PART 9: EXTREME PREJUDICE: THE TERRIFYING STORY OF THE PATRIOT ACT & THE COVER UPS OF 911 AND IRAQ

EXTREME PREJUDICE:

THE TERRIFYING STORY  OF 

THE PATRIOT ACT & THE 

COVER UPS OF 911 AND IRAQ

BY SUSAN LINDAUER

CHAPTER 18: 

THE CASE OF THE MISSING TRIAL 

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you— If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting, too— If you can wait, and not be tired by waiting or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies; Yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise— 

“If” 

by Rudyard Kipling 

The Justice Department had mounted a high stakes bluff by indicting me. But I had no intention of backing down. The Republican leadership would need its “big guns, ” because I intended to put up one helluva fight. And I intended to win. 

I was never afraid of going to Trial. And I never considered pleading guilty. Not for a moment. I had my entire legal strategy mapped out within the first couple of hours after my arrest. I could see lots of mistakes in the indictment, and I quickly identified which witnesses and evidence would be necessary to repudiate the whole lot. 

I viewed it as legal harassment. But I also recognized that once a trial exposed the ridiculous nature of the charges, I would win. More importantly, the public would win, because they’d learn some important truths about Iraq, 9/11 and lost opportunities to advance counter-terrorism policy at a substantial level—like collecting financial records on Al Qaeda from Baghdad, in order to close down the cash pipeline feeding terrorism. 

The public just didn’t know who I was— yet. That would change radically with witness testimony. A trial would not be boring, for sure. Thanks to my work on Lockerbie, I could swiftly prove my anti-terrorism credentials. Once a jury in New York City understood the scope of my work on the 9/11 investigation, I was convinced they’d be appalled by the proceedings, and vote for acquittal. 

Proving my CIA credentials as an Asset was easiest of all. My stellar cast of witnesses included former Congressional staff and journalists, like Ian Ferguson, who interviewed my CIA handler, Dr. Fuisz for the Glasgow Sunday Herald during the Lockerbie Trial. 342 One of Scotland’s finest Solicitors, Edward MacKechnie, who won acquittal for his Libyan client, Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, in the Lockerbie Trial, immediately promised to travel at his own expense to testify for me about Dr. Fuisz’s intelligence credentials and our long work relationship. 343 344 MacKechnie’s generous offer to assist my Defense, backed up by emails, was beyond dispute. 

I had no worries on that score. Speculation to the contrary would be completely inaccurate— strictly disinformation by the Justice Department. 

Another stroke of luck, I could present Dr. Fuisz’s deposition from the Lockerbie Trial, taken in the U.S. District Court of Alexandria, Virginia in January, 2001. 345 The deposition before Judge White established Dr. Fuisz’s role in Middle East anti-terrorism from the 1980s onwards, expounding his direct knowledge of events leading up to the bombing of Pan Am #103— aka Lockerbie. The deposition included a list of 11 names of terrorists who participated in the attack, under double seal, which mapped out the conspiracy showing how all the tentacles combined together, in a sort of paramilitary defense of heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. [This book here by DIA asset Lester Colemans backs up her claim,that the government covered up the truth about Lockerbie DC]

http://www.libertes-internets.net/archives/docs/Lester_K_Coleman_TRAIL_OF_THE_OCTOPUS.pdf

The CIA requirements were extraordinary. Sealed inside the United States, the deposition could only be opened by another federal Judge—like Judge Mukasey —or any Judge in Scotland. Translated from government speak, the truth was so devastating the CIA only allowed the deposition to go forward on condition that nobody inside the United States could read it. In all likelihood, my jury could never examine it, either. However, it would be invaluable for advancing Judge Mukasey’s understanding of the extraordinary nature of my activities with Dr. Fuisz. Without question, the Lockerbie deposition simplified my legal strategy enormously. 

At Trial, MacKechnie’s testimony, combined with Dr. Fuisz’s deposition, threatened to blow open the Lockerbie case again. 346 That meant serious headaches for the Justice Department, which has tried to clamp down discussion of Libya’s innocence, arguments that are well known in Europe and the Middle East, but poorly understood in the U.S. [yeah just like everything else DC]

As for proving Dr. Fuisz’s ties to Iraq-related issues, that was remarkably simple as well. Dr. Fuisz had testified before Congress in 1992, 347 identifying an American corporation that supplied Baghdad with SCUD mobile missile launchers before the first Gulf War. That testimony established Dr. Fuisz’ expertise on Iraqi military purchases. Armed with a slew of Congressional documents from Rep. Charles Rose’s inquiry, I had more than sufficient proof of Dr. Fuisz’s knowledge of Iraq. 348 It would be an easy matter to establish his bona fides supervising my backchannel efforts to get the U.N. weapons inspectors into Baghdad. 

I was in great shape. Very few defendants could hope for so much. Without question, I felt strong enough to shoulder this load. 

I just had to practice patience for a few months— until after the November elections, unfortunately. But hey, I was free on $500,000 bond. Notoriety did not frighten me, or I could never have engaged with Libya and Iraq for eight years in the first place. I considered it disgraceful that top Republicans had orchestrated the false arrest of an Asset, as part of a strategy to actively deceive voters about key election issues—9/11, Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence, and above all, Republican performance in the War on Terrorism. 

What a fiasco! Antiterrorism was not the “outstanding success” that Republicans pretended. The truth was flagrantly opposite. However voters would be denied the facts until after the Presidential elections. 

When Americans learned that truth—at my trial!— I was convinced they’d be furious. I was keenly aware that the calculated nature of this GOP deception might trigger an impeachment debate in President Bush’s second term of office. 

It was transparent that Republicans couldn’t face voters with the truth. So they resorted to the tactics of tyrants, arresting truth tellers, so they could hold onto power. With knowledgeable sources tied to real events out of the way, GOP leaders could salley forth to invent achievements and falsify their score card on national security. 

Oh, but my trial would debunk those lies. It would show Republicans are cheaters. 

In flights of fantasy, I envisioned Republicans wearing dunces’ hats on CNN, and placards that proclaimed: “I Will Not Lie to Voters About Terrorism Again.” 

In the aftermath of  Bush’s surprise upset in 2004, and the emergence of Senator John McCain as a powerhouse on the Republican stage in 2008, the question must be asked: Would Bush have won a second term as President if Americans had known the truth about our 9/11 warnings and Peace Options before the War? Would voters have been forgiving? Would failures in the 9/11 investigation have derailed GOP ambitions? 

Myself, I seriously doubt Bush could have won. 

Inner circle Republicans must have doubted it, too— or they would never have arrested me. 

In March 2004, getting through the Pre-Trial phase struck me as more obnoxious and frustrating than anything else. My natural resilience kicked in, and I was determined that I would survive and prevail. 

From the opening hours of my arrest, the international media began hammering on my family relationship to Andy Card, Chief of Staff to President Bush. 

The White House faced serious blowback. It wasn’t going to bite the Democrats that a former Congressional press secretary in a couple of Democrat offices got jumped as an accused “Iraqi Agent.” It was going to bite the Good Old Boys in the GOP that I delivered 11 progress reports to my second cousin, White House Chief of Staff, detailing Iraq’s agreement to resume the weapons inspections. 

Worse for the White House, I’m convinced my old handlers, Dr. Fuisz and possibly Hoven, frantically contacted the top brass at U.S. Intelligence, reminding everybody that no nondisclosure agreement existed to stop me from talking. 349 

I could tell everything. And I would. 

Andy Card’s day had to be going from bad to worse. 

All of the world’s media crushed into my tiny hamlet of Takoma Park, in the suburbs of Maryland, just a few miles from Capitol Hill. Russian television interviewed shopkeepers and neighbors. Friends caught the story in Taiwan, Malaysia, France, Canada and Great Britain. The global media gleefully proclaimed the same story: Andy Card’s cousin got arrested as an Iraqi Agent. Oh joy! 

Even more salacious, some media wrongly reported that I was accused of spying for Iraq. Though untrue, it added to the damage for the White House. 

Now then, I’m notoriously tenacious and stubborn in the face of controversy, or I could never have dealt with Libya and Iraq in the first place. The same could not be said for my dear cousin, Andy. 

While I was locked in the holding cage at the Baltimore Courthouse, with the global media pounding the White House for sound bites, Andy Card’s “Susan Lindauer problem” mushroomed by the hour. Andy’s cabal must have raced frantically to find a solution. They needed something to knock me off the pedestal of media martyrdom. From those first hours, I’m supremely confident the White House recognized the mistake of going forward to trial. They could see that I would never submit quietly to a guilty plea, as they must have hoped (foolishly). That message was spattered in blood on the jailhouse wall. A trial would be loud and ugly. And they would lose, because I could easily prove that I’m telling the truth. And it’s a good truth. 

