GROOM LAKE SUIT BOUNCED

Internet UFO Group Media Archive

From:psychospy@aol.com (PsychoSpy)
Title:GROOM LAKE SUIT BOUNCED
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal
Date:March 07, 1996


Subtitle: A federal judge dismisses an action brought by former

workers at a classified Air Force facility.

Publication: Las Vegas Review-Journal

Date: March 7, 1996

Page: 1 (2 pages)

Author: Warren Bates

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit brought by former workers

at the Air Force operating location near Groom Lake, allowing the

government to keep from disclosing any information on the

classified base.

Ruling that a trial "risks significant harm to national security,"

U.S. District Judge Philip Pro on Wednesday dismissed the suit,

which alleged the military committed and concealed environmental

crimes at the Lincoln County base.

Workers' attorney Jonathan Turley said an appeal to the 9th U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco would be filed as soon

as possible. In the meantime, he will ask Pro to reconsider his

decision.

"This is simply the end of the first stage of litigation," said

Turley, a George Washington University law professor. "From the

very beginning of this case we anticipated an appellate fight over

these questions."

The workers contend they contracted illnesses and injuries as a

result of open pit burning of hazardous waste at the base, located

35 miles west of Alamo. Turley argued the waste disposal

procedures violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Perhaps the biggest blows to the lawsuit occurred last year when

the government declared any release of information a threat to

national security.

In February 1995, Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall invoked the

military and states secret privilege, citing the potential for

"exceptionally grave" consequences to national security. When the

workers challenged that decision, President Clinton in September

signed an exemption allowing the secrecy to continue.

Because no information on the base is currently available to the

workers, Pro ruled, no controversy can be shown and a lawsuit

cannot be brought.

When properly invoked, the privilege is absolute," 23-page

decision said.

It continued: "If mere allegations of criminal conduct were

sufficient to overcome the privilege, the privilege would be

eliminated."

Turley said he was not surprised at the outcome "given the court's

prior rulings," saying the workers' claims would be appealed to

the highest level possible.

"We have argued that the executive branch's authority cannot

extend to the concealment of its own criminal conduct. We are

confident that we will prevail on these questions because the

Supreme Court has been clear that the executive branch powers are

limited in this regard."

Turley pointed toward some aspects of the lawsuit he regarded as

victories.

"These workers have already successfully litigated the first case

against a black facility in history. Previously they were told

they could not retain a lawyer and file a federal action," he

said. "The government was unable to dismiss this lawsuit during

discovery and was forced to perform an inspection and inventory on

the facility and, against its will, it was forced to get a

presidential exemption."

Turley also said that the government finally admitted the facility

had to comply with federal law regarding inspections and that it

had failed to do so in previous years.

In April, federal environmental investigators for the first time

inspected the facility, but the results of that inspection are

confidential.

"Effectively these changes will make it impossible for the

government to argue in future cases that it can create a place

that does not legally exist," Turley said.

The government, he said, struggled to dismiss all the counts in an

effort to avoid a record "while we struggled to preserve a

record." Pro's decision, he said, has ramification's only for

Nevada while a reversal on appeal would have national

ramifications."

The lawsuit was one of two brought by the workers. Pro dismissed

another complaint in January.