Ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou charged over leaks : An ex-CIA agent leaked the names of other covert operatives to the media, the US justice department said.
John Kiriakou is accused of disclosing the names of agents who interrogated a suspected al-Qaeda financier, who was allegedly waterboarded 83 times.
Prosecutors say the probe started after lawyers for suspected terrorists filed a legal brief including details not provided by the government.
Mr Kiriakou, 47, will appear in court in Alexandria, Virginia, on Monday.
He is suspected of leaking classified information to reporters, who in turn provided information to the defence teams of the suspected terrorists.
During a recent interview with the FBI, Mr Kiriakou denied releasing the identity of classified agents, according to a sworn affidavit.
In particular, Mr Kiriakou was asked whether he released to the New York Times in 2008 the name of an officer who helped interrogation of the suspected al-Qaeda financier, Abu Zubaydah.
Mr Kiriakou responded: "Heavens no," according to the affidavit.
Waterboarding revelation
Information about the interrogation, which took place in 2002, was classified at the time.
Mr Zubaydah was detained in Pakistan in 2002 and his case has been used as an example by critics of waterboarding as an interrogation technique.
The affidavit also alleges that photographs of the CIA agent who was involved in the interrogations were found in possession of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
In 2007, Mr Kiriakou said in an interview with ABC News that waterboarding had been used to break down Mr Zubaydah. He later worked as a consultant for the US news network.
He is also charged with lying to the CIA in order to publish a book, entitled The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror.
Mr Kiriakou was an agent with the CIA between 1990 and 2004.
"Safeguarding classified information, including the identities of CIA officers involved in sensitive operations, is critical to keeping our intelligence officers safe and protecting our national security,'' US Attorney General Eric Holder said, calling it a "solemn duty" not to reveal classified information.
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic ScholarLegalDocs
This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case regarding the denial of a visa for Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar. The three organizational plaintiffs claimed the denial violated their First Amendment right to have Ramadan share his views in the US. The government denied the visa because Ramadan had contributed funds to a charity that supported Hamas, which the government deemed material support to a terrorist organization. The Court of Appeals concluded that the consular officer who denied the visa did not properly confront Ramadan with the allegations, which prevented Ramadan from demonstrating that he did not know the charity supported terrorism. The Court vacated the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This document summarizes a court case regarding a same-sex couple challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. The court granted California's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Proposition 8. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury, or that their injury could be redressed by a favorable court decision, which are both requirements for standing. This was the second time the plaintiffs had brought similar challenges to the court regarding same-sex marriage bans.
FindLaw | Holocaust Museum Shooting Suspect's Murder ChargesLegalDocs
This criminal complaint charges James Wenneker Von Brunn with two counts related to a shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 10, 2009. According to the affidavit, Von Brunn drove to the museum armed with a rifle and shot and killed a security guard when he entered. He was then shot by other security guards and taken into custody. The complaint charges Von Brunn with first degree murder and killing in the course of possessing a firearm in a federal facility based on evidence that he planned and carried out the shooting.
Stephen Slevin vs. Board of County Commissioners - Lawsuit Against Jail for M...Umesh Heendeniya
Stephen Slevin (59) left in solitary confinement (by jail director Chris Barela and former medical director Dr. Daniel Zemek) in the Dona Ana County, New Mexico jail for 2 years gets $15.5 million lawsuit settlement.
The tax payers are on the hook for $9.5 million while the county's liability insurance carriers will pay $6 million.
Amend Complaint Docket No. 1:2011-CV-00240 Louis Charles Hamilton II vs. United States Attorney Office et al, CVS/Caremark and (UPS) United Parcel Services.
A blind mule is just that, but in the terms of criminal law, it is when a person asserts they did not know he was transporting contraband. This is where the defendant was charged when an FBI/DEA strike force arrested him. Darren Chaker
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility (Dismas) as a transition from federal prison, and agreed to follow its rules. However, the plaintiff admitted driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, in violation of the rules. As a result, he was returned to federal prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The brief argues the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims of false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence and constitutional violations, as the plaintiff cannot prove the elements of these claims or that
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. It alleges that the plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic ScholarLegalDocs
This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case regarding the denial of a visa for Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar. The three organizational plaintiffs claimed the denial violated their First Amendment right to have Ramadan share his views in the US. The government denied the visa because Ramadan had contributed funds to a charity that supported Hamas, which the government deemed material support to a terrorist organization. The Court of Appeals concluded that the consular officer who denied the visa did not properly confront Ramadan with the allegations, which prevented Ramadan from demonstrating that he did not know the charity supported terrorism. The Court vacated the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This document summarizes a court case regarding a same-sex couple challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. The court granted California's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Proposition 8. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury, or that their injury could be redressed by a favorable court decision, which are both requirements for standing. This was the second time the plaintiffs had brought similar challenges to the court regarding same-sex marriage bans.
FindLaw | Holocaust Museum Shooting Suspect's Murder ChargesLegalDocs
This criminal complaint charges James Wenneker Von Brunn with two counts related to a shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 10, 2009. According to the affidavit, Von Brunn drove to the museum armed with a rifle and shot and killed a security guard when he entered. He was then shot by other security guards and taken into custody. The complaint charges Von Brunn with first degree murder and killing in the course of possessing a firearm in a federal facility based on evidence that he planned and carried out the shooting.
Stephen Slevin vs. Board of County Commissioners - Lawsuit Against Jail for M...Umesh Heendeniya
Stephen Slevin (59) left in solitary confinement (by jail director Chris Barela and former medical director Dr. Daniel Zemek) in the Dona Ana County, New Mexico jail for 2 years gets $15.5 million lawsuit settlement.
The tax payers are on the hook for $9.5 million while the county's liability insurance carriers will pay $6 million.
Amend Complaint Docket No. 1:2011-CV-00240 Louis Charles Hamilton II vs. United States Attorney Office et al, CVS/Caremark and (UPS) United Parcel Services.
A blind mule is just that, but in the terms of criminal law, it is when a person asserts they did not know he was transporting contraband. This is where the defendant was charged when an FBI/DEA strike force arrested him. Darren Chaker
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility (Dismas) as a transition from federal prison, and agreed to follow its rules. However, the plaintiff admitted driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, in violation of the rules. As a result, he was returned to federal prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The brief argues the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims of false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence and constitutional violations, as the plaintiff cannot prove the elements of these claims or that
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. It alleges that the plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
USA vs. Joe Rickey Hundley, by US District Court for N. GeorgiaUmesh Heendeniya
Joe Ricky Hundlely is accused of assaulting a 2-year old child on a Delta Airlines flight from Minneapolis to Atlanta. According to witness statements, Hundlely told the child's mother to shut her "N word" baby up, then turned and slapped the crying child in the face, leaving a scratch below his eye. This occurred while the plane was in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, violating federal assault statutes.
The U.S. Department of State (DOS) agreed to implement new procedures designed to ensure the fair and prompt review of U.S. passport applications by Mexican Americans whose births in Texas were attended by midwives.
The procedural changes were the result of a settlement agreement following a class action lawsuit filed by a coalition of civil rights and legal organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, the international law firm Hogan & Hartson LLP, and Refugio del Rio Grande, Inc.
This document is an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant of a residence in Urbandale, Iowa as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. The affidavit provides background details on the investigation, which involves allegations of ongoing criminal conduct, conspiracy, solicitation, extortion, and witness tampering against Tracey Richter. It outlines a complex set of events involving Richter, her ex-husbands Dr. John Pitman and Michael Roberts, and a man named Dustin Wehde who was shot and killed by Richter in 2001 during an alleged home invasion.
This document is a joint scheduling report submitted to a federal court in the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON. It provides summaries of the plaintiff and defendants' positions. The plaintiff, a former federal inmate, alleges civil rights violations against a halfway house and its employees. He claims they unlawfully searched, arrested, and imprisoned him. The defendants contend the plaintiff violated the conditions of his home detention and was terminated from the halfway house program. No defenses have been asserted yet, as the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.
This joint scheduling report summarizes a civil case between plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu and defendants Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Lashota. Bujduveanu, a former federal inmate, alleges violations of his constitutional rights and other claims related to his imprisonment at Dismas Charities halfway house. The defendants contend that Bujduveanu violated the conditions of his home detention and was terminated from the halfway house program. A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants is pending. The parties disagree on the length of the trial and likelihood of settlement. They outline proposed discovery deadlines and trial dates in an attached schedule.
This document is a sentencing memorandum submitted on behalf of Edward Thiessen, who pled guilty to conspiracy charges. It argues that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate based on Thiessen's personal history and characteristics. It notes that Thiessen accepted responsibility early, cooperated extensively with investigators over several years, and has genuine remorse. The memorandum also highlights Thiessen's good character as demonstrated by his kindness, generosity, humility and dedication to his family. Given these factors and Thiessen's status as a foreign national, the defense argues a non-custodial sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary.
This complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina by Howard K. Stern as the executor of Anna Nicole Smith's estate against Stancil "Ford" Shelley, G. Ben Thompson, and unnamed defendants. It alleges that less than 24 hours after Smith's death, Shelley entered her Bahamas home without authorization, removed numerous personal and private items, and provided some of these items to media outlets. The complaint brings causes of action related to the unauthorized removal and distribution of Smith's personal property.
