ARCHIVE 5/50/00 TO 6/9/00

To find subject Use Page Contents below, or hit your edit button, use find, insert word to be found. and a result may occur.

PAGE CONTENTS ( Click on topics to go to articles): 

Click. Marin County DA charged with Corruption, Perjury &Destruction of Evidence.

Click. Persecution of Carol Mardeusz continues. Marin DA complicit in keeping girl, age 9, at risk.

Click. Pint-sized plane rules Valley skies. Skunk Work's new Microstar for military and police spying. 




Click. THE SECRET COURT IS BOOMING! [Defendants unnamed.]


compiled by Kathryn Dixon © 2000

NewsMakingNews will continue to update the attempts to recall District Attorney Kamena and three Marin County Judges, and the trial of Carol Mardeusz, and the upcoming appellate battle regarding Richard Allen Davis. Click.


TO READ ARCHIVE 5/20 to 5/29, CLICK.  FOR 5/13/00 TO 5/19/00, CLICK. TO READ ARCHIVE (5/8/00 TO 5/12/00, CLICK. TO READ ARCHIVE (4/30/00 TO 5/7/00), CLICK. TO READ ARCHIVE (4/24/00 TO 4/29/00), CLICK. 


Marin DA, Judge Aggravating Defendant's Disability?  
Legal Abuse Syndrome Diagnosis Ignored. 
DA charged with Corruption, Perjury &Destruction of Evidence.

by Phil Graff © 2000   >

Carol Mardeusz, of Novato, appeared Feb 15 in Judge Terrence Boren's Marin
County court, to respond to charges of "attempted felony child abduction,"
brought by Marin deputy DA Kelly Vieira. But according to papers filed by
Mardeusz, the charges are false, and the case brings into question the
professional competence and ethics of Mz. Vieira, DA Paula Kamena's office,
and the court's unlawful procedures.

Four years ago, Mardeusz's then five-year old daughter was forcibly taken
from her by armed officers who handed the child, screaming, to her biological
father, Leo Magers, of Rohnert Park. Since then, Mardeusz has been denied all
contact with her child. She has been stymied by a long series of court
appearances, delays, in camera (secret) proceedings, and what she asserts are flawed procedures, destruction of evidence, perjury, false documents, and
tampering with official court records.

This protracted litigation has taken its toll, and Mardeusz has suffered
economically, emotionally, and physically. Family therapist Karin Huffer, author of the book, Legal Abuse Syndrome, suggests that Mardeusz is a victim
of a court system which is more susceptible to exploitation by ".unscrupulous
attorneys, white collar criminals, and abusers of authority" than to appeals
for justice.

Deputy DA Kelly Vieira's charge of "attempted felony child abduction" makes
it sound as if Mardeusz is a hardened criminal, but the record argues 
differently. Vieira's charge is based on a single incident. Mardeusz was a
court-ordered custodial parent who followed proper procedures to the letter.
Accompanied by an on-duty police officer, she attempted to re-establish
custody by presenting her papers to her daughter's school principal. Instead
of complying with the court order, the principal called Magers and his
attorney, Catherine Conner of Santa Rosa. They refused to honor Mardeusz's
court orders and she left without her child. This is what deputy DA Vieira
calls "attempted felony child abduction."

"With more serious matters begging for the DA's time and attention," ask
court observers, "why is Kelly Vieira prosecuting what appears to be a
non-crime so zealously?" Questions to Vieira are met with hostility. She
would not comment on the case, though she is often seen smirking in court,
usually when Mardeusz, who is representing herself, attempts to make a point
to Judge Boren. Is Vieira covering up her own role in obstructing justice in
the Magers investigation, as suggested by court filings? 

After spending her life's savings on attorneys, costs and constant court
appearances, Mardeusz has lost her job and become fearful of a system which
seems bent on destroying her. She has been diagnosed with Legal Abuse
Syndrome. According to author Huffer, this is a form of battlefield fatigue,
or shell shock. It is a condition brought on by a system which, instead of
protecting this woman and her child, has operated to persecute the mother,
and place her child in what affidavits indicate is an abusive situation.

During two of her appearances, Mardeusz collapsed in court, breaking out in
red welts and having trouble breathing. She was taken to the emergency room
of Marin General Hospital. On another occasion, she collapsed in the parking
lot, enroute to court. Despite this evidence of real disability, Judge Boren
and DA Vieira have ignored Mardeusz's disability and have failed to comply
with the accommodations recommended by therapists.

 In one egregious demonstration of judicial arrogance and indifference, Judge
Boren issued a warrant for Mardeusz's arrest while knowing she was at the
hospital! Marin County officers took her from the emergency room before she
could have medication prescribed. She was handcuffed to a wheelchair, placed in a van, and taken to jail, where she was denied even an aspirin because, she says, ".they said it hadn't been prescribed." Says author Huffer, "If humane methods are used in a courtroom, no one gets sick.  [But the]
strongest person is brought to his knees by these judicial actions."

Improper legal procedures have put Mardeusz under severe emotional and
physical stress for over 4 years, while she's tried to protect her daughter
and herself from mental and physical abuse. During this time, concerned
mother Mardeusz has been denied contact with her daughter, now age nine.
That, according to most experts, is severe abuse in and of itself, even without protracted legal proceedings.

The accommodations required by Mardeusz's legal abuse disability are that she have a trusted (non-attorney) advisor in court; that the proceedings be
video-taped; and that she have at least 48 hrs to review the proceedings
before making decisions. Judge Boren has not allowed the video or review
time, though he has allowed a counsellor in court. The two occasions when
Mardeusz physically collapsed in front of him have not softened his ruling,
which defies the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"It is against Federal Law for a judge to refuse reasonable accommodations,"
says Huffer. "We have judges practicing medicine without a license from the
bench in these cases. The adversarial, untruthful gameplaying has gotten so
out of hand in the courts that a person with an invisible disability, i.e.
attention deficit disorder, anxiety disorder, hearing disorder etc. is hard
put to receive due process. What despots these judges are who will abuse
innocent disabled people!  If you are in a wheelchair, you generally are
accommodated in the courtroom. If your disability is not glaring and part of
your accommodations include the time and language for you to understand and effectively cope with the proceedings, you are often severely punished by the court."

Affidavits attest that Mardeusz and her daughters have been threatened by Leo Magers. Government documents show that Magers illegally obtained a passport for Mardeusz's daughter in an altered name. Evidence suggests witnesses have lied to the Grand Jury, and that DA Vieira knew they lied. The Marin County DA's office, instead of attempting to protect the child, has committed its resources in a suspiciously overzealous effort to convict the mother of a crime she didn't commit. Why?

Citizens pay for judges and courts to assure justice for all. When public
officials squander their time and use public resources in pursuit of what has
all the appearances of a personal vendetta or cover-up, they not only fail in
their duties to one person, they corrupt the system for all. It's time for public scrutiny of the DA's office and the Marin courts.

Coast Writers Syndicate
707 823-9059


Persecution of Carol Mardeusz continues.
 Marin DA complicit in keeping girl, age 9, at risk

by Phil Graff © 2000   >

San Rafael, CA (Coast Writers Syndicate) - At 9:00 am Thursday morning, June
8, 2000, Carol Mardeusz will appear in Judge Verna Adams' courtroom.
Officially, Mardeusz is accused of perjury and attempted child abduction.
Unofficially, Marin officials accuse Mardeusz of being a "vexatious litigant"
who irresponsibly disqualifies judges and files too many frivolous motions.
The truth is, Mardeusz's motions are embarrassing the Marin DA and judiciary,
who have abused their authority while denying rights.

According to supporters and court observers who have followed this case, the
charges against Mardeusz ought to be: telling the truth; attempted child
protection; and being a dedicated mother who will risk jail rather than abandon her daughter to a confessed drug and alcohol abuser and alleged child
molester (according to affidavits & testimony filed in the case). And with respect to too many motions, how many is too many, when one is innocent, and the DA and the courts routinely deny rights and fail to observe the law?

It is the DA and the judges who should be on trial, according to court watchers. DA Paula Kamena ran on a platform of protecting children. Yet,
instead of protecting Mardeusz's daughter, Haleigh Magers Mardeusz, DA Kamena and deputy DA Kelly Vieira have chosen to persecute Mardeusz for the non-crime of attempting to use valid court documents and proper legal
procedures in an attempt to rescue her daughter from an abusive bio-dad (they were never married), Leo Magers of Rohnert Park.  

Mardeusz has no criminal record whatsoever, except for the voluminous file
which has been created by the system's systematic and unrelenting attack upon her.

Carol Mardeusz is not the only person who is concerned that the Marin
judiciary has been taken over by self-perpetuating bureaucrats and empire
builders. There are many other "broom marchers" in the recall movement who
have been equally abused by the system. But many feel the Mardeusz case has the potential of stopping those Marin judges who don't follow the law; and of alerting the general public to problems in the court system.

This near-Shakesperian tragedy indicts not only the judges, but also the clerks, sheriff's deputies and local police who knowingly carry out illegal
orders, such as warrantless arrests, falsifying documents, keeping files from
the falsely accused, abuse of authority, willful destruction of evidence, and
generally trampling the constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights of the accused.

The worst part of this unfortunate play is that the courts have placed little
Haleigh in the care of a screwed-up, drug dealing, girlfriend beating, cocaine using, child molesting bio-dad. This is not a classic railroad of the male by a false accuser - extensive records demonstrate that the bio-dad is clearly not the parent who should have the little girl.

But because of the criminal complicity of attorneys Catherine Conner of Santa
Rosa, deputy DA Kelly Vieira, complicit judges, and DA Kamena, Mardeusz - a
mother of great personal integrity and no criminal record - has been denied
any contact with her daughter for nearly FIVE YEARS, while the child has been
trapped in an abusive situation!  Even if Mardeusz had been guilty of some
crime, experts agree, enforced separation is an unconscionable abuse of both
mother and child. Yet the courts have not only allowed and encouraged this
travesty, they continue trying to jail the mother! 

Carol Mardeusz may be the Rosa Parks of the controlling, but out-of-control
Marin judiciary and DA . If Marin residents don't take an interest, who will?
Where are the public figures and community leaders with the integrity and
courage to buck this corrupt system? Carol Mardeusz has the potential for
blowing the lid off Marin court misconduct, and the bureaucracy is reacting
by trying to jail her, intimidate her supporters, harass the press, and shoot
the messengers, such as ex- Grand Jury member Martin Silverman. When
Silverman and others complained about irregular proceedings, instead of
investigating the complaint, DA began investigating him! 

Kamena and Vieira had 60 days to prepare and bring their purported case to
trial. They failed to do so. It has now been well over 160 days, and according to law, the case must be dismissed. But Kamena, who refuses to
prosecute demonstrable felonies by county employees, continues to persecute Mardeusz on bogus charges. 

Will the kangaroo court continue on Thursday morning? Since Judge Verna Adams has been challenged and disqualified, she cannot legally act, except to
dismiss the case. Carol Mardeusz has been denied her rights to a proper
arraignment, indictment and speedy trial. Will Judge Adams dismiss the case,
as the law requires?

Finally, and most importantly, when will SOMEONE in the system recognize that there is a child at severe risk, and move to protect her? This young girl
deserves the chance to see and speak with her mother. Five years ago, with no notice, Haleigh was forcibly ripped from her mother's arms by armed police
officers who are reported to be friends of the bio-dad. Unlike the Elian
Gonzales case, there was no one there to take a photo, but the damage was
done, and is ongoing. Since then, Carol Mardeusz has been forced to be in a
constant fight for freedom, against the very system that failed to protect
her and her daughter.

Will someone in law enforcement finally do the job he/she swore an oath to do,
 investigate this, find out what the hell is going on, and stand up for truth
and justice?

Or is it too late? Were all you once-dedicated police officers and attorneys
neutered when you signed on to work in Marin?

Coast Writers Syndicate - 707 823-9059



Wednesday, June 7, 2000

Pint-sized plane rules Valley skies

Microstar upstages other craft
This story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press June 6, 2000
By THOMAS FRANCIS © 2000, Valley Press Staff Writer

LANCASTER - A white NASA U-2 spy plane blasted off the Air Force Plant 42 runway Wednesday morning, ascending with its patented 70-degree climb.
The group of men on a Lancaster soccer field glanced in the direction of the sound.

"NASA U-2," said one, an aerospace man.

"Yup," said another. "Seventy degrees."

With that the group turned their backs on one of the most spectacular aircraft takeoffs in the world.

A giant hawk, wings tinged gold by the sun's rays, took to the sky next, gliding gently on the air currents with its several-foot wingspan.

It was a majestic, inspiring image of nature, the type you'd expect on the Discovery Channel.

And it just so happened that the Discovery Channel's film crew was there among those on the soccer field, camera shouldered and tape rolling. The bird of prey's unmistakable shadow crisscrossed the camera crew, but the lens was pointed elsewhere.

It was captivated by another spectacle: a tiny, radio-controlled airplane buzzing back and forth over the field.

The U-2 spy plane is old by aerospace standards and the hawk, of course, is an ancient flier; but this particular uninhabited aircraft vehicle, called
the Microstar, represents a revolution in military surveillance and in aerospace technology.

It's about the smallest war plane ever built and it is destined to be the most indispensable intelligence-gathering device for the soldier of the 21st century.

That's why it commanded the undivided attention of the aerospace men and the Discovery Channel crew gathered at the soccer field where Avenue L and
30th Street East intersect.

Planes as small as the Microstar aren't supposed to fly. Weighing 125 grams (about onethird pound) and with a wingspan of 9 inches, the plane's
diminutive body means the designers couldn't count on air molecules, called microbubbles, to make it fly the same way they do with larger aircraft.

"Aircraft below 3 feet in wingspan have completely different aerodynamic properties," said Eric Knutson, manager of the Uninhabited Aircraft Vehicle office of Lockheed Martin.

"We've had to redefine aerodynamics in order to create flying machines like this."

But bending aerodynamic rules is nothing new to the folks at Lockheed Martin, whose Palmdale Skunk Works division designed the Microstar. Skunk Works built the world's fastest plane - the Mach 3-plus SR-71 - and the batshaped F-117 stealth fighter, which is nearly invisible to enemy radar.

The brilliance of the Microstar, though, is that it doesn't need the SR-71's speed or the F-117's expensive radar-busting. Those planes are military miracles in their own ways, but you can't put them on the belt of a U.S. infantryman.

That's the advantage of the Microstar. It's so small - and so cheap - that it can serve as a soldier's personal spy plane.

"The idea is you can have one of these on your web belt, and when you want o see something 3 to 4 kilometers away all you need to do is program it and
let it fly," said Bill Devine, the manager of business development for Sanders, the Lockheed Martin division that did the electronic work. "It will take the
pictures for you, then fly back to your location."

The underbelly of the Microstar has a tiny camera that snaps pictures of digital quality as it reaches its target. A built-in Global Positioning System adapts
to the terrain and the soldier can guide the plane with a remote that resembles a Palm Pilot.

Put simply, it's a high-tech, camera-equipped boomerang: Just throw it and wait for it to come back to you with a belly full of intelligence.

When it's airborne, the Microstar looks a lot like a crow. Give these things to an entire army and the battlefield is going to look like a Hitchcock movie.

All the better for Palmdale. If the federal government orders a flock of Microstars, the Lockheed plant will be one place where they're assembled.

"The intent is to mass-produce this plane in Palmdale and New Hampshire (Sanders' headquarters)," Devine said. "(The government) may order anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 of them."

The production cost for a single Microstar is about $1,000, Devine said.

Lockheed is one of several aerospace firms competing for a Pentagon contract for a mass-produced, miniature spy plane. Lockheed expects the contract to be splintered among a few companies and they're confident their version - the Microstar - will get its share of orders.

Propulsion and flight control technology would likely be concentrated in Palmdale while Sanders would mass produce the electronic panel.

The Microstar and unmanned planes like it have "unlimited applications," Devine said. They are useful not only in close combat, but could be utilized by police forces in urban warfare.

Designers have even tinkered with the idea of using it as a tracker for bombs. The Microstar would fly to an enemy tank, for instance, attach itself there and transmit a homing device to an incoming bomb.

The plane can be painted black to resemble a bird or camouflaged to blend in with the sky or any other backdrop. Traveling overhead at 30 mph, it would take a world-champion skeet shooter to knock it out of the sky.

It can navigate through light rain and snow, over trees or buildings.

The plane has already been tested by the U.S. Marines and Army soldiers who are its users and the reviews are favorable.

"They could see stuff they never could before," Devine said. "They thought it was great."

Lockheed officials say the technology is ready to begin the final mass- production phase but that the government is studying how to incorporate the new tool into their soldier training programs.

Devine said that the Microstar may be in the field as early as 2005.





by Barry Chamish © 2000

Hello All Who Love Israel,

        They're doing it all over again. On the eve of a massive government
sellout of Israel, begins an equally massive government campaign of sick
incitement. Once again the media is filled with stories of rabbis threatening the prime minister's life. Once again, those who express opposition to the government's policies are being arrested. Once again, a leader of a "radical" Jewish organization, this time Next Generation, replacing Eyal, threatens the prime minister's life.

        Tonight, Channel Two set the stage for something BIG. First Barak prepared the public for the removal of 50,000 residents of Judea and Samaria from their homes and expressed fear that his life was in jeopardy from the same forces that murdered Rabin. But not to worry, he's in good hands with the Shabak.

