|
State of New York
County of Bronx
Peter A. Gersten, being duly sworn, says:
1. He is a member of the firm of ROTHBLATT, ROTHBLATT &
SEIJAS, attorneys for the plaintiff in the above-entitled action and is fully
aware of the facts and circumstances concerning this action.
2. This affidavit is hereby submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion
for an order adjudging in civil contempt of this Court both the defendant,
for making and filing on September 15, 1978, in bad faith, a Stipulation and
Order and George Owens, its information and Privacy Coordinator, for
making a false affidavit, dated February 26, 1979.
3. On September 15, 1978 a Stipulation and Order was filed with this
Court (see Exhibit #1) whereby the defendant agreed to conduct a "reasonable
search" of its files for documents relating to Unidentified Flying Objects
(UFOs) and the UFO phenomena. A description of the documents requested
by plaintiff and the compenents of the agency to be searched by defendant
were also agreed upon by plaintiff and defendant.
4. By letter dated December 14, 1978 (see Exhibit #2) the defendant’s
Information and Privacy Coordinator, George Owens, released approximately
nine hundred (900) pages of documents to plaintiff (hereafter referred to as
the CIA /UFO documents):
"A total of 397 CIA documents were retrieved
to date in the process of responding to this
FOIA request. You will find that a total of 340
documents of approximately 900 pages have
been released and are enclosed. 57 documents
were withheld in their entirety pursuant to
exemptions under the FOIA. ( at 1, para. 1 )
5. On March 2, 1979 plaintiff’s counsel received defendant’s
affidavits including an affidavit by its Information and Privacy Coordinator,
George Owens, explaining the scope of defendant’s search: (see Exhibit #3)
"Upon receipt of the amended FOIA request
styled as STIPULATION AND ORDER, dated
15 September 1978, captioned above, I caused
a de novo search of CIA records system to be
done. (at 1, para. 1)"
6. It is submitted that:
a) The defendant entered into the Stipulation and Order
filed September 15, 1978, in bad faith;
b) The CIA /UFO documents were surfaced by defendant
prior to the filing of the Stipulation and Order;
c) at no time subsequent to the filing of the
Stipulation and Order did the defendant conduct, or ever intend to
conduct, a "reasonable search";
d) George Owens, defendant’s Information and Privacy
Coordinator, made his affidavit with full knowledge of its falsity for the
purpose of deceiving the plaintiff and the Court; and
e) the defendant still possesses a considerable amount of
documents relating to UFOs.
7. The CIA /UFO documents, though insignificant in
understanding the UFO phenomena, are significant in exposing some of
the policies and practices of the defendant concerning UFOs and UFO
information. These past practices controlled defendant’s
present conduct in this action.
8. The CIA/UFO documents reveal a continuing
interest by the defendant, beginning in 1946, in the subject of UFOs.
a) In a document dated August 14, 1952
(see Exhibit #4) from defendant’s Office of Scientific
Intelligence, Phillip Strong states:
"In order to supply both breadth and depth to the
(UFO) survey we reviewed our own intelligence,
going back to the Swedish sightings of 1946." at 2.
b) In a memorandum dated September 24, 1952, subject-
Flying Saucers (see Exhibit #5) H. Marshall Chadwell, the
defendant’s then Assistant Director for Scientific Intelligence states:
"I consider this problem (flying saucers) to be of
such importance that it should be brought to the
attention of the National Security Council in
order that a community-wide coordinated
effort towards its solution may be initiated."
