Flight 800: Major breakthrough! Jack Cashill advises U.S. has conceded wrongdoing against Sanders

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, March 13, 2003 | Jack Cashill

[JohnHuang2]

One cannot underestimate the impact of what has just transpired in James and Elizabeth Sanders' ongoing civil suit against the federal government and seven named individuals. The case number is federal EDNY, #01-CV-5447 JS.

The United States government has declined to respond to the Sanders' summary judgment motion – "Rule 56.1 Statement." Incredibly, by so declining, U.S. Attorney Kevin Cleary has conceded that the Sanders' 32 damning charges against his clients cannot be rebutted.

In so conceding, the Justice Department tacitly acknowledges that, yes, the TWA Flight 800 investigation has been corrupted and, no, we are not prepared to contest this fact.

In sum, Cleary has thrown in the towel on a case that ranks among the most egregious violations of a reporter's constitutional rights in the history of American journalism.

From the beginning, the story of TWA Flight 800, the one that James Sanders chronicled, has been a story of humanity betrayed – none more so than the 230 good souls aboard that doomed plane.

Fifty-three of the dead were TWA employees. James' wife, Elizabeth Sanders, had trained many of the attendants on board and knew several of the pilots. Their deaths wounded the sweet, vulnerable Elizabeth deeply. In the weeks afterward, she and her TWA colleagues passed numbly from one memorial service to another, their grief matched only by their growing anger at the obvious misdirection of the investigation. One of those colleagues, 747 pilot and manager Terry Stacey, would become James Sanders' best source within that investigation.

From the beginning, too, James Sanders has recognized the humanity of those who have tried to block him from telling this story. In his civil suit, as in his reporting – including the book he and I have co-authored, "First Strike, TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America" – Sanders has never shied from putting a human face on injustice.

What makes Sanders' legal case so powerful is that he targets not merely the anonymous monolith of "government," but seven named defendants within. These are real people with real fears who, for a variety of reasons, yielded to those fears and betrayed the trust of the American people. For several years now, Sanders is all that has stood between them and knowledge that they got away with it. No doubt, they are anxious about this turn of events. One hopes major media will seek them out and exploit that anxiety.

As Sanders argued in his summary judgment motion, the named defendants used their legal authority not to protect the federal Flight 800 investigation, but to thwart Sanders' reporting on their own lawlessness. In the process, the defendants knowingly violated the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The persecution of Sanders can be traced to March 10, 1997, when California's Riverside Press-Enterprise headlined its front page with an article titled, "New Data Show Missile May Have Nailed TWA 800." Written by Loren Fleckenstein, the story identified James Sanders as an "investigative reporter," provided information on his previous non-fiction books, and described his inquiry into the FBI and NTSB Flight 800 investigation over the preceding five months.

This story created a significant problem for the Justice Department. The article's text confirmed that Sanders was on the trail of potential criminal activity within the Flight 800 investigation. As to those charged with containing the investigation, their worst nightmare had been realized. Forensic evidence had left the hangar. Some unknown person within the investigation had removed a pinch of material from the plane as telling and potentially damaging as Monica's famed "blue dress." That person was Terry Stacey. He removed it of his own volition and sent it to Sanders.

This piece of seat back was laced with the DNA of the crash, a reddish-orange residue trail that streaked across a narrow section of the plane's interior. The FBI had lifted samples in early September 1996, then refused to share the test results with the NTSB. For the record, those tests today remain classified under the guise of national security.

Once the story had broken, the Clinton Justice Department used its considerable powers to thwart Sanders. The key to its strategy was the denial of Sanders' standing as a journalist by two Justice Department lawyers, Valerie Caproni and Benton Campbell. The current Justice Department now concedes that these two attorneys did the following:

conspired to print factually false information in a Justice Department letter to deprive [James Sanders] of his civil rights afforded by the PPA (Privacy Protection Act). By falsely alleging they did not know plaintiff was a journalist, defendants conspired to create an illegal scheme allowing them to subpoena and obtain work product and documents because, per the scheme, they did not know [Sanders] was a journalist until after receiving work product and documents.

The charges went beyond the two attorneys. The current Justice Department has chosen not to contest the following related charge from Sanders' civil suit.

Within seconds of learning that the overarching conspiracy [FBI agents Jim Kallstrom and Jim Kinsley, NTSB Chairman Jim Hall, NTSB head of investigation Bernie Loeb, and NTSB head of the Fire & Explosion Team Merritt Birky] were engaged in to alter the outcome of the TWA 800 federal 'investigation' was compromised by [James Sanders], CAPRONI and CAMPBELL knew beyond any doubt that [Sanders] was a journalist protected by PPA and Justice Department CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 50.10. Defendants CAPRONI and CAMPBELL, in order to protect themselves and their co-conspirators, knowingly and willfully widened the overarching conspiracy to include violating [Sanders] PPA civil rights by using grand jury subpoena power to illegally seize work product.

The Sanders' suit details the way this conspiracy worked and names those responsible. Again, the Justice Department has let these incriminating charges stand unrebutted:

Defendants, no later than March 11, 1997, falsely said the reddish-orange residue was glue. Defendants HALL and LOEB made this false statement to Congress on March 11, 1997. Defendant BIRKY inserted this false information into the Fire & Explosion Team "Factual Report" … Defendants removed substantially all reddish-orange residue from rows 17-19. LOEB was then given the assignment to lie to Congress and state there was no residue trail on the seats inside Calverton Hangar.

At the FBI's Nov. 18, 1997 press conference, Kallstrom made the following claim about this residue trail:

The seat cushion residue, reported in the Riverside, Calif., press, of the residue that someone said was rocket fuel. The truth is the material is contact adhesive.

We know without a doubt – without any doubt whatsoever – that it's the adhesive that holds the back of the seats together. It's not rocket fuel. It's not residue of a rocket, never was, never will be.

The Justice Department, in essence, now concedes Kallstrom's "statement was false, [and] known to be false." Justice also concedes that "KALLSTROM and KINSLEY conspired to create a factually false illusion that [James Sanders] had misrepresented the [red residue tests]."

In fact, the residue was demonstrably not glue. The Justice Department also concedes that another FBI agent gave false testimony about the red residue by choosing not to contest the following charge:

FBI agent Ken Maxwell, testifying at the [Sanders'] criminal trial April 7, 1999, falsely stated the FBI first observed the reddish-orange [trail] in late October to early November [1996]. This factually false statement was made as a part of a conspiracy with [Justice Department attorney] PITOFSKY to place the peak FBI point of interest in the residue at the same period of time [James Sanders] and [Terry] Stacey were discussing removal for testing purposes.

If there were a consistent strategy among the seven defendants, it was to de-humanize the Sanders – to strip away their dignity and individuality. This strategy reached its tragi-comic peak on Dec. 5, 1997 when the FBI's New York office Internet site proudly headlined the story of the Sanders' arrest: "Conspiracy theorist and wife charged with theft of parts from airplane," and scrolled it across the top of its home page. The arrest warrant was shot through with false statements. In his suit, Sanders would credit FBI agents Jim Kallstrom and Jim Kinsley for this misrepresentation – and the Justice Department now concedes these constitutional violations.

Here is another critical point that the Justice Department has chosen not to contest: "On Dec. 5, 1997, the New York Justice Department-FBI website, coordinated with the KALLSTROM-KINSLEY conspiracy to vilify [James Sanders]." By labeling Sanders a "conspiracy theorist" on its website, the FBI employed a subjective characterization that violates the FBI's own guidelines.

Things got uglier four days later when FBI agent Jim Kinsley paraded James and Elizabeth through a throng of reporters, their hands cuffed behind their backs. Throughout it, Elizabeth worried deeply about what her aging mother, a Philippine immigrant, would think. Sanders would remember her hurt in his civil suit and charged Kinsley with inflicting it by orchestrating a gratuitous and illegal "perp walk."

Kinsley was also involved in one of the more clever bits of illegal mischief. As the Sanders charge, and the Justice Department concedes, federal prosecutor David Pitofsky recognized that Kinsley's seizure of Sanders' computer was illegal. So Pitofsky initiated a scheme in which relevant printouts of that information would be sent to publisher Alfred Regnery. He and Kinsley then jointly contacted Regnery and demanded that the publisher turn all over related documents in his possession, which he did.

At almost every turn in this sordid tale, cleverness trumped honor. The legal deck was stacked from the beginning and the jury pool poisoned. In April 1999, James and Elizabeth Sanders stood trial in Long Island before a jury shielded from the knowledge that James Sanders was acting as a journalist uncovering the criminal acts of federal agents, let alone that he was being prosecuted by the very agents he had hoped to expose.

As typical in a criminal trial, the prosecution got the last word. "A conspiratorial government going after these people?" David Pitofsky scoffed. "And, to what end? What is the government's motive? Ask yourself that. What is the government's motive to falsely implicate these people?"