I was like a tornado that threatened to rip open the Grand Old Party’s circus tents, giving voters everywhere a clear view of the stage props and parlor tricks in the Greatest Show on Earth, known as the “War on Terrorism.” 

Andy Card’s cabal needed a strategy to shut me down. And they needed it fast. 

At the start, their assault looked so innocuous. It was deceptively simple, in fact.

At the end of a long and tiring day locked in that holding cage, my case finally got in front of federal magistrate, Susan Gauvey at about 4pm. She had the honor of deciding my bail in Baltimore, and approving my extradition to New York City. 

The Prosecutor ran forward to huddle in front of the judge. Apparently he had “information.” Breathlessly, he informed Judge Gauvey that a family member had told Pre-Trial Services I threatened suicide several weeks before my arrest. On those grounds, the Justice Department was demanding that I submit to a psychiatric evaluation, as part of my bail conditions. Otherwise, the Justice Department had no objections to my release, since I was not a flight risk and maintained strong ties to the local community, including owning a home. 350 [They threw that 'info' out there just in case they needed to 'suicide' her DC]

It was a simple psychological evaluation. That’s how it started. 

A wonderful public defender was handling the bail release for me in Baltimore. He scurried back to drop this bombshell! 

I was astonished. I had no idea that I was suicidal. I imagined Andy Card slapping some White House colleague on the back! Good job, man! All those democrats are crazy! 

Hey, if you’re opposed to George Bush and the Iraq War, you’ve got to have a screw loose, right? It wasn’t Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who made a mistake in Iraq. It was me, the Asset. My incompetence. My lack of risk taking and problem solving. 

“Suicidal?” I laughed in his face. “You are kidding, right? There must be two Susan Lindauer's in court today, because I promise you they’ve got the wrong lady. I’ve never been suicidal in my life.” 

I was so “not suicidal, ” that I had told friends many times before my arrest if anything happened to me, they should confidently scorn suggestions of suicide. I was admittedly paranoid that somebody might try to stage my death to look like suicide, given my unpopularity in the intelligence community. But friends understood I would never do such a thing. Life’s a great adventure, even in the worst of times. Even today. 

Hearing this preposterous suggestion, I demanded that my public attorney march right back to the Judge, and deny the Prosecution’s report as ridiculous, politically motivated nonsense. 

“Your story’s running all over the media, ” the attorney told me. “The White House is in serious trouble over your arrest. They’re looking for a way out. We’ll deny that you’re suicidal, but really you don’t have a choice. They’re willing to accept bail, if you accept the evaluation. The Judge will see that as very reasonable. Then you can go home.” 

I looked at the clock. It was 4 pm. I looked at the rows of journalists crowded into the judge’s hearing room, waiting for the next play. 

The White House wanted to make the evening news. 

Well, okay. Getting out of that tiny holding cage and sleeping in a proper bed that night sounded like a fair trade to me. Doesn’t that argue for my sanity? The evaluation would take an hour. They promised it would be completed that evening. Afterwards, I would spend the night at a half-way house, until my father arrived from Phoenix. Then I would be released into his custody. I’d wait at home in Maryland until Trial. 

I could go along with that. I had no emotional issues to chat about to a psychologist. I’m not the kind of personality that finds psychology attractive. Quite the opposite, I consider it whining and malingering, a waste of time and energy. As for this preposterous suggestion that I’d been suicidal a few weeks earlier, that showed desperation. The Justice Department was playing dirty. Surely any honest psychologist would debunk the lie. It was just one meeting. I’d tell the guy I had no interest in counseling. 

How much trouble could one psych evaluation cause? 

A great deal apparently. In retrospect, I should have refused. At that moment, I made a fatal concession, which irrevocably damaged my reputation and the rest of my case. 

That evening after my arrest, I just wanted to go home. Having no prior experience with the courts, a psych evaluation appeared trivial and meaningless to me. I thought it best to show the Judge that I was cooperative to get bail, and set a positive precedent for my future proceedings. 

If only somebody had warned me, I would have protected myself from some outrageous character assassination that flagrantly contradicts the facts of my life. Over time, I developed a strategy for beating back the corrupt practices of court psychology, but only after some hard lessons, unfortunately. 

I remember that night keenly, in living color. I was so exhausted and hungry that I kept falling asleep. The jerk psychiatrist kept banging on the table to wake me up. My eyes kept closing and my head bounced up and down, when he smacked the table. I dug my fingernails into my hands desperately trying to stay awake. He complained to the Court that my “responses wandered.” 

Fortunately, my first public defender in Baltimore was terrific. He insisting on postponing the evaluation until the following day, so I could get some food in my stomach and a good night sleep. The day had wiped me out. 

Did the wise and perceptive psychiatrist pick up on that? No, the rational attorney did. The shrink doing the evaluation tried to inflict maximum damage, dismissing my adamant denials that I’d been suicidal, and that I had no idea where such a ridiculous allegation came from. He concluded that I was “not aware” of my suicidal impulses, but they must be there somewhere. (Oh that makes a lot of sense! I don’t know that I wish to kill myself. It’s a secret! I mean, give me a break. I was appalled.) 

Somebody also told the feds that my brother has bipolar disorder— which is not exactly true. My brother, John, experiences symptoms of ‘seasonal affective disorder, ” a.k.a the winter blues. I lacked the heart to tell my brother that he’s worse than bipolar. He’s confident, creative and intellectual, the most virulent threat to psychology out there. 

Demonstrating a profound lack of logic, the shrink declared that if my brother suffered bipolar swings, than obviously I must, too. (My brother and I are evidently identical beings.) In fact, there was no sign of bipolar disorder in our interview, since I was practically asleep. My attorney and I expected some measure of honesty in that regard. However, the shrink omitted any reference to my exhaustion in his report. That was my first lesson of the gross dishonesty of court psychology, which invents, falsifies and ignores for its own purposes. 

But it was my word against his. I would learn that lesson again, with more devastating results, until I discovered a solution. There are ways to protect yourself from this kind of psychology fraud that make all the difference to the outcome. 

By sheer dumb luck, I had done one thing right. I refused to meet the psychiatrist unless my attorney could be present. So my attorney stopped the loony shrink from doing even worst damage. My public defender put the Baltimore psychiatrist on notice that we intended to get a second evaluation from a different source closer to my home, over the weekend if necessary, before I faced Judge Mukasey in New York. Any counseling referral would be performed by the second evaluator. So the first shrink could not grab a contract for himself—which it became obvious he wanted to do. He wanted the business. 

That night I learned the hard way that psychology has become the new ambulance chasers in the Courts, defaming defendants as a source of income. 

Providing a community service for stressed defendants is no longer the motivation of court-ordered counseling. Psychology has nothing to do with “helping people.” It’s a power trip. Psychologists approach these evaluations as trolling for long-term accounts. They’re out to nab defendants as a business contract, so they can pay the mortgage and make the car payment. Defendants are cash cows, an ATM card to make withdrawals off the state and county budgets. The Feds pay beautifully. The shrink gets a fee and their practice gets a fee. Everybody makes out. As such, cherry picking defendants has become supremely popular at every possible opportunity. It’s all about money. 

It’s also highly subjective—not scientific in the least. That explains how the second evaluation two days later by Dr. John S. Kennedy, a psychiatrist at Family Health Services in Hyattsville, Maryland, reached a wholly different set of conclusions. 351 

Notably, Dr. Kennedy told me he’d never faced such intense political pressure to deliver a negative evaluation in his whole career. Apparently, Pre-Trial Services in Baltimore and Greenbelt phoned several times to impress him about my need for a psychiatric intervention. He told me he was shocked by it, that he regarded it as “unprofessional and unethical” to slant an evaluation for political purposes. And he would not do it. He would report only what he saw. 

Here’s what Dr. Kennedy submitted to Judge Mukasey: 352 

“Two days ago, Lindauer was indicted on four counts of being an Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Government. There was considerable media interest in the case. (Her) father told authorities that his daughter had recently spoken of suicide. Thus, within hours of the indictment, (Lindauer) was evaluated by Dr. Roskes, a forensic psychiatrist. Dr. Roskes felt she was “hypomanic or manic, ” and prescribed olanzapine 5 mg.” 

“Lindauer describes herself as a very energetic and creative person. She is outgoing and intense. She becomes engaged in projects and may work late into the night. However, she denies longer periods of sleeplessness, or loss of reality testing. She denies depressed mood or suicidality. She denies the use of alcohol or illicit drugs.” 

“Mental Status Exam: Eye contact was fair. Kinetics were activated. Speech was rapid and somewhat pressured. Affect was congruent and full in range. Thought processes were logical, linear and goal directed. Thought content was free of hallucinations, delusions, homicidality, or suicidality. She expressed confidence in an acquittal. Judgment and insight were fair. Cognition was grossly intact.” 

