denniscomments

political and social commentary about the flat earthers and other ridiculous subjects

RANDOM THOUGHTS AND IDEAS


Dennis L. Blewitt, J.D. 2015
Continuation of What Happened?
I remember a time when there was trust, compassion, charity, and a sense of community in the third branch of Government called the Courts. That era has all but disappeared. Change came rapidly, and, in an instant, a branch of Government was transformed from an equal branch of Government that served the citizenry or people into a “system” which became the playground of the multi-nationals. This was not accidental, it was planned and premeditated by the greedy and ignorant, disdainful of the lower classes whom they believed inferior and needed to be punished. A major impediment to the era of corporate rule was the Constitution. The Constitution was attacked wholesale by politicians and the press. Laws, especially drug laws were made more draconian due the publicized death of a professional basketball player. Propaganda media programs, enshrining police and creating a villainous “other” was in full swing. People believed that Government was the enemy and only corporate efficiency could save them from the ravages of Government. Ironically, this same group idolized the police. While the elite got wealthier, predators siphoned off people’s money, blaming the decline in the standard of living on the poor, lazy, welfare recipients, deadbeat fathers and other manufactured causes, readily accepted by the uninformed and ignorant. People were conditioned to believe that private business persons were heroes and good rather than the venal, greedy unscrupulous enemy of the public that they were. Society’s unfortunates were blamed for the siphoning off of wealth.
Efficiency was the buzzword and the Government started marketing protection similar to the tactics of the Mafia in an earlier period. It thrived on fear. No one stopped to think what this efficiency meant, or how it would affect us. In 2003, minimum mandatory sentencing was introduced. This reflected a change in thinking regarding punishment or treatment of an individual to that of punishing an act or thing. Crime became symbolic and sentence was meted out to validate the people’s concerns and prejudices. Reason and causation that defense attorneys used to present to judges or certain social conditions were now forbidden. The Government had the equivalency of papal infallibility. Decisions on justice and crime were made by prosecutors, anxious to prostitute themselves to stay in power or keep their positions. The public wanted safety and they got it, or the illusion of it, at the expense of an 800-year traditional legal system and the nebulous concept of justice. Justice now meant retribution or vengeance, not understanding and compassion. At the same time, an ambivalent public favored corporations over Government to better address the problems of a complex society.
Bail reform, disguising the concept of preventive detention, negated the presumption of innocence and right to trial and counsel, obtained at Runnymede by sword point and great cost to the originators. Judges started to restrict the questioning of potential jurors to speed up the conviction process, curtailing the right to a jury. Justice in thought and practice was replaced by vengeance. Many groups agitated for less government and more business-like government. The third branch of Government was to become the servant of the Executive branch. Fear, ignorance, servitude, and expediency reigned over destruction of the Constitution, cheered by a fearful population. Laws promoted the rich.
Tax revision, distributing wealth and power upward, and control of the narrative convinced the public that there was danger everywhere and more police could protect a person. Very few challenged this assumption. People wanted security. People wanted certainty. People didn’t want to look at complex problems or solutions. They believed that the free market would solve all problems and save them from fear. Only privatized government could save us. The crime policy was to contain and warehouse the poor like we did cattle on ranches. Criminals weren’t people, they were essentially cattle that should be put away or even executed because they didn’t behave. Only individuals were responsible. Society efficiently run by corporations was blameless. The idea of a society was replaced by a Darwinist battle of individuals. Various interest groups started to flex their muscles, many of which were quasi-religious in ideology and belief. Although a tiny O-ring on a rocket scuttled a space launch, a comparably simple system, the public thought that a much more complicated “justice system” could be the immediate “fixed” simply by efficiency. The idea of evidence-based policy was discarded, replaced by such totalitarian ideas as zero-tolerance and broken windows law enforcement. Everyone was suspect and a potential threat. To deal with these and many other perceived dangers, Officials in the law enforcement community and ex judges recruited mainly from the ranks of prosecutors implemented the concept of preventive detention. Zero tolerance prohibited debate. Broken window policy of strict enforcement of chicken shit laws kept the peasantry docile, in fear, and in line. Unlike opinions of scientists 75 years ago which showed that criminals should be taught to differentiate between running a stop sign and murder, any violation of any law or regulation was reason to punish. And who had “broken windows?” The poor, of course.
To gain control, the Common law system had to go. The corporation managers could not countenance power from below. They wished dictatorial power. They were to become terrorists by acquiescence. Although centuries old, the presumption of innocence needed to be abolished and replaced with an Old Testament non-Christian view of the world with the view that everyone way a sinner or guilty of something. Like the characters of the Old Testament, the people wanted vengeance, protection and the feeling of comfort generally associated with cattle. Many intellectually deficient drones proclaimed themselves “Christians,” libertarians, and “Patriots,” causing the thinking public to cringe. However, these people were vocal and made their desires heard. The problem was that they could only think in terms of dichotomy. Continuums were beyond their ken. They believed in simple answers to complex problems. They denied science and the concept of a society. It was all up to the individual and those who did not excel were morally lacking.
An earlier attempt under the Nixon-Mitchell administration was made to privatize records when Law Enforcement Assistance Administration was created, but was defeated. This group spun off a private intelligence corporation which stored records. When the abuse was obvious, prosecutors feigned lack of control over the corporations, claiming that information was private and not available to the defense. Judges put a short stop to that. They weren’t quite indoctrinated to cow-tow to the corporation. That would soon change.
Privatization occurred with a vengeance under the Reagan administration. Private prisons cropped up, hyped as an answer to prison crowding. The crowding, however, was manufactured. First bail reform abolished the common law concept of bail being a guarantee for a court appearance. It was now used as a device to control, discriminate, and punish. For centuries, the right to bail was absolute. Now it is conditional with the accused treated as though he has already been convicted, subject to terms and conditions imposed by Courts and prosecutors without precedent in Anglo-American jurisprudence. The new breed of politician and lawyer respected expediency and profit, not justice and fairness.
When I first started law practice, I used to get a call from a client that he had been arrested. I could have him released within two hours of my arrival at jail. There was a bail schedule, a deputy clerk to grant the bail, a bondsman to post the bond, and that was it. Now, under bail reform, the reality is that the accused generally has to spend at least one night in jail. Bond is set in a greater amount than before and the accused is subject to various conditions pending the disposition of the case. The bond is not to ensure the accused’s appearance in court, it functions as a peace bond, subject to revocation for a myriad of reasons which may or may not pertain to the prosecution. In effect, the defendant is already found guilty of something. He just needed to wait for the police and their DA lackeys to decide how to treat them. To be released, they had to agree to being treated as though convicted. That has changed. I now take at least a day. Release on bond has become a form of punishment because the arrestee is presumed to be guilty of something. Mostly, the main offense was being poor. Conditions, identical to the pre-Reagan practices of probation after conviction replaced the right to bail. Conditional release had absolutely no relation to appearance to answer charges.
Bond was identical to the Roman-Napoleon concept of the peace bond. Release was conditional. If an arrest were made on a weekend, the accused generally had to spend it in confinement. The costs of bail raised because the amount demanded by the schedules were escalated. Not to insure appearance of an accused, but to increase profitability.
A recent example is the requirement of an accused to wear a sobriety ankle device, have an interlock device on his car to drive and attend alcohol classes sponsored by a political lobby group, whose purpose is to indoctrinate the public and change the law. This particular individual was accused of driving under the influence of marijuana. The dumbass court applied the alcohol statute to the defendant because there wasn’t one yet for driving while using marijuana. Common sense suffers, but the private groups providing these services thrive. The accused must pay $25 for a breath test that he is not drinking, when that was never in issue. He also has to pay for an interlock device on his car, sold by another vendor. Additionally he has to take an alcohol class, administered by a private company. All told, before any conviction he has paid the Court racket over a thousand dollars to comply with stupid, non-relevant conditions of bond. He must contact the private vendor regularly and pay for that. So much for the presumption of innocence. The system is mechanized and mindlessly rambles on. The only logical reason for this is to create the illusion that the police state can protect us.
Science is denied by those in power. Science is inconvenience. It is easier to keep power by manipulating opinion and maintaining an ignorant public. Social scientists have studied crime causation and all the research is ignored by most policymakers. Medical science has shown that the prime cause of addiction is a person’s social environment and addiction is correlated with mental health problems. However, the public won’t face this. They are convinced that the individual is to blame for all of society’s problems. If enough people can be locked up, we don’t have to worry about causation. So speaks the simple mind.
Before “reform, when the defendant was arrested and before the Courts allowed predatory practices by business, an accused was allowed access to the facility’s telephone, paid for by the taxpayers and not subject to any surtax. He had an unconditional right to a phone call. He was innocent and had rights, eight centuries old. Now, he must make a collect call to someone to arrange bail or counsel. A private company provides this at a cost of around $2.00-$300 per call, which must be paid by the call recipient. Naturally, several people refuse to accept the call when a recorder informs them that, “you have a correct call from a correctional institution.” Additionally, the calls are monitored, even if to an attorney in a blatant, deliberate violation of the right to counsel and to that of attorney-client privilege. This is also true of spousal calls. Considering that most arrestees are poor, this is a truly regressive form of punishment.
The end result of all of this privatization is a destruction of Constitutional rights. The irony is that we are being charged for this by allowing a failed policy to benefit the robber barons and privateers. The true crime is that those who should be standing up to the profiteers are generally in bed with them. They seem to be morally and ethically challenged, or else brainwashed into believing that the Government to whom they took a loyalty oath is corrupt and evil compared to the multinational corporations. This whole system is insane and calculated to enhance corporate profits and transfer wealth to them at the expense of the citizenry, especially the poor. It should be obvious to even the most obtuse that the corporation executives, not the People, benefit from such policy.

REMEMBERANCE OF DYLAN THOMAS

So, as we enter the election climate with the same mindset of a sporting event including pep rallies and cheer leaders.  “Lock her up” was repeatedly shouted in a convention.  This is in light of the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate in the free world.  “Build a wall” was chanted as a solution to the economy doldrums at the same time as a release of a report stating home-grown terrorism is the biggest threat to the safety of our citizenry.  I am tired of being embarrassed, lied to, manipulated, and ignored.  This is insulting.  It is time for us to make our presence known.  Let the rulers be aware that we are watching, and we expect better of them.  Get active at the congressional and state levels.  Don’t fear being labeled as stupid.  Those are the ones doing the labeling.  Hit the social media with demands that the candidates talk about real issues rather than amuse us.  Get angry.  Get involved.  Stop bullies.  Stop corporation power.  Quit worshipping toxic business ethics.  Tell the other candidate to concern herself with all the people and society rather than corporations and children.

Justice and Law (B.N.) Before Nixon

Dennis L. Blewitt, J.D, June 2016

Like many of my colleagues, I hung out at bars and coffee shops and talked to   people, even today.  However, there are some significant differences that merit comment about “the good old days.”  The only thing good about them was that they warrant discussion.  So, I rewrote an excerpt from my Memoirs of a Drug Warrior to see if anyone understands it, or, more to the point, if anyone cares.  It is my hope that some nostalgic well-connected acid freak might even line up a publisher or an agent.

               One of the many advantages of trying cases in numerous jurisdictions is the benefit of comparing different views of the law and of legal procedure. Before I started traveling, I assumed law in the United States was pretty much the same all over however, that’s not the case.  The only consistency is when people in the system view it as a methodology rather than a body of knowledge.  There have, over the decades, substantial changes in both the law and the perception of the law.  Here is an example of the good old days.

               One of my first cases out of state was in Laramie, Wyoming.  Both Laramie and Boulder, Colorado were college towns with travel between the student bodies at each institution. Laramie is on a wind-swept plateau is cold.  The town is much less active and much smaller than Boulder and, other than romancing sheep, I there’s not much else to do there. But, the cowboys do have money. And that’s where my clients, newly returned from Vietnam to enroll at the local University here enter the picture.  They were contacted by someone in Laramie who wanted to purchase marijuana. He drove down to Boulder to beg the clients to deliver the product to Laramie, which the clients were reluctant to do at first until the price offered was so high, they couldn’t refuse.

               An interesting fact about my client’s back then was that the majority of them were first introduced to marijuana in Vietnam, by superior officers. So, as long as they were killing Commies for Christ, everything was cool. But when they came home things changed. There were newspaper articles at the time about how soldiers returning from Vietnam had become addicted to heroin and the government wasn’t doing anything about it. Later, I found out they were doing something about it. The government was packing heroin into caskets and sending it to the United States with the corpses, but that’s another story.

               So, when my clients showed up in Laramie with a couple hundred pounds of marijuana they were surprised to be presented with handcuffs rather than money. I recruited co-counsel, Eugene Dykeman, and we flew to Laramie to see what we could do. We talked to the prosecutor and a date was set for hearing on our suppression motion. The prosecutor was friendly and condescending and offered to go easier on me when I told him I had never done a drug case there before. After the hearing, he accused me of lying to him because of my performance at the hearing.

               “I thought you said that you had never handled a drug case before,” he said accusatorially.

               “No, Mr. Reese, I said that I had never handled a drug case in Wyoming before. You must have misunderstood.”

               During the hearing, I discovered some very interesting facts. First, Boulder was targeted by various agencies as a drug center. In fact, it was a training ground for some agencies. Additionally, the detective on this case specified that the informant had to buy marijuana from someone in Boulder and get them to deliver it across a state line to Wyoming. My clients were nominated and elected at the same time.

               When I delved into the phone call made from Laramie to my clients in Boulder, some very interesting facts were uncovered. The officer, listening in on the phone call, heard both sides of the conversation between the informant and my client. But the call was made from a phone that had no extension. It was a pay phone. So I asked the investigator how he managed to hear both sides of the conversation and he said, “well now, I have this neat little gadget that I use. I take my knife and I peeled back the wires and attach alligator clips to them, attached to headphones. there’s no microphone in the unit so the other side couldn’t hear anything from me, but I can hear everything that goes on.”

               Well, the detective had just confessed to a warrantless illegal wiretap. He was clueless he had done so.  I considered the case won at that point but toyed with him for another hour.  Then Dykeman had a go.  All was well except the prosecutor didn’t seem to recognize the problem with the search.  I concentrated on that and Dykeman concentrated on the enticement by the Government to encourage citizens to cross a state line to commit a crime.  I personally believed that it was to help populate the state with one congressman and two senators.  Incarceration would ensure that they would be around for a census.  After the first hearing, the prosecutor informed me that the U.S. Attorney was interested in my case.  He explained that he was a part-time prosecutor and dealing with me took up too much time.  He threatened to turn the case over to the Feds if I kept filing motions.  I knew that the penalty under Federal law was much less that the state of Wyoming was offering.  Immediately, upon returning to Boulder, I filed more motions.

               I had some more trips. In one, I got within a mile of the runway when they closed the airport, forcing me to fly back and drive there. Most of the hearings were uneventful, and the prosecutor kept trying to get me to tell my clients to plead guilty to something.  I would respond by filing more motions.  This was the first wiretap case in Laramie and I don’t think the Courts there were used to them.

               Finally, I pissed off the prosecutor to the point he turned the case over to the Feds. We had to wait to celebrate because I didn’t drink if I was flying.  However, I made up for it when I got back.  Looking back and comparing what happened then with what would have happened now is astounding.  It is hard for me to believe or appreciate what four decades has done to the drug laws.

               In Cheyenne, we had a judge who had sat form many years and had many years as a practicing lawyer.  We both knew about loco weed that the cattle and horses occasionally ate, but there wasn’t a big marijuana problem in the area.  Most illicit smoking was trying to burn corn silk behind the barn.  The prosecutor made a reasonable offer to dispose of the case.  We actually had some discussions about the case, as opposed to today when a recent Law School graduate reads some police files written in a slanted fashion by more experienced police officer and then confers with the officer or agent in order to come up with a “plea bargain.”  There is no bargain.  There is an offer by some kid on a take it or leave it basis.  This arrogance is enforced by long prison sentencings with minimum mandatory sentences of the client balks at the extortion of a plea.  It is assembly line case processing.  It isn’t fair, but it is efficient.  That’s how the courts handle so many cases in a year.  It is also why we have ten times more prisoners now than when I started.

               Before the clients were to be sentenced on a plea to a reduced charge, the Judge called us back to his chambers before Court.  Back then, judges mingled with the peasant lawyers and didn’t hide behind back doors.  I think that is not the case now because the judges know that they are unfair, dictatorial and clueless.  The judges were more concerned with Justice than processing cases and moving the docket along.  The process was fair, but not efficient.  Now the process resembles a ritual such as Mass, where a litany is recited which has absolutely no relationship to reality where a judge tells a defendant about rights he theoretically has, which actually don’t exist.  The client responds with catechistic answers.  The judge asks the defendant if he is agreeing to be screwed of his own free will and there haven’t been any threats.  Instead of telling the judge that he was threatened with extremely long sentencing if he didn’t go along, he tells the judge that his plea is voluntary.  At that point, the defendant is sentenced according to some chart that any clerk could use with the same result.  Uniformity is the buzz word.  To get that, judges can’t be independent.

               In chambers, the judge had a conversation with the attorneys and prosecutor.  He explained his position in advanced and warned the prosecutor that he would have many regrets if he pissed and moaned about the decision.  This is the essence of the judge’s position as best as I can remember.

               Judge start out by addressing us.  Gentlemen, I have been doing some reading about this marijuana situation.  I don’t think it is that bad.  I read how it became law and am aware that the defendants didn’t start until they were in Viet Nam.  I find it unfortunate that the Government isn’t doing something about the situation there.  We’re surely spending lots of money to kill and I think some of the money could be used to help these men out.  So, I am sentencing them to the indeterminate sentence as required.  He told us that he had to do that because the press demanded some kind of punishment because it was the biggest marijuana case in Wyoming so far.

               However, he told us, I will entertain a motion to resentence these people in 90 days when the publicity dies down.  So if you gentlemen file motions in about 85 days, I will grant them.  He also said that the clients had 30 days to turn themselves in at the facility in El Reno, Oklahoma and they could take their cars there.  Not a peep out of the U.S. attorney.  The defendants were released in 100 days, finished college and have been employed ever since.

               I don’t have the vocabulary to describe what occurs today to give all of you a comparison.  All I can say is that you should attend some court sessions and compare what is happening today with my story.  There hasn’t been just a change in attitudes, there has been a whole change in the culture.  Everyone entering the courthouse is suspect.  Probability is slim, but that doesn’t matter.  We are no longer a free country where we are assumed to be good.  We are suspected of wanting to cause harm to the court personnel.  Unless you are a member of the police state, you have to submit to surveillance, and searched, either by hand or electronically.  I can’t help but observe that the courts weren’t that way until the prosecutors and judges started screwing the people.  I have always found the situation to be insulting, but I guess I am one of the few who doesn’t live in a state of fear.  Like one famous president said, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” and yet another stated confidently, “you have nothing to fear but fear itself.”  Also, compare past presidents with the front-running candidates today.  It is not hard to see why I write.

               We don’t need all those prisoners, except to make corporations wealthy.  We do need hospitals to care for the sick.  We don’t need vengeance.  We do need compassion and understanding.  Before Nixon, we were on the way of defining a drug problem in medical terms, not law enforcement terms.  The reason for the drug war wasn’t to regulate or decrease drug abuse.  It was to destabilize minorities, youths, protesters and any other group that pisssed off my father’s generation There was no law enforcement problem.  There was a problem with an administration frustrated that it couldn’t kill Asians.  That’s bad enough, but certain parts of the government wanted drugs controlled because it kept the price of drugs high.  They wanted that because the Government, who declared war on drugs, meaning hippies and yuppies, also wanted to profit from controlling drug supply.  I think back on the thousands of clients who got a felony charge and, maybe, a conviction at the start of their lives and it makes me angry and depressed.  What makes me more frustrated is that, even with all the material available on the history and damage that the drug war does to youths, we still continue.  It frustrates me when a state amends its Constitution reflecting the will of the people, that Government official do all within their power to negate our vote. I don’t blame the public for being resistant.  Sputnik, which provided me years of post-high-school education for free is old history.  Instead, after brainwashing the citizenry that business can run governmental institutions better and exploit the youth of this country with high tuition and outrageous loan policy, we spend the money that should be used for an educated citizenry, a healthy citizenry, a housed and fed citizenry on selling weapons to other countries whom we buy drugs from so they can buy our weapons.  We encourage perpetual war while bridges collapse on the people and the ignorant people cheer the politicians on when the screw us.  Instead of controlling our public servants, we allow them to kill us to the point that more people are killed by police than in our wars.  I have often said in jest that this country should produce more proctologists to treat our rectal-cranial inversion.  I still can’t decide if the people are stupid, ignorant, brainwashed, or, just don’t care anymore.  This situation isn’t sustainable.  People see how agencies band together to get their way no matter what the people or their elected representatives want to thwart or ignore the will of the people.  If that doesn’t work, they kill a few of us as an example.  We are not governed with our consent, we are ruled in a more and more sinister manner.  It will get worse unless we wake up, read, inform ourselves and ostracize the ones who try to screw us or do us harm.  Join me in denouncing fear.  Tell officials we can no longer be intimidated or made fearful.  Quit trying to destroy our freedom, or else.

  WHAT HAS CHANGED

MAY 30, 2016 LEAVE A COMMENT EDIT

WHO’S THE REAL CRIMINAL?  IT ALL DEPENDS UPON THE POWER TO DEFINE.

DENNIS L. BLEWITT, J. D.., May 2016

WHEN I finished law school, there still was stability in the law.  There were century old definitions, concepts and principles.  There was a respect for precedent.  Law was methodology, not a body of knowledge.  There were fairly clear lines that defined crime, which developed over centuries. I started in a time of social change and challenge to concepts and ideas.  Power was up for grabs.  The rulers had divided the population along color lines, class lines and gender lines.  But these divisions were being challenged.  Loyalty oaths were attacked, the selective service was attacked, separate but equal schools were attacked, and the new generation didn’t know their place.  They were restless and questioned authority.

All wrongs weren’t criminal.  A person had to intend to be a criminal to commit a crime.  However, there were lots of harmful screw ups; ones that hurt others because of recklessness or lack caution.  These people weren’t then considered criminal.  Yet.  But, to get control of thoughts and deeds, the regime believed that more power must be exercised.  The people couldn’t be trusted to govern themselves.  The law was called upon for discipline and to maintain the status quo.  The new generation preached love and the old preached hate.  The new wanted change, the old wanted the status quo and stability.  Not only was there a war in SE Asia, but there was a cultural war at home.  One that was viewed as a matter of life and death by the old guard.  Rather than try to understand, force was the weapon of choice, and the war on drugs was the battle ground.  The war kept the rabble paranoid, fractured and incapable of coordinated social action.  A casualty of that war was the abolition of common law, and the implementation of various degrees of Civil, or Napoleonic law.  Power was taken from the people and instilled in the rulers.  Debate was stifled and simple mindedness prevailed.  If there was a hurt, there was a punishment.

Causation had been defined as intent, now it was equated with knowledge.  Defenses dating back centuries which were clear now became confused and blurred.  “I didn’t do it, I didn’t mean to do it, it wasn’t illegal to do it, and, the devil made me do it” were the only defenses to crime.  Common law held that the act wasn’t relevant.  That stopped being a factor with the Druids.  What mattered was what was in the persons “soul” or heart.  Was he a bad guy or a screw up?  Only bad guys were criminals.  Crime was behavior that concerned the state and not individuals.  Criminal law could not be used for personal gain or revenge, if harm occurred, of consideration or caring.  There was a whole area of the law that dealt with these problems.  It was not criminal law.  However, without intent, there may be grounds for a lawsuit, but not for a prosecution.

Then things started to get blurred.  The population wasn’t responding to things in predictable ways.  Young people avoided what was considered their duty.  They avoid the draft and protested war.  Races started to demand equality.  Gender equality was next.  The powerful took advantage of the unrest to dilute the labor pool and subjugate populations to lower wages.  Standard of living declined along with the perceived dominance of the world by the U.S.  Law no longer was the exemplar of the culture, through mores, folkways, taboos and customs.  Various groups vied for power to impose definitions upon the public.  Common law was considered inconvenient and unfair.  Power was up for grabs and for sale. The war on drugs was the perfect vehicle to keep the youths, minorities and dissidents under control.

When I started, common law was the law of the land in a substantial part of the English-speaking world.  It was the reflection of the people.  It existed by consensus.  Consensus gave it legitimacy.  Power was exercised from the bottom up. “with consent of the governed.”  Most of the rest of the world had law based upon recognized or forced power from the top down, called Napoleonic, Roman or Civil Law.  It had worked well for centuries until some leaders got greedy and power hungry.  Some also got frustrated with the inefficiency of Government and, with the salad bowl concept rather than mixing bowl, definitions were up for grabs.

There have been many definitions of law, government, etc., however most deal with power and who yields it and who is subject to it.  Is the subjugation voluntary or not?  Where does the power come from?  How is it used?  The main difference between the two system can be defined in terms of power.  In Common Law system, power depends upon the consent of the population.  Rulers don’t remain rulers if the people don’t agree.  A Napoleonic system has power at the top, going down to the people.  It has many forms, the most extreme being Fascism, National Socialism, Stalinism and martial law. When people are fearful, unscrupulous politicians wrest power from the people and concentrate it for their own benefit.  That happened in the U. S.

Conservative Presidents wanted power and were afraid of change and of Communists.  Younger people had experienced enough duck and cover, paranoia, cold war suspicion and adopted the motto of Mad Magazine, “Quid, me vex are?”  They reasoned that if a bomb was going to fall, there wasn’t much they could do about it, so why worry about it.  Live, love, and be free was the password of passage.

Indoctrinated by fear of communism, the leaders were convinced that this change in beliefs of the young was inspired by communists.  Reds were behind civil rights demands, anti-war demonstrations, draft-card burnings, riots, student protests, and fluoridation.  The reds were behind everything.  But, we were saved by a president who identified the problem as the young and minorities, led by reds, who needed to be controlled.  A perfect way was devised to do this.  Drugs were associated with protest and long hair with draft resistance, and vice versa.  Our president’s men decided that the situation could be controlled by criminalizing drugs, instead of making it a tax evasion matter which it was considered previously.  This policy was embraced by the older citizens who were fearful of change.  The propaganda machine went into operation and the powers that be started marketing fear like some companies marketed soap.

However, the rulers were cognizant of the perilous position they were in.  So, the legal system had to be changed.  Power needed to be concentrated.  This was easy to do with a congress afraid to declare war in Viet Nam and left it up to the Executive branch.

Without opposition, the system started to be changed into a Napoleonic one.  Power was exerted from the top, not exercised by consent.  Since drug cases took up so much court time, the civil cases became backlogged and costlier.  Prosecutors, to win elections, tried to convince the people that they could represent the victims of crime and the interests of the state at the same time.  This was another power grab.  As that developed, the general bad guy theory gave way to the concept that wrongs should be paid for and the state should make sure that happened.  All of the sudden, anything that caused an injury or hurt was defined as a crime.  Prisons expanded exponentially.  By the time of Reagan, privatization was promoted as a cure for big government who had demonstrated that they couldn’t work in instances in which there was no reason for it to work.  Crime again got redefined, depending upon the profitability of the situation.  Some interest groups organized to have their definitions of crime.  New crimes evolved and were defined differently in various jurisdictions, depending upon who could exercise the power to define.  We went developed into a legal tower of Babel.

Thus, we evolved into a police state.  The vehicle used to do this was the drug war, inflamed with the marketing of fear.  There were not enough leaders with integrity to speak up for right and risk public condemnation or ridicule.  There were few people with the vision to see what was happening.  Intellectuals feared criticism and ridicule. The brightest were either tripping and dying, the rest were quaking and pissing their pants.  Whites wanted to keep power, the rich wanted more money, youths wanted to be mellow, politicians wanted war.  All this combined to steal freedom and liberty from the citizenry.  Freedom was intentionally and premeditatedly stolen from the citizenry.  Who is the criminal

DRUG WAR:

MAY 21, 2016 LEAVE A COMMENT EDIT

LIES, COVERUPS AND OF THE DESTRUCTION OF A COUNTRY    

dennis L. blewitt, J.D. May 2016

It took a while for me to recover from my grand jury experience.  I was still fairly idealistic then.  That was to change over time.  I still didn’t connect the dots.  Sally Denton had published her book, “Bluegrass Conspiracy” and “Smith County Justice,” “Compromised,” “Politics or Heroin in SE Asia,” and other books.  I also started seriously research the subject.  At first, I wouldn’t discuss my findings, believing that I would be locked up in a looney bin.  That soon changed.

In addition to having drug cases in over 30 U. S, state and Federal jurisdictions, I started receiving information anonymously by chance meetings and deliveries to my mailbox.  All in all, the experience was surrealistic.  It made me question my sanity and ability to think and understand.  I was starting to agree with my friends that I was bat-shit crazy.  After all, why should a nobody from nowhere Colorado have these surrealistic experiences, when my clients, who were on acid quite often seem perfectly normal.  I asked people if two plus three still equaled five.  There was agreement.  I would describe things I saw, and no one argued.  But, when I would speak about what I had observed and how I interpreted events, observations and experiences, I could see the disbelief and skepticism in people’s eyes.  The information mysteriously supplied started to make sense and form a pattern.  I would run into strangers who would tell me things which would later prove to be true.

At that time, all new clients had to have a reference.  I had to feel comfortable with them.  I didn’t care about a fee, I only cared about them being a plant to set me up or otherwise harm me.  Then came an inquiry from an ex-client.  He had been a large-scale distributor with his own fleet of airplanes.  I had represented him in Colorado, Missouri, Kansas and S. Dakota.  He was arrested east of Denver with about 500 pounds of marijuana on the interstate.  He had landed a plane with a confederate and an agent whom he had employed to write his memoirs. He documented the trip on film for his memoirs. Of course, he didn’t know she was a Fed at that time.  That came later.  At the time of the arrest, she made it a point to try to get me to advise some kind of questionable conduct, but I was too naïve and didn’t succumb to her charms like my client had.  In any event, within one hour of his arrest, they told him they would release him on a recognizance bond if he would agree to work for them to try to obtain anything usable against me.  If he could set me up for something, they would dismiss his 500-pound marijuana case.  We had a jury trial, and he was convicted.  I appealed the case.  The Government spent all the money investigating and capturing him.  However, the agents took the film from the camera to a corner drug store for developing.  The contact prints showed people unloading marijuana from a plane, but wasn’t good enough to identify anyone.  When the jury asked for a magnifying glass, I suspected that the case was lost. And, sure enough, two hours later a guilty verdict was announced.  The judge sentenced him to one year per 100 pounds.  He also stated that the main reason wasn’t the marijuana, but the fact that he had fathered several children and didn’t pay any support.  The judge said he was obligated to stop a one-man population explosion.  This was the last of several matters that I had handled for this defendant. He seemed to have lost confidence in me after his 5-year sentence. Or at least so it seemed at the time.