One can hardly fault the jury for not knowing. They heard nothing about corruption within the investigation. They did not know about James Sanders' First Amendment right to expose that corruption or that his attempt to assert that right had been denied.

All they knew was that these two likely thieves may or may not have conspired to steal evidence from a crime scene. And why believe these "conspiracy theorists"? The establishment media obviously didn't. Besides, what reason did their government have to "falsely implicate these people?"

The jury returned after less than two hours of deliberation. Elizabeth clutched her husband's hand, almost too anxious to speak. She hoped for the best, but feared the worst. The worst is what they got.

"Guilty as charged" – both Sanders – not only for conspiracy, but also for aiding and abetting in the theft of the fabric. The audience gasped in disbelief. Even Judge Joanna Seybert looked stunned.

David Pitofsky beamed in delight. "The jury understood," he said, spinning nonsense even in victory, "that no responsible reporter would believe they could break into a place to get a story.'' At this sad moment of truth, as she wept softly, one thought flashed through Elizabeth's mind, "What will my mother think?"

The Justice Department now concedes that it "fabricated a defense where none existed" in earlier opposing the Sanders' civil action. It also concedes there is no defense for the 32 counts of federal lawlessness committed in pursuit of destroying a journalist and his wife.

Today, as the Sanders await Judge Seybert's summary judgment ruling, the major media have the opportunity finally to recognize the innocent, to rebuke the guilty and to avenge the dead. Whether they choose to tell it or not, this is a story that will not go away.

Read "Jailed author of Flight 800 book vindicated"

---

[acehai]

But here you are, with your same old rant. "Do you know?"

That "same old rant" is quite telling, me foine grasshoppa. As long as you refuse to answer the simple question "Have you seen ALL the pertinent available radar data", I don't have to prove anything.

And Elmer Barr's Cargo Door theory has been debunked thoroughly. Besides, it was John Barry Smith's theory, but of course, you knew that.

Simple logic reigns here. Why would the government go to the trouble of covering up a "mechanical" with another "mechanical?" Seems to me that if you buy the JBS theory, then you're agreeing it was covered up. You can't have it both ways.

[LS]

I don't know. But, come on. You are ducking the issue. IF the radar tapes are out there, that would prove it, end of story.

You are concentrating on "why this?" and "why that?" without looking at the ONE area where this dispute could be resolved totally.

[LS]

No, you can beat around the bush all you want "my fine grasshopper" but in the end, you shy away from the ONE critical piece of data that proves, once and for all, if you are right or wrong.

Again, anyone confident in their position would desperately WANT that data, rather than worrying about "simple logic" or "what the government is covering up." Just follow the radar. That will give you your evidence.

[LS]

Interesting. Now, why in the world would any "seeker" missile (using "layman's terms") fly RIGHT BY the Orion and, instead, lock on to an aircraft much further away?

[LS]

Thank you for explaining that. Yes, your imaging of the "junk" flying away is of interest. You must admit, that COULD be expelled from an internal explosion, although the direction is suspicious.

However, the problem with this is as soon as you raise one issue like this, ten others pop up. ANY MISSILE would have left fragments and debris. I realize all the aircraft debris was not recovered, but surely in ALL the stuff they recovered (and pieced back together) there would have been some pretty obvious parts that did not fit and which were not evaporated in the explosion (say, a rocket motor, casings, and so on). Where is that? Any evidence whatsoever of that?

Now, let's say for a minute I agree with you that a) a missile hit; and b) we agree it could NOT have been a hand-held "stinger-type," but had to be either a drone or a "seeker/killer" missile. Only one source for that, right? A U.S. Navy ship.

First, as I explained, an "accidental" launch of one of these is nearly impossible, and there are some abort procedures after it leaves.

Second, if the Navy is culpable, then there are more than 100 sailors who know what happened, yet not ONE has said anything. Just a little suspicious, even given that they have been "threatened" by the government? Where are the courageous people who throw caution to the wind and (make millions in the process) tell their story on "Dateline" or "60 Minutes?"

Third, can we please pin this down, so I don't run all over hell on a fishing expedition: Do you assert that this was a runaway drone "pass through" missile (the only one that would explain, BTW, the "red residue") or do you assert that this is a rogue "hunter/killer" that just "escaped" its launch tube, ignored a PC-3 Orion right in front of it so it could lock on to an airliner 4.5 nm. away? Which is it? Or do you assert both?

[LS]

I thought we were having a civil discussion. Now you attack me and ignore my arguments.

