Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook
Ed and jpl,
How do supporters assess the forged PhD issue as it bears on damages?
In Defendant’s Exhibit 49, Dr. Hatfill admitted that he did not receive his PhD and submitted a forged diploma in connection with getting his job at NIH.
Question: Would Louisiana State University have grounds for reversing its decision to hire upon discovery of this fraud? Answer: Yes. University Presidents are forced to resign upon plagiarizing a speech. Academia lives and breathes credentials. Forging a diploma is not puffery. It is fraud. Employers should check credentials upon hiring. Here, Dr. Hatfill was working at Detrick, as I vaguely recall, on ebola. The reason to avoid fraud in life is precisely so that when false accusations fly people will give you the benefit of the doubt. Similarly, if in fact a silencer was found (was it?), did he have a BATF permit? Is a silencer lawful in Maryland? One reason not to possess a silencer, if unlawful in the particular state and not the subject of a BATF permit, is so that people won’t think of you as a dangerous character.
Of course, this is not relevant to narrow issues of whether a Privacy Act claim survives summary judgment. But it is relevant to damages — because Dr. Hatfill is claiming the loss of the LSU job as proximately caused by the leaks rather than the forgery of the diploma. Do you think, if the government is found to have violated the Privacy Act, the loss of the LSU job is fairly included in damages? What if LSU claims that they made their decision for independent reasons, such as discovery he had falsely claimed to have a PhD and submitted a forged diploma?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STEVEN J. HATFILL, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT et al.,
Defendants.
No. CIV-A-03-1793(RBW)
(Judge Walton)
Washington, D.C.
Friday, May 5, 2006
Videotaped deposition of
STEVEN J. HATFILL
were not awarded a Ph.D.?
A Somewhere around 1998.
approximate there.
***
Q What did you learn in 1998?
A I’m not 98 or 99, I’m not
Possibly — anyway, I learned that I
did not receive it.
Q And how did you come to that
understanding?
A An exchange of e-mails with Rhodes
University.
Q And what did those e-mails say?
A I don’t recall the specifics.
Q In any job applications that you’ve
submitted, have you ever attached a copy of a
diploma?
A Yes, on one.
Q Which one?
A Nationa! Institutes of Health.
Q And that dip!oma states that you
have a Ph.D.?
A Yes. Don’t know what was going
through my head.
Q Is that document a forgery?
A Yes.
Q Take me through the steps in which
you created that forged dip!oma.
A I don’t recall, it’s a decade ago.
I was talking to one of the guys in the pub
and he said he was a computer guy. He said
I’!l whip one up for you.
Q When did you have the discussion
with the guy in the pub?
A While I was at Oxford.
Q So the diploma was created in 1997
A I don’t recall a specific time.
Q Other than the NIH job application,
did you ever submit that forged dip!oma in
your job applications for any other position?
A Not to my recollection.
Oh yeah, the stuff about Germany came out about two years ago, was posted here at FR by someone other than myself. The Germans actually went public themselves in that admission, though it seems our government knew all along. How cozy.
Maybe you can find it, maybe not. I don’t always have luck finding old postings here even when they are mine and I know the key words!
I don’t think there is any evidence, known or unknown, that Stevens was asking questions.
His wife was interviewed publicly, as I vaguely recall, on the occasion of the 5 year anniversary. She stridently complained about not being briefed, her perception that there had been a lack of progress etc. She has a lawsuit pending alleging that the USG was negligent in allowing the Ames strain to be accessed. It has been long subject to a stay. Her attorney has not been responsive to any inquiries I’ve made.
I believe her contact with the public, or lack of contract, is controlled by her attorney for litigation reasons, and not by the government, which is her adversary in litigation.
Fishtalk, what is your authority he is known to have been in NJ when the attacks occurred when to the contrary it is not known — all indications are that he has never been to Princeton, NJ in his life. As for Florida, the anthrax was mailed from NJ, not Florida.
As for bloodhounds, when used in the sniper case, they alerted to a dog grooming parlor.
As for whether the FBI has been on the right track, they are charged with leaving no stone unturned. If they had not had vigorously investigated Dr. Hatfill, it would seem negligent.