(at 4, para 11)
c) This interest, which continued throughout the next
thirty years, will be discussed infra. at 10. (d)
9. The documents also reveal defendant’s
obsessive desire to conceal its interest from the public and the press.
a) In a memorandum dated August 1, 1952, subject-
Flying Saucers, (see Exhibit #6) Edward Tauss, the defendant’s then Acting
Chief, Weapons & Equipment Division states:
"It is recommended that CIA surveillance of
subject matter, in coordination with proper
authorities of primary operational concern
at ATIC, be continued. It is strongly urged
however, that no indication of CIA interest or
concern reach the press or public ………
(emphasis added) (at 1, para. 3)
b) In defendant’s document of August 14,
1952, (Exhibit #4) Mr. Strong states:
"It must be mentioned that outside knowledge of
agency interest in Flying Saucers carries the
risk of making the problem even more serious
in the public mind than it already is, which we
and the Air Force agree must be avoided." (at 2)
c) In a memorandum dated February 23, 1967
(see Exhibit #7) Arthur Lundahl defendant’s then Director of its
National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) stated:
"Any work performed by NPIC to assist Dr. Condon
(Director of a $300,000 UFO study for the University
of Colorado and the U.S Air Force) in his inves-
tigation will not be identified as work accomplished
by CIA. Dr. Condon was advised by Mr. Lundahl
to make no reference to CIA in regard to this work
effort." (emphasis added) (at 1, para. 4)
10. Defendant’s policy of secrecy to conceal and protect
its interest in UFOs has created a practice of deception and dishonesty. The defendant,
over the years, has pursued a course of conduct of misrepresentation and
lies in responding to the plaintiff and other UFO researchers.
a) In a letter dated August 22, 1976, (see Exhibit #8)
UFO reseacher Brad C. Sparks requested approximately two hundred (200)
documents * relating to UFOs. Ultimately, the defendant surfaced approximate
twenty (20) documents after first requiring Mr. Sparks to pay approximately
four hundred ($400.00) dollars for search fees. In a fact sheet attached to a
letter dated August 4, 1977 from defendant’s Director of Intelligence
Stansfield Turner, (see Exhibit #9) an unnamed agency official states:
"An exhaustive search ** was made and is
being made to locate and retrieve the
various records requested by Mr. Sparks.
Those which we located have been made
available to him. (approximately twenty
documents). If the rest of the documents he
seeks did exist, they must have been disposed
of long ago in accordance with the compenent’s
Records Control Schedule."
Approximately ninety-five (95%) percent of the CIA/UFO
documents were responsive to Mr. Sparks’ request and should have been
released to him in 1976. Defendant’s failure to find more than twenty
documents after charging Mr. Sparks approximately four hundred ($400.00)
dollars amounts to dishonesty. Defendant’s statement that "If the rest of the
documents he (Mr. Sparks) seeks did exist, they must have been disposed of
long ago……" is untrue.
* these requests are included in plaintiff’s discovery motion and amended
complaint and is one of a series of requests made by Mr. Sparks
throughout the years. - Back To Text
** It appears that this is the "earlier FOIA search referred to in the affidavit
of George Owens" discussed infra at 17(b) in which a sizeable holding of
responsive UFO documents was not retrieved" and one of the two searches,
discussed infra at ‘c’; which probably surfaced most, if not all, of the 900
pages of documents. - Back To Text
b) The defendant unequivocably lied to Mr. Sparks in a
letter dated September 21, 1976 (see Exhibit #10) when its then Information
and Privacy Coordinator, Gene F. Wilson, stated:
"A representative of OSI (Office of Scientific Intelligence)
has reported that there is no ‘OSI Subject File-Flying Saucers’"
The CIA/UFO documents contain numerous references to
OSI’s "Flying Saucer" file. (see for example Exhibits #11, 12 & 13)
c) The defendant probably surfaced at least 1,000 UFO
related documents pursuant to Mr. Sparks’ requests but decided, in view
of their policy of secrecy not to release them. The CIA /UFO documents
include a document dated October 14, 1952 (see Exhibit #14) This document
indicates, at the bottom right corner, that it was surfaced pursuant to Mr.
