Está en la página 1de 15

Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 15

Jesse C. Trentadue (#4961)

8 East Broadway, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-7300
Facsimile: (801) 532-7355
Pro Se Plaintiff




Case No.: 2:08cv788 CW
Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead


On August 26, 2014, the Court set an evidentiary hearing on the matter of the FBIs
possible witness tampering involving John Matthews. The Court set that hearing for November
13, 2014, in order to allow the FBI time to conduct an investigation into the matter. Specifically,
the Court ordered that: Defendant shall conduct an investigation of any communications
between the FBI and Mr. Matthews, or others acting at the behest of the FBI, including
ascertaining what documents have been created relating to such communication and make

Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 2 of 15

a report to the court sufficiently in advance of the hearing so that Plaintiff can prepare
subpoenas, if necessary, and prepare document requests.1
On Thursday November 6, 2014, the Court entered an Order vacating the November
13, 2014, evidentiary hearing into the matter of the FBIs alleged witness tampering involving
John Matthews. In place of that evidentiary hearing on witness tampering, the Court notified the
parties that the subjects of the November 13, 2014, hearing would be the FBIs possible contempt
for not having completed the Court-ordered investigation into the witness tampering allegations
and the possible appointment of a Special Master to oversee the Defendants compliance with
the courts orders, particularly relating to the allegations of witness tampering, and with
Plaintiffs FOIA request.2
On the afternoon of November 7, 2014, the FBI suddenly filed a redacted Report of
its Court-ordered investigation into the alleged witness tampering.3 Contending that it had
complied with the Courts Order, the FBI moved to have the contempt hearing vacated,4 which
the Court denied.5 Plaintiff hereby submits this Memorandum on the issue of the FBIs

Doc. 213, p. 5. (emphasis added).

Doc. 230, pp. 2-3.

Doc. 231-1.

Doc. 232.

Doc. 236.

Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 3 of 15

That John Matthews was going to testify would have been a serious matter to the FBI.
Matthews was going to testify about PATCON, a secret FBI undercover surveillance operation
during the 1990s, which targeted right-wing anti-government activists. Matthews, himself an
undercover PATCON operative, would have given startling eyewitness testimony that prior to
the Oklahoma City Bombing, he saw Timothy McVeigh (McVeigh) in the company of a
German national named Andreas Strassmeir, at a militia training facility near San Saba, Texas.
Strassmeir, a paramilitary weapons trainer at an anti-government compound in
Oklahoma known as Elohim City, was also a suspected government informant. Matthews would
have testified that after McVeighs arrest Matthews had reported the McVeigh-Strassmeir
sighting to his FBI handler, Don Jarrett, (Jarrett) whose response was stunning. According to
Matthews, Jarrett said that the Bureau was already aware of that fact, which indicated to
Matthews that others within the FBI were monitoring McVeigh on his runup to the attack on the
Murrah Building but failed to prevent the attack. The FBI most certainly would not want this
information made public.
The McVeigh-Strassmeir sighting that Matthews was going to testify about would have
debunked the FBIs public position that all of the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City Bombing
had been caught, convicted, and punished. It would have also established a motive for the FBI
not having conducted a good faith search for the videotapes and records requested by Plaintiff,
and for its failure not to conduct a good faith investigation into the witness tampering allegations

Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 4 of 15

as ordered by the Court.6 That motive being the strong possibility that the passenger, who some
20 witnesses saw riding with Timothy McVeigh in the cab of the Ryder Truck the day of the
Bombing, was recorded by a surveillance camera, and that the videotape from that camera, which
is in the possession of the FBI, would show that the passenger was an FBI undercover operative.
It can be fairly assumed that had the Court not entered the November 6, 2014, Order
setting a hearing on the issue of contempt, the FBI would not have filed the Report on November
7, 2014. Instead, the FBI was planning to present the document at the November 13, 2014,
hearing hoping that the findings contained in that Report would have been accepted without
question. But that has now all changed. Now the FBI is facing a finding of contempt, and
rightfully so given both the timing and contents of its Report, which was a deliberate attempt by
the Bureau to mislead the Court.7 That the Bureau attempted to mislead the Court is clearly