I'll give you one more chance to respond with civility, because I have seen some interesting new evidence here. But please get rid of the "red letter" bash-type rhetoric and address my questions, and I'll try to address yours. I've been totally honest, although I probably have a little more expertise than a "typical" historian might have. Now, I've asked reasonable questions of you, and you really haven't answered, but continually shift the ground which does make me suspicious that you really don't want to have a conversation.

Let me repeat some that you have not addressed:

1) Radar tapes show an anomaly. We can agree there are probably a LOT of tapes out there, and that anyone who has seen most of them refuses to say EITHER that there was or was not a missile. That sounds like a wash to me. There is no proof so far made public, that I am aware of, of ANY "missile" on the tapes. I have repeatedly urged you and others to produce the tapes, because they are irrefutable evidence one way or another. My suspicion is that no one of the "conspiracy" crowd wants to do so, because it ends the discussion. But as I say, that is only a suspicion.

I have admitted that the explosion pattern looks odd and suspicious and would be wiling to pursue that discussion . . . but:

You did not address my point that there are NO missile parts, fragments, motor parts, or any other missile debris (that we know of) that has been recovered. I would think you would find that odd. After all, the people doing the dredging didn't know what they were looking at, and if there is a big conspiracy, then we should have had a big box on one side of the "reconstruction room" with a bunch of odd parts that don't fit the airliner. But apparently we didn't. I challenge you to explain this absence of evidence---the second conveniently missing evidence that would irrefutably MAKE YOUR CASE.

Other than shouting at me in red about James McDougall (!), you did not address why more than 100 sailors would ALL be quiet. Come on. Ten people can't keep a secret, let alone 100, even if there were threats. And please, to pull McDougall into this conversation is a little disingenuous, because you are today, right now, implicating the BUSH administration as well as the Clinton administration, and I don't think you really want to go that far.

You want me to believe that people can all be cowed, even when Clinton isn't in office and Bush has not shown the LEAST inclination to punish ANYONE for past crimes, and yet these "whistleblowers" would make MILLIONS if they had any evidence for their story. That seems far-fetched to me.

I mentioned to you the Orion---right in FRONT of the so-called "missile," yet it was ignored. Why? If this were a "seeker," it would be radar or heat activated to the nearest target unless it was laser guided. But do you really want to go there and assert that the U.S. Navy now did not accidentally shoot down a plane but painted it with a laser designator?

I have repeatedly explained to you the discrepancies and anomalies between a "passthrough" drone missile and a "seeker." The red residue could only come from the first, but such a missile would never be that high---or, if it were, there would be a SECOND missile on screen (the same radar screen that we cannot prove even ONE missile was on).

Now, before you blow a gasket again, I despised Clinton and distrusted his administration as much as anyone. But I do NOT distrust everyone in government. I know good, honest people who work in all parts of the government, and your implication that literally HUNDREDS of sailors, NTSB officials, White House career people (not Clinton appointees), CIA, FBI, and other personnel would ALL be involved in something as heinous as this is too far-fetched for me. I especially am concerned that you will not even go so far as to admit that people like Kallstrom did the best job they could and possibly came to different conclusions than you---but because they did, they are dishonest?

On the other hand, we have Sanders, who does stand to make a GREAT deal of money if he is "proven out." Seems to me the burden of proof, then, is on him and the conspiracy crowd.

As for the purposes of FreeRepublic, I bet I was here long before you. My understanding is that we can freely discuss all topics--that's the purpose---and yet you want to bash me because I simply call for some common sense evidence? That in itself seems Clintonesque.

[LS]

Since I'm not an engineer, I'll defer to your assessment, although it does not seem reasonable. In an explosion, things go in all directions. But for now, I'll concede thsi to move the discussion along.

[LS]

Ok, that's it. I've tried to be civil, but in the process of trying to discuss this with you, you have accused me of being a "mind-numbed robot," questioned my dis-attachment from the process, and otherwise snidely inserted all sorts of insulting comments. And, as of this last post, you still did not address the issues, but went on a rant about what Gore or other people did.

Since you really don't want to discuss this, I'm outta here.

[LS]

See my last post to you. This is the reply you will get to all further posts.

[thatstan]

LS, my last post adequately answered that the radar data you were looking for was withheld even from Cong. Duncan, the head of the Aviation Committee. All of the military radars have been suppressed. Before a person can argue with another productively, the another must be a worthy arguer. Some history you must write.

[LS]

Ok. I accept that. So the bottom line is that no one knows what is on those tapes. Certainly, though, you would agree that whatever is on there can most likely prove, without a shadow of a doubt, if there was a missile or not, correct?