by' tk Tom financd · his . puhli<hinc vcmur~ .. : r:·::;ll"' :_: :re. b 970, Tom a:ul st:c;tsin3~ Zips:_.·! a ,iomi; ;whccc :wC'- demonstrotcd FilL He-told them he .was a member of the throuch. "llobby's"-J smukc,easy u:t -.'..:. ( : cr D.l'.':.: i'·::i b,wdcd " s:okn Coti!inc·limo . agai~st.'b'oth McGo·cr'n;-nnd .N Lxoti ..:DIIfinc .. _Weather'. Underground and tnJt !tis comndcs Broadway tl:n1 was par"titio:~cd in:' .?.0 di:Tc:- · ·.. '.. '. v::·h a s::-·:~ .wcdt•J i.O ~~ (:: ("~:c:~~:t~:::dt the ·D:-a!ccr:ltic. .1-!:.t:en;:l Cc.nvent:Cn. Tcm von!d·Sooa h::~ hin1,.Jhc·.· bdic.vcd hirn n;:tl: cnt rooms :;o tho:: cU3toi:·.;.:~5 .,.i..::JlJ :Wt·rr.c::t · -~;·· ·:.· :::r-.:~~~:::: -~ :-:~d ~o yd·.:~k :t.:cr.l::.~.:~icn m:u;,· :~~oi~ a sbui pilciloGr;tph o"r LyadOn· Johr:~;on j·:plo.ccd·two· Ghot(!1lil·vit>l~in~ r;u:1rd$ i:l irlnd ;)· ;.:.. : ··· · ~ · .. · 1 ·. ·. C:n:li":~:;~,t v1: }'::,·c f.; ~~ •:. --- -~-. . .. ··.~.:.;·:.:.!·;.:~:··;·'.·,-;:~·~i:>H::~::·:~ . . , , . , .t.. ;-!,.· •.• , . ··---·----------·· ·-··-- ·-··-----. 'Te congrcSS<~nnl P[~.s: ~a.l;~jc;5~'nl!.~t:, '";:U~;~r~;~!;~.i2,i?,~~;,;;$.,l;~.~g0;ift.0~:?t~(:~~t> ~- ·r./;:·,·:·.~:.;,.;.':· ·: BY A'. J Vcbcrtnu n··.:~:~.~:.::·:;•.:•;'..-::· · ij,--~: ·;~;·,.;·';1.·:~:-·:iJ~!,;,_.·,·>/: ,,,1;;:'·~: 'i•."I._•.J·;~.'~·;.'(,• •. •:!.;_~-:~::.~· " '~··: •. :~··-~;:--:?>~·k~: t~;~~~.-~~i:~1~';~!;J.J~;.:Vi:~=:.~~(1·~'·::1··:~·;,~ ,'.·.~ ' • ~ • ..._';;.)· ; I •: •· •.. 1 • • • •
  14. 14. -l ,I ! . Corttin:.~.hlfrompcg~ 8-:.-~ ~ · :.~~.-.:-~ .:.: ·- .. t3Ch oilier. Aleg'-...nd holds duriorr.ron~whD tried w rip the p]2.cc off cc.U.:=d_l'.p-wea..r;..ng a P-air of ce:a::.~Ot plador:n s1:c..:S:._ ...;.::.-:· ;;>·: ·--; . l!i?!t.Tirr.n b~.ml1rc-and !n.Gre.suc-.. ~ ·- --·- The onl:f·P'~rs.on who cOuld pull_To~ OUL "of ili<Se fi<l of dep,es.sion wos Jack, a former :7hire: Panther Parr'; le-.1d:::r. Jack took Torn. tq a psychi.ltrist who prescribed lranquitizers for him. In 1973,. Tom-arid Gabrid.le-we:rc- ·. .. . ·.:>·· ~ _,. : ..:::. ~.;.sful;YetTom'sn.:unerrcv=.rap~any- .married ..· . . . .. ~:~:z-:.-· ~h::r::..in ic~Tom'.Vr-..s afr:-!!U.Ih.at th;!;_"copn· · · Recently; _Tom h.Jd bealrlle iim:n:sted in !Jl:~-1 ilie· Yippid-lud. put on.him would ad~ ve:rsdy. aff~:rhc ~~--!~.:And- by 1975, Tom bd -~IT!C. even more. f3.m.Ous.. for his n.hrou.S-o:~idi:!~ p-arties.. than fci(."hls ~0-azin~-. the.punk scene and began.to film the S ""Pis-. ·. · _·tal's · Am~rican.:. tour.:..: Un.forru.n.:ncly, ..tl:ey-- .:... thoUght bt. Yi:ls- :1 gov~romeni:. aoe.nt wlio W::tS ·~ ·rru...lcing: ~ film tlut Hould_ be us~d. in a·su~-·. ·; ~ .: At.onc···p.Jiilt ..Tom_and·k-t:~tOOk.."~·t..-uc..t;:"·.. quent.d~Port:ltion h~g_-:"Tom Iud IO st:1i -~ .:.,_· f:.ilcd~ it~ wi:h 6:L.::s. of_nitrous 7 ' ~d drOve all _"in hoH~l rooms wh.i.l;! the filming W3.5 going on··:·:.:!. aOurid 1bnh.::t(Wl tu.rcing ~pleori.. To:Oi- b«ausi he wa5 a.foid he mi£T.ht freak out the- -:; ~· v.·:LS·n·i..,Cr duH ·in.d IDe richer he ~'li~ the ·baed: -~c.::··;·.. · · .. · ::.·c:.::.-.· .~-::-..: ·~ ). · . i.:::: ~ ·.. ·:·. -::. ·<::•-;: 'I co'e h= u5cti hos mon<y as a cacliyst.H" be~ .-;;rn· icid-1973; Jac.'<. ·w~5 kilkd ~viuJ~ ~g -:~~:: gw contributing ti:ou.s.:md." of doll:u:s to th= .. to hn"d on 3. cbnd:!Stinc alrsaip in Columbia~.. :-:~;· ~hrioP...J] Org3.niz:icion.to Reiorm"],!.arijuim A·weck before: he :.dlltd himsdi J:oin told nit!·~:;.-; 'I· Laws. Tom wmintd i loyal Yip pie and~: · th the believed the PEA Spi:cial Operationi .::;l g.l.D n.>" giY!! uS frC;! ads and gcxxl covc::o.gc in· Dl "5ion :_plight.". hi:t~S:lbot.lged· Jack's air- ~~-: Hig~ Tiu:r:l_~· l ~~d~--Jom ~ som~~e_::l:~- .. Since tl!e .re·rn·1in$.·of·.~ b3r?mctricall~f.. 7l:::~:l ~~ -·~'-·._tJ:<;;::SJ-''-~-~,arrd ._re?ID<?. /'?, . ac'!vaied bom~ wo~ fotl!!_d m th<_w.r~o: -:;:~l tnt~nt~...~:??f=):.:;_:-5-St.~~~:~~...:.-:::-:--:-~;:-=..,~~ .r~om -~d lo-st his d?>t:St friend ...,.~.::-::-:~; .i/.... -..;~_··~:.P;.::-21 0 97 Tom. s.how_«i:.up Duri.cg-a Yippie this n.- me pro[~ionally. broken. :.·1 .. .. ! - Con'l~nt!an irl·IG.nsasCity;at th. Republic:1n i into.;·, ..The·.Iock:·:was Tom's loft was pic...l(td_.~:[::;t: I, .. - cr:!).}. . ~.~. ~ ~.Around. -~_.: . ~ C::monit:":l.cion-'Tom yrd.S beaten bj Secrc:.t SevCi-31. floorbo2.r0s..".wcre· pri~· up~·yei·.th.::)J;/ S'"Mce agents whq"Were <~.c&~ by_~ sUe.: orJy"~ ~g .sroitn· ·w~ Gabric:~e's. mother'~·:~~~:; ·; ·&ss:ir.---:. g:Ucin&-mem.1:-e.rsb.ip" in_: the ·-White w~~g_ring_·_T~Iil ·wss sha.l.(en..~y tJ:e inci:.:-~t:f~ ~'"' ~?~..i:9-:n±.;Yenw Tom,~~d":" ·-~~nt~.w~ch. <; ar;ributed. to. ~,s~C:~S/?::;[;}~~:r, . m~ nem;x..··shlp Anomey "Villiaro<h.uns- ·lUY;.:mg:n~on Lnto his fin:tnce~~ ·· ·::· 1 :_:_.,.~;,:.::~.;::=:~~ . ~ .,. 7 u<j:.:Hi sutdthe-S=ef_Scr~cea~~ >?OU~;J·..:~ -J"Hckg;'n cik;ing Qu;u.l_ud<;"<flii 7112 mtd ~;-;iilJ e---:;' ud 977; a·fcd=l'· grar.d lillY l!l Bmo:Uyn t,. stop _hun from ov=rdomg tt •.The cloak. ot ,~;,:"};' ~~=san :1n ibydrig:uiou_coce:!cni.n~ ~--o~ Fo.r- ~ecy To_m spread ¥over his ·accivities"w_ouJd -~-~·ij ade bas<d- on tbc to.srunony of Cilic)oder;a smothor h1m. On. };ov=~r 16, 1978, ar 1-:,:~c& . ms I . high-levd DEA inlonnant who b<en cha- p.m., while 109m.ing down from Q!L-uhidos;· ::·~-~ ., rJ.Ctt::ri..:--d ~ :t3 ·· 1 l.r .. },iariju3.rd~ in s.cvc:ral Tom shot hirasdi i.:l the b6d at poim-blmk.: .-". rru~.:1~ articks: The pressure- bt::.fill to nn~GobrieUe had SClyed horne tbJt 'ruy. ·-:bu.il~t.:lnd Toe1 ·sw.ncd to go into p::riods. of because sh~ was. wor.i~ :tbout hio. She and : exu:::me C.~r~i.ou.. E:: would as.surnc a feta.l Jim Druf,Us found ~ in a pool Of b!Or.........:c!. : · po5ition, Cov::.r h!rnxH "Yr--irh a sheer., andre- Tnere was as~ !:ok i.il. his temp1e. . ~ . .. · r:1ain like th.J( for d:1ys. At Cnc-point he too~z : The news of To~'s dc:ath upsc:t and d~an oY~dos.c of Qd.:Utcle:i and srumbkd ov::-r st;bitizbi me. I r.::v~r thought it wOuld end· ~ . I , to G:!bricll:: Scha.ng..s apuTi1Jc::.nr, where be 1! culbpst"d. Oabrklk and. h::r (ri~nd JL-n Dru· gm,- who w0d:c-J in·TOL'1'~ Ix?o~~torc across frr>m (f.ibrkHc's apartrncnt_. took him _to Bdkvu(: w!:crc hi::; stom:tch ·sas pump-!d. I ~ li1--...e this since I had r!O ~:nowled~c of his pre-" · · Yiuus suicide aar:rnpts. 1 b~ipn m bbme. any .. one who"W:-!3: lur:dy .fur his demise. y f:~.vor­ ite. syrilbol of rcsist~c.c·.;; btcnmc·J syffibul of th~ uhim:uc sllr.tndo::r. tl
  15. 15. .,,,,. . • ·; .-;'-- • • ' THE CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY Michael Canfield Alan J. Weberman Foreword by Henry B. Gonzalez U.S. Congress • THE THIRD PRESS Joseph Okpaku Publishing Co., Inc. 444 Central Park West New York, N.Y. 10025 A Third Press Special
  16. 16. - • ·j;;=-...4<tt<tr·',~~~~~~..,.;....;..;.··-·..,:~...""...~.............c.....-.................." '-~".........._.... -... i1P , 162 • -~ i i' fl A .a*....... •••• ........ / ••• i .., ' f .. . . . . . . . _-. COUP D'ETAT IN AMERICA The FBI questioned all the people she had mentioned-they all agreed she was a liar and a whore. The Bureau seized upon the fact that she was a prostitute to destroy her credibility, just as they did in the case of Eileen Curry. They failed to realize that Perrin's credibility might have been enhanced by this fact because people like Ruby associated almost exclusively with the criminal element. Only someone like Perrin would be in a position to know. They also discounted a letter of reference from the Oakland Police Department which stated that Perrin had worked as an undercover agent in an abortion case and had supplied them with valuable 'information. According to the FBI and Secret Service, Perrin was not to be believed. 42 Many researchers ,have wondered who "The Colonel" really was. Some have suggested it was Colonel Castorr who was described by Father McChann as " ... a retired Army Colonel. .. generally interested in the plight of the Cuban refugees (who was) 'playing the role of an intelligence officer' in his contacts with the Cubans ... he seemed more interested in their political beliefs than in their economic plight ... " 40 Maybe Frank Sturgis can throw some light on this-he told Canfield that in Cuba in 1959 his contact was " ... an Army Colonel ... I told him more than one time, within a six-month period [that he could kill FideL]" Note that the Interpen/IAB forces were "training in the Everglades [with] thirty surplus Enfield rifles.""' Jack Ruby Visits Cuba To date, the general impression has been that the only thing Jack Ruby had to do with Cuba was the fact that he once ate in a Cuban restaurant. It may therefore come as a shock to the reader to find out that Ruby visited Cuba shortly afier Fidel Castro came to power in 1959. When he first came to Dallas in 1947 Ruby was introduced to the pitman of The Top Of The Hill casino, Lewis J. McWillie, by his friend from Chicago, Benny Binnion. McWillie and Ruby immediately hit it off and when McVvillie's mother was questioned by the FBI she told them that they saw each other on a daily basis around this time." -'>.,. '>~iiitiQi.'.q·; fJ.Jji.]CQJ$il}l1QSl-.4# ##,#PlAth hY:U 4'..; 4.