I do think the forged diploma does bear on the equities. When seeking justice, do justice.
Of course, if the FoxNews report is right that the closest match to the powder was dry powder made at Ft. Detrick, it shows that the FBI was anchored to Ft. Detrick for reasons that went way beyond the mere fact that Ft. Detrick was the key origin for distribution of the Ames strain.
Like Dr. Hatfill’s attorney Glasberg said, when scaffolding was around the Washington Monument, you didn’t know whether there was masonry behind it. So we can tear down the scaffolding and poke fun at the Greendale school story, and the cabin in the woods, etc. but we don’t know what the FBI knows.
Personally, I don’t think there is any evidence at all Dr. Hatfill is guilty. I think the pond and bloodhound leaks were an outrage (given that they were so insubstantial). I have no idea how the lawsuit will turn out. As for the Privacy Act claim, it is pretty technical. I have not included the legal discussion.
According to the FoxNews report which relied upon an unnamed law enforcement source, the FBI no longer suspects Hatfill. I credit that.
On the forged diploma business, I think it is far more serious for a professional that recognized by Attorney Connolly or Ed Lake. It is a really, really big deal for an M.D. to have done that.
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
I read that bit about Florida and NJ in that verbiage in this very post. I went back and re-read it but I am way too tired to find it tonight. But I read it....something about he could have been there.
Hey lookit, the guy was taking Cipro...odd. You can wink away the bloodhound thing but at a Denny’s diner, at his girlfriend’s house...when the dogs showed NO response at any other suspects’ homes?
Criminal investigations require investigators go with the odds. This Hatfill guy, sheesh, I think that an investigator that did NOT check into him would be lax indeed. Which doesn’t give said investigators the right to go casting aspersions at someone who is only being investigated and hey, that’s why God made civil courts. Let’s see if Hatfill wins.
There’s an awful lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Hatfill. An awful lot.
I know the FBI screwed up with the Atlanta thing but this doesn’t mean they’re wrong about Hatfill. There’s an awful lot pointing to this guy,.
I’m not convinced he’s Mister Innocent. It does seem that the FBI can’t get enough on him to convict him but please....I am in no way convinced Hatfill is all that innocent.
Your mileage may vary.
Stevens apparently was just unlucky enough to handle the letter, as was the elderly man who worked in the mailroom, who came very close to dying.
I agree with your point about Hatfill having no connection to the Enquirer, while the hijackers, at least indirectly, did.
We agree that if the investigators did not check into him they would have been lax indeed. There were three squads — one science/forensics, the other two investigating the two principal theories. We will call the investigative squads Squad A and B and the science squad C. Interesting Youtube video below. Chief investigator Lambert states that the FBI people examining the scientific forensic evidence were NOT ALLOWED to exchange information with the team examining the person of interest evidence. The news all came from work of Squad A. For example, see the deposition excerpt by Arthur Eberhart who retired in August 2002. The work of the other squad likely is classified — such as the NSA wiretaps reportedly use to snare the communications between Al-Timimi and Bin Laden’s sheik. He hand-delivered a threat in al-Hawali’s name warning of dire consequences if Iraq was invaded to every member of Congress on the first anniversary of the anthrax to the Senators. Bin Uthman, who met with AQ military commander Atef and Ayman Zawahiri in the summer of 2000 in Kandahar to discuss WMD, has said in an open letter to Zawahiri that the reason WMD was going to be used/threatened was to deter invasion. He argues that Zawahiri miscalculated. For example, the use of anthrax actually led to invasion rather than deterred it.
I agree that his prospects in the lawsuit are highly problematic. His experience in the libel suits have shown that. But there is no evidence he was in New Jersey. In his deposition, Pat Clawson provided no alibi for him beyond the long days he was spending at SAIC as reflected by his timesheets.
