Tweet
Sibel Edmonds Fights to Testify
http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/08/07 /sibel-edmonds-fights-to-testify/
By Weekly Staff - on August 7, 2009
WASHINGTON - On Aug. 7, the National Whistleblower Legal Defense and
Education Fund fought efforts by the FBI and the Department of Justice
to prevent Sibel D. Edmonds from testifying in a case of alleged
election fraud. Sibel Edmonds is scheduled to testify before the Ohio
Elections Commission in response to a subpoena in the Schmidt
v. Krikorian case. Both the Department of Justice and the FBI are
attempting to halt her from testifying.
On behalf or Ms. Edmonds, the Fund sent a letter earlier this week
requesting that Attorney General Holder independently review the basis
upon which the State Secrets privilege was initially invoked against
Ms. Edmonds.
On Aug. 6, Valerie Caproni, General Counsel of the FBI, and Vesper
Mei, Senior Counsel with the Department of Justice responded by
claiming that the subpoena to testify served on Edmonds was invalid
and sought to bar her from appearing. The DOJ claimed that Edmonds is
under `no compulsion' to testify in the Krikorian case and the FBI
asserted that she, `does not have approval for any disclosure of any
information.'
Neither the Justice Department nor the FBI has stated why testimony in
a case of alleged election fraud would involve State Secrets and/or
involve national security.
According to Sibel Edmonds' counsel, Michael D. Kohn (President of the
National Whistleblowers Center), `The thrust of the government's
action is aimed at self-censorship of a witness. As far as we are
concerned, if the government wants censorship then it must do it
itself as Ms. Edmonds will have no part in censorship.' To this end,
Edmonds' counsel responded to the FBI and DOJ stating: `We hereby
place you on notice that the failure to take appropriate action (i.e.,
seeking to quash the deposition dispatching legal counsel to the
deposition, or raising the States Secrets Privilege before the
Commission) may be construed as a waiver of any legitimate basis the
FBI may have to keep Ms. Edmonds from testifying' and `If you believe
that the FBI or the Justice Department has any legal basis to halt the
deposition or to prevent Ms. Edmonds from testifying, please take
whatever action you deem necessary in that regard. The responsibility
for doing so is yours not Ms. Edmonds.'
According to Mr. Kohn: `The First Amendment protects Sibel Edmonds'
right to testify truthfully without government intervention and we are
disheartened that the Justice Department's actions evidence a
different approach.'
http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/08/07 /sibel-edmonds-fights-to-testify/
By Weekly Staff - on August 7, 2009
WASHINGTON - On Aug. 7, the National Whistleblower Legal Defense and
Education Fund fought efforts by the FBI and the Department of Justice
to prevent Sibel D. Edmonds from testifying in a case of alleged
election fraud. Sibel Edmonds is scheduled to testify before the Ohio
Elections Commission in response to a subpoena in the Schmidt
v. Krikorian case. Both the Department of Justice and the FBI are
attempting to halt her from testifying.
On behalf or Ms. Edmonds, the Fund sent a letter earlier this week
requesting that Attorney General Holder independently review the basis
upon which the State Secrets privilege was initially invoked against
Ms. Edmonds.
On Aug. 6, Valerie Caproni, General Counsel of the FBI, and Vesper
Mei, Senior Counsel with the Department of Justice responded by
claiming that the subpoena to testify served on Edmonds was invalid
and sought to bar her from appearing. The DOJ claimed that Edmonds is
under `no compulsion' to testify in the Krikorian case and the FBI
asserted that she, `does not have approval for any disclosure of any
information.'
Neither the Justice Department nor the FBI has stated why testimony in
a case of alleged election fraud would involve State Secrets and/or
involve national security.
According to Sibel Edmonds' counsel, Michael D. Kohn (President of the
National Whistleblowers Center), `The thrust of the government's
action is aimed at self-censorship of a witness. As far as we are
concerned, if the government wants censorship then it must do it
itself as Ms. Edmonds will have no part in censorship.' To this end,
Edmonds' counsel responded to the FBI and DOJ stating: `We hereby
place you on notice that the failure to take appropriate action (i.e.,
seeking to quash the deposition dispatching legal counsel to the
deposition, or raising the States Secrets Privilege before the
Commission) may be construed as a waiver of any legitimate basis the
FBI may have to keep Ms. Edmonds from testifying' and `If you believe
that the FBI or the Justice Department has any legal basis to halt the
deposition or to prevent Ms. Edmonds from testifying, please take
whatever action you deem necessary in that regard. The responsibility
for doing so is yours not Ms. Edmonds.'
According to Mr. Kohn: `The First Amendment protects Sibel Edmonds'
right to testify truthfully without government intervention and we are
disheartened that the Justice Department's actions evidence a
different approach.'