http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67329.000/hju67329_0.HTM

INVESTIGATION OF MISCONDUCT ANDMISMANAGEMENT AT ICITAP, OPDAT ANDCRIMINAL DIVISION'S OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARYHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 21, 2000

Serial No. 128

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCSuperintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARYHENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, ChairmanF. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., WisconsinBILL McCOLLUM, FloridaGEORGE W. GEKAS, PennsylvaniaHOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

LAMAR S. SMITH, TexasELTON GALLEGLY, CaliforniaCHARLES T. CANADY, FloridaBOB GOODLATTE, VirginiaSTEVE CHABOT, OhioBOB BARR, GeorgiaWILLIAM L. JENKINS, TennesseeASA HUTCHINSON, ArkansasEDWARD A. PEASE, IndianaCHRIS CANNON, UtahJAMES E. ROGAN, CaliforniaLINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South CarolinaMARY BONO, CaliforniaSPENCER BACHUS, AlabamaJOE SCARBOROUGH, FloridaDAVID VITTER, Louisiana

Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCJOHN CONYERS, Jr., MichiganBARNEY FRANK, MassachusettsHOWARD L. BERMAN, CaliforniaRICK BOUCHER, VirginiaJERROLD NADLER, New YorkROBERT C. SCOTT, VirginiaMELVIN L. WATT, North CarolinaZOE LOFGREN, CaliforniaSHEILA JACKSON LEE, TexasMAXINE WATERS, CaliforniaMARTIN T. MEEHAN, MassachusettsWILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, MassachusettsROBERT WEXLER, FloridaSTEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New JerseyTAMMY BALDWIN, WisconsinANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of StaffJULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

HEARING DATE    September 21, 2000

Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCOPENING STATEMENT

    Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress From the State of Illinois, and chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

WITNESSES

    Fine, Glenn, Acting Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, United States Department of Justice

    Holder, Eric, Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Fine, Glenn, Acting Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, United States Department of Justice: Prepared statement

    Holder, Eric, Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice: Prepared statement

    Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila, a Representative in Congress From the State of Texas: Prepared statement

APPENDIX

Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC    Material submitted for the record

INVESTIGATION OF MISCONDUCT AND MISMANAGEMENT AT ICITAP, OPDAT AND CRIMINAL DIVISION'S OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2000

House of Representatives,Committee on the Judiciary,Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (chairman of the committee) presiding.

    Present: Representatives Henry J. Hyde, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., George W. Gekas, Howard Coble, Bob Barr, Asa Hutchinson, Edward A. Pease, Chris Cannon, Joe Scarborough, John Conyers, Jr., Howard L. Berman, Zoe Lofgren, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, and William D. Delahunt.

    Staff present: Daniel M. Freeman, parliamentarian-counsel; Joseph Gibson, chief counsel; William Moschella, chief investigative counsel; Kirsti Garlock, counsel; Steve Pinkos, counsel; Sheila F. Klein, executive assistant to general counsel; Amy Rutkowski, staff assistant; James B. Farr, financial clerk; Sharon L. Hammersla, information resources manager; Blaine Aaron, professional staff member; Perry Apelbaum, minority general counsel; Ted Kalo, minority counsel; and Mathew Nosanchuk, minority special counsel.

…

Hon. HENRY J. HYDE, Chairman,Committee on the Judiciary,House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

    DEAR CHAIRMAN HYDE: I would like to thank you and the Committee for your careful oversight in this latest Department of Justice scandal, which unfortunately appears to reach into the highest levels of the federal service. I also wish to thank you and your staff for allowing me the opportunity to address, through this letter, some of the history concerning this shameful episode and the Department's apparent decision to remain in a state of denial rather than to address the causes at the root of the problems uncovered.