He had a prescription for Cipro reportedly due to dental work or a nasal infection — I forget which. Antiobiotics before oral surgery avoids endocarditis. 20,000-30,000 people each year die from infections affecting a heart valve. Let’s hope when we take penicillin — such as I was prescribed for I can’t remember what this past year — we are not accused of serial murder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrNSZ66zvrc
I think BHR has said she had five sources working in the field, but I may be mistaken. One former FAS colleague of hers, a distinguished law professor, was actually the first to raise a “bioevangelist” theory. A smart guy, he is on all five terror lists, he reports. He has been a legal advisor to the PLO and counsel for Bosnia-Herzegovina. He tells me that (1) he was the first in the MSM to urge the “bioevangelist” theory, and (2) but he has never named Hatfill. Indeed, the chief prosecutor who leaked the sensationalist bloodhound and pond draining stories was born in 1948 in Haifa. His sister and brother-in-law were lecturing in 2002 (and his sister-in-law published in 2001) about how after 911 it was important not to jump to the conclusion that Arabs were behind the terrorism. His sister-in-law told the Washington Post in 1982 that to be born Palestine, as she was, is by definition to be political. She nonetheless said that the leading institute on contemporary Arab affairs with which she had started working then — and now heads — required that she maintain her objectivity at her day job. So I do not question the good faith of any of these individuals — but think that they had strong bias in their private life. In the case of the law professor, he is a lawyer advocating a position on behalf of clients and has worked closely with the lawyer for the blind sheik Abdel-Rahman.
I emailed BHR in December 2001 and she responded “They know who the suspects are.” I sensed cognitive rigidity then as I still do now among the same people. People tend to adhere to their original beliefs — formed shortly after considering an issue — and do not process factual information.
But if we don’t credit the good faith of all the intelligent people who were urging a close look at USAMRIID and Dr. Hatfill — and then get over the fact that the theory did not pan out and was based on a lot of faulty information
— then we will never be able to move on and digest the dramatic evidence offered by the recent FoxNews report (if we credit it as reliable).
The documentary evidence shows that Zawahiri planned on using the cover of universities and charities in weaponizing anthrax. The DIA gave me letters between Ayman and the Pakistan scientist helping him infiltrate UK biodefense. The letters expressly said this was the plan and the correspondence is corroborated by earlier memo Ayman wrote to Atef. So when we find the man taught by Bin Laden’s sheik — who is supervising the founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad who is writing for his charity’s publication — we should be glad for the expertise people like BHR brought to the table. Because it turns out Al-Timimi’s desk was not much more than 15 feet from the leading anthrax scientist in the world who was working with Delta Ames under a contract with USAMRIID — and the former deputy commander of USAMRIID, a prolific Ames researcher. On March 14, 2001, the leading anthrax scientist and former deputy USAMRIID commander filed a patent on how to concentrate anthrax using silica. The patent was confidential until after 9/11. As Director Mueller has said, universities must guard against the risk of theft of pre-patent, pre-classification biochemistry information.
The leaking prosecutor’s daughter then has worked for Al-Timimi pro bono in the sedition case in which he was convicted and sentenced to life plus 70 years. His conviction was reversed by of alleged NSA wiretapping. The proseccutor has not been able to find discoverable evidence of such wiretapping and in mid-March was given 60 days to try to do so.
Here’s a thought question. Another doctor’s home was searched under similar fanfare. An MD, he had a similar background to Dr. Hatfill under a “sound the alarm” bioevangelist theory and had done something to tarnish his good name involving a friend’s will. Most people wouldn’t remember his name. Does everyone know Hatfill’s name because of his legal team’s approach to the press? Press shuts down after a while when then no one is commenting. Reporters need the access to the POI or they don’t feel comfortable writing about the subject. Relatedly, was the forgery of the PhD the real basis for the damage? Could he have received a CIA security clearance having done that just three years earlier? Would he be entrusted to work with dangerous pathogens after 9/11 having been known to have done that? While I admire his counsel’s good work and the firm’s perseverance over many years in vindicating his rights, in terms of avoiding damage, a different approach might have been to act like a turtle until it passed over. His hand perhaps was forced by the series of NK/NYT columns. NK should have contacted Dr. Hatfill before writing the columns — especially the one in early July that imo crossed the line (under an on-point “Pilot B” legal decision).
Someone raising these issues should always contact the person or his representatives and offer them the opportunity to correct mistakes or provide input (and report the information provided by that person). I have always sought the input of Al-Timimi’s counsel, for example, in correcting any mistakes and would promptly make any corrections needed.
If proponents of the stupid “jewish scientist Zack theory” took a similar approach, they might have learned that his two girls were going to a private Catholic school and he and his wife attended the Catholic church downtown. Washington Report, Jihad Unspun, Arab News have not corrected their stories even though put on formal notice that the assumption made as to the person’s religion was wrong.
Analogously, I wrote the lead prosecutor (who is not muslim although born in Palestine) and sought his input months ago — as I did his sister-in-law, head of the Arab contemporary institute and his daughter, who represents Al-Timimi pro bono). The information provided by the individual is bound to be more interesting than the person just providing an outsider’s commentary.
As to Hatfill’s press strategy, let’s consider Defendant’s Exhibit 25 concerning the meeting arranged with Washington Post reporter Tom Jackman and an article he then wrote. The memo is on the day of the search of Dr. Hatfill’s apartment I believe.
The memo reads:
To: Hatfill File
From Vic
Re
Date: August 1, 2002
[REDACTED]
We agreed that I would proceed with the meeting with Tom Jackman today.
[REDACTED]
I met with Tom Jackman and gave him background information, the letters of reference for Hatfill, the article about Rosenberg’s statements, and the first page of the “Nazi swine” web page. *** I explained that the FBI wanted to repolygraph him, and that he had asked to submit the first (satisfactory) polygraph to a disinterested expert as a precondition. [Comment: polygraphs are inadmissible because they are not reliable — thus it was wrong for someone to leak to USA Today’s Locy that his polygraph showed evasion.]
Jackman is disinclined to run a story on a suspect short of his being charged, but his editor may think otherwise, particularly if the press are present at today’s search. He will call me later today to advise. [Comment: as i recall, Mr. Jackman did a feature on Dr. Hatfill].
Let’s also consider Defendant’s Exhibit 26.
Fax Transmittal Sheet
From: August 2, 2002
Media interested in FBI inquiry of Steven Hatfill
Vic Glasberg, Counsel for Dr. Hatfill
I am responding to your recent inquiry for information regarding Steven
Hatfill and the.investigation of him bythe FBI. I am a civil lawyer who for a few
weeks has been working with Dr. HatfilI on how to address a flurry of defamatory publicity about him which has appeared in the press, on TV, and on the intemet.
Dr. Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI early this year, as part of the
Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a Iengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI. He and his lawyer Tom Carter were told that the results were all favorable and that he was not a suspect in the case.
[Comment: it is not fruitful to engage in extended debate about “suspect”, “POI.” They clearly had keen investigative interest in Dr. Hatfill. See Arthur Eberhart depo. By August 2002, they had narrowed a list of 20 POIs to about 5 by August 2002, as I recall Special Agent Eberhart’s deposition.
Arthur Ebart had a key role in what we’ll call Squad A.]
Several days ago, Bob Roth of the FBI called Dr. Hatfill to advise that the
FBI wished to interview him again — Dr. Hatfill expressed his complete willingness to an unrestricted further debriefing, and asked Mr. Roth to calI me. When Mr. Roth did not do so promptly, I called him, so as to set the interview up in the immediate future. What happened thereafter appears on my letter to Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Kohl, copy remitted herewith.
***
Pending clarification of the government’s intentions regarding his status, on
advice of counsel Dr. HatfilI will not be speaking with the press.”
>>>So where did the anthrax come from?
Seems NJ is missing some anthrax. Funny how most of the mailings were from here too.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1622444/posts
State Delays Report on Unaccounted Anthrax
You’ll recall Agent Lambert’s memo posted above from January 2003 after Brian Ross’s January 9, 2003 “exclusive” about the FBI focusing on Hatfill that there would be another media leak investigation that would be pursued with “extreme zeal.” To set the tone of candor and cooperation, he waived any Fifth Amendment privilege and agreed to take a polygraph. The prosecutor who was head of the criminal division at the DC US Attorney’s Office, in contrast, invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to every substantive question re leaking posed by Dr. Hatfill’s attorney.