        Then the haters were gathered for a discussion; hack writer Ehud
Sprinzak, the usual contemptuous Knesset members Raanan Cohen and Uzi
Baram, all blaming the rabbis for murdering  Rabin. And did the one sole
political representative of Judea and Samaria, Hanan Porat, defend the rabbis with the truth of the overwhelming evidence that members of the Shabak murdered Rabin and that a Shabak provocateur, Avishai Raviv, not the
rabbis, led the incitement in the days before the assassination? Of course
not. That would take integrity.

        For the past four and a half years, I have been trying to have the real murderers of Rabin brought to justice. My motives were pure from the beginning. I am not religious and have never belonged to any political
organization, let alone from the Right. In fact, my own personal lifestyle is far closer to that of Israel's Left with all its sins and indiscretions. But I discovered that those deemed responsible for Rabin's murder, the religious Right, did not do the deed and I am opposed to injustice.

        And for someone with nothing ideological to gain, I spent a miserable first two years of research. A concerted media campaign turned me into a Holocaust denying, fascistic, mentally disturbed monster. Imagine what it did to my wife to read in front page stories that I denied the Holocaust when a third of my family was wiped out by the Nazis. Imagine how my family felt when Shabak thugs violently tried to put an end to my lectures and the media reported that this was a heartfelt, grassroots, legitimate protest against, as MK Ophir Pines called me, "the country's biggest inciter." And then there were the phone calls warning me to leave the country,"by tomorrow, or I won't be responsible for what happens to you."

         The Israeli ruling establishment, those who are planning our nation's last days, and those who murdered Rabin, tried their best to frighten and humiliate me into quitting my work about the assassination. And I didn't give in.

         The first question asked at my lectures, every time, is, "Why are you still alive?" And I answer that I don't want to think about that question. Do people believe I don't understand the danger?

         For four and a half years I took most of the risks, now it is other people's turn. There is no need for violent recourse. There is no reason for armed defense of our homes. I offer the people of Israel a gift, the indisputable documentation proving the Rabin assassination was an internal plot led by the highest ranking leader of the Labor Party at the time. I have distributed thousands of copies of the primary documents to people throughout Israel.

          Now use them! If you want to save this country, bring the murderers to justice. When they fall, so will the regime that rules Israel. Tomorrow, take the following steps:

         - Bombard the police departments with complaints against those
complicite in the Rabin assassination. Start with Rabin's bodyguard Yoram
Rubin, who testified that he was shot by Amir. I have his clinical report. He was treated with iodine and water and released. Carry on to the State Pathologist Dr. Yehuda Hiss whose pathological report states categorically that Rabin's spine was unhurt when all other medical reports prove it was shattered. Get him on medical malpractice and  evidence tampering. Issue complaints against the Shabak for all of Avishai Raviv's illegal violence. etc.etc. Make every police station in the country investigate.

          - Somebody raise some money to put full page ads in all the country's papers which reproduce the most damning documents.

          - Do not let the media spread the slander that the rabbis murdered Rabin anymore. Spam the radio talk shows, overload the TV switchboards with complaints, organize letter-writing campaigns to the newspapers, spread posters and billboards throughout the country demanding a reinvestigation of the Rabin murder. Gather signatures for a nationwide petition. For those without the financial resources, learn the art of Rabin graffiti.

           - Attorneys, volunteer your knowledge! Petition the Supreme Court for a reopening of the investigation into Rabin's murder on any and all grounds. I'll be happy to supply the written and filmed proofs.

        As I have successfully predicted many times before, traditional protests against the government's "peace" policies do no good. Demonstrations are futile. The bulldozers will roll on no matter how many people show up in Zion Square.

        But, this regime cannot escape the consequences of the Rabin assassination. The murderers have been caught and they are them. I had hoped the Rabin truth would emerge in time to salvage what remains of our
nation. It hasn't. The moment of our demise may take place within days, even hours.

        I have provided the people of Israel with the ammunition. I can do no more. I am a writer not a political organizer. If my gift is turned down, well, no one will ever say I didn't try.

        - Barry



Donald Freed on JonBenet Ramsey Case Date: Sunday, May 14, 2000 12:32 AM

TRANSCRIPT OF A PUBLIC AFFAIR © 1999, aired 2/15/99 08:35am on KGNU-Boulder.

MCFARLAND: This is Bob McFarland with A Public Affair and my guest this morning is Donald Freed who is an author, screen writer among other things. Donald Freed has written Killing Time, a book about the OJ Simpson trial and the screen play, and Executive Action which was about the JFK assassination. And what other things would the listeners be interested in what you've done? 

FREED: I'm a visiting professor at Loyola Marymount University (L.A.) and I'm teaching at USC and I'm working on a film about the murder of Martin Luther King. I've been working for about a year and a half on the Ramsey murder for a two part series for ABC one of which is completed and the other of which will be completed if ABC wishes to complete it. At the moment they have frozen the project and it is not clear whether it will be done elsewhere if at all. And of course the crime that has generated such interest has also GENERATED GREAT FEAR in the media because this taboo is the most fearsome in a way of all the taboos. But in so working on ABC's budget for that time, I was able to go to Europe and elsewhere. And I finally presented some information to the police and the FBI during several meetings in Boulder. I haven't talked about it publicly until now, but I think now that I've waited more then what use to be called a "decent interval." So I'll talk about this a little bit. If you take your mind back to the morning of the crime---I say the morning of the crime because I think its clear what I mean---- and that day after Christmas. The call came into the Boulder police at about 5:52 a.m. And thus began the time-line. The kind of work I do is forensic work on time-lines. That's what I did in the Simpson case in (my book) Killing Time. That's what I would like you to follow me on. After that call comes in, a uniformed policeman comes to the house by about 6:00 am and then more personnel arrive. The morning goes by; in the early afternoon the body is found, and sometime in the evening the coroner arrives---and that's the rough time-line of that day. 

For several hours during the morning, a Boulder police detective was alone at the house while family and friends walked about and generally, completely co-opted the crime scene. Since that first day until this hour the lawyers and the pundits and experts and media commentators have never ceased to state that the Boulder police did not maintain the crime scene. In fact, they destroyed the crime scene and they went so far as to create the most awkward move perhaps in the history of a homicide investigation in asking John Ramsey to search the house whereupon he found his daughter, carried her upstairs, and laid her out in front of the Christmas tree. All this has been rehearsed and repeated endlessly in the media and its been stated by the most serious experts that the case will probably never, ever go to trial because of the police mishandling of that day. What is more (it is perceived) that the police didn't take the expert advice that such an amateur police department from such a little town would have needed. And there was the FBI offering to help at every step of the way and finally trying to salvage the case by inviting everyone to Quantico, Virginia; then helping with the presentation. And that is the general idea or story line of the case. 

MCFARLAND: Yes, one of the detectives, Linda Arndt filed a lawsuit over her dismissal. 

FREED: Now, if I may, Dr. McFarland, ask you a few questions? 


FREED: How did it come to pass that, in your opinion, that the Boulder police were in charge of the crime scene in general for about eight hours with a lone detective there. And how is it that this detective and this police force had never held themselves out as experts on terrorism or kidnapping. Remember we're talking about a note that announces it is from a foreign faction that "hates" your country and has other "bigwigs" in their gun sights. How do you understand it that the Boulder police---the much blamed Boulder police---are in charge of this crime scene?!? 

MCFARLAND: Hmmmm? Well, I think they didn't feel the need for another unit because they really didn't believe that ransom note. 

FREED: Oh, I quite agree with you, BUT let me say to you this. You're aware, I'm sure, that the historic and famous jurisdiction, in the case of kidnapping, belongs to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

MCFARLAND: The Lindberg Law. 

FREED: Yes, it is not only their jealously guarded turf, but they base their budget on few traditional areas such as grand theft auto; interstate offense of all kinds; and KIDNAPPING. And in kidnapping, they have written the book. They have special training. They are defined by their handling of kidnapping and they operate in what is called "rebuttable presumption". That means that if someone disappears and the FBI considers it an interesting, challenging, or worthwhile case; they intervene on the theory of "rebuttable presumption": that it could be presumed that federal laws have been broken and that the FBI, until instructed otherwise, WILL TAKE CONTROL. IN THE CASE WHERE THERE IS A RANSOM NOTE---THAT TRIGGERS THE FBI's JURISDICTION. 

And this is a well-oiled machine of many decades standing. When it goes into action the local police are pushed into the periphery. When its a wealthy corporate executive; and when the note in fact announces that these are foreign terrorists---now every bell in the "national security system" begins to ring---then the interfacing with the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon; all this unfolds within a matter of minutes. The Attorney General stands by; the President is awakened ready to go on television; because it is a written and unwritten law that "foreign terrorists" on the soil of the United States should they dare commit a crime; should they dare to contemplate a kidnapping or the murder of an innocent child or American citizen or any visitor to the United States; that unleashes the full might and power of the United States of America, no matter what it takes or how long it takes.

