Department of Justice Response to Senator Lugar

Date stamped 2012 APR 24 PM 1:36
Date stamped APR 9 2012

US Department of Justice
Criminal Division
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C, 20530

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Lugar:

This responds to your letter, dated January 19, 2012, forwarding a letter from Carrie Twomey expressing concern about a request for legal assistance from the United Kingdom (UK) that seeks information relating to the 1972 abduction and murder of Jean McConville and the subpoenas issued to the Trustees of Boston College in furtherence of this request.

The UK submitted the above-mentioned request for assistance pursuant to the 1994 U.S.-U.K. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, as supplemented by the 2003 U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (the MLAT). Under the terms of the MLAT, the United States has obligations to assist the UK in criminal investigations, provided that treaty requirements are met. The United States takes such obligations seriously. Consequently, the Department of Justice considered the provisions of the MLAT prior to proceeding to execute the request.

Whether and how the Trustees of Boston College must comply with the subpoenas issued in this case are matters addressed in litigation pending before a U.S. federal court. I note that Ms. Twomey availed herself of the opportunity to bring the issues raised in her letter to the attention of the federal court addressing this matter. In light of the fact that litigation is pending in this matter, I hope that you will understand why the Department of Justice is unable to comment further.

We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we may be of assistance with this or any other matter.


Mythili Raman
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

In response to: Senator Lugar follow up letter 16 Apr 2012
Senator Lugar’s forwarding of Carrie Twomey letter 18 Jan 2012

Carrie Twomey Letter to Senator Lugar, forwarded to Department of Justice and State Department

This letter was forwarded by Senator Lugar to the Department of Justice and the State Department with a request for a response to the issues raised.

January 18, 2012

The Honorable Richard Lugar
306 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1401

Dear Senator Lugar,

My name is Carrie Twomey. I am writing to you regarding the Boston College subpoena case, which involves an oral history collection housed in the Burns Library at Boston College. The ‘Belfast Project’ oral history is a series of interviews conducted with former republican and loyalist paramilitary members, collected between 2001 and 2006, in the wake of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). It was an academic, historical project created to allow future generations to better understand what drives people to conflict and is a valuable archive that should be protected. Interviews were given on the basis of strict confidentiality promised by Boston College. The contents of the archive were only to be released after the death of an interviewee, unless written permission from that interviewee was given. The Attorney General, under the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), has issued subpoenas for specified materials on behalf of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). No attempt has been made by the PSNI to get the information which it seeks on subpoena, information which is in the public domain, by utilizing their own domestic law enforcement methods.

My interest in this case is personal. Anthony McIntyre, the lead researcher for the project who conducted the interviews with republicans, is my husband. I am an American citizen, as are our two children, who are 10 and 6 years of age. As I have set forth in my affidavit to the United States District Court in Massachusetts, the subpoena request for this archive, if successful, will turn historical material into criminal evidence. This has put our family in grave danger. If the subpoena requests are successful, and the archive material handed over to the British authorities, I believe we will be placed in even greater danger, as will all the participants in the project. My husband, in particular, because of his association with the project, is being characterized as an informer and I fear that he is being set up for assassination by significant people affiliated with the IRA, who are very unhappy with the existence of this oral history.

In addition to the threat our family faces over this, the subpoenas have the potential to undo all the good work achieved by American foreign policy efforts in the contribution towards creating and maintaining the peace in Northern Ireland. The work of the Clinton and Bush administrations, Senator George Mitchell, Special Envoy Mitchell Reiss and our current Secretary of State, as well as Senators such as yourself and others was vital to securing the Good Friday Agreement and enabling its implementation.

While the peace process itself has taken place over a decade, the peace is still fragile, and the institutions underpinning it are not fully embedded. Currently, the battle over the past and how to deal with the setting up of a ‘truth commission’ is rumbling alongside the foundations of that peace. The GFA drew a line under offenses committed during the conflict, with the release of political prisoners and an end to a discredited justice system which was necessary in order to move the process ahead. Today the institutions created by the GFA are run by people who in many cases were heavily involved in the conflict. If the PSNI were to arrest and charge those people, it would create a huge destabilizing effect.

