IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________

NOTRA TRULOCK, III
6616 Midhill Place
Falls Church, VA 22043

 Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530,

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585

and

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Washington, DC 20505

and

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500-0005,

Defendants.
____________________________________
 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)    Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, Notra Trulock, III, and hereby files this complaint for compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. ("FOIA") and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a et seq. Plaintiff respectfully alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (United States as defendant), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) (FOIA), and 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5).

2. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Notra Trulock, III, ("Trulock") is a citizen of the state of Virginia, residing at 6616 Midhill Place, Falls Church, VA 22043.

4. Defendant United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") is an agency and entity of the United States Government. Defendant DOJ has its principal place of business in the District of Columbia. Defendant DOJ has possession of the documents to which Plaintiff seeks access.

5. Defendant United States Department of Energy ("DOE") is an agency and entity of the United States Government. Defendant DOE has its principal place of business in the District of Columbia. Defendant DOE has possession of the documents to which Plaintiff seeks access.

6. Defendant Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") is an agency and entity of the United States Government. Defendant CIA has its principal place of business in the District of Columbia. Defendant CIA has possession of the documents to which Plaintiff seeks access.

7. Defendant Executive Office of the President ("EOP") is an agency and entity of the United States Government. Defendant EOP has its principal place of business in the District of Columbia. Defendant EOP has possession of the documents to which Plaintiff seeks access.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. Plaintiff filed with Defendant DOJ on July 25, 2000 via facsimile and certified mail, a FOIA/PA request (See Collective Exhibit 1) in the form of a letter to Defendant DOJ's FOIA officer, requesting access to certain records under the FOIA and the Privacy Act. Access was requested to "any and all documents, including but not limited to files, that refer or relate in anyway to Notra Trulock, III." Id. Plaintiff supplemented his July 25, 2000 request with a second request dated July 28, 2000. Id. This amended request included a request for "any and all information maintained in disclosure files, records or documents." Id.

9. As of September 18, 2000, Plaintiff has not received a substantive response to his July 25 and July 28, 2000 FOIA/PA requests from Defendant DOJ.

10. Plaintiff filed with Defendant DOE on July 25, 2000 via facsimile and certified mail, a FOIA/PA request (See Collective Exhibit 2) in the form of a letter to Defendant DOE's FOIA officer, requesting access to certain records under the FOIA and the Privacy Act. Access was requested to "any and all documents, including but not limited to files, that refer or relate in anyway to Notra Trulock, III." Id. Plaintiff supplemented his July 25, 2000 request with a second request dated July 28, 2000. Id. This amended request included a request for "any and all information maintained in disclosure files, records or documents." Id.

11. In response to Plaintiff's requests to Defendant DOE, Plaintiff received a letter dated August 14, 2000. (Exhibit 3). Defendant DOE's August 14, 2000 letter requested that Plaintiff "identify with greater specificity the documents you seek or the files and offices at the Department that may have information of interest to you." Id.

12. In response to Defendant DOE's August 14, 2000 letter, Plaintiff, on August 25, 2000, filed with Defendant a second supplement to its July 25, 2000 request. (Exhibit 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff requested
"that the files and offices of the following Department of Energy offices be searched for any and all documents that refer or relate in any way to our client, Notra Trulock:

1. The Office of the Secretary, to include, but not limited to those of J. Gary Falle, Chief of Staff, S-1, 7A-257.

2. The Office of Management and Administration, to include but not limited to those of:
1. Timothy M. Dirks, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Human Resources, MA-31, 4E-084, FORS, Office of Human Resources and Management

2. Claudia A. Cross, Director, Headquarters and Executive Personnel Services, MA-31, 4E-084, FORS, Office of Headquarters and Executive Personnel Services
3. The Office of Security and Emergency Operations, to include but not limited to those of:
1. Eugene E. Habiger, Director, Office of Security and Emergency Operations, SO-1, 5A-115, FORS

2. Joseph Mahaley, Director, Office of Security Affairs, SO-20, 4H-093, FORS, Office of Security Affairs

3. Arlie Siebert, Director, Classification and Technical Policy, SO-22, J-306, Germantown, Office of Nuclear and National Security Information
4. The Office of Intelligence, to include but not limited to those of Lawrence H. Sanchez, Director, IN-1, GA-301, FORS.

5. The Office of Counterintelligence, to include but not limited to those of Edward Curran, Director, CN-1, 8F-089, FORS.

6. The Office of the General Counsel, to include but not limited to those of Mary Anne Sullivan, General Counsel, GC-1, 6A-245, FORS

7. The Office of Congressional Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, to include but not limited to those of John Angell, Assistant Secretary, C-1, 7B-138, FORS

8. The Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, to include but not limited to those of Carol Epps, Equal Employment Specialist, ED, 5B-194, FORS, Equal Employment Opportunity Resolutions Division, Office of Civil Rights

9. The Office of Nonproliferation and National Security to include but not limited to those of Kenneth E. Baker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, NN-1, 7A-049, FORS."

13. As of September 18, 2000, Plaintiff has not received a substantive response to his July 25, July 28, and August 25, 2000 FOIA/PA requests from Defendant DOE.

14. Plaintiff filed with Defendant CIA on July 25, 2000 via facsimile and certified mail, a FOIA/PA request (See Collective Exhibit 5) in the form of a letter to Defendant DOJ's FOIA officer, requesting access to certain records under the FOIA and the Privacy Act. Access was requested to "any and all documents, including but not limited to files, that refer or relate in anyway to Notra Trulock, III." Id. Plaintiff supplemented his July 25, 2000 request with a second request dated July 28, 2000. Id. This amended request included a request for "any and all information maintained in disclosure files, records or documents." Id.

15. As of September 18, 2000, Plaintiff has not received a substantive response to his July 25 and July 28, 2000 FOIA/PA requests from Defendant CIA.

16. Plaintiff filed with Defendant EOP on July 25, 2000 via facsimile and certified mail, a FOIA/PA request ( Collective Exhibit 6) in the form of a letter to Defendant EOP's FOIA officer, requesting access to certain records under the FOIA and the Privacy Act. Access was requested to "any and all documents, including but not limited to files, that refer or relate in anyway to Notra Trulock, III." Id. Plaintiff supplemented his July 25, 2000 request with a second request dated July 28, 2000. Id. This amended request included a request for "any and all information maintained in disclosure files, records or documents." Id.

17. On August 14, 2000, Plaintiff received a response from Defendant EOP denying Plaintiff's FOIA/PA request. (Exhibit 7).

18. In its August 14, 2000 response, Defendant EOP denied that the Privacy Act even applied to the Defendant EOP. Id.

19. Defendant EOP made this claim despite the fact that a June 30, 1993 internal White House memorandum sent to John D. Podesta, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary, specifically admits that the Privacy Act applies to The White House. A copy of this June 30, 1993 memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.

20. The June 30, 1993 internal White House memorandum, which apparently accompanied the personnel files of seven White House Travel Office employees that were being forwarded to Podesta, specifically states:
Andre Oliver, of the Chief of Staff's office, requested that I forward the Official Personnel Folders of seven White House travel office personnel for your review. They are attached.

The contents of these records are covered by the Privacy Act of 1974, have restricted use and should be protected carefully. Please keep these folders in a locked place when not in use. Their contents should not be disclosed to anyone unless they demonstrate an official need.

When you have completed your review, please call me on 395-1147, so that I may have them picked up.
Id. (emphasis added).

21. Defendant EOP made its claim that the Privacy Act did not apply to it despite the fact that at a July 26, 1996 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry ("McCurry") stated that the Privacy Act applies to the White House. (See Exhibit 9.)

22. During the July 26, 1996 press briefing, McCurry stated in response to a question about the Congressional use of FBI files that,

"[W]e've had discussions with [the FBI] as a result of the study that Mr. [Howard M.] Shapiro [General Counsel of the FBI] did on the need to improve the procedures that have existed here at the White House for 30 years to protect confidential information. We're hoping that [FBI director Louis Freeh] will acknowledge that there appears to be a need to improve the process for protecting material that is protected by the Privacy Act when it goes into the hands of Congress." Id. (emphasis added).
23. Defendant EOP's August 14, 2000, response that the Privacy Act did not apply to it also disregarded and flouted a clear ruling to the contrary by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, in Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 971 F. Supp. 603 (D.D.C. 1997) (Lamberth, J.)

24. On information and belief, information in Plaintiff's file (s) was obtained and/or used by Defendant EOP, illegally, to attempt to smear and destroy his reputation.

25. As of September 18, 2000, Plaintiff has not received any documents in response to his July 25 and July 28, 2000 FOIA/PA requests from Defendant EOP.

COUNT I
(Violation of the Freedom of Information Act)

26. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully set forth herein.

27. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(6)(B)(i-iii), and 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(6)(C), Plaintiff shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his FOIA requests to DOJ, DOE, CIA, and EOP.

28. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3), Plaintiff has a right of access to all of the documents requested in his FOIA request, and Defendants have no legal basis for refusing to disclose all of these documents to Plaintiff, which has not occurred to date.

COUNT II
(Violation of the Privacy Act)

29. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 as if fully set forth herein.

30. The Defendants willfully and intentionally maintain confidential records on individuals, such as Plaintiff, who are perceived as critics or adversaries of Bill and Hillary Clinton and/or the Clinton Administration, as part of a system of records. This system of records includes information unlawfully obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, on information and belief, from others, including other government agencies.
31. The maintenance of this system of records by Defendants is not relevant to accomplish any purpose required by statute or executive order of the President, but is part of a pattern of willful and intentional misconduct undertaken for purposes of attacking or threatening attacks on Plaintiff, and others similarly situated.

32. The Defendants' willful and intentional refusal to allow Plaintiff access to records and information pertaining to her in its system of records violates 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(d)(1) and g(1)(B), among other relevant provisions of the Privacy Act.

33. The Defendants' willful and intentional maintenance of this system of records on individuals, including Plaintiff, against them, violates 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(e)(1) and (g)(1)(D), among other relevant provisions of the Privacy Act.

34. The Defendants' willful and intentional use and dissemination of information from this system of records to attack or threaten individuals, including Plaintiff, violates 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(e)(1) and (g)(1)(D), among other relevant provisions of the Privacy Act.

35. As a proximate result of Defendants' willful, intentional and unlawful maintenance of information and dissemination of information from this system of records, individuals, including Plaintiff, have suffered economic and non-economic damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands: (1) that judgment be entered against Defendants; (2) that Defendants be enjoined from withholding all records concerning Plaintiff and be ordered to produce such records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(3)(A) and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3); (3) that Defendants be enjoined from unlawfully disseminating information from Plaintiff's FBI and/or other government files; (4) an award of compensatory damages in an amount not less than the $1,000 statutory minimum set forth at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A); (5) an award of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(B); and (6) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,


___________________________
Larry Klayman, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Suite 725
501 School Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20024
(202) 646-5172

Attorney for Plaintiff