6-25-14 White Paper in support of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 President Reagan Library FOIA denial decision of the plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 NARA MDR FOIA request re the NARA “Perot”, the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents.

This is a White Paper (WP) in support of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ, cv 02-6788 (Seybert, J), plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 President Reagan Library FOIA denial decision of the plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 NARA MDR FOIA request. The plaintiff sought the release of the NARA “Perot”, the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents by application of President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526, Classified National Security Information, 75 F.R. 707 (January 5, 2010), § 3.5 Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR).

On June 2, 2014, President Reagan Library Archivist/FOIA Coordinator Shelly Williams rendered a Case #M-425 denial decision with an attached Worksheet:

This is in further response to your request for your Mandatory Review request for release of information under the provisions of Section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526, to Reagan Presidential records pertaining to Ross Perot doc re report see email. These records were processed in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2207. Id. Emphasis added.

The Worksheet attachment to the decision lists three sets of Keisler, Peter: Files with Doc ## 27191, 27192, and 27193 notations. There was no worksheet for NARA “Perot” documents or the NARA “Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents. The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff has never received the universe of these FOIA requested documents or Worksheets. He appealed the decision not to release the universe of these two sets of documents.

Because of the complexity of this appeal, the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff requested the President Ronald Reagan Library NARA Deputy Archivist Debra Wall include in the Appeal Record this 6-25-14 White Paper (WP) in support of the June 25, 2014 appeal. This 6-25-14 WP supplements the other WPs cited in the FOIA Record for these sets of NARA MDR documents. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP. http://snowflake5391.net/5_9_11_WP_NARA_MDR.pdf, 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP, http://snowflake5391.net/5_9_11_WP_NARA_ADR.pdf, 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP, http://snowflake5391.net/5_9_11_MDR_CIA.pdf, and 1-23-12 NARA OGIS WP http://snowflake5391.net/1_23_12_OGIS_NARA_WP.pdf

This is also a complicated President Ronald Reagan Library Appeal because these three sets of NARA documents are connect-the-dots documents with the Robert II v CIA and DOJ, Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), Robert v DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2002), Robert VII v DOJ, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39616, 193 Fed. Appx. 8 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. den. 127 S.Ct. 1133 (2007). Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA, 439 Fed. Appx 32 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. den. 132 S. Ct. 1549 (2012) documents. The plaintiff placed NARA Deputy Archivist Wall on Notice that she has a duty to consult with NARA General Counsel Gary Stern (1998-). He knows the legal and historical significance of these three sets of NARA connect-the-dots documents. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP §§ B, H-L.

1 The plaintiff seeks the release of these three sets of NARA documents to prove to President Barak Obama that the Robert II v CIA and DOJ co-defendants CIA Director John Brennan and AG Holder are “defrauding” President Obama as did CIA Director William Casey and AG Meese “defraud” President Ronald Reagan in 1985 re the violation of the December 4, 1981 E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic “special activities. This is a timely “defrauding of Presidents Reagan and Obama” issue because SSIC Chairman Diane Feinstein filed a March 11, 2014 complaint with AG Holder that CIA Director Brennan has in 2014 violated the 1981 E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic activities. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § A below.

The NARA “Perot” documents are the documents that President Reagan’s Diary reveals that Mr. Ross Perot handed to President Reagan on February 24, 1987. On February 25, 1987, President Reagan provided these documents to AG Meese (1985-1988) and FBI Director Judge Webster (1978-1987). See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP § D and 6-25-14 NARA WP § B.

The NARA “Peter Keisler Collection” documents are the NARA Box: Peter Keisler Collection OA 16033: Legal Analysis Contra Aid laws, Congress Notification, and Application States re: Contras. Upon information and belief, these documents state the legal authority for providing medical assistance and supplies to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment explicit limitations. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP § E and 6-25-14 NARA WP § C.

The NARA “Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents had been in the custody of Independent Counsel (IC) Lawrence Walsh on March 29, 1989 when FBI Agent Allison interviewed plaintiff Robert in the Offices of IC Walsh. FBI Agent Allison knew the plaintiff alleged that these documents contained evidence that CIA Director Casey had conducted a CIA domestic “black operation” at International Medical Center, Inc. (IMC) without President Reagan’s knowledge. These are the IC Walsh “FBI Agent Allison” documents that were discussed in Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), that were in the “Bulky Evidence” file. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP § F and 6-25-14 NARA WP § D.

The June 2, 2014 Worksheet indicates that 13 documents were withheld pursuant to President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 § 3.5c. However, the decision does not state the specific statute upon which the documents were not released. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § E.

The June 2, 2014 denial decision informed the plaintiff that the decision was subject to President George Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233, Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act. However, on January 21, 2009, President Obama revoked E.O. 13233 when he issued E.O. 13489, Presidential Records. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § F.

President Obama’s E.O. 13489 established a new process to review a denial of a request for the release of a former President’s archived documents. Pursuant to § 3 (c), if the AG and WH Counsel ratified President Reagan’s Estate’s assertion of executive privilege, then they were to present the issue directly to President Obama. Upon information and belief, during the 2011-2014 period prior to the June 2, 2014 NARA denial decision, AG Holder (2009-) and WH Counsel Kathyrn Ruemmler (2011-2014) made decisions to ratify President Reagan’s Estate’s representative’s executive privilege decision to withhold these NARA documents. If so, then President Obama’s new WH Counsel W. Neil Eggleston (May, 2014-) has a duty to review the executive privilege decision of former-WH Counsel Ruemmler. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § G.

2 The plaintiff asserts that if at this late date AG Holder has not presented to President Obama the fact that the representative of the Estate of President Reagan has asserted executive privilege re the release of these documents, then this is evidence of AG Holder “defrauding” President Obama. In the alternative, the plaintiff asserts that this is evidence of a DOJ “stovepipe” that bypasses AG Holder (2009-) in order to provide AG Holder with a “plausible deniability” defense to serial impeachable violations of federal laws and the 2009-2014 serial violation of E.O. 12333 prohibitions of CIA domestic activities. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § H.

On December 7, 2011, NARA Deputy Archivist Wall informed the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff that his September 13, 2011 FOIA request for four classified “North Notebook” documents had been referred to CIA, DOD, and FBI FOIA Officers to process. She also graciously suggested that the NARA FOIA requester should consider using the NARA Office of Government Services (OGIS) mediation services. On January 23, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request for NARA OGIS mediation services with NARA OGIS Director Miriam Nesbit supported by a 80 page WP explaining the facts and legal issues. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § I.

The Robert II v CIA and DOJ co-defendants’ attorneys CIA General Counsel Caroline Krass (2014-) and EDNY U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch (1999-2001, 2010-) know whether these three sets of NARA documents are connect-the-dots documents with the four one page CIA classified 1985 “North Notebook” documents. They know that if the plaintiff’s allegations are true re the content of the three sets of NARA documents, then have their own FRCP 11 duty to provide accurate facts to Judge Seybert in the co-defendants’ Robert II v CIA and DOJ FRCP 11 signed in camera ex parte Declarations filed in opposition to the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. They know that acceptance of the plaintiff’s quiet settlement offer would moot the plaintiff’s FOIA request for these three sets of NARA documents. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § J.

If the NARA Deputy Archivist does not render a decision within 30 days, then the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff may file a Motion with Judge Garaufis seeking a pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint seeking these NARA documents. That complaint will also seek the release of the December 3, 2013 FOIA requested Top Secret 1984 and 2004 OLC FISA Memos and February 7, 2014 FOIA requested FBI documents. AG Holder knows that if the plaintiff files his Robert VIII Motion seeking a pre-clearance Order to file a OLC, FBI, and NARA FOIA complaint, then the Second Circuit standard requires that Judge Garaufis read in camera the withheld FOIA requested classified documents. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § K.

On June 16, 2014. the Supreme Court decided Susan V. Anthony List v Driehaus and established a standing standard that makes the NARA documents more important. These documents contain evidence that reveals whether NARA General Counsel Stern had violated the Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), plaintiff’s First Amendment right of access to the Courts by application of the standards established in Christopher v. Harbury, 121 S. Ct. 2171 (2001). The NARA documents and Robert v National Archives case file notes and e- mails reveal whether NARA General Counsel Stern had intentionally withheld material facts from Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § L.

The Robert II v CIA and DOJ has informed NARA Deputy Archivist Wall that he seeks a quiet settlement that would moot this appeal. He believes that if NARA Archivist Ferriero reads the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents, then there will be a quiet settlement. See § M below.

3 A. The plaintiff seeks the NARA documents to prove to President Obama that there has been a policy and practice of AGs Meese, CIA Director Casey, AG Holder, and CIA Director Brennan of “defrauding” Presidents Reagan and Obama by conducting illegal E.O. 12333 CIA domestic “special activities” without the knowledge of the Presidents

The plaintiff seeks the release of these three sets of NARA documents to prove to President Barak Obama that the Robert II v CIA and DOJ co-defendants CIA Director John Brennan and AG Holder are “defrauding” President Obama as did CIA Director William Casey and AG Meese “defraud” President Ronald Reagan in 1985 re the violation of the December 4, 1981 E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic “special activities” without the knowledge of the President. This is a timely “defrauding of Presidents Reagan and Obama” issue because SSIC Chairman Diane Feinstein filed a March 11, 2014 complaint with AG Holder that CIA Director Brennan has in 2014 violated the 1981 E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic activities.

On November 26, 2011, the National Security Archive posted on its website, Iran-Contras Independent Counsel (IC) Lawrence Walsh’s March 21, 1991 "Memoranda on Criminal Liability of Former President Reagan and of President Bush." The non-profit agency secured this document pursuant to a FOIA request. IC Walsh determined that President Reagan and VP Bush had no Iran-Contras criminal liability because they had reasonably relied upon AG Meese’s legal opinions. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB365/index.htm. Neither President Reagan or VP Bush were attorneys. See 12-14-11 Robert II v CIA and DOJ Status Affidavit § C. http://snowflake5391.net/12-14-11_RIIvCIAandDOJStatusAffidavit%20.pdf

IC Walsh made his Iran-Contras “defrauding” of President Reagan and VP Bush determination by application of his interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States. The statute provides:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Emphasis added.

The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff asserts that the FOIA requested NARA “Perot”, the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents are connect-the-dots documents that prove whether AG Meese knew that CIA Director Casey was conducting an illegal E.O. 12333 CIA domestic “black operation” at the Florida HMO International Medical Center, Inc. without the knowledge of President Reagan. If so, then the plaintiff asserts that CIA Director Casey and AG Meese “defrauded” President Reagan by conspiring to withhold the fact of the E.O. 12333 violations from President Reagan. See 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP §§ C,K, R. http://snowflake5391.net/5_9_11_MDR_CIA.pdf.

The plaintiff asserts that co-defendants CIA Director Brennan and AG Holder know these three sets of NARA documents contain “smoking gun” admissions that AG Meese had approved the CIA “sources and methods” of violating the E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic “special activities.” They are withholding this fact from President Obama because CIA Director Brennan continues to conduct illegal CIA domestic “sources and methods” in 2014.

4 The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff’s almost incredible allegation that co-defendants CIA Director Casey and AG Holder are “defrauding” President Obama in 2014, has been presented to Judge Seybert in the plaintiff’s monthly status letters. NARA General Counsel Stern has internet access to all Robert II v CIA and DOJ documents filed with the Court. This includes the plaintiff’s monthly status reports filed with Judge Seybert. See Docket entries 65-74. If asked, NARA General Counsel Stern will inform NARA Deputy Archivist Wall of his knowledge of Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents that had been read by former-NARA Deputy Archivist Adrienne Thomas. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP §§ B, E-L.

The “Past is Prologue” issue of CIA Director Casey and AG Meese “defrauding” President Reagan and CIA Director Brennan and AG Holder “defrauding” President Obama re violations of the E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic “special activities,” is a timely issue. On March 11, 2014 Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSIC) Chairman Diane Feinstein informed the Senate and the public that she had filed a complaint with AG Eric Holder against CIA Director John Brennan and the Acting CIA General Counsel. She alleged they had violated the E.O. 12333 prohibition against CIA domestic covert activities by authorizing CIA analysts to conduct the warrantless surveillance of the Article I SSIC staff and the SSIC computer: My letter also laid out my concern about the legal and constitutional implications of the CIA's actions. Based on what Director Brennan has informed us, I have grave concerns that the CIA's search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution, including the speech and debate clause. It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function. I have asked for an apology and a recognition that this CIA search of computers used by its oversight committee was inappropriate. I have received neither. Besides the constitutional implications, the CIA search may also have violated the Fourth Amendment, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as Executive Order 12333, which prohibits the CIA from conducting domestic searches or surveillance. Id. Emphasis added. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/11/text-of-sen-feinsteins-remarks- on-cia-search-of-panels-computers/

SSIC Chairman Feinstein informed the public of Article II CIA retaliation against SSIC staff because the Acting CIA General Counsel had filed a 2014 “crimes report” with the DOJ re what he asserted was the SSIC unauthorized retention of classified documents:

Weeks later, I was also told that after the inspector general referred the CIA’s activities to the Department of Justice, the acting general counsel of the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice concerning the committee staff’s actions. I have not been provided the specifics of these allegations or been told whether the department has initiated a criminal investigation based on the allegations of the CIA’s acting general counsel. Id. Emphasis added.

