Washington Free Beacon – by Joe Schoffstall
The Hillary Clinton campaign made multiple payments to a company that specializes in hard drive and document destruction, campaign finance records show.
The payments, which were recorded in February and March of 2016, went to the Nevada-based American Document Destruction, Inc., which claims expertise in destroying hard drives or “anything else that a hard drive can come from.”
“Our hard drive destruction procedures take place either at your site or at our secure facility in Sparks, NV,” the company’s website states. “This decision is yours to decide based on cost and convenience to you. In either situation, the hard drive will be destroyed by a shredding.”
“We have a dedicated machine for hard drive destruction,” the website continues. “We will also record the serial numbers of all drives to be destroyed to be kept in our records. A copy of this log can be provided to you as well.”
The routine services section of the site says that the company operates in 26 areas in Nevada and California, including Reno, Virginia City, Sparks, Tahoe City, and Carson City.
“Our equipment is powerful. Whether you require ON SITE or OFF SITE service, performed at our Sparks facility, large volumes can be quickly destroyed regardless of staples, clips or fasteners,” thesite says. “Office paper, folders, binders and computer media can be destroyed in just minutes. As a result, we pass the savings on to you! A new service we also offer is computer hard drive destruction, either ON-SITE or OFF-SITE.”
“ADDNV, Inc. ensures that even small amounts are economical to have destroyed. ADDNV, Inc. encourages our clients to visit the Sparks facility to observe the shredding of your documents. The added bonus with ADDNV, Inc. is that we offer personal service whenever you need it. We can be reached locally and our customers are more than just account numbers in a large franchise.”
Transactions from Hillary for America to American Document Destruction, Inc. were made to the Sparks, Nevada location.
The first payment from the campaign to the destruction company came on Feb. 3 in the amount of $43, Federal Election Commission filings shows.
Two additional payments of $43 and $58 were made on Feb. 21. A fourth payment of $43 was made on March 26, bringing the amount paid to the destruction company to $187.
The Washington Free Beacon contacted American Document Destruction, Inc. to inquire about its rates.
An employee for the company said that it charges $10 per hard drive and $5 per cubic foot of paper. The Clinton campaign could have destroyed 14 hard drives or shredded 37.4 cubic feet of paper at those rates.
The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment about what documents it paid to have destroyed.
Why isn’t this on all the news?
Tabin v. Moldock, 241 N.Y.S.2d 629 (1963) aff’d. Sharp v. Kosmalski, 351 N.E.2d 721, 723 (N.Y. 1976); Mandossian v. Essex 90th Street, LLC, Index No. 603389/98 (N.Y.S.C. 04/12/1999) (But a surprise is in a corollary rule, which dispenses with any need to prove fraudulent intent.); http://www.nycourts.gov/comdiv/Law%20Report%20Files/May%201999/Mandossi.htm
N.B.
Spoliation of evidence. Every presumption is made against a wrongdoer; All things are presumed against a despoiler or wrongdoer {Omnia præsumuntur contra spoliatorem}; The thing speaks for itself {Res ipsa loquitur};
18 U.S.C. § 2071 (Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally) (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
ORS 40.135 Rule 311 (Presumptions) (1) (The following are presumptions: (c) Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse to the party suppressing it.); http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/home.htm
U.S. v. Sivilla, No. 11-50484 (9th Cir. 05/07/2013) (Judgment of conviction on drug charges is: 1) affirmed in part, as to the district court’s denial of dismissal where it found that there was no constitutional violation; and 2) reversed and remanded for a new trial with a remedial jury instruction, because when the government destroys evidence before trial, a showing of bad faith is required for dismissal but is not required for a remedial adverse-inference jury instruction.); http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/05/07/11-50484.pdf
Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP, No. 07-55566 (9th Cir. 05/12/2009) (Spoliation of evidence is the “destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence, in pending or future litigation.” Hernandez v. Garcetti, 68 Cal. App. 4th 675, 680 (Ct. App. 1998). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0755566p.pdf
Fletcher v. Dorchester Mutual Insurance Company, 437 Mass. 544 (2002), and Keene v. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 439 Mass. 223 (2003) (Both cases emphasize that sanctions (in extreme cases, up to and including default or dismissal) may be appropriate for the spoliation of evidence, whether negligent or intentional, even where the loss of potential evidence occurs before an action has been commenced, if a litigant or its expert knows or reasonably should know that the evidence might be relevant to a possible action.); http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/eve.htm
