Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/234908837/Trentadue-FOIA-lawsuit-over-OKC-bombing-videotape
Timestamp: 2017-03-31 02:12:19
Document Index: 693276861

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§\n551', '§ 702', '§ 551', '§ 702', '§\n16', '§ 702', '§\n552', '§ 701', '§ 1331', '§ 552', '§ 1900', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 1900', '§ 552', '§\n1900', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 16', '§ 552', '§ 16', '§ 552', '§ 16', '§ 552', '§ 16', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§\n552', '§ 552', '§ 552', 'art 2']

Trentadue FOIA lawsuit over OKC bombing videotape | Freedom Of Information Act (United States) | Federal Bureau Of Investigation
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinJesse C.Trentadue (#4961)
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, and FEDERAL
OKLAHOMA CITY FIELD OFFICE, Defendants.
Case No.: 2:08cv788 Magistrate Judge David A. Nuffer
By way of Amended Complaint under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
§§ 552 et. seq. (hereinafter “FOIA”), Plaintiff Jesse C. Trentadue, alleges and complains
Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 1 of 14
against the United States Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Oklahoma City Field Office as follows:
1. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Salt Lake County,
2. The United States Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) is an “Agency” of
the Executive Branch of the United States of America within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §§
551(1) and 552(f)(1). As an Agency of the Executive Branch, the CIA is subject to FOIA
and a proper party within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 703.
3. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an “agency” of the Executive Branch
of the United States of America within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1) and 552(f)(1). As an agency of the Executive Branch, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is subject to
FOIA and a proper party within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 703.
4. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Oklahoma City Field Office is a
“component” of the Federal Bureau of Investigation within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. §
16.1. As a “component” of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s Oklahoma City Field Office is subject to FOIA and a proper party within
the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 703.
Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 2 of 14
5. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s Oklahoma City Field Office will hereinafter be collectively referred to as
“FBI Defendants.” 6. This lawsuit and the documents-records at issue all arise out of the same
transaction and occurrence namely: A failed sting operation involving Department of
Justice and Southern Poverty Law Center informants-infiltrators that was focused upon
and directed towards Neo-Nazi and/or Militia activities at a white supremacist
paramilitary training facility located at Elohim City, Oklahoma, which activities included
bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on April 19, 1995.
7. This Court’s jurisdiction over this matter arises under 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(B); the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and the
equitable powers inherent in the Courts of the United States of America.
8. Venue lies within this Court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28
Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 3 of 14
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO CIA
9. On December 19, 2006, Plaintiff served three separate and discrete
FOIA Requests upon the CIA. Plaintiff’s first FOIA Request sought the following
documents and/or records: CIA Office of Inspector General documents and/or records ,
directly or indirectly, relating or referring to the CIA’s knowledge of the April 19, 1995,
attack upon the Murrah Federal Building, including documents and/or records, directly or
indirectly, relating or referring to any investigations of the CIA’s involvement with or
connection to the Murrah Building Bombing. A copy of this FOIA Request is attached
hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference.
10. Plaintiff’s second FOIA Request sought the following documents
and/or records: the documents and/or records which Linda Cipprianni of the CIA’s
Office of General Counsel had provided to Assistant United States Attorney Beth
Wilkinson of the OKBOMB Task Force related to the Murrah Building Bombing. A
copy of this FOIA Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference.
11. Plaintiff’s third FOIA Request sought the following documents
and/or records: documents and/or records on Andreas Carl Strassmeir which, directly or indirectly, related or referred to Andreas Strassmeir’s possible involvement in the
bombing of the Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995; Strassmeir’s role and/or
Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 4 of 14
activities as an informant, aid or operative, including working for or reporting to the
German government, FBI, Southern Poverty Law Center or others; and/or Strassmeir’s
activities at Elohim City, Oklahoma, including his relationship with Timothy McVeigh
and/or the Midwest Bank Robbery Gang. A copy of this FOIA Request is attached
hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated by reference.
