CAUS Versus the Department of Defense CAUS COMMENTARY
February 26, 2000
The Department of Defense has until March 17th to provide the Court and CAUS with 1) the e-mail that contained the parameters of the search by the 200 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) employees pursuant to the CAUS FOIA request for information about a very unusual triangular aerial object, and 2) the "unique identifiers" and "keywords" that
were used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in its computerized search for the same information.
There is the possibility that either the e-mail, "unique identifiers" or "keywords" will not be publicly released by the DoD, under the FOIA exemptions of "national security" and/or "internal personnel rules and practices." If the DoD invokes either exemption, the supplemental affidavits
containing the above information would be submitted "in camera" to the Judge, meaning that I would not normally be allowed to view the information. In CAUS v. NSA, the NSA in 1980, in justifying the withholding of 135 UFO-related documents on national security grounds, submitted a 21 page Top Secret
affidavit to the Judge "in camera" which I never did see.
But if history decides to repeat itself, I would seriously consider applying to the Court, by way of written motion, a request that I be given the necessary security clearance to view the affidavits submitted by the DoD. I assume I would have to sign some form of nondisclosure agreement with appropriate penalties for its breach. Hopefully, I will not
be presented with that dilemma.
Unless the e-mail sent to the DARPA employees contained all the information in the initial CAUS request (3 eyewitness descriptions, sketches, photo and sample dates and places the object was seen) I will again request a hearing in order to argue that the DoD's search was inadequate and thus not reasonable. It will also be very interesting to see the "unique identifiers" and "keywords" since I have no idea what they could
be. I will not be satisfied with "UFO" or "Unidentified Flying Object."
Less than 20 days till Round 2.
CAUS v. UNITED STATES of AMERICA, STATE of ARIZONA, et. al
Though all current attention and publicity is focused on the DOD lawsuit, CAUS' most recent lawsuit still continues in the same U.S. District Court in Phoenix. Though both Arizona and the federal government have moved to dismiss
the lawsuit on several grounds, Judge Roger G. Strand has still not decided the lawsuit's fate. I wonder if McNamee and Strand have any "off-the-record" conversations?
THE CAUS INITIATIVE
During the past few years, one particular UFO group has continually claimed to have a "Witness Pool of many hundred top level military, intelligence and scientific witnesses..." who possess significant proof of alien contact but who will only reveal this information if granted congressional immunity.
CAUS has requested, on several occasions, the cooperation of the group's elitist leader in helping to lift the secrecy surrounding UFOs by politely soliciting the assistance of a few of the more courageous of his group's "Witness Pool." Each request by CAUS was met with either no response or a cold refusal of any...and I repeat...any cooperation. Further, based on information and belief, the group's leader believes the CAUS lawsuit against the DoD to be "grandstanding" and without any value. So much for his judgmrent!
Though CAUS believes this self-proclaimed "Ambassador to the Universe" is lying about both the number and importance of his "Witness Pool," and though CAUS knows of no witnesses who have ever come forward with any independent credible evidence in support of their statements of alien bodies, alien autopsies, crashed UFOs, reverse-engineered technology, clandestine groups, or secret reports, CAUS continues to support any honest, sincere and realistic search
for the truth. Thus, on behalf of CAUS, I republish an offer I made two years ago called the "CAUS INITIATIVE."
Under the CAUS INITIATIVE, I would be willing to establish an attorney-client relationship, pro bono, with former or present military or intelligence personnel who have first hand evidence (eyewitness testimony, reports, photos, videos) proving our contact with this other intelligence. Inherent in any attorney-client relationship is the confidentiality of communications as a matter of law. Based upon the information provided by the individual and with his/her consent, I would
submit an FOIA request to the appropriate agency, seeking confirmation of the information, without revealing my source. If a FOIA lawsuit is necessary, I would submit whatever documentation is required on "information and belief" and only reveal my client's identity if (s)he is granted immunity by the
government and consents to the disclosure. The client would control the action and withdraw at any time with his/her privacy intact. CAUS believes this offers a witness, willing to come forward, the utmost confidentiality and protection while providing a viable avenue for getting the truth out.
CAUS is only interested in credible evidence of our interaction with another intelligence. It is not interested in learning technological secrets or violating legitimate national security concerns. But, on the other hand, CAUS believes that we have an unconditional and absolute right to know about this contact and is dedicated to ending this "non-agreed to" secrecy.
Peter A. Gersten
Director