In the case of Orlando Letelier, a visiting Marxist scholar who was organizing against the Pinochet junta in Chile, when his car was exploded on Embassy Row in Washington D.C., foreign terrorists were identified, after various cover stories were brushed aside. The FBI, who hated Letelier; who put out the story that a jealous mistress or husband might have blown-up his car; that same FBI four years later walked into the palace in Santiago, Chile and told General Pinochet that his head of security, Col. Contreras, would have to resign and would have to stand trial. And he did! And this was the beginning of the undoing of our client the Pinochet regime in Chile. This was no Marxist, I will say to you, who was kidnapped or killed in Boulder, Colorado. This was a child of a Lockheed Martin executive of a $18 billion a year firm with Pentagon and top secret clearance across the world. With this huge multi-million dollar security apparatus that exists for that day that any member of a family of a corporate executive; any member, wife, child of corporate executive's family should be kidnapped; they go into overdrive. That's when they earn their money and it is when they face the CEO's in Denver, and that's where they say "here's where Lockheed Martin stands: your children can or cannot go to school; your wives can or cannot go to the market". An entire protocol unfolds. The interface between the head of Lockheed Martin Security and the FBI is elaborate and its interlocking and its complete. 

So the two units, in the Boulder Area, are trained to react to an act of terrorism, like kidnapping, are Lockheed Martin Security on one hand and the FBI on the other. Now, NOBODY FROM EITHER TWO OF THESE UNITS CAME NEAR THAT CRIME SCENE and the question is as in the case of Sherlock Holme's dog that didn't bark. What you're looking at here is SOMETHING THAT IS SO IRREGULAR; SO IMPOSSIBLE, because remember, the SOG, the seat of government operates in this regard. Every year the Director of the FBI must go before Congress. Is it conceivable to you, doctor, that the head of the FBI could go before a Congressional committee and be asked why the FBI had not involved itself in terrorists who announce themselves?! If you say now that the note was a hoax, and it doesn't ring true; you'd be quite right. You could have said it a day later or a week later---and everyone has said it. But no one could have said it that morning---minutes count! The FBI's entire profile is based on quick, rapid, decisive action. They take over public relations. They'd have the Boulder police direct traffic at the periphery. No one gets in or out of that house. No one touches the crime scene. Every home in that area of Boulder is secured. In the case of Adobe Graphics three years before, there was an executive kidnapped and hundred's of FBI agents poured into the landscape. When in Michigan where another industrial kidnapping tool place---where a wife was suspected actually-- hundreds of FBI agents poured in. 

What I'm telling you now is a composite of my interviews with FBI executives in this country and elsewhere---former agents and Lockheed Martin agents.  When a note announces "terrorism" it is the magic word in the United States for both law enforcement and budgetary considerations.  So that if you say you didn't believe that note nor believe there were foreign terrorists, then you are dealing with a madman who is signing himself or herself as foreign terrorist and intends to get some "fat cats". So what difference does it make whether these are foreign terrorists or a madman pretending to be foreign terrorists? You still have the most alarming situation. In the FBI bureaucracy this called "a special". Not only was this NOT "a special"; there was no response as if it were terrorism. 

Remembering that the FBI never came to the crime scene, they were never able to say to director Freeh in Washington: "Don't worry. This is a hoax. This is a false note. We don't think the Bureau will be embarrassed". The Bureau doesn't take anyone's word about being "embarrassed". The Bureau operates on a principle of redundancy and "Do Not Embarrass the Bureau" is their watchword; it is their motto. For the Director of the FBI in Washington, D.C. to restrain and stand down his own agents in the field; both the local office in Boulder and the bigger one in Denver or Lockheed Martin and their agents, without going to the crime scene, and being able to reassure their CEO's in Denver that they can stand down; their children can go to the park; their wives can go to the bridge club;----for these assurances to be made on which careers and budgets and lifetimes depend, there can only be one answer. They had to know, not only were there no foreign terrorists, but they had to know BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that what happened neither affected the security of the United States of America or the security and profits of Lockheed Martin. That this was a domestic personal aberrational crime of some kind or in any case a crime which, though located inside a home, may have repercussions outside in terms of circles of people who would not want investigations going on about child pornography, child abuse, or child sexuality. I've summed up for you what a year of research has led me to.

MCFARLAND: Let me ask you what would be the normal way in which the police would notify the FBI?

FREED: They were notified! The chief of police is on record. They told the FBI immediately. They have to. 

MCFARLAND: So the FBI already knew. 

FREED: Here you have the clock striking 13, Doctor, calling into question everything that went before. And to the listeners I know they say, "I heard that the police didn't want them or that the FBI offered to help or such and such." Let me tell you what happens. The FBI offers its help to any prosecution or any jurisdiction in the country. They offer their lab; their services. They are the big brother in these matters. BUT WHEN IT IS THEIR JURISDICTION it is not a question of offering to help or being rejected by some small police force. The FBI in Rapid City, S.D., for instance, in the Wounded Knee affair, when the local sheriffs tried to keep jurisdiction, the FBI came in with guns drawn. In Dallas when Dallas authorities attempted to keep President Kennedy's body at Parkland Hospital in accordance with Texas law, the FBI and the Secret Service, with guns drawn, moved the body to Air Force One. When the FBI has its jurisdiction challenged that's their money you're going for and their reputation. That's their identity. That's their vitals. That's their fundament. For those who feel, "Well maybe, gee, it was early in the morning. Maybe the FBI was going to go later". . .

MCFARLAND: The FBI never sleeps... 

FREED: So, I know this may sound a little strange. But with the way I work in crime, I can only work on what is public record. I don't have subpoena power. I work on the time-line.

Here the FBI and Lockheed Martin have to go before the Grand Jury to say what they knew and when they knew it; because there is a chain of information that goes from the house to Lockheed Martin to the FBI to Washington D.C. back to the field and the order is to "stand down". "Don't go into the house. Let the Boulder police handle it".

I think perhaps the more innocent explanation is that everybody assumed the Boulder police could make an arrest, because an arrest could have been made. But the Boulder police, don't forget, never held themselves out to be experts. They never said they had any sophistication in matters of terrorism; of kidnapping. These are specialized pursuits. That's the more innocent explanation. The more ominous explanation is what's called the Belgian syndrome. It involves the murder of children that went uninvestigated until people came out into the streets in the thousands in Belgium. It turned out that high ranking members of the system of justice and the corporate structure who had discouraged investigations of the murder and sexual abuse of these children ----not because, and I stress this, not because they were involved in the murders----but they were involved in their own way in pornography; sexuality with children and related elements, some of who are not illegal, but all of which must be the death sentences to anyone's career. When a sex offender comes out of prison, his photograph goes on a lamp post; the neighborhood is alerted. That's when someone comes out of the system and is branded as a sexual criminal. 

But when a corporate executive, someone with power, is involved in practices which are tabooed. Then as Mrs. Van Alter said about her father: when that man is discovered---if he is discovered he's no longer a CEO or Republican or Episcopalian or Elk or Rotarian or husband or father or Christian or any thing else. He is nothing and might as well be dead. So that those who have been touched by a sexuality that is tabooed, they will go to ANY LENGTHS to suppress that information. And, if it means covering up sexual crimes with which they had nothing to do, they will do it! So that's about it, in a highly---and I hope not too dense a way---- the fruits of about a year and a half of work. And I ask those who are listening NOT to take my word for it, but to talk to friends or relatives who may be former or present law enforcement officers or district attorneys or anyone working for the city or the state. Ask them in this way, say, "A very wealthy family announces that their daughter has been kidnapped and produces a note that say foreign terrorists are the authors and that a little girl is later found murdered. Who would be in charge of this case?" And I ask you to test that out anywhere you can get an official answer. 

And then if you think that you want to be reassured that the Grand Jury is questioning the appropriate executives of Lockheed Martin and the FBI, then you know you can certainly write to the district attorney, because Mr. Michael Kane and others are very serious grand jury attorneys, I'm told. I think that you should and could write to them. I must tell you finally that Norm Early who had been the district attorney of Denver and was the vice-president of Lockheed Martin Security at the time of the murder of JonBenet. I interviewed him at the time. He's a fascinating man---- extremely intelligent. And he said to me finally, "You know I had a six year-old son and we have a security protocol and that letter threatened other executives. Where was the security? Where were the bodyguards? Where was the protocol? Where was the alert; the drill; the routine; the regimen that we so carefully shared and worked on at Lockheed Martin? Not a word. Not a sound. Not a telephone call." So, he began to call executives and lawyers and others and said, "Why wasn't my family alerted? What happened?" And they said to him, "Well, there was no threat" And he said, "How do you know that?" They said, "Well, I don't know. We just knew". And he said, "Well, think about it and I want an answer!" The next day he talked to some of these people and reported to me that they said, "You know we stayed awake all night wrestling with the question --agonizing with it. And you know you're right. How did we know that the (ransom note) was a hoax immediately? We might have known it in a day or two, or a week or two. But how do we know until this day? To this day there has been no arrest. To this day we know that there was a murder and that there was a note left stating that foreign agents were involved.

MCFARLAND: You've just been listening to Donald Freed author and faculty member at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Maybe we'll get to hear more from Donald Freed later.

