|
United States Postal Inspection Service Office of Counsel This letter was received by the Spirko attorneys on September 30, 2005 (even though dated Sept. 28). September 28, 2005
Mr. Thomas C. Hill RE: John G. Spirko, Jr. I am in receipt of the declaration dated September 26, 2005, and your follow up letter of September 28, 2005. The declaration was not accompanied by a subpoena, summons or court order as required by 39 C.F.R. § 265.13. As of Wednesday, September 28, 2005, the Inspection Service is not in receipt of the requisite documents needed to properly and expeditiously process your request. As I mentioned to you in the letter of September 26, 2005, your request would have to comply with all the requirements of the regulation. Secondly, in accordance with the regulation, specifically Section 265.13(2)(i) through (viii)), the affidavit needed to contain a showing that the requested information sought is available to you, by law, as a party outside of the United States Postal Service, as well as the need for providing a summary of the anticipated testimony sought from Inspection Service employees. As of Wednesday, September 28, 2005, I have been made aware of the State of Ohio Attorney General's Office position relative to pursuing further investigative inquiry into Inspector Gregory Duerr's unsubstantiated and immaterial assertions pertaining to retired Inspector Paul Hartman's managerial traits and shortcomings as contained in his letter of August 31, 2005. At this juncture, the Attorneys General's Office asserts Duerr does not claim to have any information relevant to the integrity of the Mottinger proceedings and has no personal knowledge relevant to the case. In addition, the Attorney General's Office asserts the Duerr letter contains nothing more than allegations or insinuations of misconduct by Inspector Hartman unrelated to the Mottinger investigation and nothing more than an additional attack on Inspector Hartman, based entirely and indisputably on rank hearsay. These assertions are indeed contrary to your representations of the state's position in the follow up letter of September 28, 2005. If I am misinterpreting or simply unaware of the more recent state position, I would anticipate the State expeditiously joining in on your Touhy request and submitting the requisite documentation in support of obtaining the perceived pertinent documentation and Inspection Service employee testimony. As I indicated in the September 26, 2005, letter to you, the Inspection Service provided the Inspector Duerr letter to the Ohio Attorney General's Office for their review and any deemed follow up. To facilitate their follow up, the Inspection Service subsequently interviewed Inspector Duerr and prepared a memorandum of interview which was provided to them and which in turn was provided to you by the Attorney General's Office. The Inspection Service is cognizant of the urgency of your request and will facilitate processing the request so long as it comports with the requirements of the regulation. Once the aforementioned deficiencies are cured, the Inspection Service will process the request as expediently possible. Lastly, to the limited extent the Inspection Service can assist the Ohio Attorney General's Office in facilitating a full and open review of Mr. Spirko's application for executive clemency, the Inspection Service would be amenable-subject to concurrence from the Unites States Attorney's Office and without prejudicing its position relative to mandated compliance with the Touhy regulation-to scheduling, coordinating and participating in an interview of Inspector Duerr by you or a representative of Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman. If additional information on the processing of the Touhy request is needed, I can be reached at (703) 292-3705 or (202) 497-1546. Sincerely,
Elvin J. Crespo
cc: Richard French, Esq. (by email attachment)
|
