1

5-9-11 White Paper is in support of the NARA MDR of the July 27, 2010 NARA 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 May 9, 2011 request for a NARA

Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) of the July 27, 2010 NARA FOIA request for:

1) The NARA “Perot” documents

2) The NARA “Peter Keisler Collection” documents

3) The NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents

The NARA MDR decision-makers handling of these three sets of documents will reveal

whether President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 § 3.5 Mandatory Declassification

Review is fatally flawed. If a § 3.6 (a) “Glomar Response” defense is used, then the NARA

MDR requester will file an ISCAP appeal and assert that the documents were misclassified by

application of the § 1.7 Classification Prohibitions and Limitations, standards.

This NARA MDR request is related to the same requester’s May 9, 2011 NARA

Automatic Declassification Review (ADR) for July 27, 2010 CIA FOIA requested # 1- # 4

1985 “North Notebook” documents being sought in the pending FOIA Robert II v CIA and

DOJ, cv 02-6788 (Seybert, J.), that are now subject to the 25 year automatic declassification

standard. These four NARA-CIA 1985 documents are connect-the documents to the three sets of

NARA documents being sought in this NARA MDR request because they reveal the process by

which the CIA ordered NARA FOIA Officers to use “Glomar Response” defenses. The NARA

MDR requester requests that the enclosed 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP be included in the May 9,

2011 NARA MDR case file along with the 7-27-10 DOJ WP filed with the July 27, 2010 de

novo FOIA request for the three sets of NARA documents now subject to NARA MDR.

This NARA MDR request is related to the same requester’s May 9, 2011 request for a

CIA MDR of the July 27, 2010 CIA FOIA requested # 5 “all Robert II v CIA “c (3) exclusion”

ex parte Declarations” documents. CIA F-2010-01579. The NARA MDR requester requests

that the enclosed 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP be included in the May 9, 2011 NARA MDR case file

because the WPs explain how AG Meese’s “Unitary Executive” theory has been implemented.

The requester requests a May 19, 2011 docketing of this NARA MDR. In this way, the

Robert II v CIA and DOJ co-defendant AG Holder may not commit a “fraud upon the court” in

his Second Circuit Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief due on May 25, 2011. One of the

purposes of the request for the NARA MDR and ADR is to prevent AG Holder from

committing a déjà vu “fraud upon the court” in the pending Second Circuit Robert VIII v DOJ,

HHS, and SSA appeal as AG Gonzales had committed in Robert VII v DOJ, 2005 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 39616, 193 Fed. Appx. 8 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. den. 127 S.Ct. 1133 (2007), by AG

Gonzales intentionally withholding material facts from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and

the Supreme Court. The appellant believes that these seven sets of NARA documents located

in the NARA Special Access Room will prove to AG Holder that the allegations made by the

plaintiff in Robert II v CIA and DOJ, Robert VII v DOJ, and Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA

of impeachable violations of federal laws, are true. See enclosed 3-18-11 ISCAP WP §§ D-G.

2

A. NARA MDR and the E.O. 13526 § 3.5 MDR standard

This request for a NARA MDR for the de novo FOIA requested July 27, 2010 FOIA

requested # 1 “Perot” documents, # 2 “Peter Keisler Collection” documents, and # 3 NARA

“Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents will reveal whether President

Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 § 3.5 Mandatory Declassification Review is fatally

flawed. There have been prior FOIA requests for these documents. Therefore, the NARA MDR

decision makers can easily locate these three sets of documents and determine whether as

asserted by the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff, there has been an improper application of §

3.6 (a) “Glomar Response” defense because the documents were misclassified by application of

the § 1.7 Classification Prohibitions and Limitations, standards.

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 provides:

(a) …all information classified under this order or predecessor orders shall be

subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency if:

(1) the request for a review describes the document or material containing

the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate

it with a reasonable amount of effort;

(2) the document or material containing the information responsive to

the request is not contained within an operational file exempted from

search and review, publication, and disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552 in

accordance with law; and

(3) the information is not the subject of pending litigation. Emphasis Added.

As to § 3.5 (a)(1), as explained at § D below, the “Perot” documents were identified in

Present Reagan’s Diary. As explained at § E below, the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents are

identified as to NARA box number. As explained at § F below, the “Robert v National Archives

“Bulky Evidence File” documents are identified in the Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx.

85 (2d Cir. 2001), case file and emails in NARA’s custody. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ V, Y, BB.

As to § 3.5 (a)(2), if any of the documents are in an “operational file exempted from

search and review,” then the NARA MDR decision should so state. If a § 3.6 (a) “Glomar

Response” decision is being considered not to admit the existence of the documents, then

NARA General Counsel Stern should be consulted. He knows that pursuant to E.O. 13526, § 6.2

(a), AG Holder “shall” make that interpretation. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G and § L below.

.

As to § 3.5 (a)(3), there is a pending case because the appellant sought the release of

these three documents in his September 3, 2008 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion for

Judge Garaufis’ pre-clearance Order to file a putative FOIA complaint. Judge Garaufis denied

the Motion. The appellant is arguing his First Amendment right of access to the courts has been

violated by USG attorneys. See 2-22-11 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief Point IV.

3

If the NARA MDR decision makers use an E.O. 13526 § 3.6 (a), Glomar Response”

defense, then the decision should identify the agency that made that decision and the name of

that agency’s decision-maker. E.O. 13526 § 3.6, Processing Requests and Review provides:

a) An agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence

of requested records whenever the fact of their existence or nonexistence

is itself classified under this order or its predecessors. Emphasis Added.

The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff believes that a CIA FOIA Officer has made a

“Glomar Response” decision as to the four 1985 NARA ADR documents. If so, then the May 9,

2011 NARA ADR and MDR and the May 9, 2011 CIA MDR documents are connect-the-dots

documents that CIA Director Panetta should read in order to prevent AG Holder from

committing a “fraud upon the court” in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA on May 25, 2011.

The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff believes that the “Glomar Response” defense is

being used to “cover up” the misclassification of documents that prove that 1985-2011 USG

attorneys have known that the documents were misclassified to conceal impeachable violations

of federal laws. E.O. 13526 §1.7, Classification Prohibitions and Limitations, provides:

a) In no case shall information be classified , continue to be maintained as

classified, or fail to be classified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(3) restrain competition;

(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require

protection in the interest of the national security. Emphasis added.

If the NARA MDR decision-makers are considering using the “Glomar Response”

defense, then they should consult with NARA General Counsel Stern who will consult with AG

Holder. Pursuant to § 6.2 (c), any interpretations of E.O. 13526 “shall” be made by AG Holder:

(c) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or

the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an

interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the

course of its administration. Emphasis added.

The NARA MDR and NARA ADR decision-makers, in consultation with NARA

General Counsel Stern, have an opportunity to render decisions that will prevent AG Holder

from committing a “fraud upon the court” in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA and in Robert II

v CIA and DOJ. The NARA MDR and ADR requester further believes that if the NARA

decision-makers render decisions by May 23, 2011, then NARA General Counsel Stern will

provide these seven sets of declassified connect-the-dots to AG Holder who will then accept the

appellant-plaintiff’s quiet settlement offer. If that occurred, then this would result in the end to

the burdensome 1985-2011 Robert FOIA litigation saga and the end of President Obama’s 2011

violation of federal laws. See 3-18-11 ISCAP WP §§ D-G and 1-4-11 PIAB WP §§ 1, 34.

4

B. NARA General Counsel Stern has a duty to contact Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA

USG attorneys in order to apply AG Holder’s March 19, 2009 FOIA Guidelines as to

FOIA documents at issue in pending litigation

NARA General Counsel Stern has a duty to contact Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA

USG attorneys because the “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection”, and “Robert v National Archives

‘Bulky Evidence’” documents were at issue in the appellant’s September 3, 2008 Motion for a

pre-clearance order from Judge Sifton to file a FOIA complaint. AG Holder’s March 19, 2009

FOIA Guidelines with its presumption of disclosure, applies to FOIA requested documents at

issue in pending litigation. DOJ attorneys’ EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch, AAG of the Civil

Division West, Associate AG Perrilli, and DAG Coles know the evidentiary significance of

these documents as to the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant’s argument that his First

Amendment right of access to the courts were violated. See 2-22-11 Brief Point IV.

AG Holder’s March 19, 2009 FOIA Guidelines provide guidance as to FOIA requests

regarding FOIA documents at issue in pending litigation:

Instead, the Department of Justice will defend a denial of a FOIA request

only if (1) the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an

interest protected by one of the statutory exemptions, or (2) disclosure is

prohibited by law. With regard to litigation pending on the date of the

issuance of this memorandum, this guidance should be taken into account

and applied if practicable when, in the Judgment of the Department of

Justice lawyers handling the matter and the relevant agency defendants,

there is a substantial likelihood that application of the guidance would

result in a material disclosure of additional information. Emphasis Added.

http://www.justice.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf

On September 3, 2008, the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff filed his Motion

with Judge Garaufis seeking the a pre-clearance order to file a proposed putative September 3,

2008 FOIA complaint seeking the release of a “mosaic” of documents. The plaintiff asserted the

documents would prove that USG attorneys had committed a “fraud upon the court” by

intentionally withholding material facts from Judge Garaufis during the Robert VII v DOJ and

Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA litigation. This “fraud upon the court” included AG

Gonzales’ 2005 Declarations that were filed in support of Robert injunction requiring Judge

Garaufis’ pre-clearance order prior to Robert filing a FOIA request. One of the issues on appeal

is whether AG Gonzales’ Motion relief was secured in Judge Garaufis’ December 9, 2005 Order.

As per the September 3, 2008 putative Robert v CIA Declassification Center Chief

Warshaw, et. al. complaint, at § A , the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff included a

mandamus cause of action seeking Judge Garaufis Order that the NARA Public Interest

Declassification Board (PIAB) declassify the # 1 “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence

File” documents. At § C , the plaintiff included a mandamus cause of action seeking Judge

Garaufis Order that President Reagan Library Archivist Williams docket the September 28, 2007

FOIA request for the NARA “Perot” documents. At § D, the plaintiff included a mandamus

cause of action seeking an Order the docketing of the “Peter Keisler Collection” FOIA request.

5

As per the September 3, 2008 putative Robert v CIA Declassification Center Chief

Warshaw, et. al. complaint, at § E the putative plaintiff sought the release of the Robert v

National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents that included the release of 42 pages

“deemed responsive” documents, 38 pages of “remaining responsive” documents, and two

documents withheld based on FOIA Exemptions 3 and 7 (c). The FOIA requester never received

the “released” documents as all 80 “Bulky Evidence File” documents have been withheld.

The appellant is appealing the December 9, 2005 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA

Order requiring Judge Garaufis’ pre-clearance Order. Therefore, the NARA MDR decision-

makers should request that NARA General Counsel Stern request that AG Holder make a E.O.

13526 § 6.2 (c) interpretation whether § 3.5 (a)(3) applies because these NARA documents were

being sought in the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA September 3, 2008 Motion that Judge

Garaufis denied. All of Judge Garaufis Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA decisions are now on

appeal to the Second Circuit. The NARA MDR requester believes that if AG Holder was asked

to render a § 6.2 (c) interpretation, then he would read these three sets of NARA documents and

accept the appellant’s quiet settlement offer before his May 25, 2011 Brief filing due date.