Sparks’ request of August 22, 1976. This document was never released to
Mr. Sparks and he was told by the defendant that it was "disposed of long ago".
d) The defendant, to keep its interest in UFOs secret, also lied
to the plaintiff. In a letter dated March 26, 1976 (see Exhibit #15 and Exhibit G
of the Complaint) in response to plaintiff’s request for UFO documents,
defendant’s then Information and Privacy Coordinator, Gene F. Wilson, states:
"At no time prior to the formation of the
Robertson Panel Report (January 14-18, 1953)
and subsequent to the issuance of the panel’s
report, has the CIA engaged in the study of
the UFO phenomena. The Robertson Panel
Report is summation of the Agency’s interest
and involvement in this matter." (emphasis
added) (at 1, para. 2)
There is no doubt that the defendant maintained a continuing intere[rest]
on UFOs. As indicated supra at 8, defendant’s interest began in 1946
(Exhibit #4) and its concern in 1952 (Exhibit #5). This interest, which from
1949-1952 amounted to a "continuing review" (see Exhibit #13) continues,
coincidentally, throughout the history of both the defendant the the [sic] phenomena.
1) In a document dated June 11, 1957, subject-Unidentified
Flying Saucers (UFO) (see Exhibit #16) an unidentified official of defendant’s
Office of the Director, Planning and Coordination, states:
"The Air Force and CIA are both still following
UFO." (at 1, para. 1)
2) In a document dated October 29, 1958, subject-Reported
Photography of Unidentified Flying Objects (see Exhibit #17) Phillip Strong,
the defendant’s then Director of the Office Scientific Intelligence states:
"OSI has an interest in keeping track of UFO’s,…"
3) In a memorandum dated January 26, 1965, subject-
Evaluation of UFO’s (see Exhibit #18) Donald F. Chamberlain the defendant’s
then Assistant Director, Scientific Intelligence states:
"The Office of Scientific Intelligence/DDS&T
monitors reports of UFO’s, including two
official Air Force investigation reports....
4) In a memorandum dated April 26, 1976 (see Exhibit #19)
an unidentified official in the defendant’s Domestic Collection Division states:
"At the present time, there are offices and
personnel within the Agency who are monitor-
ing the UFO phenomena but again, this is
not currently on an official basis. Dr.
(name deleted) feels that the best approach
would be to keep in touch with reporting
channels in this area to keep the agency/comm-
unity informed of any new developments. In
particular, any information which might indicate
a threat potential would be of interest, as would
specific indications of foreign developments or
applications of UFO related research." (at 2, para. 4)
The evidence is clear and convincing The defendant lied
when it told plaintiff "The Robertson Panel Report is (the) summation of the
Agency’s interest and involvement in this matter."
e) An example of defendant’s flagrant disregard for the law arises
out of defendant’s letter of March 26, 1976. (Exhibit #15) In said letter,
defendant acknowledged surfacing five documents pursuant to plaintiff’s
request for documents pertaining to Ralph Mayher and his UFO film.
By said letter the defendant released two of the five documents, but with
deletions, and withheld the other three in their entirety relying on exemptions
(b)(1) and (b)(3) of the FOIA while stating:
"Attempts have been made to release segregable
portions of these three documents but when all
appropriate deletions have been made, we have
wound up in each case with completely incoherent
texts." (at 2, para. 4)
Included in the CIA/UFO documents were the three previously withheld
documents and the two previously released documents without deletions.
(see Exhibits #20, 21, 22, 23 & 24) The five documents leave no doubt
that the defendant’s initial withholding of the three documents was without
merit. The defendant also arbitrarily and capriciously deletes information.*
This unlawful withholding of documents and information has caused plaintiff
unnecessary time and expense in obtaining them through this action.
f) The defendant had also lied to UFO researcher Richard H.