5 The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff has asserted that he too was the target of illegal CIA domestic retaliation as was SSIC Chairman Feinstein’s staff. He has asserted that the Robert II v CIA and DOJ “North Notebook” documents withheld pursuant to the CIA’s uses of FOIA exemptions 1and 3 and the Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” documents withheld pursuant to the CIA’s use of FOIA Exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense, reveal whether HHS General Counsel Juan del Real was CIA Director Casey’s 1982-1985 illegal E.O. 12333 CIA domestic agent when Robert was a CIA target of the E.O. 12333 “FISA exempt” NSA TSP. If so, then CIA Director Brennan and AG Holder know this fact. If so, then this is a timely issue as AG Holder conducts his 2014 investigation of SSIC Chairman Feinstein’s complaint against CIA Director Brennan for violating the E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic “special activities.” See plaintiff’s 4-4-14 status letter to Judge Seybert ¶¶ 1, 2, 8. Docket entry 72.

On March 19, 2014, Senate Majority Leader Reid sent CIA Director Brennan a letter re the separation of powers issue that resulted from the CIA’s E.O. 12333 search of the SSIC computer without Notice to SSIC Chairman Feinstein. Majority Leader Reid’s March 19, 2014 letter to CIA Director Brennan explicitly joined the separation of powers issue:

As Chairman Feinstein has noted, this incident would mark the third time since 2010 in which the CIA has acknowledged intruding into SSCI computer networks without authorization. You are no doubt aware of the grave and unprecedented concerns with regard to constitutional separation of powers this action raises. Id. 1. Emphasis added. http://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Letter_Brennan- SAA-Investigation.pdf

Majority Leader Reid’s March 19, 2014 letter to AG Holder highlights the 2014 need for AG Holder to end what the Majority leader characterized as the 2014 CIA having “run amok” as an “unaccountable” Article II federal agency:

In my capacity as the leader of the U.S. Senate, the CIA’s actions cause me grave concern. The CIA has not only interfered with the lawful congressional oversight of its activities, but has also seemingly attempted to intimidate its overseers by subjecting them to criminal investigation. These developments strike at the heart the constitutional separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Left unchallenged, they call into question Congress’s ability to carry out its core constitutional duties and risk the possibility of an unaccountable Intelligence Community run amok. The CIA cannot be permitted to undermine Congress’s ability to serve as an effective check on executive power as our nation’s Founders intended. Id. 1-2. Emphasis added. http://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Letter_Holder- on-SSCI-Computer-Breach1.pdf

The plaintiff asserts that these NARA documents reveal that CIA Director Casey had “run amok” when he violated the E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic “special activities.” He is asserting that CIA Director Brennan is continuing in 2014 the CIA “run amok” policy and practice of “defrauding” President Obama as CIA Director Casey “defrauded” President Reagan.

6 B. The February 25, 1987 “Perot” documents identified in President Reagan’s Diary reveal that President Reagan provided Mr. H. Ross Perot’s February 24, 1987 DOD and CIA “chicanery & corruption” documents to AG Meese and FBI Director Judge Webster

The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff asserts that the February 25, 1987 “Perot” documents identified in President Reagan’s Diary reveal that President Reagan provided Mr. H. Ross Perot’s February 24, 1987 DOD and CIA “chicanery & corruption” documents to AG Meese (1985-1988) and FBI Director Judge Webster (1978-1987). He further asserts that the representative of the Estate of President Reagan has improperly asserted executive privilege to withhold these documents because these documents do not reveal an Article II national security secret. Rather, they reveal the fact that AG Meese and FBI Director Judge Webster had evidence that DOD Secretary Weinberger and CIA Director Casey had violated the Boland Amendment and had “defrauded” President Reagan. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP § D and §§ F-J below.

On September 28, 2007, the plaintiff requested that the President Ronald Reagan Library Archivist Shelly Jacobs Williams docket and release the “February 25, 1987 Ross Perot documents and resulting final investigation Report of the AG and the FBI Director documents.” The request was based on President Reagan’s Diary entries that had been selected by Professor Douglas Brinkley and published in the Reagan Diaries, Brinkley, HarperCollins, 2007. These documents had been in the custody of the Archivist of the President Ronald Reagan Library.

On February 24, 1987, President Reagan had made an entry re a meeting with Mr. H. Ross Perot re his allegations of “chicanery & corruption” at DOD and the CIA:

Then upstairs for an hour with Ross Perot. He has laid on me a story of chicanery & corruption in our executive branch including the mil. & CIA. It’s a shocker & and has me asking where do I start. Of course all he told me was based on circumstantial evidence. Id. 477. Emphasis Added.

On February 25, 1987, President Reagan made a log entry that he would provide the documents that Mr. Perot provided to AG Meese and FBI Director Judge Webster:

Well this A.M. I had talked to Ed M. Im going to turn this over to him & and our Dir. of the FBI. First however I’m going to give it all a good going over –the material Ross left with me. Id. 478. Emphasis Added.

Upon information and belief, those documents were reviewed by AG Meese and FBI Director Judge Webster. If so, then they knew whether a rogue domestic off-the-shelf CIA-DOD “black operation” had been conducted at the Florida HMO International Medical Center, Inc. from 1982-1986 through which unaudited HHS funds were diverted to pay for medical supplies and treatment of the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendments and the National Security Act of 1947. WH Counsel W. Neil Eggleston can determine whether President Reagan’s WH Counsels Fred Fielding (1981-1986), Peter Wallison (1986-1987), and Arthur Culvahouse (1987- 1989), knew that CIA Director Casey had conducted a CIA “black operation” at IMC.

NARA Archivist Williams did not docket this FOIA request for the “Perot” documents. Over the next four years the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff awaited a NARA FOIA decision.

7 Upon information and belief, the FOIA request for the “Perot” documents was not docketed and processed based on an interpretation of President Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233, Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act. This E.O. provided President Bush with the authority to use an executive privilege defense on behalf of incumbent and former Presidents to stop NARA from releasing of Presidential records pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13233.htm.

The “Perot” documents have “Past is Prologue” historical importance because Mr. Perot’s Electronic Data Systems (EDS) had the contract to process Medicaid and Medicare payments to health care providers. As a result, he would know whether HHS funds paid to the individual claims of medical care provided at the IMC HMO, had been used to pay for medical treatment of the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. See April 14, 1988 House Committee on Government Operations Report: Medicare Health Maintenance Organizations: The International Medical Centers Experience. Miami Mystery: Paid to Treat Elderly, IMC Moves in Worlds of Spying and Politics: Medicare Money Flowed in: Only Mr. Recarey Knows Where It Flowed Next: Congress, "bugs" and Mob. Wall Street Journal 8-9-1988. See also Robert VIII WP §§ AA, BB, EE, FF. http://snowflake5391.net/7_27_10_RobertVIII.pdf.

On January 21, 2009, President Obama issued E.O. 13489, Presidential Records, and revoked President Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233 governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978. Pursuant to E.O. 13489 §§ 3, 4 the final decision as to a former President’s use of executive privilege, is to be made by the incumbent President. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf. See § G below.

As a result, President Obama makes the final decision whether to release the February 25, 1987 “Perot” documents. This is a “Past is Prologue” decision because those documents are “connect the dots” with July 27, 2010 FOIA requested “FBI Abshire” documents that reveal the name of the 1985-1986 faux “Commander in Chief” of CIA Director Casey who was not President Reagan, and the faux 2010 “Commander in Chief” of FBI Chief FOIA Officer Hardy who was not President Obama. These “Perot” documents have FBI and CIA importance because on May 26, 1987 FBI Director Judge Webster became CIA Director Webster (1987-1991). See 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP § G, 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP §§ Q, R. 12, and §§ E-M below.

President Obama cannot make the final decision re the use of executive privilege to continue to withhold these documents without first reading the “Perot” documents. Therefore, given the gravity of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ- Robert VII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA- Robert v National Archives plaintiff’s allegation that these documents reveal that CIA Director Casey, AG Meese, and FBI Director Judge Webster had “defrauded” President Reagan, Deputy Archivist Wall should consult with NARA General Counsel Stern. He can consult with WH Counsel W. Neil Eggleston (May, 2014), as to President Obama’s E.O. 13489 §§ 3 and 4 duty to make the final decision whether to continue to assert executive privilege in 2014.

The plaintiff believes that after President Obama reads these “Perot” documents, he will know whether in 1987 CIA Director Casey, AG Meese, and FBI Director-CIA Director Judge Webster had “defrauded” President Reagan. If so, then President Obama will know why in 2014 CIA Director Brennan and AG Holder have “defrauded” President Obama. See § A above.

8 C. The “Peter Keisler Collection” documents reveal whether President Reagan’s WH Counsels Fielding (1981-1986), Wallison (1986-1987), and Culvahouse (1987-1989) had advised President Reagan that the 1984 Boland Amendment was an “unconstitutional” encroachment on the President’s Article II Commander in Chief “inherent authority”

The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff asserts that the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents reveal whether President Reagan’s WH Counsels Fred Fielding (1981-1986), Peter Wallison (1986-1987), and Arthur Culvahouse (1987-1989) had advised President Reagan that the October 12, 1984 Boland Amendment was an “unconstitutional” encroachment on the President’s Article II Commander in Chief “inherent authority” to protect the nation from terrorists. This is an important fact for AG Holder, WH Counsel Eggleston, and President Obama to know because 1986-1988 Assistant and Associate WH Counsel Peter Keisler would become the 2003-2007 AAG of the Civil Division and 2007 Acting AG during the Robert VII v DOJ and Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA FOIA litigation. He knew whether the plaintiff had been the CIA’s 1980s target of the E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP in violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA of 1978. If so, then President Obama should know these facts when he decides whether to continue to use executive privilege to withhold the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP § E and §§ F-J below.

The NARA MDR requested “Peter Keisler Collection”” documents are the July 27, 2010 de novo FOIA requested documents that are in the custody of the Ronald Reagan Library Archivist. These are important “Past is Prologue” documents because President Reagan’s 1986 Assistant WH Counsel Keiser would become President Reagan’s 1988 Associate WH Counsel, President George H.W. Bush’s 1989 Associate WH Counsel, President George W. Bush’s 2002- 2003 Principal Deputy Associate AG, 2003-2007 AAG of the Civil Division, and 2007 Acting AG. As a result, former-Acting AG Keisler knows whether the plaintiff’s 1985-2007 allegations are true as asserted in Robert v Holz, cv-85-4205 (Wexler, J), Robert II v CIA and DOJ, Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), Robert v DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2002), Robert VII v DOJ, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39616, 193 Fed. Appx. 8 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. den. 127 S.Ct. 1133 (2007), and Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA, 439 Fed. Appx 32 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. den. 132 S. Ct. 1549 (2012).

The “Peter Keisler Collection” documents were generated from 1986-1988 by President Reagan’s WH Counsel Wallison’s Assistant WH Counsel Peter Keisler and by WH Counsel Culvahouse’s Associate WH Counsel Peter Keisler. Upon information and belief, these documents reveal whether Assistant and Associate WH Counsel Keisler had provided WH Counsels Wallison and Culvahouse with any legal memos that asserted that the October 12, 1984 Boland Amendment was an “unconstitutional” encroachment of the President’s Article II Commander in Chief “inherent authority.” See 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP §§ D, G.

The plaintiff had learned of the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents from an August 1, 2006 Press Release of then-Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy. The Ranking Member explained his reason for opposing President Bush’s nomination of AAG of the Civil Division Peter Keisler for the D.C. Circuit. Ranking Member Leahy explained his opposition was in part because the Committee could not secure NARA documents re AAG of the Civil Division Keisler’s views on the “Contra Aid Laws’ and “Signing Statements” that were located in the President Ronald Reagan Library Archives:

9 We know that Mr. Keisler served in the White House Counsel's Office under President Reagan, but we really do not know what he did there. The Reagan Library has files for Mr. Keisler about controversial subjects like "Arms Sales," "Contra Aid Laws," and "Signing Statements," but we have not yet had access to those files. We learned a lot reviewing similar files for Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, but in Mr. Keisler's case, we are not being afforded any opportunity to review those records. That is not the proper consideration our system calls for, and it is a disservice to this Committee, this nominee and the Americans we serve. Id. Emphasis Added. http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=e655f9e2809e5 476862f735da119fe61&wit_id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da119fe61-0-1

On December 15, 2006, the plaintiff filed a FOIA request with the President Ronald Reagan Library Archivist/FOIA Officer Williams requesting the release of the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents located in NARA Box: Peter Keisler Collection OA 16033: Legal Analysis Contra Aid laws, Congress Notification, and Application States re: Contras. On January 30, 2007, the Archivist/FOIA Officer Williams docketed the plaintiff’s FOIA request, F07-014. She explained the FOIA request was being processed pursuant to President Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233. “However, because these are Presidential records administered in accordance with 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2207 and Executive Order 13233, NARA must notify the former and incumbent Presidents prior to the release of any Presidential records.” The plaintiff filed multiple follow up NARA inquiry letters with Archivist Williams for which there was no response. The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff appealed to NARA Archivist Allen Weinstein.

