Source: http://openjurist.org/329/f3d/1135/doe-v-j-tenet
Timestamp: 2015-05-22 13:24:38
Document Index: 329696479

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1346', '§ 1292', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 403', '§ 403', '§ 1491', '§ 8', '§ 5663']

329 F3d 1135 Doe v. J Tenet | OpenJurist
329 F. 3d 1135 - Doe v. J Tenet	Home329 f3d 1135 doe v. j tenet
329 F3d 1135 Doe v. J Tenet 329 F.3d 1135
John DOE and Jane Doe, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.George J. TENET, Individually and as Director of Central Intelligence and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 01-35419.
Daniel L. Pines, Central Intelligence Agency, Mclean, VA; Stuart Schiffer, Francis J. Diskin, Barbara L. Herwig, and Freddi Lipstein, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the defendants-appellants.
Steven W. Hale and Elizabeth A. Alaniz, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-01597-RSL.
Before: CANBY, JR., BERZON,* and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
BERZON, Circuit Judge:**
Jane and John Doe — fictitious names, adopted for this litigation for reasons that will appear — assert that they performed espionage activities on behalf of the United States against a former Eastern bloc country. The Central Intelligence Agency (the "CIA"), they say, assured them that it would provide assistance in resettling in the United States as well as lifetime financial and other support. According to the Does, the CIA has now reneged on its obligation of support. The United States will neither confirm nor deny the Does' allegations, for reasons of national security.
We must decide whether the Does can sue the CIA for the alleged wrongs committed by the Agency, or whether, instead, their action is either appropriate only in the Court of Federal Claims or precluded by the venerable doctrine enunciated in Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 23 L.Ed. 605 (1875).
* We assume, without deciding, that the facts as alleged by the Does are true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to their case. See Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir.2000). The facts that appear in this opinion, with the exception of procedural history in federal court, are all, therefore, simply allegations, even when not stated as such.
The Does allege that they were citizens of an Eastern bloc country formerly considered an adversary of the United States. During his tenure as a high ranking diplomat for that country during the Cold War, Mr. Doe approached a person associated with the United States embassy and requested assistance in defecting to the United States.
The Does recount that after this request was made, CIA agents took them to a "safe house" for approximately twelve hours. The CIA officers employed intimidation and coercion to convince the Does to remain instead at their diplomatic post and to engage in espionage for the United States. The agents told the Does that if they agreed to conduct espionage on behalf of the United States, the CIA would arrange for their resettlement in the United States and ensure their financial and personal security "for life." The Does further allege that the agents assured them that this assistance was approved at the highest level of authority at the CIA and was mandated by U.S. law.
The Does state that although they were initially reluctant to conduct espionage activities, they eventually agreed to do what was asked of them. They allege that they carried out their end of the bargain but that the Agency has now reneged and abandoned them to fend for themselves.
The Does represent that they entered the United States under the special provisions of the "PL-110 Program."1 Pursuant to that program, the CIA provided them with false identities and backgrounds and offered to "retire" them with financial and health benefits. The Does allege that the Agency provided them with various benefits, including health care and education. Because the Does desired to "become integrated into American society," they requested that the CIA assist them in obtaining employment. They claim that the CIA continued to assure them that, to the extent that their earned income was insufficient to meet their needs, they would be supported by the Agency for the remainder of their lives with a "safety net," which was "required by law." The Does allege that they were told that such support was required on the basis of their classification as "PL-110s."
The Does eventually settled in the Seattle area, and were initially provided with a stipend of $20,000 per year, as well as housing and other benefits. Over time, their stipend was increased to $27,000. They say that with the CIA's assistance in providing false identities, resumes, and references, Mr. Doe obtained professional employment in 1987. As Mr. Doe's salary increased, the amount of the stipend provided by the CIA commensurately decreased.