Hall. In a letter dated March 23, 1976 (see Exhibit #25) defendant’s then
Information and Privacy Coordinator, Gene F. Wilson, states:
"Agency records on UFO’s are not in
specialized files nor does a listing of
specific documents relating to UFO’s
exist." (at 1, para. 1)
The defendant’s "flying saucer" file and numerous CIA/UFO
documents with subjects including "unidentified flying objects"(see for
example Exhibit #27) "unconventional aircraft" (see for example Exhibit #28)
"flying saucers" (see for example Exhibit #29) challenge the credibility of defendant’s statements.
g) One of the earliest examples of defendant’s proclivity for
misrepresentation and dishonesty is a letter dated September 19, 1973
* Another example of defendant’s practice of arbitrary and capricious deletions is defendant’s memorandum dated January 25, 1965; (see Exhibit #26) The document is three pages. The defendant deletes information from the
top right corner of page one and relies on the (b)(1) exemption of the FOIA
to justify the deletion. The second page of the document contains the same
information but this time without the deletion. The letters ‘WAS’ identifies
Washington as the place of collection. The release of this information has
in no way damaged the national security of this country or prejudiced
intelligence sources or methods. - Back To Text
(see Exhibit #30) to UFO researcher Larry Bryant. In said letter defendant’s
legislative counsel states:
"This is in reply to your letter of 28 August 1973
requesting a copy of the Central Intelligence
Agency’s interview report of our contact with
Mr, Richard H Hall……" "Mr. Hall was met by
Agency representatives on 19 January 1965, but a
separate interview report was not prepared on
this meeting." "Mr. Hall explained how his organ-
ization operated and loaned the Agency several of
its publications which were reviewed and returned.
No excerpts were made from the publications,
nor did the Agency come to any conclusions on
the substance therein." "…..and the Agency had
no further interest in the subject of UFOs."
As discussed supra at 12, defendant’s statement that "the
Agency had no further interest in the subject of UFOs’ is a lie. Further,
one of the CIA/UFO documents is a memorandum dated January 25, 1965
(see Exhibit # 26) and concerns the incident referred to in defendant’s letter
of September 19, 1973. The contents of this document clearly indicate
that 1) a separate interview report was made; 2) the defendant borrowed
UFO sighting case files, not publications of the organization; 3) excerpts
were made from these UFO sighting case files; and 4) the defendant did
come to conclusions on the substance therein.
h) Another example of defendant’s improper practices
involves search fees. The fact sheet attached to defendant’s letter dated
August 4, 1977 (Exhibit #9) refers to "the matter of fees"
"the current policy of the Agency is to waive
search fees for requests concerning Unidentified
Flying Objects, based on the high degree of
public interest in the subject."
In direct violation of this policy is defendant’s letter dated
February 1, 1979 (see Exhibit #31) in response to UFO researcher Larry Bryant
request for documents relating to UFO contactee, George Adamski. In said
letter, defendant’s Information and Privacy Coordinator, George Owens,
states:
probably played a role, for example, in an
earlier FOIA search * in which a sizeable
holding of responsive UFO documents were- not
retrieved. ** That mishap was remedied
by the de novo search conducted with the
receipt of the amended FOIA request of
the litigation." (at 6, para. 8)
Mr. Owens seems to be in error on several points. The
Stipulation arid Order filed September 15, 1978 contained, or referred to,
four specific definitions. One of the terms, Unidentified Flying Objects
(UFOs) contained approximately forty-five (45) synonyms. Only one of the
forty-five synonyms was ‘unidentified objects’. The intent of plaintiff’s
requests, its original Complaint, the discovery motion, the amended
Complaint and the Stipulation and Order was to obtain information on
Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) not merely ‘unidentified objects’.
Interpreting Mr. Owens’ affidavit, it appears "the analysts doing the search"
were 1) given misleading information concerning the subject matter of the
search; 2) given no briefing or preliminary instructions on what to search for;
and 3) given no supervision or coordination. Once again the evidence is
convincing that no de novo search was conducted.
Another of the terms defined in the Stipulation and Order
was UFO Phenomena and included the subject of UFO contactees. George
Adamski, whose name was among a list of UFO contactees in the discovery
motion, was the best known contactee. Amazingly, in a letter dated
February 1, 1979 (Exhibit #31) defendant’s Information and Privacy Coordinator,
George Owens, in response to a request for George Adamski-UFO documents
by UFO researcher Larry Bryant, stated:
"For your information, this request is not associated
with the Ground Saucer Watch litigation and therefore
the search fees have not been waived."
