You are on page 1of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_____________________________________
DOLLY KYLE BROWNING, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________

PLAINTIFFS EXPEDITED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO


PERPETUATE TESTIMONY OF THREATENED WITNESSES OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO COMMENCE LIMITED DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs, by undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 27(c), and
30, and the inherent authority of this Court, hereby respectfully move to perpetuate
the testimony of certain crucial witnesses in this case. These witnesses are all women
who have direct, personal knowledge of information harmful to the Clinton
Administration. As a result, they have been intimidated and threatened, and fear for
their safety. To preserve their testimony, Plaintiffs must take their depositions upon
oral examination without delay. They request leave to perpetuate the testimony of
these witnesses or, in the alternative, to commence limited discovery to take their
depositions. As grounds therefor, Plaintiffs state as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. Introduction.
On September 14, 1998, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging in Count VI
that William Jefferson Clinton ("Clinton") and Bruce Robert Lindsey ("Lindsey"),
individually and in concert with others, engaged and conspired to engage in a pattern
of racketeering activity in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. See Amended Complaint at

124-35. This pattern of activity includes, inter alia, threatening and intimidating
women to prevent them from truthfully testifying and publicly revealing information
about Clintons various transgressions.See id. at 131-34. Plaintiffs allege that
concealing this information from the American public was essential for Clinton and
Lindsey to acquire and maintain control of the Office of President of the United
States. See id. at 124-30.
Plaintiff Dolly Kyle Browning has been intentionally and maliciously threatened by
Clinton and his agents, including Lindsey. See id. at 131-33. They threatened to
"destroy" her if she told the media about her sexual relationship with Clinton. See
id. at 131. They also warned her not to publish her book, Purposes of the Heart,
which depicts that 30-year relationship. See id. In addition, Clinton, acting through
Lindsey, threatened and intimidated Mrs. Browning into severely limiting her public
statements about her relationship with Clinton. Id.
Most significant to the instant motion, Clinton and Lindsey also knowingly used
threats and intimidation to prevent Mrs. Browning from testifying in the Paula Jones
civil rights/sexual harassment lawsuit ("the Jones case"). They directed Clintons
lawyers to draft a motion to quash her deposition subpoena, and pressured Mrs.
Browning to file it with the court. See id. at 61-64. Mrs. Browning, a member of
the Texas Bar and officer of the court, refused to comply, and was deposed in
the Jones case on October 28, 1997. See id. at 2, 64-65. Clinton and his agents then
followed through on their threats against Mrs. Browning. Among other things, they
defamed her, publicly branding her a liar out to "get" the President, and knowingly
circulating false and derogatory information about her character and motivations.See,
e.g., id. at 67, 69, 71-74, 79-81.
Remarkably similar threatening tactics have been directed at other women who, like
Mrs. Browning, have personal knowledge of Clintons misconduct and were sought as
witnesses in official proceedings against Clinton. See id. at 134. Plaintiffs referred in
their Amended Complaint to the threats and retaliation by Clinton and his agents
against Kathleen Willey and Linda Tripp when they were called to testify in
the Jones case and the Independent Counsels investigation of the Lewinsky affair.
Indeed, the number of women who have suffered from these "Clintonian" tactics is
significant. On March 11, 1999,Investors Business Daily reported that at least nine (9)
women have now charged that Clinton "personally assaulted them or, through his
agents or people, threatened to do them or their families physical harm." The list
includes Dolly Kyle Browning, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Corbin
Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Sally Perdue, and Elizabeth
Ward Gracen. "And all of them say theyre afraid for their safety so long as he
remains in power."

