Legal Aids

Purpose: Our purpose is not to give legal advice. The law itself forbids unlicensed persons from giving legal advise. However, as lay persons providing access to information and web facilities, we attempt to provide the fullest access to legal resources for a lay person:

1. to better understand the legal system,
2. find and read specific law and administrative rules and cases,
3. understand the rules of civil and criminal legal procedures,
4. understand individual civil rights,
5. understand the rights of jurors and
6. Share experiences with law enforcement, the courts, and related institutions.

As we have time we will find or write essays on each of the above topics and list web resources.

Lawyers and paralegals are welcome to use these resourses and may advertise their services within the restraints of the Oregon codes of judicial conduct and professional responsibility.

The following is an unsorted list of web sites that have been useful in the past in following news of the law and in finding out laws, administrative rules, and court room procedures.

 Media on law on the Web

-- Judicial Watch --

APB Resource Center Links, Statistics, Crime Maps and Analysis

APBnews.com Crime, Justice, Safety

Browse Groups Law & Government

eLawCentral

Law News Network legal news - national legal news daily

Legal Briefs newsletter The newsletter that monitors the legal system that rules our lives

DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277

 

 

Legal Resourses on the Web

Ask Jeeves Answer WWW Virtual Law Library Table of Contents

Oregon State Archives Public Information Server

Oregon Revised Statutes

Civil Liberties Defense Foundation

Oregon Administrative Rules Complation

Self Help Law Guide at law.com

LIB 240

Law News Network legal news - national legal news daily

Town Hall Live Chat

Ask Jeeves Answer WWW Virtual Law Library Table of Contents

 

 

Law schools on the Web

Paralegal Training...A Leader in Paralegal Education since 1978

Northwestern California University School of Law

Welcome to the Witkin Legal Institute

Welcome to the Legal Information Institute

Abraham Lincoln UniversitySchool of Law

 

The Fully Informed Jurors Association Official FIJA Web Site

West Group Complete Legal Research

VarsityBooks.com - College textbooks at up to a 40% discount - Advanced Search Results

Page 2, other notes from the depths of the legal struggle Click here

NATIONAL FOIA

The national freedom of information act (FOIA) is a major tool for news reporters for those with legal requirements and for the public. However, requests may not always be honored in the way we want. Be prepared by studying the FOIA legislation and administrative rules available from most federal offices. See below for a copy of a sworn statement by a federal official.

In the matter of the requests for information to the Commerce Department, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The following is a copy of a sworn statement by a key witness. It is self explanatory, read on.

DECLARATION OF SONYA STEWART

I, Sonya Stewart, hereby state, under oath, as follows:

1. Since 1975, I have served solely as a career civil servant at the Commerce Department. I am now the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") where I oversee a staff of approximately 1,100, manage a $3 billion budget, and hold the rank of Senior Executive Service Level 5 (SES-5). From approximately 1991 until March 2000, I was the Commerce Department's Director for Executive Budgeting and Assistance Management in the Office of the Secretary. Additionally, I served as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration for Commerce in the Office of the Secretary from November 1998 to September 1999. During my twenty-five and one-half years of solely career federal service, I have received the top merit awards for career civil servants, including the Department of Commerce Gold Medal, which is the highest award and honor presented at the Commerce Department. I have also received the Silver and Bronze Medals, the second and third highest awards, respectively, for my work at the Commerce Department. In December 1999, I received the second highest award for civil servants throughout federal government, the Presidential Rank Meritorious Award.

2. I come forward to present my declaration to this Court with great trepidation and grave concern about retribution and retaliation which may be directed at me, both professionally and personally, as a result of this affidavit. Nevertheless, I present this declaration out of my obligation to uphold the interests of justice as I swore to do upon my installation as a federal employee. I hope, believe, and expect that the Court will protect me.

3. As the Commerce Department's Director for Executive Budgeting and Assistance Management in the Office of the Secretary, I had supervisory authority over all Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") matters department-wide. I oversaw approximately sixty employees, including staff charged with responding to requests for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The Commerce Department's FOIA Officer, Brenda Dolan, and Commerce's FOIA Officer for the Office of the Secretary, Bobbie Parsons, worked under my supervision and reported to me. These career FOIA officers tried to perform their duties admirably and honorably, often working under circumstances that were extraordinarily adverse and challenging. They always did their best to manage properly the search for and gathering of documents responsive to various FOIA requests submitted by Judicial Watch, Inc. These document requests included requests for information on the reported sale of seats on Commerce trade missions and other matters. My FOIA staff also handled document requests from many other entities including the United States Congress.

