Story Index | Area 51 Photos | Area 51 Maps

Professor: U.S. must admit to base

A George Washington University law professor continues to push the U.S. government into acknowledging the existence of an air base at Groom Lake, making it part of a lawsuit by former base workers.

In a continuing battle over where the case will be tried -- Las Vegas or Washington, D.C. -- workers' attorney Johnathan Turley confirmed Friday he has given the government "a set period in which they can acknowledge the base."

Turley declined further comment, but court papers indicate he will try to force disclosure of the information through the courts if the government lawyers refuse to confirm the existence of the entity at the heart of his suit.

Turley, on behalf of six former workers, is suing Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner, claiming her agency failed to inspect the base, in Lincoln County 35 miles west of Alamo, for compliance with federal environmental laws.

In a separate action, Turley sued Defense Secretary William Perry, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake and Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall, claiming agency heads used secrecy to hide hazardous waste violations that injured workers.

He is trying to get the first case moved to Washington where it was initially filed. A judge there transferred the case to Las Vegas, citing similarity of issues and convenience.

But in a motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court, Turley disputed this, arguing "it is hardly more convenient for the plaintiffs to have a venue change that may succeed in defeating their claim due to the excessive costs."

Earlier this month, Justice Department trial attorney Richard Sarver asked U.S. District Judge Philip Pro to deny a change of venue. Sarver said the disputes involved "exactly the same issues and parties," and many of the federal officials named as potential witnesses likely will be shielded from having to testify.

But Turley said that in the EPA case, he has already indicated the six workers will not testify.

Because the case involves provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Turley said "the internal workings and witnesses at Groom Lake are less important ... than documents and witnesses in Washington."

"The suggestion that proof is more available in Nevada while refusing to even acknowledge the facility in question serves only to emphasize the inherent contradictions" in the government's position, he said.

Turley accused EPA attorneys of making vague arguments to Pro in an effort to keep the case in Nevada. Among them was a statement that the EPA believed thecase would be dismissed before trial, although no indication was given of what motions or issues would lead to a dismissal.

Turley also said the witnesses the government claims will not testify because of their special knowledge of base operations may indeed be put under oath.

He argued that a limited immunity rule for high-ranking government officials is waived when a witness has personal knowledge of events.

Because Perry and Widnall headed companies with financial ties to the base prior to their employ as government officials, they could be questioned about base operations, Turley argued.

The motion also said federal law requires Resource Conservation and Recovery Act cases to be tried in Washinton, while suits against the military are to be heard in the jurisdiction where the violation occurred.

Turley claimed U.S. District Judge Charles Richey of Washington transferred the case to Las Vegas without a proper hearing.