In 1989, Mr. Doe and the CIA allegedly agreed that once Mr. Doe's salary hit the $27,000 mark, his stipend would be suspended. However, Mr. Doe received the CIA's assurance that if his employment were terminated, his stipend would be resumed. The CIA assertedly assured Mr. Doe that the Agency would "always be there" for the Does.
As a result of a corporate merger in 1997, Mr. Doe lost his job. Although Mr. Doe made efforts to find new employment, he says that his advanced age and his security arrangement with the CIA, which required him to use the false identity and background that he had been provided, limited his options. The Does assert that they contacted the CIA to request assistance. The CIA refused to assist Mr. Doe in finding a new job as it had done in the past. Mr. Doe has remained unemployed. After several failed attempts to obtain CIA assistance, the Does sought legal representation.
In 1997, the Does were allegedly informed by a CIA representative that the Agency had determined that the benefits they had previously been provided had been adequate compensation for the services rendered and that further support would not be provided. The Does were then told that they could appeal this decision to the Director. The Does' counsel therefore prepared an appeal to the Director. While so doing, the Does' counsel repeatedly requested from the Agency internal regulations governing the appeals process as well as regulations regarding resettled aliens. The CIA never responded to these requests. Other requests for access to records or individuals within the CIA were also either denied or ignored by the CIA.
Nevertheless, the Does claim, they filed their administrative appeal with the Director in late 1997. It was subsequently denied. The Does assert that they then appealed to the Helms Panel, a panel consisting of former Agency officials. The Does allege that the Helms Panel recommended that the Agency provide the plaintiffs "certain benefits ... for a period not to exceed one year, and nothing thereafter." The payment was conditioned on the Does' signing waivers and release documents. Apparently, the Does declined to execute such documents and therefore did not receive the payments recommended by the Helms Panel.
The Does then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. They asserted claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief. Their complaint further requested that the district court require the CIA to resume payment of the benefits allegedly promised and provide constitutionally adequate internal review procedures.
The United States moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court denied the CIA's jurisdictional motion under Rule 12(b)(1), finding that the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Totten did not prohibit the court from entertaining this suit. The district court determined that the trial could proceed despite the alleged existence of a secret agreement, and any materials involving national security interests could be adequately protected by submission under seal or by in camera review.
The district court also rejected the CIA's contention that the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, requires that this case be heard in the United States Court of Federal Claims, because, according to the Agency, this was essentially a contract suit seeking money damages from the United States. The district court reasoned that although the Does' request for injunctive relief may have included a directive that the CIA resume payments, the Does were not seeking solely a money damages judgment.
The district court went on to determine that the Does had properly stated both substantive and procedural due process claims, even apart from the existence of an alleged secret contract with the Agency. First, the district court found that "[the Does] may be able to base their entitlement to receipt of the CIA's monetary stipend on theories other than contract. For example, if plaintiffs are able to prove an entitlement to benefits based on a promissory or equitable estoppel theory, or if there is a regulatory or statutory basis for their entitlement, then they may be able to show a constitutionally protected property interest, regardless of Totten." Further, the court found that the Does had sufficiently stated due process claims on two separate theories — that the CIA had placed the Does in danger and that the CIA had created a special relationship with the Does.2
The United States later renewed its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and moved for summary judgment under Rule 56(c). The district court denied these motions and we granted an interlocutory appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). On appeal, the United States maintains that there is no jurisdiction over the case because any suit must be in the Court of Federal Claims, and because the rule in Totten, 92 U.S. at 107, requires dismissal of the Does' case. We disagree.
At the outset, we must address whether the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), precludes the district court from exercising jurisdiction in this case. That Act, in relevant part, grants the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over any claim against the United States in excess of $10,000 that is "founded ... upon any express or implied contract with the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).3
The Does do not frame their complaint expressly to assert a contract claim. Indeed, they reserve the right to bring a contract action in the Court of Federal Claims at a later date. The label that is attached to a claim is not conclusive, however. Whether an action is founded upon a contract for purposes of the Tucker Act "depends both on the source of the rights upon which the plaintiff bases its claims, and upon the type of relief sought (or appropriate)." Megapulse v. Lewis, 672 F.2d 959, 968 (D.C.Cir.1982); see also North Star Alaska v. United States, 14 F.3d 36, 37 (9th Cir.1994) (adopting the Megapulse test).
