Sibel Edmonds sues US for $10 million
Sibel Edmonds, who was fired from her job as an FBI contract linguist, is suing the government, claiming a pattern of retaliation for her complaints of misconduct at the FBI.
Here's a copy of the suit.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FO R THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SIBEL EDMONDS
6631 West Wakefield Drive
Alexandria, V A 22307
'"CASB';NUMBER'I~l i05CVO0540,
:,;,
JUDGE, James Robertson
Plaintiff
DECK TYPE: Personal Injury/Malpractice
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DATE STAMP, 03/16/2005
Defendant
~.
0:\ I:' i.-:.. I~;~-
NOW COMES Plaintit1~ Sibel Edmonds, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant
to Ruks .3 & S. r~d. Ci\' Proc.. and for h~r Col11plainr against Dd(:nLi~111l United States of
:~:;,;~' :;,;:\. ~,- ;,;:
:: ~::; rolL)\\'
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This action arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTC A"), 28 u.S. c. 9 2671
et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 u.S. c. 99
1346(b) & 1402(b).
Beginning on March 22, 200 I and continuing to the present, Defendant has
injured Plaintiff through negligent acts and omissions constituting, inter alia
negligent endzmgerl11ent. negligent il1\' estigation. col1\ersion of property. false
light ilwasion of privacy. intliction of cmntinll,d distres5 and interference with
prospective economic opportunity resulting in financial loss , actionable under the
FTCA
Defendant's complained of acts and omissions have occurred within the District
of Columbia.
Pursuant to 28 u.S. c. 92672, Plaintiff submitted an administrative claim for
negligence encompassing the allegations contained herein to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation ("fBI") on March 21, 2004 , within two years of the beginning of
their occurrence. A denial letter was mailed to Plaintiff by the FBI on October 27
2004. Plaintiffs Complaint is filed within six (6) months thereafter.
Venue is proper in the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 u.S. c. 9 1402(b).
Service of process on Defendant may be accomplished pursuant to Rule 4
Fed.R.Civ.Proc.
FACTS!
Plaintiff was formerly employed by the FBI, an agency of Defendant, as a contract
linguist. Published media reports have stated that she is fluent in Turkish and
Farsi, and conversational in Azerbaijani.
Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States of Turkish descent. She first came to the
United States in 1988 and became a citizen in 1996. Plaintiff has never formally
renounced her Turkish citizenship to the Government of Turkey, however.
Plaintiff s entire family continues to reside in Turkey, with the exception of two
sisters. Plaintiff owns real property in Turkey, including a country summer house
and a small apartment in Istanbul. She previously engaged in a real estate
investment business with her mother and a textile manufacturing business with
her uncle, both in Turkey. Plaintiff owned a partial interest in her late father
medical clinic in Turkey. Plaintiff also obtained Turkish clients for her husband'
information technology consulting business. The grave site of Plaintiffs late
father is in Turkey. Between 1993 and 2000, Plaintiff visited Turkey on twentytwo
separate occasions for family and business reasons, spending an average of
two or three months each year in Turkey.
1 Text in quotations, unless otherwise attributed, is excerpted from the unclassified
summary of the Department of Justice, Office ofInspector General ("DOJ/OIG") report of its
investigation into Plaintiff s allegations and the conduct of the FBI, entitled A Review of the
FBI's Actions in Connection With Allegations Raised By Contract Linguist Sibel Edmonds
released in January, 2005.
13.
14.
15.
10. In September, 200 I , Plaintiff was retained by the FBI as a contract linguist, on a
six month renewable contract, to perform translation services at the FBI
Washington Field Office ("FBI/WFO"), located within the District of Columbia.
After September 11 , 2001 , Plaintiff was assigned to work on FBI counterterrorism
and counterintelligence investigations.
11. FBI contract linguists perform document-to-document or audio-to-document
translation services, translating into English from the target language the speech
and/or writings of non-English speaking individuals and, on occasion, render
translations from English into the target language. FBI contract monitors perform
summary translations of voice recordings.
12. Plaintiff s primary duties for FBIIWFO were working as a contract linguist in the
Language Administration and Acquisition Unit ("LAAU"), translating
information from the foreign languages in which she is fluent into English.
Between September, 2001 , and March, 2002, Plaintiff performed translation
services as an FBI contract linguist in Turkish, and Plaintiff performed some
services as a contract monitor in two other languages.