The NARA MDR decision makers are placed on Notice that President Obama has

nominated 2009-2011 Principal Associate DAG Lisa Monaco to be the AAG of the National

Security Division. She was the 1998-2001 Counsel to AG Reno during the Robert v National

Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), and Robert v DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26

Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2002) FOIA litigation. She was 2007-2009 Chief of Staff of FBI Director

Mueller. She knows whether the 1999-2002 “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations filed by

EDNY U.S. Attorneys Lynch (1999-2001) and Alan Vinegrad (2001-2002), had withheld

material facts from Judge Wexler, Judge Mishler, and the Second Circuit in order to protect the

CIA-FBI “sources and methods” used at IMC and NSA to protect the off-OMB Budget

funding source for CIA operations. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G, K, M, N,R-U, Z, BB, CC, DD.

The NARA MDR decision-makers are placed on Notice of Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS,

and SSA appellant’s April 11, 2011 request for the OLC MDR of the March 18, 2011 released

redacted May 6, 2004 Memorandum from AAG of the OLC Jack Goldsmith to AG Ashcroft

regarding the legal basis for the NSA TSP, has not been docketed. That May 6, 2004 redacted

document reveals whether the OLC Special Counsel FOIA officer determined that AG Meese’s

extreme “Unitary Executive” theory should continue to be classified because it revealed the

existence of the “do not exist” 1984-2001 NSA TSP data banks that were not reported to the

“Gang of Eight” in AG Gonzales’ December 22, 2005 § 413 of the National Security Act letter

that reported the existence of the post-9/11 NSA PSP. Those data banks are now under the

“command and control” of DOD Cyber-Commander-NSA Director Lt. General Alexander.

The NARA MDR requester asserts that AG Meese’s extreme “Unitary Executive” theory

that is explained in the March 18, 2011 redacted May 6, 2004 OLC opinion, is the same extreme

“Unitary Executive” theory legal basis for the decisions to withhold the NARA “Perot”,

NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence’”

documents. Therefore, the NARA MDR decision-makers should seek guidance from NARA

General Counsel Stern whether he intends to seek AG Holder’s E.O. 13526 § 6.2 (c) “shall”

interpretation whether E.O. 13526 § 3.5 (a) (3) applies. See 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP §§ Q, R.

6

C. NARA Archivist Ferriero’s May 3, 2011 House testimony re the problem of discretion

of USG attorneys whether to retain their emails and the NARA employees emails used in

processing the undocketed July 27, 2011 and October 29, 2010 FOIA requests

On May 3, 2011 NARA Archivist David Ferriero testified before the House Committee

on Oversight and Government Reform Presidential Records in the New Millenium: Updating the

Presidential Records Act and Other Federal Recordkeeping Statutes to Improve Electronic

Records Preservation. His testimony included his concern that the Presidents Records Act

(PRA) and the Federal Records Act (FRA) did not specifically cover email which is left to the

discretion of the USG employees. This includes the email discretion of his own NARA

employees.http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/FULLCOM/503%20pres%20rec

ords/Ferriero%20Testimony.pdf

Chairman Darrell Issa Hearing Preview Statement explained why the House Committee

on Oversight and Government Reform was considering amendments to the PRA and FRA:

Many of the technologies in use today permit federal employees to easily

bypass the tools and protocols designed to capture official

communications and documents. Instant messaging and text-messaging

devices, personal e-mail accounts, social networking websites, and other

emergent technologies not only allow federal employees to communicate

outside of official federal channels during business hours, but also are not

stored or retained by federal recordkeeping authorities. Emphasis Added.

http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&

id=1264%3A5-3-2011-qpresidential-records-in-the-new-millenium-

updating-the-presidential-records-act-a-other-federal-recordkeeping-

statutes-to-improve-electronic-records-preservationq&catid=12&Itemid=1

NARA Archivist Ferriero explained that in 1994 during President Clinton’s

Administration, a White House email preservation system was established:

In 1994, the Clinton Administration established the policy of preserving all

White House email records with an electronic recordkeeping system. The

George W. Bush Administration continued this policy. While both

Administrations experienced some problems preserving their emails and had

undertaken restoration projects, the overall concept of capturing and

preserving electronic Presidential records in their entirety became the

accepted practice. NARA staff have successfully transferred the electronic

Presidential records of these two Administrations into the National

Archives, which have been preserved and are currently available for search

and access by NARA staff. The Obama Administration is also capturing and

preserving its electronic Presidential records. Id. p-3. Emphasis Added.

NARA Archivist Ferriero explained that NARA’s recommendations as to the

Committee’s consideration of PRA statutory changes would have to be made in consultation

with the White House and DOJ because of separation of powers issues:

7

To the extent that the Committee would like to examine specific revisions

to the PRA, we would have to consult with the White House and the

Department of Justice before offering Administration views due to the

sensitive constitutional and separation of powers issue that are associated

with Congressional regulation of Presidential recordkeeping. I can say,

however, that the Archives would welcome the opportunity to engage in

constructive dialogue with the Committee and the Administration over

potential revisions of the PRA. Id. 4. Emphasis Added.

NARA Archivist Ferriero explained that President Obama’s Presidential Memorandum

on Transparency and Open Government with its goal of USG accountability for decision making,

cannot be open and accountable if documents are not preserved or cannot be found:

At the beginning of his Administration, President Obama issued a

Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government.

NARA has subsequently emphasized that the backbone of a

transparent and open Government is good records management. To put

it simply, the Government cannot be open or accountable if it does not

preserve- and cannot find – its records. Id. 4. Emphasis Added.

NARA Archivist Ferriero explained the importance of electronic recordkeeping:

Without changing recordkeeping policies to reflect the current

environment, while simultaneously also supporting the development and

deployment of more robust electronic recordkeeping systems the

permanent record of our nation that is in electronic form will be

compromised. Id. 6. Emphasis added.

NARA Archivist Ferriero raised the issue of USG employees preserving email:

Before closing, I do want to raise one critical but often overlooked point.

Ultimately, responsibility for records management will always rest to

some degree with individual federal employees, no matter what systems

are in place. That was true in an era of exclusively paper records, and it

remains true in an increasingly digital age. Although the development of

automated email archiving systems like that used by the EOP enhance out

ability to preserve key government records, updated records management

policies and ongoing employee education and training remain key to

sound records management practices.

I recognize the critical importance of finding solutions to the challenges

faced with managing and preserving the ever increasing amounts of

electronic records across the government and have made electronic

records one of my main priorities as Archivist. Indeed, as part of the

transformation process that I have initiated within NARA, we are setting

up our own records management laboratory to develop and test best

8

practices, which we have already begun to do. I am committed to working

with Congress, the White House, and federal agencies to do all that we can

to improve electronic records management and preservation. Id. 7-8.

Emphasis Added.

In answering one of the Chairman’s questions, NARA Archivist Ferriero explained his

discomfort when there is voluntary record keeping decision making. “Any time there is human

intervention, then I’m not comfortable.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04brfs-

ARCHIVISTTRO_BRF.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print

NARA General Counsel Stern represented NARA Archivist Ferriero at the hearing. He

answered one of Chairman Issa’s questions re the WH use of emails that were not preserved. He

testified that there may be emergency situations, but this was not a regular occurrence.

As explained in more detail in §§ H, L below, 1998-2011 NARA General Counsel Stern

had represented NARA Archivist John W. Carlin (1995-2005) in Robert v National Archives, 1

Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001). The plaintiff was seeking the release of the “FBI Agent Allison”

documents that had been transferred by Iran-Contras Independent Counsel (IC) Lawrence

Walsh to NARA. The plaintiff asserted that these NARA documents revealed whether FBI Agent

Allison, the FBI liaison to IC Walsh, had withheld information from IC Walsh that revealed

whether FBI Director Judge Webster had known that CIA Director Casey had conducted an

illegal domestic “black operation” at the Florida HMO International Medical Center, Inc. in

violation of the Boland Amendment. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ V, W, Y, Z, AA, BB, AAA.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether his 1999-2001 Robert National Archives

email with EDNY U.S. Attorney Lorretta Lynch and EDNY AUSA Kathleen Mahoney, reveal

who made the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” litigation decisions to withhold material facts

from Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit during the Robert v National Archives litigation that

revealed serial impeachable violations of federal laws. “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. This is an important fact because the NARA

MDR decision-makers have a duty to read those emails when they consider their NARA MDR

decision as to the release of the # 3 NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File”

documents. See §§ H, J below. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G and 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP § R.

The USG FOIA attorneys’ emails in cases seeking withheld classified documents take on

greater importance if the ADR and MDR review process does not apply to the declassification of

USG documents withheld pursuant to the E.O. 13536 § 3.6 (a) “Glomar Response” defenses.

The emails reveal whether there was a Chambers v. Nasco, 111 S. Ct. 2123 (1991), “fraud upon

the court” because USG attorneys intentionally withheld material facts from the Article III

Judges for the purpose of deceiving the Article III Judges. “It is a wrong against the institutions

set up to protect and safeguard the public“ Id. 2132. This issue has been presented to the Second

Circuit in the appellant’s Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, SSA Brief to which AG Holder is to file his

Brief by May 25, 2011. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § G and 2-22-11 appellant’s Robert VIII v DOJ

Brief p. 5, Point IV and V A and B. http://snowflake5391.net/Robert8vDOJ2dCirBrief.pdf.

9

The USG attorneys’ FOIA emails in cases in which the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy”

was implemented and material facts were withheld from Judges in “c (3) exclusion” ex parte

Declarations, contain the “smoking gun” evidence of the mens rea of the USG attorneys who

intended to deceive the Judge and parties. NYS Judiciary Law § 487, Misconduct by attorneys,

establishes a penal standard to deter attorneys from deceiving Judges and parties. “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. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § G and 5-9-11 CIA MDR §§ D-H.

The NARA MDR decision-makers are placed on Notice that the appellant requested the

OLC MDR decision-makers to declassify the March 18, 2011 redacted May 6, 2004 OLC

Memorandum of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith to AG Ashcroft, in order to eliminate the issue of

whether a classified “Unitary Executive” theory litigation decision is a “good faith” defense for a

USG attorney violating his NYS Judiciary Law § 487 duty not to deceive Judges or parties. If

the document is declassified, then this establishes a NYS Judiciary Law § 487 “good faith” mens

rea defense for AAG of the Civil Division Keisler to withhold material facts from Judge

Garaufis and the Second Circuit in Robert VII v DOJ to protect the NSA TSP secret. However, it

would not be a “good faith” mens rea defense for AG Holder’s “chain of command” attorneys

if 2011 USG emails used in drafting his Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief to be filed on

May 26, 2011, reveal the USG attorneys intended to deceive the Second Circuit and appellant.

Ironically, the “do not exist” 1984-2001 NSA TSP data banks and the 2002-2011 NSA

TSP data banks in the custody of DOD Cyber Commander-NSA Director Lt. General Alexander,

contain the 1985-2011 USG attorneys emails from the 1985-2011 Robert FOIA litigation. As a

result, the “discretionary” emails of USG attorneys that were not preserved pursuant to the PRA

and FRA, can be electronically harvested from the 1985-2011 DOD Cyber Command data banks

by President Obama’s February 16, 2011 appointed Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the

Intelligence Community Al Tarasiuk, the 2005-2010 CIA CIO. He can use the ODNI

Intelligence Advanced Research Project Activity (IARPA) CATALYST algorithms. “Oh what a

tangled weave, When first we practice to deceive.” Sir Walter Scott. See CIA MDR WP § F.

The USG attorneys’ FOIA emails in cases in which the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy”

was implemented, now trigger the April 1, 2009 NYS Rules of Professional Conduct Rule

3.3(a)(3) duty of USG attorneys 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.” 7-27-10 DOJ WP § E.

Hence, the significance of NARA Archivist David Ferriero’s May 3, 2011 House

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform testimony re the importance of USG emails

being preserved pursuant to the PRA and FRA. The “discretionary” emails that NARA Archivist

Ferriero thought might be “lost” and not be part of the historical record, can be “found” in the

“do not exist” 1984-2001 NSA TSP and 2002-2011 NSA PSP data banks in the 2011 custody of

DOD Cyber Commander-NSA Director Lt. General Alexander. NARA General Counsel Stern

knows that the USG attorneys’ emails in Robert v National Archives, Robert v DOJ, Robert VII

v DOJ, and Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA reveal whether the 2011 daisy-chain of “shadow

government” attorneys know the 1985-2011 “Commander in Chief riddle” answers.

10

D. The NARA “Perot” documents

The NARA MDR requested “Perot” documents are the July 27, 2010 de novo FOIA

requested documents being withheld by the Archivist of the President Ronald Reagan Library.

These are connect-the-dots documents with the May 9, 2011 NARA ADR request re September

16, 1985 Robert II v CIA and DOJ FOIA requested “North Notebook” document that reveal

whether CIA Director Casey had established an off-the-shelf health care delivery system to

provide medical treatment and supplies for CIA “black operations” for which there were no 413

(a) of the National Security Act notification to the “Gang of Eight” and there was no classified

OMB Budget funding. See 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP § E and 5-9-11 CIA MDR §§ I, J.

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”

that were in the custody of the Archivist of the President Ronald Reagan Library. 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.

On February 24, 1987, President Reagan 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. They learned whether a rogue domestic office-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. Upon information and belief, CIA Director Casey’s “black operation” at IMC was

implemented without the knowledge of President Reagan or his WH Counsels Fred Fielding

(1981-1986), Peter Wallison (1986-1987), and Arthur Culvahouse (1987-1989).

NARA Archivist Williams did not docket this FOIA request for the release of the

“Perot” documents. Upon information and belief, a 2007 Member of the 1981-2011 daisy-chain

of “shadow government” attorney-patriots ordered the NARA Archivist not to docket this FOIA

request because these documents would reveal domestic “sources and methods” of the CIA.

11

Upon information and belief, the FOIA request for the “Perot” documents was also not

docketed 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 in

connection with the release of Presidential records by NARA 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. H.

Ross Perot’s Electronic Data Systems (EDS) had the contract to process Medicaid and Medicare

payments to providers. As a result, he knew HHS funds paid to the individual claims of medical

care provided at the IMC HMO and could be used to pay for illegal medical treatment of the

Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ AA, BB.

Upon information and belief, in 1982 CIA Director Casey had informed Mr. Perot that

IMC had been chosen to be an off-the-shelf health delivery system that was needed when the

CIA conducted “black operations” to protect the nation from terrorists. The wounded from these

“black operations” had to be treated without the knowledge of Congressional Oversight

Committees. Upon information and belief, special procedures were implemented to protect the

secrecy of the “black operation” at IMC. This was necessary because otherwise EDS records

were available to the 1985 joint FBI-DOJ-HHS task force conducting the “Fraud Against the

Government” investigation of IMC. If HHS funds were used to pay for the medical care of the

Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment, then his EDS documents contained evidence of

the payments. See 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 DOJ WP §§ V, Y, AA, BB,

EE, FF. See also 2-22-11 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief at Point V A.

On September 3, 2008, the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff filed his Motion

with Judge Garaufis seeking a pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint that included a

mandamus cause of action for the Court to order the docketing of the FOIA request for the

September 27, 2008 FOIA request for the release of the “Perot” documents. Judge Garaufis

denied the Motion and the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appeal of the decision is pending.

On January 21, 2009, President Obama issued E.O. 13489 Presidential Records and

rescinded 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 §

4, the final decision as to a living former President’s use of Executive Privilege is made by the

incumbent President. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf

Thus, 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 “Commander in Chief” of CIA Director Casey who was not President

Reagan, and the 2010 “Commander in Chief” of FBI Chief FOIA Officer Hardy who was not

President Obama. See 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP § G, 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP §§ Q, R.

12

E. The NARA “Peter Keisler Collection” documents

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 Williams. These are important “Past is Prologue” documents because President

Reagan’s 1986 Assistant WH Counsel Keiser would become the 1988 Associate WH Counsel,

2002-2003 Principal Deputy Associate AG, 2003-2007 AAG of the Civil Division, and 2007

Acting AG. He knows the name of the 1986 “Commander in Chief” of CIA Director Casey’s

“black operations” at IMC and NSA who was not President Reagan. See §§ H, I below.

On December 15, 2006, the plaintiff filed a FOIA request with the President Ronald

Reagan Library Archivist 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. These were the documents

that Chairman Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee unsuccessfully sought during the

nomination hearing of AAG of the Civil Division Keisler to become a D.C. Circuit Judge.

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. These documents reveal whether Assistant

and Associate WH Counsel Keisler had informed WH Counsels Wallison and Culvahouse of the

existence of the faux “Commander in Chief” who pursuant to AG Meese’s extreme “Unitary

Executive” theory, made Top Secret impeachable decisions re the “black operations” at IMC

and NSA without the knowledge of President Reagan. See 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP §§ D, G.

These are “Past is Prologue” documents because AAG of the Civil Division Keisler knew

on December 22, 2005 that AG Gonzales’ § 413 of the National Security Act letter to the “Gang

of Eight” reporting on the existence of the post-9/11 2002-2005 NSA PSP, did not report the

existence of the 1984-1986 NSA TSP that he knew as an Assistant WH Counsel had existed in

1986. The documents also reveal his 1986 mens rea when on April 3, 2006 as AAG of the Civil

Division, he approved EDNY AUSA Mahoney’s Robert VII v DOJ letter Brief in response to the

Second Circuit’s teed up question whether appellant Robert was a FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1806 (f),

“aggrieved person.” See 5-7-08 PIDB WP §§ E-H and 1-4-11 PIAB WP §§ 13, 14, 34, 35.

On January 30, 2007, the Archivist Shelly Jacobs 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. He then appealed to NARA Archivist Allen Weinstein. On August

11, 2008, 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.”

13

On September 3, 2008, the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff filed his Motion

seeking Judge Garaufis’ pre-clearance Order to file the putative September 3, 2008 complaint

that included the § D cause of action seeking a mandamus order that Archivist Shelly Jacobs

Williams fulfill her ministerial duty and render a final FOIA decision. Pursuant to his December

9, 2005 Order, Judge Garaufis denied the Motion. That decision is now on appeal in Robert VIII

v DOJ, HHS, and SSA and AG Holder’s Brief is due to be filed on May 25, 2011.

As explained in § H below, NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether the Ronald

Reagan Library Archivist Shelly Jacobs Williams has rendered a final decision as to these

December 15, 2006 and de novo July 27, 2010 FOIA requested documents. He knows whether

the procedures of President Obama’s January 21, 2009 E.O. 13489 Presidential Records, which

rescinded President Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233, have been applied.

NARA General Counsel Stern also knows that the July 27, 2010 FOIA requested “Peter

Keisler Collection” documents are connect-the-dots documents with the July 27, 2010 CIA

FOIA requested four # 1-# 4 1985 Robert II v CIA and DOJ “North Notebook” documents

subject to the 5-9-11 NARA ADR, and the # 5 “all Robert II v CIA “c (3) exclusion” ex parte

Declarations” documents subject to the 5-9-11 CIA MDR. He also knows that the NARA and

CIA emails are subject to the PRA and the FRA. See § C above and §§ I, J below.

NARA General Counsel Stern also knows that the July 27, 2010 FOIA requested “Peter

Keisler Collection” documents are connect-the-dots documents with the July 27, 2010 FOIA

requested “FBI Abshire” documents being withheld based on FBI Chief FOIA Officer Hardy’s

“command and control” officer’s interpretation of Judge Garaufis’ Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS,

and SSA December 9, 2005 injunction. He also knows that the 2005 DOJ emails reveal the

names of the USG attorneys who knew that AG Gonzales had withheld material facts from Judge

Garaufis in his successful 2005 Motion for the Robert injunction. See § C above and § L below.

NARA General Counsel Stern also knows from reading emails from NARA Deputy

FOIA Officer Jay Olin, that the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant seeks the release of

the “Peter Keisler Collection” document to present to AG Holder to prove to AG Holder that

AAG of the Civil Division Keisler knew when he approved EDNY AUSA Mahoney’s Robert

VII v DOJ April 3, 2006 letter Brief, that the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents revealed the

1986 mens rea of Assistant WH Counsel Keisler of the existence of the “do not exist” 1984-1986

NSA TSP. He knew President Reagan did not know of the 1986 serial impeachable violations of

the § 413 of the National Security Act, the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, the PCA

limitations on domestic military law enforcement, and the Social Security Act. See § L below.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that if the NARA MDR and ADR decision makers

have been ordered to apply the E. O. 13526 § 3.6 (a) “Glomar Response” to the “Peter Keisler

Collection” documents, that because of the E.O. 13526 § 1.7 misclassification standards, such

an interpretation merits AG Holder’s § 6.2 (c) “shall” interpretation of the E.O. 13526. NARA

General Counsel Stern knows that if AG Holder reads the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents,

then this will be a factor that AG Holder weighs when he considers the quiet settlement offer of

the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant prior to AG Holder’s May 25, 2011 filing

date for his Robert VIII Brief. See 11-11-08 DAG Filip WP and the NARA FOIA emails.

14

F. The NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents

The NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents are the July

27, 2010 de novo FOIA requested documents that are in the custody of NARA Archivist

Ferriero. These are important 1984-2011 “Past is Prologue” documents that reveal whether

1998-2001 USG attorneys had implemented the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” and withheld

material facts from Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit in Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed.

Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), to protect the “sources and methods” used by CIA Director Casey

during the illegal “black operation” at IMC. They also reveal whether 2009-2011 USG attorneys

have violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment right of access to the courts by not curing the

1998-2001 misrepresentations of fact and law made to Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit in

Robert v National Archives. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E, V, BB, AAA. See § H below.

The “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents are the documents

that were in the custody of Independent Counsel (IC) Lawrence Walsh on March 29, 1989 when

Robert was interviewed by FBI Agent Allison in the Offices of IC Walsh. They had been

transferred to NARA when in 1993 IC Walsh ended his investigations. Robert had sent

documents to IC Walsh that he asserted contained evidence that an illegal “black operation” had

been conducted by CIA Director Casey at IMC when former-HHS General Counsel del Real

was IMC President Recarey’s Chief of Staff. He alleged that unaudited HHS funds had been

used to pay for medical treatment and supplies of the Contras in violation of the Boland

Amendment. The “FBI Agent Allison” documents were the documents in the IC case file in the

custody of FBI Agent Allison when she interviewed Robert. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ V, BB.

The plaintiff filed Robert v National Archives seeking the release of the “FBI Agent

Allison” documents. 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 that NARA Archivist Carlin was using the “Glomar Response” defense

because the “FBI Agent Allison” documents revealed the “sources and methods” of the CIA.

The plaintiff appealed Judge Wexler’s decision. See discussion of the “c (3) exclusion” defense

in the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief at Point II C. See 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP § E.

In its January 12, 2001 Robert v National Archives, decision, the Second Circuit panel

of Judges Feinberg, Katzmann, and Sotomayor affirmed Judge Wexler’s decision. The Second

Circuit panel explained that DOJ advised the FOIA requester that the “Bulky Evidence File”

documents would be later posted on “electronic indices” of NARA:

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. Emphasis Added.

The Second Circuit panel 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 Declaration, the burden of proof was on the FOIA plaintiff to produce evidence of the

existence of the documents being transferred and withheld by the CIA pursuant Exemption 3:

15

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 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. 88-89. Emphasis Added.

The March 29, 1989 “FBI Agent Allison” documents would have historical importance

if the documents reveal that FBI Agent Allison had withheld from IC Walsh facts that supported

the allegation that CIA Director Casey had conducted a 1984-1986 “black operation” at IMC

with the knowledge of FBI Director Judge Webster. These are also “Past is Prologue”

documents that have historical significance if FBI Agent Allison’s “command and control”

officer was not FBI Director Judge Sessions (1987-1993), but the faux “Commander-in-Chief”

who was not President George H.W. Bush, the 1976 CIA Director. See the 1-4-11 PIAB WP.

On August 23, 2007, the plaintiff requested the release of the Robert v National

Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents that had been in the custody of Independent Counsel

(IC) Lawrence Walsh that were not released during the 1998-2001 Robert v National Archives, 1

Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), litigation. NARA had never provided the plaintiff with copies of

the FOIA requested “Bulky Evidence File” documents that on March 29, 1989 had been in the

custody of IC Walsh’s FBI liaison, FBI Agent Carol Allison, and transferred to NARA.

On January 23, 2008, the NARA Director of the Textual Services Division issued a

NARA FOIA decision informing the 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 FOIA Exemption 3 and 7(C). Upon information and belief, the

phrase “deemed responsive” is a de facto “Glomar Response” defense whereby there are

“deemed” responsive documents that can be released and other responsive classified documents

that the CIA instructs NARA not to release because admission that these responsive classified

documents exist, would reveal the CIA’s “sources and methods” involved in “black operations.”

On February 21, 2008, the plaintiff appealed that decision. He requested a more diligent

search for the “Bulky Evidence File” documents including within the unidentified “deemed

nonresponsive” documents. He requested copies of the 42 “deemed responsive” documents and

38 “remaining responsive” documents that had been in the custody of FBI Agent Allison.

16

On May 7, 2008, Robert filed a formal request with the NARA Public Interest

Declassification Board (PIDB) to declassify 1985-2007 Robert FOIA withheld documents:

1. Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents

2. Robert II v CIA and DOJ “North Notebook” documents

3. Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” documents

4. Robert III v DOJ “Recarey extradition” documents

5. Robert v Holz sealed “Fraud Against the Government” documents

The NARA PIDB requester asserted that these connect-the-dots classified documents

should be declassified pursuant to the March 25, 2003 Executive Order 12392 § 1.5. He

requested an omnibus decision because these were connect-the-dots classified documents that

would reveal the names of the 1984-2008 USG attorneys had implemented the “Barrett

nonacquiescence policy” and withheld material facts from the Article III Judges that would

prove true Robert’s almost incredible allegations made in his serial FOIA actions. He argued the

NARA PIDB decision be made pursuant to § 1.7 to adjudicate whether the documents were

misclassified to cover up of the serial violations of federal laws. He argued the documents

were misclassified to cover-up the implementation of the extreme “Unitary Executive” theory of

AG Meese, and the existence of the “do not exist” 1982-2008 NSA TSP data banks which had

been accessed in violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA. See 5-7-08 PIDB WP § A.

On June 23, 2008, NARA Deputy Archivist Thomas affirmed the January 23, 2008

decision. She determined there had been an “adequate” search for “responsive” documents by

the use of electronic indices “Therefore, I am affirming the initial response as it relates to

conducting an adequate search for responsive records.” None of the FOIA requested

“responsive” documents were released to the FOIA requester. See §§ H, I, J below.

Deputy Archivist Thomas also informed the plaintiff that the NARA record search

was limited to the documents that the sending agency transferred to NARA to become the

custody of the NARA. “We can only process and make available those records that have been

transferred to NARA’s custody.” Id. p 1, ¶ 4. Upon information and belief, this indicated that

there were classified “Bulky Evidence File” documents that were in the custody of the CIA.

Deputy Archivist Thomas affirmed the decision to withhold a “North Notebook”

document pursuant to the use of Exemption 3. “Rather, in this instance, one page of Oliver

North’s notebook was withheld in part to protect the identity of a CIA employee.” Id. p. 2, ¶ 3.

Emphasis added. Deputy Archivist Thomas informed the requester that she had no discretion in

rendering this CIA decision. “Based on the determination that 50 USC is an appropriate (b)(3)

statute, I have no discretion in this matter.” Id. p 2, ¶ 4. Emphasis Added.

Deputy Archivist Thomas also explained that the withheld law enforcement document

pursuant to Exemption (b)(7)(C), was an Independent Counsel Walsh routing form which

revealed the identity of a law enforcement officer. “The document in question is a routing form

used by IC Walsh, which contained the identity of a third party.” Id. p 2, ¶ 6. Upon information

and belief, the “law enforcement” officer was part of a FBI counterintelligence “plumber” unit.

17

Deputy Archivist Thomas also informed the plaintiff that FOIA Exemption 1 was not

applied to any “responsive” documents, and therefore the FOIA request was a moot issue:

Please be advised that no information deemed responsive to your request

was properly classified pursuant to EO 13292 or EO 12958, as amended.

As no information was withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(1), I deem this

portion of your appeal to be moot. Id. p 3, ¶ 1.Emphasis Added.

On July 3, 2008, the plaintiff requested that the Deputy Archivist clarify her June 23,

2008 decision as to FOIA Exemption 1 being applied to the “deemed responsive” documents.

He also requested an E.O. 13292 § 1.7 misclassification of documents determination as applied

to any “deemed nonresponsive” documents that may have been misclassified to “cover up”

the violations of federal laws as alleged by the FOIA requester. Upon information and belief,

the “deemed nonresponsive” documents were de facto “Glomar Response” documents.

On July 16, 2008, NARA Director of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISSO)

Director William J. Bosanko informed the plaintiff that the NARA PIDB does not have

jurisdiction to accept a citizen’s request for the declassification of documents. However, he

advised that a U.S. citizen has a declassification remedy pursuant to § 3.5 (a)(3) of President

Bush’s March 25, 2003 E.O. 13292, by filing declassification requests directly with the

classifying agency for the declassification officer to render a declassification decision.

On July 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a declassification request with CIA Declassification

Center Chief Richard J. Warshaw to declassify the five sets of classified FOIA withheld

documents, and make a determination whether pursuant to President Bush’s E.O. 13292, § 1.7

Classification Prohibitions and Limitations, the documents were misclassified to “cover up”

violations of federal laws during 1980s illegal rogue domestic CIA “black operations.” This

July 23, 2008 CIA declassification request was not processed. See 5-9-11 CIA WP §§ Q, R.

On August 11, 2008, Deputy Archivist Thomas, reaffirmed her June 23, 2008 decision

regarding the “responsive” documents and the application of Exemptions 3 and 7(C):

We have carefully reviewed the documents deemed responsive to your

request and again affirm that only Exemption (b)(7)(C) apply to the two

pages withheld in part. No responsive documents are classified, therefore

(b)(1) does not apply in this instance. We also certify that NARA, as the

legal custodian of the records requested, made the determination to invoke

exemptions allowable under the FOIA. We maintain that we had a sound

legal basis to withhold information that is appropriate for withholding

from public disclosure pursuant to any one of the nine FOIA exemptions.

Id. p. 2 ¶ 1. Emphasis Added. Emphasis Added.

The Deputy Archivist Thomas indicated that the 80 pages of “responsive documents”

remain in the custody of the NARA Special Access staff. “In response to your request NARA’s

Special Access and FOIA Staff searched for and located 80 pages of records which are

responsive to your request.” Id. p. 1 ¶ 3. Emphasis Added.

18

Deputy Archivist Thomas indicated there were no “deemed responsive” classified

documents, but did not indicate whether the converse was true that there were “deemed

nonresponsive” classified documents that were being withheld from the FOIA requester pursuant

to the “Glomar Response” neither admit nor deny defense. “There are no classified records

among the records deemed responsive to your request.” p. 1 ¶ 3. Emphasis Added.

Deputy Archivist Thomas reaffirmed the decision that NARA had correctly determined

that the FOIA requester’s request for an appeal of the FOIA Exemption 1 decision was moot.

“We deemed the claim regarding (b)(1) to be moot, as NARA did not deny access to any

responsive documents because they were classified.” Id. p1, ¶ 4. Emphasis added.

Deputy Archivist Thomas rejected the FOIA requester’s request for a E.O. 13292 § 1.7

decision without discussing the culled NARA “deemed nonresponsive” documents:

Again, no information deemed responsive to your request of August 23,

2007, is properly classified pursuant to EO 13, 292 or EO 12, 958, as

amended. As no information was withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(1),

we deemed this portion of your appeal to be without merit. Id. p. 1 ¶ 4.

Emphasis added.

Deputy Archivist Thomas did not release to the plaintiff the 80 pages of “responsive”

documents. Upon information and belief, the “command and control” officer of Deputy

Archivist Thomas ordered her not to release the 80 “responsive” documents to Robert.

On September 3, 2008, the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff filed his Motion

seeking Judge Garaufis’ pre-clearance Order to allow the plaintiff to file a putative FOIA

complaint. At § B of the complaint, the plaintiff filed a mandamus cause of action seeking an

Order of Judge Garuufis Order the CIA Declassification Center Chief to docket the plaintiff’s

July 23, 2008 declassification request that included the declassification of the # 1 “Robert v

National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents. Judge Garaufis denied the Motion.

Upon information and belief, Acting CIA General Counsel Rizzo on behalf of CIA

Director Hayden (2006-2009), filed a “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declaration explaining why the

CIA Declassification Center Chief Warashaw did not docket the declassification request. Upon

information and belief, he explained that these were documents would reveal the “sources and

methods” of the CIA that are applied when there is FOIA litigation seeking classified documents.

On July 27, 2010, the Robert v National Archives appellant filed the FOIA request for the

# 3 “NARA Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents. That FOIA request

was never docketed. On August 12, 2010, NARA Deputy General Counsel Jay Olin rejected the

FOIA request. See the 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G, V, W, AA, BB, AAA and § L below.

The NARA MDR requester is seeking the declassification of the universe of “NARA

Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents. Since the “responsive”

documents were never received by the FOIA requester, he has concluded that these have been

deemed to be “Glomar Response” classified documents subject to NARA MDR review.

19

G. The NARA FOIA Officers’ email decisions not to docket the July 27, 2010 FOIA

request for the “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents and

October 29, 2011 NARA FOIA request for four 1985 CIA “North Notebook” documents

The NARA MDR decision-makers are placed on Notice of the NARA FOIA Officers

decisions not to docket the July 27, 2010 NARA FOIA request for the three documents and

the October 29, 2011 FOIA request for the four # 1- # 4 CIA 1985 “North Notebook”

documents. The NARA MDR decision-makers are placed on Notice of their duty to contact

NARA General Counsel Stern to learn whether the 2010-2011 emails of NARA Deputy

Counsel Olin and NARA General Counsel Stern reveal the name of the “command and control”

officer, who is not NARA Archivist Ferriero, who ordered the FOIA Officers not to docket the

NARA FOIA requests for the connect-the-dots documents. See § C above and § L below.

On August 12, 2010, NARA Deputy FOIA Officer Jay Olin informed the FOIA requester

that his July 27, 2010 NARA FOIA request was rejected for a series of reasons. He returned the

July 27, 2010 FOIA request and the supporting July 27, 2010 DOJ WP in support of the Robert

VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA quiet settlement to which the NARA FOIA request referred.

On August 31, 2010, Robert filed a 17 page appeal of that decision with NARA Chief

FOIA Officer and General Counsel Gary Stern with a specific request for a docket number.

Robert served NARA General Counsel with a copy of his July 27, 2010 DOJ FOIA request, the

July 27, 2010 DOJ WP in support of the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA quiet settlement, and

the appellant’s August 24, 2010 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA letter sent to the Second

Circuit reinstating the appeal. See the 11-11-08 DAG Filip WP and 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ V, BB.

On August 31, 2010, Robert requested by letter and by email that the Ronald Reagan

Presidential Library FOIA Coordinator provide copies of the April 11, 2009 letter to which

NARA Deputy FOIA Officer Olin cited, and the approximately 218 pages that were not the 11

classified pages from file F07-014. He explained he had never received the April 10, 2009 letter

or any of the documents. He served the July 27, 2010 DOJ WP in support of the Robert VIII v

DOJ, HHS, and SSA quiet settlement and cited to § BB. He provided a copy of his August

24, 2010 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA letter sent to the Second Circuit reinstating the

appeal. He renewed his request for the “Perot” documents for which he never received a docket

number and cited to President Obama’s January 21, 2001 E.O. 13489, Presidential Records, that

rescinded President Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233. See §§ C-E above and § L below.

On August 31, 2010, Robert provided NARA Deputy FOIA Officer Olin with copies of

his August 31, 2010 letters to NARA Chief FOIA Officer and General Counsel Stern and the

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library FOIA Coordinator. He also provided a copy of the August

24, 2010 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Second Circuit appeal reinstatement letter.

The NARA MDR decision-makers are placed on Notice that the FOIA requester has not

received a docket number for the July 27, 2010 FOIA request. The NARA MDR decision-

makers are placed on Notice that the emails between NARA Deputy FOIA Officer Olin and

Chief FOIA Officer and General Counsel Gary Stern reveal the mens rea of these two NARA

FOIA officials as to why the FOIA request was not docketed. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § AAA.

20

The NARA MDR decision-makers are placed on Notice that the FOIA requester has not

received a docket number for the October 29, 2011 FOIA request for the four # 1- # 4 CIA 1985

“North Notebook” documents. This is an important fact because these are connect-the-dots

documents to the NARA “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection”, and “Robert v National Archives

‘Bulky Evidence File” documents because they reveal the names of the attorneys who have

implemented the “Unitary Executive” theory of AG Meese whereby pursuant to the President’s

Article II authority, USG attorneys can withhold material facts from Judges in order to protect

national security secrets. See 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP § H and 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP §§ Q, R.

These seven sets of NARA connect-the-dots documents contain connect-the-dots facts

that prove whether USG attorneys committed a “fraud upon the court” in 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), and Robert VII v DOJ, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39616, 193 Fed. Appx.

8 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. den. 127 S.Ct. 1133 (2007). In Chambers v. Nasco, 111 S. Ct. 2123

(1991), the Supreme Court highlighted the inherent authority of a court to protect its own

integrity when false representations are made to a court, by vacating prior judgments:

This “historic power of equity to set aside fraudulently begotten

judgments,” cite omitted, is necessary to the integrity of the courts for

“tampering with the administration of justice in (this)manner …involves

far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the

institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public. cites omitted.

Moreover, a court has the power to conduct an independent investigation

whether it has been the victim of a fraud. Id. at p. 2132. Emphasis Added.

These seven sets of NARA connect-the-dots documents and the USG attorneys’ 2000

emails in Robert v National Archives, reveal the names of the litigation decision-makers to

compare with the 2000 emails of the litigation decision-makers in Ford v. Shalala, 87 F. Supp

2d 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), when then-DAG-Holder made his honorable and courageous decision

not to perfect EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch’s appeal of Judge Sifton’s April 9, 1994 nationwide

class certification of millions of Ford class members. In 2000, the AAG of the Civil Division

was David Ogden and his DAAG supervising the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil

Division was Tom Perrelli who is now AG Holder’s Chief FOIA Officer and Associate AG.

The 2000 emails of Robert v National Archives attorneys EDNY AUSA Kathleen

Mahoney and NARA General Counsel Stern, and the 2000 emails of Ford v Shalala DOJ

attorneys EDNY AUSA Mahoney and DAAG of the Civil Division Perrelli reveal the mens rea

of these attorneys. They knew that a 1986 HHS Secretary Bowen “clandestine” policy to divert

“Jackson nonacquiescence policy” funds to pay for CIA Director Casey’s domestic “black

operations” at IMC and NSA, would trigger a Bowen v City of New York, 106 S. Ct. 2022

(1986), equitable tolling remedy for millions of 1994-2000 Ford class members. “The

claimants were denied the fair and neutral procedure required by the statute and regulations, and

they are now entitled to pursue that procedure.” Id. 2034. Emphasis Added. See § C above.

Hence, the importance of the NARA MDR decision makers asking NARA General

Counsel Stern the legal authority for NARA FOIA Officers not to docket the FOIA requests.

21

H. NARA General Counsel Stern’s knowledge the “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky

Evidence File” documents and his emails with AUSA Mahoney contain evidence that

AUSA Mahoney knows AG Gonzales withheld material facts from Judge Garaufis in his

2005 Motion to secure the December 9, 2005 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA injunction

The NARA MDR decision-makers are placed on Notice that NARA General Counsel

Stern knows whether the “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents and his

Robert v National Archives emails with AUSA Mahoney contain evidence that AUSA Mahoney

knew that AG Gonzales had withheld material facts from Judge Garaufis in his 2005 Motion to

secure the December 9, 2005 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA injunction. NARA MDR

decision-makers should know this fact because NARA General Counsel Stern knows that

EDNY AUSA Mahoney has an ethical duty to cure misrepresentations of facts in the DOJ’s

Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Brief. See 2-22-11 Robert VIII Brief Facts and Point IV.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that the July 27, 2010 FOIA requested “Robert v

National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents corroborate the fact that on March 29,

1989 FBI Agent Allison knew whether Robert’s allegations that CIA Director Casey had

conducted a “black operation” at IMC in violation of the Boland Amendment with the

knowledge of FBI Director Judge Webster and AG Meese, had not been presented to IC Walsh.

He knows the content of the 80 “deemed responsive” and “remaining responsive” documents

never sent to Robert, corroborate Robert’s allegations as to the mens rea of FBI Agent Allison’s

knowledge of the allegations of the “black operation” at IMC where a joint FBI-DOJ-HHS task

force had conducted a “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of IMC that AAG of the

Criminal Division William Weld had ended in 1987. See 2-22-11 Robert VIII Brief Point V A.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that his Robert v National Archives emails with

EDNY AUSA Mahoney, establish that AUSA Mahoney knew that the “FBI Agent Allison”

documents existed and had been withheld from Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit pursuant to

the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” in order that Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit panel of

Judges Feinberg, Katzman, and Sotomayer did not have facts to corroborate Robert’s almost

incredible allegations. He knows those emails reveal whether AAG of the Civil Division David

Ogden had approved the filing of USG attorneys’ “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations with

the Judge Wexler an the Second Circuit. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G, V, W, Y, AA, BB.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that his Robert v National Archives emails with

EDNY AUSA Mahoney are connect-the-dots USG attorneys’ emails which establish that 1998-

2011 AUSA Mahoney was implementing the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” of the AAGs of

the Civil DivisionWillard (1983-1987), Bolton (1989-2003), Hunger (1993-1999), Ogden (1999-

2001), and Keisler (2003-2007) to make Article III Judges the “handmaidens” of the DOJ.

“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). He knows AUSA

Mahoney has withheld material facts from Judge Mishler and the Second Circuit in Robert v

DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2002), and from Judge Garaufis

and the Second Circuit in 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 now Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA,

to make the Judges “handmaidens” re FISA violations. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ N, V, W, PP.

22

NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether the NARA FOIA Officers were ordered

not to docket the July 27, 2010 de novo FOIA request for the “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection”,

and Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents, and the October 29, 2010

FOIA requested # 1-# 4 1985 “North Notebook” documents, based on an interpretation of Judge

Garaufis Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA December 9, 2005 injunction that required a pre-

clearance Order from Judge Garaufis to file a FOIA request. The issue of the extent of Judge

Garaufis’ December 9, 2005 injunction order is now at issue in the Second Circuit in Robert VIII

v DOJ, HHS, and SSA. See 2-22- 11 Robert VIII Brief at pp. 12-15 and Point IV.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows from reading his own Robert v National Archives

emails with AUSA Mahoney, that she knows whether AAG of the Civil Division Keisler had

approved AG Gonzales’ filed 2005 “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations 2005 Robert VIII v

DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion successfully seeking the December 9, 2005 Robert injunction,

which withheld material facts from Judge Garaufis that corroborated Robert’s almost incredible

allegations. This is because NARA General Counsel Stern knows that AUSA Mahoney knows

that Robert was a FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1806 (f), “aggrieved person” when AAG of the Civil

Division Keisler approved her April 3, 2006 Brief filed on behalf of AG Gonzales answering the

Second Circuit’s teed up question whether Robert was an “aggrieved person.” See AUSA

Mahoney’s April 3, 2006 Brief posted at http://www.snowflake5391.net/RobertvDOJbrief.pdf.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA,

EDNY AUSA Mahoney has an April 1, 2009 NYS Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3)

duty to cure misrepresentations of fact and law that she knows were made to the Second Circuit

in Robert v National Archives, Robert v DOJ, and Robert VII v DOJ. “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.” Emphasis Added. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E, M, N, AAA.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that if he knows that his 2010-2011 emails reveal

that he participated in the decision that the NARA FOIA Officers were not to docket Robert’s

July 27, 2010 and October 29, 2010 de novo FOIA requests, then his 2010-2011 emails are

connect-the-dots emails with his 1999-2001 Robert v National Archives emails. He knows that

the NYS Judiciary Law § 487, Misconduct by attorneys, penal standard applies to him if in 2011

he intends to deceive NARA MDR requester Robert in concert with EDNY AUSA Mahoney,

his co-counsel in Robert v National Archives. “1. Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents

to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party; or …” Emphasis Added.

Hence, the importance of the NARA MDR decision-makers receiving accurate

information from NARA General Counsel Stern when they decide whether to docket this May 9,

2011 NARA MDR request re the “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File”

documents. NARA General Counsel Stern can contact EDNY AUSA Mahoney and learn

whether Judge Garaufis’ December 9, 2005 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA injunction

applies to Robert’s July 27, 2010 de novo FOIA request for Robert v National Archives “Bulky

Evidence File” documents. AUSA Mahoney knows whether her co-counsel NARA General

Counsel Stern had withheld material facts from Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit for which

she has a NYS ethics Rule 3.3 duty to cure the USG attorneys’ misrepresentation of facts or law.

23

I. The July 27, 2010 NARA FOIA requested “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection”, and

Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents are connect-the-dots

documents with the July 27, 2010 FOIA requested “FBI Abshire” documents being

withheld pursuant to the December 9, 2005 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS and SSA injunction

The NARA MDR decision-makers are placed on Notice that the July 27, 2010 NARA

FOIA requested “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection”, and Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky

Evidence File” documents are connect-the-dots documents with the July 27, 2010 FOIA

requested “FBI Abshire” documents now being withheld pursuant to the December 9, 2005

Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS and SSA injunction. AG Holder will learn from reading classified

“FBI Abshire” documents whether the classified NARA “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection”,

and Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents corroborate the Robert VIII v

DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant’s almost incredible allegations made to the Second Circuit in

Robert v National Archives, Robert v DOJ, and Robert VII v DOJ. See §§ D, E, F, above.

The “FBI Abshire” documents are 3000 documents that FBI Director Judge Webster and

a “task force of departmental general counselors” reviewed in December, 1986 that contain

classified documents not provided to the Tower Commissioner, the Senate-House Committee

investigating Iran-Contras Affair, and IC Lawrence Walsh because they revealed the “sources

and methods” of the CIA. These documents reveal whether FBI Director Judge Webster knew in

1985 that CIA Director Casey had been conducting a domestic “black operation” at IMC to

provide medical treatment and supplies to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment.

On November 25, 1986, AG Meese held a Press Conference and provided a preliminary

report of what he discovered in his search of Lt. Col North’s office. On December 1, 1986,

President Reagan established the “Tower Commission” and appointed Senator John Tower,

former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, and former-National Security Advisor Brent

Scowcroft. The Commissioners were tasked to perform an Article II investigation of the Iran-

Contras revelations that were revealed by AG Meese They were to provide President Reagan

with a Report by February 28, 1987 reporting the who knew what and when details.

On December 1, 1986, President Reagan appointed Ambassador David Abshire, a

former Member of President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) who was not an

attorney, to be the Special Counselor to the President. He was tasked with representing the

President before the Tower Commission and preserving the President’s Article II Commander in

Chief authority including protecting the sources and methods of the CIA. Special Counselor

Abshire appointed Judge Bower as his attorney to cull the FBI documents. In December 1986,

FBI Director Judge Webster and Special Counselor Abshire’s attorney, Judge Bower,

established a “task force of departmental general counselors” to review FBI records regarding

the Iran-Contras affair. They were to identify and retain documents that would place at risk the

“sources and methods” of the Intelligence Community that should not be compromised.

In his 2005 memoir: Saving the Reagan Presidency: Trust is the Coin of the Realm.

Special Counselor to the President Abshire reported that 3000 documents had been screened by

the “task force of departmental general counselors” that revealed “sources and methods” of

the intelligence community. These documents were not provided to the Tower Commission:

24

During this period, Judge Bower’s task force of departmental general

counselors continued to review three thousand relevant documents identified

by the FBI for investigations. Each of these documents had to be carefully

sorted, and the most sensitive had to be retained for safekeeping in the

executive branch, where the committee staffs and others were invited to

view them. This was one of the initial problems we had with the Congress –

safekeeping. The CIA was very slow in replying to requests related to the

contra supply operation because they had difficulty evaluating the

documents. As for the Walsh team, we had to work out arrangements to

have filing cabinets and space at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virgina. This

enabled the Walsh attorneys to see what the agency had blacked out as

legally irrelevant but sensitive in terms of revealing sources and methods.

Similar arrangements were worked out with the Treasury Department since

it also wanted to follow North’s money trail. Id. 110-111. Emphasis Added.

Upon information and belief, the “FBI Abshire” documents include some of the “Perot”

EDS documents that Mr. Perot handed to President Reagan on February 24, 1987 prior to the

February 28, 1987 public release of the Tower Commission Report. Upon information and

belief, this is one of the reasons why the Archivist of the President Ronald Reagan Library was

ordered not to docket the FOIA request for the “Perot” documents because the “Perot”

documents contained some “FBI Abshire” classified “sources and methods” documents.

On July 27, 2010, Robert filed a third FBI FOIA request for the # 1 “FBI Abshire”

documents. Chief FBI FOIA Officer Hardy was instructed not to docket the July 27, 2010 FOIA

request without a pre-clearance Order from Judge Garaufis. This FOIA decision was based on an

interpretation of Judge Garaufis December 9, 2005 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Order

enjoining Robert from filing a FOIA complaint without Judge Garaufis’ pre-clearance Order.

The Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant is arguing that the injunction and the USG’s

interpretation of the injunction violates Robert’s First Amendment right of access to the courts.

See the 2-22-11 Robert VIII Brief Point IV and 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G, N, M, AAA.

The NARA ADR and MDR requester asserts that the “FBI Abshire” documents are

connect-the-dots documents with the 9-16-85 NARA “North Notebook” classified document and

the NARA 2-25-87 “Perot” documents which reveal whether FBI Judge Webster and then-CIA

Director Judge Webster knew that the CIA had conducted a “black operation” at IMC where

unaudited Off-OMB Budget funds were used to pay IMC for medical supplies and treatment for

the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment and the Social Security Act. If so, then this is

a “Past is Prologue” fact because it reveals the 1985 FBI Director’s mens rea of law violations.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether FBI General Counsel Caproni made the

interpretation of Judge Garaufis December 9, 2005 injunction order as requiring a pre-clearance

Order to file the FOIA request for the “FBI Abshire” documents. If so, then he knows whether he

agrees with that FBI interpretation as being the basis for the NARA FOIA Officer not to docket

Robert’s FOIA request for the “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection” and “Robert v National

Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents. If so, then the NARA MDR decision-makers

should so state in their NARA MDR decision subject to ISCAP appeal. See 3-18-11 ISCAP WP.

25

J. The three NARA MDR documents are connect-the-dots documents to the 5-9-11 NARA

ADR request re the four 1985 Robert II v CIA and DOJ “North Notebook” documents

subject to the time anchor of the E.O. 13526 § 3.3 25 year time standard

The NARA MDR decision makers are placed on Notice that the three July 27, 2010

undocketed classified “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection” and “Robert v National Archives

‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents are connect-the-dots documents with the 5-9-11 NARA ADR

request of the four 1985 Robert II v CIA and DOJ documents subject to the 25 year time anchor

declassification standard. If CIA Director Panetta does not extend the 25 year standard and those

four pages of 1985 documents are declassified, then NARA Archivist Ferriero should be

reviewing any email instructions to the NARA MDR decisions makers not to declassify the

connect- the-dots classified “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection” and “Robert v National Archives

‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents, by NARA General Counsel Stern or his “command and

control” officer whose “Commander in Chief” is not President Obama. See §§ C, H above.

The Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant-Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff has

made the gravest of allegations that there has existed a 1984-2011 daisy-chain of “shadow

government” attorney-patriots who have been implementing the “Unitary Executive” theory of

AG Meese and whose “Commanders in Chief” have not been Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton,

Bush, and Obama. They violated serial impeachable laws: the Boland Amendment, § 413 of the

National Security Act, FISA “exclusivity provision,” PCA limitations on domestic military law

enforcement, and the Social Security Act. Therefore, NARA MDR and ADR decision makers

and/or NARA General Counsel Stern should not be making a “don’t ask don’t tell” mistake.

The NARA MDR and ADR decision makers should not be implementing the “conscious

avoidance” of facts litigation strategy that NARA General Counsel Stern and AUSA Mahoney

used in Robert v National Archives. “Conscious avoidance occurs when a person deliberately

closes his eyes to avoid having knowledge of what would otherwise be obvious to him.” U.S. v.

Reyes, 302 F.3d 48, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2002). See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G, V, W, BB, AAA.

The # 1 “9/3/85 North-FBI Revell “North Notebook” log entry” is a connect-the-dots

document to the “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” and “FBI Abshire”

documents that reveal whether FBI Director Judge Webster knew about the “black operation” at

IMC in 1985. This is a “Past is Prologue” document because it reveals whether FBI Directors

Webster (1978-1987), (Acting) Otto (1987), Sessions (1987-1993), (Acting) Clarke (1993),

Freeh (1993-2001), (Acting) Thomas Pickard (2001), and Mueller (2001- ), knew that a 1984-

2011 FBI counterintelligence “plumber” unit has had “Commanders in Chief” who were not

Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. See CIA MDR WP §§ A, Q, R.

The # 2 “9/6/85 North-CIA-FBI Exemptions 1, 3 and NHAO” document is a connect-the-

dots document to the “Peter Keisler Collection” and “FBI Abshire” documents that reveal

whether 1986 Assistant WH Counsel Keisler knew the CIA-DIA “black operation” at IMC had

supplied the Contras with medical supplies and treatment paid for with unaudited HHS funds,

and not NHAO funds, in violation of the Boland Amendment. This is a “Past is Prologue”

document because it establishes the 1988 mens rea of Associate WH Counsel Keisler and 2002-

2007 AAG of the Civil Division Keisler re the funding for the 1984-2007 NSA TSP data banks.

26

The # 3 “9/16/85 North-Call to Perot Exemptions 1 and 3” document is a connect-the-

dots document to the “Perot” and “FBI Abshire” documents that reveal whether FBI Director

Judge Webster knew that 1985-1986 off-OMB Budget unaudited HHS funds were used to pay

for medical treatment and supplies of the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. This is

a “Past is Prologue” document because the off-OMB Budget 1985 “Jackson nonacquiescence

policy” standard continues in 2011 to be the standard that SSA Commissioner Astrue “rigs” the

2011 SSA computer to generate unaudited SSI funds to pay for the “immaculate construction”

and maintenance of the 1984-2011 NSA TSP and PSP data banks not paid for with classified

OMB Budget funds without the knowledge of AG Holder and President Obama.

The # 4 “10/1/85 CIA-DOD FOIA Exemption 1 and 3 and reference to medivac helos”

document is a connect-the-dots document to the “Peter Keisler Collection” and “FBI Abshire”

documents that reveal whether 1986 Assistant WH Counsel Keisler knew that FBI Director

Judge Webster’s December 1986 “task force of departmental general counselors” knew that a

DIA-CIA-FBI domestic counterintelligence “plumber” unit accessed the 1986 NSA TSP data

banks to prevent “leaks” of off-OMB Budget funding source for the “black operations” at IMC

and NSA. This is a “Past is Prologue” document because a 2011 DIA-CIA-FBI domestic

counterintelligence “plumber” unit continues to be tasked to prevent “leaks” of the off-OMB

Budget “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” funding source for the 2011 NSA TSP data banks.

Hence, the importance of the release of these four 1985 one page Robert II v CIA and

DOJ “North Notebook” documents that could trigger AG Holder’s request that soon-to-be DOD

Secretary Panetta order DOD General Counsel Johnson to conduct an investigation of the 1984-

2011 “don’t ask don’t tell” decision making process that has resulted in the faux “Commander in

Chiefs of the NSA Director military officers Faurer (1981-1985), Odom (1985-1988),

Studeman (1988-1992), Mc Connell (1992-1996), Minihan (1996-1999), Hayden (1999-2005),

and Alexander (2005-), accessing the “do not exist” 1984-2011 NSA TSP and PSP data banks

without the knowledge of Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

The greatest risk to the national security is the 2011 “Past is Prologue” PCA violation

whereby a faux “Commander in Chief” has unlimited Orwellian “1984” access to the “do not

exist” 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks now in the custody of DOD Cyber Commander-NSA

Director Lt. General Alexander, without any Article I, Article II, and Article III checks and

balances. This is an unnecessary risk now that the Top Secret cat-is-out-of-the-bag of the

existence of the 1984-2011 ”Top Secret America” domestic surveillance program as revealed in

the jaw-dropping Priest and Arkin Locator Map with thousands of USG and private contractor

work stations hidden in plain sight. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/map/

Therefore, the NARA MDR decision-makers should be consulting with the NARA ADR

decision-makers when they make their decisions whether to accept jurisdiction of the 5-9-11

NARA MDR and ADR requests for these seven sets of classified documents in the custody of

NARA Archivist Ferriero. The four pages of 1985 “North Notebook” documents are located in

the NARA Special Access Room. If the NARA ADR decision-makers do not take jurisdiction of

the 5-9-11 ADR request, then there will be an ISCAP appeal. Upon information and belief, there

will also be FOIA requests by investigative reporters seeking the 2011 release of these four 1985

redacted “North Notebook” pages to learn 1984-2011 U.S. history being hidden-in-plain-sight.

27

K. The three NARA MDR documents are connect-the-dots documents to the 5-9-11 CIA

MDR request re the July 27, 2011 FOIA requested # 5 “all Robert II v CIA “c (3)

exclusion” ex parte Declarations” that are in the 2011 custody of CIA Director Tenet

The NARA MDR decision makers are placed on Notice that the three July 27, 2010

undocketed classified “Perot”, “Peter Keisler Collection” and “Robert v National Archives

‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents are connect-the-dots documents with the 5-9-11 CIA MDR re

the # 5 “all Robert II v CIA “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations.” If CIA Director Panetta

decides that the CIA documents are not “continued classification” documents, then these are

connect-the-dots to the four 1985 NARA ADR # 1-# 4 CIA documents and the “FBI Abshire”

documents. These ex parte Declarations reveal whether CIA General Counsels Scott Muller

(2002-2004) and Acting CIA General Counsel John Rizzo (2004-2009) implemented the “Barrett

nonacquiescence policy and withheld facts from Judge Seybert. See 5-9-11 CIA WP §§ E, F.

CIA Director Panetta will consult with CIA General Counsel Stephen Preston. He was

the 1993-1995 DOD Principal Deputy General Counsel and 1995-1998 Civil Division DAAG

responsible for appellate litigation including Gordon v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 1995),

cert. den, 517 U.S. 1103 (1996). Therefore, he knows whether the off-OMB Budget funds paying

for the “do not exist” 1984-1997 NSA TSP data banks were “Jackson nonacquiescence policy”

funds when CIA Director Panetta was the 1993-1994 OMB Budget Director and 1994-1997

White House Chief of Staff. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ T, U, Z, AA.

CIA Director Panetta will also consult with 1995-1996 CIA General Counsel Jeffrey

Smith who is a 2009-2011 Member of CIA Director Panetta’s External Advisory Board. He was

Senator Sam Nunn’s designee to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the

Iran/Contra Committee and has an institutional memory as to what the Senate-House Committee

learned about the implementation of the extreme “Unitary Executive” theory of AG Meese and

the disciples of that theory as explained in the November 18, 1987 Minority Report of

Congressman Dick Cheney that was drafted by 1981-1984 CIA Assist. Gen. Counsel Addington.

From 1992-1993, CIA External Advisory Board Member Smith was Chief of the

President Clinton DOD Transition Team. He also chaired the 1993 Joint Security Commission

established by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and CIA Director James Woolsey, to examine

the security procedures of the defense and intelligence communities and the private companies

that contract with them. Therefore, he knows of the contractual relationships between NSA and

the private companies who have accessed the “do not exist” NSA “Top Secret America”

domestic surveillance data banks that investigative reporters Priest and Arkin mapped out in

their July 19, 2010 Washington Post Series. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ K, M, N, CC, DD.

The # 5 “all Robert II v CIA “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations” documents are

connect-the-dots documents with the “Perot” documents. They reveal whether CIA Director

Casey had used the off-OMB Budget “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” funds as the funding

source not only for the off-the-shelf medical delivery system at IMC, but also the “do not exist”

1984-1988 NSA domestic military surveillance program that could not be funded with classified

OMB Budget funds because that would have required compliance with § 413 of the National

Security Act, the “exclusivity” provision of the FISA, and PCA military limitations.

28

The # 5 “all Robert II v CIA “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations” documents are

connect-the-dots documents with the “Peter Keisler Collection” documents because they reveal

whether in 1986-1988 Assistant-Associate General Counsel Keisler knew of the “do not exist”

1984-1988 NSA TSP domestic surveillance program that was funded with off-OMB Budget

“Jackson nonacquiescence policy” funds without the knowledge of President Reagan, his client.

These are “Past is Prologue” documents because 2002-2007 AAG of the Civil Division Keisler

knew that the “immaculate construction” of the pre-9-11 1984-2001 NSA TSP data banks and

the post-9/11 2001-2005 NSA PSP data banks were funded with off-OMB Budget “Jackson

nonacquiescence policy” funds without the knowledge of President George W. Bush. See 5-8-

07 PIDB WP § A ,11-11-08 DAG Filip WP, and 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ K, M, N, CC, DD.

The # 5 “all Robert II v CIA “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations” documents are

connect-the-dots documents with the “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’”

documents because they reveal whether the 1989 “chain of command” attorney of FBI Agent

Allison was FBI Director Judge Sessions or IC Walsh or a faux “Commander in Chief” who

was not President George H.W. Bush. These are also “Past is Prologue” documents because they

reveal the implementation of the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” whereby in Robert v National

Archives NARA General Counsel Stern, EDNY AUSA Mahoney, and EDNY U.S. Attorney

Lynch withheld material facts from Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit, and in Robert II v

CIA and DOJ CIA General Counsel Muller, Acting CIA General Counsel Rizzo, EDNY U.S.

Attorney Mauskopf, and EDNY Chief Riley withheld material facts from Judge Seybert. This

was in order to protect “leaks” of the CIA off-OMB Budget “continued” funding source for the

CIA-DIA-FBI “black operations” accessing the NSA data banks. See 7-27-10 WP §§ N, LL-XX.

These are also “Past is Prologue” documents because they reveal the “policy and

practice” of the 1984-2011 “black operations” of the “do not exist” daisy chain of “shadow

government” attorney-patriots who have made the 1984-2011 operational decisions re access to

the “do not exist” 1984-2011 NSA TSP and PSP data banks when their clients were the 1984-

2011 Orweillian faux “Commanders in Chief” and not Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush,

and Obama. This includes the policy of lying-by-omission to Article III Judges in addition to

their Presidents. Based on the extreme “Unitary Executive” theory of AG Meese, this has been

necessary to protect the off-OMB Budget funding source for the “do not exist” NSA TSP and

PSP data banks accessed by the 1984-2011 NSA Directors. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ K, CC, DD.

Hence, the importance of the CIA MDR review of the # 5 “all Robert II v CIA “c (3)

exclusion” ex parte Declarations” documents because CIA Director Panetta will have an

opportunity to consider the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff’s quiet settlement offer. If

accepted, this would moot the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant’s 2011 OLC, ODNI,

NARA, and CIA MDR and ADR requests. As a result, AG Holder would end the use of

“Jackson nonacquiescence policy” policy funds to pay for the “do not exist” 1984-2011 NSA

data banks now in the custody of DOD Cyber-Commander-NSA Director Lt. General Alexander.

Therefore, the NARA MDR decision-makers should be consulting with NARA General

Counsel Stern who can learn from CIA General Counsel Preston whether there will be CIA

MDR jurisdiction for the # 5 Robert II v CIA and DOJ documents. If so, then there will be

coordination of the CIA MDR, NARA MDR and ADR of re eight sets of documents.

29

L. NARA General Counsel Stern knows the answer to the 1985-2011 “Commander in

Chief riddle” from reading the seven sets of NARA FOIA requested 1985-1989 classified

documents now subject to 5-9-11 NARA ADR and MDR requests, and his emails with USG

attorneys including his Robert v National Archives co-counsel EDNY AUSA Mahoney

NARA General Counsel Stern knows the answer to the 1985-2011 “Commander in Chief

riddle” from reading the seven sets of NARA FOIA requested 1985-1989 classified documents

now subject to 5-9-11 NARA ADR and MDR, his emails with USG attorneys in Robert v

National Archives, and the 2010-2011 emails re the July 27, 2010 and October 29, 2010 NARA

FOIA requests. He knows that EDNY AUSA Kathleen Mahoney, his co-counsel in Robert v

National Archives, has also been the DOJ lead counsel in Ford v Shalala, Robert VII v DOJ, and

Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA. He knows she knows that President Obama is not the

“Commander in Chief” of SSA Commissioner Astrue, the co-defendant in Robert VIII v DOJ,

HHS, and SSA. He knows that President Obama would not knowingly breach his Article II “take

Care” duty and violate the 2009-2011 due process and equal protection rights of millions of

Ford class members. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ C, D, J, P-U, Z, ZZ, and 1-4-11 PIAB WP 34, 35.

The “Commander-in-Chief riddle” is based on the fact that President Obama possesses

the Schweiker v. Chilicky, 108 S. Ct. 2460 (1988), “normal sensibilities” of human beings as

applied to the millions of aged, blind, and disabled 2009-2011 SSI recipients who are Ford v.

Shalala, 87 F. Supp 2d 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), class members. “The trauma to respondents, and

thousands of others like them, must surely have gone beyond what anyone of normal sensibilities

would wish to see imposed on innocent disabled citizens.” Id. at 2470. Emphasis Added.

AUSA Mahoney has been the 1999-2011 lead counsel in Ford and knows that SSA

Commissioner Astrue continues in May, 2011 to “rig” the 2011 SSA computer to apply the

“Jackson nonacquiescence policy” contrary to his own sworn January 24, 2007 Senate Finance

Committee testimony that the “nonacquiescence” policy had ended prior his becoming HHS

General Counsel in 1989. “I am particularly proud of having led the effort to terminate the

agency’s longstanding “nonacquiescence” policies, an achievement highlighted by Chairman

Moynihan when I was last before you in 1989 during my confirmation hearing for General

Counsel of HHS.” http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2007test/012407matest.pdf.

SSA Commissioner Astrue had been the 1985 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Legislation, 1986 Legal Counsel to the SSA Deputy Commissioner for Programs, 1986-1988

Counselor to the SSA Commissioner, 1988 Associate White House Counsel for President

Reagan, 1989 Associate White House Counsel for President Bush, and 1989-1993 HHS General

Counsel, before becoming the 2007- SSA Commissioner. In 1988 he was President Reagan’s

Associate WH Counsel along with Associate WH Counsel Keisler. He knew that on January 24,

2007, that then-AAG of the Civil Division Keisler knew his Senate testimony was false because

the “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” continued to be applied to 2007 Ford class members.

Hence, the importance of the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection” documents which reveal that

they both knew in 1988 when Chilicky was decided, that President Reagan did not know that the

off-OMB Budget source for the “immaculate construction” of 1984-1988 “do not exist” NSA

data banks, were “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” funds not paid to the millions of aged, blind,

and disabled SSI recipients who did not reside in Seventh Circuit states. 7-27-10 DOJ WP § Q.

30

President Reagan’s 1988 Associate White House Counsels Astrue and Keisler both knew

that President Reagan possessed the Chilicky “normal sensibilities” of human beings. Both 1988

Associate White House Counsels Astrue and Keisler knew that President Reagan would never

have approved payment for CIA Director Casey’s “black operations” at IMC and the NSA with

off-OMB Budget unaudited HHS funds. Both 1988 Associate White House Counsels Astrue and

Keisler knew that if President Reagan had known that 1984-1986 unaudited HHS funds had been

used to pay for the CIA-DIA-FBI “black operation” at IMC and for the illegal “do not exist”

NSA TSP data banks, that these were impeachable violations of the Boland Amendment, § 413

(a) of the National Security Act, “exclusivity provision” of FISA, PCA limitations on domestic

military law enforcement, and Social Security Act. See 3-18-11 ISCAP WP §§ D-K.

Therefore, 1988 Associate White House Counsels Astrue and Keisler knew that the

“Commander in Chief” of CIA Director Casey (January 28, 1981-January 29, 1987), and CIA

Director Judge Webster (May 26, 1987-August 31, 1991), was not President Reagan. They

knew that based on the extreme “Unitary Executive” theory of AG Meese, that their faux

“Commander in Chief” had ordered them to withhold from President Reagan, their client, their

knowledge of the illegal CIA domestic “black operations” in order to provide President Reagan

with a “plausible deniability” defense to serial impeachable violations of law. They knew that

they had to provide President Reagan with a “plausible deniability” defense to the impeachable

violations of law that had to continue in order to pay for the “immaculate construction” and the

maintenance of the “do not exist” illegal NSA TSP data banks that was being accessed by NSA

Directors Lt. General Faurer (1981-1985) and General Odom (1985-1988) whose “Commander

in Chief” was not President Reagan. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ K, M, N, AA, BB, CC, DD.

The fact that 1988 Associate WH Counsel Astrue became President Obama’s 2009-

2011 Social Security Commissioner, makes the July 27, 2010 FOIA requested “Peter Keisler

Collection” documents and the other six NARA FOIA requested connect-the-dots classified

documents, “Past is Prologue” documents that prove that SSA Commissioner Astrue’s 2009-

2011 “Commander in Chief” has not been President Obama. This almost incredible allegation is

most easily proven by the NARA MDR decision-makers asking NARA General Counsel Stern

the following questions that his Robert v National Archives co-counsel, AUSA Mahoney, the

lead counsel in Ford, Robert VII v DOJ, and Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA, can answer:

1. Was SSA Commissioner Astrue’s January 24, 2007 Senate Finance Committee testimony

false that the “nonacquiescence” policy had ended prior to 1989?

2. Is President Obama violating the May, 2011 due process rights of millions of 1994-2011 Ford

class members because the Ford “remedy” Notices do not cite to SSI regulations, including the

“Jackson” regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1130 (b)?

3. Is President Obama violating the May, 2011 equal protection rights of millions of 1994-2011

Ford class members because the “Jackson” regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1130 (b), is only

enforced in the Seventh Circuit Sates of Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin?

4. Who is the “Commander in Chief” of DOD Cyber-Commander-NSA Director Lt. General

Alexander when in 2011 he accesses the “do not exist” 1984-2001 NSA TSP data banks?

31

Upon information and belief, NARA General Counsel Stern knows the answers:

1. SSA Commissioner Astrue’s January 24, 2007 sworn testimony was false.

2. Pursuant to the extreme “Unitary Executive” theory of AG Meese, President Obama’s Article

II Commander in Chief duty trumps his Article II “take Care that the laws are faithfully

executed” duty to protect the due process rights of millions of Ford class members, because 2011

off-OMB Budget “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” funds continue to be needed to pay for the

“do not exist” NSA “Top Secret America” domestic surveillance program identified by

investigative reporters Priest and Arkin in their Washington Post July 19, 2010 series.

3. Pursuant to the extreme “Unitary Executive” theory of AG Meese, President Obama’s Article

II Commander in Chief duty trumps his Article II “take Care that the laws are faithfully

executed” duty of equal protection enforcement of the SSI regulations in all 50 States, because

2011 off-OMB Budget “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” funds not paid to the millions of SSI

recipients who reside in the 47 states that are not in the Seventh Circuit, continue to be needed to

pay for the “do not exist” 1984-2011 NSA TSP and PSP data banks that continue not to be

funded with 2011 classified OMB Budget funds.

4. He does not know the name of the faux “Commander in Chief” of DOD Cyber Commander-

NSA Director Lt. General Alexander because he does not have clearance to know this Top “Top

Secret” fact that is also not known by President Obama.

If the NSA MDR decision-makers think these are absurd upon information and belief

answers, then they should have the courage to ask NARA General Counsel Stern these four

questions. As per his May 3, 2011 testimony to Chairman Issa of the House Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform, NARA General Counsel has had communications with the

White House staff re emails that have been preserved. If NARA General Counsel Stern’s May 3,

2011 sworn testimony is accurate, then AG Holder can read 2009-2011 Cyber Commander-NSA

Director Lt. General Alexander’s emails and learn, before his Robert VIII Brief is filed by May

25, 2011, whether Robert’s almost incredible allegation is true that there has been a 2009-2011

faux “Commander in Chief” of Cyber Commander-NSA Director Lt. General Alexander re his

2009-2011 access to the “do not exist” 1984-2011 NSA TSP and PSP data banks in his custody.

In defense of NARA General Counsel Stern, he has signed a non-disclosure agreement

not to reveal classified information. Hence, the importance of this 5-9-11 NARA MDR request

for the declassification of three sets of connect-the-dots documents, along with the 5-9-11 NARA

ADR request for the declassification of the # 1-# 4 1985 “North Notebook” documents, the 5-9-

11 CIA MDR request for the declassification of the # 5 “all Robert II v CIA “c (3) exclusion” ex

parte Declarations” documents, the 4-11-11 OLC MDR request for the declassification of the

redacted May 6, 2004 OLC Memorandum of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith, and the 4-11-11

ODNI MDR request for the declassification of the “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access

guidelines” documents. If these are connect-the-dots classified documents, then AG Holder can

make his E.O.13526 § 6.2(c) “shall” interpretation whether the § 3.6(a) the “Glomar Response”

defense applies to documents that reveal 2011 impeachable violations of federal laws and the

name of a “fifth column” foe faux “Commander in Chief” who is not President Obama.

32

M. NARA MDR summary

This WP is in support of the May 9, 2011 request for a NARA Mandatory

Declassification Review (MDR) of the July 27, 2010 NARA FOIA request re the # 1 NARA

“Perot” documents, # 2 NARA “Peter Keisler Collection” documents, and # 3 NARA “Robert

v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’” documents. The NARA MDR requester is seeking

the prompt docketing and MDR review of these documents to prevent AG Holder from

committing a “fraud upon the court” in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA in which AG

Holder’s Second Circuit Brief is to be filed by May 25, 2011.

These are connect-the-dots to the May 9, 2010 NARA ADR re # 1-# 4 1985 Robert II v

CIA and DOJ “North Notebook” documents and May 9, 2011 CIA MDR re the # 5 “all Robert

II v CIA “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations” documents. They are also connect-the-dots to

the April 11, 2011 NARA MDR re the March 18, 2011 released redacted May 4, 2006 OLC

Memorandum of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith to AG Ashcroft regarding the legal basis of the

pre-9/11 NSA TSP and the post-9/11 NSA PSP, and the ODNI MDR re the “Glomar Response”

decision to withhold the “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” documents. These

documents will prove to AG Holder whether USG attorneys had committed a “fraud upon the

court” in 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), and Robert VII v DOJ, 2005 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 39616, 193 Fed. Appx. 8 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. den. 127 S.Ct. 1133 (2007), by withholding

facts from the Article III Judges to protect the off-OMB Budget funding source for illegal CIA

domestic “black operations” that were not funded with classified OMB Budget funds.

The NARA MDR requester also seeks to prove to AG Holder that the extreme “Unitary

Executive” of AG Meese has been implemented by a 1984-2011 daisy-chain of “shadow

government” attorney patriots whose “Commanders in Chiefs” have not been Presidents Reagan,

Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. They knew there had been impeachable violations of federal

laws without the knowledge of their Presidents. After reading these documents, AG Holder, a

1976-1988 DOJ Public Integrity Section attorney, will be able to make his own judgment as to

whether the 1984-2004 “unitary Executive” patriots were “geniuses” as did the courageous

former-AAG of the OLC Jack Goldsmith conclude prior to his honorable resignation:

They were geniuses at this,” Goldsmith said. “they could divide up all these

problems in the bureaucracy, ask different people to decide things in their lanes,

control the facts that they gave them, and then put the answers together to get

the result they want. Conflict Over Spying Led White House to Brink. Gellman,

Washington Post, 9-14-08, internet print out 3 of 9. Emphasis Added.

Hence, the request for the docketing of this NARA MDR by May 19, 2011. This will

provide an opportunity for NARA Chief FOIA Officer-General Counsel Stern to inform the

DOJ Chief FOIA Officer-Associate AG Thomas Perrelli of the content of the three NARA MDR

documents and the four NARA ADR documents. In this way, AG Holder can perform his due

diligence duty and not commit a “fraud upon the court” in his Robert VIII Brief by either curing

the misrepresentations of fact and law made by AG Gonzales in Robert VII v DOJ and Robert

VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA or accepting the appellant’s quiet settlement offer.