WASHINGTON – A few months after Jill Kelley’s first complaint to the FBI set in motion a scandal that would take down a pair of top U.S. military and intelligence officers, Kelley’s identical twin sister, Natalie Khawam, founded a corporation in Florida called Fullproof LLC with three business partners. Incorporation documents filed with the state reveal little about the company’s purpose, but Christopher T. Marks, a Tampa-based lawyer and one of the co-founders of FullProof, told the Tampa Bay Times that the company aimed to “protect intellectual property while they pursued a patent.”

This patent work involves a well-established physicist at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Dr. Clifford Krowne, who is listed as a managing member of FullProof LLC’s four-person team.

Krowne is a highly regarded expert on Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) technology, one of the military’s most controversial and secretive research programs. His esteemed research background seems at odds with the tawdry details of the Petraeus sex scandal.

Reached by phone Monday, Krowne told The Huffington Post that FullProof’s work concerned science, but said he couldn’t comment on the work “because it’s a private business.” Still, Krowne insisted that whatever was going on with FullProof did not concern him or his work.

“I have nothing to do with it,” Krowne said, adding that he did not know why his name was listed on the FullProof incorporation documents filed with Florida’s Division of Corporations in mid-August. “I’m not doing anything … I can’t talk to you about it,” he said.

Krowne then warned: “News people pursuing stories that is of no relevance to anyone should be very careful.”

But a dose of caution might do Krowne some good, too.

The revelation that Krowne, a high-level military scientist, is involved in a “patent pursuing” business with Khawam follows a Huffington Post report last week detailing Khawam’s professional and personal relationship with defense lobbyist Gerald Harrington. At the time, Khawam was living in Tampa with her sister and enjoyed regular social contact with senior members of the military stationed at MacDill Air Force Base — relationships that might have benefited her lobbyist boyfriend. According to Khawam’s bankruptcy records, Harrington loaned her $300,000 during their relationship, which she did not pay back.

Khawam’s identical twin sister, Jill Kelley, also reportedly sought to trade on her social relationships with members of the military — in her case General David Petraeus — for a deal involving a South Korean coal project. Kelley was apparently booted from the deal after she demanded an $80 million fee. Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, did not respond to a request for comment.

As a scientist and an inventor, Clifford Krowne is far and away the most likely of the four partners in FullProof LLC to produce the kind of intellectual property that would merit a patent, despite his insistence that he is not involved in the company.

Over the past two decades, Krowne has invented four patented electromagnetic devices for use in his research.

No one else listed in FullProof’s limited government records has Krowne’s experience with patents.

Attorney Christopher T. Marks, who often goes by Todd, advertises his qualification to perform an extremely broad range of legal services, including real estate disputes, employment law, bankruptcies, and divorce. Neither patent work nor intellectual property are listed among his many subject areas. A receptionist at Marks’ office said he was out of the country and would not be available for comment. He did not respond to a subsequent email request.

In Khawam’s case, a long trail of professional disputes, debts and lawsuits — culminating in an April 2012 bankruptcy where Khawam listed $3.6 million in personal debt — makes it unlikely she will be in a position to file for a patent in the near future.

The fourth partner, Clifford Krowne’s daughter Elizabeth Krowne, 29, has so far earned two professional licenses to practice cosmetology in the state of Virginia, according to public records, and is currently a business partner in a New York City fashion company. Khawam and Elizabeth Krowne have a history. Krowne is listed as one of her creditors, bankruptcy records show, having lent Khawam $250,000. Like other large personal loans in Khawam’s court filing, it’s unclear how the $250,000 was spent.

By Sunday afternoon, media attention had begun to wear on Elizabeth Krowne, who who complained on Twitter that it’s “not fun being stalked by the media #getalife.”

Among family members, Krowne is seen as something of a do-gooder. She was instrumental in getting her fashion company to every year donate the proceeds of a dress to the Knock Foundation, a nonprofit that works on sustainability, health, and education projects in the developing world. Her cousin, Lisa Krowne, is a founder and managing partner of the foundation. Her uncle, Barry Krowne, Clifford Krowne’s brother, is also a founder and helps run the foundation.

