Gaspipelineexplosions.com

EnergyTerrorism.com

Showing posts with label Obstruction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obstruction. Show all posts

Former F.B.I. Agent Sues, Claiming Retaliation Over Misgivings in Anthrax Case

 

By SCOTT SHANEAPRIL 8, 2015
  WASHINGTON — When Bruce E. Ivins, an Army microbiologist, took a fatal overdose of Tylenol in 2008, the government declared that he had been responsible for the anthrax letter attacks of 2001, which killed five people and set off a nationwide panic, and closed the case.
Now, a former senior F.B.I. agent who ran the anthrax investigation for four years says that the bureau gathered “a staggering amount of exculpatory evidence” regarding Dr. Ivins that remains secret. The former agent, Richard L. Lambert, who spent 24 years at the F.B.I., says he believes it is possible that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer, but he does not think prosecutors could have convicted him had he lived to face criminal charges.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Tennessee last Thursday, Mr. Lambert accused the bureau of trying “to railroad the prosecution of Ivins” and, after his suicide, creating “an elaborate perception management campaign” to bolster its claim that he was guilty. Mr. Lambert’s lawsuit accuses the bureau and the Justice Department of forcing his dismissal from a job as senior counterintelligence officer at the Energy Department’s lab in Oak Ridge, Tenn., in retaliation for his dissent on the anthrax case.
The anthrax letters were mailed to United States senators and news organizations in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, causing a huge and costly disruption in the postal system and the federal government. Members of Congress and Supreme Court justices were forced from their offices while technicians in biohazard suits cleaned up the lethal anthrax powder. Decontamination costs nationwide exceeded $1 billion. At least 17 people were sickened, in addition to the five who died.
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
The bureau’s investigation, one of the longest-running and most technically complex inquiries in its history, has long been seen as troubled. Investigators initially lacked the forensic skills to analyze bioterrorist attacks. For several years, agents focused on a former Army scientist and physician, Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, who was subsequently cleared and given a $4.6 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit. Reviews by the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office faulted aspects of the F.B.I.’s scientific work on the case.
Photo

The late Bruce Ivins in 2003, when he was a microbiologist at Fort Detrick, Md.CreditSam Yu/Frederick News Post, via Assocaited Press
Mr. Lambert, who was himself criticized for pursuing Dr. Hatfill for so long, has now offered, in his lawsuit and in an interview, an insider’s view of what hampered the investigation.
“This case was hailed at the time as the most important case in the history of the F.B.I.,” Mr. Lambert said. “But it was difficult for me to get experienced investigators assigned to it.”
He said that the effort was understaffed and plagued by turnover, and that 12 of 20 agents assigned to the case had no prior investigative experience. Senior bureau microbiologists were not made available, and two Ph.D. microbiologists who were put on the case were then removed for an 18-month Arabic language program in Israel. Fear of leaks led top officials to order the extreme compartmentalization of information, with investigators often unable to compare notes and share findings with colleagues, he said.
Mr. Lambert said he outlined the problems in a formal complaint in 2006 to the F.B.I.’s deputy director. Some of his accusations were later included in a report on the anthrax case by the CBS News program “60 Minutes,” infuriating bureau leaders.
The F.B.I., which rarely comments on pending litigation, did not respond to requests for comment on Mr. Lambert’s claims.
Although the lethal letters contained notes expressing jihadist views, investigators came to believe the mailer was an insider in the government’s biodefense labs. They eventually matched the anthrax powder to a flask in Dr. Ivins’s lab at Fort Detrick in Maryland and began intense scrutiny of his life and work.
Photo

The police in Frederick, Md., spoke with a woman they identified as Diane Ivins, the wife of Bruce E. Ivins, 62, at the couple's home in Frederick, Md., in 2008. CreditRob Carr/Associated Press
They discovered electronic records that showed he had spent an unusual amount of time at night in his high-security lab in the periods before the two mailings of the anthrax letters. They found that he had a pattern of sending letters and packages from remote locations under assumed names. They uncovered emails in which he described serious mental problems.
The investigators documented Dr. Ivins’s obsession with a national sorority that had an office near the Princeton, N.J., mailbox where the letters were mailed. They detected what they believed to be coded messages directed at colleagues, hidden in the notes in the letters.
As prosecutors prepared to charge him with the five murders in July 2008, Dr. Ivins, 62, took his own life at home in Frederick, Md. Days later, at a news conference, Jeffrey A. Taylor, then the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, said the authorities believed “that based on the evidence we had collected, we could prove his guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”

