Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Won't Stop Suit (FReeper Notra Trulock) Vs. Freeh
AP ^ | 12.02.02 | AP and others

Posted on 12/02/2002 10:55:07 AM PST by Registered

Supreme Court Won't Stop Suit Vs. Freeh

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused Monday to stop a lawsuit that accused FBI (news - web sites) officials of punishing an investigator in another agency for criticizing the Clinton administration's national security.

Photo
AP Photo
 

Justices declined without comment to consider whether former FBI director Louis Freeh and others were protected from the lawsuit, filed by an Energy Department employee who claimed Chinese spies had penetrated U.S. weapons laboratories.

Notra Trulock III wrote about his concerns in a July 2000 edition of National Review. That same month, FBI agents searched his home computer files and confiscated his computer hard drive.

Trulock's suit claimed the search violated his First Amendment free-speech rights because it was conducted in retaliation for the magazine article.

Michael Martinez of Washington, one of Freeh's lawyers, said the case raised issues "of utmost importance to the thousands of public officials constantly at risk of being sued and possibly being held liable individually for their official actions." He said there was no evidence that Freeh or the other officials knew of the magazine article.

Freeh, appointed by former President Clinton (news - web sites), was director of the FBI from 1993-2001. Also sued was Neil Gallagher, former head of the FBI's national security division, and other officials. They were represented in the appeal by private attorneys, not Bush administration lawyers.

Trulock, who headed the Energy Department's intelligence office, testified before Congress in 1998 about his concerns about security at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The next year he lost his job. He contended that the White House and federal law enforcement agencies ignored his repeated warnings about espionage.

A federal judge had dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the government officials were entitled to immunity. Part of the suit was reinstated by an appeals court.

Trulock's attorney, Larry Klayman, said officials kept Trulock's computer hard drive for two years and that he needed it because it had research about a genetic disorder from which his son suffers, along with personal financial information. Klayman is chairman of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

The case is Freeh v. Trulock, 02-443.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clinton; kicksbutt; lawsuit; security; trulock
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 12/02/2002 10:55:08 AM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Go Larry Go!
2 posted on 12/02/2002 10:56:03 AM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ms. AntiFeminazi
This might interest you.
3 posted on 12/02/2002 10:57:03 AM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ms. AntiFeminazi
I know you send JW lots of money, now you see the results!
4 posted on 12/02/2002 11:04:42 AM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Registered
The case is Freeh v. Trulock, 02-443.

Does this mean that Freeh started the action, and that Trulock is pressing it in the interest of justice?

5 posted on 12/02/2002 11:06:33 AM PST by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Apparently, when one of Larry's cases is only dismissed in part, he considers it a newsworthy event.
6 posted on 12/02/2002 11:06:58 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Does this mean that Freeh started the action, and that Trulock is pressing it in the interest of justice?

No, I think it just means Freeh was the one that tried to get the Supreme Court involved.

7 posted on 12/02/2002 11:12:36 AM PST by mondonico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Registered; blackbag; Angelwood
GO Larry GO!!
8 posted on 12/02/2002 11:15:51 AM PST by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mondonico
Freeh did start this action. It's recorded as

LOUIS FREEH, et al., Petitioners,

v.

NOTRA TRULOCK, III, et al., Respondents.

Judicial Watch has the case posted at http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/66/freehsc.htm

9 posted on 12/02/2002 11:42:08 AM PST by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ntrulock
.....
10 posted on 12/02/2002 12:42:37 PM PST by rface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Registered
bump
11 posted on 12/02/2002 12:52:06 PM PST by 2timothy3.16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Trulock's attorney, Larry Klayman, said officials kept Trulock's computer hard drive for two years and that he needed it because it had research about a genetic disorder from which his son suffers, along with personal financial information. Klayman is chairman of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch

So the case is reduced to the FBI kept the gals hard drive for 2 years and wouldn't give it back.