    The Inspector General's (IG) report released last week said that the Justice Department's latest national security scandal ''should have been apparent to any taking the time to look.'' It said that the ''disturbing history'' of senior Department officials' some close advisors to Attorney General Janet Reno, others recent recipients of hefty cash awards from her—had allowed Criminal Division employees to become ''cynical about the ethics of the department as a whole.'' The IG report noted that their three-year investigation was the result of disclosures that I had made in April 1997 concerning illegal and unethical conduct in the Department's international training programs. Unfortunately, in what has become a pattern for Inspector Generals' reports—the case of Fred Whitehurst and the FBI crime lab was one of the most notorious examples—the IG has engaged in a practice of bashing the whistleblowers even as it seeks to take credit for our work. Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    This hearing comes at an interesting time. Earlier this week, Rep. Christopher Cox laid bare the failing U.S.-Russian relationship, including a searing indictment of the lost

opportunities to fight international crime under the Clinton-Gore administration. Not surprisingly, much of the blame lands squarely on Janet Reno's scandal-racked Justice Department. ''The lion's share of our aid was aimed at shoring up'' the corrupt government of then-President Boris Yeltsin, Cox reported, while U.S. aid programs for the rule of law ''were just a tiny fraction of our attention.''

    It didn't have to be that way. In the early 1990s, when I worked on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for Sen. Alan Cranston (D.-Calif.), we worked closely with the office of then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh to provide such assistance to the newly emerging democracies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It was a heady time, when both political parties embraced a dream of a ''new world order'' that would be ushered in with the fall of the Berlin Wall. As you know, U.S. security interests abroad are best protected when the United States speaks with one, bi-partisan voice, and at the time it looked like we were on our way to breaking down our own ''wall—that of unnecessary and messy wrangling over foreign policy.

    Under Sen. Cranston's direction, I co-founded a Congressional staff working group set up by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in order to draw attention to the law enforcement needs of the formerly communist region. Sen. Cranston pushed hard for the establishment of FBI legal attache offices to be established east of Vienna, an initiative fought behind the scenes by a turf-conscious CIA. We also sought to loosen restrictions on foreign police training, a controversial effort among our liberal Democratic friends, who constantly decried efforts they saw as ''getting us back into the torture business.'' Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    U.S. foreign police training efforts had been curtailed in the mid-1970s due to concern about intelligence agency infiltration in

such programs and documented allegations that U.S. support was being given to forces that routinely tortured and killed political opponents. The argument squarely meshed with the Cold War divide between ''hawks'' and ''doves,'' and effectively immobilized the marshaling of U.S. expertise to help developing countries create better legal systems.

    With the fall of communism, however, a strong case could be made that the development of professional civilian police forces could not only effectively fight common crime and drugs, but also be enlisted in the struggle to secure human rights. In Latin America, there was another argument in favor of professional and humane police training—military coups were virtually impossible when the police remained loyal to civilian government.

    I had some personal experience in democratic development that I thought would be of service in helping to implement these new policies that we had played a role in crafting. In the 1980s, I had served in as a special correspondent for Newsweek and the Washington Post in Buenos Aires, where I covered the 1985 ''dirty war'' trials of the former military juntas. (In 1993, a book I published on the subject was called a ''tour de force'' by The New York Times.) From 1987 to 1990, I served as director for Latin American programs and the civil-military project of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) headed by former Vice President Walter Mondale.

    In the months before the IG began its investigation, I was optimistic about my future at the Justice Department. In 1996, I received an ''outstanding'' annual performance evaluation. Thomas Snow, acting director of the Office of Prosecutorial Development and Training (OPDAT), wrote that ''I learned very early during my tenure to rely heavily on the talent and enthusiasm of my OPDAT colleague, Mick Andersen.''; Division ethics officer James Silverwood praised my ''excellent professional skills.'' My letters

of recommendation from supervisors and co-workers attest to the fact that I was a ''team player.'' Even Vice President Al Gore's brother-in-law, then Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Frank Hunger, invited me to lunch in the Department cafeteria to discuss how to set up international programs under his direction (Please see attached documents.) Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    I found that my optimism was misplaced. Before the IG investigation began I had complained to Division Executive Officer Robert Bratt about high-level leaks of highly classified documents to uncleared contractors. I and a co-worker had brought to Silverwood's attention a lucrative no-bid contract awarded to Bratt's former superior, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Jo Ann Harris. A co-worker and I stopped a translation service overrun, at the hands of a Bratt lieutenant, that cost more than $100,000, from more than doubling. Bratt did nothing, and my personal situation soon began to worsen.