Given the language of the Fletcher and Keene cases identifying a party’s duty to preserve evidence or potential evidence, it might be unlawful to destroy or recommend to a client that a document or other item be destroyed even if litigation is anticipated but not yet filed. At least one commentator suggests that Rule 3.4(a) mandates preservation of documents once a lawsuit is filed even if destruction is not a crime (and that to advise destruction is “unlawful”)—and, further, that the rule “requires a lawyer who is consulted about existing evidence to consider the course of lawsuits that have not yet been, and may never be, filed.” See 2 Hazard and Hodes, The Law of Lawyering § 30.4 (3rd ed. 2003). http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/eve.htm
Trigon Ins. Co. v. U.S., 204 F.R.D. 277 (E.D.Va., 2001) (Spoliation has been defined as the willful destruction of evidence or the failure to preserve potential evidence for another’s use in pending or future litigation.); http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/eve.htm
Linnen v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 10 Mass.L.Rptr. 189 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1999) (The Court held that “a discovery request aimed at the production of records retained in some electronic form is no different, in principle, from a request for documents contained in an office file cabinet. . . . [T]here is nothing about the technological aspects involved which renders documents stored in an electronic media ‘undiscoverable’.” Id. at 191.); http://www.evestigate.com/spoilation%20case%20law.htm
U.S. v. Lundwall, 1 F.Supp.2d 249 (S.D.N.Y., 1998) (where corporate officials allegedly destroyed documents sought during discovery in a class action employment discrimination case, a federal district court denied a motion to dismiss indictments, holding that the officials could be prosecuted criminally under the obstruction of justice statute for the spoliation in the civil suit.); http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/eve.htm
U.S. v. Fineman, 434 F. Supp 197 (E.D.Pa 1977) (In applying the obstruction of justice statute to issues of destruction of documents, federal courts generally have not required that a subpoena have issued. Rather, it is sufficient for an obstruction conviction that the defendant knew that a grand jury was investigating possible violations of federal law and intentionally caused destruction of the incriminating document.); http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/eve.htm
THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION: Lawyers, Clients and Spoliation of Evidence: (The federal crime of obstruction of justice is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1503 to include conduct that, among other things, corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice. To sustain its burden of proof, the government must prove that there was pending judicial proceeding, that the defendant knew this proceeding was pending, and that the defendant then corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has expanded the federal law of obstruction by adding new sections to 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and enacting a new statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, creating additional crimes relating to alteration, destruction, mutilation or concealment of records, documents, or objects. Section 1512(c) requires acting corruptly with intent to impair the item’s integrity or availability for use in “official proceedings,” defined by 18 U.S.C. 1515 to include proceedings before federal courts, agencies, Congress, and regulatory proceedings involving the insurance business. This statute is particularly striking in providing, in subsection (f), that an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense and that the document need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege. Section 1519 relates to any matter within the jurisdiction of a federal department or agency or any case filed under title 11 (bankruptcy) and requires intent to impede, obstruct or influence the investigation or administration of such a matter or case. It also includes actions taken “in relation to or contemplation of” a matter or case. In a bar discipline proceeding alleging a violation of Rule 3.4(a), one key issue would be whether the documents were destroyed or altered (in the language of the rule) “unlawfully”. For example, spoliation by a lawyer that constitutes a crime or violates a discovery order or the requirements of a subpoena is unlawful and in violation of Rule 3.4(a). Such conduct may also violate other rules, such as Rule 1.2(d) (counseling or assisting a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct) or the general misconduct proscriptions of Rule 8.4.); http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/eve.htm
Spoliation of Electronic Evidence: 5 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 13 (1999)* (See Coleman v. Eddy Potash, Inc., 905 P.2d 185, 188 (N.M. 1995) (noting that California was the first jurisdiction to recognize a tort for intentional spoliation of evidence); Cf. Lawrence Solum & Stephen Marzen, Truth and Uncertainty: Legal Control of the Destruction of Evidence, 36 EMORY L.J. 1085, 1087 n.4 (1987) (citing, among other cases, The Pizarro, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 91 (1817); Pomeroy v. Benton, 77 Mo. 64 (1882); Armory v. Delamirie, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722), Rex v. Arundel, 80 Eng. Rep. 258 (1617);
Spoliation of E-Mail Evidence: (Ballon, Cyberspace Law, 1999) http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Feb/22/131004.html
Spoliation of evidence: The trend to a new tort; http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3811/is_199901/ai_n8848378
Easton Sports v. Warrior Lacrosse, http://news.com.com/The+rise+of+electronic+evidence/2010-1014_3-6133539.html?tag=nefd.top