17 April 2003
Source: Electronic records of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio.

There are 128 items in the case docket. The suit was filed August 15, 2000 and was closed on April 15, 2003.

[7 pages. Filed April 15, 2003.]

The Plaintiffs The Laredo National Bank, Laredo National Bancshares, Inc. and Gary G. Jacobs and the named Defendant Donald E. Schulz hereby submit to the Court this stipulation of facts:

INTRODUCTION

a. The parties hereto by their respective counsel stipulate to the following facts pertaining to this matter.

b. The following agreed statement of facts is submitted for the purpose of resolving factual matters and reaching conclusions of law. The Stipulation presents an accurate statement of the facts upon which the Court can render a judgment and permanent injunction. See affidavit of Donald E. Schulz, dated March 21, 2003, attachment A.

STIPULATION OF FACTS

1. Donald E. Schulz ("Schulz") was employed on a full-time basis at the United States Army War College ("USAWC"), Strategic Studies Institute, in Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania from September 1991 until August 1999. Schulz' position was Research Professor of National Security Policy.

2. From about 1997 until Schulz resigned his position as of August 1999, Schulz was assigned a project to author a manuscript entitled "Narcopolitics in Mexico."

3. During this project, Schulz conducted a number of interviews and/or had communications with military and civilian personnel of the governments of the United States and Mexico as well as non-government persons in the United States and Mexico.

4. On August 13, 1998, Schulz, at the recommendation of an official in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, traveled to the National Drug Intelligence Center ("NDIC") and met with three intelligence analysts: Daniel Huffman, Margaret Potter, and Ronald Strong.

5. During that meeting, the NDIC analysts provided a detailed briefing to Schulz relating to their opinions regarding drug trafficking and money laundering in Mexico and the United States. The analysts and Schulz discussed Carlos Hank Gonzalez and Carlos Hank Rhon, including a discussion of Carlos Hank Rhon's banking interests. Carlos Hank Rhon controls Incus, Ltd., which is a shareholder of Laredo National Bancshares, Inc. ("LNBI"), a U.S. bank holding company regulated by the Federal Reserve Board. LNBI is a Texas corporation, which owns The Laredo National Bank ("LNB") and South Texas National Bank. LNB is a national banking association pursuant to regulations of the U.S. Treasury. Schulz believes LNBI to be Carlos Hank Rhon’s only banking-related investment in the United States. Both LNB and LNBI have their principal places of business and corporate headquarters in Laredo, Texas. Gary G. Jacobs is the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of LNB and LNBI. During the briefing, the analysts stated to Schulz that they had reviewed over 100,000 documents, but the analysts admitted that the documents “contained a lot of hearsay.” The analysts admitted that there was no valid evidence of money laundering by Carlos Hank Rhon. Indeed, they showed Schulz no valid evidence to suggest that Carlos Hank Rhon, Gary G. Jacobs or any of Carlos Hank Rhon’s business interests had any involvement with drug trafficking or any other illegal activity.

6. The subject matter of the August 13, 1998 meeting described above was clearly sensitive.

7. On November 21, 1998, Schulz wrote to Daniel Huffman enclosing a copy of a draft version of Schulz' manuscript "Narcopolitics in Mexico" for review and comment by the NDIC analysts.

8. Huffman and Schulz had communications by telephone between September 1998 and March 1999 wherein Schulz continued to seek comments on his draft manuscript and also sought a copy of the document that the analysts told him during their meeting in August 1998 they would be preparing. As a result, the March 12, 1999 draft of the White Tiger Executive Summary ("Executive Summary") was ultimately provided to Schulz by the NDIC.

9. In March 1999, Huffman mailed Schulz a copy of the Executive Summary as well as comments by NDIC analysts to Schulz' manuscript. The comments included a statement that Hank-owned companies used “directors, presidents, and CEO's” to launder drug money, but provided no evidence to support this statement.

10. In late April or early May 1999, Schulz inappropriately mailed a copy of the Executive Summary to Dolia Estevez. Along with the Executive Summary, Schulz may have inadvertently mailed Estevez a copy of the NDIC's typewritten comments to Schulz' manuscript. Schulz did not provide the Executive Summary to anyone other than Estevez and Schulz' lawyer in this case.

11. During 1998 and 1999, Estevez had indicated to Schulz on several occasions that she was critical of and opposed to the leadership of the Mexican Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Party of the Institutional Revolution) , including Carlos Hank Gonzalez. Estevez also spoke unfavorably about Carlos Hank Gonzalez’ son, Carlos Hank Rhon. Estevez’ statements clearly indicated that she had strong political beliefs and disdain for the Hanks. Estevez misled Schulz when she promised him she would not publish the Executive Summary. Schulz believes she must have intentionally misstated the facts in her story published in El Financiero when she described the Executive Summary as a finished product when, in fact, it was clearly marked as a draft and not the official view of the NDIC. In light of her misleading statements and actions, Schulz now believes Estevez had an ulterior motive and is part of the scheme to impair the reputations of the Plaintiffs and Carlos Hank Rhon.

12. Schulz remains in possession of a copy of the draft Executive Summary. The NDIC failed to determine whether Schulz kept a copy of the draft Executive Summary until shortly before Schulz' deposition in this case in April of 2002. The NDIC neglected to ask Schulz to return any and all copies of the Executive Summary until shortly before Schulz' deposition in April of 2002 -- almost three years after the unauthorized dissemination. In this case, Plaintiffs requested a copy of the Executive Summary through the discovery process. However, the government instructed Schulz not to provide a copy of the draft Executive Summary to Plaintiffs. Schulz followed the government's instructions and did not provide a copy of the draft Executive Summary to the Plaintiffs.

13. On August 15, 2000, Plaintiffs sued Donald E. Schulz in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in case number 1:00CV2081. Plaintiffs sued Donald E. Schulz alleging commercial disparagement, invasion of privacy, and other violations of law.

14. Presently, the parties have decided to resolve any and all outstanding disputes and, therefore, Schulz admits liability to The Laredo National Bank and Gary G. Jacobs as to their claims of commercial disparagement and invasion of privacy and stipulates that Plaintiffs’ damages are $8,000,000.00 (Eight Million Dollars). However, in exchange for good and valuable consideration, including Schulz’: (i) willingness to resolve the disputes between the parties by freely admitting liability for the harm he caused the Plaintiffs and (ii) commitment to support Plaintiffs’ effort to clear their names and dispel the misinformation spread that Schulz believes to be false, Plaintiffs agree that no one will make any effort to collect such sum.

15. Schulz admits that he, along with NDIC analysts, acted in such a way that has, among other things, resulted in the dissemination through the media, and particularly through Dolia Estevez and her relationship with and utilization of the El Financiero newspaper, of unproven, harmful allegations and innuendo without valid factual support concerning the Plaintiffs. Schulz also admits that he may have, through his actions, unwittingly advanced the scheme to harm the Plaintiffs.

16. Schulz, furthermore, admits the following:

a. Schulz admits that he knew that the Executive Summary was a draft report at the time he obtained the report and at the time he mailed it to Estevez.

b. Schulz admits that he has been unable to verify the disparaging aspects of the report as it pertained to Plaintiffs.

c. Schulz admits that the Executive Summary was written so as to include statements and innuendo concerning the Plaintiffs as if proven and thus factual, even though the NDIC analysts told Schulz on August 13, 1998 that there was no valid evidence of wrongdoing by Carlos Hank Rhon or his banking interests.

d. Schulz admits that he has no valid evidence that The Laredo National Bank, Laredo National Bancshares, Inc., Gary G. Jacobs or Carlos Hank Rhon have laundered money or have been involved with drug trafficking. Schulz admits that he believes such allegations and innuendo are false. Schulz understands that The Laredo National Bank is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

e. Schulz admits that Estevez repeatedly asked Schulz whether he had obtained a copy of the Executive Summary and repeatedly requested that a copy of the Executive Summary be sent to her when he received it.

f. Schulz admits that Estevez misled him when she promised him she would not have the Executive Summary published.

g. Schulz admits that the Executive Summary was clearly marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive" and "Draft," and Schulz told Estevez that it was sensitive and not for publication. Nonetheless, Estevez wrote and El Financiero published an article on May 31, 1999 as if the derogatory statements and innuendo concerning the Plaintiffs contained in the Executive Summary had been proven, when in fact they had not been proven and are false as Plaintiffs vehemently contend and as Schulz believes.

h. Schulz admits that he believes Estevez and El Financiero acted with reckless disregard by publishing the May 31,1999 article about the White Tiger Executive Summary. Based on Schulz’ background, experience, and training, Schulz believes a reasonably prudent journalist would not have published such an article.

i. Schulz admits that he believes that Estevez is part of the scheme to injure the reputations of LNB, LNBI, Gary G. Jacobs and Carlos Hank Rhon.