* Probably refers to either the search conducted pursuant to Brad Sparks’
requests (see Exhibit #9) or pursuant to W. Todd Zechel’s request (see
Exhibit#33) - Back To Text
** Plaintiff contends that this is a lie and that, in fact, defendant did surface approximately 1,000 pages as a result of this search. - Back To Text
"the search fees for this portion of your request
come to a total of $60.67. One additional com-
ponent has suspended its processing pending
receipt of your written agreement to pay its
search fees of $75."
i) The aforementioned are eight examples of the defendant’s
past practices in responding to the plaintiff’s and other UFO researchers
requests for UFO information. The evidence of defendant’s policy of deception
and dishonesty to keep its interest in UFOs secret is clear and convincing.
This policy is still in effect and influences its conduct in this lawsuit.
11. The Stipulation and Order filed on September 15, 1978 is a sham. The defendant agreed to the Stipulation and Order in bad faith knowing that it
had previously surfaced approximately 1,000 pages of UFO documents.
12. In a letter dated August 10, 1978 (see Exhibit #32) defendant’s then Information and Privacy Coordinator, Gene F; Wilson, in response to
W. Todd Zechel’s request for UFO related documents, states:
"Approximately 1,000 pages of additional
materials concerning UFOs have recently
been surfaced and are currently under review." (emphasis added
13. On September 15, 1978 a Stipulation and Order was filed
and in which the defendant agreed to conduct a "reasonable search" for documents relating to UFOs and the UFO phenomena. (Exhibit #l)
14. Defendant’s Information and Privacy Coordinator, George Owens, in his affidavit dated February 26, 1979 (Exhibit #3) states that upon receipt
of the Stipulation and Order he "caused a de novo search of CIA record systems."
15. By letter dated December 11, 1978 (Exhibit #2) Mr; Owens
released approximately 900 pages of CIA/UFO documents to plaintiff. The
documents were "retrieved to date in the process of responding to this FOIA
request." (emphasis added)
16. It is apparent that no de novo search was conducted or even contemplated; that the defendant had previously conducted at least two prior
searches*and as a result of those searches had surfaced at least 1,000
pages of UFO related documents which it released to plaintiff on December 14,
1978.
17. The evidence of bad faith is clear and convincing.
a) Defendant’s affidavits were submitted by five
administrative officers. The affidavits basically attempt to justify the
deletions and withheld documents; Defendant’s affidavits do not indicate
the time devoted to each search, the method of search, or whether any
briefing or preliminary instructions were given to the analysts who
allegedly conducted the search; Not surprisingly, there are no affidavits
from the analysts who conducted the individual searches of the various
components. There are no affidavits from the analysts who conducted
the alleged de novo search because no de novo search was in fact
conducted.
b) Mr; Owens, in his affidavit dated February 26,
1979 (Exhibit #3)states:
"The scope of the search was determined, in
large measure, by guidance provided by the
plaintiff in the amended STIPULATION AND ORDER.
Plaintiff provided a listing of Agency components
to be searched, (at 1, para, 2)
Mr. Owens further states:
"Predictably, a further complexity followed from
the nature of the request. The search
was for documents concerned with "uniden-
tified objects," an uncertain target. It is
difficult to estimate what effect that circum-
stance had on the search for responsive
records. No doubt variations occurred in the
perspective of the analysts doing the
search. No doubt there were similar differ-
ences among those who authored and initially
indexed the records. This kind of uncertainty
* The two prior searches were acknowledged by defendant on August 4, 1977 (see Exhibit #9) and January 20, 1978 (see Exhibit #33)
- Back To Text
None of the CIA/UFO documents referred to George Adamski.