However, I was not to have been so lucky. Although this particular client had great entertainment value, he was also a pain in the ass. Additionally, he had a monumental ego, reflected by the fact that he had hired a federal agent unknown to him at the time, to transcribe his memoirs, which turned out to be a confession of great significance however for some reason this document never seem to have gotten into the court files or records I suspect because he had significant ties to the intelligence community.

Out of the blue, his new lawyer contacted me and informed me he was filing a post-conviction case for the defendant based upon ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. That didn’t particularly surprise me, because many choose to do that when their lawyer loses a case. However, the grounds that this defendant used were unique. At that time, there been several cases of prosecutorial misconduct including planting spies and Jim Garrison’s office while he was trying to indict people on the Kennedy assassination, and planting spies on the Russell means defense team. I knew that the secretary, recording the client’s memoirs was employed by the drug agency, which I thought was outrageous enough, but, curiously, that wasn’t the grounds for his appeal.

It seems, that when my client was arrested and in the custody of the federal agents, they told him that his case could be dismissed if he was able to get any evidence against me. Although he tried he was unable to do so, for which he blamed me. Had I done something illegal or unethical, and he would be a freeman today. They told him that it be fairly easy to do. They also said they would be greatly appreciative. So under his theory, he couldn’t tell me everything about the case that I needed to know to defend him, because to do so would incriminate him in a way that might be leveraged against him if he were to get something against me. Follow? I sure as hell didn’t. So, because he couldn’t tell me what I needed to know to defend him he had inadequate representation of counsel. All I needed then was the white rabbit and the red queen. I considered using this in a class I talk about postmodern criminal defense. It was a scenario that could rival that of Umberto Eco.  However, since I realized that I wasn’t anywhere near the writer that Eco was, I decided not to. Additionally, I couldn’t determine whether to style it as Eco or Kafka or maybe a synthesis of the two.  So, I bumbled along, blissfully ignorant of the swamp in which I had chosen to play.

I then started to sociogram my experiences again.  I did that before I ran for DA, and sort of stopped while I was reeling from attack.  I had a tip from an agent in Aspen, a case in Chicago and one in Milwaukee that enlarged my paranoia and, eventually understanding.  But that took a while.  Soon, I was about to be inundated with information, and with it, misinformation.  In my book, I detail these delusions, but I already get enough criticism of the length of my missives.  So until I find a publisher, this is it.

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

MAY 20, 2016 LEAVE A COMMENT EDIT

THE OBJECT OF MY PROJECT: Who’s in Charge

DENNIS L BLEWITT, J.D. May 2016

I digress from the sequence if my narrative to answer some observation, questions and revelations I’ve discovered since my first article of my war with the CIA.  Many readers have expressed the attitude “so what else is new, that’s interesting, what did you expect, etc.”  I have had comments from all over the political spectrum.  From that, I see a pattern evolving.  Both sides are suspicious of both the Government and the elite.  Most readers now accept that the Government or at least a Government agency is behind the drug trade and has been for quite some time.  “If [we] all know this, why are your writing about it?”

Well, the reason is that it is still going on.  People are still going to jail.  The police state is advancing, and our rights are still jeopardized.  It is frustrating that with so many people aware of the situation, that it is still allowed to exist.

When I first became aware of the CIA involvement, I questioned my conclusions.  I questioned my sanity.  I questioned my suspicions.  It was too unbelievable.  Our Government couldn’t be involved.  Sure, maybe there are a few rogue elephants out there, but I was watching a stampede.  This couldn’t be true!

It took a lot for me to overcome my provincial small-town view of the world and people.  I was on a cruise ship that held more than the population of my home town.  My father was a state employee and a local business man.  He was active in the VFW and other organizations.  I was slated for Annapolis as a political appointee.  My younger brother was a career military pilot.  I was not taught, but indoctrinated to support the Government, right or wrong.  The Government paid for almost 10 years of school beyond high school.  In short, I represented the views, beliefs and values of small-town America.  Even as late as law school, I still held onto these delusions.  Then I started defending drug cases.

My first drug cases were all ex Viet Nam vets, returning from the war.  They were introduced to drugs by their officers and commanders.  I did drug cases because I didn’t expect to practice law long and was killing time until I could find an academic slot.  I took a drug case because no one else in town wanted to soil their hands or risk the social ostracism associated with drug use.  I knew about drugs somewhat because at one time I enrolled as a pharmacy major and held an apprentice certificate from the state.  I also knew chemistry and lab procedure.  I had even toyed with the idea of going to University of Kentucky’s program for a graduate degree in narcotics social work before deciding on law school.  I grew up in a time of building bomb shelters in the basements, witnessing crosses being burned on people’s lawns, and loyalty oaths demanded of university professors.  It was extremely difficult for me to believe anything bad about our Government.

I look back on those days as extreme naiveté and ignorance, which, I assume made me a perfect patsy.   So, for four decades, I learned, researched, reflected and codified my thinking.

At first, I was branded a “conspiracy theorist,” a label placed upon people who expressed ideas contrary to the propaganda machine.  The logic seemed to make sense.  Conspiracies are extremely hard to keep concealed.  Then came the Watergate burglary.  A senate select committee held hearings and issued a report about all the violations of the intelligence agencies.  I believe the purpose of the committee was to find leaks and plug them.  There was very little change in structure, but lots of new security regulations.  But, people still believed that there could be no conspiracies. It is hard to keep information sequestered.  At least until WiKi leaks by Assange and Snowden’s revelations about the NSA.

In my view, there are no conspiracies.  We should be looking at the structure of our Government and how it works.  We should look at who has power and how it is distributed.  We should pity the preachers of conspiracy for their lack of vision and understanding.  We should fight corruption on all levels and examine policy makers and policy bribers.  If we don’t wake up, our society cannot survive.

No one likes to be labeled as a conspiracy nut.  That is the way the ignorant can dismiss unpleasant facts without having to engage a thought process.  However, these things still exist and operate without original players.  It is systemic.  So, in my humble way, I try to explain to people what is, not what is perceived.  There should be some real consequences of lying to the citizenry.  We confiscate property of marijuana merchants, but reward death merchants.  We allow two branches of Government to ignore their obligations and default to the executive who engage in wholesale war crimes and violation of the Constitution.  We allow the rich to build a police state to protect their status gained at the expense of the people.  We allow power groups divide us and so dissent to strip the people of power.  We allow the greedy to strip our national treasures, steal our resources and enslave our population.

It is time to realize who, if anyone, is in charge or did we create a self-perpetuating fascist machine, relying upon the media to perpetrate.  We seem to forget that all Corporations are the creation of Government and serve at will of Government.  The corporate rulers believe that they can act with impunity they have immunity as long as small shareholders can be held hostage.  If we dissolve a few corrupt corporations and make the executives’ pay for their robberies, I believe things will change.  Drug money is forfeited, why not executive salaries?  After all, fair is fair.  We could use the confiscated funds to fight the police state.  When a pension is robbed, all who profit from the robbery should be made to indemnify the workers that were cheated or robbed.  Corporations are not people.  They are run by people.  Why should a corporation, run by a board of directors and executive officers be able to bribe officials with massive campaign contributions, when individuals can’t?  It is too bad that we don’t have titles in this country like they do in Europe.  Then we could identify the guilty more readily.  Why should corporations, who benefit by our government protection and laws, be allowed to leave the country, shifting burdens to the people when the people have no benefit?  Companies extort tax breaks by making promises which they rarely keep.  If a company pulls up stakes, it should return the benefits given from the community that were promised.  If companies destroy land or communities, this should be accounted for.  Executives that don’t operate as fiduciaries for the public policy should be barred from holding office.  Bullshit insider trading fines should not be allowed to mislead the public that regulators aren’t controlled or bought off.  It is time for change.

I digress and ramble.  I apologize, however not for what I say, but for the presentation.  It is time to resist.  It is time for change.  It is time to be heard.

AT WAR WITH THE CIA

IMAGE MAY 10, 2016 LEAVE A COMMENT EDIT

M Y LOYAL CLIENTS– HOW I SURVIVED THE IRS CRUSADE OF DESTRUCTION

The audit wasn’t without its moments of levity, at least in retrospect.  It gave me lots of things to talk about, ridicule and use as examples of how not to govern.  It also gave me something to talk about in bars.  But I mostly enjoyed watching how the agents with whom I had to deal transitioned from crusading ass-holes to guilt-ridden toadies during the several years in which they had to deal with me.  It is interesting to see the bureaucratic mind in action.  At first, it was obvious that all with whom I had to deal had preconceived ideas about me.  They all believed they had god on their side in a war against evil.  They, unlike my worldview, believed everyone was a miscreant, selfish criminal.  I was burdened by having been partially raised by an ecclesiastic, who believed all people were basically good.  He took the English common law view based upon religious doctrine.  Others took anti-Christian original sin view, reflected in Roman law.  It was the paranoid view of a conqueror who viewed everyone as a potential enemy.

I often wondered how much of that view was a projection of their own selves.  Since I started out representing underdogs with little power or standing, I had many clients that couldn’t pay me or for whom it would be a horrible burden. I never dreamed they were out to get me or wanted to cheat or steal.  They just were not fortunate enough to have inherited money, or believed in the Age of Aquarius beliefs of the young at that time.  The flower children had arrived in Boulder and most of us didn’t think about money. There wasn’t a public defender’s office when I started and most lawyers with whom I associated took turns representing indigent arrestees.  I thought it was a good system, but that was before the advent of billable hours and turning the practice of law into a mercantile endeavor. In fact, legal ethics prohibited turning down a case or abandoning a client for not paying at that time.  Most of us honored that tradition.  I remember reading William Jennings Bryant’s statement in his biography that he was unable to make a living in the practice of law, so he entered politics.

So, I found it almost hysterical when the auditor expressed how shocked he was after he interviewed twelve of my clients in a row whose conversations I will consolidate and try to portray.

Agent Stice, “I’m here to ask you a few questions about your lawyer, Mr. Blewitt.”

Hippie client, “Far out.  It is about time that someone is finally recognizing him.  He is a really far out dude and helped me a lot.”

“How much money did you pay him?”

“What do you mean?

“How much did he charge you?”

“Man, like you know, I always meant to lay some bread on him, but never could get around to it.”

“What did he do when you didn’t pay him?”

“Nothing.  He never pressed me for it.  He told me to give him something if I ever got some money.

“What exactly did he say?”

“Nothing, he just told me to pay when I could.”

“How much?”

“He said whatever I thought I could afford.  If I couldn’t afford it, don’t worry about it.”

“Did he send you a bill?”

“Yes, but he said ‘don’t’ stress,” so I sort of spaced it out.  I want to lay some bread on him sometime, but I just haven’t been able to, you know.  Someone told me that he sent bills so that his clients wouldn’t be embarrassed.”

I have to admit that he must have skewed his sample somehow, but I never asked Stice about it.  I got my information from my clients who clued me in when he talked to them.  One of my client’s conversation was remarkable.  He had 80 arrests without conviction, but was constantly targeted by various agencies.  I took his racketeering all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  He also appealed a gun possession to the Supreme Court, but it was combined with two others.  His conversation was amusing because he was reporting live from the IRS agent’s interview.

“Hello,” I said, answering my phone after my assistant told me my client was on the line.

“I need to ask you something,” he said.

“Go ahead and ask,”

“It concerns one of my attorneys,” the client informed me.  “There is an IRS agent here to interview me about one of my attorneys and I told him that I wanted to talk to an attorney.”

“Is the interview about me?”

“Yes. What should I do?”

“Well, you always told me that you wanted to tell one of them to go fuck himself.”

I heard my client tell the IRS agent he was talking to, “My lawyer told me to tell you to go fuck yourselves.”  I assume that the interview ended because the line went dead after that.

That really brightened up my day.  This client had worked for Jack Ruby in the fifties running guns to Cuba.  He didn’t take sides, but delivered to both Castro and Batista.  He and his partner were paid in heroin, which was back to Dallas in armored trucks.  The Warren Commission forgot to mention this as well as the fact that Ruby had been with Army Intelligence prior to the time of the Kennedy assassination.  I wrote quite a bit more about this character in my memoirs.  He was among my most colorful clients.

There were similar incidences, but that was the only one that I heard in progress.  They didn’t find any unreported income, but they sure scared away lots of clients.  Finally, after a year and a half, where I barely made my overhead, I was assessed for not keeping mileage records.  Since I couldn’t pay the money, they took all my office furniture and seized my rent deposit on my office.   I did have one client offer to pay with a side of beef.  I had him deliver it to the local IRS office and then called the health department to report a health hazard at their office.  Also one of my clients called the agent’s wife, telling her I had assigned her offer to take a fee out in trade to her husband and asked when it would be convenient for her to service him.  They laid off of my family after that, but I had to close my office.  I became a trophy husband at that point and listed my occupation as “odd jobs.”  It left me with lots of time for reading and learning.  Additionally, I started to get information from weird sources.  The whole ordeal was like a bad trip, except I never took any drugs.  Everyone else had all the fun.  I was under too much surveillance to take any chances.  My identity grew from the razzing that I took from friends and colleagues for being so paranoid.

Another amusing incident occurred when my youngest daughter noticed tape all over the house, notifying people that the house had been seized for back taxes.  She tore the tape down and was extremely embarrassed over the ordeal.  However, I didn’t own the house.  My wife did.  The IRS wasn’t embarrassed and never apologized, but they wrongfully seized the house.  I can say from my experiences with the Government and its representatives that they are arrogant, ignorant, vindictive, self-righteous and never admit mistakes.  Although they took oaths to uphold the Constitution, they believe that they can do so selectively, if they approve of the person.  Otherwise, its “let them eat cake.”  Like soldiers of the third Reich, they just follow orders and never question them.  However, some had consciences and discussed my plight with friends, explaining that they were powerless.  Since agencies have the power to classify information, the public rarely learns about the transgressions, except during a scandal.  Secrecy is the real enemy.  It works because we are a nation of cowards, afraid of manufactured dangers, designed to keep us under control.  We are not the home of the brave, nor are we the land of the free.  We are a nation of ignorance and brainwashing, conditioned by an inferior privatized system which we have been conned into supporting because we are too lazy to think.  We can’t make informed or logical decisions, because we are denied information and facts which are essential to the preservation of freedom and justice.  It is time to put the liars in jail and take away their methods to harm us.  Strip them of status, respect, and funds.

The audit wasn’t without its moments of levity, at least in retrospect.  It gave me lots of things to talk about, ridicule and use as examples of how not to govern.  It also gave me something to talk about in bars.  But I mostly enjoyed watching how the agents with whom I had to deal transitioned from crusading ass-holes to guilt-ridden toadies during the several years in which they had to deal with me.  It is interesting to see the bureaucratic mind in action.  At first, it was obvious that all with whom I had to deal had preconceived ideas about me.  They all believed they had god on their side in a war against evil.  They, unlike my worldview, believed everyone was a miscreant, selfish criminal.  I was burdened by having been partially raised by an ecclesiastic, who believed all people were basically good.  He took the English common law view based upon religious doctrine.  Others took anti-Christian original sin view, reflected in Roman law.  It was the paranoid view of a conqueror who viewed everyone as a potential enemy.

I often wondered how much of that view was a projection of their own selves.  Since I started out representing underdogs with little power or standing, I had many clients that couldn’t pay me or for whom it would be a horrible burden. I never dreamed they were out to get me or wanted to cheat or steal.  They just were not fortunate enough to have inherited money, or believed in the Age of Aquarius beliefs of the young at that time.  The flower children had arrived in Boulder and most of us didn’t think about money. There wasn’t a public defender’s office when I started and most lawyers with whom I associated took turns representing indigent arrestees.  I thought it was a good system, but that was before the advent of billable hours and turning the practice of law into a mercantile endeavor. In fact, legal ethics prohibited turning down a case or abandoning a client for not paying at that time.  Most of us honored that tradition.  I remember reading William Jennings Bryant’s statement in his biography that he was unable to make a living in the practice of law, so he entered politics.

So, I found it almost hysterical when the auditor expressed how shocked he was after he interviewed twelve of my clients in a row whose conversations I will consolidate and try to portray.

Agent Stice, “I’m here to ask you a few questions about your lawyer, Mr. Blewitt.”

Hippie client, “Far out.  It is about time that someone is finally recognizing him.  He is a really far out dude and helped me a lot.”

“How much money did you pay him?”

“What do you mean?

“How much did he charge you?”

“Man, like you know, I always meant to lay some bread on him, but never could get around to it.”

“What did he do when you didn’t pay him?”

“Nothing.  He never pressed me for it.  He told me to give him something if I ever got some money.

“What exactly did he say?”

“Nothing, he just told me to pay when I could.”

“How much?”

“He said whatever I thought I could afford.  If I couldn’t afford it, don’t worry about it.”

“Did he send you a bill?”

“Yes, but he said ‘don’t’ stress,” so I sort of spaced it out.  I want to lay some bread on him sometime, but I just haven’t been able to, you know.  Someone told me that he sent bills so that his clients wouldn’t be embarrassed.”

I have to admit that he must have skewed his sample somehow, but I never asked Stice about it.  I got my information from my clients who clued me in when he talked to them.  One of my client’s conversation was remarkable.  He had 80 arrests without conviction, but was constantly targeted by various agencies.  I took his racketeering all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  He also appealed a gun possession to the Supreme Court, but it was combined with two others.  His conversation was amusing because he was reporting live from the IRS agent’s interview.

“Hello,” I said, answering my phone after my assistant told me my client was on the line.

“I need to ask you something,” he said.

“Go ahead and ask,”

“It concerns one of my attorneys,” the client informed me.  “There is an IRS agent here to interview me about one of my attorneys and I told him that I wanted to talk to an attorney.”

“Is the interview about me?”

“Yes. What should I do?”

“Well, you always told me that you wanted to tell one of them to go fuck himself.”

I heard my client tell the IRS agent he was talking to, “My lawyer told me to tell you to go fuck yourselves.”  I assume that the interview ended because the line went dead after that.

That really brightened up my day.  This client had worked for Jack Ruby in the fifties running guns to Cuba.  He didn’t take sides, but delivered to both Castro and Batista.  He and his partner were paid in heroin, which was back to Dallas in armored trucks.  The Warren Commission forgot to mention this as well as the fact that Ruby had been with Army Intelligence prior to the time of the Kennedy assassination.  I wrote quite a bit more about this character in my memoirs.  He was among my most colorful clients.

There were similar incidences, but that was the only one that I heard in progress.  They didn’t find any unreported income, but they sure scared away lots of clients.  Finally, after a year and a half, where I barely made my overhead, I was assessed for not keeping mileage records.  Since I couldn’t pay the money, they took all my office furniture and seized my rent deposit on my office.   I did have one client offer to pay with a side of beef.  I had him deliver it to the local IRS office and then called the health department to report a health hazard at their office.  Also one of my clients called the agent’s wife, telling her I had assigned her offer to take a fee out in trade to her husband and asked when it would be convenient for her to service him.  They laid off of my family after that, but I had to close my office.  I became a trophy husband at that point and listed my occupation as “odd jobs.”  It left me with lots of time for reading and learning.  Additionally, I started to get information from weird sources.  The whole ordeal was like a bad trip, except I never took any drugs.  Everyone else had all the fun.  I was under too much surveillance to take any chances.  My identity grew from the razzing that I took from friends and colleagues for being so paranoid.

Another amusing incident occurred when my youngest daughter noticed tape all over the house, notifying people that the house had been seized for back taxes.  She tore the tape down and was extremely embarrassed over the ordeal.  However, I didn’t own the house.  My wife did.  The IRS wasn’t embarrassed and never apologized, but they wrongfully seized the house.  I can say from my experiences with the Government and its representatives that they are arrogant, ignorant, vindictive, self-righteous and never admit mistakes.  Although they took oaths to uphold the Constitution, they believe that they can do so selectively, if they approve of the person.  Otherwise, its “let them eat cake.”  Like soldiers of the third Reich, they just follow orders and never question them.  However, some had consciences and discussed my plight with friends, explaining that they were powerless.  Since agencies have the power to classify information, the public rarely learns about the transgressions, except during a scandal.  Secrecy is the real enemy.  It works because we are a nation of cowards, afraid of manufactured dangers, designed to keep us under control.  We are not the home of the brave, nor are we the land of the free.  We are a nation of ignorance and brainwashing, conditioned by an inferior privatized system which we have been conned into supporting because we are too lazy to think.  We can’t make informed or logical decisions, because we are denied information and facts which are essential to the preservation of freedom and justice.  It is time to put the liars in jail and take away their methods to harm us.  Strip them of status, respect, and funds.

WHO’S THE CRIMINAL?

APRIL 27, 2016 1 COMMENT EDIT

Dennis L. Blewitt, J.D.  April 2016

Most parents with more than one child has heard the following,

“Why did you hit your brother?”

“He hit me first.”  Or,

“Why did you steal that candy?”

“Everyone else is doing it and they don’t get punished.  Why are you picking on           me?”

              Most children can’t differentiate between degrees of bad, or severity of their acts. Typically, many offenders rationalize their behavior by claiming that others also offend in various ways.  For some reason, many are unable to outgrow this childish behavior.  This often serves a dilemma for disciplinarians, which has caused various response from superiors.  Unfortunately, many persons in power can’t differentiate severities either.

One of the first things that a student of criminology and corrections is to analyze criminality.  It is basic corrections theory that some people can’t put things in perspective and think in dichotomous terms.  Amateur psychologists refer to this as the “criminal mind.”  Only, it isn’t that simple.  Crime is complex and is a function of a given society, not the individuals in it.  In order to address crime, one has to address the society and culture.  This is something the press and the public don’t seem to grasp.

            There are some simpletons who believe that all crime is voluntary and caused by moral flaws.  Other blame crime on stupidity, impulsivity, and immaturity.  The problem is that it is complex and that there is no one answer.  But since I believe that crime is a function of social organization or society, that occupies the majority of my thinking.  Comparing our society with that of the government is a logical extension of that theory.  Almost.

            A basis theory of corrections is that a criminal must be made aware that murder is much more serious than running a stop-sign.  I have heard clients rationalize their behavior by blaming others for also breaking the law.  Thus, they can claim discrimination, play martyr and not accept the results of any decision or conduct.   The role of the correction officer in this instance is that of teacher.

            With that in mind I observe the election process going on right now.  I have been waiting for months for the candidates to exhibit some maturity.  Looks like I will have to keep waiting.  The most amazing attack is the attack on Hillary Clinton.  She is not my favorite candidate, but the dumbass critics in the Republican party have focused upon some miniscule offense to call for her disqualification and as a reason that people shouldn’t vote for her.  She sent emails through a private server, not a Government one.  Oh, the horrors!

            The irony of the situation is that these same critics support extraordinary rendition, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, and even assassination or murder, performed by members of a different party for a different President.  Obviously, many cannot tell the difference between bad and evil.  These people bitch about government, but criticize a candidate for not using a government email system These people claim to be religious, but favor committing war crime.  They claim to support the Constitution, but flagrantly ignore the violations by various officials I could go on, but I think I have made the point.

            I have with-held my opinion and ridicule long enough.  It is time to point out to the idiots that they are idiots.  It is time to show these people that murder is indeed more serious than running a stop sign.  At the very least, don’t let these people be put in charge of anything that might affect us.  Please don’t make the public resort to the Hitler solution of eliminating the “sub-humans.”  Tell them to get a clue.  Tell them what you think.  Tell them to stop.  Better yet, laugh them out of our presence.

SHARE THIS:

NO MORE TRADITION, JUST BUSINESS

APRIL 27, 2016 1 COMMENT EDIT

Once I was proud to be a lawyer.  I was a member of an old and honorable profession that had many Blewitts on the roles as Bishop of Lincoln, Chancellor of England and Judiciar to Henry I.  The name appeared as a signatory of the Magna Carta, as Lord Mayor of London, Sheriff of London. and on the rolls of Lincolns Inn.  I was steeped in the tradition of ten centuries law tradition.  Unfortunately, the practice of law was nothing like what I assumed from family history.  I wasn’t surrounded by noble knights, scholars, clergy and others concerned with the welfare of the citizenry or their rights.  When I first started practicing, law was a calling.  I believed that my primary obligation was to help others, then help society and maintain the dignity of the law.  Money was secondary.  Over the years, I have witnessed a drastic change where most, not all lawyers, are motivated by greed, avarice and exercise of power, without social conscious.

Many who started with me were similarly motivated.  Most of us took our oaths seriously and were genuinely concerned with the welfare of our clients. We also believed that we had an obligation to make things better.  I met with prosecutors at least on a weekly basis concerning cases.  There was discussion and mediation between positions, with a true belief that all parties should be concerned with policy and justice.  Image was subordinate to perception.  Punishment was an end in itself, but just one of the possible outcome. Case processing may have been efficient, but justice was highly inefficient.  Like English barristers, prosecutors used to serve a stint in the DA’s office and venture into private practice, knowing that they couldn’t be arbitrary and dogmatic and be able to establish or maintain a practice after the left the prosecutor’s post.  The sides didn’t agree generally, but accommodations were made.  That was what lawyers were trained to do.  Prosecutors would then educate the officers or investigators, who would quite often complain, bitch and moan or otherwise display their ignorance or bigotry, but it did them very little good.  Justice didn’t take a back seat to image.

Things radically changed in the 70’s.  The politicians discovered that they could sell protection to the electorate by trading in fear, ignorance, and bigotry, fueled by a propaganda machine which would have been the envy of Goebbels.  Excuses concocted by the press and officials is a really drastic paradigm shift.  Justice is no longer equated with fairness.  Law was no longer about advocacy, but protection of superstitious beliefs, curtailment of popular power by the zealot fundamentalist paranoids.  In my book I addressed these issues in more detail, but my health and lack of funding make it somewhat unlikely that I will finish either of life opus’s.  So, I will try to break things down, not for lawyers, but for people.  I will try to explain the attack on the social contract by a collective of individuals who believe that each one is unique and doesn’t need a society or civilization to exists.  As Nietzsche postulated, “God is Dead.”  The new god is business and efficiency.  Society and Government must be restructured along business principles, all of which are incompatible with a Court System and separation of powers.  /Executives should rule and others in a political should be support staff for the executives.  Management by Objectives is the Prime directive.  Have an objective and let nothing stand in the way of accomplishing it.  Get with it or die!

With the push to promote privatization, government was slandered, and an ignorant citizenry was taught that government was bad and efficient business principles could save us from harm (code for minorities) The Constitution became an impediment to the business interests and had to be destroyed.  Every major event involving publicity was used to destroy another part of the Constitution.  Complete disaster occurred with sentencing “reform.”  All the factors that defendants could argue to mitigate their situations were abolished.  Policy decisions were made by a herd of prosecutors under the age of 30’s based upon publicity value to policy.  Justice had to take a back seat.  Consequently, a ten ford increase in prisoners.  Fear was marketed to the people applying Madison Avenue public relations technique.  Although the criminals in the Nixon administration had law degrees, they were not practicing lawyers.  Many worked in the area of Public relations

The ignorance was also inculcated into legal education.  Many law trained crime warriors don’t see anything wrong with abolishing habeas corpus, renditions, torture, and committing war crimes in general.  A corrupt system employed lawyers that would write opinion letters condoning war crimes which allowed the administrations to do essentially anything that the executive branch desired, all without any repercussions.  A Nixon administration lawyer Ehrlichman recently confessed that the “Drug War” was contrived to harass leftists, blacks and anti-war activists.  In a state of perpetual war, we now operate under a system of Martial Law.  Like the ignorant masses of Germany after WWII, were taught that Germany was sold out and not allowed to win, many in the US complain that we were not allowed to win in Viet Nam.  We gradually became accustomed to a war mentality in which victory was the only objective.  The result is a police state with a public too shell shocked or fearful that there is no opposition.

So as our roads deteriorate, bridges crumble, rivers overflow, assets of the People confiscated from the People for privatization, and at war with the world, we blithely cheer our own destruction, rushing like lemmings to the sea, to be murdered by our self-created police state.  Roosevelt pegged it when he said, “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.”  Now with only fear left, we have nothing.

We are told that the only thing that matters is business and trade.  Bullshit.  We are told that social contract must be destroyed in the name of trade.  Bullshit.  We are told that there must be free trade like the old days.  Bullshit.  We are told that we must be efficient.  Bullshit.  We are told that Government should be run like a business.  Bullshit.  The asses that are espousing this Bullshit know absolutely nothing about history.  There never was free trade.  The Lords franchised mills, markets, shops, etc.  The Guilds organized to keep out non trained workers.  Leagues formed to control competition.  Even the most stupid peasant in medieval times knew that the function of his master’s castle was to protect him from others.  Governments were formed for protection and advancement of the citizenry, or at least the rulers, not corporate interests.

The people dumbed down to intellect of Neanderthals believe the bullshit.  It is time to exit the caves and start thinking in terms of societies, not corporate police or fascist states.  Business principals don’t work when you have collective decision making.  Corporations don’t have courts to decide proper or improper conduct.  Free governments don’t have dictators to make everything run effectively.  It is time for Government of the People, by the People and for the People, and to put corporations in line.  If not, uncharted them or ban the corrupt officers and directors from holding positions which can harm society or people.  It is either that, or eventually cease to exist.

WHO’S THE CRIMINAL?

APRIL 27, 2016 DENNIS COMMENTS 1 COMMENT EDIT

Dennis L. Blewitt, J.D.  April 2016

Most parents with more than one child has heard the following,

“Why did you hit your brother?”

“He hit me first.”  Or,

“Why did you steal that candy?”

“Everyone else is doing it and they don’t get punished.  Why are you picking on me?”

              Most children can’t differentiate between degrees of bad, or severity of their acts. Typically, many offenders rationalize their behavior by claiming that others also offend in various ways.  For some reason, many are unable to outgrow this childish behavior.  This often serves a dilemma for disciplinarians, which has caused various response from superiors.  Unfortunately, many persons in power can’t differentiate severities either.

