Hatfill Sues U.S. Over Anthrax Probe

Associated Press Writer ^ | August 26, 2003, 2:26 PM EDT | SAM HANANEL

[mrustow]

Now that it is public knowledge that he embellished his resume, it does make it difficult for him to obtain a position because he has essentially been blackballed in the profession. He has no one to blame but himself for this.

You are so far off as to be in a different solar system. Hatfill cannot work in his chosen field because Justice ordered LSU to fire him, and his field (terrorism response) is funded virtually entirely (97%) by Justice.

[ravingnutter]

You have that just backwards...the restaurant is the FBI, a public entity...the arsonist is Hatfill, he burned his own reputation by embellishing his resume and got caught by the restaurant owner.

[Shermy]

From Scott Shane in the Baltimore Sun, the end of his article.

http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.hatfill27aug27.story

"...In the Jewell case, libel claims were settled by NBC, CNN, the New York Post and WABC radio for a reported total of more than $2 million. But Wood did not file suit against the FBI because he and Jewell believed the media were "the real villain," he said.

By contrast, Hatfill's lawsuit names only government officials and agencies as defendants. But the text of the lawsuit accuses a scientist, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, of groundlessly urging the FBI to pursue Hatfill and lists alleged leaks of confidential investigative information to ABC, CBS, Newsweek, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Rosenberg has denied naming Hatfill to reporters or congressional staff members whom she briefed.

Asked whether the media or others might be sued in the future, Connolly said he thought it unwise to speculate about "who might end up in Steven Hatfill's crosshairs."

[ravingnutter]

You don't know much about the Govt. contracting business, even Hatfill's own attorney said he was "blackballed". In addition, LSU spokesman Gene Sands stated emphatically that the firing was NOT at the order of the FBI. If Hatfill believes that is wrong, he should sue for wrongful termination, but he is not. He is claiming in this lawsuit that the FBI has ruined his reputation and prospects for future employment when it was his own embellishment of his resume that has gotten him blackballed. The FBI is only guilty of catching him in the act of embellishment, which will prohibit him from getting a security clearance, which is required for the majority of Government work. When someone lies to you, don't you have a tendency to look upon other actions or statements that person may make in a suspicious manner? I know I do.

[bvw]

If that response was a key lime pie, it would have no lime, no cream, no crust and look and taste like a White Castle burger.

[ravingnutter]

Embellishing ones resume is not cause for the federales to follow.

It is cause not to receive a security clearance and subsequently a federal position...that is my point. He cannot get a federal position because he lied on his resume. He was under suspicion and being investigated because of his background in this particular research area, it was then that it was discovered he lied, which made the Feds more suspicious. As I stated before, I am not saying he is guilty, only that his lawsuit has no merit. The FBI did not lie on his resume that resulted in his not being able to get a federal position, he did.

[ravingnutter]

I am not arguing his guilt or innocence or the tactics of the FBI in the investigation. This thread was about the lawsuit. Bottom line: his lawsuit has no merit. The FBI is not keeping him from getting a job, a security clearance is...a security clearance he cannot get because he embellished his resume in application for a Government position. No amount of spin on anyone's part is going to change that fact.

[bvw]

mrustow suggests there was a conspiracy to deprive Mr. Hatfill of his job, and thus his due process rights in that regard. (At least). What say you to that? Did some Fed or cut-out drop a dime over to the college Hatfill worked at and put the evil eye on him hard? Do you have any personal knowledge of a direct or indirect contact between the FBI or the DOJ and the college that employed Hatfill?

[jaime1959]

>> If Iraq were involved and there were still more Russian agents in the FBI, it's entirely possible those agents would do everything they could to divert investigative resources away from Iraq. <<

What brand tinfoil do you use?

[muawiyah]

You missed the Robert Hanssen affair didn't you?

Here's a URL for a catchup session: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001514276_hanssen15.html

Although that article is quite dated, being all of two weeks old, there are a myriad of other articles available on the net concerning the possibilities of the FBI having been infiltrated at even higher levels.

As you can see "tinfoil" is not required in the real world.

[jaime1959]

No, I didn’t miss the Robert Hanssen affair. I just don’t make wild extrapolations from that to the FBI being so rife with Soviet spies (Soviet!) that they skew or ignore information fingering Iraq when the Administration was looking for things to finger Iraq with.

Get a grip, man!

[ravingnutter]

Here is the info...

LSU's vice provost for academic affairs, Greg Vincent, is looking at the management practices of the entire division that oversees the biomedical research center, including its process for reviewing resumes of potential employees, Sands said.

Several questions have surfaced about Hatfill, including what appear to be exaggerations on his resume.