  17. 17. • • DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WASHINGTON, D.C.-20223 U FEB 1979 Mr. Alan Jules Weberman cjo Independent Research Associates 6 Bleecker Street New York, New York 10012 Dear Mr. Weberman: Reference is made to your letters received January 16, January 26 and January 30, 1979, appealing a decision of ~tr. William Bacherman, Freedom of Information Officer, United States Secret Service, denying you certain information under the Freedom of Information Act and requesting files under the Privacy Act. Treasury regulations regarding administrative appeals of initial denials by the United States Secret Service vest the review authority in the. Deputy Director of the Secre·t Service ( 31 Code of Federal Regulations, Subtitle A, Part 1, Appendix D and 40 Federal Register 49089, dated October 21, 1975). The records and correspondence pertinent to your appeal have been reviewed. I have determined that the exemptions claimed by Mr. Bacherman in his letter of January 4, 1979 . were proper. The Secret Service records contain investigatory information compiled for law enforcement purposes. Pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, Subsection (b) (7) (C) and (E), information is being withheld since disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, or disclose investigative techniques and procedures. In addition, pursuant to Subsection (b) (2), Secret Service information is being withheld since it contains matters relating solely to internal administrative procedures. 1 I have also determined that certain information in the files may be properly disclosed to you. The documents containing that information are enclosed with this letter. 1 j j 1 l l ' I l -· -------------------' •• "l
  18. 18. • • As to your letter regarding the disclosure of information under the Privacy Act, the system of records, from which information is requested, is exempt from the Act pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a(K) (3). Therefore, to provide you with the greatest ·access, your request both initially and on appeal has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act. Any denial on appeal is subject to judicial review in the District Court in the district where the complainant resides, has a principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia. For the purpose of appeals of initial denials under the Freedom of Information Act, the undersigned is the official making this determination for the United States Secret Service. sJ;:~~ Myr~n I. Weinstein Deputy Director Encl. ' •, --· ···- ··--·--·- ·--- l:
  19. 19. • • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------~---------x : ALAN JULES WEBEID•lAN Plaintiff, vs. : : : : : : : 79 Civ 779 (LWP) : UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and H.S. ~<IGHT, DIRECTOR OF THE SECRET SERVICE, AFFIDAVIT IN FACT : : : : Defendants. : : : . ------------------------~-~----------x I, Alan Jules Weberman do hereby affirm that the excerpt from the book Coup D'Etat In American and the photocopy of the article from the Village Voice dated 27 Nov. 78 attached to Plaintiff's Answ~r To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, are true and correct reproductions from aforementioned publications. Sv10rn to _a111.d signed: .(&...l ''l,i'i) q. ~~MlRibi:,§ER~ Notarj ?ubffc';'-st<:tB of r~cw York No. 24·1415290 Qualified in Kitigs County Cert. Filed in New Yor: Caunty ommission Expires March 30, lSBl ----'------- ULES viEBEilllAN BLEECKER STREET. YORK CITY 10012 ----1.
  20. 20. • • ·- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NE>·T YORK ----------------------------------x . • : ALAN JULES WEBERMAN, Plaintiff, : : : 79 Civ. 779 . (LHP) : -againstUNITED ST!I.TES SECRET SERVICE and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE Defendants. : : : : : : : HOTION UNDER VAUGHN vs. ROSEN TO REQUIRE DETAILED JUSTIFICF.TION, ITE1HZATION AND INDEX ----------------------------------X Plaintiff ALAN JULES WEBEFJ1AN move this C~mrt for an order requiring. defendant, United States Secret Service, to provide, v1ithin 30 diys of the filing of the complaint in this action,. a . detailed justification for any allegations that the requested documents are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 u.s.c. 552 ae-amended-by Pub. L. No. 93-502, 88 Stat. 1561, including an itemization and index v1hich would correlate specific statements in such justification vlith actual portions of the requested documents. See Vaughn v. Rosen , 484 F. 2d 820, 826-28, cert denied, 415_U.S. 977. (1974). Dated: New York, New York April 1·0, 1979 R~f~,u~-t-t-ed-·-----~!LAN JU4S '/EBERHAN (prq... se) PRESIDENT, . INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES SIX BLEECKER STREET NEW YORK, NEIY YORK 10012 TELEPHONE: (212) 791-915 3 ·-------------- ____..________ --------·. - -----.-.-.-·~~~~~~~-~- .. ----· ----------·--- .. .
  21. 21. • • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NE'1 YORK --------------~-------------------x : : : ALAN JULES WEBEPJ1AN, : Plaintiff, 79 Civ. 779 (LWP) : : -against- : : : UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE Defendants. MEMOR!'NDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HOTION UNDER VAIGHN vs. ROSEN : : : : : -------------------------------•--x . In this ·action under the Freedom of Information ll.ct plaintiff seeks access to all records compiled between 1945 and 1979 in the possession of the United States Secret Service pertaining to Alan Jules Weberman. Although the defendants had over two months in which to consider plaintiff's request, they have failed and refused to produce any significant documents for inspection. The purpose of this motion is to compel defendants to provide the . Court and plaintiff vhich .a detailed and specific justification, itemization and indexing, as required by law, for their refusal to disclose the requested documents. Vaughn v Rosen, 484F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), ~· denied, 415 u.s. 977 {1974). See Ash Grove Cement Co. vs. FTC, 511 F.2d 815 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Pacific Architects & Engineers, Inc. v. Renegotiation Board, ·505 F. 2d 38 3 . (D.C. Cir 1974; Cuneo v. Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied sub ~· Rosen v. Vaughn, 415 U.S. 977 (1974)_. Plaintiff is prevented from making a Hotion "for Summary Judgement because of a total lack of knowledge of the contents of the records defendants have >vi theld, as well as of the purported justification for ~Jitholding them. The denials by the Secret Ser- vice provide only conclusory claims that certain of the requested ··-··-··---- .. -------·--------··· .. ----····-···-·-··----------
  22. 22. • • documents fall within exemptions (b) (7) and (b) (2), 5 USC 552, and make no attempt to correlate the claimed exemptions with specific portions of the requested documents. ITt was for just such problems which the Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit sought to remedy in Vaughn vs. Rosen. The order sought by the plaintiff would compel defendants to provide the type of information to proceed vlith this laHsuit. The Court of Appeals in Vaughn also required defendants to itemize and index the disputed documents so as to correlate statements in the justification with actual portions of the documents. Y.lithout the order which the plaintiff seeks, neither he nor the Court will know specif·ically which exemptions are claimed to apply to which documents or portions of documents. In executing the Vaughn mandate, several Federal Court Judges have explicit~y ordered defendants to supply plaintiffs with a detailed itemization, justification and index, and the instant motion is consistant with this proceedure. E.g., Cutler vs CAB, 375 F. Supp. 722, 724-25 (1974) of Defense, Civ. No 74-664 (Gesell, J.); Robertson vs. DeJ2t· (Order of August 23, 1974) (Parker, Jy. The fact that plaintiffs have been::exempted from requirffinents of the Privacy Act by 5 u:.s.c. .. -·· 552a (k) (3) is irrelevant to a Freedom . of Information Act Request. Respectfully submitted, ALAN J LES HEBERMAN SIX BJ',EECKER STREE'l' NEW YORK CITY, N.Y. - - - - - - - - - - - . - - ·-·--···-·--- ------ ---------·· - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •.:-"!"