As a condition of employment all FBI contract linguists and FBI contract monitors
are required to pass a polygraph examination and a 10-year single-scope
background investigation in order to obtain a TOP SECRET security clearance.
Plaintiff passed a polygraph examination and a full background investigation and
was granted a security clearance by the FBI prior to commencing her employment
in September, 2001.
Prior to her retention, FBI officials assured Plaintiff that her Turkish business
interests and family members would not be jeopardized by her FBI work because
all of her co-workers would also have passed similar background investigations
and hold a TOP SECRET security clearance. Therefore, they assured her that she
17.
need not use an alias to protect her true identity.
Between January and March, 2002, Plaintiff reported a number of 16.
whistleblower allegations to FBI management officials concerning serious
breaches in the FBI security program and a break-down in the quality of
officials.
translations as a result of willful misconduct and gross incompetence by FBI
Plaintiffs reports included, but were not limited to, the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
that a contract FBI monitor, Melek Can Dickerson, who was granted a
TOP SECRET security clearance by the FBI, had immediately prior to her
FBI position been employed for more than two years by an organization
that was a target of an ongoing FBI investigation;
that Ms. Dickerson had past and ongoing association with at least two or
more targets of an ongoing FBI investigation (who subsequently fled the
United States);
that Ms. Dickerson was translating information obtained from FBI wiretaps
concerning one or more targets with whom she had past and ongoing
improper contacts;
that Ms. Dickerson was suspected of leaking information to one or more
targets of an FBI investigation to which she was assigned to perform
translation services;
that Ms. Dickerson had improperly instructed Plaintiff and another
monitor not to listen and translate certain FBI wire-taps because she knew
the subjects and was confident that there would be nothing important to
translate concerning those subjects or their conversations;
(t) that Plaintiffs supervisor, Supervisory Language Specialist ("SLS") Mike
Feghali, issued instructions that assisted Ms. Dickerson in carrying out
18.
misconduct;
(g)
that in December, 2001 and again in January, 2002 Ms. Dickerson
threatened to disclose Plaintiffs true identity to the target organization
thereby jeopardizing the lives and safety of Plaintiff and her family
members, who were citizens of and resided in Turkey, because Plaintiff
refused to go along with Ms. Dickerson s scheme to block translations and
because Plaintiff reported her concerns about Ms. Dickerson s wrongdoing
to FBI management;
(h) that both as a result of misconduct by Ms. Dickerson and SLS Feghali, and
as a result of gross incompetence in the FBI, numerous translations were
improperly conducted or not conducted, which threatened intelligence and
law enforcement investigations related to the September 11 th attack, and
other ongoing counter-terrorist, counter-intelligence and law enforcement
investigations;
(i) that work order documents concerning translations related to the
September 11 th investigation were falsified and contained forgeries of
Plaintiffs name and/or initials;
that SLS Feghali issued an instruction forbidding Plaintiff from raising her
concerns to the FBI Special Agent assigned to the case, or others, without
the permission of SLS Feghali
(k) that extremely sensitive and material information was deliberately
withheld from translations; and
(I) that FBI management had failed to take corrective action in response to
Plaintiff s reports and serious concerns, and instead retaliated against
Plaintiff for reporting her concerns.
Prior to Plaintiff raising these concerns, Ms. Dickerson and her husband, Air
19.
Force Major Douglas Dickerson, had unexpectedly visited Plaintiff and her
husband at their Alexandria home in early December 2001. During this visit
Major Dickerson talked extensively to Plaintiffs husband about meeting his wife
in Turkey; about his job, which he said had been in weapon s procurement;
dealing with Turkey and several central Asian countries. He said that he had lived
in Turkey and later in Germany. He asked whether Plaintiff and her husband were
active in the Turkish community here or whether they had many Turkish friends
to which they replied no. He said that he and his wife had some high level Turkish
friends in the United States that they saw regularly and named one of them. He
said that they regularly shopped for this person at a middle-eastern market in
Alexandria, and then mentioned an organization, the American Turkish
Association AT A"). He brought up another Turkish organization, the American
Turkish Council ATC"), which he said he and his wife were very active in, and
said that it was a very good organization to belong to and have ties with. He said
that a relationship could insure that a person would be able to retire early and be
guaranteed a very good and lucrative life afterwards in Turkey, what he and his
wife planned to do shortly. He then asked whether Plaintiff and her husband were
members of A TC, and Plaintiff s husband replied that they were not although
they were familiar with it, but believed that they would have to have some
business relationships with Turkey before they could become members. Major
Dickerson then turned and pointed to Plaintiff and said
, "
all you have to do is tell
them who you work for and what you do and you will get in very quickly." At that
point Plaintiff quickly changed the conversation to other topics. Plaintiff
subsequently verbally reported the Dickerson visit and conversation to SLS
Feghali.
