Dynamite Affidavit Exposes
Vast Clinton Administration Cover-Up
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/12/225639
NewsMax.com
Thursday, July 13, 2000
An explosive sworn statement written by a former Commerce Department officer and obtained
by NewsMax.com threatens to expose top Clinton administration officials to serious
criminal charges.
In an affidavit sworn by former Freedom of Information Act division head Sonya Stewart and
filed with Federal District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth by Judicial Watch, Stewart
details the efforts of the administration to withhold secret documents demanded under the
FOIA by Judicial Watch and Congress.
In her affidavit Stewart voiced fears of retribution for coming forward with her explosive
charges.
"I come forward to present my declaration to this Court with great trepidation and
grave concern about retribution and retaliation which may be directed at me, both
professionally and personally, as a result of this affidavit," she
wrote."Nevertheless, I present this declaration out of my obligation to uphold the
interests of justice as I swore to do upon my installation as a federal employee. I hope,
believe, and expect that the Court will protect me."
Stewart described her long career with the government - one she fears is now at
risk."Since 1975, I have served solely as a career civil servant at the Commerce
Department. I am now the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") where I oversee a
staff of approximately 1,100, manage a $3 billion budget, and hold the rank of Senior
Executive Service Level 5 (SES-5).
"From approximately 1991 until March 2000, I was the Commerce Department's Director
for Executive Budgeting and Assistance Management in the Office of the Secretary.
Additionally, I served as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration forCommerce
in the Office of the Secretary from November 1998 to September 1999."
In her affidavit she pointed the finger at a number of administration officials, provided
extensive details about the sale of seats on overseas delegations led by the Commerce
Department, and gave full recollections of the administration's attempts to keep
subpoenaed documents from being delivered to those legally entitled to have them.
As head of the FOIA offices Stewart said she was aware of the political manipulations
involved in the administration's attempts to hide documents subject to the act.
Among those named by Stewart as having been involved in the cover-up was former White
House Deputy Counsel to the President Cheryl Mills, one of the lawyers representing
Clinton in his Senate impeachment trial.
Mills, who was all but beatified by the media during her appearance before the Senate,
played a prominent role in the cover-up, Stewart charged.
"I am aware of Commerce officials' contacts with Cheryl Mills, then Deputy Counsel to
the President, concerning whether to release or withhold certain documents," Stewart
wrote.
"I know that Ms. Mills, in her position as Deputy Counsel to the President, advised
Commerce officials to withhold certain documents. In my many years working for the federal
government on FOIA and other matters, and in my experience gathering andresponding to FOIA
and Congressional requests for information, I have never known or heard of a federal
agency collaborating or discussing releasing or withholding
documents with White House officials.
"The Commerce Department's collaboration with White House Deputy Counsel Mills on
these matters was, in my experience, highly irregular and at variance with normal
procedures. During the time period at issue, many of the same documents were being sought
by several entities, including Judicial Watch, Inc., congressional committees, grand
juries, and others. It is my belief and recollection based on my knowledge
and experience that these interactions with Ms. Mills, as well as other practices, delayed
and corrupted the Commerce Department's response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests."
Also mentioned in the affidavit was Bruce Lindsey, Clinton's closest friend and White
House aide, and William M. Daley, then Commerce Department secretary and now the top
campaign official for Vice President Al Gore.
Stewart said a December 1998 order by Judge Lamberth directing the Commerce Department to
review its compliance with Judicial Watch FOIA requests was simply ignored despitebeing
brought directly to Daley's attention.
"In my role as Commerce FOIA Director, I have reviewed Commerce Department documents
showing that Commerce Department officials offered to contact White House official Bruce
Lindsey concerning the vetting of participants, such as James Riady of theLippo Group, in
trade mission events led by late [Commerce] Secretary [Ron] Brown," Stewart states.
"I have also reviewed Commerce Department documents which show that Commerce
officials did coordinate with White House official Doris Matsui concerning potential
participants in trade mission activities, and that Commerce Department officials
considered support for the President and Democratic Party during their review."
Stewart's full affidavit follows:
DECLARATION OF SONYA STEWART
I, Sonya Stewart, hereby state, under oath, as follows:
1. Since 1975, I have served solely as a career civil servant at the Commerce Department.
I am now the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") where I oversee a staff of
approximately 1,100, manage a $3 billion budget, and hold the rank of Senior Executive
Service Level 5 (SES-5). From approximately 1991 until March 2000,
I was the Commerce Department's Director for Executive Budgeting and Assistance Management
in the Office of the Secretary. Additionally, I served as Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Administration for Commerce in the Office of the Secretary from November
1998 to September 1999.