Dr. Kennedy discontinued olanzapine, and prescribed Depakote instead, for use if I should become panicked or excessively frightened during my indictment. It was not for daily use, only to calm down if I started to feel overwhelmed. I had no prior arrests. There’s no way to know in advance how you’ll respond to such a threat. I could not anticipate whether I would use the drug or not. You can experience some bad days under indictment, for sure. A defendant must stay calm, in order to focus on preparing a legal strategy. I agreed to have the Depakote with me, in case I needed it. There were some days that I took it. I got one prescription refill (30 tablets) over the next 18 months. 

Once they snagged me for the evaluation, however, the psych crowd would not let go. Dr. Kennedy recommended 4 to 12 weeks of counseling, 353 while I sorted out my emotional reaction to the indictment. I considered it tedious, but I could tolerate it for 12 weeks. 

By the time I stood in front of Judge Mukasey. Pretrial Services and the Prosecutor demanded that I undergo court-ordered counseling right up to trial, as a condition for bail. The phony suicide threat had done its worst. 

I was very curious as to how Pretrial Services concocted this bizarre suicide threat. Apparently somebody asked my father, who lives in Scottsdale, Arizona, what he knows about my life in Washington, DC. The truthful answer was “not much.” My father volunteered that several weeks prior to my arrest, he mailed me a newspaper advertisement, seeking healthy women to participate in gynecological experimentation of a new drug for ovarian cancer. Since my mother died of ovarian cancer, he thought I might want to participate in medical testing of the new drug. 

I was not so altruistic, with regards to loaning my female anatomy to the National Institutes of Health for use by medical researchers. So I tossed the paper in the trash can. 

Pretrial Services seized on that action: Tossing the crumpled advertisement into the trash constituted a suicide threat, they decided, because my mother died of that form of cancer. 

Outrageously enough, that’s how the court-order on forced psychology was imposed. 

Given what I would suffer because of the order forcing me to attend psych meetings, I have come to regard the phony suicide threat as defamatory sexual harassment and a degradation of women prisoners. I consider it grossly unprofessional and sexist. Friends have compared my situation to “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood. Indeed, it resonates. 

It’s sort of humorous, in a dark and Kafkaesque, because people asked me all the time “why I’m still alive” after dealing with the government in my case. 

I told everybody it’s because I refused to die until I got my trial. So I was probably going to live forever. 

I mean, suicide? Me? It would never happen. Seriously, you need drugs! 

In any event, that explains the twisted path that led from the White House to a court-order forcing me to attend psychology meetings in Maryland. Psychology was a political tool to discredit me. 

There’s no question but that I plainly hated the order to attend weekly meetings. Still I obeyed for a year, until the following March, becoming progressively annoyed as no trial date emerged. 

Dr. Taddesseh, the Maryland psychologist who saw me at Family Health Services, agreed that the court order was instigated to combat international media attention on my family relationship with White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card. 

Ominously, Dr. Taddesseh warned that PreTrial Services in Greenbelt phoned repeatedly, asking him to put me on drugs. When he refused, Pretrial Services requested that he refer my case back to them, so I could be assigned to another psychology practice. Dr. Taddesseh told me, in his opinion, the government was shopping for somebody to drug me. He considered it grossly unprofessional and corrupt for Pretrial Services to interfere with our psych meetings. He regarded it as more evidence of politics trying to guide the application of psychology against me. Thankfully, he resisted. 

After the stunt pulled by the first psychiatrist on the night of my arrest, I had no doubt that somebody with less integrity would go along with Pretrial Services, in order to keep their business. Court psychology is rife with corruption and fraud. There’s an attitude that if they’re lying and making up stories, it benefits the defendant who somehow will escape punishment, because of a psychologist’s opinion. Aren’t we lucky that they’re willing to manipulate the Court on our behalf! That’s become a bizarre justification for poaching off the courts. And it seems to rationalize their system of dishonesty and corruption. 

Even Dr. Taddesseh,who had vastly more integrity than most in the psychology business, was shocked to discover that I was wholly disinterested in anything he had to say. I told him that I had no intention of changing anything about my life. In one year I intended to be exactly the same person as when I first walked into his office. 

I took a cook-book to the first meeting, and forced him to listen to recitations of recipes, sans commentary. When he asked if I intended to cook any of the recipes, I assured him I would never do such a thing. I said I considered his insights as useless as a recipe that I would never bake. 

Dr. Taddesseh had the good sense to feel embarrassed. At subsequent meetings, he’d bring a copy of the Washington Post, and we’d discuss news articles and current affairs. That’s all I remember about our meetings. In fact, I don’t recall that we discussed anything except the Washington Post and my complaints how psych meetings interfered with my employment, since the bail order stopped me from working full time. I had to take a part-time job, which killed me financially. It was a huge waste of tax dollars. 

It was also incredibly tedious. I called it my “babysitting job.” I joked with friends that I had to go “check on Taddesseh once a week to make sure he was okay.” For awhile, to create conversation, I counted how many traffic lights flashed red versus green on the short drive to his office. This gave us something to chat about. He asked once what traffic lights “symbolized” for me. I rolled my eyes, and said that obviously it symbolized h i m , and the stop-and-go boredom of these road blocks thrown up by the Justice Department to delay us from going to trial. 

Another morning, I stared off into space, experiencing serious brain death. Apparently I sighed deeply. 

“What is it, Ms. Lindauer? What are you thinking?” He leaned forward intensely. 

“I’m thinking about what kind of ice cream to buy for lunch. I’m thinking if I should stop at Baskin Robbins or go to A & W for a root beer float.” 

Dr. Taddesseh sighed. “I can’t help you with that.” 

“Of course, not, ” I snapped back at him. “Do you honestly think I would consult you on something so important as ice cream!” 

After a year of this nonsense, I point blank refused to continue. If the Court wanted to revoke my bail, so be it. I told Taddesseh that he contributed nothing to my life. I accused him of selfishly interfering with my employment, so he could make money off the court. He was happy to see me go. 

As fate would have it, our meetings had some unexpected value, however. The 12 months of observation notes on my mental status, submitted by Dr. Taddesseh to Pretrial Services, provided a critical reference in my terrible court fight to come. 354 

Here’s what Dr. Taddesseh documented in his monthly reports to PreTrial Services: 355 (See Appendix.) 

May, 2004: “Ms. Lindauer appears to maintain psychological stability.” 

June, 2004: “Ms. Lindauer appears to maintain stability and reports no major psychiatric symptom that may require additional or special attention.” 

July, 2004: “Ms. Lindauer reports no mood swing or other psychological problem. She points out that she is not taking any medication. She considers that she is stabilized.” 

August, 2004: “Ms. Lindauer expressed concern about her future due to the legal problem. She appears stable and reports no symptom of mood or other psychological problems.” 

September, 2004: “Ms. Lindauer reports for therapy as scheduled. She expressed concern and frustration about her legal problems. She shows no unusual sign of mood or anxiety, and she feels comfortable and capable of managing her psychological and emotional challenges without aid of medication.” 

October, 2004: “Ms. Lindauer reports for therapy on a regular basis. She reports no symptom of mania or psychosis. She seems stable and focused on her legal problem. At times she gets anxious and worried of fear of going to jail.” 

November, 2004: “Ms. Lindauer’s mental exams show no sign or symptom of psychosis or delusion. However, at times she gets tense and excited when talking about her legal ordeal. Yet she seems goal directed, and her judgment is within normal range.” 

December, 2004: “Ms. Lindauer reports for scheduled sessions as arranged. She shares her feelings and thoughts in an open manner. She expresses concern about her freedom and her future. She shows no sign of mood disturbances or psychosis and delusions. She seems focused and goal directed.” 

January, 2005: “Ms. Lindauer reports for therapy as required. She appears to maintain psychological stability and shows no sign or symptom of mania or psychosis. However, she appears concerned about the outcome of her legal problem.” 

At the conclusion of one full year, in March, 2005: “Ms. Lindauer remained concerned about her legal problem. So far she has shown no sign of mania or depression and symptom of any psychosis that might require additional intervention.” 

Those session notes provide critical observation of my mental and emotional stability for 12 months after my indictment—in the same time period, as the psychiatric evaluations for the Defense and Prosecution. 

According to Family Health Services, there was nothing wrong with my mental status. I was just fine — mentally, psychologically and emotionally. 

What’s more, because those observations had been filed with Pretrial Services in Greenbelt, Maryland and the Southern District of New York, the Justice Department was fully aware of it, too. I demonstrated no history of mental defects, or any emotional upset of any kind— “no symptoms that might require additional intervention.” 

Interestingly, despite my demands for copies of those session notes, PreTrial Services in Greenbelt and New York argued for months against releasing them to me. They flat out refused to hand them over. So I had to get sneaky. I pretended that a wonderful lady in the anti-war movement was actually a psychologist who might start meeting me privately. I requested that copies of Dr. Taddesseh’s session notes should be sent to her, 356 explaining that she needed to know the current status of my “mental health,” Otherwise I could never have laid my hands on these documents at all. 