The Does' complaint may be read as seeking an injunction directing payment of $27,000 per year because that figure was agreed upon by the Does and the CIA. Such an award derived from the agreement of the parties, although phrased in terms of constitutional due process, would amount to specific performance of the contract that the Does allege that they had with the government — an agreement to "ensure financial and personal security for life." That type of claim falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. See North Star, 14 F.3d at 37-38 (right to reformation of contract, even if phrased as statutory or constitutional right, is based on terms of contract and is therefore subject to the Tucker Act). The fact that the Court of Federal Claims has no power to grant specific enforcement of a contract does not mean that a suit for specific enforcement can be brought in district court. The Tucker Act is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for contract actions; equitable contract remedies denied to the Court of Federal Claims are not within the waiver and may not be enforced against the United States at all. See id. at 38.
The primary claim of the Does, however, is for an injunction requiring the CIA to conduct internal hearings on their claims that comport with due process. The effect of the Tucker Act on this claim for relief depends upon the interest — life, liberty or property — that is asserted to trigger the requirement of procedural due process. One type of property interest might be argued to arise from the alleged contract between the CIA and the Does, which the Does allege guaranteed lifetime payments and protection. The District of Columbia Circuit has held that a due process claim that is triggered by a contractually-based property interest may be brought in district court, on the theory that the right sought to be enforced arises from the due process clause and is not a suit on the contract itself. See Transohio Sav. Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, 967 F.2d 598, 610-11 (D.C.Cir.1992); Sharp v. Weinberger, 798 F.2d 1521, 1523-24 (D.C.Cir.1986). Our circuit has taken a stricter view, however, and has held that constitutional claims based on a contractual property interest fall within the Tucker Act and may not be brought in district court. See Tucson Airport Auth. v. General Dynamics Corp., 136 F.3d 641, 647-48 (9th Cir.1998) (rejecting Transohio rule); cf. North Star, 14 F.3d at 37-38. In this view, we are joined by the Second Circuit. See Up State Fed. Credit Union v. Walker, 198 F.3d 372, 377 (2d Cir.1999) (holding that district court did not have jurisdiction over any claims that could not exist independently of a contract).4 Indeed, one district court in New York has held that a constitutional claim seeking enforcement of a CIA contract similar to that alleged by the Does, and also seeking a declaration requiring a due process hearing, was subject to the Tucker Act and could not be brought in district court. See Kielczynski v. United States CIA, 128 F.Supp.2d 151, 160 (E.D.N.Y.2001), aff'd sub nom. Kielczynski v. Does 1-2, 56 Fed. Appx. 540, 2003 WL 187164 (2d Cir.2003) (unpublished).
Perhaps because of this line of authority, the Does contend that their claim to a due process hearing is not based on their contract with the CIA. Several of the stated due process claims, however, are based in considerable part on the CIA contract, and the district court seems so to have interpreted it. These claims, for reasons we have just stated, may not be entertained by the district court. The Does, however, assert additional bases for their due process claims that do not suffer from the same jurisdictional defect.
The primary additional claim is based on an interest in liberty. The Does' claim that, regardless of the terms of their contract or whether a contract even existed, the CIA brought them into this country under conditions requiring a false identity and false history for their continuing safety. The Does allege and declare that, because of the false history and false references supplied by the CIA and the CIA's refusal to assist them further, no employment is available to them in the United States now that Mr. Doe's employment here was terminated. The failure of the CIA to provide the means for their subsistence, according to the Does, leaves them no alternative but to return to eastern Europe, where they are in danger. The district court held that the Does had raised a triable issue of fact with regard to this claim based on a liberty interest. The district court also held that these same allegations and declarations presented a triable issue of a due process violation based on the duty of the government not to act affirmatively to place a person in a dangerous situation. See Huffman v. County of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 1054, 1059 (9th Cir.1998). Without indicating any view as to the ultimate merits of these claims, we find no error in the district court's ruling denying summary judgment and permitting these claims to go forward.5 We also conclude that the district court is not precluded by the Tucker Act from entertaining these claims, because they are not founded upon, and do not depend on, any alleged contract between the CIA and the Does.