One of the first things that a student of criminology and corrections is to analyze criminality.  It is basic corrections theory that some people can’t put things in perspective and think in dichotomous terms.  Amateur psychologists refer to this as the “criminal mind.”  Only, it isn’t that simple.  Crime is complex and is a function of a given society, not the individuals in it.  In order to address crime, one has to address the society and culture.  This is something the press and the public don’t seem to grasp.

            There are some simpletons who believe that all crime is voluntary and caused by moral flaws.  Other blame crime on stupidity, impulsivity, and immaturity.  The problem is that it is complex and that there is no one answer.  But since I believe that crime is a function of social organization or society, that occupies the majority of my thinking.  Comparing our society with that of the government is a logical extension of that theory.  Almost.

            A basis theory of corrections is that a criminal must be made aware that murder is much more serious than running a stop-sign.  I have heard clients rationalize their behavior by blaming others for also breaking the law.  Thus, they can claim discrimination, play martyr and not accept the results of any decision or conduct.   The role of the correction officer in this instance is that of teacher.

            With that in mind I observe the election process going on right now.  I have been waiting for months for the candidates to exhibit some maturity.  Looks like I will have to keep waiting.  The most amazing attack is the attack on Hillary Clinton.  She is not my favorite candidate, but the dumbass critics in the Republican party have focused upon some miniscule offense to call for her disqualification and as a reason that people shouldn’t vote for her.  She sent emails through a private server, not a Government one.  Oh, the horrors!

            The irony of the situation is that these same critics support extraordinary rendition, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, and even assassination or murder, performed by members of a different party for a different President.  Obviously, many cannot tell the difference between bad and evil.  These people bitch about government, but criticize a candidate for not using a government email system These people claim to be religious, but favor committing war crime.  They claim to support the Constitution, but flagrantly ignore the violations by various officials I could go on, but I think I have made the point.

            I have with-held my opinion and ridicule long enough.  It is time to point out to the idiots that they are idiots.  It is time to show these people that murder is indeed more serious than running a stop sign.  At the very least, don’t let these people be put in charge of anything that might affect us.  Please don’t make the public resort to the Hitler solution of eliminating the “sub-humans.”  Tell them to get a clue.  Tell them what you think.  Tell them to stop.  Better yet, laugh them out of our presence.

AT WAR WITH THE CIA—A SMALL TOWN N LAWYER’S VENTURE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

I KNOW THIS IS LENGTHY, BUT I FEEL IT IS RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT POLITICAL SITUATION AND MAY HELP MY READERS BETTER UNDERSTAND ME.  D.L. BLEWITT,   Mar 30, 2016

(This was a subject of a History Channel series in summer of 2017)

One of the first cases I had involved two people who moved to Colorado from Chicago.  These two defined my practice and my career.  I was told that I should never disclose this story and was harassed by various Governmental agencies for many years as a result.  My mail was “accidently” delivered to the FBI and other strange events.

            However, in making powerful enemies, I made powerful allies, including David Wise, Sally Denton, Sam Hart, Jack Anderson and others.  Smith, Ken Cummings, Peter Dale Scott, Fed Gillies, Bryan Abbas, Mike O’Keefe, Gary Webb, Sen. Gary Hart.

            For years, I felt like a Kafka character.  My perception and milieu were that of a small-town hayseed, struggling to adjust to living with his social and educational superiors.  The question I asked myself for 40 years was, “Why me?”  I still don’t know the answer, but discovering some facts and some history has helped.  A ran for public office in 1971 and my life hasn’t been normal since then.  In order to make some sense of this I am relaying some of my story in serial form.  I apologize for both length and lack of clarity, but I am trying.  What I have seen from a small-town perspective is corruption beyond belief and deliberate blindness and amnesia to the problem and results.  I realize now that running for office accusing the CIA of being behind the Viet Nam war and Drug Trafficking may have been a mistake, but I think blindly ignoring this unpleasant reality like most of my colleagues and the citizenry would have been too frustrating for me.  I am a nobody.  I had no family or history to put me in the position in which I found myself, and I was in denial of the situation for a long time.  I had to adapt and develop survival skills, which results in these article.  Little did I know that my activities would cause the scuttling of the Huston plan to combine all intelligence agencies into one, cause the FBI and the CIA to go to war with each other, cause a clandestine group dubbed “The Plumbers” to be formed and topple a President of the United States of America.

     If I get enough response, to this, I will publish the story.  It involves two clients, Professor Thomas Riha and Galya Tannenbaum.  Please help in evaluating my situation and tell me if the story is worth telling.

Thanks,  Dennis L. Blewitt

BOULDER DAILY CAMERA (COPIED IN ENTIRETY WITHOUT PERMISSION AS FREE AS COMMENTARY)

Thomas Riha’s disappearance has never been solved

Silvia Pettem, for the Camera

Posted: 07/24/2010 AM MDT

Thomas Riha was photographed on his wedding day, in October 1968, five months before he disappeared from Boulder. Camera file photo.

C) n March 15, 1969, University of Colorado associate Russian professor Thomas Riha vanished without a trace. Tied to his disappearance was Gayla Tannenbaum, a self-proclaimed confidante, who took her own life, in 1971, by swallowing cyanide pills in the state mental hospital in Pueblo.

Tannenbaum’s death left many unanswered questions, especially as to whether Riha is dead or Alive. To this date, no one knows if he was the victim of a murder, kidnapped as a counter-spy, or if he dropped from sight of his own free will.

Prior to Riha’s disappearance and Tannenbaum’s death, both had left paper trails. According to the Camera, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been compiling reports on Riha for nine years, beginning in 1960.

Riha, a native of Czechoslovakia, was 40 at the time of his disappearance. He had come to the U.S. in 1947, received a master’s degree at the Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, and a doctorate from Harvard Univ.

He also served in an intelligence capacity in the U.S. Army during the Korean War. From 1960 to 1967, he taught at the Univ. of Chicago, then moved to Boulder.

Meanwhile, embezzlement and forgery accusations had followed Tannenbaum around the 20untry as she lived under various names. She spent three years in an Ill. prison and was paroled in 1962. Both Riha and Tannenbaum moved to Colo. in 1967.

[n Boulder, Riha married a young Czechoslovakian woman, and Tannenbaum attended the wedding. She was also at Riha’s home one night when Riha’s wife, smelling like ether, was rescued by neighbors after she screamed from a bedroom window.

Several months after Riha’s disappearance, Tannenbaum was arrested by Boulder police for forging a check.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge MATSCH, U. S. District Court, Colorado

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MATSCH, Judge

Thomas Riha has been a missing person since an abrupt departure from his Boulder, Colorado, residence and teaching position at the University of Colorado in March 1969. None of his family, friends or colleagues has had any information from him since that time. “The mysterious disappearance of Professor Riha has been the subject of news media activity and considerable speculation has been generated about the possibility that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were involved. An initial impetus for such conjecture may have come from a conversation between officials of the Denver FBI and CIA offices which resulted in a statement that Professor Riha was safe and that he had departed voluntarily because of a personal problem.

The manner in which this matter was handled between the Denver offices of the FBI and CIA resulted in a complete termination of any communication between those two agencies at the national level.

The Select Committee on Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate heard testimony from a former CIA official and a former FBI official in November 1975. The staff of that committee prepared a written report about the Riha matter in February 1976. That report referred to inquiries made of the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. United States Senator Gary Hart (Colorado) then released the following public statement about the Riha case:

Thomas Riha, is, most probably, living somewhere today in Eastern Europe, possibly in Czechoslovakia. He was sighted there in 1973. Why he left the United States remains unclear: personal reasons were probably the basis for his decision to leave.

Thomas Riha was never employed, nor in contact with, the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence. At one time the CIA had a general counterintelligence interest in Riha, but this interest was never pursued. There is no indication of any kind that the CIA, the FBI or military was involved in Riha’s disappearance.

The breaking off of formal FBI-CIA relations in 1970 resulted not from a dispute over Riha himself but from the bureaucratic handling of the Riha case by local FBI and CIA officials in Denver.

Proceedings had been commenced in 1970 in the Probate Court in and for the City and County of

Denver, Colorado, to recover and preserve the assets of Riha’s estate and Zdenek Cerveny was appointed conservator of the absentee estate. Colorado law provides a presumption of death after a continuous, unexplained absence of seven years. Because of the Select Committee Staff report and the statement of Senator Hart, Mr. Cerveny caused a letter request to be made of the CIA on February 17, 1976, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) asking for any information concerning the disappearance or whereabouts of Riha and all agency documents on the subject. That request was an act undertaken in the performance of Mr. Cerveny legal duty to make diligent inquiry as a requirement for application of the presumption of death. The CIA responded to the request by releasing copies of two memoranda. Memorandum 7-74, dated January 31, 1974, was provided, with deletions based on claims of exemptions under (b)(l), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(6) of the FOIA. The second document was a copy of Memorandum 21-74, dated March 13, 1974, with deletions based upon the same four exemptions.

Mr. Cerveny then filed his complaint in this court on July 12, 1976 to require further disclosure. Jurisdiction has been invoked properly under 5 U. S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). After the complaint was filed, the CIA Information Review Committee affirmed the claims of exemption.

At a pre-trial conference held on September 22, 1976, it became apparent that the plaintiffs primary interest was to learn the identity of a person who reportedly had seen Professor Riha in Czechoslovakia in late 1973. That sighting was the subject of the two released memoranda. Counsel for the respondent agreed to request the CIA to submit affidavits in support of the claimed exemptions, following the procedure suggested in Vaughn v. Rosen, 157 U.S. App. D.C. 340, 484 F.2d 820 (1973).

On November 8, 1976, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by four affidavits of CIA officials. They described additional releases of 174 pages of newspaper clippings and 38 documents released with deletions. Seven additional documents, withheld in their entireties, have been characterized as cables, dating from October 20 to November 9, 1971 which were generated as a result of an individual contacting a CIA representative overseas for the purpose of obtaining information for a newspaper story about the Riha disappearance. According to the affidavits, no agency activity was involved. Exemptions of those cables are asserted under (b)(l), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(6) and it has been claimed that there are no reasonably segregable relevant portions of them. Additionally, the defendant disclosed that it had 14 documents which had originated with the FBI and that there had been a response made by the

CIA to a set of interrogatories from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in November 1975. The affidavits also indicated that the CIA had taken the extraordinary step of requesting permission from its source to release identifying information, which request was denied.

Additionally, it was reported that the personal safety of the original source would be threatened if identification were made.

Additional affidavits were filed in answer to some of the questions raised in the plaintiff’s memorandum brief. A hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on August 1, 1977.

At that hearing, the court noted that since this suit had begun a new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency had been selected, personally, by a new President who had directed a new policy of openness in that agency. Accordingly, the court suggested that the Director take the extraordinary action of making a personal review of the CIA material relevant to this case.

Phat suggestion was accepted and by a letter to the court, dated October 8, 1977, Admiral

Stansfield Turner reported the result of his personal inquiry into the matter as the Director of the

Central Intelligence Agency. After his assertion that the disclosure of the intelligence source

reporting the hearsay information on the sighting of Professor Riha would be contrary to his statutory responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure, he Director wrote concerning the sighting memoranda:

Additional affidavits were filed in answer to some of the questions raised in the plaintiff’s memorandum brief. A hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on August 1, 1977. At that hearing, the court noted that since this suit had begun a new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency had been selected, personally, by a new President who had directed a new policy of openness in that agency. Accordingly, the court suggested that the Director take the extraordinary action of making a personal review of the CIA material relevant to this case.

That suggestion was accepted and by a letter to the court, dated October 8, 1977, Admiral Stansfield Turner reported the result of his personal inquiry into the matter as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. After his assertion that the disclosure of the intelligence source reporting the hearsay information on the sighting of Professor Riha would be contrary to his; statutory responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure, he Director wrote concerning the sighting memoranda:

The actual identity or reliability of the original source of the information is not known to this Agency, nor does the Agency have sufficient information upon which to base an informed judgment as to the accuracy of the information provided by that individual. As I have indicated, the information contained in Documents Nos. 1 and 2 is third-hand information and the Agency has made no attempt to verify the information.

Admiral Turner also wrote that he had reviewed the seven documents which had been withheld n their entireties and that he agreed with the characterization of the information contained herein as having no probative value with respect to the Riha disappearance or whereabouts.

At a hearing on December 16, 1977, the plaintiff renewed his request for an in-camera inspection the CIA documents and files. Particular concern was expressed about the adequacy of the

search for relevant documents in the CIA files. In justification of that concern, plaintiff’s counsel reported that Mr. Cerveny had recently received an unsolicited communication concerning information within the files of the United States Army Intelligence Agency, an organization within the Department of Defense. A copy of the Army document had been in the CIA files, which had not been disclosed in the affidavits filed in support of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. That failure was explained satisfactorily by counsel for the defendant at the hearing.

Given the volume and complexity of the records kept by the CIA, there can be no absolute

certainty that everything touching and concerning any specific subject has been located. The

 CIA does not require an absolute guarantee of an exhaustive exhumation of records. The duty is to make a good faith effort to conduct a search using methods which can reasonably be expected to produce the information requested. From the affidavits submitted, it is apparent that the officials of the CIA have performed that duty in this case.

5 U.S.C. 2552(b)(1) exempts from disclosure all matters that are in fact properly classified under criteria established by an executive order in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. While the 1974 amendments to the FOIA expressly authorized an in camera inspection of documents claimed to be exempt under (b)(l), the legislative history reflects the expectation that the courts “will accord substantial weight to an agency’s affidavit concerning the details of the classified status of the disputed record.” Conf. Rep. No. 93-1200, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess., reprinted in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Administrative. News 6285, 6290. It has been recognized in other cases involving the CIA that the courts have little competence in evaluating intelligence information because of a lack of cognitive context. The role of the court was articulated in Weissman v. Central Intelligence Agency, 184 U.S. App. D.C 117, 565 F.2d 692, (1977) in these words:

If exemption is claimed on the basis of national security the District Court must, of course, be satisfied that proper procedures have been followed, and that by its sufficient description the contested document logically falls into the category of the exemption indicated. In deciding whether to conduct an in-camera inspection it need not go further to test the expertise of the agency, or to question its veracity when nothing appears to raise the issue of good faith. (565 F.2d at 697 Revised)

5 U.S.C. 2552(b)(3) excludes application of the Act to matters which are specifically exempted from disclosure by another statute without discretion or with definite criteria for withholding or references to particular types of matters to be withheld. The Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, establishing the CIA, holds the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency responsible “for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure,” 50 U.S.C.  403(d)(3), and specifically exempts the agency from “the provisions of any other law which require the publication or disclosure of the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency. ” 50 U.S.C.  403g. These statutory provisions have been held to be within the scope of the (b)(3) exclusion in the FOIA. Weissman, supra; Philippi v. Central Intelligence Agency, 178 U.S. App. D.C. 243, 546 F.2d 1009 (1976); Baker v. Central Intelligence Agency, 425 F. Supp. 633 (D.D.C. 1977); Bennett v. United States Department of Defense, 419 F. Supp. 663 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); Richardson v. Spahr, 416 F. Supp. 752 (W.D. Pa.), affd., 547 F.2d 1163 (3rd Cir. 1976).

Here, Admiral Turner has explicitly informed this court that disclosure of that which has been deleted and withheld would constitute a violation of this specific statutory duty. There is no reason to question the expertise or the good faith of Admiral Turner. Some deletions have been made on the basis of the exemption for internal personnel rules and practices under 5 U.S.C.  2552(b)(2). More specifically, these are markings and reference numbers which were placed on the documents for internal purposes. While the applicability of is questionable under Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 48 L. Ed. 2d 1 1, 96 S. Ct. 1592 (1976), the plaintiff has taken the position that he is concerned with such markings only if they would assist in the location of other relevant documents or information. There is no reason to question the response in the supplemental affidavits that the deletions would not provide such assistance.

Some information, including the names of individuals, has been withheld upon the conclusion that there would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, exempted by 5 U.S.C.2552(b)(6). The affidavits and the Director’s letter advised that what has been withheld includes unsubstantiated information which is derogatory and which concerns persons not connected with the Riha matter. Additionally, it is realistic to recognize that the mere mention of the names of individuals as being the subjects of CIA files could be damaging to their reputations.

The application of the privacy exemption requires a balancing of the interests of the public in obtaining disclosure and the preservation of the integrity of an individual’s reputation and right to privacy. Campbell v. United States Civil Service Commission, 539 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1976). The particularized need of Mr. Cerveny for information relevant to his duty of inquiry is not a factor in the balance. The plaintiff here is no different from any other person seeking public disclosure of the information. A moment’s reflection upon recent political history and the excesses of the internal security investigations in the 1950’s should be sufficient to signal caution in dealing with unverified derogatory material within the files of an intelligence gathering agency of government. Indiscriminate public disclosure of such material in response to a citizen’s FOIA request would be as much an abuse of agency authority as an intentional release designed to damage persons. The impact on the individual is the same. The deletions here are appropriate applications of the privacy exemption.

The developments in this FOIA case are sufficiently unusual to be characterized as unique. The classified information within the CIA files relevant to the Riha inquiry has been reviewed by a committee of the United States Senate. Because that committee has continued to keep the information classified, it is a fair inference that the Senators and staff share the concern for the national security and national defense interests reflected in the classification. Additionally, the subject material has been reviewed by a person who holds the highest authority and responsibility for foreign intelligence matters within the executive branch, with the exception of the President himself. I am satisfied with the sufficiency of the responses made in the course of this proceeding and the plaintiff is entitled to nothing more.

A claim for an award of attorney’s fees has been made. 5 U.S.C. 2552(a)(4)(E) authorizes the assessment of reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs in any case in which the complainant has substantially prevailed. Other considerations used in determining an award of attorney’s fees are whether the litigation has resulted in a substantial contribution to the public interest; the commercial benefit to the complainant and the nature of his interests in the records sought; and whether the United States had a “reasonable basis in law” for withholding the records. See Campbell, supra, at 62; Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 180 U.S. App. D.C. 184, 553 F.2d 1360 (1977); Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1976); Conf. Rep. No. 93-1200, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 6285, 6288.

In this case the parties have not yet been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of attorney’s fees and, accordingly, the entry of judgment will be deferred pending a hearing on attorney’s fees.

Upon the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that entry of judgment upon this order is deferred pending hearing on attorney’s fees.

BY THE COURT:

Who knew what this case meant?  It had far reaching consequences which none of us could have predicted.   From my small-town perspective, I was overwhelmed.  I still haven’t quite managed to appreciate the gravity of the situation, or the historical significance.  I do appreciate, however, how it affected my life and the lives of those around me.  In addition to scuttling the Huston plan and scuttling a presidency, it exposed the CIA activities at the University of Colorado, the various agencies there, the conduct of the war, the establishment of the Edmond Teller Center for Science, Technology and Political Thought, and other things kept secret until then.  It was not a matter of privacy or National Security, there was a coverup to hide embarrassing facts about our paranoid government from us.

From The U.S. Senate regarding my clients and the impact on Watergate Scandal

APRIL 23 (under authority of the order of April 14), 1976

NATIONAL SECURITY, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE COLLECTION OF INTELLIGENCE: A REPORT ON THE HUSTON PLAN

INTRODUCTION

The Scope of the Investigation

On January 27,1975, the United States Senate, meeting early in the 1st Session of the 94th Congress, established through Senate Resolution 21 a Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence

The “New” Hoover

Counterintelligence specialists throughout the government were dismayed when undercover FBI operations important to them, and carried out for several years, were suddenly suspended by Hoover in the 1960s. 19 The new emphasis in the Kennedy Administration on investigations into organized crime and civil rights had already drained manpower from security and intelligence operations, according to an experienced FBI counterintelligence specialist. 20

Then by the mid-1960s, Hoover began to terminate specific security programs. In July 1966, for example, Hoover wrote on a memorandum that henceforth all FBI break-ins — or “black-bag” jobs — were to be cut off. 21 By its refusal to use rigorously a full array of intelligence collection methods, Huston strongly believed the FBI was failing to do its job. This belief was shared widely among intelligence professionals. Helms, Bennett, and Gayler all expressed this view, as did — privately — key intelligence officers within the FBI itself. 22

Intelligence professionals were dismayed by Hoover’s reluctance now to order what he had allowed before on a regular basis. Some suggested that the wiretap hearings held by Senator Edward V. Long in 1965 had turned public opinion against the use of certain intelligence-gathering techniques, 23 and that the Director was merely reading the writing on the wall. One seasoned CIA intelligence officer recalls:

Mr. Hoover’s real concern was that during the Johnson Administration, where the Congress was delving into matters pertaining to FBI activities, Mr. Hoover looked to the President to give him support in terms of conducting those operations. And when that support was lacking, Mr. Hoover had no recourse but to gradually eliminate activities which were unfavorable to the Bureau and which in turn risked public confidence in the number one law enforcement agency. 24

Others pointed to the increased risks involved in break-ins because of new and sophisticated security precautions taken by various Bureau targets. Hoover, according to this theory, was unwilling to engage in past practices when faced with the new dangers of being caught. 25

The fact that Hoover reached age 70 in 1965 was also significant in the view of still others, since he then came within the law which required mandatory retirement. Henceforth, he served each year in a somewhat vulnerable position, as his Directorship was now reviewed for renewal on an annual basis. So he became, according to an FBI official, “very conscious of the fact that any incident which, within his understanding might prove an embarrassment to the Bureau, could reflect questionably on his leadership of the Bureau.” 26

Several highly-placed observers in the intelligence community also believed the Director was simply growing old and more wary about preserving his established reputation — a wariness nurtured by the protective instincts of his close friend and professional colleague, Clyde Tolson, who held the second highest position in the FBI. Dr. Louis Tordella, the long-time top civilian at NSA, speculated in conversations with William C. Sullivan in 1969 that Tolson probably had told Hoover something to the effect: “If these techniques ever backfire, your image and the reputation of the Bureau will be badly damaged.” 27

Tordella, Sullivan, and others in the intelligence world grew increasingly impatient with the “new” Hoover and with what they considered to be his abstinence on the question of intelligence collection. If they were to expand their collection capabilities, as they and the White House wished, the new restrictions would have to be eased. Yet no one was willing to challenge Hoover’s policy directly.

Tordella and General Marshall Carter, when he was Director of NSA, tried in 1967 and failed. 28 Their 15-minute appointment with Mr. Hoover in the spring of that year stretched into two-and-a-half hours. The communications experts first heard more than they wanted to about John Dillinger, “Ma” Barker, and the “Communist Threat.” Finally, they were able to explain to Hoover their arguments for reinstating certain collection practices valuable to the National Security Agency. Hoover seemed to yield, telling the NSA spokesmen their reasoning was persuasive and he would consider reestablishing the earlier policies.

The news came a few days later that Hoover would allow FBI agents to resume the collection methods desired by NSA. Tordella and Carter were surprised, and gratified. Then three more days passed and the FBI liaison to NSA brought the word that Hoover had changed his mind; his new stringency would be maintained after all. William Sullivan called to tell Tordella that “someone got to the old man. It’s dead.” That someone, Sullivan surmised, was Tolson.

Hoover added a note to his message for Carter and Tordella, indicating that he would assist the National Security Agency in its collection requirements only if so ordered by the President or the Attorney General. Tordella, however, was reluctant to approach either. “I couldn’t go to the chief law enforcement figure in the country and ask him to approve something that was illegal,” he recently explained (despite the fact that he and General Carter had already asked the Director of the FBI to approve an identical policy). As for the President, this was “not a topic with which he should soil his hands.” For the time being, Tordella would let the NSA case rest.

Nor was Richard Helms going to be the man to urge Hoover to relax the newly imposed restrictions. He and Hoover had little patience for one another for several years. Hoover distrusted the “Ivy League” style of CIA personnel in general; according to Sullivan “Ph.D. intelligence” was a term of derision Hoover liked to use against the Agency. 29 Gayler and Bennett, newcomers to the intelligence community, were warned immediately by their assistants not to challenge the Director of the Bureau directly on matters relating to domestic intelligence. 30

It would take the pressure of events, skillful maneuvering by a group of FBI counterintelligence specialists, and Huston’s strategic position on the White House staff to focus the attention of the President on the problem of intelligence collection.

The Pressure of Events

Events encouraged action. Riots and bombings escalated throughout the country in the spring of 1970. In his official statement on the Huston Plan, issued while he was still in the White House, President Nixon recalled that “in March a wave of bombings and explosions struck college campuses and cities. There were 400 bomb threats in one 24-hour period in New York City.” 31 The explosion of a Weatherman “bomb factory” in a Greenwich Village townhouse in March particularly shocked Tom Huston and other White House staffers. 32 The response of the President was to send anti-bombing legislation to the Congress.

Moreover, in the spring of 1970 the FBI severed its formal liaison to the CIA in reaction to a CIA-FBI dispute over confidential sources in Colorado. 33 Though hostility between the two agencies had surfaced before with some frequency over matters such as disagreement regarding the bona fides of communist defectors, this particular dispute was “the one straw that broke the camel’s back.” 34 The incident in Colorado, now known as the Riha Case, involved a CIA officer who received information concerning the disappearance of a foreign national on the faculty of the University of Colorado, a Czechoslovak by the name of Thomas Riha.

The information apparently came from an unnamed FBI officer stationed in Denver. Hoover demanded to know the identity of the FBI agent; but, as a matter of personal integrity, the CIA officer refused to divulge the name of his source. Hoover was furious with Helms for not providing the FBI with this information and, “in a fit of pique,” 35 he broke formal Bureau ties with the Agency. 36 To many observers, including Huston and Sullivan, the severance of these ties contributed to the perceived inability of the Bureau’s intelligence division to perform their task adequately.

In this context, a special meeting was called on April 22, 1970, in Haldeman’s office. In attendance were Haldeman, Krogh, Huston Alexander Butterfield (who had responsibility for White House liaison’ with the Secret Service), and Ehrlichman. The purpose of this gathering was to improve coordination among the White House staff for contact with intelligence agencies in the government and, more importantly, as Huston remembers, to decide “whether — because of the escalating level of the violence — something within the government further needed to be done.” 37

A decision was made. The President would be asked to meet with the directors of the four intelligence agencies to take some action that might curb the growing violence. The intelligence agencies would be asked by the President to write a report on what could be done. The meeting was planned for May. In addition, Tom Huston was given a high staff position in the White House; henceforth, he would have responsibilities for internal security affairs. 38 He was now in a strategic position to help Sullivan reverse existing Bureau policies.

The meeting between President Nixon and the intelligence directors was not held in May, because plans for, and the reaction to, the April 29 invasion of Cambodia in Southeast Asia disrupted the entire White House schedule. In the aftermath of this event, the meeting “became even more important,” recalls Huston. 39 The expansion of the Indochina war into Cambodia and the shootings at Kent State and Jackson State had focused the actions on antiwar movement and civil rights activists.

As soon as the reaction to the Cambodian incursion had stabilized somewhat, the meeting between President Nixon and the intelligence directors was rescheduled for June 5th. It was to start a chain of events that would culminate in the Huston Plan.

COURTS, EFFICIENCY, AND THE DEMISE OF HUMANITY

DENNIS COMMENTS   DECEMBER 29, 2015

     Her husband called.  He was in jail for armed robbery.  He was an addict and desperate.  His wife, an addict, had been kidnapped by a group of sex traffickers and rescued by the FBI.  However, there was a failure to appear warrant from Ft Collins, and rather than being protected, she was jailed.  The initial charge was for introducing contraband into the jail, not intentionally, but because she couldn’t toss it before her arrest, for a disturbance at a motel.   She too was an addict.  While incarcerated in Ft. Collins, she tried to enter rehab programs, but she was homeless, with a jailed husband, and was held as a material witness for the FBI with a bounty on her by some very bad guys.   She had been sold as a teenager, had no High School diploma, suffered from Hepatitis C, Epilepsy, Delayed Stress Syndrome, and other ailments.  The District Attorney was tough on crime and prosecuted, not just merely for possession.  Rehab programs, all private, wanted payment, which was impossible.  After 6 weeks’ confinement, a judge put her on probation.  He also added about $2000 in fees.  He knew or should have known this was impossible, but, like a good marionette, followed orders.  This relieved the judge of any responsibility.  Also, as an ex-prosecutor, he knew that addicts were scum, anyway.  Everyone at the country club says so.

She tried to stay clean, but, since she was homeless and at the mercy of strangers she met on the street, she relapsed.  These same judges are the first to lecture the peasantry about taking responsibility for themselves, even though it has been almost 100 years since scientists discovered that environment was a large factor in creating a criminal.  Again, shifting blame away from a corrupt and anonymous system is a good way for the simple mind to ignore humanity.  It is easy to apply “the spirit of Capitalism” described by Max Weber in this instance.  It goes like this: “God has rewarded me with a fairly good life and money.  You are poor and homeless.  God is punishing you because you are bad.  If God can punish, so can I.  Therefore, I don’t have to consider how privatization, and specialization has affected you.  Go prostitute yourself for money, drugs, and, most importantly your court costs.  You can always find a dumpster to sleep in.” How can this happen?  It has been over 50 years since I took my first graduate course in criminology.  At that time, there were courses in corrections, counseling, budgeting, support group building, etc.  The curricula ended in a master’s degree in correction.  That degree is no longer offered because there are no jobs for such trained people.  Since privatization, skilled, trained empathetic people have no place in the Court Supervision system.  The probation officer’s job is not to help people and cut recidivism, but to increase the bottom line of corporate profits.  Correcting isn’t profitable, is costly and labor intensive.  Ignoring problems and applying policy is cheap and easy and has the effect of built in obsolescence, guaranteeing future profits, explaining why a rate that was constant for 40 decades, exponential growth in prison rates from 100, to 450 prisoners per 100,000 persons, since the election of Richard Nixon. The largest private prison system had $1.65 Billion in revenue last year.  Essentially, the District Attorneys and Judges have become shills for greedy, profiteering business enterprise.  Since officials market fear, this is sold as the cost of a safe society.  Complete and utter horseshit!

So, we must ask ourselves.  Do we want to continue putting judicial robes on Prosecutors?  Is the purpose of the third branch of Government; to punish and benefit corporations, or to benefit society?  Should we continue to allow judges to cop out and blame everything on the legislatures, rather than use their inherent supervisory powers to correct things?  Should we tolerate officials that promote a police state, or rid ourselves of them.  Do we want to continue to train police to murder us or to help us?  Do we ignore research, common sense, and justice or demand that justice and betterment of society take priority over profits?  Do we hold the corporations liable for the damage they cause by not insisting that they hire trained staff instead of goons, or do we make waterboarding and torture the new norm?  Do we make the Attorney Generals of the country personally liable for the murders by police resulting from the police training?  Do we want efficiency, or do we demand justice?  Please let me know.