There is no doubt that documents relating to George Adamski should have been
surfaced pursuant to a "reasonable search." Mr. Owens’ letter to
Mr. Bryant is inconsistent with his affidavit of February 26, 1979 in
which he states:
"As Information and Privacy Coordinator
for the CIA, it is my responsibility to insure
that all record systems of the Agency which
might logically contain records responsive
to an FOIA request are searched to retrieve
such responsive records and that any such
records are reviewed and released pursuant
to the provisions of the FOIA. I am satisfied
that all reasonably identifiable records have been
retrieved and properly processed." (at 7, para. 10)
c) Mr. Owens further states in his affidavit of
February 26, 1979, that:
"The search was made in, but not limited
to, the record systems of those components
and subcomponents; their predecessors
and successors organizations; to wit:……
……CIA Operations Center" (a) 3.
There were no CIA/UFO documents from the CIA
Operations Center". It is strange that a de novo search did not surface
either an Operations Center document released by the defendant to UFO
researcher W. Todd Zechel by letter dated December 20, 1977, (see Exhibit #34
or the other Operation Center documents indicated in the Air Force document
dated April 19, 1977. (see Exhibit #35)
Once again the evidence establishes the lack of a de novo
search. It is clear that Mr; Owens wilfully misrepresented to the plaintiff
and the Court that a de novo search was conducted.
18.) The evidence proves that the defendant still has a
considerable amount of UFO materials in its possession. Materials, which
a de novo search should have surfaced, and which the defendant agreed to
search for in the Stipulation and Order.
a) Tab B of the ‘Robertson Panel Report’ lists 22 sources
of information relating to UFOs which the defendant possessed during the
Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects, January 14-17, 1953.
(see Exhibit #36) None of this evidence was released by the defendant on
December 14, 1978.
b) Documents obtained under the FOIA from other govermnent
agencies indicate that the defendant was on their distribution list. (see
Exhibits #37, 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42) None of these documents were released
by the defendant or forwarded to the originating agencies for their release.
c) A document dated April 26, 1976 (see Exhibit #19) refers
to developing "reporting channels in this area (UFO research) to keep the
Agency/Community informed of any new developments." None of the CIA/UFO
documents concerned these new developments or were a result of the
development of these reporting channels.
d) A document dated December 2, 1952 (see Exhibit #43)
refers to an August 20, 1952 briefing of the Director of Central Intelligence
on UFOs by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. None of the CIA/UFO
documents concerned this briefing.
e) A document dated March 3, 1950 (see Exhibit #44) indicates
that a ‘CIA Radar Technician’ was involved in a UFO/radar incident, but no
documents concerning this incident were released or acknowledged by the
defendant.
f) A document dated August 14, 1952 (see Exhibit #4) refers
to "our own intelligence (on UFOs) going back to the Swedish sightings of
1946;" but no documents for the years 1946, 1947, 1948 and only two for the
year 1949 were released or acknowledged by the defendant.
g) A document, undated (see Exhibit #45) refers to "with
personal request to investigate UFO sighted Morocco" but there were no
such investigation or follow-up reports in the CIA/UFO documents.
h) A draft of a letter dated March 26, 1953 (see Exhibit #46)
contains a paragraph which indicates that the defendant was expecting
"additional information" on UFO organizations, but no "additional information" was released to plaintiff.
i) A document dated May 8, 1967 (see Exhibit #47) refers to
"an analysis" of UFO photography, but no such analysis was released to
plaintiff.
j) Defendant’s monthly report for February, 1967 (see
Exhibit #48) refers to a "UFO Mensuration Support Project" but no documents concerning this project were released to plaintiff.
k) One of the leading civilian UFO organizations, the
National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, (NICAP) was
founded in 1956. During its existence there have been approximately eight
active members who were past or present employees of the defendant. The
first Director of Central Intelligence, Admiral Hillenkoetter and defendant’s
former Director of Psychological Warfare, Col. Joseph Bryan, were both
members of the NICAP’s Board of Directors. Surprisingly the CIA/UFO documents
contain less than five documents relating to NICAP and none referring to any of
its eight former employees.
l) There were no documents released to plaintiff concerning
any UFO contactees or UFO abductees. This might be explained by the fact
that these documents weren’t even searched for by the defendant (see for
example Exhibit #31) even though they were explicitly made part of the
Stipulation and Order filed September 15, 1978.