4. However, my staff's efforts and the FOIA process were thwarted and obstructed by Commerce Department officials. Melissa Moss, former Director of the Office of Business Liaison ("OBL"), refused to cooperate in producing documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests. Lesia Thornton's notes to file, attached as Exhibit 1, evidence such obstruction. (Ms. Thornton was formerly Office of the Secretary FOIA Officer.) The actions of the Commerce Office of General Counsel ("OGC") staff, including career civil servants Barbara Fredericks, Assistant General Counsel for Administration, and Judith Means of her staff, as well as political appointee Sue Esserman, former Acting Commerce General Counsel under former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor and currently Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, also contributed to obstructing the FOIA process. When documents properly responsive and releasable to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests were gathered by my FOIA staff, they were sent to the Office of General Counsel, where Ms. Fredericks is responsible for the legality of day-to-day administrative operations, including all legal issues related to FOIA.

5. Ms. Fredericks and her OGC staff improperly assumed and exercised the final authority to approve or disapprove the release of documents responsive to FOIA requests submitted by Judicial Watch. This practice was and is inconsistent with the Commerce Department's written, prescribed rules for responding to FOIA requests and, thus, contributed to the flaws inherent in the first and second Judicial Watch searches. Commerce's Administrative Order on FOIA calls for the first-tier FOIA determination whether to release or withhold documents to be made by the appropriate Commerce FOIA Officer. That FOIA Officer determination is to be made and executed, after which the requester may appeal that determination to the Commerce OGC. The OGC, specifically, Ms. Fredericks and her staff, are to decide FOIA appeals according to the Department's FOIA rules. In essence, when the OGC assumed authority to make the final release/withhold determinations on the initial Judicial Watch FOIA requests, this eliminated the possibility for a fair and objective review of those determinations on appeal. When OGC makes the first-tier determination to release/withhold, the requester does not receive an objective, independent appeal review since the same OGC staff which makes the initial release/withhold determination also rules on OGC's own determination on appeal. This practice violates the Department's written rules and flaws the process.

6. During the first Judicial Watch search, Departmental FOIA staff, other officials, and I often experienced frustration and concern as a result of the requirement to send all FOIA-responsive documents to the OGC. At times, sending FOIA-releasable documents to Ms. Fredericks and her staff was like sending these documents down a black hole because Ms. Fredericks and her staff would delay and/or withhold release of FOIA-requested documents from Judicial Watch and this Court, inconsistent with prescribed FOIA rules. For instance, this Court has remarked upon the improper withholding of the "Minority Donors List" by the OGC. Prior to Judicial Watch's discovery of this document during a deposition, I recall a meeting during which all in attendance, including Judith Means, were made aware of the existence of the "Minority Donors List." At that time, we determined that this list was responsive to a number of pending requests on which we were working, including the Judicial Watch FOIA request. The FOIA staff turned the document over to Judith Means and the OGC for release, yet we later learned, through Mr. Whatley's deposition and the Court's December, 1998 rulings, that the document had not been released by OGC and that Ms. Means had denied knowledge of the document. Subsequently, we also learned that Ms. Means admitted that the "Minority Donors List" was turned over to her and OGC by appropriate FOIA staff, but that the document was never released to Judicial Watch. Concerning any other documents which may not have been released to Judicial Watch, assuming they still exist, I believe they would likely remain in the custody and control of Ms. Fredericks and her OGC staff since the procedure for handling Judicial Watch FOIA requests required that FOIA officers submit all documents to Ms. Fredericks' office for final disposition.

7. I am aware of Commerce officials' contacts with Cheryl Mills, then Deputy Counsel to the President, concerning whether to release or withhold certain documents. I know that Ms. Mills, in her position as Deputy Counsel to the President, advised Commerce officials to withhold certain documents. In my many years working for the federal government on FOIA and other matters, and in my experience gathering and responding to FOIA and Congressional requests for information, I have never known or heard of a federal agency collaborating or discussing releasing or withholding documents with White House officials. The Commerce Department's collaboration with White House Deputy Counsel Mills on these matters was, in my experience, highly irregular and at variance with normal procedures. During the time period at issue, many of the same documents were being sought by several entities, including Judicial Watch, Inc., congressional committees, grand juries, and others. It is my belief and recollection based on my knowledge and experience that these interactions with Ms. Mills, as well as other practices, delayed and corrupted the Commerce Department's response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests.

