TOPDOG08.COM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GARY BERNTSEN )
Reston, VA 20191 ))
Plaintiff, ))
Civil Action No: 05CV1482 (CCK)
v. ))
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY )
Washington, D.C. 20505 ))
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Gary Bernsen brings this action against Defendant Central Intelligence Agency
for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2201, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §
1651, the Central Intelligence Agency s internal regulations and the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. The Central Intelligence Agency has unlawfully imposed a
prior restraint upon Plaintiff by infringing on his right to publish his memoirs.
JURISDICTION
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702 and
28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2. Venue is appropriate in the District under 5 U.S.C. § 703 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
3. Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Central Intelligence Agency as an
Operations Officer. He is required by virtue of a secrecy agreement to submit all
writings for prepublication review. He is a citizen of the United States and resides
in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Case 1:05-cv-01482-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 1 of 4

-2-
4. Defendant Central Intelligence Agency (ôCIAö) is an agency as defined by
5 U.S.C. § 701. Its actions have prevented Plaintiff from publishing his
manuscript in its entirety.
FACTS
5. Plaintiff was formerly employed by the CIA as an Operations Officer from
October 4, 1982 to June 17, 2005.
6. On May 17, 2005 Plaintiff submitted, pursuant to one or more secrecy
agreements, a draft manuscript of his memoirs to the CIA s Office of
Prepublication Review (  PRB  ) for prepublication review. The CIA is required to
issue decisions regarding submissions within thirty days of receipt of the
document.
7. Together with his draft manuscript Plaintiff also provided to the PRB 20 books
and other printed references documenting the prior declassification or otherwise
public domain status of all of the information set forth in his manuscript.
8. To date Plaintiff has not received his manuscript from the PRB and is informed
that all but three of his supporting references have been lost or misplaced by
Defendant.
9. Plaintiff also is informed that the Directorate of Operations (  DO  ) has proposed
a cumulative total of some 30 pages of redaction from his manuscript.
10. Plaintiff has a contract with Random House requiring him to deliver his
manuscript by June 17, 2005. The delivery of Plaintiff s manuscript to his
publisher is now weeks overdue causing him financial loss and imperils its
Case 1:05-cv-01482-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 2 of 4

-3-
proposed October, 2005 publication date.
COUNT I
FIRST AMENDMENT - RIGHT TO PUBLISH - CLASSIFICATION CHALLENGE
11. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 10
above, inclusive.
12. Plaintiff properly submitted, pursuant to one or more secrecy agreements, his draft
manuscript.
14. Defendant has failed to respond within its prescribed time effectively denying
Plaintiff the right to publish his manuscript.
15. Defendant has failed to show that Plaintiff s First Amendment right to publish is
outweighed by its interest in efficiently carrying out its mission by minimizing
harms that are real, not merely conjecture.
16. Defendant has failed to demonstrate the existence of substantial government
interests that would enable it to prohibit the publication of certain information
within Plaintiff s manuscript. Moreover, Defendant has imposed unreasonable
restrictions on Plaintiff s First Amendment activities.
17. Because Defendant has impermissibly infringed upon Plaintiff s right to publish
the information contained within his manuscript, it has violated Plaintiff s First
Amendment rights. Thus, Plaintiff has suffered actual adverse and harmful effects,
including, but not limited to, a delay in being able to publish in a timely fashion in
order to meet his contractual obligation and/or lost present or future financial
opportunities.
Case 1:05-cv-01482-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 3 of 4

