Alexander vs. F.B.I., Memorandum Opinion (Filegate Cases)

USDC District of Columbia ^ | March 9, 2010 | Chief Judge Royce Lamberth

[SvenMagnussen]

Filegate, Consolidated Cases, DISMISSED

While this Court seriously entertained the plaintiffs' allegations that their privacy had been violated--and indeed it was, even if not in the sense contemplated by the Privacy Act--after ample opportunity, they have not produced any evidence of the far-reaching conspiracy that sought to use intimate details from FBI files for political assassinations that they alleged. The only thing that they have demonstrated is that this unfortunate episode--about which they do have cause to complain--was exactly what the defendants claimed: a bureaucratic snafu.

Chief Judge Royce Lamberth USDC District of Columbia

[SvenMagnussen]

In 1996 the Clinton White House informed Congress that towards the beginning of President Clinton's first term, it had mistakenly asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation for summary background reports of over four hundred former employees fo the Bush and Reagan administrations.

[colorado tanker]

after ample opportunity, they have not produced any evidence of the far-reaching conspiracy

Translation: the cover up worked.

[a fool in paradise]

Nixon had a snafu too.

[a fool in paradise]

You don’t have to prove the intent of the request for files, you just need to establish criminal posession of them.

[SvenMagnussen]

Privacy Act violations must be willful and intentional for a violation to occur. Albright, 732 F.2d at 189.

[a fool in paradise]

I don’t think it was an accidental request for paperwork.

[Roccus]

.....and we still don’t know who hired Craig Livingstone.

[SvenMagnussen]

“... plaintiffs must prove government’s conduct was intentional and willful. 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(4), [et.al]. Government is not liable for every affirmative or negligent act that technically violates the Privacy Act, “[i]stead, the violation must be so ‘patently egregious and unlawful that anyone undertaking the conduct should have known it ‘unlawful’.”

- Chief Judge Royce Lamberth
USDC District of Columbia

Mar. 9, 2010

[ElectionInspector]

should have known it ‘unlawful’.”

...as if the smartest Yale lawyer in the world “Canckles” didn’t know it was illegal, even before her associate was copying the contents into his laptop and database at home on the kitchen table according to his wife’s testimony... riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

[colorado tanker]

Privacy Act violations must be willful and intentional for a violation to occur

And nobody from the Bill and Hill "twofer" White House is gonna confess to that.

[IMR 4350]

These files were nothing more than a diversion. There were two different sets of files.

The FBI files Hillary threatened to release during BC’s impeachment, her Scorched Earth Policy, were different files. The threat was against dems not repubs. and it was perfectly legal to release the info in the files.

The reason I know what I’m talking about, on May 5th 1993, I was contacted by one of the Waco investigators. The reason I was contacted? One of the files Hillary threatened to release as The Scorched Earth Policy, is my file.

Not only did Janet Reno fire the US Attroneys to cover up what was in those files, the Clinton’s also killed 80 people at Waco and burned down LA in 92 to cover up what was in those files. Not only did BC need to cover up what was in those files, but so did Janet Reno, Warren Christopher, Lee Brown, and Henry Cisnero. There could be others,but those are the ones I’m aware of. Vince Fosters job was to surround Bill Clinton with people that needed the USA’s fired to cover up what was in those files.

By the way, it wasn’t a measly 400 to 500 files, it was over 15,000 files.