On August 11, 2008, then-NARA Deputy Archivist Adrienne Thomas informed the plaintiff that NARA Archivist Weinstein did not have jurisdiction because the President Ronald Reagan Library Archivist had not rendered a final decision. “As you have not received a final response to that FOIA request, I cannot consider an appeal for those records at this time.”

The June 2, 2014 decision of Archivist/FOIA Coordinator Shelly Williams was a final decision as to the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents. The June 2, 2014 Worksheet indicated that the denial for the documents was based on E.O. 13526 § 3.5c as to Documents ## 27191, 27192, and 27193. There were a total eleven pages denied. See §§ G, H below.

The plaintiff’s June 19, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 decision provides NARA Archivist David Ferriero’s Deputy Archivist Wall with the duty to render a FOIA decision as to whether E.O. 13526 § 3.5c was properly applied to deny the FOIA request. The June 2, 2014 decision did not identify the statute upon which § 3.5c denial was based. “They shall release this information unless withholding is otherwise authorized and warranted under applicable law.” Id. Emphasis added. On appeal, NARA Deputy Archivist Wall has a duty to read the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents and then inform the plaintiff which “applicable law” is the Archivist relying upon to withhold the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents. See § M below.

If the NARA Deputy Archivist determines that the “applicable law” is President Obama’s Article II Commander in Chief “inherent authority” to assert executive privilege to protect the national security secrets, then that decision will be based on the legal advice of NARA General Counsel Stern. He will have had a duty to consult with AG Holder and WH Counsel Eggleston.

10 D. The NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents, case file notes, and e-mails reveal whether NARA General Counsel Stern knows that AG Holder knows that the “FBI Agent Allison” documents reveal that AG Meese knew FBI Director Judge Webster knew that CIA Director Casey had conducted an E.O. 12333 prohibited activity at IMC

The NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents, case file notes, and e-mails reveal whether NARA General Counsel Stern knows that AG Holder knows that the “FBI Agent Allison” documents reveal that AG Meese knew FBI Director Judge Webster knew that CIA Director Casey had conducted an E.O. 12333 prohibited activity at IMC and that HHS General Counsel del Real was an illegal E.O. 12333 CIA domestic agent. If so, then AG Holder knows that President Obama has a 2014 § 413 (b) of the National Security Act “shall” duty to file a “corrective action” plan to cure the illegal CIA intelligence activities at IMC. See §§ J-M below.

The “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents are the documents that were in the March 29, 1989 custody of FBI Agent Carol Allison when she interviewed the Robert v Holz plaintiff in the Offices of Independent Counsel (IC) Lawrence Walsh. These documents were transferred to NARA when in 1993 IC Walsh ended his investigations. The plaintiff had sent IC Walsh documents that he asserted contained evidence that CIA Director Casey had conducted an illegal CIA domestic “black operation” at IMC. The plaintiff asserted that HHS General Counsel del Real (1981-1985) was CIA Director Casey’s illegal CIA domestic agent when he initiated the “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of Robert to eliminate an attorney who was challenging the HHS “nonacquiescence” policies of HHS General Counsel del Real. In December, 1985 HHS General Counsel del Real became IMC President Recarey’s Chief of Staff at IMC. The plaintiff alleged that IMC Chief of Staff del Real had illegally used unaudited HHS “nonacquiescence” policy to pay for the medical treatment and supplies of the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. See 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP §§ B, I, J, K.

In 1998, the plaintiff filed Robert v National Archives seeking the release of the “FBI Agent Allison” documents. He cited Judge Wexler to the Robert v Holz withheld documents as evidence of whether HHS General Counsel del Real had been CIA Director Casey’s illegal CIA domestic agent when he initiated the “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of Robert. Judge Wexler granted AG Reno’s Motion to Dismiss. Upon information and belief, Judge Wexler relied upon AG Reno’s “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations that informed Judge Wexler whether NARA Archivist Carlin was using the “Glomar Response” defense because the “FBI Agent Allison” documents revealed the “sources and methods” of the CIA. The Robert v National Archives case file notes and e-mails reveal whether AG Reno filed any “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations with Judge Wexler that reveal that FBI Agent Allison was the FBI liaison to IC Walsh whose “command and control” officer was FBI Director Judge Sessions (1987-1993) and not IC Walsh. See 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP §§ D-G, L, M, O. R.

The plaintiff appealed Judge Wexler’s decision. The plaintiff argued to the Second Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Feinberg, Katzmann, and Sotomayor that the DOJ and NARA attorneys were implementing the Barrett “nonacquiescence” policy. They had withheld material facts from Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit that corroborated the plaintiff’s allegations. “Finally, acceptance of the view urged by the federal appellants would result in a blanket grant of absolute immunity to government lawyers acting to prevent exposure of the government in liability.” Barrett v. United States, 798 F. 2d 565, 573 (2d Cir. 1986). Emphasis Added.

11 On January 12, 2001, the Second Circuit panel affirmed Judge Wexler’s decision. However, the panel noted that NARA “assured” plaintiff that there could be later searches when the “Bulky Evidence File” “electronic indices” became available:

NARA stated that it was unable to find any other reference to Robert, an interview with Robert, or any records created by Carol Allison in the records of Independent Counsel Walsh, but assured Robert that further searches would be conducted when electronic indices of a "Bulky Evidence File" became available. Id. 86. Emphasis Added.

The Second Circuit panel also commented on the accuracy of the NARA due diligence Declaration which the Court relied upon in rendering its decision. The Court held that given the NARA FOIA Officer’s Declaration, there was sufficient evidence for a Summary Judgment because NARA had “properly discharged its statutory duties” in its search for the documents:

Even if we were to construe Robert's claim as suggesting that NARA "withheld" documents by its lack of diligence in conducting the requested search, the Declaration of NARA's FOIA officer found in the record adequately establishes that NARA properly discharged its statutory duties, warranting summary judgment. Id. 87-88. Emphasis added.

On August 23, 2007, the plaintiff filed a NARA FOIA request seeking the release of the “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents. This was while Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA was pending and the plaintiff was seeking the DOJ “Robert v Holz” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5 and the “IMC Investigation Final Report” documents that the AG Holder’s FOIA Office could not locate. See 11-30-11 Robert VIII Petition Statement of the Case §§ C, G. http://snowflake5391.net/Robert8vDOJpetition1.pdf

On January 23, 2008, the NARA Director of the Textual Services Division issued a NARA FOIA decision re the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents. He informed the Robert v Holz-Robert v National Archives-Robert v DOJ-Robert VII v DOJ-Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff that there were 42 pages of “deemed responsive” documents, there were 38 pages that the “remaining responsive” documents, and there were two documents withheld based on the CIA’s use of FOIA Exemption 3 and the FBI’s use of FOIA Exemption 7(C). He did not provide a Vaughn Index itemizing the documents.

On February 21, 2008, the plaintiff appealed that decision. On February 21, 2008, the plaintiff also requested for the Open Government Act of 2007 NARA Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) mediation services. The plaintiff believed that this NARA FOIA appeal was an appropriate appeal for OGIS mediation services because AG Mukasey had an appearance of a conflict of interest because of the FBI’s use of FOIA Exemption 7(C).

On March 17, 2008, the plaintiff filed an 83 page WP in support of the February 21, 2008 NARA appeal. He explained why he requested omnibus mediation services re the NARA “Bulky Evidence File”, NARA “Peter Keisler Collection” and NARA “Perot” documents. See 3-17-08 NARA WP in support of the 2-21-08 appeal and request for OGIS mediation services §§ A-E. http://snowflake5391.net/3_17_08%20_NARA_appeal_WP.pdf.

12 On February 21, 2012, the “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents became more important when the Supreme Court denied the Robert VIII v. DOJ, HHS, and SSA Petition for a writ of certiorari. “The petition for a writ is denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.” Emphasis added.

Upon information and belief, Justice Sotomayor recused herself because she had been on the January 12, 2001 Robert v National Archives Second Circuit panel that had been presented with the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA petitioner’s allegations re the “FBI Agent Allison” documents. In Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA the plaintiff sought the release of the “Robert v. Holz” and “IMC Final Investigation Report” documents. He asserted the documents were connect-the-dots documents to the “FBI Agent Allison” documents that revealed whether HHS General Counsel del Real made Robert the target of the E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP to eliminate an attorney challenging his HHS “nonacquiescence” policies implemented as a CIA domestic covered agent. He alleged unaudited HHS funds were used to pay for the “immaculate construction” of the 1982-2011 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP that was not funded with classified OMB Budget funds and not conducted pursuant to FISC Orders. See 11-30-11 Robert VIII Petition Statement of the Case §§ A-H.

On February 26, 2013, Justice Samuel Alito in Clapper v Amnesty, 568 U.S. ___ (2013), would note in dicta that AG Holder contended the government could legally conduct E.O. 12333 “FISA exempt” warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens:

And, although we do not reach the question, the Government contends that it can conduct FISA-exempt human and technical surveillance programs that are governed by Executive Order 12333. See Exec. Order No. 12333, §§1.4, 2.1–2.5, 3 CFR 202, 210–212 (1981), reprinted as amended, note following 50 U. S. C. § 401, pp. 543, 547–548. Id. 14. Emphasis added.

Obviously, the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff does not know why Justice Sotomayor had recused herself. However, the plaintiff does know that AG Holder knows whether SG Paul Clement in Robert VII v DOJ and SG Donald Verrelli in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA had withheld the material fact that Robert had been the target of the E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP to protect the E.O. 12333 prohibited CIA domestic sources and methods of the CIA. If so, then President Obama should know whether the 1982-2014 CIA Directors, including CIA Directors Casey and Brennan, have had access to the 1982-2014 NSA TSP “haystacks” of “constitutionally seized” U.S. persons’ data. See 10-3-13 Robert Review Group Comments §§ A-D, F-J, L-O, http://snowflake5391.net/review_group_comments.pdf.

NARA General Counsel Stern and AG Holder know whether the “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents, case file notes, and e-mails reveal that FBI Agent Allison did not provide IC Walsh with the Robert provided evidence that HHS General Counsel del Real was CIA Director Casey’s illegal E.O. 12333 CIA covered agent when he made his HHS “nonacquiescence” policy decisions and when he was the IMC Chief of Staff. If so, then they know President Obama has a § 413 (b) of the National Security Act “shall” duty to file a “corrective action” plan to cure the illegal CIA intelligence activities at IMC. Hence, the importance of President Obama reviewing the March 29, 1989 “FBI Agent Allison” documents to order to fulfill his § 413 (b) “shall” duty in 2014. See 10-3-13 Robert Review Group Comments §§ R, S.

13 E. The June 2, 2014 NARA FOIA Worksheet is incomplete because it does not itemize the withheld “Peter Keisler Collection” documents and there is no Worksheet for the “Perot” or the “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents that the plaintiff will seek in his Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion to file a new FOIA complaint

The June 2, 2014 NARA FOIA Worksheet is incomplete because it does not itemize the withheld “Peter Keisler Collection” documents and there is no Worksheet for the “Perot” or the “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents. The plaintiff will seek the release of these three sets of NARA documents in his Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion that will be filed with Judge Garaufis seeking a pre-clearance Order to file the complaint that will also seek connect-the-dots OLC and FBI documents. The plaintiff believes that when NARA Deputy Archivist Wall requests the legal advice of NARA General Counsel Stern, that he will consult with the Intelligence Community General Counsels. They will recommend whether the Robert II v CIA and DOJ co-defendants, CIA Director Casey and AG Holder, should agree to the plaintiff’s quiet settlement that would moot this appeal. See 10-30-13 Preston WP §§ A, B, I,L,O,P, http://snowflake5391.net/10_30_2013_13_WP_Preston.pdf, and § J below.

The June 2, 2014 Worksheet indicates that 13 documents were withheld pursuant to President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 § 3.5c. However, the decision does not state the specific federal law upon which the documents are not to be released:

1. Doc # 27191 one page denied E.O. 12356 3.5c 2. Doc # 27192 one page denied E.O. 12356 3.5c 3. Doc # 27193 nine pages denied E.O. 12526 3.5c

President Obama’s E.O. 13526 § 3.5c states:

(c) Agencies conducting a mandatory review for declassification shall declassify information that no longer meets the standards for classification under this order. They shall release this information unless withholding is otherwise authorized and warranted under applicable law. Id. Emphasis added.

The June 2, 2014 FOIA decision does not cite to the specific “applicable law” that is the basis for NARA withholding the NARA FOIA requested documents in the custody of the NARA Archivist. Upon information and belief, the “applicable law” citation is the June 2, 2014 decision’s general citation to the Presidential Records Act §§ 2201-2207. “These records were processed in accordance with the Presidential Records Act §§ 2201-2207.” Id.

The plaintiff believes that the “command and control” officer of NARA Archivist/FOIA Coordinator Shelly Williams ordered her not to specify what provision of the Presidential Records Act applied. Upon information and belief, this was because her “command and control” officer did not want her to explicitly state the “executive privilege” defense. See § O below.

Therefore, NARA Deputy Archivist Wall should include her decision a citation to the specific “applicable law” relied upon. There should be an explicit explanation of how this “applicable law” applied to theWorksheet citations and the fact that there were no Worksheet citations for “Perot” and “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents.

