 |
There are currently, 11 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
|
We received
3376021
page views since May 2005
Site established September 2000
|
| |
Carol Hrdlicka - Friend of Court Brief - CIA Case
Posted on June 29, 2005
|
|
U.S. Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
_______
Appeal No. 04-5235
Roger Hall,
Filed On:
Appellant
v.
Central Intelligence Agency, Appellee
Before: Sentelle, Garland, and Roberts, Circuit Judges
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
in case No. 98cv01319, Paul Friedman, United States District Judge.
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CAROL HRDLICKA PRO SE
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEANT
Carol Hrdlicka
Amici Curiae
770 N. Mayfield Rd.
Conway Springs, KS 67031
620/316-2439
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
ARGUMENT
SUMMARY
CONCLUSION
Exhibits Attached
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
With procedural rules to file an Amicus brief
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Clerk of the court of appeals certified
Councils of record
Table of Authorties
Statutes
Page
Executive Order 12812
Freedom Of Information Act
Presidential Decision Directive NSC 8
Table of Authorities w/cases alphabetically arranged, statues and other authorities w/ref to of the pages of the brief where they are cited
Statement of Identity and Interest of the Amicus Curiae
I am the wife of Colonel David Hrdlicka, a known Prisoner of War captured in Laos in 1965. Colonel Hrdlicka has been repeatedly reported alive since the United States withdrew from Vietnam and Southeast Asia in March 1973. POW/MIA documents have been wrongfully withheld relevant to David Hrdlicka’s survival and the survival of other POW/MIAs in Laos and other countries after the end of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War ending 1973.
ARGUEMENT
Laos was the domain of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Vietnam War and ran the war in Laos utilizing Department of Defense resources and the CIA contractors (i.e., U.S. Military Assistance Command Vietnam - Special Operations Group (SOG), Air America, Agency For International Development, Etc.). This secret war was managed by the military role of the CIA out of the American Embassy in Vientiane, Laos, under the authority of the U.S. Ambassador. Presidential authority authorized the ambassador to manage and conduct military operations that included U.S. military aircraft and personnel (Report of the SSC).
Plaintiff Roger Hall did meet court requirements on intent to pay for documents sought following Judge Friedman's July 22, 2002 ruling on denial of fee waiver to Roger Hall. Plaintiff Hall delivered a $10,000 check, # 840, dated July 22, 2002, to Mark Zaid made out to the CIA following a conversation of the court requirements for that order. This check may already be a matter of record. On August 13, 2002 attorney Mark Zaid called plaintiff Roger Hall telling him to make the check out to him stating that he [Mr. Zaid] would make out a check to the CIA to determine the documents to be released and the total cost. Mr. Hall delivered the check immediately on August 13, 2002 to Mr. Zaid. Mr. Zaid told plaintiff that he should never pay anyone for documents without knowing what he was getting, the only person to trust was his attorney and to make the check out to him [Mark Zaid]. Hall expressed concern that Judge Friedman wanted the documents paid for and wanted the court to be informed. Mr. Zaid stated he would inform the U.S. Attorney that Plaintiff Hall had paid him the money and intended to pay for the documents. Mr. Zaid stated that was all that needed to be done. A follow-up conversation with Mr. Zaid later that summer confirmed that he spoke to the U.S. Attorney and informed him of Roger Hall's intent to pay.
The documents found by the CIA had been ordered released and reviewed for declassification under Executive Order 12812 (E.O. 12812), and National Security Council Presidential Decision Directive # 8 (PDD 8). Furthermore, these documents were sought by the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs (SSC) and were not turned over to that Committee. The CIA arrogantly and defiantly ignores E. O. 12812 and PDD 8. During a court appearance in September 1998 the CIA knowingly attempted to deceive the court stating that all POW/MIA documents had been declassified when in fact 40,000 pages of POW/MIA documents sent to the SSC and transferred to the National Archives were being refused for declassification review by the CIA.
These POW/MIA documents withheld by the CIA are a conflict of interest. First because of the CIA's tasking from the many agencies and departments of government. Second the withholding of these documents is because the CIA has continuously refused to release such documentation in order to prevent embarrassment to the agency and, its employees, and the embarrassment of those from other departments and agencies that worked with the CIA on related matters.
The $10,000 was raised from donations specifically to pay for CIA documents from the CIA as required by the court. From the CIA's writing in later filings to the court they stated Hall never complied with the court order. Hall attempted in every way to comply through his attorney. Judge Friedman's position everyone got the impression that Roger Hall refused to pay for the documents and never intended to pay. The case before Judge Friedman was dismissed because no one informed him of Plaintiff's payment to, conversation with, and instructions to Attorney Mark Zaid, and his reported conversation with the Assistant U.S. Attorney. The documents released and searches have been delayed by the government's shell game of trying to maneuver Mr. Hall out of his FOIA requests in violation of the FOIA and executive orders.
The CIA and U.S. Attorney are playing a shell game denying the existence of POW/MIA documents until we find a way to identify them within the classified hiding areas. An impossible task for a common plaintiff. Documents are withheld and denied to exhaust FOIA requesters time, and resources.
Plaintiff has been denied fee waivers not withstanding a manifest and conclusive showing of an entitlement to such waivers when Mr. Hall has demonstrated by example how they will, and to whom, disseminate and the information.
It would benefit the court and the public good to include this information in its decision making.
SUMMARY
Appellant made every reasonable effort to comply with the court requirements for agreement to pay. Appellant Hall had relayed every 'intent to pay' requirements possible under restrictions of a plaintiff not being able to contact the court directly except through his attorney.
POW/MIA documentation originated by or under the control of the Central Intelligence Agency on surviving POW/MIAs is still being hidden and withheld in violation of E.O. 12812, PDD 8, and the FOIA.
Conclusion
The amici and principal co-plaintiffs would be severely and irreparable damaged absent a reversal and correction of the manifest in justice and profound legal errors associated with the improper dismissal of this case.
|
| |
Average Score: 4
Votes: 1
|
|
|
|
