Classified data in the Jianyu Huang fraud case?
Roughly one year ago, Jianyu Huang, a former employee of Sandia National Labs was charged with multiple counts of federal contract fraud allegedly committed during his employment by Sandia. The Albuquerque Journal reported on June 6, 2012:
“The indictment says Huang on five separate occasions between January 2009 and this February sold at least $25,000 worth of “equipment, materials, the time and work product of (Sandia) staff, and intangible property, including the right to determine what work is performed at (Sandia,) and Sandia’s proprietary interest in intellectual property developed” at the labs.”
“The sixth count in the indictment alleges Huang lied to a Sandia counterintelligence officer, whom he told he would not take a lab-owned laptop computer with him on a trip to China last July. The indictment says Huang took the Sandia laptop on that trip.”
(http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/06/06/abqnewsseeker/updated-ex-sandia-scientist-pleads-not-guilty-to-stealing-data.html)
UPI reported on June 5, 2012 that: “He did not have access to classified national security information, Sandia National Labs said.” (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/05/Sandia-Labs-worker-arrested/UPI-43381338915993/#ixzz2TmiqTlsS)
But on May 15, 2013, the Assistant U.S. attorney, Jonathon M. Gerson, filed a “Motion for entry of stipulated protective order” that states:
“This case involves “Restricted Data,” “Formerly Restricted Data,” and other information that has been classified in the interest of the national security and subject to the provisions of CIPA.”
But “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data” are specific to classified information about atomic weapons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_Data)
So what is going on?
How could the trial of a person without “access to classified national security information” involve “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data”?
Roughly one year ago, Jianyu Huang, a former employee of Sandia National Labs was charged with multiple counts of federal contract fraud allegedly committed during his employment by Sandia. The Albuquerque Journal reported on June 6, 2012:
“The indictment says Huang on five separate occasions between January 2009 and this February sold at least $25,000 worth of “equipment, materials, the time and work product of (Sandia) staff, and intangible property, including the right to determine what work is performed at (Sandia,) and Sandia’s proprietary interest in intellectual property developed” at the labs.”
“The sixth count in the indictment alleges Huang lied to a Sandia counterintelligence officer, whom he told he would not take a lab-owned laptop computer with him on a trip to China last July. The indictment says Huang took the Sandia laptop on that trip.”
(http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/06/06/abqnewsseeker/updated-ex-sandia-scientist-pleads-not-guilty-to-stealing-data.html)
UPI reported on June 5, 2012 that: “He did not have access to classified national security information, Sandia National Labs said.” (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/05/Sandia-Labs-worker-arrested/UPI-43381338915993/#ixzz2TmiqTlsS)
But on May 15, 2013, the Assistant U.S. attorney, Jonathon M. Gerson, filed a “Motion for entry of stipulated protective order” that states:
“This case involves “Restricted Data,” “Formerly Restricted Data,” and other information that has been classified in the interest of the national security and subject to the provisions of CIPA.”
But “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data” are specific to classified information about atomic weapons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_Data)
So what is going on?
How could the trial of a person without “access to classified national security information” involve “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data”?
Comments
Restricted data and formerly restricted data are information regarding nuclear materials and the use of nuclear materials that by their very nature are deemed by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to be classified unless a specific determination has been made that the information does not require protection in the national interest.
Its the same deal with Wen Ho Lee. They couldn't prove in a court of law that he sold the Reds secrets, just like they couldn't prove OJ Simpson killed his wife. But we all know he did it, so they went to town on related charges.
Just remain a red blooded, god fearing American, and you'll be fine.
In this case, "access" means having a clearance (i.e., "access authorization" in government speak), not necessarily actual possession or knowledge of classified data. If the guy was exposed to or obtained classified data without an appropriate clearance, then presumably the trial will "involve" that classified data.
How do you know?