The United States Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations recognized this under your chairmanship. In considering the 2003/2004 US-UK law enforcement treaties, the clear intent of the Senate was that the United Kingdom would not employ the US-UK Extradition Treaty (and by extension the companion law enforcement provisions of the US-UK MLAT) to reopen issues addressed in the GFA, or to impede any further efforts to resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland. [See Proviso to Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and related exchanges of letters, signed at Washington on March 31, 2003 (US-UK Extradition Treaty) (Treaty Doc. 108-23).]

In light of this, I respectfully request your assistance with some questions I have for the Department of Justice regarding the origin of these subpoenas. I believe it is incumbent on the U.S. Department of Justice to explain specifically why this information has been requested, and to address the following:

• Did the UK Requesting Authority advise the Department of Justice of the admissibility of the use of the archive as evidence in a Northern Ireland court?
• Had the UK Authorities attempted to obtain this information from less sensitive sources?
• Has the Department of Justice considered the risk to people’s safety and lives, including those of U.S. citizens, if this action is pursued?
• Did the Department of Justice consult with the State Department about the implications in this for American foreign policy?
• Did the Department of Justice consider the language in the proviso of the Extradition Treaty?

As you are no doubt aware, concern has been expressed at the highest levels of government in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland regarding the deposit by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) of its papers under a 30 year embargo at the Burns Library. The concerns expressed are that those papers may no longer be protected, if the PSNI can readily access other sensitive materials from the Burns Library.

Whereas the treatment of past offenses is still contentious, confidentiality is a recognized, vital ingredient in enabling the outworkings of the peace process to proceed, whether it is in the area of decommissioning weapons, in locating victims’ remains, or in other areas such as the International Monitoring Commission, whose work also depended heavily on confidential information.

The Irish Republic and the United Kingdom decided the answer to the question of how to handle the past when they signed the GFA. Both countries, as well as the United States, determined that the politics of peace required compromises. The governments granted a de facto amnesty by releasing political prisoners from jail, and limited prosecutions because it was deemed to be more important to bring about peace to Ireland.

It seems that none of this, nor the implications for the future, was considered by the Department of Justice in issuing these subpoenas. This case has far reaching implications not only for history but for the lives of real people today – including myself and my American children.

One driving factor in the creation of this oral history, one reason why people from the republican and loyalist communities both participated in it, is because they did not want their children to grow up fighting the same war. They wanted to leave their record so that the mistakes of the past would not be repeated.

The issues around this subpoena concern many important ideals: academic freedom, freedom of speech, historical narrative, victims’ rights and the duty of journalists to protect their sources. However, the most important issue seems to have been forgotten: the right to life.

I would like to thank you, Senator Lugar, and also Marik String, for your time and help with this matter.


Carrie Twomey

Exhibit F, Affidavit of Carrie Twomey
Exhibit C, Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Senator Lugar’s follow up letter to the Department of Justice 16 Apr 2012
Department of Justice response 24 Apr 2012

Strong Irish Views at State Department

Strong Irish Views at State Department
Fr. Sean Mc Manus
Irish National Caucus
Capitol Hill
April 24, 2012

Irish-Americans today voiced strong concerns at a State Department Briefing

The Briefing was “off the record,” which means the State Department officials cannot be quoted.

“However,” explained Fr. Sean Mc Manus – President of the Capitol Hill-based Irish National Caucus – “it can be said that Irish–American leaders from across the country expressed strong concerns.”

He continued: “When the meeting was thrown open for discussion, I was first to speak and I immediately raised the cases of both Marian Price and Gerry Mc Geough.

Sean Pender, National Chairman of the Freedom of All Ireland Committee, followed up with the issue of collusion and the continued stonewalling of the British Government on many killings.

Peter Kissel, leader of the Washington Chapter of the Irish American Unity Conference, weighed in on the Boston College tapes and cases like the Ballymurphy Massacre.

Other issues raised were: immigration, the case of the deportees, the peace walls, the need not to ignore the plight of working-class or deprived Loyalists who feel left out of the political dialogue.”

Fr. Mc Manus explained: “I also had intended to raise later in the discussion the need for a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights, but time did not permit.

However, all of us were very pleased with the meeting. Our issues were listened to with attention and respect.

We are very grateful and hope the State Department will continue these Briefings.