This order grants default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Igor Malenko, in a lawsuit against Lori Handrahan. The court found that Handrahan made repeated false allegations against Malenko, including claims of abuse, mental illness, and sexual abuse of their child. These false claims interfered with Malenko's parental rights and caused emotional harm to their child. The court awarded Malenko $450,000 in damages for his individual claims and $300,000 for claims brought on behalf of his minor child.
This document is a petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court of the United States by Wayne County, Michigan and several Wayne County employees. It seeks review of a Sixth Circuit decision involving a failure to protect claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, it raises three questions: 1) whether the Sixth Circuit improperly expanded "single-incident Monell liability"; 2) whether the court erred in its qualified immunity analysis; and 3) whether an individual can be found deliberately indifferent without a known victim. The petition provides background on the lower court decisions and argues each issue warrants Supreme Court review.
This document is a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court from Wayne County, Michigan and several of its employees who are defendants in a lawsuit. The petition asks the Supreme Court to review three questions: 1) Whether the appellate court improperly extended "single-incident liability" to the County in this case; 2) Whether the appellate court ignored an employee's qualified immunity defense; and 3) Whether individuals can be found deliberately indifferent to an unknown victim of a random attack. The petition provides background on the case and argues the appellate court decisions conflict with Supreme Court precedent.
Discriminatory Use of Criminal & Eviction Records in Rental ApplicationsEGDunn
The document discusses how denying rental housing applications based on criminal or eviction records can disproportionately impact protected classes like people of color and women. While safety and financial responsibility are legitimate concerns for landlords, simply rejecting applicants with any criminal or eviction history may not be justified and could violate fair housing laws by having an unjustified disparate impact. The document argues landlords must consider individual circumstances of an applicant's criminal or eviction history on a case-by-case basis to avoid unfairly discriminating against protected groups.
This document provides the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. It includes 11 disputed facts from the Plaintiff's motion. For each fact, the Defendants deny the Plaintiff's version and provide evidence from the affidavit of Ana Gispert supporting their denial. They assert that the Plaintiff violated the rules of his community corrections program by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Bureau of Prisons transferred the Plaintiff back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Citizenfour producers-face-legal-challenges-over-edward-snowden-leaksWaqas Amir
This document is a complaint filed in United States District Court against Edward Snowden, filmmakers involved in the documentary Citizenfour, and their production companies. It alleges that Snowden breached his security agreements and oath by stealing and disseminating classified government information. It further alleges that the filmmakers aided and abetted Snowden's illegal acts by collaborating with him to profit from the stolen information and cloak his actions as whistleblowing rather than espionage. The complaint seeks a constructive trust over profits from Citizenfour to remedy damage to national security and unjust enrichment by the defendants.
Citizenfour producers-face-legal-challenges-over-edward-snowden-leaksWaqas Amir
A lawsuit has been filed against The Weinstein Co., Participant Media and others for aiding and abetting Edward Snowden, the American whistleblower, according to hackread.com.
The document is a complaint filed in United States District Court by 20 U.S. states against the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies and officials. The complaint challenges DHS's new parole program that allows up to 360,000 aliens annually from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter the US and receive work authorization for up to two years. The plaintiff states argue the program exceeds DHS's limited parole authority and was established without proper rulemaking procedures. They claim the program will cause them irreparable harm by allowing large numbers of additional aliens to enter their states. The complaint asks the court to declare the program unlawful and enjoin its implementation.
This document is a criminal information charging Jason Michael Meyer with one count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering. Specifically, it alleges that between June 2007 and October 2009, Meyer devised a scheme to defraud investors and obtain money by false pretenses, including transferring $150,000 of investor funds by wire on August 27, 2007 under false pretenses. It also alleges that on July 17, 2009, Meyer engaged in a $150,000 monetary transaction involving criminally derived property from his wire fraud for a personal real estate down payment. If convicted, the document states Meyer would forfeit related proceeds and property involved in the money laundering.
Cia director grandiosity v. abilt justicePublicLeaks
This document is a declaration by John Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, asserting the state secrets privilege and CIA statutory privileges to prevent disclosure of classified information in a lawsuit brought by a former CIA employee. Brennan asserts these privileges to protect information about specific CIA intelligence operations, the identities and roles of covert employees, and sources and methods. He argues that disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to cause serious or grave damage to national security.
This document is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel opposing a motion to dismiss from Defendant Unigestion Holding. The letter argues that the complaint provides sufficient details about Unigestion's involvement in an alleged conspiracy to illegally impose fees on phone calls and money transfers to Haiti in violation of antitrust laws. The letter cites evidence from a New York Times article and videos showing an agreement was made between Unigestion and other defendants to fix prices. The letter also argues the complaint meets pleading standards and that dismissal would be improper at this stage.
The document is a detention order for Traian Bujduveanu, who is charged with conspiracy to export military parts to Iran without proper licensing. At a hearing, the court determined no bail conditions would reasonably assure his appearance at trial given: 1) the substantial evidence against him, 2) his extensive international business and travel ties, and 3) his ties to Romania, making him a flight risk. As a result, the court ordered him detained pending trial.
The document is a detention order for Traian Bujduveanu, who is charged with conspiracy to export military parts to Iran without proper licensing. At a hearing, the court determined no bail conditions would reasonably assure his appearance at trial given: 1) Substantial evidence against him including shipments of helicopter and fighter jet parts to Iran; 2) His ties to Romania as a naturalized citizen whose girlfriend is Romanian; and 3) Risk he could flee to Romania or continue his international aviation business abroad. The court ordered him detained pending trial.
COUNT 4 - CONSPIRACY TO MURDER (For UIE...Criminal Complaint)VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA’S A/K/A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S CONFEDERATES, KU KLUX KLAN, WHITE SUPREMACISTS/ZIONISTS CONSPIRE TO HAVE THE UTICA INTERNATIONAL EMBASSY’S INTERIM PRIME MINISTER VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME ASSASSINATED AND/OR MURDERED
A search warrant filed in U.S. District Court, obtained by 7 Eyewitness News, reveals while in the Niagara County jail – James Stivers requested to quote “make a phone call to his sister in order to have her throw out his computer so that he could beat his case.”
USA vs. Joe Rickey Hundley, by US District Court for N. GeorgiaUmesh Heendeniya
Joe Ricky Hundlely is accused of assaulting a 2-year old child on a Delta Airlines flight from Minneapolis to Atlanta. According to witness statements, Hundlely told the child's mother to shut her "N word" baby up, then turned and slapped the crying child in the face, leaving a scratch below his eye. This occurred while the plane was in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, violating federal assault statutes.
The U.S. Department of State (DOS) agreed to implement new procedures designed to ensure the fair and prompt review of U.S. passport applications by Mexican Americans whose births in Texas were attended by midwives.
The procedural changes were the result of a settlement agreement following a class action lawsuit filed by a coalition of civil rights and legal organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, the international law firm Hogan & Hartson LLP, and Refugio del Rio Grande, Inc.
This document is an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant of a residence in Urbandale, Iowa as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. The affidavit provides background details on the investigation, which involves allegations of ongoing criminal conduct, conspiracy, solicitation, extortion, and witness tampering against Tracey Richter. It outlines a complex set of events involving Richter, her ex-husbands Dr. John Pitman and Michael Roberts, and a man named Dustin Wehde who was shot and killed by Richter in 2001 during an alleged home invasion.
This document is a joint scheduling report submitted to a federal court in the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON. It provides summaries of the plaintiff and defendants' positions. The plaintiff, a former federal inmate, alleges civil rights violations against a halfway house and its employees. He claims they unlawfully searched, arrested, and imprisoned him. The defendants contend the plaintiff violated the conditions of his home detention and was terminated from the halfway house program. No defenses have been asserted yet, as the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.
This joint scheduling report summarizes a civil case between plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu and defendants Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Lashota. Bujduveanu, a former federal inmate, alleges violations of his constitutional rights and other claims related to his imprisonment at Dismas Charities halfway house. The defendants contend that Bujduveanu violated the conditions of his home detention and was terminated from the halfway house program. A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants is pending. The parties disagree on the length of the trial and likelihood of settlement. They outline proposed discovery deadlines and trial dates in an attached schedule.
This document is a sentencing memorandum submitted on behalf of Edward Thiessen, who pled guilty to conspiracy charges. It argues that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate based on Thiessen's personal history and characteristics. It notes that Thiessen accepted responsibility early, cooperated extensively with investigators over several years, and has genuine remorse. The memorandum also highlights Thiessen's good character as demonstrated by his kindness, generosity, humility and dedication to his family. Given these factors and Thiessen's status as a foreign national, the defense argues a non-custodial sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary.
This complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina by Howard K. Stern as the executor of Anna Nicole Smith's estate against Stancil "Ford" Shelley, G. Ben Thompson, and unnamed defendants. It alleges that less than 24 hours after Smith's death, Shelley entered her Bahamas home without authorization, removed numerous personal and private items, and provided some of these items to media outlets. The complaint brings causes of action related to the unauthorized removal and distribution of Smith's personal property.
This order grants default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Igor Malenko, in a lawsuit against Lori Handrahan. The court found that Handrahan made repeated false allegations against Malenko, including claims of abuse, mental illness, and sexual abuse of their child. These false claims interfered with Malenko's parental rights and caused emotional harm to their child. The court awarded Malenko $450,000 in damages for his individual claims and $300,000 for claims brought on behalf of his minor child.
This document is a petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court of the United States by Wayne County, Michigan and several Wayne County employees. It seeks review of a Sixth Circuit decision involving a failure to protect claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, it raises three questions: 1) whether the Sixth Circuit improperly expanded "single-incident Monell liability"; 2) whether the court erred in its qualified immunity analysis; and 3) whether an individual can be found deliberately indifferent without a known victim. The petition provides background on the lower court decisions and argues each issue warrants Supreme Court review.
This document is a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court from Wayne County, Michigan and several of its employees who are defendants in a lawsuit. The petition asks the Supreme Court to review three questions: 1) Whether the appellate court improperly extended "single-incident liability" to the County in this case; 2) Whether the appellate court ignored an employee's qualified immunity defense; and 3) Whether individuals can be found deliberately indifferent to an unknown victim of a random attack. The petition provides background on the case and argues the appellate court decisions conflict with Supreme Court precedent.
Discriminatory Use of Criminal & Eviction Records in Rental ApplicationsEGDunn
The document discusses how denying rental housing applications based on criminal or eviction records can disproportionately impact protected classes like people of color and women. While safety and financial responsibility are legitimate concerns for landlords, simply rejecting applicants with any criminal or eviction history may not be justified and could violate fair housing laws by having an unjustified disparate impact. The document argues landlords must consider individual circumstances of an applicant's criminal or eviction history on a case-by-case basis to avoid unfairly discriminating against protected groups.
This document provides the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. It includes 11 disputed facts from the Plaintiff's motion. For each fact, the Defendants deny the Plaintiff's version and provide evidence from the affidavit of Ana Gispert supporting their denial. They assert that the Plaintiff violated the rules of his community corrections program by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Bureau of Prisons transferred the Plaintiff back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Citizenfour producers-face-legal-challenges-over-edward-snowden-leaksWaqas Amir
This document is a complaint filed in United States District Court against Edward Snowden, filmmakers involved in the documentary Citizenfour, and their production companies. It alleges that Snowden breached his security agreements and oath by stealing and disseminating classified government information. It further alleges that the filmmakers aided and abetted Snowden's illegal acts by collaborating with him to profit from the stolen information and cloak his actions as whistleblowing rather than espionage. The complaint seeks a constructive trust over profits from Citizenfour to remedy damage to national security and unjust enrichment by the defendants.
Citizenfour producers-face-legal-challenges-over-edward-snowden-leaksWaqas Amir
A lawsuit has been filed against The Weinstein Co., Participant Media and others for aiding and abetting Edward Snowden, the American whistleblower, according to hackread.com.
The document is a complaint filed in United States District Court by 20 U.S. states against the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies and officials. The complaint challenges DHS's new parole program that allows up to 360,000 aliens annually from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter the US and receive work authorization for up to two years. The plaintiff states argue the program exceeds DHS's limited parole authority and was established without proper rulemaking procedures. They claim the program will cause them irreparable harm by allowing large numbers of additional aliens to enter their states. The complaint asks the court to declare the program unlawful and enjoin its implementation.
This document is a criminal information charging Jason Michael Meyer with one count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering. Specifically, it alleges that between June 2007 and October 2009, Meyer devised a scheme to defraud investors and obtain money by false pretenses, including transferring $150,000 of investor funds by wire on August 27, 2007 under false pretenses. It also alleges that on July 17, 2009, Meyer engaged in a $150,000 monetary transaction involving criminally derived property from his wire fraud for a personal real estate down payment. If convicted, the document states Meyer would forfeit related proceeds and property involved in the money laundering.
Cia director grandiosity v. abilt justicePublicLeaks
This document is a declaration by John Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, asserting the state secrets privilege and CIA statutory privileges to prevent disclosure of classified information in a lawsuit brought by a former CIA employee. Brennan asserts these privileges to protect information about specific CIA intelligence operations, the identities and roles of covert employees, and sources and methods. He argues that disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to cause serious or grave damage to national security.
This document is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel opposing a motion to dismiss from Defendant Unigestion Holding. The letter argues that the complaint provides sufficient details about Unigestion's involvement in an alleged conspiracy to illegally impose fees on phone calls and money transfers to Haiti in violation of antitrust laws. The letter cites evidence from a New York Times article and videos showing an agreement was made between Unigestion and other defendants to fix prices. The letter also argues the complaint meets pleading standards and that dismissal would be improper at this stage.
The document is a detention order for Traian Bujduveanu, who is charged with conspiracy to export military parts to Iran without proper licensing. At a hearing, the court determined no bail conditions would reasonably assure his appearance at trial given: 1) the substantial evidence against him, 2) his extensive international business and travel ties, and 3) his ties to Romania, making him a flight risk. As a result, the court ordered him detained pending trial.
The document is a detention order for Traian Bujduveanu, who is charged with conspiracy to export military parts to Iran without proper licensing. At a hearing, the court determined no bail conditions would reasonably assure his appearance at trial given: 1) Substantial evidence against him including shipments of helicopter and fighter jet parts to Iran; 2) His ties to Romania as a naturalized citizen whose girlfriend is Romanian; and 3) Risk he could flee to Romania or continue his international aviation business abroad. The court ordered him detained pending trial.
COUNT 4 - CONSPIRACY TO MURDER (For UIE...Criminal Complaint)VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA’S A/K/A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S CONFEDERATES, KU KLUX KLAN, WHITE SUPREMACISTS/ZIONISTS CONSPIRE TO HAVE THE UTICA INTERNATIONAL EMBASSY’S INTERIM PRIME MINISTER VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME ASSASSINATED AND/OR MURDERED
A search warrant filed in U.S. District Court, obtained by 7 Eyewitness News, reveals while in the Niagara County jail – James Stivers requested to quote “make a phone call to his sister in order to have her throw out his computer so that he could beat his case.”
This document is a criminal complaint filed against Rod Blagojevich and John Harris. It alleges two counts:
1) Conspiring to commit fraud by devising a scheme where Blagojevich and Harris used their public offices to obtain personal financial gains in exchange for appointments, contracts, and funds.
2) As agents of Illinois, Blagojevich and Harris corruptly solicited the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial members critical of Blagojevich in exchange for $100 million in state assistance for Wrigley Field.
The affidavit provides background on Blagojevich and Harris' positions and duties. It summarizes evidence the investigation has uncovered of efforts to obtain campaign funds and personal benefits in
This document is a criminal complaint filed against Rod Blagojevich and John Harris. It alleges two criminal counts:
1) Conspiring to commit honest services fraud by devising a scheme for Blagojevich to use his office for personal gain through campaign contributions in exchange for official acts.
2) As agents of Illinois, corruptly soliciting the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial members critical of Blagojevich in exchange for $100 million in state assistance for Wrigley Field, intending to be influenced for transactions worth $5,000 or more.
The affidavit provides background on the investigation and intercepted communications supporting allegations that Blagojevich solicited contributions for official acts and tried to
Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri was indicted on two counts related to providing material support to al-Qaeda, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Count 1 charges him with conspiracy to provide personnel to al-Qaeda from July 2001 through December 2001. Count 2 charges him with knowingly providing personnel to al-Qaeda from September 2001 through December 2001. If convicted, Al-Marri faces charges under federal statutes prohibiting providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations.
This document discusses issues that may arise when representing foreign nationals in criminal cases in the United States. It covers:
1) Questions of jurisdiction and what statutes provide extraterritorial jurisdiction for crimes committed abroad or on vessels in international waters.
2) The rights of foreign nationals to consular assistance and how violations of notification treaties could impact cases.
3) The importance of language issues and using qualified interpreters to avoid ineffective representation claims.
4) The severe immigration consequences foreign nationals may face, including removal from the country, for even minor criminal convictions.
5) Challenges obtaining evidence and witnesses from foreign countries and the need to use procedures like letters rog
Petitioners filed an emergency motion in district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to challenge the results of the 2020 Michigan election. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. Petitioners now seek a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, arguing the district court erred in denying the emergency motion without considering the evidence, and in finding petitioners' claims barred by immunity, mootness, laches, abstention doctrine, and lack of standing. The petitioners assert they presented sufficient evidence of irregularities and fraud to support claims under Section 1983 and the US Constitution.
Jeff Bush, Department of Justice, ICE Agent Sammy Cruzcoriano, Jeffrey H. Sloman, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Michael Johnson, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Export Enforcement, Anthony V. Mangione, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of Investigations, and Amie R. Tanchak, Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Defense, Government Conspiracy,Defense Criminal Investigative Service, R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Michael Johnson, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Export Enforcement, Anthony V. Mangione, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of Investigations, and Christopher Amato, Special Agent in Charge of the Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Southeast Field Office, Revolution in Romania,R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Michael Johnson, Special Agentin Charge, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Export Enforcement; Anthony V. Mangione, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of Investigations; and Amie R. Tanchak, Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Judge Patrick A. White, Judge Patricia A. Seitz, Judge John M. O’Sullivan, Attorney Mark Eiglarsh, Attorney Michael Cohen,C.I.A.,Defende Intelligence Agency,National Intelligence Agency,Department of State,Department of Navy,Interpol,F.B.I., National Security Agency, FBI Special Agent in Charge, Michael Johnson,Traian Bujduveanu,Revolution in Iran,Attorney Robert G. Amsel
This criminal complaint alleges that Hassan Saied Keshari and Traian Bujduveanu conspired to export defense articles and U.S. goods to Iran without obtaining required licenses, in violation of federal export laws. Specifically, it alleges that from 2006 to present in Florida and elsewhere, the defendants agreed to (1) export defense articles without State Department licenses, and (2) export U.S. goods to Iran without Treasury Department authorization, violating federal statutes on arms exports and trade embargoes. An affidavit from an ICE agent provides further details in support of these allegations.
This criminal complaint alleges that Hassan Saied Keshari and Traian Bujduveanu conspired to export defense articles and U.S. goods to Iran without obtaining required licenses, in violation of federal export laws. Specifically, it alleges that from 2006 to present in Florida and elsewhere, the defendants agreed to (1) export defense articles without State Department licenses, and (2) export U.S. goods to Iran without Treasury Department authorization, violating federal statutes on arms exports and trade embargoes. An affidavit from an ICE agent provides further details in support of these allegations.
Eldon Spiers is charged with assault in the fifth degree, misdemeanor kidnapping, and gross misdemeanor stalking for attacking Kate Lamb in a college parking lot. Kate was grabbed from behind and dragged towards the woods by Spiers. She broke free and jumped off a bridge to escape other men. Spiers intended to cause Kate fear of harm and attempted to remove her against her will. Probable cause exists to believe Spiers committed the offenses.
Similar to Ex-CIA John Kiriakou Complaint-Affidavit-Release (20)
Essential Tools for Modern PR Business .pptxPragencyuk
Discover the essential tools and strategies for modern PR business success. Learn how to craft compelling news releases, leverage press release sites and news wires, stay updated with PR news, and integrate effective PR practices to enhance your brand's visibility and credibility. Elevate your PR efforts with our comprehensive guide.
Youngest c m in India- Pema Khandu BiographyVoterMood
Pema Khandu, born on August 21, 1979, is an Indian politician and the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh. He is the son of former Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Dorjee Khandu. Pema Khandu assumed office as the Chief Minister in July 2016, making him one of the youngest Chief Ministers in India at that time.
13062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
1. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 1
AO 91 (Rev. 08/09) Criminal Complaint
United States District Court t
for the i -
Eastern District of Virginia 23 20I2
United States of America ) C I T
v. )
John Kiriakou ) CaseNo.1:12MJ33
)
)
)
Defeiuicmt(s)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
On or about the date(s) of 2008 through 2009 _ in the county of Arlington in the
Eastern District of Virginia , the defendant(s) violated:
Code Section Offense Description
See Attachment A. See Attachment A.
This criminal complaint is based on these facts:
See Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint and Arrest Warrant.
Sf Continued on the attached sheet.
Reviewed by AUSA/SAUSA:
Complainants-signature
LisaOwings, AUSA /',
Special Agent Joseph Capitano, FBI
Printed name and title
Sworn to before me and signed in my presence.
Date:
ML
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
City and state:
2. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 2
run,- j. "^ m^^ss^^r-^r^uuixij^^
pi. STATES DIS'HtldT'CbUET
EASm^DISTMCTOFVmCHNIA '
ALEXA3NDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STKTES OF AMERICA ) Attachment A
)
v- ..... )
JOHNKIRlplOU ). "'CASE NUMBER: 1:12MJ33
I, the undersigned complainant, being duly sworn on oath, state that the
following is frue and correct to the best ofmy knowledge and belief:
COUNT ONE
At times in 2008 and 2009, in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division,
and elsewhere, JOHN KIRIAKOU, defendant herein,
having learned the identity of a covert agent as a result of having access to
classified information, intentionally disclosed information identifying such
coverjlj agent to an individual not authorized to receive classified information,
• knowing that the information disclosed so identified such covert agent and
that the United States government was taking affirmative measures to
conce&l such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the tJnited States, in
that defendant JOHN KIRIAKOU emailed the name of Covert Officer A to
Journalist A;
in violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421(b); and
COUNT TWO
At times prior to June 22, 2008, in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria
Division, aflid elsewhere, JOHN KIRIAKOU, defendant herein,
lawfully having had access to and been entrusted with information relatingto.
the national defense, namely, the association of Officer B with the Central
Intelligence Agency's Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Program ("RDI
Program") and with an operation to locate and capture Abu Zubaydah, which
informationthe defendant had reason to believe could be used tothe injury of
the IjJnited States and to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicated and transmitted the same to Journalist B, a person not
entitledto receive it;
3. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 3
in violation cifTitle 18, United States Code, Sections 793(d); and
COUNT THREE
At times in flilay and November 2008, in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria
Division, anjd elsewhere, JOHN KIRIAKOU, defendant herein,
lawfully having had access to and been entrusted with information relating to
the national defense, namely, the association of Officer Bwith the Central
Intelligence Agency's RDI Program, which information the defendant had
reaso^ to believe could be used to the injury of the United States and to the
advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicated and transmitted the
same to Journalist A, a person not entitled to receive it;
in violation |0f Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793(d); and
COUNT FOUR
On or about; July 28, 2008, in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division,
and elsewhere, JOHN KIRIAKOU, defendant herein,
in a ijaatter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government
of th& United States, namely, the Publications Review Board of the Central
Intelligence Agency, willfully concealed and covered up by trick and scheme a
matejjial fact, namely, that, in connection with a manuscript he was seeking
to pxjblish, the defendant was aware that the Central Intelligence Agency
used |a particular classified technique in an operation to locate and capture
Abu $ubaydah, despite representing falsely to the Publications Review Board
that tjhe technique was fictitious;
in violation!ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(1).
4. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 26 PageID# 4
73
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA j j
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CRIMINAL NO: 1.-12MJ33
- v. -
JOHN KIRIAKOU,
Defendant.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND ARREST
WARRANT
I, Joseph Capitano, being duly sworn, depose and state the following:
1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI")
and have been employed with the FBI since approximately 2004. I am currently
assigned to a squad at the Washington, DC Field Office that handles national
security cases. During my tenure with the FBI, I have handled federal criminal
investigations and the execution of numerous arrest warrants.
2. This affidavit is submitted in support of a criminal complaint alleging
that JOHN KIRIAKOU has committed violations of Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 793(d) and 1001(a)(1), and Title 50, United States Code, Section 421(b).
Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing
probable cause for the accompanying complaint, I have not included each and every
fact known to me concerning this investigation.
5. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 2 of 26 PageID# 5
3. This affidavit is based on my personal knowledge; information
provided to me by other law enforcement agents and other government personnel;
and my review of documents and other materials.
Background
The Matter Under Investigation
4. On or about January 19, 2009, defense counsel for certain high value
detainees held at the United States military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, filed a motion with the military commission then responsible for adjudicating
charges brought against the detainees, seeking permission to obtain information
that counsel contended was necessary to further the defense of the detainees. In
support of this motion, defense counsel filed a classified document under seal (the
"classified defense filing"), which named or otherwise identified multiple persons
whom defense counsel believed to be United States government personnel involved
in classified activities relevant to the legal defense of the detainees. The classified
defense filing contained both accurate and inaccurate information relating to the
identity and affiliation of the individuals described in the document, as well as to
activities in which they participated. Certain of the accurate information contained
in the classified defense filing included the names and affiliation of covert United
States government personnel, as well as information about persons whose affiliation
with the United States government was not classified but whose participation in
certain activities was classified.
6. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 3 of 26 PageID# 6
5. Based on consultation with the Department of Defense and a review of
discovery provided to defense counsel prior to January 19, 2009, there had been no
authorized disclosure to defense counsel of the classified information that was
contained in the classified defense filing relating to the identities and activities of
covert government personnel.
6. In spring 2009, 32 pages of photographs were discovered in the
possession of certain high value detainees held at the United States military
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Among these photographs were
photographs of certain personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") and the
FBI and federal government contractors.
The Initiation of the Investigation and Appointment of Special Attorneys
7. After reviewing the January 2009 classified defense filing (and prior to
the discovery of the photographs), the CIA filed a crimes report on March 19, 2009,
with the Department of Justice. The National Security Division of the Department
of Justice, working with the FBI, commenced an investigation.
8. By letter dated March 8, 2010, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States
Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, was appointed Special Attorney to
supervise the investigation pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 515,
subject to the supervision of the Deputy Attorney General.
9. The March 8, 2010 letter, as supplemented and amended on July 14,
2010 and clarified by letter dated May 27, 2011, delegates authority to conduct an
7. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 4 of 26 PageID# 7
investigation and any related prosecutions in connection with any matter arising
out of the Department of Defense seizures of certain photographs from Guantanamo
Bay detainees.
The Conduct of the Investigation
10. The investigation focused initially on the circumstances surrounding
the inclusion in the classified defense filing of information concerning covert
government personnel, and the possession of phonographs of government personnel
by detainees. After independently examining the facts and circumstances
surrounding the filing of the classified document in January 2009 and the recovery
of the photographs in spring 2009 -- a process that included obtaining information
from the defense team and interviewing the defense investigator under procedures
designed to avoid infringement of the detainees' ability to consult with counsel and
the attorney-client privilege -- the investigative team concluded that no laws were
broken by the defense team. In particular, no law prohibited defense counsel from
filing a classified document under seal outlining for a court classified information
they had learned during the course of their investigation. With respect to the
photographs taken or obtained by the defense team in the course of their
investigation and provided to detainees, the investigative team found no evidence
the defense attorneys transmitting the photographs were aware of, much less
disclosed, the identities of the persons depicted in particular photographs or
otherwise disclosed any classified matters associated with certain of those
individuals to the detainees. Rather, the investigative team learned from the
4
8. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 5 of 26 PageID# 8
defense investigator that defense counsel, using a technique commonly known as a
double-blind photo lineup,1 provided the photographs (which included photographs
of non-pertinent people not affiliated with the government) to their clients to
determine whether they recognized persons who may have participated in the
questioning of them. No law or military commission order expressly prohibited
defense counsel from providing their clients with the photographic spreads in
question under these circumstances. However, the fact that a defense investigator
had learned the classified information, including the information necessary to take
and/or assemble these photographs, suggested that the information may have been
either deliberately or inadvertently disclosed, without authorization, in a manner
that ultimately resulted in the defense team's possession of the classified
information.
11. Although the investigative team determined that members of the
defense team did not break any laws in connection with their handling of the
classified information they possessed relating to government personnel, the
question remained whether government officials illegally disclosed the classified
information that the defense team possessed. Further investigation led to the
discovery that a former CIA employee, defendant JOHN KIRIAKOU, repeatedly
made unauthorized and illegal disclosures of classified information to persons,
1 Photographs in a "double-blind" photo lineup are not accompanied by any
additional identifying information (such as names) so that both (1) the individuals
who are shown the photographs and (2) the person(s) presenting the photographs
are unaware of the identities of the persons depicted.
9. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 6 of 26 PageID# 9
including reporters, not authorized to receive classified information, including
information identifying a covert CIA employee and disclosing the participation of
certain other CIA employees in classified activities. The investigation revealed, that
on multiple occasions, one of the reporters to whom KIRIAKOU illegally disclosed
classified information in turn disclosed that information to the defense investigator,
and that such information was reflected in the classified defense filing and enabled
the defense team to take or obtain surveillance photographs of government
personnel.2
12. In particular, and as set forth in more detail below, the investigation
revealed that:
a. KIRIAKOU disclosed to a journalist the name of a covert CIA
employee ("Covert Officer A") and the fact that this covert employee was involved in
a particular classified operation. The journalist then provided the defense
investigator with the name of the covert CIA employee.
b. KIRIAKOU disclosed or confirmed to three different journalists
the then-classified information that another CIA employee ("Officer B") participated
in an operation to capture and question terrorism subject Abu Zubaydah, and
2 The investigative team learned from the defense investigator that the
defense team did not photograph any persons whose association with the
government was not public unless the defense team believed that the person was
physically present for the questioning of a high value detainee and was not covert at
the time of the defense investigation. Thus, for a number of the persons named in
the classified defense filing whose association with the government was classified,
no photographs were taken.
10. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 7 of 26 PageID# 10
provided two of those journalists with contact information for Officer B. One of the
journalists to whom KIRIAKOU provided information linking Officer B to the Abu
Zubaydah operation, including a personal email address for Officer B, subsequently
provided the defense investigator with Officer B's home telephone number, which
the investigator used to identify and photograph Officer B.
c. KIRIAKOU lied to the CIA regarding the existence and use of a
classified technique in an unsuccessful effort to trick the CIA into allowing him to
publish information regarding the classified technique in a book.
JOHN KIRIAKOU
13. At times material to the allegations contained in this Complaint:
a. JOHN C. KIRIAKOU, the defendant, a United States citizen,
resided in Arlington, Virginia.
b. From in or about 1990 through in or about 2004, KIRIAKOU
was employed as an intelligence officer with the CIA. During his employment with
the CIA, KIRIAKOU served at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and in
various classified overseas assignments.
c. In his capacity as an intelligence officer at the CIA, KIRIAKOU
received security clearances enabling him to access classified information, as
defined by Executive Order 12356, as superseded by Executive Order 12958 and
amended by Executive Order 13292 (the "Order").3
3 The Order mandates that information requiring protection for national
security reasons be classified at one of three levels: "Top Secret," "Secret," or
7
11. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 8 of 26 PageID# 11
Non-Disclosure Agreements
14. As described further below, on multiple occasions, KIRIAKOU
executed agreements with the United States government not to disclose classified
information to unauthorized persons.
15. On or about January 10, 1990, in connection with the beginning of his
employment, KIRIAKOU executed the following two agreements:
a. KIRIAKOU signed a Secrecy Agreement with the CIA, in which
he agreed as follows:
1. I . . . hereby agree to accept as a prior condition of my
being employed by, or otherwise retained to perform
services for, the Central Intelligence Agency . . . the
obligations contained in this agreement.
2.1 understand that in the course of my employment... I
may be given access to information or material that is
classified or is in the process of a classification
determination . . . that, if disclosed in an unauthorized
manner would jeopardize intelligence activities of the
United States Government. I accept that by being
granted access to such information or material I will be
placed in a position of special confidence and trust and
become obligated to protect the information and/or
material from unauthorized disclosure.
"Confidential." The designation "Top Secret" applies to information, the
unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause
exceptionally grave damage to national security. The designation "Secret" applies
to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected
to cause serious damage to national security. The designation "Confidential"
applies to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which could be expected to
cause damage to national security. Finally, the Order provides that access to
classified information at any level may be further restricted through
compartmentation in "Sensitive Compartmented Information" ("SCI") categories.
12. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 9 of 26 PageID# 12
3. In consideration for being employed or otherwise
retained to provide services to the Central Intelligence
Agency, I hereby agree that I will never disclose in any
form or any matter, to any person not authorized by the
Central Intelligence Agency to receive it, any information
or material . . . that I know is classified . . . or is in the
process of a classification determination.
11. I understand that . . . the disclosure of information
that I agreed herein not to disclose can, in some
circumstances, constitute a criminal offense.
15. I understand that nothing in this agreement limits or
otherwise affects any provision of criminal or other law
that may be applicable to the authorized disclosure of
classified information, including . . . section!] 793 ... of
Title 18, United States Code
b. At the same time, KIRIAKOU executed a Non-Disclosure
Agreement in order to have access to certain SCI. KIRIAKOU agreed as follows:
Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the
obligation contained in this Agreement in consideration of
my being granted access within Special Access Programs,
hereinafter referred to in this Agreement as Sensitive
Compartmented Information (SCI). I have been advised
that SCI involves or derives from intelligence sources or
methods and is classified . . . . I understand and accept
that by being granted access to SCI, special confidence
and trust shall be placed in me by the United States
Government.
I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security
indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of
SCI, including the procedures to be followed in
ascertaining whether other persons to whom I
contemplate disclosing this information have been
13. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 10 of 26 PageID# 13
approved for access to it, and that I understand those
procedures
I have been advised that unauthorized disclosure,
unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified
information by me could cause irreparable injury to the
United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign
nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge anything
marked as SCI or that I know to be SCI to anyone who is
not authorized to receive it without prior written
authorization from the United States Government
Department or agency . . . that last authorized my access
to SCI. I understand that it is my responsibility to
consult with appropriate management authorities in [the
agency] that last authorized my access to SCI, whether or
not I am still employed by or associated with [the agency]
In addition, I have been advised and am aware that any
unauthorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute a
violation or violations of United States criminal laws,
including the provisions of... . SectionQ 793 ... [of] Title
18, United States Code....
16. Subsequently, KIRIAKOU signed not fewer than seven additional Non-
Disclosure Agreements in order to access additional SCI, including the
compartments covering certain classified information described in this Complaint.
In each of these agreements, KIRIAKOU agreed never to disclose SCI to anyone not
authorized to receive it without prior written authorization from the United States
government.
Unauthorized Disclosures Relating to Covert Officer A
17. Covert Officer A is currently a covert CIA employee whose relationship
to the CIA has been classified for more than two decades. As set forth below, based
on emails recovered from search warrants served on two email accounts associated
10
14. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 11 of 26 PageID# 14
with KIRIAKOU, KIRIAKOU disclosed Covert Officer A's identity and certain
classified information concerning his intelligence activities to Journalist A.
Journalist A was not a person authorized by the United States government to
receive classified information.
18. On July 11, 2008, KIRIAKOU exchanged a series of email
communications with Journalist A.4 Journalist A emailed KIRIAKOU to ask, "Can
you remember the name(s) of any of the [specific CIA office] branch chiefs?"
KIRIAKOU replied, "Sorry, [first name of Journalist A]. I never met any of those
guys. And we never, ever dealt with them in [overseas city]." Journalist A
responded twice to the same email. First, Journalist A replied, "Presumably, [first
name of Covert Officer A]." KIRIAKOU then confirmed that "[h]e had been my
branch chief in [specific office,] [b]ut he's the only one I ever came into contact
with." Second, Journalist A asked, "Presumably [first name of Covert Officer A]
worked in that group though, right?" KIRIAKOU replied separately to this email,
stating, "I assume he did. And actually, I'm not sure he was the chief of it. He was
the team leader on [specific operation], though."
19. In the afternoon of August 18, 2008, Journalist A emailed KIRIAKOU,
asking him to "pick out [first name of Covert Officer A]'s last name" from a list of
names that Journalist A provided in the email. In the same email, Journalist A
4 Emails quoted below are verbatim insofar as possible and preserve the
original language and style, including errors. Redactions are noted in brackets and
described based on context and the affiant's training, experience, and knowledge of
the investigation as a whole. The quotations are excerpts only and do not
necessarily include the entire email or entire email chain.
11
15. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 12 of 26 PageID# 15
stated, "I'm not sure he's still in [particular country], but maybe's he's on this list
I've pulled." The following morning, at 9:23 am, KIRIAKOU wrote back, stating,
"[first and last name of Covert Officer A]. It came to me last night." The last name
of Covert Officer A had not been on the list provided by Journalist A.
20. At 11:31 a.m. on August 19, 2008, approximately two hours after
KIRIAKOU disclosed Covert Officer A's last name to Journalist A, Journalist A sent
an email to the defense investigator referenced above that contained Covert Officer
A's full name in the subject fine. The email further stated: "His name is [first and
last name of Covert Officer A]." At 1:35 p.m., Journalist A sent a final email to the
defense investigator in which he stated: "my guy came through with his memory."
Neither Journalist A nor any other journalist to my knowledge has published the
name of Covert Officer A.
21. At the time of the unauthorized disclosure, the identification of Covert
Officer A as "the team leader on [specific operation]" was classified at the Top
Secret/SCI level because it revealed both Covert Officer A's identity and his
association with the CIA's Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Program (the
"RDI Program"), relating to the capture, detention, and questioning of terrorism
subjects. This information had been closely held by the United States government.
22. Before Journalist A provided the defense investigator with Covert
Officer A's name, the defense investigator had been attempting to identify Covert
Officer A for some time but had been unable to do so. It was only after receiving
12
16. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 13 of 26 PageID# 16
Covert Officer A's name from Journalist A that the defense investigator was able to
identify Covert Officer A.
23. Both Covert Officer A's name and association with the RDI Program
were included in the January 2009 classified defense filing. The defense
investigator has advised the government that he understood from the circumstances
that Covert Officer A was a covert employee and, accordingly, did not take his
photograph. No photograph of Covert Officer A was recovered at Guantanamo.
24. On April 8, 2009, KIRIAKOU again exchanged email communications
with Journalist A concerning Covert Officer A. Specifically, at 2:14 p.m., Journalist
A emailed KIRIAKOU and asked, "Ever know a [name] in [specific CIA office]?" At
3:09 p.m., KIRIAKOU responded to Journalist A and stated, "Sorry, [first name of
Journalist A]. I didn't know the [specific office] people by name except for [first
name of Covert Officer A]." At the time of this additional disclosure, the association
of Covert Officer A with the specific office remained classified at the Top Secret/SCI
level because, as described above, it revealed both Covert Officer A's identity and
his association with the RDI Program.
Unauthorized Disclosures Relating to Officer B
25. At times material to this Complaint:
a. Officer B was employed at the CIA as an analyst assigned to its
CounterTerrorism Center.
b. In or about March 2002, Officer B worked overseas with
KIRIAKOU on an operation to locate and capture Abu Zubaydah, a terrorism
13
17. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 14 of 26 PageID# 17
subject then sought by the United States government (the "Abu Zubaydah
operation"). The participation of Officer B in the operation was classified.
26. According to a CIA classification review officer, both Officer B's
association with the RDI program, and the Abu Zubaydah operation in particular,
were classified until that information recently was declassified in order to allow this
prosecution to go forward.
27. As described in further detail below, based on information I have
obtained from other individuals involved in this investigation, I have learned that
KIRIAKOU disclosed classified information regarding Officer B, a former employee
of the CIA with whom KIRIAKOU had worked at the CIA, to individuals who were
not authorized by the United States government to receive the classified
information. Specifically, and as more fully described below, based on emails
recovered from search warrants served on two email accounts associated with
KIRIAKOU, I have learned that KIRIAKOU disclosed or confirmed to at least three
journalists classified information regarding Officer B. In two instances, these
disclosures took the form of confirming for journalists that a specific individual with
Officer B's name was the individual who participated in certain clandestine activity,
namely the Abu Zubaydah operation, including by providing contact information for
that individual; in the third instance, KIRIAKOU appears to have described to a
journalist Officer B's classified role in the Abu Zubaydah operation.
14
18. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 15 of 26 PageID# 18
Disclosures About Officer B to Journalist B
28. On June 22, 2008, The New York Times published an article by one of
its own reporters ("Journalist B") entitled "Inside the Interrogation of a 9/11
Mastermind" (the "Article"), which publicly named and identified Officer B and
reported about Officer B's alleged role in the capture and questioning of Abu
Zubaydah. The fact that Officer B participated in the capture and questioning of
Abu Zubaydah was then classified. The Article stated that "colleagues" had
described Officer B's role, that Officer B had declined to be interviewed, and that
the CIA Director and an attorney for Officer B had requested that Officer B not be
named. The article attributed other information to KIRIAKOU as a source, but did
not identify the source(s) who disclosed or confirmed Officer B's identity.
29. As discussed further below, there is probable cause that, at various
times prior to June 22, 2008, KIRIAKOU provided Journalist B with personal
information regarding Officer B knowing that Journalist B was seeking to identify
and locate Officer B in light of Officer B's role in the Abu Zubaydah operation. In
doing so, KIRIAKOU confirmed that Officer B was involved in the Abu Zubaydah
operation and therefore disclosed classified information. Journalist B was not a
person authorized by the United States government to receive classified
information.
30. For example, prior to the publication of the Article, KIRIAKOU
emailed Officer B's phone number and email address to Journalist B. In an email
dated April 21, 2008, Journalist B informed KIRIAKOU that he "[d]rove around Va
15
19. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 16 of 26 PageID# 19
yesterday in the rain and stopped by [first name of Officer B]'s house. I couldn't
figure it out -- two big dogs in the house, but no one around and a newspaper dated
April 9 in front of the door. Also, the cell number on his [business] card seems not
to work. Any further suggestions on how to find him most welcome . . . ." In an
email sent later the same day, KIRIAKOU replied: "As for [first name of Officer B],
I don't know what to make of it. The numbers I have are [phone number] (home)
and [phone number] (cell). Is that what I gave you from the business card? His
email is [Officer B's personal email address]. It's very odd that the dogs were
barking and that old paper was out.... Please let me know if I can be of any further
help." The contact information was accurate, and in one or more interviews
conducted by agents, Officer B recalled Journalist B attempting to reach him.
31. Based on interviews of Officer B by other agents, I have also learned
that, prior to the publication of the Article, Journalist B attempted to contact
Officer B in person, by phone, and by email, among other means:
a. Journalist B had visited Officer B's home on a Sunday,6 leaving
notes under his door and in his mailbox and parking outside his house for almost
four hours.
b. On or about May 8, 2008, an individual identifying himself as
Journalist B called Officer B's home and spoke with his wife.
5 As noted in Journalist B's email to KIRIAKOU, dated April 21, 2008, and
described in paragraph 30 above, Journalist B had visited Officer B's home the day
before the email was sent. April 20, 2008 was a Sunday.
16
20. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 17 of 26 PageID# 20
c. On or about April 11, 2008, and May 8, 2008, Journalist B
emailed Officer B at his personal email address. Officer B had provided his
personal email address to KIRIAKOU, but not to Journalist B or any other
journalist.
d. At various times prior to the publication of the Article,
Journalist B also contacted Officer B's mother, sister, and a high school friend.
32. Subsequently, KIRIAKOU also confirmed for Journalist B that an
individual with Officer B's name who was associated with particular contact
information that Journalist B had found on a website was located in Pakistan in
March 2002, which were the country and the month, respectively, in which the Abu
Zubaydah operation took place. In an email dated May 29, 2008, Journalist B
provided KIRIAKOU with contact information for Officer B, who was listed on the
website as "[first and last name of Officer B]," and also included the web link to the
information. The information reflected that "3/9/02" was when the website received
the information, Le., the "Date Received." KIRIAKOU replied, "What an odd link
this is! He was DEFINITELY in Pakistan when he did this."6 This communication
establishes probable cause that KIRIAKOU confirmed for Journalist B that the
individual whom Journalist B sought to identify was the same individual who had
worked in Pakistan when the Abu Zubaydah operation took place. In doing so,
6 Although the website reflects that the information was received on March 9,
2002, Officer B stated that no entry was made from overseas at that time. It is
unknown whether the date reflects an actual entry or, for example, an automatic
update on the website.
17
21. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 18 of 26 PageID# 21
KIRIAKOU also confirmed for Journalist B that Officer B was associated with the
Abu Zubaydah operation, thereby revealing classified information.
33. After the publication of the Article, KIRIAKOU sent several emails
denying that he was the source for information in the Article regarding Officer B,
while, at the same time, lying about the number and nature of his contacts with
Journalist B. For example, in an email dated June 30, 2008, KIRIAKOU stated to
Officer B: "I had a conversation over the weekend with the ombudsman at the New
York Times regarding the article about you in last week's paper. ... I told the
ombudsman that I thought the use of your name in the article was despicable and
unnecessary, and that I thought it could put you in personal danger. ... I also
wanted to let you know . . . that I did not cooperate with the article. My only
contact with the author was three days before the article was published. He called
me and asked if we could talk. I declined. He then asked if I thought he should
mention you by name. I said absolutely not. He countered with the fact that you
have not been under cover. I said that made no difference, and that while it might
not be illegal to name you, it would certainly be immoral." However, as reflected in
the emails described above, KIRIAKOU was in contact with Journahst B by email
on a number of occasions and provided Journalist B with information about Officer
B.
18
22. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 19 of 26 PageID# 22
Disclosures About Officer B to Journahst A
34. From at least in or about November 2007 through in or about
November 2008, KIRIAKOU provided Journahst A with Officer B's personal contact
information and disclosed to Journahst A classified information revealing Officer
B's association with the RDI Program.
35. In an email dated November 12, 2007, KIRIAKOU provided Journalist
A with Officer B's personal email address. Subsequently, and on at least two
occasions, KIRIAKOU provided information to Journahst A regarding Officer B's
association with the RDI program:
a. First, in an email dated May 17, 2008, Journalist A asked
KIRIAKOU: "In [Country X] and then in [Country Y], was [first name of Officer B
with two letters transposed] trained to do the techniques, or was he just asking the
questions as the heavies were doing the various techniques," referring to enhanced
interrogation techniques. In an email dated May 20, 2008, KIRIAKOU responded
to Journahst A and disclosed Officer B's classified association with the RDI
Program, noting: "[First name of Officer B] was not trained in the enhanced
techniques. He was simply there to ask the questions that the analysts had posed."
b. Subsequently, in a series of emails beginning November 12,
2008, Journahst A asked KIRIAKOU about classified information regarding the
logistics of travels by participants in the RDI program, including Officer B. For
example, on November 12, 2008, Journahst A asked KIRIAKOU: "[D]id [first name
of Officer B with two letters transposed] ever tell you how he actually got to
19
23. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 20 of 26 PageID# 23
[Country X] and [Country Z]?" In response, on November 17, 2008, KIRIAKOU
stated, among other things, "Re [first name of Officer B], he did not [travel in a
certain way]," thereby confirming Officer B's participation in the RDI program.
36. As referenced above at paragraph 10, the investigative team
interviewed an investigator assisting the defense team representing one or more
high value detainees being held at Guantanamo (the "defense investigator"). Based
on that interview, I have learned that Journahst A provided information about
Officer B to the defense investigator. For example, in an email dated April 10,
2008, Journahst A provided the defense investigator with Officer B's home phone
number.7 Before Journalist A provided Officer B's phone number to the defense
investigator, the defense investigator had been unable to accurately identify Officer
B, particularly in fight of his common surname. However, after receiving this
information, the defense investigator was able to quickly and accurately identify
Officer B and photograph him.
37. Four photographs of Officer B were included in the packet of
photographs recovered at Guantanamo.
7 Although the emails between KIRIAKOU and Journalist A do not reflect
that KIRIAKOU provided Journahst A with Officer B's home telephone number, the
email traffic between KIRIAKOU and Journahst A reflects that KIRIAKOU
provided Journahst A with other information about Officer B and his activities with
the CIA. In addition, the home telephone number for Officer B that Journahst A
provided to the defense investigator was the same home phone number that
KIRIAKOU provided to Journahst B, as set forth in paragraph 30 above.
20
24. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 21 of 26 PageID# 24
38. Both Officer B's name and his association with the RDI Program were
included in the January 2009 classified defense filing.
Disclosures About Officer B to Journahst C
39. At some time prior to May 22, 2Q07, KIRIAKOU disclosed to Journalist
C classified information regarding the association of Officer B with the Abu
Zubaydah operation. It appears that KIRIAKOU and Journahst C collaborated on a
preliminary book proposal.8 This is reflected in an email dated May 22, 2007 from
Journahst C to KIRIAKOU, attached to which was a book proposal that included
information apparently provided originally by KIRIAKOU to Journahst C,
regarding the role of KIRIAKOU in the capture of Abu Zubaydah! The book
proposal also referenced Officer B by name and described purported actions that
Officer B took in Pakistan with respect to the Abu Zubaydah operation. While
aspects of the book proposal's description of Officer B's role in the operation may
have been fictionahzed, the information nevertheless disclosed classified
information by specifically linking Officer B to the Abu Zubaydah operation.
40. Journahst C was not a person authorized by the United States
government to receive classified information.
False Statement to the CIA
41. As described further below, the investigation also has revealed that
KIRIAKOU lied to the CIA regarding a classified investigative technique (the
8 Journahst C is not the coauthor of the book KIRIAKOU eventually
published that is referenced in paragraph 42 below.
21
25. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 22 of 26 PageID# 25
"technique") in an attempt to trick the CIA into allowing him to publish information
regarding the technique in a book.
42. KIRIAKOU authored a book, The Reluctant Snv: Mv Secret Life in the
CIA's War on Terror, by John Kiriakou with a coauthor, which Random House
published in approximately 2009 (the "book").9 The book purports to describe
KIRIAKOU'S work on behalf of the CIA. Prior to the publication of the book,
KIRIAKOU submitted multiple draft manuscripts of the book to the CIA's
Publication Review Board ("PRB"),10 which reviewed the draft manuscripts for
classified information.
43. As reflected in a transcript of a recorded interview conducted in or
about August 2007 to assist KIRIAKOU's coauthor in drafting the book, KIRIAKOU
described to his coauthor the technique, which KIRIAKOU referred to as the "magic
box," and informed his coauthor that the CIA had used the technique in the Abu
Zubaydah operation.11
9 Based on our investigation, I beheve KIRIAKOU's coauthor currently is a
freelance book writer, whom KIRIAKOU hired to assist KIRIAKOU with drafting
and editing the book.
10 The PRB is a CIA office responsible for conducting classification review of
materials that CIA employees and former employees prepare for publication or
other use in the public domain. PRB clearance is required prior to the publication or
other pubhc use of such materials.
11 The transcript was sent by email from the coauthor to KIRIAKOU, and
was obtained by the government as a result of the search of one of KIRIAKOU's
email accounts.
22
26. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 23 of 26 PageID# 26
44. Subsequently, in the Article pubhshed in The New York Times on June
22, 2008, referenced above, the technique was disclosed and referred to as a "magic
box."
45. In an email dated June 30, 2008, KIRIAKOU again described the
technique to his coauthor and stated that he thought "at the time [using the
technique] was a great idea, conceptually."
46. A few days later, in an email dated July 2, 2008, KIRIAKOU's
coauthor informed KIRIAKOU, among other things, that he had "just finished
6,000-plus words over two chapters on the Abu Zubaydah episode, I'm wondering
how much of this PRB will let us pubhsh." A few hours later, KIRIAKOU
responded to his coauthor, stating, among other things, that "I'm guessing they'll let
us pubhsh a good chunk of the Abu Zubaydah story. They objected to some of the
details of the planning for the capture, but what I propose doing is telling them that
we've fictionahzed much of it (even if we haven't.)."
47. Approximately one month later, by letter dated July 28, 2008 (the
"Letter"), KIRIAKOU submitted a draft manuscript of the book to the PRB (the
"Draft Manuscript"). (The Letter and Draft Manuscript comprise the first
submission made to the PRB since the email exchange between KIRIAKOU and his
coauthor on July 2, 2008, described in paragraph 46 above.) In the Letter,
KIRIAKOU sought permission from the PRB to include a description of the
technique in the book by falsely claiming that the technique was fictional and that
he had never heard of it before. Specifically, KIRIAKOU stated: "There is a
23
27. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 24 of 26 PageID# 27
reference early in this chapter to a device called a 'magic box.' I read about this so-
called device in a New York Times article. The information in that article was
clearly fabricated, as we used no such device. I am unaware of any [such] device ...
As it is fictionalized, I beheve it is unclassified." The Draft Manuscript described
the use of the technique in the Abu Zubaydah operation.
48. On August 17, 2008, KIRIAKOU sent to his coauthor a copy of the
Letter, along with the Draft Manuscript, by attaching them to an email and, in the
text of the email, admitted to his coauthor that KIRIAKOU had hed to the PRB in
an attempt to include classified information in the book:
Here you go, [first name of coauthor]. I laid it on thick.
And I said some things were fictionahzed when in fact
they weren't. There's no way they're going to go through
years of cable traffic to see if it's fictionahzed, so we might
get some things through. Enjoy. John.
49. By letter dated October 17, 2008, the PRB informed KIRIAKOU that it
had reviewed the Draft Manuscript and that various pages of the Draft Manuscript,
including the pages regarding the technique, contained classified information and
that therefore KIRIAKOU could not include the information on those pages in the
book.
50. According to a CIA classification review officer, the information
regarding the technique that KIRIAKOU included in the Draft Manuscript was
classified until recently declassified in order to allow this prosecution to go forward.
24
28. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 25 of 26 PageID# 28
January 19. 2012 Interview of KIRIAKOU
51. On January 19, 2012, KIRIAKOU was interviewed by FBI agents. The
interview was recorded. During the interview, when the agents informed
KIRIAKOU that Covert Officer A's name was included in the classified defense
filing, KIRIAKOU stated, among other things, "How the heck did they get him? . . .
('
[First name of Covert Officer A] was always undercover. His entire career was
undercover." KIRIAKOU further stated that he (KIRIAKOU) never provided
Covert Officer A's name or any other information about Covert Officer A to any
journahst and stated, "Once they get names, I mean, this is scary."
25
29. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 26 of 26 PageID# 29
52. When asked whether he considered Officer B's association with the
Abu Zubaydah operation classified, KIRIAKOU stated, "Absolutely, absolutely."
KIRIAKOU also denied providing any contact information for Officer B or Officer
B's association with the Abu Zubaydah operation to Journalists A and B prior to the
pubhcation of the June 22/2008 New York Times article. When specifically asked
whether he (KIRIAKOU) had anything to do with providing Officer B's name or
other information about Officer B to Journahst B prior to the Article, KIRIAKOU
stated, "Heavens no."
Joseph Capitano
Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Sworn and subscribed to before me this 23rd day of January, 2012.
JsL
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
26
30. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 8 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 35
^AO 199A (Rev. 6/97) Order Setting Conditions of Release 3.
Page 1of (,. J Pages
United States District Court m 2320,2
Eastern District of Virginia - -*•— —I
United States of America ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS
OF RELEASE
Vn^OlY^QU^ Case Number: ^ &^ Y O
Defendant
IT IS ORDERED that the release of the defendant is subject to the following conditions:
(1) The defendant shall not commit any offense in violation of federal, state or local law while on release in this case.
(2) The defendant shallimmediately advise the court, defense counseland the U.S. attorney in writing before anychange in
address and telephone number. '
(3) The defendant shall appear at all proceedings as required and shall surrender for service of any sentence imposed as
directed. The defendant shall appear at (if blank, to be notified) United States District Court
401 Courthouse So.. Alexandria. VA nn f Z> C3" "^ C Y^DV
Date and Time
Release on Personal Recognizance or Unsecured Bond
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant be released provided that:
( S ) (4) The defendant promises to appear at all proceedings as required and to surrender for service of any sentence imposed.
( • ) (5) The defendant executes an unsecured bond binding the defendant to pay the United States the sum of
TU3Q -WKCvVej ^W^SMSxffrA cafrWvS dollars (ft 3^0.000. i
in the event of a failure to appear as required or to surrender as directed for service of any sentence imposed.
DISTRIBUTION: COURT DEFENDANT PRETRIAL SERVICES US. ATTORNEY U.S. MARSHAL
31. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 8 Filed 01/23/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 36
(Rev. 1/98) Order Selling Conditions ofRelease oQp
Page 2o^ JPigcs
Additional Conditions of Release
Upon finding that release by one of the above methods will not by itself reasonably assure the appearance
of the defendant and the safety of other persons and the community, it is FURTHER ORDERED that the
release of the defendant is subject to the conditions marked below:
( ) (6) The defendant is placed in the custody of:
(Name of person or organization) V-O'^y^j
(Address)
(City and Stale) (lel.No.)
who agrees (a) to supervise the defendant in accordance with all conditions of release, (b) to use every effort
to assure the appearance of the defendant at all scheduled court proceedings, and (c) to notify the court
immediately in the event the defendant violates any conditions of release or disappears.
Signed:
Custodian of Proxy
(X )(7) The defendant shall:
( ) (a) maintain or actively seek employment.
( ) (b) maintain or commence an educational program.
(y) (c) abide bythe following restriction on his personal associations, place of abode, or travel:
Do not aepart tne Washington D.C. metropolitan area witnom prior approval of Pretrial Services
uo not depart the wasnington u.u. metropolitan area without prior approval 01 rremai services
^rTheCo„rt PyQr MtttOtfnA <eeAecY -Jitfavy, V*3 Vft A;TrwQA_..
or the Court P»fl>qr MWOtfnA Jjtfrvy, V*5 VQ A;T(W<L
Ojh (d) avoid all contact with the following named persons, who are considered either alleged victims
or potential witnesses: fit^u VyYA^VA^^<».<>,
Ct) (e) reporton a regular basis to the following agency: Pretrial Services.
( ) (f) comply with the following curfew:
Q0 (g) refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or otherdangerous weapons.
( ) (h) refrain from excessive use of alcohol, and any use or unlawful possession of a narcotic drug or
controlled substance defined in 21 U.S.C. 802 unless prescribed by a licensed medical person.
( ) (i) undergo medical or psychiatric treatment and/or remain in an institution, as follows:
(V) (j) execute a bond or an agreement to forfeit upon failing to appear as required, the following sum
of money or designated property: "^PC^WjLtvVg.A^ $%^y AWlAArrtxA,
*nVlrxC*N
( ) (k)post with the court the following indicia of ownership of the above-described property, or the
following amount or percentage of the above-described money:
( ) (1) execute a bail bond with the solvent sureties in the amount of $_
( ) (m)return to custody each (week) day as of o'clock after being released each (week) day as
of o'clock for employment, schooling, or the following limited purpose(s):
(Y) (n) surrender any passport or other travel documents to: OTgA^fxrA^ ^^rf Qg^ t •£<**< er^^nicr
$ (o) obtain no passport or travel documents. *
( ) (p) undergo substance abuse testing and/or treatment as directed at the direction of Pretrial
Services.
( ) (q) the defendant shall not operate a motor vehicle without a valid license.
( ) (r) the defendant is placed on home detention with electronic monitoring as directed. AJ .
ty(s) ftfrfrA n Ane. s<xfta Via vtt ^ r*x& VycryV t ^ .PnTQnw ttv^
sVivft W& VisHk fccSvA.dR&si/^ u -V V<o
WHITE COPY • COURT YELLOW - DEFENDANT BLUE - U.S. ATTORNEY PINK - U.S. MARSHAL GREEN - PRETRIAL SERVICES
32. Case 1:12-mj-00033-JFA Document 8 Filed 01/23/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 37
AO 199C (Rev. 4/91) Advice of Penalties . 5-,^
Pagek _)of v—' Papes
Advice of Penalties and Sanctions
TO THE DEFENDANT:
YOU ARE ADVISED OF THE FOLLOWING PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS:
A violation of any of the foregoing conditions of release may result in the immediate issuance of a warrant for your arrest,
a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court and could result in a term of imprisonment,
a fine, or both.
The commission of any crime while on pre-trial release may result in an additional sentence to a term of imprisonment of
not more than ten years, if the offense is a felony; or a term of imprisonment of not more than one year, if the offense is a
misdemeanor. This sentence shall be in addition to any other sentence.
Federal law makes it a crime punishable by up to five years of imprisonment, and a $250,000 fine or both to intimidate or
attempt to intimidate a witness, victim,juror, informant or officer of the court, or to obstruct a criminal investigation. It is also
a crime punishable by up to ten years of imprisonment, a $250,000 fine or both, to tamper with a witness, victim or informant,
or to retaliate against a witness, victim or informant, or to threaten or attempt to do so.
If after release, you knowingly fail to appear as required by the conditions of release, or to surrender for the service of sentence,
you may be prosecuted for failing to appear or surrender and additional punishment may be imposed. If you are convicted of:
(1) an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of fifteen years or more, you shall be
fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both;
(2) an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years or more, but less than fifteen years, you shall be fined
not more than $250,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both;
(3) any other felony, you shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both;
(4) a misdemeanor, you shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
A term of imprisonment imposed for failure to appear or surrender shall be in addition to the sentence for any other offense.
In addition, a failure to appear may result in the forfeiture of any bond posted.
Acknowledgement of Defendant
I acknowledge that I am the defendant in this case and that I am aware of the conditions of release. I promise to obey all
conditions of release, to appear as directed, and to surrender for service of any sentence imposed. I am aware of the penalties
and sanctions set forth above.
jj ju Ji^
Signature of Defendant
Address
•(.XcfW
A*City ana State Mk
uiH Telephone
Directions to United States Marshal
( ) The defendant is ORDERED released after processing.
( ) The United States marshal is ORDERED to keep the defendant in custody until notified by the clerk or judicial officer that
the defendant has posted bond and/or complied with all other conditions for release. The defendant shall be produced before
the appropriate judicial.officer at the time and place specified, if still in^ou^stody. ^ *•» f
Date: *3>) 2.Q It—
Isl
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
WHITE COPY-COURT YELLOW - DEFENDANT BLUE - U.S. ATTORNEY PINK - U.S. MARSHAL GREEN - PRETRIAL SERVICES