Because of the threats, intimidation, and retaliation directed at these women, their fear
for their safety, and the enormous power and means available to Clinton and Lindsey,
Plaintiffs must perpetuate the testimony of these women without delay. Their
testimony will substantiate Plaintiffs RICO allegations, and is both competent and
highly relevant to Plaintiffs case. As RICO witnesses against the highest officials in
our government, these women are at enormous risk. Every moment of delay provides
Clinton and Lindsey with additional opportunities to threaten them and/or their
families, and enhances the chances that their testimony will be lost forever. Plaintiffs
cannot obtain the testimony of these witnesses through the ordinary course of
discovery in this case as all discovery has been stayed pending the Courts ruling on
the outstanding motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully move the Court
for leave to perpetuate the testimony of these witnesses or, in the alternative, to
commence limited discovery to take their depositions.
II. Discussion.
As the Supreme Court recognized in Arizona v. California, efforts to perpetuate the
testimony of witnesses are proper even when litigation is pending before a court:
No bill to perpetuate testimony has heretofore been filed in this Court;
but no reason appears why such a bill may not be entertained in aid of
litigation pending in this Court, or to be begun here. . . .
[I]t must appear that . . . depositions of the witnesses cannot be taken and
perpetuated in the ordinary methods . . . because the then condition of
the suit (if one is pending) renders it impossible . . .; and that taking of
the testimony . . . is made necessary by the danger that it may be lost by
delay.
By the Courts express language, where, as in this case, the condition of the lawsuit
renders routine discovery impossible, an action to perpetuate testimony is appropriate.
In addition, federal courts have broad authority under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to permit the perpetuation of testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(c) expressly
states that the rule "does not limit the power" of a court to entertain perpetuation
actions. In 1972, this Court explained the purpose of Rule 27(c) in In re Fitzgerald.
Writing for the Court, the Honorable Judge Bryant stated:
The court believes that the purpose of Rule 27(c) is to give the court
flexibility in the use of its equity powers and to permit the court to order
a deposition to be taken when a person appears before the court and
shows good cause for needing one.

16 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1052, 1053-54 (D.D.C. 1972) (emphasis added). Leading scholars
agree with and extensively quote Judge Bryants "good cause" reasoning.
Indeed, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit ("DC Circuit") recently elaborated and went further
stating that a court "shall permit . . . depositions to be taken" if it finds that
perpetuation of a witness testimony "may prevent a failure or delay of justice." Penn
Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1371, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
According to the Court, a party need not demonstrate that litigation is an absolute
certainty; nor, reasoning by extension, that it will survive a dispositive motion.
Moreover, Rule 27 does not require a Court to express any opinion on the merits of
the claims being made, only on whether there is probative evidence of those claims
that is in danger of being lost.
In a Rule 27 perpetuation action, the party seeking testimony must show that it is
competent and material, that it cannot be obtained through routine discovery, and that
a failure or delay of justice may result if it is not presently obtained. The identity of
the person(s) to be examined must be provided, as well as the substance of the
proposed testimony and the reasons for desiring to preserve it. If the court is satisfied
that perpetuation of the testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice, it must
permit the depositions to be taken.
Plaintiffs respectfully submit that they easily meet all these requirements. First, the
present condition of this lawsuit does indeed render routine discovery impossible.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), "a party may not seek discovery . . . before the parties
have met and conferred." Although Plaintiffs contacted Defendants and requested
such a meeting, at Defendants request, the Court ruled during a February 16, 1999
Status Conference that the meet-and-confer conference would be stayed pending its
ruling on the outstanding motions to dismiss. As a result, all discovery in this case has
been prevented and, after several months, there is still no indication it will commence
in the near future.
Also, there is no question that these witnesses are able to testify from direct, personal
knowledge, and are therefore competent to testify in the requested perpetuation
proceeding. Their testimony is also material to Plaintiffs case as it will substantiate
Plaintiffs RICO allegations and show a pattern of racketeering activity by Clinton and
his agents, including Lindsey.
Finally, the risk that this testimony will be lost if not quickly obtained is significant
and cannot be overstated. As the facts below plainly show, the safety of these
witnesses (and that of their families) has been most seriously threatened around the
time they are expected to give testimony in legal proceedings against Clinton. As

prospective witnesses in this case with personal knowledge of racketeering activities


by Clinton and Lindsey, as well as others, the risk to their safety is substantial and
immediate.
Plaintiffs demonstrate below that perpetuating the testimony of these witnesses is
critical because it is highly probative evidence that Clinton and Lindsey, in concert
with others, engaged and conspired to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962. This pattern of racketeering activity includes and the
testimony of these witnesses will show, inter alia, obstruction of justice in violation of
18 U.S.C. 1503; obstruction of a criminal investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1510; tampering with a witness or victim in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512; and
retaliating against a witness or victim in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1513. The witnesses
and the substance of the testimony that Plaintiffs expect to elicit from them are as
follows:
Ms. Gennifer G. Flowers
Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Flowers about her testimony in the Jones case that
Clinton instructed her not to testify truthfully in an Arkansas investigation of
allegations that she obtained her state job because of an adulterous affair with Clinton.
Plaintiffs also want to question her about repeated break-ins to her home, threats both
she and her mother received, and the brutal beating of her neighbor who witnessed
Clinton entering her apartment.
In an interview published in The Washington Post in August 1998, Ms. Flowers stated
that she met Clinton in 1977 when she worked for a Little Rock television station and
he was Attorney General of Arkansas. A 12-year affair followed. The Post reported
that the affair became public when she was identified in a lawsuit by a state employee
alleging that Clinton was using state funds for adulterous affairs. Ms. Flowers testified
in the Jones case that Clinton "instructed [her] not to be honest" in the state
proceeding investigating that matter. This is further confirmed in her recorded
telephone conversation with Clinton in October 1991 wherein he states "[i]f they ever
asked [sic] if youd talked to me about it [the state job], you can say no."
Additionally, in January 23, 1998, Flowers was a guest on Larry King Live just after
Clinton admitted an adulterous relationship with her during his deposition in
the Jones case. Flowers stated on that broadcast that she was "very scared," because
"[her] home had been ransacked, I had received threats. My mother received threats.
People were getting beaten. I was afraid for my life basically." Flowers testimony in
the Jones case also indicates that these calls were "physically threatening." In fact, in
the threatening call that her mother received the man said "[w]ell, I think shed
[Gennifer] be better off dead."

Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Flowers expected testimony is
probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice by Clinton in violation 18 U.S.C.
1503; tampering with and harassing a witness by Clinton and his agents in violation
18 U.S.C. 1512; and threatening to retaliate against a witness by Clinton and his
agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1513.
Ms. Juanita Broaddrick
Ms. Broaddrick recently came forward with allegations that she was the victim of a
brutal rape by Clinton in 1978. Plaintiffs seek to question her about telephone calls
she stated she received from Clinton between1978 and 1979 subsequent to the rape
incident, and whether the substance of those calls was in the nature of a threat to stay
silent. In addition, Plaintiffs want to question Ms. Broaddrick about her statements
that she was followed days before her interview with House impeachment
investigators, and that her house was broken into, the tape from her answering
machine stolen, her three cats set loose, and her telephone tampered with in early
1998. Plaintiffs want to know whether she felt that these incidents were also meant to
threaten or intimidate her into silence. Further, Plaintiffs wish to ask her if the reason
that she did not come forward earlier with her allegation of rape was because her
business, Arkansas nursing homes for the elderly and mentally retarded, which are
subject to state regulation for licensing and government funding, were at risk from
retaliation by Clinton-appointed state regulators.
As recently reported by NBC News, Ms. Broaddrick has claimed that Clinton raped
her in Little Rock in the Spring of 1978, while she attended a nursing home
conference. She also told Lisa Myers that Clinton called her a half dozen times at the
nursing home after the rape, and then unexpectedly appointed her to a state advisory
board in 1979. She had no further face-to-face contact with him until 1991, when she
attended a meeting in Little Rock with two friends. Broaddrick said she was suddenly
called out of the meeting and, to her astonishment, there was Clinton standing in the
hallway.
[H]e immediately began this profuse apology, saying, Juanita, Im so
sorry for what I did. Im not the man that I used to be, can you ever
forgive me? What can I do to make this up to you?
When asked why she did not report the rape and signed an affidavit in the Jones case
denying that anything ever happened, Broaddrick stated: "I was also afraid what
would happen to me if I came forward. I was afraid that I would be destroyed like so
may of the other women have been." The Washington Times also reported that
"[f]riends and others in Arkansas say she is fearful for her familys business interests,