Thank God I did! Those observation notes proved most precious indeed. 

Dr. Taddesseh and I could not know that in the future, those session reports would provide critical documentation that would save me from the most horrific abuse ever attempted against a U.S. Asset since the Cold War. It would be my only protection from the vicious brutality conceived by the Justice Department. But it would be enough. 

For that, I thank Dr. Taddesseh forever. He had ethics and integrity in a court psychology business short on both. He never tried to hold onto my case for profit, and he faithfully documented my mental stability, so the Court order could be lifted. It’s not his fault that Pretrial Services in Greenbelt and New York was so corrupt in desiring to protect Republicans in Congress that they abused the psych order, which should have existed only for my benefit, not for any politicians’. There was no justification for forcing me to attend these meetings. But it was Dr. Taddesseh who ended them— over heavy resistance from PreTrial Services, which he called “unprofessional and unethical.” 

At the time, however, I could not see past my fury at the court’s intrusion into my private life. I considered it a Soviet-style abuse of psychiatry, like what Moscow inflicted on intellectuals and dissidents under the Communists. It was Stalinist, for sure. I regarded forced psych meetings as slanderous to my reputation, for the purpose of diminishing my credibility before trial. I resigned myself to suffer through it. In fact, I had no choice. 

But I resolved that when the Justice Department was forced to play its hand, all of those puffed up, empty accusations would crash back down on them. The worst they behaved, the worse it would fall for them. 

Never did I contemplate that the Justice Department had discovered a powerful weapon to stop me from going to Trial. 

I understood my rights under the Constitution. 

I did not understand my lack of rights under the Patriot Act. 

And I had no idea that in New York, my public attorney, Sam Talkin, had just been invited to a classified debriefing at the Justice Department to discuss my case. 

I was about to get blindsided in the most horrifying and unimaginable way possible in a modern court of law. 

This was “extreme prejudice, ” after all.

CHAPTER 19: 

SECRET DEBRIEFINGS 

AND THE 

“NEW PSYCHIATRY” 

(A LITTLE INTELLIGENCE WAR) 

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” 

–Thomas Jefferson 

Or as Cardinal Richelieu put it more bluntly: “Treason is a matter of dates.” 

I was gunning for trial. Unbeknownst to me, my public attorney, Sanford Talkin of Manhattan, had been invited to a “classified debriefing” to discuss my case. 

Somewhere in the bowels of the Justice Department, that “secret debriefing” occurred on February 10, 2005. 357 There’s no record of who attended, or what intelligence agencies were represented. I was completely in the dark that it occurred, though that meeting would have profound and grave consequences for my legal rights and freedom. Only four years later, when Talkin finally turned over his copies of my legal discovery to the private attorney who replaced him, the esteemed and honorable Brian Shaughnessy, did we learn about it. In typical style, Talkin forwarded the legal discovery one week after the case got dismissed 358— and 16 months after Shaughnessy officially took over. That speaks volumes in itself. It was grossly unethical, but par for the course. Talkin refused to cooperate on any matter of my defense. 

Amidst thousands of pages of legal documents and wire taps, Shaughnessy and I discovered a “NonDisclosure Agreement for a Classified Debriefing,” signed by Talkin. 359 The agreement acknowledged that information contained in the briefing justified a security clearance. It expressly prohibited Talkin from disclosing whatever transpired during the debriefing to anyone, including me, or any subsequent attorney, without written consent from the Justice Department. 

Welcome to the New America. 

I’d just been stung by the Patriot Act, with its rules of “secret evidence, ” and its extraordinary authority to force attorneys to withhold vital communications and “classified evidence” from defendants or other attorneys involved in the case. 

The non-disclosure agreement for the secret debriefing was handled by the Department of Justice, Compliance Review and Litigation Security Group, Security and Emergency Planning Staff. 

The two page document reads in part: 

“I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information…. marked or unmarked….including oral communications.” 

“I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it.” 

“I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless… (b) I have prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or agency responsible for the classification of the information.” 

It was signed by Sam Talkin on February 10, 2005. (See Appendix.) 

The pages are in black and white. So the fact that a “classified debriefing” occurred in Washington or New York cannot be disputed. Since I was never told about the meeting, though I had an urgent right to know, it appears the fact of the debriefing itself was regarded as “classified,” too. 

Predictably, the secret meeting had nefarious ambitions. Up to that point, Talkin had promised to file a “government defense,” arguing I had authorization to deal with Iraq because of my Asset status. As of early February, Talkin also promised to travel to Scotland for a face interview with Scottish solicitor, Edward MacKechnie from the Lockerbie Trial, who could verify the CIA credentials of Dr. Fuisz. In Scotland, Talkin also could read Dr. Fuisz’s deposition for the Lockerbie case, which is sealed in the United States. 

Without warning, that “secret debriefing” on February 10, 2005 coincided with a remarkable seachange in Talkin’s defense strategy. 

Abruptly and without my knowledge, external forces determined that I was not going to use a “government defense, ” after all. 

In fact, I was not going to have a trial. 

In flagrant contradiction of the most fundamental protections guaranteed by the Constitution, which I cherish, my right to a trial would be denied over my most bitter objections. 

At the start, I had no idea it was happening. My own attorney kept me in total ignorance of this extraordinary development in my case. After replacing Talkin, Shaughnessy and I still had no idea what he’d done.Talkin never told us how he came to throw my case— though his actions convinced us he had. We could see the proof. And we felt the sting of the consequences. It was damn foolish. When Talkin reconstructed my defense to please the Justice Department, he broke the cardinal rule of warfare: Never let your enemy choose the battleground. You do so at your own peril. 

Voila! My winning Defense strategy was gone. 

Shaughnessy and I are not helpless by our natures. As defendant, I had copies of the original papers from the FBI after my arrest. That totaled 28,000 phone taps, 8,000 emails, hundreds of captured faxes, and every computer document that I ever created. However, through subpoenas, we’d picked up crucial supporting evidence, including bank records of Dr. Fuisz’s payments to me 360 in May and October 2001, which demonstrated the strength of our relationship during the critical months of my indictment. 

Likewise, Talkin acquired supremely valuable documents from Scottish Solicitors in the Lockerbie Trial, relating to Dr. Fuisz’s CIA credentials and his central role in the 1992 Congressional investigation of a U.S. corporation that supplied SCUD mobile missile launchers to Baghdad before the first Gulf War. 361 

Talkin withheld all of that documentation, until after the case got dismissed. 

The Patriot Act injected an extra burden to this dynamic. Under the rules of “secret evidence, ” Talkin was barred from informing me whatever transpired in his conversation with the Justice Department, resulting in their collusion. 

I’m sure Talkin did not relish my reaction if he had. 

I would have blown a gasket. I was fully conscious of my rights, which I refused to relinquish. Relentlessly, I demanded my right to face my accusers at Trial, and challenge the evidence in open court. Trials are never pleasant. However my position was simple, but logical. The Justice Department has no business filing criminal charges against any American citizen, if they’re not prepared to back it up in a court of law. Political prosecutions to attack opponents of government policy should be exposed and fiercely condemned, for the sake of other activists. Political prosecutions must never be tolerated in the United States of America. 

Indicting a U.S. Asset for allegedly eating a cheeseburger with a diplomatic source, during a terrorism investigation, smacks of foolishness to begin with. Indicting an American citizen for supporting democratic reforms and human rights in Iraq screams of hypocrisy. The charges against me should have been dismissed immediately, with an apology. However once the Justice Department made those accusations, as the defendant, I had a Constitutional right to prove my actions did not rise to the level of criminal activity. I’m not even the woman who ate the cheeseburgers. As for my anti-war activism, that’s free political speech. That’s something I will fight for. 

Unhappily for the White House, a defendant’s right to plead “not guilty” is sacrosanct anywhere in the world. The right to a trial has been recognized by tyrant monarchs since the feudal age. A defendant could get a trial in China, North Korea or Iran. A trial would never be denied because of a “secret debriefing.” (Well, maybe in Mynamar!) 

Yet that’s exactly what happened to me. 

A Soviet Brand of Psychiatry 

Once the deal was cut, the Justice Department required a vehicle, or pathway, for implementing what was now a “secret decision” to deprive my rights to a trial. 

About two weeks prior to the classified debriefing, on January 18, 2005 Talkin asked me to attend a psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Sanford Drob, former Director of Psychological Assessment at Bellevue Hospital in New York City. 362 

In April, 2005, Dr. Drob joined the faculty of Fielding Graduate University in Santa Barbara, California, where he teaches how to perform psychiatric evaluations for the Courts. At Bellevue Hospital in New York, he was responsible for establishing criteria for psych assessments, and training staff how to conduct evaluations. 363 

My evaluation by Dr. Drob was presented as routine and benign, a method of exploring possible strategies to help our case. At this point, Talkin and Dr. Drob did not advise me that they intended to challenge my competence to stand trial. I would have been appalled if they had. It’s legally absurd, given my background. Instead the interview was portrayed as a non-specific assessment to determine what, if any, psychology angle could be used in my defense. I thought about my chronic fatigue and anxiety after the 9/11 attack. At least that would be honest. Whether it mattered to these court proceedings, I could not say. 

The interview with Dr. Drob took place in New York on January 18, and lasted approximately 2½ hours before I drove home to Maryland. 

To put that in context, psych evaluations typically require 8 to 10 hours of interview time. Our meeting time was far below acceptable standards, except in hospital triage, confronting an individual in crisis, which obviously I was not. 

There was a follow up meeting for a Rorschach Ink Blot Test, a couple of weeks later. 364 Dr. Drob arrived late, and that second interview lasted no more than 35 minutes, including greetings and good byes. 

There was no other psychological testing, including no MMPI. That’s a personality test from the 1970s, which consists of 500 multiple choice questions, with yes or no answers. It poses such incisive queries as, are you afraid of mice? Are you afraid of thunder or lightning? Did you play with dolls as a child? Do you like to climb trees? Do you like to talk to people? Do you like to read books? It’s loaded with 500 questions that are all equally inane. 

In the religion of psychiatry, the MMPI is considered “the Bible” for evaluations. That’s important, because I never took it until after psychiatrists for the Defense and Prosecution both issued their findings. 

No, I drove 214 miles from Maryland to Manhattan, and home again, to take a Rorschach Ink Blot Test for 35 minutes. Gracious! 

By now I could see that Dr. Drob lacked any understanding of the stress of intelligence operations, which would be necessary to explain my anxiety and performance pressures after 9/11. To show I grieved for it, I would first have to prove it occurred. So this evaluation was premature. 

Ironically, any sign of post traumatic stress (PTSD) had vanished from my life by this time. Therefore, PTSD never registered as a “diagnosis,” though I continued to be highly susceptible to it. Fresh traumas or anxiety would provoke it later on, like flare ups. However at this stage, it was non-observable. Interestingly then, the one condition that might have been legitimate never got flagged. 

And so, after the Rorschach test, I pointedly informed Talkin and Dr. Drob that I had no intention of using psychiatry in my case. I wanted to stick with a straight “government defense, ” proving I worked as a U.S. Asset. I was polite but frank. I had no interest in the evaluation, and honestly, I find psychology itself to be pretty worthless.

Most critically, in advance of our meetings, I signed a waiver for Dr. Taddesseh to submit the 12 months of observation notes to Dr. Drob and my attorney. 365 Those papers documented that on a constant basis, I suffered “no delusions, ” “no mood disturbances, ” “no psychosis, ” “no emotional or mood instability.” Most damning of all, several weeks after Dr. Drob submitted his evaluation, Dr. Taddesseh declared that I “required no further or additional psychiatric intervention.” (See Appendix). 

If the session notes had revealed any sort of emotional disturbances or “mental instability,” Dr. Drob would have been entitled to cite it. Instead, he was fully apprised that a year’s worth of weekly psych observations emphasized the absence of “mental health symptoms” of any kind. 

What’s more, Dr. Drob was aware that Dr. Taddesseh and I were taking action to end the psych meetings, which I considered a huge waste of time and taxpayer dollars. 366 From Dr. Taddesseh’s perspective, the psych order existed only to protect the Court, if I got overwhelmed by the indictment and tried to harm myself— something I showed no inclination to do. Both of us agreed there was no point in prolonging the agony of boredom for either one of us. 

It’s probably of great importance that I complained to Dr. Drob that Pretrial Services refused to give me copies of those session notes. Very likely he believed I would never lay eyes on them. Drob had no idea that I had resorted to a sneaky end run to overcome Pre-Trial Service’s objections. I arranged for the psych records to be sent to a fellow anti-war activist in Washington, whom I pretended was a private psychologist, needing to understand my “mental health history,” for possible future meetings. 

Through this ruse, I got hold of Dr. Taddesseh’s notes. I felt greatly protected when I saw them. We had a year’s worth of documentation of my sterling mental health. It would be fraud and malpractice to pretend anything else. Wouldn’t you say? 

Finally, Dr. Drob could see for himself that no “symptoms” manifested in our conversation. Hence, the 2 ½ hour meeting that ordinarily would last 8 to 10 hours. 

Our interview on January 18 was blasé at best. There were no emotional issues to chat about. Dr. Drob scrounged for conversation, and I had no inclination to provide it. Psychology flat out bores me. I consider such whining and malingering to have no place in the courts, except under the most striking circumstances. A defendant had better suffer serious schizophrenia to earn my sympathy. A battered wife or child who strikes back against an abuser would merit my compassion. Otherwise I’d vote to convict. Low IQ doesn’t cut it for me. I don’t want to hear that somebody suffers bi-polar disorder, and therefore won’t accept responsibility for embezzling money, bank robbery, identity theft, or what not. Psychology provides no excuse for criminal behavior, in my opinion. 

I think Judges are terribly victimized by the confusion created by psychiatry in the courtroom, for the sake of its own self importance and grandiosity. Psychiatrists falsify and embellish their testimony. Then they spout nonsense of how their interpretations are “scientific” and “medical, ” and must not be questioned. They desperately fear confrontations with participatory witnesses, who have engaged in events and daily life, because it exposes flaws in a psychiatrist’s thinking. 

“Reality contact” is not helpful for psychiatry. 

Psychiatry’s not helpful to defendants, either. It’s much better to take responsibility for good and bad decisions in our lives. Then each of us has the capacity to make new choices, and develop new habits. Ironically, psychiatry robs us of empowerment. Calling bad decision making a “disease” stops people from making new choices and decisions to repair their lives. They’re designated as throwaways. Change is a hopeful thing. Rejecting victimization is the first step to self-improvement. 

I did not sugar coat my opinions for Dr. Drob. I spoke candidly against using psychiatry in my Defense. I told him I objected to distracting my attorney from vital work to prepare for trial. Drob was fully conscious of my antipathy towards psychology, and my strong desire to prove my innocence, when he left Talkin’s office. 

A perceptive psychiatrist would have anticipated that such deeply held beliefs would stay constant and unchanging. I’m a strong personality. I’m not a Defendant who appreciates efforts to manipulate a Judge. That offends me enormously. 

As for post traumatic stress, psychiatry might have clarified the impact of chronic fatigue on my life after 9/11, and how exhaustion delayed my understanding of the nuances of White House policy on Iraq. On the other hand, it might not have mattered. After 9/11, Republicans obfuscated their intentions on Iraq. They had a secret agenda that they chose not to share with anyone—certainly not a Peace Asset opposed to sanctions and War engaged in bi-weekly dialogue with diplomats from the Iraqi Embassy. 

Psychiatry could contribute no real understanding of that dynamic— except to explain that I was too exhausted to figure it out for myself, without somebody telling me directly. And nobody did. 

Once I met Dr. Drob for our first meeting on January 18, I saw that he could offer no insight to my stress after 9/11. 

I’m convinced Dr. Drob recognized it, too, which explains why the evaluation was so perfunctory. After the Rorschach ink blot test, he left my attorney’s office straight away, and I headed home to Maryland— a huge waste of driving time. 

Psychiatry appeared to be dead on arrival. Then, on February 10, 2005, the Justice Department hosted that “secret attorney debriefing,” as evidenced by the nondisclosure agreement. 367 

Low and behold, psychiatry hurled its ugly weight onto my case. 

Three weeks later, on February 28, 2005, Dr. Drob issued an extraordinary report, declaring me “incompetent to stand trial.” 368 

Welcome to the New Psychiatry!

A declaration of insanity would have required evidence to substantiate the “diagnosis, ” and there was none. But incompetence? 

Dr. Drob offered the most sparse and perverse logic to justify his findings: 369 

“Ms. Lindauer insists that she does not want to proceed with an insanity defense, and insists that her lawyer follow up leads and witnesses that will demonstrate (1) that she did not receive the alleged moneys, (2) that she was an extremely important intelligence asset working for the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] and CIA. It is Ms. Lindauer’s insistence upon her relationship to CIA handler, Dr. Fuisz that is apparently frustrating counsel’s efforts to provide her with a viable defense.” 

“It is not simply Ms. Lindauer’s refusal to go along with counsel’s suggestion of pursuing a psychological defense in this case that renders her incompetent.” 

“It is rather Ms. Lindauer’s insistence that counsel pursue witnesses and leads that may make her, by reason of mental illness, incapable of effectively cooperating with counsel in her own defense, and which is apparently actually impeding counsel in preparing a viable defense.” 370 

That was Drob’s “medical diagnosis:” My desire to authenticate the facts of my life through highly credible, independent sources and alibi evidence qualified as a “major psychological impairment” that rendered me “unfit to stand trial.” 

Put another way, my desire to prove my innocence qualified as a mental defect. 

Now I would say that’s crazy. 

It’s also bloody well unconstitutional. You can’t deny somebody a trial on the grounds that she has asked for a trial. That’s legally absurd. 

Yet that’s how psychiatry attacked me. 

Months later, when I finally received a copy of Drob’s report, I was struck by the undertones of sexism, ignoring the history of women’s contributions to intelligence work, dating back to World War II. The idea of a woman engaging in anti-terrorism was apparently beyond Drob’s “reality consensus.” So he cited his psychiatry credentials as proof that it’s impossible for a woman to perform this work— A ludicrous supposition. 

Otherwise, Drob offered no explanation for the disparity with Dr. Taddesseh’s observations that I suffered “no symptoms of mental defect” in the previous twelve months. 

Drob had copies of those monthly reports. He ignored all of it. 

A year later Judge Mukasey would call a special court meeting, demanding an explanation for that discrepancy. 371 

Unhappily, by then, our “learned professor” from Fielding Graduate University had done his worst damage. And it would be savage. 

No, “Dr.” Drob’s degree in psychiatry was supposed to suffice for Judge Mukasey to accept his opinion as “scientific fact.” And so, in contradiction to multiple witness statements, a mediocre Rorschach ink blot test, and a short conversation that manifested no emotional upset of any kind, Drob concluded that I was “unable to assist in my Defense.” 

Strikingly, I was not allowed to know that Dr. Drob’s evaluation was finished, or what it contained. I was not allowed to review it, or provide corrections and clarifications. For months and months I had no idea that Drob had already told the Court I was “unfit for Trial.” Talkin continued to promise we would go to Trial, as I urgently demanded. 

Truly I believe that “secret attorney debriefing” at the Justice Department marked the turning point. 

Interestingly enough, Drob’s “diagnosis” of incompetence matched up precisely to complaints by Senator McCain, Republican leaders (and a lot of Democrats) on Capitol Hill at that very moment. Congress was hard at work on CNN and Fox News, bashing Assets for failing to build options to War, or correct faulty assumptions in war planning — all the things I was indicted for doing. According to Congress, Assets provided wrongful assessments throughout the intelligence process. The “incompetence of Assets” had thrust our nation into the abyss. 

Dr. Drob’s evaluation lined up perfectly with that Republican message, though surely my actions rebutted their complaints. 

All of my bona fides, my hard-won achievements, got cast aside in preference for Dr. Drob’s fanciful inventions about my personality and private life — which were suspiciously non-specific—and unsupported by real life events. 

Dr. Drob constructed a whole new reality, contradicting all facts. 

And it happened within three weeks of that “classified debriefing” at the Justice Department. 

“It was a game play straight out of the Cold War, a strategy that paralleled the psychiatric abuse of writers and intellectuals in the old Soviet Union, ” said Brian Shaughnessy, my brilliant Washington attorney who replaced Talkin after Carswell. “That’s what struck me the first time I heard Susan’s story. And that’s why I took her case. Her story reminded me of the “Gulag Archipelago” [by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn] and “Darkness at Noon” [by Arthur Koestler]. 

Indeed, the similarities to Soviet psychiatry are frightening Westerners are prone to forget that right up to the fall of Communism in 1988, one-third of all Soviet dissidents and intellectuals arrested for “anti-government activities,” got locked up in mental institutions. Soviet psychiatry took up the government’s cause, declaring that opposition to Soviet policy indicated serious mental disease. “Correction” required electro- shock and heavy dosages of psycho-tropic drugs, forcibly administered as treatment for what Moscow hailed as “sluggish schizophrenia.”

Soviet psychiatrists admitted that most intellectuals and dissidents showed no outward symptoms of “mental disease” or behavioral defects. 

The Director of the Moscow School of Psychiatry, Professor Andrei Snezhnevsky, who invented the diagnosis for “sluggish schizophrenia, ” agreed that most “patients” functioned normally in a social sense. Their “symptoms” typically resembled a “mild neurosis.” The tell- tale indicators were “paranoia and grandiosity.” For example, individuals with paranoid symptoms overvalued the importance of their contributions to society, and believed the Soviet government was persecuting them. They exhibited grandiose ideas for reforming society, including “reform delusions, ” the “struggle for the truth, ” and “the idolization of perseverance.” 

Though these political dissidents functioned normal in every way, Dr. Snezhnevsky insisted that he and his Soviet colleagues were justified in forcibly treating them to stop the progression of their “mental illness,” which would be observable later on, if left untreated. 

And so these brave men and women, who embraced freedom from Soviet oppression, were no longer regarded as “activists” or “dissidents.” They were degraded as “patients.” 

After several years locked up on a psych ward, tyrannized by political conformity and lobotomized by psychotropic drugs and electro-shock not surprisingly, many Soviet intellectuals could be persuaded by doctors and frightened family members to reconsider their “antisocial” criticism of government policy. Once Soviet dissidents learned to agree with the government, they would be judged “mentally healthy” again. 

Of course, a psychiatric record diminishing their credibility would now exist. If that person ever “relapsed” into anti-social behavior criticizing the government, he would be picked up by “concerned” authorities once more. 

That’s what the Justice Department planned for me. 

It’s shocking for the novice who expects psychiatry to employ some rational methodology and integrity. However, according to the constructs of psychiatry as defined by Dr. Drob and others like him, reality does not depend on external factors and measures. It depends on the interpretation of a psychiatrist. 

Factual evidence does not have to be considered at all. 

But that would not end the debate. Unhappily for Dr. Drob’s brand of psychiatry, factual evidence and witness testimonials would surface non-stop to repudiate his outrageous allegations. 

The horrors of my case would demonstrate beyond any doubt that psychiatry is neither medical, nor scientific. It cannot survive the most basic scrutiny or “reality testing.” On the contrary, it requires the suspension of reality in order to gain credence. It is wide open for corruption. 

Once reality comes into play, psychiatry falls apart. 

So it happened to Dr. Drob. 

My Achilles Heel 

Imagine the absurdity of my situation. 

A year after my indictment, I was gunning for trial, totally ignorant of my attorney’s collusion with the Justice Department. I was fully innocent of the various methods of corrupting a psychiatric evaluation, or that the easiest way to manipulate the Court, apparently, involves declaring a defendant “unfit to stand trial.” 

That could mean anything. 

Most ironically of all, since I had no idea what my attorney was up to, I proceeded full steam to help prepare my defense. I was too poor to hire a paralegal. So I rolled up my sleeves, and applied my best efforts where I could. Mostly I wrote background papers on witnesses. I also culled computer records to establish alibis for dates that I was not in New York eating cheese burgers with Iraqi diplomat, Salih Mahmoud. I persevered in ignorance, while Talkin promised that he was still preparing for trial. 

And I found the alibis! 

I gained such expertise as a paralegal, in fact, that later on, I helped my second attorney, Brian Shaughnessy submit a legal brief to the United States Supreme Court for another client. If my skills are good enough for the filing protocols of the Supreme Court, I’d say they’re good enough for the Southern District of New York any day. 

Alas, according to psychiatry, the very fact that I pushed Talkin to “interview witnesses and follow leads” confirmed the diagnosis of my “mental defect,” which rendered me “incompetent to stand trial.” 

The only way they could advance this crazy scheme was to keep me ignorant of their actions— which they did for several more months. 

I trudged on in the dark. Yet something didn’t feel right. Friends started asking questions about my rights to a speedy trial. 

And I began to worry that not a single one of my key witnesses had been interviewed. That gnawed at my gut. You see, I had just one Achilles heel, but I recognized it was a critical flaw in my defense. I had a public attorney. Talkin was over-worked and underpaid for such a complex case. Most worrisome, he lacked any basic understanding of how the intelligence community operates, and showed no inclination to learn. 

Aggravating his ignorance, Talkin had bad instincts. Briefly, Talkin hired a criminal investigator in New York who traveled to Washington exactly once — on the night of the 2004 election. 372 A lot of my witnesses are tied to national politics, and probably stayed up late into the night watching election results. Most took the next day off. Talkin’s investigator got frustrated, and left town that afternoon. Then he refused to drive back to Washington. Talkin shrugged it off. That hurt us. 

Other simple things got messed up. The wrong phone company got subpoenaed for calling records. 373 Restaurant receipts in New York were date and time stamped. If phone records could prove I was at home in Maryland — not eating cheeseburgers in New York— we could argue for dismissal of the minor charges. 

Makes sense, right? 