NewsMakingNews thanks the following for this reference: 
Forwarded for info and discussion from the New Paradigms Discussion List, not necessarily endorsed by: Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the entire political-ideological spectrum. **FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: ** Explore Our Archive:
Republished by NewsMakingNews via Alex Constantine, author of Psychic Dictatorship, and other books (Feral Press)  and the
Archives of Conspiracy Theory Research List


[Typed version for easy reading below.]


TAPE #612, Aug. 29, 1983, Side 2

© Mae Brussell


1. London Observer, 8/21/83 "Klaus Barbie, the Vatican Connections."
2. Wash. Post, 8/83 "U.S. Army Considered Using Barbie, Activation, 1968."
3. LAT, 8/22/83 "U.S. Unite Stifled in bid to Deport Suspected Nazis."
4. SJM, 8/21/83 Editorial, J. Marshall, "U.S. AID TO WAR CRIMINALS DIDN'T STOP WITH BARBIE."
5.  SFC, 8/24/83 "Nazi Captain Kills Himself to Avoid Trial,"  Richard Feise.
6.  SJM, 8/21/83 "Barbie's Legacy, A Painful Look at Collaboration."


70,000 Nazi war criminals
50,000 escaped trials
    Collusion of US Army,
    OSS, CIA, Vatican
                                                               PRO-DEO, VATICAN INTELLIGENCE
                                                                Set up by Father Felix Morlion
                                                             /  1940, moved Portugal to NYC
50 informers in                             /                            |
Barbie, Abwehr Merk               /                              |
network                                     /                               |
  |                                              /                                  |
  |      VATICAN PART OF/               Wild Bill Donovan, OSS head,                     FELIX MORLION founded
  |       RAT LINE ROUTE,                  FOUNDED MORLION, USA and                in USA "AMERICAN COUNCIL
  |       FREEDOM TO S.A.                 Vatican It'l. combined.                                   FOR INTERNATIONAL 
  |                                                                                 |                                                    PROMOTION OF DEMOCRACY
  |                                                                                 |                                                     UNDER GOD"   |
  |                                                                                 |                                                     118 East 60th St., NYC 10022 
  |                                                                                 |                                                                           |
  |                                                                                 |                                                                           |
Allan Ryan report in USA                1944, Rome "liberated",                                 118 East 60th St, NYC also same
"only a corner of the wraps              Morlion, OSS-Vatican, back                        address as WILLIAM TAUB
on a gigantic tale."                             in business.                                                    Forces of Power, 1979
  |                                                                                 |                                                    Gosset and Dunlap
  |                                                                                 |                                                                           |
Involves U.S. Intelligence                Donovan awarded GRAND CROSS                                   |
Gestapo Officers, Vatican                of  ORDER OF ST. SYLVESTER,                                     |  
  |                                                           Pope Pius XII                                                                         |
  |                                                                                 |                                                                           |
Pope John Paul II                              Also knighted James                                       Pages 68, 82-83, Taub's close
reversing policies of                         Angleton, Reinhard Gehlen,                          ties to VATICAN, CARDINAL
John XXIII                                       NAZIS, AND US. INTELLIGENCE               ALFREDO OTTAVIANIA.
  |                                                 /                                                                                                           |
 |     (I.G. Farben, Auschwitz /                                                                                                             |
 |       Milan Montini)             /                                                                                                              |
Sovereign Military                                                                                                 OTTAVIANIA was responsible for
Order of Malta,                                                                                                           Mussolini giving Vatican
Mother Jones 7/83                                                                                                 $89,000,000 in 1929 for "neutrality
Vatican-CIA links                                                                                                      against Hitler, Mussolini" fascism."
                                                                                                                                     OTTAVIANA gave Taub his
                                                                                                                                     Rubens and Gainsborough


THE SECRET COURT IS BOOMING! [Defendants unnamed.]

The (counter) espionage business is booming, judging from the latest annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

In calendar 1999, the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
approved a record high 886 applications for electronic surveillance or
physical search for counterintelligence purposes under the FISA.  This
compares with 796 applications approved in 1998.  The previous record high was 839 approvals in 1996.

See the following letter just released via a Freedom of Information Request:

Office of the Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530

April 27, 2000

Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

This report is submitted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Title 50, United States Code, Section 1807, as amended.

During calendar year 1999, 886 applications were made for orders and extensions of orders approving electronic surveillance or physical search under the Act. the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued orders in 880 applications granting authority to the Government for the requested electronic surveillance and electronic searches. One application filed in 1999 was pending before the Court until March 29, 2000, when it was approved. Five applications which were filed in late December 1999 were approved when presented to the Court on January 5, 2000. No orders were entered which modified or denied the requested authority.

Janet Reno didn't authorize FISA surveillance in the Los Alamos cases (Wen Ho Lee). Click.   Are the FISA secret defendants and their activities in a security classification above the known Los Alamos cases?  Who and what could these be?


By Paul DeRienzo and Joan Moossy © 2000

Note: This article originally appeared in the National Lawyers Guild New York News, August 1998. Co-author Paul DeRienzo has written extensively on police abuse, state repression and CIA connections to international narco- fascism. His articles have appeared, among other places, in New York City's premier alternative paper, The Shadow. He can be reached at:                    

Imagine a secret court made up of anonymous judges chosen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and empowered to grant wiretaps, approve break-ins, tap psychiatrist's offices and bug homes -- all without probable cause. The hearings are conducted in secret without notification of the proposed target and without due process, since the subject of the investigation can't challenge the evidence or answer the charges brought against them. 

Such a secret court does in fact exist. It was created in 1978 under a law entitled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, that was designed to limit the abuses of authority made legion by the administration of former President Richard Nixon and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. 

However, according to many legal experts, FISA may in fact facilitate civil-rights violations against Americans. Even conservatives like Yale law school professor Robert Bork, who said FISA would "not be the first regulatory scheme that turned out to benefit the regulated rather than the public," are troubled by this legislation. 

In February 1998, Kurt Stand, Theresa Squillacote and James Clark were indicted under FISA for alleged conspiracy to commit espionage for the former German Democratic Republic, Soviet Union, the Russian Federation, and the Republic of South Africa. 

The arrests were carried out as a result of a so-called false flag or sting operation. Stand, 43, North American representative of the International Union of Food Workers, along with Squillacote, 40, his wife for 20 years and a former procurement lawyer for the Pentagon, are charged with attempted espionage on behalf of South Africa and obtaining national defense information to be used to the injury of the United States. Squillacote is also charged with violating an oath regarding the handling of classified material upon her January 1997 resignation from the Pentagon. 

The roots of FISA lie in the upheavals in the 1960s and '70s. During that time tens of thousands of citizens were drawn into a plethora of political movements, from the civil-rights movement to anti-war demonstrations. Rebellions rocked cities and college campuses and many began to seriously question traditional obligations of a citizen to their government as a bloody, unpopular war raged. The federal government moved quickly to staunch the tide of rebellion and social change through a program of dirty tricks and unprecedented violations of personal rights and privacy, often justified as necessary for the national security.

As public outrage towards government abuses grew, Congress was forced to investigate through a committee headed by Senator Frank Church of Idaho. The Church committee found that the nation's intelligence agencies had ignored and violated the Constitution. The FBI had been responsible for the infamous COINTELPRO Counter-intelligence program that targeted those forces director Hoover believed were politically dangerous, such as the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement, and a host of popular political leaders, including the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.

Until the Church Committee report freewheeling conduct by intelligence agencies under the purview of the executive branch had been considered part of the president's "inherent authority," a concept popularized by President Nixon's term of "executive privilege." One of the main issues was the separation of federal domestic law enforcement and counter-intelligence activities. Electronic surveillance in criminal investigations requires a warrant under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 and the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. The purpose of FISA was to create a warrant procedure in counter-intelligence surveillance to allegedly right the wrongs of the Nixon years. 

Warrantless national security surveillance is illegal if its basis is the furtherance of a criminal investigation. 

When FISA was enacted, Senator Edward Kennedy, chair of the House-Senate FISA conference committee, predicted that domestic targets of the Act might number about 100 each year. In the 20 years since FISA, the court has not turned down any of the government's approximately 10,000 surveillance requests. 

According to a Department of Justice official who conducted an internal review of FISA, "so many FISAs were being conducted with so few attorneys that the review process to prevent factual and legal errors was virtually nonexistent." Using FISA, the FBI has investigated over 1,330 progressive domestic political and religious groups because of their solidarity with the Committee in Support of the People of El Salvador. The threat, according to Herman Schwartz, writing in The Nation is that, "the enactment of FISA has not eliminated the incentive to use intelligence gathering authority improperly to obtain evidence for criminal prosecutions. 

After the exposure of FBI spying against CISPES in the 1980s pressure built for reform. In 1995 Attorney General Janet Reno issued new guidelines setting rules for the conduct of FBI agentsin counterintelligence operations using electronic surveillance.