    The Criminal Division's security office was increasingly perceived to be ''in the tank'' with Mr. Bratt and other senior officials whom the IG found responsible for ''egregious misconduct.'' So in April 1997 I took my concerns about leaks of CIA documents to the main Justice security office headed by Jerry Rubino. Despite Rubino's promise of confidentiality, I later found that I had been fingered to Bratt by Rubino's office as the person whose disclosures sparked the IG's investigation.

    As you will note in the IG report, a great deal of my disclosures concerning wrongdoing were upheld and even expanded upon during the subsequent more than three-year long criminal investigation. In addition to the security leaks, the unbid contracts, and the waste of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, I provided the IG with a number of other investigative leads that were found to have merit. For example, I complained about Bratt

giving a career federal service position to a former girlfriend who had been a waitress at Lulu's bar on M Street. I also told the IG that Bratt subordinates helped him repair his beachfront home in Delaware. I provided all the documentation necessary for the IG to find that Bratt's replacement as Criminal Division Executive Officer, Sandie Bright, had arranged for Department of Justice computers to be ''donated'' to her husband's school district, creating a glaring appearance of favoritism and impropriety. I also was the person who referred a senior Division lawyer to IG investigors after he told me he had evidence that Bratt and his chief assistant Joseph Lake had committed visa fraud. Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    At the same time, I was disappointed that the IG did not address other, equally relevant, issues concerning the Harris contract and allegations from ICITAP co-workers that I had brought to their attention concerning Department of Justice contractors'' sexual relationships with adolescent girls in Haiti. I was also concerned that left unmentioned were several serious security flaws that I had reported to the IG about the Office of International Affairs, at the time headed by Fran Fragos-Townsend. When I arrived at OIA I found that uncleared college interns were allowed to eat their lunches unsupervised in the room where highly-classified information concerning international criminal matters was stored. (Ms. Fragos-Townsend is now Ms. Reno's senior advisor on intelligence issues.)

    My disclosures did not help me however; I soon found that my professional life was in shambles. I was stripped of the interim secret security clearance I held for 18 months. The only explanation was to rewrite history and claim I never had one, although I had received written notice of the interim clearance and regularly been reviewing classified records since being hired. I was removed from the OPDAT office and reassigned to Bratt's Administrative offices—at a time Bratt said my performance was

again under review. Stripped of my duties and absent a security clearance, I was for a time warehoused in an office used to store ''burn boxes'' full of classified information. The absurdity of this situation was underlined when Bratt also asked me to stay late to help draft a memorandum on highly-sensitive immigration issues that he was to present the next morning to Attorney General Reno. I also was banned from the OPDAT office where I continued to file my time and attendance sheets, and was spit on and screamed at a zealous former co-worker who apparently was eager to be seen as carrying out management's vendetta against me. The fact I no longer had a security clearance was used as a justification for my dismissal from service on September 3, 1997. Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    The IG's office could have protected me. It did not. In the summer of 1997, two of its investigators used the same phrase at different times: ''Do what you need to do to save yourself.'' When the IG later found I had gone to Congress and the press to do just that, they started warning colleagues who had remained friends to stay away from me. (A senior ICITAP manager who had remained my friend, a person of normally unflappable and sunny disposition, said the pressure brought to bear was so blatant that he ended up telling the investigators to ''go (expletive deleted) themselves.'' According to this friend, one senior investigator even suggested I had engaged in whistleblowing ''for the money.'' (There was no potential money to be made. Federal Whistleblowers are limited to actual, not punitive, damages.)