Fellow citizens aren’t commodities.  Citizens don’t exist for the benefit of business or corporations.  Profit motive supremacy has no place in a caring society.  We Should: Reinstitute Corrections as a career and valid area of study.  Re-emphasize fairness instead of efficiency.  Make judges seek fairness, not expediency.  Don’t go gently into oblivion.  Do as Dylan Thomas mandates and “Rage, Rage against the dying of the light.”

STOP THE RICH FROM KILLING US

Text Box: 1DLBLEWITT, May 2020HOW LONG DO WE LET THEM STEAL, CHEAT AND I INJURE US BEFORE WE SAY ENOUGH?      

                It is extremely interesting how the public has become brainwashed to believe that we do not deserve anything, while the Rich and privileged deserve everything.  We are conditioned to believe that anything that trickle down from above his largess that we should appreciate.  We are conditioned to believe that the people that allow anything to trickle down are magnificent and generous precluding us from any criticism.

                It is time for us to wake up.  When this country first started, to escape liability, corporations were formed and allowed to exist as long as they benefited the people.  The purpose wasn’t for profit.  It was hoped that profit would occur, but the main reason for incorporating it so that an investor would only lose what he put into the venture and not his whole estate.  Initially, corporations were created to build turnpikes, canals, and other works that serve the people.  Various ventures were incorporated such as mining interests, utilities, distributors, etc. a corporation was a good way in which to develop and expand our country and incentives were given for that purpose.  For instance, the Constitution says that the government shall create and maintain post ways post offices post roads, etc.  This was a constitutional mandate to connect the country and to connect the people.  When railroads entered the picture, they are perceived as the best way to connect the country and to move people and goods around.  So, in order to finance the great cost of building roads, Congress gave Landgraf’s to the railroads to pay for the cost of the railroads.  However, after the railroads were est. and operating well and starting to get costly to maintain, railroads turned into real estate development companies, tour of the tracks and sold land profiting by the land grants contrary to the reason for them to have been granted.

                , And the main advantages of railroads were to move mail and cargo from one point to another arose had mail cars and they were contracts with the railroad to transport mail.  It was sorted on the cars and delivered at various locations.  As in Europe, roads and railroads were created for the purpose of communication, mail be in one part of it.  Later, Airlines came into being.  They were developed and subsidized by contracts to carry the mail.  It is necessary for a nation to exist as a nation to be able to communicate from region to region and person-to-person and group to group.  However, there seems to be a conscious effort to sabotage that: to about to divide and conquer; to so dissension; to promote isolation is him, thus fragmenting our society.  It seems to be working. 

Propagandist have been trying for decades to blacken government mischaracterizing democratic functioning as inefficient inefficiency.  We have been conditioned to believe that a government as the enemy interfering with all kinds are greedy bastards, who want to make a profit at our expense.  We are taught to believe that is better for an entity, like Raytheon to reap billions and profits for Rich people who can invest rather than provide for a workforce which now is viewed as expendable.  Even in the Middle Ages, the nobility had an obligation to the peasantry.  Enterprise is destroyed that.  Commerce is destroyed that, leaving as in a state of nature referred to as Neal liberalism, where money and economy counts, but people and civilization don’t.  We are now not even afforded the status of surfs.

                If you look at Europe, there are old buildings preserved through the ages and still in.  My grandfather’s church in England, for instance, was built by Saxon’s in the year.  850.  It still in use.  There are many castles and large edifices in Europe that are decaying, but there are also many that are still functioning and used.  The Europeans didn’t have the luxury of throwing a thing that he didn’t need because they were plentiful.  They had to conserve and reuse things, not only raw material, but people.  However, in this country, we could import immigrants and use them or consume them at will, readily replacing them with others.  While I don’t feel I’m expendable.  I don’t believe that people should soil so that others can sit on their assess in a comfortable fashion, supported by the blood, sweat, and tears, of the people.  Our elected leaders are whoring themselves to the ruling Elite, allowing the citizenry to become ill and maybe even die corporations who can raise money by issuing stock selling assets or loans are getting subsidized while waiters, bartenders, tradespeople, construction workers and other laborers are allowed to suffer, starve, lose their housing, and contract plague I suppose I would feel differently if I perceived in the guilt or embarrassment by these people.  But I see no evidence of such all my sense is a sense of entitlement that was there is theirs and what’s hours is theirs for the taking.  I don’t think we the people of the United States should eat cake because there is no bread.  I honestly believe that if they don’t want to share, they don’t deserve to be members of society and should live beyond the bounds of society in a state of nature.  I believe they should be held up to ridicule and abuse, and forced to wear masks like sheets and greedy people that in the Middle Ages

                I don’t think reparations should be only for blacks brought here as slaves, but anyone brought here in a state of certitude.  This is not a racial matter, but a class matter an economic matter, the Rich would just as soon spread liability to a whole race or culture in which they can hire people to get them out of their obligation and impose the obligation on those who can least afford.  They ignore those that may have benefited, they should pay, they got Rich taking our resources from the ground, leaving us with the tab for cleanup.  They consolidate and make things efficient for the sake of profit only, neglecting what is good for the society in general.  I read in the paper about this crook or that crook making millions of dollars from foreign governments for selling our country out or screwing the citizenry, or other heinous things which the privilege class get away with. Society does not exist for the benefit of the privileged, but for the people I say enough is enough.

IDIOT OFFICIALS BELIEVE MONEY AND EFFICIENCY MORE IMPORTANT THAN JUSTICE

WHY A CONCIENTIOUS CITIZEN SHOULD

 JUST VOTE NO

introduction

          THE DECLINE OF JUSTICE, COMMON SENSE, KINDNESS TO THE ALTER OF EFFICIENCY AND REVENUE. A LAWYERS AWAKENING!

I had just purchased a car.  I the dealer put the old plates on the car as well as the temporary sticker on the back.  On the way from the dealership, I was stopped by a Boulder policewoman because I had both a license plate and a temp sticker on my car.  Since it was new, I had no insurance certificate and was issued a summons for no proof of insurance, which requires a mandatory court appearance.  I went abroad for 3 weeks and returned two days before my mandatory appearance.  However, my return was not to my home, but to the hospital with pneumonia.  While in the hospital, I missed my court appearance.  The municipal court automatically issued a warrant for my arrest and ordered a $500 bond. I called the court, explaining to a clerk that I was hospitalized and was told to appear when I got out of the hospital.  I was released Fri afternoon and was told that that division of the court was at the jail that day and to report there, which I did immediately after discharge.  The judge left early, and I was arrested on the warrant.  I had to post a $500 bond through a machine because the Jail would not accept cash and the bail system was privatized.  The phones were privatized so that only collect calls could be made.  Imagine a collect call from your lawyer in jail?  WE DO NOT HAVE JUSTICE, we have automated, privatized revenue generation, with high paid idiots administering a collection agency while wearing robes.  How can this be rectified?  Even an activist such as myself can’t afford to sue them and, even if I could, the result would be insulting. While stewing in a bare holding cell because I would not sign a blanket medical release, I thought about the countless poor people, uneducated, young, confused, afraid and powerless who had to suffer the same indignities.  This is what happened.

I survey my surroundings.  I am in Boulder County Jail-in a cell with no furniture-with a cement slab to lie upon-with a stainless steel commode and wash basin- with nowhere to sit but the commode.  I am fuming.  I am frustrated.  I feel betrayed by a community to which I have contributed for 50 plus years.  I also wonder where I’ve been the last two decades.  This isn’t at all what I remember from my days as a Criminal Defense Lawyer.  Now, I understand that I am not on the best friend’s list of the police establishment.  They generally resent all defense attorneys and me in particular.  It wasn’t always that way.  But that was before this nation went to a war footing on marijuana and other drugs.  I sit, staring at bare walls and wonder how this could occur in a democratic, sane, free society.  It can’t happen.  But it did happen.  If it happened the society must not be democratic, sane and free.  I am experiencing first- hand the police state.  I’ve heard clients complaining, but this was worse than any of them described.  What I really don’t understand is why I am the only one that is concerned about things.  Why don’t people talk about these things or write their officials?  Why are some people allowed to have a public paycheck?

But, I still had doubts.  This was too much like Kafka, only this is the United States, not some dictatorship operating under Napoleon Code.  Maybe, with all my medications, I was hallucinating.  Maybe I had been too long without my oxygen or my insulin.  That was it.  I was delusional.  They gave me something at the hospital before I left.  I am actually home dreaming, or more likely a nightmare.   But, it seems so real.  What had I done to deserve to be locked up without trial?  Why was a bond set at two times my monthly social security check?  The original charge was not having proof of insurance in the new car I had just purchased.  Although the information is readily available on the computer systems in patrol cars now, it doesn’t matter.  A mandatory appearance is required.  I was in the hospital on the court date.  I did not, therefore appear for Court.  With zero tolerance, I must be arrested.  What justification warrants putting me in the slammer without my medications, my oxygen, my insulin, or watch?  Where is the oversight of these people?  How did anyone get into a decision-making office or position to do this to a person?  There was no one with which I could share my outrage or frustration.  Most importantly, why had I not paid attention when this type of system was evolving?  Because, it wasn’t happening to me!

Some background is in order.  Boulder recently sent out a questionnaire about the need for additional police as an attempt to justify the hiring of more police to keep the Commies, the poor, the young and other undesirables leashed or driven out of town.  A tax in the form of traffic violation citations are imposed upon the citizenry and enforced by the police.  As described in my comments about Boulder’s parade of lights, three cars participated in the issuance of a citation for expired plates. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that more cops aren’t needed to control crime or protect the citizens.  The only possible explanation for the addition of more police is additional revenue generation.  One now can see the police out in wolf-packs almost on a daily basis, hunting unwary drivers like Nazi U boats on the Atlantic in the 40’s, preying on the public and generating revenue for the City.  The wolf packs are camouflaged and disguised as ordinary citizens.  But, with a significant difference.  They are equipped with equipment to stop motorists and inflict punishment.  If cops are lucky, the vehicle can be seized as prize for certain offenses, just like the old days when privateers ruled the waves.  The system works with the collusion of the City Attorney and the Municipal Court organized and maintained to increase revenues and maximize profit.  Their job is no longer to represent all the people and promote fairness, it is to terrorize citizens and collect revenue.  To do this, officials generally market fear, or the need to protect children or some other variant of Chicken Little’s cry that the sky is falling or “Wolf”.

            Ordinarily, there is a spotter with a radar gun and a gaggle of motorcycle cops lined up to pursue the victim.  Additionally, some areas are automated with photo radar and photo red light cameras, which can record violations without ever involving human thought or compromise. 

A person can tell that the system is rigged for revenue by observing the patrol cars used currently by “law enforcement” tax collectors and the behavior of the police.  The police have all kinds of special laws that can punish for exhibiting an unfavorable opinion or expression disappointment, frustration fear or anger.  We, as motorists are expected to Kow-Tow to these petty tyrants and give them far greater respect than they deserve as the whores of politicians.  For instance, a cop arrested a driver recently for saluting him with “the bird”.  The officer believed this was a showing disrespect.  Respect no longer has to be learned. 

Also, an officer can write his evaluation of the driver’s attitude on the back of the citation.  If attitude is marked as bad, the prosecutor is expected to add some form of additional sanction not applied to others.  This gives the policeman the opportunity to lie and punish if he doesn’t like a particular motorist.  Police delude themselves with the dangers of the job, when in fact, more teachers are assaulted annually than are police.  They claim that the public doesn’t understand the stress which causes them to be rude, oppressive, assaultive and murderous.  If we did, we would let them beat people up, push them around and kill them.  The Public is the “Other,” or as the police refer to them, “scumbags”.  This attitude is reinforced by administrations all over the country.

It is clear that the purpose of police is not protection.  Any freshman sociology student can cite the myriad of studies that show identification of the police is a large deterrent to crime.  That is why in some cities, the police are taken out of the cars and walk a beat.  That is why police cars used to be clearly marked so that would be criminals would see them driving in the area and think twice about committing any offense.  Now, police lurk around with stealth lights, disguising identifying symbols of police, not protecting the citizenry, but intent upon punishing and taxing.  The light bars are no longer, or at least have a slim profile.  Paint jobs are no longer distinctive so that a citizen can identify a policeman.  Boulder doesn’t even have donut shops anymore. 

Other than receiving a summons or complaint, there is very little opportunity to meet a policeman any more.  Even the courts have become automated to the point where there is no need for police testimony, and hence, no checks and balances.  The police state has effectively cut of any feedback loop.  If the function of the police is to issue revenue generating tickets, the police officer doesn’t want to announce his presence with marked car of light bar.  To see the disdain that the City has for its citizens, check out the back seats of police cars, where the citizen sits.  There is a hard plastic seat which is designed to inflict discomfiture.

What is truly amazing is that the police actually believe that they do not get the respect that they deserve.  But who can respect a hypocrite, or a blustering bully?  They are not protecting us, they are exploiting us, intimidating us, hurting us.  They don’t respect us, they push us around.  Respect is earned, not mandated by law.  Respect is not earned by a bully.  Fear is the resultant product.  Coupled with the fear is intense resentment.  If police truly were looking out for the public rather than furthering the oppression, they might be respected.  Now, only the powerful appreciate the police, but they are also contemptuous of them.  Who can really respect a toady who punishes the poor for the pleasure of the privileged?  Because of their role as oppressor and surrogate for the rulers, I guess that it is therefore only fitting that the police should be contemptuous of us.

  I had a chance to experience this first hand.  There wasn’t the least glimmer of compassion in the faces of the jailers.  I have seen more compassion shown cattle in a feeder lot.  Jailers all seemed up tight and angry.  Since I was there, I was obviously a bad ass or I would not have been there.  I was being punished for some reason.  Since that were the case, the jailers felt they could punish me also.  I had been booked and printed.  Forms were filled out and I was told that my bond would be onethousand five hundred dollars, which was the equivalent of two months of my social security check.  As the night wore on, things became clearer.

I have been ill for a while.  (hence, the dearth of commentary) It culminated with a stay in the hospital where I received a transfusion of blood because I was a quart low.  Had hospital personnel checked with people who knew me, they could have found this out without all the testing, poking, prodding and other neat things they do to patients in the hospital to keep them from sleeping or even resting.  I have been accused of running a quart low for some time now.  In any event, prior to the hospitalization, I was issued a citation for not having proof of insurance in my car, having plates affixed while a temporary sticker was in the rear window, and speeding through a speed trap one block before Highway 93 at Table Mesa Drive.  Since there was no proof of insurance on my person, I was issued a mandatory court date to present the certificate to someone.  It seems that people must now have mandatory papers or face discipline.  This really pisses me off because I was told that the data base on insurance is available through the new data bases accessed by computer in the patrol car.    However, one should not inconvenience an officer of the law.  This is their chance to exert authority.  Reason, common sense and fairness must take a back seat.  This is the chance to show the citizen that police are no longer servants, but their masters.

 However, since the insurance law represents a change in at least four centuries of precedent, and is designed to punish the poor if they dare drive, the burden of  proof is now on the driver rather than the person who has the insurable interest.  In any event, a mandatory appearance is calculated to make your remember to have the certificate with you and to show people that they better have insurance or else.  This does present a problem when a different used car is purchased from a private party.  The police do not recognize the grace periods required by law to be in the policy of insurance if a vehicle is changed or replaced.  I don’t expect a police officer to understand that, let alone a prosecutor, with or without robe.  It necessitates some thought and common sense.  Or, if they do understand, they will ignore it, using the rationale that they are just following orders.  In any event, since I was hospitalized, I missed the Court date.  I should digress to state that the hospitalization was the result of a CAT scan given immediately before and was not scheduled in advance or planned.

In any event, I was transported to the Emergency Room from the CAT scan, where I sat for 5 hours before admittance.  People who know me claim that I am impatient.  I find that hard to believe.  After 5 hours of being ignored, might perceive that the place was busy and maybe another day would be more convenient.  The doctor explained that I was the most serious patient in room and they were waiting for a bed.  It would have helped   had they told me.  I explained that I was forbidden food and water for 5 hours and was thirsty.  A compromise was made.  I stayed for tests and transfusion.

When I was released days later, a warrant had been issued against me, a default judgment entered against my driver’s record, subjecting me to an automatic termination of my driver’s license and a bond set for $1565.00.  The process was automated.  This is zero tolerance in the extreme.    When I called the courthouse, I was told to go to the courtroom at the jail and a new appearance date would be given me.  Generally, this is done over the phone with the setting clerk, but the city must do things differently.  What wasn’t explained was that I would be arrested until I could be transported to court to appear in front of a judge.  I didn’t get another date because, low and behold, I had been found guilty in absentia and therefore could be punished. Form takes precedence over substance.  Presumptions of innocence, due process and other quaint medieval ideas must be struck down for the sake of efficiency and control.  I was guilty and my license subject to suspension and fines already levied.  Since I was in the hospital, I did not appear.  Since I did not appear, I committed the offense of failure to appear.  Although I had been convicted in absentia, a bond was still required on the original charges plus the new charge of not appearing.  If I was found guilty by default and a penal amount in the nature of a fine assessed against me, how can there be a bond required for an appearance on those offenses?   There can be no benefit of the doubt.  One must now appear to prove innocence, not to be proven guilty. I sat there trying to understand why so many people appeared to have attended laws schools in foreign jurisdiction and wondering where I had been when all this was happening.

 I remembered that when I was a judge, I would issue stays of execution for missed dates, giving the citizen the benefit of the doubt in case of mistake or hardship.  That was before the days of automation when justice was intended for people not as a device to send messages to terrorize citizens into compliance.  We were a tolerant society and not suspicious of everything and everybody.  I went to Judging School at Northwestern University and other places.  We were taught that, as a judge, our main job was one of public relations for the municipality.  The reason was that 90% of the people who had any contact with any court, experience this contact through the municipal traffic court.  At that time, studies showed that 90% of that population had an unfavorable opinion of both the courts and the city afterward.  The abolition of Justices of the Peace and replacement with Municipal Judges was supposed to have remedied this.  I remember spending lots of time explaining things to motorists.  Most left with the belief that I cared for them.  That was before we became “marks” or “pigeons” to be preyed upon by police.  I have now changed my view somewhat.  It was not the JP system, but the willingness of the person sitting on the bench to abandon integrity, honor and honesty to move cases and make a profit for the boss.  We are told that we don’t pay judges enough.  Bull shit.  Do we really want someone judging us whose only motive is a paycheck?  That puts justice for sale.  It is not the amount of pay, but the type of appointee that matters.

In any event, I was arrested.  When I told them I was on oxygen and 16 different medications, I was ordered to sign a blanket medical release.  The explanation was that I had to prove that I needed various medicine, not the other way around.  To prove I was not a liar, I had to disclose over 60 years of medical information.  When I balked, I was placed in solitary confinement with a metal sink, concrete slab, and metal commode, no chair and no mattress or blanket.  When I asked why, I was told it was because I was not co-operative.  At that time, my pulse oxymeter, which I was somehow allowed to keep showed my level at oxygen level at 64%, which is dangerously low.

The conversation with the jail nurse was very revealing.  It went something like this.

“Why were you in the hospital?”

“I was bleeding.”

“I hope you don’t expect us to give you all those medications here!”

“I don’t expect anything from you.”

“Why didn’t you bring your medications with you?”

“Do most people have their medications with them when they get arrested?”

“Do you need oxygen?”

“What do you think?”

“You have to sign this release so we can check to see if you are really on all these medications.  We don’t even know for sure if you were really in the hospital.”

“Do you have some doubts, with my appearance?  I did appear here of my own volition.”

At that point, I expected someone from the jail to call a judge and ask for instructions.  I believe that my parrot could have figured out why I missed Court.  Something should have ameliorated the situation.  At least that is what I directed the people to do when I was a judge.  If I wasn’t called in such a situation, I would have demanded that the person be fired for stupidity.  In any event, there I sat in a bare cell without a chair.  I then realized how some people were able to die in a jail without the jailers knowing anything.  It was obvious from the attitude of the jailers that they were looking forward to inflicting pain and suffering on this poor outsider.  They did not care about me, my illnesses or my health.  Procedure was automated.  There would be no exceptions to slow down the revenue generation process.  If sick persons were put in solitary, how was any jailer able to tell if a crisis occurred, especially if they didn’t care.  So, there I was, on a concrete floor, isolated from any other person, told that that is where I would spend the night unless I signed a blanket medical release, slowly seething.  The jailers treated me like I was John Dillinger and were offended that I didn’t kiss their asses as they walked by.  After all, they were privileged, I was the scumbag.  They were going to show me who was boss.  They had me from Friday to the following Monday on their terms and conditions with absolutely no supervision or interference from any court or judge.  They were masters of the universe.  Who needs education and brains when you have raw, unbridled power?

It occurred to me how sheltered I had been the past two decades of my career.  When I first started out, attorneys would visit clients in jail during or right after their arrest.  Bonds were set and people were released in an hour or two.  Jailers were courteous, sensitive and answered to the Court and the public.  Lawyers were the observers and spokes persons for the people.  Court personnel were concerned about fairness and justice, not protection and punishment.  Then the criminal justice system became bureaucratized for the sake of efficiency.  Judges relinquished their roles as supervisors to the prosecutors, willing to allow the change to the police state.  Individual inconveniences were ignored for the sake of efficiency and the “greater good.” 

When I started, there was no public defender system.  When it was proposed to the legislature, Rollie Rogers, Colorado’s first public defender told the legislature that only 10 percent of the criminal cases would be handled by the public defender’s office.  Then it grew to where it is now days with 90% of the cases represented by the public defenders.  This is a bureaucrat’s wet dream.  Public defenders are charged with protecting the rights of the accused, not advocating for them.  Private attorneys mediate between the system and the public.  Change can occur by the outrage and actions of the private attorney.  Public defenders are proscribed from making waves.  They make the system work no matter what.  Now, few private attorneys are involved in the criminal justice process.  Let the public defenders do it. 

So, the biggest shock was that no one seemed to be outraged that an old man, on social security with many ailments was to spend the weekend on a cement slab as punishment for not signing a general medical release to prove that he was ill.  I was outraged.  Additionally, all calls had to be made collect from the jail phone for approximately two dollars each.  What a racket!!!

Finally, it must have dawned on someone that there might be some liability attached to keeping me because the attitude of the jailers seemed to change with the shift change.  I was talked to.  Some concern was shown and it appeared that they were worried.  When I told them that I didn’t know any numbers except for what was in my cell phone, I was handed my phone and told to make calls.  Unfortunately, because of client confidentiality, client’s names and numbers were not in my cell phone.  The only names contained in the phone were reporters, students, and out of state contacts.  So I called them.  When the press and students started to call the jail to confirm my presence there, jailers took my phone away.  I guess that they didn’t want to answer questions by the press and justify their actions.  It was OK to have me prove illness, but not for them to justify their dictatorship.  Finally, my wife arrived with some oxygen.  However, she forgot to fill it.  She had rounded up the cash for the bond and would secure my release.  To the rescue. 

There was a snag, however.  The Sheriff informed my wife that the coin of the realm or the official legal tender for all debts private or public could not be accepted at the jail.  She was told that she had to deposit the money in a kiosk plus a ten percent fee to a bonding company for a bond. Now I understood.  Justice had been privatized and was for sale.  Everyone got to take a bite of the poor schmuck before release.  Why not, he couldn’t fight back.  When I was released and my property returned to me, I was forty dollars short.  Apparently, they could collect cash from my wallet for the jail processing fee, but not for a court ordered cash bond.  No one seemed outraged by the exploitive nature of the situation.  People there were bad and therefore could be punished because that is what they deserved It was just the way it was.  The people in power could fuck people any way they chose.  As was stated by the bandit in “The Magnificent Seven,” “If God had not intended them to be shorn, he wouldn’t have made them sheep.”  This was allowed because the officials view Government as an enterprise and not a service.  As such, if a monopoly exists, it is the right of the monopoly to exploit until someone squawks and garners enough power to stop or break up the monopoly.

Finally, I was released from confinement for the modest amount of two times my monthly social security check.  But that is just prologue.

When I got to Court, all were amazed that I demanded a jury trial for a failure to have proof of insurance.  No one was amazed that it had cost me some $1800 thus far, $180 of which was consumed as fees to vendors.  Had I wanted a bondsman, I would have called one.  But since I did not, I got to give the fee to the Sheriff’s anointed one, designated under the doctrine of the divine right of Kings or the King could do no wrong.  I tried to explain why I was outraged, but no one seemed to understand.  That was the worst thing.  How could people be appointed to positions of power and not see the injustice or unfairness in what had transpired.  My colleagues were not aware of the situation because our clients general made bail or weren’t arrested.  Either that or they are too busy to be aware of the situation.  Or, just maybe, their sense of right and wrong and of justice has been destroyed by the police mentality brought on by the drug war and such things as the “patriot act.”  Maybe what was reprehensible to my father and his WW II buddies is now passé and trite or quaint, like some politicians referred to our constitution.

I guess that is the case.  In any event, I doubt if anyone, after reading this would feel outraged enough to call the city and officialdom and demand an accounting from the Sheriff’s office.  No one would question the qualifications of an Eichmann like judge who devises rules and procedures to keep the system going and not to achieve fairness or justice.  The priorities of the Courts reflect the priorities of the people.  As such, the Courts don’t care.  Why should they.  Go into a courtroom and see if anyone is there to observe.  Go to court and see how a judge behaves toward the peasantry.  Go to court to watch judges delegate decision making to the prosecutors and police representatives.  Go to court and observe how the magistrates claim that the DA has agreed to point reduction of tickets in exchange for guilty pleas, when in fact it is a matter of policy to discourage debate and enforce the idea of zero tolerance.  Then listen to the public blame it on the lawyers and not the politicians and power brokers who advance the police state.  If the public cared, there would be a flood of letters, articles, protests and no votes until the Courts become responsive to the public rather than the privileged.  Until that time, suffer quietly unto extinction.  But hopefully, this will be remembered when the City or the State requests more oppression in the form of additional police.

Well, what can we do?  I know one thing that can be done.  It happened in Fort Collins.  Two prosecutors framed a defendant because he was different and was a candidate for persecution because he was perceived as weird.  Since people are now willing to believe the worse, he was readily tried and convicted for a particularly heinous crime.  Years later, he was proven innocent.  In the course of the proceedings, it was discovered that evidence contradicting the official theory of the case was secreted.  Also, some evidence was manufactured.  The district attorneys on the case thought this was just because they just knew the guy was guilty.

Upon release, he sued Larimer County and Ft. Collins.  He collected over $8000000 in a settlement.  The prosecutors that framed the man were rewarded with judgeships.  Justice was done.  However, some citizens were offended.  They demanded accountability from the now judges.  However, the lawyers came to the rescue of the judges.  A poll was taken of the lawyers and they were almost unanimous in their evaluations of stellar performance by these jurists.  No lawyer had balls to vote no   when he might have to appear before the judge.  They knew that the voters re-elect the judges no matter what.  However, they were wrong.  The case was so outrageous that the voters voted the rascals out of office.  The public has a conscience even if the legal establishment doesn’t.

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AND MAFIA?

GOVT. MANUFACTURED ORGANIZED CRIME FOR FUN AND PROFIT

A SMALL-TIME D.A. PARLAYED AN INTELLIGENCE FIASCO INTO A INTELLIGENCE BACKED BONANZA

“SMALLDONE, THE UNTOLD STORY OF AM AMERICAN CRIME FAMILY,” BY Dick Kreck

DENNISCOMMENTS, MAY 2020

Many of you have questioned why I posted a video about a shootout and ice cream parlor in Denver.  This is my explanation.  Since the Vietnam war came along, and I couldn’t get funding for more studies in criminology, I decided to do field work instead.  So, when contacted by some friends of my aunts who requested me to take a civil rights group as a client.  I said yes.  The group was called Italian American Civil Rights league and it was headed up by an Italian gentleman named Colombo.  Law and order were the subject of a national political campaign predicated upon both fear and prejudice.  It was reminiscent of the signs posted and windows, stating “no.  I recently did apply,” “no Italian means apply.”  There has been an underlying discrimination against these 2 groups ever since immigration occurred in this country.  These were impoverished working class people, not the types of people that had originally settled America.  They were looked down upon an isolated from admittance into genteel society by and large.

I Italian became synonymous with crime.  Since prohibition, the idea of Italians and liquor was associated with organized crime, which started out as ethnic associations with a different set of mores and values and folkways which, in the old country warrant necessarily criminal.  However, as some sociologists have stated, much crime legislation during the time of prohibition was caused by suburban Republicans, reaction to urban Democrat machine politics, and ethnic immigration

for whatever reason organized crime and decreased rapidly after prohibition and was focused primarily upon petty gambling and other activities.  It was hard to enforce antigambling laws because clubs, such as the Elks, Moose, Eagles, Legion, and Vets clubs had gaming, slot machines, punch cards, and various other things that had cash payoffs.  There was an open run casino in Central city owned and operated by a family named Smaldone.  That was pretty much the case until the election of Richard Nixon.  Then things changed.

Suddenly, to the press exposure and other campaigns, people started to be concerned about gambling.  There is also a great publicity campaign through the Kefauver and McClellan committees about Italian criminality.  This followed and was somewhat concurrent with the McCarthy committee on communism.  Things were in the state of change.  Republicans lost power to the Democrats whose Pres. was assassinated during his first term.  There was civil unrest, foreign policy unrest, and other undercurrents in the society.  People were nervous, excited, and due to the publicity of prior administrations, figure reigned.  When I was in high school, there were atomic bomb blast duck and cover drills, fire drills, and nerve gas drills.  There was a missile silo 2 miles from my house, and atomic bombs were manufactured 40 miles away.  Rather than feel safe from the feet of the month Nazis, we are all afraid of the “red menace,” to the point of irrationality.

Threats and fear were essential to keep the military – industrial complex alive and well, living and profit.  I wrote a paper before I went to law school.  Based on the premise that this country was predicated and originated on the foundation of organized crime, particularly in smuggling, such as a rum, slaves, and bounty from admiralty court seizures by privateers.

So, when I started representing the Italian community I did so from a different perspective.  I tried to be objective, collect data, evaluate, and make findings, whether or not they conformed to the public perception.  I Inc. the research into my law practice, and much to my economic disadvantage, took cases based more upon what I can learn then how much money I could make.  I didn’t make a lot of money, but I learned a lot and has a lot of in addition to meeting a lot of interesting people and gathering a diverse group of friends.

