CAUS

CAUS Update
7/10/99

CAUS ANNOUNCEMENTS--DoD motion filed with Court

HAVE YOU SUPPORTED CAUS LATELY--Suggestions Below

CAUS IN COURT

1) CAUS v. Department of Defense

On July 6th, CAUS filed its Motion for Limited Discovery. Below is the Memorandum of Law which accompanied the motion. The U.S. Attorney has ten days to respond. He can either consent, object or offer no opinion as to any or all of the CAUS request. The Court will then render its opinion either granting or denying the CAUS request in whole or in part. As indicated in the memorandum, the U.S. Attorney has until July 14th (unless he requests additional time) to file its Motion for Summary Judgment (Dismissal). Accompanying that motion will be sworn affidavits from the DoD as to the nature and extent of their search for the documents CAUS originally requested.

(formatted for e-mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CITIZENS AGAINST UFO SECRECY v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

CIV-990108-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY

This is an action brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. §3552 to require the production of records to the plaintiff.

POINT ONE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY

Defendant, through its counsel, has thirty (30) days from June 14, 1999 to submit a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff will then have an additional thirty (30) days to file its response (Local Rule 1.10 [l]1) Though Summary judgment is the procedural vehicle by which nearly all FOIA cases are resolved, See Public Employees for Envtl. Responsibility v. EPA, 978 F. Supp.955. 959 (D.Colo. 1997), it is usually when documents in issue already have been identified. See Cappabianca v. Commissioner, United States Custom Serv., 847 F.Supp. 1558, 1561 (M.D. Fla. 1994). And though there is authority that holds that "discovery in FOIA actions is extremely limited" Williams v. FBI, 1991 WL163757 (D.D.C. 1991) the ultimate decision as to whether plaintiff is entitled to discovery and the limitations of that discovery is left to the discretion of the Court.

The defendant by letter dated February 23, 1999 notified the plaintiff that it had conducted a search for the information requested (large triangular aerial object with specific performance characteristics) but could not find any relevant documents (see Exhibit A).

The plaintiff has obtained and continues to obtain affidavits from eyewitnesses who have sighted this craft (see for example Exhibit B). These affidavits will be part of plaintiff's response to defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff will argue that if this craft can be proven to exist, then the defendant logically would have information about it, due to its unique appearance and advanced performance characteristics. Plaintiff will then contend the only reason the defendant has not found any relevant documents is due to the inability of the plaintiff to identify the particular areas to be searched.

Thus plaintiff, in order to assist defendant in both identifying the appropriate areas to be searched as well as providing plaintiff with the ability to intelligently respond to defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, is requesting the following limited discovery:

POINT TWO: INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff is requesting that it be allowed to serve seven (7) Interrogatories on the defendant. Three of the Interrogatories have two subparts (See Exhibit C).

POINT THREE: DEPOSE NONPARTY WITNESS PETER A. DAVENPORT

Plaintiff is requesting that it be allowed to subpoena and depose Peter A. Davenport, the director of the National UFO Reporting Center in Seattle, Washington. On information and belief, Mr. Davenport has stated that in April 1997, he met with two federal agents at their request. That he promised them he would not reveal their identities. That they told him the following:

1) "the UFO phenomenon is undeniably real"

2) "UFOs are what they appear to be, namely sophisticated craft under some kind of intelligent control" and

3) "their agency is concerned about them"

Mr. Davenport has informed counsel for plaintiff that he would reveal their names if served with a subpoena and deposed.

POINT FOUR: DEPOSE NONPARTY WITNESS DR. STEVEN GREER

Plaintiff is requesting that it be allowed to subpoena and depose Dr. Steven Greer, the director of the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence. On information and belief Dr. Greer had publicly stated on several occasions that he has spoken to over one hundred (100) government and military witnesses, many within the defendant's employ, who have confided that they possess information about top-secret government UFO programs and events. Dr. Greer has refused to cooperate with plaintiff's counsel in providing the names of these witnesses.

POINT FIVE: CONCLUSION

Based upon the above, plaintiff has reasonable cause to believe these two nonparty witnesses have knowledge of the names of certain employees of the defendant who possess information that could help identify where, within the defendant, information about the this aerial object is located. Plaintiff believes its request for limited discovery will not incur any additional delay in these proceedings nor incur any additional time or expense on the part of the defendant. Plaintiff intends to videotape both depositions and provide defendant with a copy.

