Defense Request For Summary Judgement.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division

PATRICK JAMES KNOWLTON		 		 )	
						 )
	Plaintiff,			 	 )
						 )
		v.				 )	
						 )  Civil Action No. 96-2467 
	FBI AGENT RUSSEL T. BRANSFORD  		 )  (NHJ)	
	et. al,				 	 )			
						 )
	Defendants.			 	 )
						 )	

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
(1) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
&
(2) DEFENDANTS' ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

	COMES NOW Plaintiff, Patrick Knowlton, and files his opposition to
defendants' motion to Dismiss, and further files his opposition to
defendants' alternative motion for Summary Judgment.
Summary of case
	1.	Plaintiff's main count in this action alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C.
 1985, "Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights," part (2), "Obstructing
justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror."  Plaintiff, a Whitewater
grand jury witness, alleges a violation of a civil rights statute which
prohibits conspiracies to deter by intimidation or threat any federal
witnesses from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully.  Plaintiff alleges
he was intimidated in an attempt to obstruct justice into the investigation
into the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr.
	2.	Plaintiff alleges that the most significant thing he witnessed in Fort
Marcy Park approximately 70 minutes before the discovery of Mr. Foster's
body was that Mr. Foster's car was not in the parking lot -- at a time when
Mr. Foster was dead.  Plaintiff alleges that this fact was covered up by
Defendant FBI agent Larry Monroe.  On Tuesday, October 24, 1995:  (1) the
allegation that Monroe's reports contained "outright lies" was published in
the London Sunday Telegraph; (2) the Office of Independent Counsel ("OIC")
prepared a subpoena for Plaintiff; and (3) presumably Defendant FBI agent
Branford was informed of the necessity to serve it.  Bransford served that
subpoena two days later, on Thursday, October 26.  Only the FBI and the OIC
knew that plaintiff a was subpoenaed witness.
	3.	Beginning that same day he was subpoenaed, and continuing for three
days, plaintiff was harassed by 26 or more Defendants.  The objectives of
the harassment were twofold, to:
	(1)	Intimidate and warn the plaintiff;
		or alternatively to

	(2)	Destabilize and discredit Plaintiff.

	4.	This technique of subjecting a witness to an overwhelming campaign of
non-verbal harassment is known to federal intelligence and investigative
agencies.
Summary of Defendants'
(1) Motion to Dismiss the Complaint &
(2) alternative Motion for Summary Judgment

1.	Defendants mischaracterize the background of this suit

	5.	Defendants' Motions attempt to impugn Plaintiff's motives for seeking
redress by portraying him as a "delusional" "conspiracy theorist" who "is
selling a manuscript concerning his conspiracy theory through the
Internet."  Plaintiff provided the FBI with a copy of his report  in March
of 1996.  Because Defendants know the report contains no conspiracy theory
and that it includes the results of psychiatric and psychological
examinations, Plaintiff suggests Defendants' allegations are not
appropriate.
	6.  Defendants further contend that the genesis of this suit is
Plaintiff's conspiracy theory, and suggest that it is motivated by one of
the witnesses to the harassment Plaintiff suffered, who Defendants
characterize as right-wing funded profit-driven conspiracy theorist.  This
too is
baseless.   Moreover, prior to that second day of the harassment, Plaintiff
had never heard of Christopher Ruddy.
	7.	Plaintiff's girlfriend, a Ph.D. consultant and educator, witnessed the
harassment on October 26, 1995 and the morning of October 27.  Her
Affidavit, attached hereto, states in part, "At one point, I became so
panic-stricken that I had to struggle to keep from crying.  I have never
witnessed anything like this before or since.  It was intentional,
coordinated, intimidating, and extremely unnerving."  Affidavits from
Plaintiff and Mr. Ruddy are also attached.
	8.	Defendants contend that "Plaintiff's allegations in his amended
complaint stem from his conspiracy theory arising from the death of Mr.
Foster."  Defendants have it backwards.  Plaintiff's allegations of
obstruction of justice into the investigation into Mr. Foster's death stem
from the violations of section 1985(2) alleged in his Amended Complaint
(hereinafter referred to by Plaintiff simply as "Complaint").
	9.	Defendants contend that "Plaintiff believes the entire 'conspiracy' was
part of 'psychological operations' by the defendants or, as he calls it,
'PsycOps.'"  Defendants again mischaracterize the basis of Plaintiff's
cause.  Plaintiff avers that "psychological operations" or "PsycOps" is a
term for the modus operandi employed by Defendants to intimidate Plaintiff
in violation of section 1985(2), as is specifically set forth in the sworn
Affidavits of two of Plaintiff's experts attached hereto, one of whom is a
28 year veteran of the FBI and former Senior Special Agent-in-Charge of the
Los Angeles division.
	10.	Defendants state that "Independent Counsel  Robert Fiske ruled Mr.
Foster's death was a suicide."  Plaintiff notes that Mr. Fiske was
dependent on the seven FBI Agents assigned to him, two of whom are named
defendants in this obstruction of justice suit.  Moreover, Plaintiff
nowhere avers that Mr. Foster's death was not a suicide, but rather
contends that defendants conspired to cover up that Mr. Foster's body was
moved to Fort Marcy Park, and that the section 1985(2) violation alleged
was committed in furtherance of that cover-up.

	2.	Defendants present 18 arguments in
		support of their dispositive motions

11.	  Defendants argue:

(1)	  They cannot be sued in their individual capacity;

(2)	  Plaintiff has failed to state a Bivens type claim;

(3)	  Plaintiff's has inadequately alleged a cause under
	  section 1985(2);

(4)	  The Complaint fails to allege that Plaintiff was
	  deterred from testifying or testifying fully and
	  truthfully;

(5)	  The conspiracy counts in the Complaint lack the
	  requisite factual specificity;

(6)	  The facts alleged fail to sufficiently raise the
	  inference of conspiratorial agreement;

(7)   A single entity (the United States) cannot conspire
	  with itself;





"Don't believe a word you hear. It was not suicide. It couldn't have been." -Assistant Attorney General Webster Hubbell, 7/20/93, cited in Esquire, 11/93.



Back To The Top.

Back To The Political Page.

Back To The Foster Page.


Mail to:

drupal statistics