In discussing Hatfill's firing, Sands had said Wednesday that Guillot received an e-mail Aug. 1 directing him to "cease and desist" from using Hatfill on Justice Department-funded projects.

Hatfill was placed on administrative leave by LSU the following day, but Sands said Guillot didn't alert administration officials to the e-mail until Tuesday, when Hatfill was fired. Sands said the decision to put Hatfill on administrative leave and fire him was not connected to the e-mail.

LSU Chancellor Mark Emmert said Hatfill's firing wasn't a judgment of guilt but was in the "best interest of LSU."

Source

LSU placed Hatfill on paid administrative leave on Aug. 2 after the FBI had searched his Maryland residence twice in connection with its investigation into the anthrax mailings last year. LSU is waiting for the results of a background check before it decides if Hatfill can keep his newly acquired, $150,000-a-year post as associate director of LSU's bio-terrorism training program for public-safety personnel.

In interviews, spokesmen for the State Department and for Science Applications International Corp., Hatfill's former employer, confirmed that Hatfill worked on an SAIC-State Department contract this spring, after LSU hired him. They said they did not know, or would not comment on, the circumstances of Hatfill's departure from SAIC. Privacy laws forbid SAIC from revealing that information, SAIC spokesman Benjamin A. Haddad said.

Hatfill's attorney, Victor M. Glasberg of Alexandria, Va., has said SAIC fired the scientist in March, citing the CIA polygraph results that were then already several months old.

His attorney has said that the continued association among Hatfill, the State Department and SAIC proves that some government officials and former work colleagues did not consider Hatfill a security threat, even after the CIA polygraph incident. The CIA test did not cover issues in the anthrax case, and its ambiguous results covered incidents from Hatfill's past in South Africa, Glasberg has told the Washington Post.

Source

Contrary to claims he made on his resume, Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, now under scrutiny in the FBI's anthrax investigation, did not earn a doctoral degree and never served in the U.S. Army Special Forces, according to academic and military officials and records.

But the apparent fabrications did not prevent him from getting hired in 1995 by the National Institutes of Health and in 1997 by the Army's biological defense research center at Fort Detrick. The Defense Department also apparently failed to check his credentials thoroughly before granting him "secret" security clearance in 1999.

Because no one discovered the problems, Hatfill was granted access to the world's deadliest pathogens in his research at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, where he worked from 1997 to 1999.

The job history of Hatfill, 48, raises questions about the federal government's hiring procedures for sensitive jobs, particularly in the field of biological defense.

"Obviously, if this is true, he was not adequately vetted by the U.S. government to work with dangerous pathogens," said Elisa D. Harris, a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland who is studying how to regulate biological programs, including possible licensing of scientists to work with dangerous organisms.

Source

So there you have it...Hatfill was already placed on administrative leave BEFORE the DoJ e-mail due to discrepancies in his resume. LSU admits it failed in it's review process of applicants. Mr. Hatfill was also previously fired from SAIC for the same reason...he was not able to get a security clearance because of questions about his past as listed on his resume. He was polygraphed by the CIA for his position at SAIC about his past MONTHS before any accusation was made by the FBI...he failed the test. HE ruined his chances for future Government employment by not being truthful about his past.

If the FBI and/or the media caused his termination like he says they did, why is he not suing SAIC and LSU for wrongful termination? Odds are still against him on that one as well considering it all goes back to the false resume, but the lawsuit that states the FBI ruined his reputation and kept him from pursuing his career interests has no merit whatsoever. Moral of the story...don't lie on Government applications. This is a very well known rule in the Government contracting arena, he should have known better. Y'all can take off the tin foil hats any time now...

[EdLake]

As I recall, Hatfill was let go from SAIC because his name was in the papers and reporters were asking about him. That didn't fit with the classified work he was doing, so SAIC let him go.

The excuse SAIC gave was that he hadn't gotten the security clearance he needed for a NEW project he was going to work on (possibly a job as a weapons inspector in Iraq). He DIDN'T NEED a security clearance for the classified work he had been doing at SAIC.

The reason he didn't get the security clearance was because when he took a polygraph, the tester didn't like an answer he gave to a question about what he'd done in Africa 15 years prior. Hatfill was attempting an appeal on that, claiming that the tester misinterpreted an answer.

Hatfill was able to get another job almost right away - at LSU.

As far as Hatfill's resume is concerned, SEED magazine wrote a lengthy article which virtually examined it line by line: http://www.forensic-intelligence.org/SJHSeed.PDF

HOWEVER, Dr. Hatfill had many resumes. Like any smart job hunter, he wrote a different resume for nearly every potential employer, accenting the points which might impress that employer. So, we don't really know which resume he used to get his job with SAIC or anywhere else. We don't even know that he needed to use a resume to get those jobs.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY STATEMENT BY ANYONE THAT DR. HATFILL WAS EVER FIRED BY ANYONE BECAUSE OF ERRORS ON HIS RESUME.

So, I think that the idea that he deserves never to work again because he lied on his resume is just plain nuts.

Ed
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[ravingnutter]

As I recall, Hatfill was let go from SAIC because his name was in the papers and reporters were asking about him. That didn't fit with the classified work he was doing, so SAIC let him go.

That was his story and while it could have been a contributing factor, it not neccessarily the truth. Also there were many scientists that were being investigated in the anthrax case due to the sheer nature of their work, why weren't they weren't fired?

The excuse SAIC gave was that he hadn't gotten the security clearance he needed for a NEW project he was going to work on (possibly a job as a weapons inspector in Iraq).

Excuse? He failed a polygraph for a security clearance. As the HR rep for a Government contractor, I know that even our employees that do not have access to classified material have to undergo a rigorous background check prior to even being able to access the Government server at the base. It is standard procedure...no clearance, no access...no access, no job. And maybe you missed the following from one of my links:

LSU and SAIC are partners in several federally funded contracts, according to SAIC and the university. In some cases, SAIC is the lead contractor and LSU is a subcontractor; in others, their roles are reversed.

SAIC is the lead contractor on the State Department contract in question in the Hatfill case. The contract involves protecting the State Department's facilities and personnel from chemical and bio-weapons. While he was still at SAIC, Hatfill "helped create the program" for the State Department, according to Haddad.

The public affairs office for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security confirmed that SAIC holds that contract, and that Hatfill worked on it after he went to LSU "for a brief period of time, probably for about a month, from April to May of this year." Through a public affairs officer, the bureau said, "He (Hatfill) was on the SAIC payroll. Then he left SAIC and went to LSU. He became a contract worker with SAIC while at LSU. I don't know who gave him the paycheck."

These two jobs were intertwined. SAIC as the prime contractor, notified the subcontractor, LSU of the discrepancies. It was then that LSU investigated the matter and decided to let Hatfill go.

He DIDN'T NEED a security clearance for the classified work he had been doing at SAIC.

Wrong. Anything classified requires a security clearance.As I stated above, we even need a clearance to access the base server.

The reason he didn't get the security clearance was because when he took a polygraph, the tester didn't like an answer he gave to a question about what he'd done in Africa 15 years prior. Hatfill was attempting an appeal on that, claiming that the tester misinterpreted an answer.

Oh geez, there he goes...playing the victim again. Nobody likes me...everybody hates me...waaaaaa. Maybe the tester didn't like the answer because it was a lie. It has been proven that he did not receive a his doctoral degree and that he never served in the U.S. Army Special Forces as he stated on his resume. He can appeal all he wants...now that his lies are in public view, he can't hide the fact that he lied. He can blame the media all he wants...but they were not the ones that typed up his resume.

Hatfill was able to get another job almost right away - at LSU.

Yes he was...pending a background check. LSU admitted that management practices were lacking and Hatfill was not adequately vetted for this position.

HOWEVER, Dr. Hatfill had many resumes. Like any smart job hunter, he wrote a different resume for nearly every potential employer, accenting the points which might impress that employer.

Oh puuuhhhleeeeze...accenting? Faking a doctorate and military service is not accenting, it is an outright lie.

So, we don't really know which resume he used to get his job with SAIC or anywhere else. We don't even know that he needed to use a resume to get those jobs.

Once again, as an HR rep for a contractor, resumes are always submitted to the employer prior to an interview, it is SOP. It's not like he was applying at Burger King.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY STATEMENT BY ANYONE THAT DR. HATFILL WAS EVER FIRED BY ANYONE BECAUSE OF ERRORS ON HIS RESUME.

Oh really now...then why is LSU looking at its management practices that allowed Hatfill to obtain access to classified material without a clearance. Not to mention the fact that HIS OWN LAWYER stated that the CIA polygraph was the reason he was fired. I can guarantee you that the polygraph was administered because they could not verify what he put in his resume. We have only fired one employee in the 16 years I have worked for this company...he failed to notify us during the application process that he was currently under indictment for a felony drug charge. Because there was not a conviction yet, it did not show up in the background check. He, like Hatfill, will never work in another Government position because the fact that he lied on his application is now a part of his file with the FBI.

So, I think that the idea that he deserves never to work again because he lied on his resume is just plain nuts.

Then you don't understand the contracting business.