Title: Volume FOIA 004

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: 00847



Volume 4 of 111
SJAR ROT
FOIA Version

VERBAT IM 1

RECORD OF TRIAL2

(and accompanying papers)















of
(Name: Last, First, Middie initiai) (Sociai Security Number) (Rank)
Headquarters and
Headquarters Company,
United States Army Garrison U-S- Army Fort Myer, VA 22211
(Unit/Command Name) (Branch of Service) (Station or Ship)
By
GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL
convened by Commander



(Titie of Con vening Authority)

UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
(Unit/Command of Con vening Authority)

Tried at

Fort. Meade, MD on see below

(Piace or Piaces of Triai) (Date or Dates of Triai)







Date or Dates of Trial:

23 February 2012, 15?16 March 2012, 24?26 April 2012, 6?8 June 2012, 25 June 2012,

16?19 July 2012, 28?30 August 2012, 2 October 2012, 12 October 2012, 17?18 October 2012,
7?8 November 2012, 27 November 2 December 2012, 5?7 December 2012, 10?11 December 2012,
8?9 January 2013, 16 January 2013, 26 February 1 March 2013, 8 March 2013,

10 April 2013, 7?8 May 2013, 21 May 2013, 3?5 June 2013, 10?12 JUne 2013, 17?18 June 2013,
25?28 June 2013, 1?2 July 2013, 8?10 July 2013, 15 July 2013, 18?19 July 2013,

25?26 July 2013, 28 July 2 August 2013, 5?9 August 2013, 12?14 August 2013,

16 August 2013, and 19?21 August 2013.

1 insert "verbatim or "summarized as appropriate. This form be used by the Army and Navy for verbatim records of triai oniy.)

2 See inside back co ver for instructions as to preparation and arrangement.

DD FORM 490, MAY 2000 PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE Front Cover



00848

PRETRIAL ALLIED
PAPERS

00849

PRETRIAL ALLIED
PAPERS

REFERRAL

i

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LLS. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF
103 ero avenue
FORT LESLEY J. nc 20319-5013



REPLY ro
OF:

ANCG 03 FEB 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Sta?" Judge Advocate, US. Army Military District ofWashington. Fort
Lesley J. McNair, DC 20319-5058

SUBJECT: Advice on Disposition ofCoutt-Martia]

The recommendation of the Staffludge Advocate pertaining to PFC Bradley E. Manning,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, US. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson
Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia. 2221 I, is:

approved, and the charges and their speci?cations against PFC Bradley E. Manning
are referred to a General Court-Martial convened by Conn-Martial Convening Order Number 1,
Headquarters, US. Army Military District of Washington, dated 2 February 201 l.

disapproved.



Major General, .
Commanding

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Receipt of Referred Charge Sheet

I acknowledge receipt of the charges referred against me, to a General Court~MartiaL by
Major General Michael S. Linnington, dated 3 February 2012.



BMEY E. MAW
PFC, US. Army
Accused

DATE: 0'3 FEB 3019



unv- 3-:
OF THE ARMY
U5. ARMY MIL?lva DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
103 THIRD JWENUE
FOFIT LESLEY J. MOHAIR. DC 20319-5013

REPLY To
ATTENTION oF



9 JUN 20H

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Delegation of Signature Authority for Military Justice Actions

1. AUTHORITY. Rules for Courts-Martial 504. 601, and 114. Manual for Courts-Martial.
United States {2008): AR 2110. Military Justice. 16 November 2005; AR 25-50. Preparing and
Managing Cerrespondence. 3 June 2002. paragraphs 6-1 and 6-2.

2. SIGNATURE AUTHORITY. Effective immediately and at the direction of the
undersigned. the following individuals are authorized to sign courts-martial orders. referral of
charges. and other documents detailing. relieving. cseusing. or substituting court members:

a. LTC Brian Hughes, Deputy Staff Judge Advocate

b. MAI Louis J. Boston. Jr.. Chief. Military Justice

c. CPT Ashden Fain. Acting Chief. Military Justice

d. CW4 Rodrick D. Chandler. Legal Administrator

e. Ms. Carolyn D. Autry. Senior Paralegal. Military Justice
3. LIMITATIONS. This authority exists until each individual listed above is officially relieved
or released from appointment or assignment. 1 retain the authority to cancel or withdraw this
authority at any time. Upon change of command. all delegations are subject to review by the new
commander.
4. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. The above named individuals will use their regular title for

the signature block. This memorandum supersedes and terminates all previous delegations of
signature authority for militaryjustice actions.





.
MICHAEL S. LINNI GTON
Major General. A my
Commanding



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MILITARY OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY .1. MCNAIR, Dc 20319-5013

REPLY To
ATTENTION or:



2% JAN 2012

ANJA

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J.
McNairt DC 20319-5058

SUBJECT: Advice on Disposition ofCourt-Martial Charges

1. I reviewed the charges and allied papers in the case of PFC Bradley E. Manning, Headquarters
and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer,
Virginia, 222] l, and render this advice in accordance with the provisions of Article 34, Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and Rule for Courts-Martial 406.

2. Legal Conclusions. After reviewing the attached charges and the allied papers, I reach the
following legal conclusions:

a. The charges and speci?cations allege offenses under the UCMJ.

b. The allegations in each charge and speci?cation are warranted by the evidence indicated in
the attached charge sheet and allied papers.

c. Court-martial jurisdiction exists over the accused and the offenses.

3. On 16 December 2011, an Article 32, UCMJ. investigation was convened, and on I 1 January
2012, the Article 32 Investigating Officer recommended the case be tried by General Court-
Martial.

4, Recommendation. I recommend the charged offenses be tried by General Court?Martial, and
the case be referred to trial by Court-Martial Converting Order Number 1, Headquarters, U.S.
Army Military District of Washington, dated 2 February 2011.



6 Encls COR L. BRADLEY
Charge Sheet COL, JA

Transmittal Form Staff Judge Advocate
ERB

CMCO #1

Article 32 Investigation

Allied Papers

r?ow

sash

00854

U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ADDITIONAL COURT-MARTIAL CHARGES TRANSMITTAIJ

PART I i

TO: CDR. U.S. Army Garrison, FROM: CDR, HQ CMD BN DATE: 8 20H
JBM-HH

1. Additional court-martial charges against the following named individual are forwarded as Enclosure 1. Witness statements.
allied papers, any evidence of previous misconduct (to include properly certi?ed DA Forms 2627), and the Accused?s ERB are
attached as Enclosure 2. This Soldier is not pending administrative separation UP AR 635-200.

NAME: RANK: SSN:
MANNING, Bradley E. PFC


Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Garrison, JBM-HH

2. All witnesses will remain within the National Capital Region (NC R) for the next 90 days except the following named
individuals:



. No other witnesses will be released without notifying the Trial Counsel.



3. I recommend:

Summary Court?Martial I: Special Court-Mania! BCD Special Court-Martial EGeneral Court-Martial

NAME OF COMMANDER: SIGNAT COMMANDER:
LTC Cameron A. Leiker



.
TO: FROM: DATE:
CDR. U.S. Army MDW CDR, u.s. Army Garrison, JBM-HH 1 3 JAN 2012
Adi mdud?b L52 (M 9"
1. I reviewed the attachedgharges and allied papers,/ and conclude that each offense is supported by the evidence.

2. I (recommend) (direet):

Summary Court-Martial Special Court-Martial BCD Special Court-Mania] General Court-Martial



NAME OF COMMANDER: SIGNATURE OF COMMANDER:

COL Carl R. Coffman, Jr. 3

00855

PRETRIAL ALLIED
PAPERS

REQUESTS BY COUNSEL AND
ACTIONS OF THE CONVENTNG
AUTHORITY TAKEN THEREON

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT oF WASHINGTON
21o ASTREET
FORT LESLEY J. DC 20319-5013



. .- REPLY TO
Mun. r' ATTENTION OF



ANJ A-C 3 February 2014

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Reduction of Redundant Documents in Record of Trial United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning

1. Many of the Appellate Exhibits (AE) and their enclosures contain documents which might
otherwise be considered ?pretrial allied papers"; speci?cally, ?requests by counsel and action of
the Con vening Authority taken thereon,? ?any other papers. endorsements, investigations which
accompanied the charges when referred for trial,? and ?pretrial delays." Two speci?c motions
that encompass these topics are AE 359 and AB 339. AE 259 and its enclosures is the
Government?s Response to the Defense Motion to Dismiss for Unlawful Pretrial Punishment
{Article 13). 5E Enclosure 1 (excerpt of enclosure list). AE 339 and its enclosures is the
Government?s Response to the Defense Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial. gag
Enclosure 2 (excerpt of enclosure list}.

2. With the concurrence of the Clerk?s of?ce at the Army Court ofCriminal Appeals. and
because duplicating the enclosures would make a voluminous Record of Trial considerably more
this of?ce did not purposer include additional copies of the enclosures to AB 259 and
AE 339 when assembling the Record of Trial.

--
2 Encls CLA V.
1. Excerpt ofAE 259

2. Excerpt of AE 339 Paralegal

(M

1
00857


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



v. Prosecution Response to

Defense Motion to Dismiss
Manning, Bradley E. for Unlawful Pretrial Punishment
PFC, US. Army,
HHC, US. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall 17 August 2012
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

RELIEF SOUGHT



The United States respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defense Motion to
Dismiss for Unlawful Pretrial Punishment (Defense Motion).

BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND BURDEN OF PROOF

As the moving party, the Defense bears the burden of persuasion and must prove any
factual issues necessary to decide this motion by a preponderance of the evidence. See Manual
for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States, Rule for Court-Martial (RCM) 905(c) (2012). The
Defense bears the burden of establishing an entitlement to sentence credit because of a violation
of Article 13. See United States v. King, 61 M.J. 225, 227 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citing RCM






The United States requests that the Court consider the listed enclosures and Charge Sheet.

The United States may call the following witnesses to testify during the Article 13,
UCMJ (Article 13) hearing:

1. CWO4 James Averhart, Brig Of?cer, Security Battalion, 29 July 2012 to 15 January 201 1

2. CWO2 Denise Barnes, Brig Of?cer, Security Battalion, 15 January 201 1 to Transfer to RCF
(19 April 2011)

Craig Blenis, Programs Chief, 29 July 2010 to Transfer to RCF

CPT Joseph Casamatta, Commander, HHC, USAG, 29 July 2010 to 1 July 2012

Col Daniel Choike, Commander, MCBQ, 29 July 2010 to Transfer to RCF

Jonathan Cline, Guard/Escort, during Incident on 18 January 2011

COL Carl Coffman, Commander, USAG, Ft Myer, 29 July 2010 to Present

gt William Fuller, Admin Chief, 29 July 2010 to Transfer to RCF

mane??



The nonbinding precedent cited by the Defense discusses the standard the Defense must meet to raise the issue, not
decide the issue. See United States v. Scaralone, 52 MJ. 539, 543-44 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1999) (citing United
States v. Cordova, 42 C.M.R. 466 (A.C.M.R. 1970) (?To the issue [of a violation of Article 13], the burden is
on the appellant to present evidence to support his claim of illegal pretrial punishment. Once an appellant
successfully does that, the burden then shifts to the Government to present evidence to rebut the allegation ?beyond
the point of . . . inconclusiveness.??) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Defense, as the moving party, bears the
burden to prove a factual matter by a preponderance of the evidence. See King, supra.

APPELLATE EXHIBIT

PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE OF PAGES





00858

CONCLUSION

Navy Instructions, Brig SOP, and military case law vest discretion in the con?ning
authorities to determine the conditions of a detainee?s con?nement to ensure his safety. The
regulations speci?cally de?ne medical of?cers as advisers to the Brig commanding of?cers and
only grant decision-making authority to medical of?cers in limited circumstances, such as
decisions regarding quarantining detainees. The con?ning authorities considered many factors,
to include, inter alia, the accused?s prior suicidal ideations, the recommendations of the medical
of?cers, and the accused?s behavior, and repeatedly gave the accused an individualized
determination regarding the conditions of his con?nement. The con?ning authorities reached
reasonable conclusions in setting the conditions of the accused?s con?nement, and courts grant
deference to those conclusions. Moreover, the conditions were related to legitimate government
interests to include, inter alia, protecting national security and the accused?s safety. The
accused?s con?nement was not more onerous than necessary. The accused is entitled to no more
than seven days con?nement credit for the time he spent on SR after a
recommended removing him from SR. Therefore, the accused?s con?nement did not otherwise
violate Article 13 and the accused is not entitled to additional con?nement credit.

For the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully requests that the Court deny the
Defense Motion.

ALEXANDER S. VON ELTEN
CPT, A
Assistant Trial Counsel

u.
i? A EN FEIN

A
Trial Counsel
Enclosures
1. Handling Instructions
2. Manning Behavior MFR
3. Mental Health Record
4. Article 15, dated 100517
5. AIR
6. SPC Schwab MFR and Statement
7. Kuwait Transfer Docs
8. Con?nement Order
9. Request for Monitoring of Communications
10. Mar Cof?nan Memo

45



11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.

Reply from Quantico for Monitoring
Email from Mr. Coombs
Acknowledgements

Inmate Inprocessing

Inmate Observation Report

Use of Force Downing Memo
Kuwait

Barr MFR, dated 100729

Initial Classi?cation

Inprocessing Forms

Behavioral Health Evaluations
Weekly Reports

Averhart 16 Mar Response

Reports

Zelek Memo, dated 101228
Command Visits

Choike memo, dated 110301

Choike Memo, dated 110408
Averhart Repsonse, dated 110124
Oltman Response

Final Action by Assistant Secretary Garcia regarding Article 138
Boards

Guard Statements, dated 1101 18
Incident Report (Webb), dated 110118
Averhart Response, dated 110316
Suicide Video, Pt 1.MOD

Suicide Video, Pt 2.MOD

Barnes Response, dated 110302
Galaviz Memo, dated 110223
Papakie Statement, dated 110302
Suicide Gown Incident Report
Tweezer Incident Report

Request to Reduce POI, dated 110121
Headset Receipt

JRCF Flight Report

CRF Attack.avi

SECNAV Instruction 1640.9C

Brig SOP, dated 100701

Audio, with Cover Sheet

46

00859





00860



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
Manning, Bradley E. for Lack of Speedy Trial
PFC, US. Army,
HHC, US Army Garrison, CORRECTED COPY #2
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211 16 November 2012
RELIEF SOUGHT

COMES NOW the United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, and
respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defense Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy
Trial (Defense Motion).

BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND BURDEN OF PROOF

When the defense moves to dismiss for lack of speedy trial, the burden of persuasion
shall be upon the prosecution. See Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) United States v.
Cook, 27 MJ. 212, 215 (C.M.A. 1988); United States v. Mt'zgala, 61 M.J. 122, 125 (C.A.A.F.
2005) (?Under Article 10, the government has the burden to show that the prosecution moved
forward with reasonable diligence in response to a motion to dismiss?). The burden of proof on
any factual issue the resolution of which is necessary to decide a motion shall be by a
preponderance of the evidence. See RCM 905(c)(1).



The prosecution requests that the Court consider witness testimony and the following
enclosures to this response:

Unclassi?ed Emails

Classi?ed Emails

Article 32 transcript, Mr. Troy Bettencourt
Sworn Statement, Mr. Adrian Lamo

Military Magistrate Pretrial Con?nement Review, 30 May 2010
Pretrial Con?nement Order, 29 May 2010
Original Charged Sheet Preferred, 5 July 2010
CID Report of Investigation, 1 1 June 2010

CID Report of Investigation, 23 June 2010

. Article 10 Memorandum, 20 November 2010

. Requests for Excludable Delay

. Approvals of Excludable Delay

. GCMCA Transfer of Jurisdiction, 28 July 2010

. Quantico Receipt of Inmate, 29 July 2010

. Accused?s Orders to Quantico, 28 July 2010

. GCMCA Release of Jurisdiction, 2 August 2010






APPELLATE: axing; 7; $9
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE OF PAGES





17Proposed Meeting with Defense, 25 October 2011
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.

Prosecution?s Request for FBI File, 15 August 201 1

Discovery Productions

GCMCA Assumption of Command, 3 June 2011

Requests for Classi?cation Reviews

Requests for Classi?cation Reviews (classi?ed)

Defense Request for RCM 706 Delay, 26 August 2010

Requests for Approval of Disclosure

Requests for Approval of Disclosure (classi?ed)

Approvals of Disclosure

Forensic Reports (classi?ed)

Article 32 Investigating Of?cer?s Delay Recommendation, 12 August 2010
Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay

Order for RCM 706 to Resume, 3 February 2011

RCM 706 Board Extension Requests

Approval of Extension Requests

RCM 706 Sanity Board Results, 22 April 2011

Memorandum, 22 October 2010

RCM 706 Order, 3 August 2010

Defense Request for Expert Consultant in Forensic 25 August 2010
Defense Request for Security Clearances, 2 September 2010

Protective Order for Classi?ed Information, 17 September 2010
GCMCA Protective Order, 28 July 2010

Appointment of Defense Security Expert, 17 September 2010

Preliminary Classi?cation Review Order, 17 September 2010

Defense Response to Preliminary Classi?cation Review Order, 28 September 2010
Superseding Preliminary Classi?cation Review Order, 22 September 2010
Appointment of Second Defense Security Expert, 12 October 2010

Defense Request for Preliminary Classi?cation Review, 21 October 201 1
Defense Request for Information Assurance Expert, 28 October 2010

Defense Request for Damage Assessments, 1 November 2010

Guidance to Preliminary Classi?cation Review, 10 November 2010
Preliminary Classi?cation Review Results, 13 December 2010

Prosecution Request for Security Clearance for Defense Team, 13 January 2011
Classi?cation Review, 15 December 2011

Prosecution?s Preservation Requests

Prosecution?s Prudential Search Requests

Prudential Search Requests (classi?ed)

OGA Classi?cation Review (ManningB_00410623) (classi?ed)

Requests to Review Damage Assessments

Prosecution?s Ex Parte Statement of Due Diligence (classi?ed), 25 July 2012
MDW OPLAN BRAVO (?led under seal)

DD Form 457, 11 January 2012

Article 32 Investigating Of?cer Exhibit 52, 11 January 2012

Special Instructions for Article 32 Investigating Of?cer, 16 November 2011
Calendar of Contested Periods for RCM 707

00861





00862

63. Notice of Referred Charge Sheet, 3 February 2012

64. Defense Request for Release from PTC under RCM 305(g), 13 January 2011
65. request for Quantico Documents, 20 January 2011

66. Response to RCM 305(g) Request, 21 January 2011

67. Response to RCM 305(g) Request, 18 March 2011

68. Defense Discovery Requests

69. Prosecution?s Responses to Defense Discovery Requests

70. Prudential Search Request (DHS), 25 October 2011

71. Defense Request for Additional Funding for Experts, 26 January 2012

72. CID Regulation (?led under seal)

73. Prudential Search Request (CYBERCOM), 3 July 2012

74. Defense Request to Compel and Produce Discovery

75. Combined Chat Logs (classi?ed)

76. Defense Acknowledge of Meeting with Prosecution on 8 November 2011, 25 October 2011
77. RCM 706 Emails

78. COL Coffman Emails

79. Article 32 Emails

80. Additional Documents for COL Cof?nan?s Testimony

81. Defense Emails

FACTS
On 9 January and 13 January 2011, the defense requested a speedy trial.

The parties stipulate that the following days count towards the RCM 707 speedy trial
clock: (1) 28 May 2010 to 11 July 2010 (45 days); (2) 16 December 2011 to 23 December 2011
(8 days); (3) 3 January 2012 to 6 January 2012 (4 days); (4) 9 January 2012 to 3 February 2012
(26 days); and (5) 23 February 2012 (1 day).1 The parties stipulate that these 84 days count
towards the RCM 707 speedy trial clock. See Defense Motion, at 33.

The parties stipulate that the period of delay between 11 August 2010 and 3 March 2011
was properly excluded under RCM 707(c). See Defense Motion, at 34.

The parties dispute that the period of delay between the following dates was properly
excluded under RCM 707(c): (1) 12 July 2010 to 10 August 2010; (2) 4 March 2011 to 15
December 2011; (3)24 December 2011 to 2 January 2012; (4)7 January 2012 to 8 January
2012; and (5) 3 February 2012 to 22 February 2012. See Defense Motion.



I: INTRODUCTION 1



The facts for this response are consolidated into roughly ?ve different sections: (1) the
accused?s arrest until his transfer to the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico (hereina?er



The defense provides that the speedy trial clock under RCM 707 began on 29 May 2010, the date of pretrial
con?nement. The prosecution provides that the speedy trial clock began on 27 May 2010, the date of restraint.



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, isT ARMORED AND
UNITED STATES DIVISION-CENTER
CAMP LIBERTY, IRAQ
AE 0934::

I REPLY To
ATTENTION or:



JUL Z?l?
AETV-THZ

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, ATTN: Provost Marshal

SUBJECT: Pre-Trial Con?nement in Excess of 30 Days

1. I request you approve pre-trial con?nement in excess of 30 days at the Theater Field
Con?nement Facility, Camp Aritjan, Kuwait, for Private First Class Bradley Manning,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 2d Brigade
Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division Li Infantry), Contingency Operating Station
Hammer, Iraq, APO AE 09038, in accordance with MOD 1 to FRAGO 142.

2. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees Private First Class
Manning the right to assistance of counsel fur his defense. Private First Class Manning?s
detailed Defense Counsel is located at Camp Liberty, Iraq.

3. Upon preferral of charges, Private First Class Manning?s detailed Defense Counsel must
provide him initial advice in accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 502. The
Defense Counsel must explain his duties and inform Private First Class Manning of his right to
request individual counsel of Private First Class Manning?s own selection. The Defense Counsel
must also explain the elections available as to composition of the court?martial and assist Private
First Class Manning in making any request necessary to effect the election. Additionally, the
Defense Counsel must advise Private First Class Manning of his right to plead guilty or not
guilty, the meaning and effect of a guilty plea, and his rights to introduce evidence, to testify or
remain silent, and to assert any available defense. RCM 502(d)(6), Discussion.

4. The Government has an af?rmative duty to protect the rights afforded Private First Class
Manning by the United States Consitution and codi?ed in RCM 502. It is essential that Private
First Class Manning remain located in the same theater as his Defense Counsel during the
preliminary stages of the prosecution. speci?cally prior to the Government preferring charges.

5. The Point of Contact for this memorandum is Captain Alison Atkins, Trial Counsel, available



TERR . ?20er

Major General, USA
Commanding





COURT-MARTIKL CHARGES FORM







PART
T0: Commander. 2d BSTB. 2d BCT. FROM: Commander. HHC. 2d BCT,
10?h MTN Div APO AE 09308 . 10th MTN Div APO AE 09308 5 i, 5; $10.
Court-Martial charges against the following named individual are forwarded as Enclosure Sol ier is not

[Ending chapter action UP AR 635-200.













NAME: RANK: 1 SSN: i
Manning. Bra-:ltey. E. PFC
UNIT:
HHC. 2d BC: 10th MTN Div (LI). COS Hammer. Iraq, APO AE 09308
Recommend:
1 Summary Court-Martial Special Court-Martial
Special Court-Martial WGeneral Court-Martial
NAME OF COMMANDER SIGNATURE OF COMMANDER
MATTHEW w. FREEBURG. oer. AD. coR
PART 5/





TO: commanEe?r. idea?mill MTN FROM: Comrr'ander. 2d ssre. 2d s'c?r. '2

Div (LI). APO AE 09308 10th MTN Div APO AE 09308 . S. aggo


I have reviewed the attached charges and documents (if aoplicable] and (recomme









tSummary Court-Martial )Special Court-Martial
Special Court-Martial Mineral Court-Martial
NAME OF COMMANDER MMAND
PAUL R. WALTER. LTC. Ml. coR .
PART
TO: Commander. AD 3: USO-C. FROM: Commander. 2d BCT. 10th MTN DATE:



Camp Liberty Iraq. APO AE 09344 . Div (LI). APO AE 09308 I
I have reviewed the attached charges and documents (if aoplicable) an )(directi
1 Conduct an Article 32 Investigation 1 Do Not Conduct an Article 32 Ion

ANDER



NAME OF COMMANDER



DAVID M. MILLER. iN. CUR



7 FROM:



I have reviewed the attached charges and documents (if applicable) and (recommendh?direcrj'
Summary Court-Martial )General Court-Martial

1 Special Court-Martial

oi='



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS. 2D BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM
10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION (LIGHT INFANTRY)
UNITED STATES DIVISION - CENTER
cos HAMMER, IRAQ APO AE asses



Jenn



MEMORANDUM FOR Commander. Armored Division and United States Division - Center.
Camp Liberty. Iraq, APO AE 09344

SUBJECT: Transmittal of Court-Martial Charges Private First Class Bradley E.
Manning. 445-98-9504. Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team.
10th Mountain Division {Light Infantry). Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, APO
AE 09308

1. Under Rules for dart-Martial 401 and 404, I forward the charges pertaining to Private First
Class Bradley E. Manning, 44538-9504. Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d
Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry). Contingency Operating Station
Hammer. Iraq, APO AE 09308.

2. I recommend trial by Special Com't-Martial, empowered to adjudge a Bad Conduct
Discharge.

3. I direct:
a pretrial Article 32 investigation pursuant to R.C.M. 405.

I trial by Summary Court-Martial.

I

DAVID M. MILLER
COL, IN
Commanding



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS. BRIGADE SPECIAL TROOPS BATTALION
20 BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM. 10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION (LIGHT
UNITED STATES DIVISION - CENTER
cos HAMMER. IRAQ APO AE tissue



AFDR-TBA 5 ?Sol 1625

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, 2d Brigade Combat Team. 10th Mountain Division (Light
Infantry). Fort Drum. New York [3602

SUBJECT: Transmittal ofCourt-Martial Charges Private First Class (Ii-3) Bradley E.
Manning, 445-913-9504. Headquarters and Headquarters Company. 2d Brigade Combat Team.
lOth Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq. APO
AE 09308

t. I am the Summary Court-Mania] Convening Authority in the above case. I am not
disquali?ed from acting as the convening authority in this case. I have received the sworn
charges and caused the hour and date of receipt to be entered on the charge sheet.

2. Pursuant to Rules 306, 401 and 402 of the Rules for Courts-Manial, I have considered the
lowest appropriate disposition of the chargets) and specificationts).

I recommend:
?riff
v/ 2) trial by General Court-Martial.
trial by Special (Spun?Martial. empowered to adjudge a Bad Conduct Discharge.

trial by Summaryr Court-Martial.

Other:








WALTER
LTC. Ml
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS AND HEADQUARTERS COMPANY
2D BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM, 10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISIDN (LIGHT INFANTRY)
UNITED STATES - CENTER
cos HAMMER. IRAQ APO AE 09308



AFDR-BBA-HC 5

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander. 2d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 2d Brigade Combat
Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer. Iraq.
APO AE 09308

SUBJECT: Transmittal ofComt-Martial Charges Private First Class Bradley E.
Manning, 44533-9504. Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team,

10th Mountain Division {Light Infantry}. Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq. APO
AE 09308

1. Pursuant to Rules 306. 40] and 402 of the Rules for Courts-Martial. have considered the
lowest appropriate disposition of the charge{s_} and specificationt's}.

2. Ireeommend:
we

trial by General Court-Martial.

trial by Special Court-Martial, empowered to adjudge a Bad Conduct Discharge.

2) trial by Summary Court?Martial.

Other:





MATTHEW W. FRE URG
PT, AD
Commanding

ENLISTED RECORD BRIEF



BRIEF DATE
EDIGDTEE

NAME



MAN N1 N6. EDWAH D-

RANK DCI
pr:



20100524

PMOS
35F





COMPONENT
REGULAR



SECTION I

- Security Data



OSJ?Deployment Combat Duty

#5 - 5 PSI Stains [Jet PS Stat Hour





Slarl-End Date

PSI Invest INIT 20W0516

SECTION - Service Data



PEBD 20071002

BESD



SECTION PersonaliFamily Data



DIEMS manna

Fieenl 1



CT MOTSTT it



PSIInvestCome-l 20031an

Bars Lost



AGCM DI



AGCEJI Elia D1 201mm:



0



SECTION Foreign Lan uage





anguage Read Llslen

Speak

PVT

PFC

SPC -



DOR

IDDT1D02

200583482



20051 001*























Dwell Time



Start





Month - Days





0 Ho 0 Days









SGT SSG

SFC

MSG



DIOR







DOR

SGM - EvaI







SECTION "Jll - CIVILIAN Education



Level Compheted

DESG

Tr





Date Dependents Arrived OS

DLAB a1



PMOS

35F


DI saellne





SCH



SMDS

FDSINRMCI

SECTION VI - Hilita? Education

In slrtu'lion



Yr





Bonus MOS



ASI an Course

Year

Number Of Semester Hours Completed







Bonus Enlisl Elia

CDHBAT LIFE SAVERS CR5



Promotion Porntsi?r? FE



Prev Promolron Pernls??RMG



Prem Seer!

I Prom Select Dr



Promotion MOS



ASUAB

Test I





GT 12:! ELEC

FOOD 125



ADMIN 125 FA

12: COMMD 12!



CMBT 12H MECH

121 MAINT 125















Delay Segaraluon Reason



AER





Flat: Code

Flag Start Dt Flag DI











2003

Technical Certi?cation



Cue rse Name

DI Ceni?ed

DI EIpIres

Home of Record

. MD









Malling Address 1492 ROAD.
MD. 20854?01300



SECTION Awards and Decorations

Mil pouse SS Nr'leF'C







8M0







Correspondence CR8 Total Hrs.

NDSM

AER

1
1
1

Sr: Comp



Emergemy Data Verified Date 200mm



SECTION I - Remarks



I?Ii"ur TH MU 200305



RGMT AFL CORPHI



Date Last Photo





Dale of I. DES
19059814

Dale of Last PCS


SECTION II Assignment Information

I Date of Last NCCIER



A531 FROM



M0 UNIT NO ORGANIEATION STATION

LOC

COMB

TITLE

DMDS

5

MG



PROJ
Current 2UIJ91EI11
15! Prev
2nd Prev
3rd Prev 21:03:11 22
4th Prev EUDTIDDS
5th Prev 20-07100!
6th Prev
i'ih Prev
8121 Prev
9131 I??rev
l?ln Prev
111?. Prev
12th Prev
13th Prev
14th Prev
15th Frau
16th Prev
?rth Prev
13m Prev
19th Prev
213m Prev
215: Prev
22nd Prev
23rd Prev
24th Prev








DMA
W1E813
W1 M01
W4KBZC
WDVLIIK
W1 TWES

BDE LID
UZDDWINHHC EDIE LID
USAICFH CO (STU 305
INFAN RYT
CO 320 CM 3N

HHC 43KB AG EN ES REC-P
MEPS BALTIMORE

FT DRUM

FT DRUH

HUACHU
FT LEONAR
FT LEUNAFI
FT LEONAR
LINTHICUM


.-













INTEL IZI
INTEL ANALYST
RATRAINEE
RATRAINEE
HATRAINEE

FLA TRAINEE



35F1O
35F10
35F10






533313;;







DEPARTMENT OF THE A.me
HEADQUARTERS. so BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM
10TH MOUNTAIN DWISIGN INFANTRY)
UNITED s'rAres oIvIsIoN CENTER
cos HAMMER. IRAQ
Apo AE osass

REPLY To
AT 0F:



AFDR-BHA 6 July 2010

FUR Lieutenant Colonel Craig Merutl-ta

SUBJECT: Appointment as Article 32 Investigating Ollieer in the Case of United States v.
Private. First Class Bradley Manning

1. in coordination with ISM and Command. appoint you as an investigating ot'tieer
under the provisions oi?Artiele 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice to investigate the
attached charges against Private First Class Bradley Manning. Headquarters and Headquarters
Ct?tmpany. 2d Brigade Combat ?I'eam. lOth Mountain Division (Light Infantry). APO AE 09308.
This duty takes precedence over all other duties. Your duties are to;

a. Conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the truth ot?the allegations:
i1. Consider the correctness and the form ol'the charges; and

e. Make recommendations as to the disposition ot'the charges in the interest ol'liustiee and
discipline.
3. Complete your investigation and report ot?invesligation within 10 days from the date ol'this
memorandum. You will schedule a time. date. and location for the hearing. You have the
authority to grant reasonahle requests by the attorneys to delay this investigation. tl'the Accused
or the Accused?s attorney cannot proceed on the selected date. obtain a request for delay from
the Aeeuscd?s counsel in writing and attach it to the report of investigation. i must approve
delays in escess ol' )0 days.

3. Contact Captain Chad Chiel'. Administrative Law Division. Of?ce of the Stal?t'
Judge Advocate. Armored Division and United States Division Center. SVOIP _l
[or the name ol?your assigned legal advisor. You will not seek legal advice from any other
attorney associated with the ease.

4. Captain Luke Rose. Chiet. Military Justice. Armored Division and United States Division
Center. Captain Alison Atkins. 'l rial Counsel- Armored Division and United States
Division Center. and Captain Christopher Goren- Trial Counsel. 2d Brigade Combat earn.
Mountain Division (Light lnl'antry) are designated as the Government Representatives and
are authorised to participate in this ease. The Accused's counsels are Captain Paul liouehard.
'l rial Delense Service. Camp Liberty and Captain Michael Eaton. 'I'rial Defense
Service. Camp Victory I?ield ()I?liec. While either ol'these parties may call and question
witnesses. the responsibility to conduct the investigation is yours. Both ol'these parties play an

Unclassi?ed_Discovery_Manning 8300451


SUBJECT: Appointment as Article 32 Investigating Ul't'tcer in the Case of United States i.
Private First Class Bradlev Ii. Manning

adversarial role in the proceedings. You should not discuss the merits t' the case either
party outside l'onnal sessions where all parties have tlte opportunity to be present.

5. The Armored Division and United States Division Center Military Justice Of?ce will
provide your clerical support.

o. You should become I'amiliar with the tollowing reference materialsfdocuments:
a. Article 33. UCMJ
It. 405

e. Department oFthe Anny Pamphlet 27-17. Procedural Guide [or Article 32 Investigating
(illiter. I6 September W00.

d. Department of Del'cnsc Form 453. Charge Sheet

the Investigating ()t't'tcer's Procedural Guide discusses in detail procedural aspects from
appointment to submission ol?tltc linal repon. Included in Appendix is a sample format for
noti?cation ot'the Accused. You should modil'y the format by forwarding the noti?cation
through the Aecused's unit to the Accused to ensure that the unit commander is
aware of the time and location the hearing. thereby ensuring the presence ol~ the Accused at
the hearing. lt?eounscl already represents the Accused. you should send the written notice to that
enamel and an in t'ortnation copy to the unit. You should also provide an inlormation copy to the
appropriate trial counsel.

3. A court reporter li'om Ist Armored Division and United States Division Center will record
and transcribe the testimony. Absent my written approval. the investigation will not be
transcribed verbatim.

9. Submit the complete report ol? investigation. DD Form 457. Investigating tll'ticer's Report.
with enclosures. and a chronology ot?the investigation t'rom receipt of tile to submission ol'the
report to the Armored Division and United States Division Center. Military Justice ()Ilicc.
no later than It} days aller you complete the investigation.



DA VII) M. MILLER.

(?01 t. IN
Commanding

Unclassi?ed_Discovery_M anningB_DUU452

.3

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS. 1ST ARMORED AND
UNITED STATES DIVISION. CENTER
APO AE 093m:



it July 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Army Corrections Command. ATTN: Mr. Earl Ball. 200
Steve? SL, Hotfman 2. Alexandria, VA, 22302.

SUBJECT: Movement of PFC Bradley Manning from the Theatre Field Con?nement Facility.
Kuwait to the Area Con?nement Facility Mannheim for Pretrial Con?nement.

l. The Commander, Third has ordered the transfer of Private First Class

(PFC) Bradley Manning from the Theatre Field Con?nement Facility (TFCF). Camp Aritjan.
Kwuait due to their lack of resources to provide specialized mental health care to the accused.
Accordingly, we request that TFCF transfer PFC Manning the Mannheim Area Con?nement

Facility (ACF) until his trial.

2. The Commanding Of?cer, Captain Kenneth Ivcrson, USN, Expeditionary Medical Facility
Kuwait. strongly recommends transfer of PF Bradley Manning because he is considered a hing
risk to harm himself. Captain lverson states that PFC Manning?s condition is complex and
requires ongoing onc?to-one observation and that the care he requires supersedes the TFCF's i
capacrty.

3. PFC Bradley Manning entered pretrial con?nement on 29 May 2010. The government
preferred charges on 5 July 2010 and the Article 32 Investigation is scheduled lior 14 July 2010.

4. PFC Manning?s Trial Defense Attorneys, Captains Paul Bouchard and Michael Eaton have
been noti?ed of the pending transfer.

5. POC is LTC Maureen Kohn. Deputy, Staff Judge Advocate at DSN I
?y-mil-
agent

TERR A. WOLFF
Major General, USA
Commanding

CF:

PT Paul Bouchard
CPT Michael Eaton

Unclassi?eo_Discovery_Manning 15

TN A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL OF THE UNITED STATES

US ARMY TRIAL
I A
v. REQUEST FOR SANTTY BOARD
BRADLEY MANNING
PFC. US. ARMY

Headquarters and Headquarters Co. 2d BCT
10* Mountain Division (Light infantry)
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq
APO AE 09308

ll JulyZOlO

1. Pursuant to R.C.M. 706. Manual for Courts-Martial. the defense requests the Converting
Authority appoint a sanity board to determine whether PFC BRADLEY MANNING was
mentally responsible for the alleged offenses he is charged with and whether he is competent to
stand trial.

2. in support of this request. the defense proffers the following:

PFC Manning has sought the assistance of military mental health professionals in the past.
Speci?cally, on 22 May 2010. CPT Eden Critch?eld diagnosed PFC Manning with ?adjustment
disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions. conduct; chronic.? (See attachment named CPT
Critch?cld?s ?ndings). Moreover. MSG Adkins, one of PFC Manning?s high-ranking NCOs, has
written three letters (their dates are 21 December 2009, and 26 April and 8 May of2010)
outlining his concerns as to PFC Manning's mental health status. Lastly and very importantly.
PFC Manning is in pro-trial con?nement in Kuwait, and the staff of the detention facility there
has had to place PFC Manning on suicide watch in the past. Moreover, PFC Manning is currently
taking a medication as well.

Because of the aforementioned reasons, and out of an abundance of caution. the defense
requests a 706 board to determine the extent of PFC Manning?s mental health issuets}, if any.

3. The defense requests that a board of three members. including at least one and
one clinical be appointed to examine the accused.

4. The undersigned requests that the board address the following questions concerning PFC
Manning?s mental condition:

a. Does the accused currently have a severe mental disease or defect? If yes, please answer
the following five questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the American
Association?s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM

00873

(2) Is this severe mental disease or defect service-disqualifying?
(3) What is the accused?s prognosis for recovery?

(4i Can this severe mental disease or defect he successfully controlled by treatment with
drugs?

(5) Does long-term commitment of the accused appear to be a necessary alternative?
b. What is the accused?s intelligence level?

c. Does the accused have the mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings and
the seriousness of the charges against him? If not, please answer the following three questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using

(2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treatedfcontrolled by treatment with
drugs?

(3) What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?

d. Does the accused have the mental capacity to cooperate intelligently in his own defense?
If not, please answer the fellowing three questions:

1) What is the clinical diagnosis. using

(2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully trmtedfcontrol led by treatment with
drugs?

(3) What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?

e. At the time of the alleged criminal conduct, did the accused haVe a severe mental disease
or defeat? If yes, please answer the following four questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using

(2) At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as a result of such severe mental
disease or defect, was the accused able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his
conduct?

(3) Is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personality

caused by inadequate training and development. lack of moral restraint, or a personal, social. or
cultural standard ofconduct which differs from that of society as a whole?

(4) Was this impairment complete?

S. The sanity board should, at a minimum, consider all of the following materials in reaching
their ?ndings:

3. The accused?s mental health records:
b. The accused?s medical records:

c. Interviews with the accused;

d. The charge sheet and all allied papers.

6. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the sanity board must comply with the disclosure prohibitions
of Mil. R. Evid. 302, and R.C.M. 706(c)(3). Only a statement consisting of the sanity board?s
ultimate conclusions as to the questions in paragraph Ba through 3e will be provided to the trial
counsel. A full report, which may include statements made by PFC Bradley Manning, or any
evidence derived from such statements, should be provided to CPT Paul Bouchard at the Trial
Defense Services Of?ce at Camp Liberty. Iraq andfor CPT Michael Eaton of the Trial Defense

Services Of?ce at Camp Victory. Iraq.
I .

PAUL R. BOUCHARD
CPT. A
Senior Defense Counsel



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS. 2o BRIGADE OOMBAT TEAM
MOUNTAIN DIVISION ILIGHT
UNITED STATES DIVISION - CENTER
cos HMMER. IRAQ
APO AE ususs

REPLY 10
ATTENTION



[3 July

Tl Captain Paul Bouehard. 'I'rial Defense Service. Camp Liberty Field
Of?ce. (?untp Liberty. lraq. APO Ali {19344

l'th Prit-ate l-?irst t?lass Bradley Manning. Headquarters and Headquarters Company. 2d
Brigade Special Troops Battalion. 2d Brigade Combat Team. 10th Mountain Division (Light
Infantry t- APO Ali t?lttOSS

til Request I'or Delay in the Article 32 Investigation in the Case of United States v.
Private l'irst Class Bradley I-I. Manning

3. (in (- Iul} appointed Lieutenant Colonel Craig Merutka. Chief. Administrative Law.
United States Forces lraq. Camp Victory. lraq. APO Ali 09342. as the investigating of?cer For
a ore-trial int estigation pursuant to Article 32. Uniform Code ofMilitary (LICMJ). in the
case of Private First Class Bradley Manning. Headquarters and Headquarters Company. 2d
Brigade Special Troops Battalion. 2d Brigade Combat Team. 10th Mountain Division (Light
APO Ali (19038. On it) July 2010. Lieutenant Colonel Memtka noti?ed you that the
pro-trial investigation would occur on .luly 20M).

3. 0n Jul} you requested delay the Article Investigation until a 706 board is
complete and until you can resolve issues relating to civilian defense counsel and defense expert

e. itnesses.

3. I grant your request for a delay until 16 AuguSt 20i ti. This is a defense requested delay for
purposes of Rule for 70?.

DAVID M. MILLER
COL. IN
Commanding

00876

Atkins. Alison CPT USD-C DSTB Trial Counsel

From: Merutka, Craig USA LTC Admin Law

Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:04 PM

To: Bouchard, Paul R. CPT USD-C DSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel; Atkins, Alison CPT
USD-C DSTB Trial Counsel

Cc: Eaton. Michael L. CPT USD-C SJNATOS Officer: Eaton. Michael CPT MIL USA

Rose, Luke 8 CPT MIL USA USAREUR McFarland.
Chad M. CPT JA Administrative Law Attorney; Mitchell, Vernisha C. SFC
Gala Paralegal Faaba.
Anthony LTC egiona me ense ounsel

Subject: RE: RE: FW: Defense request for Art. 32 delay, US v. Manning

It is my understanding that the 786 request is working its way through the command. CRT
Atkins, please let me know the decision as soon as possible.

In the interest of stopping the needless movement of Manning from Kuwait, I am approving a
defense delay until 26 July 2816, the longest I can delay this without going to the convening
authority. CPT Atkins, I also ask that if the 766 is approved, that you obtain approval from
COL Miller to delay the Article 32 until the results of the 786 are known.

If the is not approved, we will proceed at 1366 on 26 July.

CPT Bouchard, please provide a list of witnesses you would like to call in accordance with my
memorandum dated 19 July 2919 but with a new suspense of 1?96, 21 July. And of course if the
786 is approved we can adjust acc0rdingly.

Based upon a request from CPT Atkins, I will consider two additional documents, specifically:

1. Memorandum from United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, Computer Crime
Investigative Unit, dated 29 June 2318, CAF ooze-ia-CIossi ROI aeza-19-c10221-1911?,
Forensics Report for PFC Manning?s Personal Computer, with appendices A-D

2. Memorandum from United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, Computer Crime
Investigative Unit, dated 1 July 2816, CAF 6328-18-C1D361 ROI
Forensics Report for Mr. Lamo's Personal Computer, with appendices

I would appreciate an acknowledgment from CPT Atkins and CPT Bouchard. Thank you.
UR LTC Merutka



From: Bouchard, Paul R. CPT USD-C DSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel
[mailtg .l
Sent: nday, July 12, 2616 1:53 PM
To: Menutka, Craig USA LTC Admin Law; Atkins, Alison CPT USD-C DSTB Trial Counsel

Cc: Eadon, Michael L. CPT USD-C Officer; Eaton, Michael CPT MIL USA

Rose, Luke 5 CPT MIL USA USAREUR McFarland, Chad M. CPT use-c SJA
Admini trative Law Attorne Mitchell, Vernisha C. SFC USD-C 053A Paralegal

Trial Defense Counsel
Subject: RE: Fw: Defense request for Art. 32 delay, US v. Manning

UNCLASSIFIEDXK

00877
Sir:

The defense received your ruling denying our Art. 32 delay request based on our request for a
?86 evaluation of our client. we respect your ruling, but we respectfully ask that you
reconsider it for the following reasons:

1. It is our understanding that the Government supports our request and that such a
request will be ordered shortly. A ?66 board determines if the accused was mentally
responsible for the alleged misconduct, if he suffers from a mental disease of some sort, and
whether he is competent to assist in his own defense. Unquestionably, a ?66 board is needed
to determine the important issues of mental reSponsibility and competency. Does PFC Manning
suffer from a mental disorder? what of the issue of mental responsibility? Is PFC Manning
able to assist in his own defense? These indeed are important issues.

2. Though the accused, PFC Manning, has been in pre~trial confinement since 36 May, charges
against him were only preferred exactly a week ago, on 5 July. That means the defense has
only had a week to know what exactly he is charged with. Moreover, nine days to prepare for
an Article 32 is insufficient time for defense preparation, but more importantly, the first
step is to determine if PFC Manning is able to assist in his own defense.

Having an Article 32 hearing this wednesday, July 14, without first knowing whether PFC
Manning suffers from a mental disorder, whether he is competent to stand trial, and whether
he is able to assist in his own defense would in all liklihood render the Art. 32 hearing
defective and create the need for a new Article 32 hearing.

Simply put: An accused must understand the proceedings he is facing -- to include Article 32
proceedings -- for such proceedings to not be defective.

It is without question that many issues are still unresolved in this case -- will there be
more lawyers representing PFC Manning, possible defense experts, etc., but those issues
cannot be properly decided themselves without first determining the all-important issues of
mental responsibility, mental disease, and competency.

Your ruling did correctly mention the importance of whether the 766 will be ordered. Again,
we believe it will be shortly.

As to timeline issues, the defense does not know how long a 766 inquiry would take.
we appreciate your time and consideration on these important matters.

Respectfully,
CPT Bouchard

CPT Paul Boochard
Senior Defense Counsel
Camp Liberty, Iraq





From: Merutka, Craig USA LTC Admin Law [mailtoz?il]

Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2816 6:3? PM

To: Atkins, Alison CPT USD-C DSTB Trial Counsel

Cc: Bouchard, Paul R. CPT DSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel; Eaton, Michael L. CPT USD-C
Officer; Eaton, Michael CPT MIL USA Luke 5 CPT
MIL USA USAREUR McFarland, Chad M. CPT USD-C SJA Administrative Law Attorney; Mitchell,

Vernisha C- SFC USD-C 053A Paralegal

Subject: RE: FM: Defense request for Art. 32 delay, US v. Manning

The request as submitted is denied. The accused has been in PTC for some time now and we
need to keep going. An RCM 736 Board, even if ordered, could take weeks to conduct and
receive results from. I will, however, grant any reasonable delay based upon your workload,
the size and complexity of the charges, or the location of the accused but please give me a
proposed date.

If a 796 is ordered, I will reconsider.
As it stands now, we start at 6333 14 July.
VR LTC Merutka

a-~ea0riginal

From: Atkins, Alison CPT USO-C DSTB Trial Counsel [mailt?

Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2616 4:36 PM

To: Merutka, Craig USA LTC Admin Law

Cc: Bouchard, Paul R. CPT USD-C DSTB CD TDS Sr Defense Counsel; Eaton, Michael L. CPT USD-C
Sin/mos Officer,- 'Eaton, Michael CPT MIL USA Rose, Luke 5
(PT MIL USA USAREUR McFarland, Chad M. CPT USD-C SJA Administrative Law Attorney;

Mitchell, Vernisha c. sec uso-c 053A Paralegal mco;


Subject: Fw: Defense request for Art. 32 delay, US v. Manning



Sir,

Attached please find the defense request for a delay for the article 32 investigation in the
case of PFC Bradley Manning.

Sincerely yours,

Alison F. Atkins
CPT, 3A

Trial Counsel
DSTB,

Camp Liberty

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may
contain material protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be
advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination,

3



forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original mail.

--~--Original

From: Bouchard, Paul R. CPT USD-C DSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel

Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2919 4:25 PM

To: Atkins, Alison CPT DSTB Trial Counsel; 'Goren, Christopher CPT BDE Legal'

Cc: Eaton, Michael L. CPT USD-C SJAIATOS Officer; Eaton, Michael CNA MNF-I C32 CIOC
Mitchell, Vernisha C. SFC USD-C 053A Paralegal NCO

Subject: Defense request for Art. 32 delay, US v. Manning



CPT Atkins:

The attachment is our delay request of the Art. 32 hearing, US v. Manning. Our delay request
is based on our T06 request.

Please forward this request to the Art. 32 IO, LTC Craig Merutka, as I was unable to find his
e-mail address.

Respectfully,

CPT Bouchard

CPT Paul Bouchard
Senior Defense Counsel
Camp Liberty, Iraq









Atkins, Alison CPT USD-C DSTB Trial Counsel

From: Bouchard. Paul R. CPT DSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel

Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:53 PM

To: 'Merutka. Craig USA LTC Admin Law?; Atkins, Alison CPT USD-C DSTB Trial Counsel
Cc: Eaton, Michael L. CPT USD-C SJAIATOS Of?cer; Eaton. Michael CPT MIL USA

Rose. Luke 8 oer MIL USA USAREUR McFarland.
Chad M. CPT USD-C SJA Administrative Law Attorney; Mitchell. Varnisha 0. SF0 USD-C
OSJA Paralegal 'Febbo.
Anthony LTC SJA Regional Trial Defense Counsel'

Subject: RE: FW: Defense request for Art. 32 delay. US v. Manning



Sir:

The defense received your ruling denying our Art. 32 delay request based on our request for a
evaluation of our client. we respect your ruling, but we respectfully ask that you
reconsider it for the following reasons:

1. It is our understanding that the Government supports our 766 request and that such a
request will be ordered shortly. A 766 board determines if the accused was mentally
reSponsible for the alleged misconduct, if he suffers from a mental disease of some sort, and
whether he is competent to assist in his own defense. Unquestionably, a ?06 board is needed
to determine the important issues of mental responsibility and competency. Does PFC Manning
suffer from a mental disorder? What of the issue of mental responsibility? Is PFC Manning
able to assist in his own defense? These indeed are important issues.

2. Though the accused, PFC Manning, has been in pre~tria1 confinement since 36 May, charges
against him were only preferred exactly a week ago, on 5 July. That means the defense has
only had a week to know what exactly he is charged with. Moreover, nine days to prepare for
an Article 32 is insufficient time for defense preparation, but more importantly, the first
step is to determine if PFC Manning is able to assist in his own defense.

Having an Article 32 hearing this wednesday, July 14, without first knowing whether PFC
Manning suffers from a mental disorder, whether he is competent to stand trial, and whether
he is able to assist in his own defense would in all liklihood render the Art. 32 hearing
defective and create the need for a new Article 32 hearing.

Simply put: An accused must understand the proceedings he is facing es to include Article 32
proceedings -- for such proceedings to not be defective.

It is without question that many issues are still unresolved in this case ?v will there be
more lawyers representing PFC Manning, possible defense experts, etc., but those issues
cannot be properly decided themselves without first determining the all-important issues of
mental responsibility, mental disease, and competency.

Your ruling did correctly mention the importance of whether the 766 will be ordered. Again,
we believe it will be shortly.

As to timeline issues, the defense does not know how long a ?36 inquiry would take.
we appreciate your time and consideration on these important matters.

Respectfully,
CPT Bouchard

CPT Paul Bouchard
Senior Defense Counsel
Camp Liberty, Iraq

From: Merutka, Craig USA LTC Admin Law

Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2918 6:37 PM

To: Atkins, Alison CPT USD-C DSTB Trial Counsel

Cc: Bouchard, Paul R. CPT DSTB CD TDS Sr Defense Counsel; Eaton, Michael L. CPT USD-C
Officer; Eaton, Michael CPT MIL USA Rose, Luke 5 CPT

MIL USA USAREUR McFarland, Chad M. CPT USD-C SJA Administrative Law Attorney; Mitchell,

vecnisha c. sac usosc 053a Paralegal

Subject: RE: Fw: Defense request for Art. 32 delay, US v. Manning

The request as submitted is denied. The accused has been in PTC for some time now and we
need to keep going. An RCM 766 Board, even if ordered, could take weeks to conduct and
receive results from. I will, however, grant any reasonable delay based upon your workload,
the size and complexity of the charges, or the location of the accused but please give me a
proposed date.

If a 786 is ordered, I will reconsider.
As it stands now, we start at 6868 14 July.
VR LTC Merutka

ra~++0rigina1

From: Atkins, Alison CPT USD-C DSTB Trial Counsel

Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2316 4:39 PM

To: Merutka, Craig USA LTC Admin Law

Cc: Bouchard, Paul R. CPT USD-C DSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel; Eaton, Michael L. CPT

Officer; 'Eaton, Michael CPT MIL use Rose, Luke 5
CPT MIL USA USAREUR McFarland, Chad M. CPT USD-C SJA Administrative Law Attorney;

Mitchell, Vernisha C. SFC USD-C 053A Paralegal


Subject: FM: Defense request for Art. 32 delay, US v. Manning



Sir,

Attached please find the defense request for a delay for the article 32 investigation in the
case of PFC Bradley Manning.

00882
Sincerely yoors,

Alison F. Atkins
CPT, JA

Trial Counsel
DSTB,

Camp Liberty

This e?mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may
contain material protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be
advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or copying of this enmail is strictly prohibited. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original mail.



From: Bouchard, Paul R. CPT DSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel

Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2816 4:25 PM

To: Atkins, Alison CPT USD-C DSTB Trial Counsel; 'Goren, Christopher CPT BDE Legal'

Cc: Eaton, Michael L. CPT Officer; Eaton, Michael CNA C32 CIDC
Mitchell, Vernisha C. SFC USD-C 053A Paralegal NCO

Subject: Defense request for Art. 32 delay, US v. Manning



CPT Atkins:

The attachment is our delay request of the Art. 32 hearing, US v. Manning. Dur delay request
is based on our 796 request.

Please forward this request to the Art. 32 ID, LTC Craig Merutka, as I was unable to find his
e-mail address.

Respectfully,

CPT Bouchard

CPT Paul Bouchard
Senior Defense Counsel

Cami Liberti, Irai



00883

Atkins, Alison CPT USD-C DSTB Trial Counsel

From: Merutka, Craig USA LTC Admin Lav?l]

Sent: Sunday, Juiy11. 2010 6:37r PM

To: Atkins. Alison CPT DSTB Trial Counsel

Cc: Bouchard. Paul R. CPT USD-C DSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel: Eaton, Michael L. CPT

Rose. Luke 3 MIL USA USAREUR McFarland. Chad M. CPT

USD-C SJAIATOS Officer; ?Eaton. Mic?Fel CPT MIL USA
USD-C SJA Administrative Law Attorn y; Mitchell. Vernisha C. SFC USD-C OSJA Paralegal

NCO: a.
Subject: RE: FW: ense request for Art. 32 delay. US v. Manning

The request as submitted is denied. The accused has been in PTC for some time now and we
need to keep going. An RCM T36 Board, even if ordered, could take weeks to conduct and
receive results from. I will, however, grant any reasonable delay based upon your workload,
the size and complexity of the charges, or the location of the accused but please give me a
proposed date.

If a 766 is ordered, I will reconsider.
As it stands now, we start at 3863 14 July.
UR LTC Merutka



From: Atkins, Alison CPT DSTB Trial Counsel [mailt?]

Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2616 4:36 PM

To: Merutka, Craig USA LTC Admin Law

Cc: Bouchard, Paul R. CPT DSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel; Eaton, Michael L. CPT USO-C
SJAIATOS O?Fficer; 'Eaton, Michael CPT MIL usn Rose, Luke 5
CPT MIL USA USAREUR McFarland, Chad M. CPT USD-C SJA Administrative Law Attorney;
Mitchell, Vernisha c. SFC uso-c OSJA Paralegal

I-
Subject: Fw: Defense request for Art. 32 delay, US v. Manning



Sir,

Attached please find the defense request for a delay for the article 32 investigation in the
case of PFC Bradley Manning.

Sincerely yours,

Alison F. Atkins
CPT, 3A

Trial Counsel
DSTB, USD-C

Camp Liberty

This e+mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may

1

contain material protected by the attorney?client privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e?mail to the intended recipient, be
advised that you have received this e?mail in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or copying of this e?mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e?mail and destroy all cepies
of the original mail.



From: Bouchard, Paul R. CPT USD-C DSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel

Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2913 4:25 PM

To: Atkins, Alison CPT USD-C DSTB Trial Counsel; 'Goren, Christopher CPT BDE Legal'

Cc: Eaton, Michael L. CPT USD-C Officer; Eaton, Michael CW4 C32 Cloc
Mitchell, Vernisha C. SFC USD-C OSJA Paralegal NCO

Subject: Defense request for Art. 32 delay, US v. Manning



CPT Atkins:

The attachment is our delay request of the Art. 32 hearing, US v. Manning. Our delay request
is based on our 766 request.

Please forward this request to the Art. 32 ID, LTC Craig Merutka, as I was unable to find his
e-mail address.

Respectfully,

CPT Bouchard

CPT Paul Bouchard
Senior Defense Counsel







DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS. 1ST ARMDRED DIVISION AND
UNITED STATES DIVISION-CENTER
CAMP LIBERTY. IRAQ
AE 09344



REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:

1 4 JUL
AETV-THZ - .

MEMORANDUM FOR Captain Paul Bouchard, United States Army Trial Defense Service,
Camp Liberty Field Office. Camp Liberty, Iraq, APO AE 09344

SUBJECT: Request for Expert Assistance in the case of Private First Class Bradley E. Manning,
2d Brigade Combat Team, lULh Mountain Division (Light Infantry), COS Hammer, APO AE
09308

1. I considered your request for expert assistance in the case of Private First Class Bradley E.
Manning, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), COS Hammer,
APO AE 09308. At this time, I deny your request.

2. I will reconsider a renewed request for expert assistance should I refer this case to a trial by
court-martial under the provisions of Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 601. Any future request
must include an estimated cost of employment in accordance with RCM 703(d).

TERR A. WOLFF

Major General, USA
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ounce STATES ARMY raw. carcass secures
ems LIBERTYFIELD OFFICE
cam:- Liaearv.



illuly 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU [an Corey. Staff Judge Advocate, Camp Liberty, Iraq

OR Convening Authority

SUBJECT: RequeSt for Expert Assistance US. PFQ Bradley Manning

1. PFC Bradley Marming. the accused. by and through counsel. respectfully requests the
employment of Cyber Agents. Inc. as an expert assistant to the Defense in the matter of US v.

Manning. PFC Manning further requests that Cyber Agents. Inc. be designated as a member of the
Defense team under US. v. Toledo 25 MJ. 270 (EMA. i987) and Military Rule of Evidence 502.



2. Law. 846. Article 46 of the provides that defense and government should have equai
opportunity to obtain wimesses. In particular, a military accused has. as a matter of Equal Protection
and Due Process, a right to expert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. 1.1.3. v.
Gertie; 22 MJ. 288 (CMA. 1986); LLS. v. Robinson. 39 NH. 88 (C.M.A. 1994). citing Britt v.
North leina. 404 U.S. 226 (1971) and Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 US. 68 (1985). Failure to employ
this expert assistant would effectively deprive PFC Manning of his ability to present a defense in this
case and would deny him ?[mleaningful access Injustice." 47B US. 68 {1985).
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (formerly the Court of Military Appeals) provided a
three?pronged test for determining whether govemment-funded expert assistance is necessary:

First. why the expert is needed? Second, what would the expert assistance accomplish for the
accused? Third, why is the defense counsel unable to gather and present the evidence that the
expert assistant would be able to develop?

United sates v. Gonzalez, 39 MJ. 4S9 (LIMA. [994) (quoting United v. Allen. 3 MJ. 542. 623
(N.M.C.M.R. 1990) of", d. 33 MJ. 209 1991)).

3. Why Expert Assistance ls Needed.

a. This case unquestionably involves complex computer message traf?c that requires expert
analysis and opinion. PFC Marming is charged with serious crimes. he alleged wrongful
introduction of classi?ed videos on non-secure information systems; alleged mong?il addition of
unauthorized software; allegedly exceeding his authorized access to SIPR: alleged wrongfully
obtaining certain information. etc. Without someone with an expertise in computers and digital
forensics. the Defense will not be able to completely understand. evaluate. or prepare a defense to the
Govemrnent?s case.

b. Cyber Agents. Inc.. based in Lexington. Kentucky. is a company specializing in digital
forensics. Its employees possess numerous certi?cations in the ?eld of computer forensics-

c. Cyber Agents. lnc. charges $115110 per hour or $1,400.00 per day plus all associated travel
and lodging coats. Information about Cyber Agents, Inc.. including employee CV5. is available at



SUBJECT: Request for Expert Assistance - US. PFC Manning

d. No member of the defense is learned in the complex ?eld of computer Forensics. and none can
become so in the short amount of time between this request and the date of the Article 32 hearing and
of the possible trial.

4. What Would Expert Assistance Accomplish for the Accused.

a. Expert assistance would provide the defense with the necessary understanding of the complex
computer message traf?cking and with the digital images involved in this case. Such understanding
is not the province of lay people. The expert?s explanations are. therefore, critical for the defense.
the ?nder of fact. judge. and everyone involved in understanding the very essence of the case at
hand.

it. Cyber Agents. Inc.. provides quali?ed and highly regarded experts in the field of computer
forensics. They possess the requisite knowledge. experience. and expertise to fully analyze the
Government?s evidence and to aid the Accused in the preparation of an effective defense. Cyber
Agents. lnc. would embark on a full review of the evidence in the ease to identify any exculpatory
information that may be contained in the evidence and to identify the potential
weaknesses in the Government's evidence.

5. Why the Defense is Unable to Gather and Present this Evidence.

3. No member of the defense team is trained or otherwise knowledgeable in the complex ?eld of
digital forensics. Denying the Accused of this fundamental right to present an adequate and
knowledgeable defense would amount to a violation of his Constitutional rights.

b. The requested expert will be advised he is a member of the defense learn and is. as such.
obligated to keep all matters concerning the case con?dential pursuant to the attorney-client
privilege. subject of course to those exceptions should he become a defense witness.

6. For the above reasons. failure to provide the requested assistance will result in a fundamentally
unfair trial. Clearly. this case meets the necessary elements of the Gonzalez case set forth by our
highest court. the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The requested expert should thus be
appointed to the Defense team as a matter of law. Additionally. bccause of the upcoming Article 32
hearing for this case. the Defense requests that Cyber Agents. lnc. be appointed by the Convening
Authority as soon as possible.

7- POC is the undersigned at DSN

A .
PAUL R. BOUCHARD
CPT. JA

Senior Defense Counsel



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS. 1ST ARHDRED DIVISION AND
UNITED STATES DIVISION-CENTER
CAMP LIBERTY, IRAQ
APO AE 05344

REPLY TO
DF:



f3 JUL 201E
AETV-TI-IZ . . ..

MEMORANDUM FOR Captain Paul Bouchard, United States Army Trial Defense Service,
Camp Liberty Field Of?ce. Camp Liberty, Iraq, APO AE 09344

SUBJECT: Request for Expert Assistance in the Case of Private First Class Bradley E.
Manning, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), COS Hammer,
APO AE 09308

1. I considered your renewed request for expert assistance in the case of Private_First Class
Bradley E. Manning, 2d Brigade Combat Team, lOth Mountain Division (Light Infantry), COS
Hammer, APO AE 09308.

2. I approve your request. I appoint Mr. Eric Lakes as a member of the Defense team in
accordance with Military Rule of Evidence 502.

3. I authorize $5,600 for Mr. Lakes? employment in this case. If you require additional funding,
you must notify me in advance in writing through the Staff Judge Advocate.

TE A. WOLFF

Major General, USA
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ourrso STATES new TRIAL DEFENSE see.ch
CAMP OFFICE
CAMP LIBERTY, IRAQ



16 July 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU LT lan Corey. Sta?' Judge Advocate. Camp Liberty. lraq
FOR Converting Authority

SUBJECT: Request Reconsideration of Disapproval for Expert Assistance. matter of US. PFC
Bradlg Manning

I. On 15 July 2010. we the defense. in the matter of US v. PFC Bradley Manning, received
notification our request for a computer forensics expert was denied. The basis of the denial was the
case has not been referred yet. and we did not provide a cost estimate for our request of the computer
forensics expett. Mr. Eric Lakes.

2. PFC Manning. by and through his counsel. respectfully requests you reconsider your denial of our
request for a computer forensics expert for the following reasons:

it. Though the case has not been referred, the important Article 32 hearing in this matter is
slated for 16 August. and the defense cannot adequately represent PFC Manning at this important
hearing without a computer forensics expert such as Mr. Lakes. The alleged evidence in this case is
computer data and transmissions. and the Government has had the analysis of this alleged evidence
done at an appropriate facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. Undoubtedly. it is absolutely unfair that the
defense not be given an expert of their own to ensure the Government computer analysis was done
correctly and to: analyze such data. determine how and if the data was indeed transmitted. which
computer or computers it came from. what software, if any, was used to download andfor transmit
the data a whole slew of important questions need to be answered. and only a computer forensics
expert such as Mr. Lakes can answer these. Clearly. without a computer forensics expert on the
defense team. the Article hearing might be deemed defective, necessitating the need to have a new
Article 32 hearing.

b. in its request for the expertise of Mr. Lakes. the defense did provide his hourly rate
($15.00 per hour) and his daily rate (51.400.00 per day}. We did not provide the total costs for his
services. but we have since been informed that such costs would total $5,600.00 plus associated
travel costs.

3. What follows is our renewed request to have Mr. Eric Lakes approved as a computer forensics
expert assistant for the defense:

4. PFC Bradley Manning. the accused. by and through counsel. respectfully requests the
employment of Cyber Agents. lnc. as an expert assistant to the Defense in the matter of US v.
Manning. PFC Manning further requests that Cyber Agents. lnc. oe designated as a member of the
Defense team under US. v- Toledo. 25 270 (CMA. 1987) and Military Rule of Evidence 502.

5. Law. 346. Article 46 of the U.C.M.J. providesthat defense and government should have equal
opportunity to obtain witnesses. In particular. a military accused has. as a matter of Equal Protection
and Due Process. a right to expert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. U.S. v.



AFZD-TD
SUBJECT: Request for Expert Assistance L18. PFC Mamtina

Games, 22. MJ. 288 1986); US. v. Robinson. 39 MJ. 33 (CMA. 1994). citing Bg'tt v.
North Cgrolina. 404 U.S. 226 (1971) and Alec v. Oklahoma. 47'0 US. 68 (1985). Failure to employ
this expert assistant would effectively deprive PFC Manning of his ability to present a defense in this
case and would deny him ?[m]eaningful access to justice." Aka v. Oklahoma, 470 US. 68 (1935).
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces [formerly the Court of Military Appeals} provided a
three-pronged test for determining whether government-funded expert assistance is necessary:

First. why the expert is needed? Second. what would the expert assistance accomplish for the
accused? Third. why is the defense counsel unable to gather and present the evidence that the
expert assistant would be able to develop?

United States v. Gonzalez. 39 NH. 439 (C.M.A. 1994) (quoting Ugit? v. Allen. 31 MJ. 542. 623
(N.M.C.M.R. i990) all?d. 33 MI. 209 (EMA.

6. Why Expert Assistance ls Needed.

a. This case unquestionably involves complex computer message traffic that requires expert
analysis and opinion. PFC Manning is charged with serious crimes. i.e. alleged wrongful
introduction of classified videos on non-secure information systems; alleged wrongful addition of
unauthorized software: allegedly exceeding his authorized access to SIPR: alleged wrongfully
obtaining certain information. etc. Without someone with an expertise in computers and digital
forensics, the De fensc will not be able to completely understand. evaluate. or prepare a defense to the
Government?s case.

b. yber Agents. lnc.. based in Lexington. Kentucky. is a company specializing in digital
forensics. employees possess numerous certi?cations in the ?eld of computer forensics.

c. Cyber Agents, Inc. charges $175.00 per hour or per day plus all associated travel
and lodging costs. Information about Cyber Agents. lnc.. including employee CVs. is available at
maybemgentsinecom.

d. No member of the defense is learned in the complex ?eld of computer forensics, and none can
become so in the short amount of time between this request and the date of the Article 32 hearing and
of the possible trial.

7. What Would Expert Assistance Accomplish for the Accused.

a. Expert assistance would provide the defense with the necessary understanding of the complex
computer message trafficking and with the digital images involved in this case. Such understanding
is not the province of lay people. The expert?s explanations are. therefore. critical for the defense.
the ?nder of fact. judge. and everyone involved in understanding the very essence of the case at
hand.

b. Cyber Agents. lnc.. provides quali?ed and highly regarded experts in the ?eld of computer
forensics. They possess the requisite knowledge. experience. and expertise to fully analyze the
Government?s evidence and to aid the Accused in the preparation of an effective defense. Cyber
Agents, lnc. Would embark on a full review of the evidence in the case to identify any exculpatory
information that may be contained in the Government's evidence and to identify the potential
weaknesses in the Goverruncnt's evidence.

AFZD-TD
SUBJECT: Request for Expert Assistance -- .S. PFC Manning

8. Why the Defense ls Unable to Gather and Present this Evidence.

5. No member of the defense team is trained or otherwise knowledgeable in the complex field of
digital forensics. Denying the Accused ol?this fundamental right to present an adequate and
knowledgeable defense would amount to a violation of his Constitutional rights.

b. The requested expert will be advised he is a member of the defense team and is. as such.
obligated to keep all matters concerning the case con?dential pursuant to the attorney-client
privilege. subject of course to Ihose exceptions should he become a defense witness.

9. For the above reasons, failure to provide the requested assistance will result in a fundamentally
unfair trial. Clearly. this case meets the necessary elements of the Gonzalez case set forth by our
highest court. the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The requested expert should thus be
appointed to the Defense team as a matter of law. Additionally. because of the upcoming Article 32
hearing for this case. the Defense requests that Cyher Agents. Inc. be appointed by the Converting
Authorin as soon as possible.

10. is the undersigned at - -


.


PAUL R. BOUCIIARI)
CPT. JA
Senior Defense Counsel

I

h]

Cyber Agents, Inc.

12"8'Suuthland Drive Lexington, KY 40503

Evidence Review and Consulting Rates:



Fl

Minimum Flat Rate of $2300 for evidence review, consulting, reporting, etc . . .
piece of media} - additional media runs $1300 per hard drive less if PSP, IPOD,
Camera, etc . . . if performed at Ft Knox then travel related charges and hotel
charges will apply when and if necessary.

Travel expenses (hotel, gas and if any air travel is to be involved that the

government either gives Cyber Agents, Inc. enough time - at least 1 month for Cyber
Agents, Inc. to purchase the tickets, hotel and a rental car this will save the
government money in that respect). Except for overseas travel.