During my twenty-five and one-half years of solely career
federal service, I have received the top merit awards for career civil servants, including
the Department of Commerce Gold Medal, which is the highest award and honor presented at
the Commerce Department. I have also received the Silver and Bronze Medals, the second and
third highest awards, respectively, for my work at the Commerce Department. In December
1999, I received the second highest award forcivil servants throughout federal government,
the Presidential Rank Meritorious Award.
2. I come forward to present my declaration to this Court with great trepidation and grave
concern about retribution and retaliation which may be directed at me, both professionally
and personally, as a result of this affidavit. Nevertheless, I present this declaration
out of my obligation to uphold the interests of justice as I swore to do upon my
installation as a federal employee. I hope, believe, and expect that the Court will
protect me.
3. As the Commerce Department's Director for Executive Budgeting and Assistance Management
in the Office of the Secretary, I had supervisory authority over all Freedom of
Information Act ("FOIA") matters department-wide. I oversaw approximately sixty
employees, including staff charged with responding to requests for documents under the
Freedom of Information Act. The Commerce Department's FOIA Officer, Brenda Dolan, and
Commerce's FOIA Officer for the Office of the Secretary, Bobbie Parsons, worked under my
supervision and reported to me.
These career FOIA officers tried to perform their duties
admirably and honorably, often working under circumstances that were extraordinarily
adverse and challenging. They always did their best to manage properly the search for and
gathering of documents responsive to various FOIA requests submitted by Judicial Watch,
Inc. These document requests included requests for information on the reported sale of
seats on Commerce trade missions and other matters. My FOIA staff also handled document
requests from many other entities including the United States Congress.
4. However, my staff's efforts and the FOIA process were thwarted and obstructed by
Commerce Department officials. Melissa Moss, former Director of the Office of Business
Liaison ("OBL"), refused to cooperate in producing documents responsive to
Judicial Watch's FOIA requests. Lesia Thornton's notes to file, attached as Exhibit 1,
evidence such obstruction. (Ms. Thornton was formerly Office of the Secretary FOIA
Officer.) The actions of the Commerce Office of General Counsel ("OGC") staff,
including career civil servants Barbara Fredericks, Assistant General Counsel for
Administration, and Judith Means of her staff, as well as political appointee Sue
Esserman, former Acting
Commerce General Counsel under former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor and currently
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, also contributed to obstructing the FOIA process.
When documents properly responsive and releasable to
Judicial Watch's FOIA requests were gathered by my FOIA staff, they were sent to the
Office of General Counsel,where Ms. Fredericks is responsible for the legality of
day-to-day administrative operations, including all legal issues related to FOIA.
5. Ms. Fredericks and her OGC staff improperly assumed and exercised the final authority
to approve or disapprove the release of documents responsive to FOIA requests submitted by
Judicial Watch. This practice was and is inconsistent with the Commerce Department's
written, prescribed rules for responding to FOIA requests and, thus, contributed to the
flaws inherent in the first and second Judicial Watch
searches. Commerce's Administrative Order on FOIA calls for the first-tier FOIA
determination whether to release or withhold documents to be made by the appropriate
Commerce FOIA Officer. That FOIA Officer determination is to be made and executed, after
which the requester may appeal that determination to the Commerce OGC. The
OGC, specifically, Ms. Fredericks and her staff, are to decide FOIA appeals according to
the Department's FOIA rules.
In essence, when the OGC assumed authority to make the
final release/withhold determinations on the initial Judicial Watch FOIA requests, this
eliminated the possibility for a fair and objective review of those determinations on
appeal. When OGC makes the first-tier determination to release/withhold, the requester
does not receive an objective, independent appeal review since the same OGC staff which
makes the initial release/withhold determination also rules on OGC's own determination on
appeal. This practice violates the Department's written rules and flaws the process.
6. During the first Judicial Watch search, Departmental FOIA staff, other officials, and I
often experienced frustration and concern as a result of the requirement to send all
FOIA-responsive documents to the OGC. At times, sending FOIA-releasable documents to Ms.
Fredericks and her staff was like sending these documents down a black hole because Ms.
Fredericks and her staff would delay and/or withhold release of FOIA-requested documents
from Judicial Watch and this
Court, inconsistent with prescribed FOIA rules. For instance, this Court has remarked upon
the improper withholding of the "Minority Donors List" by the OGC. Prior to
Judicial Watch's discovery of this document during a deposition, I recall a meeting during
which all in attendance, including Judith Means, were made aware of the existence of the
"Minority Donors List."