two homes for the elderly and mentally retarded in Fort Smith and Van Buren, Ark.,
which are licensed by the state of Arkansas and which receive government payments."
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Broaddricks expected testimony is
probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice by Clinton and his agents in violation of
18 U.S.C. 1503; prevention of a criminal investigation by Clinton in violation of 18
U.S.C. 1510; and victim intimidation and harassment by Clinton in violation of 18
U.S.C. 1512.
Ms. Linda R. Tripp
Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Tripp about the threats she stated she received from the
White House via Monica Lewinsky just prior to her testimony in the Jones case, and
via Bruce Lindsey after she raised concerns with him about certain activities in the
White House Counsels Office. Ms. Tripp was an employee in the White House
Counsels Office before being removed by the Clinton Administration to the
Pentagon.
Ms. Tripp told NBCs Today Shows Jamie Gangel that her fear of Clinton stems from
a meeting she heard Clinton had about her in July 1997. She also said that Clinton
called Lewinsky the night of July 14, 1997 to ensure that Tripp had become "a team
player," and would lie for him in the Jones case. Tripp stated that she was afraid for
her livelihood, and because of threats that had been made to her life and the lives of
her children. Gangel asked if she believed Clinton was threatening her life, and Tripp
replied:
I believe that that was the message I was supposed to receive. Be a team
player or else. . . . If you dont lie, you are being set up for perjury and
jail. And who will believe you? You will lose your job and worse. Thats
what I was facing."
Further, Ms. Tripp recently testified in a proceeding before this Court that Monica
Lewinsky twice left on her office chair a list of people around Clinton who had died
mysteriously. She stated under oath that both times she believed it was an attempt by
Clinton to influence her testimony with regard to Kathleen Willey, and she took it as a
serious threat.
Importantly, Tripp also testified about a threat she received directly from Lindsey
when she told him of her concern "that enemies [of the Clinton Administration], real
or perceived, were in danger of information coming out [on them] in one way or
another by the [A]dministration. Tripp testified that at the end of the conversation
Lindsey said to her "talk like that will get you destroyed. You will be destroyed. He

said it with a smile." Tripp stated that this scared her and she feared that "perhaps an
accident would befall [her]."
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Tripps expected testimony is
probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice by Clinton in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1503; witness tampering by Clinton and Lindsey in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512; and
threatening to retaliate against a witness by Clinton and Lindsey in violation of 18
U.S.C. 1513.
Ms. Monica S. Lewinsky
Plaintiffs wish to question Ms. Lewinsky about statements she made on the now
infamous tapes of telephone conversations between her and Linda Tripp. On one such
tape made public by The New York Times last October, Ms. Lewinsky is reported to
have stated: "I would not cross those people for fear of my life." Speaking of Clinton
she also stated on the tapes that "my mothers big fear is that hes going to send
someone out to kill me." Plaintiffs wish to probe these and other statements with Ms.
Lewinsky to ascertain the basis for her fears of retaliation. Plaintiffs also wish to
question her about the "death list" left on Linda Tripps office chair, and her
conversation with Clinton about Tripp being a "team player." Plaintiffs also want to
question Ms. Lewinsky about Clintons efforts to secure a job for her to ascertain
whether those efforts were intended to influence her testimony in the Jones case and
Independent Counsel investigation.
Ms. Lewinskys expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice,
obstruction of a criminal investigation, witness tampering, and threatening to retaliate
against a witness by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503,
1510,1512 and 1513.
Ms. Paula Corbin Jones
Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Jones about her statements that she is fearful for her
life, the threat she perceived from Clinton s lawyer and Defendant in this case, Robert
S. Bennett, and her stated belief that Clinton ordered the IRS tax audit initiated against
her.
On Larry King Live, Ms. Jones stated:
KING: Paula, do you think you were audited because of who you are?
JONES: Absolutely Clinton ordered it.

KING: Sarasota, Florida Hello.


CALLER: Yes, Paula thank you for your courage. And Id like to ask
you: Have you ever been threatened, or do you fear for your life?
JONES Yes, I mean, through this whole thing Ive felt very scared, and
want to watch where Im going all times, never really be alone. . . .
Bennett threatened me himself. . . .
KING: So you are you actually Linda Tripp said the other night that
she you actually feared for your health.
JONES: Absolutely. . . .
JONES: . . . I want to tell whole world . . . I dont drive crazy, so I wont
run off the road; and Im not suicidal, I love my life, I love my children
and everything; so Im not going kill myself. So we all got that clear on
national TV that I would never do that.
On April 16, 1999, Ms. Jones again stated her fears on Hannity and Colmes:
HANNITY: You stated in the past that you at times, like Linda Tripp has
stated as well, that you have feared for your life. You even went on to
say that you want the whole world to know that you are not suicidal, that
you love life, you love your children, youd never kill yourself. And you
wanted to say that to a national audience. Why? What did you fear?
JONES: Well, I mean, theres been a lot of people thats come up dead in
Arkansas. And Ive had a lot of people ask me, Arent you scared for
your life? And actually, I have been.
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Jones expected testimony is
probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, victim/witness tampering, and
victim/witness retaliation by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503,
1512 and1513.
Ms. Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Plaintiffs wish to question Ms. Gracen about numerous anonymous telephone calls
she stated she received where the caller warned her to keep quiet about her
relationship about Clinton, the threats and ultimate occurrence of an IRS audit, her

statements about being "staked out" after her initial disclosure of her sexual
involvement with Clinton, and how she, her family, and friends have been threatened.
After denying any sexual involvement with Clinton for six years, Ms. Gracen told The
New York Daily News in April 1998 that she had "sex with Bill Clinton." Gracen
explained that the incident took place at a Little Rock hotel room in 1983, a year after
her reign as Miss America, and when Clinton was in his second term as Govenor.
Gracens admission came in response to rumors of a sexual assault by Clinton,
precipitated by the deposition of her friend, Judy Stokes, in the Jones case.
In September 1998, in the midst of the Impeachment hearings, and months after her
initial disclosure, Gracen told The Toronto Sun:
I think Clinton is a very dangerous, manipulative man and Ive had to be
very careful. . . . There was a lot of pressure of my family and friends,
people being staked out. I was afraid for my safety at one point. Its just
not an area where youre safe. I would never have said what I just told
you a month ago.
Later that month, Gracen elaborated on her statement, and told The New York
Post about ominous telephone calls she received in 1997 and 1998:
[T]his year, late last year, I started receiving calls that made things fall
into place. Some friendly calls telling me to get out of town to dodge a
subpoena from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Some nasty calls
saying my character was about to be assassinated. . . . My friends were
being asked mystery questions about tapes . . ..
Gracen also described a strange incident in which her hotel room was broken into and
ransacked while on vacation. "They were looking for tapes that did not exist. The
gentleman looking after our room said he saw two men in suits enter the place and one
man in a suit waiting outside. He didnt challenge them, he thought they were our
friends." Id. After that incident, she stated that the telephone calls started again, and
she attributed them to the Clinton Administration:
Yes, I was physically scared. We are talking about the presidency of the
country here, and between the friendly calls on one hand telling me to
get out of town for my own good and then talking about smear tactics on
the other, I got scared. There were always veiled threats. . . .
In January 1999, through her attorney, Gracen alleged that the Clinton Administration
instituted an IRS audit against her in retaliation for her refusing to stay silent.

Gracens lawyer, Vincent Vento, told theThe New York Post that weeks after Gracens
interview with The Toronto Sun in which she spoke of her involvement with Clinton,
Gracen received a telephone call in which the caller stated: "You should really keep
your mouth shut about Bill Clinton and go on with your life. You could be discredited.
You could have an IRS investigation." Id. Vento also stated that a few weeks after the
telephone call, the letter from the IRS arrived, sent to her parents home, which is not
listed on her tax filings. Id.
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Gracens expected testimony is
probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation,
victim/witness tampering, and victim/witness retaliation by Clinton and his agents in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503, 1510, 1512 and1513.
Ms. Kathleen Willey
Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Willey about threatening incidents she said occurred
before her deposition in the Jones case. The incidents -- nails in her car tires, the
disappearance of the family cat, and an unknown (at the time) jogger who questioned
her about the prior two incidents, asking "Dont you get the message?" were
apparently an effort to intimidate her from giving truthful testimony in the Jonescase.
Plaintiffs also want to question her about her statements that Clinton lawyer, Robert
Bennett, threatened her suggesting she should plead the Fifth Amendment and hire a
criminal defense lawyer before her Jones deposition. Plaintiffs also want to inquire
about private investigator Jared Stern who, at the behest of Martin Landow,
Democratic Party contributor, was hired to conduct a "noisy" investigation of her
during the Jones case and Independent Counsel investigation.
Ms. Willey worked in the White House as a volunteer in 1993. In early 1998, she
claimed that she had been sexually groped by Clinton on November 23, 1993, in the
same Oval Office room where he later had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. In an
interview with 60 Minutes Ed Bradley, she stated that Clinton embraced her, kissed
her, touched her breast, and placed her hand on his genitals. Willey also told ABC
News that two weeks before her January 11, 1997 deposition in the Jones case, she
found masses of nails in three of her car tires. Shortly thereafter, her cat, which she
had had for many years, disappeared. Then, just before she testified in the Jones case,
a jogger stopped her and asked her about her tires, her cat, and her children -- by
name. "Dont you get the message?" he asked, and then jogged off. The jogger was
recently identified as Cody Shearer, the brother-in-law of Deputy Secretary of State
Strobe Talbott and long-time friend of Clinton.
Willey confirmed and elaborated upon her account of this incident in a recent
interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews. She described in more detail her

encounter with the mysterious jogger in her Virginia neighborhood on January 8,


1998, just days before her deposition in the Jones case:
WILLEY: . . . I went out for a walk. I had my three dogs with me, and I
saw a man coming towards me. And I at first thought that he was a
neighbor. . . . And he was coming towards me, and he called my out
my name, and he said, Kathleen. And I stopped and I said, Yes? And
he said, Did you ever find your cat? And I said, No. . . . Id asked a
couple of neighbors to keep an eye out for this family pet, a 13-year-old
cat. Id never told anybody his name. I just described him to these
neighbors, and I thought that maybe word had gotten around in the
neighborhood . . ..
And so he asked me, Did you ever find your cat? And I said No, I
didnt. And I said . . . Not no, I havent, and we we really miss
him. And then he said, Did you ever get those tires fixed on your car?
And I said No. And thats when the hairs started standing up on the
back of my neck.
And he said . . . That that cat of yours, he was a nice cat. And he
said . . . Bullseye was his name, wasnt it? He was a really nice cat.
And I said How do you know my cats name? I mean, what how do
you know anything about this? And then I said, And how do you know
about my car and how do you know about the tires? And he said, Well,
did you ever get them fixed? And I said yes, I did. . . . It was it was a
very insidious thing, and it was meant to scare me.. . .
MATTHEWS: And it did, to some extent. You testified a couple of days
later in a kind of hesitant manner.
WILLEY: He asked me about my children by name. How are your
children? How are Shannon and Patrick? . . .
WILLEY: He asked how they were and, at the at this point, I started
asking him who he was and what he wanted.
MATTHEWS: Right.
WILLEY: And he just looked me right in the eye and he said, Youre
just not getting the message, are you? And I turned around and and
ran. I had no business running, and probably ran about 100 yards, I was
so frightened, and I turned around and he was gone.

Willey later stated to Matthews that she recognized the man from pictures shown to
her by ABC News reporter Jackie Judd. When asked by Matthews if it was Cody
Shearer, Willey said that she couldnt say, citing the Independent Counsels
investigation. Id. NewsMax.com reports that Willey later told Matthews off camera
that the stranger was in fact Clinton operative Cody Shearer.
Willey also told 60 Minutes that she felt pressured by Clintons lawyer Bob Bennett.
She said that Bennett suggested she plead the Fifth Amendment and hire a criminal
lawyer. According to Willey, "the insinuation to me was that Mr. Bennett was
implying that I was going to face some kind of a criminal charge for perjury or or
something else, and that I would need an inside the loop an inside Washington
criminal lawyer, and . . . I didnt and I dont."
Willey also stated that Nathan Landow tried to pressure her to keep her story secret.
ABC News reported that Landow poured over $247,000 and raised over $600,000 for
Clintons presidential campaigns. He reportedly pressured Willey in the weeks before
and after her Jones deposition to deny her accusation that Clinton groped her, and to
state that nothing had in fact happened.
ABC News also reported that a private investigator, Jared Stern, was hired by
Landows lawyer "to pull Willeys phone records, to find out what medications Willey
might be taking and to conduct a noisy investigation aimed at making sure Willey
knew she was being watched." Sterns lawyer stated that Stern "perceived a situation
where he was being asked to do something he wasnt comfortable with." As a result,
Stern called Willey and left a message using an alias warning her that someone
wanted to do her harm.
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Willeys expected testimony is
probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation,
victim/witness tampering, and victim/witness retaliation by Clinton and his agents in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1513.
Ms. Julie Hiatt Steele
Plaintiffs wish to question Ms. Steele on the reason(s) she changed her story about
Kathleen Willeys having confided to her the details of Clintons sexual assault, first
stating and then denying that Willey told her about the incident immediately after it
happened. Additionally, Plaintiffs also want to ask her whether former United States
Trade Representative, Commerce Secretary and longtime Clinton operative Mickey
Kantor threatened her to change her story by questioning the conditions surrounding
the adoption of her child. Finally, Plaintiffs want to inquire about her friend, Mary