    When I was dismissed from federal service, Frank Hunger—the Vice President's brother- in-law and my one-time lunch companion—failed to stop the Civil Division reprisal against me, despite brother-in-law Al's ''personal guarantee'' given in 1993 to USA Today that punitive actions against whistleblowers would end. (Ironically, I had supported Gore for president in 1988 and had worked as unpaid issues staff in the Clinton-Gore campaign of

1992.) In a May 25, 1993 cover story, in which the Vice President was interviewed about ''reinventing government,'' it was reported that:

In fact, the primary focus is on changing the culture at federal offices . . . Gore said the (ReGo effort) will produce . . . a reduction in fear. Gore emphasizes that federal workers who report waste or abuse will not be punished. ''I give my personal guarantee that an employee of the federal government who assists us will not suffer retribution,'' the vice president said.

Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC    I should also mention that in 1997, before my disclosures became widely known, the Vice President's office had recommended me for a political appointment.

    In 1998, the powerful Assistant Attorney General for Administration, Bratt's friend and mentor Steve Colgate, announced to the prestigious Legal Times that Bratt would be fully vindicated. At this point it appeared that the system was truly broken. It was quite apparent that there was no controlling legal authority at Reno's Justice Department.

    My case points to a glaring loophole in free speech protection for whistleblowers. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 does not cover those who engage in protected speech—making complaints about official misconduct, waste, fraud and abuse—and who suffer reprisal through removal of their security clearances. Even supervisors guilty of grave mishandling of national security information have it in their power to strike back at those who bring these serious breaches of public trust to the authorities by stripping them of their ability to work with classified information. The result is often a loss of duties, which is then used to get rid of the offending employee.

    Although I was completely vindicated by the Inspector General's report for my whistleblowing disclosures, three years after I was released from federal service I am still is awaiting vindication for my claims of reprisal for daring to ''commit the truth.'' Several other courageous Department whistleblowers are also the possible victims of reprisal by the Department of Justice. The following paragraphs briefly detail their allegations:

VALLEREY VANDEGRIFT, TRIAL ATTORNEY, AVIATION AND ADMIRALTY SECTION

Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC    Ms. Vandegrift worked in the ''crash and splash'' unit at DOJ, which defends US with respect to air and sea disasters, e.g., a plane crashes and survivors sue FAA. When Ms. Vandergrift worked with senior attorney on two cases, she noted excessive settlements in both. In one, a plaintiff's attorney allegedly tried to bribe attorneys in a case that eventually settled for $33 million with U.S. paying approximately $28 million (only 6-7 plaintiffs). After Ms. Vandergrift complained, she was given unsatisfactory performance evaluation and asked to leave DOJ or else could never practice law again. Both the fraud and the retaliation occurred while Vice President Gore's brother-in-law, Frank Hunger, was AAG for Civil Division. Ms. Vandegrift's husband elevated the matter to Mr. Hunger, Ms. Reno and Mr. Gore—to no avail. Ms. Vandegrist became severely depressed and has sought treatment for stress

GREGORY C. SASSE, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

    ''I reported important cases being compromised and I reported harassment and reprisals against me personally in connection with my environmental prosecutions and my efforts to form and promote an environmental crimes task force in northern Ohio.

    ''The retaliation consisted of systematic efforts to create a completely hostile work environment, including verbal abuse, a more than double caseload;. . .; no training or seminars; interference with important, complex cases; downgrades in performance based upon pretexts; arbitrary, hidden deadlines; and adverse work standards.

    ''My environmental discrimination/WBer lawsuit will have a pre-conference hearing on October 3, 2000. I just won a decision from the administrative board of review of the Department of Labor denying DOJ's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.'' Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

DANIEL JACOBS, TRIAL ATTORNEY

    ''After I made disclosures of government wrongdoing, [AAG] Lois Schiffer issued orders prohibiting me from speaking to my own lawyers, under threat of disciplinary action.  . . . DOJ also made veiled threats of criminal prosecution were I to show copies of documents to them.