At that time, we determined that this list was responsive
to a number of pending requests on which we were working, including the Judicial Watch
FOIA request. The FOIA staff turned the document over
to Judith Means and the OGC for release, yet we later learned, through Mr. Whatley's
deposition and the Court's December, 1998 rulings, that the document had not been released
by OGC and that Ms. Means had denied knowledge of the document. Subsequently, we also
learned that Ms. Means admitted that the "Minority Donors List" was turned over
to her and OGC by appropriate FOIA staff, but that the document was never released to
Judicial Watch. Concerning any other documents
which may not have been released to Judicial Watch, assuming they still exist, I believe
they would likely remain in the custody and control of Ms. Fredericks and her OGC staff
since the procedure for handling Judicial Watch FOIA requests required that FOIA officers
submit all documents to Ms. Fredericks' office for final disposition.
7. I am aware of Commerce officials' contacts with Cheryl Mills, then Deputy Counsel to
the President, concerning whether to release or withhold certain documents. I know that
Ms. Mills, in her position as Deputy Counsel to the President, advised Commerce officials
to withhold certain documents. In my many years working for the federal
government on FOIA and other matters, and in my experience gathering and responding to
FOIA and Congressional requests for information, I have never known or heard of a federal
agency collaborating or discussing releasing or withholding documents with White House
officials.
The Commerce Department's collaboration with White House
Deputy Counsel Mills on these matters was, in my experience, highly irregular and at
variance with normal procedures. During the time period at issue, many of the same
documents were being sought by several entities, including Judicial Watch, Inc.,
congressional committees, grand juries, and others. It is my belief and
recollection based on my knowledge and experience that these interactions with Ms. Mills,
as well as other practices, delayed and corrupted the Commerce Department's response to
Judicial Watch's FOIA requests.
8. Barbara Fredericks was and remains very influential within the Commerce Department. As
Assistant General Counsel for Administration, Ms. Fredericks' responsibilities include
serving as the Chief Ethics Officer for the Commerce Department. In carrying out this
role, she worked closely with the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and other top
officials on their financial disclosureforms. As such, I believe Secretary Brown and other
high-level Commerce officials
trusted Ms. Fredericks. I have heard top Commerce officials describe her as "our
lawyer." After Secretary Brown and other Commerce officials died in 1996, Ms.
Fredericks quickly filled the resulting power vacuum, in close collaboration with
then-Commerce Department Inspector General, Frank DeGeorge, who recently pled guilty to a
federal criminal conflict-of-interest charge. Ms. Fredericks and Mr.
DeGeorge actually usurped the management of the Commerce Department in many respects.
The power-sharing alliance formed between these two
high-level
officials resulted in no accountability for wrongdoing by favored Commerce Department
officials. Certainly, Mr. DeGeorge, despite being Commerce's Inspector General, never
sought to hold Ms. Fredericks, Ms. Means, or other OGC lawyers accountable for their
irregular and improper conduct in the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits. Concomitantly, this
Court noted in its December 1998 decision in this case the "amazing fact" that
no investigation or action was taken by the Commerce Department Inspector General with
regard to improper activities uncovered by Judicial Watch. Based on my knowledge and
experience,
any investigation this Courtordered or suggested to the corrupt Inspector
General DeGeorge's office was either "fixed" or never even undertaken.
In return, Ms. Fredericks and the OGC would ignore and
cover up Mr. DeGeorge's outrageous misconduct and misbehavior, and stall disciplinary
actions and other investigations into Mr. DeGeorge's atrocious conduct, which was very
often improper, unethical and dishonest.
9. When this Court issued its December, 1998 decision in the Judicial Watch FOIA case
excoriating the conduct of OGC staff including Judith Means, I read and studied the
decision with great concern. I believed that the OGC, to protect Ms. Fredericks, Ms.
Means, and others, would attempt to ensure that the Court's actual decision would not be
shared with Commerce Department Secretary William Daley and other top-level officials who
should have been informed of the Court's actual decision, order and opinion. Inasmuch as I
was still responsible for the Department's FOIA activities, and given the Court's angry
admonishments to departmental officials for their conduct during the first search, I
believed it important that certain officials, including the Secretary, be made aware of
the Court's decision. I knew that I would need top-level support to ensure that the second
search would be conducted in a proper manner in keeping with the Court's
orders. I also wanted to ensure that the second search was conducted in a manner which
would not further harm the Department's reputation, and in a way which was mindful of the
Court's views concerning the improper behavior exhibited by certain officials during the
first search.