Plaintiff formally raised her concerns to SLS Feghali in writing on January 22
20.
21.
22.
23.
2002 and then again orally at a meeting on January 25, 2002. Plaintiff emphasized
the serious national security implications of her concerns, specifically that
sensitive ongoing criminal and counter-terrorism investigations were being
compromised, including those of the September 11 attack and certain of the
detainees captured in its wake. FBI management at FBIIWFO failed to take
prompt, corrective action as requested by Plaintiff and instead Plaintiff herself
became subjected to a concerted pattern of reprisal and retaliation as a direct result
of raising her concerns.
Although Plaintiff s supervisor informed an FBI manger about her allegations, the
matter was not reported to the FBI Security Office until more than two weeks
later, on February 11 2002.
On or about February 8 2002, Plaintiff wrote a detailed memorandum to the
Acting Assistant Special Agent in Charge ("ASAC"), documenting her concerns
about security and management problems in the language department
emphasizing the serious national security implications and requesting that prompt
corrective action be taken. Although Plaintiffs supervisor had given her
permission to write the memorandum on her home computer because of concern
of retaliation by SLS Feghali, the FBI later concluded that the memorandum
contained classified information and seized Plaintiff s home computer.
Plaintiff also informed the ASAC and other FBI management officials that
Plaintiff was deeply concerned for her personal safety and the safety of her family
as a result of the conduct of and threats made by Ms. Dickerson and Plaintiff
requested that the FBI take immediate steps to address these problems.
On February 12 2002 Plaintiff was finally interviewed by the FBI Security Office
about her allegations. The following day Ms. Dickerson also was interviewed.
Both were deemed credible by a Security Officer. However, a subsequent
24.
25.
26.
27.
investigation by the DOJ/OIG found that "the Security Officer did not challenge. .
. (Ms. Dickerson) with respect to any information. . . (she) provided although that
information was not consistent with FBI records. " It found that "the Security
Officer s investigation of. . . (Plaintiffs) claims. . . was significantly flawed
and labeled it "superficial."
During this period, Plaintiff advised her sister living in Turkey of the threats by
Ms. Dickerson to disclose the identity of Plaintiff to the target organization.
Fearing for her own safety, Plaintiffs sister immediately fled Turkey and
currently resides in the United States where she has applied for asylum. In order to
flee Turkey, Plaintiff's sister was forced to abandon her employment with KLM
Airlines and suffer substantial financial hardship. To date she resents Plaintiff and
has not spoken to her for nearly three years.
By letter dated February 13 2002, Plaintiff wrote to Executive Assistant Director
for Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence Dale L. Watson, notifying him of her
serious security concerns which potentially put Plaintiff s personal safety and the
safety of her family at risk. In her letter Plaintiff informed Mr. Watson that she
had already reported her concerns to the management in her department but that
no corrective action had been taken and that Plaintiff s management expressed a
let's just sweep it under the rug " attitude. Plaintiff again emphasized that
sensitive ongoing criminal and counter-terrorism investigations were being
compromised.
On February 14 2002 SLS Feghali sent an e-mail to the LAAU Chief and another
FBI official asserting that "there was no basis for. . . (Plaintiff s) allegations.
On February 22, 2002 Plaintiff met with Supervisory Special Agent ("SSA") Tom
Frields, and SLS (and acting ASAC) Stephanie Bryan to discuss her concerns.
Immediately after the meeting, . . . (FBI management) began to explore whether
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
the FBI had the option to cease using. . . (Plaintiff) as a . . . (contract linguist)."
In an internal memorandum drafted on February 25 , 2002 the FBI recommended
that both Plaintiff and Ms. Dickerson undergo a polygraph examination to assist
in the investigation. However, the proposed questioning of each was to focus on
whether either had made any unauthorized disclosures of classified information
rather than (on J the threat that had been alleged by . . . (Plaintiff).
On February 27, 2002, Mr. Watson signed the certified mail Domestic Return
Receipt that was attached to Plaintiffs letter dated February 13 2002.
On or about March 7, 2002, Plaintiff personally met with Deputy Assistant
Director for Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence James T. Caruso, who was Mr.
Watson s direct deputy, about her concerns. During the course of their meeting,
which lasted between one and a half to two hours, Mr. Caruso listened to
Plaintiff s reports of misconduct, and her detailed concerns about serious security
breaches and misconduct in the language department. However, Mr. Caruso did
not take any notes during his meeting with Plaintiff and at the conclusion of the
meeting he failed to commit to taking corrective action of any kind.
Also, on or about March 7, 2002, Plaintiff filed complaints with the FBI Office of
Professional Responsibility ("FBIIOPR") and the DOJIOIG in which Plaintiff
reported her allegations of serious security breaches and misconduct. Plaintiff also
alleged in her complaints to FBI/OPR and DOJIOIG that she was being subjected
to harassment and retaliation for making reports of serious security breaches and
misconduct.
Also, on or about March 7, 2002, the FBI renewed Plaintiff s contract as a linguist
for an additional six month period.
On March 8 2002, Plaintiff underwent a polygraph examination which
determined she was not being deceptive in denying having made any unauthorized
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
disclosures of classified information.
By March 15 , 2002, Plaintiff noted to SLS Feghali that "in the past few weeks
coincidental' to her reports of wrongdoing, she had received no new work
assignments and no offers of temporary duty assignments.
Despite the open status of the "investigation" of Plaintiff s allegations, by March
, 2002 an FBI draft Electronic Communication ("EC") stated that " some of. . .
(her) allegations. . . were not substantiated and that she had not been completely
forthcoming. . . and recommended that. . . (the FBI) immediately discontinue
using her as a linguist. . . .
On March 21 2002, Ms. Dickerson similarly underwent a polygraph examination
which determined that she was not being deceptive in denying having made any
unauthorized disclosures of classified information.
Despite the fact that FBI officials "later expressed disappointment with the
questions asked in the polygraphs, . . . as they were not responsive to the
allegations raised by . . . (Plaintiff), . . . the FBI never considered doing any
additional polygraphs and continued to rely on the (existing) polygraphs as
support for its position that. . . (Plaintiffs) allegations were unfounded." Indeed
the Polygraph Unit Chief (later) admitted that questions directly on point could
have been asked but were not."
On March 22 2002, as she was about to leave FBIIWFO for the day, Plaintiff was
summoned to a meeting with SLS Stephanie Bryan, SSA Frields and SSA in
charge of WFO Personnel Security George Stukenbroeker. Plaintiff was first
instructed to wait in the office of SLS Bryan. As Plaintiff waited, SLS Feghali
stopped by the open office door, faced Plaintiff, tapped on his watch and stated
(i)n less than an hour you will be fired, you whore." He then smiled and returned
to his office next door. This incident was witnessed by, Liz, a secretary and SLS
10-
39.
40.
Janice (LNU). Minutes later Plaintiff was summoned into the office ofSSA
Frields. Also present were SSA Stukenbroeker and SLS Bryan, where she was
advised that her employment with the FBI was being summarily terminated and
was ordered to surrender her security badge. Plaintiff requested a written
explanation for her termination. In response, SSA Stukenbroeker threw a security
form in front of her and stated
, "
(y)ou want something written, here it is. That
form has all the reasons why you have been fired. You have violated every single
item in that form." Plaintiff reminded those present that her reports of misconduct
were still pending before DOJ/OIG and FBI/OPR. SSA Frields replied
, "
(w)e
have already called them. OIG and OPR are not willing to take your case and have
told us that there will not be any investigation. " SSA Stukenbroeker added
(t)hey won t process your case. " Plaintiff requested to return to her work station
to retrieve her personal belongings, including a personal calendar, notes and
family photographs, but her request was denied. As Plaintiff was escorted from
the building, she was told that she would never set foot in the FBI again. Plaintiff
told SSA Frields
, "
(y)ou are only making your wrongdoing worse, and my case
stronger. I will see you very soon." SSA Frields replied
, "
(s)oon maybe, but it will
be in jail. I'll see you in jail."
Immediately after leaving FBI/WFO Plaintiff met with John Roberts, Unit Chief
ofFBI/OPR, who informed her that he had personally checked the results of her
polygraph examination, and that she had passed it with absolutely no deception
indicated.
By letter dated April 2, 2002, Defendants officially notified Plaintiff that her
contract was "terminated completely for the Government's convenience.
However, the subsequent DOJ/OIG investigation found that "the FBI has not
asserted that. . . (Plaintiff s) contract was terminated because it had no further
11-
( '
41.
42.
43.
44.
need for her services " and that "there has been no reduction in the need for
linguists to translate the language. . . (Plaintiff) translated.
On or about April 11 , 2002 a warrant from the Turkish security service was served
at the former residence of Plaintiff s sister demanding that she appear for
interrogation. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the Turkish
security service learned about her FBI employment through clandestine
disclosures made by Ms. Dickerson, acting upon her earlier threats to do so.
In an internal memorandum finalized on May 2, 2002 the FBI recommended that
Plaintiffs security clearance be revoked because she had prepared a classified
memorandum on her home computer and was observed placing classified
information into an envelope for delivery to FBI/OPR and DOJ/OIG. "without the
proper markings. " The memorandum "failed to point out that the polygraph
results undercut the claim that she had discussed classified information outside the
FBI with unauthorized persons at a social setting.
By letter dated May 8 2002, Plaintiff, through prior counsel, notified (former)
Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, that as a
direct result of the FBI's failure to address or correct the serious misconduct and
security breaches reported by Plaintiff, the safety and security of Plaintiff and
her family has been jeopardized, and that Turkey has targeted Plaintiff s sister to
be interrogated "and taken/arrested by force." This letter also provided them with
a copy of the arrest warrant served by the Turkish security service at the residence
of Plaintiff s sister in the foreign country together with a copy of the English
translation of the arrest warrant.
Also by letter dated May 8, 2002, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, notified Director Mueller that Plaintiff
has come forward with a number of disturbing allegations about misconduct
12-
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
incompetence, potential security violations and retaliatory threats." Senator
Grassley also provided Director Mueller with a copy of the arrest warrant served
at the residence of Plaintiff s sister in the foreign country and asked Director
Mueller to review the letter from Plaintiffs cow1sel to the DOJ/OIG expressing
concerns about the arrest warrant. Senator Grassley also asked Director Mueller to
emphasize to officials in the Washington Field Office that retaliation against
current or former FBI employees is not acceptable, especially when retaliation
endangers a person s family member.
Upon information and belief, during this period officials of the FBI negligently
disclosed the true identity of Plaintiff to the media.
On June 8 2002, the Associated Press CAP") published an article, which was
widely disseminated on its news wire, quoting "Government officials, who spoke
only on condition of anonymity," about Plaintiff and identifying her by name.
The June 8, 2002 AP article reported the FBI was investigating Plaintiffs
whistleblower "allegations of security lapses in the translator program that has
played an important role interpreting interviews and intercepts of Osama bin
Laden s network since September II." Citing Government officials who only
spoke on condition of anonymity, the AP reported that "the FBI has been unable
to corroborate the whistleblower s allegations.
In addition, again citing to unnamed government officials, the AP reported on
June 8 , 2002 that Plaintiff
, "
a contract employee in the FBI linguist program, was
fired last spring for performance issues. She subsequently was subjected to a
security review herself, the officials said.
The June 8 , 2002 AP article also reported that "The FBI has focused its
investigation on whether either the accused or the whistle-blower compromised
national security, officials said.
13-
52.
53.
54.
55.
50. Subsequently, SLS Feghali convened an urgent meeting of all translators in the
unit to which he brought a copy of the AP article, stating that the translators
should learn from Plaintiffs experience " and that " (tJhis is what happens when
you betray the Bureau, . . . your name and reputation will be destroyed. " SLS
Feghali also specifically instructed two of Plaintiff s former co-workers to cease
all further contact with Plaintiff "for their own good.
51. In the wake of these public disclosures, the FBI conducted an initial review of its
investigation of Plaintiff s allegations. An internal memorandum dated June 14
2002
, "
revealed substantial infirmities in the. .. investigation. Neveliheless
higher-level FBI security officials failed to initiate a more thorough investigation
. . . (despite anJ ample basis. . . for such a review.
On June 18 2002 , the Washington Post published an article citing to unidentified
Government officials" who said "the FBI fired Plaintiff because her
disruptiveness hurt her on-the-job performance." In addition, the Washington Post
reported in its June 18th article that "FBI officials said that Plaintiff ' had been
found to have breached security. ",
On August 7, 2002 Plaintiff, through prior counsel, requested that the Air Force
Office ofInspector General ("AF/OIG") investigate the conduct of Major
Dickerson.
On September 10 2002 the AF/OIG responded to Plaintiffs request stating that
(tJhe Air Force Office of Special Investigations. . . conducted a complete and
thorough review of Major Dickerson s relationship with the American- Turkish
Council. Their findings disclosed no evidence of any deviation from the scope of
his duties.
On October 29 2002, the largest circulation national Turkish newspaper
Hurriyet published a front page story identifying Plaintiff by name and asserting
14-
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
that she was fired from her position where she had been translating/monitoring
Turkish intercepts.
56. The following day, on October 30 2002, the fourth largest news paper in Turkey,
Yeni Salak published a story identifying Plaintiff by name and accusing of spying
on Turks for the United States government, thereby forgetting about her Turkish
roots and loyalties. This article also contained additional info on Plaintiff
including her maiden name, when she emigrated to the United States and the
location of her residence in the United States.
57. On July 15 , 2003. the largest Intel11et based Turkish newspaper Haber Vitrini
reported that Plaintiff had accused Turkish officials of spying against the FBI.
On July 16 2003 , ABC affiliate Chmmel 7 News, broadcast a similar report
emphasizing Plaintiff s claim that Turkish Intelligence-officials were spying
against the FBI.
Also on July 16, 2003 , the newspaper Star Gazette published an article asserting
that Plaintiff was accusing Turkish government officials in Washington, DC of
espionage activities.
Also on July 16, 2003 , the newspaper Turkish Daily News, also sold in the United
States , published an article proclaiming, "Turkish Intelligence infiltrates Pentagon
according to . . . (PlaintiffJ."
On April 2 , 2004 , the largest circulation national Turkish newspaper Hurriyet.
again published a story identifying Plaintiff by name and asserting that she
was hired by the CIA on September 13 , 2002, that she worked to spy on Turks and
Turkish officials, and reported her testimony to the 9/11 Commission. A similar
article appeared in the Independent a large circulation newspaper in the United
Kingdom.
Also on April 2, 2004, the second largest Turkish newspaper Milliyet published
15-
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
and article identifying Plaintiff by name and associating her with alleged FBI
foreknowledge of the September 11
th attack.
On July30, 2004, the international newspaper Sabah published an article asserting
that an internal memorandum by FBI Director Mueller confirmed that a DOJ/OIG
report substantiated most of Plaintiff s above-allegations as true, including those
alleging espionage in the FBI linguist program.
Throughout the period May, 2002 to the present, Plaintiffs friends and family
members still residing in Turkey have confirmed to her that she has been the
subject of numerous television and radio talk shows characterizing her as "'The
enemy of the State (TurkeyJ, that she "' Forgot her roots, sold out her country and
people " that she "spied on Turkey," and " betrayed her country.
As the direct proximate result of the public disclosure of her true name by the FBI
Plaintiff has been subjected to the above adverse publicity and is deemed to have
committed treason by the Government of Turkey. Also, throughout the period
May, 2002 to the present, Plaintiffs friends and family members have implored
Plaintiff never to return to Turkey for their safety as well as her own. Therefore
Plaintiff has been unable to visit Turkey since February, 2002 and is unlikely ever
to be able to do so again for the remainder of her natural life.
Despite Plaintiff s allegations, the FBI never conducted any investigation of Ms.
Dickerson nor removed her from her position at FBI/WFO. She voluntarily left
her position some six months after Plaintiffs allegations and has since fled the
United States.
Contrary to its regulations and procedures, the FBI never conducted a proper 10-
year single-scope background investigation of Ms. Dickerson prior to granting her
a TOP SECRET security clearance, which allowed an unqualified individual
access to highly classified information as well as the identity of Plaintiff, which
16-
68.
she subsequently compromised to the Turkish security service.
As a direct and proximately result of the above events, Plaintiff has been damaged
as follows:
Plaintiff lives in constant fear for her own safety and for that of her family
members;
Plaintiff has become completely estranged from her family, the members
of which either resent her for the peril in which her activities have placed
them or eschew any contact with her for fear that they may be placed in
greater peril;
Plaintiff may never again return to her native homeland to visit friends or
emotionally significant locations;
Plaintiff was forced to forfeit her 50% interest, valued at approximately
$500 000. , in her late father s medical clinic in Turkey when she was
unable to travel there to execute documents and consummate the
inheritance;
Plaintiff s vacant investment property in Istanbul has substantially
diminished in value because Plaintiff was unable to visit Turkey and sell it
at peak value in 2003 and continues to produce monthly upkeep expenses;
Plaintiffs vacant summer home in Bodrum, Turkey, which she is unable
to visit is deteriorating and produces monthly upkeep expenses;
Plaintiff and her husband expended approximately $120 000. 00 in time
and expenses to develop a textile import business in partnership with her
uncle in Turkey, which has now been totally abandoned;
Plaintiff has abandoned her real estate investment business with her
mother in Turkey and incurred significant damages in lost economic
opportunity;
17-
69.
Plaintiff has lost personal items and irreplaceable photographs of her late
father that she was forced to abandon at her FBI/WFO workstation when
she was summarily escorted from the premises;
Plaintiff incurred $800. 00 in costs for a airline ticket she purchased for her
sister to enable her to flee Turkey;
Plaintiff has been forced to support her two sisters living in virtual exile in
the United States for more than two years at a cost of $60 000. 00;
Plaintiff has incurred legal fees resulting from the wrongful conduct of the
FBI in the amount of $80 000. 00; and
Plaintiff has suffered lost income in the amount of $240 000. 00 and may
never be able to obtain employment again because of the public antipathy
to\vards her by the fBI.
As a result of the above events, the DOJ/OIG conducted an extensive
investigation of Plaintiffs allegations and the related conduct of the FBI. The
declassified summary of that investigation, released in January, 2005 contained
the following conclusions:
We found that many of. . . (Plaintiff s) core
allegations relating to the co-worker were supported
by either documentary evidence or witnesses other
than. . , (Plaintiff).
In part, we attributed the FBI's failure to investigate
further to its unwarranted reliance on the
assumption that proper procedures had been
followed by the FBI during the co-worker s hiring
and background investigation, which did not include
a risk assessment, contrary to FBI practice. We also
found that. . . (PlaintiffJ was justified in raising a
number of these concerns to her supervisors. For
example, with respect to an allegation that focused
on the co-worker s performance, which. . .
(PlaintiffJ believed to be an indication of a security
problem, the evidence clearly corroborated. . .
(Plaintiff s) allegations.
18-
1 .
70.
In sum, . . . we believe that the FBI significantly
mishandled this matter.
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that twelve other credible cases of
possible espionage in the FBIIWFO/LAAU have been reported but not
investigated due to fear of embarrassment as the individuals involved had already
been granted a TOP SECRET security clearance by the fBr.
COUNT I
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT
Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbered 1 through
, above, as if fully set forth herein.
71.
1'2.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
If Defendant were a private person, it would be liable to Plaintiff in accordance
with the law of the District of Columbia.
Plaintiff is free from any acts of negligence contributing to the proximate cause of
her complained of damages.
Defendant s complained of acts and omissions constitute a negligent investigation
of Plaintiffs allegations in violation of its established procedures and
requirements.
Defendant's complained of acts and omissions constitute a negligent investigation
of the suitability of Ms. Dickerson to hold a TOP SECRET security clearance and
be privy to the true identity of Plaintiff.
Defendant s complained of acts and omissions constitute a negligent public
disclosure of Plaintiff s true identity as a key witness in an espionage
investigation.
Defendant s complained of acts and omissions constitute a negligent
endangerment of Plaintiff s safety and life.
Defendant' s complained of acts and omissions constitute a negligent conversion
of Plaintiff s personal property.
19-
78. Defendant' s complained of acts and omissions constitute a negligent false light
invasion of Plaintiff s privacy.
79. Defendant's complained of acts and omissions constitute a negligent infliction of
emotional distress upon Plaintiff.
80. Defendant's complained of acts and omissions constitute a negligent interference
with Plaintiffs prospective economic opportunity.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court award her damages in the amount of
Ten-Million ($10 000, 000. 00) Dollars, together with whatever fUliher, different or additional
rclieL:,l:) i 1. sb0uld deem j list Cluj proper.
tfully submitte
, .,
~2 '
. Bar #375754
Mark S. Zaid
c. Bar #440532
KRIEGER & ZAID, P.L.L.c.
1747 Pennsylvania Ave. , N.
Suite 300
Washington, D. c. 20006
202/223-9050
Counsel for Plaintiff
20-
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
howardaltman's journal