California Today

The news and stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state), delivered weekday mornings.
Sign Up
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
But Mr. Lambert says the bureau also gathered a large amount of evidence pointing away from Dr. Ivins’s guilt that was never shared with the public or the news media. Had the case come to trial, he said, “I absolutely do not think they could have proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” He declined to be specific, saying that most of the information was protected by the Privacy Act and was unlikely to become public unless Congress carried out its own inquiry.
After retiring from the F.B.I. in 2012, Mr. Lambert joined the Energy Department. But an F.B.I. ethics lawyer ruled that because Mr. Lambert had to work with F.B.I. agents in his new job, he was violating a conflict-of-interest law that forbade former federal employees from contacting previous colleagues for a year after they had left their government jobs.
That ruling led to his dismissal, Mr. Lambert said, and he has not been able to find work despite applying for more than 70 jobs. His lawsuit asserts that several other former F.B.I. agents were able to take identical intelligence jobs with the Energy Department and that he was singled out for mistreatment.





























Share:

PG&E to face criminal charges in trial linked to San Bruno blast

GasCanMan-mcfadden-golub-darbee-peevery[2]

The PG&E Gas Can Man is either a ghost or the secret sauce needed to prove domestic terrorism. 
Top
Nancy McFadden PG&E COS now employed by Jerry Brown
Howard V.  Golub who has a son my sons age tutored by his classmate – my son whose friend was Ryan Fuchs killed in Danville. 
Peter A. Darbee lives 1.3 miles from accident scene where my car was totaled in Lafayette.
Michael Peevey whose stupidity was thinking they could rigged or stage accidents to shift burden to Rate Payers. 
 
 
By George Avalos, gavalos@bayareanewsgroup.com
POSTED:   06/13/2016 03:29:00 PM PDT | UPDATED:   118 MIN. AGO
SAN BRUNO -- In a federal trial that could bring closure to San Bruno residents devastated by the 2010 pipeline disaster, PG&E faces an array of criminal charges linked to the explosion that killed eight people and demolished a Peninsula neighborhood.
Jury selection for the trial, in which PG&E faces 13 criminal counts, is scheduled to begin Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The charges include one count of obstruction of a federal probe into the blast and 12 counts that it violated pipeline safety regulations. If convicted on all 13 charges, the utility giant could be fined up to $562 million.
File photo: Crews load  an abandoned segment of pipe that was once part of the gas line that exploded in San Bruno last year.in San Bruno , Calif., on
File photo: Crews load an abandoned segment of pipe that was once part of the gas line that exploded in San Bruno last year.in San Bruno , Calif., on Friday , July 29 , 2011. (JOHN GREEN/Staff archives)
Investigators believe the deadly explosion was caused by a lethal combination of negligence, poor record keeping and lazy oversight. Federal prosecutors are likely to contend in the trial that PG&E's hunger to harvest a bumper crop of profits from ratepayers caused the company to neglect the safety of its customers.
"PG&E's willful decisions not to maintain records, conduct proper pipeline assessments and otherwise comply with federal pipeline safety regulations were part of a corporate culture of prioritizing profits over safety," federal prosecutors wrote in papers filed in November with the federal court.
PG&E has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Advertisement
"The San Bruno explosion was a tragic accident, and we have demonstrated our accountability," said Greg Snapper, a PG&E spokesman. "We have seen no evidence that PG&E employees intentionally violated the Pipeline Safety Act or obstructed justice."
City officials in San Bruno are eager for the long-delayed trial to begin.
"We believe PG&E is guilty of a dereliction of its duty to protect the citizens of San Bruno and customers all over their service area," San Bruno Mayor James Ruane said in an interview with this newspaper. "We hope this trial will bring about justice and transparency, which PG&E has not opened up to."
San Francisco-based PG&E has undertaken numerous steps to upgrade and repair its vast web of natural gas pipelines, including the construction of a gas-control facility that serves as a high-tech nerve center for its pipeline system.
Still, company officials did not answer the question directly when asked recently why, if PG&E has demonstrated accountability for the Sept. 9, 2010, disaster, the utility did not plead guilty to the criminal charges.
"It is one thing to accept responsibility for the obvious facts of an explosion and the damage and destruction that was caused," said San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson. "But it is another thing entirely to accept true responsibility for the negligence that caused the system to fail and create the disaster."
State regulators in April 2015 hit PG&E with a $1.6 billion penalty for causing the explosion, the largest financial punishment ever imposed on an American utility.
"It is rare for corporations to actually go on trial," said Peter Henning, a professor of law with Wayne State University in Detroit. "PG&E may feel they have already gotten a black eye in public. Sometimes corporations draw a line in the sand and tell the prosecutors to prove their case."
Among the high-profile witnesses who are expected to be called to bolster the prosecution's case is former PG&E Chief Executive Peter Darbee, the company's top boss in the years before the explosion and when the blast occurred. Darbee received a $34.8 million severance package when he left the company in 2011.
Prosecutors also intend to call Leslie McNiece, a former PG&E executive, as a witness. McNiece is expected to testify she encountered opposition and pushback from top company executives in connection with her PG&E-ordered task of improving the utility's record keeping on its pipelines.
Eight current or former PG&E executives have received court-ordered immunity, according to case documents filed by the U.S. attorney's office. Darbee is not getting immunity.
Brian Cherry, a former PG&E regulatory executive who received immunity, will testify about the utility's statements to the PUC and the National Transportation Safety Board regarding an array of issues, including company policies about gas pipe pressure and pipeline records.
William Hayes, a PG&E gas operations executive who was a company representative for the NTSB probe into the explosion, will testify about the utility's policies regarding when it would test for problems in older pipelines -- and what PG&E told the NTSB about those policies.
"This is at the heart of the obstruction charge," prosecutors said in court papers.
The original indictment against PG&E came in April 2014. The trial was initially set to begin in March, but a flurry of motions by PG&E's defense team delayed the start of the trial several times.
"There have been a lot of tricks and a lot of delays by PG&E," said state Sen. Jerry Hill, whose San Mateo County district includes San Bruno. "Almost six years after the explosion, people will finally see some justice in this, and the families may be able to go on with their lives."
Contact George Avalos at 408-859-5167. Follow him at Twitter.com/georgeavalos.
































Share:

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress-

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.





Share:

USDOJ: PG&E Indictment Obstruction Of The Investigation


PG&E Charged With Obstruction Of The Investigation Of The National Transportation Safety Board And Additional Violations Of The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 29, 2014


SAN FRANCISCO - A federal grand jury for the Northern District of California returned a superseding indictment charging Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) with obstruction of the investigation of the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB"), as well as additional violations of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (PSA), announced U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, San Mateo County District Attorney Stephen M. Wagstaffe, U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General Special Agent in Charge William Swallow, and FBI Special Agent in Charge David J. Johnson.




The superseding indictment alleges that PG&E obstructed the NTSB's investigation that began immediately after the deadly San Bruno explosion. According to the superseding indictment, during the course of the NTSB's investigation, PG&E provided a version of a policy outlining the way in which PG&E addressed manufacturing threats on its pipelines. PG&E later withdrew that policy claiming it was produced in error, and was an unapproved draft. In fact, PG&E was operating under the so-called unapproved draft from 2009 through April 5, 2011. The consequence of this practice was that PG&E did not prioritize as high-risk, and properly assess, many of its oldest natural gas pipelines, which ran through urban and residential areas.

Additionally, the superseding indictment charges PG&E with 27 counts of knowingly and willfully violating the PSA. These charges stem from PG&E's record keeping and pipeline "integrity management" practices. The superseding indictment alleges that PG&E failed to address recordkeeping deficiencies concerning its larger natural gas pipelines knowing that their records were inaccurate or incomplete. The superseding indictment also alleges that PG&E failed to identify threats to its larger natural gas pipelines and that PG&E did not take appropriate actions to investigate the seriousness of threats to pipelines when they were identified. Finally, the superseding indictment alleges that PG&E failed to adequately reprioritize and assess threatened pipelines after the pipelines were over pressurized as required by the PSA and its regulations.

PG&E is charged with one count of obstruction of an agency proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1505, and 27 separate counts of violations of the PSA. The maximum statutory penalty for each count is a $500,000 fine or a fine based on the twice the gross gain PG&E made as a result of the violations, or twice the losses suffered by the victims. The superseding indictment alleges that PG&E derived gross gains of $281 million, and victims suffered losses of approximately $565 million. PG&E is next scheduled to appear on August 18, 2014 before the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson, United States District Judge.




Kim A. Berger and Hallie M. Hoffman are the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are prosecuting the case, with the assistance of Alycee Lane and Pat Mahoney, along with Deputy Attorneys General Brett Morris and Deborah Halberstadt from the California Attorney General's Office. The prosecution is the result of an investigation conducted by the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office, the United States Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, the FBI, the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, and the city of San Bruno Police Department.

Please note, an indictment contains only allegations and, as with all defendants, PG&E must be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Share:

Advertisement

Coming Soon

Popular Posts

No one has ever become poor by giving, Please Donate

Labels

Subscribe

Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Follow on Facebook

Popular Posts

Labels

Recent Posts

Unordered List

  • Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
  • Aliquam tincidunt mauris eu risus.
  • Vestibulum auctor dapibus neque.

Pages

Theme Support

Need our help to upload or customize this blogger template? Contact me with details about the theme customization you need.