  23. 23. I. . 'J', Sit·: ,e i h ··~ ') :Form No. USA-336-270 (Rev. 9-77) ·~ I' •· ': Yon 1oill.please take notice that a _____ _ ot'·which the 1oithin is a copy, was this day djdy entel'ed in the within entitled action, in t.he office of the Cle1·k of this Cotwt. ~lltnitei:t ~tates :!.Bistrid Qlourt SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Datpd, N.Y.,------------------· 19 ___ _ ALAN J. WEB ERMAN, You1·s, etc., Plaintiff, United States Attorney Attorney for--------- -v- A.,, . .To; :'lr)P UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, ··ri:r>:· ·1'.;,(.·~.:-----------------;;~~,~~:-/~~~===-~=== 'I } I' '.': . Defendant's. . . • Si1·: NOTICE OF MOTION & RULE 9(g) STATE~ffiNT and DECLARATION 79 civ 179 IT.WP) ~.Please tHke notice that the within ----;-uJ.ill. be presented for settlement and stg?!~t1,lre to .fj~e. Honorable ----------------u:r:'ited States Dish·ict Judge, at the office of tlii!yCle1·k, United States Courthouse, Foley Squa1·e,,Borough of Manhattan, City of New Xork dn the ____ day of ____, 19 ____ , at I ' ~9' 3o o'clock in the ______ noon 01· as soon t~ereafter as counsel can be hea1·d. 'I p .: f!ated, N. Y., ------------------· 19 ___ _ '· YouTs, etc., ROBERT B. FISKE, JR. ------------~----~---------------------- United States Attorney Attorney for _!!_~! __ _ Due service of a copy of the 1oithin is hereby admitted. N e1v Y m·k, --------------------· 19 _____ _ ---------------------------------------Attomey for To United States Attorney Attorney for--------- To ''t~ .L~----'~~----------------------------­ Attorney for--------- ~~ .:.~A ---------------------------------------Attorney for !'PI-MAR 5·15·78
  24. 24. ~ _/ NEF:em 79-58/+ .I • - _, ~-· . .. • ' r !uNITED STATES DISTRICT COlJRT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEH YCJR'Z ---------------~-------~--------------x AN J . .JEBERNAN, Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION - v - UNITED STATES SECP~T SERVICE and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, Defendants. i I I 79.Civ. 779 (LHP) --------------------------------------x PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed declaration of Myron I. Weinstein, the accompanying memorandum of I law and all prior proceedings and pleadings in this action, j the United States Secret Service .and H.S. Knight, Director l of the United States Secret SerVice, by their attorney, Robert B. Fiske, Jr_, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ne-v; York, will move this Court before the Honorable Lawrence W. Pierce, United States District Judge, in Room 2002 on May 24, 1979 at 10:00 o'clock or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an order granting '. sunrruary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissing the Complaint, pursuant-to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of .Civil l .l Procedure, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York May 4 , 1979 ROBERT B. FISKE, JR. United Sta.·tes Attorney for the Southern Di.s:trict of New York Attorney for the United States of America ' ·I To : ALAN J. WEBERNAN Plaintiff Pro Se. · 6.Bleecker~reet New York, ·New York i . ,, •• 1 I j : 10012 l:,: . :;, .I' ·' ~-· •
  25. 25. . -···~-..---~·~-: ~ .. ~-JITED STATES DLSTRICT tdOUit'F' 1 . SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------x LAN JULES WEBERHAN, Plaintiff, RULE 9(g) STATEHENT . -against- 79 Civ. 779 (LWP) Pro Se ITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and . S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF ITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, Defendants. ------------------------------------x Pursuant to Rule 9(g) of the General Rules of this ourt, defendants United States Secret Service and its irector, H.S. Knight, respectfully submit the following statements of material facts as to which they conten~th~~r•e~... s no genuine issue to be tried: l. Defendants are engaged in providing protective ervices to the President of the United States and other j '·1.· 3, 1978, that the Secret Service disclose to him any ocuments pertaining to himself (the "December Request") ursuant to the FOIA privacy Act. See Exhibit B to the eclaration of Hyron I. Weinstein, dated May 3, 1979 (the 'Weinstein Declaration"). 3. Under cover letter dated January 4, 1979, the ecret Service disclosed to plaintiff portions of the reuested material. By said letter, the Secret Service further "nformed plaintiff that deletions had been made from the aterials and that certain materials had been withheld puruant to provisions under the FOIA exempting from disclosure ! . . ...... ·~, ., . ... ~"' ~ ,. I
  26. 26. NF:ss 04-6778 i I I ~ to requesters (a) matters pertaining solely to internal rules and practices of the Secret Service and (b) certain investi- I i ;..:0: .... j ·~ iatory.:_r,ecords compiled for law enforcement purposes. See Exhibit C to the •leinstein Declaration. l ' ! 4. l. i By letter dated January 12, 1979, plaintiff I I informed the Secret Service that he sought to appeal the I January 4, 1979 determination. Plaintiff initially sent this letter to the Secret Service's "FOI/PA SEC." See Exhibit D to Weinstein Declaration. 5. By certified mail, receipt No. 989321, plain- tiff sent the January 12, 1979 letter to the Deputy Director. See Exhibit E to Weinstein Declaration. 6. By letter dated- January 18, 1979, sent to the Secret Service "FOI/PA" by certified mail, receipt No. 989322, plaintiff requested under the Privacy Act "any and all documents" pertaining to him. See Exhibit F to 'einstein ·i Declaration. . By letter dated February 13, 1979, the Secret 7. .: Service responded to plaintiff's appeal by releasing additional requested material and re-stating the FOIA exempSee Exhibit G tions on which any non-disclosures were based. to Weinstein Declaration. Dated: New York, New York 4 , May 1979 Respectfully submitted, ROBERT B. FISKE, JR . Uni.ted States Attorney for the Southern District of New York . l ,, By: ~'tfc£~ NANCY E.(RIEDHAN .. Assistant United States Attorne Telephone (212) 791-9153 .... ! I ': .: . I. "·.··. i . .·· .. 1 .. 1·
  27. 27. j •. ( ' r·- •• I F:ss 4-6778 I ! TNITED STATES DISTRICT 'COURT· OUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------x -;LAl! J. WEBER1-1AN, Plaintiff, .I i DECLARATION -v- ~NITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, 79 Civ. 799 (U>'P) ~nd H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR pF UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, Defendants. r----------------------------------x Ji.YRON I;. WEINSTEIN, declares under penalty of perjury that the follov1ing is true and correct: 1. I am Deputy Director of the United States Secret Service and have held this office since November 1, L978. As Deputy Director, I am responsible for the pro- l::essing of Freedom of Information Act appeals for the United States Secret Service. I ani £"a.miliar with pla.i.n tiff's atest request under the Privacy Act, having supervised the processing thereof. This most recent request is one of twelve Freedom of Information Act requests received by he Secret Service from plaintiff within the past three I -~----~~~--~~~=-~~~~~~~~~~~~~--=c==~-~--~~,w=·~~~--~-~·~·~=~-·~~ I• = ears.* The Secret Service has complied to the fullest extent Nith the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act as to ach of plaintiff's twelve requests. With the exception of ~lain tiff' s first re_g.':!,.<i.st .. (received M;r~....2.Q.,_:t.9),.1.t,:a,;,d:Y,~'-equest wnicn is the"_s.ub.J.ec.t ..oCthis .~ction, both of which ~dn~h~--d'o~~illents about plaintiff person~l~~he subject natter sought has_been for material generally involving the ~nvestigation of the John F. Kennedy assassination. ·A p.umber of requests were for documents which this agency no anger maintained at the time of the-rVq'ties_J, o.r=c.o:t1].::;:~:-- ;e-:LeienEi":f'L'e'O as Secret Service records; a number of documents 1-ougl'it: vlere documents of another agency cfr contained material ~f another agency and, therefore, were forwarded to those ~gencies for processing and release. A schedule of plaintiff' reedom of Information Act requests and the Secret Service's espouses is attached as Exhibit A. J I l I ! I l I . ··--~---~- . ..- ~ If. :
  28. 28. .i~·.····:· _;. ·~/!. •. ·-·- NF:ss 04-6778 2. By.letter to the Secret Service, dated December 23, 1978, plain.tiff made a Freedom of Information I -! Act and Privacy Act request for any documents pertaining to himself (the "December Request") : A copy of· this letter is attached as Exhibit B. 3. The Secret Service is exemp~ from the pro~ visions of the Privacs. /l,ct und.er 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(3), since the Secret Service provides protective services to the President of the United States and other designated persons. i I I l ' 4. ·By letter dated January 4, 1979, William J_ Bacherman, Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge, Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts Office, responded to plaintiff's December Request and construed it as a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request. Portions of the requested material were disclosed to plaintiff and other portions were i, !withheld· pursuant to two ·FOIA exemptions: that the withheld documents contained investigative information compiled for .. , . law enforcement purposes and that the deletions in the dis- 1 1 . documents - - - - -solely - - - - pertained closed p~actices of the agency. to the internal rules and A copy of the January 4, 1979 lette '--------------------- is attached as Exhibit C. 5. By letter to the Secret Service, dated January 12, 1979 and received on January 16, .1979, plaintiff appealed the January 14 decision of William Bacherman, statin, that his request was also under the Privacy Act and that he ,I sought all documents about himself (the "Appeal Letter"). copy of the January 12, 1979 Appeal Letter is attached as Exhibit D. I I .} I A
  29. 29. I • ~- /. ..... : r--· _____ ____ NF:ss 04-6778 98932l~~~t~- .· -I marked-• January 23, 1979-., plaintif-f sent to the Deputy Direc- I 6. '' By certified mail, receipt no, tor of the Secret Service another copy of his January 12, Copies of the envelope and the Appeal 1979 Appeal Letter. Letter received in this manner are attached hereto as Exhibit E. This letter was received by the Secret Service personnel handling appeals on January 30, 1979. 7. By letter dated January 18, 1979, sent to the Secret Service by certified mail, receipt no. 989322, postmarked January 23, 1979; plaintiff again requested under the Privacy Act "any and all documents" pertaining to him (th 1 (the "January 18 Letter"). By the January 18 Letter, plainti f simply repeated the December Request and his Appeal Letter. Copies of the January 18 Letter and envelope postmarked .-, The January 18 January 23, 1979 are attached as Exhibit F. -:_ij.-_._1 '• Letter was construed by the Secret Service as a further com- .' munication by plaintiff regarding his appeal and <vas forv;arde to the appeals section for inclusion in the file and proceedings concerning the December Request. 8. By letter dated February 13, 1979, I responded to plaintiff's Appeal Letter dated January 12, 1979 and the January 18 Letter by releasing additional reguested materials. ---·~ Thus the Secret Service ~ltimately (with some deletions) out-of a that were encompassed l?.:z disclosed eleven p~g~eas~-­ toLt..aJ-o,:f~,.J,7-p_ag;_e.s-o.P..m-a.t>e,J;.:i,al-.,_ pl<ti.nt:,:L,f,f_'_s_~reques t. In the February 13 letter, I further advised plaintiff that the system of records from which inf,:,rmation was being requested through the Privacy Act is exempt under Section 552a(k)(3) of the Privacy Act and that to afford him maximum access to the info~­ mation he sought, his request was being processed under the Freedom of Information Act. letter is attached ~s A copy of the February 13, 1979 Exhibit G.