8. Barbara Fredericks was and remains very influential within the Commerce Department. As Assistant General Counsel for Administration, Ms. Fredericks' responsibilities include serving as the Chief Ethics Officer for the Commerce Department. In carrying out this role, she worked closely with the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and other top officials on their financial disclosure forms. As such, I believe Secretary Brown and other high-level Commerce officials trusted Ms. Fredericks. I have heard top Commerce officials describe her as "our lawyer." After Secretary Brown and other Commerce officials died in 1996, Ms. Fredericks quickly filled the resulting power vacuum, in close collaboration with then-Commerce Department Inspector General, Frank DeGeorge, who recently pled guilty to a federal criminal conflict-of-interest charge. Ms. Fredericks and Mr. DeGeorge actually usurped the management of the Commerce Department in many respects. The power-sharing alliance formed between these two high-level officials resulted in no accountability for wrongdoing by favored Commerce Department officials. Certainly, Mr. DeGeorge, despite being Commerce's Inspector General, never sought to hold Ms. Fredericks, Ms. Means, or other OGC lawyers accountable for their irregular and improper conduct in the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits. Concomitantly, this Court noted in its December 1998 decision in this case the "amazing fact" that no investigation or action was taken by the Commerce Department Inspector General with regard to improper activities uncovered by Judicial Watch. Based on my knowledge and experience, any investigation this Court ordered or suggested to the corrupt Inspector General DeGeorge's office was either "fixed" or never even undertaken. In return, Ms. Fredericks and the OGC would ignore and cover up Mr. DeGeorge's outrageous misconduct and misbehavior, and stall disciplinary actions and other investigations into Mr. DeGeorge's atrocious conduct, which was very often improper, unethical and dishonest.

9. When this Court issued its December, 1998 decision in the Judicial Watch FOIA case excoriating the conduct of OGC staff including Judith Means, I read and studied the decision with great concern. I believed that the OGC, to protect Ms. Fredericks, Ms. Means, and others, would attempt to ensure that the Court's actual decision would not be shared with Commerce Department Secretary William Daley and other top-level officials who should have been informed of the Court's actual decision, order and opinion. Inasmuch as I was still responsible for the Department's FOIA activities, and given the Court's angry admonishments to departmental officials for their conduct during the first search, I believed it important that certain officials, including the Secretary, be made aware of the Court's decision. I knew that I would need top-level support to ensure that the second search would be conducted in a proper manner in keeping with the Court's orders. I also wanted to ensure that the second search was conducted in a manner which would not further harm the Department's reputation, and in a way which was mindful of the Court's views concerning the improper behavior exhibited by certain officials during the first search. Thus, in January 1999, I personally alerted my immediate supervisor, then Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Assistant Secretary for Administration, W. Scott Gould, to this Court's decision and provided him with a copy of it. I shared and discussed my concerns about the Court's decision with CFO/Assistant Secretary Gould so that he could alert his superiors, the Deputy Secretary and/or the Secretary, as he deemed appropriate. Indeed, CFO/Assistant Secretary Gould later informed me that Deputy Secretary Robert L. Mallett and Secretary William M. Daley had not seen this Court's actual decision until Assistant Secretary Gould provided them with a copy of the decision (which I had annotated) and discussed the decision with them.

10. In keeping with this Court's December, 1998 orders, I also sought unsuccessfully to ensure that the Department put proper procedures in place to turn over all responsive documents to Judicial Watch, as appropriate. I suggested to top Commerce officials that, if the OGC were to remain substantively involved in the decision-making process to release or withhold, that the re-search procedures must include a systematic and consistent means of resolving any conflicts which might arise between FOIA officers and OGC determinations. I believed this was significant because the first search procedures had no "check and balance" safeguards to ensure that conflicts between FOIA Officer and OGC determinations were resolved appropriately; all final determinations were made by OGC attorneys/advisors, often absent discussion with or knowledge of FOIA Officers. In other words, Commerce FOIA officers, such as Brenda Dolan, might send a document to OGC with a FOIA Officer determination for release, but OGC would improperly treat this FOIA Officer determination as a recommendation only and assume final authority to determine whether to release or withhold documents. At times, the OGC determinations were at odds with my FOIA Officers' determinations and, in those cases, the OGC would, in effect, "overrule" improperly the FOIA Officers' determinations and unilaterally withhold documents. This practice occurred without any objective, independent internal review to adjudicate the conflicting determinations. Also, given the Court's criticism of OGC's conduct in the first FOIA searches, I believed it would contravene the spirit and intent of the Court's orders to allow Judith Means and Barbara Fredericks to participate in the second FOIA search without an independent entity evaluating their release/withhold determinations. In January 1999, I thought I had partially succeeded in my efforts to institute procedural safeguards for the second search when I received a phone call at home from CFO/Assistant Secretary Gould, my immediate supervisor. Assistant Secretary Gould called to inform me that Secretary Daley, after reading relevant portions of this Court's decision, had decided and instructed that Judith Means should not be involved in the second Judicial Watch FOIA search ordered by this Court. However, despite Secretary Daley's "orders" to the contrary, Ms. Means did continue to participate substantially and substantively in the second FOIA search. Ms. Fredericks effectively controlled the second search, despite representations that the second search would be spearheaded by the Chief of Staff's office.

11. Additionally, I initiated several discussions with Commerce Inspector General Johnnie Frazier, who had served as one of Frank DeGeorge's Assistant Inspectors General, to alert him that the re-search procedures needed procedural safeguards to ensure that the second search results were not flawed like the first search results. Given Mr. Frazier's "monitoring" role in the second search, I recommended to him that, before he sanctioned and "signed-off" on the new procedures, he and his staff should ensure that they contained a consistent methodology for resolving conflicting determinations made by FOIA Officers and OGC attorneys/advisors. Also, I suggested that the procedures contain a means to determine when such conflicts arose so that FOIA Officers would at least be able to learn whether the OGC had determined to release or withhold the documents they forwarded. Mr. Frazier informed me that he would not "second-guess" OGC's decisions to withhold certain documents. Further, while Mr. Frazier agreed that instituting such safeguards would be a good idea, his office did not ultimately require that such safeguards be instituted prior to "signing off" that they were sufficient. I had similar discussions with other officials, including officials in the Chief of Staff's office, suggesting and requesting that they require that such "check and balance" safeguards be built into the second search procedures, but to no avail.

12. I am aware that, during the second search, OGC staff reported to the FOIA staff that certain documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA request which were to have been under OGC's control had been "lost" and could not be located. The FOIA staff suggested to OGC staff that they look for the "lost" documents in the OGC safe, but OGC staff maintained that the documents were not there. The FOIA staff then initiated an intensive search for the "lost" documents, and learned subsequently, while they were searching for these "lost" documents, that the OGC had, in fact, found the "lost" documents in the OGC safe. In sum, inasmuch as procedures for the Court-ordered second search did not vary substantially from those used during the first search; and, inasmuch as no systematic, consistent procedures were ever instituted to ensure that all documents FOIA officers determined should be released were, in fact, released by the OGC; and inasmuch as the OGC participants whose behavior the Court admonished during the first search continued to play a material and substantial role during the second search, I believe that the Court and Judicial Watch have no assurance that the OGC allowed the release of all FOIA-releasable and responsive documents required by the Court's December 1998 order.

13. I have spoken with George Grafeld, a career civil servant and colleague who formerly worked for the Office of Business Liaison under its former Director Melissa Moss. (Ms. Moss, when deposed by Judicial Watch for a deposition presented to this Court, was asked to name OBL staff members during her tenure as OBL Director. Under oath, Ms. Moss, failed to name Mr. Grafeld and Lyne-Marie Griffin, a career civil servant, notwithstanding that both Mr. Grafeld and Ms. Griffin were, in fact, OBL staff members under Ms. Moss's tenure.) Mr. Grafeld told me that during Ms. Moss's tenure, he saw computer diskettes in OBL that were labeled "contributions/trade missions." Mr. Grafeld said he knows that these diskettes were never handed over to Judicial Watch or the Court in this FOIA case. Ms. Griffin also saw these diskettes, according to Mr. Grafeld. Mr. Grafeld also told me that when he worked at OBL, he learned of letters from Melissa Moss to trade mission participants which referenced contributions they made to the Democratic Party in order to go on the trade missions at issue in this case. Mr. Grafeld told me he had discounted these stories about Ms. Moss's fundraising letters until he saw press reports of Nolanda Hill's testimony about the Moss letters that Secretary Ron Brown showed her. Mr. Grafeld believes these letters were created from information that came from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), working in conjunction with the White House. Further, he believes that the letters were taken by a Commerce OBL employee, Jose Ceballos, to be printed at an outside print shop owned by Mr. Ceballos' uncle in the Washington, DC suburbs. Mr. Grafeld also reported that he saw a colleague at OBL, Twanna Smith, working on what he understood were these kinds of letters, although he was not allowed to see them.