Reached by phone, Barry Krowne told The Huffington Post the did not know anything about FullProof. He said his brother is a “great guy, a very bright guy” and added that what he does is “really such sophisticated science. It’s cutting edge science.”

“I tried to read one of his papers,” Barry Krowne said of his brother’s work. “I started to laugh … I could spend the rest of my life trying to understand that and I still wouldn’t get there.”

Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Interview A Member Of The Taliban

    <strong>Scenario:</strong>

    As a foreign correspondent on assignment in Afghanistan, you successfully contact Taliban representatives who take you to meet a mullah. After you’ve completed your interview and fact-finding mission, U.S. officials arrest you under suspicion of terrorism.

    <strong>How:</strong>

    Section 1021 (2) of the National Defense Authorization Act <a href=”http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf” target=”_hplink”>grants power</a> to indefinitely detain “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

    You’re not sure if what you did was “substantial” or really “supported” anyone. It’s quite possible that nobody does, as the text of the law doesn’t define these words. This could take a while to sort out.

    In the recent hearing on a lawsuit challenging that section of the act, Judge Katherine Forrest asked an Obama lawyer if plaintiff Chris Hedges could be assured that he would not be subjected to detention under Section 1021, journalist Naomi Wolf <a href=”http://naomiwolf.org/2012/03/ndaa-hearing-notes/” target=”_hplink”>noted</a>.

    Hedges is a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who has worked extensively in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The administration attorney suggested that the specifics of Hedge’s situation would make his detention unlikely, but responded, “I cannot say that today.”

    While the Obama administration has said you’re entitled to a trial as a U.S. citizen, this won’t preclude you from a protracted journey through an encumbered court system charged with figuring out — based on secret evidence — why you were picked up. And if it this happens during a future administration, officials might not agree with Obama on your right to a trial.

  • Attend A Fundraiser

    <strong>Scenario:</strong>

    A local civil liberties group holds a swanky fundraising event and you, a wealthy philanthropist, write a sizable check. Sometime later, the group is placed on a watch list, which results in authorities arriving at your door, hauling you away.

    <strong>How:</strong>

    It’s possible a portion of your money somehow got funneled to al-Qaeda or a pro-Taliban group or that somehow you became an indirect material supporter of what the National Defense Authorization Act calls an “associated force.”

    But just what are “associated forces”? That question appeared to stump Obama administration lawyers when pressed by Judge Katherine Forrest during a recent hearing.

    “I don’t have specifics,” an attorney told her.

    Answering a later question about whether WikiLeaks could be construed as an “associated force,” an administration lawyer suggested that it couldn’t, unless there were a connection to the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

    If someone happens to be wrong about your case, you might sit in detention until the courts figure it out. Or, according to the act, you’ll be released when officials determine it is “the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

  • Write A Book

    This hypothetical situation comes straight from this spring’s hearing on a lawsuit challenging parts of the National Defense Authorization Act, as captured by <a href=”http://naomiwolf.org/2012/03/ndaa-hearing-notes/” target=”_hplink”>Naomi Wolf</a>:

    <blockquote>Bruce Afran, lawyer for the plaintiffs, presented the hypothetical of a book that did not say how to make a bomb but simply expressed support for the political goals of the Taliban, or that made the case that the Taliban’s view that the US government overreaches in occupying other countries, has merit. He and Judge Forrest discussed the hypothetical that such a book could be a bestseller and be on a book tour, generating comment throughout the Middle East.

    Judge Forrest simplified the example to a hypothetical of a book with only one sentence, and whose only sentence read: “I support the political goals of the Taliban’. She asked the government lawyers if such a book could be read as providing ‘material support’ for ‘associated forces” under the NDAA. They did not rule it out.

    Judge Forrest pushed:

    “You are unable to say that [such a book] consisting of political speech could not be captured under [NDAA’s Section] 1021?”

    Obama lawyers: “We can’t say that.”</blockquote>

  • Organize A Demonstration

    <strong>Scenario:</strong>

    Some societal injustice is prompting you to start a movement in protest. Hours after a particularly well-attended and rambunctious rally, you’re approached by men in black suits who flash their badges and toss you in the back of their unmarked SUV.

    <strong>How:</strong>

    It’s possible that you or one of your loosely connected crew of associates did something to make you a suspect linked to an “associated force.” Or perhaps, according to another part of National Defense Authorization Act’s Section 1021 (2), your actions constituted “substantial support” to a “person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of [al-Qaeda or the Taliban].”

    Journalist and “Day of Rage” organizer Alexa O’Brien joined a recent lawsuit challenging sections of the act out of concern that she was being targeted as a potential terrorist threat.

    But at a hearing on the suit this spring, Obama administration officials did not alleviate such concerns, as <a href=”http://naomiwolf.org/2012/03/ndaa-hearing-notes/” target=”_hplink”>Naomi Wolf has documented</a>:

    <blockquote>O’Brien produced into evidence a [Department of Homeland Security] memo that sought to link US Day of Rage to their cyberterrorism initiative. The government lawyer was given a chance by Judge Forrest to dispute the memo as fraudulent and did not do so.</blockquote>

  • Help Out A Friend

    <strong>Scenario:</strong>

    A good friend whom you’ve lost touch with contacts you, asking for help funding his around-the-world trip. You wire money and wait for him to return.

    Sometime later, there’s a knock on your door. The people on the other side of it have questions about a sum of money you sent abroad to someone questionable. They ask you to come with them.

    <strong>How:</strong>

    You’re finding it impossible to believe that your childhood friend became a terrorist or connected with al-Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces.” But even if he did manage to get mixed up in some sketchy business, shouldn’t there be an exception for you, his well-intentioned friend who was just helping someone in need?

    Not necessarily.

    At a recent hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest tried to get the Obama administration to <a href=”http://naomiwolf.org/2012/03/ndaa-hearing-notes/” target=”_hplink”>give an assurance that “unwitting” support</a> could be protected, noting that there was no direct reference to such language in the law.

    Obama’s attorney was unable to provide such a safeguard, instead arguing that the new law possessed the same exemptions contained within the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which was passed by Congress after 9/11.

    The brief and broadly interpreted <a href=”http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm” target=”_hplink”>authorization</a> makes no mention of the word “unwitting,” though.

  • Accidentally Provide Missiles To Insurgents

    <strong>Scenario:</strong>

    You’re a flippant, billionaire playboy or -girl with a cool haircut and two Ph.D.s., one in nuclear fusion and the other in kicking ass. You get bored, so you decide to fight crime in Afghanistan and make a quick jaunt to Kandahar.

    In the process of taking on an encampment of Taliban insurgents, the firing mechanism for one of your missiles malfunctions, launching it thousands of feet into the air. It returns to Earth undetonated, only to be picked up by an enemy who uses it as the centerpiece of an improvised explosive device.

    When a U.S. mine-sweeping crew deactivates the makeshift bomb and finds your name emblazoned on the device, you’re picked up.

    <strong>How:</strong>

    This appears to be a clear-cut case of “substantial support” to the Taliban or at least “associated forces” who wanted to do harm to U.S. troops.

    So much for your intentions of wanting to help out with a little vigilante justice. Any resulting court case could take ages.

  • Plan A Terrorist Attack

    <strong>Scenario:</strong>

    You’re a total jerk and not a very big fan of America, so you decide that the best course of action is to take out your anger with an act of destruction on a densely populated city.

    You do some planning and set up your device, but when it comes time to use it, it malfunctions, leaving you injured and going to jail on a stretcher.

    <strong>How:</strong>

    You’re an American citizen, you’ll get your constitutional guarantee of a trial, right?

    If President Barack Obama’s promises are followed, yes. But that doesn’t mean you can’t undergo some form of indefinite detention while you await trial.

    During a hearing on the lawsuit challenging parts of the new National Defense Authorization Act, Obama’s lawyers were unable to say for sure if the trial promised in his signing statement would be a civilian or military one. This could have a heavy bearing on the nature of your detention.

    And if you were to commit such actions under the administration of another president, there’s no telling how a new commander in chief would interpret the act, making your fate even less certain.