Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Bates 000815 000820 Redacted

Bates 000815 000820 Redacted

Bates 000815 000820 Redacted

Page 1: Bates 000815 000820 Redacted


Number of Pages:6

Date Created:April 14, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:000820, 000815, Bates, redacted

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

WASHINGTON. D.C. 2113411
SEP 20(Jj 
Mark Zaid, Esq. Krieger Zaid, PLLC 
1920N Streett N.W., Suite 300 
Washin gton, 20036 
Dear Mr. Zaid: 
Thi responds your letter 2005 addressed Messrs. Haynes and responding behalf that letter you acknowledge receipt letter September 2005 which informed you that the Department Defense had not authorized Mr. Anthony Shaffer testify open hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee. You further report that Mr. Anthony Shaffer had ..been requested the staff several Committees, both House and Senate, appear private 
informal meetings for unclassified.briefing purposes. And, you seek advice the extent the guidance September letter Routine matters this nature will handled and through Mr. Shaffer's supervisory chain, not you. 
(b) (3.: (bl (6) 

Septert).ber 23, 2005 
Facsimile and First Class Mail 
Mark Zaid, Esq. Krieger Zaid, PLLC 
1920 Street, N.W;, Suite 300 Washington, 20036 
DearMr. Zaid: 
This responds your letter September concerning your legal representation Mr. Anthony Shaffer, your assertion that DIA destroyed Mr. Shaffer's "ABLE DANGER files," and your request that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) provide you with certain official documents. Your letter also addresses Mr. Shaffer's and makes frequent ABLE DANGER apparent effort link ese topics. Under federal law, unswom declaration made "under penalty perjury" has the same force, effect and solemnity sworn affidavit declaration under oath. U.S.C. 1746. 
(b). (3) (b) 
Fifi Once again, none this had even the remotest connection ABLE DANGER. 
Second, DIA did not improperly destroy classified documents Mr. Shaffer's office files, nor did such files relate ABLE DANGER. Your public statements the contrary, and those your client, are belied verified and established facts. The "relocation" Mr. Shaffer's office fites 2004, over which you expressed puzzlement your letter, was necessitated his reassignment within DIA and his repeated failure move his files his new office. response instructions via e-mail from supervisor two separate occasions move his files and pers6nal effects, Mr. Shaffer neither moved nor secured them. Moreover, never raised any concerns any supetvisor that his office files contained materials that needed presrved. 
Instead, Mr. Shaffer left his files unmoved and departed overseas assignment. His DIA colleagues then had move the files for him. DIA later spent approximately fifteen hours meticulouly sorting through Mr. Shaffer's boxes separate official documents from his personal effects. That sorting process disclosed copies official documents concerning foreign regional matters,_ but nothing related labeled nABLE DANGER." Indeed, DIA's review Mr. Shaffer's files did not uncover any code word' materials, nor were there any maps, charts, diagrams cylindrical containers hold such items among Mr. Shaffer's boxes files and personal belongings. Subsequent this review, and after returned from overseas, Mr. Shaffer was again contacted repeatedly and asked retrieve his personal effects. before, Mr. Shaffer did not retrieve items being held for him, nor did raise any concern that his office files had included important material that needed preserved. today, his personal effcts remain the custody DIA because has never made arrangements retrieve them. 
While Mr. Shaffer's personal effects have been retained for him, the copies classified and unclassified official documents found the file boxes were properly secured "bum bags" and destroyed, regularly done with nonaccountable documents. that regard, your September letter's assertion that any destruction classified documents requires "record destruction order" also incorrect. Here again, any imagined connection with ABLE DANGER does not withstand scrutiny. 
(b} (3) 
(b) {6) 
This letter marked "For Official Use Only" solely for Mr. Shaffer's protection under the Privacy Act 1974t amended, U.S.C. 552a, and not intended impose any-restriction your use disclosure the information .this letter with Mr. Shaffer's consent. 
fb) (3) (l:i} 
\iSHINGTON, D.C. 20341).. 
Facsimile and First Class Mail September 29, 2005 
Mark Zaid, Esq. Krieger Zaid, PLLC 
1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 
Suite300 Washington, 20006-4604 
Dear MrZaid: 
This responds your letter September Ms. Kathleen Turner the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA' Office for Congressional Affairs. Your letter infonned Ms. Turner that your client, Anthony Shaffer, DIA civilian employee, has been requested meet" with various Members Congress and/or Congressional staff members. However, your letterdoes not identify the individual(s) who may have extended such requests Mr. Shaffer, nor does your letter explain what the subject matter purpose such meetings might be. you know, when Congressional committees, their staffs, individual 
receives any such requests from Congress, they will promptly reviewed coordination with the Department Defense {DoD). Any decision and instructions will conveyed directly Mr. Shaffer his DIA supervisors. the meantime, this again inform you and 
You acknowledged receipt the. DIA letter ofinstruction e-mail September and assured him that you had sent copy Mr. Shaffer. DIA will hold Mr. Shaffer accountable, employee, for strict compliance with the letter instruction. requires Mr. Shaffer, DIA employee, communicate personally and 
(b} (3) 
(b) (6) 
directly with his DIA supervisors these official matters; not through you. Moreover. September Ms. Turner was simply repetition the questions 
answered definitively for you, matter professional courtesy, September 26, after your client refused talk his supervisor report the DIA offices directed. Mr. Shaffer apparently continues act under the notion that DIA employee, privileged avoid direct communication with his supervisors and exempted from personal compliance with. their instructions simply because has hired 
 attorney.' that _is his belief: badly mistaken.,  
Accordingly, DIA will not reply further your inquiries about purported requests from Congress for meetings with your client, and will instead deal directly with Congressional officials and Mr. Shaffer, should the occasion arise. 
cc: DoD Office General Counsel Ms. Kathleen Turner, DIA Congressional Affairs 
(bJ (3): 
(b) (6)