Skip to content

Judicial Watch • OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-28-06

OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-28-06

OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-28-06

Page 1: OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-28-06

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

otherwise occupied, also Lisa could have, also Craig could have, anyone the office could have. Was it1 well, start with you, was your understanding that whenever file was taken out 
the office someone-6 MR. SRERE: Let clarify. MR. HIRSHLAND: Sure. MR. SRERE: You're talkng about files and understanding the testimony far, these are not files 
that are being checked ou, these are background J..l investigations that are being checked out and they are not .12 complete file And believe that what Ms. Anderson has testified -14 MR. HIRSHLAND: That could very helpful clarification. Take the f.irst e;itry--by the way, are following the pract ice not mentioning any individuals' names the 
l.8 left-hand colum;n which for priacy reasons MR. HIRSB.I.JiliD: take the first entry'here example, July l.9th. When says, that that particular file was checked out, what meant that just background investigation was taken out? No. you read this whole first line says 
that wasthe SF-86 form that was checked out. 
WIL.U!JI i'IUQRTIHC CO., IHC. 
20002 
..... ... 
,.., Okay. How about the other entries? the second one, just says-3 That woul have been the return background 
investigation and then you go down little bit further you can see that-6 MR. SRERE: I'll point it. 9/21/93. 
THE WITNESS: 9/21. You can see that there were two Bis that were checked out because she had partial and then follow-up that completed it. The FBI practice was 
they had certain time frame that they had return something back. And the background had not been fully -12 completed, partial would returned and follow-up would forthcoming. MR. HIRSHLAND: Okay. see further down there's three entries there dated October l2t, and appears the column, says, it's hard read but appears say memos only. you know what that reference to? MR."SRERE: It's hard for--I just stating, I'm 
not sure that says memos ony. MR. HIRSHLAND: Okay. MR. SRERE: Bue Ms. Anderson recalls can-23 
MR. HIRSHLAND: you don't, that's entirely fine. not critical piece. THE WITNESS: not know. 01312-4 
_.,.: 
11. 
"!ll...L.E1' l'IEJloOlmHQ ca.. 1He. 
S07 Scrm, N.E. 
Wuhin(laa. O.C.. lOool 
   " 11 
MR. HIRSHL.AND: Okay MR. HIRSHLAND: So, unless otherwise noted, the only information the log individual'sname and then the name whoever checked out, George Saunders most often, and the date and then returned and then perhaps date and some initials. that's the only informat ion there and there's other ion that, therefore, represents that. BI,
informata background investigation was checked out the Off ice Personnel Secur ity? Hmm-hmm And 	other information from- other information. --a personnel file. 
That's helpful_ larification thank you. 
Having made that clarification, was you understanding that whenever was removed fromthe Office Personnel Security that notation must made this log? Hmm-hmm. Did you understand that the othe individuals the office, Craig Livingstone, Tony Marceca, Lisa Wetzl, Hughe shared that same.understanding? Yes 	But there's ,pne thing that you need fnow. 
... .: . .:- the beginning this not sure Tony was even the office. was only detailed our office for six months. Okay. you recall whether ever actually made entries this log? I.don't think so, but don't remember specifically. Okay. Well, why don't then set Mr. Marceca aside for second and say the 04her individual the office, who were staff members. That was the understanding. 
11. Okay. 
.12 Anyone who currently, that time, was staff member. Okay. see that-
MR. SCHANZER: Before you the next age have question. 
J.7 MR. HIRSHL.AND: Sure. MR. SCHANZER: Are all these entries here your handwriting? 

THE WITNESS  
MR. HIRSHLAND: We're referring page one 
this 
point.  MR.  SCHANZER:  Okay.  Could you  indicate  what's  nqt  your  handwriting?  
THE  WITNESS:  All  this  right  here.  

. .:. MR. SRERE: Approximately 10/12/93. THE WITNESS: 10/12. 
MR. HIRSHLAND: Okay, that' the second entry 
I dated 10/12, that correct?  
THE WITNESS: The second entry, maybe the first, but I'm not 100 percent sure. dont thirik: that mine. So, the 10/12 entries down think.tthe second the last one looks like mine. And, so, the last two entries. MR. SRERE: That block people are not your handwriting, that correct? THE WITNESS: That block not mine. .12 MR. SCHANZER: The 10/12 block? MR. SRERE: Right THE WITNESS: The 10/12 block down the second the last. MR. SCHANZER: And the last two are your. handwriting? 
1.8 THE WITNESS: The bottom one definitely and the second one looks MR. HIRSHLAND: you have any recqlletion who the others, who might have checked out. the others? No. MR. SRERE: The question was broad. Look the return olumn are all those your handwriting the reurn 

-IK.1..E!'. Ml'OlmNc CO,, 
--:..
507 Scrc-ci, N.E. 013127
'W:uhinitcn, D.C. 20002 column? 
THE WITNESS: No. 
MR. SRERE: take the block from approximately 

9/8 through 10/12-5 THE WITNESS: Up.to the block date returned 8/25 would have been mine. MR. SCHANZER: Do you know whose handwriting subsequent that? THE WITNESS: No. 
10 MR. SRERE: And just want point out for the record, haven't done detailed, are itting here 12 giving you general idea some people. Some handwriting here was not Ms. Anderson's. But for instance, you just said block 8/25, but I'm pretty sure the block 8/20/93 not her's, 'the return column. THE WITNESS MR. SRERE: So, mean just want make sure the record's straight she'snot saying that everything else the page her handwriting and just give you general idea it's not ali her handwriting. MR. HIRSHLAND That'.s helpful. THE WITNESS: I'm iriterspersed. MR. HIRSHLAND: David, you have any other questions about this page? MR. SCHANZER: No. . 

. 013128



Sign Up for Updates!