14. According to Mr. Grafeld, Melissa Moss tasked certain OBL employees, including Ms. Griffin, to enter names, including "political" names, into computers at OBL. Ms. Moss restricted access to the room where information was being entered into the computer, and Mr. Grafeld was not allowed to even be in the same room as the computer on which Ms. Griffin was inputting names. Mr. Grafeld reports that John Ost, a former Commerce OBL employee and political appointee, also worked on this project which eventually grew to 40,000 names. From reading Mr. Ost's deposition to this Court, I learned that he admitted to receiving faxes from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) with the names of some donors, and he said that he gave them to Melissa Moss in response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests. I also understand that these documents were never produced. Mr. Ost later left the Commerce Department (where Mr. Grafeld believes he earned approximately $45,000 per annum) to work for the DNC (where Mr. Grafeld believes he earned approximately $120,000 per annum). According to Mr. Grafeld, Kathy Kellogg also participated in the "names" project in OBL and warned Mr. Grafeld to mind his own business when he inquired about the names being compiled. (Ms. Kellogg died in the tragic plane crash along with Secretary Brown, OBL Deputy Director Gail Dobert, and others.) Mr. Grafeld reported to me that Ms. Moss was intent on developing the list of names using information provided by political appointees and various agencies within the Commerce Department, including the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau refused to provide information to OBL, citing privacy laws prohibiting the Census Bureau from sharing the data requested. Ms. Moss then instructed Mr. Grafeld to devise a way to obtain names from Commerce agencies via computer without the agencies knowing about it. Mr. Grafeld told her that this could not be done. Ms. Moss became upset with Mr. Grafeld and ultimately, Ms. Moss initiated a Reduction-In-Force ("RIF") in OBL which resulted in Mr. Grafeld and Ms. Griffin losing their jobs in OBL, leaving only political appointees working in OBL.

15. Mr. Grafeld told me, referring to Judicial Watch's allegations that Commerce Department trade mission seats were sold in exchange for campaign contributions, that "(Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel) Klayman is right on target" but that he believes that the trade mission issues were "only the tip of the iceberg -- that the really big money went towards Presidential access." Mr. Grafeld indicated to me that he believes that Ms. Moss was asking for political contributions in exchange for seats on Commerce Department trade missions, likely at the direction of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but that documents showing this illegal activity had "left the building." In fact, there were effectively no security procedures at the Commerce Department to ensure that sensitive and secret documents and/or any documents which might evidence criminal activity stayed in the building. The purported letters referenced by Mr. Grafeld and Nolanda Hill could easily have "left the building" absent sufficient procedures to secure them.

16. In my role as Commerce FOIA Director, I have reviewed Commerce Department documents showing that Commerce Department officials offered to contact White House official Bruce Lindsey concerning the vetting of participants, such as James Riady of the Lippo Group, in trade mission events led by late Secretary Brown. I have also reviewed Commerce Department documents which show that Commerce officials did coordinate with White House official Doris Matsui concerning potential participants in trade mission activities, and that Commerce Department officials considered support for the President and Democratic Party during their review.

17. I participated in Commerce Department meetings concerning the selection of trade mission participants prior to March 2000 when I moved to NOAA. While criteria for selection of participants were developed after the Brown Administration in an attempt to address public perceptions of politicization of trade missions, the current process still lends itself to subjective determinations in many respects.

I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on July 7, 2000 in Litchfield Beach, South Carolina.

_____________________

Sonya Stewart

Click to make comments or ask questions about anything on this website.

To contact the editor, click here: editor@rogueforum.com