WHEREFORE, the parties submit to the Court the foregoing stipulation of facts.

/s/ Patrick M. McLaughlin
Patrick M. McLaughlin (0008190)
John F. McCaffrey (0039486)
Colin R. Jennings (0068704)
McLAUGHLIN & McCAFFREY, LLP
Eaton Center, Suite 1350
1111 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2500
(216) 623-0900 - Telephone
(216) 623-0935 - Facsimile
pmm@paladin-law.com

Ricardo G. Cedillo
Jason R. Cliffe
DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA
McCombs Plaza
755 E. Mulberry Suite 500
San Antonio, Texas 78212
(210) 822-6666 - Telephone
(210) 822-1151 - Facsimile

Counsel for plaintiffs

Philip J. Weaver, Jr. (0025491)
SMITH, MARSHALL, WEAVER & VERGON
500 National City - East Sixth Building
1965 East Sixth Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2298
(216) 781-4994

Counsel for defendant Donald E. Schulz

[6 pages. Filed April 15, 2003.]

AFFIDAVIT of DONALD E. SCHULZ

THE STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

§ § §

I, Donald E. Schulz, being first duly sworn according to law, depose and state as follows:

1. I am a citizen of the United States, residing currently in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

2. I am over 18 years of age and of sound mind.

3. I was employed on a full-time basis at the United States Army War College ("USAWC"), Strategic Studies Institute, in Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania from September 1991 until August 1999. My position was Research Professor of National Security Policy. I hold a doctorate in political science from Ohio State University.

4. From about 1997 until I resigned my position as of August 1999, I was assigned a project to author a manuscript entitled "Narcopolitics in Mexico."

5. On August 13,1998, upon the recommendation of Chic Garland at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, I traveled to the National Drug Intelligence Center ("NDIC") and met with three intelligence analysts who specialized in research on Mexico: Daniel Huffman, Margaret Potter and Ronald Strong.

6. During that meeting, the NDIC analysts and I engaged in a detailed briefmg regarding drug trafficking and money laundering in Mexico and the United States. Introduced, among other things, into the discussion was Carlos Hank Rhon and his banking interests. Carlos Hank Rhon controls Incus, Ltd., which is a shareholder of Laredo National Bancshares, Inc. ("LNBI"). LNBI, a Texas corporation, is a bank holding company, which owns The Laredo National Bank ("LNB") and South Texas National Bank. I understand that Plaintiffs LNB and LNBI are regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currencyand the Federal Reserve Board, respectively. Both LNBI and LNB have their principal places ofbusiness and corporate headquarters in Laredo, Texas. Gary G. Jacobs is the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer ofboth LNBI and LNB. During the discussion, it was noted that over 100,000 documents had been reviewed and that these documents "contained a lot of hearsay." The discussion concluded there was no valid evidence of criminal activity by Carlos Hank Rhon, including money laundering. Indeed, the analysts showed me no valid evidence to suggest that Carlos Hank Rhon, Gary G. Jacobs or any of Carlos Hank Rhon's business interests had any involvement with drug trafficking.

7. The subject matter of the August 13, 1998 meeting was clearly sensitive. While at the NDIC, I learned of and sought a copy of a document being prepared by the NDIC analysts mentioning the Hanks. I also asked the NDIC analysts if they would review and comment on my draft manuscript, which they agreed to do.

8. Consequently, on November 21, 1998, I wrote to Huffman at the NDiC and enclosed a copy of a draft version of my manuscript "Narcopolitics in Mexico."

9. Huffman and I had communications by telephone between September 1998 and March 1999 wherein I sought the draft document the NDIC was preparing and also comments to my draft manuscript.

10. In March 1999, Huffman mailed me a copy of the March 12, 1999 draft of the White Tiger Executive Summary ("Executive Summary") as well as comments by NDIC analysts to my manuscript. The comments included a statement that Carlos Hank Rhon and/or Hank-owned companies used "directors, presidents and CEO's" to launder drug money, but provided no evidence to support this statement.

11. Dolia Estevez is a Mexican national who over the years has cast the Hanks in a negative light, similar to the hearsay supported by no valid evidence and described by the analysts in the documents discussed at my August 1998 meeting with the NDIC.

12. Estevez first contacted me by phone around 1995 saying she wanted to talk to me about Mexican politics on behalf of a Mexican publication, El Financiero. I actually met Estevez for the first time in person in or around 1997. During the course of my contacts with Estevez, she clearly indicated that she had strong beliefs against the Mexican political system and, in that context, disdain for the Hanks.

13. On August 19, 1998, Estevez met with me to discuss narco-trafficking in Mexico. She introduced Carlos Hank Rhon and his business associates into our discussion. Among other things, she discussed with me Carlos Hank Rhon's association with Laredo National Bancshares, Inc. and The Laredo National Bank. Estevez made clear to me her convictions and bias with respect to aspects of Mexican politics, including her staunch disapproval of and opposition to the leadership of the Mexican Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Party of the Institutional Revolution), noting, among others, Carlos Hank Gonzalez, father of Carlos Hank Rhon. I now believe that Estevez was determined to portray the Hanks unfavorably. Subsequently, Estevez used El Financiero to publish an article on May 31,1999 about Carlos Hank Rhon, The Laredo National Bank and Gary G. Jacobs in which she purports to quote from the Executive Summary. I believe Estevez must have knowingly made specific statements in her article about these parties that are not supported by the Executive Summary's contents and are taken out of context, which create a false impression of the Executive Summary content.

14. Following the meeting on August 19,1998, Estevez had several more conversations with me, some of which took place from my office at the USAWC. Since I had disclosed to Estevez that the NDIC was preparing, and had agreed to send me, a document discussing Carlos Hank Rhon and his business associates, she repeatedly asked me in those conversations whether I had received the document, and she repeatedly solicited me for a copy of it.

15. I contacted Huffman at the NDIC about providing me a copy of this document mentioning Carlos Hank Rhon and his businesses and business associates. The draft Executive Summary Huffman sent me was clearly marked "Draft" and contained the legend "Law Enforcement Sensitive."

16. After I received this "Draft", "Law Enforcement Sensitive" document from Huffman, Estevez wanted a copy of it from me and I told her that I would mail it to her. The document was "Law Enforcement Sensitive," an unfinished product and not for publication. I informed her of the nature of the document, and she promised that she would not publish any information or allegations contained in the draft report. Along with the Executive Summary, I may have inadvertently mailed Estevez, in late April or early May 1999, a copy of the NDIC's typewritten comments to "Narcopolitics in Mexico."

17. Several weeks later, Estevez again phoned me and, contrary to my instructions and her acknowledgment of them, told me she was having published an article based on the "Draft," "Law Enforcement Sensitive" Executive Summary. In the article, she mischaracterized the Executive Summary as a finished product.

18. I remain in possession of a copy of the draft Executive Summary. Although the Plaintiffs, in conjunction with this lawsuit against me in the Northern District of Ohio have sought to obtain a copy of the draft Executive Summary through discovery, and even though this document has been inappropriately disseminated to the media, the U.S. government has instructed me and my counsel not to release a copy of the Executive Summary to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, we have had to follow the government's instructions.

19. I am considered an expert on Latin American narco-politics and have often lectured and written on the subject. In the course ofmy long academic career, I have conducted extensive research on political corruption in Latin America and, in particular, Mexico. None of my research has uncovered a shred of valid evidence that Carlos Hank Rhon or Gary G. Jacobs has ever laundered money or been involved in drug trafficking. Throughout my academic endeavors, I have never discovered any evidence that Laredo National Bancshares, Inc., The Laredo National Bank or any of its officers, shareholders or directors have participated in any type of criminal activity. I do not believe that any of my research or publications could serve as the basis for a law enforcement investigation of the Plaintiffs or their officers, directors or shareholders. Certainly, none of my research or publications could serve as the basis for an ongoing investigation of the Plaintiffs or their officers, directors or shareholders such as that which the declaration of Rogelio Guevara of the DEA, filed in this lawsuit, has tried to suggest. Based on my academic research, any such investigation of the Plaintiffs or their officers, shareholders or directors would not yield valid evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

20. I now believe that Estevez' actions clearly indicate that she is part of the scheme to injure the reputations of the Plaintiffs and Carlos Hank Rhon for political and perhaps personal reasons. My opinion is based upon: (i) my academic expertise, (ii) Estevez' publication of the Executive Summary despite my admonition and her representation to me that she would not publish the report, (iii) Estevez' repeatedly unfavorable portrayals of Carlos Hank Rhon, his family and his business associates and (iv) her mischaracterization of the report as a finished product even though it was an unvetted draft. Because I may have unwittingly furthered the scheme to injure the Plaintiffs and Carlos Hank Rhon when I provided her a copy of the Executive Summary, I will support Plaintiffs' cause to: (i) restore their reputations, (ii) clear their names and dispel the misinformation about them, that I believe to be false, propagated by some unscrupulous members of the media and Dolia Estevez and (iii) expose the scheme involving Estevez and others to injure the Plaintiffs and Carlos Hank Rhon.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

[Signed]

Donald E. Schulz

SWORN TO BEFORE ME and subscribed in my presence this the 21st day of March, 2003.

[Signed]

Notary Public, State of Ohio

COLIN R. JENNINGS, Attorney at Law
Notary Public - State of Ohio
My commission has no expiration date
Section 147.03 R.C.

[1 page. Filed April 15, 2003.]

Defendant Donald E. Schulz advises the Court that he has agreed to a settlement, which provides for an entry of a judgment against him. The settlement further provides that, in partial consideration of the Plaintiffs’ agreement not to execute upon, enforce or collect this judgment, the Court may issue a permanent injunction. Defendant consents to the entry of an order granting a permanent injunction and judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Donald E. Schulz

Donald E. Schulz

s/ Philip J. Weaver, Jr.

Philip J. Weaver, Jr. (0025491)
Smith Marshall, LLP
500 National City-East Sixth Building
1965 East 6th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
(216) 781-4994

Counsel for Defendant Donald Schulz

[Apparently11 pages; 4 pages missing. Filed April 19, 2002.]

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL T. HORN

I, Michael T. Horn, declare as follows:

1. I am the Director of the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), United States Department of Justice. I have held this position since June 20, 1999. Before coming to NDIC, I was a career Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). I entered on duty with DEA's predecessor, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, in October 1968. In 1996, I was named Chief of DEA's Special Operations Division, a joint DEA-Federal Bureau of Investigation-U.S. Customs Service program that develops and coordinates multi-jurisdiction, multi-agency narcotic enforcement efforts. The Special Operations Division also disseminates and tracks all classified intelligence throughout DEA. In 1996, I was named Chief of DEA's Office of International Operations. In this capacity, I was responsible for all DEA international initiatives in 70 cities throughout 52 countries. The statements and conclusions stated herein are based upon my personal knowledge and upon information made available to me in my official capacity.

2. NDIC is a component of the United States Department of Justice. NDIC's mission is to coordinate and consolidate strategic organizational drug intelligence from national security and law enforcement agencies in order to produce assessments and analyses regarding the structure, membership, finances, communications, transportation, logistics, and other activities of drug trafficking organizations. In February 2000, the General Counterdrug Intelligence Plan designated NDIC as the principal center for domestic strategic counterdrug analysis in support of policymakers and resource planners. Following the General Counterdrug Intelligence Plan, NDIC's mission was focused on producing strategic domestic drug intelligence for the counterdrug community, supporting Intelligence Community counterdrug efforts and producing national, regional, and state drug threat assessments.

THE WHITE TIGER PROJECT

3. In November 1997, the FBI and the DEA asked the NDIC to conduct a strategic assessment of a drug trafficking organization. Law enforcement agencies

[Page 3 missing.]

available) information. NDIC analysts were tasked to synthesize this information and produce a value-added product for law enforcement agencies and intelligence communities.

6. In May 25, 1999, NDIC personnel hand delivered a draft of the final White Tiger Project to the San Diego Financial Task Force. It is my understanding that the primary function of the task force was to investigate money laundering, particularly drug money laundering. Participants in the task force included representatives from DEA, USCS, Internal Revenue Service, and the El Monte, California Police Department. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California and the San Diego FBI office were also provided copies of the draft report. The report included the Executive Summary, organizational link charts, and graphs.