After quoting so much from the government’s 82 exhibits, let quote from a key exhibit from among the 202 submitted by Dr. Hatfill.
“Q. calls this article, quote ‘An exclusive look at the search for the perpetrator of America’s worst bioterror attack.” Did you tell Mr. Klaidman [of Newsweek] that you were giving him an exclusive on this information?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI was acting on a tip when it searched the pond in Frederick?
Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that FBI agents had interviewed the acquaintance of Dr. Hatfill’s that was supposedly the tipster?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the acquaintance had told the FBI that Dr. Hatfill said toxic bacteria could be made in the woods and the evidence could be tossed in the lake?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI might drain the entire pond the month after this report?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
[Lawyer defending deposition] Mark, let me say something on the record so we all understand the assertion because the manner in which — or the type of questions you’re asking here. My client has been instructed to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege regardless of whether or not the answer to the question would be yes or no, because even if the answer were to be no, if he answered no to certain questions, I think an inference could be drawn from that as to what he does or doesn’t know.
So I just want to make sure you understand in terms of our Fifth Amendment assertion here is that he’s asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege to questions that may have a yes or no answer, and it’s not fair to assume that the answer to every one of these questions would be yes or no if he were to answer the questions. Does that make sense?
Q. It makes sense, but we will be seeking an adverse inference as to all questions where the fifth amendment is taken.
***
Q. Mr. Seikaly, do you deny any of the statements attributed to you by Mr. Klaidman with respect to the [Newsweek bloodhound story]
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q Is it actually even true whether the search of the pond was prompted by a tip?
Q. Are you aware of any information that might have been used as a predicate for the pond search having been obtained as the fruits of electronic surveillance?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that agents might be looking for a wet suit that could have been used to dispose of — that could have been used and disposed of by the anthrax attacker?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q. Did you give Allan Lengel of The Washington Post any information reflected in this article?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Mr. Lengel has testified that you told him the FBI search of the pond in Frederick was tied to Steven Hatfill and that it was triggered by a hypothetical statement Dr. Hatfill has made about anthrax; is that correct?
A. That Mr. Lengel testified about that?
Q. Is it correct that you told Mr. Lengel about those things?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. How did you know that the FBI’s search of the pond in Frederick was tied to Steven Hatfill?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q. Why did you decide to disclose information to Mr. Lengel about the pond search?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up to that point included a clear box with holes that could accommodate gloves?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up that point included vials wrapped in plastic?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Do you specifically deny making any statement that Mr. Lengel has attributed to you?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q. How did you know that tests for the presence of anthrax bacteria on the equipment were continuing after two rounds of tests produced conflicting results?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Why did you disclose that information to Mr. Lengel?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the search of the pond in Frederick netted nothing but a hodgepodge of items that did not appear to be linked to the case?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q If we take the dates from Exhibits É, it appears that you disclosed investigative information to Mr. Lengel for articles that appeared in January 2003, May 2003, June 2003 and August 2003. Is that right?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q. É Do you know whether you ever saw this e-mail before?
A. I don’t believe I have.
Q. Okay. Let’s look at the partially redacted paragraph. It says, quote, “WFO [Washington Field Office] has opened a leak investigation in an attempt to find out who spoke to Newsweek Magazine over the weekend about the bureau’s use of bloodhounds in the anthrax investigation,” closed quote. Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And the date of the email is August 5th, 2002.
A. That’s correct.
Q. The investigation that’s referenced here is about the story that you gave Mr. Klaidman, is it not?
A. Assert my Fifth Amendment Privilege in response.
***
Q. Okay. In the bottom e-mail, when Blier begins, “here is a summary of my conversation with Glen about the anthrax leak investigation.” Now, Bill Blier worked for you, did he not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know what Mr. Blier was referring to when he referred to, quote, the anthrax leak investigation?
A. I believe that it was an investigation involving the possible compromise of classified information is my understanding. I did know about an investigation in that.
***
Q And do you know whether that had anything to do with bloodhounds or Newsweek?