Through my own efforts, I’d struck out four days already. We had five more to go. Then I would be home free! Phone records were logical and simple. 

In Talkin’s mind, it didn’t matter which phone company got the subpoena, because they would all possess the same records for all customers in the Washington Metro area. Nine months passed, while he haggled with the wrong phone company, 374 ignoring my urgent pleas to go back to Judge Mukasey for the correct subpoena. Unhappily, by the time Talkin acknowledged his mistake, Starpower had merged with a new phone company, and older calling records got erased. It was a great loss for my defense. 

Some of the mistakes were more outrageous. 

Talkin subpoenaed the Defense Intelligence Agency for all records in my file. Yet he made no challenge when the agency limited its search to “unclassified” documents” in “a two hour search window.” 375 (See Appendix.) 

Like that would do any good! We know this, because the Defense Intelligence Agency was required to outline the scope of its research in answering the subpoena. So we have hard documentation of their actions. According to their communications with Talkin, all “Top Secret, ” “Secret” and “Confidential” documents got excluded from the search.

A “two hour search” of “unclassified documents”— only— was deemed sufficient to pull out all relevant information pertaining to my contributions to anti- terrorism from 1993 until 2003, covering Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria/Hezbollah, Yemen and Malaysia. 

That two hour window covered my warning about the 1993 World Trade Center attack; the Lockerbie negotiations with Libya ; the Lockerbie Trial; the bombing of the USS Cole; the Oklahoma City Bombing; my team’s early investigation of Osama bin Laden, right through our team’s 9/11 warnings, and efforts to secure Iraq’s cooperation after 9/11.

I’m not the slightest bit surprised that “unclassified” records turned up nothing from Defense Intelligence. All of my work would have been “Secret” or above. “Unclassified” was probably the only category that would be worthless. It would yield nothing. 

And what about this two hour search? Did Defense Intelligence seriously expect to perform a thorough review of all those terrorism cases in a single afternoon? 

That was a joke. Realistically, it should have taken a whole legal team a couple of weeks to pull everything for our subpoena. 

Yet Talkin registered no protest when Defense Intelligence demurred from a more thorough inspection of its files—or that the subpoena instructions stipulated “verification is unnecessary.” 

There was another ugly twist. The Defense Intelligence search was conducted on February 4, 2005—one week prior to the classified debriefing on February 10. That’s the “secret meeting” at the Justice Department that culminated in the “secret agreement” to deny me a trial. 

Drob’s declaration of my “incompetence” was filed February 28. 

And the dagger drops. 

A Few Good Men 

Ah, but you see, there’s one critical factor in any Intelligence War: My enemies had power over their actions. They had no power over mine. 

I would not play their game. I would run their blockade. That’s what any good Asset does. 

Right at that moment, Providence smiled with a true gift for my case. My own extraordinary and beloved uncle, Ted Lindauer. 

Ted has a deep care for family. He’s got four children of his own, and six step-children. And he would go through any sort of hell to protect all of them. Actually, they’re upstanding and educated professionals. I got into more trouble than all of them combined. Yet Ted made a special effort to protect me, too. 

Blessedly, Thayer “Ted” Lindauer has also practiced commercial and civil law for 40 years. As a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School years ago, he’s got the legal savvy and brilliance in the law to work his way through any crisis situation, which mine was quickly becoming. 

I relied on Ted’s tenacity and dedication many times before this nightmare ended. At critical moments, he would appear and take action that would save me. He would go to a great deal of trouble on my behalf, when Talkin could think of nothing to help me. 

It’s almost eerie how Ted Lindauer arrived on the scene exactly as my court appointed attorney cut a deal with the Justice Department. My prosecutor, Edward O’Callaghan, had just demanded that I meet his psychiatrist, Dr. Stuart Kleinman. And I was pushing Talkin to get on the ball interviewing my witnesses— which had not occurred a year after my arrest. 

Regarding psychiatry, Ted told me not to worry. No matter what psychiatry hoped to accomplish, I had the right to a hearing. I had the right to call rebuttal witnesses, and submit evidence of my own to the court. That year’s worth of session notes from Dr. Taddesseh in Maryland started to look awfully appealing. 

More worrisome, several witnesses voiced alarm that Talkin had snubbed efforts to set up phone interviews. 376 More than once Talkin looked me straight in the eye, and swore that my star witnesses from the Lockerbie Trial never responded to our outreach. Unhappily for him, MacKechnie had copied me on every email. 377 So the bald faced lie got smashed at once. Nevertheless, Talkin insulted a top international criminal attorney willing to travel at his own expense to New York for my trial, possibly waiting several days to testify on my behalf. It was an act of extraordinary generosity, and Sam Talkin threw it back at him. 

I could sense his inertia, even if I did not understand what triggered his passivity. But what could be done? 

Ted Lindauer jumped on it. 378 (See Affidavit in Appendix). He made a special effort to contact Eddie MacKechnie, and quickly verified the chief elements of my story, including MacKechnie’s validation of Dr. Fuisz’s CIA credentials and our work on the Lockerbie Trial. Once we established those CIA connections— and our work together on antiterrorism, my defense would be locked in. That was the key requirement. 

MacKechnie would be a gem of a witness, priceless for any defendant. As Scottish solicitor, he’d won acquittal for one of the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing, an extraordinary victory. It helped that Al-Amin Fhaima was innocent, but MacKechnie had an uphill fight to overcome Scottish prejudice. He triumphed spectacularly in a landmark terrorism trial at a special court at Camp Zeist. 

And Sam Talkin would not reply to his emails. 

Uncle Ted was far more gracious. 

After his conversation with MacKechnie, Ted called me, jubilant. “You are totally safe, ” he said. 

“You’re going to win this thing. You can prove everything you’ve told me.” 

Eddie MacKechnie was a powerhouse witness, alright. Ted confessed that he felt greatly relieved by the superiority of my witness line up. 379 

Ted also spoke with Parke Godfrey, who confirmed the authenticity of my 9/11 warning 380 and Paul Hoven, who doubly validated the CIA identity of Dr. Fuisz and our long working relationship. To this point, we know that Hoven told the truth about our work, though the intelligence community urgently wanted my case to go away. 381 

Needless to say, I was very pleased. 

That should have been the undoing of psychiatry in my case. Indeed, on the basis of Ted’s interviews, we could have argued for dismissal of the major charges. 

Meeting Dr. Kleinman for the first time, I felt remarkably at peace. I could handle a trial, I assured him. I had no intention of pleading guilty. Ted had finished his interviews the week before, and I enjoyed the supreme calm of knowing that I could rise to the standard of proof required by Judge Mukasey. That’s what I told Dr. Kleinman. 

Alas, I had not read Dr. Drob’s evaluation. I had no idea Dr. Drob had sabotaged me viciously, attacking the integrity and superior quality of my witnesses. I presumed his evaluation was still in planning stages. So after my conversation with Dr. Kleinman, I made a special effort to alert Dr. Drob to Uncle Ted’s success on my behalf, as well. 

By the time I hung up the phone, Dr. Drob was fully aware of the supreme caliber of my Scottish witnesses from the Lockerbie Trial. And he heard my sharp criticism of psychiatry for distracting my attorney, such that family members felt compelled to jump in to help me. I concluded that I was very lucky my uncle had practiced law for 40 years at such a senior level. 

Alas, one crucial mistake would cost me everything. I trusted the integrity of psychiatry. 

I imagined that once psychiatry received validation of my story, the evaluations would have to acknowledge that truth. If Dr. Drob had questions, he could have spoken with Ted directly, who would vouch for it. If the evaluation was finished, wouldn’t Drob have an ethical obligation to correct mistakes in his conclusions? 

Alas, I did not understand the corrupt practices of psychiatry in the courtroom. 

Combating Psychiatry in the Courtroom 

Learn from my mistakes, people, and remember these few tips. These suggestions might save your freedom and your reputation some day. If only somebody had warned me, I could have protected myself. These simple rules apply to everything from criminal cases to custody battles. 

You have a right to protect yourself. There are ways that you can. 

Rule Number 1: Never do a psych evaluation on an empty stomach, or if you’re tired. If you’re already at court, your attorney should get you a sandwich before starting. On the night of my arrest, I was so exhausted and hungry that I kept falling asleep. The jerk psychiatrist kept banging on the table to wake me up. Wisely, my attorney insisted on postponing the evaluation until the following day, so I could get some food in my stomach, and a good night sleep. Still the psychiatrist tried to smear me. That cost me. 

Rule Number 2: Always take a tape recorder. Never attend any psych evaluation for any reason without a recording device. My case is littered with examples of psychotic shrinks inventing things. They’ll tell you straight up– “It’s my word against yours. Who do you think they’re going to believe, you or me? I am a doctor.” 

You won’t believe it until it happens. Then it’s too late to save yourself. 