My point of view of these writings is from a sociological structural and postmodern theoretical perspective.  Part of it is influenced by government counterterrorist publications, ethnic cleansing articles, political subversion articles and other sources to me.  It is obvious that organized crime statutes are aimed at curtailing or during ethnic, mores, folkways, etc.  When the hippie movement started, it was viewed as a political movement and threatened the party line of the power structure regarding behavioral norms of dress of speech and political views, particularly in the areas of Civil Rights and foreign policy.  Therefore, much of this techniques from the school of the Americans were used by governmental agents.  Psychological warfare was waste upon the citizenry, along with large-scale media campaigns, one of the largest of which was Hill and Knowlten.  Many of Nixon’s cabinets were members of this firm.

Of course, much of what I learned and heard was of a confidential nature in the form of attorney-client privilege.  This involved individual clients.  What I discuss and right here is of a general nature of things told to me by my clients and others whom I interviewed and had conversations with.  My career, starting with hippies, drug dealers, organized crime figures, CIA assassins and operatives put me in a position that it was extremely difficult for me to tell the good guys from the bad guys because they all wanted people to believe that God was on their side.  All I’m trying to do here is to get people to think and broaden their horizons and the gestalt in which they are thinking.  I hope to stem the tide of functional Indians coming into our society and maybe bring a lot of common sense and a new point of view.  Since much of this kinds under the rubric of research, I am hopeful that you will all feel free to send me your ideas, criticisms, reflections, angry statements, trainees, and other expressions of analysis or emotions.

The picture above is a book cover about a group of my clients and their associates.  Mr. Krick was a newspaper reporter and that is the point of view of his book.  I will say, that until about the 1980s, I was interviewed.  Quite often by the press on most headlight cases in which I was involved press objectivity deteriorated and finally disappeared with the hiring of professional PR representatives for various police offices, Dist. Atty. offices, and attorney general offices.  His reporting has degenerated into reading the writing press releases from governmental agencies.  It is essentially a form of brainwashing.  I realize that many of you will believe in full shift, but that doesn’t bother me.  I can’t live the experiences and observations that I have had over my 6th decade legal career during my career.  I pulled punches on comments regarding both district attorney and judges because they tended to hold my clients hostage.  They couldn’t do anything directly to me for being critical or outspoken, but they could punish me through harsh treatment of clients.  As a lesson to me.  What I am attempting to do here is to take a headline story, and put it into perspective with other events of the day, such as bureaucratic Empire building, marketing fear by government, prosecuted an ethnic community for the sake of headlines, de facto granting immunity to the real criminals and other nefarious activity of people who are paid to serve us.

In any event, I hope you enjoy my work as much as I did, creating the State in touch with your comments, criticisms, was.

Dennis L.  Blewitt

Government Public Relations Scheme Backfires

This is a case I tried in which FBI agents were sentenced and Governmental Corruption and Conviction Rates were Exposed.

Watch my youtube channel for more.

 

660 F.2d 763

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joseph Dean BRIOLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80-2183.

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 14, 1981.
Decided Aug. 11, 1981.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, 1981.

1
Charles H. Torres, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo. (Joseph Dolan, U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., with him on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

2
Dennis L. Blewitt, Boulder, Colo. and James R. Collins, Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellant.

3
Before DOYLE and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and CHILSON*, District Judge.

4
CHILSON, District Judge.

5
The appellant will be referred to herein as “defendant” or “Briola”.

6
Briola was charged by indictment filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado with interstate transportation of stolen securities in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2314.

7
Briola entered a plea of not guilty and waived a jury trial. Upon trial to the court, he was found guilty and after imposition of sentence, he appealed his conviction to this court.

8
Briola does not deny that he transported from Colorado to California the stolen securities set forth in the indictment.

9
The grounds for appeal are in essence the same as those argued to the trial court. They are:

10
1. The charges should have been dismissed on the ground of entrapment;

11
2. The trial court should have dismissed the charges in accordance with the court’s inherent supervisory power on the ground that there was cumulative outrageous governmental conduct.

12
Upon the evidence, the trial court determined that under the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976) and United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 100 S.Ct. 2439, 65 L.Ed.2d 468 (1980), neither the defense of outrageous conduct nor entrapment were sustained and that the government had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

13
There remains for this Court to examine the evidence and the applicable law and determine whether or not the trial court erred.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

14
In 1971, Briola was convicted in federal court for “Bookmaking”. After serving 32 months for this offense, he was released on parole.

15
Shortly thereafter, he was indicted in Federal Court for interstate transportation of counterfeit securities. Trial on this charge resulted in a hung jury. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

16
He was confined in the federal prison at El Reno, Oklahoma, and was later transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution at Englewood, Colorado. In August 1978, he was released on parole and returned to Denver.

17
At that time, F.B.I. agents, Kenneth Thompson and Donald Civitano, were engaged in the operation of a bar and restaurant, known as Cyrano’s, in Glendale, Colorado, as an undercover operation for the investigation of criminal activities in that area. Glendale is a municipal enclave completely surrounded by the City and County of Denver. The agents employed Cathy Coffelt as the manager of the establishment.

18
Shortly after Briola’s release on parole, his friend, Jesse Bridwell, took Briola to Cyrano’s and introduced him to Cathy. Cathy and Briola soon formed a close relationship which resulted in Briola becoming a frequent visitor to Cyrano’s and led to Briola’s acquaintance with Thompson and Civitano.

19
Shortly thereafter, Civitano, knowing of Briola’s criminal record, told Briola that he, Civitano, could get rid of any “paper” defendant might come across.

20
Shortly thereafter, and as a result of this conversation, Briola “tricked” Thompson and Civitano into paying him $2,000 for counterfeit money which Briola claimed he had for sale. In fact, Briola had no such counterfeit money. After some discussion, Briola agreed to pay back to the agents one-half of the $2,000 and no action was taken against Briola.

21
In late 1978, the defendant moved in with Cathy and lived with her in her apartment. Until Cathy quit working at Cyrano’s in January 1979, Briola was a frequent visitor at Cyrano’s and had frequent contacts with Thompson and Civitano.

22
In June 1979, Briola requested Thompson to meet with him at Briola’s apartment. At this meeting, Briola showed Thompson a number of securities which he said had been stolen from a Dr. Padernos; informed Thompson that he, Briola, and an associate, Max Snyder, were attempting to negotiate a sale of the securities and sought Thompson’s advice and assistance. Thompson agreed to assist in finding a buyer.

23
Thereafter, at various times, Thompson and Briola discussed the best way of negotiating a sale of the securities, the price that could be obtained from a sale, and the fact that Dr. Padernos’ name would have to be forged in the sale of the securities.

24
In August 1979, Thompson informed the defendant he was still attempting to locate a buyer for the stolen securities. Shortly thereafter, Thompson arranged a meeting with one Frances Brower, a California police officer, acting undercover as an interested buyer of the stolen securities.

25
In the latter part of August 1979, Briola, Thompson, Civitano, and Brower met in Denver and discussed the sale of the securities.

26
On August 28, 1979, Briola met with Thompson and Brower in California and again discussed the sale of the securities, but the defendant did not have the securities with him and no sale was consummated.

27
On September 4, 1979, Briola called Thompson and asked if Brower was still interested in the securities. On the following day, Thompson advised Briola that Brower was still interested, but was not sure how to consummate the deal. Thompson also told Briola that he had informed Brower the securities were still available.

28
On October 16, 1979, Briola advised Thompson that he planned to travel to California and asked Thompson if Brower was okay to deal with. Thompson told Briola that he had known Brower for a long time and that as far as he knew, he was “okay”. Briola also advised Thompson that he was going to California on a “backgammon deal”.

29
On October 17, 1979, Briola called Brower from Las Vegas, Nevada, and told him he would be in California the following day. On October 18, 1979, Briola met with Brower in California and produced the securities. A sale price of $5700 was agreed upon. Brower paid Briola $5700 in marked bills and Briola delivered the securities to Brower.

30
On June 11, 1980, the indictment in this action was filed.

31
In support of his defenses, Briola produced three medical witnesses, Dr. Burr, Dr. Emrick, and Dr. Mason, who testified in effect that Briola was immature and impulsive and could easily be manipulated. They were critical of the agents’ participation in the securities transaction and were also critical of the parole officer who had Mr. Briola under his supervision.

32
The trial court’s finding that plaintiff was predisposed to commit the offense is supported by ample evidence.

APPLICABLE LAW

ENTRAPMENT

33
In Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976), the Court reviewed and reaffirmed previous decisions of the Court holding that the defense of entrapment focuses on the intent or predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime and stated at pages 488 and 489, 96 S.Ct. at page 1649:

34
“We ruled out the possibility that the defense of entrapment could ever be based upon governmental misconduct, in a case such as this one, where the predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime was established.”

35
Applying this rule to the facts of this case, the defense of entrapment is without merit.

SUPERVISORY POWERS

36
and

OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT

37
In United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 1643, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973), the Supreme Court stated:

38
“While we may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction, cf. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), the instant case is distinctly not of that breed.”

39
In Hampton, supra, 425 U.S. at pages 489-491, 96 S.Ct. at pages 1649-1650, the Supreme Court commented on the foregoing statement in Russell as follows:

40
“But in each case the government agents were acting in concert with the defendant, and in each case either the jury found or the defendant conceded that he was predisposed to commit the crime for which he was convicted. The remedy of the criminal defendant with respect to the acts of government agents, which, far from being resisted, are encouraged by him, lies solely in the defense of entrapment .

41
“If the police engage in illegal activity in concert with the defendant beyond the scope of their duties, the remedy lies, not in freeing the equally culpable defendant, but in prosecuting the police under the applicable provisions of state or federal law.”

42
UNITED STATES v. PAYNER, 447 U.S. 727, 100 S.Ct. 2439, 65

L.Ed.2d 468

43
Payner was charged in Federal District Court with falsifying his 1972 federal income tax return. Payner waived a jury trial and moved to suppress a loan guarantee agreement which was a key part of the government’s evidence. The loan guarantee agreement was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure of a briefcase, owned by one, Wolstencroft.

44
The District Court found Payner guilty as charged on the basis of all the evidence, but he also found that the government discovered the guarantee agreement by exploiting the flagrantly illegal search of the briefcase. The District Court therefore suppressed all evidence introduced in the case by the government with the exception of Payner’s income tax return and the related testimony. Since the tax return alone was insufficient to demonstrate falsification, the District Court set aside Payner’s conviction. The District Court believed that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the inherent supervisory power of the Federal Courts required it to exclude the guarantee agreement as tainted evidence. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s use of its supervisory power, but did not decide the due process question.

45
The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

46
The Supreme Court reversed the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals stating in pertinent parts:

47
“We conclude that the supervisory power does not authorize a federal court to suppress otherwise admissible evidence on the ground that it was seized unlawfully from a third party not before the court. Our Fourth Amendment decisions have established beyond any doubt that the interest in deterring illegal searches does not justify the exclusion of tainted evidence at the instance of a party who was not the victim of the challenged practices. Rakas v. Illinois, supra, (439 U.S. 128) at 137 (99 S.Ct. 421 at 427, 58 L.Ed.2d 387); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. (165) at 174-175 (89 S.Ct. 961 at 966-967, 22 L.Ed.2d 176). The values assigned to the competing interests do not change because a court has elected to analyze the question under the supervisory power instead of the Fourth Amendment. In either case, the need to deter the underlying conduct and the detrimental impact of excluding the evidence remain precisely the same.

48
“The District Court erred, therefore, when it concluded that

49
‘society’s interest in deterring (bad faith) conduct by exclusion outweigh(s) society’s interest in furnishing the trier of fact with all relevant evidence.’ (United States v. Payner), 434 F.Supp. (113) at 135. This reasoning, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, amounts to a substitution of individual judgment for the controlling decisions of this Court. Were we to accept this use of the supervisory power, we would confer on the judiciary discretionary power to disregard the considered limitations of the law it is charged with enforcing. We hold that the supervisory power does not extend so far.”

CONCLUSION

50
The evidence and the applicable law fully support the trial court’s determination of Briola’s guilt of the charge and the trial court’s determination is hereby affirmed.

JACK RUBY,INTELLIGENCE OPERATIVE OR MOBSTER?

I intend to do a series of strange bedfellows connections I have know in my career and, hopefully my readers can make sense out of the mess.  Two of my clients worked for Mr. Ruby supplying arms to both Batista and Castro during the Eisenhower administration.

Posted by Mike SylwesterFredericksburg, Virginia

Mob Connections 

Jack Ruby, Smuggling With and Spying on Communists, 1938-1958

At the end of the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War, thousands of leftists who had fought on the defeated Republican side retreated across the border from Catalonia to southern France, especially to Marseille-Toulon, which is the main urban region there. During the decade 1938-1948, one of the biggest international leftist causes was to resettle these refugees to better locations. Church groups and charities were persuaded to offer their support.

While in Marseille, a group of these refugees became employed in the secret narcotics trafficking system known as the French Connection. The main smuggling trail for opium to the West was from Burma overland to Turkey, then by various routes to Marseille, where it was processed and then distributed everywhere.

During World War Two, this route was disupted, and other routes became more important. One of the major new routes was from China and Burma, smuggled on US military ships around South Africa, to Florida, which had the main supply ports for the China-Burma-India Theater. Much of this smuggling operation was under the control of Communists allied with Mao Tse Tung. I quote from Joseph Douglass’s book, Red Cocaine, pp 1-2:

[quote] In 1928, Mao Tse-Tung, the Chinese Communist leader, instructed one of his trusted subordinates, Tan Chen-lin, to begin cultivating opium on a grand scale. Mao had two objectives: obtaining exchange for needed supplies and “drugging the white region,” where “white” was an ideological, not racist, term that Mao used to refer to his non-communist opposition.

Mao’s strategy was simple; use drugs to soften a target area. Then, after a captured region was secured, outlaw the use of all narcotics and impose strict controls to ensure that the poppies remained exclusively an instrument of the state against its enemies…. [unquote]

 

Military Service

Jack Rubenstein apparently became directly involved with this smuggling operation and with US military counter-intelligence through his military service during World War Two. He joined the Army Air Corps in May 1943 and served until February 1946. During the War, Jack’s brother, Sam Rubenstein, also served in the Army Air Corps and served as a counter-intelligence informer. Sam would “keep an eye on Communists and Nazis” in the US military and write letters to his brother Jack about his observations. However, Sam testified (WC, Vol 14, pg 503) that although he wrote the letters as if they were to his brother Jack, he actually addressed the evelope to a US military counter-intelligence officer. Supposedly, this reporting arrangement was ordered by the counter-intelligence officer for security purposes, but it really makes little sense. It makes a lot more sense that Sam did actually send such letters to his brother Jack, who passed them to Air Corps counter-intelligence. This relationship has never been explained by the US Government.

At the same time, Jack Rubenstein continued to organize Communist cells. A citizen named George Fehrenbach testified to the Warren Commission (WC, Vol 15, pp 289-321) that he saw Rubenstein doing this several times in a three-story building in Muncie, Indiana. The third story was a union hall where gambling often happened during evenings and weekends. (Investigators found several other people who also said that gambling did take place on the third story.) Fehrenbach testified that several of the people associated with the activities on the second and third stories of the building were Russian Jews and were Communists.

On three occasions, in about summer 1943, early 1944, and early-47 (all these absences were possible, according to his military leave record), Jack Rubenstein came from Chicago to Muncie to participate in some mysterious meetings in this building. On the second of these occasions, Fehrenbach happened to have a two-hour lunch talking with Rubenstein and became fairly well acquainted with him. Because of the overall circumstances, Fehrenbach deduced that Jack Rubenstein was there to meet with the Communist cell. Fehrenbach had the impression that “very seldom would there be over three or four at any one time” at these cell meetings (pg 300), but that when Jack Rubenstein came to Muncie, “there was a meeting that apparently had some significance to it, because there were so many people coming in” (pg 316).

He reported for active duty to Camp Grant, Illinois, on May 28, 1943. There, he was not assigned to any unit until June 4, when he was assigned to the 1633 SU (Student Unit?). He was there just five days, until June 9. Sometime just before or during this period of semi-activity, he could have gone to Muncie.

On June 10, 1943, he was moved to Company AAF (Army Air Field), Military Police, Recruit Training Center, Keesler Field, Mississipi. He was there almost four months, until September 3, 1943. Apparently, he trained to be be a military policeman, but then, as we shall see, he was for some reason transferred to become a mechanic for reconnaissance aircraft.

From September 5, 1943 — a little more than five months — through February 15, 1944, he was at the 793 Technical School Squadron, at Seymour Johnson Field, North Carolina. According to the reference book Air Force Bases, starting in September 1943, this base “accomodated an Aviation Cadet Pre-Technical School Training program (bomber mechanics). However, Rubenstein was pre-trained to become a reconnaissance aircraft mechanic. During these five months, he probably received general instruction on aircraft mechanics, to prepare him to then specialize.

To receive his specialized reconnaissance aircraft mechanics training, he then moved on February 15, 1944, to the 18th AAF Technical Training Detachment, Republic Aviation Crops, Farmingdale, on Long Island, New York. He was there about five weeks, until March 23, 1944. A book titled World War II Photo Intelligence, by Col Roy Stanley II, provides a description about Republic’s aircraft program at that time (pp 95-96):

[quote] Republic Aviation also proposed an aircraft to meet the 1943 call for a long-range, high-speed, high-altitude photorecon aircraft. Their version, the F-12. Two prototypes were in testing in early 1944 and initially looked promising, but by mid-1944, tests showed that F-12 performance did not surpass that of the stripped B-29s already being used for photo work in the Pacific.

In a 24 August 1944 memorandum, Brig. Gen. Marvin C. Gross, Chief of the Air Staff Requirements Division, informed the Materiel Division, that though he had previously recommended cancellation, he now agreed to continue the F-12 as “an insurance against failure of the F-11 [another reconnaissance aircraft being developed by Howard Hughs], either because of production difficulties or operational limitations.” He referred to the fact that the F-12 “does not meet the requirement for high maneuverability desired in combat photographic reconnaissance aircraft,” but had to conceed that the “F-11 and the F-12 are the only airplanes currently being built wich approximately meet the military characteristics prescribed by G-2 [Intelligence] of the War Department for a photographic mapping airplane.” [unquote]

In other words, Jack Rubenstein had been sent to Long Island, directly to the Republic factory, where US Army Air Corps Intelligence was developing the first two prototypes of a promising, technologically controversial photoreconnaissance aircraft being tested at that time, especially for use in the Pacific Theater.

After that, he went on leave for 19 days, from March 24, 1944, until April 11, 1944. This period provided the opportunity for the second trip to Muncie.

After that, he returned to Bluethenthal Field, North Carolina, near Seymour Johnson, where he had been previously. He was there from April 26, 1944, to June 7, 1944 — about six weeks. His unit there was called “D-2 Static Crew Section.” I think that this was the tests that were described in the above phrase “by mid-1944, tests showed that F-12 performance did not surpass that of the stripped B-29s already being used for photo work in the Pacific.” One of his fellow soldiers, Stephen Belancik, has added the detail that Rubenstein was assigned to the 321st Fighter Squadron (Exhibit 1294).

Then, from June 9, 1944, to November 27, 1945, Rubenstein was assigned to the 114th Air Force Base Unit (B), Chatham Field, near Savannah, Georgia. On July 17, 1944, Robins had been reassigned to AAF Materiel and Services Command. As mentioned above: “In a 24 August 1944 memorandum, Brig. Gen. Marvin C. Gross, Chief of the Air Staff Requirements Division, informed the Materiel Division, that though he had previously recommended cancellation, he now agreed to continue the F-12.” The book Air Force Bases says that during this period, Robins was “primarily a logistics depot….military personnel trained at Robins for overseas duty during World War II.” Irving Zakarin, one of Rubenstein’s fellow soldiers at Chatham Air Field, remembers that they served as airplane mechanics with about 15 other men, servicing P-47s, which were classified as “transit aircraft.” (Exhibit 1295)

I believe that during this half year at Chatham, a secret logistics base with trade to reconnaissance units in Asia, Ruby become involved in a long-distance Communist smuggling ring, receiving opium from Burma.

During the period 17 Aug 1944 through 23 October 1944, while Rubenstein was at Chetham, the First and Second Fighter Squadrons were organized at Tampa, specifically at Drew and Lakeland Fields, for a deployment to the CBI Theater. The P-51 bomber was reconfigured as a special reconnaissance version called the F-6, which deployed from Tampa to India.

On November 27, 1945, until February 17, 1946 — for about three months — Rubenstein was assigned to the Tampa area, first at Drew Field and then in Tampa, where he was closer to the shipping port. On February 17, 1946, he traveled back to Illinois, where he was discharged from the Service.

 

Ruby in Dallas, 1946-48

Jack Rubenstein’s living arrangements and activities during the first postwar years are only known at a few points in time. In about October 1946, he was in Dallas, Texas, where his sister Eva Grant had been living since about 1943. In Dallas, he built a log cabin, where he hosted a private night club that was open mostly only on weekends. The evidence is confusing about whether he considered Dallas to be his main residence. In August 1947, he was in a Chicago hotel, but in October 1947, he told government authorities that he was only “visiting” Dallas. As late as 1951, he was living in only a YMCA room in Dallas. (HSCA vol 9, pp 522, 1080)

Fehrenbach claimes he saw Jack Rubenstein for the third time in Muncie in about early 1947, for only for a few seconds, when Rubenstein walked into the second-story office. Some days after that visit, Fehrenbach found an unlabeled list of more than 100 names that was left by mistake on the third floor. That list included local people he suspected of Communist sympathies and also included the name of Jack Rubenstein. Fehrenbach stole that list and turned it over to his father-in-law, who was a local police officer. Several of the local people he thought were Communists accused him of stealing the list, but he denied it.

After that, during the second half of 1947, Fehrenbach was subjected to an intensive surveillance. Every day when he left work, for about six months, a car with two or three people in it would follow him out to his rural home and park across the street for several hours. His wife confirmed this surveillance. Fehrenbach deduced that the people watching him were doing this on the behest of Communists who were concerned about the missing list. The surveillance lasted until about Christmas 1947 and then stopped. .

As we will see, there are also statements that Jack Rubenstein was also spending a lot of time in hotels in Florida in the late 1940s, involved in various smuggling operations.

During these postwar years, the new Communist governments of East Europe led the reintroduction of opium into the West. Yugoslavia grew opium and smuggled it across the border to Trieste, Italy. That operations was disrupted when a lot of those smugglers were arrested in Italy in 1950. Subsequently, the major smuggling route went through Greece. This smuggling ring was run by a married couple of Greek Communists and a refugee from the Spanish Civil War. This ring was arrested in the early 1950s. There was also a major opium-smuggling ring operating out of the Romanian Embassy in Switzerland, primarily buying Western industrial equipment in exchange for opium. (Charles Siragusa, The Trail of the Poppy: Behind the Mask of the Mafia, chapters 5 and 7).

The Mafia was also trying to establish new smuggling networks. In 1946, the Mafia sent Paul Roland Jones, who had been operating a casino in Mexico City, to Dallas for this purpose. Jones began by attempting to bribe some police officers in November 1946 to allow him to set up a gambling casino in the back of a Dallas restaurant. Police investigators tape recorded all these conversations, and Jones was arrested for bribery on December 18, 1946. (HSCA, vol 9, pp 517-518).

The HSCA tried hard to prove that Rubenstein was involved in Jones attempt to establish this casino. There was some circumstantial evidence, and one officer involved in the bribery sting, Steve Guthrie, later remembered to the assassination investigators that Ruby was supposed to operate the casino restaurant.

However, there were also contrary evidence. Rubenstein was never mentioned in any of the extant tapes or notes from the bribery sting, and another officer involved in the sting, George Butler, told the FBI (ibid, pg 520):

[quote] Ruby was not involved in the bribery attempt. In fact, he [Butler] had never heard of Ruby until after the investigation and trial had been completed. He stated the way Ruby came into the picture was a number of individuals who were involved in the bribery attempt and in particular Paul Roland Jones began “hanging out” at Ruby’s club after the sentence. [unquote]

Jones and the Rubensteins also said they did not meet until after the bribery attempt. Eva Grant said that she first met Jones in early 1947, when Jones tried to buy a Dallas restaurant she owned. She refused to sell it, but she did talk about business ideas with Jones and suggest that Jones contact Hyman Rubenstein in Chicago to discuss other possible business ideas. Shortly after that, Jones traveled to Chicago and did meet with Hyman Rubenstein, but supposedly no business enterprises were established during that meeting. Shortly afterwards, Jones returned to Dallas.

In Dallas, Jones was trying to organize a drug smuggling operation and other businesses (he was also an egg broker and a liquor store owner). According to Eva and Jack, Eva introduced Jack to Jones in about June or July 1947 at her restaurant. At about the same time, Hyman recontacted Jones to suggest a business of shipping excess metal pipe from Chicago to Dallas. On August 2, Jones returned to Chicago to conduct various business and telephoned Hyman Rubenstein from his hotel room to discuss the proposed pipe business. During this period, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) had Jones under surveillance and noted that Jones had telephoned from his hotel to a local number that belonged to Hyman and Jack Rubenstein. Jones remembered that he met Jack Rubenstein in a hotel lobby there. Shortly afterwards, Jones returned to Dallas.

On August 27, 1947, one of Jones’ accomplices was arrested trying to smuggle 48 pounds of opium across the border. On October 29, 1947, Jones was also arrested, supposedly because he was implicated by the accomplice. On that same day, the FBN interviewed Jack Rubenstein in Dallas. Rubenstein told the FBN that he had met Jones in Dallas four or five months previously, but that they had never discussed any drug smuggling and had not been in contact when Jones was in Chicago. The FBN also questioned Hyman, who told the story about the proposed pipe business.

None of the Rubensteins were charged, but Jones was confined to jail for the bribery and smuggling convictions until March 1952. After he was released, he moved away from Dallas. (HSCA, vol 9, pp 517-523). In the meantime, Jack Rubenstein proceeded to establish the casino restaurant and smuggling operation that Jones had failed to establish. Whereas Jones and his Mafia partners had been surveilled, stung, and prosecuted very successfully by government investigators, Rubenstein and his partners were not. I think it’s worth considering the possibility that the Rubensteins even helped sabotage Jones’ efforts in order to set up their own operation.

 

Rubenstein Smuggling Operations, 1948-1952

In 1948, there was another develoment, in Guatemala, which at that time was ruled by a Communist-dominated regime. In 1948, a leading Guatemalan Communist serving in the embassy to France granted immigration visas to 300 veterans of the Spanish Civil War. As one expert on subsequent developments, Daniel James, later observed:

[quote] A veritable International Brigade, which could claim kinship with its Spanish original, functioned as part of the Little Cominform apparatus [in Guatemala]….Trained by the Soviet police in Spain, they …were employed to spy and inform on Communism’s enemies, to burglarize and break up anti-Red centers, and to beat up, of if need be, assassinate opponents. [unquote]

Almost immediately after these Spanish Civil War veterans arrived, the subversion in Latin America spread so dramatically that the United States embargoed all arms sales to Guatemala and convinced many other suppliers, including Great Britain, Denmark, Mexico, Cuba, Argentina, and Switzerland to break off sales agreements. Nevertheless, Guatemala managed to buy weapons for a while from smugglers, many of whom flew them to Guatemala on small airplanes.

An FBI informant designated AT T-1 recalled that Ruby had lived in Daytona, Florida, for a while in the late 1940s. Another FBI informant, designated as AT T-2 (real name, Blaney Mack Johnson), also told the FBI that Ruby was in Florida in the early 1950s and was smuggling weapons and counterfeit money to leftist rebels in Cuba (Exhibit 3063, pp 634-635, 638):

[quote] He stated that in the early 1950s, Jack Ruby held interest in the Colonial Inn, a nightclub and gambling house in Hollandale, Florida. He stated that Jack Ruby, known then as Rubenstein, was active in arranging illegal flights of weapons from Miami to the Castro organization in Cuba. According to T-2, Ruby was reportedly part owner of two planes used for these purposes.

T-2 further stated that Ruby subsequently left Miami and purchased a substantial share in a Havana gaming house in which one Collis Prio (phonetic) was principal owner. T-2 stated that Colis Prio was within favor of former Cuban leader Batista, but was instrumental in financing and managing accumulation of arms by pro-Castro forces.

T-2 stated that one Donald Edward Browder was associated with Ruby in the arms smuggling operation. Browder is reportedly incarcerated in the US Penitentiary, Atlanta, after conviction on a US Customs violation. T-2 also stated that Joe Marrs of Marrs Aircraft, 167th Street, Miami, Florida, allegedly contracted with Ruby to make flights to Havana. T-2 further stated that Leslie Lewis, formerly Chief of Police, Hialeah, Florida, and now possibly a pistol instructor in Dade County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office, possessed detailed knowledge of persons involved in flight of weaons to Cuba and had specific knowledge of Ruby’s participation. …. T-2 also named Clifton T. Bowes, Jr, formerly captain of National Airlines, Miami, Florida, as having been acquainted with Rubenstein and his activities. ….

He also indicated that the Colonial Club in which Jack Rubenstein had an interest was a place where counterfeit money was handled. [unquote]

 

However, when the FBI interviewed Marrs, Lewis, and Bowes, they all denied they knew Jack Ruby. Furthermore, financial records showed that the Colonial Club had been closed in 1948. Johnson also had trouble identifying photographs of Ruby. However, he still insisted he was correct. He said Browder was called Don, Eddie, and Don Eduardo. (ibid, pg 642)

On April 21, 1964, the FBI did find Browder in a prison. The FBI agents devoted a third of their report to the fact that they had carefully informed him that he did not have to answer their questions (ibid, pg 643):

[quote] Edward J. Browder, Jr, also known as John Smith, Earl Brewder, who has FBI Number 4840823, and presently serving a three year sentence at Federal Correctional Institution, Tallahasee, Florida, was interviewed on April 21, 1964. Browder was sentenced from Federal Court at Miami, Florida, on June 3, 1960, for receiving and concealing stolen Canadian securities.

At the outset of the interview, Browder was advised by Special Agent Robert W. Clark that he did not have to make any statement or talk to the interviewing agents and that any statment he did make could be used in court, even against him at a later date. No threats or promises were made, and Browder advised that he was aware of his right to consult an attorney before saying anything to the interviewing agents.

