Solicitor General of US Made False Statements to the U.S. Supreme Court in Vincent Foster FOIA Case

[The following is the text of a document I filed with the United States Supreme Court November 12, 2002. The documents are in the Foster section of my web site. --ajf]

This reply is being submitted because the Solicitor General of the United States made false and misleading statements to this Court.

On or about November 4, 2002, Theodore B. Olson, Solicitor General of the United States, submitted a document entitled “Application For An Extension Of Time Within Which To File A Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United State Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit” (“Application”) to this Court. In a letter dated November 5, 2002, addressed to Allan J. Favish, the Clerk of this Court stated that the application was “presented to Justice O’Connor, who on November 5, 2002, extended the time to and including December 14, 2002.”

In the Application, the Solicitor General cited the case of Accuracy in Media v. National Park Service, 194 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir. 1999), which was a Freedom of Information Act action seeking autopsy and death-scene photographs of Vincent Foster’s body. [1] After explaining that the D.C. Circuit affirmed the withholding of death-scene photographs of Mr. Foster’s body in Accuracy in Media, the Solicitor General stated:

Referring to Favish v. OIC, 217 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2000), which is the subject of two petitions for certiorari,[3] the Solicitor General then stated: “The court of appeals’ decision squarely conflicts with the decision of the D.C. Circuit exempting from disclosure the same photographs that the Ninth Circuit in this case has ordered released.”[4]

Contrary to the Solicitor General’s statement, my FOIA request was not filed after the appellate decision in Accuracy in Media. In fact, my FOIA request and my FOIA lawsuit were filed before Accuracy in Media filed its FOIA request. My FOIA request was filed January 6, 1997.[5] My lawsuit was filed March 6, 1997. [6] Accuracy in Media’s FOIA request was dated June 6, 1997. [7] Accuracy in Media’s lawsuit was not filed until September 12, 1997.[8]

To the extent that the Solicitor General’s description of me as “counsel of record” for Accuracy in Media implies that I was the sole or leading attorney representing Accuracy in Media throughout the litigation, the description is misleading. The Accuracy in Media case was already being litigated in the district court when I first joined Accuracy in Media’s counsel of record, Judicial Watch, Inc., as an employee, with no power to exercise final control over the litigation. I was not in charge of the litigation because I was not the General Counsel of Judicial Watch. I was merely an associate attorney who helped write the briefs. I did not have final control over the content of the briefs. By the time Accuracy in Media was orally argued before the D.C. Circuit, I had resigned and departed from Judicial Watch. I did not participate in, or have any control over the oral argument.

In Favish v. OIC, the OIC argued that I was collaterally estopped from bringing my FOIA case because of my work on the Accuracy in Media case, but that argument was rejected by the Ninth Circuit.[9]

Lastly, the Polaroid photographs at issue before the Ninth Circuit in Favish v. OIC and the two petitions for certiorari in that case, are the original Polaroid death-scene photographs. [10] The death-scene Polaroid photographs at issue in Accuracy in Media were not the originals, but rather, were copies.

[3] Favish v. OIC, No. 02-409; Sheila Foster Anthony, et al. v. Favish, No. 02-599.

[7] I know this because I helped write the appellate briefs in Accuracy in Media and saw the request, which was part of the appellate record in that case.

[8] I know this because I helped write the appellate briefs in Accuracy in Media and saw the complaint, which was part of the appellate record in that case.

I found some interesting notes on the gun used to kill Foster, from Reed Irvine, Editor, at the following website:

http://www.aim.org

THANKS TO CRAIG BRINKLEY, A YOUNG AIM MEMBER IN MICHIGAN, WE MAY NOW
HAVE the smoking gun that will begin the unraveling of the cover-up of
Vincent Foster's murder. Craig has been deeply interested in the Foster
case. He gives a lot of credit to AIM, Chris Ruddy, Hugh Sprunt, Patrick
Knowlton, John Clarke and Hugh Turley for sparking and sustaining his
interest. But like Robert Bracey, the young high school graduate from
Dearborn who discovered that the autopsy on Foster located the entrance
wound in the back of his throat (the posterior oropharynx), Craig has
greatly advanced the ball by submitting a simple FOIA request no one had
thought of making in the past seven years. He asked how many searches
had been made of the National Criminal Interstate Computer system (NCIC)
for a gun bearing either or both of the serial numbers on the 1913 Colt
Army Special that was found under Foster's hand. Those numbers were
356555 and 355055. Six months later he got an answer from William C.
Temple of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