Incredibly, Jarrett states under oath As far as I am aware, Mr. Mathews would not have
any relevant information regarding the Oklahoma City bombing. Jarrett Declaration, Doc. 2322, 2. Although Matthews may not have known a lot about the Bombing, what he did know and
could testify to posed a serious threat to the Bureau such as his sighting of McVeigh and
Strassmeir as part of his PATCON undercover work, and the fact that the Aryan Republican
Army or ARA, a gang of Neo-Nazi bank robbers with suspected links to the Bombing, was an
FBI front. See Exhibit 1 hereto. Matthews could likewise have testified to the FBI having run
automatic weapons to drug dealing biker gangs out of the Lone Wolf Gun Store, which was the
source of the weapons involved in the Fast and Furious scandal the Department of Justice claims
to know nothing about, and other PATCON activities that, although not relevant to the Bombing,
clearly had the potential to damage the FBI if they were ever to become publically known. See
Exhibit 2 and 3 hereto. Needless to say, the FBI would have been keen on preventing Matthews
from testifying, and that is exactly what the Bureau did.

Everything about this case has been an attempt to mislead by the FBI. Consider, for
example, Ms. Reed who testified that she handled FOIA requests at the Oklahoma City Field
Office, but had no involvement in responding to Plaintiffs FOIA request for surveillance tapes.

Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 5 of 15

shown by the Inspection Divisions treatment of Don Jarrett, Matthews FBI handler, and its
failure to not only follow up on the documents related to Jarretts communications with
Matthews, but in withholding documents from the Court, including redaction of telephone
conversations between Matthews and Agent Quirk.

Don Jarrett

Don Jarretts name surfaced in the August 2, 2014, e-mail that Matthews sent to the
Court.8 Matthews states therein that he spoke with Jarrett about the case and Matthews
testimony. Matthews describes Jarrett as his handler. It is not clear from the August 2, 2014,
e-mail, however, who initiated that contact. But what is important is that it occurred. According
to Matthews, they both agreed that Matthews had nothing to do with the Oklahoma City
Bombing; that Matthews did not want to testify; that Matthews had not been subpoenaed and,
therefore, did not have to show up; that if Matthews took a trip no one could find him to give
him a subpoena; and that Matthews did not want to get caught in a crossfire with both sides.9
Matthews goes on to state in that e-mail that, at Jarretts suggestion, he called Agent
Quirk in Salt Lake City and relayed to Quirk his conversations with Jarrett, and Quirk agreed that
Matthews did not have to testify because he had not been subpoenaed; and that if Matthews was

July 29, 2014 Transcript, pp. 354, 355 and 358. Instead, Plaintiffs FOIA request was handled by
Ms. Vernon, who had no FOIA training, and intentionally withheld documents showing that the
FBI had taken possession of surveillance tapes. July 28, 2014 Transcript, pp. 198-204 and 225.
Similarly, when the Court initially tasked defense counsel to investigate the witness tampering
allegations, no effort was made to speak with Matthews. See Doc. 191-8.

See Exhibit 4 hereto.

Doc. 191-10.

Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 6 of 15

subpoenaed to testify and Matthews did not remember something just say you dont recall.10
Had these conversations and consensus of opinions about not testifying and avoiding being
served with a subpoena involved Matthews and a family member or anyone other than the FBIs
agents, the witness tampering would perhaps be a closer question. But it is not even close when
those agreeing with Matthews are the FBIs agents representing the government, and Jarrett
was Matthews handler. That e-mail is powerful evidence of witness tampering, but how the
Inspection Division attempted to mislead the Court on this matter is still more powerful evidence
of the FBIs contempt.
The Report states that Until Matthews contacted him [Jarrett in July of 2014]
regarding the FOIA case, his last contact with Matthews was during 2012.11 The Report
then suggests that with so little contact between Jarrett and Matthews, Jarrett, who Matthews
refers to as his handler, could not possibly have influenced Matthews decision not to testify.
But that was not true, and the FBI knew it was not true.12 The Report also repeatedly emphasizes
that Jarrett is retired and not longer has any contact with the Bureau. Consequently, even if




Doc. 232-1, p. 17.


