IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_____________________________________
THE HON. BOB BARR
United State House of Representatives
1130 Longworth Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1007
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500-0005
And
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
)Case No.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, The Honorable Bob Barr, hereby files this Complaint for violations of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a et seq. As grounds therefor, Plaintiff respectfully alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2).
2.Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5), 28 U.S.C. §1391(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a).
PARTIES
3.Plaintiff, The Honorable Bob Barr ("Rep. Barr"), is a member of the United States House of Representatives (Georgia - 7th District). Rep. Barr is a member of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and recently served as a House Manager during the Senate impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton.
4.Defendant, Executive Office of the President ("EOP"), is an agency of the United States Government and has its principal place of business at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20500.
5.Defendant, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") is an agency of the United States Government and has its principal place of business at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530. The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") is overseen by, and is a part of, DOJ.
FACTS
6.After an article appeared in The Washington Times describing how The White House had assembled a special file on him, Rep. Barr sent a written request to President Clinton on March 30, 1998 seeking access to "all documents, other than correspondence between me and your office, that relate in any way to me." This request was made pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, among other statutes, and expressly requested a response within ten (10) days. A copy of Rep. Barr’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
7.On July 20, 1998, Rep. Barr received a response from the Office of the General Counsel for the U.S. General Accounting Office ("GAO").
8.In its response, GAO denied that The White House maintained any documents concerning Rep. Barr as part of a system of records. A copy of GAO’s response is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and is incorporated herein by reference.
9.In that same response, the GAO also denied that the Privacy Act even applied to The White House. Id.
10.GAO made this claim despite the fact that a June 30, 1993 internal White House memorandum sent to John D. Podesta, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary, specifically admits that the Privacy Act applies to The White House. A copy of this June 30, 1993 memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and is incorporated herein by reference.
11.The June 30, 1993 internal White House memorandum, which apparently accompanied the personnel files of seven White House Travel Office employees that were being forwarded to Podesta, specifically states:
Andre Oliver, of the Chief of Staff’s office, requested that I forward the Official Personnel Folders of seven White House travel office personnel for your review. They are attached.
The contents of these records are covered by the Privacy Act of 1974, have restricted use and should be protected carefully. Please keep these folders in a locked place when not in use. Their contents should not be disclosed to anyone unless they demonstrate an official need.
When you have completed your review, please call me on 395-1147, so that I may have them picked up.
Id. (emphasis added).
12.Before and during the course of the Senate impeachment trial, Rep. Barr was subject to attacks and threats of attack by persons in the media, including Larry Flynt, James Carville, Dan Moldea and others, in what appeared to be a deliberate and concerted effort to impede Rep. Barr and other members of the House of Representatives from fulfilling their duties under the United States Constitution. Carville is a political strategist with close ties to The White House.
13.On or about January 8, 1999, Flynt’s daughter, Ms. Tonya Flynt-Vega, stated at a press conference that Carville had likely supplied her father with information from FBI files on numerous politicians.
14.On February 12, 1999, after the Senate impeachment trial, it was publicly reported in Capitol Hill Blue that The White House was embarking on a "campaign of retribution" against Rep. Barr, the other House Managers and other persons, using information obtained from confidential FBI files and the confidential files of other government agencies. A copy of the article, which is entitled "Despite denials, Clinton is planning a full campaign of retribution," is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and is incorporated herein by reference.
15.According to one source quoted in the article, "There are new files from the investigators, files from the FBI and IRS financial information on Hyde, Barr, Hutchinson and others." Id. "We will get even," the source is quoted as saying.
16.In addition, the article further states:
According to White House sources, the revenge list included not only the 13 House managers, but Senators, journalists and others that Clinton feels need to taste revenge at the hands of The White House. Those on the list include:
·Rep. Henry Hyde and the other 12 House impeachment managers;
·Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, a frequent Clinton critic;
·Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, brother of House impeachment manager Asa Hutchinson;
·Newsweek reporter Mike Isikoff, who developed the original story on Monica Lewinsky and the Linda Tripp tapes;
·Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch, which has filed both legal cases and investigative materials against Clinton.
Id.
17.The article also states: "Despite official denials, the Clinton White House has collected new dossiers, complete with financial records, FBI investigative information and IRS reports on White House impeachment managers and other perceived enemies of the administration, Capitol Hill Blue has learned." Id.
18.The article quotes one White House aide as admitting: "I’ve seen FBI and IRS files on members of Congress, complete dossiers on reporters and more." "This is really scary." Id.
19.The article thus confirmed that The White House had obtained and maintained information on Rep. Barr and others from the FBI and other government sources as part of a system of records.