-4-
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court award him the following relief:
(a) Issue a permanent injunction to block Defendant from further restraining the
publication of his manuscript;
(b) Declare that Plaintiff possesses a First Amendment right to publish the
information within his manuscript;
(c) Declare that Defendant has violated the Administrative Procedure Act and its
internal regulations governing prepublication review;
(d) Award Plaintiff the costs of this action and reasonable attorney fees under the
Equal Access to Justice Act or any other applicable law; and
(e) Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Roy W. Krieger
(D.C. Bar #375754
KRIEGER & ZAID, PLLC
1920 N Street, N.W., Suite300
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 223-9050
Counsel For Plaintiff
Case 1:05-cv-01482-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 4 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GARY BERNTSEN ))
Plaintiff, ))
v. ) Civil Action No: 05CV1482 (CCK)
)
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ))
Defendant )
PLAINTIFF S EX-PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED PROCEEDINGS
NOW COMES Plaintiff, Gary Bernsen, by and through undersigned counsel, and moves
this Honorable Court, ex-parte, to order expedited proceedings in the above-captioned matter.
In support thereof, Plaintiff avers as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
It is well settled that fragile First Amendment rights are often lost or prejudiced by delay.
Courts have therefore been willing to expedite proceedings involving First Amendment rights.
Bernard v. Gulf Oil Co., 619 F.2d 495, 470 (5th Cir. 1980), aff d, 452 U.S. 89 (1981).
This case presents a threat to the vitality of First Amendment rights among former and
current employees of the government arising from Defendant s effective imposition of a prior
restraint on publication. Defendant Central Intelligence Agency (  CIA  ) - has effectively blocked
the publication of Plaintiff s manuscript by failing to complete its pre-publication review in a
timely fashion.
Having absolutely no lawful authority to take these actions, the CIA endeavors to cloak
its behavior as legitimate by hiding behind an unconstitutional interpretation of the secrecy
agreement executed by Plaintiff, who is a former employee with the Agency. However, the
Case 1:05-cv-01482-CKK Document 2 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 1 of 6

-2-
ability of the government to inhibit First Amendment rights extends only to that information that
is classified. The dissemination of unclassified information, which much, if not all, of the
manuscript contains, cannot be blocked by the government.
Thus, this case presents sensitive and important First Amendment questions that cry out
for immediate resolution.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Plaintiff was employed by the CIA as an Operations Officer from October 4, 1982 to June
17, 2005. One month prior to his resignation, on May 17, 2005 Plaintiff submitted, pursuant to
one or more secrecy agreements, a draft manuscript of his memoirs to the CIA s Office of
Prepublication Review (  PRB  ) for prepublication review. The CIA is required to issue decisions
regarding submissions within thirty days of receipt of the document. together with his draft
manuscript Plaintiff also provided to the PRB some 20 books and other printed references
documenting the prior declassification or otherwise public domain status of all of the information
set forth in his manuscript. To date, more than 60 days after its submission, Plaintiff still has not
received his manuscript from the PRB and is informed that all but three of his supporting
references have been lost or misplaced by Defendant. Plaintiff also is informed that the
Directorate of Operations (  DO  ) has proposed a cumulative total of some 30 pages of redaction
from his manuscript. Plaintiff has a contract with Random House requiring him to have delivered
his manuscript by June 17, 2005. The delivery of Plaintiff s manuscript to his publisher is now
weeks overdue causing him financial loss and imperils its proposed October, 2005 publication
date. (Complaint ¶¶ 5-10).
Case 1:05-cv-01482-CKK Document 2 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 2 of 6

-3-
Because of Defendant s actions, this litigation was commenced on July 27, 2005. Copies
of the Summons and Complaint are in the process of being sent to the CIA, the U.S. Attorney  s
Office for the District of Columbia and the Attorney General. Assuming normal mail delivery,
the U.S. Attorney s Office will most likely receive the documents on or about August 1, 2005.
Therefore, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant s response to the
Complaint would not be due on or about September 29, 2005.
ARGUMENT
I. EXPEDITED REVIEW IS REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT
AND SERIOUS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AT ISSUE
One of the central purposes of the First Amendment is to allow publication to serve as
both a critical source of information for the public as well as an important government watchdog.
Plaintiff has written a book that contains unique information regarding his experiences. Although
Plaintiff properly and fully abided by the pre-publication review requirements imposed by his
secrecy agreement, Defendant has responded in a manner that has violated his First Amendment
rights. It has frustrated the publication of the book by failing to timely deliver his draft
manuscript and by asserting unsupportable classification decisions. Such conduct violates the
rights of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
It is well settled by courts throughout the United States that expedited attention should be
given to cases involving First Amendment interests. See, e.g., Action for Children s Television v.
FCC, 59 F.3d 1249, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1995) cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1072 (1996)(finding that the
possibility that the agency s actions might similarly run afoul of the First Amendment demands
prompt judicial scrutiny); Bernard, 619 F.2d at 470 (  Fragile First Amendments rights are often
Case 1:05-cv-01482-CKK Document 2 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 3 of 6