Thus, in January 1999, I personally alerted my immediate
supervisor, then Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Assistant Secretary for Administration,
W. Scott Gould, to this Court's decision and provided him with acopy of it. I shared and
discussed my concerns about the Court's decision with CFO/Assistant Secretary Gould so
that he could alert his superiors, the Deputy Secretary and/or the Secretary, as he deemed
appropriate. Indeed, CFO/Assistant Secretary Gould later informed me that Deputy Secretary
Robert L. Mallett and
Secretary William M. Daley had not seen this Court's actual decision until Assistant
Secretary Gould provided them with a copy of the decision (which I had annotated) and
discussed the decision with them.
10. In keeping with this Court's December, 1998 orders, I also sought
unsuccessfully to ensure that the Department put proper procedures in place to turn over
all responsive documents to Judicial Watch, as appropriate. I suggested to top Commerce
officials that, if the OGC were to remain substantively involved in the decision-making
process to release or withhold, that the re-search procedures must include a systematic
and consistent means of resolving any conflicts which might arise between FOIA officers
and OGC determinations.
I believed this was significant because the first search
procedures had no "check and balance" safeguards to ensure that conflicts
between FOIA Officer and OGC determinations were resolved appropriately; all final
determinations were made by OGC attorneys/advisors, often absent discussion with or
knowledge of FOIA Officers. In other words, Commerce FOIA officers, such as Brenda Dolan,
might send a document to OGC with a FOIA Officer determination for release, but
OGC would improperly treat this FOIA Officer determination as a recommendation only and
assume final authority to determine whether to release or withhold documents. At times,
the OGC determinations were at odds with my FOIA Officers' determinations and, in those
cases, the OGC would, in effect, "overrule" improperly the FOIA Officers'
determinations and unilaterally withhold documents.
This practice occurred without any objective, independent
internal
review to adjudicate the conflicting determinations. Also, given the Court's criticism of
OGC's conduct in the first FOIA searches, I believed it would contravene the spirit and
intent of the Court's orders to allow Judith Means and Barbara Fredericks to participate
in the second FOIA search without an independent entity evaluating their release/withhold
determinations. In January 1999, I thought I had partially succeeded in my efforts to
institute procedural safeguards for the second search when I received a phone call at home
from CFO/Assistant Secretary Gould, my immediate supervisor. Assistant Secretary Gould
called to inform me that Secretary Daley, after reading relevant portions of this
Court's decision, had decided and instructed that Judith Means should not be involved in
the second Judicial Watch FOIA search ordered by this Court.
However, despite Secretary Daley's "orders" to the contrary, Ms. Means did
continue to participate substantially and substantively in the second FOIA search. Ms.
Fredericks effectively controlled the second search, despite representations that the
second search would be spearheaded by the Chief of Staff's office.
11. Additionally, I initiated several discussions with Commerce Inspector General Johnnie
Frazier, who had served as one of Frank DeGeorge's Assistant Inspectors General, to alert
him that the re-search procedures needed procedural safeguards to ensure that the second
search results were not flawed like the first search results. Given Mr. Frazier's
"monitoring" role in the second search, I recommended to him that, before he
sanctioned and "signed-off" on the new procedures, he and
his staff should ensure that they contained a consistent methodology for resolving
conflicting determinations made by FOIA Officers and OGC attorneys/advisors. Also, I
suggested that the procedures contain a means to determine when such conflicts arose so
that FOIA Officers would at least be able to learn whether the OGC had determined to
release or withhold the documents they forwarded.
Mr. Frazier informed me that he would not
"second-guess" OGC's decisions to withhold certain documents. Further, while Mr.
Frazier agreed that instituting such safeguards would be a good idea, his office did not
ultimately require that such safeguards be instituted prior to "signing off"
that they were sufficient. I had similar discussions with other officials, including
officials in the Chief of Staff's office, suggesting and requesting that they require that
such "check and balance" safeguards be built into the second search procedures,
but to no avail.
