federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. investigated the case in one way or another, as late as 1971, sometimes jointly, sometimes independently. Despite all this effort, the disappearance of Galindez and the role of Murphy remain a public mystery.
Having devoted years to solving that mystery through private interviews and other forms of research, plaintiff
brought this lawsuit in 1979 to follow up on requests for government records that he had filed with the CIA and FBI under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Plaintiff challenged the substantial deletions made in the documents which the government identified as relevant; he also claimed that the CIA's search had not been adequate.
In February 1981, the Court denied defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the applicability of the exemptions they had invoked,
ordering the submission of limited in camera affidavits which would explain in detail the agencies' various rationales for not releasing all relevant documents in their files.
The Court singled out 89 documents that were to be addressed in the affidavits.
Subsequently, finding that it could not fulfill its statutory responsibility to conduct a de novo review
on the basis of the limited in camera affidavits, the Court ordered the CIA and FBI in November 1981 to submit in camera affidavits pertaining to all of the records except only the 78 documents no longer contested by plaintiff and the one document in the (b)(1) category on which the Court was able to rule on the basis of the limited affidavits.
The defendants were ordered to submit under seal the unabridged versions of every contested document, not because the agencies' good faith had been controverted, but "in order that the Court may be able to monitor the agencies' determinations in accordance with the Court's guidelines." Memorandum of November 16, slip. op. at 2 n. 2.
The CIA complied by submitting 14 volumes of documents and an in camera explanatory affidavit executed by Louis Dube ("Dube affidavit"), all of which the Court has reviewed. The documents were arranged in the following manner:
Category A, Collection 1 -- Liaison w/foreign intell. service
Category B, Collection 2 -- CIA station locations
Category D, Collection 3 -- Intelligence sources
Category E, Collection 7 -- CIA operations and methods
Collection 8 -- CIA cover
Category F, Collection 9 -- Privacy material
Category M, Collection 10 -- Miscellaneous
Collection 12 -- Liaison
Collection 14 -- Employee identities, internal
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.