Once the names of the federal agents are obtained, plaintiff intends to contact them to see if any will voluntarily cooperate. Plaintiff has no intention of deposing any of these persons.

Based upon the foregoing, plaintiff requests that it be allowed limited discovery to wit: submission of the attached Interrogatories and/or deposing the two nonparty witnesses.

Respectfully submitted this 6th day of July, 1999.

Peter A. Gersten
Attorney for Plaintiff

2) CAUS v. U.S. Government, State of Arizona & Governor Jane Hull

This CAUS lawsuit under Article IV; Section IV of the U.S. Constitution, is the first that does not involve the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It will be filed within two weeks in the United States District Court in Phoenix. There is no precedent for this type of case in our judicial system. Interestingly, there is a prior case where both Arizona and California sued the federal government under this exact provision to force the feds to help them with their illegal alien problem Both cases were dismissed by the federal court on the grounds that this provision of the constitution requires an "armed hostility." No organization, to my knowledge, had filed suit against both a state and the federal government to enforce the contitutional provision after the state has refused.

CAUS will argue that the right of the federal government to protect the states against invasion, is for the benefit of the citizens of that state and thus the citizens of that state can bring the action when, after such a request by the citizens, the state refuses. The theory, though novel, is similar to the right of a shareholder to bring an action in the name of the corporation when the board of directors refuse on request to do so.

CAUS will ask the Court to allow it to either present evidence of this "silent" invasion at a hearing or direct that the Justice Department (FBI) and the Department of Defense (DIA) appoint a special joint committee to conduct an open investigation into the evidence that CAUS submits.

Since this case does not involve the FOIA, CAUS can conduct Discovery including Depositions, Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents, without the consent of the Court. Thus, if the Court in the DoD lawsuit refuses to allow CAUS to subpoena either Davenport or Greer, CAUS will still be able to obtain the information from the two individuals in this lawsuit against Arizona without the need of asking the Court. There are at least five other individuals CAUS is planning on deposing within the context of this lawsuit.

CAUS SPEAKS OUT

CAUS Director Peter A. Gersten will be speaking at the following times and locations:

CAUS on the Extraordinary News Network: Listen to the CAUS director's latest interview with Ted Loman as well as the last one Richard C. Hoagland. Next week Gersten interviews Art Bell. For interviews please go to: http://www.xnewsnetwork.com/ Or click on: Ex News

1) Wednesday, July 28th; 7:30 - 10 PM; Orange County, CA. MUFON. "UFO Lawyer: Rebel With a CAUS" The program will be presented at the Neighborhood Community Center, 1845 Park Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92627. Go to: www.mufonoc.org

2) Saturday, August 21st; Art Bell Chat Club, Anaheim, CA. Further details as they become available.

3) Weekend, September 4th and 5th, 1999; Bay Area UFO Expo: Marriott Hotel (Formerly the Dunfey Hotel) San Mateo, California. Gersten, Leir, Davenport, Dean, Leslie, Friedman, Maussan, Hoagland, Greer; Friedman to name a few. For details:http://www.hathorproductions.com/ or Contact Victoria Jack (408) 723-1076; Fax (408)266-4749; E-mail: isis777@earthlink.net

SUPPORT THE CAUS

CAUS, CAUSupdates, the CAUS website and CAUS lawsuits depend entirely on your contributions. Please support the CAUS. From dollars to cents, every nickel helps the CAUS. And for a contribution of $25.00 or more...CAUS will send you a gift: you own a CAUS video to show some of your friends how things are working at CAUS. Checks, cash, credit cards and money orders are accepted. Please note the new CAUS address and telephone number: CAUS, 8624 E. San Bruno Drive, Scottsdale AZ 85258; 480-609-9120; e-mail: caus@caus.org.


References


Return to FrontPage


HOME | SUPPORT CAUS | CONTACT CAUS | MAILING LIST

The PAG Network
Box
2443
Sedona, AZ 86339

Phone: 520-203-0567
e-Mail: ufolawyer1@aol.com

The PAG Network 2001.  All Rights Reserved.
Portions Copyright CAUS 2001.   All Rights Reserved

Send CAUS Comments and Reports to: CAUS@CAUS.ORG

 
Webmaster