Surreality re: 911 - Lindauer's Tale

[David Guyatt]

Ok I watched the short video, and had that same feeling listening to her, that I get when listening to a car salesman, or watching a shopping channel. So I went to wiki. Is there any truth to the wiki statement that she has "a long history of delusions"?

Sorry, but her claim to be a "CIA asset" based merely on another CIA asset asking her to do him a favor seems a bit of a reach, and her "backchannel attempts to avert war" consist of leaving handwritten letters for her cousin Andrew Card on his porch? Pardon my skepticism about the magnitude of her claims.

I do agree that her mistreatment by the government was a shameful episode. Hopefully at least the apparently documentable claims about her mistreatment will be a wake-up call for the justice system.

Oddly enough Drew, I also went straight to Wiki to get some background and the report there was convincingly written to focus on the delusional aspect that also left me thinking. But then I figured that you don't get all the secret court treatment for being delusional. You only get that if you're considered a genuine threat. So, if there is good evidence that she did get hauled into an intelligence court and treated the way she has explained then it's a slam dunk. But did she get treated that way?

[Peter Lemkin]

The two men indicted along with Susan Lindauer are the sons of Iraq's former liason with U.N. weapon's inspectors. For a person ruled delusional by court psychologists, Susan Lindauer has some pretty real co-conspirators. And people do not get arrested at gunpoint and rendered without court appearances for a year in secret on military bases under the Patriot Act for delusional thinking either. She has a strange manner when speaking, but I think to dismiss her story entirely or even most of it is a big mistake and one that the government has worked hard to encourage.

[Peter Lemkin]

On another matter of which she has knowledge, not on 911, but I think cogent to all this...Fuisz was her CIA contact on both/all projects, including 911-related [in hindsight]. It is interesting he has not even refuted knowing her - so complete is the gag order under the Patriot Act or other legislation, some likely secret, under which he has been placed regarding anything about her or projects they were jointly involved in. However, soon after 9-11 Fuisz suddenly came into a lot of money and built about an 18 million dollar home - a far cry from what he lived in before! Surely, just lucky bets on some'in' - not a pay off for things well done nor hush money.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Jointly published by the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon and the Middle East Forum

---

[TABLE="width: 95%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%"] Vol. 2 No. 6[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"]Table of Contents
MEIB Main Page[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"]1 July 2000 [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

---

Lockerbie Trial Document: Susan Lindauer Deposition
4 December 1998

Last month, MEIB reported that Dr. Richard Fuisz, a major CIA operative in Syria during the 1980s, met with a congressional staffer by the name of Susan Lindauer in 1994 and told her that that the perpetrators of the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland were based in Syria [see "The Lockerbie Bombing Trial: Is Libya Being Framed?" Middle East Intelligence Bulletin,June 2000]. One month after their meeting, the Clinton administration, which holds Libya responsible for the bombing, placed a gag order on Dr. Fuisz to prevent him from publicly discussing the issue.

While Dr. Fuisz is still unable to comment on this matter because of the gag order, MEIB has obtained a copy of a formal deposition filed by Lindauer in 1998 in which she recounts this conversation in detail. This deposition (see below) has been submitted to the court in which two Libyan suspects are currently on trial and to U.N. officials, who have attempted to persuade the Clinton administration to lift the gag order on Dr. Fuisz.

Lindauer says that she has been subject to intense surveillance, threats, and attacks since she began meeting with Libyan officials in 1995 to discuss her knowledge of the Lockerbie bombing. "Someone put acid on the steering wheel of my car on a day I was supposed to drive to NYC for a meeting at the Libya House. I scrubbed my hands with a toilet brush, but my face was burned so badly that 3 weeks later friends worried I might be badly scarred," Lindauer told MEIB. "Also, my house was bugged with listening devices and cameras -- little red laser lights in the shower vent. And I survived several assassination attempts."

She has agreed to publish her email address, slndau@aol.com, along with this deposition so that journalists, researchers and others interested in learning more about this issue can contact her.