12. By letter dated February 23, 2007, the CIA acknowledged receipt of
Plaintiff’s three December 19, 2006, FOIA Requests. In that letter, the CIA advised
Plaintiff that the agency had “combined” his three separate FOIA Requests and was
treating them as one by assigning all three Requests reference number “F-2007-00513.” In that letter, the CIA also asked for a written commitment from Plaintiff to pay for
search and production costs in responding to the combined Requests. Plaintiff believes
and, therefore, alleges that the CIA unlawfully and illegally combined these Requests in
order to delay producing the documents and/or records and to increase the cost to Plaintiff
of that production. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated
by reference. 13. On March 4, 2007, Plaintiff wrote to the CIA agreeing to pay the
CIA’s search and production costs as outlined in the February 23, 2007, letter. A copy of
Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 5 of 14
pPlaintiff’s March 4, 2007, letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and incorporated by
14. On October 17, 2007, Plaintiff wrote to the CIA asking for a status
report on his FOIA Requests. A copy of that October 17, 2007, letter is attached as
Exhibit 6 and incorporated by reference.
15. By letter dated November 5, 2007 but not received by Plaintiff until
November 16, 2007, the CIA wrote to Plaintiff’s about his request for a status report. In that letter, the CIA informed Plaintiff that it was unable to give him a definite date by
which it would respond to his three FOIA Requests. A copy of the CIA’s November 5,
2007, letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 7, and incorporated by reference. 16. By letter dated March 20, 2008, Plaintiff again wrote to the CIA to inquire
about the status of his FOIA Requests. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit
8 and incorporated by reference. The CIA never responded to that March 20, 2008,
inquiry from Plaintiff.
17. The CIA did not respond to Plaintiff’s three FOIA Requests as required by
32 C.F.R. § 1900.21 and/or 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6). The CIA responses to Plaintiff’s FOIA
Requests were not in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) in that the CIA did not inform
Plaintiff of the name, title position of the person withholding the requested documents
Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 6 of 14
and/or records; the reason(s) for withholding the documents and/or records, including any
FOIA exemption; an estimate of the volume of documents and/or records or information
withheld and number of pages or in some other reasonable form of estimation; and a
statement that the withholding could be appealed. Moreover, the CIA ‘s responses to
Plaintiff’s FOIA Requests were also not in compliance with the requirements of 32 C.F.R.
§ 1900.21 and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A) in that the CIA in its responses failed to make a
determination as to whether it would comply with or deny Plaintiff’s FOIA Requests.
18. Due to the CIA not having complied with the requirements of 32 C.F.R. §
1900.21 and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A) in responding to the subject FOIA Requests,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(6)(A) and (C), Plaintiff has constructively exhausted his
administrative remedies. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO FBI DEFENDANTS
19. On October 12, 2008, Plaintiff filed and/or served a FOIA Request with
and/or upon FBI Defendants asking for: (a) “a copy of all surveillance videos taken from
the areas surrounding the Alfred P. Murrah Building on April 19, 1995,” the date of the
Oklahoma City bombing; (b) “a copy of all videotapes collected by the FBI and/or others
in Oklahoma from April 15, 1995 through April 19, 1995" as part of the Oklahoma City
Bombing investigation; (c) “a copy of the videotape taken from the Oklahoma Highway
Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 7 of 14
Patrol Officer Charlie Hangers’ patrol car, which recorded the arrest of Timothy
McVeigh on April 19, 1995;” and (d) “copies of all reports, including 302s that describe
or reference the FBI’s taking possession of these videotapes.” A copy of Plaintiff’s FOIA
Requests to FBI Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit 9 and incorporated by
20. Plaintiff served this FOIA Request upon FBI Defendants by facsimile. A
confirmation of FBI Defendants’ receipt of this FOIA Request served by facsimile on
October 12, 2008 is attached hereto as Exhibit 10 and incorporated by reference.
21. By a letter dated October 14, 2008 and an e-mail dated October 15, 2008, FBI Defendants acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff’s FOIA Request and advised Plaintiff
that his FOIA Request had been assigned reference number “FOIA PA #: 1120866.” Copies of that letter and e-mail are attached hereto as, respectively, Exhibit 11 and
Exhibit 12 and incorporated by reference.