Since she was never charged with a crime she has no miranda rights. They only have to read you miranda rights if you are going to be charged with a crime. If you are not indicted you have no miranda rights. Klayman depends on the suckers not knowing that.

The supreme court has held that it is legal for an FBI agent or any law officer to lie to suspects and witnesses in order to conduct an investigation. It is perfectly legal for an FBI agent or any cop to tell a witness he has a search warrant when he does not. They do it all the time. They can't search your house, but they can tell you they have one when they don't.

The Supreme court has said that an officer of the law may lie to a witness in the course of an investigation. It would not be legal for the FBI to search the house with out written permission, but it is not illegal for the FBI to say they have a search warrent even if they don't. It is against the law for you to lie to the FBI. It is legal for the FBI to lie to you. You may think that stinks but it is the law.

If they can get the witness to sign the permission to search his home they have it made. Only an idiot would believe they have to sign permission for them to search if they already had a search warrant. If she did not read the papers that is not the FBI agent's fault. The law says she must sign the papers to make the search legal. It does not say she has to read them or the FBI has to read them to her. If she is not charged with a crime it is up to her to request a lawyer. She has no miranda rights.

But only a real idiot would not ask for a lawyer at the first step of this interogation.

Klayman depends on the idiots who send him money not knowing the law. The FBI did nothing illegal. You may not like it .. But it is legal. The FBI just doesn't want publicity about what they can legally do.

They only case it appears Klayman actually has is they legally took her computer drive and wouldn't give it back. The FBI can legally keep evidence until a case is closed. A case is closed when the FBI closes it. They will show papers proving the drive was returned as soon as the case was closed.

It will end like all Klayman cases. Klayman pays himself $600 an hour of his suckers money, and the end result is

Case dismissed.

and

Send more money.


12 posted on 12/02/2002 3:48:40 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
First, Trulock is a guy (and a FReeper you goober).

Second, you haven't addressed the crux of the case:

"Trulock's suit claimed the search violated his First Amendment free-speech rights because it was conducted in retaliation for the magazine article"

13 posted on 12/02/2002 3:52:17 PM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator; ntrulock
So the case is reduced to the FBI kept the gals hard drive....

Gosh, she's a cutie! Anna Kournakova, watch out, you'll fade fast behind the beauty of the glamourous- and popular!- Ms. Trulock!

Hmmm, perhaps we're going to have to apply the *Ann Coulter* rule here....


14 posted on 12/02/2002 5:28:06 PM PST by archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Registered
"First, Trulock is a guy (and a FReeper you goober)."

you have such a way with words..lol you beat me to the draw on this one. Once again JW is referred to as a conservative
watch dog group.
15 posted on 12/02/2002 6:08:18 PM PST by blackbag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Fred, thanks for the ping !

Go Notra Go

I hope he wins and gets a decent settlement.
He is a patriot and Freeh crucified him for it.
16 posted on 12/02/2002 6:11:10 PM PST by blackbag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Registered
What part of the case is reinstated?
17 posted on 12/02/2002 6:11:58 PM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Stop! You're making me laugh! LOL! You have a meanstreak, don't you? ;)
18 posted on 12/02/2002 7:49:10 PM PST by Ms. AntiFeminazi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ms. AntiFeminazi
Listen, I know it's become unpopular to support anything Klayman in this forum, and frankly, knowing how much financial support you give him you might feel uncomfortable being "outted"...but don't feel bad, one of these days your ship will come in (Klayman wins a case) and you will be exhonerated.
19 posted on 12/02/2002 8:13:26 PM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marajade
The case had two parts. First there were the first amendment issues that involved retaliation for critizing the Bureau. The second were the fourth amendment issues that involved the illegal search and seizure of the computer. The appeals court upheld the dismissal of that part on a split decision. Even the majority held that the FBI agents should have known better. But I'll take the 1st amendment part just fine.
20 posted on 12/02/2002 8:15:09 PM PST by ntrulock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson