WAYNE A. RITCHIE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
No. C 00-03940 MHP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9270
May 24, 2004, Decided
May 24, 2004, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Ritchie v. United States, 210 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 2002
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12095 (N.D. Cal., 2002)
DISPOSITION: [*1] Plaintiff's and defendant's cross-motions for
summary judgment DENIED.
COUNSEL: For WAYNE A RITCHIE, Plaintiff: Robert E. Cartwright, Kent L.
Klaudt, Cartwright & Alexander LLP, San Francsico, CA. Sidney Bender,
Risa Bender, Leventritt Lewittes & Bender, New York, NY.
For USA, ROBERT V LASHBROOK, in his individual and in his official
capacities, IKE FELDMAN, in his individual and official capacities a,
defendants: Robert S. Mueller, III, U S Attorney's Office, San
Francisco, CA. Jocelyn Burton, U.S. Attorney's Office, Oakland, CA.
Patricia J. Kenney, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA.
JUDGES: MARILYN HALL PATEL, Chief Judge, United States District Judge.
OPINIONBY: MARILYN HALL PATEL
OPINION: MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff Wayne Ritchie has alleged in this action that the Central
Intelligence Agency and the Bureau of Narcotics tested psychoactive
drugs on unknowing and unwitting American citizens including plaintiff
during the 1950s, and that this non-consensual testing drove plaintiff
to commit an armed robbery on December 20, 1957. Plaintiff initially
filed claims against the United States of America under the Federal
[*2] Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq. ("FTCA"), and against
Robert V. Lashbrook and Ira Feldman under the First, Fourth, Fifth and
Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff sought
twelve-million dollars in compensatory damages, as well as costs and
attorneys' fees.
The court previously dismissed plaintiff's constitutional claims, but
has allowed plaintiff to proceed under the FTCA. Now before the court
are plaintiff and defendant's cross-motions for summary judgment.
Defendant has filed for complete summary judgment on the issue of
causation, arguing that plaintiff cannot prove that he was
administered lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) by the United States
government in 1957, and that even assuming that he had been dosed with
LSD, he cannot prove that the LSD caused him to commit the armed
robbery that gave rise to this action. Plaintiff has moved for summary
judgment on the particular issue of whether "Wayne Ritchie was an
unwitting LSD victim of CIA Subproject 42." n1 Having considered the
arguments presented and for the reasons stated below, the court enters
the following memorandum and order.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 Neither defendant nor plaintiff has been entirely clear regarding
the issues they have asked the court to decide on summary judgment. As
noted above, plaintiff has requested summary judgment simply on the
question of whether Ritchie was "an unwitting victim of CIA Subproject
42," while defendant has requested summary judgment on the issue of
"causation." Defendant appears to contest what might be considered
both parts of the causation question--whether Ritchie can show that he
was actually administered LSD, and whether he can demonstrate further
that this LSD caused him to attempt an armed robbery. Plaintiff's
summary judgment motion is somewhat less clear, but it appears to
focus primarily upon the question of whether he was ever actually
dosed with the drug, not whether his subsequent behavior is
attributable to that dosing. (Plaintiff's opposition brief seems to
incorporate this second question in addition, but that fact is
irrelevant. Plaintiff cannot introduce new issues to be decided in his
responsive pleadings.) As a result, this court will assume that
defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment on both causation
questions, and that plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment
only with regard to whether the CIA administered him LSD.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[*3]
BACKGROUND
As explained in this court's July 1, 2002, Memorandum and Order,
plaintiff, a former Deputy United States Marshal, alleges that he was
unwittingly given food or drinks that were laced with lysergic acid
diethylamide (LSD) or another psychoactive drug while he was attending
a holiday party in the United States Post Office Building on December
20, 1957. Compl. P12. According to plaintiff's uncontradicted
declaration, Ritchie first arrived at his office's Christmas party at
approximately noon on December 20, 1957. Ritchie Dec. P5. He drank a
single bourbon and soda and returned to his office shortly thereafter.
Id. Two hours later, Ritchie re-entered the party and consumed three
or four more drinks. Id. at 6. Plaintiff then began to feel paranoid
and imagined that his fellow officers and co-workers had turned
against him. Id. at 7. He left work, returned home briefly, and then
visited four bars, where he consumed a total of two more drinks. Id.
at 7-9. Still fueled by paranoia, plaintiff then resolved to hold up a
bar and returned to his office where he took two revolvers from his
personal locker. Id. at 9-10. He entered a fifth bar, had one drink,
[*4] and then drew a weapon and demanded money. Id. at 10. Someone
knocked Ritchie unconscious, and he was subsequently arrested. Id. at
10-11.
Plaintiff alleges that he was a victim of a federal program, called
"MKULTRA," dedicated to the research and development of drugs,
including LSD, that might be used to alter human behavior. Compl. PP18
& 26. Plaintiff maintains that he "first suspected that he might have
been surreptitiously drugged" when he read the obituary of Dr. Stanley
Gottlieb, a former CIA agent implicated in that agency's mind-control
program, in the newspaper on March 15, 1999. Compl. P23. He found
additional support for his suspicion in April 1999 when he read a
diary entry of George White, an agent of the Bureau of Narcotics and
allegedly the operating head of the CIA's "mind-altering program" in
San Francisco. See Compl. P24; Ritchie Dep., Exh. B-12 (White was a
senior employee at the San Francisco Federal Narcotics Bureau in the
1950s). White's December 20, 1957, diary entry stated, in part, "xmas
party Fed bldg Press Room." Ritchie Dep., Exh. D; Compl. P25. n2 White
was an MKULTRA subcontractor from approximately 1953 until 1964.
McGinn Dec. P5. In that [*5] role, he established a safehouse
apartment in San Francisco where drug tests were conducted on drug
informants and prostitutes. Id. Defendant has also produced an
extensive record of newspaper and television coverage documenting
federal mind-control experimentation. Id., Exhs. A-C (newspaper
articles) & X (books).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 The ful

X-No-Archive: YES
Too good to let slip by... forwarded in all it's k0oKiness to relevant

"Martin F. Abernathy" <abemarf@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f0f9ae7d.0411101926.3626bfd7@posting.google.com...

X-No-Archive: YES
Too good to let slip by... forwarded in all it's k0oKiness to relevant NGs.

"Martin F. Abernathy" <abemarf@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f0f9ae7d.0411101926.3626bfd7@posting.google.com...

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:38:31 GMT, "Chadwick Stone"
<p.o.k.i.n.g@v.a.r.n.i.s.h.e.r> wrote:
let's see, what's "kook"? everything that talks about conspiracy?

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:38:31 GMT, "Chadwick Stone"
<p.o.k.i.n.g@v.a.r.n.i.s.h.e.r> wrote:
let's see, what's "kook"? everything that talks about conspiracy?

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:38:31 GMT, "Chadwick Stone"
<p.o.k.i.n.g@v.a.r.n.i.s.h.e.r> wrote:
let's see, what's "kook"? everything that talks about conspiracy?
massive snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<