  30. 30. I .1 I -I . /·. -···.···· .._ .. ).- -···- ··- - '""···"-·--- 4··· --..;- NF:ss ()4- 6778 I 9. -j I am advised by counsel that the instant. action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 9, 1979: lam I further advised that copies of the summons and complaint were served on the United States Attorney's Office fo:r the Southern District of New York on February ;10, 1979. 10. Plaintiff's complaint refers only to a letter "dated" January 23, 1979, and sent certified mail under recei t no. 989322. The letter received by the Secret Service under this certified mail receipt number was the January 18 Letter which -;.;ras postmarked January 23, 1979. Because plaintiff's l December Letter and January 18 Letter requested the same l material, the complaint herein is being construed as . l j .- ;,. ---i ~ .' <'· chal- lenge to the Secret Service's determinations dated January 4 and February 13, 1979. ll. Under my supervision 2 an index was compiled . - = == =-=- :c&-~~~~=~,.,..,_,. The index sets forth a deof the requested material. _. - - :O:Q:a:Q44 scription of each of the ·seventeen pages which Here VJi thheld, ~=-~=-=-~~. in part or in total, from plaintiff; identifies the type of 11-...-,.;._________ ..,;=--------~ :::::= == ===:._..,.'--~-- material deleted from those documents released to plaintiff; and identifies the .,::;:,;~~7,:;-n (~)-~2{';[_;.';~!" t~- sup;;;;"t'"';;-;_·ch··--· "· deleti_ons. 12. I A copy of this index is attached as Exhibit H. By his December 23 Request and January 18, Letter, plaintiff sought "any and all documents on [himself]", specifically mentioning a "tomatoe incident", for which he was arrested by the Nel-l York. Police Department, and the revocation of his pistol permit. -I Construing this request as an FOIA request, a records search <vas made and it Has determined that the Secret Service does not maintain a p)JY.s.:i,;:;.as,_,.., ,._ 1
  31. 31. /" / • ; • z _, I F: ss ra4-6778 twelve-page computer print-out concerning an incident on _, .! lormer President Nixon's visit that day toNe'" York City; a . ·------ ----- .. one-page UPI Hire service report; and two Secret Service ------==- ·=---------·-_. _. --- 11----====-=~--~-=======~-~··=-·-=---==~UW:SJ-~-~>J%:0:: ;ou;_ &::0: II documents, a one-page "Duty Desk Incident Report" ("Report") - . . . . .,.._ ( "Hemorandum") . 11:::---------~~-~=·=-==·=--·=·=·=-~=--=-~--=---~-~----- --- -incident involving plaintiff. As explained beloH and to l-:-..__...:-""'-~~==-=====c:·~~~~-=-•-•c-o~oo'~'-~--,.oc_~-.­ plaintiff in the Secret Service's letters to him, all non----~··e"':::::-=>."·-~:.--:-6-.-:·-~_;_c":'~-~.._"<"~ ... ::-cc:z:--:-~- __ ;_:.-::-.,··.· ,·_-:-;:·:.·~--'"'='~:~=-:""-"~--:-::.-·.·.:.·-->:·•·<.::. .•. ~:-~·-··.-,-_~~-'~---- - disCTOSed material ~~~P- ..·:.-- o_g_records '"as withheld on the • -~--- ~.....~"=::::"~.:..~."')'--~"":r.--..~---.-~-- grounds that it was exemp_t from disclosure by one or more ._);,- __ ._ --·· provisions of the FOIA. 13. As indicated on the chart attached as Exhibit H, portions of the requested material Here withheld on the - ··' basis of the exemption from the disclosure requirement in --~ L .·-_··_.··_J·. FOIA in section 552(b)(2) ("(b)(2) exemption"), Hhich- pertains ,; to information relating solely to the internal rules and prac- Secret Service H-en;()·;:::,;,-ndum and Report bear administrative file numbers, identifier numbers, and other markings used for the purpose of storing, locating, retrieving, identifying or classifying information in ou~ Intelligenc~ivi~ion_' ~•• phy~~cal files and electronic data system. =1 These administrative nota- I I ,.. I•·__,.!liHtW...,"""*""""':st"'Am==a·"'~=--=·-"-~''='-=-·--"'--"'-="·"-=-=-~-_,--.. . __ ~ 1 tions relate solely to Secret Service internal procedures for maintaining information. They have no other significance. Disclosure of these markings would not benefit plaintiff or the public, but would permit them to interfere with the . maintenance and integrity of our computer records and electronic process of recQrdkeeping. The (b)(2) exemption justification was cited in Documents and 4 (pgs. l -11- 2, 3 (pgs. l, 2 & 3), through12) ... · ..... .·.,." ···· ~ r.
  32. 32. • • --~--~-·· -·----~-- ----~--~--~·-------~- ·-.------·-----. NF: ss 04-6778 --~. 14, Other portiona of the requested material were withheld on the basis of the exemption in section 552(b)(7)(C) of the.FOIA ("(b)(7)(C) exemption"),·which covers disclosure of information in investigative records compiled for law enforcement purposes that would constitute an unwarranted -11~======~~=============·====~~--=--=-=---==~==~ invasion of personal privacy. The (b)(7)(C) exemption was 11--=====~======~~.Q asserted by deleting from the material names or identifying '1 data (i) that referred to another subject of investigation ' (i.e., third party subjects) or (ii) that disclosed the identity of Secret Service agents, other federal law enforcement agents or local police officers. i' (i) .In determining whether to release the identity 1 I I >I .I of third party subjects, the public's right to know must be· !balanced with the individual's right to personal privacy. This balancing standard is indicated by various pertinent statutory provisions. The Pd.vacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a § prohibits the release of personal information about any individual to another party without prior written consent of that individual. However, there is an exception~o-this .-., =or 2rohibition in the Priv~cy Act; .. ''--""'"'",.-u·•---.>'":1--...,.,-,.. ..,.._,.be .,..,..,, ·c'-·-"~· ··documents may ..,.,... turned = = .::aa;:u=oc :;.:a:~~ ....,,~ -.,...":1""""-···"'· .,. - lI ~ J • ___ GUJ .. . over to another party when disclosure is "required" by . -- --------- the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(2). Nevertheless, ~~~~~~~~~~= is not ~~regyj,_>;~der disclosure the FOIA, and therefore, not per- mit ted under the Privacy Act, <vhen release of the records would be an "unHarranted invasion of [another person'. s] personal privacy." There can be no clearer example of an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy than the disclosure to plaintiff of the fact that another individual is the subne_es .. =-===· ject of Secret Service records, since that fact might raise an inference that the third party s:i,j ect -~s i;;;-;;Iv;;;-cii.nt1ie Release of ) I I .... -. =~
  33. 33. '}~: __ ,:::')" ,.~ J.. ·..'/ . ,._ J .•. · .... ·. ·. f. ; • .. . . -~ ......-- ·,_f/ ,_,._~ ~-- .. -·-----.:.....:: .. • • • NF:ss 04-6778 I is the bas· is for certain of the (b) ( 7) (C) exemptions claimed -I' in Documents lf 2, 3 (pg. 3), and 4 (pgs. 5, 6, ll & 12). i (ii) The names of _....... Secret Service ""agents,...______....._,..,...,.,,_,......"''''··-,. other _ uw = ............---.. f~deral ---- law~en.Lo:t?ee·nrent:='a"g·errt.•s=and ___l&(:;.~~P/?~~~:i,£.L.<;L~Ra:s,.t;lp<;I1..~ ... ~±,'fi~e;:..:~.';~';,";•.J?,".en~~>iEQe-ted ....... ;[_~is essential that these names / remain an?nymous due to their involvement Ln investigating, I I prosecuting and monitoring criminal and protective intelli- l -· I gence cases. There can be little public benefit in having the identities of these persons made known to plaintiff. Although they are employed by a public agency, their individual duties and assignments are not public, Considerable damage could result to the public, and the activities of the agents and of·ficers could be hampered in that their work performance could be impeded through possible harrassment or 'l Release of these names might jeopardize countersurveillance. ., their effectiveness on current investigative assignments especially if the person is involved in any undercover assignments. In addition, there is also a legitimate privacy consideration to protect agents and police officers from I I ' unnecessary unofficial intrusion into their private lives by members of the public. The performance of la'" enforcement duties entails serious intrusions into the lives of people, - -- I _______.c=- ·- . . --- ·-·--- -·-·-- .....:=-:~:.-~-:::--~:--.:--:-.--.--.---.- . and many people hold grudges against the law enforcement . '• personnel involved in__a_ _ of their names could ~~This p~.fula~,irYyl!s_t_:($ation. possiblY.}.,E,e);_iiJ2.,~~~P.:i-)]Q.;o>ity Release t..?.Jo!_a2;~ =·-=== :;: : ·- ,_ . :<::: . .]?.§~:,_s..,...£",9~:t;.."'.e..:r.;,t,a;Lg_9_!_the justification is ithe ==» :::-==. (b) (7) (C) exemptions as claimed as to Docum"'"l]J;.s=if 2, 3 (pgs. l & 3), and 4 (pg. ll). r--·-
  34. 34. • NF:ss 04-6778 ' 15. I Finally, other portions of the requested material were wi thileld on the basis of the exemp'tion in -! section 552(b)(7)(E) ("(b")7)(E) exemption"), which covers investigative records compiled for law enforcement purposes ':"--:~-....-----,~~~,..,---":"':'"'=""'"~"':=--~-':'"'"· .,~~--=--~..-..........,- ... the disclosure of vlhich would reveal investigative techniques 0 ...,.........- '*'"::« •• -" :::::;._; = JC,,: ,~1 -.C.L.•-··••• (,.:t. ,_.~<~-...~-·: -::"":""'::""--;--~""1"··--:.-·!"•-=.--..,-·":.·:··-·.~.-. · ---·. and procedures not commonly known to the public. ~J-· t-= --~...::.~---·· -- ·· - __ ,. _______ .,,.,.~..:;:-~-::'~-'=-~:--_,...,-;---- The deleted ~.-.aa .. ; ... s.;;tlt •. :;; ... _sr=M > ,,...,,. information involves material pertaining to actual operational --------=-=·"""-===,.·=-~~--==--=-=~l-'' .........:l~:o------ --=r~~ details of l' a special investigative technique and ·procedure. ~·tle­ ferences to routine. investigative techniques and procedures _, ·= --·- -· --,_~-=.::--:-'"'-"::::-·:.:;~~;.. .. ~-::;;>::-.::.;.-. =..:::;:-;.•:::.·~~-":.7.,-."'--·:-o-..· =;,- o·.7"- .,:,cc· . • ... . ·--,-:·.;···· ·-.-. ·: ..•.•, __ • such as the existence of an undercover surveillance, were n ~ ~-~~~--x~~~~~·-.~-.~===a======xo-=c:~~=:~~====~za~~Rd~ deleted. Disclosure of this deleted material would impede the usefulness and effectiveness of the operations of the The nature of this investigatory technique Secret Service. C::::~;.. _ _..,.._ _ _ _ _ _~.,~~~G--0_.....,..:-.rt~f-~,.,....~.,.,..~":"t;..~~··~~=·,.,,;>r:"_....tl'~"''"':~::;<.l,L~j':'::".,,•_,.,--.,~, .. is such that it is not possible to explain it in a specific -11-----~-~-~~-~-=·---=·~==~-~~-..,C:..~~..:C~.Z:.....'-L~-~~-O."",~-:.!' •-• ,_• • "'·•c ' fashion without revealing its substance-:-· All·' 'th.aYinay·"b·e-~ . c •= .zu.-~. ·-·-- ~~-- .. ___ : ___- . said is that it is vital in the Secret Service's protective intelligence investigations and in performing our physical protective responsibilities, including assisting in the evaluations as to the seriousness of potential threats to the safety of persons being protected by the Secret Service. :Jo:a:,c.. ea:r.t •. _c::ti' 1-- .e:::s..• - ---L-- Jl .• - •. ··· -·· --~-- .. , --·--·~~---~---::-..--.:----,-- __ _ Moreover, disclosure of the deleted information would affect . ..,..,...=-=··~~~-·~--~..,.............-~-.---.-· . -- 11-~--~"""""~-_.,..,....,.~ i I the Secret Service's ability to obtain information pertinent to these investigations in the future. ..-• == = It also could prevent ..... "'":;,:.;··,;;,...--====·----.:.- the Secret Service from identifying individuals of interest to it. ,.... . viduals advance warning of evaluation criteria, thereby pos sibl,y influencing their future courses of action or statement ~ i I giv~n to investigating personnel. Finally, disclosure of -~~~~~~~---~~~~~~~ I. this withheld informat,ion would reveal certain procedures and· operational details of actual physical protective functions ~·-·--·-· .. -· I . l _____._-.-.............._.,.__ ,...,~-~~-~-,.,...,..~ ...-.,. .....,..,~-""""=-> ·-
  35. 35. 1. NF:ss 4/27/79 ,' I I "I were withheld entirely. None of the material withheld under this exemption pertains to plaintiff direc_!lO::.. _~ut rather involves techniques and procedures unique· to the "Secr*e"ta'Service' s protective duties. Disclosure of thi;·-- information utiliz~d by the Secret Service would reveal those areas which the agency deems of highest importance to it in its attempt to accomplish the mission of protecting the President and other persons for whom protection is authorized by law. This justification is the basis for certain of the (b)(7)(E) exemptions claimed as to Documents # l, 3 (pgs. l-3), and 4 (pgs. 2, 3, 9 & 10). - 16. tJ_..., --· ---~ ~tc .. _.1: ---·.- Based upon the foregoing, the defendants respectfully request that summary judgment be granted dismissing the complaint since there are no questions of material fact and the applicable laws have been fully complied with . -. ~.- .,_. u:z. m-.;:::::n:;;; Clia:Ji ·.. 1 MYR~ Executed this day of -I ' " . ·.' I 1979 I. WEINSTEIN
  36. 36. •• ; • EXHIBIT A •
  37. 37. DATE OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST .1. (Received) .. . 2. . ,; ..... . 5/20/76 DATE OF SECRET SERVICE RESPONSE SUBJECT OF REQUEST Any files concer~ing plaintiff . Documents (with deletions) forwarded to plaintiff . 4/6/77 4/15/77 Extension of time invoked . All 25 referred documents (in total) were released to plain tiff. List of documents re: JFK assassination. 5/20/77 6/9/77 Extension of time invoked. Plaintiff told Secret Service documents were fonvarded to him on 4/15/77; Third agency documents were referred to originating agencies for review and response to plaintiff. Declassify a document re: JFK assassination. 5/20/77 Pliintiff advised that document does not exist in Secret Service records. Destruction order re: request . 7/19/77 Administrative document illustrating negative search result forwarded to•plaintiff. Appea·l from 7/19/77 response. 8/16/77 Secret Service retention schedule forwarded (with deletions) . Appeal fro~ 8/16/77 response . 9/23/77 Upheld 8/16/77 response. 99 named documents re: (From CIA forwarding 2 5 Secret Service documents regarding plaintiff's request of CIA) 5/27/76 8/22/77 Specific 1larren Commission documents. '·· 3/2:</77 3. 5/2/77 4. 5/12/77 5. 6/29/77 . 8/12/77 • .,.;,. .,_ { .8/24/77 ~ .,.. • "'::,:=:-~ •·. 6. 8/10/77 above JFK assassination. ····: 9/5/77 (Received) 9/13/77 '.• " -----·- --- SECRET SERVICE ACTION TAKEN Appeal from 8/22/77 resp_onse, Appeal from 8/22/77 response. 10/26/77 Documents (with deletions) forwarded to plaintiff; Third agency documents referred to originati'ng agencies for review and response to plaintiff. Documents (with deletions) forwarded to plaintiff; upheld exemp_tions claimed. ,. --------.
  38. 38. L.:-~~-- DATE r. OF~PLAENTIFF'S SUBJECT OF REQUEST REQUEST Documents concerning Marita Lorenz. RESPONSE~ SECRET SERVICE ACTION TAKEN 1/24/78 Plaintiff advised that documents do not exist in Secret Service records. list of documents re: JFK assassination. 4/21/78 Plaintiff advised that Secret Service processed requested documents which were returned to and available through FBI. Same as above. 7. 1/18/78 8. DATE OF SECRET SERVICE 5/19/78 Same as ~FBI (Rec,"ived) 4/7/78 (Treasury Deparment Hemo forwarding plaintiff's 4/7/iB request which was also sent to Treasury) 5/16/78 above.~ 1'"-, ~ Documents pertaining to visit to Chicago on 11/1/63. . 5/23/78~ Documents concerning Marita Lorenz. 6/14/78 ~ . 9/19/78 JKF~'~s 5/2/78 10. 4/21/78 Appeal from 4/21/78 response. 9. 4/8/78 (Received) 6/1/78 Newsfilm re: 11. 9/5/78 -· ----~·-r- JFK Assassinatiori. Documents (with deletions forwarded to plaintiff. ~ i '! " }' Documents (with~ deletions) ..•...· ( l• forwarded to plaintiff; upheld exemptions claimed .. Same response as 1/24/78.· Plaintiff advised to contact originator for approval.
  39. 39. ···.v ' ~: ' .; .·.- .... I '1 ( ' .. EXHIBIT B
  40. 40. '. I I ,. - I r. . iii.. _.~ INDEPENDENT RESEARC-. ,...,.... -. . I . H As.::') 0 cIA T Es -! 6 BLEECKER STREET. NEW YORK CITY 10012. . . PHONE. AJ WEBERMAN (212) 477-6243 fo( /fA 5t:C . DEC 2 3 197R U5.5"5' VJASH 1 De '' . -- .. : 1 1/flOtK f!ioUtJ(ot1S for /fit fUl:. I )lf;r//J ft;tl'{ pD{__Ul1 &J(J 0 ;J A{iff! 5 r/LM tJtf.t?f:(!fl !l;/ tJo tJ ;;_ cn 11 y 1r1-f !lt0? /f'rU_-' J Z- 1-IU1 tflf£JA'C~Y :J-YrX:llrt-tO ;jl 1)0CUJ1./;;{P(S . · ff:/L1 ft ( tJ!;)(r 1:1 [H/r_ Su -C/1-CcJ~ jJ 1r to 1'1 f! 7t~t::_ /tlC{f){:;;J[ 1r o;J qjJ(/~ Atlv 11Cf 5·urJJtQuKiJr /t(l (_ t s1_ (}; y 1l-{ (c__ tJ'{ f 0 ' A tJ'-1. D c u M (v(/J{ { 6 D~f;{.~Uu lr. f./J( [(r-~J u&;lf-r_corJ p{/(Lf"i.l'L ~?;, 1' tJi [) 0. · .. I/ 1 I / :1 : 1.1 · . vv l(j_ iN _.( (...-- -c,o [;JCU(L (lu'!:aL- ALL co<;-r_sS£/'rf:O(-J DJfLACf((or-J· 1 . fi.M ·-- . v,;;_ 1/1- L[ )k:cc~/'/)'/ ·;~ . ---:;/7 _..~flU ~ //~ ~ ' / · lil;0'r1 ~~~:p~5f-~ 'lori<,_c?f( ~· / /( ., . 7 Q"'': ,lin l" r r.!,;:. I .. I ·:·~. c:~m:J ::1 :-:.•., '1:,; {'-;:01'/ · ··. :·'1 • l, l':H9 ..... ~ .. . " ti'-~
  41. 41. .. SWBJECT FILE .;;·· • :--!~ ··.:;: U.S. SECRET SERVICE 800.7 I78-05124 · . ··'· .j ;,... ·.:.:.;.:.:. -- I '• J A ' 1 • ' . J. ·:. ~-. ·.~ ...... -"·: : '{t'''?·' ·~- .:.~.:~:~. :~::;:~.;;:·:~~t.!.~f.~(-~I~~;:~~·~;;]~t Reference is made to your letter pursuant to the Freedom of Informa~ .. t 1.on A ct.. , . . ...... ·...·.• ...., , ... , ......... __ ,,, ;·~_..:-;::-.,.,< ~· .. ,--·. ~ ' • ·'. Enclosed are cb'p1es of Secret Servl ce documents whfch pertain' to you.;,_"~'''->'·'. Some documents have been withheld from disc"losure and others have had ·· · · :·;. information deleted from them because they contain investigatory'- .:-:,"~='~:;•::·!:,_,,· informatf::>r. compiled for law enforcement purposes. Pursuant to THh: ;.·. 5, United States Code, Section 552(b)(7)(C), (E) and (F). they have :h•:··.Y been exempted since disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion .....·. . of personal privacy to other persons mentioned in the requested fi1e; -~~~;:.,:c"·>J),:disclose inv<:stigative techniques and procedures and endanger the life. ;>-.;: ;:.. ···or physical aafety of law enforcement personnel. Some deletions have .Ji·,;, ',~·L?'':.. .'been made in accordance with Title 5, United States Code, Section ·.·; · .. ~ .-:. · p:·::.~:.: 552(b)(2) as information thatpertains solely to the internal rules · · ·· ,., .. ;,~.1-;:;.c~'; · .· and practices of the agency. The citations of the above exemptions··.'-"'":'',;o;'.l.''':i'···: ).<yo-·". ·•e. are not· to be construed as the only exemptions which .may_be. available · ·.·, ·.' .. •, :.1' ; under the Freedom of Information Act. ·· · ' ·· ... J ... :;. ·-~ :·i;}"' ;1.:··'·~- :i.~ ·-;,· :.·-' ·:: •· Sincerely, ':1."''''1. ·•.!""t. ' .;.:.:;:._.:.:(;/:);;...- •)- .... ~··· · Hn :.: Ua~ ATSAIC ., _ · ~y/Jl:B~~ ..~ ~~ - ... ~ -~ If you disagree with our determination, you have the right of administrative appeal vlithin 35 days by vlriting to Freedom of Information Appeal, Deputy Director, U.S. Secret Service, 1800 G Street, N.W., Room 944, Washington, D. C. 20223. :;. . ,;, J. Bacherman Fraedom of Information & Privacy Acts Officer .· .- ..._.; . .... ··. - . :~ :-~.. -·~. :; -- -~~ · .. ' ,._ .
  42. 42. ~;,.Y '·-~·.:;;.' .,. ., ·. ,·_. '··::<··
  43. 43. .~ ~ - .. - . .- ~~. .. - - ~ r:e -~ . INDEPENDEI!TYORK CITY 10012. PHONE· RESEARCH ASSOC IAT E.S 6 BLEECKER STREET. NEW ' . . · AJ WEBERMAN (212) 477·6243 f.o f(fA )f:C- U5~5 j •.. I ' . i WIAJ!ft De_ f. T /;J/J!{ Cr:J ltrfilrL 1)6-(tj(HtwvAJ{{otr-1 o~ (I£ Jt 4-+o L. fv t jrfi 1 t r;z l:dM 55 to r,; . r?ll--rto 1-J!tt07! 2.A.~Y · ,1f:Ji(vi-S!'_ vAs · f_ot /fA ---fol/4. /3. I . i ' i' (Zf_lS( '-{{:;;) 1:1{0 A ~L- DtLUY! rfr/TJ )/U7 JVS( jotrl.iA.f'()C (;JC.JtJtf:;v( or.Jr.£S. {IJC f/l.(fcc/-..---5. I (Zrf:.C,} r/lj160 Curl'C V"yL 1--HN jf.:!-'7 (0 ((t ((t.Uoc AC(or-J o~ r-'1 fltxra c f/i£(Z.Vf.t( r-r ~(iolll.() Bt ~Tt.-0 ~f:0l_uVs1J -r (rJ . f'(O{~NL-- I ' ' ·i aiL ;VcJ7 Jl/!o! c...-:r ?:. . US5...f f'[(OL.{;Jj /nrir u;JU~t: f1}( ;J'/f[) (?(1../3).){UJ, ff(IS<Ii 711rr; orJif(dJ (li. yv 5"Mi l/-5. ·tt'!'ft?!IYVf f.,:f{:rJ5 t fL.5& 5 t/0 i)OC.S I (i{QV! tflib,VO L• [(frPJ~fl /tt;ti1~ .
  44. 44. --. .•
  45. 45. , --~ . • ~ . ·. ·' .. _INDEPENDENT RESEARCH AS 6 BLEECKER STREET . NEW YORK • fo ((f!t U5f5 . . en 1 I :1 { c- T ... S 0. CIA T ES PHONE: AJ WEBERMAN (212) 477-62 43 r • co 1J~Jl ' 1 ,,:, .: . · ltf(fi+L 1)61t!(H(wtl'({tav-J u~ df 4-4--o 2. fo l f4, fJ; Q f:yf(Lt_SJ f;;J / rJ /;Jif!{ (/_ {_ • ~' ..;· )f;c_ Wflif~ De i 10012 r·-: .L /r US5_f L7/(_ .r7!1--rto 1-Yt1rl7j . ., i .. I l ' -' . .: (ov-'1Af0t A L- L- (;VC(r)rf::;v( DeL(/,''( (:: r/fJ )JU7 7VS( orJLS . 1rJC ffl-l({c.f'5. c..· I .· I (Z£ Q '-4~) -(I{_ 0 . 13. I (!{;Cy vi:j 160 CcJrl'C i/t/- 1--HM .)f:-r-7 (cJ -;J'/( D ((t. (?I(;Uoc A({o~ u{-- · ;vt-'{ pa-ro c P6rZVJ~f{ ?. T( Gt: (/JvTtf-0 [Hf77 utJUV:t t-t-Y (?(lf:.IAOJj / Y rtJC(;;v'rJ L• ff(lJtfl_ 7<11f urJtC 5ffoUL() (1fc.Ju~;1S ;;J f(O(jlf!C (U.J (l-1. :[D 5'A'f~ )5 Cfi'frJI/Yibr(J f{( Ou!JJ f.Yf'krJJ ( f'L5 ( 5 fv'O 1)0<'-S 7 (lfQV<J [(61'/tl) : ( /f! /1 11.,·
  46. 46. • ....... . ·.;~· ., < :.~~ .·.I . • u' .~- .... ' I 1 "' - .: :-••.( <l" : : ;,. ~ ..;.1-~·-~.r ~· ..... I '· j ,__ '•, . '"'.... I j. !.. ' ---!!..:'.l ·••···~r• !. ~·~~ ''•. ,
  47. 47. • ··.r ..._. I
  48. 48. ... .< • . - .. L cIA T Es fo f/fA UffJ Vltff1 r rJ [ /. [/JV!}(;j( 1 f!(oJr5(JrJ 1f- p~)VACY ACT '' . . 6 BLEECKER SlflEET. NEW YORK CITY 10012. PHONE·· AJ WEBERMAN (212)'477·62 43 ' j _·. INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ASSO I J _: 1 : ' (t {:/'!/; b- t ;J;J ;J}yV1 jtC{A-rJ -:TULt.J D 6{] Po~ I 'I S· 2 &:, . · fJYC:- /.Lf,w.V :;1-7 L 0 oc 0 n t::: ;AJcs / vJf:_(5£y(_rtArJ <fs: ss if oC::/1- 3 G. ~ '831-+-- ,
  49. 49. • -· i • .. .·· _ ·:··":'_:l,··.: ...... ·- -·--................. . 1'•-v:J:>C>;o,"');a''~"'~~·'-"'<'i~~ h:.....~~-~!!~.tr~~::::~.h.;:~+-~~ ;.•·: I . . , . . ' I ~;,."'.."·c~~.~··:'~;;;~::•~~.-."~'"., ,. ........,._._ !··- ;~t~:-~!~~~~~:·-~ .- :·· 1• ·,.:.,i :: .• •••-.. '•&;'-~~ .::;:-:,_,.y.;~,~~.. . . . . .... ·.·-·~~- . . ,......... --~~iL~~~.:.L. ~ ,,.._ ~ ' L,· ,. • •0 :~~~~~~ ;:;;;..· '" "':;~~':'}..:.:··" .·L· ;;:l. :_;• ·' c ---- .0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' :') ~ 7- ~· """' ~ "" ;:::::::, Q;_ 'J ~ "(%. ~ ~ ~ - V ~ V ~ ::sc ~ 'V'-., ' ~ w ·, e::, '0 l~·~ ~· 0 ~ ~ !:. l' ~~ ~ i l .... ,. . r· ::, : ! .. ~:. ·•. :· I '• .. ·~ ··,,; ·'.
  50. 50. •• '··. 'I I •
  51. 51. . '· .-·.. -I I • • U.S. SECRET SERVICE 800.6 ., ,. .. :. ih ,. iS FEB 1979 :; ... '~ Hr. Alan Jules 1-leberli)m, c/o Independent Research·Associates 6 Bleecker Street ·"v·New York, Net'>" York 10012 f. ' ·•,i.!·•. Dear Mr •. ., Weber~n' .. Reference is made to your letters received January 16, January 26 and January 30, 1979, appealing a decision of Hr. William Bacherman, Freedom of Information Officer, United States Sec~·et Service, denying you certain info=ation under the Freedom of Inforreation Act and requesting files under the Privacy Act. Treasury regulations regarding administra. ti ve appeals of... initial denials by the UnL!:ed States Secret · Service vest the revie>v- authority in the Deputy Director of tho Secret Service (31 Code 0f Federal Regulations, Subtitle A, Part 1, Appendix D and 40 Federal Register 49089, dated October 21, 1975). . ' ~ •, .. The r<words and correspondence pertinent to your appeal· have been revie,;ed. I have determined that the exemptions claimed by P~. Bacherman in his letter of January 4, 1979 were proper. The Secret Service records contain investigatory .information compiled for law enforcement purposes. Pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, Subsection (b) .,. (7) (C) and (E), information is being vithheld since disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invi'l.sion of personal privacy, · or disclose investigative techniques and procedures. In addition, pursuant to Subsection (b) (2}, Secret Service 'information is being v1ithheld since it contains matters relating solely to internal awninistrative procedures. I have also determined that cartain information in the files may be properly disclosed to you. 'l'he documents containing that information are enclosed with this letter. ·' ·t •• ,~· ..... ~·~··
  52. 52. • • •. . ,, As to your letter regarding the disclosure of inform~­ tion under the Privacy Act, the system of records, from which information is requested, is exempt from the Act pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a(K) (3). Therefore, to proviue you with the greatest access, your request both initially and on appeal has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act. I • ~·- ..... .• . . Any denial on appeal 1s subject to judicial review in the District Court in the district where the complainant ·resides, has a principal place of business, or in which the ~~ency records are situated, or in the District of Col Ul'J.bia. '! ~ ~- •• For the purpose of appeals of initial denials under the Freedom of Information Act, the undersigned is the official mak1ng thi.s determination for the U!~ited States Secret Service. · ·· ... •' llyron I. Weinstein Deputy Director ; .• I .-.. Encl. cc: FOIA Office MD,:ROG:JEVezeris:db : . 2/13/79
  53. 53. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x ALAN JULES WEBERMAN, Plaintiff, - against - 79 Civ. 779 (LWP) UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, · Pro' 'Se Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR .. . SUMMARY 'JUDGMENT . ... · .... . ROBERT B. FISKE, JR. United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Attorney for Degendant NANCY E. FRIEDMAN Assistant Unied States Attorney - Of Counsel -
  54. 54. NF:bj E-171 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -x • ALAN JULES WEBERMAN, Plaintiff, - against - 79 Civ. 779 (LWP) UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES SECRET SE_ VICE, R Pro Se Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION I'OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Preliminary Statement Defendants United States Secret Service ("Secret Service") and its Director, H.S. Knight , submit this memorandum of law, the accompanying Rule 9(g) Statement and the declaration of Myron I. Weinstein, Deputy Director of the Secret Service (the "Weinstein Declaration"), dated May 3, -- 1979, in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint which was filed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. § 552 ("FOIA' 1 ) , and the Privacy Exhibit H to the Weinstein Declaration is submitted in response to plaintiff's motion under Vaughn v~ Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D . C. Cir. 1973), for an indexing of the requested documents which have been withheld or released with deletions . .. '
  55. 55. NF:bj E-171 As demonstrated in the accompanying Weinstein Declaration, the Rule 9(g) Statement and the authorities cited herein, there are no questions of material fact, the i defendants have complied fully with their responsibilities under the law, and consequently summary judgment should be granted dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff, in a document entitled "Answer to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, "·A- correctly concedes in paragraph 3 that the Secret Service is exempt from the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C . § 552a(k)(3) (exemption for records "mail).tained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or other individuals pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 3056].") Accordingly, plaintiff's requests to the Secret Service for documents and his complaint herein have been construed as seeking materials under the FOIA only. Consequently, this motion addresses only that statute. * No such motion has been made by defendants. Plaintiff, ar£ se , apparently is confused by the defendants' affirmative ense in their answer dated M arch 21, 1979. -2-
  56. 56. NF:bj E-171 Statement of Facts The facts giving rise to this action, the materials requested, the disclosures made and the exemptions relied ' ; upon all are explained fully in the Weinstein Declaration, and the Court is respectfully referred thereto. A brief summary of these matters is set forth below for the Court's convenience. Plaintiff requested, by letter dated December 23, 1978 (the "December Request"), pursuant to the FOIA (and Privacy Act), that the Secret Service disclose to him "any and all documents on [himself]", "especially ... documents pertaining - to the so-called 'tomatoe incident' on 9/13/78 and [his] subsequent arrest by the NYPD. Any documents dealing with revocation of [his] pistol permit by NYPD . " See Exhibit B to the Weinstein Declaration. By letter dated January 4, 1979, the Secret Service d.isclosed portions of the requested material and, as to the withheld material, the agency cited several of the FOIA exemptions covering· investigative material compiled for law enforcement purposes and the ex~mption covering information pertaining solely to· internal rules and practices of the agency. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(2), (b)(7). Weinstein Declaration. -3- • See Exhibit C to the
  57. 57. NF:bj E-171 By letter dated January 12, 1979, received by the Secret Service Deputy Director by regular mail on January 16, 1979 and by certified mail on January 30, 1979 (receipt no. 989321) (each referred to herein as the "Appeal Letter"), plaintiff appealed this initial determination. See Exhibits D and E to the Weinstein Declaration. Plaintiff, also sent to the Secret Service by certified mail (receipt no. 989322) another letter, this one dated January 18, 1979 and postmarked January 23, 1979 ("January 18 Letter"). Declaration. See Exhibit F to the -Jeinstein This letter, the only one on which plaintiff appears to base his complaint, requested under the Privacy Act the very same documents plaintiff had sought in his December Request. Consequently, the Secret Service, upon receipt of this January 18 Letter, treated it as part of plaintiff's pending appeal and forwarded it to the Deputy Director's office for inclusion in the December Request proceeding. · By letter dated February 13, 1979, the Secret Service responded to plaintiff's appeal by disclosing several additional documents and again explaining to plaintiff the exemptions relied upon as to the deleted or withheld material. See Exhibit G to the Weinstein Declaration. Thus, of the seventeen pages which were encompassed by plaintiff's December Request and January 18 Letter, plaintiff received eleven pages (with some deletions), as indicated in Exhibit H to the Weinstein Declaration . • -4-
  58. 58. NF:bj E-171 Plaintiff never filed an administrative appeal regarding the lack of response to the January 18 Letter. ARGUMENT The defendants submit and will demonstrate below that the Weinstein Declaration and the accompanying exhibits, including an index of requested documents with explanations of the reasons for deletions · 6r non-disclosure, -- ~ atisfies its burderi of proof under FOIA and that the exemptions claimed as to the requested documents are fully justified. POINT I THF WEINSTEIN DECLARATION SATISFIES THE DEFENDANTS' BURDEN OF PROOF ON THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEETS THEIR BURDEN UNDER VAUGHN v. ROSEN This is a case where the Secret Service has ucted promptly and in total good faith. Not only were many of the requested documents turned over to p.laintiff_ in the first instance, but on administrative review, additional material was disclosed. The Weinstein Declaration and the index appended thereto as Exhibit H demonstrate that there is no issue of .material fact as to the withheld records and that the Secret Service's claimed exemptions are valid. -5-
  59. 59. ·---NF:bj E-171 n a. FOIA suit, the burden is on the Government to justify any withholding of requested agency records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). The defendants have met their burden of proof in this case by submitting an itemized index of each page of the requested documents with an explanation of the exemptions relied upon as to any deletions or nondisclosures. The items in the index then are cross-referenced to the Weinstein Declaration. Mink v. Environmental Protection Agency, 410 U.S. 73,_ 92-92 (197 3.) ; Mead Data Central,._, Inc. v. United States Department of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977) . Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F . 2d 820, 826-27 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Shaver v. Bell, 433 F . Supp. 438 (N.D. Ga. 1977). This index satisfies Vaughn since the Court there held that the Government's index "would not have to contain fact:ual descriptions that if made pub ~ic would compromise the secret nature of the information, but could ordinarily be composed without excessive reference to the actual la.nguage of the documents." Vaughn v. Rosen, supra, 484 F.2d at 826-27. The Weinstein Declaration and the accompanying index (Exhibit H) more than suffice to enable the Court to resolve .... the legal issues presented. See, ~· Mead Data Central, Inc. v. Department of the Air Force, supra, 566 F. 2d at 250-51. -6-
