GROOM LAKE RULINGS FILED

Government seeks dismissal of lawsuit

Las Vegas Review Journal/Thursday, July 27, 1995

By Warren Bates

A federal judge has refused to penalize a government lawyer who 
was accused in two environmental lawsuits of lying about the name 
of the classified air base near Groom Lake.

Also Wednesday the United States stepped up its urging to get rid 
of the litigation, claiming that there have been recent incidents 
that pose a threat to national security.

The developments come as U.S. District Judge Philip Pro decides 
whether to throw out the lawsuits brought by former workers and 
widows of one-time employees at the facility at Groom Lake, 
situated 35 miles west of Alamo in Lincoln County.

Attorney Jonathan Turley alleges the workers contracted disease 
after exposure to toxins released in open pit burning. He had 
asked Pro to sanction Department of Justice attorney Richard 
Sarver, alleging the government lawyer was deliberately misleading 
by stating that the facility is not known as Area 51.

Turley said he has offered eight witnesses and a handful of the 
government's own documents attesting that Area 51 is a common base 
reference. Sarver has denied the moniker has been used by the 
government.

In a two-paragraph decision Pro said that Turley "failed to 
demonstrate" the government "engaged in any sanctionable conduct."

"We understand the court's reluctance to sanction an attorney 
without the clearest possible evidence," Turley said afterward. 
"We had hoped for a decision after the court had read the 
affidavits from workers at the site."   

Included among the affidavits was a statement by William Cleghorn, 
a sensitive assignment specialist who worked 25 years with a 
security contractor at the base. Cleghorn said Area 51 and Project 
51 were widely known as operations under U.S. Air Force control.  

Also in the case Wednesday:   

--Government attorney Russell Young told Pro that in recent weeks 
"incidents have occurred that demonstrate the necessity of 
terminating this action quickly in order to prevent further damage 
to national security. Because those matters are under seal they 
cannot be discussed ... but they are well known to the court. This 
case must be dismissed now."

Turley and Department of Justice spokesman Jim Sweeney said they 
could not speculate on what the language meant.

--The government argued that the case should be dismissed be 
cause, if potential evidence is protected under the state secrets 
clause, the United States would be prevented from putting on a 
defense. Turley responded that the material he has generated in 
the case isn't subject to such security considerations and that 
there were still factual issues in doubt that would keep the case 
alive.

--Pro denied a request to unseal certain hearings in the case and 
an affidavit from a former worker who recently died. He allowed 
substituting the worker's widow into the case as a plaintiff.

###