This is an action to redress violations of the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

PARTIES

• Mr. Notra Trulock, III is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia and resides at --------------------------------------------------.
• Ms. Linda Conrad is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia and resides ----------------------------.
• Defendant Louis Freeh is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). He is being sued in his personal capacity, while acting under color of federal authority. His address is c/o The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20535.
• Defendant Neil Gallagher is the FBI's Assistant Director for National Security. He is being sued in his personal capacity, while acting under color of federal authority. His address is c/o The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20535.
• Defendant Steve Dillard is the FBI's Inspector in Charge of a task force of FBI Special Agents and analysts investigating the theft and compromise of U.S. nuclear secrets. He is being sued in his personal capacity, while acting under color of federal authority. His address is c/o The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20535.
• Defendant Brian Halpin is a Special Agent of the FBI. He is being sued in his personal capacity, while acting under color of federal authority. His address is c/o The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20535.
• Defendant Steve Carr is a Special Agent of the FBI. He is being sued in his personal capacity, while acting under color of federal authority. His address is c/o The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20535.
• Defendant Jane Doe No. 1 is a Special Agent and computer specialist for the FBI. She is being sued in her personal capacity, while acting under color of federal authority. Her address is c/o The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20535.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

• Jurisdiction over this matter is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Plaintiffs assert claims arising under the laws of the United States.
• Venue is proper in this district pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in the Eastern District of Virginia.