    ''In Jacobs v. Schiffer, 47 F. Supp 2d 16 (D.D.C. 1999), Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued a published decision enjoining the prohibition, and in Jacobs v. Schiffer, 204 F.3d 259, 265 (D.C. Cir. 2000), the Court of Appeals unanimously awarded me attorneys fees, finding DOJ's posiiton to have been inexplicable. DOJ has yet to address how it intends to reedy the negative impact on my exemplary 16-year career at the Department.''

SUSAN SWIFT, ATTORNEY ADVISOR

    Among other things, Ms. Swift reported the alleged misconduct of OLC's Executive Officer, who she said, used her official position for the private gain of herself and others on a regular basis, and violated anti-discrimination laws. Ms. Swift alleges that

the Justice Department official submitted fraudulent time sheets and leave slips for herself and others and encouraged other OLC employees to do same thing; used government vehicles for personal errands; used government personnel for personal errands (e.g., sent an employees to buy ''ice cream''—her code word for beer—as if he were her personal lackey; unfairly harrassed an African American female paralegal through ostracization and bad performance evaluations), and exhibited blatant racism by saying ''I'm glad I don't work in the Civil Rights Division anymore because they were all black there.'' Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    According to Ms. Swift, as a result of reporting wrongdoing, the OLC Executive Officer and a Deputy Assistant Attorney General who allegedly had participated in the time sheet fraud surreptitiously broke into Ms. Swift's office computer, had OPR investigate her in an unheard of 30-day expedited inquiry; proposed that she be fired; kept her on administrative leave for over 3 years; urged a DC SWAT team to storm her apartment when she became depressed and suicidal, and then contrived reasons to have her arrested by the FBI in an apparent effort to push her over the edge; and forced her into a psychiatric ward. Ms. Swift developed post traumatic stress disorder and—while facing possible criminal charges—was allegedly sexually exploited by an OPR attorney. When Ms. Swift resisted the pressure to resign, she was suspended for 2 weeks and transferred to a litigating division even though she does not know how to litigate. DOJ eventually revoked the suspension, and Ms. Swift obtained an order expunging her arrest records which the US Attorney's Office failed to honor. The alleged misconduct by senior Justice officials was reported to Reno, Holder, current OPR management, former OLC AAG Walter Dellinger, and current OLC AAG Randy Moss. The failure to expunge has been reported to OPR. DOJ officials have done nothing.

    Mr. Chairman, Schopenhauer once wrote that ''every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed. In the second, it is opposed. In the third, it is regarded as self-evident.

    In the case of federal whistleblowers, we are well familiar with all three steps. We suffer the first two; finally, when a truth'' like the findings of the Inspector General's report—becomes self-evident, most people seem uncomfortable with those of us who helped bring the truth to light. Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    Doing the right thing has not been easy. Until my alimony payments ended a few months ago, 60 percent of my after-tax income went to alimony and support for my two children. Both they and my parents have lived many anxious and unhappy days as a result of the retaliation I have suffered—not only by those who I accused—rightly—of wrongdoing, but also at the hands of the Inspector General.

    As you will note in the IG report, I am faulted on two occasions. Once, as a contractor, I took home a classified document that had been buried in a pile of papers I was given by ICITAP management to work with. As the IG report itself noted, in a profile of the security situation in the office I worked:

 After the SEPS sweep in April 1997, ICITAP conducted a search of its unsecured files for classified documents. Classified documents were found mixed in with unclassified documents in the ''central country files,'' which were stored in unlocked file cabinets in hallways and accessible to anyone walking through ICITAP.