m) A document dated December 20, 1957 (see Exhibit #22
refers to photographs of a UFO taken by Ralph L. Mayher and their being
reviewed at a "high level." None of the CIA/UFO documents contain
photographs, negatives, or films.
n) A document dated July 14, 1976 (see Exhibit #49) mentions
that the defendant’s Domestic Collection Division "has been receiving UFO
related material from many of its S&T sources..." None of these "materials" were released or acknowledged by the defendant.
o) Defendant’s report #00-b-55478 (see Exhibit #50) was not
included in the 900 pages of documents released to plaintiff.
p) By letter dated September 12, 1978 (see Exhibit #51) the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) forwarded six documents to the defendant
for review and return to the FBI. The documents either orginated [sic] with the
defendant or contained information supplied by the defendant. There is no
indication in the CIA/UFO documents that any of the six documents were
released by defendant or sent back to the FBI for their review and release.
q) A document dated January 25, 1965 refers to "the
preparation of a paper on UFO’s" (see Exhibit #26) but no papers on UFOs
was included in the CIA/UFO documents.
r) A document dated March 15, 1949 (see Exhibit #52) refers
to 126 sighting reports but no such reports were included in the CIA/UFO
documents. Further, numerous documents refer to UFO sightings but the
individual sighting reports were not released.
s) Approximately 102 documents were missing from the
defendant’s OSI subject file- "Flying Saucers." Each of the documents in said file are consecutively numbered at the bottom right corner of the document.
The following numbers were missing from the CIA/UFO documents: 1-5, 10,
13, 17, 26-28, 35, 37, 43, 45-47, 50, 52, 54, 60-66, 68, 69, 71, 74, 76, 77,
79-94, 96, 98-140 (?).
19. A memorandum dated January 9, 1978 [corrected to "1958"] (see Exhibit #53)
eliminates any doubt as to defendant’s policy regarding UFO inquiries. In
said document, an unidentified Agency official states:
"………the extraordinarily noncommittal and
evasive answer we were instructed to give
Davidson (UFO researcher Leon Davidson)
was perhaps the only one possible if we were
to avoid crossing up previous statements
of our own………."
20. Plaintiff went into great detail and devoted much time and expense in bringing this action and preparing this Stipulation and Order. Plaintiff entered
into the Stipulation and Order in good faith and with the expectation that defendant would conduct a "reasonable search".
21. The evidence is clear and convincing that:
a) there were at least two prior searches for UFO related
documents:
b) as a result of these searches the defendant surfaced at
least 1,000 pages of UFO related documents;
c) the defeneant [sic] entered into the Stipulation and Order filed
September 15, 1978 knowing that it had already surfaced at least 1,000 pages
of documents and with no intention of conducting a de novo search;
d) that at the expiration of the 90 days the defendant merely
released the documents it had surfaced earlier;
e) George Owens’ affidavit attesting to a de novo search is false; and
f) the defendant still possesses a considerable number of
UFO related materials.
22. As a result of the contemptuous conduct of the defendant in
making and filing, in bad faith, the Stipulation and Order of September 15,
1978 and of its Information and Privacy Coordinator, George Owens, in making
a false affidavit, plaintiff has incurred expenses and attorneys fees in the
amount of twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00) dollars in bringing this action
to enjoin the defendant from unlawfully withholding the CIA/UFO documents
and in disproving and discrediting the sham Stipulation. and Order and false
affidavit.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for an order:
1. Adjudging the defendant and its Information and Privacy Coordinator, George Owens, in civil contempt of this Court;
2. Imposing daily an appropriate fine against defendant and its
Information and Privacy Coordinator, George Owens, until the purging of
the contempt by compliance with the Stipulation and Order filed September 15,
1978; and
3. Assessing a fine of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND ($25,000.00)
DOLLARS payable to plaintiff for plaintiff for plaintiff’s damages occassioned
by the civil contempt of this Court and for attorney’s fees incurred by
plaintiff’s in bringing this action.
Dated: May 28, 1979
|