• From 1994 to 1998, Plaintiff Trulock served as the Director of the Office of Intelligence for the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE"). From 1995 to 1998, he also served as Director of the Office of Counterintelligence for DOE. Plaintiff Trulock was thus responsible for the management of all intelligence and counterintelligence activities within DOE and at DOE laboratories during this time period.
• Plaintiff Trulock is also a whistleblower who, in 1998, told the truth about the failure of the Clinton-Gore White House, the DOE, the FBI, and the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") to safeguard U.S. nuclear secrets.
• Between 1995 and 1998, Plaintiff Trulock, as Director of Intelligence and Director of Counterintelligence for DOE, uncovered substantial, credible, and startling evidence that Chinese spies had penetrated U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, including Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, and stolen the know-how to produce every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, including the W-88 thermonuclear warhead. A U.S. Intelligence Community Damage Assessment, completed in 1999, largely validated Plaintiff Trulock's conclusions. In the interim, however, Plaintiff Trulock's repeated warnings about these obviously substantial breaches of national security were often blocked by top DOE officials, and were otherwise ignored if not disregarded by the Clinton-Gore White House, the FBI and the CIA.
• DOE also had an obligation to inform Congress' intelligence committees, however, and Congress was concerned greatly about Plaintiff Trulock's findings. Plaintiff Trulock testified before Congress on several occasions in 1998.
• In the aftermath of the political fallout that resulted, and which continues to date, Plaintiff Trulock was demoted within DOE in 1998, then forced out entirely in 1999. He subsequently found employment with TRW, Inc.
• Early this year, Plaintiff Trulock decided to write a "personal reflections-type" manuscript about his experiences, including his criticisms of the Clinton-Gore White House, the DOE, the FBI and the CIA for their mishandling and cover-up of the Chinese spy threat, as well as the compromise of national security at U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, including Los Alamos. Plaintiff Trulock took painstaking care not to include any classified information in the manuscript and, in March 2000, sent the document to DOE for a security review before trying to have the manuscript published. DOE declined to review the manuscript. Plaintiff Trulock also submitted to, and passed, a polygraph examination intended to reveal any disclosure of classified information.
• National Review decided to publish an article by Plaintiff Trulock, excerpted from the manuscript, in its July 31, 2000 edition. The article, entitled "Energy Loss," was actually in circulation by early July 2000.
• At or about the same time, Plaintiff Trulock was fired by TRW, Inc., on information and belief, under pressure from high-ranking officials at DOE.
• Plaintiff Conrad is the Executive Assistant to the Director of the Office of Intelligence at DOE. She has held this position for six (6) years and has been in government service for twenty-five (25) years.
• Plaintiff Conrad and Plaintiff Trulock share a townhouse in Falls Church, Virginia. Plaintiff Conrad is Plaintiff Trulock's landlord. Plaintiff Trulock rents a bedroom in the townhouse from Plaintiff Conrad, and they share the common portions of the townhouse.
• Plaintiff Conrad and Plaintiff Trulock also share a computer, which is located in Plaintiff Conrad's bedroom. However, Plaintiff Conrad and Plaintiff Trulock each have multiple passwords for their respective personal computer files. They do not know each other's passwords. Plaintiff Conrad and Plaintiff Trulock do not, and cannot, access each other's personal computer files.
• When Plaintiff Conrad arrived at work on Friday, July 14, 2000, her supervisor, Lawrence Sanchez, who is the Director of the Office of Intelligence at DOE, relayed to Plaintiff Conrad, on behalf of the FBI, that the FBI wanted to question her about Plaintiff Trulock and that they had a search warrant for her and Plaintiff Trulock's home. Sanchez also relayed to Plaintiff Conrad, on behalf of the FBI, that not only did the FBI have a search warrant for her home, but that if she did not agree to cooperate, they would break down her front door to execute the warrant, that the media would be present, and that the local police had already been alerted to the fact that the search was about to take place.
• Plaintiff Conrad became extremely upset. She was very scared and began to shake. She broke down in tears, and remained extremely upset and in tears all day.
• Throughout the day, Sanchez had several telephone calls with FBI Assistant Director for National Security Neil Gallagher and FBI Inspector in Charge Steve Dillard, who is the head of the FBI's Chinese espionage investigation task force, to discuss the interrogation of Plaintiff Conrad and the search of her and Plaintiff Trulock's home. DOE Secretary Bill Richardson even contacted FBI Director Louis Freeh to discuss the interrogation and search.
• The FBI insisted on going forward with complete interrogation of Plaintiff Conrad and a search of her and Plaintiff Trulock's home, with or without Plaintiff Conrad's cooperation.
• Sanchez, who had received a "dressing down" by Clinton-Gore White House Chief of Staff John Podesta for having been too cooperative with Congressional investigations into the Chinese espionage matter, pressured Plaintiff Conrad to cooperate with the FBI.
• At approximately 4:00 p.m., Agents Halpin and Carr, acting, on information and belief, under the direction, instruction and orders of FBI Director Freeh, FBI Assistant Director Gallagher, and Inspector in Charge Dillard, arrived at DOE to interrogate Plaintiff Conrad, who remained extremely intimidated and fearful, and had been crying all day.
• On information and belief, Agents Halpin and Carr were armed. They took Plaintiff Conrad into a conference room at DOE, closed the door, and began to interrogate her.
• Plaintiff Conrad continued to be extremely intimidated and fearful, and remained extremely intimidated and fearful throughout the interrogation. She was crying and shaking, and continued to do so throughout the interrogation.
• Agents Halpin and Carr asked Plaintiff to sign a piece of paper, which she did. She did not read the paper however, and does not know what was written on the paper.
• Plaintiff Conrad would not have signed the paper, or agreed to cooperate in any way, if she had not been told that the FBI had a search warrant for her and Plaintiff Trulock's home, and that the FBI would break down the front door and search her and Plaintiff Trulock's home, in the presence of the media and the local police, if she did not cooperate.
• At no point was Plaintiff Conrad ever advised of her constitutional rights, or that she did not have to consent to the interrogation or the search of her home.
• No one else was present during the interrogation, although at one point Plaintiff Conrad's supervisor entered the conference room and spoke briefly with Agent Carr.
• During the interrogation, Agents Halpin and Carr questioned Plaintiff Conrad about the manuscript from which Plaintiff's Trulock's article was excerpted, as well as about persons with whom Plaintiff Trulock was in contact, meetings that Plaintiff Trulock may have had, and Plaintiff Trulock's telephone habits, among other subjects.
• During the interrogation, Agents Halpin and Carr also questioned Plaintiff Conrad about Plaintiff Trulock's personal records and computer files. Plaintiff Conrad told Agents Halpin and Carr that she and Plaintiff Trulock share a computer, which is located in Plaintiff Conrad's bedroom. Plaintiff Conrad also told Agents Halpin and Carr that both she and Plaintiff Trulock maintain separate, personal files on the computer's hard drive, but that she did not know what information Plaintiff Trulock keeps in his personal files on the computer's hard drive. Plaintiff Conrad also told Agents Halpin and Carr that she and Plaintiff Trulock had multiple passwords for their respective personal computer files, that they did not know each other's passwords, and that they did not, and could not, access each others personal computer files.
• Agent Halpin and Agent Carr were particularly interested in the fact that Plaintiff Trulock maintained personal files on the computer's hard drive. Agent Halpin, who had told Plaintiff Conrad that he is a lawyer, then made a telephone call to his supervisor, Inspector in Charge Dillard, who also is a lawyer. Plaintiff Conrad overheard Agent Halpin discussing with Inspector in Charge Dillard the fact that Plaintiff Trulock maintained personal files on the computer's hard drive.
• During her interrogation, Plaintiff Conrad was not allowed to make any telephone calls. Plaintiff Conrad was able to receive two (2) telephone calls, however, one from her daughter and one from Plaintiff Trulock. However, the agents would not let Plaintiff Conrad take either telephone call in private, but instead listened in on Plaintiff Conrad's side of each conversation. Plaintiff Conrad was too upset to speak with her daughter. Plaintiff Trulock could tell from Plaintiff Conrad's tone of voice and manner that she was extremely upset, but Plaintiff Conrad had been forbidden by Agents Halpin and Carr from telling Plaintiff Trulock what was happening to her.
• The interrogation lasted from approximately 4:00 p.m. to 7:15 or 7:30. When the interrogation was over, Agents Halpin and Carr told Plaintiff Conrad that she was not allowed to tell anyone about what had occurred during the interrogation.
• At no point during the three and a half hour interrogation did Plaintiff Conrad feel that she was free to leave. To the contrary, she felt that she was under arrest.
• At no point did Plaintiff Conrad freely and voluntarily consent to her seizure and interrogation by Agents Halpin and Carr, nor did she freely and voluntarily consent to the search and/or seizure of her home, the computer she shares with Plaintiff Trulock, and/or the password-protected personal files on the computer's hard drive. Rather, Plaintiff Conrad merely acquiesced to the agents' claim of lawful authority and/or was coerced by threats that, if she failed to cooperate, the FBI would break down her door and search her and Plaintiff Trulock's home, in the presence of the media and local police.
• At no point did Agents Halpin and Carr ever show Plaintiff Conrad a search warrant, nor, on information and belief, was a warrant ever issued.
• Agents Halpin and Carr then followed Plaintiff Conrad home. When Plaintiff Conrad entered the home, the agents entered immediately behind her. On information and belief, the agents were armed when they entered Plaintiffs' home.
• Plaintiff Trulock was home at the time. He asked to see the agents' search warrant. The agents replied that Plaintiff Conrad had consented to a search, even though she had given no such consent, but merely acquiesced to a claim of lawful authority and/or was otherwise coerced by the agents.
• At all times, Plaintiff Trulock had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his password-protected computer files. Plaintiff Conrad and Plaintiff Trulock were the only persons who had regular access to the computer. Plaintiff Conrad and Plaintiff Trulock understood that they each maintained separate, password-protected, personal files on the computer, but that they would not, and did not, know each other's passwords. Plaintiff Conrad and Trulock also understood that they would not, and could not, access each other's personal files on the computer's hard drive. Consequently, Plaintiff Conrad lawfully could not, and did not, consent to a search of Plaintiff Trulock's password-protected personal files on the computer's hard drive.
• Like Plaintiff Conrad, Plaintiff Trulock acquiesced to the agents' claim of lawful authority and/or was otherwise coerced by the agents. At no point did Plaintiff Trulock freely and voluntarily consent to the search and/or seizure of his home, the computer he shares with Plaintiff Conrad, and/or the password-protected personal files he maintains on the computer's hard drive.
• At no point was Plaintiff Trulock ever advised of his constitutional rights, or that he did not have to consent to the search of his home, the computer he shared with Plaintiff Conrad, or the password-protected personal files he maintained on the computer's hard drive.
• Upon entering the home, Agent Carr immediately asked Plaintiff Conrad to show her the computer that she and Plaintiff Trulock shared. Plaintiff Conrad took Agent Carr upstairs to the bedroom where the computer was located. Agent Carr asked Plaintiff Conrad to return downstairs and to wait with Plaintiff Trulock and Agent Halpin. After approximately fifteen to twenty minutes, Agent Carr returned downstairs. On information and belief, Agent Carr accessed and secured the contents of the computer's hard drive, including Plaintiffs' password-protected personal computer files, during this time period.
• Agents Halpin and Carr then began interrogating Plaintiff Trulock. The interrogation lasted for approximately one half hour, during which the agents asked Plaintiff Trulock whether there was any classified material in the home, whether any classified material was on the computer, whether he had sent the manuscript of the article to other persons, and whether he downloaded e-mail onto a palm pilot, among other questions. Again, at no point did the agents ever advised Plaintiff Trulock of his constitutional rights.
• During the interrogation of Plaintiff Trulock, a third agent, an FBI computer specialist who did not identify herself to Plaintiff Conrad and Plaintiff Trulock, arrived at the home. The computer specialist sat silently on the couch during the remainder of the interrogation.
• After the interrogation of Plaintiff Trulock, Agent Carr and the computer specialist went upstairs to the bedroom where the computer was located, where they again accessed and began to search the contents of the computer's hard drive.
• Plaintiff Conrad was asked to come upstairs to the bedroom, where she was asked to identify certain, but not all, of her personal bank records on the computer's hard drive. The computer specialist copied these bank records onto a diskette, and gave the diskette to her. Plaintiff Conrad was then told to return downstairs.
• Plaintiff Trulock was then asked to come upstairs to the bedroom. Plaintiff Trulock observed that the computer specialist had accessed the computer's hard drive through its "DOS" directories. The computer specialist told Plaintiff Trulock that the hard drive had been "locked down."
• Plaintiff Trulock was then asked to identify certain, but not all, of his personal bank records on the computer's hard drive. The computer specialist copied these bank records onto a diskette, and gave the diskette to him. Plaintiff Trulock was then told to return downstairs.
• Agent Carr and the computer specialist remained in the bedroom, apparently searching computer files, for approximately one and a half hours.
• While Agent Carr and the computer specialists were searching Plaintiffs' computer files, Agent Halpin remained downstairs with Plaintiffs. At one point, Plaintiffs and Agent Halpin began to discuss dogs. Agent Halpin had commented on the fact that Plaintiff Trulock had a golden retriever, and told Plaintiffs that he also had a golden retriever. Plaintiffs did not think anything of the conversation at the time. Although Agent Halpin had a cell phone with him, he asked Plaintiffs if he could use the telephone. Agent Halpin then took a cordless telephone belonging to Plaintiff Conrad, went outside where he could not be overheard by Plaintiffs and made what appeared to be a long telephone call.
• After Agent Carr and the computer specialist finished searching the computer, they told Plaintiffs that they would have to take the computer hard drive with them. They gave Plaintiffs a receipt for the hard drive, but left the monitor, printer and accessories.
• At no time during or after the search did the agents ever show Plaintiffs Trulock and Conrad a search warrant, nor did they leave a copy of the search warrant with them.
• On information and belief, no such warrant existed, nor would the FBI have had probable cause to obtain a warrant, because DOE had declined to review the manuscript before Plaintiff Trulock sought to have it published, and because Plaintiff Trulock also submitted to, and passed, a polygraph examination intended to reveal any disclosure of classified information, and because DOE had made no criminal referral to the FBI regarding the manuscript.
• In fact, Secretary Richardson has since admitted to Congressman Dan Burton, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Government Reform Committee, that DOE had made no criminal referral to the FBI, which would have been necessary for the FBI to even commence an investigation.
• CIA Director George Tenent has since admitted to Chairman Burton, in reference to the search and seizure of Plaintiffs' home, that "it looked like somebody has been wronged."
• On Monday, July 17, 2000, several reports appeared in the media about the FBI's search and seizure of Plaintiffs' home.
• On Tuesday, July 25, 2000, eight days after reports had appeared in the media about the FBI's search and seizure of Plaintiff's home, and only a few days after Plaintiffs sought legal representation about this matter, Plaintiffs' home was broken into. While there were no visible signs of entry and nothing appeared to have been taken, it was obvious to Plaintiffs that someone had rifled through a collection of digital video disks, videotapes, photo albums and books and other items kept in the same bedroom where the computer had been kept before it was seized by the agents. In addition, Plaintiff Trulock's golden retriever, the same dog that Plaintiffs had discussed with Agent Halpin, had been injured. The dog had a gash in his head, approximately one inch long, where he was struck with a blunt object, such as the butt of a gun. A report of the incident was made to the local police, who termed the incident "suspicious."
• Included among the personal, password-protected computer files on the hard drive searched and seized by the FBI, and to which Plaintiffs are being deprived access, is personal banking, billing, checking, financial and tax information, information for a consulting business upon which Plaintiff Trulock relies to earn a living, and approximately one year's worth of research by Plaintiff Trulock concerning a genetic disorder from which his son suffers.
• Thus, as a direct and proximate result of the unlawful seizure of Plaintiff Conrad, and the unlawful search and/or seizure of Plaintiffs' home, computer hard drive, and personal computer, Plaintiffs Trulock and Conrad have suffered loss of income, loss of personal property, emotional distress, loss of reputation, and invasion of privacy, among other substantial damages.
• On July 28, 2000, Plaintiffs sent a letter to FBI Director Freeh, by facsimile and hand delivery, raising these obvious violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights and requesting a conference to try to resolve them. The letter stated:

As you may know, Judicial Watch has been retained to represent Notra Trulock and Linda Conrad, Mr. Trulock's landlord. Based upon our investigation, we have determined that you and your agents have violated the civil rights of Mr. Trulock and Ms. Conrad in undertaking an unconstitutional search and seizure of their home and computer and other illegal acts. Our investigation shows that you, personally, are involved, particularly given the importance of this matter and the media and Congressional attention which it has generated. It was Mr. Trulock who, not coincidentally, blew the whistle on the Clinton-Gore Administration's, the Energy Department's, the Justice Department's, the CIA's, and the FBI's coverup of the unprecedented breach of national security nuclear secrets at Los Alamos, which now threatens the lives of all Americans.

Before filing suit against you and your agents, we are willing to discuss a resolution of this matter. If you are interested, a meeting or conference call must be set up today, since Mr. Trulock and Ms. Conrad continue to be harassed and/or smeared by you and your agents. Just recently for instance, their home was broken into and Mr. Trulock's dog attacked and harmed. It is likely that FBI officials have been responsible for, or complicit in, this as well. If we do not hear from you today, Judicial Watch is authorized to immediately file suit on various grounds.

Thank you for the courtesy of an immediate response.

• FBI Director Freeh's secretary confirmed receipt of the letter on July 28, 2000, and stated that she would personally delivery it to the Director. However, neither FBI Director Freeh nor anyone from his office responded to Plaintiffs' letter.
• That same day, July 28, 2000, Plaintiff Conrad's supervisor, Director Sanchez, told Plaintiff Conrad that he had tried to keep her out of this matter, but that, if she went forward with a lawsuit, he would deny telling her the FBI told him it had a search warrant for her home. Director Sanchez also told Plaintiff Conrad that he would do this in order to protect "the Bureau," that she would be "branded" forever, that he could not take her with him to his next assignment at the Central Intelligence Agency, and that her career would be ruined.

• Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully set forth herein.

• Plaintiffs enjoy the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

• Defendants, acting under color of federal authority, violated Plaintiff Conrad's Fourth Amendment rights by seizing Plaintiff Conrad and interrogating her for approximately two and a half hours on July 14, 2000 in a sealed conference room at her office, under threat of breaking down her door and searching her home, in the presence of the media and the local police, if she failed to cooperate.
• Defendants, acting under color of federal authority, also violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs Conrad and Trulock by searching Plaintiffs' home, computer and computer files, and by seizing Plaintiffs' computer and computer files without probable cause, a valid search warrant, the voluntary, uncoerced consent of Plaintiffs, and/or other legal justification.

• Defendants acted knowingly, willfully and/or maliciously, and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, and/or with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

• As a direct and proximate result of the violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, Plaintiffs suffered substantial damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment be entered against Defendants, jointly and severally, including an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

• Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 73 as if fully set forth herein.
• Plaintiff Trulock enjoy the rights of freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
• Defendants, acting under color of federal authority, violated Plaintiff Trulock's First Amendment rights by retaliating against Plaintiff Trulock for publishing an article in the July 31, 2000 edition of National Review and by attempting to prevent Plaintiff Trulock from continuing to exercise his First Amendment rights. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff Trulock and attempted to prevent him from exercising his First Amendment rights by unlawfully seizing and interrogating Plaintiff Conrad, conducting an unlawful search of Plaintiff Trulock's computer files, and unlawfully seizing Plaintiff Trulock's computer files.
• Defendants acted knowingly, willfully and/or maliciously, and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights, and/or with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
• As a direct and proximate result of the violation of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff Trulock suffered substantial damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Trulock demands judgment be entered against Defendants, jointly and severally, including an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

By: ____________________________

Brett M. Wood, Esq.

VA Bar No. 14224

Larry Klayman, Esq.

General Counsel

D.C. Bar No. 334581

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 Plaintiffs