    In using the mound of papers I brought home, I did not find the classified document and only discovered it about six months later,

when I was cleaning my apartment. I should mention that just a few weeks earlier, I had incurred the wrath of senior ICITAP management for challenging violations of EEO and security rules by them. I could have destroyed the document (I had not signed out for it; I could not even be held responsible for having it as it was given to me as a contractor.) However, I returned it to the same people about whom I had complained. The difference, which the IG did not bother to note, is that rather than evade responsibility, I accepted it, even when it meant going back to people who clearly had their knives out for me. Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    In the second case, the IG muttered darkly in print about a relationship I had with a Russian woman. However, they again shaded facts that would have placed my actions in a more correct light. The woman I was dating for approximately two months already had been screened and selected by the Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) as an academic fellow. The Justice Department also provided her with a pass which allowed her free access to numerous offices, including areas of OPDAT where I did not work. She worked closely with a U.S. Agency for International Development grantee working on anti-organized crime issues in the former Soviet Union. She was also the close friend of the son of a former senior official of the CIA who later went on to be ambassador of an important Asian country. I should also point out that what she characterized as joking requests for classified information were repeated twice, not three times, as the IG reports. The first time, I ended the banter firmly by telling her never, ever to joke about such matters. The second time, I ended the relationship within 24 hours.

    The IG faults me because I did not report the incidents for several weeks. However, the IG did not report that I felt uncomfortable about making an accusation that might be unfair—given the circumstances—and end up smearing her to no purpose.

It also failed to say that when I did report the incident, it came after learning that another Russian national on a visitors program was believed to be an intelligence agent. It neglected to say, however, that the two FBI agents who interviewed me about her told me, and told a fellow worker, not to worry, as I had done the right thing. It also did not report that, according to FBI sources, the woman was ''cleared.'' The IG also did not say that, had I never reported the incident, no one would have been the wiser; I did so out of concern that, the possibility, however remote, that the woman was a spy needed to be dealt with. Nor did they note that the I had never received from the Department the security briefing required of all personnel handling classified information; I only found out that the Department was required to offer such training a year later. Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    In addition, in the footnotes the IG includes comments from ICITAP management which are patently false, particularly given the time frames in which they allegedly occurred; probably originated from the gang that was found to have committed egregious faults, and about which I was never able to respond.

    Given the IG's shabby treatment of Fred Whitehurst, its shocking disclosure of the confidential complaint about whistleblower reprisal filed by a co-worker and friend, and their own treatment of me, the appeal made in the report that those aware of wrongdoing should go to the IG and report it is a mockery. Anyone who does so is likely to be investigated and later defamed, and possibly destroyed, by the same people who smilingly tell us that they are open for business. And what about the wise injunction of committee minority staff director Julian Epstein, who just a few weeks ago declared on national television, apropos of another Clinton- era situation, to the effect that if you are cleared you shouldn't be smeared?

    Mr. Chairman, such dereliction shows that then it comes to

whistleblowers, the only thing they can count on from the IG is that they can't count by them. Going to the IG for protection against retaliation is an exercise in futility. The country and western song, ''Stand by your man,'' should be adopted as an anthem by the IG as 'stand by your witness.'' Unfortunately, my own example at the hands of the IG serves as a powerful disincentive for people to come forward and do the right thing. I think it is necessary to note that, like all other components of the Justice Department, the IG's office space and other perks are doled out by Mr. Colgate, Mr. Bratt's useful friend and, at the same time, head of the Justice Management Division.

    On a personal note, I would like to ask how am I supposed to account for the two years I spent at the Justice Department? I am now faced with seeking employment in a company town whose company—the federal government—has shown me the door. In job interviews, I will likely have to explain what happened. I hope that they will listen to me, about my accomplishments, and why making waves was the right thing to do. Washington is a busy town, however, and who is going to take the time to check out the facts—particularly when most people think, reasonably, that the Justice Department is in the business of dispensing justice, and its Criminal Division is free of criminals? I am not optimistic I will get a fair hearing. Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    People have a right to expect that their tax dollars are spent wisely . . . and impartially. The lot of a whistleblower may be that of a lonely sentinel, but he or she is really accompanied by millions of Americans who are willing to pay for government services—but also who expect that public officials serve, not take. It is a modest pretention. So, too, is the expectation that people who take risks to protect the common interest are themselves not exposed to unnecessary harm.