DISCLOSURE OF THE MARCH 12, 1999 DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7. In response to newspaper articles published on or about May 31. 1999, which cited an NDIC document as a source of information, NDIC initiated an internal investigation. The investigation focused on identifying the source of the leak: NDIC personnel, an individual with access to the information or a possible breach of NDIC's computer system by an outsider.

8. From the information cited in the articles, including the use of certain unique phrases, NDIC determined that the March 12, 1999 Draft Executive Summary was the operative document.

9. The March 12,1999 Draft Executive Swnmary was a draft summary or overview of the White Tiger project. In the ordinary course of events, this document would have been reviewed by NDIC management, which includes staff with experience in the law enforcement and intelligence communities, and then distributed to the participants in the White Tiger Project for their review. After completing this vetting process, the NDIC would have distributed the document to the participating law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Because the March 12, 1999 Executive Summary was superceded by later versions, it was never formally vetted or distributed to the participating agencies.

10. NDIC ultimately distributed its final draft of the White Tiger Report, which included a revised version of the Executive Summary, to the San Diego Financial Task Force for vetting in late May 1999. This vetting process was halted prematurely upon the discovery of the unauthorized disclosure of the March 12, 1999 Draft Executive Summary .The version of the Executive Summary that was provided to the San Diego Financial Task Force was the final draft version that was produced by NDIC.

[Page 6 missing.]

review the assessments contained in this document, which was superceded by subsequent revisions.

14. The draft Executive Summary contains the names of individuals and entities that are potential targets of future criminal cases. If released, this information would prematurely reveal the evidence developed against the potential defendants; the government's strategy and direction in the investigation; the names of witnesses and potential witnesses; the specific transactions being investigated; and the strengths and weaknesses of the government's criminal case. This information and the information described below is also based on United States Attorneys' documents and discussion with Federal prosecutors that is considered attorney work product. This information is also based on Federal wire tap information and information that is derived from Federal grand juries.

15. The draft Executive Summary reveals the identities of subjects under  investigation. This information would show whether the government viewed a particular individual as a suspect in the investigation. The release of this information would result in prccisely the type of interference with the law enforcement process that the law enforcement privilege was created to prevent.

16. Information contained in the Executive Summary may lead to speculation that the government has established confidential sources in sensitive positions in the target drug trafficking organization. The release of this information may place various individuals that may or may not be confidential informants at risk of physical harm.

17. In addition to revealing the Government's interest in certain potential targets of criminal investigation, the draft Executive Summary contains names of  individuals and corporate entities that may not be targets of any criminal investigation. These references in the draft report may have negative connotations to these individuals and organizations.

18. Certain names contained in the draft Executive Summary are identified as being associated with prominent members of the Mexican political leadership. The premature disclosure of any of these names has serious implications to the United States foreign relations. This damage to United States-Mexico relations is not speculative since already the United States Government had to address the embarrassment caused by a Washington Post article alluding to the substance of the draft White Tiger Executive Summary. The disclosure of this document at this time would again require the United States Government to address these same issues.

19. Disclosure of the draft White Tiger Executive Summary would severely affect NDIC's standing in the law enforcement and intelligence community. In order to accomplish its mission, NDIC relies on the sharing of information by other agencies in the intelligence community. In addition, the disclosure of this

[Page 9 missing.]

exchange of information with other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community.

22. The Department of Justice has consistently opposed the disclosure of this document and related White Tiger project documents. NDIC has requested where practical the return of any copies of this document. The Department of Justice has opposed the disclosure of any White Tiger project related information. Where appropriate, the Justice Department has asserted the law enforcement and deliberative process privileges as in this case. Relying on the same privileges, the Justice Department has also declined to produce the draft White Tiger reports including the Executive Summaries to a Congressional Committee.

23. In processing FOIA requests for White Tiger related documents, NDIC has asserted the law enforcement privileges as well as the deliberative process privilege. Prohibitions from disclosure pursuant to the Privacy Act and Grand Jury statutes were also asserted as appropriate.

24. In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed the March 12, 1999 Draft White Tiger Executive Summary and my January 10, 2000, affidavit submitted to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The passage of time has not changed my assessment of the effect of any disclosure of the March 12,1999 Draft White Tiger Executive Summary. The information contained in this document remains extremely sensitive and should not be disclosed.

[Page 11 missing.]