Rest of the 'declined comment' emails

Since the U.S. government appears to be sharing his email with journalists, the Times' Chuck Philips figures it's only fitting to get out the rest of the story. It begins with this post where Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney office here, appears to comment for a story Philips is writing on the government's treatment of Steven Seagal. In the story, Philips writes that Mrozek declined to comment. What follows is a fuller exchange, with Mrozek demanding a correction and disparaging Philips to his editors, and Philips saying no correction is warranted. [Editors made the call, deciding that Mrozek did not respond to the question he was asked.] Philips tells me, "I am not required to include the convoluted government speak of a DOJ flak just because he or his boss orders me to. It took Thom Mrozek 16 words to say no comment. I do not work for the FBI or DOJ and I am not obligated to publicize their spin."

Here's the exchange:

From: Mrozek, Thom] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:41 PM To: Philips, Chuck Cc Thom Mrozek Subject: Response re: Jan quote
OK, this is official.....should be attributed to me.

"We never comment on discussions we have with attorneys representing defendants, targets of investigations or witnesses. I should add that the government has never charged or accused Mr. Seagal of being involved in the incident that led to the search of Pellicano's office.

"Investigators decide on the most appropriate time to conduct an interview, and that might not always coincide with when the person would like to be interviewed."

Now, off the record: you may want to go back to Jan and ask him to define "information" and to revisit the immunity issue .

Thom Mrozek
Public Affairs Officer
United States Attorney's Office - Los Angeles

* * *

From: Philips, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:45 PM
To: Mrozek, Thom
Subject: RE: Response re: Jan quote

ok. thanks thom.

* * *

From: Mrozek, Thom
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 2:24 PM
To: Philips, Chuck; Readers Rep
Cc james.oshea@latimes.com; douglas.frantz@latimes.com
Subject: regarding the Steven Seagal story

In the article that ran in this moring's paper, you reported that I failed to respond to Jan Handlik's comments to you. Note the email exchange below. How in the world does this constitute a "declined to comment"?

I want the Times to run a correction, noting that I directly responded to the single Chuck Philips inquiry to the US Attorney's Office on this story. My response is direct and to the point.

This is one of the reasons that I and other people have had a problem with Chuck Philips' reporting in recent times.

I will be on vacation all next week, but I expect a response soon.

I can be reached at any time on my cell phone: (213) xxx-xxxx.

Thank you.

Thom Mrozek
Public Affairs Officer
United States Attorney's Office - Los Angeles

* * *

From: Philips, Chuck
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 6:28 PM
To: 'Mrozek, Thom'
Subject: RE: regarding the Steven Seagal story

yes sir thom,

is that the way you talk to everybody? seeing as how you "EXPECT" a response "SOON," i got right on it, boss and here it is:

there is no correction needed.

i asked for a comment from dan saunders about handzlick's account and the story says you declined comment - and that's exactly what you did. here is your response: "We never comment on discussions we have with attorneys representing defendants, targets of investigations or witnesses."

i never asked you whether seagal was charged. but i did write in the story that seagal was never charged by the government.

i never asked you anything about whether the government accused seagal of being involved in the incident.

while it is true that the government never directly accused seagal of being involved in the incident that led to the search of pellicano's office, you are not being candid about the government's role regarding the "accusations." the government affidavit detailed uncorroborated assertions of an ex-convict purportedly complicit in the crime. and based on those uncorroborated assertions, the government told a federal chief magistrate that there was probable cause to raid pellicano's office. those uncorroborated assertions were taped by a government informant (who tried to sell them to seagal's adversary) and presented in an affidavit written by an fbi agent and reviewed by your boss and his bosses in washington d.c. those uncorrobated assertions implicating seagal in the threat against busch ended up being published in the la times, the new york times and numerous wire stories around the world.

that is why seagal is so angry. if the government had compiled such serious uncorroborated allegations by a drug dealer about you in a document, you might be upset too.

your other statement "Investigators decide on the most appropriate time to conduct an interview, and that might not always coincide with when the person would like to be interviewed." when you put it that way, i guess two years sounds fair to me.

your statement appears to be an indirect response to a quote from handzlick i sent you that said: "If I was a federal agent trying to do a responsible job, I would welcome the opportunity to interview a suspect, particularly if the probable cause in my case was based on questionable, uncorroborated assertions of an ex-convict complicit in the crime," Handzlick said. "Otherwise, it would almost amount to character assassination, especially in the case of a public figure such as Steven Seagal."

that quote did not make the story. so there was no need to run your indirect response.

i hope my response was quick enough to suit you.

thanks for your time,

chuck philips

p.s. just in case you lost the email i sent to you, here it is:

hi thom,

i interviewed jan handzlick for a story that will run tomorrow about steven seagal. jan handzlick said that steven seagal hired him a few days after the nov. 22, 2002 raid on anthony pellicano's place. jan handzlick said that at the end of november he provided information to dan saunders showing that steven seagal and anthony pellicano were enemies involved in a bitter dispute - not co-conspirators in the threat against anita busch. steven seagal's entertainment attorney marty singer confirmed jan handzlick's account and is quoted in the story.

in addition, jan handzlick said he told dan saunders several times in dec. 2002 that steven seagal was willing to appear for questioning with no preconditions and that the actor was not seeking immunity. jan handzlick said dan saunders turned down the offers.

does dan saunders agree with handzlick's account? does he want to comment for my story?

here is handzlick's quote:

"If I was a federal agent trying to do a responsible job, I would welcome the opportunity to interview a suspect, particularly if the probable cause in my case was based on questionable, uncorroborated assertions of an ex-convict complicit in the crime," Handzlick said. "Otherwise, it would almost amount to character assassination, especially in the case of a public figure such as Steven Seagal."

thanks,

[Philips, Chuck]