Browder advised that he was not acquainted with Jack Leon Ruby, whose picture he had seen in the newspapers many times and that he was never associated with Ruby in the smuggling of arms to Cuba in the early 1950s or any other time. Browder advised that he had never used the name Donald Edward Browder and he did not know any person by that name. Browder advised that he was not acquainted with a Blaney Mack Johnson, Leslie Lewis, or Clifton T. Bowes, Jr, but was aware that several years back, there was a Marrs, possibly Joe Marrs, who operated a repair shop for airplanes in Miami, but he, Browder, was not acquainted with the man. [unquote]

 

However, Browder was lying at least about his name. Joe Marrs told the FBI that he knew Browder and knew him as Donald Edward Browder (ibid, pg 639):

[quote] He [Marrs] had never heard of Jack Ruby. …. He said he knew Donald Edward Browser as an ex-Royal Canadian Air Force ferry comand pilot who came to Miami about 1945. …. Marrs said Browder spoke of plans to set up an air transport service to South American countries, but to Marrs’ knowledge, did not succeed in doing so. Marrs has read of Browder’s alleged escapades of smuggling, but has no knowledge of them. [unquote]

 

(It is also worth noting that CIA employees H. Howard Hunt and James McCord both used the alias Don Eduardo when dealing with Cubans. (Jim Hougan, Secret Agenda (New York: Random House, 1984), pg 18)).

 

Interruption, 1952-1955

Ruby was not seen in Dallas for several months in 1952. In an interview with the FBI (HSCA, Vol 5, pg 186) he explained this absence thus:

[quote] Ruby said he went broke in the night club business in 1952 and had a “mental breakdown.” He continued along this line by saying he was “mentally depressed” and that he “hibernated in the Cotton Bowl Hotel” for three or four months, declining to see his friends. He said he went back to Chicago briefly, and his brother Earl tried to help him out financially. He returned to Dallas, however, in 1952. [unquote]

 

In about 1953-54, Sam Ruby disappeared for about a year. Sam and Earl were partners in Earl Products, Co, in Chicago. That company manufactured salt and pepper shakers, key chains, bottle openers, screw drivers, and small hammers. The company employed about 40 people, and grossed about a quarter million dollars a year (WC, Vol 14, pgs 370-71). In fact, this company was also involved in smuggling, because Hyman Rubenstein was shipping bootleg liquor to Oklahoma in boxes labeled to show they contained salt and pepper shakers (David Scheim, Contract on America, pg 103).

In 1955, after Sam Ruby returned from his year’s absence, Earl gave him $30,000 to buy him out of the business, and Sam then moved to Dallas, where he went into various vague “advertising specialty businesses” and gave Jack Ruby about $5,500 (WC, Vol 14, pgs 371, 494-96).

 

Ruby’s Smuggling Operation, 1956-1958

In about January 1956, a pimp named James Breen met with Ruby to discuss collaboration in managing three prostitutes. However, Ruby was primarily interested in discussing narcotics smuggling with Breen. This was “a large narcotics setup operating between Mexico, Texas, and the East.” A few days after that first meeting, Ruby returned with another man, and they showed Breen a film of border guards, narcotics agents, and a Mexican contact. Breen was “enthused over what he considered an extremely efficient operation in connection with narcotics traffic.” One typical load of narcotics was valued at about $350,000, and Breen received $2,400.

In addition, Ruby tried to set up an arrangement to sell pornographic pictures through Breen’s prostitutes. Ruby said he had “a large quantity of material available to him.” However, the prostitutes refused, because if they were caught with this kind of pornography, the charges against them would be much more serious. Although the pornography is not described, it must have been something much more objectionable than just pictures of naked women.

Later, two of Breen’s prostitutes informed the FBI about all of this. (WC, Exhibits 1761-1762). That FBI report from one of these prostitutes, Eileen Curry, concludes with these words:

[quote] CURRY advised that one RALPH HEDRICK has been a close friend of BREEN’s, when both were incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Seagoville, Texas.

She stated that HEDRICK, in 1956, was in his 30’s and had already completed 15 years of various penal servitude. She said that HEDRICK was, at that time, employed in a print shop in Dallas, Texas, and was active in some type of lecture tour wherein he spoke about his criminal background before youth groups. CURRY advised that she had no knowledge as to whether BREEN would have confided in HEDRICK or whether HEDRICK would have known RUBY, but felt that HEDRICK was BREEN’s closest frient in the Dallas area.

CURRY advised that she had heard rumors in Dallas, Texas, the source not now recalled, to the effect that BREEN’s contact and protection in Muskogee, Oklahoma, was allegedly the Cief of Police of Muskogee. [unquote]

 

The FBI report from the other prostitute, Bunny Breen (she had been married to James Breen), added this supplementary information:

[quote] She believes James [Breen] made connections with the narcotics ring through a former associate from Seagoville Prison, where James served time. [unquote]

In other words, Hedrick, who spoke about his criminal background before youth groups, was not a peripheral character in all this, but might have been a central one. Breen tried to steal some of the narcotics from the ring and disappeared. But that doesn’t mean that Hedrick also betrayed the ring. He may have stayed loyal to this smuggling ring and continued to preach to youth groups in Dallas.

In 1958, this weapons-smuggling network developed. Ruby’s own role broadened when one of his Dallas gambling partners, Lewis J. McWillie, moved to Havana to become manager of the Mob-owned Tropicana Hotel. Ruby shipped weapons to Cuba through McWillie. Another Ruby associate from Dallas, Russell Douglas Matthews, a convicted narcotics smuggler, also opened a bar business in Havana in 1958. (HSCA, Vol IX, pgs 524-586.)

Three related witnesses have described Ruby’s very personal role in this gun smuggling in 1958. The first of these witnesses was Mary Thompson (Exhibit 3065):

[quote] On about May 30, 1958, she traveled to Islamerada, Florida, accompanied by her daughter and son-in-law, Dolores and Richard Rhoads. They visited her brother and sister-in-law, James and Mary Lou “Butch” Woodard, who resided in a cottage. …. While there they met Jack and Isabel (last name unknown), acquaintances of the Woodards. There was not sufficient room in the Woodard cottage, and Jack and Isabel suggested that Dolores and Richard spend the night at their home. ….

[Thompson then listed several facts that indicated that this Jack was Jack Ruby — grew up in Chicago, ran a bar in Dallas, also called Leon, same physical description, etc]

Mary Lou said that Jack had a trunk full of guns and inferred that Jack was going to supply them to the Cubans. Mrs Thomspons stated that she was told that there were supplies of guns hidden in the marshes that were being collected by the Indians in the area to be sold to the Cubans. This was at the time of the revolution in Cuba. [unquote]

In a separate FBI interview, the daughter Dolores confirmed the story. She added:

[quote] [Her husband at that time,] Richard Rhoads, and [her uncle] James Woodard got drunk one night, and Woodard said that he and Jack would run some guns to Cuba. …. He said that Jack had a lot more guns than he did. [unquote]

A separate FBI report based on an interview with James Woodard said only:

[quote] Woodard, in a somewhat rambling and incoherent manner, alleged he had participated in an invasion of Cuba prior to the Castro regime; that he had participated in the Bay of Pigs invasion, and has furnished ammunition and dynamite to both Castro and Cuban exile forces. [unquote]

The FBI agents who wrote this report neglected to ask him if he had worked with or known Jack Ruby. Most of the report was devoted to statements by relatives that Woodard was a liar. (ibid) However, Scott Malone noted in a memorandum, dated September 24, 1977 (Ruby file, Assassinations Archive) that Woodard has said he knew both Browder and Ruby.

David Scheim in his book Contract on America (New York: Kensington, 1988), adds another detail (pg 221):

[quote]In 1958, Ruby wrote a letter to the State Department’s Office of Munitions Controls “requesting permission to negotiate the purchase of firearms and ammunition from an Italian firm.” And the name “Jack Rubenstein” [Ruby’s birth name] was listed in a 1959 Army Intelligence report on U.S. arms dealers. Although located by clerks of these two federal agencies in 1963, both documents are today inexplicably missing. [unquote]

Another person who was apparently involved in this gun smuggling to Cuba was David Ferrie. Born in 1918, he worked in the late 1940s as a pilot for an oil drilling firm that had jobs in Latin America. In 1951, he became an Eastern Airlines pilot and moved to New Orleans. There, he also became a leader in the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), where is reported to have befriended a young Marxist named Lee Harvey Oswald. Ferrie started a secret group within the CAP, called the Omnipote nts, which “trained cadets in what to do in the event of a major attack on the United States.” The House Select Committee on Assassinations summarized his activities at the end of the 1950s thus:

[quote] Ferrie’s job and ownership of an airplane enabled him to travel frequently around the country with relative ease. He told officials he frequently travled to Texas and other parts of the South, including Miami. He also visited New York on occasion. The amount of time Ferrie spent in these other cities could not be determined. In August 1959, while in Miami, Ferrie was put under 24-hour surveillance by customs agents who believed he was involved in gun smuggling. Following a brief investigation, including a tapping of his telephone conversations, it was determinted that Ferrie ws not involved in any illegal activity, but merely planning an outing for his “scouts.” The investigation was dropped. [vol 10, pg 109] [unquote]

In the summer and fall of 1958, Donald Edward Browder, the ex-Canadian pilot who was reported to be involved with Ruby since the late 1940s, was arrested for smuggling guns to Castro. Browder was later sentenced to three years in prison for this (Scott Malone’s memorandum, dated September 19, 1977 in Ruby file, Assassination Archives, Washington DC):

[quote] Browder [was] in a US prison serving three years for a conviction of receiving, transporting, and possessing stolen Canadian securities. The securities were stolen from the Brockville Savings and Trust company and two other Canadian financial institutions. While the FBI supplied several reports to the Warren Commission concerning Browder, including his denial about knowing Ruby, they withheld hundreds of reports from Browder’s file which illuminated his extensive involvement in gun smuggling to Cuba and the stolen Canadian securities. Both the gun smuggling to Cuba and the stolen Canadian securities were activtities controlled by Norman Rothman. Rothman admits to knowing Browder.

On July 7, 1961, Browder gave a sworn deposition to the American Surety Company in which he stated that he had obtained the stolen securities he was arrested for ($136,000) from the 26th of July Movement, Fidel Castro’s revolutionary group, in exchange for arms during the summer and fall of 1958. Browder stated that he had obtained the weapons from the International Armament Corporation (InterArmco) in Alexandria, Virginia, starting in late May and early June of 1958. Browder was apparently the purchasing agent for the Rothman gun-running operation to Castro’s forces.

According to a memorandum of a House Un-American Activities Committee investigator, Cubans driving station wagons and small trucks were purchasing automatic weapons from InterArmco at this time with the approval of the CIA. [CIA agent] Frank Sturgis has admitted to being involved with this operation at this same time. Efren Pichardo, associate of Browder, has also admitted to being involved in this operation (he drove a station wagon) at the exact same time with Sturgis. Pichardo was working for Browder at the time. Pichardo also confirmed that many of the weapons were hidden in the marshes of Islmorada, Florida, where Ruby has been identified by independent witnesses as “babysitting” a large arms cache. ….

While Browder has ample underworld connections, he is not lacking in intelligence connections either. Browder claims to have known the chief of intelligence for the Mexican Air Force, as well as a Canadian Minister of Defense. His “rap sheet” reveals that although he had numerous arrests, he spent relatively little time behind bars. [unquote]

 

Sending Trucks to Castro, 1959

On January 1, 1959, Castro seized power in Cuba and arrested Santos Trafficante, the Mafia Chief in Cuba. Until that time, the Communists, not the Castroites, had before that time been smuggling narcotics. Two good books on this Communist-Castroite rivalry are Maurice Halperin’s The Taming of Fidel Castro and Mario Llerena’s The Unsuspected Revolution. Halperin describes how the Castroites discredited and even legally charged the Communists for the past narcotics trading.

The Mafia had been exporting weapons and importing narcotics from the Cuban Communists, not the Cuban Castroites. Trafficante told the HSCA that he simply had not expected Castro’s victory. Therefore, a new deal had to be negotiated.

In the following weeks, Ruby, as a major smuggler, tried to intercede through Robert McKeown, who had been smuggling weapons to the Castro forces. Ruby asked McKeown to write a personal letter of introduction to Castro or otherwise help free Trafficante. In return, Ruby has admitted, Ruby tried to send jeeps and “other similar equipment” to Castro (Hall (C. Ray) Exhibit No. 3):

[quote] Ruby volunteered that some years ago, “at a time when Castro was popular in the United States,” he read of an individual [McKeown] in the vicinity of Houston, Texas, having been engaged in “gun running to Castro.” He said he attempted by telephone to get in touch with this individual, as he had in mind “making a buck” by possibly acquiring some jeeps or other similar equipment which he might sell to persons interested in their importation to Cuba. He said nothing came of this. He said he had never attended any meetings concerned with “gun running,” smuggling of persons in or out of Cuba or otherwise in relation to Cuban affairs. [unquote]

On April 27, Castro himself visited McKeown in Houston and offered McKeown a post in the Cuban government. However, McKeown turned down the offer because he was on probation for gun-running and therefore could not leave the United States.

Apparently at this meeting, Castro agreed to some kind of ransom terms for Trafficante, but the Mafia suffered a major fiasco in trying to meet them. In early May,1959, the Mafia stole $8.5 million from a Canadian bank and also stole a large number of Arms from the Ohio National Guard. A police investigation showed that Rothman had spent $6,000 of the money to rent airplanes to smuggle the arms to Castro’s forces in Cuba. On July 3, Rothman was arrested for this series of crimes.

During this period, Ruby was heavily involved in these negotiations. Many people who have studies Ruby’s life have assumed he was working for the Mafia, but perhaps he was representing other clients instead or in addition. In retrospect, we should consider that this truck business would also be useful to the Teamsters labor union and to the CIA. The overthrow of Batista dictatorship seemed to open the possibility for the rapid development of labor unions like the Teamsters in Cuba. It is also worth noting that US labor unions (especially for example the AFL-CIO) cooperated closely with the CIA’s efforts to plant its own agents in foreign countries. The Teamsters might well have had a similar relationship with the CIA. Therefore, the role of the Mafia in Ruby’s activities then might have been only secondary or even tertiary.

Anyway, on April 27, when Castro had visited Houston, Ruby rented a mysterious safe deposit, which he accessed several times during that summer. He was also called in for questioning by the FBI several times, starting on April 28. In August, 1959, David Ferrie was put under 24-hour surveillance in Miami for gun running. In September 1959, Ruby traveled to Cuba twice, supposedly to visit Trafficante in prison on the pretense of visiting McWillie, who was now working at another Trafficante casino in the Capri Hotel in Havana.

In prison with Trafficante was a Soviet agent named John Wilson, who was at least observing and possibly had also participated in all this. I quote from a book called Who Was Jack Ruby (pp 132-134) by Seth Kantor:

[quote] The CIA file on him went back to 1951….Wilson, well educated at Oxford University, had been born in Liverpool, December 29, 1916, had reached Chile on January 28, 1939 [apparently a refugee of the Spanish Civil War], from Buenos Aires, and “was a contact of one Bert Sucharov, a suspected Soviet agent in Santiago, Chile.”

 

Wilson was outspoken as a pro-communist and foe of the United States. He posed occasionally as a British Royal Air Force captain in uniform and two attempts by the British embassy to have him expelled from Chile failed — after Wilson apparently convinced authorities inside the embassy that he had “worked on a special mission for the British government in Germany, Egypt, and Turkey at the close of World War II.”

The CIA source in Chile pegged John Wilson as “very probably an intelligence agent.” Wilson always seemed to have a lot of money without an apparent income. he held UN press pass no. 287, issued in Santiago, and another pass from the Chilean secret police which allowed him special access.

At the end of June, 1959, Wilson and three Americans were arrested in a suburb of Havana as they planned to carry out a sneak bomb raid on Nicaragua, using three airplanes and a small volunteer attack force. Fidel Castro had nothing to do with the attack plans and ordered Wilson and the other ringleaders arrested; thus John Wilson was in jail at the time of the Ruby visit.

In prison in Cuba, Wilson says he met an American gangster gambler named Santos [Trafficante] who could not return to the USA because there were several indictments outstanding against him. Instead, he preferred to live in relative luxury in a Cuban prison. While Santos was in prison, Wilson says, Santos was visited frequently by an American gangster type named Ruby. Inexplicably, one of Ruby’s notebooks had this entry, which Dallas police located on the day Oswald was shot: “October 29, 1963 — John Wilson — bond.” The FBI checked police and sheriff’s records in Dallas to see if a John Wilson had made bond. The FBI also consulted two different private attorneys in Dallas whose names were John Wilsn, but who had never had dealings with Ruby. The FBI said it found no reason for the notebook entry. [unquote]

 

I want to specially point out a couple of elements of this situation. First, Wilson’s story of how he himself was imprisoned is fishy. What sense was there in flying three small airplanes to Nicaragua to drop a few bombs? Perhaps this was some kind of smuggling flight that was prevented at the last minute.

Second, Trafficante’s imprisonment seems to be somewhat of a hoax. Trafficante himself testified to the Select Committe on Assassinations that he was released from prison and left Cuba in August 1959. He then returned to Cuba to defend himself in a trial during October-November 1959 and then voluntarily returned to his Cuban “prison.” (HSCA, Vol 5, pg 355). He also testified (pg 367) that his own lawyer’s brother later became the Minister of Sports in Communist Cuba.

I think that Trafficante was really negotiating an agreement for the Mafia to give up its gambling interests in Cuba in return for Cuban cooperation in continuing the Mafia’s narcotics-weapons smuggling network in Latin America. Trafficante returned to the United States again in early 1960.

As noted earlier, Ruby had apparently committed himself to send trucks to Cuba in order to free Trafficante from prison in August 1959, but then said that he never sent any trucks. Would Castro have suffered such a double-cross and still allowed Trafficante to leave Cuba? Did anybody ever supply the trucks? It seems that in accordance with Ruby’s negotiations, the trucks were supplied to Castro by Guy Banister.

 

Personalities at the New Orleans CRC Branch, 1961

Most people who understand that the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy explain Banister and his Cuban associates generally in the following manner. Banister and his associated anti-Castro Cuban exiles were right-wingers who hated Kennedy. They agreed to participate in the conspiracy, which was controlled by the Mafia or the CIA/FBI. Their role was to manipulate and frame Oswald so that there would be lots of evidence that he was pro-Castro. Then, after the assassination, the American public would blame Castro and help the anti-Castro Cubans.

This theory is based on a stereotype that all anti-Castro Cuban exiles were right-wingers and hated Kennedy. In fact, many of them were left-wingers and looked to Kennedy’s support as their key opportunity to overthrow Castro, who they considered an egomaniac, and establish a more authentic socialism on Cuba. It is certainly possible that Banister shared those goals and was working for left-wing superiors in the U.S. Government or abroad. I suggest that the conspirators attempted to frame Banister and his Cubans along with Oswald.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations described the role in all this intrigue that was played by Guy Banister and Sergio Arcacha Smith.

[quote] In 1960 [-] early 1961 Banister … was helping to establish the Friends of Democratic Cuba organization as an adjuct to Sergio Arcacha Smith’s CRC. At the time, Banister’s investigative business and the CRC were both located in the Balter Buiding. In February 1961, Banister was conducting background investigations of the members of the CRC from a list provided by Arcacha Smith. [vol 10, pg 110 ]

 

The … first New Orleans delegate to the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC), Sergio Arcacha Smith, told the Committee that he arrived in Miami in August 1960 and at the request of Antonio de Varona, a director of the CRC, agreed to establish a chapter of this group in New Orleans. Arcacha Smith was initially afforded free office space in the Balter Building; he later rented space at 544 Camp Street. He occupied an office at 544 Camp Street for about six months during 1961-62 [October to February] . [HSCA, vol 10, pg 61]

The CRC in New Orleans was affiliated with the main branch of the CRC in Miami, which had been receiving funds from the US Government. Some of these funds may have been disseminated to the New Orleans branch to cover operating costs. [In this regard, the HSCA cited, but did not reproduce or even summarize a] CIA Office of Security memo from Raymond G. Rocca, May 31, 1961, Item F; also a memo from Donovan E. Pratt, Sep 28, 1967, items A, B, and C, regarding Arcacha Smith. The Sep 28, 1967, Pratt memo [was] also found in [the] Office of Security file for David W. Ferrie. One local office did believe the group had the “unofficial sanction of CIA,” according to Lieutenant Martello. [vol 10, pp 109, 119, note 106]

Early in 1961, Banister helped draw up a charter for the Friends of Democratic Cuba, an organization set up as the fundraising arm of Sergio Arcacha Smith’s branch of the Cuban Revoutionary Council. Coincidentally, Gerard F. Tujague, owner of Gerard F. Tujague, Inc. Forwarding Company, who had employed Oswald as a messenger from November 1955 to January 1956, was also a member and officer (vice-president) of Friends of Democratic Cuba.

Banister described his work for the Council:

“Our work was primarily to gather food and clothing for the refugees. However, because of my being known in connection with that, my background being know with Arcacha Smith and others, I have had high-ranking Cuban refugees in my office asking me how to go underground, and I gave them diagrams for that. I have talked to military and political leaders from the various provinces of Cuba that have slipped out and slipped back.”

The FBI files indicate Banister was performing another service for the Cuban exile group. He ran background investigations on those Cuban students on the campus of Louisiana State University who wished to be members of Arcacha Smith’s anti-Castro group, ferreting out any pro-Castro sympathizers who might be among them. Banister also talked Sam Newman into leasing 544 Camp Street to the Cuban Revolutionary Council. [HSCA, vol 10, pp 126-127; note 64]

During his tenure as head of the New Orleans delegation, Arcacha Smith endeavored to raise funds by selling CRC bonds and was instrumental in organizing several rallies to promote the cause of the Cuban exiles. [vol 10, pg 61] [unquote]

Anthony Summers reported in his book Conspiracy (pp 579-580) that Roselli and Maheu were also involved with Guy Banister in New Orleans:

[quote] Banister’s personal secretary, Delphine Roberts, offers one further clue to the way 544 Camp Street was caught up in the dirtier undercurrents…. She came up with the names “Roselli” and “Maheu” as having had dealings with the Banister office. Robert Maheu was the man used by the CIA, as early as 1960, to enlist Mafia help in assassination plots against Fidel Castro. John Roselli was the first underworld figure Maheu recruited.

Mrs Roberts’ claim that Banister was in touch with Maheu is not wholly implausible. Years previously, the two men had been agents together in the Chicago office of the FBI, and Maheu admits he knew Banister. He denies, however, contacting Banister in 1963. ….

New Orleans would have been a natural enough place to find John Roselli. Delphine Roberts says she believes he was there and actually visited 544 Camp Street. [unquote]

 

Cuban Exile Intrigues, January – April 1961

In January 1961, as de Varona began planning to poison Castro for CIA’s Office of Security, Guy Banister in New Orleans drew up the charter for a new organization, Friends of Democratic Cuba, to raise money for de Varona’s New Orleans protege, Sergo Arcacha Smith. (HSCA, vol 10, pg 126). One of the new organization’s first acts was to send a person with the name Oswald to buy several trucks from a local automobile dealer. Jim Garrison described this strange event in his book On the Trail of the Assassins (pp 57-58):

[quote] As we later learned from [automobile] salesmen Fred Sewall and Oscar Deslatte, two men claiming to represent an organization called Friends of Democratic Cuba arrived at the Bolton [Ford dealership on North Claiborne Avenue in New Orleans] on January 20, 1961. This was only three months before the abortive Bay of Pigs attempt to invade Cuba. …. One of the men was a powerfully built Latin with a thick neck and a distinct scar over his left eyebrow. The other was a thin, young Anglo-Saxon who obviously was in charge.

The two men indicated that they wanted to buy ten Ford pickup trucks. They wanted a bid from Bolton Ford on the price. The Latin identified himself as “Joseph Moore,”but said the bid had to be in the name of “Oswald.” The young Anglo-Saxon confirmed this, explaining that “Oswald” was his name and that he was the one with the money. Instead of asking the buyers to sign, Deslatte himself printed the name “Oswald” on the form.

Of course, as all the world now knows, the real Lee Oswald was in the Soviet Union that day and would be for more than another year. …. I [Garrison] pondered the implications of this staggering information. In the very month that John Kennedy was inaugurated, an intelligence project being run by Guy Banister was using the name “Oswald” in bidding for pickup trucks for apparent use in the Bay of Pigs invasion. [quote]

However, Garrison’s interpretation of this purchase is disputable. It’s not so certain that these trucks were being purchased for the Bay of Pigs invasion. President Kennedy had frozen the invasion plans on November 18, 1960, and the plans were still frozen solid on January 20, 1961. In addition, at first glance, the name “Friends of Democratic Cuba” seems supportive of Castro’s regime — similar to the later “Fair Play for Cuba,” which was also run out of Banister’s office. In other words, Moore and Oswald may have been purchasing the trucks for Castro. In the context of de Varona’s simultaneous planning to poison Castro, the trucks might have been a Trojan Horse to enter Cuba as part of the poison plot.

The fact that the purchaser’s name was Oswald is intriguing. There is some reason to speculate that this was an attempt to create the impression that Lee Harvey Oswald had already returned from the Soviet Union and purchased these trucks in January 1961. The Vice-President of Friends of Cuba was Gerard F. Tujague, who had employed Lee Harvey Oswald as a messenger in 1955-1956 and probably knew that Oswald was a Marxist who had defected (HSCA, Vol 10, pg 134, note 64). In this case, a possible explanation for this deceit was to use a false Lee Harvey Oswald, for which there was local evidence of a Marxist background, in order to reinforce the impression that Friends of Democratic Cuba was a **pro-Castro** organization. The target of this deceit would have been Castro’s government, which didn’t necessarily know that Oswald was still in the Soviet Union.

A similar possibility is that the Oswald who purchased the trucks might have been a relative of Lee Harvey Oswald. There were other Oswalds who were mysterious, besides Lee Harvey Oswald.

Anyway, this mysterious Oswald ordered the trucks for the Friends of Democratic Cuba almost three months before President Kennedy authorized the invasion of Cuba. Morrow described Kennedy’s position as follows:

[quote] In late February, [1961,] when Kennedy still failed to let the CIA proceed with the invasion, Dulles warned the chief executive that to delay any longer could be fatal. The young President, after talking it over with brother Bobby, the new Attorney General, instead ordered Dulles to stop all anti-Cuban operations. …. William Wieland and the leftist factions in the exile community — seeking to regain their power over the Brigade and to save their influence with the new administration — had proclaimed to the new President and Attorney General that the rightist-controlled Brigade was being funded in part by the Mafia. …. [unquote]

The House Select Committe on Assassinations described the next development:

[quote] The FRD [had] set up headquarters initially in Mexico, but recruited most of its proposed invasion force from Miami. The military arm of the FRD was known as Brigade 2506. The Brigade was eventually composed of 1,443 men who were trained by US Army specialists at two sites on the south coast of Guatemala. ….

 

In March 1961, the State Department pressured FRD leaders to accept the Movimento Revolutionario del Pueblo (MRP), headed by Manuel Ray Rivero, into the FRD. The inclusion of Ray’s group into the alliance of Cuban exiles was reportedly also “terribly important to the White House,” which wanted to broaden the political base of the FRD. In an effort to attract Ray and his group into the FRD, … Dr Jose Miro Cardona was elected its new president. Dr Miro Cardona was a former Havana jurist who broke with Castro after serving him as his first Prime Minister. [vol 10, pg 57] ….

[Manuel Ray Rivero had been appointed by Castro as] Minister of Public Works in February 1959. …. Ray’s tenure in Castro’s government was short lived. He was relieved of his official position in November 1959. No definite reason for this sudden move has been documented but, according to one source, Ray did not leave Castro because of ideological or policy discrepancies, but rather because of a personality clash with Castro’s Miniter of Labor, who almost shot Ray after a stomy cabinet meeting. …. For whatever reason, Ray did permit his name to be associated with the Castro regime until May 1960, when he formed the Revolutionary Movement of the People (MRP). ….

Having waited until May 1960 to organize his resistance group, Ray was criticized as being suspiciously tardy to the anti-Castro movement. Charges of “Fidelism without Fidel” were made against him and the MRP because of their leftist ideologies. …. A [US Government] officer who met with Ray in November 1960 noted that his political posture was “doubtful” as far as US Government acceptance was concerned, and a further assessment portrayed Ray as so far “left in his thinking that he would be as dangerous to US interests as Castro.”

Some prominent Cubans also expressed negative opinions about Ray, among them Dr Jose Miro Cardona, president of the FRD. Miro opposed Ray because he considered his program too Marxist and declared Ray was bitterly anti-American as well as probably totalitarian in his thinking. ….

Although aware of his controversial political philosophy, attempts were continued to recruit Ray to join the FRD, because the White House and State Department pushed for his inclusion. Ray received full operational approval as a “political asset” on February 7, 1961. [ibid, pp 137-138] [unquote]

 

After the formation of this new alliance, Kennedy now approved the invasion of Cuba.

 

Kennedy Intrigues in the CIA

Shortly before the invasion of Cuba (which began April 16, 1961) a group of men attempted to take $3 million that was supposed to help pay for the invasion. The CIA had given this money to the Cuban exiles through a false religious front and confiscated it back from the group. The men in the group were not arrested or punished for taking the money. President Kennedy was somehow involved in trying to divert this money and felt betrayed when the group was caught. Apparently, Kennedy had arranged for the group of men to divert the money to a Cuban exile faction that he favored. Kennedy’s annoyance at the CIA’s interception of this money helped provoke him to cancel US Air Force support of the invasion, which allowed Castro to defeat the invaders.

In about 1968, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison received a letter from an anonymous informant who had heard more of this story from one of the participants. The complete letter follows (Old Catholic Church file, Assassinations Archives, Washington DC):

[quote]

Mr. Garrison:

The following account may be fiction or it may be fact, I dare not commit myself by trying to substantiate it. The story was told to me in bits and pieces over a period of three months by a man, whom, I admit, has very little credibility to his character. The only reason I take the time to relate this to you, is because it is now past the realm of coincidence.

I fully realize the consequences of my actions, and so therefore I am prepared to co-operate with your office to the fullest extent, if you think the information I have warrants it.

Naturally, what I refer to is the Kennedy assassination.