Trial prep, consulting, testimony $1400 per day when out of Cyber Agents, Inc. lab.

Government also agrees to reimburse all 'ravel and travel related expenses within a 2
week period of being billed by Cyber Agents, Inc.

The Government needs to also realize that it has taken up to a year for Cyher Agents,
Inc. to be paid on completed or phased cases: this is why Cyber Agents, Inc. has to
have these terms and fees agreed upon in this manner.

Cyber Agents, Inc. representatives spend many hours corresponding via email, voice and

performing evidence review in assisting their clients in many aspects in their cases
and has also been fruitful to the government in many cases as well.

nu. ?91 UV.

Eric Lakes
Digital Forensic Examiner
Cyber Agents, Inc.

Service Connected Disabled Veteran Owned
128 Southland Drive - Lexington! KY 40503

Email: URL:
- 859.983.6655 land line - 359.225.1226 fax - 359.225.1242

EDUCATION 1' CERTIFICATIONS
ACFEI - Conference - Amenoan College of Forensic Examiners Institute (2010) - Las Vegas
Catch Me if You Can Presenter Frank Abagnale (2010)
The Art of the Steal - Presenter Frank Abagnale (2010)
A Digital Forensics Primer for the Forensic Science Professional Presenter Gavin Manes,
Certi?ed Computer Forensic Technician (2009) (High Tech Crime Network)
Attended SANS Institute San Diego CA Training (2008)
Attended the CEIC (Computer and Enterprise Investigations Conference) (2008} Conference and Labs - Henderson NV
Secret Clearance (adjudicated 200?)
Certi?ed Homeland Preparation and Response Teams Engineering and Technology (2006)
Certi?ed Basic Archerv Instructor
Certi?ed LiveWire Examiner (2006]
Wetstone Technologies Inc. LiveWire Investigator Training Course (2006) Houston. TX
Attended ACFE Building, Managing and Measuring Your SIU Training (2006] - Columbus, OH
Attended AccessDaba BootCamp Training (2006) - Knoxville TN
Attended the CEIC (Computer and Enterprise Investigations Conference) (2006) a Conference and Labs - Henderson NV
Attended - 2005 Techno Forensics Conference NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology}
Certi?cate in Anti-Terrorism Level 1 Awareness Training
Certi?ed Computer Examiner (CCE) (2004}
5-dav Forensic Boot Camp (CCE Prep) (2004) - CCEfCerti?ed Computer Examiner
High Tech Crime Investigator Level II Training (2003) Investigator Level II Certi?cation
Assooation of Certi?ed Fraud Examiners Training "Investigating By Computer? (2003)
2-week extensive MCSE Boot Camp (1999) (Cincinnati OH)
MCP (Microsoft Certi?ed Professional)
(Microsoft Certi?ed Professional Internet)
MCSE (Microsoft Certi?ed svstems Engineer}
Microsoft Windows 95 Boot Camp
Microsoft Technical Seminars
Intel Seminars and Orr-Line Training
Hewlett Packard online training and tests
Self?taught Network - Network Certi?ed
Self?taught a Certi?ed
Kurzweil 1voice for Windows Training and Voice Med. Training Wald?ram, MASS.
Post.Crf?ce Internet eMaiI Server Training Santa Barbara CA
University of iteratoclov,I Lexington Community College - Associates Degree in Applied Scrence
BrainBench Computer Technical Support Certi?cate
BrainBench Master Computer Fundamentals (iron 9398) Certi?cate
BrainBench Computer Fundamentals (Win XP) Certi?cate
Certi?ed Softball Coach (Babe Ruth League Rip?rcen Baseball Coaching Certi?cation) (08)

AWARDS
The Army Commendation Medal
The Annv Achievement Medal
Korea Defense Service Medal (1929}

00894

Good Conduct Medal

Overseas Service Ribbon (Korea 19?9)

Army Service Ribbon

(2) Honorable Discharges from the United States Army 1931 1936
Kentucky Colonel

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Guest Speaker for TDS Conference (UmeWire, Digital Forensics) Naval Air Station, TX 2010

Guest Speaker for TDS Conference (LimeWire, Digital Forensics) Ft Lewis, WA 2010

Guest Speaker for ITT Technical College (eDiscovery, Digital Forensics) Winter 2010

Guest Speaker for Navy Justice School (Defending Complex Cases) Spring 2009 Newport Rhode Island

Guest Speaker for US Army Trial Defense Service 2008 Annual Training San Diego

Guest Speaker for Salmon P. Chase College of Law - (computer forensics and e-discovery) (Prof. Kathleen Johnson) (6-08)
Guest Speaker for Salmon P. Chase College of Law - (computer forensics and e-discovery) (Prof. Jennifer Kreder) (4-08)
Guest Speaker for Salmon P. Chase College of Law - (computer forensiis and e-discovery) (Prof. Kathleen Hughes)
Guest Speaker for Salmon P. Chase College of Law - (computer forensics and e?discovery) (Prof. Jennifer Kreder)
Guest Speaker Goldberg Simpson (03)

Multiple local television interviews

Guest appearance on talk radio shows (1 - local, 2 - Alabama)

CLE Training for Middleton Reutlinger Attorneys October 2006

Performed Training Session for the Trial Defense Counsel for the US Army (TDS Region Spring Conference April 2005, Kansas City,
Missouri, LTC Bradley) the presentation was called "Basic Training in Computer Forensics"

Lectured for the University of Louisville Speed J5100 Course

Lectured for the Kentucky Technical Schools MCSE Course

Lectured for the Kentucky Legal Nurses Association

Lectured for KY Attorney Generals Of?ce investigators and attorneys {Medicaid Fraud Division Public Corruption)

Performed CLE Training Session for the Trial Defense Counsel for the US Anny (TDS Region VII at 1011 Spring Conference 20-23 May
2002)

Performed CLE Training Session for the Kentucky Civil Defense Counsel annual seminar 2003 in Louisville KY

Conducted the CLE Training in Forensic Computer Investigations for Federal Public Defenders Of?ce Cheyenne, WY - Nov. 2003 (T om
Fieener)

Lectured for KY Attorney Generals Dfiioe investigators, attorneys, technicians (Consumer Protection Division)

RELATED EXPERIENCE

Micro Computer Inc. Lexington, KY 1988 - Present - Gengrg! Technician

Design computer systems and sewers.

Passed multiple tests from HPi'Compaq to be authorized to work on their speci?c computer equipment.
Microsoft Builder Programs i? Microsoft Partner

Installed Noveli server operating systems.

Design ads for newsprint and brochures

Trained, installed, sold and setup Post.0fflce internet eMaii software system.

Upgrade computer systems hardware and software.

Diagnose and repair computer systemsinetworks.

Won-iced) with Microsoft products and operating systems: DDS, Windows 2.x, Windows 3.x, WFW 3.11, Windows 95 a a b, Windows
Of?ce Products 95-9?-2000-2002-2003, Windows 98 and 2nd Editions, Windows ME, Windows NT 3.51 and 4, Windows 2000
PRO, Windows 2000 Server, Windows XP Home ,i XP PRO KP 64bit, Windows l.lista, Windows 2003 Server and Windows 2008
Server.

Design, Build and Sell Forensic Computer Systems.

Setup and installed Quickbooks Network Edition on Windows 2000 Server as well as workstadonsjend-users with access to
amounting system.

Ni

Agen?i l?c- KY- 1999 - Present' WW
I have tEti?ed in article 325, trials and hearings prior to trials enter in person or telephonically.

Maintain a lab that allows a 24hour round die clock work force for large data harvesting projectsr?cases.

Swom in as an Expert Witness in Forenac Computer Invatigations and Data Retrieval in Federal, Military, Family and State Courts

I have used and currently use EnCase versions 1, 2, ZPrc, 3, 4, 5, 6, Ultimate ForertsicTcolldt, FastBloc FE, AmData Password
Recovery, Paraben FDA, DataPilot, R?Studio, lit-Ways Forensics, ?v?oom Products as well as edict tools and militia.

I conduct internews widw individuals to see what they say may experienced after I conducted a forensic errant of the eiectronic medials)

I have provided af?davits as an smart listing my ?ndings in various cases.

I prepare PowerPoint presentations for trials, training and speaking engagements

I have performed depos'b'on consulting

I have retrieired data from various types of media: SanDisl-t, Hard Drives, Floppy Disks, Zip, Firevire - Hard Drives and
Jazz Disks, Digital Voice Recorders, etc . . .

Data Rebievali'Analysis (private family showing credit card spending by son)

Imaged Lotus Notes Mail Servers, archangel Mail in different regions of the US

Data Retievaernalysis (Divoroa, Civil, Private School ADP, KY D.D.T. A.U.P.)

Harassing Communitions Case Local Law Enforcement (Richmond KY Police Department - Ken Cauldwell) Commonwealth of KY ts
Womadc, Tucker, Si Blake (sworn in as Expert Mme-as] (Slate Prosecutor Harry]. Rodgerber) (T esti?ed)

Child Pom Case (Evidence Review) (US vs Beedrum)

Data Anaiysis (Richmond Police Department} (Lighthouse Day Care] D??icer (Ken Cauldwell)

Child Porn Case - (Richmond Police Department] (Of?cer Ken Cauldwell)

Data Rebievalf?inalysis Police Department) (Detecljve (1de Flora)

Data Retrieval of deleted infonnation or missing data due to vimses, aistem crash?, etc

Child Porn Case U5 Anny Vilsedc Germany (US vs Dengler) (Capt. Mike Devine and Capt. Tom Fleener) (serum in as an Btperl: Wit-less -
Tasti?ed)

Data Rebieval-Search and (KY Attorney Generate O?'ice KY D.O.T.) (Dan Gibbons)

Child Porn Case Federal Public Defenders Of?ce W. VA (US vs Tanner) {Sworn in as an Expert motes; - Tes??ed)

Secure Data 1 Email Resun?ection-Racovery and Analysis (Mail Scorers, PCs, Notebook) (Dennis Murrell ijiddleton Sr Reutiinger)

Embezzlement (private) Turned evide'ioe over to the local police wanted for a local PI

Child Porn Case - (State Public Defenders Of?ce) (KY vs Goodnight) (Sworn in as an Expert Wimess Jemima!)

Wrongful Termination Breach of Employment agreement (pnvatefcivil)

Secure Data Analysis of media (VA Medial Center Lexington ,r Atty. Jenny Hamm)

Child Porn Case - (Evidence Ream) (US vs Char - Fort Hood Texas) (Sworn in as an Expert Witness - Testi?ed)

Child Porn Case - (Evidence Review) (US vs DelMtt - Manheirn Germany) (Atty. Capt. Gray}

Child Pom Case - Data Retrieval Analysis Evidence Review) (local police)

Child Porn Case Evidence Raview (US vs Giddens)

Data Rem'evalilAnalysis on a dient?s employee computer system to see was broken.

Data RetrietalJAnalysis of hard drive that have been fom'iatlaed (Divine Case)

Data Rebieval/Analysis of hard drive to search through correspondence (Divorce Case)

Tracked and recovered emails sent from barge PC via satellite to recening system and scrvers

Child Porn Case Evidence Review (US vs Gudey Ft. Sill, 0K) (Atty. Capt. Josh Norris)

Child Porn Case Evidence Review (US vs Agee - Ft. Leiivis} Capt. Ganepy and Capt DeWee-se] (m in as an BrpectWitnes -
Testi?ed}

Forged Email - Family Court Wind-later KY - was able to show email was fabncated and could never have been sent by defendant - Tuti?ed

Asset in internal HIPAA audit for a University - (M. twin ,f D. King]

Consult attorney in case (KY vs. Kellogg - Atty. Marcel Radomile)

Private harassing communications for corporation - went in after-hours cloned I5 systems hard drives seared evidence dn'ves - acquired
driva through EriCase using Fastbloc FE - sl'iowed ?ndings to client.

Consuit attomevs in case on usage (US vs. Lee Wagers Atty.?s Larry Roberts)

Censult attorney - acquire media - perform analysis of acouirad media (Rob Johnson)

Consult attomey in case I evidence review (us vs. Gallego Atty. Capt. Tim Bileclci) (Ft. Hood, TX)

00896


Consult attomey in case I evidence review (US vs Wilder - Atty. Capt. Troy Stabenow) (Ft. Bliss, TX)

Consult attorney in case (Atty. Hank Alford}

Consult attorney In case evidence renew (US vs. Choy - Atty. Capt Robert Stelle) (Wisedr Gennany}

Data Recovery of deleted ?nancial records and hard drive appeared to have been restored from manufactxrers? settings retrieved Intuit
Pro company record .QBW ?le.

Data Recovery - recovered all Email ?les that were deleted alter the manufacturers mtore CD had been Used

Data Recovery - 1gb MiocDrive - recovered images deleted from drive

Semi?e Data in Search and Seizure Analysis (KY Attorney Geno-arr. Of?ce 1 Medicaid Fraud Division) (Paul Underwood)

lDiarisult attorney in case (US vs. Tede Atty. Capt. Tim Biledd) (Ft. Hood, TX)

Recovered data from failed ?stripe ed" on computer system

Conth attorney in case (US vs. Kellogg - Atty. Steve Milner)

attomeyrevidenoe review (Atty. Capt. Jon Pavloka (Ft. Meade, MD)

attorney,l evidence review (US vs. Randolph Atty. Capt. Keirsten Hage) (Vicente Italy) (Trial Conmi?ng)

Consult attomeys - secure data - image and done media analyze dale from keyword searches (Atty. Mandy Turner w! Greenbaum, Doll and
McDonald)

Commit attomeyf secure data (civil - Atty. Dennis Murrell and Amy Shoemaker Er Reudinger] (Managed i worked 600+ man-hour
data harvesting project)

Consult attomey (Atty. Charlie Bea! wacCoy, Watt, Franklin and Baal)

SeoJre Data in Search and Secure,? Analysis (KY Attomey Generals O?'icel Medicaid Fraud Division) (Dan Gibbons)

attorneys - secure data analyzed data flow - report ?ndings (Atty. Chris Marouardt walstonBird} (Testi?es! in Ohio State Court
of Common Pleas)

Con5ult attomeys Acquired Server ,l Acquired Workstation perform data analysis and reporting in case (civil - AlIy.'s John Bilby and Hanly
Ingram watoll. Keaton and Park)

Consult attorneys in case acquire electronic media ,l analyze data from search hits supplied (KY vs. William Stewart - Attorney?s Gary Hillerich
and Peter Ostermiller) (Sworn in as an expert witness in hearing, April 2005 Frankfort KY) (Testi?ed in video taped deposition)

Consult attorney in case,' perfpn'n evidence review (US vs. Horn ?Atty.'s Capt. Jams Ford and Major Hat?eld) (Mannheim Field D?ice Taylor
Barracks, Gen-nany) (T rial Consulting)

Consult attorney in case renew-recover data from electronic media acquire media Kurt Meier and Cnris McKinney)

Conlet attorney in case - review videos and print expanded images (Atty. Marcel Radornile)

Data Recovery from USB JumpDrive for attorney (Atty. Capt Cheri Kelly}

Consult attorney in case (Commonwealth of Ksz. Underwood Atty. ond Spear)

Consult attorney in case i? perform data acquisitions anaiysisr? evidence review (Convnonweelm of KY vs. Olson - Atty. Rodney Barnes)

Data Recovery on SATA drive using Tableau Write bled-c through EnCase

Consult attorney perform data acqurs'tions - analysis ,l evidence review (Commonwealdi of KY vs. Williams - Atty. Matthew Browning}

Data Acquisition! Secure Dale-i,l Elab?sh and Document Chain 0f Custody of electronic media and systems

Consult attorney I evidence roview (JRE vs. LSS Atty. Jeffery Parrish w; CELEBREZE Er ASSDCEATES)

Consult attorney evidence review (LaRosa?s vs. Betty Williams - Atty. Emily J. Gelnaus and Gary Greenberg w} Rosendlal
Greenberg)

Consult attorney I perform data acquisition ,1 evidence review i gave ?ndings in a?'idayit as expert (Klopf vs. - Atty. Al Hollon)

Consult attorney secure data evidence review ,l analysis (Atty. Lucy Pett wi'Stoll, Keel-ion and Park)

Consult attorney secure data r? Document Chainct-Custody (Atty. Dennis Murrell and Amy Shoemaker ijiddleton Si Reutlinger)

Consult attorney I evidence review (US vs Owens - Ft. Sill 0K Atty. Capt Thomas Hurley) (Trial Cortsulting}

Corsult attorney I evidence review report ?ndings (US vs Ron Wallace US Atty. Michelle Tnielnorn)

Consult attomey y? evidence review (US vs. SGT. Coursen - Atty.?s David Court and Capt James Ford) (Heidelberg Germany) (Trial
Conwl?ng)

Consult attorney I evidence review (US vs. Victorian - Atty. Capt. Matthew Brown) (Fort Campbell, KY) (Trial Cowling)

Consult attorneys secured electronic media for e-disccvery (A1 Singleton and John Bilby watoll, Keenan and Park)

Consult attorney evidence review (US vs. Utaries Howell - Atty. Capt. Jeremy M. (Fort Campbell,

Consult attomeyf secure electronic media I perfonn searches and analysis I evidence review (Patrick Schmidt and Stuart Alexander w?'llford
Dobbins Meander Budraway 3r. Black.

Consult attorney I secure data ,l analyze search hits (Atty. Marl-t Lucr wlDenlingEr, Rosenthal El Greenberg)
Corrsult attomeys for two trials I evidence review (Atty. CPT Pamela Penllo and Scott Mulligan) (Bagram Afghanisan} (Trial Consulting)

00897


Consult attorneys review documents review deposition (Atty. Jill Tauber and Dan Rosendral w/ Denlinger, Rosend'ral 8r Greenberg)
Consult attorney (Atty. Fran Rief wy'Rief Si Straske)

Consult attomey)? secure data perform data harvesting-review-analysis (Atty. Kadrenne Hornbach wfReinhardt Err Associates, PLC)
Consult attorneys! (Greenbaum, Doll and McDonald)

Consult attomey,? (Atty. Dana Collins ijiddlelton Reutlinger}

Consult attorneys secure data analyze data I reported ?ndings ?led af?davit Larry Mackey, Stephen Milne-r) (Pannington we)
Consult attorney ,1 analyze data (Atty. CPT Geoffrey DeWeae) (Fort Ridiardson, Alaska) (Trial Conwlting)

Corsult attorneys anatyze data} search and extract;r ?sport (Attr- Bruoe Brightwell)

Consult attorney and case assigned analyze data secure proper diain-of?custody - (Atty. Chenoweth and Corbin Independent Schools
assigned staff) (Plaintiff)

Consult attorney)l analyze data 1 search and extract sped?ed dated material report ?ndings (Atty. Humphreys MdSee) (Shelta Inerance -
Muendi)

Consult attorney,l extract and analyze data I report ?ndings (Atty. Stephanie Littoral)

Consult Director! establish drain-of-oistodyf secure hard drives torens'rally)? carve and exbatt data (William Hanes - KY Retirement Systems)
(Plaintiff)

Consult attorneys} perform evidence review I trial consulting (US Reeder Atty.?s Philip Cave and Major Eric Carpenter) (Ft. Bragg, NC.)
(Trial Consulting)

Consult attomeyf evidence renew (US vs Bailey - Atty CPTJosepl'r (Ft. Drum, NY)

attorney evidenoe review (KY vs Steve Riera - Atty. Gary Crabbee) (London, KY)

Consult attorney I extract data! analyze data,l run tests ,1 evidence review (US vsTaonr?Atty Ed Kershaw)

Consult attorney/ evidence review (US vs Roney Atty LTC Timothy D. Marlin} (Ft. Campbell, KY) (rati?ed)

Consult attorney,? evidence review (KY vs Soott Cooper Atty. Dan Venters)

Consult attomey/ (US vs Plneoo - Atty. CPT. Kiley R. Nelson) (Sdro?eld Barracks, HI)

Consilt attorney I review dommentation (US vs Maroas Atty. CPT. Luke Waltering) (Camp Liberty Iraq)

Consult attorneys ,l evidence review (US vs Graham - Atty. CFT. Ryan Rosauer and CPT Shannon Callahan) (Ft. Leonard Wood, MD)

attorney! forer's'cally image hard drive exp-act ?le list (Atty. Bob Dibert ijrost Brown (Grange Mada)

attorney seer estabiish drainhW I report ?ndings (Atty. Phillip Lawrence for RJ Cannon)

Consult attorney evidence review (US vs Buttridt - Atty. EFT. Daniel Everett) (Ft. Sam Houston, TX) (Ft. Hood, TX)

Consult attorney} secure data (Atty. Brandy Ashbrook ijolden 8t Walters)

attomey r' review data (KY vs Matthew Johnson Atty. J. Scott Getsinger and Mathew Browr'r)

Conlet attorney (Atty. MAJ Christopher B. Burges Iraq)

(Atty. MAJ Troy A. Smrdi - Ft. Drum

Exbactdata forens'cally and secure data to (Dana Martin wiGreentraum Doll 8: McDonald}

Secured Data forensically from Laptor) computer prepared drain-of?omdy form CIDFlerr (Pam)

Consult private investigator (James Emits) r? Accruired MAC computer system found Keylogger on system ,i evidence turned over to police

Consult attorney evidence review! (US vs Staff Sergeant Alberto B. Martinez Atty. MAJ E. John Gregory, MAJ Marc D. Cipriano} (Ft. Bragg,
NC) (Tes?fred belephonilly in Motions Hearing 1/3; 200?)

CansJIt attorney (US Veltsos Atty. CPT Tobias Hunzlker) (Baumholder Germany)

physical evidenoe review (US vs James Smith Atty. Christopher C. Waite and MAJ Robert Kincaid (Camp Casey Korea)
(Tes??ad telephonic-ally - suppression hearing)

Consult attorney I evidence revier (US McConnidr - Attomey CPT Ryan w. Rosauer) (Ft. Riley Kansas)

Gonsult attomey secure data Forensicallyr? harvest data (Attorney John Fischer waenIinger Rosenthal and Greenberg)

Recovered Stripe Set by forenscally smiling each hard drive rebuild the RAID lawn EnCase and was able to reoover the lost data.

Consult attorney! evidence review (US Lindsey - Attomey CFT Thomas Dart) (Ft. Huaohuca, Arizona) (Trial Consulting) (07)

Consult attomey slider-roe Review (Atty. CPT Theodore Miller) (Ft. Irwin, CA)

Corsult Forensirally Semre Data {Jone Drives ,1 A?ist in data hawes?ng (Mike Troop Court Appointed Investigator)

Consult attomey,? evidenoe review (US Fleshman Attorney Thomas Clark) (Ft Bliss) (Trial Consulting)

attomeys I review repons - preliminary evidenoe review (David Court and CPT Robert A. Fellrati'r) (Kaimslautem-Gemiany)

Consult attomey/ evidence review (Atty. Lamberors)

Consult attorney (US Fory - Atty. CPT John] Merriam) (Ft Lewis) (07)

Consult attorney.? evidence review (us Clarenford - Atty. Phil Cave) (USAF, Bremerton WA) (Trial consult-McGuire AFB no} (on

?v

Consult attorney evidence review/reporting from state side (US Talbot - Atty. MAJ Daniel Froehilc) (Wiesbaden Army Air?eld, Germany)
(?Tesd?ed in Murder Trial) (07)

Consult attorney! evidence review (State of MD McCardie - Atty. Quint Sharer) (Weston, MD) (07)

Consult attorney!evidence review (US Dalton Atty. Phil Cave) (USN)

Semred Data Forensically from Laptop computer prepared main-of-mstody form (Nathan)

Consult attorney! evidenoe review (US Griffee Atty. CPT Sean Tarantino) (Ft. Drum, NY) (07)

Consult attorneys evidence review (Scott Cox. Alex Rose, Frank Danton) (0-7)

Conant attemev widence review! some data (Atty. Lea Player)

Consult attorneys! evidence review (US Riley - Atty. CPT Eizatiet?n Walker and CPT Daniel Everett) (FL Hood, Texas)

Consult attorney (US Vooidry - Atty. Abraham Burgess) Gemiany) (Trial Consuiting) (07)

Semre Data Consult attorney (Atty. Chris Muzzo Dinsmore and Shah!)

Secure Data Consult attorney and client produce sped?ed reports (Atty. Doreen Canton)

Consult attorneys (US Kleve Atty. MAJ IGncaid and CRT Mari-r Kerr and CPT Mike Korte) (Yongan Korea) (07)

Consult attorneys evidence review (US Lee Atty. CPT Daniel Everett and CPT Elizabeth Walker) (Ft. Hood, Texas)

Consuit attorney! evidence review (US Myers - Atty. CPT Williams) (Camp Zama Japan) (Pie-Trial Conadting, Interviewing) (07)

Conant attorney (US Davis - Atty. Yolanda MoCray) (Balad Iraq)

Col?isuit attorney (US Ramsey - Atty. David Court) (Germany)

Secure data harvest data consult attorney (Bob Dibert Frost Brown Todd)

Consult attorney (US Tucker - Atty. CPT Craig (Baghdad Iraq)

Consult attorney! SECUFE data harvest! evidence review (Atty. Dr. Bruoe Ebert) (CA) (07)

Consult attorney seoire data evidence review ('I'horton, Brown Kannensohn}

Consult attorney! (US Rudd Atty. CPT McGeehan USMC) (Marine Corps Base. GA)

Consuit attorney! (KY Brian Graham - Atty. John Carroll)

let attorney! seoJre suspect computer! search and bar-vat data (Atty. Jim Crawford Owen County Sdiools)

Consult attorney! evidence review (Atty. Dan Venteis - Barnes Case)

Consuit attorney! evidence review (Atty. Nathan Williams ijreenbaum Doll 8i. McDonald)

Consult attoi-ney! evidence review! interview (US Amezquita - Atty. CPT Elizabeth Wall-tar) (Ft. Hood, Texas)
(trial mouthing) (07)

Consult attorney (US Mueller Atty. CPT Clay A. Compton) (Bamoeng Field Of?oe Germany)

Consult attomey Evidence review (US Flowem? Atty. CPT Howard) (Ft. Benning GA) (07413)

Consult attorney! evidence review (US Douglas Atty. Robert Felrath) (Vermont) (Di-08)

Consult attorney review (US Berry Atty. Burns) (Ft Stewart (UNIS)

Consult airtime-r (Murray Quality Inn - Atty. Kurt Meier and Atty. Mamie-N McGill witngiisii, Lucas, Priest a Dwsley. up) (on)

Consult attorney! evidence review (US Hogue - Atty. CPT Dietender?fer) (Ft Bragg) (DB)

Consult attorney (Commonweal?i of K?i? Sturgeon - Atty. Michael Jamison) (DB-09)

Consult attomey forensioaliy secure electronic media (Atty. Charles Holma 3i Kristy Gunn w!OgIetree, Deaki'ns, Nash, Smoak 8: Stewart, RC.)
{03}

Consult attorneys (US Windey Atty. CPT Burgess 8v. CPT Kesler) (Grafenweohr, Germany) (DIME)

Consult attomeys (US Garner - Atty. MAJ Kris Poppe Bi CPT Chris France) (Ft Eustis VA) (Trial Consulting) (03)

Consult attorney! evidence review (Commonwealth of KY Gratz - Atty. Burl McCoy w!Stoil Keenan Ogden) (DB)

Consult attorneys evidence review (US Ross Atty. David Sheldon a CPT Hemnari) (Camp Foster Okinawa)
(Trial Consulting) (08)

Consult attorney! evidence review (US Easterday Atty. MAJ Kan) (Ft. Stewart GA) (Consult in motions hearing) (03)

Consult attorney evidence review (US Denner Atty. Cari Christensen) (Ft. Sam Houston TX) (03)

Court Appointed Expert - Preserve/Secure electronic media (Attorneys George Smith St Sowarcls w! Stoll Keenon Ogden and
Bruce Simpson St John Billings w! McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie Er Kirkland) (DB)

Consult attorney! (Stephen Kams - Korea) (03)

Consult attorney evidence review (US Redman - Atty. CRT Jeffrey Green) (Pope Air Force Base, NC) (08)

Consult attorney! evidence review (Commonwealth of KY Rogers - Atty. Cheri Decker) (08)

Consult attorney evidence review (US Blizzard Atty. CFT Elizabeth Walker) (Ft. Hood TX) (Trial Consulting) (08)

"ur
Judge makes ruling on Expert Case No. 505 F. Supp. 2d 1126; US. Dist. LEXIS 7'538?
Consult attorneys evidence review (US Klein Atty. CPT Hong Er CPT West) (Bagram Afghanistan) (08)
Consult attorney ,l (US Hess Atty. CPT James Ewing) (Ft. Polk, LA) (DE) (Testified in Motions Hearing)
Consult attorney evidence review (Atty. Jeffrey Rudd waatten Mumin Rosenman LLP) (Deposition Consulting) (DB)
Consult attorney extinct data (Atty. Bot: Diber?t warost Brown Todd) (03)
Consult attorney ,1 extract data (Atty. Stephen Gracey Frost Brown Todd) (08)
Consult attorney 1' evidence review (Atty. Jeffrey Teeters warost Brown Todd) (08)
Consult attorney I evidence review (Atty. Matthew wanglish, Lucas, Post at Owsley, LLP) (08)
Consult attorney} evidence review (us Marlin Atty. Keith Scherer) (West Point, NY) (on)
Consult attorney (Atty. Julie Pugh wJWood 3t Lamping) (GB)
Consuk attorney (Atty. CPT Allison Danico) (Germany) (DE)
Consult attorney (Atty. MAJ Lance Daniels) (Ft Bragg, NC) (08)
Consult attorney (Atty. CPT Ryan Wood) (Anaconda, Balad Iraq) (03)
Conswt attomey I evidence review (US CPT Theriot Atty. CPT Anderson} ('l'iltrit Iraq) (08)
Consult attorney! endanoe review (US Kowalso' Atty. General David Brahms and LT Grant) (San Diego CA) (08) (T ati?ed in Ar?de 32)
Consult attorney! (US Crowley - Atty. CPT Ryan Wood) {Balacl Iraq} (08 09)
Conlet attorney! evidence review (US Bundra - Atty. Timothy Bileclsi) (Camp Zama) (Tarti?ed in hearings in Camp Zama Japan) (08 - {39)
Cmsult atom-nay} evidence review (US McIntosh - Atty. Kathleen Moms) (Nashville, TN) (Trial Consulting) (03 - BB)
Consult attorney i' (Commonwealth of KY Turner Atty. Ben Cebuay) (Leia ngton, KY) (08)
Consult attorney} evidence review (US Mingo - Atty. CPT Kavanaugh) (Ft. Sam, Texas) (Trial Consulting) (06 - 09)
Consult attorneyf evidence review (US Brand-iley - Atty. Todd Conoimon) (Trial Consulting) (Ft. Bragg, NC) (09)
Consult attorney endence review (US Kelly - Atty. Jadyn Jahnke) (Ft. Dmm, NY) (09)
Consult attorney ,r evidence review (us Page Atty. CPT Oinstensen) (Ft Sam Houston. D0 (09)
Consult attomey 1' evidence review (US Klein Atty. CPT Hong) (Bagram Afghanistan) (Trial Cms?ting) (09)
Consult attorney ,i evidence review (US Hernandez - Atty. CPT Brown) (Ft. Drum NY) (09)
Consult attorney fevidenoe review (US Bilderoedt - Atty. CPT Seth Cohen) (Ft. Carson, CD) (Trial Consulting) (09)
Consult attorney] evidence review (US 30de - Atty. CPT Paul Bouchard) (Ft. Bliss, TX) (DB-ID)
Consent attorney;l evidence review (US Burgin Atty. MAJ Sean Kill-canny) (Ft. Meade, MD) (09)
Consult attomey evidence review (US Lightcao - Atty. CPT Howard Miller) (McGuire Air Force Baa, NJ) (Trial Consulting) (09)
Consult attomey i evidence review (US Robinson - Atty. Nicole Nevin) (Langley Air Force. Base, VA) (Discharge Board Hearing
Consulting) (09)
Consult attorney evidence review (US Payne - Atty. CPT carter - Patrick McClain) (McGuire Air Foroe Base, NJ) (Trial Consulting) (09)
Consult attomeyf evidence review (US Brooks Atty. CPT Christensen) (Ft Sam Houston, TX) (Trial Consulting) (09)
Consult attomey evidence review (US Swanigan - Atty. CPT Tsao) (FL Irwin, CA) (09)
Consult attomey I evidence review (US Gailion - Atty. Mathew Wamock) (Greenup, KY) (09)
Consult attomey/ evidence review (AZ Brent Atty. Chris Russell) (Sierra Vista, AZ) (09-10)
Corsult attorney I evidence review (US Stimoel Atty. CPT Katherine Murphy) (Hunter Air Field, GA) (09-16)

Consult attorney; evidence review (US Malone - Atty. Pal A. Lengyel-Leahu) (VenturalSan Diego, CA) (Trial
Consulting) (0910) Wrote declaration in response to evidence

Consult attorney;I evidence review (US Casto Atty. CPT Jacqueline DeGaine) (Hunter Air Field, GA) (09-10)
Consult attorney evidence review (US Tessier - Atty. CPT Lawrence Steele) (Ft. Dot, NJ) (DB-10)

Consult attorney evidence renew (US Hulbert - Atty. CPT Minna 0h) (Ft. Hood, TX) (10)

Consult attorney evidence review Robirson Atty. CPT Reoeoca ldiem) (Ft. Riley, KS) (Trial Consulting) (10)

Consult attorney (US Amaya - Atty. CPT Upadian) (Ft. Lewis,

Conallt atmmey (US Bowers-ox - Atty. Krisilin Mcgrory) (Ft. Bragg,

Consult attorney 1' evidence review (US Grace Atty. MAJ Clements) (Ft Polk, LA) (Trial Consulting) (ID)

MEMBERSHIPS I BOARDS

Board Member (American College of Forensic ExaminersiAmerican Board of Information Security and Computing
Forensics) (DB-DB-ID)

Advisory Board Member (Digital Forensic Science Advisory Board) Defiance College (09-10)

\u-r
Board Member {American College of Forensic Examiners/American Board of Registered Investigators) (10}
Member InfraGard (200? - DBIZDDB-ID)
Member High Tech Crime Network
Member ACFEI {The American College of Forensic Examiners Institute)
Associate Member of Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
Member ISFCE {International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners)
Member ICFP (Institute of Computer Forensic Professionals)
Elected to the Executive Board of Directors for Central and Eastern KY Better Business Bureau Corporate Secretary
2003-2004
Elected to the Executive Board of Directors for Central and Eastern KY Better Business Bureau First Vice ChairiChair
Elect 2D?4-20l35
Elected to the Executive Board of Directors for Central and Eastern KY Better Business Bureau - Chairman of the Board
Elect 2005-2006
Appointed to the State of Kentucky?s Technology Task Force (1999)
Judge for the Kentucky Technical High School Computer Repair Contest
CIS (Computer Information Systems) Advisory Committee for Lexington Community College
Lifetime Membership Disabled American Veterans (DAV)
Member of The American Legion

INTERESTS
Parenting, ?shing, motor cycle riding, boating, gardening, gardening, camping, carpentry, speaking, lecturing and of course computers
Both daughter?s softball, assisting the coaches, daughter?s archery, daughter?s basketball, working with and training people

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS. DIVISION SPECIAL mooes BATTALIDN
ARMDRED DNISIONIUNITED STATES DIVISION-CENTER
CAMP LIBERTY. APO AE 09344



AETV-THU-I 26 JUL 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Security Clearance Veri?cation for LAKES, ERIC DALEN, SSN: 405-02-23??
1 References: Army Regulation 380-671 Personnel Security Program, 09 SEP 1938.

2. This memorandum verifies the security clearance of the LAKES. ERIC DALEN.

3. Security clearance information is as follows:

NAME: LAKES. ERIC DALEN



Grade-(Rank: NON-DOD AFFILIATED (CONSULTANT)
Date of Birth:

Place of Birth:

investigation Type: NACLC

investigation Date: 200? O7 24

Security Clearance: -
Clearance Date: 200? 09 11

kEvorvA M.
USA
mo STB 32 NCOIC

cats: cam slope

A GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
US ARMY TRIAL JUDICIARY. FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES
3
v. RENEWED REQUEST FOR
BOARD
BRADLEY MANNING AND REQUEST FOR
PFC, US. ARMY MEDICAL EXPERT
Headquarters and Headquarters Co. 2d BCT
10"1 Mountain Division (Light Infantry)
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq 18 July 2010


APO AE 09308



1. On ll July 2010, the Defense. in the matter of US v. Manning. requested that a T06 Sanity
Board be conducted on the accused. To date, the Defense has not been noti?ed as to whether that
request has been approved or denied.

2- As outlined in paragraph 4 below, the Defense renews its request to have a 706 Board
evaluate the accused. Additionally, the Defense respectfully requests that a fourth medical expert
with the proper medical quali?cations be appointed to oversee the 3-member 706 board perform
their evaluation. The Defense requests that this fourth medical expert be appointed as an assistant
to the Defense team. Moreover, the Defense respect?tlly amends paragraph 5 - it was originally
paragraph 3 to read as follows:

That a board of three members he composed of: one forensic one forensic
and one neuro

3. Pursuant to R.C.M. 706, Manual for Co nits-Martial, the defense requests the Converting
Authority appoint a sanity board to determine whether PFC BRADLEY MANNING was
mentally responsible for the alleged offenses he is charged with and whether he is competent to
stand trial.

4. In support of this request, the defense pro?em the following:

PFC Manning has sought the assistance ot'military mental health professionals in the past.
Speci?cally, on 22 May 2010, CPT Eden diagnosed PFC with ?adjustment
disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions, conduct; chronic." (See attachment named CPT
Critch?eld's ?ndings). Moreover, MSG Adkins. one of PFC Manning?s high-ranking NCOs. has
written three letters (their dates are 2] December 2009, and 26 April and 8 May of 201 0}
outlining his concerns as to PFC Manning?s mental health status. Lastly and very importantly.
PFC Manning is in pres-trial con?nement in Kuwait, and the staff of the detention facility there
has had to place PFC Manning on suicide watch in the past. Moreover, PF Manning is
taking a medication as well.

00903

Because of the aforementioned reasons. and out of an abundance of caution. the defense
requests a 706 board to determine the extent of PFC Manning's mental health issues.

5. The defense requests that a board of three members consisting of a forensic a
forensic and a neuro be appointed to examine the accused.

6. The undersigned requests that the board address the following questions conceming PFC
Manning's mental condition:

a. Does the accused currently have a severe mental disease or defect? If yes. please answer
the following ?ve questions:

What is the clinical diagnosis using the American
Association?s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV

Is this severe mental disease or defect service-di squali?ring?
What is the accused?s prognosis for recovery?

(4) Can this severe mental diaease or defect be successfully controlled by treatment with
drugs?

(5) Does long-tent: commitment of the aeoused appear to be a necessary alternative?
What is the accused?s intelligence level?

c. Does the accused have the mental capacin to understand the nature of the proceedings and
the seriousness of the charges against him? If noL please answer the following three questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using

(2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treatedicontrolled by treatment with
drugs?

What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?

d. Does the accused have the mental capacity to cooperate intelligently in his own defense?
If not. please answer the following three questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using

Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treated/controlled by treatment with
drugs?

What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?

e. At the time of the alleged criminal conduct, did the accused have a severe mental disease
or defect? If yes please answer the following four questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using

(2) At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as a result of such severe mental
disease or defect, was the accused able to appreciate the nature and quality or mongfulness of his
conduct?

is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personality
caused by inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint, or a personal, social. or
cultural standard of conduct which diEers from that of society as a whole?

Was this impairment complete?

The sanity board should, at a minimum. consider all of the following materials in reaching
their ?ndings:

a. The accused?s mental health records;
h. The accused?s medical records:

c. Interviews with the accused;

d. The charge sheet and all allied papers.

8. Upon conclusion of the inquiry. the sanity board must comply with the disclosure prohibitions
of Mil. R. Evid. 302. and R.C.M. 706(c)(3)- Only a statement consisting of the sanity board?s
ultimate conclusions as to the questions in paragraph 33 through 3e will be provided to the trial
counsel. A full report, which may include statements made by PFC Bradley Manning, or any
evidence derived from such statements. should be provided to CPT Paul Bouchard at the Trial
Defense Services Of?ce at Camp Liberty, Iraq andfor PT Michael Eaton of the Trial Defense

Services Of?ce at Camp Victory? Iraq.
. ?r (5%77/

PAUL R. BOUCI-IARD
CPT. JA
Senior Defense Counsel



DEPARTHENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS. 1ST ARMORED AND
UNITED STATES DIVISION-CENTER
can? man
and AE ussu



AF.

FOR DISTRIBUTION

Si Protective Order

I. in order to pniteet the national security and pursuant to the authority granted under Military
Rule of I-?ttidence {Milt} 505. relevant executive orders of the President of the United States. and
regulations ofthe Department ofthe Army; I

a. The following securit} procedures. MRE 505. and the authorities referred to ahot will
apnlg. to all matters concernng the investigation into alleged offenses. pre-trinl negotiations. and
Article 32. Uniform Code nfMilitary Justice ore-trial investigation in this case.

11?. As uSed herein. the term "classified or document" refers to:
{l i any classified document {or information container. therein}:
infomtation known by the accused or defense counsel to be classi?able:

[Ill Classi?ed documents tor information contained therein} disclosed to the accused or
defense connsci as part of the proceedings in this case;

l-?H classified documents and information which have otherwise heen made known to the
accused or defense counsel and which box been merited or described as:
or

c. All such classi?ed documents and information contained therein shall remain ciassificd
amess the). bear a clear indication that they have been of?cially declassi?ed by the (incontinent
agency or department that originated the document or the information contained therein
(hereinafter referred to as the "originating agency").

d. The words "documents" or "associated materials" as used in this Order include. but are
not limited to. all written or printed matter ofany kind. formai or informal. including the
originals and all non-identical copies. whether different from the original by reason ofany
notation made on such copies or otherwise. including. without iimitation. papers.
correspondence. memoranda. notes. letters. telegrams. reports. Summaries. inter-onice and intra-
oflice communications. notations of any sort huiletins. telett?pcs- telcx. invoices. worksheets. and
all drafts. alterations. modi?cations. changes and amendment ot?any kind to the foregoin".
graphic or aural records or representations of any kind. including. without limitation.
photographs. charts. graphs. micro?che. microfilm. Vian tapes. sound recordings ofan} kind.

UnclaSSi?ed_Discovery_M anningB_000394

AE
Protective Order

motion pictures. any electronic: mechanical or electric records or representations ot?any hind.
including without limitation. tapes. cassettes. discs. recmding. lilrns. typet'tt?iter ri'ohons and
word processor discs or tapes.

e. The uord "or" should be interpreted as including ?and? and vice t-ersa.

Those named herein are adt-ised that direct or indirect unauthorized disclosure. retention.
or negligent handling of classified information could cause serious and. in some cases.
exception-all) grave damage to the national security ot?the United States. or may he used to the
advantage ot'a foreign nation against the interests ul? the United States. l'hcsc Scourin
Procedures are to ensure that persons suhiect to these Procedures will never divulge the classi?ed
information disclosed to them to anyone who ts not authorized tlte originatingI agency and in
conformity with these procedures.

Persons subject to these Procedures are admonished that Ih?} are obligated b} law and
regulation not to disclose any classi?ed national securin infomtation in an unauthorized litsltion.

Persons subject to these Procedures are admonished that any breach ol'thesc
Procedures may result in the termination ol'their access to classilied information. in addition.
the} are admonished that an} unauthorized diSclosure. possession or handling of classi?ed
intonrtation may constitute iolations of United States criminal laws. including but not limited
to. the provisions of Sections 641. 793. 794. 793 and 952. Title 13. [titted States Code. and
Sections 431 and 733th}. title 50. United States Code. In addition. for those persons who are
attorneys. a report will be filed with their State Bar Association.

1 Information in the public domain is ordinarily not classi?ed. Hon-ever. it'classitiec
intormation is reported in the press or otherwise enters the puhlit: domain. the information does
not lose its classified status merely because it is in the public domain. An}, attempt by the
tlel'enSc to hat-e classi?ed information that has been reported in the public domain but which it
itnout or has reason to believe is classi?ed. con?rmed. or denied at trial or in art}. puhltc
proceeding in this case shall he got'erned by Section 3 ol'the Classi?ed lut?oonation Procedures
Act. lit US. Code Appendix

3. Personnel Security Investigations and Clearances. This case ttill in Volvo classi?ed national
security information or documents. the storage. handling. and control ot'tt?hich requires special
security precautions rrtandated by Statute. executive orders. and regulations. and access to which
requires a special securtt} clearance-

a. 'l he L?ont citing Authority has been advised that the investigating tJl?ticer has the requisue
security clearance to have access to the classi?ed information and documents which will be at
issue in th.s case The investigating Otiicer is to have unlisttered access to that classi?ed
information necessary to prepare for this investigation. subject to requirement in paragraph
below

b. The Comening Authonty has been advised that the government trial Counsel working on
this case hat-e the requisite securit) clearances to have access to the classi?ed information and



Unela ssi?ed_Discotre

AFTV- 111?:
Si. HJECT: Protective Order

documents which will he at issue in this case. The got-eminent trial counsel are to have
unfettered access to classi?ed inl'onnation necessary to prepare for this investigation, subject to
the requirements in paragraph 3g. below.

c. l'he (Tont'ening Authority has been advised that Private First Class (PFC) Bradcy
Manning's detailed defense counsel has the requisite security clearance to hate access to the
relei ant and necessary classi?ed information and documents which will be at issue in this case.
As a condition of receiving classi?ed information- the detailed defense counsel agree to the
conditions speci?ed herein this order.

is a condition of receiving classi?ed information. any retained detcnse counsel Will
agree to the conditions speci?ed herein and execute all necessary forms so that the Government
may cooiplme the necessary personnel security. background int estigatiou to make a
detennination whether defense counsel is eligible for a limited access authorization. An}
retained defense counsel will also sign the statement in paragraph 3e. 1 pon the exeention and
tiling of the statements set tirth in paragraphs 3.e and 31h)? any retained det'cnse counsel
requiring access to classi?ed information- the Government shall undertake. as expeditiously as
possible. the tequtred inquiries to ascertain defense counsel's eligibility for access to classified
information.

c. [here are 1WD conditions precedent to obtaining access to the classi?ed information at
issue in this case.

tl; All individuals. other than the Of?cer. Government and
detailed delense counsels and personnel of the originating agency. . can obtain access only after
hating provided the necessary required for. and having been granted. a securit}
clearance or Limited Access Authorization by the Department of the Army or Department of
State. through the Investigation Security Of?cer: and

ill Each person. otherthan the Department of Anny employ. ees named herein and
personnel ot?t?hc originating agency. before being granted ac?ess to classi?ed information must
also sign .1 sworn statement that srates:

U53 if

I understand that more be the recipient at
and intelligence that concerns- the o] the United States tint! that belongs to the
United Stine: This and intelligence. together the methods of
correcting and handling it. are to secnrt'tv standards estuhhshed
h} the US Government t' have read and understand the provision.? ot?rtie espionage
ttm's (sections "?91 "94 and ?98 ut'tt?ti'e it}. I ?nned States Code) concerning the
dist-twine of inflammation relating to the defense and the provisions uf'tne
Identities Protection r?lt't erection of title 50. United States Code; and
uni/{mutter the penalties provider! for the thereof.







i V41 3 if.
SUBJECI Proteetiw Order

.1 i? agree that 1' mil! net's-r divulge, ptrhiish or t't?t?eni. either by word t'mnittei. Hr
our other mews?. sneir infiirmorion or inrt't?iigenee rmiess unmarked in
writing in do 30 by an authorized represenruritre nfrhe tint-unnan or as
riihrrur'se ordcr'ed by the Court. r? further agree to submit for rt't'icu
speech. or other puhiieotion der'iretijrom or base upon experience or
inmmraimn gamer! in me course of United 5mm Put-me Firs! 'iurs Brudiev
gouging, fund'srsroito? rizis' rat'ien it toieiyrn onsrire that no eirts'si?ec! narr?mmi
security! is contained

that this will remain binding upon rm: u?rr the
t?rmt'fnsirm ofrhe proceedings in tin- t'nse of ?irired Stories i?rit-trre Fir-xi L'inss
?atdi?ey E. lri'anning

J. hut-r: reverted. rem! mad understand the l?rriet'rhn'es omen-r! b] the
{?ont-ening imhorm on . 3010 in the ease oft-hired Emmi;
?rivuie First Class Brodie}: E. Manning referring ro classi?ed information. and I
agree to vomit): truth the provisions thereof!

?Utl it?

Any ViOt With it retained dethnse counsel shall include a statement expressing Ins
that the failure to abide h} the terms nl?rhese Security Procedures ttili result in a
report to his State Bar Association. Each such person executing the above statement must tile an
original with the lnvestigsrhig Of?cer and provide an original each to the Int-asugation Security
(?freer and the Government Counsel.

i. In addition to sitaiing the in paragraph Be. any person who. as a result ofthis
1m estigotion. to contained in any Department ol'the Arm 5? Special
Access Program. as that term is de?ned in section 4.2 ot?Esceutive Order l2356. to ?iensitit'e
Compartments-:1 lnfomration or to any subject to Special Category
handling procedures. shall sign any non?disclosure agreement which is speeilie to that Special
Access Program. Sensilit'e Compartmented lnfonnation. or inl'onnarion.

g. All other requests for clearances for aeecss to classi?ed information in this case by
persons not one.ch in these Procedures. or requests for clearances for access to information at a
higher level oFelassifieation. shall he made to the Intestigaticm Sewrit} ?ho, upon
approval of the Converting Authority, shall process the requests.

11. Re?ne any person suhjeet to these Security Procedures. other than government
trial counsel. detailed defense eoUnsel. and personnel ofthe originating agency or ho hate
appropriate level see rit}! clearances. receites to an} classi?ed information. that person
shall he served ttith a copy of these Procedures and shall execute the written agreement set forth
in paragraph 3e.



Ali T'Vil'l i
SUBJECT: Protectite Order

t. The Procedures shall apply to any delensc counsel ofthe accused. and to an) other
persons who may later receive classified information from the Department of the firm) at
Department ol'Stat-e in connection with this case.

4 Handling and Protection ofClassi?ed Information.

a. Ali counsel shall seek guidance from the investigation Security Of?cer with regard to
appropriate storage and use ofclassified information.

it. The Int-estigation Security Officer will provide appropriate physical security protection
for any materials prepared or compiled by the defense. or by an} person in relation to the
preparation of the accused?s defense or submission under MRE 505. The materials and
documents (de?ned above) requiring physical scourity include. without iimitation. an} notes.
carbon papers. letters. photographs. drafts. discarded drafts. memoranda. typewriter ribbons.
magnetic recording. or other documents or an}r kind or destcription. materials prepared
by the defense shall be maintained by the intestigation Securit} Of?cer in a separate sealed
container to which only the defense counsel shall hose access.

c. (?lassilieddoeumcms and information. or information holiesed to be classified shall he
discussed only in an area approved by the Investigation Security Officer. and in which persons
not authorized to possess such cannot Ut-?erltear such discussions.

d. No one shall discuss any classified information over any standard commercial telephone
instrument or any inter-office communication system, or in the presence of an) person who is not
authorised to possess such information

Written materials prepared for this case by the accused or de fensc counsel shall he
transcribed. recorded. typed. duplicated. copied or othero ise prepared onlg. persons who are
cleared for access to such information.

All mechanical devices ol'any kind used in the preparation or transmission ofclassi?ed
information in this case ma} he used only with the approval of the investigation Securin Officer
and in accordance with instructions he or she shall issue.

g. Upon reasonable advance notice ofthe ln t'cStigation Securit} Of?cer. defense counsel
shall be git-en access during normal business hours. and at other times on reasonable request. to
classi?ed national security documents ohich the government is required to make asailahle to
defense counsel but elects to keep in its possession, Persons permitted to inspect classified
documents by tnese Procedures may make written notes ol'the documents and their contents.
Notes ol'ang. classi?ed portions of these documents. however, shall not be disseminated or
disclosed in an) manner or form to any person not subject to these Procedures. Such notes will
be in accordance with the terms of these Procedures. Persons permitted to have access to
ciassilied documents will be allowed to cieu their notes within an area designated by the

lot estigatioo Security Of?cer. No person permitted to inspect classified documents by these
Procedures. including. defense counsel. shall copy or reproduce any part of said documents or

J:

Unelassi?ed_Discouery_Ma nning

AETV- l'lii?.
SITBJIZCT: Protective Order

their contents in any manner (it harm- except as pros ided the investigation Security Otiiccr.
alter he or she has consulted with the Convening Authority.

h. Without prior authorization ot'the Department ot'the or Department ot'h'tatc. there
shall he no disclosure to anyone not named in these Procedures by persons who may later l'CCtl'lire
a security clearance or limited access authorization from the Department ot'the Ann} or
Department of State in connection with this case {except to or from government empioyees
acting in the enurse of their of?cial dutiesi ot?any classified national security information or
national secority document (or infomtatiun contained therein! until such time. il'ever. that such
documents or information are declassi?ed.

i. The defense shalt not disclose the contents ol? any classi?ed documents or tnt'onnation to
any person except those persons identi?ed to them by the investigating {)?icer as having the
appropriate clearances. and a need to know.

It. All pchOns git en access to claSsttietl information pursuant to these Procedures are
adviSed that all infomtation to which they obtain access by these Procedures is DOW and will
forever remain the property of the United States Government They shall return all materials
which that have come into their possession. or for which they are responsible because of such
access. upon demand by the Investigation Securit) Of?cer.

L. A copy of these Procedures shall issue forthwith to defense counsel- with further order
that the defense counsel advise the accused named herein of the contents of these Procedures.
and furnish him a copy. The accused. through defense counsel. shall forthwith sign the
statements set forth in paragraph 3.1?01' these Procedures. and counsel shall forthwith tile an
original with the lnvesrigating Officer and provide an originat each to the investigation Security
Of?cer and the Government Counsel. the signing and ?ling ol?this statement by. the accused is
a condition precedent to tht: disclosure ot'elassitied infonnation to the accused.

'3 Nothing. contained in these Procedures shall be as waiter orany right ot'tlte

accused

i

it

TERR. A. WOLF i'
Maior General. USA

Commanding
0181'?! II i
Intestigating Ot?tieer
Trial Counsel
Defense Counsel
ii



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, 1ST ARMDRED DIVISION AND-
UNITED STATES
CAMP LIBERTY. IRAQ

To APO AB 033-?
ATTENTION



AETV-THZ 28 July 2010

MEMORANDU OR Commander, US Army Military District of Washington, Fort Myer,
VA 2221 1

SUBJECT: Transfer of United States v. Private First Class Bradley 13. Manning
Headquarters and Headquarters Company. 2d Brigade Combat Team. 10"" Mountain Division

(Light Infantry}

I. Pursuant to Article 22 ofthe Uniform Code of Military Justice, I am the General Court-
Martial Converting Authority for the above-retitrenced case. The case is pending an Article 32,
UCMJ Investigation and has not been forwarded to me for action.

2. I hereby request the transfer of this case to the Commander, US Army Military District of
Washington for disposition as deemed appropriate.

.

Major General, USA
Commanding



the transfer ofD.S. it. Private First Class Bradleyr E. Manning as the
Commander. Army Military District of Washington.

IAW AR 27-10, paragraph I direct Private First Class Bradleyr E. Manning to be
attached to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, US. Army Garri. 11, Joint Base Myer?
Henderson Hall KR

raw

1





DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MIUTARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVENUE
FORT LESLEY .1. NICNAIR. Dc 20319-5013

REPLYTO
ATIENTIDN 0F



ANCG 2 AUG 2010
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,

204 Lee Avenue, Fort Myer, VA 2221 1-1 [99

SUBJECT: Release of Jurisdiction PFC Bradley E. Manning

The charges preferred on 5 July 2010, against PFC Bradley E. Manning
Headquarters and Headquarter Company, US. Army Garrison, Joint BaseMMyeoHenderson Hall,

are released to you for disPosition as you deem apprOpriaIe.



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MANAGEMENT COMMAND
HEADQUARTERS. us. ARMY oAnnIsoN
204 LEE AVENUE

nor-or to FORT MYER. VA 2221 1-1199
arrest-ion or



3 AUG 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Chief. Forensic Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Washington, DC 203071500]

SUBJECT: Order for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

Order. i order a medical examination into the mental capacity and mental responsibility
Bradley Manning-H-. Headquarters and Headquarters Company. U.S. Army Garrison.
Fort Myer. Virginia. 222i l.

2. Reasons. The reasons for this order are based on the information contained in the Defense
Request for Sanity Board. dated I 1 July 2010 and the Defense Renewed Request for Sanity Board.
dated l8 July 2010. According to defense?s request, PFC Manning has been diagnosed with
adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions. conduct. Defense also alleges that PFC
Manning's leadership repeatedly expressed concerns about his mental health and PFC Manning was
placed on Suicide watch while in pro-trial confinement in Kuwait.

3. Composition of the Board. In accordance with Rule For Court-Martial 706(c). the
board shall consist of one or more persons who are physicians or clinical Defense
requests that the board consist ofthree members. including at least one forensic one
forensic and one neuro You may. but are not required to comply with
de i'ensc?s request. At least one member of the board. however. shall be either a or a
clinical You will conduct the board and designate the appropriate personnel from
within your statho comprise all or part of the board.

4. Required Findings. The Board is obligated in its evaluation to make separate and distinct
?ndings as to 4a?4e (below). using diagnostic tools that the Board. in its professional discretion.
believes to be necessary and appropriate. in his request, the defense counsel posed a number of
speci?c requests for matters to be evaluated and speci?c tests to be conducted. You may. therefore.
conduct the tests and answer the questions requested by the defense counsel in 4f-4k and 6 (below).
but are not required to do so.

a. Does the accused currently have a severe mental disease or defect? if the answer to is yes.
answer the following questions:

i i] What is the clinical diagnosis. using the American Association's
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

Is this severe mental disease or defect service disqualifying?

What is the accused's prognosis l'or recovery?

1 4

\v

SUBJECT: Order for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

Can this severe mental disease or del'ect he successfully controlled by treatment with
drugs?

Does the long-term commitment of the accused appear to he a necessary alternative?

b. Does the accused have the mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings and the
seriousness of the charges against her? If the answer to is no. answer the Following questions:

Ll) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the

(2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treated/controlled by treatment with
drugs?

What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?

c. Does the accused have the mental capacity to cooperate intelligently in her own defense? If the
answer to is no. answer the following questions:

What is the clinical diagnosis. using the

(2) Can this mental disease or defect he successfuliy treatedJcontrolled by treatment with
drugs?I

(3) What is the prognosis and expected time For recovery?

d. At the time of the alleged criminal conduct. did the accused have a severe mental disease or
defect? lithe answer to is yes. answerthe following 1? our questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the

(2) At the time ul'the alleged criminal misconduct. and as a result of such severe mental
disease or defect. was the accused able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of her
conduct?

Is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personality caused
by inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint. or a personal. social. or cultural
standard of conduct which differs from that of society as a whole?

{4)Was this impairment complete?
e. At the time oi?the alleged criminal misconduct. and as a result of such severe mental disease or
defect. was the accused able to appreciate the nature and quality or of her conduct? 1f

the answer to is yes. answer the following three questions.

What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

In}

Unclassi?ed?DiscoverLM anningB_UUO415

.V

SUBJECT: Order for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

(2) Is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personality caused
by inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint, or a personal, social, or cultural
standard of conduct which differs from that of society as a whole?

Was this impairment complete?

Was the accused, at the time of the offense, able to formulate a speci?c intent to commit the
alleged acts. to know the probable consequences of her actions, or to premeditate a design to commit
the acts? If the answer to is no. answer the following questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the

What is the prognosis?

g. What personality type does this Soldier possess?

h. What is the Soldier?s intelligence level?

i. Does the Soldier suffer from any mental condition that seriously interferes with her ability to
think. respond emotionally. remember, communicate. interpret reality. and behave appropriately? If
the answer to is yes. answer the Following questions:

What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

What is the prognosis?

j. Does the Soldier have an organic braini?nervous system disorder or impairment that would
impact her ability to think reason, perceive. recall. or in any way control her behavior or her
thoughts? ll'thc answer to is yes. answer the following questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis. using the

(2) What is the prognosis?

k. Does this Solider suffer From any level of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? If the answer to "It"
is yes. answer the following questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the
What is the prognosis?
5. Consideration.

a. The sanity board should. at a minimum. consider all ol?the Following materials in reaching their
?ndings:

(I The results of and neurological tests.






IMNE-MYR-ZA
SUBJECT: Order For Sanity Board PFC Bradley Manning

(2) Accused?s mental health records.
(3) Aceused?s medical records.

Interviews with accused.

(S) The charge sheet.

b. You may consider. at your professional discretion, any additional questions or matters posed by
the defense ifsuch matters are received no later than two weeks of the date of this memorandum.

6. In conjunction with the sanity board, you shall also complete a comprehensive neurological
examination to include a CAT scan.

7. Release of Report. Upon conclusion ol?the inquiry, the sanity board must comply with the
disclosure prohibitions of Military Rule of Evidence 302, and R.C.M. 706(c)(3). Only a statement
consisting of the sanity board?s ultimate conclusions as to the questions in paragraph 4a through 4k
will be provided to the trial counsel. A full report, which may include statements made by PFC
Manning or any evidence derived from such statements should be provided to PFC Manning?s
defense counsel, CPT Paul Bouchard, Trial Defense Service, Camp Liberty, Iraq.

8. Telephone Numbers. Ashden l-?ein is the government counsel. licin may be reached at
. Information pertaining to PFC Manning can be obtained from his defense counsel.


CPT Bouchard.

9. Suspense. This medieai examination and your findings shall be completed no later than 20
August 2010. Any extension oftime must be submitted through the Government counsel to me for
approval.

10. Delay. The period between the request the a deiay, on 12 July 2010. and the date the REM.
706 inquiry is complete is escludabie delay IAW REM. 707(c).



. RL R. COFFMAN JR.
COL. av
Commanding

7'

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
EASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL
2:14 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 222114199

REPLY TO
ATIENTION 0F



WIND-MHH-LCA _4 AUG

MEMORANDUM Paul Almanva. 150th Judge Advocate General Detachment. Legal
Support Organization. MG Albert C. Lieber USAR Center. (3ng 'l'elegraph Road. Alexandria.
VA 22310

SUBJECT: .i?tppointment as Investigating Ot?liccr under Article 32. UCMJ

. You are appointed to investigate the enclosed charges and any other related matters
concerning PFC Bradley Manning. Headquarters and Headquarters Company, US.
Army Garrison. Joint Base Myerdlenderson llall. Fort Myer. VA. 222] l.

2. You will condttet your investigation in accordance with Article 32. UCMJ. and Rule for
(RCM) 405. You will also use DA Pamphlet 2117 as a procedural gttide in
conducting your investigation. This is your primary duty until the investigation is completed.

3. You will consult with Mr. Michael Egan, - Chiel?. Administrative Law
Division. Office of the Stal'l'Judge Advocate (OSJA). US. Army Military District of
\?t'ashington belbre the hearing for advice as to procedure, proper completion ot'the
report. and guidance ol?law applicable to the ease. The Government representative and US.
Army 'l?rial Delcnse Service (TDS) attorney each play an adversarial role in the proceedings and
you must. therefore. avoid talking to either party about the merits ot? the case outside of formal
sessions where all parties have the opportunity to be present.

4. The accused is entitled to qualitied legal counsel as a matter ol?right. unless he expressly
waives this right. An of?cer assigned to the will be detailed to detend the accused. A Trio]
Counsel, from the OSJA, MDW. will represent the Government.

5. Unsworn written statements cannot be considered as a basis for your conclusions and
recommendations over objections by the accused or his counsel. Liven without an objection, you
should take action to secure the oath 01? witnesses regarding the veracity ol'their statements.
except when this would result in unnecessary delay.

You will complete your investigation within ten days from the date of this memorandum.
You will schedule a time, date. and locati0n for the hearing. You have the authority to grant
reasonable requests by the attorneys to delay this investigation. 11' the accused or the accused's
attorney cannot proceed on the selected date. obtain a request for delay from the accused?s
counsel in writing and attach it to the report of investigation. 1 must approve delays in excess of
ten days. All requests for delays must be in writing and will be either approved or disapproved
in writing.





SUBJECT: Appointment as InvestigatingI Of?cer under Article 32, UCMJ

Seven days after completion ol?tltc investigation, you will submit a complete report to me,
through the Military Justice Section, MDW. The completed report will include a
summarized transcript of the Article 32 investigation. If you cannot submit the completed report
within the speci?ed time limits. notify me in writing with an explanation of the cause for delay.

8. The Military Justice Section. OSJA. MDW will provide administrative support for this
investigation. SGT Sara Zimmerman? will ensure that a suitable location and appropriate
recording equipment are available. Contact Zimmerman at - - or at
to coordinate rulministrative support.





lincl RI. R. COM-MAN,
as cor. nv


Cl": {wot encl)
'l'rial Counsel
Del-case Counsel



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES
DEFENSE COUNSEL assurance PROGRAM
ARLINGTON, 22203



REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

IALS-TD 11 August 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU LTC Paul Almanza, 1501h ludge Advocate General Detachment,
Legal Support Organization, MG Albert C. Lieber USAR Center, 6901 Telegraph Road,
Alexandria, Virginia 22310

FOR Commander. United States Army Garrison, loint Base Myer-Henderson Hall. 204 Lee
Avenue, Fort Myer, Virginia 22211-1199

SUBIECT: Delay Request. United States v. Private First Class Bradley Manning,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 0.5. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson
Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

1. The Defense requests a delay in the subject court-martial until the inquiry you ordered
under the provisions of Rule for CourtrMartial 706 is completed. The defense maintains
responsibility for this delay because Captain Paul Bouchard initially requested the inquiry
from PFC Manning's previous chain of command. This delay would terminate on the date
the results ofthe inquiry are received by PFC Manning's detailed defense counsel.

2. lam the point ofcontact for any questions or concerns regarding this request. 1 may be



THOMAS F. HURLEY
MAI, IA
Defense Counsel



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT VIRGINIA 222114199

REPLY TO
DF



12 AUG


MEMORANDUM THRU LTC Paul Aln?ianaa, lSIth Judge Advocate General Detaelunent,
Legal Support Organiaation1 MG Albert C. Lieber USAF. Center. 690i Telegraph Road:
Alexandria. VA 22310

FOR MAJ Thomas F. Hurley. US. Army. Trial Defense Sewiee? Defense Counsel Assistanee
Program. Arlington. VA 22203

SUBJECT: Delay ol'Artiele 32 liwesligalion of PFC Bradley Manning

Your request For delay in the Article 32 investigation Manning is:

approved. In accordance villi Rule for Coons?Martial (ROM) 7I7tc)? the period
train I 1 August 201!) until the RCM. 706 Sanin Board completion is eacludable de?mse delay.

disapproved.



CARL R. JR.
AV
Coimnanding



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AUENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF



I I: .. 'lla'

I-ZA



FOR Director, Forensic Fellowship, Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, Washington, DC 2030'?

SUBJECT: Extension of Rule For Courts-Martial 7.6 ol' PFC Bradley Manning

I. Your request For an extension ol?time to complete tlte Sanity Board of PFC h?lanning is:

approved. Submit your report NLT three months from the date of this
memorandum.

approved, in part. Submit your report sis weeks From the date of this
memorandum.

approved, in part. Submit your report NLT
(I disapproved.

2. Any future extension ot?time must be submitted through the Government counsel to me for

approval.
Enel CARL R. JR.
li-mail Request, (1 Aug l. COL, AV

Commanding

0424

From:

To: Hurley ?lmagf lag, Q3355

Cc: Lil
Warsaw: W:
LUE l?

Subject: RE: REM 1'06 Order (PFC Manning] (UNCLASSIFIED)

Date: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:59:55 AM



Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

MAJ Hurley:

We will proceed with this plan in mind (initial 6 week suspense date).

It is therefore likely that we Will need an extension and will so

request along with an estimated time to completion if/when needed.
Please note that due to scheduling cenflicts, we will begin evaluation

on 2? August. Please provide all standard relevant documents relates to
706 evaluations, report of criminal investigation, mental
records, ERB, etc. This may be sent by courier (FedEx or
similar service) to:

Michael Swede, Chief, Forensic Service
Walter Reed Army Medical Center



yin

Michael Swede, Phil, ABPP (Forensic)

Board-Certi?ed Forensic

Chief, Forensic Service

Director Forensic Ps cholo Fellowship Walter Reed Army Medical Center





?the United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.
Past and present and future are not disjoined out joined."

?-??-Driginal Message-~-~

From: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA OTJAG

II

Sent: Tuesday. August 10, 2010 10:0? AM

To: Sweda, Michael Dr (SW USA MEDCOM WRAMC

Cc: Fein, Ashden CPT USA Bouchard, Paul R. CPT USD-C
DSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel; Eaton, Michael L. CPT SJ A Trial
Defense Attorney

Subject: RE: RCM 705 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)



Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Dr. Sweoa

I am one of PFC Manning's defense counsel. I know we all (the attorneys
faith parties) appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, and I

the)?? we all want a thorough evaluation of PFC Manning that follows the
by COL Coffman on 3 August. However, we (the defense) would be
$35: comfortable with an initial six week suspense. If, at the end of
Eveeks, you need more time to complete a thorough evaluation, then we
would request that you forward a request for an extension that estimates
required to complete the process.

PFC Manning is in pre-trial con?nement, and we want to get his case
referred to trial sooner rather than later.

On a substantive note, we believe the order signed by COL Coffman is
suf?cient for the charges now preferred. There are no other additional
questions we want you to answer in the course of completing this matter.

Thanks.


Thomas F. Hurley
MAJ, JA

Message--?--
From: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMC
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 3:04 PM

Morrow, JoDean CPT MIL Lange, Christopher


LTC MIL USA MEDCDM Montalbano, Paul Dr CIV Malone, Ricky
COL

MIL USA MEDCOM WRAMC

Subject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning)

Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

CPT Fein:

I have consulted with LTC Christopher Lange, who is my counterpart as
Director of the Forensic Fellowship, regarding the Manning
case.

We are in the process of assembling a team for the evaluation, and
Expect

the direct evaluation piece (interview and testing) of this to be
completed



00924

in two weeks. Generally, we ask for at least a six week suspense date

for

completion of a 706 report. In the case of PFC Manning, we would like
to

request a three month suspense from the date that he is ?rst seen, to
allow

for a thorough evaluation.

Please feel free to call or e?mail if you have any questions.

Wt.

Michael Sweda, ABPP (Forensic)
Board~Certi?ed Farensic
Chief, Forensic Service

Director Forensic cholo Fellowshi Walter Reed Army Medical Center





"The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.
Past and present and future are not disjoined but joined."

muonginal
From: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA OTJAG

[mamm?
Sent: urs ay, ugus as, 2010 2:24 PM

To: Feln, Ashden CPT USA Swede, Michael 6 Dr (Ill.l USA
MEDCOM WRAMC

Cc:_l; Eaton, Michael CPT USF-I SJ A

Trial
Defense Attorney; _ orrow, IoDean CPT MIL USA
Subject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Dr. SwedafCPT Feln

There is no need for the members of the board to have a security

clearance.

I will speak with PFC Manning tomorrow about the board and ensure that
his

answers to yOur questions do not include any classified information. If
he

feels he must disclose classi?ed information, then he will let you know
that there is more that he wants to say but cannot. CPT Feln and will
then seek an exception to the current order.

y}

Thomas F. Hurley
MAJ. JA



??+??Origiria

From: Fain,r Ashden CPT USA SJA
[mam-l

Sent: litlednesdayr August 04, 2010 12:15 PM

To: Swede, Michael Dr CW USA MEDCDM WRAMC

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA p?l;
Eaton, Michael CPT SJ A Trial Defense Attorney;
Morrow, JoDean CPT MIL USA

Subject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Sir,

I do not foresee the need; however I rather defer that answer to MAJ
Honey

and the defense team. There [5 one caveat. A Current protective oroer
is

in place and it does not authorize the disclosure of any of the

classi?ed

information related to this case without af?rmative authorization. So

if

there ends up being a need, although doubtful, then the Government will
need

to work to get an exception to the protective order.

v/
CPT Fein

Ashden Fein

CPT, JA

Chief, Military Justice

.5. Arm Milita District of Washin ton MDW



--?-rOriginai Message-?-??
From: Swede, Michael 6 Dr (IN USA MEDCOM WRAMC

Sent: Wedne?ay, August 04, 2010 12:10 PM

To: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJA

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA Elm?@?
Eaton, Michael CPT USF-I SJ A Trial Defense Attorney;

Subject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning)

Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Sir:
Will the sanity board members require any level of security clearance

for
this?

WI.



Michael Swede, ABPP (Forensic)

Board-Certified Forensic

Chief, Forensic Service

Director Forensic Ps choloo Fellowship Walter Reed Armv Medical Center



"The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.
Past and present and future are not disjolned but joined."


From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11:07 AM
To? Swede, Michael (3 Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMC

Cc: Hurle Thomas MIL USA
Page Luke CPT usoc SJA Chief, Military

Subject: REM 7'06 Order (PFC Manning)
Importance: High

Sir,

Good morning. Attached is a RCM ms Board Order for PFC Bradley
Manning.

Attached is the order and a copy of the charge sheet. CCed on this
email

are the defense counsel (CPT Bouchard, CPT Eaton, and Hurley}.
Please

advise of any delays and if your of?ce needs additional time than the
allotted suspense, please forward the request through me for the
Convening

Authority.



CPT Fein

Ashden Fein
CPT, JA

Chief, Military Justice

Unclassifieo_Discoverv_ Ma nningB_{lOO4 22

00927

US. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)



Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

[1000423

25 August 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU Staffludge Advocate. Of?ce ofthc Staffiudge Advocate. US Army
Military District of \?t'ashington. Fort Lesley .1. McNair. Washington DC. 30219

FOR Commander. Army Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley .1. McNair.
Washington D.C. 20319

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment ofExpert with Expertise in Forensic to Assist
the Defense in United States v. PFC Brudiey Manning.

1. On 18 July 2010. the defense requested that a R.C.M. 706 sanity board be appointed in the
case of United States v. Manning. and that a separate medical expert be appointed to the defense
to observe the R.C.M. 7?06 board.

2. On 25 August 3010. the defense received noti?cation that a R.C.M. 706 board would begin its
assessment of PFC Manning on 2? August 2010. The defense requests that the sanity board be
delayed until a forensic can be appointed to the defense team. lfthe government has
denied the former request. the defense hereby renews its request.

3. Pursuant to R.C.M. 7031d). PFC Bradley Manning requests that a forensic from
another branch of service be designated as a member ofthe defense team under Military Rule of
Evidence M.R.E. 502 and tinitedS?totes r. Toledo. 25 MJ. 2701CMA 1987). PFC Manning
also requests that appropriate arrangements be made for the forensic to travel to
Quantico. Virginia to evaluate and work with PFC Manning prior to the R.C.M. 7?06 board.

4. A military accused has. as a matter of Equal Protection and Due Process. a right to expert
assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. United States v. Grit-tries. 22 NJ. 288
1986): L'ttitedS'tn-tes v. Robinson 39 NJ. 88 1994). and A ?re v. Oklahoma. 470
US. 226 (1971). The Court oprpeals for the Armed Forces has embraced a test for
determining whether government-funded expert assistance is necessary. The defense must shove:
"First. why the expert assistance is needed. Second. what woold the expert assistance accomplish
for the accused. Third. why is the defense unable to gather the evidence that the expert assistant
o-?Ould be able to deve10p." United States v. Gonzalez. 39 NJ. 459 1994).

5. All ofthe above requirements for employment of an expert are present and the defense is
entitled to have an expert appointed to the defense as a matter oflatv. The government has
begun the process of conducting a sanity board on PFC Manning and is presumably using the
best available Army doctors for this purpose. PFC Manning is only requesting a single forensic
from another branch ofservice be appointed to the defense team to assist in
understanding and preparing his defense.

a. Why Is Expert Assistance Needed? Expert assistance is needed to assist the defense in
understanding medical information concerning the mental status of PFC Manning 0n the date(s)
of the alleged crimes. to determine whether he is able to understand the nature and quality of the

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment ofExpert with Expertise in Forensic to Assist
the Defense in United States v. PFC Bradley Manning.

wrongfulness ofhis conduct. to evaluate whether PFC Manning is able to intelligently assist in
his defense. and to prepare a possible sentencing case in extenuation and mitigation fer the
accused. The knowledge required to do this is specialized. and concerns medical and
data which is beyond the scope of defense counsel's understanding.

b. What Would the Expert Assistance accomplish for the Accused? A forensic
assigned to the defense would assist the defense by explaining complex medical terms and the
involved at the time of the alleged crimes. The expert would also administer tests
which would aid in potential diagnosis and treatment. Finally. the expert would be able to
explain medical research in the field of forensic and its relevance to the present case.

c. Why is the Defense Unable to Gather this Evidence on Its Own? The defense has neither
the experience nor expertise to adequately prepare this case. The defense counsel needs a basic
understanding in order to present the defense case. including the need to prepare
defense experts to testify. It would be impossible for the defense to properly prepare without
having an individual who has the confidentiality guaranteed to protect the accused. As a member
of the defense team. the defense appointed expert can freely discuss the defense theories ofthe
case without fear ofcompromising PFC Manning's rights.

6. For the above reasons. the defense requests that you issue an order appointing a forensic
from another branch of service as an expert; that you instruct him/her that hershe is a
?defense representative? and thus part ofthe defense team. and that matters related to him/her
during the course ofhis employment as a member ofthe defense team will be confidential.
Finally the defense requests that you direct that the R.C.M. 706 board be delayed until the
defense appointed forensic can be made available to monitor the examinations
conducted by the members ofthe board. The defense believes that the presence ofa member of
the defense team will increase PFC Manning's willingness to cooperate with the sanity board.
Moreover. it will ensure that the defense team has first-hand knowledge of the accuracy and
quality ofall examinations conducted by the members ofthe board. This will ultimately reduce
the need for future litigation on such issues.

7. The POC is the undersigned at (401)744-3007 or by email at


f/


E. COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BASE RIVER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 222i1'1199
- new: To



or
2 5 AUG EWIU
D-M HHZA

MEMORANDUM FOR Director, Forensic Fellowship. Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, Washington, DC 2030?

SUBJECT: Defense Delay Request of R.C.M. 706 Sanity Board of PFC Bradley Manning

I reviewed the defense request to delay the R.C.M. 706 Sanity Board for PFC Manning. The

request is: .I,
Le?"

iti?b
if approved. The Sanity Board is delayed until the GCMCA takes action on the defense

request for appointment ofa forensic expert consultant. The period between 27
August 2010 and until the GCMCA takes action on the defense request is excludahle delay under

R.C.M. tetra).

disapproved. The Sanity Board will proceed as previously ordered.


;Weom, JR.
i? COL, AV
Commanding



26 August 2010

THRU Staff Judge Advocate. Of?ce oi?the Staffiudge Advocate, US Amty
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair. Washington DC. 30219

FOR Commander. US Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. h-IcNair.
Washington DC. 20319

SUBJECT: Request for Delay in the 7'06 Board to Comply with Prohibitions on
Disclosure ofClassified Infonnation in UnitedSmres PFC Brodie]! awaiting.

1. Pursuant to Executive Order 12953. Section 4.1. defense counsel hereby requests the
convening authority delay the REM. 706 board until procedures can be adopted to safeguard
any classi?ed information that will be discussed during the board's determination.

2. in support of this request. the defense pros-"ides the following:

a. On 25 August 2010 defense counsel spoke with PFC Manning telephonically to detemtine
ifhe would need to discuss classified information during the ROM. 706 board inquiry.

b. Based upon our discussions with PFC Manning. the defense counsel believes that in order
for him to participate in the R.C M. 706 process and aid the members in their determination of
his mental state at the time of the alleged incidents. he will need to divulge classified
information.

c. The information that PFC Manning will need to divulge will be Secret Sensitive
ompartmented Information and Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information.

3. Based on the preceding information- the defense requests that the Government determine
from the Original Classification Authority (OCA) that the R.C.M. 706 has a ?need to know" as
part ot?their assessment Manning's mental condition.

4. Additionally. pursuant to Executive Order 12958. 12968. and 13292 the defense requests that
all members of the ROM. 706 board possess the requisite security clearances and that all
required steps are taken in order to safeguard the information that they receive from PFC
Manning.

5. Since board members notes and any recordings will contain references to classified
infonnation. the defense requests that the goyernment appoint a security officer to the board to
assist them in the proper handling of their notes and disposal of any information that may
contain references to classified information.

6. The defense also requests the results of the government's classification review by the OCA.
Specifically. the determination of the classi?cation review regarding 1 the classi?cation level
of the information alleged to have been disclosed by PFC Manning when it was subjected to

3 September

MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate. Of?ce of the StalTJudge Advocate. US Army
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley McNair. Washington DC. 302?)

FOR, Commander. US Amt) Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hail. Fort Myer. Virginia
"315' i

SUBJ Request for Appointment of Expert with Expertise in Forensic to Assist
the Defettse in United States 1' PFC Braille? tifcmning.

1. On 25 August the defense requested that the RCM. 706 board be delayed until a
Forensic could be appointed to the defense team.

2. The defense would like to supplement their 25 August 20 ll) memorandum by requesting that
any defense appointed expert possess a Top Secret Sensitive Cornpartmented Information
clearance.

3. The POC is the undersigned at (40! 74-1-3007 or by e-ntail at




E. GOA-TBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199
To
ATTENTION OF



16 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Col Daniel Choike, Commander, Marine Corps Base Quantico

SUBJECT: Request for Monitoring ofCommunications for PFC Bradley Manning,
Headquarters: and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Garrison, .loint Base Myer-l-[enderson
Hall, Fort Myer, VA 22211

i. The US. Army requires the Quantico Brig to monitor PFC Manning?s communications with
third patties while con?ned at the brig. This requirement includes all Manning?s phone
calls, visitations, and mail. This requirement does not include monitoring of any privileged
communications between PFC Manning and his attorneys, mental health providers, and brig
chaplains.

2i PFC Manning is charged and currently under investigation for multiple violations ofthe
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) relating to allegations that he leaked voluminous
amounts of classified information to individuals not entitled to receive such information. Based
on my review ofthe case, I believe it is necessary to monitor his communications to prevent the
possibility offuture disclosures ofclassi?ed information.

3. I will ensure PFC Manning is notified, through his attorney, that his communications are
subject to monitoring and recording. Since I am aware that your facility does not have the
monitoring capability or expertise, the monitoring and recording equipment will be provided,
without cost.

4. The point ofcontact for this requirement is CPT Ashden Fein, Chief, Military Justice, at -
-3-



RL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION 0F



17 September 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Seetn?it}I Expert Coneultant- US. v. PFC Bradle?LMannine

appoint Mr. Charles: Game], LLB. Army Test and Evaluation Command, as an expert consultant
in security matters For the defense in the above-named case. 1 further direct that Mr. Ganiel be
designated a member of the defense team under US. v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 1937) and
Military Rule of Evidence 502. This expert appointment is at no expense to the United States
beyond mileage reimbursement, if applicable.

C. R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding


i -

'1
4'17



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199





arreunord or:

17 September 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Accuscd's Mental Impressions - U.S v.
PFC Bradley Manning

1. According to your four requests. dated 25 August 2010, 26 August 2010, 3 September 2010
(Expert), and 3 September 2010 (Defense Team), the accused?s mental impressions are
potentially classi?ed TSISCI, which would require defense counsel, the RCM 706 board, and
any defense expert to possess security clearances at the level, in order to allow the
accused to fully participate in his defense and board.

2. Order. No later than 24 September 2010 and absent an extension by me, the accused is
ordered to meet with your security expert consultant and disclose the classified in?lbrmation, he
wishes to discuss with you, the defense team, his detailed behavioral health providers, and the
RCM 706 board. Your security expert will take notes and conduct a preliminary classi?cation
review of this information.

3. Preliminary Classi?cation Review. No later than 4 October mm and absent an extension
by me, the defense security expert consultant will conduct his preliminary classification review
of the information and provide you and the Trial Counsel with a brief sununary of the review,
without releasing any privileged and substantive information from the accused's disclosures.

4. Should the defense expert initially classify the disclosed information at a level above Secret,
the United States will continue to work diligently to comply with your requests to have defense
counsel, the defense expert, and the RCM 706 board fully cleared to discuss classi?ed matters
with the accused.

5. The notes from the defense security expert?s meeting with the accused will remain privileged
and be turned over to you at the conclusion of the preliminary review, subject to any security
concerns that may be raised by the information.

R. COF MAN, IR.
COL, AV
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT sass HALL
2114 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TD
ATTENTION DF



17 September EDI

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The purpose ofthis Protective Order is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure
or dissemination of classi?ed national security information in the subject named case. This
Protective Order covers all information and documents previously available to the accused in the
course of his employment with the United States Government or which have been, or will be,
reviewed or made available to the accused, defense counsel, and other recipients of classi?ed
information in this case.

2. APPLICABILITY. ?Persons subject to this Protective Order? include the following:

a. the Accused;
b. Military and Civilian Defense Counsel and Detailed Military Paralegals;

c. Members of the Defense Team M.R.E. 502 and US. v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 3170
(CMA. 1937);

d. Security Officers;

e. Members of the Rule for Courts-Martial 706 Inquiry Board; and

f. Behavioral Health Providers for the Accused.
3. ORDER. In order to protect the national security and pursuant to the authority granted under
Military Rule of Evidence (MILE) 505, relevant executive orders of the President of the United
States, and regulations of the Departments of Defense and of the Army, it is hereby ORDERED:

a. The procedures set forth in this Protective Order and the authorities referred to above will
apply to the Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 7'06 inquiry, Article 32 investigation, pretrial, trial,
post-trial, and appellate matters concerning this case.

b. The term ?classified information" refers to:

1) any classi?ed document (or information contained therein);


SUBJECT: Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

(2) information knovm or that reasonably should be known by persons subject to this
Protective Order to be classi?able. If persons subject to this Protective Order are uncertain as to
whether the information is classi?ed, they must con?rm whether the information is classi?ed;

(3) classi?ed documents (or information contained therein) disclosed to persons
subject to this Protective Order as part of the proceedings in this case;

classi?ed documents and information which have otherwise been made known to
persons subject to this Protective Order and which have been marked or described as:
or OP SECRET

c. All such classi?ed documents and information contained therein shall remain classi?ed
unless such classi?ed information bear clear indication they have been declassi?ed by the
government agency or department that originated the document or information contained therein
(hereinafter referred to as ?original classi?cation authority?).

d. The words "documents" or "associated materials" as used in this Protective Order
include, but are not limited to, all written or printed matter of any kind, formal or informal,
including the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the original by reason
of any notation made on such copies or otherwise, including, without limitation, papers,
correspondence, memoranda, notes, letters, telegrams, reports, summaries, inter-of?ce and intra~
of?ce communications, notations of any sort, bulletins, teletypes, telefas, invoices, worksheets,
and all drafts, alterations, modi?cations, changes, and amendment of any kind to the foregoing,
graphic or aural records or representations of any kind, including, without limitation,
photographs, charts, graphs, micro?che, micro?lm, video tapes, sound recordings of any kind,
motion pictures, any electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind,
including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, hard drives, other
recordings, ?lms, typewriter ribbons and word processor discs or tapes.

e. The word ?or? should be interpreted as including ?and?, and vice versa; ?he? should be
interpreted as including ?she?, and vice versa.

f. Persons subject to this Protective Order are advised that direct or indirect unauthorized
disclosure, retention, or negligent handling of classi?ed information could cause serious and, in
some cases, exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States, or may be
used to the advantage of a foreign nation against the interests of the United States. These
security procedures are designed to ensure that persons subject to this Protective Order will never
divulge the classi?ed information disclosed to them to anyone who is not authorized to receive it,
without prior written authorization from the original classi?cation authority and in conformity
with these procedures.

g. Parsons subject to this Protective Order are admonished that they are obligated by law
and regulation not to disclose any classi?ed information in an unauthorized fashion.


SUBJECT: Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

11. Persons subject to this Protective Order are admonished that any breach of the security
procedures in this Protective Order may result in the termination of their access to classi?ed
information. In addition, they are admonished that any unauthorized disclosure, possession, or
handling of classi?ed information may constitute violations of United States criminal laws,
including but not limited to, the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952, Title 18,
United States Code, and Sections 421 and Title 50, United States Code. In addition, for
those persons who are attorneys, a report will be filed with their State Bar Association.

4. Prior to any RCM "Filo inquiry, Article 32 investigation, or court-martial proceeding, a
security of?cer will be appointed in writing and served with a copy of this protective order.

5. Personnel Security Investigations and Clearances

a. The storage, handling, and control of classi?ed information requires special security
precautions mandated by statute, executive orders, and regulations, and access to which require a
security clearance.

13. Once a person subject to this Protective Order obtains a security clearance and executes a
non-disclosure agreement (SF 3 12), that person is eligible for access to classi?ed information,
subject to the convening authority?s disclosure determination.

c. As a condition of receiving classi?ed information, any retained civilian defense counsel
will agree to the conditions speci?ed herein and execute all necessary forms so that the
Department of the Army may complete the necessary personnel security investigation to make a
determination whether to grant access. Any retained civilian defense counsel will also sign the
Acknowledgment of Protective Order {hereinafter ?Acknowledgment"). Any retained civilian
defense counsel shall also sign a standard form nondisclosure agreement (SP 312) as a condition
of access to classified information.

d. in addition to the Acknowledgment, any person who as a result of this case gains
access to information contained in any Department of the Anny Special Access Program,
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13526 [or for events occurring before 27 June
2010, 13.0. 12958], or to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), shall sign any
nondisclosure agreement which is specific to that Special Access Program or to that
Sensitive Compartmented Information.

e. All other requests for clearances for access to classi?ed information in this case for
persons not named in this Protective Order or for clearances to a higher level ofclassi?cation,
shall be made through the trial counsel to the convening authority.

f. The security procedures contained in this Protective Order shall apply to any civilian
defense counsel retained by the accused, and to any other persons who may later receive

classi?ed information from the US. Department of the Army in connection with this case.

6. Handling and Protection of Classi?ed information

Lad


SUBJECT: Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

a. All persons subject to this Protective Order shall seek guidance from their respective
security of ftcers with regard to the appropriate storage and use of classi?ed information.

b. The defense security of fleet will ensure appropriate physical security protection for any
materials prepared or compiled by the defense, or by any person in relation to the preparation of
the accused's defense or submission under MRE 505. The materials and documents (defined
above) requiring physical security include, without limitation, any notes, carbon papers, letters,
photographs, drafts, discarded dralts, memoranda, typewriter ribbons, computer diskette,
CDIOVDs, magnetic recording, digital recordings, or other documents or any kind or
description.

c. Classi?ed information, or information believed to be classi?ed, shall only be discussed in
an area approved by a security of?cer, and in which persons not authorized to possess such
information cannot overhear such discussions.

d. No one shall discuss any classi?ed information over a standard commercial telephone
instrument, an inter-office communication system, or in the presence of any person who is not
authorized to possess such information.

e. Written materials prepared for this case by persons subject to this Protective Order shall
be transcribed, recorded, typed, duplicated, copied, or otherwise prepared only by persons who
have received access to classified information pursuant to the security procedures contained in
this Protective Order.

f. All mechanical devices, of any kind, used in the preparation or transmission of classified
information in this case may be used only with the approval of a security of?cer.

g. Upon reasonable advance notice to the trial counsel or a security officer, defense counsel
shall be given access during normal business hours and at other times on reasonable request, to
classi?ed documents which the government is required to make available to defense counsel but
elects to keep in its possession. Persons permitted to inspect classified documents by this
Protective Order may make written notes of the documents and their contents. Notes of any
classified portions of these documents, however, shall not be disseminated or disclosed in any
ntanner or form to any person not subject to this Protective Order. Such notes will be secured in
accordance with the terms of this Protective Order. Persons permitted to have access to
classi?ed documents will be allowed to view their notes within an area designated by a security
of?cer. No person permitted to inspect classified documents by this Protective Order, including
defense counsel, shall copy or reproduce any part of said documents or their contents in any
manner or form, except as provided by a security of freer, after he has consulted with the trial
counsel.

h. The persons subject to this Protective Order shall not disclose the contents of any
classified documents or information to any person not named herein, except the trial counsel and

military judge.

18 September 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU Staffludge Advocate. Of?ce ofthe Staff Judge Advocate, US Army
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair. Washington DC . 30210

FOR Commander. US Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall. Fort Myer. Virginia
aim 1

Id?i?p

SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review of the Accused?s Mental Impressions United
States Bradley Manning

l. The defense believes that your order- dated 17 September 20l0. directing PFC Manning to
disclose the classi?ed information that he wishes to discuss with his defense counsel and the
Rules for curt-Martial (ROM) 706 board to Mr. Charles Ganiel prior to disclosing this
information to his civilian and military defense counsel is not a lawful order and in contravention
of the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces .A.A.F.) in (.t'nited States v.
Schmidt. 60 MJ. 1 .A.A.F. 2004}. The order attempts to circumvent the important role of the
attorney-client relationship in maintaining the fairness and integrity of the military justice
system. As such, it is a violation of PFC Manning?s rights under the Sixth Amendment and
Article 27 ofthe Uniform Code of Military Justice to the effective assistance of counsel in
preparing a defense. Schmidt- at 2. citing United States- v. King. 53 MJ. 425 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

2. ln Schmidt. the appellant was charged with dereliction ofduty for failing to exercise
appropriate flight discipline and failing to comply with rules of engagement and special
instructions in an air-toaground bombing incident that caused the deaths of several Canadian
soldiers in Afghanistan. The appellant was privy to classi?ed information pertaining to his case.
The militaryjudge ruled. and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (A.F.C.C.A.) af?rmed.
that the appellant could not discuss the classi?ed aspects of his case with his civilian defense
counsel {who eventually obtained an interim security clearance) without submitting a request
through the trial counsel. The .A.A.F. vacated the A.F.C.C.A. opinion and reversed the ruling
of the military judge. holding that Military Rule of Evidence (NLRB) 505 ?does not require an
accused. without bene?t of his own counsel. to engage in adversarial litigation with opposing
counsel as a precondition to discussing with defense counsel potentially relevant information"
that is already in the appellant's knowledge or possession. Schmidt. 60 MJ. at 2. As such. the
government cannot create a ?classified information wall" between the accused and his defense
counsel as a precondition to the client being able to speak to his civilian and military defense
counsel. Id.

3. The defense is well aware of its obligations to safeguard classi?ed information under Army
Regulation 3806 and 13 U.S.C. 793. 794. and 798 and 50 U.S.C. 421. Based upon this
knowledge, on 30 August 2010. the defense voluntarily returned classified information that was
given to it by the government without legal authority or proper authorization. See Attachment A.
Likewise. on 25 August 2010. the defense alerted the government to the concern of classi?ed
information being divulged during the ROM. 706 process. As such. the defense renews its
request that each defense counsel receive at least Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented

SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review of the Accused's Mental Impressions United
States v. PFC Bradley .-li'rtnning

Information clearance. The defense team is currently comprised of the following
counsel: Mr. David Coontbs in the United States Army Reserves): MAJ Matthew J.
Kemltes; and PT Paul R. Bouchard.

4. Additionally, the defense renews its request for limited authorization for PFC Manning's
access to classi?ed information. it is likely that PFC Manning?s access has been Suspended due
to the preferred charges. It is anticipated that the defense will need to discuss and share access to
the classified information at issue in this case with our client. Therefore, the defense requests
authorization for limited access to classi?ed information by the accused in accordance with
M.R.E.

3. In order to comply with the preparation and filing of NLRE. 505(k) notice- the defense
requests that the protective order dated 17 September 2010 be amended to re?ect the following
additional guidance:

3. The accused and defense counsel shall prepare forthwith, but in no event later than
business days before any R.C.M. 706 Board, Article 32 Investigation. or court hearing, a brief
written description of any information known or believed to be classi?ed, which the accused
reasonably expects to disclose or cause to be disclosed in any pre-trial motion or proceeding- or
at trial ofthis case. hereinafter referred to as "the Accusedis Disclosure Notice"), as required
under Military Rule of Evidence

b. For purposes ofpreparing the Accused's Disclosure Notice. defense counsel. subject to
compliance with the applicable provisions of this Order, shall he allowed to discuss,
communicate and receive information from the accused concerning any matter believed by the
accused to contain. involve or relate to classi?ed information, and believed by the accused to
relate to this case. Any retained civilian defense counsel shall also comply with the provisions of
this Order before having access to said classi?ed infomiation.

c. The accused. through counsel, shall advise the Convenng Authority and the trial counsel
when he has prepared or possesses the Accused's Disclosure Notice or any other material which
the accused or counsel believes contains classi?ed information, which he intends to offer at any
ROM. 706 Board. the Article 32 Investigation. tile in court or use in court. and shall then
deliver to the Court Security of?cer directly, or by means ofa courier designated by the Court
Security Of?cer. the Accused's Disclosure Notice and all copies thereof. or any other pleadings.
All Associated materials and other documents of any kind or description containing any ofthc
information in the Accused's Disclosure Notice shall be stured under conditions prescribed by
the Court Security Of?cer.

d. Until further Order of the Convening Authority or the Court. the Accused Disclosure
Notice and all other written pleadings shall be delivered to the Court Security Of?cer. The time
of delivery to the Court Security Of?cer shall be considered the date of filing. The Court
Security Of?cer shall review such pleadings and shall determine with the assistance
and consultation ofthe attomey for the government and any personnel from any agency

SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review of the Accused?s Mental Impressions United
Stores 1: PFC Brodfey [thinning

necessary to make such determinatioo, whether any of the material submitted is classi?ed. and
the level of classi?cation of any such material. If the pleading or information does not contain
any classi?ed information. the Court Security Of?cer shall forward it immediater to the REM.
706 Board or Article 32 Investigating Of?cer or Court for routine ?ling. If the pleading does
contain classi?ed information. or information which might lead to or cause the disclosure of
classi?ed information. the Court Security Of?cer shall. after consultation with the trial counsel
and original classification authority:

(1) mark it appropriately:

give a marked copy to the trial counsel;

have the original ?led under seal and stored under appropriate security
conditions.

In this way. any documents containing classi?ed inliomtation (or information believed to be
classi?ed and which must undergo a classi?cation determination) which are ?led shall be sealed
by? order of the Convening Authority.

6. The defense requests acknowledgement of receipt ofthis reopense. The deli-rise further
requests that the Convening Authority rescind his "Preliminary Classi?cation Review Order"
dated 17 September 2010 and amend his ?Protective Order? as discussed above.

The FCC is the undersigned at [401:] 744-300? or by e-mail at




of

i ?r f?
LEM-T113 E. coomas
Civilian Defense Counsel


SUBJECT: Protective Order for Classi?ed Information 4 United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. All persons given access to classi?ed in Formation pursuant to this Protective Order are
advised that all informatimt to which they obtain access by the Protective Order is now and will
ferever remain the property of the United States Government. They shall return all materials
which may have come into their possession, or for which they are responsible because of such
access. upon demand by a security officer.

j. All persons subject to this Protective Order shall sign the Acknowledgment, including the
defense counsel and accused. The signing and ?ling of this Acknowledgment is a condition
precedent to the disclosure of any classi?ed information to any person subject to this Protective
Order.

7. This Protective Order supersedes all previous protective orders. Nothing contained in this
Protective Order shall be construed as a waiver of any right of the accused.

R. COFFMAN, JR
COL, AV
Commanding

DISTRIBUTION:

l-Trial Counsel

l-Civilian Defense Counsel
l-Senior Military Defense Counsel


I-Defense Experts
706 Inquiry Board

U:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
.Iomr Base urea-Hennensou HALL
204 LEE avenue

FORT MVER, VIRGINIA 2221 1-11 99
REPLV To
stream? OF



22 September 20 ll}

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Accused's Mental Impressions - LL13 v,
PFC Bradley Manning

1. According to your four requests. dated 25 August 20 I 0, 26 August 2010. 3 September 2010
(Expert), and 3 September 20 {Defense Team). the accused's mental impressions are
potentially classi?ed which would require defense counsel, the RCM 706 board. and
any defense expert to possess security clearances at the TSISCI level. in order to allow the
accused to fully participate in his defense and board.

2. Order. No later than 3 October 2010 and absent an extension by me. the accused is ordered
to meet with your security expert consultant and disclose the classi?ed information the accused
wishes to discuss with you. the defense team. his detailed behavioral health providers. and the
RCM 7'06 board. Your security expert will take notes and conduct a preliminary classification
review ofthis information.

3. Preliminary Classi?cation Review. No later than two weeks after the accused?s ?nal
interview and absent an extension by me, the defense security expert consultant will conduct his
preliminary classification review of the information and provide an unclassified Written response
to the following questions:

a. Is the provided by the accused classi?ed or a level above Seeret or
"No

b. If any of the information provided by the accused is classi?ed {shove Secret. does any oftlre
information fall withi compartments. and so, who! compartments?

4. Should the defense expert initially classify the disclosed information at a level above Secret.
the United States will continue to work diligently to comply with your requests to have defense
counsel. the defense expert. and the RC 7?06 board fully cleared to discuss classified matters
with the accused. I will also make a determination on whether to authorize the accused to
disclose his classi?ed information to the RCM 706 board and his behavioral health providers.

5. The notes from the defense security expert's meeting with the accused will remain privileged
and be turned over to you at the conclusion ofthe preliminary review, subject to any security
concerns that may be raised by the information. Under no circumstances should your security


SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Accused?s Mental Impressions - US v.
PFC Bradlev Manning

expert consultant release any privileged or substantive information from the accused?s
disclosures to anyone outside ofthe defense team.

6. The sole purpose ofthis preliminary classi?cation review is to provide the defense and United
States with a basis for granting security clearances to the defense team and the accused's
behavioral health providers, and determining the appropriate level of classi?cation for the RC
706 board. This preliminary classi?cation review is not a substitute For an of?cial classi?cation
review conducted by an original classi?cation authority (OCA) or an official designated by an
OCA.

7. This order supersedes my order dated 17 September 2010.



R. COFFMAN. JR.
COL. AV
Commanding

28 September 20in

MEMORANDUM Staffludge Advocate. Of?ce ofthe Staff Judge Advocate. US Army
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley McNair. Washington DC. 30219

FOR Commander. US Army Garrison. Joint Base Myervllenderson Hall. Fart Myer. Virginia
1391 1

tan?-

SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review ot'the Accused's Mental Impressions - United
States PFC Brodie? Manning

l. The defense has received your superseding preliminary classification order dated 22
September 2010. The defense has discussed this order with PFC Bradley Manning and with the
defense appointed security expert. Mr. Charles Ganiel.

2. Based upon the defense?s discussions with Mr. Ganic]. the preliminary classi?cation review
cannot be started until the following. issues have been resolved:

a. Approved Facility: Mr. Ganie] does not believe that the Quantico Confinement Facility
has the required area in order to speak to PFC lvlanning about any classified information.
Speci?cally. for any Sensitive Compartmented information (SCI). the discussion and storage of
the information received must be in a facility tltat meets the structural and security requirements
for a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility SC material cannot be viewed or
discussed unless in a SCIF in accordance with SlitS?El-M-l. chapter 3. page 3-1. paragraph
N4). Therefore. unless Mr. Ganiei conducts his discussions with PFC Manning in an approved
SCIF. he will not be able to begin his preliminary classification review.

b. Limited Access: is likely that PFC Manning?s access to classi?ed information has been
suspended due to the preferred charges. Mr. Ganiel will not be able to discuss or validate any
classi?ed information with PFC Manning unless PFC Manning is given an interim clearance.
Additionally. PFC Manning will not have access to any secured sites. speci?cally a SCIF. unless
he has the requisite security clearance. See 5105-21

c. Storace: Mr. Ganiel will need the government to provide him with a Government Service
Administration approved security container to store Secret and onftdential information.
Additionally. Mr. Ganiel will need the same GSA approved security container with the requisite
additional security precautions for the storage of Top Secret information in accordance with
Army Regulation 380-5. chapter 7. paragraph 7-4. Finally. Mr. Ganiel will need to have access
to 3. SC IF to store any Special Access Program or SCI information in accordance with
DOD 5 chapter 3. page 3-10.

d. Verification: Anything revealed to Mr. Ganiel has to be veri?ed before he can make a
determination whether it is classified and. if necessary. its level ofclassification. This is a time
consuming process that Mr. Cranial does n01 believe can be completed within the time
restrictions listed in the preliminary classi?cation review order.

\u-v

SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Accused's Mental Impressions United
States r. PF Bradley

e. Additional Security Expert: Given the task required by the preliminary classi?cation
review order, Mr. Ganiel has requested that an additional securin expert be appointed to the
defense team. Mr. Ganiel believes that the additional eXpert will help expedite the process by
assisting him in reviewing the infonnation, conducting document veri?cation. conducting
document preparation. and by providing a second opinion regarding information that is either
SCI or is part ofa SAP.

3. The is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at




If,


Dawn E. coomas
Civilian Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARHY
JOINT BASE HYERMENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVERUE
FORT MYER. WRGIHIA 22211-1198



1 2 OCT 55:10





MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David Cnemhs. Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Additional Defense Security Expert {.?ensullant US. v. PFC
Bradley Manning

In response to your request for an additional security expert dated 28 September 20m. I napnint
Mr. Cassius N. llall. US. Army Intelligence and Security Command. as an additional expert
consultant in security matters for the defense in the above-named ease. further direct that Mr.
Hall be designated a member efthe defense team under U.S. v. Toledo. 25 MJ. 270 .A.
198'!) and Military Rule of lividenee 5H2. This expert appointment is at nu expense to the
United States beyond mileage reimbursement. il?applieable.

R. COFFMANJR
COL. AV


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT masts HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
roar men. VIRGIRIA 2221 1.1159
REFLV TD
0F



?2 0LT . nu



MEMORANDUM Mr. David F.. L?oombs. ('ivilian Defense Counsel

Appointment ol'i)eien5e Expert Consultant in Forensic - US. PFC
Bradley Manning

1. I reviewed your request for appointment of an expert consultant in forensic for the
defense in the above-named ease. Alter careful consideration. the defense request is:

Manpower]. appoint COL David M. Benedek as an expert consultant in the above-
named ease. I further direct that Benedek be designated a member of the defense team
under US- v. ?I'oletlo. 25 270 (EMA. I937) and Military Rule ofliyidence 502- This
expert appointment is at no extreme to the United States beyond mileage reimbursement. il'
authorized.

disappnwed.

2. The senior member of the RCM 706 board. in consultation with the accused's primary care
behavioral heaith provider. will determine the extent to which COL Benedek may participate in
the RCM 10ft inquiry. including whether the delense expert consultant may be permitted to
monitorthe examinations conducted by members of the MM mo hoard.

f]

I-

R. JR.
COL. AV

Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE mamasuoerzson HALL
204 LEE avenue

FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 222114199
HEM ro
answer? or:



12 Del -JIU



MEMORANDUM FDR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Approved Facility and Storage for Classi?ed Inl'onnation - US. v. Bradlcv
Manning

1. APPROVED FACILITY. The preliminary security classi?cation review and any subsequent
meetings requiring access to a Sensitive Compartmented intorntation Facility will occur at
the Field Investigative Unit US. Army Criminal Investigation Command, 7701 'l'elegraph
Road #2591. Alexandria. VA. 22315. The FIU will provide a conference room within its to
provide the prosecution or defense team adequate space to conduct meetings which may inciude
information classified at a level higher than The defense team must coordinate through
the trial counsel to schedule the dates and times to use the facility.

3. STORAGE. All classified information shall be stored in accordance with the tollowing
instructions:

a. Prosecution Team. information will be stored in the two sales assigncd to the
Of?ce ofthc Stat'l'ludgc Advocate. MDW located in Building 32- Fort Lesley .I. McNait?. DC Any
information classified above the level will be stored in the MDW SCIF located in
Building Fort Lesley McNair. DC.

h. Defense 'feam. information will be stored in a safe assigned to the Trial
Service Of?ce. Fort Myer located in Building 229. Joint Base Myer-i lendersoa Ilall. VA. Any
information classified or presumed to be classi?ed above the level will be stored in a
separate drawer or safe with its own unique combination at HQ. INSCOM, located on Fort Belvoir.
VA and storage will be coordinated through Mr. Hall. Defense Security Expert Consultant.



CARI. R. COFPMAN. JR.
COL. AV
Commanding



l-Trial Counsel

l-Civilian Defense Counsel

Z-Military Defense Counsel

2-Det?ense Securin Expert Consultamc
l?(?ontmandcr. FIU

I?Security Manager.
l-Security Manager. MDW

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE BAYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 2221 1.1199
REPLY To
arr ENTION or



2 OCT an



MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs. Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense Request to Amend the Protective Order - US. v. PFC Bradley
Manning

1. 1 reviewed your proposed changes to the Protective Order For Classi?ed Information issued
on 1? September 2010. Your request to amend the Protective Order is:

approved.

Wdenied.

2. After the preliminary classification review of the accused is complete. I will provide
instructions to the Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 706 board outlining the speci?c procedures to
protect the disclosure ot?classi?ed information during the inquiry. The instructions will be based
on the outcome of the preliminary classi?cation review of the accused?s mental impressions.

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL. AV
Commanding

28 October 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, US Army
Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington DC. 30219

FOR Commander, US Anny Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia
2221 1

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of an Expert with Expertise in Information Assurance to
Assist the Defense in the case of United States v. Manning

l. Purpose. Pursuant to R.C.M. 703(d). the accused, PFC Bradley Manning, requests an
Information Assurance expert be designated as a member of the defense team under Military
Rule of Evidence MILE. 502, and United States v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 (EMA 198?).

Law. A military accused has. as a matter of Equal Protection and Due Process. a right to
expert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. United States v. Gorrt'es, 22
MJ. 288 (CMA 1986); United States v. Robinson 39 MJ. 88 (CMA 1994), and Airs v.
Oklahoma. 470 US. 226 (1971). The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has embraced a
three-part test for determining whether government-funded expert assistance is necessary. The
defense must show: ?First, why the expert assistance is needed. Second, what would the expert
assistance accomplish for the accused. Third, why is the defense unable to gather the evidence
that the expert assistant would be able to develop." United States v. Gonzalez, 39 MJ. 459
(1994}

3. Basis. Mr. Charles Gantel and Mr. Cassius Hall, defense security experts, are in the process
of conducting their preliminary classi?cation review pursuant to your order dated 2" September
2010. On 27 October 2010. Mr. Genie] and Mr. Hall met with PFC Manning. During their
discussion they obtained in formation from PFC Manning that they believe necessitates the
assistance of an Information Assurance expert.

it. Why Is Expert Assistance Needed? Expert assistance is needed to assist the defense team in
completing the preliminary classi?cation review in a timer manner. Mr. Hall and Mr. Genie}
have informed the defense that they do not have the requisite expertise to deal with some of the
issues that they have identi?ed based upon the disclosures of PFC Manning. The knowledge
required to address the issues identi?ed by Mr. Hall and Mr. Genie! are specialized, and concerns
knowledge which is beyond the scope of their expertise.

b. What Would the Expert Assistance accomplish for the Accused? An information
assurance expert would assist the defense?s security experts in completing their preliminary
classi?cation review. Speci?cally, it would allow them to understand the policies and
procedures for protecting the systems that were in place at the time of the alleged disciosures and
thus the level of information PFC Manning could have dealt with at that time.

c. Why is the Defense Unable to Gather this Evidence on Their Own? The defense?s
security experts have indicated that they have neither the experience nor expertise to adequately

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of an Expert with Expertise in Information Assurance to
Assist the Defense in the ease of United States v. Manning

assess some of the information assurance issues that have been raised during the course of their
preliminary classi?cation review. The resolution to the issues identi?ed will assist the defeHSe
experts in determining the answers to the preliminary classification review order.

4. Conclusion. For the above reasons. the defense requests that you issue an order appointing
an information assurance expert to the defense team; that you instruct this individual that he?she
is a ?defense representative" and thus pan of the defense team. and that matters related to
hither during the course of hisiher employment as a member of the defense team will be
con?dential.

5. The FCC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e?mail at
bs@armyeourtmartialdefense. com.

11/
{ti
DAVID E. COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel



DEPARTMENTOFTHEARMY
Jomr BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
-.- FORT MYER, vlaemut 22211-1199

ATTENTION DF
IMND-MHH-ZA 5 November 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU Office ofthe Judge Advocate General David
Mayfield}, 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310

FOR Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DAMI-ZB), 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC
20310

SUBJECT: Defense Request for Access to Classi?ed U.S. Army Information Systems US v.
PFC Bradley Manning



I. REFERENCES.
a. Defense Request Email, dated 21 October 2010 (Enclosure 1).
b. Defense Request Email, dated 29 October 2010 {Enclosure 2).

2. BACKGROUND. On 17 September 2010 and 12 October 2010, respectively, I appointed
Mr. Charles Ganiel and Mr. Cassius Hall as defense security expert
consultants (hereinafter ?expert consultants"), in the above~named case (see Enclosure 3 and 4).
These individuals have a current personnel security investigation and are eligible for access at
the TOP SECRET (Sensitive ompartmentcd Information (SCH) level. Their immediate task is
to conduct a preliminary classi?cation review of the accused?s mental impressions (see
Enclosure 5 and 6). They will also be required to act as con?dential defense consultants on
security issues that arise throughout the case. According to the experts, they require access to the
Secret Internet Protocol Network and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence
Communication System in order to complete their preliminary classi?cation review.

3. ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED FORMATION SYSTEMS. I request
that you authorize the expert consultants access to classi?ed information up to and including
TOP SECRET (SCI) for the purposes of conducting the preliminary classi?cation review of the
accused?s mental impressions and to provide con?dential security expert assistance to the
attorneys representing the accused throughout the case. I further request that you grant the
expert consultants access to the SIPRNET and the JWIC for the SOLE purpose of conducting a
preliminary classi?cation review of the accused?s mental impressions.

4. COMPUTER HARDWARE. 1 request that each expert consultant be issued a dedicated
government laptop computer or workstation, as necessary, with access to the SIPRNET and the
JWICS, to conduct their preliminary classi?cation review. The expert consultants require
portable external hard drives, authorized for use on JWIC and SIPRNET respectively, to

IMND-MHH-ZA
SUBJECT: Defense Request for Access to U.S. Anny Information Systems US v. PFC

Bradley Manning

conduct their review and to segregate and securely store ?con?dential defense information?
derived from their review.

5. STORAGE. I request you provide appropriate classi?ed storage space for the expert
consultants to store information that may be classi?ed, up to the TOP SECRET (SCI) level, and
any issued laptop computers and external hard drives. This is in addition to my storage order,
dated l2 October 2010 (see Enclosure 7).

6. LIMITATIONS. Each member of the defense team signed a classi?ed information
protective order for this case. This request does authorize the expert consultants to
disclose any classi fied information to the remainder of the defense team without prior written
authorization from the undersigned: however, after the preliminary classi?cation review, the
undersigned will make an additional request for the remainder of the defense team to have
appropriate access to discuss and view this information. This request expressly does not seek
authority for the expert consultants to use JWICS, SIPRNET, or any other classi?ed
information system beyond that necessary to conduct the preliminary classi?cation review
of the accused?s mental impressions. Should the defense request further use of these or
other classi?ed information systems, they must submit a written request along with the
proper justi?cation.

7. The point of contact for this memorandum is CPT Ashden Fein, Trial Counsel, at - -

-

"i Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
1. Defense Request Email, 21 Oct to COL, AV

2. Defense Request Email, 29 Oct 10 Commanding

3. Expert Appointment, 1? Sep 10

4. Expert Appointment, [2 Oct 10

5. PCRO, 17 Sep [0

6. PCRO, 22 Sep 10

7. Facility and Storage Memo, IE Oct It]

Ix.)



From: WW

To:

Ct! Mommas; W51:
W:

Subject: RE: PCRO Update

Date: Thursday, October 2?1, 2010 3:50:02 AM

Joe,

I met with Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel yesterday. They would like to start their work by meeting with PFC
Manning at the FIU next Wednesday October) at 1000. They anticipate this ?rst meeting to last
approximately three hours. This is the only meeting that they want to schedule for the ?rst week.
Based upon this meeting, they will be in a better position to determine how many additional meetings
may be necessary and an estimated time-line for the veri?cation process.

Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel have requested the following additional informationwith a phone number to ensure the necessary arrangements have been made for
the PCR. 1 will let Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel know that the FIU needs their full names and social security
numbers. I believe they would like to give this information directly to the POC at the FIU instead of
going through multiple layers;

b) Do the guards from the con?nement facility understand that they cannot be inside the room with
PFC Manning during the meeting with Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel? What arrangements have been made to
ensure that this is not an issue;

c} PFC Manning's training records;

d) Any documentation PFC Manning has signed dealing with information security;

e) A list of all CI that PFC Manning has been read in on;

f) A list of any refresher training PFC Manning has received;

9] A list of any inocountry training PFC Manning has received;

h) Who was the security manager at the time for the TSCIF PFC Manning worked in and can you give
Mr. Ganiel and Mr. Hall contact information for this person;

i) What was the SOP for the TSCIF PFC Manning worked in;

j) What kind of entry/exit inspections were performed at the

k) A copy of the Security Classi?cation Guide for the

With regards to the ?ve discs that were previously given to the defense. These discs will likely assist in
the veri?cation process. Mr. Ganiel and Mr Hall would like to know if these discs are classi?ed or not?
If so, who classi?ed the discs? What is the highest level of classi?cation for the information on the
discs? If the classi?cation is unknown or uncertain, Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel would need to have a
stand-alone system provided to them classi?ed at (laptop with removable hard drive) for them
to review the information on the ?ve discs.

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Of?ce of David E. Coombs

45 North Main Street, 5th Floor

Fall River, MA 02720

Direct Dial: (401) ?44?300?

Of?ce: (508} 674-6006

Fax: (508) 324-9396




?*Con?dentiallty Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain con?dential attorney-



From:

To: W515

Cc: maximises; EauLEloLchacd;
Subject: RE: Information Assurance Expert

Date: Friday, October 29, 201i) 7:35:05 AM

Ashden,

Thank you. With regards to the ?ve discs in question, do you have a time line for when the defense
experts might be able to see the discs? Also, as mentioned last week, they will need a TS standalone
system with a removable hard drive and a place to store it so they can review the material. Mr. Ganiel
suggested that maybe the 6?2 at the Pentagon could provide him and Mr. Hall with the work
space/equipment needed. Let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs

45 North Maln Street, 5th Floor

Fall River, MA 02?le

Direct Dial: (401) 744800?

Of?ce: (508) 63?4-6006

Fax: (508) 324-9896




Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain con?dential attorney-
client information and is intended for the person(s) or company named. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this
information may be unlawful and is

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE RIVER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY To
or



10 NOV 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs. Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Supplemental Guidance for Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Aecused's
Mental Impressions - U.S v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. This purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide supplemental guidance on the
defense expert consultant?s access to classi?ed information and infermation systems while
assisting the defense team in this case.

2. ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATIONIINFORMATION SYSTEMS. In
accordance with the enclosed authorization provided by the Assistant Deputy Chief ofStaff for
Intelligence. US. Army. the defense security experts may have access to classi?ed information
up to and including TOP SECRET (SCI) for purposes ofeonducting the preliminary
classification review ofthe accused?s mental impressions and to provide con?dential security
expert assistance to you throughout the case. This authorization includes access to the Secret
Internet Protocol Router Network (SI PRN and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence
Communication System (IWICS) for the sole purpose ofconducting a preliminary classi?cation
review ofthe accused?s mental impressions.

3. COMPUTER HARDWARE. In accordance with the enclosed authorization, INSCOM will
issue a dedicated government lapIOp cemputer or workstation with access to the SIPRN ET and
the IWICS. as necessary. for your security expert consultants to conduct their preliminary
classi?cation review. The expert consultants will also be issued portable external hard drives.
authorized for use on .IWICS and SIPRNET. to conduct their review and to segregate and
securely store ?con?dential defense information" derived from their review.

4. STORAGE. In addition to my facility and storage order. dated l2 October 20H). INSCOM
will provide appropriate storage Space for the expert consultants to store information and
information systems that may be classi?ed up to the TOP SECRET (SCI) level.

5. LIMITATIONS. This memorandum does lg]: authorize the expert consultants to disclose
any classi?ed information to the remainder ofthe defense team without prior written
authorization from the undersigned; however. afterthe preliminary classi?cation review. I will
make an additional request for the remainder of the defense team to have appropriate access to
discuss and view this information. This memorandum does not authorize the expert
consultants to use JWICS, SIPRNET, or any other classi?ed information system beyond
that necessary to conduct the preliminary classi?cation review of the accused?s mental


SUBJECT: Supplemental Guidance for Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Accused?s
Mental impressions - US v. PFC Bradlev ManninE

impressions. Should the defense team request further use oflhese or other classi?ed
information systems, you must submit a written request along with the proper justi?cation.

6. The point of contact for this memorandum is CPT Ashden Fein at

Encl CARL R. COFFMANJR.

HQDA (32 Memo, l0 Nov 10 COL. AV
Commanding

29 November 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, US Army
Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C. 30219

OR Commander, US Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson l-Iall, Fort Myer, Virginia
2221]

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of an Investigator to Assist the Defense in the Case of
United States v. Manning -

1. Purpose. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
and R.C.M. T03(d), the defense requests either the appointment of an experienced national
security investigator from the government to assist the defense in the above-styled case or
approval for funding in order for the defense to obtain a civilian investigator with the requisite
quali?cations. The defense further requests that any investigator be designated as a member of
the defense team under Military Rule of Evidence NLRB. 502. and United States v. Toledo, 25
MJ. 270 (CMA 1987).

2. Law. A military accused has, as a matter of Equal Protection and Due Process, a right to
expert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. United States v. Garries, 22
NJ. 238 (CMA 1986); United States v. Robinson 39 MJ. 88 (Clle 1994), and Aka v.
Oklahoma, 470 US. 226 (1971). The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has embraced a
three-part test for determining whether government-funded expert assistance is necessary. The
defense must show: ?First, why the expert assistance is needed. Second, what would the expert
assistance accomplish for the accused. Third, why is the defense unable to gather the evidence
that the expert assistant would be able to develop." United States v. Gonzalez. 39 MI. 459
(1994).

a. Why [5 Expert Assistance Needed? The defense team requires the assistance of an national
security investigator to ?nd, interview, and evaluate witnesses and evidence located around the
world. An investigator will help insure that all potential government and defense witnesses are
interviewed prior to trial. Due to PFC Manning?s unit redeploying and the government
transferring the case to Fort Myer, most of the witnesses and evidence in this case are not located
in the local area. Instead, the witnesses and evidence are located throughout the United States
and Iraq. Tracking down potentially favorable defense witnesses and evaluating the national
security investigative aspects of this case is simply a task the defense cannot reasonably
accomplish. Hence, a trained national security investigator made part of the defense team is vital
to the de fense?s preparation for trial.

The government has over twelve investigators {Special Agents) working on this case. Numerous
CID and likely several FBI agents will testify at the Article 32 Investigation as to the sheer
breadth of the government's investigation against PFC Manning. The defense currently has no
investigative support. The defense attorneys in this case are not trained in police investigative
proceduresr'work. The defense attorneys do not have the experience level of the government
investigators, many of whom have worked as an investigator for years.

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of an Investigator to Assist the Defense in the Case of
United Stores v. Manning

b. What Would the Expert Assistance accomplish for the Accused? A trained professional
national security investigator will be able to quickly find potential witnesses, interview them, and
help determine if their information is relevant for PFC Manning?s defense. Based on these
interviews, the investigator will also be able to follow leads that will produce other witnesses
necessary to his defense. Additionally, a national security investigator would assist the defense
in evaluating the evidence obtained from the government and identifying areas that the
government either decided not to pursue or failed to identify.

c. Why is the Defense Unable to Gather this Evidence on Their Own? The defense
attorneys, Mr. Coombs, MAJ Kemkes, and PT Bouchard lack the training and experience to
investigate a National Security case. Lawyers are not private investigators; it is their function to
try the case. An investigator would ensure that any statement obtained from a witness or
potential witness pre-trial, would be effective impeachment in the situation where that witness
decides to testify contrarily at trial.

The government has had over six months to perfect their case against PFC Manning. The
government has used resources from the military and other investigative agencies of the United
States. The defense has yet to receive any real substantive discovery to start addressing the
allegations in this case. Finally, the defense is not in a position where it can independently
investigate the case without investigative assistance.

3. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the defense requests that you either appoint an
experienced national security investigator from the government who has not already been
involved in the case to assist the defense or grant approval for funding for the defense to obtain a
civilian investigator with the requisite quali?cations.

The defense has been in contact with one investigative firm in order to obtain an estimate cost
for investigative services. The firm has quoted a fee of $25,000.00 plus travel expenses in order
to begin work on the case. Once an investigator is identified, either government or civilian, the
defense requests that you issue an order appointing the investigator to the defense team under
Military Rule of Evidence M.R.E. 502, and United States v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 2170 (CMA 1987).

4. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at



I
I

DAVID E. COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSDN HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION 0F



7 DEC



MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David Coombsp Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Expert Consultant in Investigations - US. v. PFC Bradlev
Manning

1 reviewed your request for appointment of an expert consultant in investigations [or the defense
in the above-named case. After careful consideration, the defense request is:

approved. I appoint Special Agent Gary Griesmyer as an expert consultant in the
above-named case. I further direct that SA Griesmyer be designated a member of the defense
team under US v. Toledo, 25 270 1987] and Military Rule of Evidence 502. This
expert appointment is at no expense to the United States beyond mileage reimbursement, if
authorized.

disapproved.

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

00963

12 January 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, US Army
Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley McNair, Washington DC. 30219

FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia
2221]

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Capt. Kevin D. Moore to Assist the Defense in the Case
of United States v. Manning

1. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and RCM.
703(d), the defense requests the appointment of Capt. Kevin D. Moore, a forensic to
replace COL David Benedick and assist the defense in the above-styled ease. The defense
further requests that Capt. Moore be designated as a member of the defense team under Military
Rule of Evidence M.R.E. 502, and UnitedStare-s v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 193?).

2. Capt. Moore has a TS-SC I clearance.

3. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at




DAVID E. COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

13 January 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU StaiT Judge Advocate. Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, US Army
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair. Washington DC. 30219

FOR Commander, US Army Garrison. Joint Base MyerrI-lenderson Hall, Fort Myer. Virginia
2221]

SUBJECT: Request for Release from Con?nement Under R.C.M. 305(g)

1. Purpose. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 305tg]. the defense
requests that you direct the release of PFC Bradley Manning from pretrial con?nement. This
request is based upon the fact that the con?nement conditions currently being endured by PFC
Manning are more rigorous than necessary to guarantee his presence at trial.

2. Background Facts. PFC Manning arrived at the Quantico Brig on 29 July 2010. Upon his
arrival. he was placed in Maximum (MAX) custody and under suicide watch. On 6 August
2010. Capt. William Hooter, the forensic for the Brig. recommended that PFC
Manning be moved from suicide watch to Prevention of Injury watch. Over the course of
the following weeks, Capt. Hooter met with PFC Manning on a frequent basis. Due to PFC
Manning?s positive response to treatment. on 27 August 2010. Capt. l-locter recommended that
he be taken ofl'of POI watch and that his con?nement classi?cation be changed from MAX to
Medium Custody In (MDIJ.

3. Over the course of the following three months. Capt. Hooter consistently recommended PFC
Manning be taken off of watch. The only exception to this was on ID December 2010 when
he recommended that he remain under POI watch for one week. The following week. Capt.
Hooter once again recommended that PFC Manning be removed from P01 watch. Despite Capt.
Hocter's consistent recommendations. PF Manning has remained on [?01 watch and in MAX
custody.

4. Under PFC Manning?s custody classi?cation and the P01 watch. he is being held in solitary
con?nement. For 23 hours per day. PFC Manning sits in his cell. The guards check on him
every ?ve minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some
af?nnative manner. At night. if the guards cannot see PFC Manning clearly. because he ltas a
blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall. they will wake him in order to ensure he is
okay. He receives each of his meals in his cell. He is not allotved to have a pillow or sheets. He
is not allowed to have any personal items in his cell. He is only allowed to have one book or one
magazine at any given tirne to read in his cell. The book or magazine is taken away from him at
the end of the day before he goes to sleep. He is prevented from exercising in his cell. If he
attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups. or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop. 'He
receives one hour of exercise outside of his cell daily. The guards take him to an empty room
and only allow him to walk. PFC Manning normallyjust walks ?gure eights in the room for the
entire hour. If he indicates that he no long feels like wall-ting, he is immediately returned to his
cell. When PFC Manning goes to sleep. he is required to strip down to his boxer shorts and
surrender his clothing to the guards. His clothing is then rettuned to him the next morning.

?ii?r \n?J

SUBJECT: ReqUest for Release from Confinement Under R.C.M. 305(g)

5. The defense has raised its objection to these con?nement conditions on multiple occasions
with the Quantico con?nement facility and the Staff Judge Advocate?s (SJA) Of?ce. 0n 5
January 20] l. the defense ?led a formal complaint with the commander of the Quantico Brig.
See Enclosure 1. On the same day. PFC Manning also ?led a formal complaint through the
con?nement grievance process. Both complaints requested that the con?nement facility remove
PFC Manning ??om Prevention of Injury (POI) watch and that his classi?cation level he reduced
from MAX to MDI. The con?nement facility did not respond to either complaint.

6. Law. Article 13 safeguards against unlawful pretrial punishment and embodies the precept
that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Article 13 provides that:

No person. while being held for trial. may be subjected to punishment or penalty other
than arrest or con ?ncrnent upon the charges pending against him. nor shall the arrest or
confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to
insure his presence. but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for
infractions of discipline.

Military ecurts have consistently asserted Article 13 protection broadly to protect soldiers
awaiting trial. Illegal pretrial punishment can take many forms. The most common examples
are unreasonable or harassing restraint that creates an appearance that the soldier is guilty and
onerous pretrial con?nement conditions. Article 13 provides that pretrial confinement should
not be ?more rigorous than the circumstances require to insure" the soldier?s presence at court.
?Conditions that are suf?ciently egregious may give rise to a permissive inference that an
accused is being punished. . . United States v. King, 61 MJ. 225. 227-28 (C.A.A.F. 2005); see
also United States v. Crawford, 62 MJ. 41} (C.A.A.F. 2006). Arbitrary or purposeless
conditions also can be considered to raise an inference of punishment. King. 61 MJ. at 227-23
(citing United States v. James. 28 MJ. 214. 216 (EMA. IQSQD.

7. In order to address an issue of unlawful pretrial punishment due to the onerous nature of
pretrial con?nement. the commander is authorized to order the removal of the soldier from
pretrial con?nement. ROM. 305(g). United States v. Shelton. NH. 540 (A.C.M.R. 1983).

B. Argument. Once the Government had decided to detain a solider in pretrial con?nement
pending trial. it obviously is entitled to employ devices to effectuate this decision. However. the
Govemment may not place conditions on that con?nement that are so excessive or onerous as to
give rise to an inference that the soldier is being illegally punished prior to trial. in the instant
case. the mental health care official relied upon by the con?nement facility to make
determinations about an inmate?s con?nement assignment to special quarters. has consistently
recommended that PFC Manning be removed from POI watch. inexplicably. his
recommendations have been ignored.

9. The fact that Capt. Hooter has consistently recommended a downgrade in PFC Manning?s
con?nement classification and assignment comes as no surprise given the fact PFC Manning has
been a model inmate. At no time has he been disrespectful. violent or noncompliant. PFC


SUBJECT: Request for Release from Con?nement Under R.C.M. 305(g)

Manning does not exhibit any of the criteria established for MAX custody under Navy
Instruction 1640.90 Given the consistent recommendations of Capt. Hooter and PFC
Manning?s model behavior. it is unclear why, other than for the purpose of punishment, he is still
being held in MAX custody and under watch.

10. As the commander for PFC Manning, you have the authority to address this issue by
ordering PFC Manning to be removed from pretrial con?nement. At the time PFC Manning was
ordered into con?nement, the military magistrate determined that ?the conditions on liberty
which are necessary to safeguard Soldiers and national security are tantamount to con?nement.?
See Enclosure 2. He therefore determined that there was ?no way. short of confinement, to
ensure PFC Manning is denied access to a computer which he could use to release classi?ed
information or to ensure the safety of Soldiers around him.? See Enclosure 2. In this case. the
military magistrate did not seriously consider other Options under R.C.M. 304. One such Option
could be arrest. Arrest is the restraint of a soldier by ordering him to remain within speci?ed
limits. A soldier under arrest could be required to have escorts, required to sign in on a frequent
basis. and to wear an ankle bracelet.

ll. Seven months after the initial pretrial confinement determination, the Government now has
the benefit of additional information concerning the need for ongoing pretrial con?nement of
PFC Manning. First. the Government?s investigation undoubtedly can establish that there is no
longer a risk PFC Manning could use a computer to release classi?ed information. Next, the
mental evaluation by Capt. Hooter indicates that PFC Manning is no long a risk of selt'hann or
to harm to others. Lastly. PFC Manning has demonstrated by his model behavior while in
con?nement that he can follow orders concerning his behavior. Thus, it is clear that the concerns
raised at the time pretrial con?nement was authorized are no longer applicable.

12. Conclusion. Due to the nature of the onerous conditions of PFC Manning?s con?nement,
the indifference shown by the Quanico Brig to remedy this situation, and PFC Manning?s model
behavior, the defense requests that you order his removal from pretrial confinement. The
defense further requests that you consider lesser forms of restraint under R.C.M. 304.

13. The FCC is the undersigned at 744-3007 or by e-mail at


l/J qr"
.1 2

1? tee-ARM,
Encls ?Giles/to Li. morons
1. Quantico Brig MFR Civilian Defense Counsel
2. Magistrate?s Review

05 Jan 11
MEMORANDUM
From: David E. Coomos
To: CW04 James Averhart
Via: Staff Judge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, US

Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. MoNair
Subj: CONFINEMENT CONDITIONS OF PFC BRADLEY MANNING
Ref: SECNAVINST 1649.9C

1. This memorandum is written to request that you remove PFC Bradley
Manning from Prevention of Injury watch and reduce his
classification level from Maximum (MAX) to at least Medium Custody In


2. A servicemember is entitled, both by statute and the Eighth
Amendment, to protection against cruel and unusual punishment. See
United States v. Natthews, 16 M.J. 354, 368 (CMA 1983]; Article 55,
Uniform.Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. 855. As such,
Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1649.9C details the
proper procedures and safeguards for proper classification of inmates,
evaluation of inmates and the limited use of special quarters. In the
current case, PFC Manning does not fit in any of the criteria for
pretrial maximum?custody confinement as set forth in PP 4202, 4205,

of SECNAVINST 1649.9C (Jan. 3, 20061.

3. PFC Manning arrived at the Ouantico Brig on 29 July 2010. He was
placed in MAX and under suicide watch. On 6 August 2010, Capt. William
Hooter, the forensic for the Brig, recommended that PFC
Manning be moved from suicide watch to POI. Over the course of the
following weeks, Capt. Hooter met with PFC Manning on a frequent basis.
PFC Manning responded favorably to the treatment of Capt. Hooter. Due
to PFC Manning's improvement, on 2? August 2010, Capt. Hooter
recommended that PFC Manning be taken off of POI watch and that his
confinement classification be changed from MAX to MDI.

4. Over the course of the following three months, Capt. Hooter
consistently recommended PFC Manning be taken off of POI watch, and
that his confinement classification be reduced from MAX to MDI. The
only exception to this was on 10 December 2010 when he recommended that
PFC Manning remain under POI watch for one week. The following week,
Capt. Hooter once again recommended that PFC Manning be removed from
POI watch. Despite Capt- Hocter's consistent recommendations, PFC
Manning has remained on POI watch and in MAX custody.

5. Capt. Hooter?s recommendation comes as no surprise given the facr
PFC Manning has been a model inmate. At no time has he been
disrespectful, violent or noncompliant. PFC Manning does not exhibit
any of the criteria normally established for MAX custody under the Navy
Instruction. Given the consistent recommendation of Capt. Hooter and
PFC Manning?s model behavior, it is unclear why he is still held in MAX
custody and under POI watch.

Subj: CONFINEMENT CONDITIONS OF PFC BRADLEY MANNING

6. Under SECNAVINST 1649.9C, 1201 ?discipline is to be administered on
a corrective rather than a punitive basis." Additionally SECNAVINST
1649.9C, 7202.2.1 states ?no persons, while being held for trial may be
subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement,
nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon them be any more
rigorous than the circumstances require." PFC Manning?s confinement
classification and his POI watch are in contravention of this mandate.

7. In order to ensure a servicemember is not arbitrarily maintained in
solitary confinement for prolonged periods of time, SECNAVINST 1649.9C,
4204 requires a Classification and Assignment (05A) board to establish
an individual inmate's custody classification using ?objective
procedures." It is unclear what the
can Board recommended to yOu or the basis for its recommendation.
However, it is clear that you have thus far made the determination to
keep PFC Manning in MAX custody and under POI watch.

8. If you decide to deny this request and maintain PFC Manning under
his current classification and assignment, I request that you indicate
your basis for such a determination in writing and serve it upon the
defense in a timely manner. Additionally, in order to assess the
reasonableness of your determination, the defense requests that you
release to U.S. Army trial counsel, CPT Ashden Fein, the following
information:

a. DD 2710, Inmate Background Summary for PFC Manning

b. DD 2715*2, Inmate Summary Data for PFC Manning

c. DD 2?19, any Continuation Sheet for PFC Manning

d. Any other assessment of PFC Manning by a brig mental health
professional, guard, counselor or case manager

e. Any assessment or determination by you or a member of your
staff concerning PFC Manning

f. Any additional information you rely upon to make the
determination of PFC Manning?s classification and confinement status

9. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at
(401} ?44-300? or by e-mail at

D. E. Coombs
LTC, USAR
Civilian Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
umreo sures
CAMP LIBERTY. IRAQ
APO AE c9344



30 May 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade
Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division. COS Hammer, Iraq APO AE 09308

SUBJECT: Military Magistrate?s Conclusions re: Pre?trial Con?nement Review for PFC
Bradley E. Manning, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 101h
Mountain Division, COS Hammer, Iraq APO AE 09308

1. Scope: The scope of this legal review is limited to whether there is probable cause to believe
that an offense triable by courts?martial has been committed and that the con?nee committed it,
and to determine whether continued pretrial con?nement is warranted because it is foreseeable
that the confines will engage in serious criminal misconduct and whether less severe forms of
restraint are adequate. Foreseeability that the con?nes will not appear for trial was not in
question as both parties agreed he was not liker to absent himself.

2. Conclusion: I have reviewed the Command?s decision to confine PFC Manning, and have
determined that continued pretrial con?nement is warranted. in making this determination, I
arrived at the following conclusions:

a. There is suf?cient evidence to believe that offenses triable by courts-martial have been
committed.

b. There is su?icient evidence to suggest that PFC Manning committed the offenses.
c. I do believe that PFC Manning will engage in serious criminal misconduct if released.
d. Lastly, there is evidence that lesser forms of restraint are inadequate.

3. Factual Findings:

a. PFC Manning has a history of documented mental instability and increasineg violent
outbursts beginning 18 December 2009.

b. Around June 2009, PFC Manning was counseled for missing formation. In response, he
clenched his ?sts, his neck and eyes bulged, and his face contorted. He yelled numerous times
before collecting himself.

e. PFC Manning was counseled on three separate occasions between 13 December 2009 and
20 December 2009 for lateness. Durhtg the third counseling, he yelled and flipped a table

toward the two supervisors counseling him. The command took the bolt ?'otn his weapon,
placed him on twenty-four hour quarters watch, and directed a evaluation.

d. On 30 December 2009, PFC. Manning shoved a chair and yelled during a counseling
Session for losing the key to his room.

c. On 3 May 2010, PFC Manning struck a female Soldier in the face with a closed fist. SPC
ihrleah Shoman was at her desk conducting a search on a computer. PFC Manning became
agitated at SPC Shoman?s actions because he had already performed the search. After pacing
back and forth behind SPC Shoman, swinging his arms, PFC Manning struck her in the jaw with
a closed ?st. PFC Manning was again referred to Behavioral Health.

f. (in 22 May 2010, CPT Eden Critchfield, a performed a Behavioral Health
Evaluation on PFC Manning ?nding he had an occupational problem and adjustment
disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. CPT Critch?eld reported PFC
Manning had a ?moderate? risk of self harm, AWOL, and harm to others and recommended that
the command remove the bolt from his weapon.

g. On 27 May 2010, CID was noti?ed that PFC Manning is suspected of unlawfully
obtaining and releasing sensitive data, including TS-SCI and CABLE clearance documents. This
was reported by a reliable non-govemment intelligence agency.

h. On 24 May 2010, a reliable con?dential provided the agency with credible
information that PFC Manning illegally disseminated classi?ed information to several
individuals over the internet.

i. On 27 May 2010, CD executed avalid search warrant, seizing several items, including one
personal computer, one hard drive from the SLPR computer of SPC Sheri Walsh, on digital
camera, two SIPR computers known to be used by PFC Manning, and a compact disc with
?Secret? markings and labeled ?12 Jul 07 Chopper Reuters." The disc was discovered in a
United States Postal Service mailing box, prepared to be shipped.

j. After assaulting his co-worker, PFC Manning was assigned to a position without SIPR
access. PFC Manning approached another Soldier about using her SIPR computer to scan and
print documents labeled ?Secret?. PFC Manning told the Soldier he was acting at the direction
of his NCOIC. He requested that the Soldier delete the emails and empty the ?Deleted Items"
box from her computer. PFC Manning?s NCDIC had no knowledge of the PFC Manning?s
request to scan and print Secret documents.

k. During the investigation, PFC Manning was placed under supervision and required an
escort; his access to computers and other electronic devices was revoked. With his escorts
present, PFC Manning managed to hand a piece of paper with his email address and password to
another Soldier and asked her to check his email for him.

4. Analysis:

a. Probable cause. I have accepted the Government?s position that there is probable cause to
believe that a crime has been committed and that PFC Manning committed the crime. It is my
belief that the Government takes these charges seriously and intends to refer this matter to a
General Court Martial (GCM), based on the evidence that is currently available. Furthermore. at
least one of the charges carries a maximum punishment that can only be rendered at a GCM.

b. Propensity to commit a serious offense. I believe PFC Manning will engage in
additional serious misconduct if released. PFC Manning poses a physical threat to those around
him and a threat to national interests. He has an increasing propensity for violence and recently
struck a female co-worker with a closed ?st. On 22 May 2010 he was characterized by a
as a ?moderate? risk to others. After a subsequent BHE, dated 28 May 2010, PFC
Manning was evaluated to be a "high" risk to himself and others. Additionally, PFC Manning
remains a threat to national interests if released. PFC Manning indicated he collected
declassi?ed materials for over a year. It is unknown how much information he collected or how
the information is stored. It is highly likely that if PFC Marming is released he will continue to
commit physical acts of violence or leak additional classified information to the detriment of
national interests.

c. Lesser forms of restraint. The conditions on liberty which are necessary to safeguard
Soldiers and national security are tantamount to con?nement. PFC Manning must be con?ned
under law. His history of violent behavior and the BHE resolts indicate PFC Manning presents a
?high? risk of harming others. There is no way, short of con?nement, to ensure PFC Manning is
denied access to a computer which he could use to release classi?ed information or to ensure the
safety of Soldiers around him.

5. A copy of all documents that I considered is attached to the original of this memorandum, and
may be inspected in the of?ce of the undersigned.

6. The Government counsel has advised that the anticipated level of disposition is a General
Court?Martial.

7. The con?nes and the government were noti?ed by me of my decision and its basis on 30 May

2010.
KEVIN

CPT, JA
Military Magistrate



Exhibits

A 72 Hour Commander's Review (CPT Freeburg)
- Con?nement Order (29 May 10)

- Con?nement Checklist (29 May 10)

SA Graham?s Supporting Af?davit

Article 15: PFC Manning (24 May 10)
DA Form 4356?? May 10)

Statement: SPC Shaman (8 May 10)
Statement: SPC Shimm (8 May 10)

I Statement: PFC Bales (8 May 10)

- Statement: SSG Tana (3 May 10)

K. - MFR: SPC Sehwab (29 May 10)

MFR: MSG Adkins(2l Dec 09)

- MFR: MSG Adkins (26 Apr 10)

- MFR: MSG Adkins (8 May 10)

DA Form 5248-12 (9 May 10)

ERB: PFC Manning

BHE (?Rights Advisement (29 May 10)

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MARINE cones BASE
ouawnco. VIRGINIA 22134-5001

IN REPLY REFER TO:

5800
8052

glg?mu



From: Commander, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia
To: Commanding Officer, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall

Subj: PFC BRADLEY CONFINEMENT STATUS AND CONDITIONS

Ref: DC of 5 Jan 2011
PFC Manning's Art 138 complaint of 19 Jan 11

(C) JAGINST

l. I am in receipt of your letter dated 21 January 2011 and I
have also reviewed reference submitted to the Marine Corps
Base Quantico Brig Commander via your Staff Judge Advocate. I
have directed the Brig Commander not to respond directly to the
defense counsel. As the Base Commander responsible for the
Brig, I am providing you a response. I have carefully reviewed
the matters in both references and have personally spoken with
Chief Warrant Officer?4 Averhart, the Brig Commander, and
Colonel Oltman, the Security Battalion Commanding Officer. Both
officers have kept me informed of PFC Manning?s classification
and assignment within the Brig and have provided continuous
updates regarding his well being.

2. I continue to review all Brig reports concerning PFC
Manning. As previously stated, I have been personally briefed
on PFC Manning's welfare and status by both the Brig Commander
and the Security Battalion Commander. I share your concern for
PFC Manning's short-term and long-term health and safety. Our
command structure provides significant safeguards to ensure
compliance with our regulations. As the organization directly
responsible for his day to day health and safety, I continue to
support the decisions of the Brig Commander regarding PFC
Manning's classification and status assignments.

3. PFC Manning?s classification and assignment status are
reviewed weekly by a board of experienced corrections personnel.
They recommend a classification and status assignment to the
Brig Commander based on their experience, observations and input
from Brig counselors and medical and mental health providers.

Subj: PFC BRADLEY MANNING CONFINEMENT STATUS AND CONDITIONS

4. Many of the restrictions placed upon PFC Manning derive from
his MAX custody classification. This classification is based
upon many factors, including the charges, potential for flight
risk, potential for committing other serious misconduct,
national security concerns, conduct within the Brig, etc. PFC
Manning?s assignment to POI status is separate from his
classification as a MAX custody detainee and is derived from
inputs from the mental health provider and the Brig staff based
on their daily interactions and observations. This status
places some additional safeguards on PFC Manning's confinement.
However, it is important to note that a change in status from
POI is separate from a change in classification as a MAX custody

detainee.

5. Within the limitations of Brig staffing and fluctuations in
the detainee population and the plan of the day, the Brig staff
has been flexible in allowing PFC Manning additional exercise
time, correspondence time and television time. All detainees
are housed in individual cells so there is limited interaction
.between detainees. However, the interaction is not controlled
provided it does not become disruptive.

6. I am in receipt of an Article 138 complaint from PFC Manning
(reference Chapter 3 of reference to) provides procedural
guidance for answering Article 138 complaints. As part of this
process, I will conduct an inquiry into PFC Manning's complaint.
I will provide a copy of reference and my response to you
for your information.

7. The Brig staff recognizes the stress caused by long?term
pretrial confinement. However, the Brig staff must balance this
concern against the safety and security of the detainee. I will
continue to remain engaged and informed on the classification

and status of PFC Manning.



D. J. CHOIKE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Base MYER-HENDEHSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT raven, 222114199



14 JAN 2011





MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Expert Consultant in Forensic US. v. PFC
Bradley Manning

1. 1 reviewed your request for appointment of an expert consultant in forensic for the
defense to replace COL David Benedek in the above-named case. After careful consideration.
the defense request is:

y) approved. appoint CAPT Kevin D. Moore as an expert consultant in the above-
named case to replace COL Benedek. I further direct that CAPT Moore be designated a member
of the defense team under U.S. v. Toledo. 25 MJ. 270 1987) and Military Rule of
Evidence 502. This expert appointment is at no expense to the United States beyond mileage
reimbursement. if authorized.

disapproved. COL Benedek will remain the defense expert consultant.

2. The senior member of the RCM 706 board, in consultation with the accused's primary care
behavioral health provider, will determine the extent to which CAPT Moore may participate in
the RCM 706 inquiry. including whether the defense expert consultant may be permitted to
monitor the examinations conducted by members of the RCM 706 hoard.

R. COFFMAN, JR.

AV
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDEHSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYEFI. VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLYTO
ATTENTION 0F



14 JAN 20H





MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coomhs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Expert Consultant in Information Assurance - US. v. PFC
Bradlev Manning

I reviewed your request for appointment of an expert consultant in information assurance for the
defense in the above?named case. After careful consideration, the defense request is:

approved. I appoint Ms. Lillian Smith, U.S. Army Information Technology Agency,

as an expert consultant in the above-named case. I further direct that Ms. Smith be designated a

member of the defense team under U.S. v. Toledo,25 MJ. (CMA. 1987) and Military Rule
of Evidence 502. This espert appointment is at no expense to the United States beyond mileage

reimbursement. if authorized.

disapproved.

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
.ioiNT BASE HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. 22211-1139



REPLY TO


20 January 20} 0

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia

SUBJECT: Request for Release ofDo-cuments Related to Confinement Status PFC Bradley
Manning

l. I request the following documents in support my review Manning?s confinement
classification:

a. DD Form 2710, Inmate Background Summary for PFC Manning.

b. DD Form 2715-2, Inmate Summary Data for PFC Manning.

c. DD Form 2719, any Continuation sheet for PFC Manning.

d. Documents and notes created by the classification review board process for PFC Manning.-

e. All assessments of PFC Manning by a brig mental health professional, guard, counselor, or
case manager. .

f. Any additional information relied on to determine PFC Manning?s classi?cation or
con?nement status.

g. Any disciplinary records related to PFC Manning?s confinement.

2. These documents are necessary for me to conduct a review of PFC Manning?s pro-trial
confinement status under R.C.M. 305(g). This is a continuing request; please provide any
documents that meet the above criteria to the below point of contact.

3. The oint ofcontact for this memorandum is CPT John Haberland, Trial Counsel, by email at

CARL R. COFFMAN
COL, AV
Commanding





DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VA 22211-1199

TO
HTTENTION DF

IMN 21 January 201 0

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Quantico, VA 22134

SUBJECT: PFC Bradley Manning?s Con?nement Status and Conditions

1. This memorandum concerns PFC Bradley Manning's present con?nement status and general
confinement conditions. I continue to receive and review both PFC Manning?s chain of
command?s reports from their personal weekly visits, and CWO4 James Averhart?s weekly
progress reports. I am also in receipt of a memorandum from Mr. David E. Coombs, lead
Defense Counsel for PFC Bradley Manning, dated 5 January 201 1.

2. While I understand that PFC Manning?s con?nement status is in accordance with Marine
Corps regulations and policies, I request that you carefully review maintaining PFC Manning on
Prevention of Injury (POI) status and review his overall general con?nement conditions. I base
this request on my review of all weekly reports, my discussions with PFC Manning?s chain of
command, my Command Sergeant Major?s advice after his visit to the Brig today, and the Brig
documentation I received pursuant to my request dated 20 January 201 I.

3. The chain of command and I share the Brig?sconcerns and'are committed to ensuring we
safeguard PFC Manning?s short- and long-term health and safety. Therefore, beyond reviewing
PFC Manning?s POI status, I request that you also review PFC Manning?s general con?nement
conditions to include liberally granting him privileges that will not adversely affect the good
order and discipline of your facility or the health and welfare of PFC Manning. I continue my
request that you maintain the required monitoring Manning?s conununications with third
parties, including other confinees, except for those protected communications with his defense
team, clergy, or his medical care providers. I continue to believe it is necessary to monitor his
communications to prevent the possibility of future disclosures of classified information.

4. As you are aware, SECNAVINST 16409:: provides that prisoners who threaten suicide or
make a suicidal gesture ?shall be placed in special quarters under continuous observation.? The
instruction continues by stating, hen prisoners are no longer considered to be suicide risks by
a medical of?cer, they shall be returned to appropriate quarters.? Captain William Hooter, the
Brig?s and PFC Marming's past Mental Ilealthcare Provider, along with COL Rickey Malone,
PFC Manning?s current Mental Healthcare Provider, recommend that no present medical need
exists for PFC Manning to be on POI status. According to the Brig?s weekly progress reports,
PFC Manning has not been involved in any disruptive behavior that would require additional
protective measures, and since his arrival to the Brig, he has only twice displayed behavior that
may have warranted short-term POI status. I understand that PFC Manning?s future behavior
may warrant or another increase in his confinement status; however, I request you carefully
evaluate the present necessity to maintain PFC Manning on POI status.


SUBJECT: PFC Bradley Manning?s Con?nement Status and Conditions

5. I am sensitive to the additional requirements a high pro?le con?nee like PFC. Manning has
placed on your facility. I anticipate that PFC Marming?s pretrial con?nement will continue until
the date oftrial, which may be many months in the future. Lessening PFC Manning?s
continement status and improving his general conditions will limit the requirements on your staff
while still providing for the health and safety Manning.

6. The iioint of contact for this memorandum is CPT .lohn l-laberland, Trial Counsel, by email at



CARL R. COFFMAN
co L, AV
Commanding

12.}



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER - HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1159

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

2 January EDI

MEMORANDUM OR David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Request for Release from Con?nement under R.C.M. 305(g)

1. General. I reviewed your enclosed request under R.C.M. 303(g) that 1 direct the release of
PFC Bradley Manning from pretrial con?nement. Your request is denied. I believe that
confinement is necessary because of the nature and circumstances ofthe offenses charged, the
likelihood that PFC Manning can and will commit further serious criminal misconduct. and the
inadequacy of less severe fortns of restraint.

2. Probable Cause as to Offenses Committed. have probable cause to believe that PFC
Maming committed the following charged offenses: four speci?cations of Article 92, UCMJ.
and eight specifications of Article 134, UCMJ. Clause 3.

3. Necessity for Con?nement.

a. Nature and Circumstances of the Offenses Charged. PFC Manning faces multiple
charges related to his alleged disclosure ot?classitied information to persons not entitled to
receive that information. Under R.C.M. serious criminal misconduct includes
offenses which pose a serious threat to the national security of the United States. I believe the
disclosure ofclassi?ed information poses a serious threat to the national security of the United
States. As such, PFC Manning?s charged offenses amount to serious misconduct and he warrants
pretrial confinement.

b. Further Serious Criminal Misconduct. Shortly after CID opened an investigation. PFC
Maiming was placed under supervision by his unit and required an escort. He was denied access
to computers and other electronic devices. Despite the presence of his escorts, PFC Mamiing
managed to hand a piece of paper with his email address and password to another Soldier in his
unit and asked her to check his email for him. I believe it is likely that PFC Manning will
commit further serious misconduct if he is released from pretrial con?nement.

e. Less Severe Forms of Restraint are Inadequate. I reviewed the other options available
to me under R.C.M. 304 and 1 find them inadequate. Although it is unlikely that PFC Manning
would have personal access to classi?ed information systems if released from con?nement, that
does not obviate the risk that he could further release previously acquired classified information.

4. Prevention of Iniurv Status. You additionally requested me to reconsider PFC
Manning?s P01 status and I will address those concerns in a separate memorandum or action.










SUBJECT: Response to Request for Release I?rom Con?nement under R.C.M. 305(g)

5. Conclusion. There is probable cause to believe that PFC Manning committed serious
criminal misconduct, which poses a threat to the national security of the United States. I believe
he will liker commit further serious criminal misconduct if released from con?nement. Because
of the national security concerns in this case, less severe forms of restraint are inadequate. PFC
Manning will remain in pretrial con?nement until completion of the pending courbmartial
action.

[inc] CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
as COL, AV
Commanding

IQ

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211FEB an;

MEMORANDUM FOR Chief. Forensic Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
Washington, DC 2030? 5001

SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC. Bradley Manning

1. Background. On 3 August 2010, I ordered a medical examination into the mental capacity
and mental responsibility Bradley Manning, Headquarters and
Headquarters Company, US. Army Garrison, Fort Myer, Virginia, 22211. Prior to the board
beginning their assessment, I received a request from defense counsel on 25 August 2010 to
delay the board until an expert consultant in forensic could be appointed to the
defense team. 1 approved that defense delay request on the same day. On 26 August 2010, I
received an additional defense request to delay the board until procedures could be adopted to
have the board comply with disclosure prohibitions on classi?ed information. I approved that
delay and subsequently addressed defense concerns involving the disclosure of classi?ed
information during the board process.

2. Order. I order your team to resume the medical examination into the mental capacity and
mental responsibility of PFC Bradley Manning.

3. Reasons. The reasons for my previous order were based on the information contained in the
Defense Request for Sanin Board, dated 1 1 July 2010 and the Defense Renewed Request for
Sanity Board, dated 13 July 2010. According to the defense request, PFC Manning had been
diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions and conduct. The
defense alleged that PFC Manning?s leadership repeatedly expressed concerns about his mental
health, and PFC Manning was placed on suicide watch while in pretrial confinement in Kuwait.

4. Composition of the Board. In accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 706(c),
the board shall consist of one or more persons who are physicians or clinical
Defense requested that the board consist of three members, including at least one forensic
one forensic and one You may, but are not required
to comply with the defense request. At least one member of the board, however, shall-be either a
or a clinical You will conduct the board and designate the appropriate
personnel from within your staff to comprise all or part of the board.

5. Defense Request for Appointment of an Expert Consultant. 1 appointed CA PT Kevin D.
Moore as a defense expert consultant in forensic and a member ofthe defense team
under US. v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 (CMA. 198 7) and Military Rule ovaidence 502. The
defense requested this expert be permitted to evaluate and work with PFC Manning prior to the
ROM. 706 board and that the expert be permitted to monitor the examinations conducted by


SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

members of the board. As such. I authorize the senior member of the board, in consultation with
PFC Manning?s primary behavioral health care provider, to address the defense requests and
determine the extent to which the defense expert consultant may participate in the board?s
inquiry.

6. Special Security Instructions. The defense proffered that PFC Manning would lilter need
to divulge information potentially rising to the TSISCI level in order to aid the members in their
determination of his mental state at the time of the alleged incidents. The following special
instructions apply to the portion of the board requiring discussion of classi?ed information with
PFC Manning:

a. Each member of the board will be cleared up to the TSISCI level and be read on to the
following compartments: SIITKIGIHCS. Until each member of the board is read?on, the board
will not conduct the portion of the examination requiring discussions with PFC Manning.

b. Each member of the board has a ?need-to-know? for the purposes of discussing
classi?ed information with PFC Manning during their inquiry. The only classified information
available to the board is the mental impressions of PFC Manning.

c. Each member of the board will read and acknowledge the enclosed Protective Order no
later than three duty days following the date of this memorandum.

d. The board will conduct all their examinations and testing in an unclassified
environment, except the portion of the examination and testing requiring discussions with PFC
Manning will occur in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). The board will
organize their inquiry and examinations in a manner that minimizes the impact of delay due to
issues arising from the disclosure of classified information by PFC Manning.

e. The board will notify the trial counsel no less than four duty days beforeconducting the
portion of the board requiring interviews with PFC Manning. The trial counsel is responsible for
identifying an appropriate SCIF for the discussion of classified information and providing
adequate privacy for the board.

f. To the extent possible, the board will take and maintain only unclassi?ed notes and
transcriptions; however, any notes or transcriptions that must contain classi?ed information or
potentially classi?ed information will be handled in accordance with applicable law, regulations,
the Protective Order. and any specific security procedures your security of?cer delineates. A
security of?cer will review all notes and transcripts to determine the proper classi?cation.

g. appointed Mr. Charles Ganiel and Mr. Cassius Hall as defense security expert
consultants. Mr. Ganicl or Mr. Hall will also act as the security officer for the board and should
be consulted when classified information issues arise. The security expert is directly responsible
for storage and handling of all classi?ed information, to include the board tnembers? notes and
any transcriptions. The security expert is not required to participate in the board proceedings,

xv

SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

but will be physically present at the location for on-site consultation, security inspections, and to
assist with handling and storage of classi?ed information.

h. All reports drafted and submitted by the board to the parties in this case will be
unclassi?ed. If a report must contain classi?ed information, submit a written request to me,
through the trial counsel.

7. Required Findings. The board is obligated in its evaluation to make separate and distinct
?ndings as to "fa-7c (below), using diagnostic tools that the board, in its professional discretion,
believes to be necessary and appropriate. In their request, defense counsel posed a number of
speci?c requests for matters to be evaluated and speci?c tests to be conducted. You may,
therefore, conduct the tests and answer the questions requested by the defense counsel in "If 7k
and 9 (below), but are not required to do so.

a. Does PFC Manning currently have a severe mental disease or defect? If the answer to
is yes, answer the lbllowing questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the American
Association?s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM

(2) Is this severe mental disease or defect service disqualifying?
What is PFC Manning's prognosis for recovery?

(4) Can this severe mental disease or defect be successfully controlled by treatment
with drugs?

Does the long-term commitment of PFC Manning appear to be a necessary
alternative?

b. Does PFC Manning have the mental capacity to understand the nature of the
proceedings and the seriousness of the charges against him? If the answer to is no, answer
the following questions:

What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

(2) Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treatedfcontrolled by treatment
with drugs?

(3) What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?

c. Does PFC Manning have the mental capacity to cooperate intelligently in his own
defense? If the answer to is no, answer the following questions:

What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

Lu

M?r
IMND-MHH ZA
SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

Can this mental disease or defect be successfully treatedz'controlled by treatment
with drugs?

(3) What is the prognosis and expected time for recovery?

d. At the time of the alleged criminal conduct, did PFC Manning have a severe mental
disease or defect? If the answer to is yes, answer the following four questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as a result of such severe
mental disease or defect, was PFC Manning able to appreciate the nature and quality or
wrongfulness of his conduct?

(3) Is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personality
caused by inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint, or a personal, social, or
cultural standard of conduct which differs from that of society as a whole?

(4) Was this impairment complete?

e. At the time of the alleged criminal misconduct, and as a result of such severe mental
disease or defect, was PFC Manning able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of
his conduct? If the answer to is yes, answer the following three questions.

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

(2) Is this severe mental disease or defect merely a defect of character or personality
caused by inadequate training and development, lack of moral restraint, or a personal, social, or
cultural standard of conduct, which differs from that of society as a whole?

(3) Was this impairment complete?

f. Was PFC Manning, at the time of the offense, able to formulate a speci?c intent to
commit the alleged acts, to know the probable consequences of his actions, or to premeditate a
design to commit the acts? [f the answer to is no, answer the following questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

What is the prognosis?

What personality type does PFC Manning possess?

as

h. What is the PFC Manning?s intelligence level?

\u?r
IMND-MHH-ZA
SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning

i. Does PFC Manning suffer from any mental condition that seriously interferes with his
ability to think, respond emotionally, remember, communicate, interpret reality, and behave
appropriately? If the answer to is yes, answer the following questions:

(I) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the
(2) What is the prognosis?

j. Does PFC Manning have an organic braintnervous system disorder or impairment that
would impact his ability to think reason, perceive, recall, or in any way control his behavior or
his thoughts? if the answer to is yes, answer the following questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the

(2) What is the prognosis?

k. Does PFC Manning suffer from any level ot'Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? It?the
answer to is yes, answer the following questions:

(1) What is the clinical diagnosis, using the
(2) What is the prognosis?
8. Consideration.

a. The sanity board should, at a minimum, consider all of the following materials in
reaching their ?ndings:

(1) The results of and neurological tests, including raw
test data.

(2) PFC Manning?s mental health records.
(3) PFC Manning?s medical records.

(4) Interviews with PFC Manning.

(5) The charge sheet.

b. You may consider, at your professional discretion, any additional questions or matters
posed by the defense if such matters are received no later than two weeks of the date of this
memorandum.

9. In conjunction with the sanity board, you shall also complete a comprehensive neurological
examination to include a CAT scan.



SUBJECT: Order to Resume Conducting Sanity Board PFC Bradley Manning

10. Movement for Appointments. The board will notify the trial counsel no less than four
duty days before any scheduled appointment for medical evaluation or testing, in order for the
trial counsel to arrange adequate transportation and security.

1 1. Release of Report. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the sanity board must comply with the
disclosure prohibitions of Military Rule ovaidence 302, and R.C.M. 706(c)(3) and the special
security instructions in paragraph 6, above. Only a statement consisting of the sanity board?s
ultimate conclusions as to the questions in paragraph 721 through 7'k will be provided to the trial
counsel. A full report, which may include statements made by PFC Manning or any evidence
derived from such statements, should be provided to PF Manning?s civilian and military
defense counsel, Mr. David E. Coombs and Matthew Kemkes.

12. Telephone Numbers. CPT Ashden Fein is the govemment counsel. CPT Fein maybe
reached pertaining to PFC Manning can be obtained from his
defense counsel, Mr. David E. Coombs, at 1-800-588-4156 or his military defense counsel, MAJ

Kemkesv at i-I

13. Suspense. This medical examination and your findings shall be completed no later than
four weeks from the date of this memorandum. Any extension of time must be submitted
through the trial counsel to me for approval.

5 Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
1. RequestsCOL, AV

2. Protective Order, 1? Sep 10 Commanding

3. Protective Order Acknowledgment

4. Charge Sheet

5. Allied Documents

MEMORANDUM FOR Converting Authority

SUBJECT: Acknowledgment of Protective Order for Classified Information United States v. PFC
Bradlev Manning

. I. . understand that I may be the recipient of information and
intelligence that concerns the present and future security of the United States and that belongs to the
United States. This information and intelligence, together with the methods of collecting and handling it,
are classi?ed according to security standards set by the US. Government 1 have read and understand the
provisions ofthe espionage laws I U.S.C. 793, 794, and 798} concerning the disclosure of
information relating to the national defense and the provisions ofthe Intelligence Identities Protection Act
(50 US. C. ti 42l) and I am familiar with the penalties for the violation thereof. I have also read and
understand the provisions ofArmy Regulation 380-5, concerning safeguarding, disseminating,
transmitting and transporting, storage and destruction, and loss or compromise of classi?ed information.

I understand these provisions ofthe law and Army Regulation are available at the Military Justice
Section. Of?ce ofthe StaffJudge Advocate, U.S. Army Military District of Washington- Fort Lesley J.
McNair. DC. 20319.



2. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure. unauthorized retention, and negligent handling of
classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be
used to advantage by a foreign nation or enemy of the United States, I hereby agree that I will never
divulge classi?ed information to anyone unless: I have officially verified that the recipient has been
properly authorized by the United States Government to receive classified information; I have been
given prior written notice of the authorization of the United States Government Department or Agency
responsible for the classification of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such
disclosure is permitted; or as ordered by the Converting Authority. I understand that if] not uncertain
about the classification status of information. I am required to confirm from an authorized of?cial that the
information is unclassified before I may disclose the information. except as provided in or
above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of classi?ed information. I understand that any breach of this agreement may
result in the termination ofany access to classi?ed iniorlnation. I recognize that this agreement including
its provision for the termination ofaccess to classified information does not constitute a waiver of the
United States? right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

3. i understand that I will remain bound to this agreement after the conclusion of proceedings in United
States v. PFC BradleLManning.

4. I read and understand the Protective Order by the Convening Authority, dated 17 September solo? in
the case of United States v. PFC Bradlev Manning. relating to classi?ed information. and I agree to
comply with the provisions thereof.

5. I understand that if 1 am a lawyer, noncompliance with this Protective Order will be reported to any
State Bar where I not admitted to practice law.





DATE SIC-NATURE

Witnessed. sworn and subscribed to before me this day of .





DATE SIGNATURE

00989

18 February 201 1

MEMORANDUM THRU StaffJudge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, US Army
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington DC. 30219

FOR Commander, US Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer~Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia
2221

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Expert Assistance With Expertise in
to Assist the Defense in United States v. Manning

Purpose. Pursuant to R.C.M. 703(d), the accused, PFC Bradley Manning, requests a
Department of Defense (DOD) employee and a be designated as a member of
the defense team under Military Rule of Evidence NLRB. 502. and United States v. Toledo. 25
MJ. 270 (CMA 1937). PFC Manning also requests that arrangements, in coordination with
Defense Counsel, be made to have the appointed expert visit the Quantico Brig to conduct
independent testing of PFC Manning.

2. Law. A military accused has. as a matter of Equal Protection and Due Process, a right to
expert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. United States v. 22
MJ. 283 (CMA 1986); United States v. Robinson 39 MJ. 33 (CMA 1994), and Ake v.
Oklahoma, 470 US. 226 (1971). The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has embraced a
three?part test for determining whether govemment-funded expert assistance is necessary. The
defense must show:

?First, why the expert assistance is needed. Second, what would the expert assistance
accomplish for the accused. Third. why is the defense unable to gather the evidence that the
expert assistant would be able to develop.? United States v. Gonzates, 39 459 (1994).

3. Basis. All of the above requirements for employment of an expert are present and the defense
is entitled to have an expert appointed to the defense as a matter of law. The government has
begun the process of conducting a sanity board on PFC Manning. The defense is requesting a
single Department of Defense to assist in understanding the work of the sanity
board. to possibly suggest additional testing to the sanity board, to interpret the re5ults of
testing conducted by the sanity board. to critically evaluate the work of the
sanity board, and to potentially conduct additional testing in order to prepare a rebuttal to the
conclusions of the sanity board.

a. Why Is Expert Assistance Needed? Expert assistance is needed to aid the defense in
understanding medical information and testing concerning the mental status
ofPF Manning on the date of the alleged crimes, to determine whether he is able to understand
the nature and quality of the tyrongfulness of his conduct, to evaluate whether PFC Manning is
able to intelligently assist in his defense. and to prepare a possible sentencing case in extenuation
and mitigation for PFC Manning. In short, the defense needs this assistance to better understand
how PFC Manning?s brain was working at the time of the charged offenses and how it is

00990

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of an Expert with Expertise in Information Assurance to
Assist the Defense in the case of United States v. Manning

working now. The knowledge required to do this is specialized, and concerns medical and
data that is beyond the scope of defense counsel?s understanding.

b. What Would the Expert Assistance accomplish for the Accused? A
assigned to the defense would assist the defense in understanding the wide range of
tests that are available to evaluate PFC Manning. This expert would also
help the defense understand what tests are best suited to evaluate PFC Manning. A
would also assist the defense in interpreting and critically evaluating any
testing conducted by the sanity board. A would also be
able to explain medical research in the ?eld of and its relevance to the present
case. This expertise is beyond that ofthe current defense eXpert Capt. Kevin Moore, a forensic


c. Why is the Defense Unable to Gather this Evidence on Their Own? The defense has
neither the experience nor expertise to adequately prepare this case. The defense counsel needs a
basic understanding in order to present the defense case, including the need to prepare defense
experts to testify. It will be dif?cult for the defense to properly prepare without having an
individual who has the con?dentiality guaranteed to protect the accused. A more relevant
question is why the defense needs a separate if one is appointed to the sanity
board. The defense needs this separate for a number of reasons. First, any
who is a member of a sanity board is not a member of the defense team and
the defense does not have the ability to discuss possible case theories with that sanity board
member. A appointed to assist the defense is able to engage in full and frank
discussions with the defense on all a5pects of the case and any issues relating to metal
competency. Second, a working for the sanity board would be under no
obligation to conduct additional evaluations and testing requested by the defense. A
appointed to the defense would be free to conduct additional testing without
the constraints ofthe sanity board. Third, the sanity board will likely conduct their evaluation of
PFC Manning without the bene?t of a complete social history, and the board would not
incorporate that information into their evaluation and testing. A appointed to
the defense would continue to work with the defense in all stages of the case and incorporate
detailed information of PFC Manning?s social history into the testing and diagnostic process.

inally. testing and interpretation is a very subjective science. Any testing
done by members ofthe sanity board must be subjected to critical analysis. It is highly unlikely
that a member of the sanity board will objectively criticize their own work. The defense needs
an independent to assist them in conducting this critical inquiry. For all of
these reasons, the defense requests a be appointed to the defense team.

4. Conclusion. For the above reasons. the defense requests that you issue an order appointing a
as an expert; that you instruct this individual that het?she is a "defense
representative" and thus part of the defense team, and that matters related to himt?her during the
course ofl?tisfher employment as a member of the defense team will be con?dential.

00991

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of an Expert with Expertise in Information Assurance to
Assist the Defense in the case of United States Manning

5. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at




DAVID E. COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

00992

8 March 201 1

MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Of?ce ofthe Staffludge Advocate. US Army
Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, \t?ashington DC. 30219

FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia
2221

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment ofMitigation Expert to Assist the Defense in United States
v. .l-ianning

1. Purpose. Pursuant to Rule for Courts-h'lartial (R.C.M.) 703(d), the accused, PFC Bradley
Manning, requests Ms. Juliet M. ?t?acl-tel, a civilian mitigation specialist, be designated as a
member of the defense team and that funding be made available for her travel and professional
services. PFC Manning makes this request under Military Rule of Evidence 502- and United
States Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 (C MA 1987). See attached curricuium vitae ana??ae schedule.

PFC Manning also requests that arrangements, in coordination with Defense Counsel, be made to
have Ms. Yackel travel to the Quantico Brig to conduct an initial interview with PFC Manning.

2. Facts. PFC Manning is charged with multiple offenses under the Uniform Code ofMilitary
Justice The most signi?cant of which is Article 104, UCMJ. Under Article 104, PFC
Manning is subject to the possibility of capital punishment. Although the StaffJudge
Advocate?s of?ce has indicated its intent is to not recommend a capital referral, the ultimate
decision is not within its control. Additionally. trial counsel has informed the defense that the
Staff Judge Advocate could change its recommendation depending upon any additional evidence
in the case. As such, this case should be treated as a capital one until it has been referred as
otherwise by the Convening Authority, Major General (MG) Karl R. Horst. [t is MG Horst?s
responsibility to refer this case to the apprOpriate level. Before this decision may be made, he
must have all ofthe necessary information before him. A mitigation Specialist is uniquely
qualified to provide much ofthat necessary information about PFC Manning. Given the
importance of his decision, this request is not premature.

3. Law. A military accused has, as a matter of Equal Protection and Due Process, a right to
expert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. United States Carries, 22
MJ. 288 (CMA 1986); United States Robinson 39 MJ. 83 (CMA 1994), and Hire
Okiahoma, 470 US. 226 (1971). This case presents the possibility ofa capital referral, an action
that can only follow the Article 32 hearing. The defense has the right to fully explore any
potential aggravating. mitigating or extenuating factors that may in?uence a capital referral and
prosecution during the Article 32 investigation. See R.C.M. 4050:). A mitigation specialiSt is
required to assist the defense in this effort. Under military and federal law, the government is
highly encouraged to approve requests for mitigation experts in potential capital cases. United
States v. Kreutzer, 59 MJ. 7?71 (ACCA. 2004), (reversing contested ?ndings and death
sentence due to failure of militaryjudge to grant defense metion for mitigation specialist and
ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC): IAC resulted in part from failure to have expert
mitigation assistance); United States Curtis, 31 M.J. 434 (C.M.A. 1990) (The court issued an
interlocutory order requiring Navy JAG to provide $15,000.00 for "assistance related to the

00993

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Mitigation Expert to Assist the Defense in United States
v. .l/Irttming

unique constitutional issues" and ?for various forms of other assistance related to aspects ofthis
case?); Higgins v. Smith. 539 US. 510 (2003) (detailing the need for a mitigation Specialist in
capital cases). The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has embraced a three-part test for
determining whether government-funded expert assistance is necessary. The defense must show:

"First, why the expert assistance is needed. Seeoad. what would the eXpert assistance
accomplish for the accused. Third, why is the defense unable to gather the evidence that the
capert assistant would be able to develop." United States v. Gonzalez, 39 MJ. 459 (1994).

4. Basis. All of the above requirements for employment of an expert are present and the defense
is entitled to have an expert appointed as a matter of law. Ms. Yackcl has extensive experience
with capital litigation as a mitigation specialist and has been retained as such in several military
cases. Ms. Yackel will permit the Defense to adequately prepare for the Article hearing and
subsequent proceedings. Rule for Courts-Martial prescribes that matters in
mitigation of an offense may be introduced to lessen the punishment to be adjudged by a court?
martial. Also, R.C.M. 1004 dictates the instructions that must be given to the panel
members by the militaryjudge prior to the return ofa capital sentence. Ifthe government denies
PFC Manning the requested mitigation expert, they have effectively denied him the ability to
present appropriate mitigation evidence in accordance with the Rules for It is
imperative for defense counsel to immediately commence detailed preparation for collection of
mitigation evidence. The mitigation evidence collected will need to be considered by both the
Investigating Of?cer for the Article 32 and the Convening Authority as well as by the Military
Judge and members ifthis case is referred to court-martial.

a. Why Is Expert Assistance Needed? Mitigation experts are trained in obtaining and
compiling thorough histories. These histories must be
completed before the Article 32 Investigating Officer is in a position to recommend how this
case should be referred and before the Convening Authority can confidently determine how this
case should be referred. In addition, that history is relevant in presenting an adequate mitigation
defense to a possible capital sentence. This complete history will assist the members in
understanding some ofthe factors that may have contributed to the charged conduct. The
mitigation expert also helps the members understand PFC Manning?s rehabilitative potential in
somety.

b. What Would the Expert Assistance Accomplish for the Accused? The mitigation
expert will assist the defense in understanding all the relevant social and background factors of
PFC Manning. Additionally. the mitigation expert will help the defense team in presenting the
necessary evidence to demonstrate the rehabilitative potential of our client. This information
will allow the defense to adequately educate the members on the full sentencing range available
to them in this case.

c. Why is the Defense Unable to Gather this Evidence on Their Own? The defense has
neither the time nor expertise to prepare a capital mitigation defense without appropriate
assistance in this case. The defense counsel do not have the training and resources necessary to
gather and develop this kind of evidence. A mitigation specialist focuses on developing a

00994

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Mitigation Expert to Assist the Defense in United States-
v. Manning

reliable and accurate social history of an accused. The resulting efforts will be relevant at all
stages ofthis proceeding. This Specialist also examines mental health issues and suggests mental
health testing that should be done based on the social history ofthe individual. Mental health
professionals that conduct examinations of the accused may also use the report prepared by the
mitigation specialist to supplement their efforts. he level of documentary analysis, witness
interviews, and history development required in a capital case is simply beyond
the time and abilities of a defense counsel without the assistance of a mitigation expert. Without
this expertise, there is no way to ensure that the punishment in a capital case is individualized,
nor is there any way to ensure that the panel considered the possible mitigating factors stemming
from this case. Even ifdefense counsel began to try to gather all this information on their own
they would still be faced with the dilemma of how to present it in the form of testimony on
behalfof PFC Manning. For all ofthese reasons, the defense requests Ms. Yackel be appointed
to the defense team.

5. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the defense requests that you issue an order appointing
Ms. Yackel as a mitigation specialist. that you instruct her that she is a ?defense representative"
and thus part of the defense team, and that matters related to her during the course of her
employment as a member of the defense team will be confidential. Finally. the defense requests
that funds be made available for professional services and case preparation. The defense
requests that you authorize an initial 100 hours at the rate of5135.00 an hour plus expenses for
Ms. Yackel. This initial amount will allow her to determine the scope ofthe needed
investigation and present a detailed request for additional funding at a later date.

6. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at


E. COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

JULIET M. YACKEL
Miticration Jecialist





EDUCATION

Tulane University School of Law
JD. 1992

Purdue University
B.A.. Political Science. 1989

AWARDS

Pro Bono Politico Award September. 2004
Indiana Bar Foundation

Nominated by eliielicounsel to the Indiana Governor for serving as lead counsel on
behalt?ol?Damell Williams. the first Indiana death row inmate to receive executive
clemency in over 50 years.

Abolitionist of the Year
Amnesty International March. 2UU4
Presented by the Indiana Chapter ot?Amnesty International.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Mitigation Specialist September two-Present
Mitigation specialist and attorney serving clients charged with capital murder.

President oftlie National Alliance ot?Sentencing Advocates Mitigation Specialists. a
national organization devoted to the training and professional development of capital
mitigation specialists.

Experience includes work on over 50 capital cases as mitigation specialist. lead
co-connsel- and ofeounsel to others. conductng investigations and developing mitigation
issues for the sentencing phase ot?criminal trials. particularly federal capital trials.

Experienced investigator; typically responsible for identifying,
selecting, and consulting with appropriate experts; interviewing witnesses; and preparing
exhibits for presentation at trials and post-trial proceedings.

Regular speaker at national and local seminars training both attorneys and mitigation
Specialists in the defense of capital cases.

MITIGATION SPECIALIST IN THE FOLLOWING CAPITAL CASES:

US Yvette Darth:
Fort Lewis Field Of?ce
Retained by Trial Defense Services in 2003

Federal Capital Cases

USA Jesus
Eastern District of Michigan
Appointed by the Court in 2010

USA Rushed Raleigh
District of Minnesota
Appointed by the Court in 2010

USA David Vance
Northern District of Illinois
Appointed by the Court in 2007

USA George Lecco
District of' West Virginia
Retained by the Federal Defender in 2006

James Laughton
Northern District of Indiana
Appointed by the Court in 2005

USA Timothrt! 0 'Reiliy
Eastern District ot?Michigan. Judge Roberts
Appointed by the Court in 2005



USA v. David Reynolds
Eastern District of Michigan. Judge D?Meara
Appointed by the Court in 2005

United States affinret?iea r. Miiton Jones
Eastern District of Michigan.) Judge O?Meara
Appointed by the Court in 2005

United State off! met-tea v. Ronald Mikes
Northern District Judge Guzman
Appointed by the Court in 2003

United States afAn-teriea r.
Northern District of Illinois. Judge Guzman
Appointed by the Court in 2003

United States a; America v. Ric-hard
District of Minnesota, Judge Rosenbautn
Appointed by the Court in 2003

United States of America v. Tirehnon Stacker
Western District of Michigan. Judge Gerald Rosen
Appointed by the Court in 2003

Unitear States ofrtintet'ica Lawrence Sia'ba
Western District of Judge Gustave Diamond
Appointed by the Court in 2002

United States of America v. Edward Johnson
Northern District of Indiana, Judge Rudy Lazano
Appointed by the Court in 2002

Unitear Sates v. Joseph Miner-rt
Western District of Judge Maurice Cohill
Appointed by the Court in 2001

United States James Err-in
Northern District of Indiana, Judge Moody
Appointed by the Court in 2001

United States offinreriea v. Danrione Thomas
Northern District of Lndiana. Judge Rudy Lazano
Appointed by the Court in 2000

00997

United States ofAmerfett v. Jamel! Reason
Northern District of Indiana, Judge Lazano
Appointed by the Court in 1999

United States of'Americo Efrain: Garcia
Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Nancy Edmunds
Appointed by the Conn in 1998

United States ofAHIerim Derry! Johnson
District of Illinois, Judge Suzanne Conlon
Appointed by the court in 1997

United States ofAnien?en Irrone Tofu-ell
Eastern District of Judge Maijorie
Appointed by the Court in 1996

Capital Cases: State Courts

Comment-ream: Leo For-ado
Philadelphia County Criminal Court
Appointed by the Court

People ofirhe Store of California Randy Hoskett
Los Angeles County Circuit Court
Appointed by the Court

Commonwealth ofPenns-w'vonio 1-1. Joseph Aurel!
Pike County Circuit Court
Appointed by the Court

People ofthe Store of'Lonisiami r. Dwight Bacon
Caddo Parish Court
Retained by Counsel in 2009

Store of'l't'linofs l?l?Sh?lm J-Vi'h'ioms
Cook County Circuit Court
Retained by Counsel in 2008

State of'i??t'nofs v. James
Cool-t County Circuit Court
Retained by Counsel in 2003

State affili'riois v. James Beggar-ski
Cook County Circuit Court
Retained by Counsel in 2007

Stare af?iinofs Gabriel Sloan
Cook County Circuit Court
Retained by Counsel in 2007

State of Illinois ll-f?thH Il-"ashingtaa
Cook County Circuit Court
Retained by Counsel in 2007

State affilinois 13. Law}! Canaree
Cook County Circuit Court
Retained by Counsel in 3006

State of?z?mai?s Carrie Shields
Cook County Circuit Court
Retained by Counsel in 2006

State (if-Illinois v. Peter Lawrence
Cook County Circuit Court
Retained by Counsel in 2006

State ofMississippi v. Roger Thoma?
Retained by Counsel in 2005

State v. Edu'm'd Earl l?Viil?iams
Lake County Superior Coun
Retained by the Lake County Public Defender in 2004

State afArizoaa Antonio Suffer
Coconino County Circuit Court
Retained by the Coconino Legal Defender in 2003

State ofPenasjt-ivania Richard Baamhammers
Allegheny County Criminal Court
Retained by Counsel in 2003

People ofrhe Suite of'Hiinois v. Ronald Kitchen
Cook County Circuit Court
Retained by the Bluhrn Legal Clinic ofNonhwestem Law School in 2001



00999

People of'rhe Stare of?h?nois Michael Dhons
Kankakee County Circuit Court
Appointed by the Court in 200]

Peopie ofrhe Store ofIanois r. Leroy Orange,
Cook County, Judge Kenneth Wadas
Appointed by the Court in 1999

People ofrhe State of?t'inois Rodney l-?I?i?ioms.
Cook County, Judge John Morrissey
Retained by counsel in 1996

Non-Capital Cases:

Store George Bruckerr
DuPage County Circuit Court
Retained by counsel in 2010

Store ofi?fnois Edi-turd Martin
DuPage County Circuit Court
Retained by counsel in 2005

Srnre ofIHiHois r. Elisha-Alien
Cook County Circuit Court
Retained by the Bluhm Legal Clinic ot?Northwestern Law School in 2005

USA Larry Richards
Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Avem ICohn
Retained by counsel in 2005

USA Marv Capri
Northern District of Illinois. Judge Kennelly
Retained by counsel in 2004

USA Robert Harris
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Rebecca Pallrneyer
Retained by counsel in 2002

USA Dim Abo?e?mq
Northern District of Illinois
Appointed by the Court

Store of?iinois ?end Sole}:
Cook County Circuit Court. Judge Coughlan
Retained by counsel

LECTURES

Life in the Balance March, 201 1
National Legal Aid 8.: Defender Association

Workshop presentation regarding obtaining public records for purposes of both litigation
and mitigation in death penalty cases.

Annual Conference

National Alliance of Sentencing Advocates S: Mitigation Specialists March. 2011

Series of three workshop presentations with co-presented Dr. Greg Olley on intellectual disability
including introduction to Atkins cases, interviewing for intellectual disability as it relates

to de?cits in adaptive functioning. and investigation of IQ scores.

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Capital Case Seminar ebruary, 201 I
Montereys California

Workshop presentation with co-presented Dr. Marc Tasse on intellectual disabilityr as it
relates to capital cases.

Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers uly, 2010
Annual Capital Defense Seminar

Plenary and workshop presentations regarding retaining and working with the mitigation
specialist and other experts. and the use of storytelling and themes in capital case work.

Life in the Balance March, 2010
National Legal Aid Defender Association

Keynote speaker addressing the role and responsibilities ofthe capital defense team, also
lectured on interviewing correctional staff and administration. obtaining and effectively
utilizing community data 8: information, and the phases of the mitigation investigation.
All lectures incorporated and emphasized the new practice standards articulated by the
Supplementary Guidelines for the Mitigation Function of Defense Teams in Death
Penalty Cases.

Atkins Investigations: The Role Responsibilities of the

Capital Defense Team

Of?ce of the Los Angeles County Public Defender February. 2010
Designed curriculum and lectured regarding the role and responsibility of the

defense team as it relates to Atkins investigations. including discussion of the
Supplementary Guidelines and best practices for discovering, developing and presenting
evidence of mental retardation in death penalty cases.

Atkins an Beyond: Emerging Issues in Capital Cases

National Legal Aid Defender Association

in cooperation with the Philadelphia Defender Association December, 2009
Designed cun'iculum and lectured regarding the role and responsibility of the

defense team as it relates to Atkins investigations, including discussion of the
Supplementary Guidelines and best practices for discovering, developing and presenting
evidence of mental retardation in death penalty cases.

Annual Death Penaltyr Defense

Indiana Public Defender Council September, 2009
Lectured and let small group discussions relating to the phases of the mitigation
investigation, with emphasis on the Supplementati- Gnideiine?sfor the Afitigntion
Function ofDefense Tennis in Death Pennitv rises.

Clarence Darrow Death Penalty Mitigation Institute

DePaul University School of Law June, 2009
Lectured and led small group discussions relating to the mitigation function in

death penalty cases, with special emphasis on the newly endorsed
Gniriei'inesfot' the Mitigation Function of'Defintsc Tennis in Death Penalty Cases.

Life in the Balance March, 2009
National Legal Aid Defender Association

Lectured on Atkins Investigations, the Phases of the Mitigation Investigation, American
Association Division 33, and a variety ofother topics relating to the role
and responsibility of the capital mitigation specialist as articulated by the American Bar
Association Gnideiinesjor the Appointment and Parrot-intone ofDefense worse] in
Death Penalty rises and the Gnideiinesfor the Mitigation Function of
Defense Teams in Death Pennitr Cases.

Clarence Darrow Death Penalty Mitigation Institute

DePaul University School of Law May. 2008
Outlined the phases of the mitigation investigation to attorneys. capital

mitigation experts. and investigators.

Lake County Bar Association

Capital Litigation Seminar April. 2003
Explain the phases of the capital mitigation investigation to judges. prosecutors,

and defense lawyers.

Life in the Balance March. 2003
National Legal Aid Defender Association

Leetured on securing guilty pleas in capital cases. the phases of the mitigation
investigation. and the role of the capital mitigation specialist as articulated by the
sanitation? Bar Association Gnin?eh?nesfhr the Appointment and of'De?mse
onnsei in Death Penalty Cases.

Defending Illinois Death Penalty Cases March. 2003
Illinois Continuing Legal Education

Taught the principles of capital mitigation to lawyers seeking admission

to the Illinois capital trial bar.

Indiana Public Defender Council Annual Death Penalty Training September. 2007
Lead ?bring your own case" brainstorming session. Also. lecture on the

phases of the mitigation investigation and on producing the penalty phase

to attorneys- mitigation experts. and private investigators who are engaged

in defending persons facing the death penalty in the State of lndiana.

DePaul University College of Law, Center for Justice in September, 2007
Capital Cases, Annual Death Penalty Program for

Illinois Lawyers Seeking Certi?cation in Capital Cases

Provide oveiview ofcapital mitigation to attorneys seeking admission to

the capital trial bar in the State of Illinois.

Death Penalty Mitigation Institute ?St Skills Training August, 2007
National Association of Sentencing Advocates

Section of the National Legal Aid 8; Defender Association

Chair of national seminar dedicated to training capital mitigation experts. Developing
curriculum For both the Beginner and Advanced tracks of the Death Penalty Mitigation
Institute.

Clarence Darrow Death Penalty Mitigation Institute
DePaul University School of Law May. 2007
Presented on issues relating to testifying as a capital mitigation expert.

Life in the Balance March. 2007
National Legal Aid 8.: Defender Association

Presenting on issues relating to the inter-disciplinary nature of law and mental health.
with special focus on screening for mental disorders 8: identifying areas which require
expert evaluation.

Indiana Pubic Defender Council Death Penalty Defense September, 2006
Forensic Science in Indiana

Facilitated break-out session "Brainstorming Your Mitigation" with participants
regarding the mitigation investigation ofcurrent capital cases they are handling in the
state of Indiana.

Death Penalty Mitigation Institute (it Annual Conference August, 2006
National Association of Sentencing Advocates

Section of the National Legal Aid Defender Association

Chair of national seminar. Developed curriculum for both the Beginner and Advanced
tracks of the Death Penalty Mitigation Institute. with special emphasis on the national
movement to eliminate capital punishment for the mentally ill.

Inter-Disciplinary Training

Of?ce of the Cook County Public Defender July, 2006
Designed curriculum to ?cross-train" lawyers and mitigation specialists in the art of
capital defense. Presented sessions on the American Bar Association Guidelines for the
Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases and producing
the penalty phase.

It]

01005

Mitigation Institute June, 2006
DePaul University School of Law

Co-presented with Dr. Robert Smith regarding screening for. investigating.
and developing mental health issues. Also taught sessions on history
investigations and self-care.

Life in the Balance March. 2006
National Legal Aid ?t Defender Association

Presented on issues relating to the inter?disciplinary nature of law and mental health, with
special focus on strategy and persuasion.

National Association of Sentencing Advocates July 31~August 3. 2005
?Sen tencing Takes Center Stage?

Co-chair of national seminar held at Northwestern Law School. developed curriculum
and conducting several sessions for the Death Penaltyr Mitigation Institute.

Mitigation Institute

DePaul University School of Law June. 2005
Lead workshOps where participants brainstorm cases. as well as

a panel discussion entitled ?When Should the Mitigation Specialist Testify?"

Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers April. 2005
?The Fight for Life", Annual Death Penalty Seminar

Top rated speak. presenting on issues relating to producing the penalty phase. and client
relations.

Life in the Balance

National Legal Aid Defender Association March. 2005
Panel discussion with Margaret O'Donnell regarding executive clemency. and
presentation entitled ?Producing the Penalty Phase."

Indiana Public Defender Counsel Death Penalty Defense Seminar September 2004
Lectured on creating and sustaining the climate executive clemency. Explained the
process of seeking executive clemency capital cases. emphasizing the need For: gaining
access to and support from persons of influence, requesting discovery from the court and
the parole board. and working with the media.

ll

National Association of Sentencing Advocates

Annual Death Penalty Training Mitigation Institute May, 2004
Taught at both the death penalty training and mitigation institute. Led intensive training
for advanced participants in several areas including effective penalty phase presentation,
the role oFthe mitigation Specialist on the defense team, and how to secure a plea.

Northwestern University School of Law, Legal Clinic January 2004
Trained students enrolled in the legal clinic on mitigation investigations, with special
emphasis on the nature and scope of mitigation in death penalty cases.

Northwestern University: Community Connections

2003, Undergraduate Leadership Program October 2003
Panelist, discussed the death penalty in Illinois and the impact of the moratorium
nationwide. Provided overview ofreforrns in neighboring states. in contrast to the
increase in federal capital prosecutions nationwide.

National Association of Sentencing Advocates

2003 Annual Conference and Mitigation Institute April 2003
Lecture-d at multiple sessions in the areas of diffusing future dangerousness. and the role
of mitigation at the authorization phase of federal capital cases.

Training Seminar on the Death Penalty for

Consular Protection Of?cers in the United States December 2002
Discussed the unique challenges of investigating capital cases involving foreign nationals.
and suggest the ways in which consular of?cials can provide meaningful assistance.

Ninth Annual Northern Illinois University Law Review Symposium:

?Defense Strategies in Death Penalty Litigation" March 2000
Discussed the creative development of mitigatioo in capital cases, and explained recent
?ndings of the National Jury Project regarding how capital jurors arrive at their decisions
regarding punishment. Also addressed pending legislation in Illinois exempting the
mentally retarded from the death penalty. Explained how to identify and corroborate
mental retardation ttuough investigation and use of experts.

Chicago Kent School of Law. Death Penalty Seminar November 1999
Taught the basic factual and legal concepts relating to mitigation, and explained Futdings



from the National Jury Project relating to howjuries make decisions in capital cases.

Second Annual Public Defender Death Penalty Workshop October 1999
Presented basic mitigation training to the Cook County Public Defender?s Of?ce. along
with co-presenter Professor Thomas Geraghty, Director of Northwestern Law School?s
Bluhm Legal Clinic Presentation focused on emerging areas of mitigation and on
creating persuasive audiotvisual materials for use at the penalty phase.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

hair, Executive Committee March, 2004 Present
National Alliance of Sentencing Advocates 8: Mitigation Specialists

The National Alliance of Sentencing Advocates 3: Mitigation Specialists is a section of
the National Legal Aid and Defender Organization dedicated to the training and
professional development of capital mitigation specialists and sentencing advocates.

Mentor, Northwestern University Law School 2004-2009
Public Interest Law Group
Provide guidance to law students seeking to enter the public interest arena.

BAR ADMISSIONS
State of Illinois
Admitted 1992

State of Indiana
Admitted [993

United States Supreme Court
Admitted January 1, 2000

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Admitted July 12, 2002

JULIET YACKEL
Mitigation Specialist



Hourly Rate: I 3 5. .00

Expenses;

Expenses:

FEE SCHEDULE

This fee applies to all scrt'ices without limitation. including
client conferences. witness inten'iews. document review.
work with experts. team meetings. trial preparation and
testimony.

Reimbursement for all reasonable expenses including those
related to obtaining and copying record?: and the production
ul'exhihits.

Airliirc. hotel. rental car andi?or I?llc?dl? will be reimbursed.
Mileage is to be calculated using. current rah: published by
the IRS.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE RIVER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYER, WRGINIA 22211-11 99
REPLY To
ATTENTION or:



IMND-MHH-ZA 8 MAR 5011



MEMORANDUM FOR LTC Paul Almanza, 150th Judge Advocate General Detachment, Legal
Support Organization, MG Albert C, Lieber USAR Center, 6901 Telegraph Road, Alexandria,
VA 22310

SUBJECT: Directive to Investigate Additional Charges US. v. PFC Bradleyr Manning



1. On 4 August 2010, I appointed you to investigate the original charges, dated 5 July 2010 and
any other related matters concerning PFC Manning. Additional charges were preferred against
PFC Manning on 1 March 201 and are enclosed for you to investigate. Although the alleged
misconduct is substantially similar between the two charge sheets, I dismissed the original
charges and direct you not to consider those charges.

2. All other guidance, previously provided in the original appointment memorandum, remains in

effect and the Article 32 investigation is still delayed based on the defense counsel?s request,
dated 12 Aug 10.



Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
1. Charge Sheet, 5 Jul 10 COL, AV
2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 1 Commanding

CF: (wotencls)
1 Trial Counsel
l-Defense Counsel
l-Legal Advisor

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER
WALTER REED HEALTH CAFIE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, Dc 20307-5001



MCHL-FPS 14 March 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR: CONVENING AUTHORITY. COL CARL R. COFFMAN, IL.
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL, 204 LEE AVENUE, FORT MYER, VIRGINIA

2221 1-1 199
SUBJECT: Extension requested for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning.

1. An extension is requested for completion of the RCM 706 Sanity Board in the case of PFC
Bradley Manning. The original order asked that the report be completed by 3 March 2011.

2. The evaluators are coordinating suitable dates and times for the final evaluation session to
take place. This involves multiple parties. Additionally, the final interview will take place at a
SCIF and this has resulted in the consumption of extra time for this aspect of the evaluation to be
coordinated. We anticipate that the final date for the evaluation should take place in the first ten
days of April 2011 and are expecting that this will be confirmed today.

3. We are asking for three weeks from the date of the final interview to deliver the completed
evaluation reports to the respective parties. Hence. we ask for a suspense date of Friday. 29

April 2011.

4. POC for this memorandum is Dr. Michael Sweda. WRAMC Department.
Forensic Service. --



MICHAEL SWEDX, PH. D, AB PP (Forensic)
CHIEF, FORENSIC SERVICE
Forensic





DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

REPLY TO
ATTENTI ON OF



8 MAR 20?



MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Review of Pretrial Confinement tinder Rule for Courts-Martial 305(g) - US. v. PFC
Bradley Manning

1. General. I received the additional charges and speci?cations preferred against PFC Manning
on 1 March 201 1 and hereby dismiss, without prejudice, the charges and speci?cations preferred
against PFC Manning on 5 July 2010. I believe that continued con?nement is necessary because
of the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged, the likelihood that PFC Manning can
and will commit further serious criminal misconduct, and the inadequacy of less severe forms of
restraint.

2. Probabhiguse gs to Offenses Committed. I have probable cause to believe that PFC
Manning committed the following charged offenses: one Speci?cation of Article 104, Uniform
Code of Military Justice sixteen speci?cations ofArticle 134, and ?ve
speci?cations of Article 92, UCMJ. The alleged criminal misconduct, which served as the basis
for placing PFC Manning in pretrial con?nement on 29 May 2010 and my review under RCM
305(g), dated 21 January 20] l, remains the basis for pretrial con?nement f0r the additional
charges and speci?cations preferred on 1 March 2011. Although the written form of the
additional charges and Speci?cations are different than the original charges, the substantive
misconduct is the same for many of the original charges and speci?cations and the subsequent
additional charges and speci?cations.

3. Necessity for Con?nement.

a. Nature and Circumstances ofthe Offenses Charged. PFC Manning has been charged
with giving intelligence to the enemy, in violation of Article 104, UCMJ, as well as multiple
charges related to his alleged disclosure of classi?ed information to persons not entitled to
receive that information. Under RCM serious criminal misconduct includes
offenses which pose a serious threat to the national security of the United States. I believe giving
intelligence or classi?ed information to the enemy or to other individuals without proper
authority poses a serious threat to the national secmity ofthe United States. As such, PFC
Manning?s charged offenses amount to serious misconduct and he warrants pretrial con?nement.

b. Further Serious Criminal Misconduct. Shortly after CID opened an investigation, PFC
Manning was placed under supervision by his unit and required an escort. He was denied access
to computers and other electronic devices. Despite the presence of his escorts, PFC Manning
managed to hand a piece of paper with his email address and password to another Soldier in his

\p-r
IMND-MHH-ZA

SUBJECT: Review of Pretrial Con?nement under Rule for Courts-Martial 305(g) - US. v. PFC
Bradley Manning

unit and asked her to check his email for him. I believe it is liker that PFC Manning will
commit further serious misconduct if he is released from pretrial con?nement.

c. Less Severe Forms of Restraint are Inadequate. I reviewed the other Options available
to me under RCM 304 and I ?nd them inadequate. Although it is unlikely that PFC Manning
would have personal access to classi?ed information systems if released from confinement, that
does not obviate the risk that he could further release previously acquired classi?ed information.

4. Conclusion. After reviewing the additional charges and speci?cations, I believe continued
pretrial con?nement is apprOpriate in this case. Speci?cally, there is probable cause to believe
that PFC Manning committed serious criminal misconduct which poses a threat to the national
security ofthe United States. I believe he will liker commit further serious criminal misconduct
if released from con?nement. Because of the national security concerns in this case, less severe
forms of restraint are inadequate. PFC Manning will remain in pretrial con?nement until

completion of the pending court-martial action.

5 Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
1. Charge Sheet, 5 Jul 10 COL, AV

2. Charge Sheet, 1 Mar 11 Commanding

3. PTC Order, 29 May 10

4. Magistrate Review, 30 May 10

S. RCM 305(g) Review, 21 Jan 11

CF: (wofencls)
l-Defense Counsel
Quantico Brig



CHARGE SHEET


































I. PERSONAL DATA

1. NAME or Accuseonasr. 2. ISBN 3. GRADE OR RANK 4. PM GRADE
MANNING, Bradley E. -- PFC E-3

5. UNIT on ORGANIZATION S. CURRENT
Headquarters and Headquarters COmpany, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain 3- DATE 13- TERM
(Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraqyears

r. PAY PEFI MONTH a NATURE OF RESTRAINT or ACCUSED a. IMPOSED
a. a. ourv TOTAL

$1813.20 $100.00 Pre-Trial Con?nement 29 MAY 10

II. CHARGES ANO SPECIFICATIONS

I: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 92
SPECIFICATION 1: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning. US. Army, did, between on I
19 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, at or near Contingenc ton Hammer, Iraq,
violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Par 0 rrny Regulation 25?2, dated 24 October 2007,
by wrongfully introd 1e video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or

2007, onto his personal computer, a non-secure information system.






SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, US. Army, did, between on
19 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, at or near Contingenc a ton Hammer. Iraq,
violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Parao Regulation 25?2, dated 24 October 2007,
by wrongfully introd an I) classified United States Department of State cables onto his
computer, a non-secure information system.








SPECIFICATION 3: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning. U.S. Army, did, between on

















I9 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, at or near Contingencv a ton Hammer, Iraq,

violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Para Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007,

by wrongfully introdu I Iicrosoft Office PowerPoint presentation onto his personal computer,

re Information system.
(SEE CONTINUATION SHEET)

113. NAME OF ACCUSER (Last, First. MI) D. GRADE ORGANIZATION OF ACCUSER
FREEBURG, Matthew W. 0-3 HHC, 2d BCT, 101h MTN Div (LI)
d. SIG FACC e.
??ma 24mg; ms


AFFIDAVIT: Before me. the undersigned. authorized by law to administer oaths in cases ofthis character, personally appeared the
above named accuser this ?73" clay ofJuly. 2010. and signed the foregoing charges and speci?cations under oath that he is a person
subject to the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice and that he either has personal knowledge ofOr has investigated the matters Set forth
therein and that the same are true to the best ofhis knowledge and belief.







CHRISTOPHER D. GOREN 2d BCT, 10th MTN Div (LI)
Typed Name of Officer Organization of Officer
'2 0?3} Trial Counsel
I i re 5 Capacrry to Administer Oath
(See Ft. (3 M. 30.7%) must be a commISSioneo' Officer]
- .
Signattire



DD FORM 453, MAY 2000 PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

of]





12.

On 5 .2010. the accused was inforrneo of the charges against him and of the nameis) of the accuserts} known to
me (See ROM. 303 (See RC. M. 303 if notification cannot be made.)

















MATTHEW W. FREEBURG HHC, 2d BCT, 10th MTN Div (LI)
Typed Name of immediate Commander Organization of immediate Commander
0-3
Grad
Signarupev
RECEIPT BY SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL CONVENING
13

The sworn charges were received at hours. 5 SD 2010 HQ 2d BSTB 2d BCT



Designation of Command or

COS Hammer, Iraq. APO AE 09308

Officer Exercismg Summary Court Martiai Jurisdiction (See R. CM 403



FOR



Typed Name of Officer Officiai Capacrty of Officer Signing













































Signature
V. REFERRAL: SERVICE OF CHARGES
14a. DESIGNATION OF COMMAND OF CONVENING AUTHORITY b. PLACE c. DATE
Referred for that to the Court-martial convened by
. 20 subject to the foIIClwing instructions:2
By of
Command or Order
Tyo ed No me of Of?cer Oificiai Capaciiy of Officer Signing
Grade
Signature
15
On . 20 . I {caused to he} served a copy hereof on {search-the above named accused.
Typed Name of Triai Counsei Gracie or Rank of Triai
Signature



FOOTNOTES: 1 When an appropriate commander signs personaiiy, inappiicabie words are stn'ciren.
2 See C. M. ?GIfe} concerning instructions. if none. so stare.







DD FORM 458 MAY 2000 PREVIOUS EDITION Is OBSOLETE.

CONTINUATION SHEET, DA FORM 453, MANNING, Bradley
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, IOth Mountain Division
(Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, APO AE 09308

Item 10 (Confd):

Watt

SPECIFICATION 4: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, US. Army, did- i

on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 3 April 2010. a mgency Operating
Station Hammer, Iraq, violate a lawful a ton, to wit: Paragraph 4-Sta}t? 3), Army
Regulation 25-2 0 er 2007, by wrongfully adding unauthorized software to a Secret
ct rotoeol Router network computer.







CHARGE II: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ. ARTICLE 134 F19
Flu-L







SPECFICATION I: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, US. Army, did, at or
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq- between on or about 19 Nove and on or
about 5 April 2010, have unauthorized possession of photogra to the national
defense, to wit: a classi?ed video ofa military 1 med at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or
about 12 July 2007. and did willfull tcate, deliver and transmit the video, or cause the
video to be communica 'vered, and transmitted, to a person not entitled to receive it, in
violation 0 . Code Section 793te), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and

:p ine in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed ferces.



about 5 April 2010, knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret Int rotoeol Router
network computer and obtain information that has been determine . United States
Government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons of national defense, to wit: assi?ed video of a military operation
?lmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or ab 2 .1 uly 2007, and did willfully communicate,
deliver and transmit the video, or the video to be communicated, delivered and transmitted,
to a person not entitled etve it. with reason to believe that such information could be used
to the injury of nited States or the advantage of any foreign nation. in violation of 18 US.
Code 31 such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the

ed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

SPECIFICATION 3: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, US. Army, did, at or
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 13 January 201 on or
about 19 February 2010, knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Seer crnet Protocol
Router network computer and obtain information that has been det 'ned by the United States
Government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons of foreign relations. to wit: ssifted United States Department of State
cable titled ?Reykjavik l3," and did willf communicate, deliver and transmit the cable, or
cause the cable to be communica elivered. and transmitted, to a person not entitled to
receive it, with reason to "eve that such information could be used to the injury ofthe United
States or the adv' ge ofany foreign nation, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(1),
eing prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a
re to bring discredit upon the armed forces.






(SEE CONTINUATION SHEET 2)

CONTINUATION SHEET 2, DA FORM 458, MANNING, Bradley E.-
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 1001 Mountain Division

(Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, APO AE 09308

Item 10 (Cont?d):



mg ofa nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
I
SPECIFICATION 5: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or Egg;
Contingency Operating Station Hammer- Iraq, between on or about 19 Nove and on or
about 5 April 2010, intentionally exceed his authorized access 0 ret Internet Protocol
Router network computer and obtain information i .nited States Department of Defense,
to wit: a classified video ofa military ion filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about
July 2007, in violation 0 . Code Section such conduct being prejudicial to
good order clpline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the









about 19 February 2010, intentionally exceed his authoriz on a Secret Internet Protocol
Router network computer and obtain info om the United States Department of State, to
wit; a classi?ed cable titled 13," in violation of 13 U.S. Code Section 1030(aJ(2},
such conduc rejudieial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a

to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

SPECIFICATION 7: In that Private First CIass Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at 01'
ontingeney Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on divers occasions, betwee
November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, intentional] is authorized access on a
Secret Internet Protocol Router network co obtain information from the United States
Department of State, to wit: an 150,000 diplomatic cables, in violation of 18 U.S. Code
Section 103 uch conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed

es and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.




(SEE CONTINUATION SHEET 3)



CONTINUATION SHEET 3, DA FORM 458, MANNING, Bradley
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division
(Light Infantry), Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, APO AR 09303

Item ID (Cont'd):

SPECIFICATION 8: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, US Army, did, at or
Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on divers occasions, betwee out 19
November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, intentionall 15 authorized access on a
Secret Internet Protocol Router network co obtain information from the United States
Department of Defense, to SSi?ed Microsoft Of?ce PowerPoint presentation, in
violation of . ode Section 1030(a)(2), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and

13 me in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.





(END OF CHARGES)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VA 22211-1199





To
a. ATTENTION OF

8 MAR P011

MEMORANDUM FOR Chief. Forensic Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
Washington, DC 20307-5001

SUBJECT: Extension Request For RCM 706 Sanity Board U.S. v. PFC Bradlev Manning

have reviewed the request for an extension ofthe RCM 706 Sanity Board for PFC Manning. The
request is:

(m approved. The Sanity Board will be completed no later than l6 April 201 1. Any other
extension oftime must be submitted through the trial counsel to me for approval.

disapproved. The Sanity Board will proceed as previously ordered.



CARL R. COFFMAN. JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

CF: (tvofenels)
1?Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL cENrEn
WALTER FIEED HEALTH cane svsreu
wasnmorou, or; zoom-soot



MCHL-FPS 14 March 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR: CONVENING AUTHORITY. COL CARL R. COFFMAN, Jr.,
JOINT BASE HALL, 204 LEE AVENUE, FORT MYER. VIRGINIA
222i l-l 199

SUBJECT: Extension requested for Sanity Board - PFC Bradley Manning.

1. An extension is requested for completion of the RCM 706 Sanity Board in the case of PFC
Bradley Manning. The original order asked that the report be completed by 3 March 201 1.

2. The evaluators are coordinating suitable dates and times for the final evaluation session to
take place. This involves multiple parties. Additionally. the final interview will take place at a
SCLF and this has resulted in the consumption of extra time for this aspect of the evaluation to be
coordinated. We anticipate that the final date for the evaluation should take place in the first ten
days of April 20? and are expecting that this will be confirmed today.

3. We are asking for three weeks from the date of the final interview to deliver the completed
evaluation reports to the respective parties. Hence, we ask for a suspense date of Friday. 29

April 201 1.

4. POC for this memorandum is Dr. Michael Sweda, WRAMC Department,
Forensic Service?



MICHAEL swaoa, PH. o. ABPP (Forensic)
CHIEF, FORENSIC SERVICE
Forensic





DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYER, 22211-1199
REPLY To
0F



5 APR 2011




MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, ivilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Expert Consultant in - U.S. v. PFC
Bradley Manning

I reviewed your request for appointment of an expert consultant for the defense in the above-
named case. After careful consideration, the defense request is:

(V approved. I appoint LCDR Carrie H. Kennedy as an expert consultant in
in the above-named case. I further direct that LCDR Kennedy be designated a
member of the defense team under US. v. Toledo, 25 NH. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and Military Rule
of Evidence 502. This expert appointment is at no expense to the United States beyond mileage
reimbursement, if authorized.

disapproved.

CARL Rt COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION 0F



5 APR 2011




MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Mitigation Expert - US. v. PFC Bradley Manning

1 reviewed the request for appointment of Ms. Juliet M. Yackel as an expert consultant for the
defense in the above-named case. After careful consideration, the defense request is:

approved. 1 appoint Ms. Juliet M. Yaekel, as a mitigation expert for the defense in
the above-named ease. I further direct that Ms. Yackel be designated a member of the defense
team under US. v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and Military Rules of Evidence 502. I
authorize the expenditure of tip to $13,500.00 for professional services and ease preparation, and
per diem and travel reimbursement. Any expenditure of funds in excess of $13,500.00 will be
disapproved, unless the additional amount is approved by me, in advance, through a separate
written request and approval.

(V disapproved. Nothing in the case ?le warrants a mitigation expert at this time.
Currently, the defense team consists of you and additional counsel. MAJ Matthew Kemkes is
located in the Washington, DC and Quantico Marine Base, VA regions, CPT Paul Bouchard is
deployed in Iraq, and both are available to assist you directly with the full exploration of any
potential aggravating, mitigating, or extenuating factors for this case. As with all defense
counsel, you are free to renew your request with me, and similarly, if I forward this case, you
may renew your request with the GCMCA.

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSDN HALL
2(14 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VA 22211-1199

REPLY TO
ATTENTION 0



15?11. Witt, bit
MEMORANDUM FOR Chief, Forensic Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
Washington, DC 20307-500i

SUBJECT: Extension Request for RCM 706 Sanity Board U.S. v. PFC Bradley Manning

1 have reviewed the request For an extension ofthe RCM 7'06 Sanity Board For PFC Manning, The
request is:

(QTappro?ved. The Sanity Board will be completed no later than 22 April 20] 1. Any other
extension of time must be submitted through the trial counsel to me for approval.

disapproved. The Sanity Board will proceed as previously ordered.

CARL R. JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

CF: (woz?enels)
1-Del?ense Counsel

20 April 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU StaffJudge Advocate, Of?ce ofthe Staffiudge Advocate, US Army
Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington DC. 30219

FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia
2221

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment ofa Neuropsyehologist to Assist the Defense in the Case
of United States v. tit/forming

1. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 ofthe Uniform Code of Military Justice and Rule for
Court-Martial (ROM) 703m), the defense requests the appointment of a
located at or near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas to replace LCDR Carrie H. Kennedy and assist the
defense in the above-styled case. The defense further requests that this replacement expert be
designated as a member ofthe defense team under Military Rule of Evidence M.R.E. 502, and
United States v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 27f] 1987).

On 19 April 201 1. the defense, like many others, learned that PFC Manning was being moved
to the Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth. Due to this abrupt move, LCDR
Kennedy is no longer ideally suited to fulfill the role of the defense expert. At this point. LCDR
Kennedy has not had the ability to meet with PFC Manning. As such, no
relationship has been established. The defense requests that the government provide a suitable
replacement for LCDR Kennedy who will have the ability to aid the defense in understanding
medical information and testing concerning the mental status of PFC
Manning on the date ofthe alleged offenses, to evaluate whether PFC Manning is able to
intelligently assist in his defense, and to prepare a possible sentencing case in extenuation and
mitigation for PFC manning.

3. The POC is the undersigned at (401) "244-300? or by e-mail at



DAVID E. coomss
Civilian Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT VIRGINIA 22211-1199
ro
ATTENTION OF



.25



MEMORANDUM FOR LTC Dawn Hilton, Commander, Joint Regional Correctional Facility,
Fort Leavenworth. KS 66027-2315

SUBJECT: Request for Protective Custody and Monitoring of Communications for PFC
Bradley E. Manning

1. I am the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority for the case of US. v. PFC Bradlev E.
Manning. The continued health, safety, and welfare of PFC Manning, ensuring a fair
adjudication of the offenses charged against him, and protecting national security by preventing
the further release of classi?ed infermation, are of paramount concern to me. Consistent with
this, on 16 September 2010, I requested the Quantico Brig to monitor all of PFC Manning?s
communications. Based on my review of this case and his transfer to your con?nement facility,
it is immediately necessary to place PFC Manning in protective custody, to monitor his
communications at your facility, and prohibit his access to any U.S. Government or public
information system, except monitored telephones, to prevent the possibility of future disclosures
of classi?ed information, and ensure a fair and prompt diSposition ofthe offenses charged
against him.



2. PFC Manning is charged and currently under investigation for multiple violations of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) relating to allegations that he aided the enemy by
leaking voluminous amounts of classi?ed information to individuals not entitled to receive such
information. Speci?cally, PFC Manning allegedly downloaded, stored, and transmitted over
700,000 documents from classi?ed systems while deployed to Iraq. To date, a substantial
portion of this compromised classi?ed information has go_t been released in the public domain.

3. It is typical practice in cases involving pretrial con?nees accused of national security and
espionage offenses in the federal system, for the Department of Justice to direct that Special
Administrative Measures (SAMs) be implemented that are reasonably necessary to prevent the
unauthorized disclosure of classi?ed information while in pretrial con?nement. SAMs are
codified in 28 C.F.R. 501.2, which states that these measures are necessary when ?the
unauthorized disclosure of such [classi?ed] information would pose a threat to the national
security and that there is a danger that the inmate will disclose such information." SAMs
ordinarily include housing the con?nee in administrative detention and/or limiting certain
privileges, including correspondence, that are reasonably necessary to prevent the disclosure of
classi?ed information.

4. The national scourin investigation of PFC Manning is a joint investigation between US.
Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the
Department ofState Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Consistent with 28 C.F.R. 501.2, I
received input from CID, FBI, DSS, and the Army (3-2, who have expressed an interest in


SUBJECT: Request for Protective Custody and Monitoring of Communications for PFC
Bradley Manning

ensuring that PFC Manning is in a status where he is unable to potentially divulge classi?ed
information. Based on this input and a review of the case, I believe PFC Manning is a potential
threat to further release classi?ed information retained in his memory to other inmates, potential
co-conspirators, and visitors. Additionally, he could direct the release of presently unreleased
information through the passing of code words, passwords, or direct instructions to other wining
or unwitting imnates, potential co-conspirators, or visitors. Therefore, any non-privileged,
unmonitored information passed between PFC Manning and named or unnamed third parties can
adversely affect the investigation and future prosecutions ofthese individuals, let alone result in
a potentially signi?cant delay in this case.

5. Protective custody and monitoring of PFC Manning?s communications is also necessary to
prevent the obstruction of justice and spoiling of evidence. PFC Manning has already
demonstrated his willingness to do this. After PFC Manning's chain of command in Iraq initially
detained him, he asked another Soldier to check his personal email, despite being under guard
and without access to personal computers and further asked his aunt to post a message on his
Facebook account.

6. For the reasons stated above, I request the Joint Regional Correctional Facility (JRCF) place
PFC Manning in protective custody, to monitor his communications With third parties while
confined at the JRCF, and to prohibit his access to any US. Government or public information
system. including a computer. It is my understanding that protective custody in your facility
affords all the same rights and privileges as a medium custody detainee, except that the con?nee
will not interact with other detainees. While I understand the JRCF has the ability to monitor
non-privileged phone calls, this monitoring request includes all of PFC Manning?s phone calls.
visitations, and mail. This requirement does not include monitoring of any privileged
communications between PFC Manning, his attorneys, prOperly appointed members of his
defense team, mental health providers, JRCF chaplains, or any other privileged
as de?ned under the Military Rules of Evidence, Section V. If not speci?cally among these
exceptions, all communications should be considered non-privileged.

7. Please con?rm through my POC when you have implemented the protective custody,
monitoring of non-privileged communications. and prohibited his access to any LLS.
Government or public information system, except for a telephone. 1 will ensure PFC Manning is
noti?ed, through his attorney, of this request. Since I am aware that your facility does not have a
recording capability for visitors to the facility. the monitoring and recording equipment will be
provided, without cost. The point of contact for this requirement is CPT John Haberland, Trial
Counsel, at (703') 696-3150.

3 Encls CAEL R. COFFMAN, JR.

1. Charge Sheet COL, AV
2. 23 CFR 501.2 Commanding
3. Monitoring Request, 16 Sep 10

la.)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

- - - FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
TIDN OF



IMND-MHH-ZA HM 2914

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment ot?Defense Expert Consultant in - US. v. PFC
Bradlev E. Manning

I reviewed your request for appointment of an expert consultant for the defense in the above-
named cas . After careful consideration, the defense request is:

approved. 1 appoint Dr. Patrick Armistead-Jehle, as an expert consultant in the
above-named ease to replace LCDR Carrie H. Kennedy. 1 further direct that Dr. Patrick
Armistead-Jehle be designated a member of the defense team under US. v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270
(C.M.A. 1937) and Military Rule of Evidence 502. This expert appointment is at no expense to
the United States beyond mileage reimbursement. if authorized.

disapproved. LCDR Carrie H. Kennedy will remain the defense expert consultant.

CARL R. JR.
COL, AV
Commanding



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MEYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FOFIT MYEFI, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

ATTENTION UF
in



MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Approved Facility and Storage for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC Bradley
Manning

1. FACILITY.

a. and Information. All meetings requiring access to and
information will only occur in approved facilities. Prior to accessing classified
information or having classi?ed discussions, the prosecution and defense are required to verify whether
lhe facility is properly approved for use by a local Security of?cer.

b. and Information. All meetings requiring the discussion or viewing of
information classi?ed at a level above will occur in a pre-approved Sensitive Compartmented
Information Facility (SCIF). The defense team will coordinate through trial counsel to schedule dates and
times to use a SCIF-

2. STORAGE. All classi?ed information shall be stored in accurdance with the following instructions:

a. Prosecution Team. and information will be stored in the two Safes
assigned to the Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, Military District of Washington (MDW). Any
information classi?ed above the level will be stored in the MDW SCIF located in Building
46, Fort Lesley McNair, DC.

b. Defense Team. and information will be stored in the safe assigned
to the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort yer, located in Building 229, Joint Ease Myer-Henderson
Hall, VA, or a safe assigned to the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort Leavenworth, located in Building
244, Fort Leavenworth, KS. Any information classified or presumed to be classified above the
level will be stored in a separate drawer or safe with its own unique combination at
Headquarters, US. Army Intelligence and Securityr Command, located on Fort Belvoir, VA, and storage
will be coordinated through Mr. Cassius Hall, Defense Security Expert Consultant.



CARL R. COFFMAN, .l R.
COL, AV
Commanding

DISTRIBUTION:

Trial Counsel

Civilian Defense Counsel

Military.r Defense Counsel

Defense Security Expert Consultants

3 August 2011

MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, US Army
Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington DC. 30219

FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia
2221]

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Dr. Thomas A. Grieger to Assist the Defense in the
Case of United States v. Manning

1. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Rule for
Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 703(d), the defense requests the appointment of Dr. Thomas A. Grieger
to replace Capt. Kevin D. Moore and assist the defense in the above-styled case. See attached
curriculum vitae. The defense further requests that Dr. Grieger be designated as a member of the
defense team under Military Rule of Evidence M.R.E. 502, and United States v. Taieda, 25 MJ.
270 (CMA 1987).

2. 0n 2 August 2011, the defense received an email from Capt. Moore indicating that he couid
no longer perform his duties as the defense forensic See attached email. Capt.
Moore informed the defense that his current clinical schedule did not provide him with adequate
time to assist the defense. Additionally, Capt. Moore stated that due to PFC. Manning?s assigned
location at the Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth, he no longer believed
that he was suited to fulfill the role of the defense expert.

3. This is the second time that the defense has had to request for a replacement forensic
due to the assigned expert's time commitments and con?icts with other military
duties. Previously, the defense was given COL David Benedick. COL Benedick also cited
military commitments as the basis for Why he could not adequately assist the defense team. In
light of this persistent problem, the Defense requests the appointment of a civilian forensic


4. The defense requests that you appoint the following expert:

Dr. Thomas A. Grieger, M.D., DFAPA Captain (retired), Medical Corps, United States Navy,
7 Virginia Lane, Falls Church, VA 22043, (703) 624-2496, thomas.grietter?nmailcom.

5. Dr. Grieger?s fees are $350.00 per hour for consultation as de?ned in paragraph
one of his foe schedule. See attached fee scheduie. The fee for all travel is based upon whether
travel is required outside of a hundred mile radius of Washington DC. or not. If within this
radius, it is $450.00 per hour for a maximum of $4,500 per day. If outside of this radius, it is
$4,500 per day. There is no fee for testimony time, only for the associated travel time and any
expenses incurred. Likewise, there is no fee for expenses for airfare, car rental, lodging and per
diem as those fees are included in the rate detailed above. The estimated total fee for Dr.
Gricger?s assistance in this case is $48,550.00. His hourly rate and fees comport with the Expert
Witness Rate Schedule for the Department of Justice.

01029

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Dr. Thomas A. Grieger to Assist the Defense in the
Case of United Snares v. Manning

6. The FCC is the undersigned at (800) 588-4156 or by e-maii at


MA

DAVID E. COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

Thomas A. Grieger, M.D., D.F.A.P.A.
Forensic and Litigation Consultant

<1 ?i
is



Schedule of fees for forensic consultation, travel, and
testimony
{General Schedule)

1. consultation includes: review of legal and investigative records. medical
records, physical health records. educational records. all similar materials and any
additional Int-iterials for which the assigned attorney requests review; telephone calls t'rom
hoth prosecutiontplaintiff and defense attorneys and their staffs; preparation of electronic
or written reports. and preparation of all correspondence (including e-mail
correspondence).

2. Travel includes travel for the purposes of meeting with attorneys or their staff members.
evaluating individuals accused of crimes. plaintiffs in liability cases. witnesses. travel to
and time spent in court observing or providing testimony. and any other travel required of
Dr. Grieger for matters related to the casein question. Travel begins at the time of
departure from Dr. Grieger's residence or places of business or employment. Travel ends
at the time of return to Dr. Grieger?s residence or places of business or employment.
Travel time includes, among other matters periods of time. actual travel. awaiting court
proceedings. awaiting transportt-ition, listening to fact. evidence. interviewing others or
being interviewed. and testimony. In common terms. travel will be "portal to portal."

3. Testimony: testimony is the production of information or responding to questions
posed in any formal court related setting {depositions or at trial}.

4. Fee rates:

A. The fee for all consultation as de?ned in paragraph I ahove shall he
at the rate of S35i,l.lil0 per hour. pro~rated for each part of each additional partial hour.

B. The fee for all travel as defined in paragraph 2 above shall be at the rate at
$450.00 per hour. pro~rated for each part of each additional partial hour. For each day of
required travel the maximum travel charge will $4,500.00 per day.

C. For each period of travel of one hundred miles or more from Washington. DC.
travel will he at the rate of $4,500 for each day of travel. each day of work (including all
days of trial proceedings for which Dr. Grieger is present) and each partial day of travel.

-

VISA

01031

For example, return travel from California beginning on I January, but not ending in the
Washington, DC area until 2 January will be billed at the rate of $4,500.00 for each of two
days total) in addition to all travel time spent traveling to California and all
days of work performed there.

C. There is no fee for testimony only for the associated travel time expended and
expenses incurred.

D. For cases within the continental United States. expenses for airfare. car rental,
lodging and per diem are included in the fees for consultation and travel as outlined above.

E. For travel outside the continental United States, travel and expenses will be in
addition to the daily fee rate. Air fare will be in business class.

5. Conditions of authorized time, billing and payment. Upon approval of an initial
maximum number of consultation hours for the consultant, account billing will be every
two weeks with payment due 30 days following submission of the bill. Prior to any
necessary travel, the contracting authority will authorize either a maximum number of
hours or full days of travel (for travel beyond 500 miles for the Washington DC area)
including return travel time. Such communication may be electronic, but must
originate from an employee or of?cial authorized to obligate and commit, personal.
corporate, or Federal funds. Communication from the military Staff Judge
Advocate, defense counsel, or trial counsel will not serve as proper authorization. If
the authorized maximum travel time is not satisfactory based on court or other delays,
additional time (taking into consideration return travel time) must be authorized in
advance. Invoices will be submitted by the consultant electronically. Any failure to pay
any invoice within the 30 day period will result in a show cause notice provided to the
contracting office, with a copy to the local Staff Judge Advocate and the convening
authority, and stoppage of all consultative work until such time as payment is received.
Further failure to provide prompt payment will result in claim against the United States
government. All invoices will include the case name, breakdown of hours expended in
each element of performance, extension of those hours by the proper hourly rate, and
summary total for the two week period and a summary for the total performance on the
case (except see paragraph 6 below). Any question raised by audit or review of arty billing
must be conveyed to the consultant immediately and in any event within one week of
identification.

6. Alternative conditions of consultation. In some circumstances consultation and travel
time may be contracted on a firm fixed price basis for unit task line items. In such
circumstances authorization for each task will be approved in advance and an invoice
submitted when each task is completed. In such circumstances the amount authorized for
each task will be paid upon completion of such task and submission of the invoice. Under
these circumstances the contract and the invoice shall reflect only the task line. items with
no reference to the time required for completion. Examples of such contract line items
follow (terms and unit prices are for demonstrative purposes only and will be negotiated by
the parties depending on the circumstances of the case):

VISA

01032

Line Item 1 - Pre-trial preparation: review of legal and investigative records,
medical records, physical health records, educational records, all similar materials
and any additional materials for which the assigned attorney requests review;
telephone calls from both prosecutionlplaintiff and defense attorneys and their
staffs; preparation of electronic or written reports. and preparation of all
correspondence (including e-mail correspondence). Unit Price: $6,000

Line Item 2 - Travel to and participation in court proceedings: meeting with
attorneys or their staff members, evaluating individuals accused of crimes,
plaintiffs in liability cases. witnesses. travel to and time spent in court observing or
providing testimony, and any other travel required. Unit Price 527,000

7. Credit cards may be used for the initial evaluation if approved by Dr. Grieger.
Cancellation of credit card transactions must be made within 48 hours of initial
authorization. In such case the amount or work not performed will be refunded
{minus a $50.00 processing fee). There will be no refund of credit card authorizations
if cancellation is effected more than 48 hours after authorization. Attempts to cancel
or refuse payment will be matters of legal dispute and the client will be subject to payment
of all legal or arbitration expenses incurred by Dr. Grieger. Clients using a credit card
method of payment will be provided with a single invoice outlining the total hours
authorized and will not receive a detailed billing by elements of performance.

8. Modi?cation to the fee rates: If the above cited fee rates or conditions are modified.
then those modification will be annotated and each line initialed by both parties below.
These modifications must be approved and initialed by government or private individuals
with contracting authority.















VISA



Government or private entity (Base, Corporation, Firm, or Location):



Printed Name:



Position:



Signature:





Date



Thomas A. Grieger, MD



Dale

VISA

01034

CURRICULUM VITAE
21 March 2011

Thomas A. Grieger. M.D.. DFAPA
Captain {retired}. Medical Corps. United States Navy

PH ifitss?inttai? A ddress



Education

BS, School of Literature Science and the Arts. 30 April 197?

The University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Zoology. Distinction Honors

Naval Supply Corps School Basic Qualification Course. Athens. Georgia 1977

Defense Logistics Agency Procmement Management Course. Fort Lee. Virginia, 1979

MD. F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine. Graduated to May 1987
Uniformed Services Universityr of the Health Sciences

Categorical Internship. National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda. Maryland
Graduated 39 June 1988

Residency. National Naval Medical Center Graduated 3t] June I991

Clinical Fellowship in Affective and Eating Disorders, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
October 1983 January 1989

Clinical Scientist Fellowship Uniformed Services University ofthe Health Sciences - October
1993 October I995

Command and Staff Course (correspondence) Naval War College. Newport. RI
February 199? - Mayl 1998


information or:

01035

Specialty Certi?cation and Licensure

Diplomate in the specialty of - American Board of and Neurology -
036811 - January 1993

Additional Qualifications in Addictions American Board of and Neurology

825 -April 1996
Certification in Forensic American Board of and Neurology 1008 - June
1999

Maryland - License D39583 - expires 30 September 2012

Virginia - License 0101044824 - expires 30 April 2012

West Virginia - License 15049 - expires 301une 2012

American Board of and Neurology Examiner 2002 2003

Career

1973 Midshipman NROTC University of Michigan:

1977-1983 Nuclear Propulsion Directorate, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA
08) Naval Nuclear Power Propulsion Program, United States Department
of Energy (DOE) Duties: Prime Contract Manager and Subcontract
Approval Officer for nuclear propulsion plant and reactor plant
components; Budget Planner and Manager for nuclear fuel procurements
(DOE), reactor plant components (Navy), and research and development
funds (DOE and Navy) (SCN, OPN, funds); Shipbuilding
Contracts Negotiator and Administrator {for nuclear propulsion plant
aspects) - Los Angeles Class and Trident Class submarines and Nimitz
Class aircraft carriers

1991-1993 Chief of Addictions Medicine Services, Naval Hospital, Orlando, Florida

1992-1993 Chief of Mental Health Services, Naval Hospital, Orlando, Florida

1993-1998 On-Site Coordinator, Third Year Clerkship, Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences

1993-1998 Addictions Medicine Consultant, Walter Reed Army Medical Center

1993~2007 Inpatient and Partial Hospital Attending Walter Reed Army
Medical Center

1993-2007 Outpatient National Naval Medical Center

19984004 Director, National Capital Military Residency Program

1998-2007 Assistant Chairman (Graduate Medical Education), Department of
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

2007-1 one 2008 Senior Scientific Advisor and Management Consultant to the Defense
Center of Excellence for Health and Traumatic Brain Injury

2007-Present Private Practice in Forensic and Independent Consultant to the
Department of Defense

2003rPresent Staff Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,

Thomas B. Finan Center, Cumberland, MD

Operationat Assignments! Consultations:

1974 USS Thomas C. Hart (13131092) Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
1975 Naval Flight Indoctrination Course - Corpus Chrisd Texas
1975 AntisubmarinefAntiair Warfare Course - Charleston, South Carolina

Undersea Warfare Course - Charleston, South Carolina

'1



Adn'irr?onol Information or: rmdcom

1976

1994

1996

1996

1997

1999

2001

2002
2003-2004
2003-2007

2007-2008

Amphibious Warfare Operations and Small Squad Tactics Courses, Little Creek,
1Virginia

Polaris/Poseidon Strategic Patrol - USS George C. Marshall (SSBN 654) (Gold
Crew)

On-Site Consultant to Air National Guard 171st Air Refueling Group following
body recovery operations related to US Air Flight 42? crash - September 1994
Guantanamo Bay Cuba - Consultant to the Joint Task Force and Immigration and
Naturalization Service regarding suitability of Cuban migrants for transport to the
United States; January 1996, April 1996, and July-August 1996

Naval Medical Research Institute - Consultant to the team of divers involved in
the salvage and body recovery operations after the crash of TWA Flight 800 -
September 1996

Peace Corps - Educational Consultant for Emergency in Overseas
Locations - Gabarone. Botswana and San Pablo del Lago, Ecuador

Consultant to US Army European Command and Croatian Ministry of Defense
on post-war problems in Croatia Zagreb and Croatia.
June 1999

Commended Navy mental health assets (SPRINT) in reaponse to the Pentagon
attack (Operation Noble Eagle) Pentagon and Arlington Annex - September
October 2001

Consultant to the South African Defense forces, Pretoria, RSA, April 2002
Consultant to Army G-l Command on Manifestations and
Management Following the 2001 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon

Consultant to Walter Reed Department on Systematic Collection of
and Behavioral Changes in Returning Soldiers Wounded in Combat
Executive consultant to the Center of Excellence for Post-Deployment
Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, Health Affairs

Additional Consultations

Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Surgeon General - Specialty Case Reviewer for
- 1992 to Present

Board for Correction of Naval Records - Specialty Reviewer for a 1992 to Present
Naval Hospital, Jacksonville, FL - External Investigator for the Privileging Authority -
November 1996

Naval Hospital Roosevelt Roads - External Investigator for Privileging Authorin A June 2003

Professional Societies

American Association Member
Distinguished Fellow 2005 present
Military District Branch (founding) President 1993 4998

Assembly Representative
Treasurer

1999 - present
1998 present

Nominated for election to Speaker of the Assembly 200-4

Consultant on matters of detainee interrogations 20053006
Alpha Omega Alpha Medical Honor Society Member
American Medical Association Member

Consultant to the Council on Ethics and Judicial Affairs 2006

3
A dditionai Information at: I In :wawgriege rmd.com

American Academy of and the Law
International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies

01037

Member
Member

Academic Appointments

1989-1993

1993-1998

l998-Present

1998-2007

2007-Present

1993-Present
2000~Present

Clinical Instructor of Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences

Assistant Professor of Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences

Associate Professor of Military and Emergency Medicine, Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences

Associate Professor of Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences

Professor of Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences

Faculty, Natiooal Capital Consortium Residency

Faculty, National Capital Consortium Forensic Fellowship

Professionan Honors and Recognition

1976
200?
1998
2004
2000
1993
2002
1996
1990
2000
199
1993
1992
2005
1996
1988
1989
1990

1991

1997

2001
2002

2004
2004
2005
2005

Polaris Poseidon Strategic Patrol Pin

Defense Superior Service Medal

Defense Meritorious Service Medal

Meritorious Service Medal

Joint Service Commendation Medal

Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal - Naval Hospital Orlando
Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal - National Naval Medical Center
Joint Service Achievement Medal

Navy Achievement Medal

Joint Meritorious Unit Commendation - Uniformed Services University
Meritorious Unit Commendation National Naval Medical Center
Meritorious Unit Commendation Naval Hospital Orlando

National Defense Medal

Global War on Terrorism, Service Medal

Humanitarian Service Medal .ITF 160 Guantanamo Bay Cuba
Marksmanship, Ri?e, Expert

Marksmanship, Pistol, Expert

Bartholomew Hogan Award for Outstanding Research Paper Among Navy
Residents

Bartholomew Hogan Award for Outstanding Research Paper Among Navy
Residents

Nancy CA. Roeske M.D., Certificate of Excellence in Medical Student
Education, American Association

Senior Resident Teacher of the Year and Residency Teacher of the Year
LTGEN Chenault Award for Continuous Outstanding Contributions

to Education and Research with endowed cash award

Senior Resident Teacher of the Year and Residency Teacher of the Year
Who?s Who in Medical Sciences Education

RADM James Sears Award for Excellence in Navy
Distinguished Fellow of the American Association

4
Additional Information or:

2007

01038

Consumers' Research Council "Americas Top

Editorial Review Boards

EDIE-pres
2004-pres
2004-pres
BUGS-pres
EGGS-pres
2006-pres
BUM-pres
2(107-pres
EUOT-pres

Committees

1991-1993
1991-1993
1991-1993
1991-1993
1991-1993
1994-2007

1995
1996

1996-200?

1996-1997

1996-2007
1997

1997-1998

1997-2002

1998-2000

199

2001?2007

leUT-Present

Reviewer -

Reviewer Services

Reviewer Annals of General Internal Medicine

Reviewer - Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMAI)

Reviewer Medical Care (Journal of the American Public Health Association)
Reviewer American Journal of

Reviewer Journal ofTraumatic Stress

Reviewer Canadian Medical Association Journal

Reviewer Journal of Research

Credentials Committee Chairman, Naval Hospital, Orlando

Execotive Committee of the Medical Staff, Naval Hospital, Orlando

Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, Naval Hospital, Orlando

Committee for Officer Recruitment and Retention, Naval Hospital, Orlando
Committee for Bioethics and the Protection of Human Subjects, Naval Hospital,
Orlando

Continuing Health Education Committee, Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences

Institutional Review Board, National Naval Medical Center

Committee on Military Billets, Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences

Institutional Review Board Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
(Vice Chair)

Curriculum Committee Chairman, National Capital Military Residency
Program

National Capital Military Residency Policy Committee

Committee on Military Medical Professionalism, Uniformed Services University
of the Health Sciences

Committee on Military Unique Curriculum for Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences (Chairman)

Committee on Impaired Health Care Providers, Walter Reed Army Medical
Center

Chief of Naval Operations Code 931 committee to establish doctrine
on management of operational stress.

Defense Medical Readiness Training Command committee on establishment of
joint doctrine with regard to prevention, identification, and management of
operational conditions

Senior Member - Navy Health Professional Scholarship Program Selection Board
Team Four

Chairman, Data Safety Monitoring Committee, VA Cooperative Study #504:
Risperidone Treatment for Military Service Related Chronic Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder.

5
Additional information at: w-grie ee rm doom

01039

Bibliography

Original Articles
1. Grieger T, Kluger Fever and survival: The role of serum iron, .ioarnat' of Physiciagv

(London), 1973, 279, 187-196.

2, Staab JP, Grieger TA. Fullerton CS, Ursano RJ, Acute stress disorder, subsequent











O:

5-D

posttraumatic stress disorder and depression after a series of typhoons, Anxiety 2:219-
225, 1996

. Grieger TA, Warden DL, and Shappel] C, Management of alcohol withdrawal in a general

practice, Medicai Updates for 131139-143, 1996

. Shappell CM, Grieger TA, and Warden DL, Medical complications of cocaine abuse,

Updates for 29:34-38, 1997

. Grieger TA and Adams B, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 1996: services to Cuban

migrants in the final days of operation sea signal, Mt?it'tarv Medicine 162, 12:824, 1997

. Grieger TA et Acute stress disorder and subsequent post-traumatic stress disorder in a

group of exposed disaster workers, Depression and Antiety 2000

. Donovan GF and Grieger TA, Qualified Immunity, Journai of the American Academy of

and the Law, (29) No 3, 355-356, 2001

. J, Grieger TA, and Benedek DM, Pharmacologic treatment of hospitalized patients with

schizoaffective disorder, Services 53:94-96, 2002.

. Grieger TA and responses by the US. Navy to the Pentagon attack,

Military Medicine, 167, Suppl. 4:24, 2002

IU. Grieger TA, Fullerton CS. and Ursano Positraumatic stress disorder. alcohol use, and

ll.

14.

perceived safety after the terrorist attack on the Pentagon, Services, 54: 1380
1333. 2003

Grieger TA, Fullerton CS, and Ursano Acute stress disorder, increased alcohol use and
perception of safety among hospital staff following sniper attacks,
Services,54: 1383 1382, 2003

. Bobo WV, Hoge C, Messina MA, Pavlovcic F, Levandowsky D, Grieger TA, Characteristics

of repeat users of an inpatient unit at a large military hospital.
Medicine. 169, 82648-653, 2004

. Grieger TA, Fullerton CS, and Ursano RJ, Positraumatic stress disorder, depression, and

perceived safety thirteen months following the attack on the Pentagon,
Services 55: 1061:1063, 2004

Grieger TA, PTSD plus depression are comorbid conditions but depression can occur
independently in the acute aftermath of trauma. Evidence Based Mental Health,
2005

. Berg JS, GriegerTA, Spira .lL, and cognitive appraisal following the

near sinking of a research submarine, Military Medicine. 2005

. Grieger TA, Waldrep DA, Lovasz MM, Ursano RJ, Follow up of Pentagon employees two

years after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, Sen-tees 561374-1378.
2005

. Fullerton CS, Ursano RJ, Reeves JJ, Shigemura J, Grieger T, Perceived safety in disaster

workers following 9t11,.i. Nerv Ment Dis [94:61-63, 2006

. Grieger TA, Benedek DM, disorders following return from combat duty during

the twenty-first century, Primary 2006

ft
Additionai information at:

25.

26.

27.

28.

30.



32.

3'3.

34.

35.

36.

01040

. Benedek DM, Grieger TA, Posedeployment violence and antisocial behavior: the in?uence

of pre-deployment factors, warzone experience, and posttraumatic stress disorder,
Primary 2006

. Grieger TA, Cozza SJ Ursano RJ, Engel CC, Hoge CW, Martinez PE, Wain HJ:

Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in battle injured soldiers, American Journal
163:1777-1783, 2006

Warner C, Warner C, Matuszak T, J, Rachal Grieger T, Disordered eating in entry
level military personnel, Military Medicine 172:147-151, 2007

Kolko TT, Spira L, Morse JS, Grieger TA, Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in
healthcare providers returning from deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Military
Medicine: 172(5): 451-455, 2007.

Warner, CM, Warner CH, Breitbach J, Rachal Matuszak T, Grieger TA, Depression in
entry level military personnel, Military Medicine, 2007

Warner CH, Brietbach .lE, Appenzeller GN, Yates V, Grieger TA, Webster WG, Division
mental health in the new brigade combat team structure part 1: predeployment and
deployment, Military Medicine 172 (9): 907-911, 2007

. Warner CH, Brietbach .l E, Appenzeller GN, Yates V, Grieger TA, Webster WG, Division

mental health in the new brigade combat team structure part 2: redeployment and post-
deployment, Military Medicine 172 (9): 911-917, 2007

Appenzeller GN, Warner CH, Grieger TA, Post deployment health re-assessment: a
sustainable method for Units, Military Medicine 2007

Warner CH, Appenzeller GN, Barry Morton A, Grieger TA, The evolving role of the
division Military Medicine 172 (9): 900-906, 2007

Ursano Zhang L, Hough Cl, Benedek DM, Grieger, TA, Holloway HC, Models of PTSD
and traumatic stress: the importance of research "from bedside to bench to bedside. Prog.
Brain Res. 167203-15, 2008.

McLay RN, Deal WE, Murphy JA, Kolkow TT, Grieger TA, On-the-record screenings
versus anonymous surveys in reporting PTSD, American Journal of lojt'ti):
775-776, 2008

Warner CH, Appenzeller GN, ullen K, Warner CM, Grieger TA, Solider attitudes toward
mental health screening and seeking care upon return from combat, Military Medicine.
2008

Warner CH. Warner CM, Moranstein J, Appenzeller GN, Rachal J, Grieger TA. Military
family physician attitudes toward treating obesity, Medicine, 173(10): 978-984,
2008

effects of deployments on military families, Warner CH, Appenzeller (3N,
Warner CM, Grieger TA, Annals, 39(2) 2009

Book Chapters
1. Ursano RJ, Grieget TA, and McCarroll JE, Prevention of Stress: Consultation,

Training, and Early Treatment, In Traumatic Stress: The Effects of Overwhelming
Experience on Mind, Body, and Society, van der Kolk BA, McFarlane AC. and Weisaeth
(eds), The Guilford Press, New York, 441-462, 1996

2. McCarroll E, Hoffman and Grieger TA, Aspects of Deployment and

Reunion. ln Preventive Medicine Volume, Textbook of Military Medicine, OTSG, USA
(2005)

7
Additional information at:

01041

3. Benedek DM, Ursano RJ, Holloway HC, Norwood AE, Grieger TA, Engel CC, and Lucy TC.
Military and Disaster In The international of the Social and
Behavioral Sciences (in press)

4. Grieger TA, Bally RE, JL, Kennedy JS, Griffeth BT, and Reeves JJ, Individual and
Organizational Interventions After Terrorism: September 11 and the USS. Cole, In
Individual and Community Responses to Trauma and Disaster, Ursano RJ, Fullerton CF,
and Norwood AE (eds), Cambridge University Press, New York, 71439, 2003

5. Benedek DM, Grieger TA, Mental Health Management of Bioterrorism Events, In
Bioterrorism: The Weaponzation of Infectious Disease, Lutwick and Lutwick S, (eds),
Human Press, (in press)

6. Grieger TA, Knowles JW, Mental Health Response to the Pentagon Staff in the Weeks
Following the Attack, In On the Ground After September '11: Mental Health Responses
and Practical Knowledge Gained, Danieli Y. and Dingman R., (eds). Haywoth Press,
Bimhampton, NY, 198-204, 2005

7. Echo WV. Keller RT, Greenberg N, Alfonso CA, Pastor LH, Grieger TA,
Responses to Terrorism, In Military Life: The of Serving in Peace and
Combat. Britt TW, Castro CA, and Adler AB (eds), Praeger Security International.
Westport, CT, vol 1:31:60, 2006

8. Benedek DM, Grieger TA, Legal Aspects of Patient Care, In Third Edition,,
Tasman A, Kay .1, Lieberman MB, and Maj (eds), John Wiley and Son, Chichester,
United Kingdom, (in press.)

9. Grieger TA, Benedek DM, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Aggression and Violence, in
Textbook of Violence Assessment and Management, Simon R. American
Press Incorporated, Washington, DC, 123-140, 2008

10. Grieger TA, Benedek DM. Ursano RJ, Assessment and Management of Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder. in Clinical Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Benedek DM and
GH (eds), American Press Incorporated, Washington, DC (in press)

Distributed Education Materials:

Ursano R, Dinneen M, Grieger T, Disaster Individual and Community Interventions,
videotape distributed to all district branches of APA and American Red Cross, Walter
Reed Television Service, 2001

Hall R, Grieger T, and Post M, Terrorism and Responses to Terrorist Attacks,
Update Audiotape Series Vol 22:2, 2001

Graduate Education Publications:

Grieger TA, Military Course Curriculum, National Capital Consortium, Walter Reed
Army Medical Center 1995-2003

Grieger TA, Nash W, Evans W, Ritchie EC, Chozinski J, Rundell J, Military Unique Curriculum
for Residency Programs,
1998

Grieger TA, Curriculum on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, National Capital Consortium, Walter
Reed Army Medical Center, 1995-2006.

Grieger TA, Benedek DM, Case Studies and Simulated Patient Scripts on Operational
Topics, Department of Military Medicine, USUHS, 1994-2006.

8
Additional information or:

01042

Letters/Reviews/Case Reports

Grieger T, Carl M, Liebert H, et a1; Mediastinal liposarcoma in a patient with human
immunodeficiency virus, American Journal ofMedicine Vol 34, Feb 1988, 366.

Grieger T, Clayton A, and Goyer Affective disorder following use of
American Journal 147:3, March 1990, 367-368.

Grieger T, Clayton Ganser's a possible association with major depression, Journal
ofClinical 51:11], October '1 990, 437.

Grieger T, Clayton Ganser?s clarification (ltr), Journal of Clinical 51
April 1991. 186.

Grieger T, Cozza K, 3; Treatment of Parkinson's disease. New of
Medicine, 330(9), March 1994, 643-644.

Grieger, Ethics of Combat American Journal 151(6), June 1994,
949.

Grieger TA, and Benedek, DM, Pharmacologic treatment of patients hospitalized with a
diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, Clin Pay-'c'liinrry names-ea, 2002

Daly CM, and Grieger TA, Mary, a 4-year-old with oppositional defiant disorder, Military
Medicine 167, 5:442-444, 2002.

Roadblocks in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Transforming Challenges into Opportunities for
Change, Robert L. Leahy (ED), Guilford Press, New York, NY, 2003 Reviewed in
(in press).

Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders, Second Edition, Aaron T. Beck, Arthur Freeman,
Denise D. Davis, and Associates, Guilford Press, New York, NY. 2004 - Reviewed in
(in press).

Grieger TA, and societal impacts of terrorism, Times, 2006



l. "Fever and Survival; The role of Serum Iron", Annual Meeting of the American Physiological
Society, Miami, Florida, 22 October 1977.

2. "The Pattern of Inheritance in Manic Depressive Illness", Johns Hopkins Hospital,
Department of Grand Rounds, Baltimore, Maryland, 10 October 1988.

3. "Limbic Encephalitis?, National Naval Medical Center, Department of Grand
Rounds, Bethesda, Maryland, 5 April 1989.

4. "Evaluation of the Acuter Patient", National Naval Medical Center, Department of
Internal Medicine, Guest Lecture Series, Bethesda, Maryland, 7 April 1989.

5. "Evaluation and Treatment of Emergencies", National Naval Medical Center,
Department of Emergency Medicine, Guest Lecture Series, Bethesda, Maryland,

3 August 1989.

6. "Suicidalin as a Predictor of Diagnosis", National Naval Medical Center,
Department of Grand Rounds, Bethesda, Maryland, 18 April 1990

7. "Suicidalin as a Predictor of Diagnosis", Braceland Annual Meeting of Navy
New York City, New York, 12 May 1990.

8. ?Demographic and Seasonal Differences Between Adjustment Disorders and Depression",
National Naval Medical Center, Clinical Investigations Department Annual Competition,
Bethesda, Maryland, 12 April 1991.

9. "Demographic and Seasonal Differences Between Adjustment Disorders and Depression",
William C. Menninger Memorial Conference, Topeka, Kansas, 15 April 199].

9
Additional information or:

01043

10. "Demographic and Seasonal Differences Between Adjustment Disorders and Depression",
Braceland Annual Meeting of Navy New Orleans, Louisiana, 11 May
1991.

1. "Demographic and Seasonal Differences Between Adjustment Disorders and Depression?,
Annual Meeting of the Society of Military New Orleans, Louisiana,

12 May 1991.

12. "Treatment of Alcoholism in the Navy - A Systems Perspective?, Braceland Annual Meeting
of Navy Bethesda, Maryland, 2 May 1992.

13. "Alcohol and Drug Abuse" - Annual Meeting of the Central Florida College of Physicians
Assistants, Orlando, Florida, 24 January 1993

14. "Brief Reactive - DSM IV Changes and a Historical Perspective?, Grand Rounds,
Malcolm Grow Medical Center, 2 December 1993.

15. "Diagnosis and Treatment of Depression in Primary Care Practice?, Grand Rounds. Bolling
Air Force Base. Washington, DC, 19 January 1994.

16. "Disaster Consultation?, Grand Rounds, St. Francis Hospital, Pittsburgh, 20
September 1994

17. "Community and Command Consultation Following Disasters?, Brandt, G. Grieger, T. and
Sutton, L., "Emerging Treatments of Depression" Conference, Uniformed Services
University, Bethesda, Maryland, 21 October 1994

13. "Treatment of Depression in the Primary Care Setting", National Naval Medical Center,
Internal Medicine Department Visiting Lecturer Series, 3 March 1995

19. "Predictors of Acute Stress Disorder and its Sequelae in a Military Community Exposed to
Repeated Natural Disasters", Staab J, and Grieger, T, Annual Meeting of the American
Association, 20 May 1995.

20. ?Continuum of Depression". Program Moderator, Marriott Hotel, Bethesda, Maryland, 14
November 1995.

2 1. ?Military - the Cuban Migrant Experience", Grand Rounds, Tri Service Military
Residency Training Program, Bethesda. Maryland, 28 March 19%.

22. ?Acute Dissociation and Abnormal Reactions to Abnormal Events - Evidence from Four
Studies ofAcutc Stress Braceland Navy Symposium, New York. New
York, 4 May 1996

23. ?The Relationship Between Acute Stress Disorder and Subsequent Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder in Three Disaster Populations". l49th Annual Meeting of the American
Association, New York, New York, 9 May 1996.

24. "Acute and Posttraumatic Stress in Trauma Naive and Repeatedly Traumatized
Community disaster Populations?. 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for the
Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New York, November 1996

25. "Trauma Induced Disorders - Expert Testimony in Tort Litigation?. Department ot?Justice.
US Attorneys Tort Litigation Branch Staff Conference, Annapolis Maryland, 14 March
1997

26. "Evaluation and Management of Emergencies", Peace Corps Continuing Medical
Education Mental Health Training Workshop, Gabarone, Botswana, 7' - 11 April 1997'

27. "Evaluation and Management of Emergencies?, Peace Corps Continuing Medical
Education Mental Health Training Workshop, Quito and San Pablo del Lago, Ecuador
19 - 29 June1997

28. ?Situational Assessment and Command Consultation in Operational Environments".
Behavioral Sciences Conference on Critical Incident Management, Malcolm Grow Air
Force Hospital, Andrews Air Force Base, 23 September 1997

ID
Additional Information at:

3601044

. "Management of Patients with Severe Personality Disorders in a Managed Care System"

{moderator}, Grand Rounds, National Capital Area Military Residency
Program, Washington, DC, 24 September 1997

?Diagnosis and Management of Substance Abuse Disorders?, Grand Rounds, North Arundel

Hospital, Glen Burnie, Maryland, 16 December 1997

Issues in Novel Environments", Grand Rounds. National Capital

Military Residency, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington. DC, I 1
February 1998

"Paperwork. Politics, and Personalities: Effecting Change Within a National Defense

Bureaucracy", Army Behavioral Sciences Short Course, Atlanta. Georgia, 29 April 1998

. ?Panic and Fear: Assessment and Management of Anxiety Disorders within the Recruit

Population", Fourth Annual Symposium of Recruit and Trainee Medical Officers,
Atlantic City, New Jersey, 2 May 1998

?Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and its Application to Addiction", North Atlantic Regional

Medical Command Annual Substance Abuse Symposium, Washington, DC, 8 May 1998

. "Command Consultation Following Disaster", State Department Conference on

Responses to Terrorism and Disaster, Washington, DC, 29 April 1999

Bene?t ofCognitive Behavioral Therapy in the Prevention of Recurrence ot'Depression",
Special Board of Flight Surgeons, NOMI, Pensacola, FL, 7 April 1999

Debrie?ng Versus Consultation, Concepts and Examples", National Disaster Management
System Annual Conference, Washington, DC, 11 May 1999

"Management of Problems among War-Displaced Civilians and Combat

Veterans", Croatia, June 1999
Treatment of Patients with Schizoaffective Disorder". Army Behavioral Science Short
Course, Washington, DC, September 1999

Responses to Disaster", State Department Medical Officers Conference,

Washington DC, 24 March 2000

"Trends in Treatment of Patients Hospitalized with Schizoaffective Disorder: A F: Year

Naturalistic Study", Annual Meeting of the American Association, Chicago,
IL, 15 May 2000

. ?Primer for Research Clinicians: The Use of SPSS Statistical Software", Grand Rounds.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, 13 September 2000

. Board Certi?cation: Objectives and Procedures of the Oral Boards Process". Grand

Rounds. Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, 21 March 2001

. ?Consultation to Leadership in the Setting of Humanitarian Missions?, Military Medical

Humanitarian Course, USUHS, Bethesda, Maryland, 30 March 2001.

. "Estenuation and Mitigation in Capital Offense Cases". Army Behavior Science Short

Course, Bethesda, Maryland, 13 August 2001

?Navy Mental Health Response to the I September 2001 Pentagon Attack". Grand Rounds.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, 10 October 2001

?Navy Mental Health Response to the 1 September 2001 Pentagon Attack", TRICARE

2002 Conference, Washington, DC, 6 February 2002

"Use of as Expert Witnesses and Consultants in Military Courts Martial?, US.

Air Force Eastern Circuit Trial Counsel Conference, Bolling AFB, Washington, DC, 1]
April 2002

Management of Post Trauma Problems Following War, and Civil Unrest".
Pretoria, Republic of South Africa, April 2002


Additional information or:

is01045

. ?Navy Medical Response to the 11 September 2001 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon,
National Defense Medical System Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 16 April 2002

. as Consultants and the Role of Debriefing Following Disaster". US. State
Department International Annual Conference, Bethesda, MD, 2 May 2002

. as Defense Consultants". Conference on Complex Case Defense, Naval Justice
School, Newport, Rhode Island, 17 July 2002

Consultation Following Disaster: Process and Findings", Maryland
Society Conference on Disaster, Baltimore, Maryland. 10 April 2003

Consequences of Terrorist Acts?, Veterans Administration Hospital Grand
Rounds, Washington, DC, 9 May 2003

. ?Community Terror: Hospital Staff Responses to a Series ofSniper Shootings", American
Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 22 May 2003.

. ?Terror at Sea: Responses in the Crew of the USS Dolphin Following 3 Near
Sinking". American Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 22
May 2003.

. Manifestations ofTerrorism" Grand Rounds, Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, Washington, DC, 3 September 2003

. as Defense Consultants". US. Air Force Eastern Circait Defense Counsel
Conference, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, DC 2 March 2004

. ?The Enduring Impact ofTerrorism: Follow-up of Pentagon Employees Two Years after the
Attack". American Association Annual Meeting, New York. NY, 3 May 2004

. "Use of Medications in Hospitalized Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder?.
American Association Annual Meeting, New York, NY, 3 May 2003

."?Mental Health Needs ofOur Soldiers and Their Families?, Issue Workshop at the American
Association Annual Meeting, New York, NY, 4 May 2004

. as Defense Consultants", Conference on Complex Case Defense, Naval Justice
School, Newport, Rhode Island, 14 July 2004

. "Preliminary Findings of Disorders Among Battle Injured Soldiers Returning
from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, Annual Force Health
Protection Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 10 August 2004

. ?Applications ofAnny Combat Stress Control in Work with Pentagon Survivors: Two Year
Follow up, Annual Force Health Protection Conference, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, 11 August, 2004

. "The Enduring Impact of Terrorism: Follow-up of Pentagon Employees Two Years after the
Attack, International Congress of Military Medicine, Arlington, Virginia. 14 September
2004

. and Behavioral Ellects ofTerrorism", National Naval Medical Center
Disaster Conference, Bethesda, MD, 21 October 2004

. "Terrorism in America, Questions Answered, Questions Raised? Danieli Y, Friedman M.
Galea S, Grieger T, Schlenger W, International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies, New
Orleans, LA, 16 November 2004.

. "Updates on Treatment of [6th Annual Update, Southern
California Association, Santa Monica, California, 5 February 2005.

. "Longitudinal Consequences ofCombat Deployment and Battle Injury".
European Regional Medical Conference, Sonthofen, Germany, 18 April 2005

. Impact of Terrorism and Combat Deployment on Healthcare Workers.
European Regional Medical Conference, Sonthofen, Germany, 18 April, 2.005

12

Additionaf Information or: griegermdcom

01046

?Consultation to Leaders During Responses to Terrorism and Disaster", European Regional

72

73

Medical Conference, Sonthofen, Germany, 20 April, 2005

"Medical Ethics Update: Management oflraqi Non-Com batants and Detainees?, Benedek

DM, Grieger TA, EurOpean Regional Medical Conference, Sonthofen, Germany, 20
April 2005

"Prevalence of Disordered Eating Attitudes and Depression In a U.S. Army Second Level

entry Population", Warner CH, Warner. CM. Matuszak T, Rachal J, J, Grieger TA.
Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Association, Atlanta, Georgia, 23
May 2005

74. Onset and Course of PTSD and Depression Among Battle Injured Soldiers, Annual Scientific

Meeting of the American Association, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 May 2005

and Mental Healthcare Utilization Among Medical Personnel

Deployed to Combat". Kolkow TT, Grieger TA, Berg JS, and Spira J, Annual Scientific
Meeting of the American Association. Atlanta, Georgia, 25 May 2005

?Interventions following the Pentagon Attack and Presence of Two Years Later".

Waldrep DA, Grieger TA and Lovasz M, Annual Scientific Meeting of the American
Association, Atlanta, Georgia, 26 May 2005.

"Use of as ConsultantsiExperts in Defense Litigation". Defending Complex

Cases. Naval Justice School, Newport, R1, 27 June 2005

?Deployment and Post-Deployment Conditions as Possible Areas of Defense

Litigation Tactics", Defending Complex Cases, Naval Justice School, Newport, R1. 27'
June 2005

"Presence of Two Years After the Pentagon Attack, Waldrep DA, Grieger TA,

Lovasz M, Meeting of the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies, Toronto,
Canada. 3 November 2005

Responses to Terrorism". Wilford Hall Air Force Medical Center, San Antonio,

TX 17' November 2005

Responses Following Deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq". Philadelphia

Association Colloquium of Scholars, Philadelphia, PA, 22 April 2006

"Early Predictors of Later PTSD and Depression in Battle Injured Soldiers". American

Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada, 24 May 2006

"Use of as Consultants/Experts in Defense Litigation". Defending omples

Cases, Naval Justice School, Newport, R1, 19 July 2006

"Deployment and Post-Deployment Conditions as Possible Areas of Defense

Litigation Tactics", Defending Complex Cases, Naval Justice School, Newport. R1, '19
July 2006

"The Effects of Terrorism: 9H I, Sniper Attacks. and War?. Penn State

Symposium, Camp Hill, PA, 21 September 2006

and Behavioral Effects ofTerrorism and Disaster", National Naval Medical

Center Disaster Conference, Bethesda, MD, 7 December 2006

Responses to Disaster: A Systematic Plan for Disaster Response". American

Association, San Diego, CA, 23 May 2007

"Early Screening for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Injured Soldiers Using the PTSD

Checklist NR 623". American Association, San Diego, CA, 23 May 2007

"Deployment and Post-Deployment Mental Health Issues? Prosecuting Complex Cases

Conference, Naval Justice School, Newport, RI, 9 July 2007

"Sexual Assault, Alcohol, and Victim Behaviors", Prosecuting Complex Cases Conference,

Naval Justice School, Newport, RI, 9 July 2007

13
Additional Information at:

01047

"Deployment and Post-Deployment Mental Health Issues" Defending Complex Cases

Conference, Naval Justice School, Newport, R1, 18 July 2007 (Remote Lecture from
Bethesda, MD)

92. "Use of as in Defense Litigation", Defending Complex

Cases Conference, Naval Justice School, Newport, R1, 18 July 2007 (Remote Lecture
from Bethesda MD)

.93. "Expert Testimony in One General Court Martial?. Peer Review by the Experts Symposium.

American Academy of and the Law, South Beach Miami, FL 18 October 2007

94. "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury: Signature Injuries?? Association

of Military Surgeons of the United States, Salt Lake City, UT, 13 November 2007

95. Effects of Deployment on Military Families." Army Force Health Protection

Conference, Albuquerque, NM 13 August 2008

96. "Evaluating the Ef?cacy ofAcupuncture as a Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in

Military Personnel", Army Force Health Protection Conference, Albuquerque, NM l3
August 2008

97. "Con?dentiality and Post-Deployment Mental Health Screening.? Army Force Health

Protection Conference, Albuquerque, NM 14 August 2008

93. "Suicide Prevention During Deployment: An Action Plan Model,? Army Force Health

Protection Conference, Albuquerque, NM 14 August 2008

99. ?Effectiveness ofBattlefield Ethics Training." Army Force Health Protection Conference,

[00.

10].

l02.

103.

108.

109.

110.

Albuquerque, NM l4 August 2008

"Recent Updates in Real Time Management of Deployment-Related Health," Army Force

Health Protection Conference, Albuquerque, NM 13 August 2008

"Use of as in Defense Litigation and Matters Related to

Intoxication?, Defending Complex Cases, Naval Justice School, Newport, R1, 20 August
2008

"Deployment and Post-Deployment Conditions as Possible Areas of Defense

Litigation Tactics", Defending Complex Cases, Naval Justice School, Newport, R1, 20
August 2008.

as Expert Witnesses?, USMC Trial Advocacy (TRIAD) Course, Camp
Lejeune, NC, 6 October 2008

. "Update on Treatments for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder", Scienti?c Meeting of the

Alabama Society, Sandestin, FL, 28 March 2009

. Experts and Issues Related to Incapacitation Due to Alcohol". Army Trial

Defense Service Conference, Staten Island, NY 16 April 2009

. "Forensic Experts and the Effects ofAlcohol on Capacity". Defending Complex

Cases Conference, Naval Justice School, Newport, R1, '13 May 2009.

. Stress and Lost Productivity Among Physicians Treating Battle Injured

Soldiers?, Annual Meeting ofthe American Association. San Francisco, CA,
19 May 2009

Redeployment and PDHA Outcomes" Army Force Health Protection Conference,

Albuquerque, NM, 21 August 2009

Effects of Deployments on Military Families? Army Force Health

Protection Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 21 August 2009

"Deployment and PTSD in Relationship to Criminal Defense" Florida Public Defenders

"Life Over Death? Conference, Orlando, FL 11 September 2009

Supplementary Information

14
Additional Information at: http:wawgr?getmdcom

Research. Grants

Natural Disasters and Health Outcome: Adult and Adolescent Responses to Hurricane Andrew;
USUHS R08895 Co-lnvestigator

Stress Mediators in the US. Army
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Io-Investigator

Effects of Post Traumatic Stress and Substance Dependence on Acoustic Startle Response
USUHS ROSSAMDU Walter Reed Principal Investigator

Neurophysiological Responses to Auditory Tones in Patients With Panic Disorder
RUBBISH-01 - Principle Investigator

A Controlled Efficacy Study of a Brief Multidisciplinary Brain Injury Rehabilitation Program in
Moderate Head Injured Service Members, Walter Reed - Associate Investigamr

Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program: Walter Reed Core Evaluation Protocol
Associate Investigator

Naturalistic Study of Pharmacotherapy in Patients with Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar
Disorder, and Schizophrenia. Walter Reed Army Medical Center WU 00-720l. 2000
2002 Principal Investigator

Emotional and Behavioral Following Exposure to Trauma, USUHS FSESEG, 200!
2002 Associate Investigator

Emotional and Behavoiral Following a Traumatic Event,
USUHS HUSSGJ Associate Investigator

The Frequency and Nature of Forensic Issues in an Inpatient Adult General
Population. WRAMC WU 7279-98 Principal Investigator

Resilience Factors Two Years following the Attack on the Pentagon, US UHS-HUSSHM. 2003
Prinicpal Investigator

Pharmaacologic Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with Borderline Personality
Disorder, WRAMC 03-72011EX, USUHS GISSHL, 2003 Principal Investigator

Effects of Traumatic Injury During Deployment, WRAMC 05-72013EX, 2004,
USUHS HUSSIT

Factors Associated with After Combat Deployment, USUHS HUSSIG

Effects of Working with Battle Injured Soldiers, WRAMC WU
2005

Educational contributions
Continuing Medical Education Programs

1994 Course Director - Updates in Treatment of Depression Conference ('14 hours
CME)

1995 Course Director - 10th Annual Military Medicine Conference

1995-1998 Course Director Grand Rounds

1996 Course Director, Clinical Symposium, Garmisch, Germany,

1999 Course Director, continuing education program for State Department regional

on responses to terrorism and disaster in the wake of the
African embassy bombings, Washington, DC, April 1999

2007 Course Director, Anxiety. Fear, Memory, and Mood: From Neurobiology to
PTSD and Mood disorders, Bethesda, Maryland April 200?

Ongoing Teaching Responsibilities
FTX Bushmaster Course Director for Combat Stress and Operational - Camp Bullis -
Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas: I994 2005 Fort lndiantown Gap: 2006-2007

15
Additional Information at:

01049

Course Instructor - "Military National Capital Military Residency

Course Director ?Cognitive Behavioral National Capital Military
Residency 1995 - present

Resident Case Supervisor in Cognitive Behavioral and
Electroconvulsive Therapy

Resident Global Supervisor 1995-1998

Forensic Supervisor. 1999 - present

Preceptor for Human Behavior Small Group Discussions 1993-2004

Preceptor MS Ill Medical Students During Clinical Clerkships 1993-2008

Guest Lecturer - Preventative Medicine Fellows - Operational Medicine Course, 1997 - 2007

Guest Lecturer Graduate School of Nursing Course on Operational Medicine. 19% - Elm?

Post-Graduate Research Supen?isor

Dr. Julianne M.D., Trends in Treatment of Patients Hospitalized with Schizoaffective
Disorder, Walter Reed Army Medical Center [999200]

Dr. Melissa Messina, M.D., Use of Medications in Hospitalized Patients with Borderline
Personality Disorder, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 2002-2003

Dr. Monica Lovasz, M.D., Interventions following the Pentagon Attack and Presence of
Two Years Later, Uniformed Services University, 2003-3005

Dr. Christopher Warner, M.D., Prevalence of Disordered Eating Attitudes and Depression In a
US. Army Second Level entry Population, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 2004-
2006

Dr. Tonya Kolkow, M.D., and Mental Healthcare Utilization Among,
Medical Personnel Deployed to Combat, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, 2004-2006

Dr. Joshua Morganstein, M.D., Physician Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Treatment of
Patients with Obesity, Malcolm Grow Air Force HUSpilal, 2005-2006

Dr. Christopher Alfonzo, Impact on Providers from Working with Battle
Injured Soldiers, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 2006-2007

Dr. Joseph Dougherty, M.D., Child and Adolescent and Trainee Involvement in the
Political Process, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 2007-2007.

Court Consultant [Expert Witness Military Court's Martial Federal and State Felony Cases

1. U.S. v. Dobbins, National Naval Medical Center, January 2000'?

2. us. y. Miller, Scott AFB, February 2000"

3. US. Tillman, NAS Patuxent River, April 2000"

4. US. v. Beebe, NAS Patuxent River April 2000?

5. us. y. Wardle, Tyndall APB, April zone"

6. 0.5. y. Morgan, NAVSTA Norfolk, May 2000'

r. us y. Rendon, Tyndall AFB, August anon?

8. U.S v. Tillotson, Naval Station San Diego, February 2001:.

9. U.S. v. Stone, United States Military Academy, April 20011

IU. US v. Salahuddin, Scott Air Force Base. January - March 2002?

11. US. v. Hilyard, Tyndall Air Force Base, April May 20021-

12. U.S. Mitchell, USASATEF, Vicenza Italy. May June 20022.

13. US v. Williams, Whidbey Island, Washington, October 2002??

14. US. v. Jacobs, NAS Pensacola, October 20021

14. US. Wallace, NNMC, Bethesda, MD (consultant to the convening authority), October
2002

16
Additional Information at:

15U.S.
3?U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
2004
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U. S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
US.
US.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.





01050

. Waithe, USA 1stlD Sweinfurt, Germany, February 2003"

. Wallace, NNMC, Washington, DC, April 20033?

. Swanson, NAS Jacksonville. FL, December 2003 - January 2004':

. Drake, infantry Division, Vilseek, Germany, February 2004?

. Davis, 47"h Flying Training Wing, Laughlin AFB, March 20042

. Dooley, Shaw AFB, March 20042

. Wynn, Keesler AFB, Mississippi, May 2004"

. Johnson, Columbus AFB, Mississippi, May 2004?

. Meester. United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs. CO, January-June 24.

Hendricks, Marine Corps Base, Quantico. VA June 20042

. Mays, McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, June 20043.

. Flores, Scott Air Force Base, illinois, October 20042

. Goodin, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. January 2005"

. Simmons, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, February 2005'

. Cilli, Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio, February 2005?

. Torres, Fort Stewart, Georgia, February 2005:.

. Aguilar, Camp Pendleton, California. March 2005:.4

. Perkins, Fort Benning, Georgia, May 2005 l?

. Couse. Fort Benning, Georgia, May 2005"

.OiNeil. Camp Pendleton. California. January June 2005?

. Peterson, Naval District Washington, Washington, DC, July-August 2005')r
. Pretzer, Ramstein AFB, Germany, December 20051

. Spears, Moody AFB, Georgia, December 20051

. Tapia, Kaiserslautern Germany January-February 2006?

. Conley, Robins AFB, Georgia, February 2000I

. Maxwell, Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, January-March 2006"
. Schusko, MCB Quantico, Virginia, February-April 2006:.

. Pro De, MCB Quantico, virginia, MarchrApril zoos2

. Flores, Vandenberg AFB, California, March-Apri12006?

. Ogunlana, Eglin AFB, Florida, April 20062

. Moore, MCB Quantico, Virginia, April-May zoos2

. Burleson, Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, April-May 20062.

. Graves, Naval Station, San Diego, California, June 2006H

. Zavala, Naval Station, San Diego, California, June 2006?

. Barnes, MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina July-August 20062?

. Lasswell, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida August-September 20062
. Sting, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida August-September 20061

. Wehunt, Naval Station Groton, Connecticut, September 2006?

. Andries, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. California, September-October 200aJ
. Burden, Aviano Air Force Base, Italy, September-October 20061
.Jaekson, Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, March-November 7140'062+
. Weinmann, Naval Station Norfolk. September-December 200621-

. Pacella, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, November 2006'

. Sheetz, Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, January 2007?

. Guadelupe, MCB Camp Pendleton, California, January 2007:.

. Wilson, MCB Camp Pendleton, California, February 200'!2

. Shirley, Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, February 2007"

1?
Additional information at: aermdcoltl

62. U.S. v. Restucci, Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, March 2007?

63. 0.5. v. Thomas. MCB Camp Pendleton. GA. January 2007 July 2,0073?

64. U.S. v. Magincalda, MCB Camp Pendleton. CA. December 2006 July 2007:?
65. Maryland v. Smith, Montgomery County Maryland 200? 2008:?r

on. us. v. Bessard, Naval Air Station Lemoore. CA. July 2007 August 2007*?

67. U.S. v. Sims, Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, May 2007 March 2008H
63. us. v. Bennet, Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, May 2007 - July 20032
69. US. v. Martinez, MCAS Cherry Point, NC, December 2007:.

7'0. US. v. Roberts, MCB Quantico. VA, December 2007?

71. US. v. McLenden. MCB, Quantico, VA, December 2007:.

72. U.S. v. Vontoore, Naval Station, Norfolk, VA. January February 2000?
73. US. v. Culver, Naval Station, San Diego, CA, February 20082.

74. us. v. Robertson, MCB Guantieo, March 2008?

75. 0.5. v. Delgado, USCG, Norfolk, vA, August 20033
76. Commonwealth of Virgina v. Ridgely, Fredericksburg, VA,?August 2008?
77. us. v. McGinn, FT Knox, KY, October - November, 2008'

73. 0.5. v. Toney, Sheppard AFB, Wichita Falls, TX November, 20033?
79. US. v. Bernal, Mayport Naval Station, FL, November. 2008:.
80. 1.1.8. v. Medeiros, FT Irwin, CA, December, 2008:.
81. us. v. Marr, Bolling AFB, oc, December 2008'
82. US. v. Drake, 3 MARDIV, Okinawa, Japan. November 2008 January 20091
83. US. v. Young, FT Drum, NY, December 2008 January 20093.
33. us. v. Plante, us. Federal Court, St. Louis, MO. March 2009?
84. us. v. Strowd, Andrews AFB, Maryland, March 20093?
85. GS. v. Walker, MCB Quantieo. Virginia, March 2009 Ongoing2+
86. U.S. v. Ashley. USCG. Norfolk Virginia. April ?June 2009I
87. 0.5. v. Butler, Ft. Drum, New York, April 2009?
so. U.S. v. Petree, Tyndall AFB, Florida, May 2009?
89. 0.5. v. Johnson, Ft. Banning GA, June 2009?
90. US. v. Hernandez, Ft. Hood, TX, June 2009:.
91. US. v. Ackmann, Ft Benning, GA, July 20092-
92. U.S. v. Holcolm, Ft. Bliss, TX, August 20092?
93. US. v. Bodwell, Hanscom AFB, MA, August 2009I
94. U.S. v. Robinson, Camp Lejeunc, NC, November 2.0092
95. U.S. v. Poderis, MCB Quantico, VA, November 20092
96. US. v. Ankney, Camp Lejeune, NC, November 20092
07. us. v. White, CAAF, oetober 20002
98. us. v. Gatewood, Great Lakes NTC, IL, November 20091


99. U.S. .Roundtl?ee. Fort Hood, TX - Ongoing:

100. U.S. v. Brozicevich, Ft. Stewart, GA Ongoing:

'10'1. U.S. v. Karris, MCB Quantico, VA, February 2010:-

102. US. v. Sobenes, NAS Pensacola, FL March 2010:.

103. us. v. Molens, FT Bustiee VA, March 20l01'

104. U.S. v. Erbes, FT Benning, GA. April 2010

105. US v. Applewhite and Francois, MCB Quantico Virginia, April 20102-
106. US. v. Owens, Naval Base Norfolk Virginia April 2010?

107. us. v. Baca. FT Hood, TX, May 20102

103. us. v. osborn, FT MeNair, Washington May 2010?

l8
.4 driit?ionai Information at: http:/wawgrie

01052

109. US. v. Mott, Naval Base, Norfolk VA, June 2010'

110. US. v. Grimes, Wiesbaden BRD, June stun2

111. US. v. Hutchinson, FT Hood TX, June 201i]2

0.5. v. Bevers, Germany, January 20112

113. us. v. Wahab, Fort Leonard Wood, MO January 20113?

114. US v. Spurgeon, Fort Leonard Wood M0, February 2(1113
115. US. V. Newell, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, March 20112

Government Consultant

3 Defense Consultant

Indicates Expert Testimony Provided in Addition to Consultation
Charges Include Murder or Attempted Murder

Charges Include Matters Relating to National Security

19
Additional Information at:

Print Close Window



Subject: Resignation

From:

Date: Tue. Aug 02.201111:26 am

To:

Mr. Coombs.

hereby respectfully submit my resignation as a consultant to you as defense lawyer in the case of US
Manning.

When longinaliy agreed to this appointment in December 2010. I was assigned to Headquarters Marine Corps,
Manpower and Reserve A?airs as the Branch Head tor Behavioral Health. Manning was housed at the
Pretrial Con?nement Facility. Quantico. Virginia. My leadership at approved my rote as defense consultant
to ful?ll my required clinical time.

Since that time. the position at has been civilianized. I am no longer a staff of?cer, and I have been
reassigned to a full time clinical billet at Naval Health Clinic. Quantico. Virginia. I am now the solo for
the behavioral health ciinic. which provides care to all Marines assigned to Quantico. I am also
responsible for providing consultation to the Pretrial Con?nement Facility. Quantico. Virginia.

Like any other Navy clinician. I am held to access and productivity standards. These allow little time for duties
outside the command. Since my current command never approved my role as a defense consultant. I have tried to
utilize my limited off duty hours to serve as your defense expert. This has not worked. My current clinical
schedule simply does not allow me time to adequately serve in the capacity of defense consultant.

This situation has been further complicated in that Manning is now assigned to a location that is not located near
me. I have been unable to see Manning for several months. Any future consultation would have to be performed
long distance or require additional funding and time away from my current clinical duties.

Efforts to cover my current obligations and the agreement made when i was assigned to have not been fair
to either Manning's team or my patients in Quantico. As such. I hereby must regrettany resign from this case

Vir.

Kevin D. Moore
CAPT. MC. USN

Copyright? 2003?2011 All rights reserved.

Print Clos?wndow

Subject: Resignation

From

Date: Tue. Aug 02, 2011 11 :26 am

To:

Mr. Coombs.

I hereby respectfully submit my resignation as a consuitant to you as defense lawyer in the case of US
Manning.

When I originally agreed to this appointment in December 2010, Iwas assigned to Headquarters Marine Corps.
Manpower and Reseme Affairs as the Branch Head for Behavioral Health. Manning was housed at the
Pretrial Con?nement Facility, Quantico, Virginia. My leadership at approved my role as defense consuttant
to fultitl my required clinical time.

Since that time, the position at man has been I am no longer a staff of?cer, and have been
reassigned to a full time clinical billet at Naval Health Clinic. Quantico, Virginia. I am now the solo for
the behavioral heatth clinic. which provides care to all Marines assigned to Ouantico. I am also
responsible for providing consultation to the Pretrial Con?nement Facility. Quantico. Virginia.

Litre any other NEW clinician, I am held to access and productivity standards. These allow little time for duties
outside the command. Since my current command never approved my role as a defense consultant. have tried to
utilize my limited oft duty hours to serve as your defense expert. This has not worked. My current clinical
schedule simply does not allow me time to adequately serve in the capacity of defense consultant.

This situation has been further complicated in that Manning is now assigned to a location that is not located near
me. i have been unabte to see Manning for several months. Any future consultation would have to be performed
long distance or require additional funding and time away from my current clinical duties.

Efforts to cover my current obligations and the agreement made when [was assigned to have not been fair
to either Manning's team or my patients in Quantico. As such, I hereby must regrettany resign from this case

Wr.

Kevin D. Moore
CAPT. MC. USN

Copyright CC) 2003?2011 All rights reserved.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED snares new TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE
FORT MEADE FIELD OFFICE
MEADE. MARYLAND 20755



REPLY TO
ATTENTION

6 August 2011



37-;
.qr I)


MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Alvocate, U.S. Army
Military District OfWashington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 20319

FOR Commander, US. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley .1. McNair, Washington,
DC. 20319

SUBJECT: Request for computer hardware and software for necessary computer forensics work,
matter of United States PFC Bradley Manning.

1. On July 23, 2010, MG Terry A. Wolff, the original convening authority in the matter of US v.
PF Bradley Manning, approved the appointment of Mr. Eric Lakes to be part of the Defense Team
as a computer forensics and set the funding for Mr. Lakes? services at $5,600.00. (See
attachment dated the Defense requested additionally funding for Mr.
Lakes? services and clari?ed that the Defense?s computer forensics expert assistant for the case at
hand was Cyber Agents, Inc. and its employees, not solely Mr. Lakes, the owner of Cyber Agents,
inc. (See attachment dated 6 Julyr 201 The purpose of this memorandum is to request that the
Government provide the Defense with the necessary computer hardware and software products for
Cyber Agents, Inc. to do the computer forensics analysis.

2. Cyber Agents, Inc. needs the following hardware and software equipment to properly do the
computer forensics to assist PFC Manning in his defense: {Note 1: these hardware and software
needs can be purchased at an estimated cost of $1,256.00 and are further described, including vendor,
etc.._ in the attachment titled Hardware and Software, US v. Manning- Note 2: CAGE Code for Cyber

Agents, Inc. is 4BTY1).

Two Samsung SpinPoint W4 HM500JJ hard drives, 500613, SATA 300;
Two thAnalysis vl .52sttEx v3 (Non-Dongle Version);

Two Vmware Workstationsi?;

Two Snagit licenses;

Two Live View Government Version;

Two Mount Image Pro v4;

Two Microsoft Office 2010;

Two Adobe Acrobat Pro

3- The Defense respectively requests that the Government provide the hardware and software
equipment outlined in number 2 above (equipment that is further described in the attachment titled
Hardware and Software US v. Manning} to the Defense and/or Cyber Agents, Inc. in order for Cyber
Agents, Inc. to conduct the necessary computer forensics. The basis and justi?cation for this request

is as follows:

a. The matter of US v. Manning involves some 8 terabytes of computer data, and a prOper
defense cannot be rendered withoot proper computer forensics analysis;

SUBJECT: Request for computer hardware and software, matter of United States v. PFC Bradley
Manning.

b. Without the aforementioned computer hardware and software, Cyber Agents, Inc. will
not be able to do the necessary computer forensics analysis;

c. The accused is entitled to a proper defense, and computer forensics analysis is vital to a
proper defense;

d. Should the Government have to purchase the aforementioned equipment and software,
such equipment and software costs estimated at some $1,300.00 are not prohibitive;

e. The aforementioned equipment and software are indeed necessary, and they are readily
available on the commercial market.

f. lmportantly, Mr. Lakes and his company, Cyber Agents, Inc, are properly equipped at
their facility in Lexington, Kentucky, to conduct computer forensics, but given that some
of the computer data in US v. Manning is classi?ed as opposed to unclassi?ed data, the
Government has made it clear to the Defense and to Cyber Agents, lne., that the
computer forensics will be conducted in a properly secured and approved facility using
approved and secured equipment and software. It is this reason that constitutes the
necessity for this equipment and software request - because of the classi?ed nature of
some of the data in question, Cyber Agents, Inc. cannot use some its own equipment and

software.

4. Poe is the undersigned



PAUL R. BOUCHARD
CPT, JA
Defense Counsel



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES new DEFENSE seavtce
421? nerRTs AVENUE. SUITE scan
FORT MEADE. MARYLAND aerss



TO


9 August 20H

MEMORANDUM THRU Trial CounSel

FOR Commander, US. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue, Fort
Myer, VA 222] l9?

SUBJECT: Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United States
Bradley

. PFC Bradley Manning. the unused, by and through counsel, respectfully requests the
employment of Eric Lakes and Trent Struttmann as computer forensics experts in the matter of US v.
Manning. PFC Manning further requests that Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttrnann be designated as
members ofthe Defense team under 1 v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 (EMA. and Military Rule of
Evidence 502.

2. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann arc co-owners of Cyber Agents, Inc., a Lexington, Kentucky-based
computer Forensics firm. Both individuals are well-qualified in the field of camputer Forensics, and
have often been employed for courts-martial cases. PFC Manning is entitled to a proper defense, and
computer Forensics expertise is necessary for a proper defense.

3. Estimated Fees. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann estimate their services will cost the Government
$14,000.00 excluding associated travel costs (Le. gasoline, hotel, food, etc). This $14,000.00 ?gure
is based on the following:

a. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann charge $175.00 per hour per person for their services;

b. The Government has noti?ed the Defense that the case of US v. Manning involves some
8 terabytes of data, and given that ?gure, Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann estimate they
can do the necessary computer forensics work in five days. (Note: 8 hours of work per
day at $175.00 per hour per person equates to $1,400.00 per day per person. $2,800.00
per day for two peeple (Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann) times ?ve days equates to
4,000.00 for five days of work);

c. This $14,000.00 estimated fee is also derived on the following:

I. That the computer forensics work will not take place at Mr. Lakes' and Mr.
Struttmanns? lab in Leaington, but rather, that it will take place in the
Washington, D.C. area in a properly secured facility;

2. That Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann will provide their own hardware needs except
for hard drives. (Note: it is the Defense?s understanding that it will be
recommended to the Government that the Government provide the necessary hard
drives);

01058

SUBJECT: Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning.

3. That Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann will provide the necessary Encase software,
but that other necessary software will be provided by the Government. (Note: It is
the Defense?s understanding that the following will be recommended to the
Government: I) that the Government provide the necessary software with the
exception of the Encase software and 2) that any licensed software that is
nontransferable will either be provided by the Government, or, should Mr. Lakes
andior Mr. Struttmann need to purchase such software, that the Government
reimburse Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann for such software purchases).

d. Signi?cance of Estimate. it is important to note that the estimated $14,000.00 fee isjust
that - an estimate. Given the sheer volume of data involved in the case of US v. .?tifanning
(8 terabytes}, and given the complexities and uncertainties that can take place in
computer forensics work, there is no exact way that a fee can be precisely pinpointed
experts can only estimate how long it will take them to do the necessary work.
Nonetheless, understanding the amount ofdata involved and other factors, Mr. Lakes and
Mr. Struttmann estimate they can complete the work in ?ve days at a cost
excluding travel costs. Should Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann need more than ?ve days to
complete their work, such work will be billed at the rate of$l75.00 per hour per person.

c. Note on Travel Costs. The estimated $14,000.00 fee does not include travel costs.
lmponantly, Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann have made it clear that they desire to drive to
the Washington, D.C. area to do their work instead of ?ying via commercial airfare.
Flying from Lexington, KY to Washington, DC. can be expensive; having Mr. Lakes
and Mr. Struttmann drive to the Washington, DC. area would actually save the
Government money.

4. Why Two Experts are Requested. Given the sheer volume of computer data involved in the case
of US v. Manning, and given past experiences of Mr. Lakes and Mr- Struttmann, both individuals are
con?dent that two experts doing the computer forensics work is better, more efficient, and less time
consuming then having just one computer forensics expert do the work. Simply put, having two
computer forensics experts on the Defense team would actually save the Government money as
compared to havingjust one Defense computer forensics expert.

5. The following sections ofthis request further outline the basis and rationale explaining why the
Defense needs Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann as computer forensics experts. (Note: for more on Mr.
Lakes and Mr. Struttmann, to include their CVs, visit

6. Law. 846. Article 46 ofthe U.C.M.J. provides that Defense and Government should have equal
Opportunity to obtain witnesses. In particular, a military accused has, as a matter of Equal Protection
and Due Process, a right to expert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. US. v.
(ferries. 22 MJ. 233 [986); US. v. Robinson, 39 MJ. 33 (GMA. 1994), citing Britt v.
North Crn'olinrr, 404 US. 226 (19?1) and Alice v. Oklahoma, 470 US. 68 (1935]. Failure to employ
Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann would effectively deprive PFC Manning ofhis ability to present a
defense in this case and would deny him "Imleaningful access tojustiee." Alta v. Oklahoma, 470
US. 68 (1935}. The Coort oprpeaIs for the Armed Forces (formerly the Court ofMiIitary
Appeals) provided a three-pronged test for determining whether government- funded expert
assistance is necessary:

01059

Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning.

First, why the expert is needed? Second, what would the expert assistance accomplish for the
aceused? Third, why is the defense counsel unable to gather and present the evidence that the
expert assistant would be able to develop?

v. Gonzalez, 39 MJ. 459 1994} (quoting US v. Allen, 1 NJ. 542, 623
199.] ade. 33 MJ. 209



7. Why Expert Assistance ls Needed.

3. This case unquestionably involves complex computer message traffic that requires expert
analysis and opinion. PFC Manning is charged with serious crimes. Without someone with an
expertise in computers and digital forensics, the Defense will not be able to completely understand,
evaluate, or prepare a defense to the Government's case.

b. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann are experts in computer forensics. They have been employed
before as Defense experts in courts-martial, and they possess numerous certifications. (For more on
the quali?cations of Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann visit

c. No member of the Defense is learned in the complex field ofcornputer forensics, and none can
become so between the time ofthis request and the date ofthe Article 32 hearing and of the possible
trial.

3. What Would Expert Assistance Accomplish for the Accused.

a. Expert assistance would provide the Defense with the necessary understanding ofthe complex
computer message trafficking involved in this case. Such understanding is not the province of lay
people. The experts? explanations are, therefore, critical for the Defense, the finder of fact, Military
Judge, and everyone involved in understanding the very essence of the case at hand.

b. Both Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann are highly regarded experts in the field of computer
forensics. They possess the requisite knowledge, experience, and expertise to fully analyze the
Govemment?s evidence and to aid the Accused in the preparation of an effective defense. Both Mr.
Lakes and Mr. Struttmann would embark on a full review ofthe evidence in the case to identify any
exculpatory information that may be contained in the Government?s evidence, and to identify the
potential weaknesses in the Government?s evidence.

9. Why the Defense ls Unable to Gather and Present this Evidence.

a. No member ofthe Defense team is trained or otherwise knowledgeable in the complex field of
digital forensics. Denying the Accused ofthis fundamental right to present an adequate and
knowledgeable defense would amount to a violation ofhis Constitutional rights.

h. The requested experts will be advised that they are members of the Defense team and are, as
such, obligated to keep all matters concerning the case confidential pursuant to the attorney?client
privilege, subject of course to those exceptions should they become a defense witness.

It}. For the aforementioned reasons, failure to provide the requested assistance will result in a
fundamentally unfair trial. Clearly, this case meets the necessary elements of the Qonzalex case set
forth by our highest court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The requested experts should
thus be appointed to the Defense team as a matter oflaw.

SUBJECT: Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United States v.
PFC BradEey Manning.

1- POC is the undersigned




Keg/Ag..ng

PAUL R.
CPT, JA
Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
v.5. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVENUE. sw
FORT LESLEY .J. or: 20319-5012



REPLY TO
OF

9 August 201 1
MEMORANDUM OR Commander. US. Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall.
204 Lee. Avenue, Fort Myer. VA 22211-1199

SUBJECT: Use of Personally Owned Computers by Defense Computer Forensic Experts U.S.
v. PFC Bradlev Manning



l. I reviewed the enclosed proposed solutions for review of the digital forensic evidence by the
defense computer forensic experts in the above named case. These procedures are sound and are
allowable under applicable information assurance regulations and guidelines. provided:

a. All hard drives or memory devices used to process classified material remain under
government control at all times.

b. All persons who will view any material on these hard drives or memory devices
possess a veri?ed security clearance.

c. All materials. digital or otherwise. are kept in a secure location.

2. Point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at - - I



Encl HAHL

Proposed Solutions, 9 Aug 11 Chief. Information Assurance

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYEH-HENDERSOH HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199



WAS It

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Computer Forensics Expert Consultants United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

I reviewed the request for appointment of Mr. Eric Lakes and Mr. Trent Struttmann as computer
forensic expert consultants for the defense in the above-named case. After careful consideration,
the defense request is:

approved. 1 appoint Mr. Eric Lakes and Mr. Trent Struttmann as computer forensic
expert consultants for the defense in the above-named case. I further direct that Mr. Lakes and
Mr. Sruttmann be designated members of the defense team under US. v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 2270
(C.M.A. 1987) and Military Rule of Evidence 502. I authorize the expenditure of up to
$14,000.00 for computer forensic consultation. Any expenditure of funds in excess of
$14,000.00 will be disapproved, unless the additional amount is approved by me, in advance,
through a separate written request and written approval. Additionally, reasonable travel
reimbursement and per diem, IAW the JFTR, is authorized.

disapproved. You are free to renew your request with me, and similarly, if 1 forward
this case, you may renew your request with the GCMCA.

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYEH, VIRGINIA 222114199

REPLY TO
AT TENTION OF





to Act} it

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Expert Consultant in Forensic - United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning

I reviewed your request for appointment of an eXpert consultant in forensic for the
defense to replace CAPT Kevin D. Moore in the above-named case. After careful consideration
of your enclosed request and the enclosed email, dated 4 August 2011, the defense request is:

approved. 1 appoint Dr. Thomas A. Grieger as an expert consultant in the above-
named case to replace CAPT Moore. 1 further direct that Dr. Grieger be designated a member of
the defense team under US. v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and Military Rule of
Evidence 502. I authorize the expenditure of up to $22,500.00 for consultation. Any
expenditure of funds in excess of $22,500.00 will be disapproved, unless the additional amount
is approved by me, in advance, through a separate written request and written approval.

Mdisapproved, in part. I appoint LCDR David L. Moulton as an expert consultant in
the above-named case to replace CAPT Moore. I further direct that LCDR Moulton be
designated a member of the defense team under US. v. Toledo, 25 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and
Military Rule of Evidence 502. LCDR Moulton is an adequate substitute for Dr. Grieger and is
provided at no expense to the government, beyond mileage reimbursement, if authorized.

disapproved. CAPT Moore will remain the defense expert consultant.
Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
as COL, AV

Commanding



From:

Tu:

Cc:
52S

Subject: RE: US v. PFC BM (UNCLASSIFIED)

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 5:03:26 PM

CPT Fein,

On August 23, I am slated to go work as a forensic in the Forensic Service of the
new Walter Reed Military Medical Center (COL Malone will be my boss). My PCS date is July 2013. Just
today, I corresponded with my specialty advisor, who stated that she does not anticipate that I will be
deployed in the next year as I have already deployed twice and there are several people ahead of me
on the deployment list who have never deployed. Ido not see any conflicts with me giving the
appropriate attention to this case, to include even regular travel to FOrt Levenworth to evaluate the
client.

v} r,
LCDR Moulton



From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJA

Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:15 PM

To: Moulton, David L. LCDR NNMC

Cc: Morrow JoDean, CPT USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW D.L. Moulton; Ford, Arthur D. W01 USA JFHQ-
NCRIMDW SJA

Subject: US v. PFC BM (UNCLASSIFIED)

Si r,

Thank you for your interest in being a possible defense expert witness in forensic Please see
attached request and let us know whether you are quali?ed and whether you will be available for the
next 12 15 months.

Please take into account any possible deployments or other taskers that might make you unavailable
and understand this appointment will likely require you to travel to Fort Leavenworth, KS.

Thank you.


CPT Fein

DAVID L. MOULTON, MD

MC USN
a Nava MetlicalC?cnler



Education
BA. Humanities

Brigham Young University. Provo. UT 1996
MD. Doctorate ot'Medicinc

Uniformed Services University. Bethesda. MD 3000
Internship

National Capital Consortium, Bethesda. MD 2001
Residency

National Capital Consortium, Bethesda, MD 2004
Fellowship Forensic

National Capital Consortium. Bethesda. MD 2010

Professional Achievements

Associate Program Director. National Capital Consortium Residency Program. Bethesda.
MD. July 2010 to present; September 2008-.lune 3009. This program provides comprehensive
Graduate Medical Education in a large training program 0H4 residents. Speci?c
responsibilities involved direct oversight of training at the National Naval Medical Center. as well as
adviser to the Program Director on diverse matters pertaining to the operation of the Residency.

Choice! Chief; Inpatient Service. National Naval Medical enter. Bethesda. MD. October
2009. This is a lZ-bed adult inpatient facility providing full-spectrum acute inpatient
services to active-duty service members and their dependants. Supervisory role for two Licensed
Clinical Social Workers. Supervisory role over Residents, Interns and Medical Students
rotating on the service.

Ctt'nt'eel Chief Combat Stress Control. I 13'" Medical Company. Taji. Iraq. March 2007-luly 2007'.
and the 785?? Medical Company July 2007-Sept 2007. One of two on FOB Taji. which
supported ?ve Combat Brigades and over 20.000 Soldiers.

Heart. Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune. Jacksonville. NC Aug 2004-.lanuary 2005;
September 2005LFebruary 2007. Department Head over Inpatient Services. a 20?hed adult
inpatient facility providing full-spectrum acute inpatient services to active-duty service members and
their dependants. This included supervisory responsibility of 20 staff members.

Head, LB-I-I. 2D FSSG (MLG) Operational Stress Center. Al Asad. lraq. February 2005-
September 2005. providing mental health services to deployed Marine. Army. Navy and Air Force
Service Members who honorably serve our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

01066
?r

Academic Appointments

Assistm?rr Professor Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda,
MD. Appointed July 25. 2011.

Special Quali?cations
Fleet Marine Force Quali?ed Officer. February, 2005.
Navy Pistol Quali?cation

Personal and Unit Awards

Meritorious Service Medal

Navy Commendation Medal
Army Commendation Medal
Navy Achievement Medal

Army Achievement Medal (x2)
Presidential Unit Citation
Meritorious Unit Citation (x2)
Iraq Campaign Ribbon (s2)

Recognitions and Commendations

Patient Safety Award ofExcclIencc, National Naval Medical Center, Aug 2008
Letter of Commendation, Naval Health Clinic Quantico, March 2008

Invited Presentations

Sex Offenders and Issues in Sexual Assault. Presented to the Naval Justice School,
Newport. RI. April 2010.
PTSD in the Court Room. Presented to the Naval Justice School. Newport. May 2011.

Board Certifications

General Psi-chitin}: American Board of and Neurology, Certi?ed June 7. 2006.
Forensic American Board of and Neurology, Certi?ed June 7? 201 1.

State Medical Board Licensures

Maryland Board of Physicians, License No: 130069601
Virginia Board of Medicine, License No: 0101232547
North Carolina Medical Board. License No: 200-40121 (inactive)

01067
N?r 3"

Court Consultant Expert Witness Military Courts Martial
Federal Felony Cases

US. v. Ramzi bin al Shibli. Guantanamo Bay. Cuba. June 20] 13 1 Terror Suspect]
US. v. Clark, Baumholder. Germany. April 201 13* (Negligent Homicide, 3 counts)

US. v. MeAffrey. Fort Bragg. NC. December 2010: (Attempted Murder. PTSD Mitigation}
US. v. Law. MCB Camp Lejeune. November 2010i (Premeditated Murder}

US. v. Chamberlain. MCB Quantico. September 2010: (Assault)

US. v. Afa. Baumholder. Germany. August 20102 (Sexual Assault}

US. v. Sobencs. Pensacola. FL. March 2010i* {Sexual Assault)

Chastain v. US. Navy. MC Camp Lejeune. January 20101 (Hostile Work Environment)
Kirk v. US. Navy. MCB Camp Lejeune. January 2010i {Hostile Work Environment}

US. v. Walker. Baumholder. Germany. February 2010:)? {Sexual Assault}

Maryland v. Mary Koontz, Baltimore County. MD. January 2010:* {First Degree order}
U.S. v. Schwartz. Fort Myer, November 20092* (Conspiracy to Commit Murder)

US. v. Hall. MCB Quantieo. VA. May 2009:* {Illicit Substance Use. PTSD Mitigation)

1 Government Consultant
2 Defense Consultant
Indicates Expert Testimony Provided in Addition to Consultation

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MEYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYERNIRGIHIA 22211-1199
REPLY
ATTENTION 0F



0

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. CoOmbs, Civilian Defense Counsel
SUBJECT: Defense Request for Computer Hardware and Software - United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning

1. I reviewed the request for computer hardware and software to assist appointed computer
forensic expert consultants in the above-named case and your request is:

(M approved. I authorize $1,400.00 for the purchase of the below requested equipment
and software:

a. 1:2 50068 hard drive.

b. x2 NetAnalysis v1.52IHstEx v3 (Non-Dongle Version) Software.
c. x2 Vmware Workstation 7" Software.

d. x2 Snagit License.

disapproved. You are free to renew your request with me, and similarly, ifl forward
this case, you may renew your request with the GCMCA.

2. The United States will provide the following items:
3. x2 Live View (Government Version) Software.
b. x2 Mount Image Pro v4 Software.
c. it? Microsoft Office 2007 Software.

d. x2 Adobe Acrobat Pro 9 Software.

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE RIVER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYEH, VIRGINIA 22211?1199
seen To
r" ATTENTION DF



I133 AW IS



MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Approved Facility and Storage for Classified Information United States v, PFC
Bradley Manning

1. FACILITY.

a. and InfOrmation. All meetings requiring access to
and information will only occur in approved facilities. Prior to
accessing classified information or having classified discussions, the prosecution and defense are
required to verify whether the facility is properly approved for use by a local security officer.

b. and Information. All meetings requiring the discussion or viewing
of information classified at a level above will occur in a pre-approved Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). The defense team will coordinate through trial
counsel to schedule dates and times to use a SCIF.

2. STORAGE. All classified information shall be stored in accordance with the following
instructions:

a. Prosecution Team. and information will be stored in the
two safes assigned to the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Military District of Washington
(MDW). Any information classi?ed above the level will be stared in the MDW
SCIF located in Building 46, Fort Lesley J. McNair, DC.

13. Defense Team. and information will be stored in the safe
assigned to the Trial Defense Service Office on Fort Myer, located in Building 229, Joint Base
Myer?Henderson Hall, VA, a safe assigned to the Trial Defense Service Office on Fort
Leavenworth, located in Building 244, Fort Leavenworth, KS, or a safe assigned to the Trial
Defense Service Office on Fort George G. Meade. Any information classified or presumed to be
classified above the level will be stored in a separate drawer or safe with its own
unique combination at Headquarters, U.S. Army Intelligence and Seourity Command, located on
Fort Belvoir, VA, and storage will be coordinated through Mr. Cassius Hall.

IMND-MHH-ZA
SUBJECT: Approved Facility and Storage for Classified Information United States v. PFC

Bradley Manning

3. COMPUTER FORENSIC ANALYSIS. The defense computer forensic expert consultants
will conduct their analysis in the Trial Defense Service Office on Fort George G. Meade. All
their classified material will be stored IAW paragraph 2.



CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

DISTRIBUTION:

Trial Counsel

Civilian Defense Counsel

Military Defense Counsel

Defense Security Expert Consultants

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED sTarEs ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE ATLANTIC aeolon
roar was FIELD OFFICE
FoaT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211



REPLY To
ATTENTION 0F:

20 September 201 1

MEMORANDUM liDi-t Commander, .ioint Base Myer-Henderson l-IallI 204 Lee Avenue, Fort
Myer, Virginia 222ll-1199

SUBJECT: Request for Courier Cards

l. 1 am requesting your assistance with issuing CONUSISECRET courier cards to designated
members of the defense team representing PFC Bradley Manning. For the reasons below, we are
requesting courier cards from the government as soon as possible.

2. There is an immediate legitimate need for the defense team to tranSport classi?ed evidence.
The government delivered three classified laptops and four compact discs containing classified
data to my of?ce yesterday. Defense team members need courier cards to allow us to transport
the laptops and computers to other locations where our defense esperts can use them to prepare
for the case. in addition, we will need courier cards to travel between the TDS of?ces, and
eventually to the trial which is expected to take place at Fort Meade.

3. Cards are required for the following defense members:

MAJ Matthew Kemltes. Fort Myer TDS
CPT Paul Bouchard. Fort Meade TDS
CPT Josh Tooman, Fort Leavenworth TDS
CW2 Melissa Santiago, Fort Myer TDS
SSG Cberise Purcell, Fort Myer TDS

4. You may contact me zit?r Thank you

for your consideration of my request.
ti

MANHEW EMKES
MAJ, JA
Senior Defense Counsel

1. The above request is (approved)

Far-Lorre

2. if approved, each command security manager will issue a DD Form 2501, with an authorized
level up to to each member ofthe defense listed above. [ftravel must occur outside
ofthe local geographic limit, then an additional courier authorization letter will be issued for
each individual per trip. Prior to utilizing a courier card or authorization, each member ofthe
defense listed above, must received courier training from a defense security expert.



28 SEP 2011 CARL
COL, AV
Commanding

DEPARTMENT THE ARMY
UNITED STATES ARMY DEFENSE SERVICE
at? Roberts Avenue. Suite 5030
FORT GEORGE MEADE. MARYLAND 20755





MENU TO
INTENTION OF

ND-MEA-DEF 23 November 20]

MEMORANDUM THRU Staft'ludgc Advocate, Of?ce of the StaffJudge Advocate. US. Army
Military District ofWashington. Fort Leslch. McNair. Washington. DC. 20319

FOR Commander. US. Army Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. MeNair. Washington.
D.C. 203W

Request for computer sottware for necessary computer forensics work. matter of United
States PFC Manning.

. Eric Lakes and 'l'rent Struttmann are defense expert assistants in the area of computer forensics in
the matter of ['niredSmres v, PFC Bradley Manning. As members of the Defense team. Mr. Lakes
and Mr. Struttmann request the following computer software to properly conduct their necessary
computer forensics work:

a. Chrome Analysis Plus:
b. lnternet Evidence Finder.

2. Justi?cation. There is an immediate for these software products.

win-4i?

a. Chrome Analysis Plus is necessary because:

l- Usina Analysis Plus would ahout signi?cant time savines to Mr. Lakes

and Mr. Struttmaon and thereby save the Government great expense. By using Chrome
Analysis Plusl Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann wouldn't need to individually ?gure out
search terms necessary to recover Chrome artifacts Le. by using Chrome Analysis, the
search terms would automatically be there and figured out. Mr. Lakes and Mr.
Struttmann estimate. conservatively, that using Chrome Analysis would save one-third of
their time searching for Chrome arti facts. importantly. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann
charge SI 15.00 per hour ($350.00 per hour for the two of them) for their services.

2. The Chrome Analysisliccnse Rev is for a single use; it is licensed for one
computer. As a one-time cost and one-time use. Chrome Analysis is unique to the US v.
Manning case Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmaon would not be able to use Chrome
Analysis on their other cases.

3. The accused. PFC Manning. a Chrome browser at somewhat. and
Chrome analysis Plus is the best and most citicicnt software to properly do computer
forensics involving :1 Chrome browser.

4. Chrome lMalinda costs rouahlv $75.00, and is readily available for purchase.



SUBJECT: Request for computer hardware and soflware, mattero?l' United States v. PFC Bradley
Manning.

b. Internet Evidence Finder is necessary because:

I. Like Chrome Analysis. it would enable Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann to retrieve
certain artifacts uickl and ffieic I re saw/mg the Government money.
Without Evidence Finder. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttman would havcto
design certain search terms? a time-consuming and therefore expensive task. Mr.
Lakes and Mr. Struttmann conservatively estimate that using Internet Evidence
Finder would safe them 2540-40 percent oftheir time.

2. It is used to messageg regardless ofthc platform used. Whether

l-?acebook or Yahoo chat messages or MySpace was allegedly used. Internet Evidence
Finder can retrieve such chats. The case of United States v. PF Bradley Manning
involves many alleged chats.

3, Though Internet Evidence Finder does not have a singlc?use license key i.e. it is not
individually licensed for one machine. the Defense would be willing to borrow the
Government Internet Evidence Finder doneles from USACI (United States Army
Criminal investigative Lab} and return such dongle-s after the completion ofthe
Defense?s computer forensic work.

3. Though Chrome Analysis and Internet Evidence Finder are not absolutely necessary for the
Defense?s Computer Forensics Team - Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann could perform their forensic
work without these software products it is without qttestidn that these software tools would clearly
bring about signi?cant ef?ciency gains, time savings, and cost benefits to not only the Defense but
also to the Government. Having the computer forensics work done more ef?ciently and at lower
costs is in the Government's interests. Moreover, both software products are readily available.
Simply put. the elearjustif'leation for these software products trumps the fact that it is possible for
Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann to do the work without Chrome Analysis Plus and Internet Evidence
l?inder. Indeed, time savings are important to the Defense. and ef?ciency and cost savings are a
legitimate Government interest.

4. For the reasons outlined in this request. the Defense respectfully requests the software products
Chrome Analysis Plus and Internet Evidence Finder.



PAUL
CPT, IA
Defense Counsel



5. FCC is the undersigned at

The Leader in the Recovery of Digital Artifacts

@JADsoftwa re

JADsottwore Inc.



To:
Arthur Ford
US ARMY

United States

November 30, 2011
Quotes? 1 486!

































Qty Item Unli Price Discount tine Total
Internet Evidence Finder Standard Edition
{Includes days of software maintenance Et supporti
Law Enforcement Discount on License: 51 as
Annual Software Maintenance E: Support Per License
[Si $199 $199.00
LE15 Law Enforcement Discount on SMS $29.85
Tote?
DISCOUN $993.00
Please note; $345.30
To purchase online please go to mowjadsoftwarecomfbuonow and enter 5mm Tm
discount code 15LE at the ?net check out page Shipping $15.00
Total
Quotes are valid for 30 days from quotation date muse} $33.30







Thank you for your business!







Accepted Payment Methods include: Credit Card, FoyPoL Wire Transfer, and Check



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE
FORT VIRGINIA 22211-1 199

HEFLY to
am 017



MND-MHH-ZA DEC Zoll

MEMORANDUM FOR CPT Paul Bouchard. Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Defense Request for Computer Software - United States v. PFC Bradle main

1 . I reviewed the enclosed request for computer software to assist your computer forensic expert
consultants in the above?named case. 1t?ou assert that there is an ?immediate legitimate
justi?cation" for the listed software products and by authorizing their purchase your experts
would save a signi?cant amount of time and save this command ?great expense."

2. Based on your assertion that these purchases will "bring about signi?cant time savings" for
your experts consultants to conduct their forensic analysis, your request is:

approved. I authorize no more than $1,000.00 for the purchase of the below
requested equipment and software:

at Chrome Analysis Plus.
b. Internet Evidence Finder.

disapproved. You are free to renew your request with me, and similarly, if I forward
this case, you may renew your request with the GCMCA.

2 Encls CARL. R. COFFMAN, JR.
1. Defense Request, 23 Nov 11 COL. AV
2. Internet Evidence Finder Quote Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE
JOINT BASE MYEH - HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT man. matsth 22211-1199

REPLYI T0
OF

7-0?



MEMORANDUM FOR MAJ Matthew Kemkes, US. Army Trial Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Order to Return Forensic Copies of Hard Disc Drives (HDDs)

1. You are directed to return the 8TB LaCie storage cube, serial it I I 1 105631, (hereinafter ?the
cube") Containing copies of Mr. Adrian Lamo's Fujitsu and Seagate HDDs to the prosecution
NLT 7 December 2011 .

2. Mr. Lamo limited his consent to the search of his HDDs by law enforcement to
communications relating to PFC Manning or the disclosure of classi?ed information. To ensure
your search remains limited to the scope of Mr. Lamo?s consent and your experts can view the
files. the prosecution will remove Mr. Lamo?s entire HDDs and replace the HDDs with CID
provided forensic duplicates of the portions of the HDDs that are permissible to search and that
were used as part of the law enforcement investigation. The prosecution will provide these files
and return the cube NLT 12 December 2011.

2 Encls R- COFFMAN. R.

Exhibit 30. CID Form COL, AV
2. Exhibit 32, CID Form Commanding

CF: (woa?l encl)
Trial Counsel

- . )Ma-to-cmzzi-ioiir

-. .

Supplement Consent To Search 0037

(USACIDC Supplement 1 in AR 190-22)
1. Name of person teneenu ng tn the search: 2. Organization and location:-

3. I have been infenned by the undesing Special Agent that an Inquiryis being conducted in eennectlen with the following possible vieiahenie} at law:
Title IE Section 1030; Freud and related activity in connection with computers:
Title 18 Section ?193; Gathering, transmitting a: 1:39th defense information;

Title 13 U.E.C.. Section 798: Disclosure of classified iniomatim: and.

Article Idea: Espionage













4. I have been requested by the undersigned USACIDC Special Agent to give my mneent to a search at my person. premises. or property as
indicated below. I have been advised of my right to refuse a eeardw at my person, premises. or preperty. (if you Mitre your consent. do not
Sign this form}



5. I hereby authorize the Undemgnad SDBCIEII Agent endinrnmer Authenzen Law Enforcement Of?cials assisting the undersigned Special Agent to
condud asearcl'l cl: {tutti-land sign applicabia blocks) Additionally. I further gltre my expreued consent il'imt the items I an C?n?el?iting it? half!
searched. be searched by non?Lew anti/er technical euhje-n. matter expert. personnel. under the supervision at BEACIDC.

initials Signature



a. My Person



initials Signature

My Quarters











Located At:



initiais Signature

My Vehicle









Located At:

Described As:



initiais Signature

Other . a

1-
















Lacated Ar 45m Matti eon Avenue, Sacramento, Cit 35!! lto be callect as evidence and searched/examined- a: USACIDC

facilities or other lacetiona tinder the supervision of personnel]

D'sc?bad As: it Hard Disk Drive Fujitsu brand. Model rut-121203?, SN: warrant-inn [rat-nave; :E'rom Lertnve Laptop
SN: D'iflmr the prupert}! of Mr. Adrian A. In?ll-ID. ?t

I am authorizing the end-ire for the following general types of property which may ?e rem by the authorized law enforcement personnel

and retained as evidence under the provisions of Army Regulation 195-5. Or other laws or regulations:

All information in any form, pertaining to cemunicatiene which may be in the form: of emails, instant messaging chate.

dementia, data, computer code, Ste-g Eilee. drawings, photographer. or any other data.- 111 entr?y?ptcd; plain tel-ct, or are,'

other format: relating tr:- PPC Bradley E. ING endier the disclosure of classified information or information which is

the property of the LLB. Government,







. .1
i 6. This written permission is given to the undersigned'u Specie] freely. velun nut meets or premises at any kind:











USACIDC Special Agent Signature of Witness {It Available}

Sign
5Am6l?owlo?ox 5% Geriqu w. Street

an Fern: tl?i-RAE PREVIOUS BSDLETE
For Um) [Jul .- - "l
Law Enforcement

Sensitive



454

10'Cl0221-i 1 1 7

USACIDC Supplement 1 to AR 190-22



JJ
12 10 4474.1 Consent To Search om

Supplement 1 to PR 190-22]
1. Name of person cmsen?np to the search: 2. Organization and lmtlon:
Hr. Adrian A. Lit-to











3. i have oeen intermed try the undersigned USACIDC Special Agent that an Inquiry is being conducted in connection with Ihe iollowinp possible violationis) at law:
Title lli TLEHC. . Section Fraud and related activity in connection with Computers

Title 18 Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information,-
Title In U.S.C.. See-Lion 195: Disclosure of elaeeitied information,- and, -

Article Espionage



4. have been requested by the undersigned USACIDC Special Agent to give my consent to a seardi of my person. pren?see. or property as
indicated below. I have been advised oi my light to a soamh of my person. premises, or property. [It you mitts your mnsent. do not
sign this form)



5. hereby the undersigned Special Agent andlor other Authorized LawI Enioroemem Of?cials assisting the undersigned USACIDC Soeoal Agent to
Mocha] Additionally, I give my expressed consent. to allow the item I am consenting to have
searched. be searched by tam-lav enloroemenl: audio: techninl when matter expert personnel. undo: the sup-winch of WEIR.















initials Signature
a_ ?y Person
initials Signature
My auertere
Located At:



initials Signature

c? My Vehicle

Located lid:









Described As:



I initials Signature

d? I om"








35M Way. Carmichael. Cit 95603 lto be colletfed on evidence and searchedienamined at: facilities

Located At;
an; other locations under the supervision of USLCIDC personnel]


alarmed As: An 3192133 Laptop Computer, HPMini Brand. SN: with M: Power Adaphex. 51?: both the
property of Mr. Adrian it. we?,qu

i am authorizing the above searchisl for the following general Mime-?y wi?iidt may be ren?loved by the authorized law enforoemenl persormel
and retained as evidence under the pronouns of Army Regulation 195-5. or other applicable laws or regulations:



All information in any form, pertaining to :otnrrunioatiane which may he in the form: of emails. instant. messaging chat-S.
documents. data, commuter code. log filee. drawings. photographs. or: any othe: date.- in plain 12911:. or any
other format.- relating to PFC Bradley E. MANNING audio: the disclosure of classified information or information UltiCh 15
the property of the 11.5. Government.







6. ?this written pennission is given to the undersigned USACI I. . out threats or promises of any icind:





CIDC Special Agent Signature of Witness If Available)

54 Ur

CID Form PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THIS F0 RM ARE OBSOLETE
1 Jan Ell]







Fm Dl?liriai Use Only I

Law Enforcement
Sensit Ive

ManningB_00021456

01079

12 January 2012

MEMORANDUM THRU Staffludge Advocate. U.S. Amty Military District of rtit-?ashington.
210 A. Street. Fort Lesley l. McNair. DC 20319-5013

FOR Commander, US. Army Garrison. .loint Base Myer Henderson Hall. 204 Lee Avenue.
Fort Myer. VA 22211-1199

SUBJECT: Request for Oral Depositions United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. The defense. pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 702 requests that an oral
deposition of the belovv listed individuals be conducted prior to trial. United States v. Chocolate.
5 MJ. 143 (CMA. 1978]; United States v. Chestnut. 2 MJ. 84 1976).

2. In accordance with the requirements of defense provides the following
information:

t1.

CPT James Kolkv. l?I Cavalry Division, Fort Hood. Texas. Brigade 8-2

. He will testify about his classification revl?tlv of the three
Apache videos that were sent to his Division by FORSCOM. Speci?cally. he will
testify that the videos were not classi?ed at the time of their alleged release. However. he
will testify that he believes that videos should have been classi?ed. He will also testify
regarding his classification determination. The requested deposition is needed due to the
Article 32 Investigating Officer's improper determination that Kolky was not
reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. CPT Kolky was an essential witness and
should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally. given the
fact CPT Kolky believes the matter that the defense wishes to discuss with him is
classified. the get-'emment needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The
defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.

RADM Kevin M. Donegan. Director ofOperations for United States Central Command.
- - - -

. RAD. Donegan conducted classi?cation revievvs
on two PowerPoint slide presentations ofof?cia] reports originated by USCENTCOM.
The PowerPoint presentations are the subject ofSpecification 10 ofCharge II. RADM
Donegan will testify regarding his classi?cation determination and his beliefofthe impact
on national security due to the release ofthe information. The requested deposition is
needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Of?cer's improper determination that RADM
Donegan was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. RADM Donegan was an
essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing.
Additionally. given the classified nature ofhis testimony. the government needs to
arrange for a proper location for the deposition. The defense requests that an oral
deposition be conducted.

SUBJECT: Request for Oral Depositions United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

C.

Robert E. Betz. USCYBERCOM ChiefClassi?cation Advisory Officer. the government
has not provided the defense with contact information for Mr. Betz. Mr. Betz will testify
about his classi?cation determination concerning the alleged chat logs between Mr. Lamo
and PFC Bradley Manning. Speci?cally- he will testify about his classi?cation
assessment ofinfomtation discussed in the alleged chat logs. The requested deposition is
needed due to the Article 32 investigating Of?cer's improper determination that Mr. Betz
was not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. Mr. Betz was an essential witness
and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given
the classi?ed nature of his testimony. the government needs to arrange for a proper
location for the deposition. The defense. requests that an oral deposition be conducted.

LtGen Robert E. Sebmidlc. Deputy Commander US. Command.
- LtGen Schmidle. is the Original Classification
Authority (OCA) over the information discussed by Mr. Beta. LtGen Schmidle will
testify that he concurs with the classi?cation determination and impact statements made
by Mr. Betz. The defense would like to question him regarding his declaration and the
basis for his belief. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 33 investigating
Of?cer?s improper determination that Schmidle was not reasonably available at the
Article 32 hearing. LtGen Sehmidle was an essential witness and should have been
produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally. given the classi?ed nature of
his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location for the deposition.
The defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.

VADM Robert S. Harward- USCENTCOM. Deputy Commander. MacDill Air Force
Base. Florida 33621. - VADM I'larward will
testify concerning his classi?cation review and classi?cation determination concerning
the CIDNE Afghanistan Events. CIDNE Iraq Events- other brie?ngs and the BE22
PAXnmv video. Specifically. VADM Harward will testify concerning his classi?cation
determination and his beliefot? the impact on national security From having this
information released to the public. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article
32 investigating Of?cer?s improper determination that VADM Harward was not
reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. VADM l-[arward was an essential witness
and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally. given
the classified nature of his testimony. the government needs to arrange for a proper
location for the deposition. The defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.

Patrick F. Kennedy. Under Secretary ot?State for Management. Mr.
Kennedy will testify concerning his review ofthe disclosure of Department of State
Diplomatic Cables stored within the Net-Centric Diplomacy server and part of
Mr. Kennedy will testify concerning his classi?cation determination and the impact of the
release of the information on national security. The requested deposition is needed due to
the Article 3'2 Investigating Of?cer's improper determination that Mr. Kennedy was not
reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. Mr. Ketntedy was an essential witness and
should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally. given the

l-J

SUBJECT: Request for Oral Depositions? United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

classi?ed nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper location
for the deposition. The defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.

3. In accordance with R.C.M. 702(c)(3)( C) the defense requests that the government
inform the defense of the action on the request. If the request is denied, the defense requests that
the govemment comply with the rule by providing the reasons for the denial so that a motion to
compel can be properly ?led with the military judge.

4. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail
at



15/

vol/-
DAVID EDWARD COOK-133
Civilian Defense Counsel



LIJ

16 January 2012

MEMORANDUM THRU StaffJudge Advocate, U.S. Army Military District of Washington,
210 A. Street, Fort LesleyJ. McNair, DC 20319-5013

FOR Commander, US. Amiy Garrison, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall. 204 Lee Avenue,
Fort Myer, VA 22211-1199

SUBJECT: Request for Oral Depositions United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. The defense, pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 702 requests that an oral
deposition of the below listed individuals be conducted prior to trial. Untied States v. Chticulnte,
5 MJ. 143 1978); L-TnftedSrates v. Chestnut, 2 MJ. 84 (C.M.A. 1976).

2. In accordance with the requirements of ROM. 702(c)(2). defense provides the following
information:

a.

RADM David B. Woods, Commander. Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO),
RADM Woods will testify concerning his
review ofthe disclosure of five documents, totaling twenty-'-two pages. RADM 1 Woods
will testify concerning his classification determination and his belief regarding the impact
of the release of the information on national security. The requested deposition is needed
due to the Article 32 Investigating Of?cer?s improper determination that Mr. Woods was
not reasonably available at the Article 32 hearing. Mr. Woods was an essential witness
and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing. Additionally, given
the classi?ed nature of his testimony, the government needs to arrange for a proper
location for the deposition. The defense requests that an oral deposition be conducted.

Mr. Robert Roland, the government has not provided contact information for Mr. Roland.
Mr. Roland will testify concerning his review of two memoranda produced by a United
States government intelligence agency. Mr. Roland will testify concerning his
classi?cation determination and his belief regarding the impact of the release of the
information on national security. The requested deposition is needed due to the Mr.
Roland not being produced by the government at the Article 32 hearing. Mr. Roland was
an essential witness and should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing.
Additionally. given the classi?ed nature of his testimony, the government needs to
arrange for a prOper location for the deposition. The defense requests that an oral
deposition be conducted.

Former Secretary Robert Gates, Chancellor, College of William and Mary,
- - Former Secretary Gates will testify that
the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACT releases did not reveal any sensitive intelligence
sources or methods. He will also testify that the Department of Defense could not point to
anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq who was harmed due to the documents released by

01083

SUBJECT: Request for Oral Depositions United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

Wikileaks. He will testify that the Afghanistan and lraq SIGACTs are simply ground-
level field reports that document dated activities which do not disclose sensitive
information or our sources and methods. Former Secretary Gates will also testify that the
initial public descriptions of the harm to foreign policy due to the publication of
diplomatic cables were ?fairly signi?cantly overwrought.? He will also testify that
although the disclosures were embarrassing and awkward, they did not represent
signi?cant consequences to foreign policy. Finally, Former Secretary Gates will testify
that on 29 July 2010, he directed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to lead a
comprehensive review of the documents allegedly given to WikiLeaks and to coordinate
under the Information Review Task Force (IRTF, formerly 1'1" 725) to conduct a complete
damage review. lle will testify that the damage review con?rmed that the alleged leaks
represented a low to, at best, moderate risk to national security. Speci?cally, he will
testify that all of the information allegedly leaked was either dated, represented low-level
opinions, or was already commonly understood and known due to previous public
disclosures. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating
Officer's improper determination that Former Secretary Gates was not reasonably
available at the Article 32 hearing. Former Secretary Gates was an essential witness and
should have been produced in person at the Article 32 hearing.

d. Secretary Hillary R. Clinton, US. Department of State, 2201 Street NW, Washington,
DC. 20520, Secretary Clinton will testify that she has raised the issue
of the disclostfil: of diplomatic cables with foreign leaders ?in order to assure our
colleagues that it will not in any way interfere with American diplomacy or our
commitment to continuing important work that is ongoing.? Secretary Clinton will also
testify that she has not had any concerns expressed to her about whether any nation would
continue to work with the United States or would continue to discuss important matters
going forward clue to the alleged leaks. As such. Secretary Clinton will testify that
although the leaks were embarrassing for the administration, she concurs with Former
Secretary Gates? opinion that they did not represent significant consequences to foreign
policy. The requested deposition is needed due to the Article 32 Investigating Officer's
improper determination that Secretary Clinton was not reasonably available at the Article
32 hearing. Secretary Clinton was an essential witness and should have been produced in
person at the Article 32 hearing.

3. In accordance with REM. 702(c)(3)(C) the defense requests that the government
inform the defense of the action on the request. If the request is denied, the defense requests that
the government comply with the rule by providing the reasons for the denial so that a motion to
compel can be properly filed with the military judge.

4. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at (401) 744-300? or by e-mail
at


if

le?



mm EDWARD contains
Civilian Defense Counsel

Id

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FDFIT MYEFI, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

REPLY To
innermost or:



/9 JAN :2



MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David Edward Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Requests for Oral Depositions U.S. v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. On 12 January 2012 and 16 January 2012, the defense requested oral depositions of CPT
James Kolky, RADM Kevin Donegan, Mr. Robert Betz, LtGen Robert Schmidle, Jr., VADM
Robert Harward, Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy, RADM David Woods, Dr. Robert
Gates, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, alleging that these witnesses were essential to the
Article 32 hearing and that the Article 32 investigating of?cer?s (IO) determination that these
witnesses were not reasonably available was improper. The defense also requested an oral
deposition of Mr. Robert Roland, stating that he was an essential witness, and the government
should have produced him at the Article 32 hearing.

2. The requests for CPT Kolky, RADM Donegan, Mr. Beta, LtGen Sehmidle, VADM Harward,
Under Secretary Kennedy, and RADM Woods are:

approved. Pursuant to RCM 702(d), the trial counsel will coordinate with the
appropriate deposition officerfs) for the oral depositions. Unless an extension is approved by
me, the depositions shall occur no later than thirty days from the date of this memorandum.

disapproved. Pursuant to RCM I ?nd there is good cause to deny
these deposition requests. The IO determined that the dif?culty, expense, andfor effect on
military operations outweighed the signi?cance of the expected testimony of CPT Kolky,
RADM Donegan, Mr. Betz, LtGen Schmidle, VADM Harward, Under Secretary Kennedy, and
RADM Woods. There is no evidence that the witnesses will not be available at trial if their
testimony is determined relevant and necessary, nor is there evidence that the 10's
determinations were improper.

3. The requests for Dr. Gates and Secretary Clinton are:

approved. Pursuant to RCM 702(d), the trial counsel will coordinate with the
appropriate deposition officer(s) for the oral depositions. Unless an extension is approved by
me, the depositions shall occur no later than thirty days from the date ofthis memorandum.

disapproved. Pursuant to RCM I ?nd there is good cause to deny
these deposition requests. The ID determined that the expected testimony of Dr. Gates and
Secretary Clinton were not relevant to the Article 32 investigation. There is no evidence that the
witnesses will not be available at trial if their testimony is determined relevant and necessary, nor
is there evidence that the denial of the witness requests was improper.


SUBJECT: Response to Requests for Oral Depositions US. v. PFC Bradlev Manning

4. The request for Mr. Roland is:

approved. Pursuant to RCM 702(d). the trial counsel will coordinate with the
appropriate deposition of?cer for the oral deposition. Unless an extension is approved by me,
the deposition shall occur no later than thirty days from the date of this memorandum.

(W) disapproved. Pursuant to RCM I find there is good cause to deny
this deposition request. The defense did not request Mr. Roland as an Article 32 witness. There
is no evidence that the witnesses will not be available at trial if their testimony is determined

relevant and necessary.

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

CF:
l-Trial Counsel
1-Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
STATES ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVECE
4217 Roberts Avenue. Suite 5030
FORT GEORGE MEADE. MARYLAND 207?55



REPLY TO
ATTENTID OF

26 January 2012

MEMORANDUM THRU Stafiiudge Advocate, Of?ce ofthe Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Army
Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC. 20319

FOR Commander, US. Army Military District of Washington, Fonz Lesley McNair, Washington,
DC. 20319-5058

SUBJECT: Request for additional funding in the amount of 592800000 for defense computer
forensic team, matter of United States PF Bradley Manning.

l. The Defense. in the matter of United States v. PFCBi-odiey Manning, reSpectfully requests you
approve $28,000.00 in additional funding for the Defense?s computer Forensics team. The Defense?s
computer forensics team consists of Mr. Eric Lakes and Mr. Trent Struttntann. Mr. Lakes and Mr.
Struttmann charge $175.00 per hour tier their services ($350.00 per hour for the both of them). They
estimate they can complete the computer forensics work in 160 hours. {160 hours it $175 .00 per hour
equals

2. usti?eation for approving additional funding. There are three reasonsjustifying why additional
funding for Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttrnanns" services is needed. These are:

a. The De?nes ?5 computer forensics work is not complete. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann
have begun their computer forensics work, but they haven?t completed it. They estimate
they need 160 hours to complete their remaining necessary computer forensics work.

13. Nature oj'rhe case. The matter of United States v. PFC Brodiey Manning is a high-pro?le
case involving an incredibly large amount of data. Speci?cally, the case involves some 3
terabytes of data, data that unquestionably must be accurately examined for a proper
defense. Such computer forensics work is time consuming.

c. Perspective. The Government has had the evidence in question for more than a year, and
it has great resources at its disposal. Most of the Government computer forensics work
was done by the Computer Crimes Investigative Unit at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, a well-
cquipped and well-staffed facility. (CCIU has since moved Quantieo, Va). We?re not
sure how many hours the Government spent on their computer forensics, but. simply put,
Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann need more time {160 hours) to complete their crucial work

For the Defense.

PAUL R. BOUCHARD
CPT, JA
Defense Counsel

3. POC for this request is the undersigned at

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. Anm DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
103 THIFID AVENUE

FORT J. DC 20319-5013
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:



1 FEB 2012



MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coomhs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Defense Computer Forensics Expert Consultants United States v. PFC Bradlev
Manning

1 reviewed your Request for Computer Forensic Experts. dated 9 August 201 I. the Appointment
of Defense Computer Forensic Expert Consultants, dated 10 August 20] l. and the Request for
Additional Funding in the Amount of $28,000 for Defense Forensic Team. dated 26 January
2012. After careful consideration, your request is:

approved. 1 adopt the appointment of Mr. Eric Lakes and Mr. Trent Struttmann as
computer forensic expert consultaan for the defense in the above-named case. and further direct
that Mr. Lakes and Mr. Srutlmann be designated members of the defense team under US. v.
Toledo. 25 NH. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and Military Rule of Evidence 502. I authorize the
expenditure of up to $28.000.00 for computer forensic consultation. This authorization is for
services that will occur after the date of this memorandum. Any expenditure of funds in excess
of the approved $28,000.00 will be disapproved. unless the additional amount is approved by me.
in advance. through a separate written request and written approval. Additionally, reasonable
travel reimbursement and per diem. IAW the JFTR. is authorized.

disapproved. will reconsider a renewed request for expert assistance made in

accordance with RCM
MICHAEL

Major General,
COmmanding

NGTON
my

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVENUE

FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIFI. DC 20319-5013
FIEPLV To
nrteunou oF:



1 FEB 2012



MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Request for Oral Depositions US. v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. On 23 January 2012, you requested that I order oral depositions be taken of CPT James
Kolky, RADM Kevin Donegan, Mr. Robert Beta, LtGen Robert Schmidle, Jr., VADM Robert
Harward, Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy, RADM David Woods, Dr. Robert Gates,
and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, alleging that these witnesses were essential to the Article
32 hearing and that the Article 32 investigating officer?s (IO) determination that these witnesses
were not reasonably available was improper. You also requested an oral deposition of Mr.
Robert Roland, stating that he was an essential witness, and the government should have
produced him at the Article 32 hearing.

2. After careful consideration, your request for oral depositions of CPT Kolky, RADM
Donegan, Mr. Beta, LtGen Schmidle, VADM Harward, Under Secretary Kennedy. and RADM
Woods is:

approved. Pursuant to RCM 702(d), the Chief, Military Justice will coordinate
with the appropriate deposition of?cer(s) for the oral depositions. Unless an extension is
approved by me, the depositions shall occur no later than thirty days from the date of this
memorandum.

W) disapproved. Pursuant to RCM I find there is good cause to deny
your de osition request. The 10 determined that the difficulty, expense, andfor effect on military
operations outweighed the signi?cance of the expected testimony of CPT Kolky, RADM
Donegan, Mr. Beta, LtGen Schmidle, VADM Harward, Under Secretary Kennedy, and RADM
Woods. There is no evidence that the witnesses will not be available at trial if their testimony is
determined relevant and necessary, nor is there evidence that the 10?s determinations were

improper.

3. After careful consideration, your request for oral depositions of Dr. Gates and Secretary
Clinton is:

approved. Pursuant to RCM 702(d), the Chief, Military Justice will coordinate
with the appropriate deposition of?ccr(s) for the oral depositions. Unless an extension is
approved by me, the depositions shall occur no later than thirty days from the date of this
memorandum.

ANCG
SUBJECT: Response to Requests for Oral Depositions US. v. PFC Bradley Manning

disapproved. Pursuant to RCM l?nd there is good cause to deny
your deposition request. The 10 determined that the expected testimony of Dr. Gates and
Secretary Clinton were not relevant to the Article 32 investigation. There is no evidence that the
witnesses will not be available at trial if their testimony is determined relevant and necessary, nor
is there evidence that the denial of the witness requests was improper.

4. After careful consideration, your request for an oral deposition of Mr. Roland is:

approved. Pursuant to RCM 702(d), the Chief, Military Justice will coordinate
with the appropriate deposition of?cer for the oral deposition. Unless an extension is approved
by me, the deposition shall occur no later than thirty days from the date of this memorandum.

disapproved. Pursuant to RCM I ?nd there is good cause to deny
this deposition request. You did not request Mr. Roland as an Article 32 witness, and there is no
evidence that the witness will not be available at trial if his testimony is determined relevant and
necessary.



CF:
l?Trial Counsel
I-Defense Counsel

01090

6 April 2012

MEMORANDUM THRU StaffJudge Advocate, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate. US. Army
Military District ofWashington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington. DC. 20319

FOR Commander, U.S. Army Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington
DC. 20319-5058

SUBJECT: Request for additional funding for defense computer forensic team - United States v.
PFC ii?rnn??ett Manning.

1. On l0 August 2011, the request for the appointment of Mr. Eric Lakes and Mr. Trent Struttmann
as computer forensic expert consultants was approved. The convening authority authorized
expenditures of up to $14,000.00 for computer forensic consultation along with reasonable travel
reimbursement and per diem. The approval indicated ?[a]ny expenditure of funds in excess of
$14,000.00 will be disapproved unless the additional amount is approved by me, in advance. through
a separate written request and written approval." See Attachment A.

2. On 26 January 20] 2. the Defense requested an additional $28,000.00 for computer forensic
consultation. This request was approved on 1 February 2012. The approval authorized the
expenditure of funds of up to $28,000.00 along with reasonable travel reimbursement and per diem.
The approval indicated ?[a]ny expenditure of ?mds in excess ot'S28.000.00 will be disapproved.
unless the additional amount is approved by me. in advance, through a separate written request and
written approval.? See Attachment B.

3. On 3 April 2012. the Defense requested additional funding in the amount of $14,000.00 for
additional computer forensic work and consultation. and in order for Mr. Struttmann to be able to
testify at the next motions hearing scheduled for 24 through 26 April 2012.

4. On 4 April 2012, CPT Angel Overgaard requested that the Delirnse provide more detail for its
request for additional funding. PT Overgaard indicated that the Government would likely need
more of an explanation as to why the Defense?s last estimate was ?not realistic and this one is." See
Attachment C. CPT Overgaard then requested the Defense to account for how much of the funding
was still available and for the Defense to provide a better breakdown of the amount requested. Id.

5. On 4 April 2012, the undersigned responded to CPT Overgaard's request. The Defense?s
understanding was that the Government wanted funding requests to be done in increments as

opposed to one lump sum estimate for entire consultation services. The basis for the Defense?s belief
was the fact previous requests for additional funding were done in incremental amounts. The
Defense indicated that it could provide either an incremental request, as had been done in the past, or
a request for a lump sum estimate liar all forensic services. pretrial preparation. and trial testimony.
See Attachment D.

6. CPT Overgaard reSponded to the De fense by stating the Government was not operating under an
incremental approach to expert funding. Instead. the Government wanted an ?estimated cost of
employment" as required by Rule for Courts-Martial See Attachment E. PT Overgaard
requested the Defense to provide an estimate as to the full amount needed along with the total

SUBJECT: Request for additional funding for defense computer forensic team - United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning.

amount of hours worked and an estimate of future hours needed along with a justi?cation for the
needed hours. Id.

7. In response to PT Overgaard?s request. the Defense provides the following accounting and
justi?cation for additional funding:

a. Accouting:



























Date Work Performed Hours Amount

Nov 11 Case preparation at Fort Myer/Fort 16 hours $2,800.00
McNair

8 Nov 1 1 Case preparation at Fort Myer/Fort 16 hours $2,800.00
McNair

9 Nov 1 1 Case preparation at Fort MyerIFort 8 hours $1,400.00
McNair

18 Nov 1 1 Government Case Brie?ng and forensic 16 hours $2,800.00
review with client

12-16 Dec Computer forensic review and presence 80 hours $14,000.00'

1 1 at the Article 32

1? Dec 1 1 Computer forensic review and presence 3 hours $1,400.00
at the Article 32

8-15 Feb 11 Evidence review, computer forensic 120 hours $21,000.00
consulting, and defense case preparation



13. Estimated Work Remaining:



Date Work Performed Hours Amount
17-26 Apr 11 Computer Forensic work that is 80 hours 5 I 4,000.00
responsive to Defense Counsel
questions in preparation for contested
case; testimony at Article 39(a) (Mr.
Struttmann only).

*Unsure of Computer Forensic work that is 32 hours $5,600.00
Date responsive to Defense Counsel
questions based upon work done and
Government forensic evidence











3 days prior Testimony Preparation for contested 24 hours it 2 $8,400.00

to trial case (Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann}

TRIAL Presence at trial and testimony of Mr. 120 hours (15 $42,000.00
Lakes and Mr. Struttmann day estimate)













1 The Defense is computer forensic experts have not been paid $1 1,200.00 of this amount. Under the original
authorization, no more than $14,000.00 was authorized. The Defense experts inadvertently went over this approved
amount by $1 1,200.00 during the Article 32 hearing. The Government was alerted to this overage and informed the
Defense that ?it was working with contracting to ?gure out the way forward." See Attachment F.

SUBJECT: Request for additional funding for defense computer forensic team - United States v.
PFC Bradley Manning.

c. Justi?cation: The forensic work in this case involves over eight terabytes of data. The
forensic work required is time consuming. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann work as a team to
conduct their forensic work. The two have been asked to review the work and conclusions by
the Computer Crimes Investigative Unit (CCIU). Additionally. based upon their work, the
Defense has identi?ed other leads and questions that require additional forensic work to be
performed. Given the nature of this case. the forensic work is a critical aspect to the Defense?s
casein chief. Without the services of Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann. the Defense would be
unable to adequately defend PFC Manning.

8. According to the above accounting. the Defense experts have expended all of the initially
allotted 314000.00 and $16,800.00 of the subsequently approved $28,000.00. The Defense
experts have not incurred any additional expenditure since it is believed that the Government will
eventually authorize a retroactive payment of the overage of $1 1,200.00 incurred during the
Article 32. See Footnote 1. If this is done. then all allotted funds will have been expended by
the computer forensic experts.

9. The above estimate requests approval for an additional $28.000.00 for pretrial services and
$42,000.00 for trial services. The total request for additional funding authorization is
$70,000.00. The requested amount is largely based upon an estimate for the length of the
contested trial. lf the contested trial is shorter or longer. the needed amount may increase or
decrease.

10. In accordance with the direction of Convening Authority, the Defense is requesting
additional funds be authorized based upon the above good faith estimate. The point of contact
for this memorandum is the undersigned at or at (508]
689-4616.



Dam EDWARD coOMBs
Civilian Defense Cotmsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVENUE
FORT LESLEY J. momma. DC 20319-5013



12 APR 2011



MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coonibs. Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Additional Funding for Defense Computer Forensics Expert Consultants - United
States v. PFC Bradlev Manning

1 reviewed your request for 3370.000 for additional funding for defense computer forensic team,
dated 6 April 2012. After care?il consideration, the defense request is:

approved. I authorize the eitpenditure of up to for computer forensic
consultation. This authorization is for services that will occur after the date of this
memorandum. Any expenditure of funds in excess will be disapproved, unless the
additional amount is approved by me, in advance. through a separate Written request and written
approval. Additionally, reasonable travel reimbursement and per diem IAW the FTR, is
authorized.

disapproved. I will reconsider a renewed request for additional funding for expert
assistance made in accordance with 703(d).

ova/1,524]

MICHAEL S.
Major Generan U.S. 1'
Commanding




GTON

01094

25 April 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Request for Individual Military Counsel in US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

1. References.
a. Manual for Courts-Martial (MOM), 2010
b. Army Regulation (AR) 22-10, "Military Justice," dated 16 November 2005.

2. Pursuant to sections and 6-10 of AR 27-10 and Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.)
506(b), I hereby request that Major (MAJ) Thomas Hurley be detailed as Individual
Military Counsel (IMC) to my case, US v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E.
Manning. i request MAJ Hurley as an addition to my current detailed military counsel.
Captain (CPT) Joshua Tooman.

3. Background.

a. in summer 2010, I was detailed CPT Paul Bouchard as military counsel.
Immediately following transferal to the Pretrial Confinement Facility (PCF) at Marine
Corps Base (MCB) Quantico, Virginia, MAJ Hurley was assigned to the defense team in
order to ease the transition from theater to the continental United States until assigned
permanent defense counsel. After being detailed MAJ Matthew Kemkes as additional
counsel in August 2010, MAJ Hurley was removed from the defense team. I also
requested IMC for CPT Bouchard to stay on the case.

b. On 01 September 2010, i hired Mr. David Coombs as my civilian defense
counsel. I elected to keep my detailed military counsel, MAJ Kemkes and CPT
Bouchard, in order to assist Mr. Coombs. After transferring to the Joint Regional
Correctional Facility (JRCF) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in April 201 1, CPT Joshua
Tooman was assigned as an assistant to the case.

c. Most recently, on 13 April 2012, elected to excuse both of my detailed military
defense counsel, MAJ Kemkes and CPT Bouchard, and requested that CPT Tooman
be detailed as full-time military defense counsel.

SUBJECT: Request for Individual Military Counsel in US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

4. Presently, my defense team consists of one civilian defense counsel. one military
defense counsel, and one legal administrator, namely:

a. Mr. David Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel.

b. CPT Joshua Tooman. Defense Counsel.

0. W01 Melissa Santiago, Legal Administrator.
5. In contrast, the prosecution presently consists of at least four officers as trial counsel
and one legal administrator out of the Military District of Washington (MDW) Office of
the Staff Judge Advocate (OSJA), namely:

a. MAJ Ashden Feyn, Trial Counsel.

b. CPT JoDean Morrow Assistant Trial Counsel.

c. CPT Angel Overgaard, Assistant Trial Counsel.

d. CPT Jeffrey Whyte, Assistant Trial Counsel.

e. Arthur Ford, Legal Administrator.
6. Currently, there is an uneven representation, of at least two full-time military counsel,
between myself and my defense team, and the government and prosecution team. I
therefore make this request primarily to compensate for the difference between the
defense and prosecution. Otherwise Mr. Coombs, my civilian defense counsel will take
on an unfair burden of the workload in my case. As noted above, the teams were much

closer to even when i had two part-time detailed military counsel to assist Mr. Coombs.

1 am providing the following information, required under paragraph of AR
2?-10, to process this IMC request.

a. Name, grade and station of requested counsel. MAJ Thomas Hurley, U.S. Army
Trial Defense Service (USATDS), DCAP, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

b. Name, grade and station of accused and existing defense counsel.

(1) PFC Manning, Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), US. Army
Garrison (USAG), Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia 22211.

(2) CPT Joshua Tooman, USATDS, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027.

SUBJECT: Request for Individual Military Counsel in US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

c. Charges and summary of charges.

(1) Five (5) speci?cations of violating a lawful general regulation underArticle 92.
UCMJ (Section 892. Title 10 USC.)

(2) One (1) specification of aiding the enemy under Article 104, UCMJ (Section
904, Title 10 U.S.C.)

(3) One (1) specification of disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order
and discipline and service discrediting, eight (8) speci?cations of communicating
classified information (Section Title 18 USO), five (5) specifications of stealing
or knowingly converting government property (Section 641, Title 18 USO). and two (2)
specifications of knowingly exceeding authorized access to a government computer
(Section 1030(a)(1). Title 18 U.S.C.) under Article 134. UCMJ (Section 934. Title 10
U.S.C.)

d. Date charges preferred and status of case. The original charges were preferred
on 05 July 2010. Those charges were dismissed by the convening authority on 18
March 2011. The current charges were preferred on 01 March 2011. On 16 December
through 22 December 201 1, those charges were investigated by an Investigating Officer
(IO) pursuant to Article 32(b), UCMJ (Section 832(b). Title 10, U.S.C.) The charges
were referred. without special instructions, to a general court-martial on 03 February
2012.

e. Date and form of pretrial restraint. Ordered into pretrial confinement on 29 May
2010. In confinement at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait until transferred to Ouantico. Virginia on
29 July 2010. Later transferred to Fort Leavenworth. Kansas on 20 April 2011. Periodic
transfers near Fort Meade for pretrial hearings.

f. Anticipated date and length of trial. Presently expected to be twenty-one (21)
days between September and December 2012 at Fort Meade, Marlyand.

g. Existence of attorney-client relationship. As mentioned above, MAJ Hurley was
previously assigned in August 2010 as an assistant to my case until MAJ Kemkes was
permanently detailed as military counsel.

h. Special circumstances or other factors relating to availability. MAJ Hurley's
current duty station is within the MDW, near the same location as the prosecution. Fort
McNair, DO, and the pretrial hearings and trial, Fort Meade. Maryland.

SUBJECT: Request for Individual Military Counsel in US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

8. I understand the decision to request for and retain military defense counsel is my
own decision. No one has forced or coerced me into making this request. I appreciate
the charges in this case. I understand the maximum punishment for the offenses is a
dishonorable discharge, reduction to lowest enlisted pay grade total forfeitures of
pay and allowances, and con?nement for life without the possibility of parole.

9. The point of contact (POC) for this memorandum is the undersigned at HHC, USAG,
239 Sheridan Avenue. Building 417, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer,
Virginia 22211.




xx?
E..
PFC, U.S.Arrny

27 April 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Addendum to Request for Individual Military Counsel in U.S. v. PFC Bradley
E. Manning

1. I have recently been informed that the Government added an additional trial counsel
to their team. The Government new has 1LT Alexander S. VonElten on its team. The
added counsel provides additional support for my Individual Military Counsel request.

2. The Point of Contact (POC) for this memorandum is the undersigned at HHC.
USAG, 239 Sheridan Avenue, Building 417, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort
Myer, Virginia 22211.

I 1'


- "Jig/fir? .
. f, w,
. BRADLEY MANNING

PFC, US. Army

is

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMV
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVENUE
FORT LESLEY J. MOHAIR. DC 20319-5013

hf REPLY To
0F



ANCG 4 WW 20,2

MEMORANDUM FOR PFC Bradley E. Manning, Headquarters and Headquarters Company,
US. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, VA 222] I

SUBJECT: Request for Individual Military Counsel (IMC) PFC Bradley E. Manning

I have reviewed your request For Individual Military Counsel (IMC) and the Memorandum From
COL Mark Cremin, Chief, U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, Fort Belvoir, VA. COL Cremin
determined that there is an attorney?client relationship and MAJ Thomas F. Hurley is reasonably
available to act as your Individual Military Counsel (IMC). Your request is approved IAW AR
27510, paragraph and 5-10.




2 Enels MICHAEL .
1. Chief, USATDS Memo, 1 May 12 Major General, U.
2. Request. 25 Apr [2 Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DEFENSE COUNSEL
1620 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON. DC 20301-1620



OMCD 10 July 2012

MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM HRU Staff Judge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate,
U-S. Army Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair,Washington, DC 20319

FOR Commander, US. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J.McNair, Washington, DC
20319

SUBJECT: Request for Courier Cards

1. 1 request your assistance in providing CDNUSISECRET courier cards to designated members of the
defense team representing PFC Bradley Manning. 1 would also ask that you expedite this request.

2. This action is necessary for the following reasons. First, this case involves volumes ofeiassi?ed
evidence and many classi?ed data storage devices. It is as common to work with a classi?ed document as
an unclassi?ed document. and there should be no administrative barriers to move those ubiquitous
documents from one place to the next. Second, all current members of the defense team work in different
locations. 1 work in Arlington. CPT Tooman is assigned to Fort Belvoir; and SFC Jones will work
out of the Fort Myer TDS Field O?ice once she is brought onto active duty. Courier cards are a necessity
to transport the classi?ed documents from one member of the defense team to another. Finally. there
have been some recent changes to the defense team, and no current member has avalid courier card.
(CPT Tooman did have a courier card. but was required to turn it in during his recent permant change of
station from Fort Leavenworth to Fort Belvoir.)

3. Cards are required for the following defense personnel:

a. MAJ Thomas F. Hurley, Of?ce of the Military Commissions Defense, Arlington. VA
b. CPT Josh Tooman, Fort Belvoir TDS
c. SFC Allie Jones, Fort Myer TDS

SFC Jones is a member ofthe US. Army Reserves. She is in the process of being mobilized to help the
defense team. but is not on active duty quite yet. We request a courier card for her now in order to avoid
sending multiple requests to your headquarters.

4. lfyou have questions. please contact

I am happy to do anything I can to help expedite this request.

jam-.1, ILL:
THOMAS F.

MAJ, .IA
Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVENUE

FORT LESL EY J. MCHAIR. DC 20319-5013
REPLY fD
or



ANCG I 3 JUL 2012

MEMORANDUM OR Military Defense ounsel, Department of Defense, Of?ce of the Chief
Defense ounsel, 1:520 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1620

SUBJECT: Request for Courier Cards - US. v. PFC Manning



l. The defense request for courier cards is (approved sapproved} tier the following personnel:

a. Thomas F. Hurley, Of?ce ol'the Military Commissions-Defense, Arlington, VA

b. Tooman, Fort Belvoir, VA TDS

c. SFC Allie Jones, Fon Myer, VA TDS
2. lt'approved, each command securit}.r manager will issue a DD Form 2501. with an authorized
level up to EC to each member ofthe defense listed above. If travel must occur outside
nt?the National Capital Region, then an additional courier authorization letter will be issued for

each individual per trip. Prior to utilizing a coorier card or authorization, each member of the
de?ense listed above must receive courier training from a defense security expert.






Encl MICHAEL 3. Crew

Request for Courier Cards, 10 Jul 12 Major Gener
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVEN UE

FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, DC 20319-5013
REPLY TU
ATTENTION or



ANCG 25 JUL 2012



MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Approved Facility and Storage for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning

1. FACILITY.

a. and lnforrnation. All meetings requiring access to
and information will only occur in approved facilities. Prior to
accessing classi?ed information or having classi?ed discussions, the prosecution and defense are
required to verify whether the facility is properly approved for use by a local security of?cer.

b. and Information. All meetings requiring the discussion or viewing
of information classi?ed at a level above will occur in a pre-approved Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). The defense team will coordinate through trial
counsel to schedule dates and times to use a SCIF.

2. STORAGE. All classi?ed information shall be stored in accordance with the following
instructions:

a. Prosecution Team. and information will be stored in the
two safes assigned to the Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, Military District of Washington
(MDW) and a safe located in the Courthouse, Fort George G. Meade, MD. Any information
classified above the level will be stored in the MDW SCIF located in Building 46,
Fort Lesley J. McNair, DC.

b. Defense Team. and information will be stored in the safe
assigned to the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort Myer, located in Building 229, Joint Base
Myer-Henderson Hall, a safe assigned to the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort Belvoir,
located at 9990 Belvoir Drive, Fort Belvoir, a safe assigned to the Of?ce of the Military
Commissions Defense, located at 1555 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 620, of?ce 618, Arlington,
a safe assigned to the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort George G. Meade, a safe
located in the Courthouse, Fort George G. Meade, or a safe assigned to the Naval War
College, located at 636 Cushing Road, Newport, RI. Any information classi?ed, or presumed to
be classi?ed, above the level will be stored in a separate drawer or safe with its own
unique combination at Headquarters, US. Army Intelligence and Security Command, located on
Fort Belvoir, VA, and storage will be coordinated through Mr. Cassius Hall.