But the new guidelines also expanded FISA to permit physical searches based on the same minimal level of suspicion used to permit electronic surveillance. The 1995 extension of FISA now allows for the first time in US history actual searches of citizens and legal residences outside the Fourth Amendment.

The DOJ internal report spreads the alarm that "Under the Clinton administration, the nation's two systems for wiretapping [Title III] for criminal cases, [FISA] for intelligence gathering - [have] become freight trains running at full throttle down parallel tracks." wiretap stats
Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European communist bloc in 1991, FISA wiretap and search authorizations have increased dramatically from 484 in 1992 to 839 in 1996, while Title III criminal wiretaps have increased at a slower rate going from 340 in 1992 to 581 four years later.

Currently there are more FISA wiretaps approved each year than normal criminal wiretap warrants.

Although the goal of FISA is to protect the rights of citizens while allowing counterintelligence probes under the president's authority to conduct foreign policy the catch is that the law allows the fruits of FISA searches and wiretaps to be introduced as evidence in criminal prosecutions.


On January 5, 1990, less than a year before the Berlin wall fell, an angry crowd stormed the Ministry of State Security for the German Democratic Republic and seized raw files containing the names of agents, informers, contacts and targets. The FBI doesn't say how it came to believe that Squillacote and Stand worked for East Germany. The government's affidavit is deliberately unclear about the source of this information. The information could have come from the files stolen in 1990, an operation credited by some to the CIA, or it could have come from a huge store of files still in Berlin. Supporters of the two defendants wonder if the source of the allegation was a former East German agent informing to bargain for a shorter sentence, or phone taps from the East German embassy. Both are considered unreliable even by the FBI. Under FISA, the FBI is permitted to hide its sources from the defendants and provide the information only to the secret FISA court.

In 1996 the FBI began 24-hour surveillance of Stand, Squillacote and Clark, that lasted for nearly 2 years. The surveillance intruded into all aspects of their lives, including their family, health, relationships, finance and professional work. Most seriously, the surveillance targeted direct conversations with Squillacote's psychiatrist and included a hidden microphone in her bedroom recording conversations with her husband. The FBI prepared a psychological profile of Squillacote identifying what they perceived to be her vulnerabilities. In one of three secret searches of their residence the FBI found a 1995 letter from Squillacote to South African Defense Minister and Communist Party leader Ronnie Kasrils. That stolen letter became the basis of the government's sting operation. An FBI agent posing as an official of the Mandela government approached Squillacote requesting information. The documents Squillacote removed from the Pentagon and turned over the undercover FBI agent are the only actual documents involved in the entire case.

No documents are alleged to have been turned over to a foreign power.

The FBI forged a letter from the South African government with Kasrils signature requesting meetings with Squillacote. The letter states that the South African government needed Squillacote's assistance in the United States and eventually a series of meetings were set up between Squillacote and the phony South African. When the arrests were made in October the FBI originally stated that the sting had been carried out with the cooperation of South Africa. The South African government protested and demanded an apology which was personally extended by FBI director Louis Freeh. Kasrils has said he will attend the trial and testify on Squillacote's behalf.

Since the arrest both Stand and Squillacote have been imprisoned without bail at a jail in Alexandria, Virginia. The trial is before United States District Judge Claude Hilton in the Eastern District of Virginia, the so-called "rocket docket,"where conservative judges and juries are famous for making short work of defendants. Supporters of Squillacote and Stand maintain that the government went "venue-shopping" and the arrests were made in Alexandria in order to avoid a liberal Washington, DC jury.

The trial was originally slated to start on Monday, October 5th, but in a July 20 hearing, Judge Hilton, blaming a "judge's conference," moved the start of the trial to October 7th. Hilton apologized, saying the trial would now have to continue over a weekend. Apparently he has intended for the trial, including jury selection, to last only five days.

Kurt Stand is represented by Richard Sauber of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, and Jacobson. Theresa Squillacote is represented by Lawrence Robins of the century-old law firm of Mayer, Brown, and Platt. Robbins' clients include First Lady Hillary Clinton.

The defense has also been aided by a number of well-known New York attorneys including Leonard Weinglass and Ron Kuby, as well as the Center for National Security Studies and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. According to sources on the defense team, preparations have been made to win the case on appeal since a May 18th opinion where Judge Hilton turned down every defense motion aimed at suppressing evidence obtained or derived from searches conducted in violation of FISA.

At the July 20th hearing, judge Hilton refused to suppress evidence collected during a six-day search of the Squillacote and Stand residence. The judge also ruled that extensive wiretaps of their conversations were legally authorized. The judge also rejected a bid for a "taint hearing' after the defense lawyers argued that FBI agents used wiretaps to collect information protected by psychotherapist and marital privileges.

In a post Cold War world where the tensions between former great powers has been replaced by a multiplicity of struggles throughout the developing world, many more Americans will become involved in the affairs of countries at odds with US foreign and economic policy and may find themselves under attack under FISA.

In the 60s it was civil-rights and anti-Vietnam War protesters who were the targets, in the 1980s it was the movement to support the people in war-torn El Salvador who were victimized by government spying and dirty tricks; today it could be Indonesia, Chiapas, Iraq or any other hot spot. According to a 1978 editorial in The New Republic, "The vagueness of the requirement under FISA that the target of surveillance be a foreign power or agent of a foreign power invites abuses... conceivably it could include any American with commercial, educational or personal relationship with a foreign person or organization." For more information on this case contact the Fund for the Fourth Amendment, PO Box 5685 Washington, D.C. 20016; (202) 829-6167. 


The court applies the law to the facts. The law can only apply to the facts which are presented to the court.  The facts must be obtained.  First class investigation obtains the facts or hides them for all time.

Knowing that the government is an expert at selective investigations which lead to court decisions that seal political deals made behind the scenes, the Supreme Court decided Brady v. Maryland and ruled that the government must reveal to the defendant all exculpatory evidence, and further must search out this evidence.  Later cases ruled that the government must all reveal all evidence which tends to impeach a witness. The Brady rule is intended to keep government prosecutors honest.  Knowing this, corrupt prosecutors must finesse investigations to discredit Brady witnesses (and sometimes somebody just eliminates these witnesses.)

The Brady law applies to all criminal and quasi-criminal court cases.  (The Warren Commission was not a court, therefore the Constitution and laws of evidence did not apply.)  Many national security cases, including the Oklahoma City bombing, the Lockerbie bombing, and the WACO cases are critically affected by the Brady Rule.  Geronimo Pratt, ex-Black panther, was recently released after serving twenty years in prison after the Courts determined that the Brady rule was violated.  In Pratt's case, the fact that the eyewitness to the crime was an FBI informant was not revealed at the time of Pratt's trial.  The Edwin Wilson appeal now turns on whether assistant Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen, ex Judge Sporkin and others high level officials withheld exculpatory evidence about Wilson's work with the CIA.

The Brady rule is summarized as follows:

The government must furnish to the defense information which is exculpatory and impeaching of government witnesses and evidence as those terms are defined in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972). See United States v. McVeigh, 923 F. Supp. 1310, 1313 (D. Colo. 1996). The district court has articulated the obligations of the prosecutors to disclose such evidence and has observed that "the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police." Id. at 1313 (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, U.S. 115 S. Ct. 1555, 1567, 131 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1995)).


"Disclosing Officer Misconduct A Constitutional Duty By Lisa A. Regini, J.D.© 1996.  Click.

compiled by Kathryn Dixon © 2000

On May 26, 2000, The Recorder in San Francisco published an article entitled Hard to Say Anything Bad About Judge Jensen.  The article reveals a virtual Who's Who of the Alameda County Mafia clan.  The gist of this propaganda is that those who have fealty to D. Lowell Jensen and his long-time associate Edwin Meese III look forward to rich and blessed lives for generations.  Conversely, those who call Jensen a "crook" look forward to his covert hateful attacks, and he (Jensen) still ernestly believes, his critics will not look forward to such rich and blessed lives.

First, NewsMakingNews, re-publishes the Recorder's laudatory article for educational purposes.  Following this article is another article, a series of reports by various authors, assembled by NewsMakingNews entitled Hard to Say Anything Good About Judge Jensen.

HARD TO SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT JUDGE JENSEN By Scott Graham, Recorder Staff Writer © 2000

It's difficult writing up a dinner tribute to U.S. District Judge D. Lowell Jensen.

Jensen, who headed up the Alameda County district attorney's office for 11 years and also worked as a deputy U.S. attorney general, is so beloved in the East Bay bar and maintains such a squeaky-clean image that any tribute will be long on rosy and short on roast.

Such was the case at the Alameda County bar Foundations' dinner May 18 in Oakland, where few sentences were completed without the words "integrity," "Leadership" and "hard work" being thrown in.  Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Lois Haight summed up the mood by describing Jensen as "a man who embodies the very best of the profession."

Perhaps sensing the surfeit of praise, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Burr evoked the most powerful moment of the evening without dispensing a single compliment.