    Again, I very much appreciate the opportunity you have afford me, and the work that you are doing to ensure that the Department gets back on the right track.

Sincerely,

Enclousers (3)

     

re: Martin E. Andersen

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: From September 30, 1996 until April 4, 1997, I served as the Acting Director of the Office of Professional Development and Training (OPDAT) in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This period proved to be one of significant reorganization and expansion for OPDAT. Fortunately, I learned very early during my tenure to rely heavily on the talent and enthusiasm of my OPDAT colleague, Mick Andersen. Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Andersen demonstrated a combination of long term vision and practical day to day problem solving. In a time devoted to instituting management reforms and creating standard operating procedures, Mick was a never ending source of new ideas and suggestions. For example, he assisted me in establishing standardized bi-weekly reporting from our overseas resident legal advisors (RLAs), made very useful contributions to the design of

our improved office management information system, and drafted a comprehensive plan to regularize the smooth deployment of new RLAs.

    Of Mick's many strengths, the one I most often drew upon was his gift as a writer. Whether assigned a lengthy policy piece, or a short, pithy paragraph for submission to the Attorney General's weekly report, the result was always clear, accessible, and analytically sound. Moreover, he consistently turned out a superb written product on very short deadline—a talent both valuable and rare.

    Both I and the entire Office benefited from the fact that Mr. Andersen is a team player. He routinely sought out additional responsibility, and gladly took on the additional work which accompanies such responsibility. He also often volunteered to help busy OPDAT colleagues complete their assigned duties—and did so without seeking credit or recognition. I was particularly gratified by his unsolicited creation of a morale boosting, Wednesday lunch group for all interested OPDAT staff.

    In short, I would gladly recommend Mr. Andersen for any position which requires outstanding communication skills, insightful analysis, and a strong sense of mission.

Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCSincerely,

     

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to recommend Martin Andersen. Since approximately 1996, I have worked with Mr. Andersen in the Criminal Division's Office of Professional Development and Training. My working experience with him has been very positive.

    Mr. Andersen's contributions to the office have been marked by innovation and enthusiasm. He has displayed exceptional writing and research skills. His good judgement and excellent communications skills have served this office well. At all time he has been willing to assume responsibilities beyond his own and his work product has been first rate.

    Beyond his excellent professional skills, I have found that Mr. Andersen has been a ''team player'' and supportive of the mission of the office. It has been a pleasure working with Mr. Andersen and I believe that he will make a positive contribution as he assumes his new assignments.

Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCSincerely,

     

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I am writing to offer my highest recommendation to Martin ''Mick'' Andersen, who served for nearly 18 months as the senior advisor for policy planning at the Overseas Prosecutorial Development and Training (OPDAT) program of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. I first began working with Mick in my capacity as program director for anti-organized crime assistance in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union (NIS). Then as now, I have thoroughly enjoyed my association with him.

    During his time at OPDAT Mick has received accolades for his many important contributions to the work of the Justice Department overseas. Whether dealing with Latin America, Haiti, Eastern Europe or the NIS, Mick has shown keen insight into the peoples and problems of the countries where we have worked. In particular, his work was key to establishing OPDAT policies regarding the scope and quality of its work. Also, Mick worked with me in the development of the strike force assistance program in the NIS. He has prodigious research and writing skills, and a strong sense of teamwork and fair play. Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

    During our year-and-a-half-long association, Mick has become more than just a valued co- worker, but a trusted friend as well. Beyond his professional skills, Mick has shown he is a person of integrity and honesty and someone who gets along well with others. As I move on to my new position as a naval officer stationed in the Far East, I will miss his wise counsel and sound policy judgement. I recommend him without hesitation.

Sincerely,