A I don’t believe it did but I don’t know.
***
Q You were aware of an anthrax investigation, yes?
A. I was — I was aware that there was a discussion of an investigation involving the compromise of classified information arising from the anthrax investigation, the Amerithrax investigation. I do recall knowing that we were — we and the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Justice Department were concerned about this and were seeking to find out who compromised the classified information.
***
Q. Did you think it remarkable in any way that bloodhounds could track a scent from anthrax letters that were ten months old to a Denny’s in Louisiana where someone had eaten the day before?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Now Dr. Hatfill, of course, was not learning anything from the “leak.” Instead, the Brian Ross report talked about how the FBI was now going to re-interview certain former and current government officials in an attempt to narrow things to Dr. Hatfill. That served to tip off anyone interviewed after that January 9 report that the USG may have them under close surveillance.
As it turns out, it was Dr. Hatfill who was excluded. The FBI dropped their conspicuous surveillance of him later that year after virulent anthrax was found in Afghanistan at a Kabul residence pointed out by Hambali. The FBI then searched Kandahar and Kabul areas for stored anthrax — under a theory that anthrax stolen from Ft. Detrick (or a recipient of their Ames) was taken to Afghanistan. Director Mueller as to motive says: “Think 911, Think Oklahoma City.” The motive suggested by Mueller involves a hatred of US policy — not a desire to “sound the alarm” such as suggested by Ed Lake and Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and law professor Francis Boyle or JDO’s Weberman or various islamist publications.
The FBI’s hand was further forced when in mid-February 2003 upon the arrest of the blind sheik’s son (and KSM who was arrested in mid-February and not March 1 as claimed). They raided Ali’s townhouse and made numerous arrests and searches of his charity colleagues as part of something called OPERATION IMMINENT HORIZON.
Careful with posting from the Asbury Park Press. FR gets in trouble with copyright rules from them.
Dr. Hatfill’s exhibits are a veritable motherlode of copious documentary evidence simultaneously establishing Dr. Hatfill’s innocence and the diligence the FBI showed in leaving no rock unturned. They include roughly about 30 more transcripts we haven’t had available to see — far more than Ed has uploaded from previous filings.
Of Dr. Hatfill’s exhibits, Exhibit 7, the deposition transcript of Dr. Hatfill’s friend Peck may shed a light on the strength of his alibi.
Exhibits 118-124 are a veritable gold mine of interrogatory responses and requests for admissions — though lawyerly evasion and objection usually requires you to look at your watch rather than ask opposing counsel what time it is.
Exhibits 128-130 are internal FBI memos from November and December 2001.
Exhibits 140-143, 147-48, 151, 154, 165-167 are emails, and emails are always cool.
Exhibit 182 contains the Troutman Sanders profile for D. Seikaly which is online.
Exhibits 201 are useful summaries titled “Disclosures By Identified Sources” and Exhibit 202 is titled “Disclosures By Unidentified Sources.”
Mr. Lake, if you email me your address I could send you a copy of the disk and you could upload what interests you.
The complete list of exhibits submitted by Dr. Hatfill is uploaded at
http://luigiwarren.blogspot.com/
Thanks, but I'll probably just download everything for myself.
The problem with putting things on my site is that large .pdf files use a lot of bandwidth when people look at them. And organizations like Google, Yahoo, and archivers at colleges around the world seem to download everything on my site over and over. Some university in Spain has downloaded my entire site about 10 times in the past few weeks.
Before long, the bandwidth costs could become too great for me to maintain on a web site that has no advertising to bring in revenues.
So, I'll probably download all the files to my computer at home, but I'll only put a few of them on my site.
For example, for those interested in bloodhounds, we have the deposition of Rex A. Stockham, BS, MFS, is a Supervisory Special Agent assigned to the FBI Laboratory’s Evidence Response Team Unit.
For those focused on AG Ashcroft’s use of the phrase “person of interest,” we have the deposition of his Chief of Staff David Ayres and David Israelite his Deputy Chief of Staff.
For those interested in the LSU issue, we have Tim Beres of the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) at DHS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.