22. FBI Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request as required by
28 C.F.R. § 16.6 and/or 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6). FBI Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s
FOIA Request was not in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 16.6 and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) in
that FBI Defendants did not inform Plaintiff of the name, title position of the person
withholding the requested documents and/or records; the reason(s) for withholding the
Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 8 of 14
documents and/or records, including any FOIA exemption; an estimate of the volume of
documents and/or records or information withheld and number of pages or in some other
reasonable form of estimation; and a statement that the withholding could be appealed. Moreover, FBI Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request was also not in
compliance with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 16.6 and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A) in that
FBI Defendants in their response failed to make a determination as to whether they would
comply with or deny Plaintiff’s FOIA Request.
23. Due to FBI Defendants not having complied with the requirements of 28
C.F.R. § 16.6 and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A) in responding to the subject FOIA Requests,
administrative remedies. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO THE CIA (Refusal to Produce Documents)
24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 18 above.
25. Plaintiff has a statutory right to the documents and/or records requested in
his FOIA Requests to the CIA.
26. The CIA has possession and control of the documents and/or records
requested by Plaintiff.
Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 9 of 14
27. Pursuant to FOIA, the CIA has a statutory duty to produce those documents
and/or records to Plaintiff but has breached and continue to breach that duty.
28. The CIA has responded in bad faith to Plaintiffs’ FOIA Requests. The CIA
has, for example, unlawfully and illegally combined these Requests in order to delay
producing the documents and/or records and to increase the cost to Plaintiff of that
production. The CIA has also produced no documents and/or records in response to
Plaintiff’s FOIA Requests. Neither has the CIA asserted any exemptions from disclosure
with respect to the documents and/or records requested by Plaintiff. The CIA likewise
has no legal basis to withhold the documents and/or records requested by Plaintiff but it
has unlawfully denied and continues to unlawfully deny Plaintiff access to these
documents and/or records.
29. As a direct and proximate result of such denials, Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer grave and irreparable injury. 30. Plaintiff is entitled to seek judicial review of the CIA’s actions and/or
inactions with respect to his three FOIA Requests and that review is authorized pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Plaintiff is also clearly entitled to judicial relief in this Court
as set forth in the prayer to this Complaint. Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 10 of 14
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO FBI DEFENDANTS
(Refusal to Produce Documents)
31. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 8 and 19 through 23 above.
32. Plaintiff has a statutory right to the documents and/or records requested in
his FOIA Request to FBI Defendants.
33. FBI Defendants have possession and control of the documents and/or
records requested by Plaintiff. 34. FBI Defendant have responded in bad faith to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request. FBI Defendants, for example, have produced no documents and/or records to Plaintiff. Neither have FBI Defendants asserted any exemption from disclosure which with respect
to the documents and/or records requested by Plaintiff. 35. Pursuant to FOIA, FBI Defendants have a statutory duty to produce those
documents and/or records to Plaintiff but have breached and continue to breach that duty.
36. FBI Defendants have no legal basis to withhold the documents and/or
records requested by Plaintiff but they have unlawfully denied and continue to unlawfully
deny Plaintiff access to these documents and/or records.
37. As a direct and proximate result of such denials, Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer grave and irreparable injury. Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 11 of 14
38. Plaintiff is entitled to seek judicial review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(B) of FBI Defendants’ actions or inactions with respect to Plaintiff’s FOIA
Request and that review is authorized pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Plaintiff is
also clearly entitled to judicial relief in this Court as set forth in the prayer to this
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court for judgment and/or other
relief against CIA and/or FBI Defendants as follows:
1. For an expedited proceeding;
2. For an Order permanently enjoining both the CIA and FBI Defendants from
withholding the documents and/or records which Plaintiff has requested under FOIA and
further requiring both the CIA and FBI Defendants to immediately produce all such
documents and/or records;
3. For an Order awarding Plaintiff his costs, disbursements and reasonable
attorney’s fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and
4. For an Order awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be
equitable, just and proper under the circumstances.
Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 12 of 14
DATED this 11 day of November , 2008.