The Does also contend that their right to procedural due process arises from their status as persons in the PL-110 program. The government contends that the only relevant provision of that Act is 50 U.S.C. § 403h, which authorizes the Attorney General in the interest of national security to cause the admission of particular aliens as permanent residents regardless of their inadmissibility under other laws. See 50 U.S.C. § 403h. The government argues that this statute clearly creates no entitlement of the sort claimed by the Does. The Does contend, however, that other regulations and practices of the CIA establish an entitlement to continued support for persons brought into the United States pursuant to the program.
It is difficult to evaluate this claim for purposes of the Tucker Act (or for summary judgment) because the internal regulations of the CIA that have been presented are redacted, and it is not clear that all regulations that might bear on the subject have been produced. The unredacted portions of the regulations in the record do not present sufficient foundation for the Does' claim to permit them to survive summary judgment, but we do not know what is in the unredacted portions or whether other undisclosed regulations might bear on the subject.6 Because the government relied on its right to dismissal under Totten and the Tucker Act, the record is not fully developed. Discovery has been stayed by the district court pending this appeal. Although the Does have not yet made their case on their claim of PL-110 status, a grant of summary judgment against them would be premature at this point. We therefore affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment on the due process claim based on PL-110 status. Whether that claim may be successfully maintained in further proceedings in district court will depend in part on whether the government asserts a state secrets privilege, see Part III, infra, and what disposition follows from that assertion.
We emphasize, however, that a due process claim based on PL-110 status must not depend on the alleged contract, or any other contract, between the CIA and the Does. Such a contract-based due process claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under our decision in Tucson Airport. In denying the government's motion for summary judgment on the claim based on PL-110 status, the district court stated that the claim was based "not only on the regulations, but also on promises made to them and on the surrounding circumstances. A plaintiff's property right may exist if words, conduct, or circumstances indicate a mutually explicit understanding between the parties." The Tucker Act, however, grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims over actions "founded... upon any express or implied contract with the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a). This grant encompasses claims based on "a mutually explicit understanding between the parties." If the Does are to pursue their due process claim based on PL-110 status in district court, they will have to establish a property right arising from such status that is not based on an express or implied contract.7
The Does also contend that CIA procedural regulations grant them a right to a fair hearing regarding their entitlement to benefits under the PL-110 program. Here again, the record may be incomplete because not all of the regulations are presented in full form. An agency is generally required to follow its own regulations. Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 79 S.Ct. 968, 3 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1959). The government contends that the regulations impose no requirements on the CIA, and the unredacted portions of the regulations now in the record support the CIA's position. Here, too, it is too early in the litigation to enter a summary judgment against the Does because further proceedings, including discovery, may provide further support for their claim. If the Does' entitlement to a hearing under the regulations is based on their alleged contract with the CIA rather than a status conferred by regulation or other conditions independent of the contract, then under the principle of Tucson Airport the Tucker Act will preclude further proceedings on that claim in the district court as well.
The final claim presented by the Does is one of estoppel. The district court concluded that the Does had adequately pleaded the elements of estoppel: that the government actors knew the facts, that they intended that their conduct would be acted upon or acted in such a way that the Does had a right to believe they so intended, that the Does were ignorant of the true facts, and that they detrimentally relied on the conduct of the government actors. See Lehman v. United States, 154 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir.1998). In addition, estoppel against the government requires a showing that the government actors "engaged in affirmative conduct going beyond mere negligence and that the public's interest will not suffer undue damage as a result" of the estoppel. Id. at 1016-17 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court held that the Does had raised a triable issue of fact concerning these last two requirements. On the basis of John Doe's declaration, the district court did not err in so ruling.