1 See, also, Auvil v. CBS  60 Minutes,  800 F. Supp. 928, 937 (E.D. Wash. 1992)(  The
public interest is best served by expeditious disposition of cases raising First Amendment
issues.  ); Collin v. Smith, 447 F. Supp. 676, 680 (N.D. Ill. 1978)(ordering  trial on an expedited
schedule in view of the compelling national interest in prompt resolution of cases implicating
First Amendment freedoms  ); American Camping Ass n v. Whalen, 465 F. Supp. 327, 330
(S.D.N.Y. 1978)(finding a  prompt trial on the merits is required  with First Amendment rights
at stake).
-4-
lost or prejudiced by delay.Court have therefore been commendably willing to expedite
proceedings involving First Amendment right.  ); National Student Ass n v. Hershey, 412 F.2d
1103, 1115 (D.C.Cir. 1969)(recognizing  urgency of prompt protection for frail First
Amendment interests  ); Potwora v. Dillon, 386 F.2d 7, 76 (2d Cir. 1967)(hearing case on
expedited basis  [i]n light of plaintiffs  representation that the order deprived them of important
First Amendment rights  ).1
In the landmark case involving efforts by The New York Times and The Washington Post
to publish the  Pentagon Papers  thirty years ago, the entire litigation process - from the District
Courts to the Supreme Court of the United States - occurred within a two week time frame. This
was necessary because of the serious First Amendment issues at stake and despite the fact that
the documents in question had been in the newspapers  possession for several months prior to the
time of the desired publication. See, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 724
(1971)(Douglas, J., concurring).
Defendant s conduct here is nothing less than what occurred three decades ago: an
unconstitutional attempt to preclude Plaintiff s right to publish information of which the
government has no authority to control. Courts have shown no tolerance for any attempt to
inhibit free expression that does not permit a prompt administrative and/or judicial review of the
efforts to repress speech. In the leading case of Freedman v. State of Maryland, 380 U.S. 51,
Case 1:05-cv-01482-CKK Document 2 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 4 of 6

-5-
59-60 (1965), the Supreme Court held that providing a mechanism for prompt review is
necessary to avoid offending constitutional protections. Numerous courts thereafter faced with
restrictions on the content of speech have gone to great lengths to ensure that prompt judicial
review was readily available. See, Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1209 (7th Cir. 1978)( We
have endeavored to expedite decision, because to delay the exercise of First Amendment rights in
itself burdens them and may risk their destruction.  ); Quarter Action Group v. Hickel, 421 F.2d
1111, 1116 (D.C. Cir.1969)(noting  any delay in the exercise of First Amendment rights
constitutes an irreparable injury to those seeking such exercise  )(citation omitted).
Since Defendant s actions to frustrate the publication of Plaintiff s manuscript creates a
clear First Amendment issue, this Court should do no less than its predecessors and colleagues
and place this case on a expedited track. Therefore, Defendant should be required to respond to
Plaintiff s Complaint within five (5) days of receiving the Summons and Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court place this matter
on an expedited track for prompt resolution given the important First Amendment rights at stake.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Roy W. Krieger
D.C. Bar# 375754
KRIEGER & ZAID, PLLC
1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 223-9050
Counsel For Plaintiff
Case 1:05-cv-01482-CKK Document 2 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 5 of 6

-6-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Roy W. Krieger, do hereby certify, that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion,
together with a copy of the Complaint in this matter, were served via Certified Mail and telefax
this 28th day of July, 2005 upon the following:
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
General Counsel
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505 (Served via Telefax on July 27th 2005)
____________________________________
Roy W. Krieger
Case 1:05-cv-01482-CKK Document 2 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 6 of 6