UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________________ PAUL WOLF, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY & FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants. ____________________________________________ Civ. No. 01-00729 (PLF)PLAINTIFF WOLF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT The Plaintiff, Paul Wolf, hereby moves the Court pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgement and for an order that Defendant CIA release to plaintiff forthwith the information he has requested, including responsive information from the CIA's operational files.
In support of his motion plaintiff respectfully refers the Court to the accompanying statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine dispute and memorandum in support of plaintiff Wolf's cross-motion for summary judgement and in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgement. A proposed order consistent with this motion is attached.
Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL S. ALCORN
Counsel for Plaintiff
D.C. Bar No. 383267
2952 Yarling Court
Falls Church, VA 22042
(703) 698-0225
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________________ PAUL WOLF, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY & FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants. ____________________________________________ Civ. No. 01-00729 (PLF)MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF WOLF'S CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO CIA'S MOTION TO
DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTThe Plaintiff, Paul Wolf, hereby presents this his memorandum in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the CIA's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment in this case.
Factual statement This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 USC Section 552, as amended, to order the production of CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ("CIA") records concerning JORGE ELIECER GAITAN, Colombian Presidential candidate born January 26, 1903 in Bogota, Colombia, and assassinated on April 9, 1948 in Bogota.
The requested records will contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government as they reflect the activities of U.S. government agencies with respect to important formative events in the modern political life of the nation of Colombia. Colombia is now the subject of a multi-billion dollar United States aid program which U.S. taxpayers fund. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 USC Section 552 (a) (4) (B) .
Plaintiff PAUL WOLF is an independent researcher and writer who resides in Apex, North Carolina and is working on a research and publishing project on the subject matter of these requests. Mr. Wolf publishes the results of his research about Colombia to the U.S. and international press and on a website he created and updates regularly. Defendants CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY and FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION are agencies of the United States government, and have possession and control over records that Plaintiff seeks.
By letter dated September 9, 2000 to the CIA headquarters in Washington, Plaintiff requested any and all records concerning JORGE ELIECER GAITAN, Colombian Presidential candidate born January 26, 1903 in Bogota, Colombia, and assassinated on April 9, 1948 in Bogota.
With respect to Plaintiff's request, on September 22, 2000 CIA responded to the request by neither confirming or denying the existence or nonexistence of responsive records, citing FOIA exemptions 5 USC Sections 552 b(1) and b(3) (CIA assigned the request FOIA Reference No. F-2000-01932). By letter dated October 23, 2000 Plaintiff appealed the CIA's response administratively to the CIA Agency Review Panel. By letter dated December 14, 2000 the CIA's Agency Review Panel denied Plaintiff's administrative appeal and upheld the CIA's assertion of the b(1) and b(3) exemptions. CIA informed Mr. Wolf in that letter of his right to seek judicial review in the courts in that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. On April 4, 2001 Plaintiff Wolf filed this action in this court seeking an order compelling the release of the requested information.
ARGUMENT 1. The information requested by Plaintiff has been previously publicly released by the CIA and therefore must be released to Plaintiff.
The CIA has previously publicly released extensive and detailed information responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request, and therefore such previously released information cannot be withheld in response to Plaintiff's request under FOIA exemptions b(1) or b(3). Rather, as the CIA concedes at page 3, paragraph 5 of the Kathryn I. Dyer Declaration it relies on, Plaintiff is entitled to records containing previously publicly released information.
The Court of Appeals for this circuit has held repeatedly that official and documented public disclosure of information creates a situation in which release of the information may be compelled pursuant to FOIA even over an agency's b(1) and b(3) exemption claims. Fitzgibbon v. C.I.A., 911 F.2d 755,765 (D.C.Cir. 1990), citing Afshar v. Department of State, 702 F.2d 1125,1133 (D.C.Cir. 1983). Such a disclosure is deemed official when made by the agency from which the records are being sought. Frugone v. C.I.A., 169 F.3d 772,774 (D.C.Cir. 1999).
On April 15, 1948 then CIA Director Admiral R.K. Hillenkoetter testified in public session before the Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments of the U. S. House of Representatives, the committee of the Congress with oversight jurisdiction over the CIA at that time. Transcript of Testimony from National Archives attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
In his testimony CIA Director Hillenkoetter defended the actions of his agency against allegations of improper performance in failing to warn of political violence in Colombia, by detailing information in the CIA's possession about recent events in the nation of Colombia. His testimony included information as to the subject of this FOIA request, JORGE ELIECER GAITAN, a Colombian presidential candidate who ran second out of three candidates in the 1946 Colombian presidential election, who was designated on October 24, 1947 as the sole candidate of the liberal party for the 1950 presidential election (the liberal party had split in the 1946 election, fielding two candidates). At the time of his assassination on April 9, 1948 GAITAN was considered likely to be elected the next President of Colombia. See Hillenkoetter Transcript, Exhibit 1, pages 4-5.
Further, the CIA Director in his public testimony read verbatim into the record of that hearing CIA reports that contain information concerning GAITAN. Hillenkoetter Transcript, pp. 7,9. Later in the hearing, the CIA Director was asked by a Congressman if he could give the information on the record as to who killed GAITAN. In response Director Hillenkoetter provided an explanation of the circumstances of the assassination of GAITAN on April 9, 1948 in Bogota, Colombia. Transcript pp. 16-17.
Director Hillenkoetter's public testimony described above was widely reported in the U.S. press the following day, April 16, 1948, as evidenced by the copies of news articles attached as Exhibit 2 to this memorandum. The articles described the CIA Director's defense of the CIA against allegations of improper performance in failing to warn of the possible violence in Bogota. Further, as described in the column of Walter Lippman entitled, "The Bogota Intelligence" in the New York Herald Tribune contained in Exhibit 2, Hillenkoetter allowed himself to be interviewed on the record by the U.S. press on the subject of the CIA's information on events in Bogota. See "U.S. Knew of Colombia Plot, Admiral Reveals", San Francisco Chronicle, April 16, 1948, p. 1; "House Hears Eyewitness- Rep. Jackson Tells of Colombia Revolt", San Francisco Chronicle, April 16, 1948 p. 5; "Marshall Scoffed at Early Warnings on Reds in Bogota", The New York Times, April 16, 1948, p.1; "The Bogota Intelligence" by Walter Lippman, New York Herald Tribune, April 20, 1948; "Admiral Says U.S. Knew of Bogota Peril", New York Herald Tribune, April 16, 1948, p.1; "Marshall Knew Riots Likely, House Unit Told", The Washington Post, April 16, 1948, p.1; "Charges U.S. Got Warning on Bogota", Chicago Tribune Press Service, April 16, 1948. Copies of these news articles attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
And in yet another authorized release of responsive information, the CIA through its 1994 CIA Historical Review Program released a thirteen page study from the CIA's Studies in Intelligence series entitled "The Bogotazo" by Jack Davis. Attached as Exhibit 3 hereto, obtained from the National Archives. This scholarly CIA study is replete with detailed facts and analysis about JORGE ELIECER GAITAN, subject of plaintiff's FOIA request. "Bogotazo" is the name given to the riots and instability that occurred in Colombia immediately following GAITAN's assassination on April 9, 1948. The event is important in that U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall and the foreign ministers of all Western Hemisphere nations were in Bogota at the time attending a Pan American conference which resulted in the formation of the Organization of American States (OAS). In the words of the Studies in Intelligence caption for "Bogotazo", "Distant events shape the craft of intelligence". Exhibit 3, p. 75.
The study was classified Secret at one time by the CIA, but according to its markings was approved for release under the 1994 CIA Historical Review Program. The CIA Historical Review Program was initiated in the early 1990's by the CIA Director as a means of opening to the public CIA holdings on events and issues of historical interest. Exhibit 4, "CIA's Historical Review Program", and "DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) Statement on Declassification", from CIA's website. The Historical Review Program includes disclosure of records from CIA's operational files, which may not be searched in the normal course as part of responding to a Freedom of Information request in light of the provisions of the "CIA Information Act of 1984", 50 USC Section 431(a).
Plaintiff seeks disclosure in this case of these operational file records in light of the application of the Historical Review Program to the events surrounding the assassination of GAITAN. Designating an event as part of the Historical Review Program takes the files in question out of the operation of 50 USC Section 431(a), which states only that the CIA Director "may" exempt operational files from disclosure, not that he is required to do so. The CIA Director has exercised his authority to permit disclosure by authorizing the Historical Review Program which discloses operational records as well as other files of the CIA. Significantly, the Historical Review Program was authorized by the CIA Director after the 1984 enactment of the 50 USC Section 431(a) statutory provision, and by its operation records about a historical event such as the Bogotazo are released, including operational files.
In addition, plaintiff is entitled to receive the operational files under 50 USC Section 431(c)(3) which states that operational files may not be exempted from disclosure if they relate to a specific subject matter of investigation by the intelligence committees of the Congress for impropriety or violation of law or Presidential directive. In this case CIA Director Hillenkoetter's public statements were part of an investigation by the relevant CIA oversight committee of Congress into CIA performance related to the uprising in Bogota that followed GAITAN's assassination. The Congressional inquiry was prompted by accusations that the CIA had been negligent and deficient in its intelligence function prior to the events in Bogota in April 1948.
The CIA Studies in Intelligence study entitled "Bogotazo" attached as Exhibit 3 recounts in extensive detail the events surrounding GAITAN's assassination and the aftermath, including short and long term reaction within the CIA itself to an event that is stated to have had permanent effect on the conduct of U.S. intelligence activities. Further, the article states that CIA Director Hillenkoetter "discussed strategy with President Truman" prior to his April 15, 1948 Congressional testimony, and that President Truman apparently encouraged him to confront Congressional critics with the CIA record, indicating at what high levels the decision was made to release the information. Exhibit 3, p. 82.
As previously noted, the Court of Appeals for this circuit has held repeatedly that such official and documented public disclosures of information as described above means release of responsive records may be compelled pursuant to FOIA even over an agency's b(1) and b(3) exemption claims. Fitzgibbon v. C.I.A., 911 F.2d 755,765 (D.C.Cir. 1990), citing Afshar v. Department of State, 702 F.2d 1125,1133 (D.C.Cir. 1983). Such disclosures are deemed official when, as here, they are made by the agency from which the records are being sought, the CIA. Frugone v. C.I.A., 169 F.3d 772,774 (D.C.Cir. 1999). The CIA concedes this point in paragraph 5, page 3 of the Kathryn I. Dyer Declaration submitted in support of CIA's motion, where Ms. Dyer states that official acknowledgment of the records would mean their existence is not classified, nor would they be protected intelligence sources and methods, or foreign relations information. Dyer Declaration, p. 3, paragraph 5.
In this case as shown by the attachments hereto, the Director of the CIA revealed the existence of records about GAITAN, provided details from them and even read them verbatim in public session, as demonstrated in the transcript attached as Exhibit 1. Further he did so in the presence of reporters, and later answered press inquiries about the subject as demonstrated by the page 1 news coverage throughout the United States attached as Exhibit 2. And the CIA has released publicly details of its information on GAITAN in its Studies in Intelligence study entitled "Bogotazo", released under the CIA's officially authorized Historical Review program, as demonstrated by attached Exhibit 3. Given such extensive documented official public disclosures of the CIA's information about GAITAN, there is no basis for CIA withholding the information from plaintiff, including responsive material from CIA's operational files.
2. Defendant CIA has not shown that the requested information is subject to classification and properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958.In order to invoke the b(1) FOIA national security exemption defendant CIA must show that the material is specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. CIA has demonstrated neither requirement in this case.
First, for the reasons set out in argument 1 above, the CIA has already publicly released the information requested by plaintiff and CIA cannot claim the b(1) exemption for such information. Further, Section 1.8(c) of applicable classification Executive Order 12958 states, "Information may not be reclassified after it has been declassified and released to the public under proper authority". Therefore, CIA cannot demonstrate proper classification for the previously released information, and plaintiff is entitled to records containing the information.
Second, because CIA has chosen to assert a "neither confirm or deny" claim for the already publicly released information in this case, CIA has not carried its burden to show that any of the information is in fact subject to classification under Section 1.5 of EO 12958. Nor has CIA shown compliance with Sections 1.6 of EO 12958 requiring a limited duration of classification. In this case the information at issue is over fifty years old, and it should be noted that Section 3.4 of EO 12958 mandates that records more than 25 years old shall be automatically declassified whether or not the records have been reviewed. Further, that section mandates automatic declassification for records that have been determined to have permanent historical value regardless of their age. The records at issue in this case qualify for automatic declassification under both of these standards (plaintiff understands that the effective date for automatic declassification has been extended to later this year).
Nor does the CIA show that it has conducted the public interest balancing test set forth in Section 3.2(b) of EO 12958, which in appropriate cases requires otherwise classified information to be released where the public interest outweighs the need to protect the information. In this case the requested information reflects actions of the U.S. government in formative events in the modern history of Colombia. The U.S. taxpayers are today funding a multibillion dollar aid program to Colombia, and the requested information would inform the public of the effectiveness of U.S. government past actions in relation to Colombia. Further, given that the events surrounding GAITAN's assassination were formative to modern Colombian political life, information about the U.S. government's involvement or non-involvement in events surrounding the Bogotazo informs the U.S. public as to the likelihood of success of the current aid program, and thus informs the public's political choices.