Under Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 426, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 110 L.Ed.2d 387 (1990), a litigant can use estoppel defensively but not offensively against the government. See United States v. Hatcher, 922 F.2d 1402, 1409 (9th Cir.1991). Richmond's prohibition is against using estoppel offensively to obtain an award that would be contrary to a statute and would thus violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. See Richmond, 496 U.S. at 424, 110 S.Ct. 2465. The Does, however, claim that payment of their subsistence is clearly authorized by statute and regulation and thus would violate no principle of Richmond or the Appropriations Clause. They also contend that their use of estoppel is similar to that authorized by this court in Watkins v. United States Army, 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.1989) (en banc), where we held the government estopped from preventing the plaintiff's reenlistment in the Army. Id. at 711. We conclude that the Does have made a sufficient showing to forestall summary judgment. The district court accordingly did not err in denying summary judgment on the estoppel claim.
We also conclude that the estoppel claim does not fall within the confines of the Tucker Act, because it is not founded on an express or implied contract. See Jablon v. United States, 657 F.2d 1064, 1069-70 (9th Cir.1981). Although Jablon also held that the United States had not waived its immunity from a promissory estoppel claim, id. at 1070 & n. 9, our subsequent en banc decision in Watkins supports the use of estoppel to prevent the government from denying the benefit of PL-110 status if all of the elements can be proved. The district court did not err in concluding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the estoppel claim.
We therefore conclude that the Does are not barred by the Tucker Act from proceeding on their constitutional, statutory or regulatory claims or their estoppel claim in the district court, so long as those claims are not based on the alleged contract, or any contract, between the CIA and the Does. Those claims that we have identified as being based on contract are not within the jurisdiction of the district court and must be dismissed. The district court may proceed with the remaining claims. See North Side Lumber Co. v. Block, 753 F.2d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir.1985) (holding that contractual claim must be dismissed under the Tucker Act, but other claims could go forward on remand).
Resolution of this case also requires us to decide whether Totten bars judicial review of this action.
One hundred twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court dismissed a civil war spy's case for damages for breach of a contract with the government. See Totten, 92 U.S. 105, 23 L.Ed. 605. The Agency maintains that as this case is also one by spies seeking recompense, Totten squarely governs this case. We do not agree.
Totten was indeed a landmark case, and one that retains its core vitality. But, as discussed at length below, Totten does not require immediate dismissal as to the Does' case because their claims — those that survive our Tucker Act analysis — do not arise out of an implied or express contract. Instead, the instant case is governed by the state secrets privilege, a separate aspect of the decision in Totten that has evolved into a well-articulated body of law addressing situations in which security interests preclude the revelation of factual matter in court.
Both the Supreme Court and our own court have specified the mode in which the government must invoke the state secrets privilege and the manner in which courts must apply it. And since Totten, the constitutional protection of the right to due process of law has developed into an assurance in most instances of some fair procedure, secret or open, judicial or administrative, before governmental deprivation of liberty or property becomes final. These two developments, taken together, preclude the summary dismissal of this case for which the Agency argues.
We acknowledge at the outset that it could very well turn out, after further district court proceedings, that the Does will still be left without redress even if everything they allege is true. When the government asserts that the interests of individuals otherwise subject to legal redress must give way to national security interests for the larger public good, the result can end in a balance tipped toward the greater good, with resulting unfairness to the individual litigants as the acknowledged corollary. See Bareford v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 973 F.2d 1138, 1144 (5th Cir.1992); Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int'l Ltd., 776 F.2d 1236, 1238 n. 3 (4th Cir. 1985); cf. Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 713 (D.C.Cir.1973).