Rather, he simply asked the federal judges on hand who'd worked for Jensen in their formative years to stand.  Judges Saundra Brown Armstrong and Martin Jenkins--each of whom worked under Jensen in Oakland and Washington, D.C.--got up.  Then Burr asked all the state court of appeal justices who'd worked for Jensen in their formative years to stand.  Up popped Justices Carol Corrigan, Joanne Parrelli and William McGuiness.  Then Burr invited up all the superior court judges who'd been mentored by Jensen, along with anyone who'd served as his law clerk.  By the time Burr was finished some two-thirds of the 200-plus people in attendance were on their feet.

"This is why Alameda County is the Nile of the [Bay Area] courts." whispered one diner.

Crosby, Heafy, Roach & May partner Howard Janssen, another former prosecutor under Jensen, told the audience he'd tried but failed to come up with some dirt.  "Everyone suggested to me I should make up a couple of stories," he said.

In his brief talk, Jensen scoffed at the kind words. "Storytellers are historians, and historians are inevitably revisionists.  And they've done well on revisions," he said.

As for his 14 years as a judge, he said "It's a good job.  Interesting."

Editor-in-Chief Scott Graham's e-mail address is

complied by Kathryn Dixon © 2000

Click to October Surprise corruption. 
Click to INSLAW corruption.  
Click to false CIA affidavit in Edwin Wilson trial. 
Click to "heads-up" to protect Ollie North during Iran Contra.


D. Lowell Jensen ordered the U.S. Attorney in New York to alert Hashemi's lawyer so that he avoided eminent arrest for arms smuggling.  Cyrus Hashemi was allegedly a witness to two meetings in Madrid between William Casey and Iranian representatives when the October Surprise was arranged. 

1. The background of the Madrid Meetings which made Cyrus Hashemi an important witness:

Source: In Trick or Treason, author Robert Parry reports what Jamshid Hashemi told him about his brother Cyrus Hashemi's' meeting in Madrid regarding the October Surprise:

"But the Hasehmi brothers' dual sets of U.S. contacts--one the Carter administration and the other the Republicans--began to cross in march 1980.  while staying at Washington's stately Mayflower Hotel, Jamshid said he was surprised by an unannounced visitor at this room:  Roy Furmark knocked on the door.  With Furmark, Jamshid claimed, was a tall, hunched man who spoke with a slurred New York accent.  he was introduced as William Casey.  By March 1980, Casey was director of Ronald Reagan's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

"Casey wanted to discuss political matters,"  Jamshid told us over the clicking of luncheon plates.  "I cut him short.  I said, `I don't know who you are.'  I called Cyrus and told him there was this gentleman here.  Cyrus talked to Mr. Casey." 

Jamshid said he thought little about the Mayflower encounter until the summer.  But in July, Cyrus confided to him that the relationship had taken another turn.  "Cyrus asked me to bring Ayatollah Mechi Karrubi out of Iran for a meeting in Spain," Jamshid said.  The brothers had known Karrubi , a hard-line revolutionary mullah, and his brother, Hassan, in pre-revolutionary Iran, Jamshid said.  To bring Mehdi Karrubi out, Jamshid said he arranged for the radical mullah to travel to Madrid.  The Spanish capital was a favorite for the Iranians because no visas were required.

"The meeting took place at a hotel--the Ritz Hotel--at the end of July, "Jamshid said, claiming matter of factly that on the American side were William Casey and an active-duty CIA officer, Donald Gregg.  On the Iranian side, Karrubi came dressed in a turban and cloak, the traditional attire of an Islamic mullah.  Jamshid and Cyrus attended to help with interpreting.  But Jamshid expressed surprise that Casey was there.

"I remember saying, `What the hell are you doing with Republicans?'" Jamshid told Ross and me.  "My brother said the chance of Republicans getting to power was good and it as important to work with both sides."

Jamshid was sketchy about the dialogue at the meeting.  He claims the session began at about 11:00 and ended by late afternoon, with time out for sandwiches brought into the room for lunch.  But Jamshid said that when Casey put his cards on the table, his desire was clear.

"The proposal was to hold the hostages until after the election, and then the Reagan administration would feel favorably towards Iran and release the FMS [foreign military sales] funds and the frozen assets and return to Iran what had already been purchased."

The already purchased supplies referred to $150 million in military hardware and spare parts bought by the shah from the United States but held back when Khomeini took power and the hostages were seized.  Casey's offer also included F-14 spare parts, which were crucial to the maintenance of Iran's high-tech air force, Jamshid said.

As I scribbled in my notebook, which was perched at the edge of the dining table, Jamshid continued his story.  He spoke deliberately, sometimes with hesitation.  Occasionally he stopped in the midst of a detail to take a bit of food or answer the chirping of his cellular phone.  Then he resumed the tale. 

After the July meeting with Casey, Jamshid said, Karrubi returned to Tehran, where he consulted with Khomeini and the ayatollah's senior advisers.  Two to three weeks later, Karrubi called and asked Jamshid for a second meeting. New arrangements were made, and that meeting, too, was held in Madrid at the Ritz.  Casey and Gregg again represented the American side, and Karrubi was back for the Iranians.  Jamshid said that throughout the two rounds, "Casey was running things,"  but Gregg "was giving information that Casey didn't know or even we didn't know about, really inside-government information, like where the spare parts were."

At this second round, Karubbi again came dressed in full battle gear as an Iranian mullah.  He "confirmed" Kohmeini's agreement to release the hostages only after Reagan won power, Jamshid said, "Karrubi expressed acceptance of the proposal by Mr. Casey," Jamshid told us. "the hostages would be released after Carter's defeat." 

As we finished with a light fruit dessert and delicious coffee at the Grosvenor House, I pressed Jamshid on one question in particular:  Why was he talking now about events that he alleged happened a decade earlier?  He answered that he was speaking from a sense of family responsibility over his younger brother's death.  Jamshid rejected the medial finding of acute leukemia.  "Cyrus passed a physical only a week before he died," Jamshid said, "the doctors found nothing wrong."  Jamshid suspected his brother had been murdered.
Jamshid said he hadn't told his story earlier because he felt it would destroy his business. Now, he said, he had made enough money to support himself and his family.  Jamshid added that he also recognized that Cyrus's double-dealing would not make his late brother look good.  But he wanted to know the truth about his brother's death.  Talking about the October Surprise, he felt, was the only way to discover what really happened."  [NewsMakingNews Note: Cyrus Hashemi died on July 21, 1986.]

2. D. Lowell Jensen's role in protecting Cyrus Hashemi.


In his book, Trick or Treason, Robert Parry does not answer this question.  However, Parry  explains the business dealings of John Shaheen, William Casey's long-time friend, business associate, and fellow OSS officer, whose failing business, the Come-By-Chance refinery in Newfoundland was bailed out by Cyrus Hashemi.  Parry also looks at Cyrus Hashemi's being protected from criminal charges by the United States government during the Reagan administration.

On pages 259-260 of Trick of Treason, Parry says:

"There was a nagging question that undercut suspicions that Cyrus Hashemi had secretly aided Shaheen and Casey on any hostage initiative:  If Cyrus had been the double-agent that his brother Jamshid alleged, wouldn't Cyrus have revealed the October Surprise secret when he came under FBI investigation again in the early 1980s?  We could find no direct evidence that Cyrus blackmailed Casey over October Surprise--a point against believing in the conspiracy.  But Cyrus did succeed in avoiding prosecution for arms smuggling.  Indeed, the Iranian financier seemed to benefit from a string of actions under the Reagan administration.

In February 1981, the new Justice Department ordered the wiretaps yanked from Cyrus Hashemi's office.  At the time, some FBI agents complained that Cyrus was scouting the U.S. market for missile that could be used by the Iranian air force.  At least a few wanted to listen in.  But the field office was ordered to terminate its electronic surveillance.  Though losing the wiretaps, the FBI vowed to "vigorously pursue prosecution in view of the wealth of information obtained that subject and others have been and are in conspiracy to sell military armaments to Iran which are obtained from United States suppliers."

But obstacles soon appeared.  A New York FBI proposal for a search warrant to seize documents from Hashemi's office got lost in a blizzard of technical objections.  In April 1981, the Justice Department questioned the value of the case, doubting that a conviction would lead to jail time. "A fine will give Hashemi an aura of respectability," one cable argued implausibly.

According to a January 29, 1982, internal FBI memo, a review of the evidence by senior professional staff at the Justice Department "determined that there is a strong case for prosecution against Cyrus Hashemi."  But Reagan's first Attorney General William French Smith, withheld approval, and the grand jury was postponed "because of national security considerations," an FBI memo said.  The heavily censored document did not spell out what those "national security considerations" were.