It should not go unnoticed that the investigators did not ask Jarrett or Matthews for all
of their e-mails between themselves and/or Plaintiff or Mr. Charles. Instead, the investigators
allowed both men to provide the e-mails which they believed to be relevant. Had they requested
all such e-mails, or even spoken with Plaintiff and/or Mr. Charles, the investigators would have
known that Matthews has been in fairly constant contact with Plaintiff and Mr. Charles since
2011. See Exhibit 5 hereto. Hence, the investigators were mistaken when they represented to
the Court by way of the Report that Matthews had no significant relationship or contact with
either Plaintiff or Mr. Charles.

Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 7 of 15

Jarrett had illegally influenced Matthews NOT to testify, Jarrett could not possibly have been
acting at the behest of the Bureau. That, too, is not true and the FBI knew it was not true.
Part of the FBIs investigation of the Bombing focused upon McVeighs activities near
Kingman, Arizona, and Jarrett was involved in that investigation. Plaintiff came to learn about
this fact when he was contacted by a man named Victor Hooper (Hooper), who claimed to have
information about both the Bombing and the Palo Verde train derailment that occurred in Arizona
shortly after the Bombing. Hooper told Plaintiff that the derailment was done to distract the FBI
from the Arizona part of the Bombing investigation.
In 2013, Plaintiff informed Matthews about Hoopers information. Matthews told
Jarrett, and thereafter Jarrett contacted Plaintiff. Jarrett told Plaintiff the Palo Verde Derailment
case was still open; that it was his case; that the derailment had in fact caused resources to be
shifted away from the Arizona portion of the Bombing investigation, and that Jarrett himself was
transferred from the Bombing investigation to the Palo Verde Derailment case. More
importantly, Jarrett told Plaintiff to keep the Hooper information confidential because Hooper
knew things about how the derailment was carried out that only the perpetrators would have
known and that he, Jarrett or others within the FBI, would follow up with Hooper.13
Obviously, therefore, Jarrett is maintaining some relationship with the Bureau, a fact that
is supported by Matthews July 9, 2014, conversation with Agent Quirk in which Matthews tells
Quick: Im just trying to pass word because I talked to [REDACTED] this morning and he


See Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 hereto.


Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 8 of 15

recommended that I call you people here in Salt Lake City. Quick asks: Yeah, who is who is
[REDACTED]? And Matthews responds: Uh, his name use to be Don Jarrett,14 which
suggests that Jarrett may have taken on a new undercover role for the FBI.15
Given the sensitivity of PATCON, Jarrett would undoubtedly have notified others within
the FBI of Matthews intention to testify, and there should be a documentary record of those
communications, which the FBI was supposed to disclose to the Court and Plaintiff. Yet, there is
no mention of any documents memorializing communications between Jarrett and others within
the Bureau contained in the Report. In his Declaration, Agent Quirk says that he told Matthews
that he (Quirk) would let my management/supervisor and the Chief Division Counsel in my
office know about his call.16 There would certainly be a written record of these communications
as well as records of Quirks management/supervisor and the Chief Division Counsel passing that
information up the chain of command within the FBI. But those documents are not referred to in
the Report.

Missing Records and Redactions

The Report includes transcripts of some but not all of Matthews telephone
conversations with Agent Quirk. Some conversations or messages were not transcribed and with
respect to the transcribed conversations, key portions of those transcripts are redacted. Plaintiff


Doc. 232-1, p. 7.(emphasis added).


It also raises the interesting question about how Jarrett could sign a Declaration under
oath on November 1, 2014, if his name is no longer Don Jarrett. See Doc. 232-2

Quirk Declaration, Doc. 232-1, 7.


Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 9 of 15

suspects that the redactions and/or failure to transcribe conversations between Matthews and
Quirk or message left by Matthews were intended by the FBI to conceal the pressure or influence
asserted against Matthews to not testify. But, even with the redactions, these transcripts show that
Matthews was being encouraged not to testify and that if he did appear at trial, to perjure himself
saying that he did not recall.
Matthews, for example, calls the Salt Lake City FBI Field Office on July 9, 2014.
Matthews initially speaks with some unidentified person and says: I was told to give you a
call.17 Matthews goes on to say: I was given advice [REDACTED] that I should maybe call
you people and let you know that uh, Im not gonna show up unless Im handed a subpoena . . .
.And if I do go I dont recall anything.18 To which that unidentified person says in response to
Matthews stated intent to perjure himself, My mind is blank judge.19 Mathews laughs, and
says: Been a lot of years.20 Thereafter, Matthews call is transferred to Agent Quirk.
Matthews tells Quirk: And I aint goin and I aint saying nothing unless somebody
issues me a subpoena. To which Agent Quirk responds: Thats fine.21 Matthews then tells
Quirk even if they haul my ass to Salt Lake City, Im gonna set there on the stand and say I dont


Doc. 231-1, p. 5.


Id. at p. 5.


Id. at p. 6.(emphasis added).




Id. (emphasis added).


Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 10 of 15

recall anything.22 Matthews also states to Quirk that he had worked Operation Patcon;23 that
the trial was going to be about the missing tapes of the Oklahoma City Bombing;24 and that this
is old stuff and it dont need to be brought up again.25 Admittedly, the foregoing statements by
Matthews were made at different times in his conversation with Quirk that day, and the FBI will
claim that Matthews comments are taken out of context. But Plaintiff does not believe they are
out of context. It is Plaintiffs belief that Matthews was letting Quirk know that he (Quirk) had
better pass the word up the FBIs chain-of-command that Matthews might be called to testify
about PATCON and the Oklahoma City Bombing, which is supported by Matthews call to Quirk
the next day, July 10, 2014.
Matthews called Quirk on July 10, 2014, and left a voice message. That message was
not transcribed. But the Report says the purpose of Matthews call was to make sure that SA
Quirk had pushed through the information that Matthews conveyed the day before.26 Plaintiff
interprets pushed through to mean pass up the chain-of-command within the FBI.
Matthews also speaks with Quirk on July 14, 2014, and says: Im going by what



Id. at p. 8.
Id. at p. 7.


Id. at p. 6.


Id. at p. 8.


Id. at p. 9.

Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 11 of 15

[REDACTED] told me.27 And Im trying to pass things on with you so we can . . .figure
this out. Quirk responds: Okay.28 On July 15, 2014, Matthews tells Quirk that he met
McVeigh years ago before the Bombing, and just because I crossed someones path dont mean I
have anything to share.29 Quirk responds: Well, yeah and I mean worst case scenario even if
you testified you can just you can say you have, you knowyou have nothing to say.30
Matthews tells Quirk that he is going to take a trip, implying that by doing so he could not be
subpoenaed. Matthews knew, however, that he was not going to be subpoenaed,31 but Quirk did
not, which makes Quirks response to Matthews very telling. Quirks response to Matthews was:
No, I hear you. Thats fine . . . .Thats fine, fuck em, right? All right.32
The Table of Contents of the Report shows that it also included an Appendices
containing FD-302's of the investigators interviews with Jarrett, Matthews and Quirk, and e-mail
communications provided to the investigators by Matthews and Jarrett.33 But these, too, are being
withheld from the Court along with the notes investigators took of their interviews with
Matthews, Jarrett and Quirk from which the FD-302's were prepared. Plaintiff suspects that this


Id. at p. 10.


Id. at pp. 10-11.(emphasis added). This conversation took place while Quirk was
driving. Id. at p. 11. Later that day Quirk supposedly places a four minute call from his cell
phone to Matthews, which was not recorded. Id.

Id. at p. 12.


Id. at p. 13.


See Exhibit 9 hereto.


Id. at p. 14.


Doc. 231-1,p. 2.

Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 12 of 15

material is being withheld to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court, and that would be further evidence
of contempt.
To establish civil contempt on the part of the FBI, Plaintiff must establish by clear and
convincing evidence that the Bureau was aware of the August 26, 2014, Order, and that it did not
comply with that Order.34 It is undisputed that the FBI was aware of that Order and did not
comply. Consequently, the FBI is in contempt and it can only avoid being sanction by showing
that its compliance was impossible, which the Bureau can not do.35 Plaintiff, however, submits
that it is important to keep in focus that the issue of the FBIs contempt is distinct from whether
the Bureau actually engaged in witness tampering.
The issue of the FBIs contempt and associated punishment is to be decided by the Court
at the November 13, 2014 hearing; whereas Plaintiff respectfully submits that the FBIs
compliance with the Courts Orders, particularly relating to the allegations of witness tampering,
and with Plaintiffs FOIA request,36 should be referred to Magistrate Pead in the capacity of a
Special Master to look into these matters and report back to the Court. Upon receipt of the
Magistrates Report and Recommendations, the Court will be in the position to determine what if
any spoliation sanctions or presumptions should be applied. The work of Magistrate Pead will


See In re Lucre Management Group, LLC, 365 F.3d 874, 875 (10th Cir. 2004).


See United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983).


Doc. 230, pp. 2-3.


Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 13 of 15

undoubtedly take some time to complete. But, meanwhile, the FBI should be found to be in
contempt, and sanctioned accordingly.
Magistrate Pead should be appointed as Special Master and he should be tasked with
oversee[ing] the Defendants compliance with the courts orders, particularly relating to the
allegations of witness tampering, and with Plaintiffs FOIA request.37 But the issue of the FBIs
contempt can be and should be summarily decided, and the FBI should be found in contempt
because the Courts Order to investigate was a discovery order, and as such, the FBIs failure
to obey constitutes civil contempt under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (B)(2)(A)(vii). More
importantly, because it was a discovery order, Rule 37 provides for a wide range of sanctions to
be imposed.38
However, the correct sanction to impose in this instance will require some additional
information. The FBI, for example, should be required to immediately produce to the Court and
to Plaintiff: (1) copies of the recorded telephone conversations between Matthews and Agent
Quirk or message left by either man; (2) unredacted copies of any transcripts prepared of those
calls; (3) the FD-302's prepared of the interviews with Quirk, Jarrett and Matthews; (4) the
investigators notes from which those FD-302's were prepared; (5) the e-mails that Jarrett and
Matthews gave to the Inspection Division investigators,; (6) all documents that record, refer to or
memorialize communications between Agent Quirk and others within the FBI regarding Matthews


Doc. 230, pp. 2-3.


See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(B)(2)(A). Plaintiff likewise believes that the FBIs failure to
comply with the Courts May 13, 2011 Order (Doc. 82) to conduct additional searches was a
discovery order.

Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 14 of 15

testifying in the instant case as well as records of all communications between Jarrett and anyone
within the FBI of the Department of Justice about Matthews testifying.
In addition, at the November 13, 2014 hearing, counsel for the FBI should be prepared
to discuss with the Court: (1) when the Jarrett, Matthews and Quirk interviews were completed by
investigators from the Inspection Division; (2) when a draft or copy of the Report was first
circulated and to whom it was circulated within the FBI or Department of Justice; (3) whether
counsel for the FBI or any other Department of Justice Attorneys reviewed the Report and, if so
who and when; (4) whether anyone other than personnel from the Inspection Division suggested
changes to the Report and, if so, who and is there a record of those suggested changes; and (5)
whether there were communications between the Inspection Division and anyone within the
Department of Justice concerning the Report prior to November 7, 2014 and, if so, who and when
as well as the substance of any such communications. If, as Plaintiff suspects, this withheld
and/or unknown information shows an attempt by the FBI to mislead the Court, then the most
onerous and draconian of sanctions should be imposed upon the FBI.
DATED this 12th day of November, 2014.
/s/ jesse c. trentadue
Jesse C. Trentadue
Pro Se


Case 2:08-cv-00788-CW-DBP Document 237 Filed 11/12/14 Page 15 of 15

I hereby certify that on this 12th day of November 2014, the foregoing MEMORANDUM was
served by the Courts CM/ECF electronic process upon:
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: (202) 616-8475

Assistant United States Attorney
185 South State Street, #300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Tel: (801) 524-5682
Attorneys for Defendants

/s/ jesse c. trentadue