20.On March 3, 1999, Rep. Barr requested Attorney General Janet Reno to undertake an investigation into the attacks and threats of attack on Rep. Barr and others by Flynt, Carville, Moldea and others, likely using information obtained from FBI files and maintained by The White House in a system of records:
This request for an investigation focuses on attacks, and threats of attacks on members of Congress before and during the trial; specifically the House Managers. These attacks came from Larry Flynt, James Carville, Dan Moldea, and other individuals, and represent what appeared to be a deliberate and concentrated effort to impede the House of Representatives from fulfilling its duties under the United States Constitution to conduct matters relating to the impeachment of the President, first in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate.
A copy of Rep. Barr’s March 3, 1999 letter to Attorney General Reno is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and is incorporated herein by reference.
21.On March 30, 1999, Acting Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke, in following up on a conversation with a member of Rep. Barr’s staff, sent Rep. Barr a letter concluding that a investigation was not warranted. A copy of DOJ’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 and is incorporated herein by reference.
22.Despite The White House’s own admission in the June 30, 1993 memorandum to John Podesta that it was bound by the provisions of the Privacy Act, DOJ also claimed in its March 30, 1999 response that the Privacy Act did not apply to The White House. Id.
23.DOJ’s March 30, 1999 response also expressly disregarded a clear ruling to the contrary by a U.S. District Court Judge in Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 971 F. Supp. 603 (D.D.C. 1997) (Lamberth, J.):
The Department continues to believe that the Privacy Act does not apply to the Office of the President and will continue to advance that position in the Alexander litigation should that case reach the Court of Appeals.
Id.
24.On April 2, 1999, Rep. Barr sent Attorney General Reno a follow-up letter requesting an investigation. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 7 and is incorporated herein by reference.
25.On April 21, 1999, DOJ, by and through Acting Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke, again declined to investigate the attacks and threats of attacks made on Rep. Barr and others before and during the impeachment trial. A copy of DOJ’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 8 and is incorporated herein by reference.
26.As the counsel for the plaintiffs’ in the Alexander litigation had also been targeted for attack, as reported by the Capitol Hill Blue article, a motion was filed in that action seeking a sworn explanation from both the FBI and EOP, which also are named as defendants in that action. Both the FBI and EOP refused to provide an explanation.
COUNT I
(Violation of the Privacy Act -- Defendant EOP)
27.Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 26 as if fully set forth herein.
28.Defendants EOP willfully and intentionally maintains confidential records on individuals, including Plaintiff, as part of a system of records. This system of records includes information unlawfully obtained from Defendant FBI, and, on information and belief, from others, including other government agencies.
29.The maintenance of this system of records by Defendant EOP is not relevant to accomplish any purpose required by statute or executive order of the President, but is part of a pattern of willful and intentional misconduct undertaken for purposes of attacking or threatening attacks on Plaintiff and other perceived critics and adversaries.
30.Defendant EOP’s willful and intentional refusal to allow Plaintiff access to records and information pertaining him in its system of records violates 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(d)(1) and g(1)(B), among other relevant provisions of the Privacy Act.
31.Defendant EOP’s willful and intentional maintenance of this system of records on individuals, including Plaintiff, against them, violates 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(e)(1) and (g)(1)(D), among other relevant provisions of the Privacy Act.
32.Defendant EOP’s willful and intentional release of records and information concerning Plaintiff to persons such as Flynt, Carville, Moldea and/or others, without the prior written consent or knowledge of Plaintiff, or any lawful justification, violates 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(b) and (g)(1)(D), among other relevant provisions of the Privacy Act.
33.As a proximate result of Defendant EOP’s willful, intentional and unlawful maintenance of this system of records on individuals, including Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands: (1) that judgment be entered against Defendant EOP; (2) that Defendant EOP be enjoined from withholding all records concerning Plaintiff and be ordered to produce such records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(3)(A); (3) an award of compensatory damages in an amount not less than the $1,000 statutory minimum set forth at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A); (4) an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(B); and (5) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II
(Violation of the Privacy Act -- Defendant DOJ)
34.Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 33 as if fully set forth herein.
35.Defendant DOJ, by and through the FBI, maintains confidential records on individuals, including Plaintiff, as part of a system of records.
36.Defendant DOJ, by and through the FBI, willfully and intentionally released records concerning Plaintiff to Defendant EOP and/or others, without the prior written consent or knowledge of Plaintiff or any lawful justification.
37.The willful and intentional release of records concerning Plaintiff violated 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(b) and (g)(1)(D), among other relevant provisions of the Privacy Act.
38.As a proximate result of the willful and intentional release of records concerning Plaintiff by Defendant DOJ, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands: (1) that judgment be entered against Defendants DOJ; (2) an award of compensatory damages in an amount not less than the $1,000 statutory minimum set forth at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A); (3) an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(B); and (4) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
___________________________
Larry Klayman, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
___________________________
Deborah E. Berliner, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 422238
___________________________
Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 429716
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Suite 725
501 School Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20024
(202) 646-5172
Attorneys for Plaintiff