But precisely because the net result of refusing to adjudicate the Does' claims is to sacrifice their asserted constitutional interests to the security of the nation as a whole, both the government and the courts need to consider discretely, rather than by formula, whether this is a case in which there is simply no acceptable alternative to that sacrifice. The law regarding protection of national security interests in judicial proceedings provides guidance toward that end. State secrets privilege law prescribes that courts must be sure that claims of paramount national security interest are presented in the manner that has been devised best to assure their validity and must consider whether there are alternatives to outright dismissal that could provide whatever assurances of secrecy are necessary. That counterweight role has been reserved for the judiciary. We must fulfill it with precision and care, lest we encourage both executive overreaching and a corrosive appearance of inequitable treatment of those who have undertaken great risks to help our nation, an appearance that could itself have long-run national security implications.
In Totten, the estate of William A. Lloyd, a spy hired by President Abraham Lincoln to gain information on Confederate troop positions during the Civil War, brought suit in the Court of Claims to recover compensation Lloyd had allegedly been promised under his secret agreement with the President. The Supreme Court explained that the case was not justiciable because:
The service stipulated by the contract was a secret service; the information sought was to be obtained clandestinely, and was to be communicated privately; the employment and the service were to be equally concealed. Both employer and agent must have understood that the lips of the other were to be for ever sealed respecting the relation of either to the matter. This condition of the engagement was implied from the nature of the employment, and is implied in all secret employments of the government in time of war, or upon matters affecting our foreign relations, where a disclosure of the service might compromise or embarrass our government in its public duties, or endanger the person or injure the character of the agent. If upon contracts of such a nature an action against the government could be maintained ... whenever an agent should deem himself entitled to greater or different compensation than that awarded to him, the whole service in any case, and the manner of its discharge, with the details of dealings with individuals and officers, might be exposed, to the serious detriment of the public. A secret service, with liability to publicity in this way, would be impossible; and, as such services are sometimes indispensable to the government, its agents in those services must look for their compensation to the contingent fund of the department employing them, and to such allowance from it as those who dispense that fund may award.
Id. at 106-07. In applying this reasoning to the claim of the Totten estate, the Court concluded that "[t]he publicity produced by an action would itself be a breach of a contract ... and thus defeat a recovery." Id. at 107 (emphasis added).
The Agency and the dissent treat Totten as a jurisdictional bar to any case arising out of a relationship involving spy services. On this view, a court faced with any cause of action that traces back to allegations of an espionage relationship with the government must simply dismiss the complaint. We do not read Totten so broadly.
Read with care, Totten embodies two rulings. The first, often mistaken for a blanket prohibition on suits arising out of acts of espionage, is instead simply a holding concerning contract law: In Totten, the plaintiff, Lloyd, breached his contract with the President by revealing the contract's contents in his lawsuit. The Supreme Court held that because an implicit aspect of the contract was that the parties agreed to keep the very existence of the contract secret, "[t]he publicity produced by an action would itself be a breach of a contract of that kind, and thus defeat a recovery." See id.; see also Halpern v. United States, 258 F.2d 36, 44 (2d Cir. 1958) (explaining that Totten "primarily turned on the breach of contract which the Court found occurred by the very bringing of the action"); Edward J. Imwinkelried, The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence § 8.2 at 1146 (2002) ("[A] close reading of [Totten] indicates that the basis for the decision was the law of contracts rather than any privilege doctrine.") (citing Charles A. Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 5663, at 506 & n. 39 (1992)).
For two reasons, the contractual holding of Totten is not applicable here. First, as discussed in Part II, unlike Totten, the Does do not seek only enforcement of a contract. Rather their principal concern at this point, as they explain in their brief to this court, is "to compel fair process and application of substantive law to their claims within the Central Intelligence Agency's ... internal administrative process." As the Agency is accustomed to conducting its affairs in secret, a fair internal process could presumably proceed in accordance with the secrecy implicit in an agreement to engage in espionage.
Second, Totten assumed "publicity" inconsistent with the implicit promise of secrecy as inherent in any judicial pro