GovernmentExecutive.com

The wife of a victim of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging President Bush and several other high-ranking administration officials failed to prevent the attacks from occurring and are now obstructing justice.

Ellen Mariani filed a lawsuit Nov. 26 under the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suit alleges that President Bush and other officials knowingly and willfully failed to act to prevent the murder of her husband, Louis Neil Mariani, who was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, which crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center.

Mariani's attorney, Philip Berg, said he plans to call former federal employees with firsthand knowledge and expertise of military intelligence to testify in support of the suit. He alleges that the White House, Pentagon, Justice Department, Federal Aviation Administration, CIA and FBI were negligent in preventing the attacks and now are withholding information about the incidents.

Berg said he believes the lawsuit is the first Sept. 11 case filed under the RICO Act, which the government enacted to fight organized crime. The lawsuit is an amended version of a lawsuit Mariani previously filed in court.

Berg added he hopes other Sept. 11 victims and federal employees will support or join the lawsuit. However, he speculated that government workers are afraid to come forward with information.

"The word is out: 'Don't divulge information here,' " he said. "We have many people in the government who are afraid to come forth with information. They're afraid for their jobs."

A court hearing is schedule for Jan. 14. Richard Manieri, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, declined to comment on the case. "We're reviewing the compliant and considering our options," he said.

Mariani vs. Bush, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (03-5273), Nov. 26, 2003.

All or Nothing

Felix Bloch, a former high-ranking diplomat who was suspected of spying for the Soviet Union, has failed in his latest effort to force the State Department to provide him with retirement benefits.

When Bloch, who joined the Foreign Service in 1958, learned that the State Department intended to fire him in 1990 for threatening national security, he submitted a resignation letter and applied for retirement benefits.

But the department refused to accept his resignation. During an overseas assignment, Bloch had violated security rules by lying to FBI agents and by leaking sensitive information, officials claimed. The department did not bring a criminal case against him, but informed him that he would be fired if he could not adequately defend his behavior.

Shortly after learning of State's plans, Bloch handed in his resignation letter and applied for immediate benefits from the Foreign Service Retirement System. Under the 1980 Foreign Service Act, officers who have served for at least 20 years and are older than 50 can collect retirement benefits.

The State Department declined Bloch's resignation in Nov. 1990, arguing that he had not decided to leave on his own will. Instead, department officials asked him to leave for "serious national security reasons." Once State denied Bloch's resignation, he lost his eligibility for an immediate retirement annuity. He subsequently requested and received a $76,000 lump-sum refund of his retirement contributions.

Several years later, Bloch filed a complaint at the State Department, claiming that officials' decisions to deny his resignation and his retirement annuity were "arbitrary and capricious." The department rejected this claim and the Foreign Service Grievance Board denied his appeal.

In a Nov. 21 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with the Foreign Service Grievance Board. The court ruled that while Foreign Service members have the right to resign whenever they want, that's not the same as a "right to retire at any time." Foreign Service members cannot retire without the consent of the State Department, according to the court.

Also, in requesting a lump-sum refund of his retirement contributions, Bloch gave up his right to an annuity, the court ruled. The form Bloch used to apply for the refund contained a clear warning that "payment of the refund would forfeit any annuity to which he may have been entitled," the ruling said.

Felix S. Bloch v. Secretary of State Colin Powell, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (02-5311), Nov. 21, 2003