But even two years later, as the wheels of justice turned slowly toward formally charging Cyrus Hashemi and others, the gears would jam again.  On May 16, 1984, the FBI field agents complained that their hope of nabbing Cyrus when he returned to the United States was blocked by another Justice Department intervention.  Cyrus had been scheduled to fly from London to New York on that day.  He would be arrested on May 17.  Those plans, however, went awry when the Justice Department insisted on alerting the target of the long probe.

"For information FBIHQ, Cyrus Hashemi cancelled his Concorde flight reservations to New York on May 16, 1984, at last minute,"  the New York FBI office reported. "Hashemi's now obviously aware of prosecution plans due to exposure when DOJ deputy attorney general Lowell Jensen ordered USA, SDNY [U.S. attorney, southern district of New York] to discuss evidence and prosecution because he made such a commitment to Hashemi's attorney, former Attorney General Elliot Richardson, who obviously had Cyrus Hashemi notified."

The FBI agents noted sarcastically that other targets of the probe, "will also receive the above DOJ-sponsored courtesy...Obviously the arrest will not be announced if they do not occur which in final analysis is not likely. This case began on July 18, 1980 and because of above, results of positive nature do not appear forthcoming despite the mammoth investigative effort put forth thus far."

But the headaches for the "mammoth investigative effort" were not over.  Only a few days before the long-overdue indictments were scheduled, the FBI's terrorism section discovered that two wiretap recordings had disappeared.  The loss of the tapes weakened the case and prevented the indictment of Hashemi's lawyer, Stanley Pottinger, a former Justice Department official during the Nixon and Ford administrations who collaborated with Cyrus on his Iran activities.  But Cyrus Hashemi was finally indicted on July 16, 1984, a full four years after the case commenced.

The indictment also charged another brother, Reza, and several associations with conspiracy to ship military equipment to Iran in violation of U.S. arms export control laws.  The illegally shipped items include night vision equipment, military field communication wire, military rafts, outboard engines, radar electronics, and spare parts for aircraft.  Jamshid Hashemi was later added to the indictment.  Several of Cyrus's subordinates, including brother Reza, pled guilty and received brief jail terms.  but Cyrus and Jamshid, alerted to the pending legal action and safely out of the country, escaped prosecution.

To clear up his legal problems, Cyrus stressed his past assistance to the CIA on Iran and again offered his services to the U.S. government.  According to records uncovered by the Iran-contra investigations, Cyrus did convey, through Shaheen to Casey, an offer to help spring the U.S. hostages in Lebanon.  Cyrus proposed bartering his influence with Tehran in exchange for dropping the charges against him.  Subsequently, Cyrus did work with Shaheen and Furmark in early 1985 on the Lebanon hostage crisis.  Another participant in those early Iran-contra schemes was Iranian emissary Hassan Karrubi, the brother of radical clerk Mehdi Karrubi.

Cyrus eventually avoided prosecution by acting as an undercover agent in the sting operation that netted 17 alleged arms dealers from Europe, the United States, and Israel in April 1986--the so-called "Merchants of death" case.  it was the same sting which angered Israel's conservative leaders, and, according to Ari Ben-Menashe, led to his efforts to leak the Iran arms story to the American press.  At least in that way, the October Surprise mystery had blended with the Iran-Contra Affair."

[To read Trick or Treason, the October Surprise Mystery by Robert Parry, 1993 Sheridan Square Press, New York, order at: ]

Click back to contents.


Source:  Executive Summary (Excerpt) by Inslaw, Inc. CEO, Bill Hamilton

In piecing together the puzzle of the Government's theft of the proprietary version of PROMIS from INSLAW, we have noted the role of the Government's PROMIS Project Manger in sending Rafi Eitan to INSLAW under false pretenses and the alleged role of a senior White House National Security official in giving the proprietary version of PROMIS to Rafi Eitan. The missing piece to the puzzle appears to be the piece that links the actions of the Justice Department's PROMIS Project Manager with the alleged actions of the senior White House National Security official. Based on the available evidence, the missing piece appears to be D. Lowell Jensen, who was Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the time of the theft. Jensen pre-approved virtually every decision taken by the Government's PROMIS Project Manager under INSLAW's contract, according to the latter's sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee. Jensen engineered INSLAW's problems with the Justice Department through specified top Criminal Division aides in order to give the PROMIS business to unidentified "friends," according to Justice Department officials whose statements and backgrounds INSLAW summarized in its July 11, 1993 rebuttal. At the time of the 1983 theft, Jensen in the Criminal Division and Edwin Meese at the White House were planning to award a massive sweetheart contract to unidentified "friends" for the installation of PROMIS in every litigation office of the Justice Department, according to statements made in June 1983 by a Justice Department whistleblower to the staff of a Senator on the Judiciary Committee. The award was allegedly to take place once Meese left the White House to become Attorney General. Jensen and Meese had been close friends since the 1960's when they served together in the Alameda County, California, District Attorney's Office. INSLAW has repeatedly given the Justice Department the names of senior Criminal Division officials under Jensen who either allegedly helped him implement the malfeasance against INSLAW or who allegedly witnessed it. On more than one occasion, INSLAW summarized for the Justice Department the circumstantial evidence that is at least partially corroborative of these allegations. Based on warnings from confidential informants in the Justice Department, INSLAW has repeatedly emphasized to the Justice Department the absolute necessity of placing these officials under oath before interrogating them, as well as the importance of a public statement by the Attorney General guaranteeing no reprisals. More than five years have elapsed since INSLAW began furnishing this information to the Justice Department. Not one of these Criminal Division officials has, it appears, ever been interrogated under oath regarding the INSLAW affair. And no Attorney General has seen fit to issue a public statement to Justice Department employees making it clear that the Attorney General wishes employees who have information about the INSLAW affair to come forward, and giving Justice Department employees the public assurance that reprisals will not be tolerated. One of the senior Criminal Division officials who allegedly knows the whole story of Jensen's malfeasance against INSLAW is Mark Richard, the career Deputy Assistant Attorney General who has responsibility for intelligence and national security matters. In May 1988, the Chief Investigator of the Senate Judiciary Committee told INSLAW that a trusted source, who was in a position to observe Jensen's malfeasance, had identified Mark Richard as someone who not only knew the whole story but who was also "pretty upset" about it.

One of the organizational units that reports to Mark Richard is the Office of Special Investigations (OSI). OSI's publicly-declared mission is to locate and deport Nazi war criminals. The Nazi war criminal program is, however, a front for the Justice Department's own covert intelligence service, according to disclosures recently made to INSLAW by several senior Justice Department career officials."

Additional sources:  See

Click back to contents.


Source: Did the U.S. Put Away Notorious Arms Trader Ed Wilson with False Testimony? EVEN SPOOKS HAVE RIGHTS  By Ken Silverstein (c) 1999 The Nation, October 4, 1999

"D. Lowell Jensen, now a federal judge in Oakland; and Stanley Sporkin, a federal judge in Washington knew before or immediately after the Houston trial that the CIA's affidavit was false. As recorded in notes obtained under the FOIA these men discussed the CIA's relationship to Wilson extensively, but failed to share their information with Wilson's defense. And in hearings last March before US District Court Judge Lynn Hughes, the Justice Department's Arlene Reidy, who is helping coordinate the government's response to Wilson's motion, acknowledged, we have a lot of documents already that I think show that there was a clear problem with the affidavits accuracy and that the individuals involved were well aware of that problem."

Click back to contents.


Source: Barron's March 21, 1988 Beneath Contempt.  Did the Justice Department Deliberately Bankrupt INSLAW by Maggie Mahar.

"And from 1959 until 1967, Ed Meese served with Jensen, as an Alameda deputy district attorney.

When Ronald Reagan became President, Ed Meese recommended that his former colleague, Jensen, be appointed assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division. In 1983, when Rudolph Giuliani resigned as associate Attorney General--the No. 3 spot in the department-- Jensen ascended to that post.

So in early 1984, when Edwin Meese became Attorney General, his old Alameda County compatriot was already in place. And Jensen was not alone. A network, nicknamed the Alameda County Mafia, already was ensconced in Justice. No fewer than six former Alameda County law-enforcement officials held positions ranging from deputy assistant attorney in the tax division, to commissioner of naturalization and immigration. The former Oakland deputy police chief had snagged a spot as director of the National Institute of Justice.

Under Meese, Jensen rose to No. 2, and developed a reputation as a buffer between Ed Meese and his critics. The 58-year-old Democrat was described as "soft-spoken" "apolitical" and a "gentleman of the old standard" in a 1986 "New York Times" tribute, which added, "Colleagues say that Mr. Jensen, better than anyone else at the Justice Department, knows how to duck."

The Justice Department's diplomat had to duck when congressional investigators looking into the Iran-Contra affair reportedly found a Justice Department memo dated March 20, 1986, saying that Deputy Assistant Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen was giving a "heads-up" to the National Security Council, warning that Miami federal prosecutors were on Ollie North's trail.

Source: Barron's March 21, 1988 Beneath Contempt.  Did the Justice Department Deliberately Bankrupt INSLAW by Maggie Mahar. See:

Click back to article contents.