Earl Highsmiths, recent testimony in federal court that Steele told her she was "afraid
it would be to her detriment" to take a position against Clinton.
In her May 11, 1999 interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Kathleen Willey
stated that 60 Minutes Producer Michael Radutzky told her that Mickey Kantor had
threatened her friend, Julie Hiatt Steele, to change her story. "[T]hey told me that -that my friend, Julie Steele, had been approached by a very high ranking member of
the Clinton [A]dministration questioning her about the -- the conditions of her
adoption of her child." Willey said that Radutzky told her that Kantor pressured her
friend, Julie Steele, to change Steeles corroboration of Willeys encounter with
Clinton:
MATTHEWS: . . . But its your belief that the [A]dministration used that
child as as a hostage, in effect, to get her to turn around?
WILLEY: Thats what I was told. . ..
MATTHEWS: By whom?
WILLEY: Well, by I was told it was Mickey Kantor that went and
threatened her with that.
MATTHEWS: Who told you that?
WILLEY: Michael Radutzky at "60 Minutes."
The next day on Larry King Live, Willey explained that it was this act of intimidation
by the White House that motivated her to do the 60 Minutes interview last year:
WILLEY: Thats what turned me. I didnt go on "60 [M]inutes" to talk
about the incident in the Oval Office. I was so outraged that they had
supposedly, that the White House had sent one of their minions to
intimidate Julie with this adoption; I thought, well, regardless of what
shed done to me, regardless of how she had said that I had asked her to
lie, I just thought that no mother should be threatened with her child. . . .
KING: "60 [M]inutes" misled you. They were going to do a story about
Julie Hiatt Steele and lying, and they did a story instead about groping?
WILLEY: Yes.
KING: So why then do you believe them on Kantor?

WILLEY: Because I think thats they way the White House operates. I
think they try to intimidate people and scare them. They tried to scare
me.
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Steeles expected testimony is
probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation,
witness tampering, and threatening to retaliate against a witness in violation of 18
U.S.C. 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1513.
Ms. Sally Perdue
Plaintiffs would also like to question Ms. Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas, about
her claim that a known Democratic Party operative tried to hush her up during the
1992 campaign about an alleged affair with Clinton. She says that the man stated to
her that "they knew that I went jogging by myself and he couldnt guarantee what
would happen to my pretty little legs." On information and belief, Ms. Perdue has left
the United States because of such threats and is presently in China. Plaintiffs seek
leave to depose her as soon as she is located or otherwise becomes available.
III. Conclusion.
The threats, intimidation, and retaliation directed against these women by Clinton and
his agents are so similar in nature that each of their accounts renders the next more
credible. Indeed, when high government officials are behind such horrific tactics, the
fear engendered is particularly agonizing. Here, we see that it was so widespread it
kept Ms. Broaddrick from coming forward with her allegations of rape against
Clinton. She explained in no uncertain terms that one of the reasons she maintained
her silence was because she feared she would be "destroyed" like "the other women"
if she came forward and revealed Clintons brutal conduct. It is this pervasive
atmosphere of fear and intimidation that best demonstrates just how effective the
RICO enterprise that meted out threats against these women has been.
Moreover, it is quite apparent from the facts that these women (and their families)
were most seriously threatened around the time when they were expected to give
testimony in official proceedings against Clinton. As prospective witnesses in this
case with personal knowledge of racketeering activities by Clinton, Lindsey, and
others, these women are subject to substantial and immediate risks to their physical
safety and psychological well-being. No one can predict when or if an accident or
change of mind may affect the availability of testimony from any particular witness,
but reasonable people can infer that the testimony of a witness who has been
assaulted, threatened and intimidated stands the greatest risk of "disappearing." And,
unfortunately, no one can predict the extent to which these Defendants will go to