Pro Se Plaintiff T:\6000\6201\1\FOIA CIA\AMENDED COMPLAINT.wpd
Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 13 of 14
I hereby certify that on this 11 day of November, 2008, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing Amended Complaint was served by electronic process upon the following:
Attorney for CIA
/s/ jesse c. trentadue Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 14 of 14
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulTrentadue FOIA lawsuit over OKC bombing videotape by Ben Winslow0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionA lawsuit filed by Jesse Trentadue against the CIA and FBI over surveillance tape of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.A lawsuit filed by Jesse Trentadue against the CIA and FBI over surveillance tape of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedShapiro v. FBIby Daily Caller News Foundationmerged_55515_-1-1475154923by Julian HattemFBI_Location of Congressional Bunkerby Bill GeerhartCREW v. Office of Administration: Regarding Lost White House Emails: 7/27/2007 - Meet and Confer Statementby CREWCREW v. CEQ: Re: Global Warming: 8/1/07 - Meet and Confer Statementby CREW24 Note Administby mary engCREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 1/25/08 - Response to Document (Document 54)by CREW2016-01-05 Plaintiff's Opposition to DOJ's Motion for Summary Judgement - Brief (Flores v Doj) (Foia) (Stamped)by Progress Queens2013 FOIA Municipal Lawsuit (Public Safety Reports & TIF Commission Minutes)by Matt HawkinsCREW v. Office of Administration: Regarding Lost White House Emails: 7/8/2008 - DC District Court Stay Ruling- Memorandum Opinionby CREWFCSIC FOIA 2000by politixBtrard Trf Eovernoreby zerohedgeFile Stamped Appellant Reply Brief 12-13by Judicial Watch, Inc.GAO - FOIA: Preliminary Analysis of Processing Trends Shows Importance of Improvement Plans (July 26, 2006)by J CoxCCP v. FEC by Spencer Brown2000foiareportby politixConsumer Product Safety: foia01by CPSCCREW: Department of Education: Regarding For-Profit Education: 11/29/10 - FOIA Interim Responseby CREWConsumer Product Safety: foia02by CPSCCREW v. DHS: Regarding White House Visitor Logs (Abramoff): 6/6/07 - Memorandum in Opposition_5by CREWDepartment of Labor: 1993ERA07Pby Department of LaborUnited States v. Apperson, 10th Cir. (2016)by Scribd Government DocsIrs Foia Defense Packageby Luis EwingAlberto Gonzales Files - foia shell game doc nepa org-ticker%20foia%20shell%20gameby politixT1 B27 Document Request FBI 42 Fdr- Entire Contents- Request- Email- Ghost Wars Excerpt- Fair Use 666by 9/11 Document ArchiveFISC EFF DOJby Ryan GallagherCREW v. Office of Administration: Regarding Lost White House Emails: 7/13/2007 - OA's Motion for extension of Time to File ResponseReplyby CREWT2 B11 Timelines Fdr- Appendix 1- Chronology 1993- Sep 11 2001 660by 9/11 Document ArchiveSimilar To Trentadue FOIA lawsuit over OKC bombing videotapeSkip carouselShapiro v. FBImerged_55515_-1-1475154923FBI_Location of Congressional BunkerCREW v. Office of AdministrationCREW v. CEQ24 Note AdministCREW v. EOP2016-01-05 Plaintiff's Opposition to DOJ's Motion for Summary Judgement - Brief (Flores v Doj) (Foia) (Stamped)2013 FOIA Municipal Lawsuit (Public Safety Reports & TIF Commission Minutes)CREW v. Office of AdministrationFCSIC FOIA 2000Btrard Trf EovernoreFile Stamped Appellant Reply Brief 12-13GAO - FOIACCP v. FEC 2000foiareportConsumer Product SafetyCREWConsumer Product SafetyCREW v. DHSDepartment of LaborUnited States v. Apperson, 10th Cir. (2016)Irs Foia Defense PackageAlberto Gonzales Files - foia shell game doc nepa org-ticker%20foia%20shell%20gameT1 B27 Document Request FBI 42 Fdr- Entire Contents- Request- Email- Ghost Wars Excerpt- Fair Use 666FISC EFF DOJCREW v. Office of AdministrationT2 B11 Timelines Fdr- Appendix 1- Chronology 1993- Sep 11 2001 660mms_hornbeckCustomer Consultant Spy (Part 2)Trentadue FOIA lawsuit over OKC bombing videotape