  60. 60. NF:bj E-171 POINT II THE SECRET SERVICE'S CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION UNDER 5 U.S.C . § 552(b)(2) ARE FULLY JUSTIFIED Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) e xempts from FOIA's ..disclosure requirements information solely pertaining to the internal rules and practices of an agency . Pursuant to this exemption the Secret Service deleted from the documents released to plaintiff all .. the · internal administrative file numbers, identifier numbers and other markings used for the purpose of storing, locating, identifying or classifying information in its Intelligence Division's physical files and electronic data system. Weinstein Declaration, ~ 13. The defendants submit that such markings are properly exempt from disclosure. The (b)(2) exemption permits the withholding of · routine "housekeeping" matters, as opposed to matters subject to "a genuine and significant public interest." .._ Dep't of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 364, 369-70 (1976) ; Vaughn v~ Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136, 1143 (D.C. Cir. 1975). With respect to the documents in issue in this case, there can be no public interest in the deleted non-substantive administrative markings . M aroscia v . Levi, 569 F . 2d 1000, 1001-02 (7th Cir. 1977) . -7-
  61. 61. ·----NF:bj E-171 Moreover, in . the seminal case of Department of the Air Force v. Rose, the_ Supreme Court emphasized that disclosure should not be made where it would "risk circumvention of agency regulation." ..... 425 U.S. at 366-67, 369. Accord r~ aplan v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, slip. No. 78-6097 (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 1978), at 156-58. Disclosure of the presently deleted administrative markings would permit the public's interference with the Secret Service's computer and electronic recordkeeping systems, which are instrumental in its performance of its law enforcement functions. Such disclosure clearly would "risk circumvention of agency regulation'', and should not be granted. Capl·a n, supra. The withholding of the administrative markings in issue here has been specifically approved by several courts with regard to Secret Service documents. ~. Boyce v. Deputy Director, et al., slip. op., Civ. Action No. 78-84 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 1978), a copy of which is attached for the Court's convenience; Cattano v. United States Secret Service, Civ. Action No. 78-1828 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 1978)(order). Therefore, the Secret Service's deletions of material meet the requirements of FOIA as to Documents # 2, 3, (p . 1, 2 & 3), and 4 (pages 1-12) to the extent that the Secret Service relies upon the (b)(2) exemption. -8-
  62. 62. NF:bj E-171 : POINT III THE SECRET SERVICE'S CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION UNDER 5 U.S.C. § . 5"52 (b) (7) ARE FULLY JUSTIFIED A. The Withheld Materials .Are Investigatory Records Compiled For Law Enforce. iiient· Purp·o s e·s·. · Section 552(b)(7) of the FOIA exempts from the act's disclosure requirements: "investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that production of such records would . . . {C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ... (E) disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or (F) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel." It can hardly be disputed that the records of the Secret Service are investigatory materials compiled for law enforcement purposes. The primary duty of the Secret Service is a law enforcement function to protect the President of the United States and other authorized persons. To do so, records are kept for investigations of individuals who are or may be a threat to· persons being protected. See Tarnopol v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 442 F. Supp. 5, 7 (D.D.C . 1977) . The issue confronting the Court is simply whether the further requirements set forth in the subsections of (b)(7) are met as to the deletions based upon these exemptions. The Secret Service respectfully submits that these requirements are met as described below and that no further disclosure is required. -9-
  63. 63. NF:bj E-171 B. The Secret Service's Deletion of the Names and Other Identifying Data on Investigative Subjects, Secret Service Agents And Other Law Enforcement Agents Was Proper Under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(F) The Secret Service deleted the names and other identifying information on third party subjects of investigation, Secret Service agents and other law enforcement personnel. These deletions are justified under the FOIA exemptions in subsections 552(b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(F), as discussed below. As the quotation at page 9 above reveals, the (b)(7)(C) exemption covers material disclosure of which would be an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Analysis of this exemption must be with reference to a similar provision in section 5SZ(b) (6), which protects from release personnel, medical and similar records whose disclosure "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." See Deering Milliken, Inc. v. Irving, 548 F.2d 1131, 1136 n.7 (4th Cir. 1977) (emphasis added.) In order to determine whether disclosure of the personal material would constitute an "unwarranted" invasion of personal privacy, the Court must consider and balance, on the one hand, the public's (the requester's) interests in discl6sure as against the subject individual's privacy interests, - _pn the other hand. 352, 372 (1976). Department of Air Force v. · Rose, 425 U.S . The (b) (7) (C) ex.emption extends this balancing tes.t to the area of investigatory records. In light of Congress' omission of the word "clearly" in the -10-
  64. 64. ·---· NF:bj E-171 (b)(7)(C) language, as compared to the (b)(6) phrasing, Congress indicated that the (b)(7)(C) exemption should be - available to protect investigatory records more often than the (b) (6) exemption. · Dee·r ing· Milliken, · Inc. v. Irving, supra, 548 F. 2d at 1136 n. 7; Providen·c e· Jour'n'al Co. v. Federal Bu:r-e·a u · f· Ihvest'i ga·t ·i ·o n, 460 F. Supp. 778, 786-87 o (D.R. I. 1978). Numerous courts have held that it is proper under (b)(7)(C) to delete names and other identifying data of third party subjects of investigation from materials released from !-law enforcement investigatory records. ~. Maro·s ica v. Le~. · ·s upra, 569 F. 2d at 1002; Boyce v. · Deputy Dire·c tor, slip. op., ) Civil Action No. 78-84 (D . D.C. Oct. 25, 1978); Tarn·o pol v. · Fe·deral Bureau· of· Investigation, supra, 442 F. Supp. at 7; Shaver v. Bell, 433 F. Supp. 438, 440 (N.D. Ga. 1977). In each of these cases the strong privacy interest of the named third party subjects was found to outweigh any public interest in their 'identity. In the cases at bar, the outcome of the balancing test is even clearer in favor of non-disclosure since plaintiff fails t~ cite any predominant public interest in the documents regarding· his activities.~·~ Plaintiff's curiosity cannot outweigh the subject individuals' interest in avoiding publicity that might cause embarrassment. See Weinstein Declaration, 1 14(i). * It is reiterated that the Privacy Act does not apply in this case. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(3). -11- l
  65. 65. NF:bj E-171 The balancing ·test applies equally to the privacy interest of . the Secret Service's agents and other law enforcement officers whose names and other identifying data have been deleted from the released material. See, ~, Tarnopol v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, supra, 442 F. Supp. at 8, and cases cited in the preceding paragraph. As explained in the Weinstein Declaration, disclosure of these agents and other law enforcement officers' names and personal information may ... - lead to harassment or other interference with their privacy. Rafter v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, slip. op., 77 Civ. 1131 (S.D.N.Y., Frankel, J. July 21, 1977), aff'd without opini·o n, Dkt. No. 77-6186 (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 1978) ,* a copy of which is attached hereto. Moreover, thus far plaintiff has demonstrated no public interest as a basis for his request for such personal information. See Weinstein Declaration, , 14(ii). Compare Columbia Packing Co. v. Department of Agriculture, 417 F. Supp. 651, 655 (D. Mass. 1976), aff'd, 563 F.2d 495 (1st Cir~ 1977). It is noted in passing that additional support for non-disclosure of the Secret Service agents or other law enforceme~t officers' names is found in section 552(b)(7)(F) since such disclosure might endanger these persons' lives or physical safety. ~, Maroscia v. Levi, supra, 569 F.2d at 1002; Providence Journal Co. v. FBI, supra, 460 F. Supp. at 792; Shaver v. Bell, supra, 433 F. Supp. at 441. -12-
  66. 66. NF:bj E-171 · It thus is clear that the limited deletions from the requested materials, pursuant to (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(F), as described in the Weinstein Declaration, ,~ 14(i), (ii), are justified. C. The Secret Service's Deletions From The Requested Material To Avoid Revealing Investigative Techniques Or Procedures Is Fully Justified Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) Exemption (b)(7).(E) protects from disclosure under the FOIA "investigative techniques and procedures". Malloy v. United States Department of Justice, 457 F. Supp. 543, 545 (D.D.C. 1978); Ott v. Levi ~ 419 F. Supp. 750, 752 (E.D. Mo. 1976). In this case, the Secret Service has relied on this exemption to withhold material that cont~ins discussions of investigative techniques not generally known to the public and to withhold detailed information about the Secret Service's actual • operational details in this connection. See Weinstein Declaration, , 15. As recently as October 25, 1978, these very matters were protected from disclosure by Judge Smith ~ he District Court for the District of Columbia in Boyce v. Deputy Director, supra, slip. op. at 4-5. Disclosure of these operational details and unknown investigative techniques and procedures, which continue in use, would permit the subjects of Secret Service investigations to -the ta~e steps to circumvent agency's protection of the President and other persons. · Thus, releas~ of the contested matt.e r would diminish the Secret Service's effectiveness. This result is clearly contrary to Congress' intent, . as evidenced not only by this -13-
  67. 67. NF:bj E-171 exemption in the FOib, but also the specific exemption covering the Secret Service in the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(3). Consequently, the Secret Service submits that its J assertion of the ' (b)(7)(E) exemption has been adequately justified and should be sustained as to the documents listed in the Weins t ein Declaration, , 15. * CONCLUSION The defendants have met their burden of proof herein and there are no questions of material fact Plaintiff is entitled to nb ··rurther 'dis-closure and, accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted at this time. Dated: New York, New York May 4, 1979 Respectfully submitted, ROBERT B. FI SKE, JR. United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Attorney for Defendant NANCY E. FRIEDMAN Assistant United States Attorney - Of Counsel - In the foregoing discussions, the January 18 Letter * has been construed as part of appeal on the December Request. Insofar as plaintiff may con.t.end ~. Qr his complaint may be construed to assert that the J anuary 18 Letter is a separate request for information, plaintiff's complaint nevertheless should be dismissed. Pl§l_ntiff has never filed an appeal from i the_P ecre~ Service's JTebruary 13, 1979 response to said letter. ~ herefore, plaintiff has failed to exhau st his administrative remedies. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(6)(A)(ii), (C).

×