MR. TEMPLE WROTE: "A SEARCH OF THE NCIC STOLEN GUN FILE REVEALED THAT
INQUIRIES were made using serial number 355055 as the only search
descriptor. These searches were made on March 3, 1993 at 22:07 Eastern
Standard Time, March 7, 1993 at 14:42 EST, April 29, 1993 at 12:15
Eastern Daylight Time and July 20,1993 at 22:45 EDT." That was the day
of Foster's death. He did not say who requested the searches. We have
asked Mr. Temple for that information, and one of his subordinates,
Marilyn Walton, has promised me that the search will be made and the
information about who requested those searches will be provided to us. I
believe that this should force the reopening of the Foster investigation
because just the fact that those requests were made proves that the gun
found in Foster's hand was planted there to fake a suicide. This is the
keystone whose removal collapses the suicide arch constructed by the
Park Police, Fiske and Starr.

THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE REQUESTERS COULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY
THE killers and their protectors. Only law enforcement agencies can make
search requests to NCIC. They can ask for checks on stolen guns or cars
on behalf of others. Some law enforcement agency or agencies either had
possession of the gun found in Foster's hand or were in contact with
someone who did, and it was not Vincent Foster. It is likely that
whoever originated the queries in March and April supplied the gun that
was placed in Foster's hand on July 20. If they were not involved in his
murder they may know who was. Craig Brinkley's brilliant idea may prove
not only that Foster was murdered, but it might also expose those
responsible for killing him.

ON MARCH 23, I ADDRESSED THE PUNDITS CLUB IN PALM BEACH, A GROUP THAT I
HAVE spoken to many times over the years. I haven't accepted their
invitations in recent years, having cut down on my traveling, but Chris
Ruddy, whose reporting forced the reopening of the Vince Foster
investigation in 1994, made me an offer I couldn't refuse. Chris is now
running NewsMax.com, an excellent Web site with such a wide selection of
news, analysis and comment that one could spend an entire day visiting
it. NewsMax.com broke the story of Craig Brinkley's important discovery
discussed above. He also publishes a weekly magazine and his own books.
His operation is based in West Palm Beach, and he invited me to come
down at his expense to visit the NewsMax headquarters and to combine it
with a speech to the Pundits. I brought the Pundits up to date on some
new developments in the Foster case, beginning with Dr. Henry Lee's
statement to a reporter for the supermarket tabloid Globe that he would
like to see the Foster case reopened. Dr. Lee was hired by Ken Starr as
a consultant on the that case. He was then director of the Connecticut
State Police Forensic Science Laboratory.

HAVING QUESTIONED BOTH GLOBE REPORTER DAWNA KAUFMANN AND HENRY LEE about
the statement she attributed to him, I am satisfied that she is telling
the truth in affirming its accuracy and that his denial lacks
credibility. She says that she had an article about the Foster case
written for Globe when they asked her to get a comment from Dr. Lee. He
was speaking at the annual convention of the American Academy of
Forensic Sciences in Seattle on Feb. 20. Kaufmann went to the
convention, taking along a copy of a new book titled "Famous Crimes
Revisited" that Lee coauthored. The fact that he included a chapter on
the Foster case in this book about famous murders is by itself and
indication that he has strong doubts about the suicide finding.

THE DISCUSSION OF THE CASE IN THE BOOK CONFIRMS THAT. LEE WRITES, "(O)N
BAL- ance, I was satisfied there was sufficient evidence for me to agree
with the Starr Report that Foster took his own life even though some
of the claims of the murder conspiracy' theorists were compelling.
There were far too many of these to mull over, but I thought of a few as
representative samples and filed them away for use later...." The book
has two lists, one of evidence supporting murder and one supporting
suicide. Even though it omits some of the most compelling evidence, the
murder list is stronger than the suicide list. [These lists are for some
reason found in the chapter on the JonBenet Ramsey case.]

MS. KAUFMANN SAYS SHE APPROACHED LEE AT A CONVENTION RECEPTION,
INTRODUCED herself as a reporter for Globe and told him she wanted to
get a quote for her story on the Foster case. She also had him autograph
her copy of his book. She says she asked him how he felt about reopening
the Foster investigation and he replied: "As a scientist I can only give
a recommendation. But I would like to see the case reopened, but I don't
think it will happen." She thanked him and went to her room and typed
the quote, which with the omission of the last clause became the lead in
Globe's story on Foster in its March 27 issue. It was a stunning
statement because Starr relied heavily on Lee's report and reputation in
trying to make the case for suicide.

WHEN I FIRST ASKED LEE ABOUT THIS, HE DENIED HAVING MADE THE STATEMENT
AND claimed he had no recollection of the interview. At that time, I
didn't know who did the interview, when and where it was done and what
Lee had said about the Foster case in his book. Ms. Kaufmann impressed
me with the clarity of her recollection of the interview, its brevity,
the consistency of the quote with what Lee said in his book and the fact
that she was able to type it so soon after getting it. When I told Lee
what I had learned from her, he still denied everything. Asked about the
compelling evidence that Foster was murdered that he describes in the
book, he said, "I always try to present both sides."

THAT IS NOT TRUE. HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T PRESENT BOTH SIDES IN HIS REPORT
TO STARR. This was one of at least three untrue statements that Lee made
in our phone conversations. The others were that he didn't pay any
attention to witness reports and that he didn't know that the medical
examiner who did Foster's autopsy claimed he didn't take x-rays because
the machine was not working. Lee's reputation rests largely on his
claims to have found evidence that everyone else missed. He tried but
didn't get away with this in the O.J. Simpson case. He got away with it
in the Foster case. There is no evidence that anyone tried to verify his
claims that he had found evidence such as grass stains and dirt on
Foster's shoes that the FBI crime lab had missed. Ken Starr even bought
his cockamamie theory involving an oven mitt and sunflower seeds that he
concocted to prove that the gun found in Foster's hand was his. This
shows that Lee knew that there was no evidence that the gun had ever
been in Foster's possession. He invented the oven-mitt story to remedy
this serious flaw in the suicide theory. The FBI had employed a
different solution. They persuaded Mrs. Foster to say that the black gun
found in Foster's hand was the silver gun she took to Washington.

I found some interesting notes on the gun used to kill Foster, from Reed Irvine, Editor, at the following website:

http://www.aim.org

The detail on the gun found in Foster's hand (which could not have been the instrument of death) is interesting. It is probably overshadowed by the fact that the "real" autopsy (substantiated by pictures, now missing) showed the head "intact" (after "swallowing" a .38, the exit wound is large because part of the skull is blown away), and a small caliber wound under the jaw showing a (presumably .22) shot upward into the brain. The medical examiner (Hispanic surname, as I recall) who examined Foster's body and made this report left the investigation and returned to California after it became clear to him that the facts were being ignored in favor of a hidden agenda.

Consider this, as well:

(1) Three eye-witnesses report that the car, supposedly the one in which Foster drove himself to the park prior to his suicide, was the wrong year and wrong color.

(2) The intial report of Foster's death stated that he had gone to his car parked at the white house and committed suicide.

Based on this, in the context of the whole cover-up, it is easy to think that his REAL car was out being reupholstered or chemically treated and washed, or whatever, so there would be no blood evidence in the car.

There are myraid variations on this theme - there are those who really know, but they may already be dead, as well.

Bottom line: CLEARLY, the 'toons had this guy murdered!

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.