ANCG
SUBJECT: Approved Facility and Storage for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC

Bradley Manning

3. COMPUTER FORENSIC ANALYSIS. The defense computer forensic expert consultants
will conduct their analysis in the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort George G. Meade. All
their classi?ed material will be stored IAW paragraph 2.

4. This order is not intended to contradict or modify the Court Protective Order, dated 16 March



MICHAEL S. INNI
Major General, US.
Commanding





TON

DISTRIBUTION:

Trial Counsel

Civilian Defense Counsel

Military Defense Counsel

Defense Security Expert Consultants

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES

PRETRIAL OFFER AND
AGREEMENT

MANNING. Bradley 13.. PFC

US. Army.

Headquarters and Headquarters Company. US.
Army Garrison. .loint Base Myer?Henderson Hall.
Fort Myer. VA 222l1

DATED: 4 September 2012

1. I. PFC Bradley E. Manning. the Accused in the court?martial now pending. have examined
the Charges and their Speci?cations as well as the evidence against me. I understand that this
offer. when accepted by the Convening Authority. constitutes a binding agreement. I assert that
I am. in fact. guilty of the offenses to which I am offering to plead guilty. and I understand that
this agreement permits the Government to avoid presentation in court of suf?cient evidence to
prove my guilt. I offer to plead guilty because it will be in my best interest to do so. I
understand that I waive my right to a trial of the facts and to be confronted by the witnesses
against me. and my right to avoid self-incrimination insofar as the plea of guilty will incriminate
me. I have had the bene?t of my defense counsel?s advice. and being fully advised that I have a
legal and moral right to plead not guilty to the Charges and Speci?cations against me. I offer to:

a. Plead as follows:

To Speci?cation 1 of Charge II: Guilty. except the words and ?gures 1 November 2009.
27 May 2010. Substituting therefore the words and ?gures 3 February 2010. 4 May 2010. Of
the excepted words and ?gures. Not Guilty. Of the substituted words and ?gures. Guilty.

To Specification 2 of Charge 11: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capitalv
Violations of Federal Law. 18 U.S. Code Section 293(e). but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or of 3 Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Specification 3 of Charge 11: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 18 US. Code Section 793(e). but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Speci?cation 4 of Charge II: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital,
Violations of Federal Law. 13 US. Code Section 641. but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or of a Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Speci?cation 5 ofCharge ll: Not Guilty ofCrimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 18 US. Code Section 793te). but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Speci?cation 6 of Charge I I: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 18 US. Code Section 641. but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the PrejudiCe of Good Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Speci?cation 7 ofCharge ll: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations ofFederal Law. 18 US. Code Section 793(e). but Guilty ofDisorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or of a Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Specification 8 of Charge 11: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 18 US. Code Section 641. but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Speci?cation 9 of Charge ll: Not Guilty ofCrimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 18 U.S. Code Section 793tle}. but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or of a Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Specification 10 ofCharge Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 18 US. Code Section 7'93te). but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or of a Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces.

To Specification 11 of Charge Not Guilty ofCrimes and Offenses Not Capitalt
Violations of Federal Law. 18 US. Code Section 793te}. but Guilty ofDisorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice ofGood Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Specification ofCharge ll: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 18 US. Code Section 641. but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or of a Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Speci?cation 13 of Charge 11: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. l8 US. Code Section but Guilty of Disorders and
Neglects to the. Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Discredit Upon
the Armed Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

IJ

To Speci?cation l4 ofCharge 11: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital-
Violations ofFederal Law. 18 US. Code Section but Guilty ofDisorders and
Neglects to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Discredit Upon
the Armed Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Speci?cation [5 ofCharge 11: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 18 US. Code Section 793(e). but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or of a Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Speci?cation Io ofCharge II: Not Guilty ol?Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. l3 US. Code Section 641. but Guilty ofDisorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or of 3 Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article l34.

To Charge ll: Guilty.
To the Speci?cations of Charge and to Charge Guilty.

b. My defense counsel has informed me of my right to be tried by a court composed entirely
of of licer members. by a court composed of at least one-third enlisted members. or by Military
Judge alone. As further consideration for this agreement, I waive my right to a trial by members
and agree to request trial by Military Judge alone.

c. I agree to enter into a Stipulation of Fact with the Trial Counsel. truthfully detailing my
conduct relating to the charges and speci?cations pending in the above-re ferenced court-martial.
I understand that if my offer to plead guilty is not accepted. the contents of any agreed upon
stipulation of fact cannot be used against me at trial.

d. I agree to waive any motions in this court-martial based on the facts or information known
by myself or my defense counsel as of the date ofthis offer. This does not affect my ability to
raise any non-waivable motions. such as a speedy trial motion. See R.C.M. United
States v. McLaughlin. 50 NH. 217 (C.A.A.F. 1999). However. upon receipt of the Govemment?s
Due Diligence Statement. the Defense may voluntarily elect to withdraw its Speedy Trial
motion. As a part of this waiver. I specifically agree to waive the following motions listed in
subparagraph and below. I believe any benefit that may be gained by such motions would
be satisfied by the effect ofthis plea agreement.

(1) Article 13 Motion. beyond the reliefconceded by the Government as appropriate; and
Multiplicity or Unreasonable Multiplication ofCharges Motion.

2. In exchange for my actions as stated in paragraph 1. the Convening Authority agrees to take
the actions speci?ed in Appendix A to this offer. Additionally. the Convening Authority agrees
to direct the Trial Counsel to Dismiss the Specification of Charge I and Charge I. Under the
terms of this agreement. the Govemment is not prevented of attempting to prove any of the
greater offenses of Charge II should the Government elect to do so.



3. I am satis?ed with Mr. David E. Coombs. my civilian defense counsel. 1 am also satisfied
with MAJ Thomas Hurley and CPT Joshua Tooman. my military defense counsel. who have
been detailed by the United States Army Trial Defense Service to defend me. Mr. Coombs has
advised me of the meaning and effect of my guilty plea. and I understand the meaning and effect
this agreement. No person or persons have made any attempt to force or to coerce me into
making this offer to plead guilty.

4. I understand that I may request to withdraw the plea of guilty at any time before my plea is
accepted and that if[ do so. this agreement is canceled. This agreement may also be canceled if:

a. I fail to plead guilty as described above:

b. There is a failure of agreement with the Trial Counsel on the contents of the stipulation of
fact;

c. There are additions or subtractions to the stipulation of fact without the consent of both
parties:

d. The military judge either refuses to accept my plea of guilty or changes my plea of guilty
during the trial without the consent of the Trial Counsel: or

e. I fail to ful?ll any material promise contained in this agreement.
5. The writing. including Appendix A to the Pretrial Offer and Agreement (Quantum), includes

all terms and conditions of this Offer to Plead Guilty and contains all promises made to me or by
me concerning my plea of guilty. There are no other terms or conditions that are not contained

in this writing.



ID EDWARD COOMBS BRADLEY E. MANNING
Civilian Defense Counsel PFC. US Army
Accused



DATE: 9 .SFI- 29!; DATE: SEP 1?

The foregoing offer is (accepted) (rejected).

DATE: MICHAEL S. LINNINGTON
Major General. USA
Commanding



IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES

APPENDIX A TO PRETRIAL
OFFER AND AGREEMENT

MANNING. Bradley E.. PFC

LLS. Army.

Headquarters and Headquarters Company. US.
Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.
Fort Myer. VA 22211

DATED: 4 September 2012

.-

In consideration for the promises made by the accused. PFC Bradley E. Manning. in his Pretrial
Offer and Agreement, the Converting Authority agrees to the following:

a. The Convening Authority may approve any sentence lawfully adjudged by the general
court-martial except as limited in paragraph (below).

b. The Converting Authority will disapprove any confinement in excess of IS years {180



VID EDWARD COOMBS BRADLEY E. MANNING
Civilian Defense Counsel PFC. US Army
Accused



DATE: 29,1: 2ng DATE: 1.2.

The Foregoing offer is (accepted) (rejected).

DATE: MICHAEL S. LINNINGTON
Major General. USA
Commanding



25 September 2012

MEMORANDUM RU StaffJudge Advocate. Joint Force Headquarters National Capital
Region, U.S. Army Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair. DC 20319-5058

FDR Commander, Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region. U.S. Army Military
District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. MeNair, DC 20319-5053

SUBJECT: Request For a Meeting to Discuss Offer To Plead Guilty United States v. PFC
Bradleyr E. Marming

1. PURPOSE. The Defense in the above-referenced ease requests an opportunity to meet with
you to discuss the Offer to Plead Guilty dated 4 September 2012.

2. BACKGROUND. The Defense submitted the OTPG on 4 September 2012. At the time of
the OTPG submission, the Defense met with the Staff Judge Advocate (SJ and the trial
counsel to discuss the OTPG. The goal ofthis discussion was to obtain the support ofthe
OTPG. After this discussion and based upon subsequent telephonic discussions with trial
counsel. it became clear that the SJA would not recommend approval of the OTPG.

3. REQUEST. The Defense requests the opportunity to meet with you prior to you taking action
on the OTPG. The requested meeting is necessary in order for the Defense to present its position
on the OTPG and why the OTPG is a positive outcome for not only PFC Manning, but for the
Government and the Command as well. The Defense believes that having the ability to meet
with you will provide you with a different perspective on the OTPG and allow you to make a
fully informed and independent decision based upon all of the facts.

4. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007.

AVID EDWARD COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

The above request is:

approved. The SJA of?ce will schedule a time for the Defense to meet
with me as soon as possible.

i disapproved.









MICHAELS. LIN - GTON

Major General.
Commanding

nan-z; 2012





From: Joshua i QPT





70? MAJ LLB-ARMY NEW Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY i'USl: Devin CQmeg

Ccgage mg ugamvipsy white 1
Hunter (El LiSAl-?imy 1ng Exam, gigginggr 5 {Ale-i 5E U?mi Arrt_1 gr 1r (ME LJSARMY


Subject: RE: Update (UNCLASSIFIED)

Date: Thursday, Saptember 27, 2012 11:56:28 AM

MAJ Fein

1000 is my understanding as well.

Also, can the conferenoe room in the MWR building (Community Center next in the Bowling Alley) on

Fort Myer be added as an approved location for the dismssion and revieiv of dowmenls classi?ed at

the SECRET level and below? According to Mr. Hall, the farmer Chief of the Security Intel branche at
Fort Myer, that room is accredited for such use and, indeed, is often used for such.

Thanks,
Josh



From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Sent: Thursday, September 2012 11:46 AM

To: Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY David Coombs

Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) CPT USARMY USAMDW Overgaard, Angel CPT USARMY
Whyte, Hunter CPT USARMY yon Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr
CW2 USARMY Hall, Cassius CIV Ganiel, Charles CIV Boardman, Gerald CIV (US)
Subject: RE: Update (UNCLASSIFIED)

Josh and Defense Team.

It is my understand from Mr. Boardman, who just spoke with Mr. Hall, that the defense would rather us
deliver the material to Mr. Hall's of?ce tomorrow at 1000. We will plan on being there at 1000,
assuming the CG appointment still occurs and he approves the proposed action. Please let us know
whether this is inaccurate. Thank you.


MAJ Fein



From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USARMY MDW (US)

Sent: Thursday, September 2012 11:06 AM

To: Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY David Coomos

Cc: Morrow, JoDean (Joe) CPT USARMY USAMDW Dvergaard, Angel CPT USARMY
Whyte, Hunter USARMY von Elten, Alexander (Alec) CPT USARMY Ford, Arthur Jr
CWZ USARMY Hall, Cassius CIV Ganiel, Charles CIV Boardman, Gerald (U5)
Subject: RE: Update (UNCLASSIFIED)

Josh and Defense Team,

We are preparing to deliver the classi?ed material to your location; however we realized that the
address you gave Metro Park) is not an authorized location for classi?ed material at any level.
The Convening Authority's approval memo lists Mr. Hall's of?ce at INSCOM HQ, Fort Belvoir, VA as a
location, along with the TDS of?ces at Fort Belvoir, Fort Meade, Fort Myer, MAJ Hurley's of?ce, NWC,
and the courthouse at Fort Meade. Knowing now that Mr. Hall's of?ce is at Metro Park, we can update
die location and present this action to the convening authority today. We already have an appointment
scheduled, but it is at 1600.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT or WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVENUE

.- FORT LESLEY J. MOHAIR, DC 20319-5013
REPLY To
ATTENTION OF



2 7 SEP an:



MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Approved Facility and Storage for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning

1. FACILITY.

a. and Information. All meetings requiring access to
and information will only occur in approved facilities. Prior to
accessing classi?ed information or having classi?ed discussions, the prosecution and defense are
required to verify whether the facility is properly approved for use by a local security of?cer.



b. and Information. All meetings requiring the discussion or viewing
of information classi?ed at a level above will occur in a Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). A workspace at Headquarters. US. Army
Intelligence and Security Command. 6359 Walker Lane Alexandria, VA, is authorized to be used
for discussions or viewing ofinfon'nation classified at a level above EC so long as Mr.
Cassius Hall coordinates its use and escorts defense counsel during the meeting. The defense
team will coordinate through trial counsel to schedule dates and times to use any other SC or
temporary workspace.

2.. STORAGE. All classified information shall be stored in accordance with the following
instructions:

a. Prosecution Team. and information will be stored in the
two safes or in the provided room in Building 48. Fort Lesley J. McNair. DC assigned to the
Of?ce of the StaffJudge Advocate. Military District of Washington {Mle and a safe located
in the Courthouse and Courthouse trailer. Fort George G. Meade. MD. Any information
classified above the level will be stored in the MDW SCIF located in Building 46.
Fort Lesley .l . McNair. DC.

b. Defense Team. and in?onnation will be stored in the safe
assigned to the Trial Defense Service Office on Fort Myer. located in Building 229, Joint Base
Myer-Henderson I-Iall, a safe assigned to the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort Belvoir.
located at 9990 Belvoir Drive. Fort Belvoir. a safe assigned to the Of?ce of the Military
Commissions Defense, located at 1555 Wilson Boulevard. Suite 620. office 618. Arlington,
a safe assigned to the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort George G. Meade. MD: a safe
located in the Courthouse and Courthouse trailer. Fort George G. Meade, or a safe assigned

ANCG
SUBJECT: Approved Facility and Storage for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC

Bradler Manning

to the Naval War College. located at 686 ushing Road. Newport. RI. Any information
classified. or presumed to be classi?ed. above the level will be stored in a separate
drawer or safe with its own unique combination at Headquarters, US. Army Intelligence and
Security Command, 6359 Walker Lane Alexandria. VA. and storage will be coordinated through
Mr. Cassius Hall.

3. COMPUTER FORENSIC ANALYSIS. The defense computer forensic expert consultants
will conduct their analysis in the Trial Defense Service Of? cc on Fort George G. Meade. All
their classi?ed material will be stored paragraph 2.

4. This order is not intended to contradict the Court Protective Order. dated 16 March 2012.

MICHAEL s. LINN 0N

Major General. U.S.
ommanding

DISTRIBUTION:

Trial Counsel

Civilian Defense Counsel
Military Defense Counsel
Security Expert Consultants

I'd

IN TI IE UNITED ARMY
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED

PRETRIA OFFER A ND
AGREEMENT

US. Army, a?

Headquarters and Headquarters Company. US.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson
Fort Myer. VA 2221 I





I





MANNING. Bradley Pf



DATED: 4 September 2012



l. l. PFC Bradley Manning. the Accused in the court-martial now pending. have examined
the Charges and their Speci?cations as vt-ell as the evidence against me. I understand that this
offer. when accepted by the Convening Authority. constitutes a binding agreement. I assert that
I am, in fact. guilty ofthe offenses to which I am of?ering to plead guilty. and I understand that
this agreement permits the Government to avoid presentation in court of sufficient evidence to
prove my guilt. I offer to plead guilty because it will be in my best interest to do so. I
understand that waive my right to a trial of the facts and to be cenfronted by the witnesses
against me. and my right to avoid self-incrimination insofar as the plea of guilty will incriminate
me. I have had the benefit of my defense counsel's advice. and being fully advised that have a
legal and moral right to plead not guilty to the (.?harges and Speci?cations against me, I offer to:

a. Plead as thllovt's:

To Speci?cation 1 of Charge ll: (iuilty. except the words and ?gures I November 2009-
37 May 2010. Substituting therefore the words and ?gures 3 February 3010. 4 May 2010. Of
the excepted words and ?gures. Not Guilty. Of the substituted vrords and ?gures. Guilty.

To Speci?cation 3 of Charge II: Nor Guilty ofCrimes and Offenses Not Capital,
Violations of Federal Law. IX US. Code Section but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice ot?th'td Order and Discipline or of a Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Anned
Forces under Clause I and 2 of Article 134.

To Specification 3 of Charge 11: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations ofFederal Law. IX US. Code Section 703W). but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Diseredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 13-1.

To Specification 4 of Charge II: Not Guilty ofCrimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal law. Ill US. Code Section 64!. but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice ofGood Order and Discipline or of a Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 3 ofArlicle 134-

To Specification 5 ofCharge ll: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. IS LES. Code Section 793W), bur Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prej udiee of Good Order and Discipline or of a Nature to Bring Diseredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 ofArticle [34.

lo Speci?cation 6 of Charge ll: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations ofFederal Law. 18 1.1.8. Code Section but Guilty ofDisorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice ofGood Order and Discipline or of a Nature to Bring Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 of Article 134.

To Speci?cation 7 of Charge ll: Not Guilt}- of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. l8 US. Code Section 7?13ieit hut Guilty of?isorders and Negleets to
the Prejudice of Good (erer and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Disercdit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 3 of?rticle 134.

To Speci?cation 8 of Charge Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations ofFederal Law. 18 US. Code Section 541. but Guilty ofDisorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice ofGood Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause and 2 of Article 134.

To Specification 0 of Charge 11'. Not Guilt} of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 18 US. Code Section WBtel. but Guilty of Disorders and Negleets to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring' Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 ofArticle l3-i.

To Specification it} of Charge 11: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations ofFederal Law. 18 LLS. Code Section Write). but Guilty and Negleets to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces.

To Specification I I ofCharge 11; Not Guilt} of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law- 18 US- Code Section 793te)- but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or Die Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 ofA?iele 134.

To Speci?cation [2 ofChargc Not Guilty ofCrimcs and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. I 8 US. Code Section 6-41. but Guilt): ofDisorders and Negleets to
the udiee ofGood Order and Discipline or oft-t Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 3 of Article 134.

To Specification 13 of Charge 11: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations ofFedera] Last. IE Code Section but Guilty ofDisorders and
Negleets to the Prejudice ofGood Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Discredit Upon
the Armed Forces under Clause 1 and 2 ofArticle l34.

I-J

01115

To Specification 14 of Charge II: Not Guilty of Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 18 US. Code Section 1030talt l. but Guilty ot?Disorders and
Neglects to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or of a Nature to Bring Discredit Upon
the Armed Forces under Clause and 2 ofArticle 134.

To Speci?cation 15 of Charge ll: Not Guilty ot'Crimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 13 US. Code Section White]. but Guilty of Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice ofGood Order and Discipline or ofa Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 2 ofArticle 134.

To Speci?cation 16 of Charge Not Guilty ofCrimes and Offenses Not Capital.
Violations of Federal Law. 13 US. Code Section 64 l, but Guilty ot?Disorders and Neglects to
the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline or ola Nature to Bring Discredit Upon the Armed
Forces under Clause 1 and 3 of Article l34.

'l?o Charge ll: Guilty.
To the Speci?cations of Charge and to Charge Guilty.

b. My defense counsel has informed me of my right to be tried by a court composed entirely
ofofficer members. by a court composed of at least one-third enlisted members. or by Military
Judge alone. As further consideration for this agreement. waive my right to a trial by members
and agree to req uest trial by Military Judge alone.

c. I agree to enter into a Stipulation ot?Fact with the Trial Counsel. truthfully detailing my
conduct relating to the charges and speci?cations pending in the above-referenced court?martial.
I understand that ifrny offer to plead guilty is not accepted. the contents of any agreed upon
stipulation of fact cannot be used against me at trial.

d. I agree to waive any motions in this court?martial based on the facts or information known
by myselfor my defense counsel as of the date oftltis offer. This does not affect my ability to
raise any non-o'aivable motions. such as a speedy trial motion. .S?ee RCM. Ttlitclt' United
States McLaughlin. 50 MJ. 2 .AAP. 1999}. l-Iovt'evcr. upon receipt of the Government?s
Due Diligence Statement. the Defense may voltmtarily elect to withdraw its Speedy Trial
motion. As a part ofthis waiver. I speci?cally agree to waive the following motions listed in
subparagraph (H and below. [believe any benefit that may be gained by such motions would
he satis?ed by the effect ofthis plea agreement.

I i :?trtit?c 13 Motion. beyond the reliet?conceded by the t'iovernment as appropriate: and
t2) Multiplicity or Unreasonable Multiplication ot?Chargcs Motion.

2. in exchange for my actions as stated in paragraph I. the Convening Authority agrees to take
the actions speci?ed in Appendix A to this offer. Additionally- the Convening Authority agrees
to direct the Trial Counsel to Dismiss the Speci?cation ol'Chargc I and Charge 1. Linder the
terms ofthis agreement. the Government is not prevented ot?attempting to prove any of the
greater offenses of Charge ll should the Government elect to do so.

?4

3. I am satis?ed with Mr. David E. Coomhs. my civilian defense counsel. I am also satisfied
taith MAJ Thomas Hurley and Joshua Tooman. my military defense counsel. who have
been detailed by the United States Army Trial Defense Service to defend me. Mr. t?oomhs has
advised me of the meaning and effect ofmjr guilty plea. and understand the meaning and effect
this agreement. No person or persons have made any attempt to force or to coerce me into
making this offer to plead guilty.

4. I understand that I may request to withdraw the plea ofguilty at any time before my plea is
accepted and that ill do so, this agreement is canceled. This agreement may also be canceled if:

a. I fail to plead guilty as described above;

b. There is a failure ot?agreement with the Trial Counsel on the contents ofthc stipulation of
fact:

c. There are additions or subtractions to the stipulation of fact without tlte consent of both
parties:

d. The military judge either refuses to accept my plea ofguilt}; or changes my plea of guilt).
during the trial tt'ithout the consent of the Trial Counsel: or

e. I fail to fulfill any material promise contained in this agreement.

5. The writing- including Appendix A to the Pretrial Offer and Agreement (Quantumt. includes
all terms and conditions of this Offer to Plead Guilt}: and contains all promises made to me or by
me concerning my plea ofguilt}: There are no other terms or conditions that are not contained

in this writing.



ID EDWARD CUUMHS BRADLEY MANNING
(.?ivilian Defense Counsel PFC. US Army
Accused

mitt: Vi?? one; 2W SEP 12








The foregoing offer is (accepted . .
4 OCT 01
_u 2 2? MICHAEL S. LIN

Major General. Ll .
Commanding




DATE: VGTUN

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

STATES

A TO PRETRIAL
OFFER AND AGREEMENT

MANNING. Bradle} E.. PFC

Lzs. Arm};

Headquarters and Headquarters Company- US.
Army Garrison. Joint Base cr-Henderson lIall.
Fort Myer. VA 22211

DATED: 4 September lUlZ

. . . .

In consideration for the promises made b3. the accused. PFC Bradley E. Manning. in his Pretrial
Ufl?ei' and Agreementt the Convenng Authorin agrees to the liJlltivt?ing:

a. The Convening Authority may approve any sentence lawfully adjudged by the general
court-martial except as limited in paragraph [below].

b. The Convening Authority 1will disapprove any con?nement in excess of IS years 1 EU

months).




\?lD BRADLEY E. MANNING
Civilian Defense Counsel PFC- US Ann}.
Accused

In 99' 3'59 Lg._

.I'ltc foregoing offer is {acceptew

J: OCT 2012



IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES

PRETRIAL OFFER AND
AGREEMENT

MANNING. Bradley PFC

US- Amy,

Headquarters and Headquarters Company. US.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.
Fort Myer, VA 2221]

DATED: 11 December 2012

. .

l. 1, PFC Bradley E. Manning. the Accused in the court?martial now pending, have examined
the Charges and their Speci?cations as well as the evidence against me. I understand that this
offer, when accepted by the Convening Authority. constitutes a binding agreement. I assert that
I am. in fact, guilty of the offenses to which I am offering to plead guilty. and I understand that
this agreement permits the Government to avoid presentation in court of suf?cient evidence to
prove my guilt. I offer to plead guilty because it will be in my best interest to do so. I
understand that I waive my right to a trial of the facts and to be confronted by the witnesses
against me, and my right to avoid self-incrimination insofar as the plea of guilty will incriminate
me. I have had the bene?t of my defense counsel?s advice, and being fully advised that I have a
legal and moral right to plead not guilty to the Charges and Specifications against me. I offer to:

a. Plead as follows:
To the Speci?cation of Charge I and to Charge 1: Not Guilty;

To Speci?cation I of Charge 11: Guilty. except the words and ?gures ?1 November 2009?
and ?27 May 2010". substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?3 February 2010? and ?4 May
2010?; further excepting the word ?wantonly?; to the excepted words and ?gures. Not Guilty; to
the substituted words and figures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 2 ofCharge II: Guilty. except the words and ?gures ?15 February 2010?
and ?5 April 2010". substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?14 February 2010? and
February 2010"; further excepting the words ?information relating to the national defense, to
wit?; further excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate.
deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated. delivered, or transmitted". substituting therefore
the words ?did willfully communicate?; further excepting the words and ?gures. ?in violation of
18 US. Code Section to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted
words and figures. Guilty.

To Speci?cation 3 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?22 March 2010"
and ?26 March 2010", substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?17 March 2010? and ?22
March 2010?; further excepting the words ?information relating to the national defense, to wit?;
further excepting the words "with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury
of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver,
transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted,", substituting therefore the
words ?did willfully communicate?; further excepting the words and ?gures ?in violation of 13
US. Code Section to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted
words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Specification 4 of Charge Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?between on or
about 31 December 2009 and on or about 5 January 2010?, substituting therefore the words and
?gures, ?on or about 5 January 2010?; further excepting the words, ?steal, purloin"; to the
excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 5 of Charge Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?31 December
2009" and ?9 February 201 substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?5 January 2010? and
?3 February 2010?; further excepting the words ?information relating to the national defense, to
wit?; further excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate,
deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted,?, substituting therefore
the words, ?did willfully communicate"; further excepting the words and ?gures ?in violation of
18 US. Code Section to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted
words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 6 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?between on or
about 31 December 2009 and on or about 8 January 2010?, substituting therefore the words and
?gures ?on or about 5 January 2010?; further excepting the words ?steal, purloin"; to the
excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 7 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?31 December
2009? and ?9 February 2010?, substituting the words and ?gures ?5 January 2010? and ?3
February 2010?; further excepting the words ?information relating to the national defense, to
wit?; further excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate,
deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted,?, substituting therefore
the words ?did willfully communicate?; further excepting the words and ?gures ?in violation of
18 US. Code to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted words
and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 8 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words ?steal. purloin?; to the excepted
words, Not Guilty: to the Specification, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 9 ofCharge II: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?between on or
about 8 March 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010", substituting therefore the words and ?gures
?on or about 8 March 2010?; further excepting the words ?information relating to the national

defense, to wit?: further excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information could be
used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted,?,
substituting therefore the words ?did willfully communicate"; further excepting the words and
?gures ?in violation of 18 U.S. Code to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty: to
the substituted words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 10 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?11 April 2010"
and ?27 May 2010", substituting therefore the words and ?gures "?10 April 2010" and ?12 April
2010?; further excepting the words ?information relating to the national defense, to wit"; further
excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit,
or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted,?, substituting therefore the words ?did
communicate?; further excepting the words and ?gures ?in violation of 18 U.S. Code
Section to the excepted words and ?gures. Not Guilty; to the substituted words and
?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 1 1 of Charge Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?1 November
2009? and ?8 January 2010?, substituting therefore the words and ?gUres ?10 April 2010" and
?12 April 2010?; further excepting the language ?information relating to the national defense, to
wit"; further excepting the language ?with reason to believe such information could be used to
the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate,
deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted?, substituting therefore
the language ?did willfully communicate?; further excepting the language ?in violation of 18
US. Code Section to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted
words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 12 ofCharge Guilty. except the words ?steal, purloin"; to the
excepted words, Not Guilty; to the Speci?cation, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 13 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words and figures ?'27 May 2010?,
substituting therefore the words and ?gures May 2010?; further excepting the words
?knowingly exceeded authorized access? substituting therefore the words ?knowingly accessed";
further excepting the words and ?gures?with reason to believe that such information so obtained
could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in
violation of 18 US Code Section to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to
the substituted words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 14 of Charge Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?15 February
2010? and ?18 February 2010?, substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?14 February 2010"
and ?15 February 2010?; further excepting the words ?knowingly exceeded authorized access?
substituting therefore the words, ?knowingly accessed?; further excepting the words and ?gures
?with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the
United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 13 US. Code Section
to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted words and ?gures,
Guilty:

To Speci?cation 15 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?between on or
about 15 February 2010 and on or about 15 March 2010", substituting therefore the words and
?gures ?on or about 8 March 2010"; further excepting the words ?information relating to the
national defense. to wit"; further excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information
could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,
willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or
transmitted?, substituting therefore the words ?did willfully communicate"; further excepting the
words and ?gures ?in violation of 18 US. Code Section to the excepted words and
?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 16 of Charge II: Not Guilty;
To Charge 11: Guilty.

To Specification 1 of Charge Guilty;

To Speci?cation 2 of Charge [11: Guilty;

To Speci?cation 3 of Charge [11: Guilty;

To Speci?cation 4 of Charge [11: Not Guilty;
To Speci?cation 5 of Charge Guilty;

To Charge Guilty.

b. My defense counsel has informed me of my right to be tried by a court composed entirely
of of?cer members, by a court composed of at least one-third enlisted members, or by Military
Judge alone. As further consideration for this agreement, I waive my right to a trial by members
and agree to request trial by Military Judge alone.

c. I further agree to enter into a Stipulation of Expected Testimony for any sentencing
witness of the Government so long as that witness signs the expected testimony as being what
that speci?c witness would have testi?ed had they appeared in Court.

2. In exchange for my actions as stated in paragraph 1, the Convening Authority agrees to direct
the Trial Counsel to dismiss the Speci?cation of Charge 1 and Charge 1, Speci?cation 16 of
Charge 11, Speci?cation 4 of Charge and to direct the Government not to attempt to prove
any of the greater offenses of Charge Other than this action, there is no separate quantum
portion for this agreement. As such, the Convening Authority is free to approve any sentence

lawfully adjudged by this Court.

3. I am satis?ed with Mr. David E. Coombs, my civilian defense counsel. 1 am also satis?ed
with MAJ Thomas Hurley and CPT Joshua Tooman, my military defense counsel, who have

been detailed by the United States Army Trial Defense Service to defend me. Mr. Coombs has
advised me of the meaning and effect of my guilty plea, and I understand the meaning and effect
this agreement. No person or persons have made any attempt to force or to coerce me into
making this offer to plead guilty.

4. I understand that I may request to withdraw the plea of guilty at any time before my plea is
accepted and that if I do so, this agreement is canceled. This agreement may also be canceled if:

a. I fail to plead guilty as described above;

b. The militaryjudge either refuses to accept my plea ofguilty or changes my plea of guilty
during the trial without the consent of the Trial Counsel; or

c. I fail to ful?ll any material promise contained in this agreement.
5. The writing includes all terms and conditions of this Offer to Plead Guilty and contains all

promises made to me or by me concerning my plea of guilty. There are no other terms or
conditions that are not contained in this writing.



EDWARD COOMBS BRADLEY E. MANNING
Civilian Defense Counsel PF C, US Army
Accused
DATE: 1 I beg, 414;.? .20! DATE: 1 pet-ENE? 1919





The foregoing offer is (accepted) (rejected).

DATE: MICHAEL S. LINNINGTON
Major General. USA
Commanding



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVENUE

REPLY TO ORT LESLEY MCNAIR. DC 20319 5013
2 ATTENTION OF



ANCG 1I DEC 2012



MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Approved Facility and Storage for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning



l. FACILITY.

a. and Information. All meetings requiring access to
and information will only occur in approved facilities. Prior to
accessing classi?ed information or having classi?ed discussions. the prosecution and the defense
are required to verify whether the facility is properly approved for use by a local security of?cer.
The following workspace is authorized to be used for discussions or viewing of information
classi?ed at the EC level: Fort Myer Headquarters Command Building, 204 Lee
Avenue. Building 59. Room Bl. Fort Myer. VA. 32211. The POC for the approved workspace

is Ms. Hatch. Fort Meyer Security Of?ce. I -

b. SEC and Infonnation. All meetings requiring the discussion or viewing
of infonnation classi?ed at a level above will occur in a pre?approved Sensitive
ompartmented Information Facility (SCIF). The defense team will coordinate through trial
counsel to schedule dates and times to use a SCIF.

2. STORAGE. All classi?ed information shall be stored in accordance with the following
instructions:

a. Prosecution Team. and information will be stored in the
two safes assigned to the Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate. Military District of Washington
(MDW) and a safe located in the Courthouse and Courthouse trailer. Fort George G. Meade,
MD. Any information classi?ed?above the level will be stored in the MDW SC IF
located in Building 46. Fort Lesley McNair. DC.

b. Defense Team. and information will be stored in the safe
assigned to the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort Myer. located in Building 229. Joint Base
Myer-Henderson Hall. a safe assigned to the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort Belvoir.
located at 9990 Belvoir Drive. Fort Belvoir. VA: a safe assigned to the Of?ce of the Military
Commissions Defense. located at 1555 Wilson Boulevard. Suite 620. of?ce 618. Arlington.
a safe assigned to the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort George G. Meade. a safe
located in the Courthouse and Courthouse trailer. Fort George G. Meade. or a safe assigned
to the Naval War College. located at 686 Cushing Road. Newport. RI. Any information

ANCG
SUBJECT: Approved Facility and Storage for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning



classi?ed, or presumed to be classi?ed, above the level will be stored in a separate
drawer or safe with its own unique combination at Headquarters. U.S. Army Intelligence and
Security Command, located on Fort Belvoir. VA. and storage will be coordinated through Mr.
Cassius Hall.

3. COMPUTER FORENSIC ANALYSIS. The defense computer forensic expert consultants
will conduct their analysis in the Trial Defense Service Of?ce on Fort George G. Meade. All
their classi?ed material will be stored paragraph 2.

4. This order supplements the Approved Facility and Storage for Classi?ed Information. dated
26 July 2012. This order is not intended to contradict or modify the Court Protective Order.
dated 16 March 2012.



MICHAEL
Major General,
Commanding

DISTRIBUTION:

Trial Counsel

Civilian Defense Counsel
Military Defense Counsel
Security Expert Consultants

l-J

IN THE UNITED STATES ARM
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES
V- PRETRIAL OFFER AND
AGREEMENT

MANNING, Bradley EL, PFC

US. Army,

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U. S.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,
Fort Myer, VA 22211

DATED: I I December 2012

i

l. 1, PFC Bradley E. Manning, the Accused in the court-martial now pending, have examined
the Charges and their Speci?cations as well as the evidence against me. I understand that this
offer, when accepted by the Converting Authority, constitutes a binding agreement. I assert that
I am, in fact, guilty of the offenses to which I am offering to plead guilty, and I understand that
this agreement permits the Government to avoid presentation in court of suf?cient evidence to
prove my guilt. [offer to plead guilty because it will be in my be3t interest to do so. I
understand that I waive my right to a trial of the facts and to be confronted by the witnesses
against me, and my right to avoid self-incrimination insofar as the plea of guilty will incriminate
me. I have had the bene?t of my defense counsel's advice, and being fully advised that I have a
legal and moral right to plead not guilty to the Charges and Speci?cations against me, I offer to:

a. Plead as follows:
To the Speci?cation of Charge I and to Charge 1: Not Guilty;

To Speci?cation 1 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words and figures ?1 November 20 09"
and ?27 May 2010". substituting therefore the wards and ?gures ?3 February 2010? and ?4 May
2010?; further excepting the word ?wantonly?; to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to
the substituted words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 2 of Charge II: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?15 February 2010?
and ?5 April 2010?, substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?1 4 February 2010? and ?21
February 2010?; further excepting the words ?information relating to the national defense, to
wit?; further excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, will?rlly communicate,
deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted,", substituting therefore
the words ?did willfully communicate"; further excepting the words and ?gures, ?in violation of
18 U.S. Code Section to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted

words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 3 of Charge ll: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?22 March 2010?
and ?26 March 2010?, substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?1 7 March 2010" and ??32
March 2010?; further excepting the words ?information relating to the national defense, to wit?;
?thher excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury
of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, will?ally communicate, deliver,
transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted,?, substituting therefore the
words ?did willfully communicate?; further excepting the words and ?gures ?in violation of 13
US. Code Section to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted
words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 4 of Charge 11; Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?between on or
about 3] December 2009 and on or about 5 January 2010?, substituting therefore the words and
?gures, ?on or about 5 January 2010?; further excepting the words, ?steal, purloin?; to the
excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 5 of Charge II: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?31 December
2009? and ?9 February 2010?, substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?5 January 2010" and
?3 February 2010?; further excepting the words ?information relating to the national defense, to
wit?; further excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate,
deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted,", substituting therefore
the words, ?did willfully communicate?; further excepting the words and ?gures ?in violation of
18 US. Code Section to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted
words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 6 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?between on or
about 31 December 2009 and on or about 8 January 2010?, substituting therefore the words and
?gures ?on or about 5 January 2010?; further excepting the words ?steal, purloin?; to the
excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 7 of Charge Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?31 December
2009? and ?9 February 2010?, substituting the words and ?gures ?5 January 2010? and ?3
February 2010?; further excepting the words ?information relating to the national defense, to
wit?; ?thher excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate,
deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted,", substituting therefore
the words ?did will?rlly communicate?; further excepting the words and ?gures ?in violation of
18 US. Code to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted words
and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 8 of Charge II: Guilty, except the words ?steal, purloin"; to the excepted
words, Not Guilty; to the Speci?cation, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 9 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?between on or
about 8 March 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010?, substituting therefore the words and ?gures
?on or about 8 March 2010"; further excepting the words ?information relating to the national

defense, to wit?; ?rrther excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information could be
used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted,",
substituting therefore the words ?did willfully communicate?; ?rrther excepting the words and
?gures ?in violation of 3 US. Code to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty: to
the substituted words and ?gures, Guilty- I I

To Speci?cation 10 of Charge II: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?11 April 2010?
and May 2010?, substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?10 April 2010? and ?l 2 April
2010"; ?mher excepting the words ?information relating to the national defense, to wit"; ?uther
excepting the words ?with reason to believe such infonnation could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, will?illycommunicate, deliver, transmit,
or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted?, substituting therefore the words ?did
willfully communicate?; further excepting the words and ?gures ?in violation of 18 US. Code
Section to the excepted words and figures, Not Guilty; to the substituted words and
?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation ll of Charge II: Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?1 November
20 09" and ?8 January 2010", substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?10 April 2010? and
?12 April 2010?; further excepting the language ?information relating to the national defense, to
wit?; further excepting the language ?with reason to believe such information could be used to
the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate,
deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted,", substituting therefore
the language ?did willfully further excepting the language ?in violation of 18
U. S- Code Section to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted
words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 12 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words ?steal, purloin"; to the
excepted words, Not Guilty; to the Speci?cation, Guilty.

To Speci?cation [3 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the werds and ?gures ?27 May 2010?,
substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?4 May 2010?; further excepting the words
?knowingly exceeded authorized access" substituting therefore the words ?knowingly accessed";
further excepting the words and figures?with reason to believe that such information so obtained
could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in
violation of 18 US. Code Section 103 to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to
the substituted words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 14 of Charge 11: Guilty, except the words and figures ?15 February
2010" and ?l 3 February 2010", substituting therefore the words and ?gures ?14 February 2010"
and ?15 February 2010"; further excepting the words ?knowingly exceeded authorized access"
substituting therefore the words, ?knowingly accessed"; further excepting the words and ?gures
?with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the
United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 US. Code Section
1030(a)(l to the excepted words and ?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted words and ?gures,
Guilty;

To Speci?cation 15 of Charge Guilty, except the words and ?gures ?between on or
about 15 February 2010 and on or about 15 March 2010?, substituting therefore the words and
?gures ?on or about 8 March 2010"; excepting the words "information relating to the
national defense, to wit?; further excepting the words ?with reason to believe such information
could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,
willfully communicate, deliver. transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or
transmitted,?, substituting therefore the words ?did willfully communicate?; further excepting the
words and ?gures ?in violation of 13 US. Code Section to the excepted words and
?gures, Not Guilty; to the substituted words and ?gures, Guilty.

To Speci?cation 16 of Charge Not Guilty;

To Charge II: Guilty.

To Speci?cation I of Charge Guilty;

To Speci?cation 2 of Charge Guilty;

To Speci?cation 3 of Charge Ill: Guilty;

To Speci?cation 4 of Charge Not Guilty;

To Speci?cation 5 of Charge Guilty;

To Charge Guilty.

b- My defense counsel has informed me of my right to be tried by a court composed entirely
of o?icer members, by a court composed of at least one-third enlisted members, or by Military

Judge alone. As further consideration for this agreement, I waive my right to a trial by members
and agree to request trial by Military Judge alone.

c. I further agree to enter into a Stipulation of Expected Testimony for any sentencing
witness of the Govemmant so long as that witness signs the expected testimony as being what
that speci?c witness would have testi?ed had they appeared in Court.

2. In exchange for my actions as stated in paragraph 1, the Convening Authority agrees to direct
the Trial Counsel to dismiss the Speci?cation of Charge I and Charge 1, Speci?cation 16 of
Charge 11, Speci?cation 4 of Charge and to direct the Government not to attempt to prove
any of the greater offenses of Charge II. Other than this action, there is no separate quantum
portion for this agreement. As such, the Convening Authority is free to approve any sentence
law?rlly adjudged by this Court.

3. I am satis?ed with Mr. David E. Coombs, my civilian defense counsel. I am also satis?ed
with MAJ Thomas Hurley and CPT Joshua Tooman, my military defense counsel, who have

been detailed by the United States Army Trial Defense Service to defend me. Mr. Coomhs has
advised me of the meaning and effect of my guilty plea, and I understh the meaning and effect
this agreement. No person or persons have made any attempt to force or to coerce me into
making this offer to plead guilty.

4. I understand that I may request to withdraw the plea of guilty at any time before my plea is
accepted and that if I do so, this agreement is canceled. This agreement may also be canceled if:

a. I fail to plead guilty as described above;

b. The military judge either refuses to accept my plea of guilty or changes my plea of guilty
during the trial without the consent of the Trial Counsel; or

c. I fail to ful?ll any material promise contained in this agreement.
5. The uniting includes all terms and conditions of this Offer to Plead Guilty and contains all

promises made to me or by me concerning my plea of guilty. There are no other terms or
conditions that are not contained in this writing.

I
W?e?

EDWARD COOMBS BRADLEY E. MANNING
Civilian Defense Counsel PFC, US Army

Accused
DATE: ll 20! DATE: 1 1 Dam 1919









Major General, .
Conunanding

DATE: 2? DEC MICHAEL S.LI







DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE
DRIVE
FORT BELVOIR. VIRGINIA nose-61m

Io
ATYENTION DF



IMNE-BEL-TDS 25 April 2013

MEMORANDUM THRU MAJ Fein, Trial Coonsel, US. v. PFC Bradfey Manning

MEMORANDUM FOR COL Corey L. Bradley, Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Army Military
District of Washington, 210 A Street, Fert Lesley J. McNair, DC 203 9

SUBJECT: Courier Card Request for SSG Jessice Bennett

1. The Defense team representing PFC Bradley Manning respectfully requests its newly
assigned paralegal, SSG Jessice Bennett, be granted a courier card so she may tranSport
classi?ed material throughout the National Capital Region.

2. As the Defense team paralegal 880 Bennett, who sits at Fort Meade, will be warlting closely
with members of the Defense team, including counsel and detailed security experts. These
individuals, with offices at INSCOM, OMC, and Fort Belvoir, are located throughout the NCR.

3. A large amount of the discovery in this case is classi?ed. With the Defense team Spread out,
it is imperative that all members of the Defense team have the ability to transport case materials
as our mission requires.

4. Because this case involves a large amount classi?ed material and no members of the Defense
team are ctr?located, the ability for each member of the Defense team to tranSport classi?ed
material is critical. Granting a courier card to SSG Bennett will allow her to contribute fully to
the preparation of PFC Manning?s defense.

5. POC: the undersigned, I _1



HUA J. OMAN
CPT, JA
Trial Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MILJTARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVENUE

- .. FORT LESLEY J. DC 29319-5013

IJF



ANCG 25 APR 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR Military Defense Counsel. U.S. Anny Trial Defense Service. 9990
Belvoir Drive. Fort Belvoir. VA 22060

SUBJECT: Request for Courier Cards - U.S. v. PFC Bradley Manning

[40!

l. The defense request for courier cards approved} disapproved) for 550 essice Bennett.
Fort Meade. MD TDS. -

2. If approved. each command security manager will issue a DD Form 2501, with an authorized
level up to to each member of the defense listed above. If travel must occur outside
of the National Capital Region, then an additional courier authorization letter will be issued for
each individual per trip. Prior to utilizing a courier card or authorization. each member of the
defense listed above must receive courier training from a defense security expert.





Encl MICHAEL. S.
Request for Courier Cards, 25 Apr 13 Major General, U.

Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
v.5. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVENUE sw
FORT J. HCNAIR, nc. 20319-5053



23 May 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR Deputy Chief of Staff, (3-2, 1000 Army Pentagon, Washington. DC. 20310-1000

SUBJECT: Exception to Administrative Furlough for Security and Intelligence Support (U. S. v.
Manning)- Mr. Gerald Boardman and Mr. Jay Prather

. References.
a. Memorandum, Secretary of Defense, 14 May 20l3, subject: Furloughs.

b. Memorandum, Assistant Secretary ofthe Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). 17 May 2013.
subject: Department of the Army Fiscal Year 20l3 Administrative Furlough.

2. Request your approval of an exception to the proposed administrative furloughs of Mr. Gerald
Boardman and Mr. Jay Prather, who have been detailed to provide security and intelligence support in the
court-martial case of US. v. Manning. Mr. Boardman is a member oftlte prosecution team, and Mr.
Prather is the court security of?cer. Their primary responsibility is to assist the militaryjudge and
prosecution in ensuring that no spillage of classified information occurs during the court-martial.

3. The requested period of exception is narrowly tailored to cover only the dates of actual trial
proceedings, currently scheduled to begin 3 June 2013. The employees would again be eligible for
furlough upon completion of trial, which the inilitaryjudge has estimated may span twelve weeks, ending
on or about 23 August 20B.

4. Consistent with the guidance ofthe Secretary of Defense, approval ofthis exception is necessary to
minimize harm to mission execution. The employees? uninterrupted support is essential to the protection
of classi?ed programs and documents at issue in the court-martial. Their continued presence would also
contribute to protecting the right of the accused to a speedy trial. Their absence during any trial date
would have a severe negative impact on efforts to safeguard national security.

5. Also consistent with the Secretary of Defense?s guidance, furloughing these employees ?would not
free up money for critical mission needs." Furloughing the employees would not be cost-effective
since the fixed costs (infrastructure. security. travel, etc) of the court-martial (approximately $12,500 per
day} exceed the amount saved by their furlough. It is in DOD's best interest therefore to finish the trial as
soon as possible by approving an exception to the proposed administrative furlough.

6. Point of contact is LTC Brian Hughes.




MG, US Army
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.s. ARMY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
103 THIRD AVENUE sw
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, o.c. 20319-5053



ANCG 23 May 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR Administrative Assistant to the Secretary oflhe Army, IDS Army Pentagon.
Washington. DC 20310-0105

SUBJECT: Exception to Administrative Furlough for Security and Intelligence Support (U S. v.
Manning}- Ms. Lillian Smith, U.S. Army Information Technology Agency

1. References.
a. Memorandum. Secretary of Defense. 14 May 2013.. subject: Furloughs.

b. Memorandum. Assistant Secretary ofthe Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), 17 May 2013,
subject: Department ofthe Army Fiscal Year 2013 Administrative Furlough.

2. Request your approval of an exception to the proposed administrative furlough of Ms. Lillian Smith.
who has been detailed to provide security and intelligence support in the court-martial US. v. stunning.
Ms. Smith is a member ofthe defense team. Her primary responsibility is to assist the military and
civilian defense counsel in preventing the spillage of classified information during the court-martial.

3. The requested period ofexception is narrowly tailored to cover only the dates of actual trial
proceedings, currently scheduled to begin 3 June 2013. The employee would again be eligible for
furlough upon completion oftrial. which the militaryjudge has estimated may span twelve weeks. ending
on or about 28 August 2013.

4. Consistent with the guidance of the Secretary of Defense, approval of this exception is necessary to
minimize harm to mission execution. The employee?s uninterrupted support is essential to the protection
ofclassi?ed programs and documents at issue in the court?martial. I-ler continued presence would also
contribute to protecting the right ofthe accused to a speedy trial.

5. Also consistent with the Secretary of Defense?s guidance, t?urioughing the employee "would not free
up money for critical mission needs." Furloughing the employee would not be cost?effective since
the fixed costs (infrastructure, security, travel, etc) ofthe court-martial {approximately $12,500 per day}
exceed the amount saved by her furlough. If an exception is not approved, the Government can anticipate
a request for delay by defense counsel lengthening the court-martial. [t is in best interest therefore
to ?nish the trial as soon as possible by approving an exception to the proposed administrative furlough.

6- Point is Brian H?ghe?
s.

MG, US Army
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
1:13 THIRD AVENUE sw
FORT LESLEY .J. MOHAIR, o.c. 20319-5058



ANCG 23 May 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, LLS. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 8825 Beulah
Street, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060?5246

SUBJECT: Exception to Administrative Furlouglt for Security and Intelligence Support (U. S. v.
drooping)- Mr. Cassius Hall

1. References.
a. Memorandum, Secretary of Defense. 14 May 2013, subject: Furloughs.

b. Memorandum. Assistant Secretary ofthe Army {Manpower and Reserve Affairs). 17 May 2013,
subject: Department ofthe Army Fiscal Year 2013 Administrative Furlough.

2. Request your approval of an exception to the proposed administrative furlough of Mr. Cassius Hall,
who has been detailed to provide security and intelligence support in the court-martial US. v. Manning.
Mr. Hall is a member ofthe defense team. His primary responsibility is to assist the military and civilian
defense counsel in preventing the spillage ofclassilied informatiOn during the court?tnartial.

3. The requested period o'fesception is narrowly tailored to cover only the dates of actual trial
proceedings. currently scheduled to begin 3 June 2013. The employee would again be eligible for
furlough upon completion oftrial, which the militaryjudge has estimated may span twelve weeks, ending
on or about 28 August 2013.

4. Consistent with the guidance ofthe Secretary of Defense, approval of this exception is necessary to
minimize harm to mission execution. The employee's uninterrupted support is essential to the protection
ofclassifred programs and documents at issue in the court-martial. His continued presence would also
contribute to protecting the right of the accused to a speedy trial.

5. Also consistent with the Secretary of Defense?s guidance, furloughng the employee ?would not free
up money for critical mission needs." Furloughing the employee would not be cost?effective since
the fixed costs (infrastructure, security, travel, etc) of the court-martial (approximately $12,500 per day}
exceed the amount saved by his furlough. lfan exception is not approved, the Government can anticipate
a request for delay by defense counsel lengthening the court-martial. It is in 000?s best interest therefore
to finish the trial as soon as possible by approving an exception to the proposed administrative furlough.



6. Point ofcontact is Brian Hughes

WWI 2
MI AEL.L1 INGTON

MG. US Army
Commanding

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF
103 THIRD AVENUE 5W
FORT J. NICNAIR. DC. 20319-5053



ANCG 23 May 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US. Army Test and Evaluation Command, 314 Longs Corner
Road. Aberdeen Proving Ground. MD 21005-5001

SUBJECT: Exception to Administrative Furlough for Security and Intelligence Support (U. S. v.
Manning} Mr. Charles Ganiel

1. References.
a. Memorandum, Secretary ot'Defense, 14 May 2013, subject: Furloughs.

b. Memorandum, Assistant Secretary ofthe Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). 17 May 20 3.
subject: Department ofthe Army Fiscal Year 2013 Administrative Furlough.

2. Request your approval of an exception to the proposed administrative furlough of Mr. Charles Ganiel,
who has been detailed to provide security and intelligence support in the court?martial US. v. Manning.
Mr. Ganiel is a member ofthe defense team. His primary responsibility is to assist the military and
civilian defense counsel in preventing the spillage ofclassi?ed information during the court~martial.

3. The requested period ofexception is narrowly tailored to cover only the dates of actual trial
proceedings. currently scheduled to begin 3 June The employee would again be eligible for
furlough upon completion oftrial, which the militaryjudge has estimated may span twelve weeks. ending
on or about 28 August 2013,

4, Consistent with the guidance ofthe Secretary of Defense, approval of this exception is necessary to
minimize harm to mission execution. The employee?s uninterrupted support is essential to the protection
of classi?ed programs and documents at issue in the court-martial. His continued presence would also
contribute to protecting the right of the accused to a speedy trial.

5. Also consistent with the Secretary of Defense?s guidance, furloughing the employee "would not free
up money for critical mission needs." Furloughing the employee would not be cost-effective since
the fixed costs (infrastructure, security, travel, etc) of the court-martial (approximately $12,500 per day)
exceed the amount saved by his furlough. If an exception is not approved, the Government can anticipate
a request for delay by defense counsel lengthening the court-martial. It is in best interest therefore
to finish the trial as soon as possible by approving an exception to the proposed administrative furlough.





MICHAEL s. I. . moron
MG, US Army
Commanding

01136

PRETRIAL ALLIED
PAPERS

ANY OTHER PAPERS,
ENDORSEMENTS,
INVESTIGATIONS WHICH
ACCOMPANIED THE CHARGES
WHEN REFERRED FOR TRIAL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT oF WASHINGTON
21o ASTREET
FORT LESLEY J. DC 20319-5013



. .- REPLY TO
Mun. r' ATTENTION OF



ANJ A-C 3 February 2014

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Reduction of Redundant Documents in Record of Trial United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning

1. Many of the Appellate Exhibits (AE) and their enclosures contain documents which might
otherwise be considered ?pretrial allied papers"; speci?cally, ?requests by counsel and action of
the Con vening Authority taken thereon,? ?any other papers. endorsements, investigations which
accompanied the charges when referred for trial,? and ?pretrial delays." Two speci?c motions
that encompass these topics are AE 359 and AB 339. AE 259 and its enclosures is the
Government?s Response to the Defense Motion to Dismiss for Unlawful Pretrial Punishment
{Article 13). 5E Enclosure 1 (excerpt of enclosure list). AE 339 and its enclosures is the
Government?s Response to the Defense Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial. gag
Enclosure 2 (excerpt of enclosure list}.

2. With the concurrence of the Clerk?s of?ce at the Army Court ofCriminal Appeals. and
because duplicating the enclosures would make a voluminous Record of Trial considerably more
this of?ce did not purposer include additional copies of the enclosures to AB 259 and
AE 339 when assembling the Record of Trial.

--
2 Encls CLA V.
1. Excerpt ofAE 259

2. Excerpt of AE 339 Paralegal

(M

1
01138


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



v. Prosecution Response to

Defense Motion to Dismiss
Manning, Bradley E. for Unlawful Pretrial Punishment
PFC, US. Army,
HHC, US. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall 17 August 2012
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

RELIEF SOUGHT



The United States respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defense Motion to
Dismiss for Unlawful Pretrial Punishment (Defense Motion).

BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND BURDEN OF PROOF

As the moving party, the Defense bears the burden of persuasion and must prove any
factual issues necessary to decide this motion by a preponderance of the evidence. See Manual
for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States, Rule for Court-Martial (RCM) 905(c) (2012). The
Defense bears the burden of establishing an entitlement to sentence credit because of a violation
of Article 13. See United States v. King, 61 M.J. 225, 227 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citing RCM






The United States requests that the Court consider the listed enclosures and Charge Sheet.

The United States may call the following witnesses to testify during the Article 13,
UCMJ (Article 13) hearing:

1. CWO4 James Averhart, Brig Of?cer, Security Battalion, 29 July 2012 to 15 January 201 1

2. CWO2 Denise Barnes, Brig Of?cer, Security Battalion, 15 January 201 1 to Transfer to RCF
(19 April 2011)

Craig Blenis, Programs Chief, 29 July 2010 to Transfer to RCF

CPT Joseph Casamatta, Commander, HHC, USAG, 29 July 2010 to 1 July 2012

Col Daniel Choike, Commander, MCBQ, 29 July 2010 to Transfer to RCF

Jonathan Cline, Guard/Escort, during Incident on 18 January 2011

COL Carl Coffman, Commander, USAG, Ft Myer, 29 July 2010 to Present

gt William Fuller, Admin Chief, 29 July 2010 to Transfer to RCF

mane??



The nonbinding precedent cited by the Defense discusses the standard the Defense must meet to raise the issue, not
decide the issue. See United States v. Scaralone, 52 MJ. 539, 543-44 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1999) (citing United
States v. Cordova, 42 C.M.R. 466 (A.C.M.R. 1970) (?To the issue [of a violation of Article 13], the burden is
on the appellant to present evidence to support his claim of illegal pretrial punishment. Once an appellant
successfully does that, the burden then shifts to the Government to present evidence to rebut the allegation ?beyond
the point of . . . inconclusiveness.??) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Defense, as the moving party, bears the
burden to prove a factual matter by a preponderance of the evidence. See King, supra.

APPELLATE EXHIBIT

PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE OF PAGES





01139

CONCLUSION

Navy Instructions, Brig SOP, and military case law vest discretion in the con?ning
authorities to determine the conditions of a detainee?s con?nement to ensure his safety. The
regulations speci?cally de?ne medical of?cers as advisers to the Brig commanding of?cers and
only grant decision-making authority to medical of?cers in limited circumstances, such as
decisions regarding quarantining detainees. The con?ning authorities considered many factors,
to include, inter alia, the accused?s prior suicidal ideations, the recommendations of the medical
of?cers, and the accused?s behavior, and repeatedly gave the accused an individualized
determination regarding the conditions of his con?nement. The con?ning authorities reached
reasonable conclusions in setting the conditions of the accused?s con?nement, and courts grant
deference to those conclusions. Moreover, the conditions were related to legitimate government
interests to include, inter alia, protecting national security and the accused?s safety. The
accused?s con?nement was not more onerous than necessary. The accused is entitled to no more
than seven days con?nement credit for the time he spent on SR after a
recommended removing him from SR. Therefore, the accused?s con?nement did not otherwise
violate Article 13 and the accused is not entitled to additional con?nement credit.

For the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully requests that the Court deny the
Defense Motion.

ALEXANDER S. VON ELTEN
CPT, A
Assistant Trial Counsel

u.
i? A EN FEIN

A
Trial Counsel
Enclosures
1. Handling Instructions
2. Manning Behavior MFR
3. Mental Health Record
4. Article 15, dated 100517
5. AIR
6. SPC Schwab MFR and Statement
7. Kuwait Transfer Docs
8. Con?nement Order
9. Request for Monitoring of Communications
10. Mar Cof?nan Memo

45



11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.

Reply from Quantico for Monitoring
Email from Mr. Coombs
Acknowledgements

Inmate Inprocessing

Inmate Observation Report

Use of Force Downing Memo
Kuwait

Barr MFR, dated 100729

Initial Classi?cation

Inprocessing Forms

Behavioral Health Evaluations
Weekly Reports

Averhart 16 Mar Response

Reports

Zelek Memo, dated 101228
Command Visits

Choike memo, dated 110301

Choike Memo, dated 110408
Averhart Repsonse, dated 110124
Oltman Response

Final Action by Assistant Secretary Garcia regarding Article 138
Boards

Guard Statements, dated 1101 18
Incident Report (Webb), dated 110118
Averhart Response, dated 110316
Suicide Video, Pt 1.MOD

Suicide Video, Pt 2.MOD

Barnes Response, dated 110302
Galaviz Memo, dated 110223
Papakie Statement, dated 110302
Suicide Gown Incident Report
Tweezer Incident Report

Request to Reduce POI, dated 110121
Headset Receipt

JRCF Flight Report

CRF Attack.avi

SECNAV Instruction 1640.9C

Brig SOP, dated 100701

Audio, with Cover Sheet

46

01140





01141



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Prosecution Response to
Defense Motion to Dismiss
Manning, Bradley E. for Lack of Speedy Trial
PFC, US. Army,
HHC, US Army Garrison, CORRECTED COPY #2
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211 16 November 2012
RELIEF SOUGHT

COMES NOW the United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, and
respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defense Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy
Trial (Defense Motion).

BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND BURDEN OF PROOF

When the defense moves to dismiss for lack of speedy trial, the burden of persuasion
shall be upon the prosecution. See Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) United States v.
Cook, 27 MJ. 212, 215 (C.M.A. 1988); United States v. Mt'zgala, 61 M.J. 122, 125 (C.A.A.F.
2005) (?Under Article 10, the government has the burden to show that the prosecution moved
forward with reasonable diligence in response to a motion to dismiss?). The burden of proof on
any factual issue the resolution of which is necessary to decide a motion shall be by a
preponderance of the evidence. See RCM 905(c)(1).



The prosecution requests that the Court consider witness testimony and the following
enclosures to this response:

Unclassi?ed Emails

Classi?ed Emails

Article 32 transcript, Mr. Troy Bettencourt
Sworn Statement, Mr. Adrian Lamo

Military Magistrate Pretrial Con?nement Review, 30 May 2010
Pretrial Con?nement Order, 29 May 2010
Original Charged Sheet Preferred, 5 July 2010
CID Report of Investigation, 1 1 June 2010

CID Report of Investigation, 23 June 2010

. Article 10 Memorandum, 20 November 2010

. Requests for Excludable Delay

. Approvals of Excludable Delay

. GCMCA Transfer of Jurisdiction, 28 July 2010

. Quantico Receipt of Inmate, 29 July 2010

. Accused?s Orders to Quantico, 28 July 2010

. GCMCA Release of Jurisdiction, 2 August 2010






APPELLATE: axing; 7; $9
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE OF PAGES





17Proposed Meeting with Defense, 25 October 2011
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.

Prosecution?s Request for FBI File, 15 August 201 1

Discovery Productions

GCMCA Assumption of Command, 3 June 2011

Requests for Classi?cation Reviews

Requests for Classi?cation Reviews (classi?ed)

Defense Request for RCM 706 Delay, 26 August 2010

Requests for Approval of Disclosure

Requests for Approval of Disclosure (classi?ed)

Approvals of Disclosure

Forensic Reports (classi?ed)

Article 32 Investigating Of?cer?s Delay Recommendation, 12 August 2010
Accounting Memoranda of Excluded Delay

Order for RCM 706 to Resume, 3 February 2011

RCM 706 Board Extension Requests

Approval of Extension Requests

RCM 706 Sanity Board Results, 22 April 2011

Memorandum, 22 October 2010

RCM 706 Order, 3 August 2010

Defense Request for Expert Consultant in Forensic 25 August 2010
Defense Request for Security Clearances, 2 September 2010

Protective Order for Classi?ed Information, 17 September 2010
GCMCA Protective Order, 28 July 2010

Appointment of Defense Security Expert, 17 September 2010

Preliminary Classi?cation Review Order, 17 September 2010

Defense Response to Preliminary Classi?cation Review Order, 28 September 2010
Superseding Preliminary Classi?cation Review Order, 22 September 2010
Appointment of Second Defense Security Expert, 12 October 2010

Defense Request for Preliminary Classi?cation Review, 21 October 201 1
Defense Request for Information Assurance Expert, 28 October 2010

Defense Request for Damage Assessments, 1 November 2010

Guidance to Preliminary Classi?cation Review, 10 November 2010
Preliminary Classi?cation Review Results, 13 December 2010

Prosecution Request for Security Clearance for Defense Team, 13 January 2011
Classi?cation Review, 15 December 2011

Prosecution?s Preservation Requests

Prosecution?s Prudential Search Requests

Prudential Search Requests (classi?ed)

OGA Classi?cation Review (ManningB_00410623) (classi?ed)

Requests to Review Damage Assessments

Prosecution?s Ex Parte Statement of Due Diligence (classi?ed), 25 July 2012
MDW OPLAN BRAVO (?led under seal)

DD Form 457, 11 January 2012

Article 32 Investigating Of?cer Exhibit 52, 11 January 2012

Special Instructions for Article 32 Investigating Of?cer, 16 November 2011
Calendar of Contested Periods for RCM 707

01142





01143

63. Notice of Referred Charge Sheet, 3 February 2012

64. Defense Request for Release from PTC under RCM 305(g), 13 January 2011
65. request for Quantico Documents, 20 January 2011

66. Response to RCM 305(g) Request, 21 January 2011

67. Response to RCM 305(g) Request, 18 March 2011

68. Defense Discovery Requests

69. Prosecution?s Responses to Defense Discovery Requests

70. Prudential Search Request (DHS), 25 October 2011

71. Defense Request for Additional Funding for Experts, 26 January 2012

72. CID Regulation (?led under seal)

73. Prudential Search Request (CYBERCOM), 3 July 2012

74. Defense Request to Compel and Produce Discovery

75. Combined Chat Logs (classi?ed)

76. Defense Acknowledge of Meeting with Prosecution on 8 November 2011, 25 October 2011
77. RCM 706 Emails

78. COL Coffman Emails

79. Article 32 Emails

80. Additional Documents for COL Cof?nan?s Testimony

81. Defense Emails

FACTS
On 9 January and 13 January 2011, the defense requested a speedy trial.

The parties stipulate that the following days count towards the RCM 707 speedy trial
clock: (1) 28 May 2010 to 11 July 2010 (45 days); (2) 16 December 2011 to 23 December 2011
(8 days); (3) 3 January 2012 to 6 January 2012 (4 days); (4) 9 January 2012 to 3 February 2012
(26 days); and (5) 23 February 2012 (1 day).1 The parties stipulate that these 84 days count
towards the RCM 707 speedy trial clock. See Defense Motion, at 33.

The parties stipulate that the period of delay between 11 August 2010 and 3 March 2011
was properly excluded under RCM 707(c). See Defense Motion, at 34.

The parties dispute that the period of delay between the following dates was properly
excluded under RCM 707(c): (1) 12 July 2010 to 10 August 2010; (2) 4 March 2011 to 15
December 2011; (3)24 December 2011 to 2 January 2012; (4)7 January 2012 to 8 January
2012; and (5) 3 February 2012 to 22 February 2012. See Defense Motion.



I: INTRODUCTION 1



The facts for this response are consolidated into roughly ?ve different sections: (1) the
accused?s arrest until his transfer to the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico (hereina?er



The defense provides that the speedy trial clock under RCM 707 began on 29 May 2010, the date of pretrial
con?nement. The prosecution provides that the speedy trial clock began on 27 May 2010, the date of restraint.



ENLISTED RECORD

BRIEF



BRIEF DATE NAME

RANK OUR

FMOS SSH

COMPONENT

amount! MANNING, BRADLEY EDWARD SFC

SECTION II Security Data
P51 Status TMCI Flo Slat HUME

20051002









3 SF --

SECTION - Service Data
BASD 200nm: PEBD 21:10:1qu BESD

REGULAR

SECTION IV - PersonatlFamity Data
Data otBirtl-i 15:3?121? on



SECTIONI - Assignment Information
OSFDeployment Combat Duty #3 - 1:







PSI Invest IHIT 20070925

StamEnd Date CT MDT n, - a ETS 2111110111 DIEMS mitoses Reenl 1o





Country DE Citz

PSIInvestCompI 20080115







Days gt AGCM D1 ADDN Elig D1 2mm: lull-E CIUCAS





















Language

Read Listen-

SECTION - Foreign Language
Speak

Dependent



DOR

200301102 20051 001

20091002

Adults?ChildreI-i













[1ng Time



Start







Month Days

0 Mo 0 Days











SGT 33G FC

MSG - 15G





DDR





Marital Status



DDR



SGM - CSM

SINGLE

Religion







SECTION VII CIVILIAN Education

PULHES
111121

HeightIWeIght
53H 11!



DESIG-



Date Oependenls Armed

US

DLAB 51

Level Completed

Dt

Sponsored 0






physics Cateng



PMDS 35F

SQI



SECTION VI WNW

Institution

APFT Dt FUF SmrE

mammaseoesa
Resutts'm



SMOS
Bonus MOS
Bonus Enlist Eliq Dl
Promo-tier- Points?fRMO
Prev Promotion PointerRMO
Prom Seq! I Prom Select DI
Promotion MOS

ASVAB Test it Dr
GT ELEC 127
ADMIN 125 FA 12:
CMBT 128 MECH 121
Delay Separation Reason
AEAJ DI
Flag Coda

MILE
Number Of Semester Hours Completed 0
Technical Certi?cation

Dt Certified

1
A51

Last Physical Exam
20081052
Home of Record

MEUMES
Course
COMBAT L1FE sevens GRS









Year
2005











Course Name



Dt Expir



1492 ROAD.
POTOIIAC. HD. 20854-0000

NIH Spouse
Sm: Comp 1 ODD
Emergency Data Verl?ed Date 20090521

SECTION I - Remarks
HIV TRMO 20090!-
FIGMT AFL
Date Last Photo











SECTION Awards and Decorations

1
1
ASR







10

F008 125
COMM 125
MAI NT

r' 20071002
TECHI 133





123



























Hr
Flag Start Dt





Flag Expiration DI









BMD











Correspondence CR5 Total
Date at Last PCS

zmrmau SECTION II Assignment Information
UNIT ND 0 QGANIEATION STATION LOC COMO

Date of Loss
2005mm 4

[Date of Last NCOEP.
FROM

TITLE





ASGT

PHOJ
Cunen120031011
15'. Prev 20030913 3

2nd Prev 2008040? 0
3rd Prev 20080122 0 WIMQIP
4111 Prev 200M 005 WIIKSEC
5th Prev 2001'1002
6th Prev WITWES
Prev
3th Prev
0th Prev
10th Prev
11th Prev
12111 Free
13111 Free
14111 Prat
15th Prev
16th Prev
Free
13th Free
19th Prev
20th Prev
21st Pra-
22nd Prev
23rd Free
24th Prev

MD DMOS


?5



EDE LID
02001IJINHHC EOE LID
USAICFH HHC 431113 AG EN E5 RECF
BALTIMORE

FT DRUM INTEL FWD

INTEL
RATRAIHEE 35F10
RATRAINEE
RA TRAINEE 1
FIATRAINEE I

35F1O




FT LEDNAR
FT LEONAR
FT LEDNAR
LIHTHICUM







































DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, 1ST ARMORED AND
UNITED STATES DIVISION-CENTER
CAMP
APO AE 6-9344

REPLY TO
ATTENTION F:



TJuly 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Lieutenant Colonel Craig Merutka. Of?ce ot?the Staft?Judge Advocate. United
States Forces iraq. APO AE 09342

SUBJECT: First Government Witness List for the Article 32 investigation in the Case of Private First
Class Bradley E. Manning

1. The Government will call the following witnesses at the investigation pursuant to Article 32. Uniform
Code ofMilitary Justice. in the case of Private First Ciass Bradley E. Manning. Headquarters and
Headquarters Company. 2d Brigade Special Troops Battalion. 2d Brigade Combat Team. 10th Mountain
Division (Light infantry). Contingency Operating Station Hammer. APO AE 09033:

a. Special Agent Toni Graham. Camp Liberty Criminal investigation Division. Camp Liberty. [rat].