It is hard to know where to begin, because the beginning was years before I had occasion to come upon this information. This is the story, the best I can relate to you:

It seems that back in 1960 and 1961 a group of men in this country began collecting money for a so-called invasion force into Cuba. This “army” was prepared to attack and capture Castro’s Cuba in an invasion sponsored by the CIA. This is common knowledge, but what is not so well known, is WHY THE INVASION FAILED! As the information was given to me, a few of the leaders of the anti-Castro force in this country decided to flee the country with a good deal of the funds collected from the sympathizers of the Cuban refugees. These men whom I will name later, were arrested in the Miami airport with the money in their possession. The arresting officers, members of the CIA, confiscated the money; amounting to almost three million dollars. Then, as the story goes, President Kennedy, feeling that he had been duped, and would be left holding the bag, and … realizing the international consequences of such an invasion, pulled the air support that had been orally committed. This, of course, led to the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion.

Since most of the 1400 or more invasion members were either killed or captured, the Cuban leaders in this country put most of the blame upon President Kennedy himself. I feel that I have evidence, though admittedly hearsay, that can prove this course of events.

I was told this story by a man who allegedly was a part of the Cuban revolutionary movement in this country. He claims to have been one of those arrested in Miami. Also, he claims to have been under FBI investigation at various times. I was in Omaha Nebraska at the time this was told to me, and at about the same time, so I’m sure you remember, your office was trying to get Perry Ruso’s girl friend; Mrs McBlaine or something to that effect, down to New Orleans for questioning. It seems rather strange to me that she would wind up in Omaha since she really had no people there. Also, WHY did the gentleman whom I quote decide to come to Omaha? He had no job there, no relatives, and no real desire to find either. He moved to Omaha in March from Lincoln, Nebraska, where he had spent about two months or less with no visable means of support. He had just previously been in the State of Washington with an associate of his. The following are a few facts that the Omaha man told me, either directly or indirectly.

He told me about the pilot named Ferrie long before your office announced your interest in him. He described the man in great detail and claimed to know him personally. He also predicted his demise.

I overheard numerous telephone conversations (mostly with the man in Washington) in which he asked with great concern whether it was the FBI, the CIA, or who, that had been asking questions about them, and whether it was that they had something on him or on “one of the others.”

He claimed to have either known or had met the Mr. Shaw you questioned.

He was originally from New Orleans, and claims to have worked on your staff at one time as an investigator.

He says he saw Oswald in New Orleans. Also a man who “looked like Ruby”.

At one time, the Omaha man and the Washington man met in a hotel there and discussed plans to go to New Orleans to see a man called Sergio Arcacha. They went, but could not find him or another man they said was there. Three days later, the local Newspapers Announced that you, too had been looking for Mr. Arcacha for questioning and that he had told you he would talk to you, but not alone.

He described the assassination scene in great detail and told me some facts about it that I had definitely not heard before.

He claims that Oswald was a patsy, a setup, to take the blame for the whole thing. Also that OSWALD WAS A HOMOSEXUAL like Shaw, Ferrie, Tippett (Dallas police officer) and a score of others.

He told me about the motorcycle police officer who claimed to have seen a man with a rifle run from the grassy knowl in front of Kennedy. (incidentally, the Omaha man claims that this is where the fatal shot came from) The police officer mysteriously had a very serious accident right after the incident, and now is a near idiot.

He claimed to have met the late President on a number of occasions, and he talked about him with very little respect.

He claims that he left Louisiana upon the advice of the Governor.

The Omaha man and the Washington man were always in telephone contact with each other, no matter where they were. Once, the Washington man was in Washington DC for some reason or another and they conferred by telephone twice in that one day.

The following is a list of the names for the story above. If you feel that any of them fit into a proper place, or into your current investigation, Please contact me so we can further discuss that.

1. Sergio Arcacha

2. Lucian Rebel

3. Fred L. Crisman

4. Thomas E. Beckham

5. Martin Grassi

Mr Garrison, perhaps this is all hogwash. I really do not know. I can go into moe detail on all of this, and I have the addresses of those mentioned above. I would come to New Orleans myself, but I do not have the necessary finances. Also, I would have to be assured of protection, at least to the best of your ability.

I have arranged to be reached through the Democratic chairman here, Mr Thomas Reagan, 1C1 Woodbridge Way, Mesquite, Texas. His telephone number is: AT 5-4573

If the information I have related to you here is of any consequence, contact Mr. Reagan, and he will contact me.

Good luck in your investigation.

Mr. _______

[unquote]

In the list of five people toward the end of this letter, the first two, Sergio Arcacha and Lucien Rebel (correct spelling: Luis Rabel) were the two top officers in the New Orleans Cuban Revolutionary Council The fourth person, Thomas Beckham, has written an essay about his experiences. That essay does not mention the $3 million, but does describe some of the related developments (Old Catholic Church file, Assassination Archives, Washington DC):

[quote]

In 1961, I was 19 years old and living in New Orleans, Louisiana. It was a peaceful time, the best I can remember. I was full of ideas which I like to call undeveloped dreams. My father Arvel Monroe Beckham was away on the high seas trying to make us a living. I was the second oldest of all five boys. It was at this time of my life that I was looking for excitement and fulfillment. …

Jack [Martin], to me, seemed like “Mister Cool.” He knew everything and everyone. He had all types of I.D. and badges. For for this reason, when I met a few of his Cuban friends, I was very impressed. Within just a short while , I found it easy to be a part of the Cuban crowd. They were all very friendly. That’s when I met Mr X and Dr X. Dr X was formally a teacher and physician in Cuba, and Mr X was in the dry cleaning business in Cuba. They seemed to welcome my presence without question. I guess because they knew I did not speak Spanish, and I was a friend of Jack’s. In any case, they welcomed me as a friend.

 

As the weeks passed, one day Jack ask while I was at his apartment if I wanted to be a priest. He (Jack) showed me all types of certificates and even a black suit with all the vestments of his holy office. He said he would get me ordained in the Old Catholic Church. In a few days, I became a legal ordained priest. Then a couple of days later, two young Cubans met me at Walgreen’s Drug Store on Canal Street and told me that I could be of service to my country. They had some kind of police I.D. they showed me. I was informed they worked for the government. A few days later, I opened up a mission on Rampart Street using funds they had given me. The mission carried the lettering on its glass front of UCMF, which I was told stood for United Catholic Mission Fathers. Which I later learned stood for United Cuban Mission Forces. Strange as it may seem, I ask no questions. At last I myself had become someone important and was really needed. I felt like I was a little general and saint all rolled into one.

I was told that Castro was a criminal and that the CIA was going to kill him and free Cuba. My little two-story mission was only a front, an assembly place for Cubans. And Dr X and Mr X were very high in rank.

It was not long that I, “Rev Thomas Edward Beckham,” a priest in the Old Catholic Church, learned that I was just a front for a small group of powerful Cuban exiles which made New Orleans, Louisiana, and Miami, Florida, their home base for the 1,200 man Cuban Brigade, armed and trained in the United States by the CIA.

The things I began to hear shocked me. I guess I was not developed enough to stand the mental pressure. A great deal of money was raised for the movement by the use of bank type tin cans which had two flags crossed, an American and a Cuban. Under them were the wording: KEEP AMERICA FREE, Communists are only 90 miles from American shores.” Plus a special coin was used for a badge by officials of the movement for their I.D.

Then one day, I overheard talk about President John F. Kennedy. They said that the CIA was training men for them at Algiers Naval Station and that the President was to give them US Air Support for the Brigade. Then one said he did not trust Kennedy. Then a person said two assassinations are as easy as one. That’s when I wanted to take a walk and fast. I felt like a Jew in a Nazi camp. The next day, I went to see another friend of mine, Mr G.B., a former Special Agent of the FBI. I told him what was going on. I remember just what he said: “Kid, how and the hell did you get your ass in this mess?” ….

It was later I learned that Kennedy was killed with the knowledge of the CIA by the Cubans and this double-agent, Lee Harvey Oswald. It was to look like Castro had it done. Therefore serving the benefit of all.

I also learned that the Cubans did not trust Kennedy, believed him to be a supporter of Castro, because he withdrew air support for the Cuban Brigade. They said Kennedy would pay well in more ways than one. That’s when I learned that some of the Cubans met with Kennedy, stating that they could prove him to be a Communist. I don’t know how true it was. But they did get him to meet their demands in 1962 to the tune of millions of dollars with the aid of Kennedy’s personal friend and attorney to handle the Bay of Pigs survivors. He (Kennedy) assured them (Cubans) that the Brigade flag would fly again. But the machine works were in motion, months ahead of time.

I remember how sick I was when I learned of his death. I felt that in some way, I was a part of it. I also wanted no part of the so-called “justice” of this great country. But time seemed to heal my cuts.

Then one day, almost 7 1/2 later, I found myself as a witness before a New Orleans Grand Jury into the investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I knew someone had set me up again. Why I did not know. At this time, I was living in Omaha, Nebraska. But long before I appeared as a Grand Jury witness, I was advised on what not to say, if I knew what was best for me. And I did — I wanted to live. As to date, Mr G. B.. was found dead plus all the others I knew personally.

[unquote]

 

The Deportation of Carlos Marcello, April 1961

The country of Guatemala played a mysterious role in the development of the Kennedy assassination. In the preceeding years, it was the scene of intense intrigue and political struggle that had involved many of the same characters as the assassination. Much of Ruby’s narcotics and weapons smuggling was ultimately with Guatemala. In 1954, the CIA organized a coup to put a new government in Guatemala, and in 1960-61 the CIA organized and trained the Cuban exiles in Guatemala for their invasion of Cuba. In August 1961, allegedly at Robert Kennedy’s behest, Guy Banister and his associates removed weapons from the Schlumberger bunker in Houma, Louisiana, to help overthrow the Guatemala government.

Among the characters heavily involved in Guatemala was the Boss of the Louisiana Mafia, Carlos Marcello. However, it is not clear what role he played in regard to the CIA’s role. Was he basically working for or against the CIA in Guatemala? Was this a factor in turning Guy Banister and associates against the Kennedys? I suggest that these questions could be a productive area of research in solving the assassination.

Carlos Marcello was born in Sicily in 1910 and was brought by his parents to Louisiana when he was eight months old. There, his parents grew vegetables on a small farm outside New Orleans. As a boy, Carlos brought the family vegetables to the market at the city dock, which was controlled by the Mafia. He got involved with the criminals there and became a bank robber, for which he was imprisoned in 1930-34. (My main source for Marcello’s life is the excellent book, Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by John H. Davis, Penguin Books, 1989.)

After he was released, he opened a bar that was a front for marijuana trafficking, for which he imprisoned again in 1938. After he was released this time, he obtained the Mafia’s authorization to control the slot machines and juke boxes in the region, which lay the foundation for a wealthy conglomerate of criminal businesses. When the boss of the Louisiana Mafia was deported in 1947, Marcello became the new boss.

Marcello’s cover occupation was that he owned the Pelican Tomato Company, which gave him an income of about $18,000 a year. This company smuggled most of its tomatoes from Central America and sold them to the US Navy despite a law that required the Navy to buy only domestic produce. It also seems that this business was a cover for Marcellos’ continued smuggling of marijuana and other narcotics into the United States.

Although the Pelican Tomato Company is commonly dismissed as simply a front for criminal activities, it actually represents the larger economic base of the Sicilian immigrant community along the Gulf of Mexico. Sicilian immigrants typically began as poor farmers and agricultural retailers. The United Fruit Company, which dominated the import of Central American fruit, especially Guatemalan bananas, was headed by a New Orleans citizen, Samuel Zemurray. This company sent many Louisiana farmers to Guatemala to develop and manage the plantations there.

The Louisiana Mafia was not necessarily an ally of the United Fruit Company. The Mafia’s was much more associated with the low-class laborers who viewed United Fruit as an exploitive employer that they could justifiably expoit in return. The secret cultivation of marijuana on United Fruit plantations and the smuggling of marijuana on United Fruit ships were parasitic activities that did not earn any profits for United Fruit. The Mafia had an interest in limiting United Fruit’s power. In 1945, a leftist regime was elected to power in Guatemala. To a major extent, this election was a reaction against United Fruit’s control over the plantations and transportation systems in the country. At first, the new government was broadly popular, but was quickly infiltrated by Communists who caused increasing revulsion among the local and neighboring populations. As a reaction, in 1948 the United States embargoed all arms sales to Guatemala and convinced many other suppliers, including Great Britain, Denmark, Mexico, Cuba, Argentina, and Switzerland to break off sales agreements.

Nevertheless, Guatemala managed to buy weapons for a while from smugglers, many of whom flew them to Guatemala on small airplanes. Apparently, Marcello helped smuggle weapons to this leftist Guatemala government in exchange for narcotics, which he sold in the United States. He had long imported marijuana from Guatemala. However, after the leftist Guatemala government arranged for a large number of Spanish Civil War refugees to resettle from southern France to Guatemala in 1945-48, the heroin trade also grew dramatically.

In 1951, Marcello was called before the Senate Committee to Investigate Organized Crime. Since he refused to answer any questions, he was found in contempt of Congress, imprisoned for six months, and ordered deported back to Sicily as an undesirable alien. However, the deportation order was never carried out.

In order to legally confuse the deportation decision, he arranged a fictitous Guatemalan birth certificate in 1953. He hired Carl Noll, a New Orleans criminal with contacts in Guatemala, to arrange this. Noll flew to Guatemala and bribed a lawyer, Antonio Valladores, to help find a local 1910 birth registry with gap, into which they wrote Marcello’s birth name. On the basis of this fraudulent registry, the Guatemalan Government gave Marcello a passport. Marcello received this help when the leftists were in power in Guatemala.

In 1954, the Warsaw Pact secretly sent Guatemala a shipload of weapons, but the United States discovered this shipment and used it as a justification to support a coup that overthrew the leftist Guatemalan Government.

In 1957, Marcello was called before the Senate committee to investigate labor racketeering and organized crime. Senator John Kennedy was a member of this committee, and his younger brother, Robert Kennedy, was a staffer. Since he again refused to testify, they harrassed him and renewed the Government’s attempts to deport him.

After John Kennedy became President and Robert Kennedy became Attorney General in January 1961, they continued to harrass him and even deported him to Guatemala on April 4, 1961. The events that followed are murky. It seems that one group of officials harrassed and detained him, and another group, led by President Miguel Fuentes, treated him well and arranged his return to the United States. For some reason, US Secret Service agents seemed to be involved with the latter group. Just as Marcello was about to return according to Fuentes’ arrangements, he was kidnapped by the first group. John Davis describes the events in Mafia Kingfish (pp 106-108):

[quote] What happened next [after Marcello’s first night in Guatemala] is uncertain. Somehow, Marcello ended up in jail and had to promise to pay a $75,000 bribe to a high-ranking Guatemalan official to get out. …. Whatever the case, Marcello was soon out of jail ….

By the time Marcello had taken up residence in the Biltmore Hotel, Guatemala City’s most influential paper, El Imparcial, had demanded in an editorial an official explanation of Marcello’s presence in Guatemala. Among other things, the editorial implied that the entry of Marcello’s birth inthe civil registry at San Jose Pinula was bogus.

By April 12, six days [sic] after his deportation, things were not going so badly for Carlos Marcello in Guatemala City. Ensconsed with his wife and daughter in a suite at the Biltmore Hotel, with two brothers and his lawyer in neighboring rooms, Carlos was meeting with various Guatemalan businessmen… For a while, Carlos and his family were able to enjoy themselves in Guatemala City. The press noted their presence at the racetrack and in the city’s finest shops and restaurants.

But El Imparcial would not rest. Finally, its editorials about Marcello stirred up the opposition forces to Guatemalan President Miguel Fuentes so much that about a month after his arrival, the Guatemalan government told Marcello he could return home. In Marcello’s words:

“They said they going to give me a permit to go to the United States, so we’re all happy. We go to the airport. My wife gets the ticket, and we all … they got a ticket. When I went there, they say we got orders from the State Department, you can’t get a ticket, you can’t get a visa to go back. State Department of the United States.

“So my wife, she start to cry, and then I say, ‘Well, look, why don’t you all go ahead and leave me and Mike [Maroun, his attorney].’

So we went back to the hotel, and it’s about eight that night. We had the two Secret Service men staying with us. I find it was funny they was staying there. About an hour later, three more came in there, and they say, ‘All right, pack your bags. Let’s go.’ So they put us in a station wagon, and we go to San Salvador, me and Mike.’ [quote]

Davis never explained in his book what the Secret Service agents were doing with Marcello. Anyway, the Secret Service agents took Marcello to an army camp across the border.

 

David Ferrie Joins Guy Banister Associates

By early 1961, David Ferrie was involved with Arcacha Smith, and in about August 1961, he became involved with Guy Banister’s agency. Ferrie never realized that Arcacha Smith and Banister were involved with each other. He thought that Guy Banister Associates really was just a detective agency. The HSCA stated the facts correctly, but misinterpreted them:

[quote] Strangely, although Ferrie seemed to be straightforward during his interviews with FBI agents in discussing his opposition to Kennedy, his conflict with Jack Martin, his involvement with th Marcello case, etc, Ferrie denied outright that he had ever known “of the Cuban Revolutionary Front maintaining an office at 544 Camp Street, nor does he have any knowledge of Sergio Arcacha Smith maintaining an office at the address during the time he was head of the organization and later after he was replaced.” This is clearly in contradition to the accounts of the witnesses on this subject. [vol 10, pg 132] [unquote]

It is not a contradiction. Banister and Arcacha Smith had a several reasons to deceive Ferrie. David Ferrie was working for Carlos Marcello, and Guy Banister was working for Robert Kennedy. Ferrie had participated in the Bag of Pigs, while Arcacha Smith’s mentor, de Varona was locked up and readied for execution on the beach. Ferrie was going to become a patsy like Oswald.

Excerpts from the HSCA report follow (Vol 10, pp 109-122, 130; text rearranged into chronological order):

[quote] [Ferrie] expressed his views to anyone who would listen. During an interview with an IRS auditor in 1960, Ferrie was “outspoken” in his derogatory comments about the United States. He complained bitterly about his alleged tax persecution.

[Ferrie] reportedly built two miniature submarines….. The submarines were found [later] in a search of Ferrie’s house. Also found were a Morse code key, … a flare gun, and maps [Cuba]. Ferrie had been training Cuban pilots in the new Orleans area.

Ferrie also started a [Civil Air Patrol] group called the “Falcon Squadron,” composed of Ferrie’s closest CAP associates. A group within this group, the “Ominipotents,” was allegedly started to train cadets in what to do in the event of a major attack on the United States. While would-be members claimed approaches were made to them to join the group, Banister [emphasis added] testified there never was such a group by tha name. Several of Ferrie’s cadets claimed to have taken trips to Cuba in Ferrie’s airplane.

By early 1961, Ferrie and a young man whom Ferrie had first met in the Civil Air Patrol, Layton Martens, were working with Sergio Arcacha Smith, head of the Cuban Revolutionary Front delegation in New Orleans. Martens identified himself to police as Arcacha Smith’s second-in-command. Ferrie soon became Smith’s eager partner…. According to Carlos Quiroga, a Cuban who had been involved with the CRC, Ferrie often provided Arcacha Smith with funds, stating, “Ferrie lent him (Arcacha Smith) money when he needed it for his family …. He (Ferrie) had $100 bills around all the time.” [A New Orleans finance company also stated that] Ferrie assisted Arcacha Smith in obtaining a loan.

Ferrie’s vacation [from Eastern Airlines] in April [16-31] 1961 coincided with the Bay of Pigs invasion. The Bay of Pigs invasion began April 17, 1961. [On July 18, 1961,] Arcacha Smith wrote Eastern Airlines then-President Eddie Rickenbacker on Ferrie’s behalf requesting a 60- or 90-day leave with pay for full-time work for the CRC. The request was denied.

Ferrie later admitted that after the Bay of Pigs invasion, he severely criticized President John F. Kennedy, both in public and in private. Ferrie was asked to discontinue his remarks at a speaking engagement in July 1961 before the New Orleans chapter of the Military Order of World Wars. His topic was the Presidential administration and the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The organization put a stop to Ferrie’s remarks when he became too critical of President Kennedy [and proclaimed that “anyone could hide in the bushes and shoot a President.”]. He [later] denied ever making a statement that Kennedy should be killed with the intention that this be done.

Ferrie’s troubles intensified [in August, 1961,] when charges were brought against him by parents of boys [the Alexander Landry and Albert Cheramie cases] who had run away from home. …. The parents of another boy complained to authorities [letter from William Bell] that their son was staying with Ferrie. As a result, Ferrie was arrested on August 8, 1961, for contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile. Cuban exile leader Arcacha Smith intervened on Ferrie’s behalf by telling police that the boy would be returned to his parents if they did not press charges against Ferrie. But Ferrie was arrested again on August 11, 1961, for crime against nature on a 15-year-old boy and indecent behavior with three others.

An intensive New Orleans police investigation of the charges against Ferrie produced statements from several boys that Ferrie had commited indecent acts with them. The boys also told investigators Ferrie had told them he had had homosexual relations with a married man in Houston. On August 26, Eastern Airlines removed him from the payroll for an indefinite period, and the Federal Aviation Administration then opened its own investigation into the charges.

Ferrie managed to stay afloat financially despite his loss of income from Eastern Airlines in 1961. …. Ferrie made payments on his car and met living expenses. According to Carlos Quiroga, a Cuban who had been involved with the CRC, “Ferrie has $100 bills around all the time,” even after he lost his job with the airlines.

[Also in about August 1961, Ferrie was accused of extortion. Information about this case was deleted from the HSCA report. See pg 110-111, where footnote 130 should be. The footnote remains and indicates that the extortion might have involved Sam Newman, the owner of the building at 544 Camp Street.]

Jack Martin, a private investigator associated with Banister, may have contacted Ferrie for assistance on his case [apparently Ferrie’s extortion case]. Ferrie told the FBI he met Martin in the fall of 1961 … to assist Martin in a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare investigation into the sale of phony certificates of ordination and consecration. …. Later, Martin wrote letters to the Federal Aviation Administration and Eastern Airlines on Ferrie’s behalf.

With this assistance, Ferrie was able to resolve many of his difficulties. Ferrie … testified that he … entered into an … arrangement in February 1962 with Guy Banister. Banister stated he handled Ferrie’s case personally. At the end of February 1962, Ferrie was tried and acquitted of the charges of extortion. [unquote]

 

The Stolen Weapons, 1961

The House Select Committee on Assassinations noted only briefly one secret operation that Banister’s group carried out in August 1961:

[quote] Both Ferrie and Banister were implicated in a raid in late 1961 against a munitions depot in Houma, Louisiana, in which various weapons, grenades, and ammunition were stolen. Banister’s role may have been limited to storing the materiel which was reportedly seen stacked in Banister’s back room by several witnesses. Others who actually participated in the raid, include Andrew Blackmon, a Ferrie associate and former Civil Air Patrol cadet, Sergio Arcacha Smith, adventurer Gordon Novel, and Layton Martens [vol 10, pp 127, 109; Other participants were Novel’s fiancee, Marlene Mancuso, and Rancier Ehlinger; the month of August was specified in Garrison’s indictment of Novel] [unquote]

Guy Banister’s employees, Jack Martin and David Lewis, explained in their affidavit that this raid was arranged by Robert Kennedy. Kennedy’s motivations were to help France prevent a rebellion on two French colonial islands in the Caribbean, to give the leftist Cuban exiles more weapons, and to help overthrow the rightist government of Guatemala:

[quote] Gangland Boss Carlos Marcello (whom R.F.K. was so intent upon deporting while Attorney General) [was] linked with the immediate cooperation which Marcello had received from Guatemala’s President, General Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes. It is very easy to understand why the entire political administration of Guatemala just had to go! R.F.K. was so angry because he couldn’t win. He lost his case against Marcello and in so doing, lost face. …. General Ydigoras was very friendly to the United States and was a good president of that small, Latin American country, even though it meant no difference to R.F.K. or others — not one bit! Perhaps via Philby’s instructions, these were waiting for just the right moment to seek revenge. ….

About this time, a split in France’s political structure arose, and that existing build-up reached its peak. The ranks and staff of all French government were divided at that time. There were the Gaullest and the anti-Gaullest factions, all of whom were secretly back-stabbing each other, fighting over the political and territorial severances from the whole government of Metropolitan France proper.

The French political pot was brewing, especially in the Gulf-Caribbean area. For at that minute, it was in the planning stage to execute a military coup to take over the isles of Guadeloupe and Martinique. These insurgent units were anti-Gaullest militants desiring to institute separate insurgent governments on the two French islands. ….

Right about then, the Schlumberger companies (those in the U.S. and the world over), who were all said to be a part of the Dutch Antilles Schlumberger, Incorporated, located on the isle of St Martin (French Guadeloupe), became involved in this political tangle. This happened through an operation of the anti-Gaullest faction of the DGSS. (the Direction General Service Specialiux, a French counterpart of our CIA), with those anti-Gaullest insurgent activities. Moreover, it should be noted that the secret home offices of all these Schlumberger firms are supposed to be in Paris, France, of all places. This is to say nothing of the fact that those on the upper-echelon plane of command are reported to be venomously anti-Gaullest in their political allegiance.

It seems that all of these anti-Gaullest factions had by devious means slipped some arms and munitions into the U.S. and stored them in one of the Schlumberger bunkers located in Houma, Louisiana. Of course, these were to be used by certain anti-Gaullest insurgents whose forces planned to take over the Guadeloupe and Martinique possessions of Metropolitan France.

Philby and company jumped on this one. It was the proper time, the cue on which to move. After all, we couldn’t harbor any of De Gaulle’s enemies — there were various big treaty agreements at stake here! Moreover, we just could not upset De Gaule (France). Due to his erratic nature, he might blow the Alliance completely and no one, especially the President [Kennedy], would like this a bit. ….

Taking immediate action under the masterful direction of Philby, the anti-Castro Cubans of Dr Jose Miro Cardona’s FRD (Frente Revolutionario Democratico), commanded in New Orleans by Dr Sergio Arcacha Smith, were promised that they could have these munitions to use at once against Castro. In short, these arms wre theirs for the taking. Yes! This would solve matters and protect De Gaulle’s interests as well. …

We had known those of the FRD unit well. …. Most of their contacts were through William Guy Banister (former FBI Special Agent in Charge), who along with Grady Clifford Durham (former U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel), operated the Friends of Democratic Cuba and the Voice of Radio Free Cuba through the medium of one Billy B. Little Horse (alias William W. Dalzell, former Defense Department Intelligence Agent and a partner of ours). And these were all supported in liaison by Guy P. Johnson (former U.S. Naval Commander and Office of Naval Intelligence Agent), who functioned with Office of Naval Intelligence Civilian Agent Sunsat, joined by CIA Agent Lloyd Ray, to assist these semi-militants, et cetera, behind the scenes. …. [unquote]

 

Martin and Lewis noted in their affidavit that Robert Kennedy had established his own secret channel of communication to communicate with Banister, by-passing J. Edgar Hoover and the local FBI Special Agent in Charge .

[quote] This FRD group, through Banister, was additionally serviced by an FBI Special Agent, Regis Kennedy, who we often met during this period at Banister’s office. Sometimes, we would run into him several times a day. Banister once told [another of his investigators, Joseph] Newbrough and we that [Regis] Kennedy’s daily reports on these activities were forwarded straight to one Assistant FBI Director Mohr, subservient only to John Edgar Hoover in Washington, always by-passing [Regis] Kennedy’s own local Special Agent in Charge (resident agent) for numerous top-security reasons. From here [Washington], they were viewed by none other than Philby and RFK, the story goes.

Inasmuch as we were for many years associated with Banister, we had upon occasion engaged (independently) in some of these activities, cooperating with FRD and Dalzell operations. From time to time, our code names had been “El Gringo” and “Jauquin” during these periods.

Returning to the subject, RFK allegedly tendered several documents in the form of “Letters-Marques” giving “carte-blanche” status to any and all of those about to participate in this pending pseudo-legal hijacking. These were directed to all concerned to “seize munitions or arms, the property of a foreign government, that are illegally located within the US, which might otherwise be used against nations friendly to the US, using any and all means to do so.” They, of course, supposedly bore the signature of none other than RFK himself, because they were issued on Justice Department Attorney General’s letterhead stationery.

Needless to say, as we recall it, everyone was overjoyed by this prospective arms hijacking. Furthermore, someone had said that either the FBI or CIA were to supply the keys to pull this “job” (robbery), so no locks would be broken.

Later on that following afternoon, we heard Banister talking over the telephone to who we were told was a Mr M.E. Loy, the South-Eastern Manager of Schlumberger in New Orleans. (Loy at this writing is the President of all Schlumberger incorporations here in the US, whose home office is in Houston, Texas.) This conversation was in regard to the pending Schlumberger operation. Banister seemed to be setting the time and date, like H hour and D date. In short, they of the Schlumberger company knew that we were coming in the fake bakery truck. ….

That evening, FBI Agent Kennedy made his daily appearance at Banister’s office as usual. It was about this time that the Letters-Marque and the keys showed up. No one ever said that Agent Kennedy brought them, but they did come to light shortly after he had left.

Anyway, the story goes that it was in the dark of night that the very “chosen people” hijacked those munitions at the Houma Schlumberger bunker, transported, and stored them in their designated location, the storage area ajoining Banister’s office. The following day, everyone in the “know” came to look and gloat. Boy, ol’ Castro should sure catch hell now! ….

Well, at any rate, it appears that after the Houma bunker haul, Philby and company may have progressed in activity. We say this because later the next evening, apparently some other band of thieves filched those promised arms and munitions from the safety of their hiding place at Banister’s office. However, no robbery report was made, nor search launched for them. Banister was ordered to do nothing about this matter and to remain silent, as were the rest of us so instructed.

Some bastard about this time circulated the rumor (we understand that it was believed by all or most of the Cubans) that Dr Arcacha had either sold or had given away these arms and munitions to the pro-Castro Cubans or others. So he engineered another hijacking of his own. On this, they only found low-yield projectiles looking like small aerial bombs, but with not much explosive power. However, the Cubans thought they were for real and feated Arcacha to a blow-out in one of the local hotels (St Charles) to celebrate the occasion. Although a few days later, they (the Cubans) found out that these were oil-well equipment or exploration low-yield explosive units. With this, the Cubans really believed that they’d been crossed, and Arcacha left town immediately in fear of his life. ….

Now, what happened, and where did they [the stolen arms] go? It seems that there were some others, a bunch of discontented people, who just wanted to take over Guatemala using these weapons far more than we needed them to give the “works” to Castro. Thus, via Philby and company, General Ydigoras went out of office, and Guatemala had a completely new political administration. Somebody fulfilled the vendetta for the Carlos Marcello caper in spades! JFK had gotten his revenge one way or another. ….

This left Dr Cardona’s Frente under the total command of Arcacha’s former assistant, Carlos Quiroga. He claims to be an avid anti-Communist. We believe he protests far too much upon this subject. Hence, we did some checking. Quiroga says he left Cuba just at the time his father was arrested and imprisoned within the Isle of Pines near Havana. Our sources inform us that Quiroga’s father may have been assisted into confinement by none other than Quiroga himself, just as he is said to have assisted Arcacha to be removed. He is truly an assistant, however, according to our information. Moreover, it is highly speculative that this subject, Quiroga, may well be as Philby, a double agent. [text rearranged slightly into chronological order; punctuation fixed] [unquote]

 

Banister’s secretary Delphine Roberts also indicated to Police Sgt Fenner Sedgebeer that Banister was involved with Latin American Communists who were exporting items to Central America. Sedgebeer’s raw notes records Roberts’ encounters with this group (Banister file, Assassination Archives, Washington DC; dots are in original; this is a single, continuous excerpt; capitalization corrected; W.G.B. is obviously Banister):

[quote] Was introduced to six Cubans who were out to overthrow Castro … They met with W.G.B. behind closed door … Later, I saw the same men in an office in the Balter Bldg … Passsed this office going toward Camp Street … Was about to enter Richard’s office (don’t recall last name … he was from Honduras, not a naturalized citizen, I understand) … He was in export business with Honduras and Guatemala … They were surprised to see me, and Richard asked to see me another time.

Some time later, ran into Richard on street … He looked like a tramp … Wanted to speak to me … told me he had been beaten up by these people connected with the Communist movement … “Now, they were the same people connected with the people who put up the money for him to establish a business here — export-import. I think that was a business front.”

I saw Richard two more times … Same Richard once sold tickets for an airline at Moisant Airport … Each time, he was in a worse condition and in fear for his life. …

Banister connected with people associated with both a conservative element as well as the Communist element … He told me “You rub shoulders with all kinds of characters to get information from both sides.” …. He belonged to a world-wide intelligence network. [unquote]

This escapade with Ferrie apparently helped lead to the removal of Arcacha Smith from his position as chief of the CRC’s New Orleans branch. HSCA noted that:

[quote] In September 1961, the US border patrol received information that Ferrie was attempting to purchase a C-47 airplane for $30,000 and reportedly had a cache of arms in the New Orleans area.

Lack of funds caused Arcacha Smith to leave town in 1962, his reputation tarnished by his asociation with Ferrie. He was also accused by several Cuban exiles of misappropriation of funds. [HSCA, vol 10, pp 109-110].

When he was relieved of his official position with the CRC in early 1962, Arcacha left New Orleans. Arcacha Smith’s replacement, Luis Rabel, assumed the delegate duties in January 1962, but, he told the committee, found it necessary to resign by October of that year because his job entailed extensive traveling. During his short tenure, Rabel said he organized several rallies and brought in prominent Miami speakers to inspire the New Orleans Cuban exile community. Other than going to the Camp Street address to remove office materials left there by Archacha Smith, Rabel said he had no connection with the building and never saw Oswald in New Orleans. [HSCA, vol 10, pp 61-62] [unquote]

 

Summers notes in his book “Conspiracy” that:

[quote] On March 9, 1962, the owner of 544 Camp Street, Sam Newman, wrote to the CRC regarding rent arears left behind by Arcacha. The letter was addressed personally to Antonio de Varona, the CRC leader who reportedly — at the initiative of Santos Trafficante — played a part in the CIA-Mafia plots to murder Castro (copy of letter is infiles of William Scott Malone) [pg 576] [unquote]

Arcacha Smith and Rabel were two of the group from whom the CIA had confiscated the $3 million in the Miami airport before the Bay of Pigs invasion. I have no more information to offer about Rabel.

 

The Ultimate Double-Cross

The CIA’s Counter-intelligence Staff came to believe that Banister and his associates were secret Communists working for Robert Kennedy, also supposedly a secret Communist. Banister had stolen the secret FBI files listing the secret underground Communist leakers, so now Robert Kennedy would supposedly be able to prevent the arrests of these key Communists in a national emergency.

Therefore the CIA’s Counter-Intelligence Staff began already in 1961 to concentrate its resources on infiltrating and studying Banister’s organization, setting up agents, double-agents, and patsies there.

 

[end]


anistar.back to JFK Assassination Articles

anistarback to jackruby.html JFK Lancer Needs Your Help If you find this site useful, important, or entertaining, please consider a donation of any amount.

A LAWYER’S VIEW OF JUSTICE

 


 

Judge in Lyons

A NAIVE IDEALIST LAWYER’S INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND SOCIETY

  DLBlewitt, 4-2020

AS A town activist molded in the civil rights era and the post Assassination era, I had a different view of the legal system and how it related to the people and society than most freshly minted lawyers. I now know I was naive and gullible, as my early memories remind me. Most lawyers went to law school to become rich and famous, for prestige or other similar reasons. I was motivated by Kennedy’s inaugural address and the vision of a crusader. Over 50 years of law practice hasn’t changed that but has made me a little less conspicuous. Many lessons learned by me are ones that most practitioners don’t see or analyze., which is unfortunate.
While other lawyers are rich or at least well of by pecuniary gain, I am rich in experience and in the friends I have made along the way. One such experience was mu appointment as a municipal judge in a small town transitioning from a Justice of the Peace system administered by politicos compensated by assessing court costs on the convicted, which was 100 percent of the accused, to one paid by a municipal salary.
When I was appointed judge, I was probably untrained and full of all kinds of delusional idealism. I was the first municipal judge with a law degree to be appointed to serve in a small municipality. Before that, small municipalities had a system called justices of the peace. These members of the Justice system were caricatured with the Chief of Mayberry and Gomer Pyle, comedic characters from early TV programming. They arraigned and heard traffic cases brought to them by the Police Department’s and made their money by charging “court costs.” These were ten dollars to the Justice of the Peace (JP), and the fine went to the town. If the police brought 80 cases, that meant the magistrate or justices of peace would make rake in $800 in 1960 dollars. (Remember, this was in the late 60’’s. When the statutes changed creating municipal judges instead of justices of peace, the towns, and especially police, resisted.
The change occurred because the State was developing a reputation as a speed trap. Lafayette Colorado was listed as a town to avoid by AAA. The legislature decided to change the image. When the law made judges salaried and their pay wasn’t dependent upon whether or not they found somebody guilty, the number of acquittals miraculously went up dramatically in the Municipal Court. Of course, this did not make the police exactly ecstatic, particularly in smaller towns. The police desired money in their coffers to do things and buy toys such as tanks, water canons and Uzi’s. And they looked at the courts as the revenue generator. The police truly believed that they were doing a good thing by sticking it to the motorists for the benefit of the town. It also paid their salaries and gave them some degree of legitimacy, if not examined too closely. It was the classic form of corruption, a la Sheriff of Nottingham. The real tragedy is that the town officials didn‘t view the situation like that. They believed that it would teach motorists a lesson, and the fines were the equivalent of tuition.
However, nobody in the system really expected fundamental change. It was just political expediency for an extremely touchy situation that was attracting nationwide attention. Older lawyers knew better than to tarnish their images as a whore for a small town. When the doors to the town hall were not exactly kicked down with applicants, I was called. Wow, I thought. A judge already and I have only been sworn in for a month. I was going to be able to use my training as both a criminologist and a lawyer. I had assumed that the appointment was because my father had owned a movie house in the town. Well, I was mistaken. It was not quite what I expected.

Unfortunately, I learned that too late. As young judge, I tried to do what was right and, if I thought somebody wasn’t guilty, I would say so the cops who would take offense of my opinion as a personal attack on their integrity and honesty. To complicate things further was that speed limits, that is speeding over a posted limit, which constituted most offenses, were only prima facie indication of guilt. Speeding was defined as going as speed that was neither reasonable nor proper. The speed limit was suggested, but not absolute. That is, the determination of whether the speed the defendant was traveling was unreasonable and improper could be rebutted by testimony or other physical evidence.
For instance, in my jurisdiction, the speed limit was 10 miles an hour and road was designed for cars to go 30 miles an hour. 30 miles an hour then would be a reasonable and proper speed, depending on other conditions. That ambiguous clause about other attendant circumstances was generally used to find guilt. Judges knew why they were costumed in robes to impress citizens of their abilities, when, it was for image to allow the judges to screw the citizens.
The towns then set up a 15 miles an hour speed limit through the town, not so much as a traffic rule or for the protection of the pedestrians are other citizens, but as a speed trap to generate revenue and to placate my opinion of a 10 mile per speed limit. . One of the first things I did which when I took office and which endeared me to the citizenry’s and got to the hearts everybody victimized by the random tag team of JP and police was to indicate that I thought 25 miles an hour was a reasonable and proper speed for going through town. Of course, the police were terribly upset about this because it cut out revenue substantial. No more toys for the officers to play with. They wouldn’t be getting their tank or water cannon.

At night after I held court, I would take the officers to coffee. I wanted feedback from the officers; criticisms and the opportunity to educate them. a little bit about criminal law. They understood all right, but they took a more pragmatic approach. The town needed the money and it really wasn’t hurting anybody to issue traffic tickets, especially if the transcripts which were sent to the motor vehicle department rarely affected driving rights. Besides, the town was small and there wasn’t much going on, so the only thing police had to do was to write traffic tickets. When I found cases or drivers not guilty, it took away from whatever little status I had and that branded me as “liberal.” That was about this time when antiwar press or protests started to escalate a little bit, the hippie movement was getting into full swing, and the stream of patriotism was running rampant within the police. In the spirit of patriotism and as their symbol of backing Nixon, they all showed up wearing American flags on their sleeves. Ironic because while the police started wearing flags on their sleeves as a sign of patriotism, hippies were being prosecuted for wearing flags on the seat of their pants for flag mutilation and disrespect, like one of my clients. He was arrested and prosecuted for desecration of the Flag. The arresting officer had a flag sewn on his sleeve. Flag desecration depends on who’s wearing the flag and where it is worn.
The main lesson that I learned was that officials viewed a Court as a profit center and not a place where fairness is demanded or even expected. I learned that there were outsiders who were generally regarded as fair game. The interesting thing I learned was that the agency who raises the money gets to keep the lion’s share. The town really needed other things rather than riot gear and cop toys. Many school children had no lunch, there was no public health official there, and the infrastructure was in need of repair.

However, fear and prejudice trumped reason. The townspeople were willing to sacrifice to make sure they had a police department and no
Hippies” would come to their town. There was also an extreme amount of bigotry within the police force, particularly against the hippies were moving in fact and flouting social convention such as haircuts, clean clothes and other conformist behavior. In fact, the whole town was somewhat prejudiced.
One night when I was holding court some local townspeople showed up to watch the proceedings. There were a few disturbing the peace tickets issued against hippies; not that they were disturbing the peace, but their hair disturbed some of the people and the towns-people want to see how tough I was on the hippies. Well, the real problem that evening was that the townspeople were a little bit inebriated. So, they showed up drunk and were making a lot of noise and being rowdy. The week before, they had captured a hippy and cut his hair off with sheep shares, not the electric ones either. The Boulder County Sheriff hosed them down with garden hoses when they were arrested and jailed. They believe that the arrest empowered them to assume and treat for lice and other insects. The treatment while stripped down, the sheriff could justify this based on a health precaution. They also gave a few haircuts to arrestees on the basis that long hair was unsanitary. There was a court case pending in District Court brought by the ACLU against the sheriff’s office for the practices. So the spectators were there to see how I would treat the hippies and what would happen to their buddy who was charged with misdemeanor assault for cutting a hippie’s hair and to the hippies up there for walking in public with long hair. As court was getting ready to start, the Cowboys started shuffling coins around and making a lot of noise. I asked them three times to put the coins away, quit making noise, and the be silent because I was trying to run a court. After 10 minutes of attempting to get them quiet, I ordered the Chief of the police to arrest them and haul them away until they promised to behave. This really did not make me extremely popular with townspeople. Particularly after I had to find the noisemakers in contempt of court. I gave them suspended jail sentence. Meanwhile, I found the hippies not guilty and the cowboy the who had cut the hair was fined $100. He was lucky I didn’t send him to jail, except I knew that the town had to pay the jail costs, which brings us to another point of corruption.
The city policeman would never write anybody up for driving under the influence because it mattered in whose court it was brought because the county took half of the funds. Therefore, they always wrote them up for reckless driving. In fact, that’s what the reckless driving offenses were. Real reckless driving charges were rare in town because it was really extremely hard to drive reckless within the city limits because the town was so small. It was well-known that anybody charged with reckless driving was probably drunk or at least well on his way to being so. When found guilty of reckless driving there was a pretty stiff fine penalty. However, the citizens were quite happy because they didn’t lose their driver’s license with a reckless driving charge as they would with driving under the influence.
Until the end of my tenure, there was a constant battle between the town the police because the revenues were down. Soon, however, the court wasn’t even making enough to pay for itself. The city, rather than kicking loose from the general fund started paying me and warrants which could be redeemed when the court bank account got to the point where it could pay them. This went on for approximately 8 months until I was elected out of office. The lesson I learned from this experience is that administrators view courts as a revenue source, not as a separate branch of government. People care less about justice than supporting good government. Most people are so prejudiced against taxes and supporting their government that they would rather impose injustice on others if it saves them money. Our priorities are way out of whack.

BOULDER DA OPENS INVESTIGATION ON 50-YEAR-OLD CASE

DENNISCOMMENTS
April, 2020
ADDENDUM TO RIHA’S GHOST
BOULDER COUNTY DA APPARANTLY RE-OPENS A 50-YEAR-OLD COLD CASE
FIFTY YEARS AGO, I WAS INVOLVED IN A PERPLEXING MYSSTERY THAT TOPPLED A GOVERNMENT, SPLIT FBI AND CIA, MADE NATIONAL NEWS FOR DECADES, AND WAS COVERED UP BY POLITICIANS AND OTHERS. I BELIEVE THAT MY CLIENT WAS MURDERED AND THERE HAS BEEN A COVERUP SINCE THEN.

Many of you know this story, but for those that don’t, I will briefly explain.  Early in my career, I had two clients, Mrs. Tannenbaum and Professor Riha.  They each had curious connections to separate Government clandestine agencies.  The war was raging, and they were all sorts of agents investigating students at University of Colorado, a hippie and activist paradise, riddled with Government operators and other drug dealers.
When one client was accused of offenses against another, I felt I had a conflict of interest.  This also was made clear to me by some agents who visited me at my office to explain the consequences of not recognizing this.  So, I referred one client to Mike Kokish, a Denver Journalist who had just opened a practice in Denver.  Mrs., Tannenbaum liked the idea because she was in PR.  Fred Gillis of the Denver paper, David Wise of Washington Post, Senate Select Committee (Watergate) investigated and reported on the incident.  After a trial in Boulder that was unsatisfactory to a mysterious force, Mrs. Tannenbaum was prosecuted a second time in Denver.  Two CIA domestic services agents and one FBI agent visited Denver DA Mike McDevitt regarding the case.  Later, McDevitt became a congressman and managed to snag a large grant for Denver to manufacture and fight an organized crime structure.  J. Edgar of FBI demanded Richard Helms of the CIA to disclose the identity of his agent and was told to piss up a rope.  Hoover, in a snot broke off all liaison with the CIA and Fired Sullivan, his liaison agent.
Well, this left Richard Nixon blind and scuttled his Huston plan.  So, he set up the Watergate bunglers, causing his political demise.  Meanwhile, in Denver Mrs. Tannenbaum was sent to the state hospital where she took 20 minutes to die of Cyanide poisoning.  It was declared a suicide.  Remember, this case touched on Nixon, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Phoenix project, project Rhyolite, Echelon, DEA, students recruited for the FBI and Military Intelligence, ONI, IRS, NRO, NSA and myriad other alphabetical combinations.
I ran for District Attorney on the platform that I would, if elected, call a grand jury and find out what happened.  About that time, some of my mail was accidentally diverted to the FBI for their approval.

After losing the election, a friendly police officer’s wife got word to me to lie low. The excrement hit the revolving blades ad I found myself under investigation for jewel robbery, kidnapping, arson, and sitting on the side walk. To insure I got the message, I was audited by the IRS for 87 consecutive weeks as an excuse for the Government to notify all my clients that I was investigated. Of course, that did not help my practice.
When I lost my election (by 221 votes), my opponent graciously allowed me to examine the file on the case. In it I found, letters addressed to me, an autopsy report, some notes, etc. The letters to me by Ms. Tannenbaum explained her double-cross and begged me to see her so that she “could blow the lid off the whole thing. Of course, when I received the letters, it was too late.
Lately, several writers, investigators, producers, and others have been hounding me for either interviews, statements, of live TV recording. I suspect some of it is related to current events in Washington, but it also is a curious unsolved case. The Boulder police has treated it occasionally as a cold case and have told to me. Mr. Kokish’s files rest in the archives of the State of Colorado, an mine await my demise. My hope is that someone doesn’t try to expedite that situation,
However recently, representatives from Netflix and some independents have requested video interviews about the case. After 4 decades, my memory is not what it had been, so I requested an opportunity to review the file, which has been afforded me by prior DA’s. However, when I requested recently when the requests started, one of which had a Connection to the Teller center, I requested another look at the file.
I was informed that this 50 year case was a current case and access was denied by DA Mike Daugherty on the basis that it was an ongoing investigation. This was after a front page story in the Boulder Camera about the case and that a TV documentary was being made Is there a separate coverup in the works, or is it a continuation. I would like to know. I hope many of you inquire of both the Camera and the DA.
Credit…The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
March 10, 1971, Page 33Buy Reprints
View on timesmachine
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.
About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.
DENVER, March 9—Mrs. Gloria Tannenbaum, the central figure in two unsolved Colorado mysteries, has ‘died in a state hospital for the insane, apparently a suicide.
Mrs. Tannenbaum, 39 years old, once regarded as a suspect in two poisoning death’s and in the disappearance of a. University of Colorado professor of Russian history, died Sunday at the Colorado State Hospital in Pueblo.
The hospital authorities confirmed today, after earlier denials, that a suicide note had been found in a pocket of Mrs. Tannenbaum’s dress.
Although an autopsy report Will not be available until Thursday, the cause of death was believed to have been cyanide, the poison that killed two of Mrs. Tannenbaum’s neighbors in Denver in 1969.
The woman, who once claimed to be a general doing intelligence work and bragged of her friendships in influential places, gave some of her possessions to fellow patients and wrote farewell letters to friends and family before she died.
In her suicide, note and a letter to her lawyer, John Kokish of Denver, Mrs. Tannenbaum again protested her innocence in the disappearance of Dr. Thomas Riha, 40, and the deaths of Gustav F. Ingwersen, 78, and Mrs. Barbara Egbert, 51.
The letter to Mr. Kokish said, “It doesn’t matter really, but will tell you this. I didn’t do Tom or Gus or Barb in. I went nuts with hurt, over losing them.”
Dr. Riha, who lived near the university campus in Boulder, disappeared March 14, 1969, and Mrs. Tannenbaum was subsequently charged in both Boulder and Denver in four separate felonies involving the disposal of his property.
As a result of one of those charges, that she had forged Dr: Riha’s name to a $300 check, Mrs. Tannenbaum was found by a Boulder District Court jury to be legally insane and was ordered confined.
In the following months, the police in the Denver‐Boulder area made a wide search for his body. They looked into abandoned mountain mine shafts and along isolated roads, and dug up the basement of an East Denver home once oc cupied by Mrs. Tannenbaum. But the missing professor has never been found,
In the poisoning deaths, no evidence was developed that could support charges against Mrs. Tannenbaum.
Mr. Kokish said here today that a grand jury should be asked to investigate how Mrs. Tannenbaum obtained the poison that killed her. He said that ‘the grand jury should also investigate complaints made to him in letters from Mrs. Tannenbaum that she had been mistreated and persecuted by the hospital staff.
Mr. Kokish said that his client was apparently looked upon at Pueblo “as a kind of the witch of the ward.”
He quoted her final letter to him as saying, “Everything that has made me feel good about myself has been taken away. Life is very cheap.”

LAW BEFORE NIXON

LAW REFORM IN NAME ONLY

AND THE BIG CON BY

CORPORATE INTERESTS

           Most people don’t realize how law has been sabotaged over the last half-century.  Even more, don’t realize how corporate America has benefitted from this change.  Unfortunately, most people don’t care.  They are fiddling while their country burns, and the people bled dry, like slaughtered animals in a slaughterhouse.   These changes came about partly because of marketing fear by the government. The biggest change was due to the implementation of the war on drugs, a law devised by the Nixon administration to keep protesters and other radicals in line. With the advent of that law, there was a radical power shift whole legal system conferring greater powers upon the executive branch, manifesting in the increase of power given prosecutors. This power shift caused population jails to increase geometrically and prompted suggestions to make more people keep guilty, thereby making courts more efficient. One such efficiency was built.

When I first started practicing law I could generally arrange to have a client admitted to bail within 2 or 3 hours of receiving a call from a client. I would receive a call from a client or someone on the client’s behalf, interview the client in jail, discussed payments, and contact a bail bondsman. There was a bonding schedule at the jail and the jailer was commissioned as a deputy court clerk. Rarely did it take more than 3 hours to spring a client. The police and prosecutors started a propaganda campaign in which they described the process as an affront to the police because prisoners were released from custody after arrest. Although the police knew or should have known that the right to bail guaranteed by the Constitution and it has been around for 800 years, they still the that it was a total insult to their labors. Police adopted a vigilante nature, starting to view the Constitution as an enemy to effective law was.

This was accelerated with the US Supreme Court started to discuss the obligation of the states to provide basic process deciding what aspects of Constitution applied to the State police officials. Particularly irksome areas that concerning legally searching citizens, the confessions of arrestees, requiring probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant for making a search, guaranteeing the right to counsel and other fundamental concepts and around since Magna Carta. Police were relatively easy to influence by politicians because of their fellow status and disdain the citizenry. There was a war going on. There were demonstrations. There were riots in cities. Young people were showing unpatriotic behavior by resisting the draft and protesting a war thought was unfair and illegal. The Constitution was pretty much being ignored and Congress, relinquishing its declaration of war powers to the executive branch and yielding to the desires of the military industrial complex. Incidents were manufactured use of military force. And protesters were starting to be perceived as unpatriotic or, in some cases even treasonous.

This resulted in bitter strife between generations, exploited and divisibility by the next frustration. The government marketed fear. Advertising agencies devised a series of law and order shows such as FBI, O’Hara, Treasury Department, and other pro-police propaganda shows.  These were designed to counteract such things as police brutality at conventions, Buddhists monks burning themselves, and the rumors of soldiers committing atrocities and returning home addicted to heroin. Law and order played well becoming a political basis for many political campaigns. Efficiency was preached the ignorant and appealed to the citizenry bearing the burden of war costs. To strengthen that point, and will shortage was contrived making people more anxious after the fighting stopped in Vietnam.  Very few people questioned why there was a shortage of fuel after a war in which soldiers commuted daily by helicopter and B-52 bombers made daily runs between Manilla, Philippines, and Thailand. The end result of reform during this era was to increase the time and arrest the arrestee spent in confinement increased by a factor of 35. This caused prison populations and jail populations to geometrically increase, setting the stage for the introduction to what for centuries had been a State function.  Thus, in a maneuver in which 8 centuries of precedent was overturned and a common law system replaced by system based a Napoleonic code which enabled corporations take a predatory stance, exploiting people could not fight back or defend themselves and, in the process, implement one of the most regressive forms is taxation manageable by passing on the cost of privatization to who can least afford it.  Governmental functions would turn over to private corporate interests, passing the costs of the taxpayer’s. Imprisonment for debt abolished centuries ago became the new norm. All the sudden programs, which had been the province of the taxpayers were implemented to replace jails, probation services, counseling services and the myriad other predatory ways in which business can’t screw the poor.  The government had become privatized. Privatized companies needed profits to stay in business and these profits had to come from somewhere. And, since the businesses promised savings to the taxpayers p profits and to be derived somewhere. So, logically, people suffer looted by stupid politicians that his type of system is good for the country and our system of government.

One of the more innovative was the introduction of the ankle bracelets. Bond was no longer a vehicle to guarantee the person’s appearance in court. A Napoleonic form of preventive detention was implemented, where release from an institution be conditioned upon behavior and superstitions of the Judiciary. No longer were accused’s fair presumed to be innocent.  They were all considered a danger unless they could show otherwise. Detention hearings usually and whereby judges not learned in the law is provided for in Magna Carta parroted ideas of Napoleonic code and its extreme form of martial law.

The respect for precedent or stare decisis became a quaint anachronism. Judges no longer engaged in the business of fairness but instead engaged in the protection racket to the prison industrial complex.  Another flagrant violation by a scared Judiciary indoctrinated to worship of business was the privatization of telephone services involved in the judicial – jail process. Private companies supply phone service to constitutions and corporate price, causing the poor who have relative and no institutions to pay an exorbitant amount for telephone calls.  Thus, the poor, can’t afford bond are taxed by predatory corporations who can extract tribute from people who are incarcerated by order of the State. Additionally, although the Constitution provides for an attorney’s client confidentiality, conversations are one of the basic rights and are not supposed be monitored and by implication, shared with law enforcement personnel. This is an egregious affront to justice and our constitutional traditions, which have been ignored or violated by prosecutors and judges, acquiesced to by gutless, greedy lawyers lack principals, fortitude or respect for centuries of precedent and tradition.

As long as the government markets fear like Procter and Gamble markets soap, citizens were walked over and trampled by powerful interests. It is almost impossible to stop this judgment not with an ignorance population spurred on by a greedy power structure is disappointing and tragic that their residual lack or leadership in the third branch of government, which is supposed to be independent but, instead, shows subservience to other branches of government allow the implementation and rise of a will or will of the police State. It is time to wake up. It is time to be out it is time to replace weak-kneed politicians more interested in their social standing and economic well-being that they are in fulfilling their oaths of office.  Law enforcement ran rampant illegally searching citizens, extorting the confessions of arrestees, ignoring the requisite probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant for making a search, guaranteeing the right to counsel and other fundamental concepts and around since Magna Carta. Police were relatively easy to influence by politicians because of their status and disdain the citizenry. There was a war going on. There were demonstrations. There were riots in cities. Young people were showing unpatriotic behavior by resisting the draft and protesting a war. They thought was unfair and illegal. The Constitution was pretty much being a more I Congress, relinquishing its declaration of war Powers the executive branch and yielding to the desired of the military industrial complex. Incidents were manufactured use of military force. And protesters were starting to be received as unpatriotic or, in some cases even treasonous.

This resulted in bitter strife between generations, exploited and divisibility by the next frustration. The government marketed fear. Advertising agencies devised a series of law and order shows such as FBI, O’Hara, Treasury Department, and other pro-police propaganda shows. These were designed to counteract such things as police brutality at conventions, Buddhists monks burning themselves, and the rumors of soldiers committing atrocities and returning home addicted to heroin. Law and order played well and became a political basis for many political campaigns. Efficiency was preached the ignorant and appealed to the citizenry bearing the burden of war costs. To strengthen that point, and will shortage was contrived making people more anxious after the fighting stopped in Vietnam. Very few people questioned why there was a shortage of fuel after a war in which soldiers commuted daily by helicopter and B-52 bombers made daily runs between Manilla, Philippines, and Thailand. The end result of reform during this era was to increase the time and arrest the arrestee spent in confinement increased by a factor of 35. This caused prison populations and jail populations to geometrically increase, setting the stage for the introduction to what the centuries previous had been a State function.

Thus, in a maneuver in which 8 centuries of precedent was overturned and a common law system replaced by system based a Napoleonic code which enabled corporations take a predatory stance, exploiting people could not fight back with defend themselves and, in the process, implement one of the most regressive forms is taxation manageable by passing on the cost of privatization to who can least afford it. Governmental functions would turn over to private corporate interests, passing the costs of the taxpayer’s. Imprisonment for debt abolished centuries ago became the new norm. All the sudden programs, which had been the province of the taxpayers were implemented to replace jails, probation services, counseling services and the myriad other predatory ways in which business can’t screw the poor. The government had become privatized. Privatized companies needed profits to stay in business and these profits had to come from somewhere. And, since the businesses promised savings to the taxpayers p profits and to be derived somewhere. So, logically, people suffer looted by stupid politicians that his type of system is good for the country and our system of government
One of the more innovative with the introduction of the ankle bracelets. Bond was no longer a vehicle to guarantee the person’s appearance in court. A Napoleonic form of preventive detention was implemented, where release from an institution be conditioned upon behavior and superstitious of the Judiciary. No longer were accused’s fair presumed to be innocent. They were all considered a danger unless they could show otherwise. Detention hearings usually and whereby judges not learned in the law is provided for in Magna Carta parroted ideas of Napoleonic code and its extreme form of martial law.

The respect for precedent or stare decisis became acquainted with anachronism. Judges no longer engaged in the business of fairness but instead engaged in the protection racket to the prison industrial complex. Another flagrant violation by a scared Judiciary indoctrinated to worship of business was the privatization of telephone services involved in the judicial – jail process. Private companies supply phone service to constitutions and corporate price, causing the poor who have relative and no institutions to pay an exorbitant amount for telephone calls. Thus, the poor, can’t afford bond are taxed by predatory corporations who can extract tribute from people who are incarcerated by order of the State. Additionally, although the Constitution provides for an attorney’s client confidentiality,  the conversation was sacrosanct and is not to be monitored and by implication, shared with law enforcement personnel. This is an egregious affront to justice and our constitutional traditions, which have been ignored or violated by prosecutors and judges, acquiesced to by gutless, greedy lawyers lacking principals, fortitude or respect for centuries of precedent and tradition.

As long as the government markets fear like Procter and Gamble markets soap, you got to be walked over and tramples by powerful interests. It is almost impossible to stop this judgment, not with an ignorance population spurred on by a greedy power structure is disappointing and tragic that their residual lack or leadership in the third branch of government, which is opposed to being independent but, instead, shows subservience to other branches of government allow the implementation and rise of a will or will of the police State. It is time to wake up. It is time to be out it is time to replace weak-kneed politicians more interested in their social standing and economic well-being that they are in fulfilling their oaths of office.

%d bloggers like this: