Sembler appears to concede the possibility that he could have placed NATIONAL SECURITY MATTER materials in his trash



When I was in Straight I had a very high security clearance with the government. I also talked another parent who had a very high clearance into joining the base of the Straight pyramid. When I learned that Straight was extorting very private information from its clients I reported this to my security officer as there was then and continues today to be a potential threat of using these confessions as blackmail to get classified information from former clients or from the parents of former clients. If anyone still holds these confessions the confessions potentially could be marketable items to foreign powers who seek to gain classified information about our country.

Recall that when Ray Bradbury was interviewed on ABC News he made a comment to the effect that he had found in Ambassador Sembler's trash material that he thought would be a NATIONAL SECURITY MATTER. Well I can tell you that if Ray Bradbury had told me he had found national security matter materials in my trash, I would have told him to go pound sand. I could have said that with complete faith that his claim could not possibly be true because I know that the government has special safeguards to keep that from ever happening. In other words the US Embassy is guarded by US Marines. Access to the facility is controlled and surely there are safes. Further, I would assume that someone has swept the building for listening devices. So while there may be classified documents at the US Embassy in Rome, I doubt that the government would allow even an ambassador to carry home classified documents. Surely the government would not let classified materials be in my home or in Mel Sembler's home where our grand kids play and where the pizza man and the furniture mover make appearances, and where our uncleared children and their friends visit. While it is possible that I could have inadvertently discarded a classifed document from my own home if such a document was ever in my home, this could never have happened because there would never have been such a document in my home in the first place. This I can claim with certainty.

I cannot conceive of a situation where Mel Sembler would even be authorized to have classified documents in his personal residence. That is why I assumed Mr. Sembler has never even bothered responding to Bradbury's charge. It would be impossible for him to inadvertently throw a classified document into the trash and so that is why he has told Bradbury to go pound sand on this one. Well that was the case until last week. Last week when Mel Sembler sent a five page request for discovery documents to Ray Bradbury. Here is the document.

discovery doc page 1
discovery doc page 2
discovery doc page 3
discovery doc page 4
discovery doc page 5

Notice that pages 1 - 3 are very detailed definitions of what Sembler means by discovery documents. It is on page 4 that he actually asks for what he wants. And the main thing he is looking for what he calls, using Bradbury's term, NATIONAL SECURITY MATTER materials. This seems to be an admission by Mr. Sembler that it is very well possible that he may have had classified material in his personal possession as Ray Bradbury claims. And while I can assure you that it would have been impossible for Ray Bradbury to truthfully make that claim against me, Mel Sembler has conceded that it is possible that Ray Bradbury could have found NATIONAL SECURITY MATTER material in his trash can.

Sembler uses the term NATIONAL SECURITY MATTER one time and then in an effort to down play reference to this data he thereafter calls the information NSM. In his letter Mr. Sembler also refers to his former penis pump which he frequently refers to as a medical device. If he has a mind to use acronyms why does he not use PP for "penis pump" for his frequent references to his medical device the way he uses NSM for "national security matters"? Why is he even in this ridiculous law suit anyway? Why did he intentionally inflict emotion distress on Ray Bradbury and tens of thousands of others and now sue Ray Bradbury for the intentional inflection of emotional distress. From his own Bible why does he look at the smote in Bradbury's eye while he ignores the timber in his own?