Text of Deposition

My name is Susan Lindauer. I reside in Silver Spring, Maryland, one of the suburbs outside the District of Columbia in the United States of America. At the time these events took place, I was living inside the District of Columbia, at 1002 C Street NE on Capitol Hill.
In offering this deposition, I hereby inform the court and all interested parties at the United Nations that I have never accepted any financial compensation from any of the individuals, or governments involved in this case, in any form of cash or non-cash payment. Furthermore, I have never solicited nor received promise of future payments in exchange for this testimony. My reasons for coming forward reflect my own deepest personal values, and my sense of obligation to the cause of international peace and security. I remain deeply persuaded that justice must never be confused with convenience or political scapegoating, and that the issues of this case, including the prosecution of terrorist activities and the imposition of sanctions that seek to isolate an entire Arabic population, are too important in this contemporary age for a lie to stand unchallenged. And so let it be understood by the court: I make these statements of my own free will, out of respect to my own conscience and sense of obligation as a world citizen.
This deposition pertains to my direct and immediate knowledge of an American named Dr. Richard Fuisz, and unequivocal statements by Dr. Fuisz directly to me that he has first hand knowledge about the Lockerbie case. Dr. Fuisz has told me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr. Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that no Libyan national was involved in planning or executing the bombing of Pan Am 103, either in any technical or advisory capacity whatsoever. He has also made direct statements to me describing harassment that he has suffered for trying to provide this information to the families of Pan Am 103 and prosecuting authorities in the United States government.
I first met Dr. Richard Fuisz in his business office in Chantilly, Virginia in the United States of America. The date was September,1994. I had been invited to meet Dr. Fuisz by a mutual acquaintance because of my position as press secretary to former Congressman Ron Wyden (a Democrat from Oregon), and because of my known longstanding interest in the Middle East. Wyden is now a United States Senator, and I have continued my career in TV journalism and public affairs. For the record, my relationship with Dr. Fuisz has remained purely professional, and based strictly on my respect for his integrity and incredible, indepth knowledge of the Middle East.
Dr. Fuisz told me in September, 1994 that he had lived in Syria during the 1980s, and that he maintained close ties to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East overall. Mutual friends and associates have confirmed this. He was vague as to what capacity he was working, but after our conversation, I concluded by myself that he must have been feeding U.S. intelligence efforts. He told me that he had infiltrated a network of Syrian terrorists tied to the Iranian Hezbollah, who, at the time of his residence in Damascus, were holding Americans hostage in Beirut. Dr. Fuisz impressed on me that he had identified the organizers behind the hostage crisis, and that he had actually located the streets and buildings where those Americans were being held captive, at tremendous personal risk, in order to try to orchestrate a rescue. This information was later confirmed by a third party source.
We talked a great deal about how the sale of heroin/opium from the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon is financing terrorist activities on a global scale. I must add, the rise of heroin in street markets all over the U.S. is a most insidious trend with enormous human costs, which has further motivated my determination to stay involved in this question of Pan Am 103. (The bombing of Pan Am 103 was intended to strike drug enforcement agents of the United States, in reprisal for their aggressive efforts.)
As further evidence of his deep infiltration of terrorist circles, occasionally Dr. Fuisz pointed to photographs on his wall that showed individuals engaged in social activities at private homes. He said they were some of the "most famous terrorists in the Middle East," to use his words. Obliquely he told me they might be household names in the United States.
Dr. Fuisz asked for my help as a congressional staffer because he said he had a problem. After testifying before a congressional committee about an American company that supplied Iraq with SCUD mobile missile launchers, he complained of being seriously harassed in lawsuits and by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Efforts by his attorneys to stop this harassment had been answered with warnings from the highest levels that he should never have talked about U.S. arms supplies to Iraq, and that he should stop trying to contact families tied to Pan Am 103.
In fact, this was the context for how the Pan Am bombing came up in our conversation. He said to me, gosh, [note to MEIB: he used much stronger language and profanities that I did not think would be appropriate for a deposition] I could be providing so much more information about Middle Eastern terrorists, except the United States government doesn't want anybody talking about Syria. Then he jumped into the Lockerbie case by way of example of unsolved bombing cases that he said has the immediate capability to resolve. He complained that he was getting shafted for trying to assist a cause that American leaders profess to care very much about. In essence, he insisted the messenger was getting shot for delivering the message.
Dr. Fuisz made it very clear that he knows a great deal of insider knowledge about this case. Because of his Syrian ties, he told me he "was first on the ground in the investigation," to use his words. At one point, I said to him, "Oh yeah,everybody knows Syria did it, and the U.S. repaid them for supporting us during the Iraqi War by shifting the blame to Libya."
Immediately he cut me off.
"Susan * Do you understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source? Those people in Virginia are analysts. They're reading reports from the field, but they don't have first-hand contact with events as they're happening on the ground. Or first hand knowledge about what's taking place. So they don't actually know it, even if they think they do."
"I know it, Susan. I know it. That's the difference. Because of my Syria contacts, I was the first on the ground in the investigation. I was there. They're reading my reports." (His emphasis. Then he laughed sarcastically.) "In this case, they're reading them and destroying them." (And he threw up his hands.)
He continued on:
"Susan, if the (United States) government would let me, I could identify the men behind this attack today. I could do it right now. You want a police line up? I could go into any crowded restaurant of 200 people, and pick out these men."
"I can identify them by face, by name." He started gesticulating, and counting off on his fingers. "I can tell you the address where they work, and what time they arrive at their office in the morning. I can tell you what time they go to lunch, what kind of restaurants they go to, and what time they leave their offices to go home for the day. I can tell you their home addresses, the names of their wives if they're married, the names and ages of all their children. I can tell you about their girlfriends. I can even tell you what type of prostitutes they like."
"And you know what, Susan? You won't find this restaurant anywhere in Libya. No, you will only find this restaurant in Damascus. I didn't get that from any report, Susan." Dr. Fuisz started shaking his head. "I got it because I was investigating on the ground, and I know. Do you understand what I'm saying to you now? I know!"
To which I answered. "For God's sakes tell me, and I'll get my boss to protect you."
Then he got really mad. "No, no * It's so crazy. I'm not even allowed to tell you, and you're a congressional staffer." Then he repeated his story about the Terex lawsuit against both him and New York Times reporter Seymour Hirsch, (the famous Pulitzer Prize winner), whose only crime was reporting Dr. Fuisz testimony at the congressional hearing.
This was how I learned that Dr. Fuisz is covered by the Secrets Act, which severely restricts his ability to communicate information about Pan Am 103. Though he says freely that he knows first hand that Libya was not involved in any capacity whatsoever, it's my understanding that he can provide no further details regarding his part in the investigation, or details identifying the true criminals in this case.
This is tragic on two accounts. First, the accused Libyans are effectively denied the right to a fair trial where they might bring forth witnesses in their own defense, which could immediately exonerate them of all charges. And secondly, the families are denied the ability to close this terrible wound, and experience the healing that would be gained from discovering the complete truth and facts surrounding this case.
On both accounts, I cannot be silent. I suspect my disclosure will grieve the families with the horrible revelation that U.S. government officials have behaved so cynically and despicably as to withhold evidence in this case. And yet such a cynical and desperate act must be condemned by civilized society. I dare say Libya is entitled to financial compensation for the economic harassment her people have endured because of these blatantly false accusations, and the deliberate efforts to mislead potential judges, and victimize potential witnesses by a policy of aggressive harassment and punishment for speaking out. Meanwhile, the true culprits have literally gotten away with murder.
For shame on all of you!
This ends my deposition.
Signed this 4th Day of December, 1998 In the presence of a notary public.
(Lindauer's signature and the crest of the notary stamp)

Also see here http://www.megrahiyouaremyjury.net/?p=951

[Peter Lemkin]

[back]Lockerbie: CIA witness gagged by US government


http://www.sundayherald.com/8759 2000 May
A FORMER CIA agent who claims Libya is not responsible for the Lockerbie bombing is being gagged by the US government under state secrecy laws and faces 10 years in prison if he reveals any information about the terrorist attack.United Nations diplomats are outraged that the US government is apparently suppressing a potential key trial witness. Diplomats are now demanding that the CIA agent, Dr Richard Fuisz, be released from the gagging order. Fuisz, a multi-millionaire businessman and pharmaceutical researcher, was, according to US intelligence sources, the CIA's key operative in the Syrian capital Damascus during the 1980s where he also had business interests.
One month before a court order was served on him by the US government gagging him from speaking on the grounds of national security, he spoke to US congressional aide Susan Lindauer, telling her he knew the identities of the Lockerbie bombers and claiming they were not Libyan.
Lindauer, shocked by Fuisz's claims, immediately compiled notes on the meeting which formed the basis of a later sworn affidavit detailing Fuisz's claims. One month after their conversation, in October 1994, a court in Washington DC issued an order barring him from revealing any information on the grounds of "military and state secrets privilege".
When contacted by the Sunday Herald last night, Fuisz said when asked if he was a CIA agent in Syria in the 1980s: "That is not an issue I can confirm or deny. I am not allowed to speak about these issues. In fact, I can't even explain to you why I can't speak about these issues." Fuisz did, however, say that he would not take any action against a newspaper which named him as a CIA agent.
Congressional aide Lindauer, who was involved in early negotiations over the Lockerbie trial, claims Fuisz made "unequivocal statements É to me that he has first-hand knowledge about the Lockerbie case". In her affidavit, she goes on: "Dr Fuisz has told me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that no Libyan national was involved in planning or executing the bombing of PanAm 103, either in any technicalor advisory capacity whatsoever."
Fuisz's statements to Lindauer support the claims of the two Libyan accused who are to incriminate a number of terrorist organisations, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which had strong links to Syria and Iran.
Lindauer said Fuisz told her he could provide information on Middle Eastern terrorists, and referred to Lockerbie as an "example of an unsolved bombing case that he said he has the immediate capability to resolve".
Lindauer says Fuisz told her CIA staff had destroyed reports he sent them on Lockerbie. Lindauer also refers in her affidavit to speculation that the USA shifted any connection to Lockerbie away from Syria to Libya in return for its support during the Gulf war.
She added that Fuisz told her: "If the [US] government would let me, I could identify the men behind this attack today. I could do the right thing … I could go into any crowded restaurant and pick out these men … I can tell you their home addresses … You won't find [them] anywhere in Libya. You will only find [them] in Damascus. I was investigating on the ground and I know."
The 1994 gagging order was issued following disclosures by Fuisz during other legal proceedings about alleged illegal exports of military equipment to Iraq. The order claims that the information held by Fuisz is vital to the "nation's security or diplomatic relations" and can not be revealed "no matter how compelling the need for, and relevance of, the information". The submission also makes clear that the government is empowered to "protect its interests in this case in the future", thereby gagging Fuisz permanently.
Details of Fuisz's gagging have been passed to the United Nations, including UN secretary general Kofi Annan, Russia's UN ambassador Sergey Lavrov and the Libyan UN ambassador, as well as representatives of France and China. The report on the Fuisz gagging, containing Lindauer's affidavit, refers to "the history of US interference … [and] … sabotage by the United States".
One senior UN diplomat said: "In the interests of natural justice, Dr Fuisz should be released from any order which prevents him telling what he knows of the PanAm bombing." With Fuisz prohibited from speaking, neither the defence nor prosecution can call him as a witness.
A legal source close to Fuisz said: "We want the truth out. The naming of knowledgeable witnesses who can't be called would utterly change the face of this trial. Dr Fuisz obviously cannot claim he has any knowledge because of national security issues and he could face 10 years in jail. However, if he is not allowed to talk the entire case should be dropped.
"Apart from the US government freeing him from the gag, the only way to allow him to speak would be to subpoena him to the Scottish Court, but the court has no power of subpoena in America."
The Sunday Herald will make the Lindauer affadvit and Fuisz gagging order available to both the Crown and defence if they require the documents.
28 May 2000

[Peter Lemkin]

911 Prediction Revealed at Lindauer Competency Hearing in New York City

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, D.C.

(June 17, NYC). A surprise development occurred at today's hearing in the case of Susan Lindauer versus the United States. A long time associate of the accused, associate professor of computer science at Toronto's York University, Parke Godfrey, Ph.D., testified that Susan Lindauer predicted an attack on the United States in the southern part of Manhattan. According to his testimony, she said that the attack would be very similar to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Godfrey said that Lindauer made the prediction on several occasions, one as late as August 2001.
The testimony occurred in a hearing on Lindauer's competence to stand trial held before U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska, Southern District of New York, in lower Manhattan. On March 11, 2004, Lindauer was arrested for acting as an "unregistered agent" for the nation of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. Prosecutors have delayed the trial for over four years claiming Lindauer was delusional for asserting that she was a U.S. intelligence asset over a period of nine years, including the period covered by the indictment.
This was Lindauer's first real opportunity to argue her competence to stand trial and deny the delusions claimed by court psychiatrists. Lindauer asserts that she had been a U.S. intelligence asset since working on the Lockerbie case and subsequent antiterrorism efforts.
Appearing for the defense, Dr. Godfrey testified under oath that Lindauer told him of her specific concerns about an attack on the United States. She told him that a "massive" attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan, involving airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon. The witness said that she mentioned this in the year 2000, which coincided with the Lockerbie trial. And then in 2001, Lindauer also mentioned the anticipated attack in the spring, 2001 and then August 2001. Godfrey said, at that time, Lindauer thought an attack was "imminent" and that it would complete what was started in the 1993 bombing (the original World Trade Center bombing).
After the hearing, Lindauer elaborated that this extreme threat scenario was done in concert with the man she says was one of her CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who has been associated with U.S. intelligence.
Federal prosecutor Edward O'Callaghan tried to diminish the prediction by asking Godfrey if Lindauer presented this a "prophesy". Godfrey denied hearing that word mentioned in their conversations. He stated that Lindauer used the term "premonition." The prosecution did not challenge Godfrey's testimony that Lindauer made the predictions in the time period given by the witness. After the hearing, Lindauer said that she'd called the Department of Justice Office of Counterterrorism in August of 2001 reporting her fears about an attack.
The courtroom where the revelation was made is about a 15 minute walk from the site of the September 11, 2001 attack where the former World Trade Center towers once stood.
The Issue of Competency to Stand Trial
After initially evaluating Lindauer, court appointed psychiatrists in New York argued that her clams of innocence and her willingness to produce witnesses to verify those claims were signs of delusional thinking. However, a Maryland based psychiatrist and two psychotherapists with whom Lindauer visited on a regular basis failed to support the notion of delusions or a debilitating mental illness. Lindauer has told federal authorities continuously that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and she offered to prove that in open court.
Prosecutors typically disparage appeals by defendants to delay or avoid trial based on psychological stress or suffering. This case is an exception. The United States Government is the party delaying the trial based on their claims of Lindauer's inability to assist in her own defense.
Today's testimony was limited to what is known as "lay" witnesses. Lindauer's expert witness, a distinguished psychiatrist and academic, will testify at a July 7, 2008 hearing that she's competent to stand trial.
Lindauer triggered today's hearing by refusing to attend court mandated counseling, a court requirement during her periods of release from 11 months of federal detention. In a recent interview in "Scoop," Lindauer said: "Since August, 2007, I have refused to go back [to court mandated counseling]. I told the Court the game is over. Go to trial or drop the charges, which are ridiculous anyway. They don't have a case, and they know it."
More Testimony by Dr. Godfrey and Kelly O'Meara
Dr. Godfrey's testimony contained some other elements of note. Lindauer's defense attorney, Brian Shaughnessy of Washington, DC, asked about Lindauer's personality and behavior. He said that she was "mercurial," subject to periods of joy and sadness in response to the events that she experienced. He also testified that he'd never seen her as having any mental impediments.
Kelly O'Meara was also called to the stand in Lindauer's behalf. O'Meara served as a senior congressional staffer for over two decades. She did investigative work for members of Congress on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 TWA Flight 800 crash on Long Island Sound in 1996. She's a former investigative reporter for Insight Magazine and the Washington Times and author of Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill, a recent book on the dangers of psychiatric medication.
When examined by the prosecution, O'Meara said that she had no reason to believe that Lindauer had a mental disorder. Prosecutor O'Callaghan then asked if she believed that she was qualified to make that judgment. O'Meara responded affirmatively saying that she could read the official diagnostic manual for mental disorders like anybody else and compare behavior with the list of symptoms provided.
Under questioning by defense attorney Shaughnessy, the witness described an after-work group that met every Thursday over a number of years at Capitol Hill's Hunan Restaurant. This group included Lindauer, 'O'Meara, and lobbyists and staffers who enjoyed talking politics and having a refreshment at the end of the day. O'Meara focused on her long term close friendship with Paul Hoven, who is described by Lindauer as an intelligence operative and one of her handlers.
The O'Meara-Hoven relationship included regular meetings over several years and frequent phone calls. O'Meara mentioned that Hoven enjoyed going to dinner at her sister's home and that she had accompanied Hoven to a shooting visit at the country home of a legendary intelligence figure.
O'Meara was asked if Hoven indicated any relationship with Lindauer. She responded that "I heard about Susan all the time from Paul." She also described him speaking with her frequently at the Thursday night group at the Capitol Hill restaurant.
O'Meara said that after Lindauer was sent to Carswell federal prison facility, O'Meara got a "strange call" form Hoven during which he said, "Susan's crazy." O'Meara said that she'd never heard Hoven make those remarks before Lindauer was sent to the federal prison facility.
Lindauer's relationship with Hoven is a key part of her defense, with the Thursday night group as one of their frequent points of contact.
On cross examination, prosecutor O'Callaghan asked O'Meara if she would be surprised if Hoven had reported only a very few meetings with her throughout his entire life.
Visibly angry, O'Meara responded by saying, "I would be insulted."
Defense counsel Shaughnessy produced two witnesses, one a computer science professor and the other a reporter and congressional staffer. Together they provided the framework for Lindauer's claim that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and "lay" testimony that she did not impress either witness as having any type of mental or emotional problem.
The prosecution presented no lay witnesses.
After the hearing was over, Lindauer spoke to the press. She said, "I've been left out to dry" by those in the government who employed her services as an intelligence asset. She described efforts that she made to develop a major contact in Iraq to help with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.
Lindauer's next competency hearing is scheduled for July 7, 2008 before Judge Preska.
END

[David Guyatt]

Thanks Pete. That clarifies things.

[Peter Lemkin]

Thanks Pete. That clarifies things.

Her personal speaking style is a little 'loopy' IMHO, but I think her bona fides are fairly well established and those she names as her contact agents both long before and immediately before 911 when she worked on a number of projects as a backchannel contact between various Middle East persons and regimes also seem solid. The USG has, of course, made all the hard evidence and even the grounds for the legal case classified and told all others to not say a word about it...or else. We do not know, but I suspect if Card had not been her close relative she would have been disappeared forever.

[Drew Phipps]

I wonder is this is the same lawyer:

"Brian William Shaughnessy, 76, returned unexpectedly to his heavenly home on July 21, 2015 due to complications from a stroke that occurred five years ago. A resident of Washington, DC, he was born on September 29, 1938 in Fall River, Massachusetts to William Shaughnessy and Mildred Flynn, and raised in South County, Rhode Island. Brian attended LaSalle Academy in Providence, RI, and received his B.A. at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960 and J.D. at Rutgers University in 1968. Brian came to Washington, DC as trial attorney through the Honors Program at the Department of Justice in the Civil Division in 1968. He was then selected to be an Assistant U.S. Attorney where he worked for ten years. During his time, he also served as the Deputy of Chief and Chief of the Fraud Division of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia. In addition, he was an Honorary Member of the Company Fraud Squad of Scotland Yard and a lecturer at the FBI Academy for several years. Brian left the U.S. Attorneys Office in 1980 and started Shaughnessy, Gagner & Volzer, P.C. where he worked for the next thirty-five years. While in private practice, Brian was also a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and American University Law School. Brian had over forty cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals and State Appellate Courts, over ninety jury trials primarily in federal courts, and many arbitrations and administrative hearings. He provided legal representation to clients in Spain, Serbia, Ireland, Canada, China, Philippines, Kiribati, Nauru, and Great Britain."

- See more at: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washing...t7DZq.dpuf

[Albert Doyle]

There needs to be some kind of people's body (which the Congress was supposed to be) to override these phony gag orders and let citizens speak according to the original dictates and purpose of democracy. Otherwise you just have a military gang covering itself at everyone else's expense.

[Tom Scully]

Isn't a hard and fast rule like that simply a way of avoiding thinking about it? The question is, and should be, "is it true?".

If you don't know, say so. Don't take the shortcut of not believing anything you read.

Please explain...... anything you read, or view, or both?

Wow.... she had me from "hello" ! She seems to have stirred the pot. If she's still on her feet, I'll giver her an "A" for endurance.

Woman Accused of Iraq Ties Is Ruled Unfit for Trial Again

New York Times-Sep 16, 2008
A federal judge in Manhattan has ruled that Susan P. Lindauer, a former journalist and Congressional aide who was accused of working with ...



Former congressional aide ruled unfit for trial
Reuters-Sep 16, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/magazi...wanted=all
29 August, 2004
....On paper, at least, there is little to distinguish Lindauer from hundreds of other bright young people who come to Washington in the hope of making a difference. She graduated from Smith in 1985 and then went to the London School of Economics, where she earned a master's degree and developed an interest in the Arab world. In 1990, she went to Washington, where she briefly worked as a journalist and then as a press secretary for liberal Democrats in the House and Senate, including Ron Wyden and Carol Moseley Braun. None of her jobs lasted more than a year. Her most recent job on Capitol Hill, as a press secretary for Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, ended in May 2002.

Writing press releases often seemed less important to Lindauer than her own one-woman campaign to advance the cause of nonviolence in the Muslim world. Lindauer's highly individual brand of politics combined passions that were commonly identified with opposite poles of the political spectrum during the 90's. While she opposed sanctions on Libya and Iraq, she was also eager to awaken the West to the gathering threat posed by Middle Eastern terrorist organizations. In pursuit of her ideals, she says, she began traveling to New York as often as twice a week, meeting with diplomats from Muslim countries, including Yemen and Malaysia, as well as representatives of Libya and Iraq. Her aim, as she explained it, was to function as a handholder and cheerleader, an unofficial go-between who could help break the cycle of isolation, paranoia and suffering created by sanctions.

''U.S. intelligence knew what I was doing,'' she said when I asked her about the precise nature of her contacts with the Libyans and the Iraqis. ''You see, the thing is, it's very hard to have these relationships, and so, when you have them, there are people who are very interested in the fact that you have them, who also want something from them, too.''

To demonstrate her commitment to nonviolence, Lindauer also shared with me portions of the evidentiary material contained on a stack of compact disks turned over to her by the government. The evidence against her, which includes wiretapped conversations with friends, neighbors, foreign diplomats and fellow activists, is currently in the hands of her new court-appointed attorney, who was not representing Lindauer at the time I spoke to her. Among the documents Lindauer showed me was a transcript of a telephone conversation with Muthanna al-Hanooti, the president of Focus on American and Arab Interests and Relations, a nonprofit organization in Southfield, Mich., dated July 30, 2003, two days before the Arab-American activist made one of his frequent trips to Iraq. During the call, Lindauer praised al-Hanooti for being a ''man who believes in peace'' and exhorted him to ''stay with God -- just stay with God.'' As the conversation continued, al-Hanooti seemed to hover between impatience and boredom. ''Other people are doing bad things, and they may try to use you as cover for bad things,'' Lindauer said. ''So don't let them.''

''It's a very delicate balance, as you know,'' al-Hanooti replied. ''But, ah, we'll do our best, you know. We'll do our best.''

That transcript, and others she gave me, support Lindauer's contention that she is opposed to violence. There were also other conversations the F.B.I. recorded that seem to suggest that Lindauer had other motivations for pursuing the work she did. ''He does not know about my visions -- he will never know about my visions, O.K.?'' she said, speaking to an undercover F.B.I. agent about another acquaintance. ''You're probably the only person you're going to meet other than my closest friend at the Iraqi Embassy who knows these things, O.K.? So don't ever talk about it with anyone.''

Susan Lindauer said she started making visits to the Libyan Mission to the United Nations in 1995 and started meeting with Iraqis at the United Nations in 1996. The F.B.I. first began tapping Lindauer's phone and intercepting her e-mail in July 2002, she said. A year and a half earlier, Lindauer contacted Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, with letters containing what purported to be secret diplomatic communiqués from the government of Iraq to the incoming Bush administration. Lindauer reached out to Card, she explained, because he is a distant cousin on her father's side of the family. She said she believed that the fate of the world depended on the sensitive communications she dropped on the doorstep of his house in suburban Virginia.

One of Lindauer's earliest notes was left at Card's home on Dec. 23, 2000, a decade after sanctions were imposed on Iraq and a month before George W. Bush took office. Along with some of the transcripts of her wiretapped conversations, Lindauer gave me this letter to support her contention that she was working as a ''back channel'' between the governments of Iraq and the United States. The letter was addressed to Vice President-elect Cheney, and in it Lindauer presented the fruits of what she described as a private Nov. 26, 2000, meeting with Saeed Hasan, then the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations.

''Ambassador Hasan has asked me to communicate to you that Iraq most vigorously wishes to restore healthy, peaceful relations with the United States, including economic and cultural ties,'' Lindauer wrote. ''At our meeting, Ambassador Hasan demonstrated a pragmatic understanding that the United States requires the reinstatement of weapons monitoring in order to lift the sanctions.'' Ambassador Hasan, she said, had ''also emphasized that Iraq is ready to guarantee critical advantages for U.S. corporations at all levels.''

It is possible that Lindauer's account is delusional. It is also possible that Lindauer's account is accurate. Iraq certainly tried to use other back channels to try to reach U.S. officials, including a Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage, who conveyed messages to Richard Perle in the run-up to the war. For her part, Lindauer says that she was unaware that her activities required her to register as a lobbyist -- a formality that, to her mind, seemed quite absurd. ''Everything that I did that was quote 'lobbying,''' she said, ''I was giving to the chief of staff of the White House.''

The winding path that led Lindauer to the door of the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations began in November 1993 at a diner in Virginia, where she met a friend of her father's, a woman who worked as the chief of staff for a Republican member of Congress. Worried that Lindauer was lonely, her father's friend brought another lonely guest, Paul Hoven, a gentle Army veteran who had piloted attack helicopters in combat in Vietnam. He was interested in spies and spying.

'''You guys say you're peace activists,''' Lindauer recalled Hoven telling her that night. '''You say you're liberal do-gooders. What exactly are you doing? You do nothing. You're not active. You're passive.' And that conversation was probably one of the most important dinner conversations of my life.''

It was Hoven who gave Lindauer the nickname Snowflake, which was quick to catch on among an informal circle of Capitol Hill staff members and intelligence-community enthusiasts who gathered every Thursday night at a Hunan restaurant across the street from the Heritage Foundation. ''I'm the one who named her Snowflake, because she's from Alaska and she's nuts,'' Hoven told me. In addition to feeling sorry for Lindauer, he was taken with her unusual mind. ''She seems to have the ability to take unrelated facts and string them together, to the point where you're left with, Gee, it probably happened that way.'' For her part, Lindauer says that she enjoyed leading a double life, working for liberals during the day and hanging out with conservatives interested in counterterrorism at night.
....

I wonder if her days or her nights were the most fun?