14 The Robert II v CIA and DOJ-Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff has made the gravest of allegations that the Robert II v CIA and DOJ co-defendants CIA Director Brennan and AG Holder have “defrauded” President Obama re the ongoing 1982-2014 illegal violations of E.O; 12333 prohibitions on CIA domestic “special activities” at the NSA. If a representative of the Estate of President Reagan has asserted “executive privilege” to withhold the NARA documents, then the NARA Deputy Archivist should so state. If so, then pursuant to President Obama’s January 21, 2009 E.O. 13489, Presidential Records, AG Holder and WH Counsel Eggleston are to present the documents to President Obama if they have ratified the use of use of the executive privilege to withhold these NARA FOIA requested documents. See §§ F,G below.

The Robert II v CIA and DOJ-Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff has placed the NARA Deputy Archivist on Notice that she should consult with NARA General Counsel Stern prior to making a decision that will be subject to the plaintiff’s Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion to Judge Garaufis for a pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint seeking the release of the “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection”, “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents in the custody of NARA Archivist Ferriero. NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether those documents and his Robert v National Archives case file notes and e-mails, corroborate the plaintiff’s almost incredible allegations of serial E.O. 12333 violations.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether EDNY U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch (1999-2001, 2010-) had implemented the Barrett “nonacquiescence” policy in Robert v National Archives by withholding material facts from Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit. “Finally, acceptance of the view urged by the federal appellants would result in a blanket grant of absolute immunity to government lawyers acting to prevent exposure of the government in liability.” Barrett v. United States, 798 F. 2d 565, 573 (2d Cir. 1986). Emphasis Added.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch (1999-2001, 2010-) had made Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit the “handmaiden” of AG Reno in Robert v National Archives by intentionally withholding material facts re the “FBI Agent Allison” documents. “Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive.” Doe, et. al. v Mukasey, Mueller, and Caproni, 549 F 3d 861, 870 (2d Cir. 2008).

NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether any USG attorney who FRCP 11 signed the pleadings filed with Judge Wexler and reviewed by the Second Circuit, had withheld material facts from the Article III Judges. “The message there by conveyed to the attorney, that this is not a “team effort” but in the last analysis yours alone, precisely to the point of Rule 11.” Emphasis added. Pavelic & Le Fore v Marvel Entertainment Group, 110 S. Ct. 456, 459 (1989).

NARA General Counsel Stern knows U.S. Attorney Lynch knows from reading Robert I v CIA and Robert v DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2002), documents, case file notes, and e-mails, whether material facts were withheld from Judge Seybert, Judge Mishler, Judge Wexler, and the Second Circuit that corroborated the plaintiff’s allegations that FBI Director Judge Webster (1978-1987) knew of CIA Director Casey’s E.O. 12333 violations. He knows the answers to the who-knew-what-when-and why questions raised by the plaintiff in Robert v National Archives. "A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told." Clark v United States, 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933). See 7-27-10 Robert VIII WP §§ A-E.

15 NARA General Counsel Stern knows from reading the Robert v National case file notes, and e-mails, when he first reviewed the documents noted in the NARA Robert v National Archives Affidavit that was relied upon by Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit. After he reviewed the “FBI Agent Allison” documents, he knew the legal significance of Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit not reading the documents. “It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public. “ Chambers v. Nasco, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2132 (1991).

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch knows that deceiving an Article III Judge or a party has been a criminal violation of NYS Judiciary Law § 487, Misconduct by attorneys. “1. Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party;” Emphasis Added.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch is bound by the April 1, 2009 NYS Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) duty to cure misrepresentations of fact and law made to tribunals. “If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of the falsity, the lawyer shall take responsible remedial measures, including if necessary disclosure to the tribunal.”

The June 2, 2014 denial decision informed the FOIA requester that he has 60 days to appeal this decision to President Regan Presidential Library Deputy Archivist. The decision also informed the FOIA requester that the decision was subject to President George Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233, Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act:

Since these are Presidential records administered in accordance with 44 USC §§ 2201-2207 and Executive Order 13233, NARA must notify the former and incumbent Presidents prior to the release of any information in response to this appeal. Id. Emphasis added.

This is an important fact if these documents reveal that during Administration of Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, William Clinton, and George W. Bush, that CIA Directors William Casey (1981-1987), Judge William Webster (1987-1991), Robert Gates (1991- 1993), James Woolsey (1993-1995), John Deutch (1995-1996), George Tenet (1997-2004), Porter Goss (2004-2005), and General Michael Hayden (2006-2009), had all violated the E.O. 12333 prohibition on CIA domestic “special activities.” If so, then President Obama should know these facts in order that he can comply with his § 413 (b) “shall” duty to file a “corrective action” plan to cure the illegal activities of these 1982-2009 CIA Directors. See § A above. NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether CIA General Counsels Scott Muller (2002- 2004), (Acting) John Rizzo (2004-2009), Stephen Preston (2009-2013), and Caroline Krass (2014), have known that the CIA Directors have committed serial violations of E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic “special activities.” If so, then he knows he has an affirmative duty to so inform NARA Deputy Archivist Wall. See 4-23-07 CIA Rizzo General Counsel WP §§ B- H, http://snowflake5391.net/4_23_07_CIA_%20Rizzo_WP.pdf. and 7-25-11 CIA General Counsel Preston WP §§ E-K, http://snowflake5391.net/7_25_11_WPCIAGenCouPreston.pdf Therefore, Deputy Archivist Wall’s decision must be precise as to the “applicable law” upon which the documents are being withheld. This is especially the case if executive privilege is asserted to withhold documents that prove serial CIA violations of E.O. 12333.

16 F. The June 2, 2014 denial decision informed the plaintiff that the decision was subject to President George Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233, Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act notwithstanding the fact that on January 21, 2009 President Obama revoked E.O. 13233 when he issued E.O. 13489, Presidential Records

The June 2, 2014 denial decision informed the plaintiff that the decision was subject to President George Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233, Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act. This was notwithstanding the fact that on January 21, 2009, President Obama had revoked E.O. 13233 when he issued E.O. 13489, Presidential Records. This fact highlights the need for NARA Deputy Archivist Wall to consult with NARA Archivist Fierro’s NARA General Counsel Stern (1998-). The plaintiff will be citing FBI Director Comey to the “FBI Agent Allison” documents of the Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents to determine whether co-defendants CIA Director Brennan and AG Holder have “defrauded” President Obama with the knowledge of NARA General Counsel Stern. See 2-7-14 FBI FOIA WP § A. http://snowflake5391.net/2_7_14_FBI_FOIA_request.pdf and § M below.

NARA Archivist/FOIA Coordinator Williams’ June 2, 2014 decision cites to President Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233 which had been revoked five years prior by President Obama’s January 21, 2009 E.O. 13489. She explained what happens if there is an appeal:

Since these are Presidential records administered in accordance with 44 USC 2201-2207 and Executive Order 13233, NARA must notify the former and incumbent Presidents prior to the release of any information in response to this appeal. Once an appeal determination is made and the provision of E.O. 12233 have been met, we will contact you. Id. Emphasis added.

This June 2, 2014 decision is evidence of a fatally flawed procedure to implement the Presidents Records Act. On March 7, 2008, the plaintiff had placed NARA General Counsel Stern on Notice of the flawed Presidents Records Act procedure in his 83 page WP titled:

NARA “White Paper” in support of the pending February 21, 2008 appeal of January 23, 2008 NARA decision to withhold Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents based on the CIA’s use of FOIA Exemption 3 and the FBI’s use of FOIA Exemption 7 (C). http://snowflake5391.net/3_17_08%20_NARA_appeal_WP.pdf

The plaintiff had mail served this 3-17-08 NARA WP on NARA General Counsel Stern when Robert II v CIA and DOJ and Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA were pending. He informed NARA General Counsel Stern that the plaintiff sought a quiet settlement of Robert II v CIA and DOJ, Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA, and the NARA FOIA appeals. The plaintiff sought NARA Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) mediation services because of the facial appearance of a conflict of interest of AG Mukasey. The plaintiff explained how the NARA “Perot”, the “Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File”, and “Peter Keisler Collection” documents were connect-the-dots documents to the Robert II v CIA and DOJ “North Notebook” documents and the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA documents. He explained why this mosaic of documents would confirm the plaintiff’s allegations that there had been serial impeachable violations of federal laws. See 3-17-08 NARA WP §§ A-C and § B above.

17 In defense of NARA General Counsel Stern (1998-) and upon information and belief, the 1998-2014 CIA General Counsels he would have placed him on Notice that if these NARA documents were released, then they would indirectly and illegally revealed the name of HHS General Counsel del Real as being CIA Director Casey’s 1982-1985 E.O. 12333 CIA domestic covered agent. If so, then this would be a violation of the 1982 The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), 50 U.S.C. § 421. NARA General Counsel Stern knew whether the “Perot” documents that reveal “chicanery and corruption” at IMC, also revealed an illegal CIA domestic “black operation ” that had been conducted at IMC in serial violation of the E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic activities and the 1984 Boland Amendment. He knew whether the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents reveal whether President Reagan’s WH Counsels Fred Fielding (1981-1986), Peter J. Wallison (1986-1987), and Arthur Culvahouse (1987-1989) knew whether President Reagan had been informed that the legal basis for the E.O. 12333 violation, was the Article II Commander in Chief “inherent authority” of the President to protect the nation from terrorists. He knew whether the “FBI Agent Allison” documents of the “Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents revealed that FBI Director Judge Webster knew that HHS General Counsel del Real had been an illegal CIA covered agent. See 4-23-07 CIA Rizzo General Counsel WP §§ B-D. http://snowflake5391.net/4_23_07_CIA_%20Rizzo_WP.pdf.

On June 23, 1982 President Reagan signed the IIPA. President Reagan’s Signing Statement was his speech in the CIA Building subsequently named the George Bush Center for Intelligence Building. He began by crediting VP Bush who had been the 1976 CIA Director. President Reagan explained why Congress must work with the President to protect CIA agents: The Congress has carefully drafted this bill so that it focuses only on those who would transgress the bounds of decency; not those who would exercise their legitimate right of dissent. This carefully drawn act recognizes that the revelation of the names of secret agents adds nothing to legitimate public debate over intelligence policy. It is also a signal to the world that while we in this democratic nation remain tolerant and flexible, we also retain our good sense and our resolve to protect our own security and that of the brave men and women who serve us in difficult and dangerous intelligence assignments. Id. Emphasis added. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=42663 The plaintiff now asserts that NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether his own 2008 NARA FOIA case file notes and e-mails reveal whether he had consulted with Acting CIA General Counsel Rizzo (2004-2009) to determine whether the IIPA applied to NARA documents which revealed that HHS General Counsel del Real had been a CIA domestic agent. The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff had informed Acting CIA General Counsel Rizzo that the “North Notebook” documents contained evidence of the illegal CIA domestic “black operation” at IMC and that HHS General Counsel del Real was an illegal CIA domestic agent who violated federal laws. The plaintiff explained why Acting CIA General Counsel Rizzo should recommend that CIA Director General Hayden (2006-2009), the 1999-2005 NSA Director, and AG Mukasey (2007-2009) should accept plaintiff’s Robert II v CIA and DOJ ongoing quiet settlement offer. See 4-23-07 CIA Rizzo General Counsel WP § H. The plaintiff has cited NARA General Counsel Stern to the details of the 7-25-11 CIA General Counsel Preston WP http://snowflake5391.net/7_25_11_WPCIAGenCouPreston.pdf and the 10-30-13 DOD General Counsel Nominee WP. http://snowflake5391.net/10_30_2013_13_WP_Preston.pdf

18 Therefore, NARA General Counsel Stern should be consulting with CIA General Counsel Caroline Krass (2014), the former-Acting AAG of the OLC, to determine whether there would be a violation of the IIPA if the release of the NARA documents indirectly revealed that HHS General Counsel del Real had been CIA Director Casey’s E.O. 12333 CIA domestic covered agent. She now knows whether he was an illegal CIA domestic agent when he made his 1982 Jackson v Schweiker “nonacquiescence” policy decision, when he initiated the December, 1984 “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of Robert, and when in December, 1985 he became IMC President Miguel Recarey’s Chief of Staff. See 3-17-08 NARA WP §§ C-E, 5-9- 11 CIA MDR WP § B, 5-9-11 NARA ADR §, and 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP § D. NARA General Counsel Stern knows why President Obama had revoked President Bush’s E.O. 13233. NARA General Counsel Stern also knows whether pursuant to President Obama’s E.O. 13489, AG Holder (2009) and WH Counsels Greg Craig (2009-2010), Robert Bauer (2010-2011), and Kathryn Ruemmler (2011-2014), had ratified the decision of the representative of the Estate of President Reagan to use an executive privilege assertion to withhold the three sets of FOIA requested NARA documents. NARA General Counsel Stern knows that he should consult with WH Counsel Neil Eggleston (May, 2014). See § G below. If President Obama’s WH Counsels ratified the decision of the Estate of President Reagan to assert executive privilege, then President Bush’s 2007-2009 WH Counsel Fred Fielding had also ratified the use of executive privilege. If so, then this is a key time line fact because WH Counsel Fielding had been President Reagan’s 1981-1986 WH Counsel. He knew whether CIA Director Casey had access to the 1981-1986 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” data banks that stored the foreign and U.S. persons’ commingled stored content data without the knowledge of the FISC. See 10-30-13 Preston Nominee WP §§ B, E-L. WH Counsel Fielding (1981-1986 and 2007-2009) also was President Richard Nixon’s 1970-1972 Associate WH Counsel and 1972-1974 Deputy WH Counsel. He also was a 2002- 2004 9/11 Commission Member. As a result, he knew in 2009 whether President Gerald Ford’s December 19, 1974 Top Secret Memorandum for the Attorney General continued to be a Top Secret unnumbered and unrevoked de facto E.O. that provided 1974-2009 AGs the legal basis to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance of U.S. persons to protect the nation from terrorists: I have carefully reviewed the issues raised in your request for confirmation of authority and delegation with respect to warrantless electronic surveillance within the United States for foreign intelligence (including counterintelligence) purposes. I am satisfied that programs requiring such surveillance are important to the national security, and therefore reaffirm and renew the delegation power to you, and to your successors in office, and the authorization of you and them, to approve, without prior judicial warrant, specific electronic surveillance within the United States which may be requested by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB178/surv05.pdf

Hence, the importance of NARA General Counsel Stern contacting WH Counsel Eggleston. He can contact former-WH Counsel Fielding to determine whether he had informed WH Counsel Craig (2009-2010) that the December 19, 1974 Memorandum for the Attorney General applied to the 1982-2009 E.O. 12333 “FISA Exempt” NSA TSP. See 10-3-13 Review Group Robert Comments WP §§ F-L. http://snowflake5391.net/review_group_comments.pdf.

19 G. The January 21, 2009 E.O 13489 procedures require AG Holder and WH Counsel Eggelston to present to President Obama their decision whether to ratify the Estate of President Reagan’s executive privilege assertion to withhold the “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection” and “Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents

President Obama’s January 21, 2009 E.O. 13489, Presidential Records, established new procedures re the use of the executive privilege to withhold documents in the custody of the Archivists of former Presidents’ Presidential Libraries. E.O. 13489 § 6 revoked President Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233. The new E.O. 13489 § 3 requires AG Holder and WH Counsel Eggelston to present to President Obama their decision whether they ratified the Estate of President Reagan’s executive privilege assertion to withhold the “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection” and “Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents. See § F above. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords

President Obama’s January 21, 2009 Press Release upon signing E.O. 13489, highlighted the fact that the incumbent President, not former Presidents, asserts executive privilege: Finally, the Executive Order on Presidential Records brings those principles to presidential records by giving the American people greater access to these historic documents. This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution. Id. Emphasis added. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-press-secretary- presidents-signing-two-executive-orders-and-three-memoran President Obama’s E.O. 13489 § 3.3 Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President explain the procedures that leads to President Obama’s executive privilege assertion:

(a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified. (b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination. (c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General. (d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney

20 General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order. Id. Emphasis added. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords

Upon information and belief, during the 2011-2014 period prior to the June 2, 2014 NARA denial decision, AG Holder (2009-) and WH Counsel Kathyrn Ruemmler (2011-2014) had made decisions to ratify President Reagan’s Estate’s executive privilege decision to continue to withhold these three sets NARA documents. If so, then President Obama’s new WH Counsel W. Neil Eggleston (May, 2014-) will have the 2014 duty to review the former-WH Counsels executive privilege decisions. He had been President Clinton’s 1993-1994 Associate WH Counsel and President Clinton’s 1998 Special Counsel during the Ken Starr investigation. He is an expert on the President’s use of executive privilege and impeachment for law violations.

The plaintiff asserts that when WH Counsel Eggleston performs his due diligence duty to decide whether to ratify the Estate of President Reagan’s assertion of executive privilege, he will be confronted with the timely issue of whether the 1982-2014 CIA Directors, including CIA Director Brennan, have violated the E.O. 12333 prohibition on CIA domestic “special activities.” The plaintiff has asserted that CIA Director Casey’s violation of E.O. 12333 also included his access to the 1982-1986 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” that include the content of the plaintiff’s 1980s “FISC Robert” documents that were withheld by the CIA FOIA Officer based on FOIA exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense. See 10-3- 13 Robert Review Group Comments §§ A, R, S and 10-30-13 Preston WP §§ B-J.

The plaintiff asserts that CIA Director Brennan, President Obama’s 2009-2013 Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, has 2014 access to the 1982-2014 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” that include the foreign and U.S. persons’ comingled stored “constitutionally seized” content data. If so, then WH Counsel Eggleston should know this fact. He can provide President Obama with an accurate memo re the 1969-2014 WH Counsels knowledge and ratification of 1969-1972 AG John Mitchell’s post Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 warrantless wiretapping of U.S. persons. These are timely facts because Congress is considering amendments to the FISA of 1978 as to the storage of metadata, but not the storage of the 1982-2014 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” that includes U.S. persons’ comingled stored content data as evidenced by 1980s Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” documents.

On December 3, 2013, the plaintiff filed an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) FOIA request seeking the release of the May 24, 1984 OLC Memo that AAG of the OLC Theodore Olson had sent AG Smith the Re Constitutionality of Certain National Security Agency Electronic Surveillance Activities Not Covered Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1979. “Traditional Fourth Amendment analysis holds that once evidence is constitutionally seized, its dissemination or subsequent use raises no additional Fourth Amendment question.” See 10-3-13 Review Group Comments § D and the 12-3-13 OLC FOIA WP §§ A, W-Y. http://snowflake5391.net/12_3_13_FISA_MEMOS.pdf That December 3, 2014 OLC FOIA request has never been docketed or processed. On February 7, 2014, the plaintiff filed a complaint and WP with DOJ IG Michael Horowitz. http://www.snowflake5391.net/WP_IG.pdf

21 On January 17, 2014, President Obama delivered his NSA TSP reform speech at the DOJ. He informed the public that he had instructed AG Holder to consult with the Intelligence Community and propose by March 28, 2014 alternative NSA TSP data banks content storage plans. The President noted that he had never learned of any IC abuses of a U.S. citizen’s rights:

What I did not do is stop these programs wholesale – not only because I felt that they made us more secure; but also because nothing in that initial review, and nothing that I have learned since, indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens.” Id. 3. Emphasis added. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/barack-obama-nsa-speech- transcript-102315.html

President Obama, a former Constitutional Law Professor, should have an accurate history of whether 1969-2014 White House Counsels had known that the 1969-2014 AGs authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons after the enactment of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. He should know which WH Counsels knew of President Ford’s December 19, 1974 Memorandum to the Attorney General:

President Nixon -John Ehrlichman (1969-1970), John Dean (1970-1973), Leonard Garment (1973-1974)

President Ford -William Casselman (1974-1975), Philip Buchen (1974-1977)

President Carter Robert Lipshutz (1977-1979), Lloyd Cutler (1979-1981)

President Reagan -1981-1986 Fred Fielding, 1986-1987 Peter J. Wallison, and 1987-1989 Arthur Culvahouse

President Bush-1989-1993 C. Boyden Gray

President Clinton’s 1993-1994 Bernard Nussbaum, 1994 Lloyd Cutler, 1994, Abner Mikva, 1994-1995 Jack Quinn, 1995-1996, Lanny Davis (1996-1998) Charles Ruff (1998-1999), Beth Nolan (1999-2001)

President Bush’s 2001-2005 Alberto Gonzales, 2005-2007 Harriet Miers, 2007-2009 Fred Fielding

President Obama’s 2009-2010 Greg Craig, 2010-2011 Robert Bauer, 2011- 2014 Kathryn Ruemmler, and 2014 WH Counsel W. Neil Eggleston

Hence, the importance of NARA Deputy Archivist Wall consulting with NARA General Counsel Stern who consults with WH Counsel Eggleston. The NARA Deputy Archivist should know whether WH Counsel Eggleston will ratify the executive privilege assertion of the Estate of President Reagan prior to her deciding the plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 NARA appeal. WH Counsel Eggleston may recommend that CIA Director Brennan and AG Holder accept the Robert II v CIA and DOJ quiet settlement offer. If so, then this would moot plaintiff’s NARA appeal.

22 H. WH Counsel Eggleston can determine whether an AG “stovepipe” bypasses AG Holder to provide him with a “plausible deniability” defense to plaintiff’s allegation that there have been serial impeachable violations of E.O. 12333, § 413 (a) of the National Security Act, the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, the PCA of 1878, and the Social Security Act

The plaintiff asserts that if as of June 25, 2014 AG Holder had not presented to President Obama the fact that the Estate of President Reagan has asserted executive privilege re the release of the three sets of NARA documents, then this is evidence for WH Counsel Eggleston to determine whether AG Holder “defrauded” President Obama. See § A above. In the alternative, WH Counsel Eggleston will learn whether this is evidence of a DOJ “stovepipe” that bypasses AG Holder (2009-) to provide AG Holder with a “plausible deniability” defense to the 1982- 2014 “Past is Prologue” impeachable violations of E.O.12333 CIA domestic “special activities” prohibitions, § 413 (a) of the National Security Act Notification requirements, the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA of 1978, the military domestic limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA), and the Social Security Act. See 3-7-08 NARA WP §§ B-G, L-P, 7-25-11 Preston WP §§ A, M, R, S, 11-30-11 Robert VIII Petition Statement of the Case pp.3-5, and § M below.

WH Counsel Eggleston, President Clinton’s 1993-1994 Associate WH Counsel and 1998 Special Counsel for the Kenneth Starr investigation, can learn from CIA General Counsel Krass (2014) whether a DOJ “stovepipe” exists that bypassed AG Holder. She had been President Obama’s 2009 Associate Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs. She was a 1999- 2000 Deputy Legal Advisor to President Clinton’s National Security Council before becoming President Bush’s 2001-2009 OLC Attorney-Advisor who became Senior Counsel. She was AG Holder’s 2011-2013 Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC and 2013-2014 Acting AAG of the OLC before becoming CIA Director Brennan’s CIA General Counsel. As a result, she has a 1999-2014 “institutional memory” as to whether a DOJ “stovepipe” had bypassed AGs Janet Reno (1993-2001), John Ashcroft (2001-2005), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), Acting AG Peter Keisler (2007), Judge Michael Mukasey (2007-2008), and Eric Holder (2009-) to provide them with a “plausible deniability” defense to the serial impeachable violations of federal laws. This included FISA violations by NSA Directors General Michael Hayden (1999-2005) and General Keith B. Alexander (2005-2014) conducting warrantless data mining of the 1982-2013 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” of foreign and U.S. persons’ comingled stored content data. See 10-3-13 Robert Review Group Comments § L, 10-30-13 Preston WP § D-L, and 12-3-13 OLC WP § X (8). http://snowflake5391.net/12_3_13_FISA_MEMOS.pdf.

WH Counsel Eggleston will learn from reading the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents whether President Reagan’s 1981-1986 WH Counsel Fred Fielding knew that AGs Smith and Meese had approved DOD Secretary Weinberger conducting warrantless surveillance of the 1982-1986 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” of foreign and U.S. Persons’ comingled stored content data subject to DOD 5240 1 R Procedures Governing the Activities of DOD Intelligence Components That Affect United States Persons “minimization” standards. http://www.cnss.org/DoD%20Intell%20Affecting%20US%20Persons%20Regs.pdf. CIA General Counsel Krass knows that the CIA archived documents reveal whether HHS General Counsel del Real (1981-1985) had been CIA Director Casey’s illegal E.O. 12333 CIA domestic agent 1) when initiated the 1984 “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of Robert to incarcerate an attorney challenging his HHS “nonacquiescence” policy decisions and 2) when he had targeted Robert for the 1984 NSA TSP. See 7-25-11 Preston WP §§ J-L.

23 WH Counsel Eggleston will learn from reading the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents whether President Reagan’s 1981-1986 WH Counsel Fielding knew of AAG of the OLC Theodore Olson’s Top Secret May 24, 1984 OLC Memo sent to AG Smith which explained the “constitutionally seized” U.S. citizens’ content data theory. Re Constitutionality of Certain National Security Agency Electronic Surveillance Activities Not Covered Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1979. “Traditional Fourth Amendment analysis holds that once evidence is constitutionally seized, its dissemination or subsequent use raises no additional Fourth Amendment question.” See 10-3-13 Review Group Comments § D, 10-30-13 Preston WP § E, 12-3-13 OLC WP § A, and 2-7-14 FBI FOIA WP §§ D-F, and § K below.

President Obama should know whether WH Counsel Fielding had informed President Reagan that the Top Secret May 24, 1984 “OLC Olson FISA Memo” standard continued to be the basis of the “FISA secret law” of DOD Secretary Weinberger and AG Meese after the Supreme Court’s June 19, 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth, 105 S.Ct. 2806 (1985), decision. “We conclude that the Attorney General is not absolutely immune from suit for damages arising out of his allegedly unconstitutional conduct in performing his national security functions.” Id. 2811. Emphasis added. See 10-3-13 Review Group Comments § D and 12-3-13 OLC WP § J.

President Obama should also know whether President George W. Bush’s 2007-2009 WH Counsel Fred Fielding had in the Presidential transition period informed President Obama’s WH Counsel Greg Craig (2009-2010), that the 1982-2009 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP continued to be conducted by NSA Director General Alexander (2005-2014) based on the Top Secret May 24, 1984 “OLC Olson FISA Memo.” WH Counsel Fielding (January 8, 2007 – January 20, 2009) dealt with three AGs: AG Gonzales (February 3, 2005- September 17, 2007), Acting AG Keisler (September 18, 2007-November 9, 2007), and AG Mukasey (November 2007- January 20, 2009). President Obama should know whether WH Counsel Fielding knew why the 1982-2008 AGs had never informed the FISC or the Supreme Court of the 1982-2008 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP. President Obama should know whether WH Counsel Fielding had informed President Reagan and President Bush that E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” contained the foreign and U.S. persons’ comingled stored content data that would be exponentially more powerful algorithms than first used in 1981 by 1981-1985 NSA Director Lt. General Faurer.

WH Counsel Eggleston should also inform President Obama why on March 18, 2011 AG Holder reclassified part of AAG of the OLC Jack Goldsmith’s Top Secret May 6, 2004 FISA Memo. He can ask CIA General Counsel Krass the names of the USG attorneys who made the March 18, 2011 decision. On that date she was the Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC. This was a key reclassification decision because all of those 2011 USG attorneys knew that DOD Cyber Commander-NSA Director General Alexander continued in 2011 to conduct data mining of the 1982-2011 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” of foreign and U.S. persons’ comingled stored content data. See 10-3-13 Review Group Comments § L.

If WH Counsel Eggleston learns that AG Holder had ratified the March 18, 2011 reclassification of the May 6, 2004 “OLC Goldsmith FISA Memo,” then he will know that a DOJ “stovepipe” had not bypassed AG Holder. WH Counsel Eggleston can learn from NSA General Counsel Rajesh De (2012-) whether AG Holder had “defrauded ” President Obama re the “FISA secret law” and the 1982-2014 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt NSA TSP.

24 WH Counsel Eggleston can ask NSA General Counsel Rajesh De (2012-) whether he knew why on March 18, 2011 the May 6, 2004 “OLC Goldsmith FISA Memo” was declassified in part and reclassified in part. He had been a 2003-2004 attorney for the 9/11 Commission that included former WH Counsel Fielding and former-DAG Jamie Gorelick (1994-1997). 9/11 Member Gorelick had been the 1993-1994 DOD General Counsel who succeeded DOD Secretary Cheney’s DOD General Counsel David Addington. This is an important time line fact because DOD General Counsel Addington had been an 1981-1984 Assistant CIA General Counsel for CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin (1981-1985). He knew whether HHS General Counsel del Real was an illegal E.O. 12333 CIA domestic agent. See 7-25-11 Preston WP § G.

NSA General Counsel Rajesh De (2012-) had been AG Holder’s 2009 Principal DAAG for the Office of Legal Policy. He was President Obama’s 2010 WH Staff Secretary. As reported by reporter Al Kamen in an April 19, 2012 Washington Post article, NSA General Counsel De as the White House Staff Secretary, had read all classified documents presented to President Obama. “…the low-key senior staffer who reviews every single piece of paper before it goes to President Obama, is moving on to become general counsel for the National Security Agency.” Emphasis added. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/white-house-personnel- moves/2012/04/19/gIQAMGCPTT_blog.html. He would know whether AG Holder had informed President Obama that the E.O. 12333 “FISA secret law” was withheld from the FISC.

On August 9, 2013, NSA General Counsel De released to the public the NSA’s White Paper, The National Security Agency: Missions, Authorities, Oversight and Partnerships. http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/speeches_testimonies/2013_08_09_the_nsa_story.pdf. This NSA WP contained a public admission that “for decades” the NSA had used minimization procedures to protect the privacy rights of U.S. citizens when the analysts conducted electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens without FISC warrants. It cited to the detailed July 27, 1993, United States Signals Intelligence Directive No. SP0018 (USSID 18), National Security Agency Central Security Service: United States Signals Directive 18 Legal Compliance and Minimization Procedures, that was issued by then NSA Director Vice Admiral Mike Mc Connell (1992-1996). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB24/nsa11a.pdf. NSA Director Vice Admiral Mc Connell would become the 2007-2009 DNI Director who approved the FISC warrantless data mining of the 1982-2009 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” of foreign and U.S. persons’ comingled stored content data. See §§ A, K above.

NSA General Counsel Stern knows that WH Counsel Eggleston will learn whether AG Holder knows that DNI Director James Clapper (2010-) was the 1991-1995 DIA Director when the DIA analysts conducted warrantless data mining of the 1982-1995 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” of foreign and U.S. persons’ comingled stored content data. DIA Director Clapper’s DIA analysts were to apply the 1982 DOD 5240 1 R Procedures Governing the Activities of DOD Intelligence Components That Affect United States Persons and the 1993 National Security Agency Central Security Service: United States Signals Directive 18 Legal Compliance and Minimization Procedures “minimization” standards. NARA General Counsel Stern knows the “Past is Prologue” historical and legal significance of WH Counsel Eggleston learning that 2009-2014 AG Holder knew whether 2007-2009 WH Counsel Fielding had informed 2009-2010 WH Counsel Craig that the 1982-2009 E.O. 12333 “FISA exempt” NSA TSP was based on AAG of the OLC Olson’s Top Secret May 24, 1984 FISA Memo as revealed in the 1986-1988 “Peter Keisler Collection” documents. See §§ I, J, K below.

25 I. NARA Deputy Archivist Wall’s December 7, 2011 NARA recommendation of NARA OGIS mediation services, the plaintiff’s January 23, 2012 request and WP sent to NARA OGIS Director Nesbit, and her decision not to provide NARA OGIS mediation services

On December 7, 2011, NARA Deputy Archivist Wall informed the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff that his September 13, 2011 FOIA request for four classified “North Notebook” documents had been assigned docket number and referred to a FOIA Officer to process. She also graciously suggested that the NARA FOIA requester should consider using the NARA Office of Government Services (OGIS) mediation services. On January 23, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request for NARA OGIS mediation services with NARA OGIS Director Miriam Nesbit supported by a 80 page WP explaining the facts and legal issues. The plaintiff never received an acknowledgment letter or docket number for his request for mediation services. See 1-23-12 NARA OGIS WP http://snowflake5391.net/1_23_12_OGIS_NARA_WP.pdf.

The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff informed Judge Seybert of NARA Deputy Archivist Wall’s December 7, 2014 decision in his 12-14-11 Robert II v CIA and DOJ Status Affidavit. http://snowflake5391.net/12-14-11_RIIvCIAandDOJStatusAffidavit%20.pdf. Because the interrelationship of Robert II v CIA and DOJ and the plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 denial decision of President Ronald Reagan Library Archivist/FOIA Coordinator Williams should be clear, the plaintiff’s 12-14-11 Affidavit § VV states in full:

VV. The December 7, 2011 letter from NARA Deputy Archivist Wall

187. On December 7, 2011, NARA Deputy Archivist Debra Steidel Wall responded to plaintiff’s September 13, 2011 de novo NARA FOIA request for the release of four one page classified 1985 “North Notebook” documents. She advised that the NARA Special Access FOIA Officer has assigned the NARA tracking number NW 34895 to the FOIA request for the following four one page classified 1985 “North Notebook” documents:

1. 9/3/85 North-FBI Revell “North Notebook” log entry. http://www.snowflake5391.net/9-3-85North-FBI.pdf. 2. 9/6/85 North-CIA-FBI Exemptions 1, 3 and NHAO http://www.snowflake5391.net/9-6-85NorthCIA.pdf. 3. 9/16/85 North-Call to Perot Exemptions 1 and 3 http://snowflake5391.net/perot.pdf 4. 10/1/85 CIA-DOD FOIA Exemption 1 and 3 and reference to medivac helos http://www.snowflake5391.net/medivachelos.pdf

188. The NARA Deputy Archivist advised the plaintiff that the NARA Special Access Officer has sent these four classified 1985 documents to CIA, DOD, and FBI for their review:

While these pages are part of the IC Walsh records, they do contain the equities of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Department of Defense (DOD), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). NARA referred these pages to these agencies for consultation since the information is currently restricted in accordance with FOIA

26 Exemption 1, national security. Once the staff receives these referrals back from the CIA, DOD, and FBI, then a final disclosure determination will be made concerning these pages. Emphasis Added.

189. The December 7, 2011 NARA letter was sent after the National Security Archive on November 26, 2011 posted Independent Counsel Walsh’s March 21, 1991 "Memoranda on Criminal Liability of Former President Reagan and of President Bush." Upon information and belief, because of this internet posted IC Walsh Memorandum, NARA Archivist David Ferriero reevaluated the NARA FOIA position re classified Iran-Contras Affairs documents that are more than 25 years old and are subject to the December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 § 3.3 Automatic Declassification review 25 year standard. Upon information and belief, he anticipated that in 2012 historians and investigative reporters would be filing their own FOIA requests based on this internet posted historic IC Walsh March 21, 1991 Memorandum.

190. In NARA Deputy Archivist Wall’s December 7, 2011 letter, the NARA Deputy Archivist most graciously suggested the use of the NARA mediations services. “As part of the 2007 FOIA amendments, the Office of Government Services (OGIS) was created to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation.”

191. If CIA Director Petraeus, DOD Secretary Panetta, and FBI Director Mueller read these four one page 1985 classified “North Notebook” documents and do not declassify the documents, then NARA OGIS mediation will be available. However, if they declassify these documents, then this may lead to a quick and quiet settlement of this FOIA action.

NARA OGIS Director Nesbit, the 1982-1994 OIP Deputy Director and 1994-1999 NARA Special Counsel for Information policy, never docketed the plaintiff’s request for NARA OGIS services re the “North Notebook” documents that the plaintiff believed would have led to his long sought Robert II v CIA and DOJ quiet settlement. The plaintiff informed Judge Seybert that NARA OGIS Director Nesbit never provided OGIS mediation services. As a result, there was no quiet settlement. See 8-15-12 Robert II v CIA and DOJ Status Affidavit. http://snowflake5391.net/8-15-12_RobertIIvCIA_Status_Affidavit.pdf.

NARA Deputy Archivist Wall has a duty to read the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents to determine whether as asserted by the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff, those documents are connected to the four “North Notebook” documents. Given the Deputy Archivist’s December 7, 2011 letter re the “equities” of the CIA, DOD, and FBI, and given the plaintiff’s grave “Past is Prologue” allegation that USG officials and attorneys have “defrauded” Presidents Reagan and Obama, the Deputy Archivist should be contacting NARA General Counsel Stern (1998-). He can learn the 2014 “equities” of the CIA, DOD, and FBI by contacting FBI General Counsel James Baker (2014), DOD General Counsel Stephen Preston (2013-) and CIA General Counsel Caroline Krass (2014-). Upon information and belief, after they have read the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents, they will all recommend the plaintiff’s quiet settlement offer.

27 J. The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff has cited Judge Seybert to the three sets of NARA documents because they are connect-the-dots to the four one page CIA classified 1985 “North Notebook” documents for which CIA General Counsel Krass will be filing with Judge Seybert the FRCP 11 signed Declarations of co-defendants CIA Director Brennan and AG Holder in opposition to the plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion

The Robert II v CIA and DOJ co-defendants’ attorneys CIA General Counsel Caroline Krass (2014-) and EDNY U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch (1999-2001, 2010-) know whether the three sets of NARA documents are connect-the-dots documents with the four one page CIA classified 1985 “North Notebook” documents. They know that if the plaintiff’s allegations are true regarding these NARA documents, then they have their own FRCP 11 duty to provide accurate facts to Judge Seybert in the FRCP 11 signed in camera ex parte Declarations of the co- defendants CIA Director Brennan and AG Holder that they will file in opposition to the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. CIA General Counsel Krass knows that acceptance of the plaintiff’s quiet settlement offer would eliminate the need for her to file FRCP 11 signed Declarations with Judge Seybert. The plaintiff has advised her that a quiet settlement would moot the plaintiff’s FOIA request for these three sets of NARA documents. See §§ K, L below.

On December 17, 2013, CIA General Counsel Nominee Krass’ Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing was held and she submitted a Statement for the Record. She informed the Committee of the duty of the CIA General Counsel to inform the Intelligence Committees of the legal basis for CIA covert activities and her belief in the rule of law:

Fourth, and equally important, the General Counsel assists the Director in making sure that the Intelligence Committees are provided with sufficient information to allow effective oversight. It is critical that the Committees be kept fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, including covert actions. Most significant for the General Counsel, such information must include the legal basis for the intelligence activity. I strongly believe that it is the General Counsel’s duty to ensure that the Intelligence Committees and their staff have a clear understanding of the legal basis for any intelligence activities, including covert action, in which the Agency is engaged. Enabling such oversight is especially important because the classified nature of much of what the Agency does increases the need for Congress to be fully informed and engaged.

Finally, I have dedicated my career to government service because I believe it is essential that the U.S. government comply with the rule of law. I am also committed to protecting our Nation’s security. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as General Counsel, I would dedicate myself to both of these tasks. Id. 1-2. Emphasis added. http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/131217/krass.pdf

CIA General Counsel Krass was the 2011-2013 Principal DAAG of the OLC and 2013- 2014 Acting AAG of the OLC. She knows why her CIA General Counsel predecessors did not provide accurate information to Congressional Oversight Committees re the CIA Directors implementation of the Article II 1982-2014 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP.

28 NARA General Counsel Stern knows that because there has been no Article I or Article III review of the Article II “FISA secret law, ” that this raises the classic question: Who guards the guardians? Former-Assistant CIA General Counsel A. John Radsan (2002-2004), explained the importance of the CIA Office of General Counsel decision-making process with a “who guards the guardians” article: Sed Quis Cotodiest Ipsos Custsodes: The CIA’s Office of General Counsel? Journal of National Security Law & Policy, Vol.2:201 (2008). He explained the interrelationship between the CIA General Counsel and the AAG of the OLC:

The General Counsel usually initiates requests for legal opinions from the Justice Department. She may want a second opinion on advice she has already given the Agency, or she may want somebody else’s license on the line. Such CIA-DOJ interactions are tightly compartmentalized. At DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, the group that handles the request may be limited to the lawyer who has the “CIA account,” along with the chief and a deputy chief. The chief of OLC will, in turn, be inclined to brief the appropriate division chief, the Deputy Attorney General, and the Attorney General. If necessary, the Justice Department lawyers on the matter can be kept to a handful. The number of OGC lawyers will be similarly small: the General Counsel, the Deputy General Counsel, the chief lawyer to the DO, and one or two OGC lawyers assigned to the relevant division(s). Overall, not may guards are involved in legal opinions on sensitive topics. Id. 238. Emphasis Added. http://www.mcgeorge.edu/Documents/publications/jnslp/01_Radsan%20Master %2009_11_08.pdf

Former-CIA Assistant General Counsel Radsan concludes by discussing the Presidents’ rule of law reliance upon CIA General Counsels and their CIA “who guards the guardians” role:

In basic terms, the Presidents varying approaches to the rule of law parallel those of the General Counsels at the CIA. Some Presidents, like President Carter, may have strictly adhered to the letter of the law on intelligence activities. Some Presidents, like President Reagan, may have strayed. Some CIA General Counsels have followed their President’s course; some have strayed. Even when Presidents and General Counsels share similarly courses, they are not always in lock-step, because too many layers of executive authority- White House Counsel, the National Security Adviser, the DCIA, and other staffers –often stand between them. Yet the President and the General Counsel have an effect on each other, even if that effect is indirect and not easily measured. Id. 255. Emphasis Added.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that CIA General Counsel Krass is a key 2014 “guardian of the guardians.” NARA General Counsel Stern knows that because CIA General Counsel Krass believes in the “rule of law,” she knows the significance of USG lawyers’ FRCP 11 signatures and their due diligence duty to provide accurate facts to Judges. “The message there by conveyed to the attorney, that this is not a “team effort” but in the last analysis yours alone, precisely to the point of Rule 11.” Pavelic & Le Fore v Marvel Entertainment Group, 110 S. Ct. 456, 459 (1989). Emphasis added. He knows CIA General Counsel Krass will perform her due diligence if she files any in camera ex parte Declarations with Judge Seybert.

29 NARA General Counsel Stern has his own due diligence duty to provide accurate information to his client NARA Archivist Ferriero (2009- ). Given that he knows that the three sets of NARA documents are connect-the-dots documents to the Robert II v CIA and DOJ four one page CIA classified 1985 “North Notebook” documents and the plaintiff has raised the issue of AG Holder and CIA Director Brennan “defrauding” President Obama, he has an affirmative duty to inform NARA Archivist Ferriero that the plaintiff has raised the issue of NARA Archivist Ferriero’s administration of the Presidential Records Act and President Obama’s January 21, 2009 E.O. 13489. Therefore, NARA General Counsel Stern should be providing NARA Archivist Ferriero with a “heads up” memo as to how the three sets of NARA withheld documents affect the 2014 Robert II v CIA and DOJ litigation. See 3-17-08 NARA WP §§ L, M. NARA General Counsel Stern has easy access from his own office computer to the unclassified Robert II v CIA and DOJ documents submitted to Judge Seybert listed on the Docket Sheet through the Pacer system. See the plaintiff’s 12-14-11 Robert II v CIA and DOJ Status Affidavit http://snowflake5391.net/12-14 11_RIIvCIAandDOJStatusAffidavit%20.pdf and 8-15-12 Robert II v CIA and DOJ Status Affidavit. http://snowflake5391.net/8-15- 12_RobertIIvCIA_Status_Affidavit.pdf. He can read the plaintiff’s monthly status letters that have been filed after President Obama’s August 9, 2013 President Obama issued a WH Press Release Background on the President’s Statement on Reforms to NSA Programs. See Docket entries 64-74. Therefore, he has no excuse for not warning NARA Archivist Ferriero of the importance of AG Holder’s and WH Counsel Eggleston’s decision whether to ratify the Estate of President Reagan’s assertion of executive privilege. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP § E, http://snowflake5391.net/5_9_11_WP_NARA_MDR.pdf. 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP §§ A, J http://snowflake5391.net/5_9_11_WP_NARA_ADR.pdf and 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP §§ A-H http://snowflake5391.net/5_9_11_MDR_CIA.pdf.

NARA Archivist Ferriero should know that given the allegations that the Robert II v CIA and DOJ co-defendants “defrauded” President Obama, CIA General Counsel Krass and WH Counsel Eggleston are the “guardians of the guardians” as to the legal significance of President Obama’s decision whether to ratify the use of executive privilege to withhold these three sets of NARA documents. If there is no Robert II v CIA and DOJ quiet settlement, then the public will learn whether NARA Archivist Ferriero provided the “guardians of the guardians” with copies of the classified “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection”, and “Robert v National ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents in order that AG Holder and WH Counsel Eggleston could comply with President Obama’s E.O. 13489 § 3.3 (c) Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. “(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.” Emphasis added. See § G above and §§ J, K below.

NARA Deputy Archivist Wall should perform her own due diligence duty by asking NARA General Counsel Stern the legal significance of CIA General Counsel Krass filing an in camera ex parte Robert II v CIA and DOJ Declaration with Judge Seybert and informing Judge Seybert of the content of the NARA documents. This could occur if CIA General Counsel Krass ends the CIA General Counsels implementation of the Barrett “nonacquiescence” policy. “Finally, acceptance of the view urged by the federal appellants would result in a blanket grant of absolute immunity to government lawyers acting to prevent exposure of the government in liability.” Barrett v. United States, 798 F. 2d 565, 573 (2d Cir. 1986). Emphasis Added.

30 K. The Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion to Judge Garaufis for a pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint will cite to the NARA FOIA requested documents that will be sought in the putative FOIA complaint along with the May 24, 1984 and May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memos and the eight sets of February 7, 2014 FBI FOIA requested documents

If NARA Deputy Archivist Wall does not render a decision within 30 days, then the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff’s Motion with Judge Garaufis for a pre-clearance Order to file a new FOIA complaint will be ripe for filing. The plaintiff will seek the three sets of NARA FOIA requested documents and the Top Secret May 24, 1984 and May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memos and the February 7, 2014 de novo FBI FOIA requested FBI eight sets documents. The plaintiff will be seeking this mosaic of documents to prove to Judge Garaufis and President Obama that USG attorneys have implemented the Barrett “nonacquiescence” policy by withholding material facts from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court in order to continue to implement the 1982-2014 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP without Article I or Article III checks and balances for the NSA TSP warrantless wiretapping. See 10-3-13 Robert Review Group Comments §§ A-D, R, S 12-3-13 OLC WP §§ A-F, http://snowflake5391.net/2_22_12_OGIS_FBI_WP.pdf, and 2-7-14 FBI FOIA request §§ A-H, http://snowflake5391.net/2_7_14_FBI_FOIA_request.pdf.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that AG Holder knows that if the plaintiff files his Robert VIII Motion seeking a pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint to seek the release of classified OLC, FBI, and NARA documents, that the Second Circuit standard requires that Judge Garaufis read in camera the classified withheld FOIA requested documents. On May 28, 2014, the Second Circuit decided New York Times v DOJ, Docket No. 13-422. The Second Circuit denied AG Holder’s Motion to file an ex parte in camera Motion seeking rehearing of the April 21, 2014 FOIA decision ordering the release of the redacted Top Secret OLC memo re drone killing of U.S. citizens. The Second Circuit set a legal marker as to the limits of AG Holder concealing from the public a Top Secret OLC Memo for which the Second Circuit has already accommodated the AG’s request for redactions in the Court ordered released OLC opinion:

We see no reason why the Government cannot prepare and serve its petition for rehearing in the normal course, redacting any particular portions that require secrecy and submitting only those redacted portions to the Court ex parte and in camera. Id. 4. Emphasis added. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/order_on_motion_for_leave_to_file _sealed_motion_for_rehearing.pdf

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that if Deputy Archivist Wall is told to use the executive privilege decision for the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents, then there will be a legal issue whether Judge Garaufis can read those documents in camera. However, he also knows Judge Garaufis has a duty to read the OLC and FBI documents in camera.

On December 3, 2013, the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff requested the release of the two Top Secret OLC FISA documents that are the legal basis for the warrantless data mining of the 1982-2013 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” foreign and U.S. persons’ comingled stored content data. These are documents that have not been reviewed by the Article I SSIC and HSIC or the Article III FISC and Supreme Court:

31 1. May 24, 1984 Top Secret classified Constitutionality of Certain National Security Agency Electronic Surveillance Activities Not Covered Under the Foreign Surveillance Act of 1979 of AAG of the OLC Theodore Olson, the “OLC Olson FISA Memo”

2. May 6, 2004 Top Secret reclassified Memorandum for the Attorney General: Review of the Legality of the (redacted b1,b3) Program, of AAG of the OLC Jack Goldsmith, the “OLC Goldsmith FISA Memo”

On February 7, 2014, the plaintiff filed a complaint with DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz against OIP Director Miriam Pustay (2007-) for “defrauding” President Obama. She took no action to docket and process the December 3, 2013 OLC FOIA request. OIP Director Pustay was the 1999-2007 OIP Deputy Director after having been a 1983-1999 OIP Attorney-Advisor. As of June 19, 2014, the plaintiff’s February 7, 2014 complaint filed with DOJ IG Horowitz against OIP Director Pustay has also not been docketed or processed.

On February 7, 2014, the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff filed a de novo FBI FOIA request for the eight sets of documents for which he had filed as July 27, 2010 and September 13, 2011 FBI FOIA requests. These FBI FOIA requests were to prove to FBI Director Robert Mueller (2001-2013) that FBI Director Judge Webster (1978-1987)-CIA Director Judge Webster (1987-1991) had known that AG Meese knew that CIA Director Casey had been violating the E.O. 12333 prohibitions on CIA domestic “special activities” at IMC and the NSA:

Re: FOIA request No. 1151829-000 1) FBI Abshire documents-third request 2) FBI copy of joint FBI-DOJ-HHS “IMC Final Investigative Report” 3) FBI copy of February 25, 1987 “Perot” documents 4) FBI copy of Robert v National Archives “FBI Agent Allison” documents 5) FBI unredacted copy of Robert v DOJ “62-0 file” documents 6) FBI Robert III v DOJ “Recarey extradition” documents 7) FBI Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” documents 8) FBI Charles Robert documents including NSLs sent to banks and ISP

On February 22, 2012, the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA-Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff had filed with NARA Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) Director Miriam Nesbit, a request for OGIS FBI mediation services to resolve the September 13, 2011 de novo FBI FOIA request. OGIS Director Nisbet was the 1982-1994 OIP Deputy Director and 1994-1999 NARA Special Counsel for Information Policy. As a result, she had an expert’s knowledge of the DOJ decision-making processes that was applied in the 1985-2012 Robert serial FOIA actions including the FBI FOIA requests. NARA OGIS Director Nesbit did not docket or process the February 22, 2012 request for OGIS FBI mediation services.

If the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion is filed, then AG Holder’s EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch (1999-2001 and 2010-) will have the burden of opposing the plaintiff’s Motion for a pre-clearance Order. U.S. Attorney Lynch knows that she has a NYS Judiciary Law § 487, Misconduct by attorneys, duty not to deceive Judge Garaufis. “1. Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party;”

32 NARA General Counsel Stern knows that the ## 1-6 FBI FOIA requested documents are connect-the-dots documents with the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents. These FBI documents reveal whether FBI Director Judge Webster knew whether the joint FBI-DOJ-HHS “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of IMC was a sham cover for CIA Director Casey’s illegal E.O. 12333 CIA domestic “black operation” at IMC. See 12-14-11 Robert II v CIA and DOJ Status Affidavit §§ A, D, H.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that the ## 7,8 FBI FOIA requested documents are connect-the-dots documents with the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection” documents. These FBI and NARA documents reveal the legal basis for HHS General Counsel del Real, as CIA Director Casey’s E.O. 12333 CIA domestic agent, to use information from the NSA TSP that had targeted Robert for warrantless wiretapping, in the joint FBI-DOJ-HHS “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of Robert. This was to secure the incarceration of an attorney challenging HHS General Counsel del Real’s HHS “nonacquiescence” policy that was the “SSI secret law.” See 12-14-11 Robert II v CIA and DOJ Affidavit §§ E, G, Y, A.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that the # 3 “FBI copy of February 25, 1987 “Perot” documents” are the same documents as the NARA “Perot” documents that reveal what Mr. Perot characterized as the “chicanery and corruption” at the CIA and DOJ. However, he also knows that these documents reveal how HHS General Counsel del Real implemented the HHS “nonacquiescence” policy that Judge Stanley Sporkin, the 1981-1985 CIA General Counsel, condemned in Duggan v. Bowen, 691 F. Supp. 1487 (D.C.D.C. 1988). “Indeed the actions by HHS in the cases presented to me has been reprehensible. It is the most blatant form of stonewalling that an agency can engage in and the Secretary should certainly take all steps to prevent this from happening again.” Id. 1501-1502. See Robert II v CIA and DOJ, 8-15-12 § D.