12. I am aware that, during the second search, OGC staff reported to the FOIA staff that
certain documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA request which were to have been
under OGC's control had been "lost" and could not be located. The FOIA staff
suggested to OGC staff that they look for the "lost" documents in the OGC safe,
but OGC staff maintained that the documents were not there. The FOIA staff
then initiated an intensive search for the "lost" documents, and learned
subsequently, while they were searching for these "lost" documents, that the OGC
had, in fact, found the "lost" documents in the OGC safe. In sum, inasmuch
asprocedures for the Court-ordered second search did not vary substantially from those
used during the first search; and, inasmuch as no systematic, consistent procedures were
ever instituted to ensure that all documents FOIA officers determined should be released
were, in fact, released by the OGC; and inasmuch as the OGC participants whose behavior
the Court admonished during the first
search continued to play a material and substantial role during the second search, I
believe that the Court and Judicial Watch have no assurance that the OGC allowed the
release of all FOIA-releasable and responsive documents required by the Court's December
1998 order.
13. I have spoken with George Grafeld, a career civil servant and colleague who formerly
worked for the Office of Business Liaison under its former Director Melissa Moss. (Ms.
Moss, when deposed by Judicial Watch for a deposition presented to this Court, was asked
to name OBL staff members during her tenure as OBL Director. Under oath, Ms. Moss, failed
to name Mr. Grafeld and Lyne-Marie Griffin, a career civil servant, notwithstanding that
both Mr. Grafeld and Ms. Griffin
were, in fact, OBL staff members under Ms. Moss's tenure.) Mr. Grafeld told me that during
Ms. Moss's tenure, he saw computer diskettes in OBL that were labeled
"contributions/trade missions."
Mr. Grafeld said he knows that these diskettes were never
handed over to Judicial Watch or the Court in this FOIA case. Ms. Griffin also saw these
diskettes, according to Mr. Grafeld. Mr. Grafeld also
told me that when he worked at OBL, he learned of letters from Melissa Moss to trade
mission participants which referenced contributions they made to the Democratic Party in
order to go on the trade missions at issue in this case.
Mr. Grafeld told me he had discounted these stories about
Ms. Moss's fundraising letters until he saw press reports of Nolanda Hill's testimony
about the Moss letters that Secretary Ron Brown showed her. Mr. Grafeld believes these
letters were created from information that came from the Democratic National Committee
(DNC), working in conjunction with the White House. Further, he believes that the letters
were taken by a Commerce OBL employee, Jose Ceballos, to be printed at an outside print
shop owned by Mr. Ceballos' uncle in the Washington, DC suburbs.
Mr. Grafeld also reported that he saw a colleague at OBL, Twanna Smith, working on what he
understood were these kinds of letters, although he was not allowed to see them.
14. According to Mr. Grafeld, Melissa Moss tasked certain OBL employees, including Ms.
Griffin, to enter names, including "political" names, into computers at OBL. Ms.
Moss restricted access to the room where information was being entered into the computer,
and Mr. Grafeld was not allowed to even be in the same room as the computer on which Ms.
Griffin was inputting names. Mr. Grafeld reports that John
Ost, a former Commerce OBL employee and political appointee, also worked on this project
which eventually grew to 40,000 names.
From reading Mr. Ost's deposition to this Court, I learned
that he admitted to receiving faxes from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) with the
names of some donors, and he said that he gave
them to Melissa Moss in response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests. I also understand that
these documents were never produced. Mr. Ost later left the Commerce Department (where Mr.
Grafeld believes he earned approximately $45,000 per annum) to work for the DNC (where Mr.
Grafeld believes he earned approximately $120,000 per annum).
According to Mr. Grafeld, Kathy Kellogg also participated
in
the "names" project in OBL and warned Mr. Grafeld to mind his own business when
he inquired about the names being compiled. (Ms. Kellogg died in the tragic plane crash
along with Secretary Brown, OBL Deputy Director Gail Dobert, and others.) Mr. Grafeld
reported to me that Ms. Moss was intent on developing the list of names using information
provided by political appointees and various agencies within the Commerce Department,
including the Census Bureau.
The Census Bureau refused to provide information to OBL,
citing privacy laws prohibiting the Census Bureau from sharing the data requested. Ms.
Moss then instructed Mr. Grafeld to devise a way to obtain names from Commerce agencies
via computer without the agencies knowing about it. Mr. Grafeld told her that this could
not be done. Ms. Moss became upset with Mr. Grafeld and ultimately, Ms. Moss initiated a
Reduction-In-Force ("RIF") in OBL which resulted in Mr. Grafeld and Ms. Griffin
losing their jobs in OBL, leaving only political appointees working in OBL.
15. Mr. Grafeld told me, referring to Judicial Watch's allegations that Commerce
Department trade mission seats were sold in exchange for campaign contributions, that
"(Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel) Klayman is right on target" but
that he believes that the trade mission issues were "only the tip of the iceberg --
that the really big money went towards Presidential access." Mr. Grafeld indicated to
me that he believes that Ms. Moss was asking for political contributions in exchange for
seats on Commerce Department trade missions, likely
at the direction of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but that documents showing this illegal
activity had "left the building." In fact, there were effectively no security
procedures at the Commerce Department to ensure that sensitive and secret documents and/or
any documents which might evidence criminal activity stayed in the building.
The purported letters referenced by Mr. Grafeld and Nolanda Hill could easily have
"left the building" absent sufficient procedures to secure them.
16. In my role as Commerce FOIA Director, I have reviewed Commerce Department documents
showing that Commerce Department officials offered to contact White House official Bruce
Lindsey concerning the vetting of participants, such as James Riady of the Lippo Group, in
trade mission events led by late Secretary Brown. I have also reviewed Commerce Department
documents which show that Commerce officials
did coordinate with White House official Doris Matsui concerning potential participants in
trade mission activities, and that Commerce Department officials considered support for
the President and Democratic Party during their review.
17. I participated in Commerce Department meetings concerning the selection of trade
mission participants prior to March 2000 when I moved to NOAA. While criteria for
selection of participants were developed after the Brown Administration in an attempt to
address public perceptions of politicization of trade missions, the current process still
lends itself to subjective determinations in many respects.
I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed
on July 7, 2000 in Litchfield Beach, South Carolina.
_____________________ Sonya Stewart
===============================================================================
LIPPO GROUP MAIN PAGE:
infinite potential..... infinite opportunities
http://www.lippo.co.id/Main.htm
APFN WHO WACO:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/whowaco.htm
[SNIP]
The Lippo Group, an Indonesian conglomerate run by the Riadys,
helped introduce since-disgraced fund-raiser John Huang to the
Clinton administration, which later endorsed Rapoport's $2 billion
Chinese real-estate project. Rapoport's public service to
Texas served his private interests well. Clinton has claimed
ignorance of these "indefensible" payments from his good friends
and his best friend.
[SNIP]
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/whowaco.htm
[SNIP]
As best as I can find it was Bernard Rapoport who sells all
the life insurance to Teamsters Union members and is of
course connected to the Chicago Mafia, Dan
Rostenkowski, Hillary Clinton, Hubbell, Dan Lasater,
Mochtar Riady, John Huang, the Chinese Communist and
the whole Opium-China-CIA connection going back I guess
to the Boxer rebellion.
[snip]
http://www.konformist.com/vault/wacodrug.htm
ILLUMINATI LINKED TO WHY WACO, LINKED TO CLINTON!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/whywaco.htm
Nation Mourns Ron Brown
http://photo2.si.edu/rbrown/rbrown.html
RON BROWN was MURDERED
http://teaminfinity.com/rb.html
Ron Brown's Curious Death
http://www.thecommonman.com/ronbrown.htm
How (and why) did Ron Brown Die?
http://www.trudelgroup.com/brndis.htm
Ron Brown's Loose Lips Seal His Fate
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ron_brown.htm
Questions linger about Ron Brown plane crash
http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/news_archives/brwn9702.htm
Experts differ on Ron Brown's head wound
http://tribune-review.com/ruddy/120397.html
http://tribune-review.com/ruddy/brown.html
NEW! Was there a bullet hole in Ron Brown's head?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/bullet.html
The Activities at Mena
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.html
RED CHINA and THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTIONS
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/redchina.htm
CRONY RIADY INVITES CLINTON TO JOIN LIPPO BOARD
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/riady.htm
Who Waco! Probe Clinton's Ties To Riady to Rapoport to Why Waco
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/ties.htm
The Utah Coal Lockup: A trillion dollar Lippo payoff?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/lippo.htm
Bank of Credit and Commerce International
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/BCCI.htm
Dynamite Affidavit Exposes Vast Clinton Administration Cover-Up
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/exposes.htm
APFN Waco Files
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/rapoport.htm
William Jefferson Clinton & Hillary Clinton
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clintons.htm
=============================================================================
NETWORK + NETWORK + NETWORK + NETWORK + NETWORK + NETWORK + NETWORK + NETWORK
http://www.apfn.org
APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS
APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
http://www.apfn.org
If you would like to pledge a contribution to APFN:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/contributions.htm
APFN Message Board
APFN Contents Page
APFN
Home Page
apfn@apfn.org
Last updated 05/16/2004