Anti-U.S. political factions in Colombia very vocally allege CIA complicity in the assassination of GAITAN, and assuming the CIA denies such a charge, it is in the interest of the U. S. public to release the documents proving the U.S. government's version of events. If there is some form of U.S. connection to the assassination contained in the documents, then U.S. taxpayers are entitled to know what our government has done in the past in Colombia so that U.S. voters can judge whether the current aid program is appropriate and entitled to their political support. Further, the oversight committee of the Senate known as the Church Committee investigated CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders in the 1970's, and the CIA released relevant information pursuant to this investigation. Again 50 USC Section 431(c)(3) would require that such information be produced under plaintiff's FOIA request, and he seeks release of any such information.
One of the hard lessons of the Vietnam war was that excessive secrecy over our increasing involvement there led to public scepticism and opposition to the policy. The public interest is in seeing that the U.S. public has access to the historical record of our actions in Colombia when U.S. taxpayers are asked to pay for a multi-billion dollar aid program.
Also, in light of the demonstrated disclosures of relevant information, CIA has entirely failed to show that it has complied with the requirement of FOIA that "any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt." 5 USC Section 552(b). This is such an important element of FOIA that our court of appeals has held that district courts have an affirmative duty to consider the segregability issue sua sponte. Trans-Pacific Policing v. U.S. Customs Service, 177 F.3d 1022,1028 (D.C.Cir. 1999).
In this case CIA's motion for summary judgment cannot be granted because the CIA has failed to show both that the requested information can be classified, and that it is properly classified pursuant to executive order.
CONCLUSION Plaintiff has demonstrated that the CIA has made authorized release of information responsive to his FOIA request. Plaintiff is entitled to release of records responsive to his request containing such information, and the CIA's assertion of the FOIA b(1) and b(3) exemptions fails. See Fitzgibbon v. C.I.A., 911 F.2d 755,765 (D.C. Cir. 1990), citing Afshar v. Department of State, 702 F.2d 1125,1133 (D.C.Cir. 1983).
The CIA has further failed to demonstrate that the requested information is material subject to classification under EO 12958, and CIA has not shown that it is properly classified under that executive order.
For these reasons Plaintiff prays the court to deny defendant CIA's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. Further plaintiff prays that the court grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and that the Court order the defendant CIA to release to plaintiff the information in its possession responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________________ PAUL WOLF, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY & FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants. ____________________________________________ Civ. No. 01-00729 (PLF)PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS GENUINELY IN DISPUTE The Plaintiff, Paul Wolf, hereby presents this his statement of material facts genuinely in dispute pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(h) in response to Defendant CIA's Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Dispute.
1. In response to paragraph 1 of Defendant CIA's Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Dispute, Plaintiff admits that he sent a request letter dated September 9, 2000, except that his request was for records "concerning" Jorge Eliecer Gaitan as well as records "about" this individual. Plaintiff refers to the request letter itself for its contents, which are not all described in Defendant's paragraph 1. No copy of the letter was attached to the service copy of the defendant's motion papers served on plaintiff's counsel, so plaintiff cannot admit to the genuineness of the attachment.
2. Plaintiff admits in response to defendant's Paragraph 2 that CIA responded to him with a September 22, 2000 letter denying him the requested records as stated, and that additionally the September 22, 2000 CIA letter informed Plaintiff that he had 45 days from the date of that letter to file any administrative appeal. The content of the letter speaks for itself and contains more material than set out in defendant's paragraph 2. Again no copy of this letter was attached to defendant's motion papers served on plaintiff's counsel, so he cannot admit to the genuineness of the document.
3. Defendant CIA's statement of material facts contains no paragraph 3 in the copy served on plaintiff's counsel.
4. Plaintiff admits the assertions of defendant's paragraph 4, except that no copy of the administrative appeal letter was attached to the motion papers served on plaintiff's counsel, so he cannot admit to the genuiness of the document.
5. Plaintiff admits that by letter dated November 1, 2000, CIA acknowledged receipt of plaintiff's appeal, and by letter dated December 14, 2000 CIA denied his appeal and informed him of his right to seek relief in the district court. Again no copies of these letters are attached to the motion papers served on plaintiff's counsel, so he cannot admit to the genuiness of the attachments.
6. On April 15, 1948 the Director of the CIA, Admiral R.K. Hillenkoetter made authorized public disclosure of the fact that the CIA had records concerning Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, and revealed details of such information and even read verbatim from such reports to reporters and Congressmen. Transcript of Hillenkoetter testimony to U.S. House of Representative Subcommittee of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, from the National Archives, Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to CIA's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is entitled to the records he has requested in light of this disclosure.
7. CIA Director Admiral R.K Hillenkoetter on April 15, 1948 made authorized release to the press and public of information from CIA files concerning Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, and this release of information resulted in extensive front page news articles in major newspapers throughout the United States. These news articles in part described information from CIA files concerning Gaitan released the day before by CIA Director Hillenkoetter. Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is entitled to the records he requests in light of these disclosures.
8. The CIA has made authorized public release through the CIA's Historical Review Program of a CIA Studies in Intelligence study entitled, "The Bogotazo", by Jack Davis. This study details information from CIA files concerning Gaitan, the subject of plaintiff's FOIA request. Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, from the National Archives. Plaintiff is entitled to the records he requests due to these disclosures.
9. In light of the above listed public disclosures, the CIA has failed to show that the information requested is material subject to classification under Executive Order 12958, and properly classified under that executive order.
10. The CIA has failed to show that it has complied with the segregability requirement of FOIA section 552(b) of Title 5 USC, which states that segregable portions of records must be released.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________________ PAUL WOLF, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY & FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants. ____________________________________________ Civ. No. 01-00729 (PLF)PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE DISPUTE The Plaintiff, Paul Wolf, hereby presents this his statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine dispute pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(h) in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment.
1. Plaintiff Paul Wolf sent a Freedom of Information request letter dated September 9, 2000 to the CIA seeking CIA records concerning or about Jorge Eliecer Gaitan.
2. The CIA responded to him with a September 22, 2000 letter refusing to either confirm or deny the existence or non existence of such records and informing him that he had 45 days from the date of that letter to file any administrative appeal.
3. On October 23, 2000 Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal of the September 22, 2000 CIA determination.
4. By letter dated November 1, 2000, CIA acknowledged receipt of plaintiff's appeal, and by letter dated December 14, 2000 CIA denied his administrative appeal and informed him of his right to seek relief in the district court in light of his exhaustion of his administrative remedies.
5. On April 15, 1948 the Director of the CIA, Admiral R.K. Hillenkoetter made authorized public disclosure of the fact that the CIA had records concerning Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, and revealed details of such information and even read verbatim from some such reports to reporters and Congressmen. Transcript of Hillenkoetter testimony to U.S. House of Representative Subcommittee of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, from the National Archives, Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Memorandum in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to CIA's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment.
6. CIA Director Admiral R.K Hillenkoetter on April 15, 1948 made authorized release to the press and public of information from CIA files concerning Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, and this release of information resulted in extensive front page news articles in major newspapers throughout the United States. These news articles in part described information from CIA files concerning Gaitan released the day before by CIA Director Hillenkoetter. Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
7. The CIA has made authorized public release through the CIA's Historical Review Program of a CIA Studies in Intelligence study entitled, "The Bogotazo", by Jack Davis. This study details information from CIA files concerning Gaitan, the subject of plaintiff's FOIA request. Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, from the National Archives.
8. The CIA's Historical Review Program makes authorized release of CIA records of historical interest, and releases documents from the CIA's operational files as well as other CIA files. See Exhibit 4 to plaintiff's memorandum, "CIA's Historical Review Program", and "Director of Central Intelligence Statement on Declassification", from CIA website.
Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL S. ALCORN
Counsel for Plaintiff
D.C. Bar No. 383267
2952 Yarling Court
Falls Church, VA 22042
(703) 698-0225
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________________ PAUL WOLF, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY & FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants. ____________________________________________ Civ. No. 01-00729 (PLF)ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION of the CIA's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgement, and the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement, and oppositions filed to each motion and to all the accompanying exhibits;
IT APPEARING TO THE COURT that the information sought by plaintiff has been previously released to the public by the CIA pursuant to an authorized release of such information; that the records requested are part of the CIA's Historical Review Program which releases historical material to the public; that the information requested was released to the public as part of a Congressional inquiry; and that the CIA's refusal to provide the requested information to plaintiff is unlawful under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC Section 552, it is therefore
ORDERED that the CIA's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgement be and hereby is denied; and further it is
ORDERED that the CIA forthwith release to Plaintiff all information in its possession responsive to Plaintiff's Freedom of Information Act request for any and all records concerning or about JORGE ELIECER GAITAN, Colombian Presidential candidate born January 26, 1903 in Bogota, Colombia, and assassinated on April 9, 1948 in Bogota, including records from the CIA's operational files.
ENTERED this ______ day of _______, 2001.
_______________________
United States District Judge
Copies to:
DANIEL S. ALCORN
2952 Yarling Court
Falls Church, VA 22042
DIANE M. SULLIVAN
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Judiciary Center Building
555 Fourth Street, NW
Room 10-122
Washington, D.C. 20001