NARA General Counsel Stern also knows that the # 3 “FBI copy of February 25, 1987 “Perot” documents are connect-the-dots documents with the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA “Ruppert” documents that have been withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5. These documents connect HHS General Counsel del Real’s 1982-1985 Jackson v. Schweiker, 683 F. 2d 1076 (7th Cir. 1982) and his January 6, 1982 Ruppert I remand “nonacquiescence” policy decisions. This is a “Past is Prologue” fact if 1982-2014 Jackson “nonacquiescence” policy funds have been used to pay for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the 1982-2014 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” that could not be funded with classified OMB Budget funds because of the serial violation of the § 413 (a) of the National Security Act SSIC and HSIC Notification requirement. See 8-15-12 Robert II v CIA and DOJ §§ C, E.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that WH Counsel Eggleston and FBI Director Comey will understand the “SSI secret law” of the Jackson “nonacquiescence” policy. They were both SDNY AUSAs when SDNY U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani (1983-1988) implemented his honorable and courageous “just say no” policy to AAG of the Civil Division Willard’s defense of HHS General Counsel del Real’s “nonacquiescence” policies. SDNY U.S. Attorney Giuliani was the 1981-1983 Associate AG and knew whether HHS General Counsel del Real was a CIA domestic agent when he made Jackson “nonacquiescence” policy decisions.

The plaintiff’s Robert VIII Motion will proceed in tandem with Robert II v CIA and DOJ. The decisions will be subject to the Second Circuit’s review. See § J above and § L below.

33 L. The June 16, 2014 Susan V. Anthony List v Driehaus broadened standing holding makes the NARA documents critically important because they contain evidence of whether NARA General Counsel Stern violated the Robert v National Archives plaintiff’s First Amendment right of access to the Courts by withholding material facts from Judge Wexler

On June 16, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Susan V. Anthony List v Driehaus that broadened standing standards for a putative plaintiff to allege a Bivens claim that a government official violated the rights of a U.S. citizen. The Robert v National Archives plaintiff asserts that the three sets of NARA FOIA requested documents are connect-the-dots documents with the Robert v National Archives case file notes and e-mails. These documents contain evidence of whether NARA General Counsel Stern had violated the Robert v National Archives plaintiff’s First Amendment right of access to the Courts by withholding material facts from Judge Wexler. The Deputy Archivist has a duty to consult with NARA General Counsel Stern and ask him to read the documents and case file notes and e-mails and determine whether he should recuse himself and, if not, inform the Deputy Archivist his reasons. See 3-7-08 NARA WP §§ D, M, O. On June 16, 2014, Justice Clarence Thomas broadened the standing threshold for a U.S. citizen to claim an imminent injury of being arrested for making a false statement in the course of a political campaign. The decision established a standing “injury in fact” standard that the Clapper v Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. ___, 2013) plaintiffs had failed in their unsuccessful challenge to NSA metadata surveillance program. Justice Thomas explained: Finally, the threat of future enforcement of the false statement statute is substantial. Most obviously, there is a history of past enforcement here: SBA was the subject of a complaint in a recent election cycle. We have observed that past enforcement against the same conduct is good evidence that the threat of enforcement is not “‘chimerical.’” Steffel, 415 U. S., at 459; cf. Clapper, 568 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 12) (plaintiffs’ theory of standing was “substantially undermine[d]” by their “fail[ure] to offer any evidence that their communications ha[d] been monitored” under the challenged statute). The Robert v National Archives plaintiff asserts that the “threat of enforcement is not “chimerical’” standard would apply to the plaintiff’s putative Bivens complaint alleging that US government officials and attorneys, including NARA General Counsel Stern, have denied his First Amendment right of access to the Courts by withholding material facts from Judge Wexler in Robert v National Archives. The plaintiff has alleged that Robert v National Archives attorneys had withheld from Judge Wexler the material fact that they knew the “FBI Allison documents” existed during the Robert v National Archives litigation. They withheld this fact because the documents corroborated the plaintiff’s almost incredible allegation that FBI Director Judge Webster knew that CIA Director Casey had conducted an illegal “black operation” at IMC. He has alleged that the USG attorneys implemented the Barrett “nonacquiescence” policy and withheld material facts that involved the activities of in intelligence agency. “Finally, acceptance of the view urged by the federal appellants would result in a blanket grant of absolute immunity to government lawyers acting to prevent exposure of the government in liability.” Barrett v. United States, 798 F. 2d 565, 573 (2d Cir. 1986). Emphasis Added. On June 20, 2003, Justice Souter explained the Christopher v Harbury First Amendment right of access to the courts standard that applies when USG officials withhold evidence:

34 With respect to access to courts claims (including Harbury’s Bivens claim on this theory), the District Court acknowledged that five Court of Appeals “have held that conspiracies to destroy or cover up evidence of a crime that render a plaintiff’s judicial remedies inadequate or ineffective violat(e) the right of access,” App. To Pet. for Cert. 43a, but held that Harbury had not stated a valid cause of action for two reasons. First, the court held that Harbury’s claim “would have to be dismissed” (without prejudice) because, having filed no prior suit, she had “nothing more than a guess” as to how the alleged coverup might “have prejudiced her rights to bring a separate action.” Id., at 46a. Second, the District Court reasoned that defendants in any event would be entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities because, unlike officials in a coverup cases who destroyed, manufactured, or hid evidence, the defendants here did not act contrary to “clearly established constitutional norms that a reasonable official would understand” in being less than “forthcoming in discussing the intelligence that they received about Bamaca.” Id. 2175. Emphasis Added.

The Harbury Court was clear that a Bivens complaint with a well pleaded First Amendment right of access to the courts claim, could survive a Motion to Dismiss:

While the circumstances thus vary, the ultimate justification for recognizing each kind of claim is the same. Whether an access claim turns on a litigating opportunity yet to be gained or an opportunity already lost, the very point of recognizing any access claim is to provide some effective vindication for a separate and distinct right to seek judicial relief for some wrong. However, unsettled the basis of the constitutional right of access to courts, our cases rest on the recognition that the right is ancillary to the underlying claim, without which a plaintiff cannot have suffered injury by being shut out of court. We indicated as much in our most recent case on a denial of access, Lewis v Casey, supra, whether we noted that even in forward-looking prisoner class actions to remove roadblocks to future litigation, the named plaintiff must identify a “nonfrivolous,” “arguable” underlying claim, id. at 353, and n.3, 116 S.Ct. 2174, and we have been give no reason to treat backward-looking access claims any differently in this respect. It follows that the underlying cause of action, whether anticipated or lost, is an element that must be described in the complaint, just as much as the allegations must describe the official acts frustrating the litigation. It follows, too, that when the access claim (like this one) looks backward, the complaint must identify a remedy that may be awarded as recompense but not otherwise available in some suit that may yet be brought. There is, after all, no point in spending time and money just as well off after litigant a simpler case without the denial-of-access element. Id. 2186-2187. Emphasis added.

The Robert v National Archives plaintiff asserts that NARA General Counsel Stern knew that the “FBI Agent Allison” documents existed when the case was pending. If so, then he had a duty to inform Judge Wexler of this fact. This is especially the case given that Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit relied upon the National Archives Declaration re the documents:

35 Even if we were to construe Robert's claim as suggesting that NARA "withheld" documents by its lack of diligence in conducting the requested search, the Declaration of NARA's FOIA officer found in the record adequately establishes that NARA properly discharged its statutory duties, warranting summary judgment. See Carney v. Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d. Cir. 1994) (affidavits or declarations indicating that the agency has conducted a thorough search are sufficient to sustain the agency's burden of proving adequacy of search). Robert goes on to assert that "if NARA does not have custody of the documents, then it can be reasonably concluded that the CIA has custody of the documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3," and further insinuates that these documents may have been transferred to the CIA to circumvent compliance with Robert's FOIA request. Robert presented [**7] no evidence whatsoever to support these allegations and therefore they have no bearing on this litigation. Cf. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. at 145 (documents are subject to disclosure only if "the agency [is] in control of the requested materials at the time the FOIA request is made"). Id. 77-78. Emphasis Added.

The Robert v National Archives plaintiff asserts that NARA General Counsel Stern knew that the universe of FOIA requested “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” contain evidence that FBI Director Judge Webster knew that HHS General Counsel del Real was a CIA domestic agent when he initiated the “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of Robert. The plaintiffs pending FOIA request is not “chimerical” because NARA General Counsel Stern knows the documents exist and he has a duty to so inform the Deputy Archivist. § D above.

The Robert v National Archives plaintiff asserts that NARA General Counsel Stern knows in 2014 that the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents contain evidence of whether President Reagan’s WH Counsels Fred Fielding (1981-1986), Peter J. Wallison (1986-1987), and Arthur Culvahouse (1987-1989) knew that AG Meese knew that CIA Director Casey had conducted E.O. 12333 CIA domestic “special activities” at IMC and the NSA. The plaintiffs pending FOIA request is not “chimerical” because NARA General Counsel Stern knows the documents exist and whether they corroborate the plaintiff’s allegation that AG Meese, CIA Director Casey, and FBI Director Webster had “defrauded” President Reagan. § A above.

The Robert v National Archives plaintiff asserts that NARA General Counsel Stern knows that the “Perot” documents exist and contain evidence that the Ross Perot allegation of “chicanery and corruption” at the CIA and the DOJ, was correct. NARA General Counsel Stern knows these documents are not “chimerical.” He knows whether the documents reveal that CIA Director Casey and DOD Secretary Weinberger had conducted CIA-DIA domestic “special activities” at IMC to provide medical supplies and treatment to the Contras based on the President’s Article II Commander in Chief “inherent authority” to protect the national security.

If NARA General Counsel Stern does not recuse himself, then Deputy Archivist Wall should ask NARA Archivist Ferriero whether an attorney without a conflict of interest should be consulted. Given plaintiff’s grave allegation that these documents reveal the “defrauding” of Presidents Reagan and Obama, NARA Archivist Ferriero should read these NARA documents to determine for himself if these documents reveal the “defrauding” of Presidents. § A above.

36 M. Summary

On June 28, 2011, NARA Archivist David S. Ferriero appointed the 2007-2011 NARA Chief of Staff Debra Steidel Wall to be the Deputy Archivist. NARA Archivist Ferriero noted:

Debra is passionate about the Archives mission and history. She is forward-looking and open to change. Assigning her responsibility for the transformation process gave me an opportunity to appreciate her many talents. She is a champion for Archives staff and programs nationwide. At the same time, she seeks innovative ways to meet the needs of our stakeholders and customers. And she understands the need for us to put those stakeholders and customers at the center of what we do. I look forward to working with Debra to achieve these goals.” Id. Emphasis added. http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2011/nr11-146.html

The NARA review of the request for these three sets of NARA documents has been long and complicated. This June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 decision of the Ronald Reagan Library Archivist/FOIA Coordinator Shelly Williams, provides NARA Deputy Archivist Wall with an extraordinary opportunity to review the 2014 procedures that are in place to implement the Presidential Records Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2207 and President Obama’s January 21, 2009 E.O. 13489 for the benefit of millions of 1999-2014 Ford v Shalala class members. Their 2014 monthly SSI benefits continue to be reduced by one-third because of the implementation of the 1982 Jackson “nonacquiescence” policy of HHS General Counsel del Real as CIA Director Casey’s illegal E.O. 12333 CIA domestic agent. See the 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP §§ B-E, 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP §§ C-F, 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP § B.

However, Deputy Archivist Wall’s decision is not a difficult decision if she requests that NARA General Counsel Stern (1998-) provide her with a “heads up” legal memo addressing the legal issues presented in this appeal. If he recuses himself because of a conflict of interest, then he should provide his reasoning in writing. That reason can be a significant factor in the Deputy Archivist’s decision. If he does not recuse himself and provides her with a “heads up” legal memo, then her decision should apply the law as explained by her legal counsel.

The Robert II v CIA and DOJ-Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff believes when NARA General Counsel Stern reads the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents withheld pursuant to E.O. 13526 § 3.5 (c), he will appreciate the wisdom of the plaintiff’s quiet settlement offer made to CIA General Counsel Krass in Robert II v CIA and DOJ. If so, then he will contact CIA General Counsel Krass to determine whether the co-defendants CIA Director Brennan and AG Holder are reconsidering the plaintiff’s quiet settlement offer. If so, then NARA General Counsel Stern will advise the Deputy Archivist Wall that there is a possibility of a 2014 Robert II v CIA and DOJ quiet settlement that would moot the June 25, 2014 NARA appeal.

Given the gravity of the plaintiff’s grave allegations re the 2009-2014 “defrauding” President Obama, Deputy Archivist Wall should be presenting the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents to NARA Archivist Ferriero. After he reads these documents as the first NARA Archivist trained as a Librarian, he will understand the “Past is Prologue” significance of the documents. “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana.

37