prevent the revelation of unlawful racketeering activities by them and others acting on
their behalf. Given all the circumstances in this case, Plaintiffs and the
aforementioned witnesses need the Courts intervention to register and perpetuate
their testimony before it is lost forever. There is no doubt that the Courts intervention
"may prevent a failure or delay of justice" in this case. As such, and in accordance
with the D.C. Circuits recent ruling in Penn Mutual, this Court must, respectfully,
permit Plaintiffs to take their depositions without delay.
Respectfully submitted,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.

____________________________
Larry Klayman, Esq.
DC Bar No. 334581
______________________________
Deborah E. Berliner, Esq.
DC Bar No. 422238

______________________________
Vincent A. Mulloy, Esq.
DC Bar No. 451280
501 School Street, S.W., Suite 725
Washington, DC 20024
(202) 646-5172
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LOCAL RULE 108(m) CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

On June 24, 1999, I contacted counsel for each of the Defendants in


this case, by telephone, to inquire whether their clients would
consent to the relief requested herein. After conferring with counsel,
they advised me that their clients would oppose the requested relief.

_________________________
Deborah E. Berliner, Esq.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________
)
DOLLY KYLE BROWNING, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 98-1991 (WBB)
)
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)

PLAINTIFFS [PROPOSED] ORDER


Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Perpetuate
Testimony of Threatened Witnesses or, In the Alternative, to
Commence Limited Discovery, and the entire record herein, it is
hereby
ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs motion is granted.
1. Plaintiffs may take the depositions of the witnesses designated in their
motion without further delay.
SO ORDERED.
DATE: ____________________ ______________________________
William B. Bryant
United States District Judge
Copies to:
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Larry Klayman, Esq.
Deborah E. Berliner, Esq.
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
50l School Street, S.W., Suite 725
Washington, DC 20024
Attorneys for Defendant William Jefferson Clinton:
David E. Kendall, Esq.
Nicole K. Seligman, Esq.

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY


725 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Attorney for Defendant Bruce R. Lindsey:
Bruce R. Lindsey, Esq.
The White House
West Wing, Second Floor
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
Attorney for Defendant Marsha Scott:
Stuart F. Pierson, Esq.
TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 500 East
Washington, DC 20005
Attorneys for Defendant Robert S. Bennett:
John D. Aldock, Esq.
Matthew M. Hoffman, Esq.
SHEA & GARDNER
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Attorneys for Defendants Jane Mayer and Advanced Magazine
Publishers, Inc.:

Floyd Abrams, Esq.


Kathy Silberthau Strom, Esq.
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL
1990 K Street, N.W., Suite 950
Washington, DC 20006-1103
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 28, 1999 a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Perpetuate Testimony of
Threatened Witnesses or, In the Alternative, to Commence Limited
Discovery, Local Rule 108(m) Certificate Of Counsel, and Plaintiffs
[Proposed] Order was served via first-class mail, postage prepaid,
upon:
Attorneys for Defendant William Jefferson Clinton:
David E. Kendall, Esq.
Nicole K. Seligman, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
725 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Attorney for Defendant Bruce R. Lindsey:
Bruce R. Lindsey, Esq.
The White House
West Wing, Second Floor
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Attorney for Defendant Marsha Scott:


Stuart F. Pierson, Esq.
TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 500 East
Washington, DC 20005
Attorneys for Defendant Robert S. Bennett:
John D. Aldock, Esq.
Matthew M. Hoffman, Esq.
SHEA & GARDNER
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Attorneys for Defendants Jane Mayer and Advanced Magazine
Publishers, Inc.:
Floyd Abrams, Esq.
Kathy Silberthau Strom, Esq.
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL
1990 K Street, N.W., Suite 950
Washington, DC 20006-1103

___________________________
Vincent A. Mulloy

You might also like