APO AE. I-II - -

b. Special Agent David S. Shaver. Special Agent in Charge. Digital Forensics and Research Branch.



c. Captain asey M. Martin. Headquarters and Headquarters Company-u 2d Brigade Special Troops
Battalion. 2d Brigade Combat Team. llith Mountain Division {Light infantry). Contingencyt Operating

d. Specialist Eric Baker. Headquarters and Headquarters Company. 2d Brigade Combat Team.
ltith Mountain Division. Contingency Operating Station Hammer. lraq. APO AE 09308. - -
I.-.

e. Trent Rowe. United States Forces lraq. Senior Security Manger. International Zone. United

States Embassy- - -

Special Agent Ronaid Rock. United States Department of State. Diplomatic Security Service.
Of?ce of Professional Responsibility. -


2. The Point ofContact for this memorandum is the undersigned. available at I


Je-

ALISON F.
CPT. JA
Trial Counsel





CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on _10 July 2010 I served the following
documentation on Trial Defense Service via email:

Notification of Article 32 Hearing fer PFC Manning



Printed Rank and Name of Person Receiving



Signature and Date

\EV'r?i'iSi?? ?Mi+d?di

Printed Rank and Name of Person Performing Service

)0 UL: 213

Signature and Date

17.
SI Protective Order

documents which will be at issue in this case. government trial counsel are to have
unfettered access to classified information necessar} to prepare for this investigation. suhiect to
the in paragraph 1g. below.

c. 'l he {fontcning Authority has been advised that Private First Class (PFC) Bradley
Manning's detailed defense counsel have the requisite security clearance to have access to the
relevant and necessary classi?ed information and documents which still he at issue in this case
its a condition of receiving classi?ed infirm-nation. the detailed defense counsel agree in the
conditions specified herein this order.

3. As a condition of receit ing classi?ed information. any retained defense counsel wi ll
agree to the conditions specified herein and execute all occassan. forms so that the Um. crnmenl
may complete the necessary personnel security background int estigation to make a
determination whether defense counsel is eligible for a limited access authorisation in}
retained defense counsel will also sign the statement in paragraph 3c. 1 pen the eseeution and
filing. of the statements set forth in paragraphs Se and 3.1? by any retained defense counsel
requiring. access to classi?ed information. the Get eminent shall undertake. as expeditiousl} as
possible. the required inquiries to ascertain defense counsel's eligibility for access to classi?ed
information

c. There are two conditions precedent to obtaining access to the classi?ed information at
issue In this cast:

(I) It]! individuals. other than the investigating Of?cer. Government and
detuiicd defense counsels and personnel ot' the originating agenc). can obtain access on! after
having provided the necessary information required for, and having been granted. a security.
clearance or Limited Access Authorization by the Department ol the Arm) or Department of
State. through the Investigation Security Officer; and

Each person. other than the Department of arms employees named herein and
personnel of the originating agency. before being granted access to classi?ed information must
also sign a sworn statement that states:

OF

_Eric.- Lap; understand that I mm- ne rhe recipient of inforrttartcn
and inrt'?r?gem'e that concerns- the recruits (tithe i nixed Sum-i and that in
iimred Elmer This information and together with the methods of
collecring and handling it. are cinssi?err' according to set?nrt?n? standards exhibits}ch
hj' the t' Government I have read and understand thr- provisions or the espionage
inn? I'scc?firms? "93 "94 and ?95 of (We I8. ifm'h?d Starr's t' t'wtt?e?mu'tg the
dist-ins we rif?r'nfhr'mmt?un relating to the mm'rmni defense and the provision urine
htrc?liigent'e Idemiries Protection Act {section 43.? or'rr'rh: 5H. i' Furled Strum ride!) and
i with the penalties provided t'hr the thereof.





l-l/
Protective Order



.-. I ogrer that I Wt?! new-r divulge publish or reveal. citric.? in word. conduct or
om; other means. such information or intelligent-e unless speci?c;ch earmarked in
rr'ting to do so or am authorized representative [time i S. timer-much: or as
otherwise ordered It}! the 11' 'rmrt. {further agree to submit rot-ten
tm_t' article. speech. or other publication derived from or have upon experience or
information gamed in the course ?oral Page Brudt?ct- ?1
I understand this t?E'l?lE?t?t' is soft-(t to encore that no electri?ed nati'rmut
information is contained therein.

3. I understood that this agrcemem it ill roman-i binding upon me after the
conclusion riflhc proceedings in the can't: ruled Private First Class
Bradley E. Manning

4' I hut-'9 received. read and underrtond Htt' Security Procedures entered or the

13? . Stilt! Hl' the case or tufted Storey-
?rit-ute First Class Brodie) E. .li?omrmg relating to classified tutor-motion and!

ugt't?l with the provisions thereof.






Any MOLI Iwith it retained defense counsel shall include a statement cs pressing his
undersmmiing that the failure to abide by the terms Security Procedures tit-ill result in :1
report to his State Bar Association. Each such person executing the above statement must ?le an
original with the Investigating Of?cer and provide an original each to the 1m. cstigatiun Security
Ollich and the (internment Counsel.

t. In addition to signing. the MOD in paragraph 3c. any person who. as a result of this
investigation. gains access to information contained in any Department ol'thc Army Special
Access Program. as that term is de?ned in section 4.2 of Executive Order 13356. to ?cnsuit'e
information or to any information subject to Special Category
handling procedures. shall Sign any non-disclosure agreement which is speci?c to that Special
Access: Program, Sensitive Compartmentcd Information. or SPECAT information.

g. All other requests for clearances for access to classi?ed information in this case by
persons not named in these Procedures. or requests for clearances for access to at a
higher level of classi?cation- shall be made to the Investigation Security Of?cer. nho. upon
approval ofthc Converting A utltority. shall process the requests.

it. Before any person subject to these Security Procedures. other than
trial counsel. detailed defense counsel. and personnel ot?thc originating agency who haw
appropriate level security clearances. receives access to any classi?ed information, that person
shall he served with a copy of these Procedures and shall execute the mitten agreement set forth
in paragraph



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MOHAIR. DC mate-5:113



REPLY TO
A TI ENTIDN OF

ANJA-CL 21 October 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Brig Of?cer in Charge. Quantico Base Brig. Headquarters Company.
Securin Battalion, 2043 Barnett Avenue. Quantieo. VA 22134-5013

SUBJECT: Members ofthe Defense Team - US. v. PFC Bradley Manning



1. The following personnel are members of the defense team either through direct representation
or appointment by a convening authority under Military Rule ovaidenee 502 and US. v.
Toledo. 25 MJ. 270 (C.M.A. I987):

a. Mr. David Coombs. Civilian Defense Counsel

13. Mathew Kemkes. Defense Counsel

e. CPT Paul Bouehard. Defense Counsel

d. Dr. (COL) David Benedek, USUHS. (Forensic Expert)

e. Mr. Cassius N. Hal]. U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command {Security Expert)

f. Mr. Charles Ganiel. US. Army Test and Evaluation Command (Security Expert)

2. As members of the defense team. communications between PFC Manning and the above
listed personnel should remain con?dential and not subject to monitoring.

3. The point ofcontact for this memorandum is the undersigned at



ASHDEN
CPT, .IA
'I?rial Counsel

F:
l-Civilian Defense Counsel
l-Lega] Counsel. Quantieo Brig

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR. DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF



ANJA-CL 30 November 2010





MEMORANDUM THRU

Staff Judge Advoci e, US. Army Military District ofWashington (ANJA), 210 A Street, Fort
Lesley J, McNair, DC 20319

Of?ce ofthe Judge Advocate General David May?eld), 2200 Army Pentagon.
Washington, DC 20310

FOR Deputy Chiefof Staff for Intelligence 2200 Army Pentagon. Washington, DC
203 I 0

SUBJECT: Request for Assistance for an Expert in Information Assurance - U.S. v. PFC
Bradley Mannina

1. REFERENCES.
a. Defense Request, dated 28 October 2010 (enclosed).

2. BACKGROUND. On 28 October 2010, PFC Manning?s defense counsel requested an
information assurance (IA) expert be designated a member of the defense team for the duration
of the ease in order to assist in the preliminary classification review of the accused?s mental
impressions and to assist the defense team with respect to any charges relating to violations of
Army Regulation (AR) 25-2.

3. REQUEST FOR SUPPORT. The US. Army Military District of Washington currently has
two personnel who possess the requisite quali?cations to act as an expert; however. both
individuals are potentially con?icted by their involvement with the United States in this case. I
request support to identify and detail a quali?ed individual with expertise in IA and information
systems. including systems on the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network to act as
a defense expert in this case.

4. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at - I



I.



be?!
Enel ASHDEN FEIN
as PT, IA

C?hiefi Military Justice

DEPARTMENT OF THE

US ARMY INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND
JOINT EASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
MILITARY PERSONNEL DIVISION
105 CUSTER ROAD. BUILDING 202
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1155

ORDERS 340-53 5 DECEMBER 2010



PFC INF EEC BDE (LID) Manama)
DRUM, NY 135c2

You are attached or releaged from attachment as

Action:' You are attached to Headquarter and Headquarters Company, United
StatEE Garrison.(WOU01A} Fort Myer, VA 22211

Effective date: 2'9 MAY 20:0 EVOCDR DATE
Period: 'Indefinite
Purpose: _Soldier is attached for administrative, rations, quarters and UCMJ.

I??Accounting classifiCation: NA

?Additienal instructions: NA

Format: 440

.FOR TEE



DISTRIBUTION:





HHC BDE FT. DRUM, NY 13502
. - .

HHC Haas, FORT MEER, Ea 22211

PFC MANNING -[151



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.5. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FonT LESLEY J. MOHAIR, DC 20319-5913

REPLY TO
IATTENTIOH OF



ANJA-CL .18 January
MEMORANDUM FOR Brits.r Officer in Charge. Quantieo Bust: Brig, Headquarters Company. Security
Battalion. le43 Burnett Avenue. Quantico. VA 22134s5tll'3
SUBJECT: Members ol'tlte Defense US. v. PFC
l. The lollowing personnel are memhers the defense team either through direct representation or
appointment he a convening authority under Militnrt' Rule of Evidence not] U.S. v. Toledo, 25. MJ.
27tltC.M.A. [937}:

Mr. David Coomhs. Civilian Defense Counsel

II. MAJ Mathew Kemkes. Defense Counsel

c. CPT Paul Bouchard. Defense Counsel

d. Dr. (CAPT) Kevin Moore. USN, (Forensic Expert)

c. Mr. N. Hail]. US. Army Intelligence and Security Command (Security Expert)

Mr. Charles Gnniel. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (Security Expert]

g. Ms. Lillian Smith. US. Army Information Technology Agency (Information Assurance Expert}

As rnemhers ol' the defense team. communications hetwcen PFC Manning and the above listed
personnel should rcmuin confidential and not suhject to monitoring.

3. The point ol' contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at i?H'

ASHDEN
CPT. JA
Trial Counsel

CF:
l-Civilian Dcl'cnsc Counsel
l-Legu] Counsel. Ouantieo Brig

MEMORANDUM FOR Convening Authority

SUBJECT: Acknowledgment of Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning



. I I.) .
I. ?I'er (?rt?l?rc?f'tr understand that I may be the recipient of information and
intelligence that concerns the present and future security of the United States and that belongs to the
United States. This information and intelligence, together with the methods of collecting and handling it,
are classi?ed according to security standards set by the US. Government. I have read and understand the
provisions of the espionage laws (18 U.S.C. 793, 794, and 798) concerning the disclosure of
information relating to the national defense and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
(50 US. (3. 421) and I am familiar with the penalties for the violation thereof. I have also read and
understand the provisions of Army Regulation 330-5, concerning safeguarding, disseminating,
transmitting and transporting, storage and destruction, and loss or compromise of classi?ed information.
I understand these provisions of the law and Army Regulation are available at the Military Justice
Section, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, US. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J.
McNair, DC, 20319.



2. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, and negligent handling of
classi?ed information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be
used to advantage by a foreign nation or enemy of the United States. I hereby agree that I will never
divulge classi?ed information to anyone unless: I have of?cially veri?ed that the recipient has been
properly authorized by the United States Government to receive classi?ed information; I have been
given prior written notice of the authorization of the United States Government Department or Agency
responsible for the classi?cation of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such
disclosure is permitted; or as ordered by the Convening Authority. I understand that if I am uncertain
about the classification status of information, I am required to con?rm from an authorized of?cial that the
information is unclassified before I may disclose the information, except as provided in or
above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of classi?ed information. I understand that any breach of this agreement may
result in the termination of any access to classi?ed information. I recognize that this agreement including
its provision for the termination of access to classi?ed information does not constitute a waiver of the
United States' right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

3. I understand that I will remain bound to this agreement after the conclusion of proceedings in United
States v. PFC Bradlev Manning.

4. I read and understand the Protective Order by the Convening Authority, dated 1? September 2010, in
the case of United States v. PFC Bradley Manning, relating to classi?ed information, and I agree to
comply with the provisions thereof.

5. I understand that if I am a lawyer, noncompliance with this Protective Order will be reported to any
State Bar where I am admitted to practice law.

J7 he: fez? L,











DATE SIGNATURE
"fill 7" .2.
Wimessed, sworn and subscribed to before me this day of -.
.:
I I-fll I
-- . l? H- brim agnm?khuanszos
DATE SIGNATURE sonar Pusuc orcoLunau.

My Commission Expires 23. 2014

MEMORANDUM FOR Convening Authority

SUBIECT: Acknowledgment of Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning

l. LM GEL 9 Fl understand that I may be the recipient of information and
intelligence that concerns the present and future security of the United States and that belongs to the
United States. This information and intelligence, together with the methods of collecting and handling it,
are classi?ed according to security standards set by the US. Govemment. I have read and understand the
provisions of the espionage laws (I 8 U.S.C. 793, 794, and 798) concerning the disclosure of
information relating to the national defense and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
(50 U.S. C. 421) and I am familiar with the penalties for the violation thereof. I have also read and
understand the provisions of Army Regulation 380-5, concerning safeguarding, disseminating,
transmitting and transporting, storage and destruction, and loss or compromise of classi?ed information.

I understand these provisions of the law and Army Regulation are available at the Military Justice
Section, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, US. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J.
MeNair, DC, 20319.

2. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, and negligent handling of
classi?ed information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be
used to advantage by a foreign nation or enemy of the United States. I hereby agree that I will never
divulge classified information to anyone unless: I have of?cially veri?ed that the recipient has been
properly authorized by the United States Government to receive classi?ed information; have been
given prior written notice of the authorimtion of the United States Government Department or Agency
responsible for the classi?cation of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such
disclosure is permitted; or as ordered by the Convening Authority. I understand that if I am uncertain
about the classi?cation status of information, I am required to con?rm from an authorized of?cial that the
information is unclassi?ed before 1 may disclose the information, except as provided in or
above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of classi?ed information. I understand that any breach of this agreement may
result in the termination of any access to classi?ed information. I recognize that this agreement including
its provision for the termination of access to classi?ed information does not constitute a waiver of the
United States? right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

3. I understand that I will remain bound to this agreement a?er the conclusion of proceedings in United
S_ta,tes v. PFC Bradley Manning.

4. I read and understand the Protective Order by the Convening Authority, dated 17 September 2010, in
the case of United States v. PFC Bradley Manning, relating to classi?ed information, and I agree to
comply with the provisions thereof.

will to any
.3
Witnessed, sworn and subscribed to before me this i day of {IE/grime?? 0/

-

9 her/m 4
DATE SIGNATURE I .
I

NOTARY Puauc or
My Commission Expires April 14. 2012

5. I understand that if I am a lawyer, noncompliance w'
State Bar where I am admitted to practice law.

<39 F80 2w;

DATE SIGNATURE











DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR. Dc 20319-5013

RE T0
ATTENTION OF



ANJA-CL 14 February 201 1

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Response to Defense 505(h)( '1 Noti?cation Request - US v. PFC Bradley Manning

I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a response to the defense
regarding its analysis of the required procedures for disclosure of classi?ed information to the
Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 7'06 board, submitted to the United States on 30 December 2010.

2. FACTS. The accused was placed in pretrial con?nement on 29 May 2010. On 5 July 2010,
charges were preferred against the accused and the Special Court-Martial onvening Authority
appointed an Article 32 Investigating Of?cer to conduct an investigation into the
charges and speci?cations. On 12 July 2010, the granted a defense request for delay
Ofthe Article 32 Investigation and ordered an examination under RCM 706. On 26 August
2010. the defense proffered that the accused would need to discuss classi?ed information during
the RC 706 board inquiry in order to aid the board members in their determination of the
accused?s mental state at the time of the alleged misconduct. The defense proffer included a
determination that the classi?ed information the accused wished to discuss with the RCM 7'06
board members was classi?ed at the ?Top Secret 1 Sensitive Compartmented Information?
level. On 17 September 2010. the ordered a preliminary classi?cation
review of the accused?s mental impressions. On 13 December 2010, the defense security expert
consultants opined that the classified information the accused planned to discuss with the RCM
7'06 board is potentially classi?ed at the level. See Preliminary Classi?cation Review
of the Accused?s Mental Impressions, dated 13 December 2010. On 3 February 201 1, the
ordered the RCM 706 board to resume their inquiry and Speci?cally determined that
each member of the board has a "need-to-know? the classi?ed information the accused plans to
discuss with the board.

3. ISSUE 1. PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 13526 4.1(3) (2009) AND ITS
IMPLEMENTING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND U.S. ARMY REGULATIONS,
THE RCM 706 BOARD MEMBERS HAVE A THE
INFORMATION THE ACCUSED WILL DISCUSS WITH THE BOARD.

3. Authority to determine "need-to-know". ERecutive Order (E0) No. 12958 {later EO No.
13526.), National Secui'iry Information, is the federal authority establishing "a uniform
system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information." EO No.
13526, introduction. The implementing regulation for E0 NO. 12958, Department of Defense
(DOD) 5200.1-R, makes it clear that an Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA) does not
determine a ?need-to-know." OCAs are individuals, by virtue of position, authorized by the
President to classify information originating in their department or agency. EO No. 13526,


SUBJECT: Response to Defense 505(h)(1) Noti?cation Request - U.S v. PFC Bradlev Manning

paragraph "Need-to-know" is a determination made by an authorized holder of
classi?ed information that a prospective recipient requires access to speci?c classi?ed
information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function. EO
No. 13526, paragraph 6.1 The OCA must be consulted when classi?ed information
originating in their department or agency is made available to agencies or individuals outside of
the Executive Branch, but under those circumstances the ultimate ?need-to-know? determination
is made by an appropriate official within the component involved.
paragraph

b. Sharing information within the Executive Branch. Within the Executive Branch,
classified information originating in one agency may be disseminated to another agency or
United States entity by any agency to which it has been made available without the consent of
the originating agency, but only if the criteria for access are met.1 E0 No. 13526} paragraph
The only exception to this rule is when the originating agency determines that prior
authorization is required for such dissemination and marks or indicates the document or
information sought to be further disseminated as such. EO No. 13526, paragraph This
type ofinformation is marked or U.S. Dep?t ofthe Army, Reg. 380-5,
Department of the Army Information Security Program appendix D. rule 9.2 {29 September
2000}

c. RCM 7'06 board members are within the Executive Branch. The defense contends that
the RC 706 board?s ?need-to-know? is determined by the OCA ofthe classi?ed information
that the accused requests to disclose to the board. In the present case, classified information is
not being disclosed outside the Executive Branch, but rather to the RCM 706 board members.
The convening authority charged the RCM 706 board members with conducting a medical
examination into the mental capacity and mental responsibility of the accused, a lawful and
authorized governmental function. See RCM 706. As long as an appropriate authority within
the Department of the Army determines that members of the RCM 706 board have a ?need-to-
know", there is no requirement to consult the OCA regarding that disclosure.3 5200.1-R,
paragraph (36.2.2.



The controlling directive for SC 1, Director of Central Intelligence (DCID) 6/1, does not require any
additional analysis for "need-to-know" determinations, but does state that ?access approval" is granted by
the Senior O?icial of the Intelligence Community (SOIC) having cognizance of the persons involved.
6H, paragraph 2.6.1.

3 A person may have access to classified information. provided the following: (1) a favorable
determination of eligibility for access is made; the person signs a nondisclosure agreement; and (3)
the person has a "need?to?know" the information. E0 No. 13526, paragraph

3 The convening authority may be required to consult with an OCA or his delegate to authorize the use of
ORCON information. See E0 No. 13526, paragraph 4.

is.)

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense Noti?cation Request - US v. PFC Bradley Manning

4. ISSUE 2: THE DEFENSE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION TO
THE UNITED STATES UNDER MILITARY RULE OF DENCE (MRE) 505(H)(l) IN
ORDER TO DISCLOSE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AT THE RCM 706 BOARD.

a. MRE 505 describes which procedures are controlled by the convening authority and
which procedures are controlled by the militarvjudge. The procedural steps under MRE 505 are
structured chronologically to mirror the court-martial process. Subsection a) provides the
general rule of the privilege. See MRE 505(a). Subsection lists speci?c definitions
applicable to the privilege. See MRE 505(b). Subsection establishes what authority may
claim the privilege. See MRE 505(c}. Subsection outlines procedures for the convening
authority to utilize when considering the accused?s use ofclassi?ed information prior to referral
of charges. See MRE 505(d). Subsection gives each party the ability to request pretrial
sessions before a military judge. See MRE 505(e}. Subsection establishes the procedures for
a military judge to follow. after referral of charges, ifthe accused requests to use classified
information and the United States denies the request. See MRE 5050). Subsection
delineates required procedures for militaryjudges concerning any classified information which
the United States discloses to the accused. See MRE 505(g). Subsection specifically outlines
the procedures for the accused to provide notice to the United States and the military judge prior
to any classi?ed information being used in trial. See MRE 505(h). Subsection outlines the
proper procedures for a military judge to hold an in camera proceeding to adjudicate any
disputes that might arise from Subsection See MRE Finally. subsections 0) and
provide administrative protections and instructions for the militaryjudge and counsel. See MRE




b. Adjudication under MRE requires a militarvjudge.

(1) Under MRE a copy of the classi?ed information notice provided to the
United States must be ?led with the military judge and mat the convening authority. This notice
must be more than a general statement about which evidence may be introduced; rather, the
accused must state, with particularity, which items of classi?ed information he reasonably
expects to be revealed by his defense. MRE 505mm). A plain reading of MRE 505 indicates
that the drafters intended the notice provisions of MRE 505(h}(l to apply after referral to a
court-martial so that a military judge is detailed to adjudicate any issues with disclosure. As the
Court noted in United States v. Schmidt, requires notice to trial counsel and
contemplates litigation before a - an exercise that requires sophisticated legal
judgments, evaluation of defense tactics, appropriate procedural devices, and skilled legal
advocacy." 60 MJ. 1, 2 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (emphasis added).

(2) Furthermore. assuming MRE 505(h}(l) applies to classi?ed information an accused
plans to discuss with a RCM 706 board prior to referral, the only remedy for the United States
under this rule is to move for an in corners proceeding under MRE 5056). MRE SOSlh'tl4). An
?in camera proceeding" under MRE is a session under Article 39(3), UCMJ from which
the public is excluded. MRE If the notice provisions under MRE applied to
classi?ed information sought to be disclosed before referral. the United States has no venue in

ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Response to Defense 505(h)(l) Noti?cation Request - 1.1.8 v. PF Bradley Manning

which to contest the accused?s intent to disclose classi?ed information, nor a gatekeeper to rule
on its disclosure under MRE 505.

c. RCM 706 boards are not ?court-martial proceedings" for purposes of MRE
Under MRE 505(h)(l), an accused is required to provide notice to the trial counsel if he or she
reasonably expects to disclose classified information in any manner in connection with a ?court-
martial proceeding.? See MRE 505(h)(l The defense argues that the 706 board amounts
to a "court-martial proceeding" under MRE 505. However, the Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces held in United States v. Erb, that ?medical board proceedings. . . are notjudicial in nature.
purpose. or effect; they are entirely administrative." 3i C.M.R. 110. 115-6 1961). For
example. the members of an RCM 706 board are typically appointed by a medical commander
and not by the convening authority. United States v. Best. 61 MJ. 376, 382 (C.A.A.F. 2005}. In
addition, the findings of an RCM 706 board do not bind the court-martial in its determination of
either competence or mental responsibility. Id. Because the RCM 706 board is an
administrative rather than judicial process, it does not qualify as a ?court~n1artia1 proceeding? as
contemplated by MRE 505, and thus the disciosure rules under subsection have no
applicability to the present case.

5. CONCLUSION. The United States respectfully disagrees with your analysis. MRE
does not apply during the pro-referral RCM "106 board. Based on your request to have
the accused discuss classified information, which is preliminarily classified at the level
and not the convening authority determined the RCM 706 board has a "need-to-
know? and the accused is authorized to discuss his mental impressions with the appointed board.
There is no requirement for the accused to disclose his mental impressions to the United States
prior to his disclosure to the RCM 706 board.

6. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at - I


??momow

gin, JA
rial Counsel

01159

UNITED STATES
DEFENSE REQUEST TO
v. COMPEL DISCOVERY
MANNING, Bradley E., PFC

US. Army, _1

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, US.
Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall,
Fort Myer, VA 22211

DATED: 17 February 2011

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 405(f)(10) and Manual for
Courts-Martial, United States, 2008, Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Fifth
and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, defense counsel in the above entitled
case respectfully request that the Investigating Of?cer compel discovery.

II. BACKGROUND

2. PFC Bradley Manning is charged with various offenses under Article 92 and Article 134 of
the UCMJ. The gravamen of the offenses deal with the incorporation, under Article 134, of the
Espionage Statute 18 U.S.C. 793(6) and Computer Fraud Statute 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1) and
The charges were preferred on 5 July 2010.

3. Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Craig Merutka, was appointed to investigate the charges against
Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning on 6 July 2010. On 10 July 2010, LTC Merutka

notified the defense that it was his intent to begin the Article 32 Investigation on 14 July 2010.
The investigating of?cer informed the defense that he would consider the following evidence:

a. Memorandum from United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, Computer
Crime Investigative Unit, dated 23 June 2010. (not provided to the defense)

b. Of?cial Military Personnel File of PFC Manning. (provided to the defense on 22
October 2010)

c. Chat Logs between - (not provided to the

defense)
i. Session 1, beginning 7:18:03 AM by bradassS7 and ending 1:55:28 PM, pages 1-5
ii. Session 2, beginning 10:13:20 AM by bradassS7 and ending 4:55:16 PM, pages 1-1]
Session 3, beginning 12:24:04 PM by bradass87 and ending 5:47:10 PM, pages 1-11

01160

d. Chat logs between beginning on 25 May 2010 at
20:30:25 03:00 and ending 27 May 2010 at 15:00:04 03:00, pages 1-41 (not provided to the
defense)

e. CID report of investigation with exhibits 1-38, 0160-2010-CID889-14463-
pages 1-131 (partially provided to the defense on 22 October 2010)

f. Sworn Statement by Adrian Lamo, 13 June 2010, pages 1-7 (provided to the defense
on 22 October 2010)

g. Electronic mail messages from PFC Manning to Erick Schmiedl dated 20 May 2010
(provided to the defense on 22 October 2010)

4. The defense requested a delay in the Article 32 in order to conduct a R.C.M. 706 evaluation
of PFC Manning on 11 July 2010. This request was denied by LTC Merutka on 11 July 2010.
On 12 July 2010, the defense renewed its request for a delay and requested that LTC Merutka
reconsider his earlier ruling. After considering the request, LTC Merutka approved the delay
request on 12 July 2010. The authorized delay was from 14 July until 26 July 2010. On that
same day, LTC Merutka noti?ed the defense that he would consider the following two additional
pieces of evidence.

a. Memorandum from United States Army Criminal Investigative Command, Computer
Crime Investigative Unit, dated 29 June 2010, CAF 0028-10-CID361 ROI 0028-10-
CID221-10117, Forensics Report for PFC Manning?s Personal Computer, with appendices A-D.
(not provided to the defense)

b. Memorandum from United States Army Criminal Investigative Command, Computer
Crime Investigative Unit, dated 1 July 2010, CAF 0028-10-CID361 ROI
10117, Forensics Report for Mr. Lamo?s Personal Computer, with appendices A-F. (not
provided to the defense)

5. On 12 July 2010, the former convening authority, Colonel (COL) David M. Miller, approved
the delay request until 16 August 2010 for the purposes of the R.C.M. 706 board.

6. On 28 July 2010, Major General (MG) Terry A. Wolff transferred the case of PFC Bradley
Manning to MG Karl R. Horst, the Commander, US Army Military District of Washington for
his disposition. Maj or General Horst accepted the transfer of the case and released the
diSposition of the case to Colonel (COL) Carl R. Coffman Jr. On 3 August 2010, COL Coffman
ordered a R.C.M. 706 examination of PFC Manning. On 4 August 2010, LTC Paul Almanza
was appointed by the convening authority as the new investigating of?cer. The defense has not
yet been noti?ed what, if any, additional information has been provided to the investigating
of?cer. On 11 August 2010, the defense submitted a delay request until completion of the
R.C.M. 706 board. On 12 August 2010, COL Coffman approved the delay from 11 August 2010
until the completion of the R.C.M. 706 board.

01161

7. On 29 October 2010, the defense submitted a request for discovery. See Attachment A. As
of 17 February 2011, the defense has not received a response from the government. On 15
November 2010, the defense submitted a request for discovery. See Attachment B. As of 17
February 2011, the defense has not received a response from the government. On 8 December
2010, the defense submitted a request for discovery. See Attachment C. As of 17 February
2011, the defense has not received a response from the government. On 10 January 2011, the
defense submitted a request for discovery. See Attachment D. As of 17 February 2011, the
defense has not received a response from the government. On 19 January 2011, the defense
submitted a request for discovery. See Attachment B. As of 17 February 2011, the defense has
not received a response from the government. On 16 February 2011, the defense submitted a
request for discovery. See Attachment F. As of 17 February 2011, the defense has not received
a response from the government.

8. The items requested for discovery are material to the preparation of the defense case. The
defense team needs information in order to forge ahead to trial. Without the requested discovery,
any Article 32 Investigation will be deficient. See R.C.M. 905(b)(1) and 906(b)(3) concerning
motions for appropriate relief relating to the pretrial investigation.

DISCUSSION

9. Under R.C.M. 405 and 701, the defense may request materials that are within the possession,
custody, or control of military authorities. This motion renews the defense?s request for the
previously mentioned items in Attachment A through F, and all other evidence in the
government?s possession as well as evidence that they are obligated by law, upon defense
request, to retrieve from other government agencies and entities outside of their immediate
of?ce. United States v. Williams, 50 MJ. 436 (C.A.A.F. 1999).

10. The Government should allow the defense to inspect any and all documents, tangible items,
and reports, within the Government?s control, which are material to the defense?s preparation.
R.C.M. and 701(a). Additionally, the defense is entitled to ?examine
all other evidence considered by the investigating of?cer.? R.C.M. The standard
set out in R.C.M. 405 and R.C.M. 701 requires the government to turn over items that are within
the ?Government?s control? this means that the Trial Counsel, upon defense request, has an
affirmative obligation to seek out requested evidence that is in the possession of the government
even if that evidence is not already in the immediate possession of the trial counsel. United
States v. Williams, 50 MJ. 436, 441 (C.A.A.F. 1999). The ?prosecutor will be deemed to have
knowledge of and access to anything in the possession, custody, or control of any federal agency
participating in the same investigation of the defendant.? United States v. Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032,
1036 (9th Cir. 1989); Williams, 50 Ml. at 441.

11. Furthermore, R.C.M. 405(g)(1)(B) and 703(a) establishes the standard for discovery in
military courts: the prosecution and defense ?shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses
and evidence.? See, also, Article 46, UCMJ. To ensure that R.C.M. 405 and 703 will have
meaning at trial, ?[e]ach party shall have adequate opportunity to prepare its case and equal
opportunity to interview witnesses and inspect evidence.? R.C.M. 701(e). The accused is

LN

01162

entitled to inspect both exculpatory and inculpatory evidence. Brady v. Maryland, 373 US. 83
(1963); United States v. Kern, 22 M.J. 49, 51 (C.M.A. 1986). Construing the due process clause,
the Supreme Court, in the seminal case of Brady v. Maryland established a duty of disclosure of
evidence favorable to the defense: ?the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to
an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material, either to guilt or
punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecutor.? Brady v. Maryland,
373 US. 83, 87 (1963). As the numerous cases deciding Brady v. Maryland claims indicate,
?favorable? is not the same as evidence that proves the defendant to be totally innocent or
establishes an unshakable alibi. Anything that tends to assist the defense or cast doubt on the
government?s case is ?evidence favorable to an accused.? See generally, Army Regulation 27-
26, paragraph United States v. Kinzer, 39 M.J. 559, 562 (A.C.MR. 1994); United States
v. Adens, 56 M.J. 724 (A.C.C.A. 2002).

12. Military courts recognize ?a much more direct and generally broader means of discovery by
an accused than is normally available to him in civilian courts.? United States v. Reece, 25 M.J.
93, 94 (C.M.A. 1987). Regarding discovery, ?military law has been preeminent, jealously
guaranteeing to the accused the right to be effectively represented by counsel through affording
every opportunity to prepare his case by openly disclosing the Government?s evidence.? United
States v. Enloe, 35 C.M.R. 228, 230 (C.M.A. 1965). The only restrictions placed upon liberal
defense discovery are that the information requested must be relevant and necessary to the
subject of the inquiry, and the request must be reasonable. Reece, 25 M.J. at 95.
?[D]etermination of the relevance and necessity of defense requested evidence should be made
by the court, not ex parte by the prosecutor.? Id. at 94 n. 4. According to the Court of Military
Appeals, the Military Rules of Evidence establish ?a low threshold of relevance.? Id. at 95.
Relevant evidence is ?any cevidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that
is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would
be without the evidence.?? Id. at 95, quoting Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 401. In
addition, the Court of Military Appeals stated in United States v. Hart, 29 M.J. 407, 410 (C.M.A.
1990):

In his opinion at the court below, Judge Gilley adopted the premise that, under
Article 46, discovery available to the accused in courts-martial is broader than the
discovery rights granted to most civilian defendants. From this, he correctly
reasoned that, where prosecutorial misconduct is present or where the
Government fails to disclose information pursuant to a speci?c request, the
evidence will be considered ?material unless failure to disclose? can be
demonstrated to ?be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.? Where there is no
request or only a general request, the failure will be ?material only if there is a
reasonable probability that? a different verdict would result from disclosure of the
evidence. 27 MJ at 842. We agree with Judge Gilley.

13. In accordance with these rules and law, the defense has requested the opportunity to inspect
or receive copies of the items listed in the multiple defense discovery requests. Thus far, the
government has provided limited discovery to the defense and has failed to respond in writing to
any of the defense discovery requests. The Defense is unable to adequately prepare its case for
the Article 32 without disclosure of evidence by the government. The defense needs the

01163

government replies in order to effectively enforce PFC Manning?s due process right to a
thorough and impartial investigation of the charges.

14. Due to the government?s failure to provide adequate discovery, it is unrealistic for it to claim
that it would be prepared to proceed with the Article 32 on 15 March 2011. The defense requests
that the government provide the requested discovery by 1 March 201 1 so that we may be
prepared to proceed without the need for an additional delay. If the requested discovery is not
provided by 1 March 2011, the defense requests that any subsequent delay be credited to the
government.

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED

15. Pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 46
UCMJ, R.C.M. 405, 701, and 906(b)(7), the Defense requests the Investigating Of?cer to issue

an order compelling discovery.
44DWARD COOM BS

Civilian Defense Counsel

A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel and the Investigating Of?cer by e-mail on 17
February 201 l.

.

4% EDWARDFCOOMBS

Civilian Defense Counsel

01164

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR. DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION 0F



25 February 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR LTC Paul Almanza, Article 32, UCMJ, Investigating Of?cer for United
States v. Private First Class (PF C) Bradley E. Manning

SUBJECT: Government Response to Defense Request to Compel Discovery

1. This memorandum responds to the Defense Request to Compel Discovery, dated 17 February
2011. The United States asserts that this request is improper, and alternatively, the general
nature of the defense request is not ripe for your consideration. The United States requests that
you refrain from answering the defense?s request.

2. The United States recognizes its duty to produce witnesses and evidence for use at an Article
32 investigation in order to ensure the investigation is thorough and impartial. See Rule for
Courts-Martial (RCM) The United States also recognizes its requirements under
RCM 701, Article 46, UCMJ, and applicable case law to produce certain evidence and witnesses
at different stages of a trial, once a convening authority refers a case to court?martial. A military
judge is the proper authority to compel production of evidence and witnesses. See RCM
906(b)(7).

3. As the defense notes, the defense?s delay of the Article 32 investigation is ongoing and the
convening authority has not ordered you to resume your duties as the Article 32 investigating
of?cer. Furthermore, the United States has not provided you with any evidence, classi?ed or
unclassi?ed, for your consideration in this case based on the suspended Article 32 investigation.
Finally, under RCM 405(0), the convening authority is authorized to proscribe speci?c
procedures for conducting your investigation, and the United States expects the convening
authority to publish speci?c procedures for this case at a later date, such as the use of classi?ed
information.

4. Since the defense request, dated 26 August 2010, and at all times thereafter, the United States
has worked diligently to respond to every discovery request submitted by defense counsel and
we have disclosed more than 1,000 pages of unclassi?ed evidence in our possession. The United
States has not been able to disclose classi?ed information to the defense counsel for several
reasons, including the defense counsel?s lack of appropriate clearance to have classi?ed
discussions with his client, the Original Classi?cation Authorities? authorizations to release
classi?ed information to the defense counsel, possible invocation of the classi?ed information
privilege under Military Rule of Evidence 505, etc. The United States continues to work with
organizations throughout the Department of the Army and the United States government to
obtain speci?c information requested by defense counsel. The United States recognizes its
ongoing general discovery obligations under RCM 405, its post-referral discovery obligations,

01165
ANJA-CL
SUBJECT: Government Response to Defense Request to Compel Discovery

and intends to provide the defense with written responses to their premature discovery requests,
when appropriate.

5. The defense request to compel discovery should be reserved for a military judge under RCM
906(7). If the defense believes the Article 32 investigation is not thorough or impartial, the
defense can raise this issue to you during the Article 32 investigation or to a military judge in a
motion for appropriate relief. Therefore, the United States requests you do not answer the
defense?s premature request.



ASHDEN FEIN
CPT, JA
Chief, Military Justice



MEMORANDUM FOR Convening Authority

SUBJECT: Acknowledgment of Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC
Bradle Mannin

I. I, understand that I may be the recipient of information and
intelligence that concerns the present and future security of the United States and that belongs to the
United States. This information and intelligence, together with the methods of collecting and handling it,
are classi?ed accurding to security standards set by the U.S. Government. I have read and understand the
provisions of the espionage laws (18 U.S.C. 793, 794, and 798) concerning the disclosure of
information relating to the national defense and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
(50 U.S. C. 421) and I am familiar with the penalties for the violation thereof. I have also read and
understand the provisions of Army Regulation 380-5, concerning safeguarding, disseminating,
transmitting and transporting, storage and destruction, and loss or compromise of classi?ed information.

I understand these provisions of the law and Army Regulation are available at the Military Justice
Section. Of?ce ofthe Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J.
McNair, DC, 20319.

2. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure. unauthorized retention, and negligent handling of
classi?ed information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be
used to advantage by a foreign nation or enemy of the United States. I hereby agree that I will never
divulge classi?ed information to anyone unless: I have of?cially veri?ed that the recipient has been
properly authorized by the United States Government to receive classi?ed information; have been
given prior written notice of the authorization of the United States Government Department or Agency
responsible for the classi?cation of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such
disclosure is permitted; or as ordered by the Convening Authority. I understand that if I am uncertain
about the classi?cation status of information. I am required to confirm from an authorized o?icial that the
information is unclassi?ed before I may disclose the information, except as provided in or
above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of classi?ed information. I understand that any breach of this agreement may
result in the termination of any access to classi?ed information. recognize that this agreement including
its provision for the termination of access to classi?ed information does not constitute a waiver of the
United States? right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.



3. I understand that I will remain bound to this agreement after the conclusion of proceedings in United
States v. PFC Bradlev Manning.

4. I read and understand the Protective Order by the Convening Authority, dated 17 September 2010. in
the case of United States v. PFC Bradley Manning, relating to classi?ed information, and I agree to
comply with the provisions thereof.

5. I understand that ifl am a lawyer, noncompliance with this Protective Order will be reported to any
State Bar where I am admitted to practice law.

5/3 20/;

DATE i




IGN TURE

Witnessed, sworn and subscribed to before me this day of







DATE. SIGNATURE

MEMORANDUM FOR Converting Authority

SUBJECT: Acknowledgment of Protective Order for Classi?ed Information - United States v. PF
Bradley Manning

1. l, X??r?il/ p9 ?ames: . understand that I may be the recipient of information and
intelligence that concerns the present and future security of the United States and that belongs to the
United States. This information and intelligence, together with the methods of collecting and handling it,
are classi?ed according to security standards set by the U.S. Government. I have read and understand the
provisions of the eSpionage laws ['18 U.S.C. 793. 794. and 798} concerning the disclosure of
information relating to the national defense and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
(50 US. C. it} 421) and I am familiar with the penalties for the violation thereof. I have also read and
understand the provisions of Army Regulation 380-5. concerning safeguarding, disseminating,
transmitting and transporting. storage and destruction, and loss or compromise ot'classi?ed information.

I understand these provisions of the law and Army Regulation are available at the Military Justice
Section. Of?ce of the StaffJudge Advocate. US. Army Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J.
McNair. DC. 20319.

2. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure. unauthorized retention, and negligent handling of
classi?ed information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be
used to advantage by a foreign nation or enemy of the United States. I hereby agree that I will never
divulge classified information to anyone unless: have officially veri?ed that the recipient has been
properly authorized by the United States Government to receive classi?ed information; have been
given prior written notice of the authorization of the United States Government Department or Agency
responsible for the classi?cation of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such
disclosure is permitted; or to) as ordered by the Convening Authority. I understand that if 1 am uncertain
about the classi?cation status of information. I am required to con?rm from an authorized of?cial that the
information is unclassi?ed before I may disclose the information. except as provided in or
above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of classi?ed information. I understand that any breach of this agreement may
result in the termination of any access to classi?ed information. I recognize that this agreement including
its provision for the termination of access to classi?ed information does not constitute a waiver of the
United States? right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

El. I understand that 1 will remain bound to this agreement after the conclusion of proceedings in United
States v. PFC Bradlev Manni_ng.

4. I read and understand the Protective Order by the Convening Authority. dated 17 September 2010. in
the case ofUnited States v. PFC Bradley Manning. relating to classi?ed information. and 1 agree to
comply with the provisions thereof.

5. I understand that if I am a lawyer. noncompliance with this Protective Order will be reported to any
State Bar where I am admitted to practice law.

52m:

DATE SIGNATURE

Witnessed. sworn and subscribed to before me this day of







DATE SIGNATURE

MEMORANDUM FOR Convening Authority

SUBJECT: Acknowledgment of Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning

1. l, (if its i?ifmi?i'h . understand that I may be the recipient of information and
intelligence that concern? the present and future security of the United States and that belongs to the
United States. This information and intelligence, together with the methods of collecting and handling it,
are classi?ed according to security standards set by the US. Government. have read and understand the
provisions ofthe espionage laws (18 U.S.C. 793, 794, and 798) concerning the disclosure of
information relating to the national defense and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
(50 U.S. C. 421) and I am familiar with the penalties for the violation thereof. have also read and
understand the provisions of Army Regulation 380-5, concerning safeguarding, disseminating,
transmitting and transporting, storage and destruction, and loss or compromise of classi?ed information.

I understand these provisions ofthe law and Army Regulatlon are available at the Military Justice
Section, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Army Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J.
McNairunderstand that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, and negligent handling of
classi?ed information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be
used to advantage by a foreigi nation or enemy of the United States. I hereby agree that I will never
divulge classi?ed information to anyone unless: I have of?cially veri?ed that the recipient has been
properly authorized by the United States Government to receive classi?ed information; I have been
given prior written notice of the authorization of the United States Government Department or Agency
responsible for the classi?cation of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such
disclosure is permitted; or as ordered by the Convening Authority. I understand that if I am uncertain
about the classi?cation status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized of?cial that the
information is unclassi?ed before I may disclose the information, except as provided in or
above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of classi?ed information. I understand that any breach of this agreement may
result in the termination of any access to classi?ed information. I recognize that this agreement including
its provision for the termination of access to classified information does not constitute a waiver of the
United States' right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

3. I understand that I will remain bound to this agreement after the conclusion of proceedings in United
States v. Bradley Manning.

4. I read and understand the Protective Order by the Convening Authority, dated 17 September in
the case of United States v. PFC Bradlev Manning, relating to classified information, and I agree to
comply with the provisions thereof.

5. I understand that if I am a lawyer, noncompli with this Protective Order wiil be reported to any
State Bar where I am admitted to practice law.

if 330?

DATE.




SEBHA CLARK-BURNSIDE

Witnessed. sworn and subscribed to before me this ay ofW .4520453?9" D'smicmmowmm
My Evnlros February 23. 2011

a ?t

DATE 1? SIGNATURE



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
.V U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
II 210 A STREET
.2 FORT LESLEY J. MOHAIR, DC 20319-51113





-
\aifans

,4
I To
nnennoa oF

ANJA-CL 15 March 201 1

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Receipt for and Non-Disclosure ot?Read-Ahead Only Copy of WikiLeaks 15-6
Investigation Conducted by Commander, Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth (LTG
Robert Caslen'}

1. On 8 March 2011. the Government requested, from the Of?ce of the General Counsel. an
of?cial copy of LTG Robert Caslen?s completed Army Regulation 15-6 (hereinafter
investigation into the suspected compromise of classi?ed information to WikiLeaks, along with
all allied documents.

2. The Government, considering the anticipated size and complexities covered by the report and
all allied documents thereto. requested a read-ahead copy of the report and allied documents in
order to prepare for anticipated Defense discovery requests in the case of United States v. Private
First Class PFC Bradley E. Manning.

3. Receipt ofa read-ahead or advance copy of the report and allied documents allows the trial
counsel. along with supporting Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and Computer Crimes
Investigative Unit (CC 1U) personnel, the opportunity to fully review the 15-6 prior to any release
of the report, either in whole or in part. to members of PFC Manning?s defense team. A full and
thorough review of the report. which the Government understands is (exceeding 150
pages in length with hundreds of enclosures ?lling approximately thirteen binders), will enable
the trial counsel to comply with discovery obligations as they are triggered. Further. review at
this time will allow the trial counsel to analyze any and all issues that might legally limit
discovery provided to an accused or require other remedial action by the Government. such as
redaction of Personal Identifying Information under the Privacy Act.

4. The Government?s sole purpose in obtaining a read-ahead or advance copy of the 15-6 is to
ensure timely compliance with the Government?s discovery obligations under Article 46, UCMJ.
the Rules for Courts-Martial. Brody v. rifriryiond. Gigt'io v. United States, and any other
applicable statutory, regulatory. or case-related requirements.

5. The Government understands that receipt of a read-ahead or advance copy of the 15-6 and
related allied documents. whether in hard copy or on digital media, does not authorize further
release of the report or any allied documents to any parties other than trial counsel or members of
CID or CCIU working the case of United States v. PFC Manning. The Government further
understands that release authority for the read-ahead or advance copy and any related allied
documents rests with the Of?ce of the Secretary of the Army. as exercised through the Of?ce of
the General Counsel as the Secretary?s designated representative.

ANJA-CL

SUBJECT: Receipt for and Non-Disclosure of Read-Ahead Only Copy of WikiLeaks 15-6
Investigation Conducted by Commander, Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth
Robert Caslen)

6. The point of?contaet for this request is the undersigned at







IR


FEIN
CPT, JA
Chief, Military Jusliee

CF:
Mr. Daniel Andrews (CCILU

Ix)

MEMORANDUM FOR Convening Authority

SUBJECT: Acknowledgment of Protective Order for Classi?ed Information - United States v. PFC
Bradley Manning

1. 1, W1 understand that I may be the recipient of information and
intelligence that concerns the present and future security of the United States and that belongs to the
United States. This information and intelligence, together with the methods of collecting and handling it,
are classi?ed according to security standards set by the US. Government. I have read and understand the
provisions of the espionage laws (18 LI.S.C. 793, 794, and 798) concerning the disclosure of
information relating to the national defense and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
(50 US. C. 421) and I am familiar with the penalties for the violation thereof. I have also read and
understand the provisions of Army Regulation 380-5, concerning safeguarding, disseminating,
transmitting and transporting. storage and destruction. and 1035 or compromise of classi?ed information.

I understand these provisions of the law and Army Regulation are available at the Military Justice
Section, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, US. Army Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J.
McNair, DC, 20319.



I understand that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, and negligent handling of
classi?ed information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be
used to advantage by a foreign nation or enemy of the United States. I hereby agree that I will never
divulge classi?ed infermation to anyone unless: (ail have of?cially veri?ed that the recipient has been
properly authorized by the United States Government to receive classi?ed infonnation; I have been
given prior written notice of the authorization of the United States Government Department or Agency
responsible for the classi?cation of the infonnation or last granting me a security clearance that such
disclosure is permitted; or as ordered by the Convening Authority. I understand that if I am uncertain
about the classi?cation status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized of?cial that the
information is unclassi?ed before I may disclose the information. except as provided in or
above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of classi?ed information. I understand that any breach of this agreement may
result in the termination of any access to classi?ed information. I recognize that this agreement including
its provision for the termination of access to classi?ed information does not constitute a waiver of the
United States? right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

3. I understand that I will remain bound to this agreement after the conclusion of proceedings in United
States v. PFC Bradley Manning.

4. I read and understand the Protective Order by the Convening Authority. dated September 2010, in
the case ofUnited States v. PFC Bradlev Manning. relating to classi?ed information, and I agree to
comply with the provisions thereof.




5. I understand that if I am a lawyer, noncompliance with this Protectiv er will be reported to any

State Bar where I am admitted to practice law.
9.9.1.1 93 05'
DATE sgg?ar?ae















Witnessed, sworn and subscribed to before me mist: day of meta ,lnl I .
25 it [1/4
DATE.
mi, JA

Att?cbt' 136M I), um;

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY .J. MCNAIR. Dc 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF



ANJA-CL 6 April 20?

MEMORANDUM THRU

rad-WW

Military District of Washington 210 A Street. Fort



Stal?t?ludge Advocate. U.S.
Lesley McNair. DC 20 19

Office ofthe Judge Advocate General David May?eld). 2200 Army Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20310

FOR Deputy Chiet?of Staff for Intelligence 2200 Army Pentagon. Washington, DC 2203!?

SUBJECT: Request to Provide Personnel Access to Classi?ed Information US v. PFC Bradley
Manning

1. The prosecution team in the case ofU.S. v. PFC Bradlev E. Manning requests that the additional
active duty service members and civilians be granted the appropriate security clearances and access
to classified information up to the TOP SECRET (Sensitive Compartmented Information) level to include
the compartments 51, TR, HC3, and G. These individuals need such access to assist the defense and
participate all future court-martial proceedings.

a. Prosecution Team

(I) CPT Jeffrey ll. Why-te?

b. Defense Team

LCDR Carrie H. Kennedy. .

c. Article 32

Mr. Michael Egan. Legal Advisor?

2. The above list is not al ~inclusive. Throughout the court-martial process, there will liker be additions
and subtractions. which will require adjustments to the personnel?s access. Any subtractions will be
submitted immediately.

3. The ioint of' contact for this request is the undersigned at -



Lzr?isnoEN FEIN
CPT. JA
Trial Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR. DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTE DF



ANJA-CL 6 April 20H
MEMORANDUM FOR Brig Of?cer in Charge, Quantico Base Brig, Headquarters Company, Security
Battalion, 2043 Barnett Avenue, Quantico. VA 22134-5013
SUBJECT: Members of the Defense Team - US. v. PFC Bradley Manning
1. The following personnel are members of the defense team either through direct representation or
appointment by a convening authority under Military.r Rule of Evidence 502 and U.S. v. Toledo, 25 MI.
270 198?):

a. Mr. David Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

b. MAJ Mathew Kemkes, Defense Counsel

c. CPT Paul Bouchard. Defense Counsel

d. Dr. (CAPT) Kevin Moore, USN. (Forensic Expert)

e. Mr. Cassius N. Hall. US. Army Intelligence and Security Command (Security Expert)

f. Mr. Charles Ganiel, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (Security Expert)

g. Ms. Lillian Smith, US. Army Information Technology Agency (Information Assurance Expert)

IL Dr. (LCDR) Carrie l-I. Kennedy, USN, Expert)

As members ofthe defense team, communications between PFC Manning and the above listed
personnel should remain con?dential and not subject to monitoring.

3. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at I


Mum Earn
PT. JA
Trial Counsel
CF:

l-Civilian Defense Counsel
l?Legal Counsel, Quantico Brig

MEMORANDUM FOR Convening Authority

SUBJECT: Acknowledgment of Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC
Btadle Mannin

l. I, understand that I may be the recipient of information and
intelligence that concerns the present and future security of the United States and that belongs to the
United States. This information and intelligence, together with the methods ofcollecting and handling it,
are classi?ed according to security standards set by the US. Government. I have read and understand the
provisions ofthe espionage laws 8 USC. 7'93, 794, and 798) concerning the disclosure of
information relating to the national defense and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
(50 US. 42] and I am familiar with the penalties for the violation thereof. have also read and
understand the provisions ofArmy Regulation 330-5, concerning safeguarding, disseminating,
transmitting and transporting, storage and destruction, and loss or compromise of classi?ed information.

I understand these provisions of the law and Army Regulation are available at the Military Justice
Section, Of?ce of the Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J.
McNair, DC. 20319.



2. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, and negligent handling of
classi?ed information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be
used to advantage by a foreign nation or enemy of the United States. I hereby agree that I will never
divulge classi?ed information to anyone unless: have of?cially veri?ed that the recipient has been
properly authorized by the United States Government to receive classi?ed information; I have been
given prior written notice of the authorization of the United States Government Department or Agency
responsible for the classi?cation of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such
disclosure is permitted; or as ordered by the Convening Authority. I understand that if I am uncertain
about the classi?cation status of information, I am required to con?rm from an authorized of?cial that the
information is unclassi?ed before I may disclose the information, except as provided in or to}
above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of classi?ed information. I understand that any breach of this agreement may
result in the termination of any access to classi?ed information. I recognize that this agreement including
its provision for the termination of access to classi?ed information does not constitute a waiver of the
United States' right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

3. I understand that I will remain bound to this agreement after the conclusion of proceedings in United
States v. PFC Bradley Manning.

4. I read and understand the Protective Order by the Authority, dated September 2010, in
the case of United States v. PFC Bradley Manning, relating to classi?ed information, and I agree to
comply with the provisions thereof.

5. I understand that if] am a lawyer, noncompliance with this Protective Order will be reported to any
State Bar where I am admitted to practice law.









v.DATE SIGNATURE I
Witnessed. sworn and subscribed to before me this day of fi?fl; I jut
I 1
t?i I'd-t I I a I I g/JJl





DATE SIGNATURE

ME MORAN DUM FO Convening Authority

.otcknowiedgment oi'Pretective Order for Classi?ed Information - United States v. PFC
Bradlev Manning,I

l. 1. ?151 .understand thatlmay be the recipient ot?int?ormation and

intelligence that concerns the present and future security of the United States and that belongs to the
United States. This inflammation and intelligence. together with the methods ot?coliecting and handling it.
are classi tied according to security standards set by the US. Government. have read and understand the
provisions of the espionage laws (13 U.S.C. 793. 794. and 798} concerning the disclosure of
information relating to the national defense and the provisions ot?the Intelligence identities Protection Act
(50 US. C. it 42] and lam familiar with the penalties for the violation thereof. 1 have also read and
understand the provisions ot?Army Regulation 330?5. concerning safeguarding. disseminating.
transmitting and transporting. storage and destruction. and loss or compromise of classi?ed information.

I understand these provisions of the law and Army Regulation are available at the Justice
Section, Of?ce of the Advocate. US. it any Military Disrrict of Washington, Fort Iesley
McNair- DC, 303 9.

i understand that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention. and negligent handling of
classi?ed information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could he
used to advantage by a foreign nation or enemy oi?the United States. i hereby agree that I will never
divulge classi?ed int?omiation to anyone unless: [at have o?icially veri?ed that the recipient has been
properly by the United States Government to receive classi?ed ittiitmtation: have been
given prior it rinen notice of the authorization 01" the United States Government Department or Agency
responsible for the classi?cation of the information or inst granting me a security clearance that such
disclosure is pemtitted: or as ordered by the Converting Authority. i understand that if! am uncertain
about the classi?cation status ofinforntation. ant required to contimt from an authorized official that the
information is unclassi?ed before I may disclose the information. except as provided in tel, (hi. or
above. 1 Further understand that are obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorised disclosure ot'classitied information. I understand that any breach of this agreement may
result in the termination oi'any access to classi?ed information. i recognize that this agreement including
its provision for the tennination to classi?ed information does not constitute a waiver ofthe.
United States? right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

3. i understand that I will remain bound to this agreement alter the conclusion of proceedings in United
States v. PFC Bradlev Manninu.

4. i read and the Protective Order by the (.?onvening, Authority. dated I7 September 2010. in
the case of United States v. PFC Bradlev Manninu. relating to classi?ed and i agree to

coin ply with the provisions thereof.

5. I understand that il? 1 ton a lawyer. noncompliance wit Protective Or erv he reported to any





State Bar where am admitted to practice law.

r? i.
DATE aruae
Witnessed. sit-om and subscribed to before me this day of I





DATE SIGNATURE

RPR-14-2811 38:299 FRUNI

MEMORANDUM FOR Convening Authority

SUBJECT: Acknowledgment of Protective Order for Classi?ed Information
Bradley Manning

1
l. i. 1% ?Via/{understand that I may be the reeipien

intelligence that concerns the prescnfand future security of the United States

TD:

13.2

- United States v. PFC

of in formation and
and that belongs to the



United States. This information and intelligence, together with the methods
are classi?ed according to security standards set by the U5. Government. 1

erollecting and handling it,
ave read and understand the

provisions ofthe espionage laws (13 U.S.C. 793, T94. and T98) concerni the disclosure of
information relating to the national defense and the provisions of the lntellig nee Identities Protection Act
(50 US. C. 42]) and I am familiar with the penalties for the violation that f. I have also read and
understand the provisions ofAnny Regulation 330-5. concerning safeguardi g, disseminating,
transmitting and transporting. storage and destruction, and loss or compromi of classi?ed information.

I understand these provisions of the law and Army Regulation are available Military Justice

Section, Of?ce of the Staffludge Advocate, US. Army Military District of
MoNair, DC, 20319.

2. [understand that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention. 3111
classi?ed information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the
used to advantage by a foreign nation or enemy of the United States. I hereb
divulge classi?ed information to anyone unless: have of?cially veri?ed
properly authorized by the United States Government to receive classi?ed in
given prior written notice of the authorisation of the United States Govemmti
responsible for the classi?cation of the information or last granting me a seer.
disclosure is permitted; or as ordered by the Convening Authority. I undt
about the classi?cation status of information, 1 not required to con?rm from
information is unclassi?ed before I may disclose the information, except as 1:
above. further understand that i am obligated to comply with laws and regt
unauthorized disclosure of classi?ed infonnation. I understand that any brea
result in the termination of any access to classi?ed information. [recognize

its provision for the termination of access to classi?ed information does not
United States' right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

3. I understand that I will remain bound to this agreement after the conclusi
States v. PFC Bradley Manning.

4. i read and understand the Protective Order by the Convening Authority,
the case ofUnited States v. PFC Brodie Manoin relating to classi?ed info
comply with the provisions thereof.



5. [understand that if 1 am a lawyer, noncompliance with this Protective 0
State Bar where I am admitted to pi?nctiCe law.

ashington, Fort Lesley I.

.i negligent handling of
United States or could be

3.: agree that I will never

that the recipient has been
formation; have been

at Department or Agency
trity clearance that such
irstand that if 1 am uncertain
to authorized of?cial that the
rovided in or
lations that prohibit the

ch of this agreement may

hat this agreement including
onstitute a waiver of the

on of proceedings in Unitgd

dated 17 September 2010, in
motion, and I agree to

der will be reported to any





Ami.?

DATE

Mimi but

DATE SIGNATURE


?rst?

Witnessed, sworn and subscribed to before me this 11 day of ?3551,



MEMORANDUM FOR Converting Authority

SUBJECT: Acknowledgment of Protective Order for Classi?ed Information United States v. PFC
Bradle Mannin

1. l. 1' . understand that I may be the recipient of information and
intelligence that concerns the present and future security of the United States and that belongs to the
United States. This information and intelligence. together with the methods of collecting and handling it.
are classi?ed according to security standards set by the US. Government. have read and understand the
provisions of the espionage laws (18 U.S.C. 793. 794. and 798) concerning the disclosure of
information relating to the national defense and the provisions of the Intelligence identities Protection Act
(.50 U.S. C. 421) and I am familiar with the penalties for the violation thereof. I have also read and
understand the provisions of Army Regulation 330-5. concerning safeguarding. disseminating.
transmitting and transporting. storage and destruction. and loss or compromise of classi?ed information.

I understand these provisions of the law and Army Regulation are available at the Military Justice
Section. Office of the StaffJudge Advocate. U.S. Army Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J.
McNair, DC. 20319.

2. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention. and negligent handling of
classi?ed information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be
used to advantage by a foreign nation or enemy of the United States. i hereby agree that I will never
divulge classi?ed information to anyone unless: have of?cially veri?ed that the recipient has been
properly authorized by the United States Government to receive classi?ed information; (13} have been
given prior written notice of the authorization of the United States Government Department or Agency
responsible for the classi?cation of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such
disclosure is permitted; or as ordered by the Converting Authority. I understand that if] arn uncertain
about the classi?cation status of information. 1 am required to con?rm from an authorized official that the
information is unclassi?ed before I may disclose the information. except as provided in or
above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information. I understand that any breach of this agreement may
result in the termination of any access to classified information. I recognize that this agreement including
its provision for the termination of access to classi?ed information does not constitute a waiver of the
United States? right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

3. I understand that I will remain bound to this agreement after the conclusion of proceedings in United
States v. PFC Bradley Manning.

4. I read and understand the Protective Order by the Converting Authority. dated 17 September 2010. in
the case ot'United States v. PFC Bradlev Manning. relating to assi?ed information. and I agree to
comply with the provisions thereof.





5. I understand that if I am a lawyer. noncompliance wi Prot "ctive Or w' 1 be reported to any

State Bar where I am admitted to practice law.

grater-f 220.21

DATE





Witnessed. sworn and subscribed to before me this day of







DATE SIGNATURE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
roar LESLEY J. MCNAIR. DC 20319-5013

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF



ANJA-CL 26 April 20!]
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander. Joint Regional Correctional Facility, Fort Leavenworth. Kansas
66027-23 l5
SUBJECT: Members ofthe Defense Team - US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning
1 . The following personnel are members of the defense team either through direct representation or
appointment by a convening authority under Military Rule of Evidence 502 and US. v. Toledo, 25 MJ.
3170 (C.M.A. 1937}:

a. Mr. David Coom bs. Civilian Defense Counsel

b. MAJ Mathew Kemkes. Defense Counsel

c. CPT Paul Bouchard, Defense Counsel

d. Dr. (CAPT) Kevin Moore. USN, (Forensic Expert)

e. Mr. Cassius N. l?lall, US. Army Intelligence and Security Command (Security Expert)

f. Mr. Charles Ganiel, US. Army Test and Evaluation Command (Security Expert)
g. Ms. Lillian Smith. US. Army Infonnation Technology Agency {Information Assurance Expert}
Dr. Carrie H. Kennedy. USN. Expert)

2. As members of the defense team, communications between PFC Manning and the above listed
personnel should remain confidential and not subject to monitoring.

3. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at I

ASHDEN
PT, JA
Trial Counsel

CF:
l-Legal Counsel, RC

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.s. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, oc 20319.5013

REPLY TO
0F



5 May 201
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander. Joint Regional Correctional Facility, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
66027-2315
SUBJECT: Members ofthe Defense Team - US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning
1. The following personnel are members of the defense team either through direct representation or
appointment by a convening authority under Military Rule of Evidence 502 and US. v. Toledo, 25 MJ.
270 (C.M.A. 1987):

EL Mr. David Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

b. MAJ Mathew Kemkes, Defense Coonsel

c. CPT Paul Bouchard. Defense Counsel

Dr. (CAPT) Kevin Moore, USN, (Forensic Expert}

e. Mr. Cassius N. Hall. U.S. Anny Intelligence and Security Command (Security Expert)

ti. Charles Ganiel, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (Security Expert)

g. Ms. Lillian Smith. US. Army Information Technology Agency (Information Assurance Expert)

h, Dr. Patrick Armistead-lehle Expert)

2. As rnetn bets oFthe defense team, communications between PFC Manning and the above listed
personnel should remain con?dential and not subject to monitoring.

3. The point ot?contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at

"x


q.



FEIN
CPT. JA
Trial Counsel

CF:
l-Legal Counsel, JRCF

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
21s A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR. Dc 20319-5013

REPLY TO
answers MEMORANDUM ("at

It

Staffludge Advocate, US. Army Military District of Washington 210 A Street. Fort
Lesley J. McNair. DC 20319

Of?ce of the Judge Advocate General David May?eld). 2200 Army Pentagon.
Washington. DC 20310

FOR Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DAMPER). 2300 Army Pentagon. Washington. DC 20310

SUBJECT: Request to Provide Personnel Access to Classi?ed Information US. v. PFC Bradley
E. Manning

1. The prosecution team in the case of U.S. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning requests that the additional
active duty service members and civilians be granted the appropriate security clearances and access
to classified information up to the TOP SECRET (Sensitive Compartmented Information} level to include
the compartments SI. TK. HC S. and G. These individuals need such access to assist the defense and
participate all future court-martial proceedings.

a. Prosecution Team

Arthur D. Ford. Jr.
SGT Daniel W. Waybright-

b. Defense Team

(I) Dr. Patrick Jon (Dr. Annistead-Jchle replaces LCDR
Carrie H. Kennedy as a member of the Defense Team)

2. The above list is not all-inclusive. Throughout the court-martial process. there will likely be additions
and subtractions. which will require adjustments to the personnel's access. Any subtractions will be
submitted immediately.

3. The point of contact for this request is the undersigned at - - I

.3.

asuoeu FEIN

Tris] Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
210 A STREET
FORT LESLEY J. menus. or: 20319-5u13

dz- REPLYTO



ATTENTION OF
26 May 201 I



MEMORANDUM THRU

Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Army Military District of Washington (ANJA), 210 A Street, Fort
Lesley J. McNair, DC 20319

Of?ce of the Judge Advocate General David May?eld). 2200 Army Pentagon.
Washington, DC. 20310

FOR Deputy Chief ofStaff tor Intelligence 2200 Army Pentagon. Washington. DC
20310

SUBJECT: Request for Security Expert Consultant - US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

1. The prosecution in the above-referenced case respectfully requests the assistance of a
dedicated information security expert consultant to advise the prosecution team, review case
?les, and ensure compliance with Army Regulation (AR) 380-5. The prosecution is preparing to
disclose voluminous amounts of classi?ed information, as well as unclassi?ed case ?les that may
inadvertently contain classi?ed information. This expert is needed as soon as possible to avoid
any delays.

2. The security expert consultant should have a security clearance at the Top Secret I Sensitive
Compartmented Information level and authorized access to TR, G, and HCS, as
well as practical experience dealing with various types of classified ion.

3. The consultant will initially be able to work from his/her own workspace, but should be
located near Fort air. DC and available for phone consultation and short-term tasks. As the
case progresses to an Article 32 hearing and possible court-martial, the consultant will need to he
collocated with the prosecution. Although this request is only one consultant, given the
volume of information involved in this case, additional requests may be forthcoming.

4. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at -
-

if?.

Op:-

ASHDEN
CPT, JA
Trial Counsel

01182



INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING AND ARRANGING RECORD OF TRIAL





USE OF FORM Use this form and MOM, 1984,
Appendix 14, will be used by the trial counsel and
the reporter as a guide to the preparation of the
record of trial in general and special court?martial
cases in which a verbatim record is prepared. Air
Force uses this form and departmental
instructions as a guide to the preparation of the
record of trial in general and special court?martial
cases in which a summarized record is authorized.
Army and Navy use DD Form 491 for records of
trial in general and special court?martial cases in
which a summarized record is authorized.
lnapplicable words of the printed text will be
deleted.

COPIES See MOM, 1984, RCM 1103(g). The
convening authority may direct the preparation of
additional copies.

ARRANGEMENT When forwarded to the
appropriate Judge Advocate General or for judge
advocate review pursuant to Article 64(a), the
record will be arranged and bound with allied
papers in the sequence indicated below. Trial
counsel is responsible for arranging the record as
indicated, except that items 6, 7, and 15e will be
inserted by the convening or reviewing authority,
as appropriate, and items 10 and 14 will be
inserted by either trial counsel or the convening or
reviewing authority, whichever has custody of
them.

1. Front cover and inside front cover (chronology
sheet) of DD Form 490.

2. Judge advocate's review pursuant to Article
64(a), if any.

3. Request of accused for appellate defense
counsel, or waiver/withdrawal of appellate rights,
if applicable.

4. Briefs of counsel submitted after trial, if any
(Article

5. DD Form 494, "Court?Martial Data Sheet."

6. Court?martial orders promulgating the result of
trial as to each accused, in 10 copies when the
record is verbatim and in 4 copies when it is
summarized.

7. When required, signed recommendation of
staff judge advocate or legal officer, in duplicate,
together with all clemency papers, including
clemency recommendations by court members.



8. Matters submitted by the accused pursuant to
Article 60 (MOM, 1984, RCM 1105).

9. DD Form 458, "Charge Sheet" (unless included
at the point of arraignment in the record).

10. Congressional inquiries and replies, if any.

11. DD Form 457, "Investigating Officer's Report,"
pursuant to Article 32, if such investigation was
conducted, followed by any other papers which
accompanied the charges when referred for trial,
unless included in the record of trial proper.

12. Advice of staff judge advocate or legal officer,
when prepared pursuant to Article 34 or otherwise.

13. Requests by counsel and action of the
convening authority taken thereon requests
concerning delay, witnesses and depositions).

14. Records of former trials.
15. Record of trial in the following order:
a. Errata sheet, if any.

b. lndex sheet with reverse side containing
receipt of accused or defense counsel for copy of
record or certificate in lieu of receipt.

c. Record of proceedings in court, including
Article 39(a) sessions, if any.

d. Authentication sheet, followed by certificate
of correction, if any.

e. Action of convening authority and, if appro?
priate, action of officer exercising general court?
martial jurisdiction.

f. Exhibits admitted in evidence.

g. Exhibits not received in evidence. The page
of the record of trial where each exhibit was
offered and rejected will be noted on the front of
each exhibit.

h. Appellate exhibits, such as proposed in?
structions, written offers of proof or preliminary
evidence (real or documentary), and briefs of
counsel submitted at trial.



DD FORM 490, MAY 2000

Inside of Back Cover



e-Highlighter

Click to send permalink to address bar, or right-click to copy permalink.

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh