Orlikow v. U.S.
Cite as 682 F.S. 77 (D.D.C. 1988)
86
A. I don't remember how that came about at all, I can't recall
how it came about.
Q. When you first learned about the Marks book, what was you
reaction? A. Well, I read it. I was, what you say stupefied,
unbelievable, couldn't believe a thing like that happened.
That they allowed a thing like that to happen ...
Q. ... I asked you why you were unable to act on that knowledge
until late 1982. I asked why you were unable to act as you said
...
A. Because I couldn't make up my mind. I couldn't believe what I
had read. I couldn't believe it's possible.
Weinstein Deposition at 80.
Mr. Weinstein filed his claim 2 years and 6 months after the date
he claims to have knowledge of the CIA involvement. At first
glance it appears that Mr. Weinstein had knowledge of the CIA
involvement and waited over two years to file his claim. This
case cannot be evaluated, however, without a long hard look.
There is evidence which suggests that Mr. Weinstein suffers a
psychological impairment which significantly interferes with his
ability to comprehend and process in a manner of a normal
functioning individual. Although insanity cannot toll the statute
of limitation, the question is did Mr. Weinstein actually "know"
in the true sense of the word. There is a question of fact how
significantly the disorder which allegedly was caused by Dr.
Cameron's "experiment" interfered with Mr. Weinstein's
ability to be fully aware of the facts. The question of whether
Mr. Weinstein had knowledge sufficient to trigger the statute of
limitations prior to February 1981 is a factual issue and it must
be resolved at trial.
14 Dr. Morrow's knowledge is less questionable than Mr. Weinstein.
She states in her deposition that she learned of the CIA funding
in the summer of 1977. Morrow Dep. at 182. The Canadian attorney
who represented Dr. Morrow in her suit against Dr. Cameron,
sought information from the CIA in 1977 through 1979. The Court
notes that the attorney was apparently unsuccessful in his
attempts to receive information from the CIA confirming any form
of reference about her and the experimental depatterning
treatment given her or if she was one of the experimental
subjects. Defendant's Motion Exhibit 24. Although this may
constitute concealment, as plaintiffs contend, it is beyond doubt
that the attorney repeatedly refers to Dr. Morrow as an unwitting
subject of experimentation by CIA funding. Dr. Morrow thereby had
knowledge of the "who" and "what" of her
cause of action. It cannot be alleged that there is concealment
if the crucial elements of a claim are no longer unknown.
Certainly, soliciting information constituting a confession that
the CIA experimented on Dr. Morrow is making proper inquiries but
the issue is when a claim accrues not whether a plaintiff
possesses a uncontroverted cause of action. Dr. Morrow's claim
must therefore be dismissed.
IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FOREIGN
EXCEPTION, INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR
The remaining arguments of defendant are handled in this single
section because they do not involve a complex analysis.
15 This case clearly 'has material issues of fact in dispute
which must be resolved at trial. The question of whether the CIA
should have known that Dr. Camereron's research was clearly
beyond the medical standard of care can only be answered once the
disputed facts are resolved. Although, all of the plaintiffs did
not experience the technique labelled "psychic driving"
the Court cannot conclude that the CIA involvement is thereby
precluded. The research application obviously requests funds to
experiment with various techniques to assist in "more
effective" depatterning. Depatterning is an integral
footnote 10. Dr. Morrow filed a lawsuit against Dr. Cameron's
estate in Canada. The Court did not find that Dr. Cameron was
negligent and Dr. Morrow did not receive a judgment. Defendants
Exhibit 5 attached to Defendant's Statement.
footnote 11. Defendant also stresses that certain plaintiffs did
not receive LSD or psychic driving during the research funding.
Defendants Statement pars. 119 and 120. Although this is
significant insofar as each plaintiff receivcd some form of
alleged experimental technique during the CIA involvement, the
issue of causation must still be left for resolution at the trial.
next page