Get a tape recorder. I would pay a terrible price for not recording the first two psych interviews with Dr. Drob and Dr. Kleinman. Once I stopped relying on the professional integrity of psychiatry, my second attorney, Brian Shaughnessy pounded them again and again. They would shift from one falsification to another. We’d expose the nonsense, and they’d move right on to the next lie. And we’d blow them apart again. 

Only now, because it was All On Tape, they couldn’t lie so easily any more. Once I got it recorded, their appetite for lies dropped substantially. 

Stick to your guns on this one. Any psychiatrist who fears tape recording a conversation is going to burn you in court. If they say no recording, you say no meeting. No Judge is going to stop you from protecting yourself by recording what you’ve said in a conversation. 

It’s okay if they want a copy of the tape. But you must forbid the psychiatrist from handing it over to the Prosecution or spousal attorney in a custody case. You have protections under the 5th Amendment. Specify on tape at the start of the interview that you would appeal to the Higher Courts to stop the Prosecution from violating your rights against making forced statements to its surrogates. And you reject any request to share that tape. If your attorney overrides you, you’ll file a complaint to the Bar Association. 

Get that on tape! 

Rule Number 3: Demand to see all documents cited in the evaluation. Warn the loony Psychiatrist that you are prepared to challenge their conclusions, even to the point of seeking financial damages in a malpractice lawsuit. Hey, real doctors have insurance! Be warned: Some of my private papers got rewritten by psychiatrists to appear more outlandish. Always double check. If you have supporting evidence, like my 12 months of observation notes from Family Health Services in Maryland, specify that those must go to the Court, too. Put the psychiatrist on notice why it’s important. 

Rule Number 4: Never meet a Prosecution psychiatrist outside the presence of your attorney. Their job is to screw you. That’s what they’ve been hired to do. Everything you say ends up with the Prosecution. If there are topics you want to avoid, you have every right to refuse to discuss them. Do not present your defense. By showing the Prosecutor how you intend to rebut the charges, you are providing leads for how to attack your defense in Court. Always invoke your 5th Amendment rights under the Constitution. Unless you’re pleading guilty, refuse to answer questions regarding events tied to your alleged crime. They will try desperately to compel or manipulate you to talk. 

You’ve got to be firm, but you must refuse. 

If your attorney attends the interview, he can stop a psychotic shrink from asking the same questions twenty times, which they do. It means they don’t like your answer, and they want you to say something different, so they can twist it. 

Stay alert. The first answer is the right answer. After you’ve replied to the same question twice, you have a right to politely decline to answer it a third time. 

The proper way to handle this is to say, “We’ve already discussed this issue. Do you have any other questions? Or shall we end the interview?” 

Rule Number 5: If something’s off topic, don’t discuss it. The simple response is, “this matter has no relevance to the current legal situation. I’m not going to discuss it. If you’re going to pursue that line of questions, then we’re finished with the interview. Are there any other topics, or are you done?” 

They’re fishing. Don’t give them anything. Later, they would try to attack my faith in God and my spirituality. Because we never discussed my religious beliefs in our interviews, they had nothing to work with. Mums the word of the day! Don’t offer up anything. Keep your comments to the barest minimum. And remember that you don’t have to answer their questions. 

Rule Number 6: Never presume that a psychologist who appears reasonable and benevolent in discussing your life is actually rational in their own thinking. Psychology can attract individuals who are seriously disturbed in their own lives. A court-ordered psych evaluation is a power trip. They think they look important if they’re screwing people. It sounds unbelievable until it happens to you. 

That’s why you must get it on tape. Going into an evaluation without some form of recording device could be the greatest mistake of your life. 

It could destroy you. 

Think I’m paranoid? 

What happened next was the most frightening nightmare of my life. It would scare the hell out of anyone. 

Clearly I was not paranoid enough.

next
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL 


notes
CHAPTER 18 
342. Ibid. “Lockerbie: CIA witness gagged by U.S. Government, by Ian Ferguson. May 28, 2000. 
343. Email Correspondence with Edward MacKechnie, 2004- 2005. 
344. Affidavit of Ted Lindauer that he functioned as attorney to interview witnesses, including MacKechnie in May, 2005 
345. Deposition of Dr. Richard Fuisz, U.S. District Court, Alexandria, Virginia. Dec. 2000 and Jan, 2001. Conducted by Washington Law Firm of Butera and Andrews for Scottish Solicitors in the Lockerbie Trial at Camp Zeist
346. A large number of my witnesses were connected to Lockerbie, for the simple fact that it would be the most expeditious manner of proving Dr. Fuisz’s CIA credentials. It was therefore entirely relevant. Also on our list was Dennis Hart from Butera and Andrews, who took the deposition in Judge White’s Court. 
347. U.S. Linked to Iraqi Scud Launchers, Seymour M. Hersh, New York Times, Jan 25, 1992 
348. Letter from Rep. Charlie Rose to Charles Murdter, Fraud Division of U.S Department of Justice, requesting criminal investigation of a U.S. Corporation accused of supplying SCUD mobile missile launchers to Iraq, citing obstruction of justice in a congressional investigation. 
349. Ibid. Court testimony by Parke Godfrey, Southern District of New York, June 2008. 
350. Court record. U.S. vs. Lindauer. Bail and extradition hearing. Susan Gauvey, Magistrate, Baltimore, Maryland. March 11, 2004. 
351. Psychiatric Evaluation Report by Dr. John S. Kennedy for Family Health Services, Hyattsville, Maryland, March 13, 2004. 
352. Ibid. Psychiatric Evaluation Report by Dr. Kennedy. March, 2004. 
353. Ibid. Psychiatric Evaluation Report by Dr. Kennedy. March, 2004. 
354. Federal Court Transcripts, U.S. vs. Lindauer. June, 2004. 
355. Monthly psychological observations Dr. Bruke Taddesseh, Family Health Services in Maryland, filed to PreTrial Services in Greenbelt and New York. March 2004 to March 2005. 
356. Release waiver for observation notes by Family Health Services, March 2005. 

CHAPTER 19 
357. Classified NonDisclosure Agreement, signed by Sam Talkin, February 10, 2005. Department of Justice, Compliance Review and Litigation Security Group, Security and Emergency Planning Staff. 
358. Federal Express Receipt. Law offices of Talkin & Muggruccio. Jan 23, 2009. 
359. Ibid. Classified NonDisclosure Agreement. February 10, 2005. 
360. Personal checks from Dr. Richard Fuisz to Susan Lindauer, May, 2001 and Oct, 2001 
361. Documents pertaining to Committee Chairman Charlie Rose’s investigation of a U.S. Corporation accused of supplying SCUD mobile missile launchers to Iraq. 
362. Psychiatric Evaluation by Dr. Sanford Drob in New York City reports interview dates of January 18, 2005 and February 8, 2005. 
363. Professional biography of Dr. Sanford Drob, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, California. 
364. Ibid. Psychiatric Evaluation by Dr. Drob for Defense in U.S. vs. Lindauer 
365. Release waiver for observation notes by Family Health Services, March 2005 to be sent to Dr. Drob and attorney, Sam Talkin. 
366. Dr. Taddesseh’s observation reports for February, March and April, 2005. 
367. Ibid. Classified NonDisclosure Agreement. February 10, 2005. 
368. Ibid. Psychiatric Evaluation for Defense, Dr. Drob, U.S. vs. Lindauer. Feb 28, 2005. 
369. Ibid. Conclusion of Psychiatric Evaluation by Dr. Drob. U.S. vs. Lindauer. Feb. 28, 2005 
370. Ibid. Conclusion of Psychiatric Evaluation by Dr. Drob. U.S. vs. Lindauer. Feb. 28, 2005 
371. Court transcripts. Statement of Judge Mukasey demanding explanation for discrepancy in psych reporting. June 2006. 
372. Ibid. Psychiatric Evaluation for Defense, Dr. Drob, U.S. vs Lindauer Feb 28, 2005. 
373. Record of Subpoenas filed by Defense Counsel, Sam Talkin. U.S. vs. Lindauer 
374. Ibid. Record of Subpoenas filed by Defense Counsel, Sam Talkin. U.S. vs. Lindauer 
375. Response to Subpoena by Defense Intelligence Agency. U.S. vs. Lindauer, Feb 4, 2005. 
376. Email correspondence from Eddie MacKechnie and Ian Ferguson from Jan. 2005 to June 2005. 
377. Email correspondence from Eddie MacKechnie from Jan. 2005 to June 2005. 
378. Affidavit from Thayer Lindauer, U.S. vs. Lindauer. 
379. Ibid. Affidavit from Thayer Lindauer in Appendix. 
380. Ibid. Affidavit from Thayer Lindauer in Appendix. 
381. Ibid. Affidavit from Thayer Lindauer in Appendix.