I — and several others — expressed great confidence in, and respect for, Hillary and we hope she can help with these issues.”

Never Reveal Sources

Never Reveal Sources
John Coulter
The Pensive Quill
Sunday, April 29, 2012

Former Blanket columnist and guest writer Dr John Coulter maintains the final outcome of the Boston College tapes legal saga will have long-term implications for journalists reporting political and paramilitary developments in Ireland.

One cold October morning in 1991 when I was Editor of one of County Antrim’s oldest weekly newspapers, the Carrickfergus Advertiser and East Antrim Gazette, one of my most reliable loyalist contacts met me on the way into the office and told me to my face that I was to be shot dead.

At the time I was being investigated by the police concerning my role as a commissioned researcher on the controversial Channel Four’s Dispatches programme, The Committee, which had probed allegations of collusion between the then Royal Ulster Constabulary, the then Ulster Defence Regiment and members of loyalist death squads.

At that time in 1991, the Troubles were still raging. It would be another three years before the loyalist and republican paramilitary ceasefires would be declared and another seven years until the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.

In journalistic terms, collusion was a taboo subject. But I had a confidential source within the so-called RUC Inner Circle, the secret organisation planning the murder of republican suspects.

I had known this source since 1986. While there had been a predictable media backlash from Unionists over the screening of the Dispatches programme, I was rather taken aback by the coldness with which usually friendly loyalist source informed me of my fate.

I was not to be shot because of my participation in the programme because I come from a Unionist, Orange, Irish Presbyterian background. I was to be shot to ensure my silence over the identity of my sources.

I had given my word to the RUC Inner Circle source and a subsequent senior commander in the then highly-active Ulster Resistance paramilitary group that I would not reveal their identities. The sources were linked.

The problem was there was nothing then in law which could give legal muscle to my declarations of anonymity to my sources. It was just my word as a journalist. In this specific loyalist source’s interpretation, the only way to fully guarantee anonymity was to put a bullet through my head.

The Press Complaints Commission’s and National Union of Journalists’ Codes of Practice are very clear on the identity of source protection. My interpretation of these codes is – don’t betray your confidential sources.

I am on record as going a step further. If you cannot keep your mouth shut about genuine sources who supply you with confidential information, then don’t become a journalist.

In journalism, too, I have had the opportunity to meet and interview people and organisations with which I radically disagree. But I am not paid to agree or disagree – just to report the truth.

I am firmly convinced if the Boston Tapes debate is lost by my two journalistic colleagues, Dr Anthony McIntyre and Ed Moloney, there will be disastrous long-term consequences for investigative journalism in Ireland.

Just as the Historical Enquiries Team is investigating unsolved deaths during the conflict, there is the real possibility that if a situation arises where the Boston College tapes are handed over to the British Government, then the British and Irish authorities could begin investigating other journalistic sources.

This may seem like scaremongering and sensationalising, but my own personal experience is that people who use violence to pursue their political agenda could also use that violence against journalists if they think their identities have been compromised.

This has been especially true of my investigations into the Far Right in Ireland. In 2003, I interviewed a senior member of the Ku Klux Klan in Ireland as part of an investigation for an article entitled ‘The Orange Swastika’ which was published in the anti-racist magazine, Searchlight International.

The KKK source arrived at my home and issued a chilling threat as to what would happen to me if his identity became public.

To be able to write about conflict, journalists must have the ability to be able to give guarantees of anonymity to confidential sources. To this extent, journalists have to make up their minds whether they are reporters first, or citizens of the state first.

Opponents of this argument will respond with the ‘what-iffery’ tactic – what if your source turns out to be a paedophile? What if your source says they either harmed someone or plan to harm someone?

But the key factor linking journalist and confidential source is trust. I, as a journalist, trust the confidential source that the information I am being given is genuine. The confidential source, as well, trusts me as a reporter that when I say I will grant anonymity that I am genuine in that offer.

If, after having given my word to that confidential source, I deliberately break that trust by revealing his or her identity, who will ever trust me again with confidential information? I become nothing more than a common tout.

I also have a spiritual concern about the legal outcome of the Boston Tapes issue. What guides me in life is my deeply personal evangelical Christian faith. I am a born-again believer. I have never said that makes me perfect, only saved.

One consequence if the Boston Tapes are handed over to the British is that other journalists could be forced under law to give up their notes or identities of their confidential sources.

What impression of born again Christianity would people have if they heard me giving up the identities of confidential sources just to save my own neck legally?

Likewise, as a born again believer, the Holy Bible is to me the Inspired Word of God. It has been a guiding light in my life.

If I was asked in court to swear on that Book to tell the truth and the question was asked to reveal the identity of confidential sources, what would I do? Again – while it may at this stage only be a fictional scenario – I have taken the decision that I will not betray my faith and I would refuse to answer the question.

Professionally, I am a journalist first. Personally, I am a born again Christian first. I am not a corner-street tub thumper. Many of the paramilitary sources I have interviewed over my 30 plus years as a reporter are atheists, agnostics, or are crazy fundamentalists.

But I do not want them to make a judgement on the evangelical Christian faith because I betrayed their confidence just to protect my own neck.

There is also the example journalists like myself will set to the next generation of reporters. How can we call ourselves beacons of good practice if we reveal our sources?

Much more than the fate of the contents of the Boston Tapes is at stake if Dr McIntyre and Mr Moloney lose this case. The very future of confidentiality of genuine sources – and ultimate the safety of journalists – is at stake.

Congressman Mark S. Critz Letter to Secretary of State Clinton and Attorney General Holder

April 19, 2012

The Honorable Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520

The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Secretary Clinton and Attorney General Holder:

I am writing on behalf of my constituents who are deeply troubled by the ongoing effots of the United Kingdom to obtain materials from Boston College’s historical archive on The Troubles in Northern Ireland (“The Belfast Project”).

As you know, the British Government has invoked the United States-United Kingdom Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) to obtain these documents from Boston College. The original intent of the scholars and individuals involved in the Boston College Belfast Project was for this information to remain absolutely private. Breaching this agreement could have unintended consequences for journalistic integrity and academic freedom, as well as cause irrevocable damage to future international academic endeavors and the ongoing international peace process.

I believe that the release of these sensitive documents puts at risk the progress that has been made since the Good Friday Agreement. In the interest of maintaining peace and furthering good relations between our nations, I urge you to work with the British Authorities to rescind this request.

I appreciate your attention to this delicate matter and please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.


Member of Congress

Opposition to Boston College Subpoena Grows; Holder Ripped for Response


Phila., NYC & Denver
April 26, 2012

The coalition of Irish American groups spearheading the drive against Attorney General Holder’s subpoena of records in Boston College Irish archives has released their response to his inaction and indecision.

“Our nation’s chief law enforcement officer,” stated Seamus Boyle, National President of the AOH, “has a duty … a legal obligation pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) … to oppose any request from a country that is working night and day to corrupt the Irish peace process.”

Boyle pointed out that the record of Congressman Christopher Smith’s most recent hearing is replete with documentation of British efforts to undermine the rule of law and deny justice to the victims of their misrule.

Jim Cullen of the Brehon Law Society noted: “Mr. Holder has chosen to ignore our request and, indeed, the requests of other Members of Congress including the Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations, by alleging he is constrained from acting due to litigation before the federal Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit. We know of no legal reason restraining him from withdrawing his subpoena, and there are ample policy reasons for doing so spelled out in MLAT documents.”

President Thomas J. Burke Jr., National President of the IAUC welcomed the support of Senators and Representatives who have joined our appeal including Representatives Sires (D-NJ) and Murphy (R-PA) and Senators Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Lugar (R-IN).

Continued Burke: “Our impression is that the litigation is being used by the State Department as a rationalization for inaction and inappropriate deference of important policy considerations to the Department of Justice‘s narrow focus on legal technicalities.”

The coalition members also announced a nationwide Contact a Consulate (British) campaign in addition to their appeals to Members of Congress for letters of support.

Attachment: Coalition letter to Attorney General Holder

Lugar now intervenes in BC case

Lugar now intervenes in BC case
Irish Echo
APRIL 25TH, 2012

The senior Senator from Indiana, Sen. Richard Lugar, has now intervened in the Boston College case, writing to Attorney General Eric Holder. Lugar’s intervention follows letters to Holder from Senators John Kerry and Charles Schumer expressing concern over the legal pursuit of archived material stored in the college’s library and dealing with the Northern Ireland Troubles.

Lugar’s move adds a bipartisan twist to the political efforts to prevent the turning over of files to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston. Lugar is a prominent Republican while Kerry and Schumer are leading Democrats.

Lugar has asked AG Holder for the Department of Justice’s “official position” on the Boston College subpoenas.

According to journalist and author Ed Moloney, one of the principle compilers of the BC archive, Lugar’s interest derives from the fact that he served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the US-UK extradition treaty was ratified.

“It exempted pre-Good Friday Agreement offences from the scope of the treaty, an exemption that many believe also applies to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty which was ratified by the U.S. Senate at exactly the same time and which has been used to enforce the Boston College subpoenas,” Moloney said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the attorneys for Moloney and co-archivist Anthony McIntyre have responded to a letter from the U.S. Attorney handling the BC case, Carmen Ortiz, which was sent to a panel of appeals court judges after the court heard arguments in the case.

In the letter, also mailed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, attorneys Eamon Dornan and James Cotter stated that they “could not find any provisions in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure or U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s Rulebook which would permit the Department of Justice to make further submissions or communications once the Panel has risen following oral argument.

“However, in the best interests of our clients, we feel compelled to respond and request that you kindly bring this letter to the attention of the Panel.”

The attorneys wrote that it was their “respectful submission” that the Department of Justice’s letter “merely confirms that the District Court’s denial of the Appellants’ motion to intervene prevented them from providing evidence that is essential to assessing their claims that the Government’s position poses a grave risk of physical harm to the Appellants and their families.”

This is a reference to Anthony McIntyre in particular. McIntyre lives in Ireland and his family is of the view that he is in physical danger as a result of the archives being opened for inspection by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which initiated the action resulting in Boston College having to open the archive at its Burns Library.

Both Moloney, who lives in New York, and McIntyre, sought and failed to intervene as interested parties in the case and it was this unsuccessful bid that led to the appeals court hearing.

In her post-hearing letter to the appeals judges, DA Ortiz disputed claims made during the hearing that the release of archives resulted in danger to the appellants, Moloney and McIntyre.

Moloney described the writing of the letter as an “extraordinary” and “perhaps unprecedented” legal moves.

Close Enough for Government Work

Close Enough for Government Work
Chris Bray
MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2012

Mildly amusing new and tiny little discovery that will only be of interest to close observers of the Belfast Project subpoenas who enjoy making fun of government lawyers. That might very well be an audience of me, but let’s do this thing anyway and call it a party.

When Assistant U.S. Attorney Barbara Healy Smith sent the First Circuit a letter, two weeks later, to say the things she hadn’t thought to mention during oral argument over the Belfast Project subpoenas, nobody much understood what she was up to. Writing at Letters Blogatory, lawyer and longtime observer Ted Folkman shrugged that “it must be the silly season in the Belfast Project case.”

“I am not sure of the procedural correctness of the government’s letter,” Folkman wrote. “The Federal Rules are silent, and the letter is pretty plainly not a citation of supplemental authorities under Rule 28(j).”

Beats the hell out of me what that is, but then here comes my old friend Google with Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure:

(j) Citation of Supplemental Authorities.

If pertinent and significant authorities come to a party’s attention after the party’s brief has been filed—or after oral argument but before decision—a party may promptly advise the circuit clerk by letter, with a copy to all other parties, setting forth the citations. The letter must state the reasons for the supplemental citations, referring either to the page of the brief or to a point argued orally. The body of the letter must not exceed 350 words. Any response must be made promptly and must be similarly limited.

Here’s a link to Barbara Healy Smith’s letter, in full. It surely doesn’t look to me like it cites any pertinent but previously overlooked authorities — I just see whining. But here’s the thing that Carrie Twomey just pointed out to me. If you open the letter in Adobe Reader and click on “properties,” you see this:

So Barbara Healy Smith titled her document, which no one apparently perceived or even now perceives to be a Rule 28(j) letter, “Rule 28j letter (with red notations).”

If your letter isn’t a Rule 28(j) letter, but you call it one, you’re good. That totally covers it. This is why every document I write is titled something like, “Convincing letter to that dude who wants to sue me,” or “Letter to my wife to not be mad at all about what I did to the left side of the car.”

And the red notations: Who from?

Senator Richard G. Lugar Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder

April 16 2012

The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder,

I write to request the official position of the Department of Justice regarding the ongoing efforts on behalf of the United Kingdom to obtain documents and recordings from the Boston College Oral History Archive on the Troubles in Northern Ireland pursuant to provisions of the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT).

I thank you in advance for your response.


Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator

This letter is a follow up to a previous letter sent in January that the Department of Justice has yet to respond to.

Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder


April 23, 2012

Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr.
Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, D. C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This is a follow-up to our letters of October 20th of last year and January 26th of this year which you replied to, through Ms. Mary Ellen Warlow, Director of your Office of International Affairs, on December 8th and March 7th respectively.

The letters were unresponsive to our request. We join again in asking for your withdrawal of the subpoena which you issued to Boston College pursuant to a request from the United Kingdom. Your letter noted your obligations to the United Kingdom pursuant to the Mutual legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). We have asked that you first consider your obligations as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. The actions we submitted for your consideration are, we believe, your primary obligation to the United States pursuant to the MLAT.

The Treaty obligations that must be fulfilled on your part are three-fold and are included in the ratification documents. The Attorney General is to determine whether the request is for a legitimate prosecution of a crime, most notably, money laundering drug crimes cited frequently in the Senate colloquy on the Treaty. Even the judgment of a former Chief Constable of the RUC, that a prosecution would be unlikely for the crime for which documents were requested did not persuade you that the request was suspicious and, in fact, politically motivated. In your capacity you are to determine if fulfilling the request would undermine the values that support the American justice system. Mr. Holder, Northern Ireland’s legal system is to law what military music is to music. Juryless courts which the NYC Bar Association urged be abandoned in the 1990’s remain in place and are proving useful in the imprisonment of political prisoners Gerry McGeough, a former candidate for office, and Marian Price, a political dissident whose views annoy the British. Moreover, the most casual observer of the conflict in Ireland quickly learns that the police force in the North was lawless and corrupt beyond measure and remains so to this day. So evident is this lawlessness that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, publicly admitted that there was collusion between the murderers of solicitor Patrick Finucane and the same police who now beg this favor of you. What message is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States sending to the rest of the world if it does the bidding of a police force who murders officers of the court Patrick Finucane? Solicitor Rosemary Nelson was murdered by the same hidden hand just months after testifying before Congressman Christopher Smith about the death threats to her from members of the police force in Lurgan, Northern Ireland. Your lightening-like issuance of not one but two subpoenas to such a contemptible police force is unthinkable and unconscionable. Finally, you are obligated to assess whether the fulfillment of the request would impair or conflict with important public policy of the United States. The United States has played a pivotal role in crafting and protecting the Irish peace process which resulted in the international treaty of 1998 and evolves precariously today. The threats to the peace process are manifest in the British failure to fulfill key justice provisions of the Belfast Agreement and its various codicils. They have chosen to ignore provisions dealing with the assassination of Patrick Finucane, the mass murder of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings and are doing what they can to bury the legacy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in murdering hundreds of innocent Catholics. If you had consulted with the Department of State in these matters, as Ms. Warlow’s letter suggests, you no doubt were made aware of all the potential ways this request not only makes a mockery of the 1998 peace pact but serves to embolden its dissidents. We would certainly appreciate a copy of such a consultation with the Department of State or a summary of it.

Ms. Warlow ends her letter suggesting further comment would be inappropriate as the matter is subject of litigation before the Court. The litigation does raise important points with respect to the individuals seeking to be heard and the Attorney General’s obligations. But, as noted previously, we believe your primary obligations are much broader than those raised in the litigation. On the other hand, the actions of United States Attorney General Carmen Ortiz in sending an ex parte communication to the Court of Appeals panel is an extraordinary attempt to influence the panel after arguments were finished. It is such actions by the Attorney General and NOT those requested by our organizations which are inappropriate and prejudicial!!!

We would appreciate the favor of any early reply to this request. If you have any question regarding the issues raised, please do not hesitate to contact us.


Seamus Boyle
National President
Ancient Order of Hibernians

Robert Dunne Esq.
Brehon Law Society

Thomas J. Burke Jr. Esq.
National President
Irish American Unity Conference